HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 Ordinance No. 002ORDINANCE NO. rJ-
SERIES OF 2014 /2015
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 69
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER GILLIT
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 7, ENTITLED OFFICIAL
ZONJNG MAP AMENDMENTS (REZONINGS); AND TITLE 16, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 8,
TO BE ENTITLED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REZONING PROCESS AND
REQUIREMENTS, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000.
WHEREAS, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is intended as an alternative to conventional
land use regulations resulting in the creation of a unique zone district that offers the City and
Applicant forms or qualities of development or amenities not possible through existing base zone
districts; and
WHEREAS, in 2004 the City adopted the Unified Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development regulations in the 2004 Unified Development
Code were included with other types of rezonings and addressed only the basic elements of PUD
size thresholds, criteria, and process; and
WHEREAS, in November 2012 the City began the process to modify the Planned Unit
Development regulations to address a lack of procedural details in the Unified Development
Code; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is to clarify the regulations for the Planned Unit Development
rezoning of property to ensure that new developments integrate with the surrounding land uses;
and
WHEREAS, the current PUD review process needs to be improved where a specific site plan
and detailed architectural designs have not been adequately developed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission found that additional detail on the submittal
requirements for a Planned Unit Development would be helpful to applicants to understand the
information required in an application for a PUD and would further help to ensure that the plan
provides sufficient detail for the Commission to make an informed decision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission detennined that by consolidating
information on Planned Unit Development regulations into one Section of the Development Code
and removing Planned Unit Developments from "the Official Zoning Map Amendments" Section
will clarify the review process and development standards for PUDs; and
WHEREAS, the amendments allow the two step district plan and site plan process to be
joined into one or two steps at the option of the developer; and
l
11 b i
WHEREAS, District Plans would need to include allowed land uses, maximum density
(number of residential units, or square feet of commercial uses), preliminary site plans showing
major roads and location of land uses, proposed building heights, recreation areas or major
amenities proposed, conceptual layout of utilities, minimum perimeter setbacks, and a traffic
impact study; and
WHEREAS, Site Development Plans must include building footprints, building sizes, sight
lines and shadow studies, pedestrian circulation (sidewalks and paths), drainage features, grading
plans, parking areas, landscaping materials, bicycle parking areas, site lighting and conceptual
architectural designs; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance relocates and consolidates provisions regarding Planned Unit
Development (PUD) processes and requirements into one subsection, 16-2-8 EMC to make the
requirements easier for applicants to see what is required for a rezoning to a PUD; and
WHEREAS, the intent of PUDs is to allow for the creation of a unique zone district and to
accomplish that 16-2-7(8)(2) is clarified and moved to 16-2-8(A) and;
WHEREAS, the minimum size for a PUD remains the same at one-half acre and;
WHEREAS, 16-2-7(C)(2) relating to neighborhood meetings is amended to remove the
possible criminal sanctions for City staff regarding reporting: and
WHEREAS, public utilities and other government agencies have been added to the City
review process to insure that the application is compatible with existing infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, 16-2-7(F)(2) and 16-2-7(0)(3) regarding Commission hearings and standards
transferred to 16-2-8(0) which outlines the entire approval process; and
WHEREAS, 16-2-7(H)(2) removes PUDs from the general rezoning criteria section and
transfers it to 16-2-8(F) along with the provision that it be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, 16-2-7(1) repeals the lapsing provision in the current title regarding TSA and
base district "rezonings" and this ordinance also clarifies that PUD rezonings do not lapse 16-2-8
( G ) because any rezoning is a permanent change and does not lapse; and
WHEREAS, l 6-2-8(A) through (C) is new language to clarify the intent of and procedures for
allowing PUD rezoning; and
WHEREAS, 16-2-8(0) lists permitted uses allowed under a PUD; and
WHEREAS, 16-2-8(E) describes the requirements for granting a PUD rezoning, some of
which exist in the current code and are relocated to this section; and
WHEREAS, 16-2-S(F) lists the current criteria for a PUD rezoning which bas no major
change;and
•
•
WHEREAS, 16-2-8(0) & (H) clarifies the difference between a PUD District Plan and a PUD
Site Development Plan which provides more details for the proposed development; and •
2
•
•
WHEREAS, 12-2-8(G) & (H) also sets out the process for approval and allows the applicant
to choose a one or two step process depending upon the amount of detail provided in the
application; and
WHEREAS, 16-2-8(1) defines and lists criteria for major and minor amendments to a
previously approved PUD and a Site Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, 16-2-8(J) reiterates that the appeal process for PUD rezoning is the same as for
any other rezoning under Title 16 EMC;and
WHEREAS, after a Public Hearing the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission
reconunended approval of this Ordinance at their October 7, 2014 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAJNED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending
Title 16, Chapter 2, Section 7, entitled Official Zoning Map Amendments (Rezonings) of the
Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows:
16-2-7: Official Zoning Map Amendments (Rezonings).
The City may initially zone annexed property, or the boundaries or areas of any zone district may
be changed, or the zone classification of any parcel of land may be changed pursuant to this
Section. Rezonings shall not be used as a way to legitimize nonconforming uses or structures,
and should not be used when a conditional use, Zoning Variance, or Administrative Adjustment
could be used to achieve the same result. Rezonings to a Planned Unit Development district
(PUD) er Traasit Stat:ien .<\rea (TSA) distriet are s\:l&jeet to adeitieeal shal! foHow the orocedures
and criteria as set forth in 4Hs-Section 16-2-8 for Planned Unit Developments.
A. Initiation.
1. A proposed rezoning may be initiated by any party identified in Section 16-2-3.A
EMC.
2. A rezoning application shall expire one (1) year after submittal unless a public
hearing on the application has been held by the Council on or before that date;
provided, however, that the City Manager or designee may extend the application for
six ( 6) months if the reason for the delay was due to circumstances beyond the
control of the applicant.
3
3. ~Je &f!f!lieatiea fer rei!!oaiag propeny shall ee aee0f!ted withia t\•;ela.•e (12) fBOBtfts
fellewiftg a fiBal deeisiea ea a prier recoaiftg applieatiee relating te all or aay
portiee efthat same pref!eff)'. A "fiaal aeeisioe" sea:11 JBeaa dee.ial ef a rei!!oeieg hy
the CoYeeil, or withdrawal of the rei!!oBing applieatiea eoeameg after a
reeofB!Bendatioa of aeaial ay the Cell'HBissioe.
B. Thresholds for Rezoning.
1. Thresholds for Base District Rezonings:
a. General. A base district rezoning results in the change of a property's existing
base zoning district classification to a base zoning district classification
identified in Table 16-3-1.1, other than a PUD or TSA district.
b. Minimum District Size. A base district rezoning application shall only be
considered for properties greater than thirty-seven thousand. five hundred
(37,500) square feet of )and area and contiguous to a compatible zone district.
c. For purposes of this Section, "compatible zone districts" are districts within
the same base zoning district headings as identified in Table 16-3-1.1 (i.e. R-2-
A and R-2-B are compatible zone districts within residential oee and fffll-lti lHHt
aistriet headings.) The contiguity to compatible zone district regujrement
does not apply if the rezoning request is consistent with and imp1ements the
Comprehensive Plan.
Thfesholds fer PlaBBed Uait De•reloptBeet (PUD) Rei!!oaiegs:
General. A PUD recoBHlg results ie the ereatioe of a tmit11:1e i!!OBe Elistriot that
offers the City adElitieaal fenBS or 1.'11:lalities ef al!'1elop1Beet or aJBeeities aot
possiele throHgh other i!!oee Elistriets. The teffBS aBEI eoaElitioll5 of eaeh PUD
i!!OBe distriot shall l:,e hased ee eegotiatioll5 eetweea the pre11en,i ev,reer aml
the City, aHt all PUD i!!oae distriots !B\:lSt ee eoesisteat •.v4th the Co!Bf3reheesi-¥e
Plea aBe applieaale pro,,zisieHS efthis Title. Eaeh PUD i!!oae distriet !B\:lSt
inelude its ev/B list efpeanittoa aee eeeditioaal \:lSes aBd seall ideatify vrHat
de:i,celo11meet staaeards shall apf!ly. If a PUD f!£Oposal ,.,;4u re'-'tl:IKe the ereatioe
ef oae (1) or mere aew lets ofFeeerel, er ameeelmeet of the ao1:1Bdaries er
pro11erties ef eKisting lots of reoord, thee appro:Yal of a s1:1adia.zisioe plat shall
also ae req1:1ired.
MiHiR1HR1 Di,s~riet Size. A PUD rei!!oeiRg apf!lieatiea skall eal;r ee eoHSidered
fer properties greater thaa oae ealf (Vi) aere ie area.
J ~-Thresholds for Transit Station Area (TSA) Rezonings:
a. District Location. The location of a Transit Station Area (TSA) district shall
be consistent with the following criteria:
•
•
•
•
(1) The location of the proposed TSA district shall be consistent with the
locations described or depicted for transit-related and/or mixed-use
development in the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) The TSA district shall be located generally within a one-quarter(¼) mile
radius of an existing, or a planned and approved light-rail rapid transit
station.
(3) The one-quarter(¼) mile radius may be augmented by an extended area
which would include up to a one-half(½) mile radius where the area is
contiguous to the TSA district and that it can be demonstrated that the
area creates a transitional zone when the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes a finding that such an extension is a benefit to the
adjoining zone districts.
b. Minimum District Size.
(1) An application to rezone to a TSA district shall include a minimum gross
land area of three (3) acres.
(2) The City may allow smaller incremental and contiguous additions to an
existing TSA district, if the subsequent rezoning application:
(a) Includes a minimum gross land area of twenty thousand (20,000)
square feet;
(b) Is consistent with the intent of the TSA district;
( c) Provides uses or a mix of uses complementary to the mix of uses
planned or developed in the adjoining, existing TSA district; and
( d) Demonstrates site and building designs that will be compatible
with, and integrated with, the adjoining, existing TSA district.
C. Pre-Application Review and Neighborhood Meeting.
1. Pre-Application Conference. All applicants for rezoning shall be required to participate
in a pre-application conference pursuant to Section 16-2-3.F EMC.
2. Pre-Application Neighborhood Meeting Rei!eBiflgs. Following the pre-application
conference, each applicant for a rezoning shall hold a neighborhood meeting in
accordance with City procedures to describe their proposal before an application for
rezoning can be accepted by the City. The neighborhood meeting is an opportunity for
the applicant to describe the proposal as well as for area residents and property owners
to offer input about the proposal at an early stage. The applicant shall hold the meeting
at a time and location accessible and convenient for the public. The City shall be
represented at the meeting. Fo11owing the neighborhood meeting =l=the City
representative ~™ prepare a written report summarizing the general discussion
of the neighborhood meeting and make copies available to the City staff, the applicant,
and the public .
5
3. The maximum time between a required neighborhood meeting and a public hearing
before the Commission shall not be more than one hundred eighty (180) days. In the
event the public hearing is not held within one hundred eighty (180) days, the applicant
shall be required to hold another neighborhood meeting.
D. Notice. The City Manager or designee shall require that notice of
required public hearings be given in accordance with Section 16-
2-3.G EMC.
E. City Review. The City Manager or designee shall review the
proposed rezoning, and may refer the application to any City
department or agency <including any utjljty providers, other
municipalities or other agency as detennined by the City) for its
review and comments, and shall prepare a report of its
recommendations for review by the Commission and Council . A
copy of the report shall be furnished to the applicant.
F. Commission Review and Recommendation.
1. Base Distriet Reii!eftiag.
aa The Commission shall review the proposed rezoning
and the recommendation of City staff, and shall hold a
public hearing on the proposed rezoning. Following
such hearing, the Commission may make a
recommendation to approve, deny, or modify the
proposed rezoning.
6
City Staff
Review
Commission Review
Official Zoning Map
Amendments
(Remaiap)
•
•
•
•
~ b. The Commission may recommend to the Council that an application for an
initial zoning or a rezoning be approved upon condition that the applicant, or the
applicant's successors and assigns, obtain approval by the Commission and
Council of a site plan or subdivision plat of the subject property either prior
to Council action, within a certain time after Council action, or prior to any site
development.
~-PtJI> er TSA Rei!oraag.
= The Commissioe shall re•,rie•N the prepesed PtJI> or TSA re:zoemg, aael the
reeemmeeelatiees ef City staff ee beth appliealiens, aad shall l!eld a pttt1lie hear.ng
ea eaeh ap13lieali0a.
a-: The Cemmissiea shall thea re'liew t:he preposeel PtJI> or TSA re:zeBH'lg
p\¼fSaaat to this Section, aael fellewmg t:he pttt1lie heari.Bg, may reeommead that the
CeYBeil appro•,ce, den;r, or appr0•1e the 1:1roposee rei!:ee:iag w4th eenelitions.
~ e:-In its review of the rezoning application, in addition to any other criteria and
findings applicable to the decision, the Commission's recommendations shall
include its written findings on each of the following points:
fB .il· The application is or is not iB eenfermanee consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and this Title; and
~ h. The application is or is not eoesisteat in conformance with adopted and
generally accepted development standards of ele•,elepmeat in the City..fillii
any other ordinance, law. or requirement of the City: and
~ ~ The application is or is not substantially consistent with the goals,
objectives, elesigB gaielelmes, iID4,.policies DBEI an;r ether erelinOBeo, la-w, er
reEf\:H{emeat of the City.
G. Council Action.
Base Diskiet Rei!:eBH'lg A}lplieatiens. The Council shall review the proposed
rezoning, the recommendation of City staff, and the recommendation of the
Commission, and shall hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment.
Following such hearing, the Council may approve, deny, or refer a proposed
amendment back to the Commission. amee€l t:he pro13osal.
PtJI> aael TSA Re:zeraag.
a. The CeHneil shall thea re•,riew the preposeel PUD er TSA re~on.iag in light ef
t:he reeommenelatien of City staff, anel !he reeemmenelation efthe
ComHHssiee, ael shall holel a p1,1elie hearieg ea the proposeel re~en.iag .
Follo•.v•.ng Stiel¼ hear.ng, t:ho CeHBeil HHl::Y appre•,re, aen;r, or amens t:he
preposeel re:zeraag.
J ~-Refer Back to Commission. No substantial amendment to an application for a
rezoning may be made by the Council after a recommendation on the rezoning has
7
been made by the Commission, unless it is first referred back to the Commission
for comment on the proposed substantial amendment.
H. Criteria. Rezonings shall be made in the interest of promoting the health, safety, and
general welfare of the community, and shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, the review-or decision-making body shall only recommend approval of, or shall
only approve, a proposed rezoning, if it finds that the proposed rezoning meets the criteria
listed below.
1. For base district rezonings, the proposed rezoning .§brul meets at least one of the
following criteria:
a. That there has been a material change in the character of the neighborhood or
in the City generally, such that the proposed rezoning would be in the public
interest and consistent with the change; or
b. That the property to be rezoned was previously zoned in error; or
c. That the property cannot be developed, or that no reasonable economic use of
the property can be achieved, under the existing zoning.
The criteria in subsections l .a through c above shall not apply to the initial
zoning of property annexed to the City or to rezonings that may occur
incidental to a comprehensive City-initiated revision of the City's Official
Zoning Map.
2 . For PUD er TSA rezonings, the proposed development ~ eamplies comply with
all applicable use, de:r.•el013meat, and development ees¼gB standards set forth in this
Title that are not otherwise modified or waived according to the rezoning approval;
and the proposed rezoning mw! meets at least one of the following criteria:
a. ~~ proposed development will exceed the development quality
standards, levels of public amenities, or levels of design innovation otherwise
applicable under this Title, and would not be pessiele allowed or practicable
under a standard zone district with conditional uses or with a reasonable
number of Zoning Variances or Administrative Adjustments; or
b. ~ tlhe property cannot be developed, or that no reasonable economic use of
the property can be achieved, under the existing zoning, even through the use
of conditional uses or a reasonable number of Zoning Variances or
Administrative Adjustments.
3. All rezonings shall meet the following criterion:
a. The resulting rezoned property will not have a significant negative impac t on
those properties surrounding the rezoned area and that the general public
health, safety and welfare of the community are protected.
8
•
l After Approval-Lapsing Period.
1.
2.
Sase Distriet R:e;zening. An approved ease elistriet rezoning shall not lapse, but shall
remain in effect until and unless SYfl@Feedee superseded by a later or inconsistent
amendment to, or replacement of, the Official Zoning Map. He•r;e•;er, if the Ci~ has
FeE)_HiFee the s'l:!Bmissiee efa Zeniag Site Plaa as part ef the Fel-EIBiflg pFeeess, &Be
has appFe•ree a ZeniF.tg Sit:e Plan feF the re;zenee pFepeFty, ans the Zefliag Site PIM
lateF lapses p\lfSaet te Seetien 16 2 9.B IlMC, the Ge1meil ma;r initiate a F@i'!0Bfflg
efthe prepeffY te iis prieF ;zene Fnap desigeatiee; eF te aa altemati•re eesigeatiea
FneFe eeesisteat w4th the Cempreheesi¥e Plaa.
PUD eF TSA rezoning. An approved PUD BF TSA district rezoning shall not lapse,
but shall remain in effect until s1:1pereedee superseded by a later or inconsistent
amendment to, or replacement of, the TSA District Official Zoning Map.
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending
Title 16, Chapter 2, by adding a new Section 8, entitled Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Rezoning Process and Requirement of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows:
16-2-8: Resenied. Planned Unit Development lPUD} Rezoning Process and
Requirements,
~ UJ1JIJJL The PUD Zone District is an alternative to conventional land use regulations
resulting in the creation of a unique zone district that offers the City and Applicant fonns
or qualities of development or amenities not allowed through existing base zone districts,
The PUP Zone District combines use. density. height, design and site plan considerations
into a unified process. Each Pup Zone District must include its own list of permitted and
conditional uses and shall identify what development standards will apply.
The PUD Zone District is specifically intended to:
,1= Provide an opportunity for the developer and the City to review the type and
intensity of development being proposed. and to identify any e)ements of the
proposed plan that may not comply with existing City development standards.
~ Provide development opportunities not otherwise oennitted within existing zone
districts by reducing or eliminating the inflexibility that sometimes results from stri ct
application of zoning and development standards.
l. Pennit and encourage innovative design. flexibility. and diversity in land planning
and development,
~ Provide the opportunity for unified development control for a single parcel or
multiple properties in hannony with the environment and respecting the context of
the surrounding neighborhoods by establishing design and development standards for
the general character of the properties within the Pl.JD,
~ Plan for the general configuration of land uses. common elements, major
transportation and pedestrian circulation elements, utiJi ties and necessary easements
9
~
to-§t'.fW the sh£-and to cgooect to exj§5ing and plann.ed transportation network§.
gwestrian networks and utilities.
: :~ ·1·es such as !'?rh:-ooen space and recreational facilit~ Plan for proDQfil.µ amem_1 _. ------~---
· h hould b enhanced nmteci:ed Of remain Identify natura I f eature§..Qf the site t at ~eh
undeveloped.
Ensure cgnsi~29 cy with the Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
r. · t ·tv and geneml welfare and otherwise Provide for the pubHc.hea~tb. §!kW'· ID£~ rr~ ne7~ent Act of l 92lAf achj.eye the purpozWj prov1ded m the Plann~ Jµt d(fuODm ·
amended ,c.R,s, 24:§7 -toJ, ~t seaJ.
. . . Thi . ~io s of thls Section shall apply to all lands. uses., ~ndstru~es m
4P,plicgbi/jhl -.. ~ PIQY!... .Jln· · 1 · · _tfDHT\) Zone District. The D[OVISloOS of iliis be r;emned to Planned Umt sn;ooroe~ --
sa,tiop shall not appJy to:
ed. n l ... ':?!') ao:orov..A prior to Julv. 1, .1996 •. which.-§halLcootjnue to L Plapn__ ro%9pmen"3 ~~· · -----:,l!Q!! · he · lat.ions 0( the ee governed kY tbe respeci1w deyetomnenwpaus and,t~\WIU · · P.o, s PIJlll:rlJ tl!IIC <!islricts, Howrnr, anv IDillll: JUD'1ll!m<n!~tinf . 1 •
detgmi~d by the.Ciw Manager ?t des1~ shall,µquu:e noosw and,,aooro,v,a
under the new regnirem,e.ntufJbis Segygn ,
. . ed run, and partiaUy developed. priorto th; da!a-ofJhe &r<Japd wrwntJ¥rzpil! t · and complete such ru S ' SJ.l&h a tDIOY.c.d PWJ.§ may ~n mue adoptjonofLsectJgn. Y+.. .. hat pup However, 4ex: Jogm_ent 1mder the terms and coruhtiops of w>W¥3liorJ . ' hall •
PP>: ~ajar arne¢wsutsJO an existing Pup. as detenm.nedby_ th9 CJty. s · · reqm
· ~ · · reme~t§ g[ib1s ~ectton. review and anpro;val,under 1 newicsw~ •
LniQalioa,
opp~ r rung may be initiated by Jmy party identified in Section 16:2~3C~l
.L A pr J<g!L · "th· the boundaries ofa nrooooed PUD zone.distnct EMC , AU property owners ID. m .--.-----------
~
shaH consent io writing 10 tbe appbcanon f9r A PUP,
. . IL . . e CU yearnfter submittahmless a puWic hearing A PUDapphcaaon sha expµ;: qne . . ·1 · b r◄. · that date· provided
gn the app~cat~n ~~ t;ah~f !'; J!!;;;!v ;x:;;~~application for st~ f9l ~onth"jrtth: ~:son for the delay was due to circumstances beyond Jhe contml,of
the applicantt
• PUD hall he areented within twelve O 2} No aonl~tion for substanhaUyJhe same L~ ~ .
1
• . o__a11 .
---. . 6 1 decisi gn a prior rezomng apphcatmn re atmg t .or . ~nowmg a na . iC A "final decision" shaH :mw denial of a rezoruog wxm;t1gn gf that same pronei -----
by the Council.
. . . PJJP rone district may include any use which is a Permitted Ug;y. Uses pearu.tte~ 10 4 . . . . b. · errrutted through the unlisted · ed · zone d1stact of the Qtv. or as may e P
pe. aru. tt u~ upmx f SoofLon,16;.5; l@ we Unlisted Uses. Each Pup µses detenrunataon process 0
10
•
•
•
•
"
,appHcat ion shall include iaown l i stof__altowed or conditional uses and shall ideoti fy
applicable design and deyelopmeot standards. A PUD District Plan or a PUQ Site
QeyetapmentPJan may vary the provisions of Title 16 EMC, but only to the extent
spedficaUyshown on ap approved PUD Dis,trict :etan or Site Development Plan.
General Use and Development Requirements and Limitations. PlJDs shaU be subject to the
following;
,L
i
f1
flJD agpli<;ations sha)! onJv he gggsidered forproperties equal to or greateJJban
one.half O 12) acre ,
&qiUxfil§ fQI ~ng to a PUD Zone district shall be filed on application foQN
DW~ty. together with an plans, maps and any other_iofonJ1Ltion as may
be necessary. reasonable and relevant for review by the Citv, Applications shall PS
s.ubmitted wjth fees establishe;d.by City Council resolu;tion.
Requests for rezoning to a PUD zone district shaH be authorized in writing by t~
larutownm§) ocan aythorized agent.
AU P,UD zone districts shall be estabHshed through a map amendment to this Title
pursuant to the procedures and criteria set forth in thjs JlJle.
The terms,,and,conditions of each PUD zone district shall be based on negotiations
Jwween the appljcant @P4 ttJG t;ity, However.au run zope sl~3 §1@11~
.pnsistent with the Comprehensive PlanJHl4 applicable nroyjsigns pf this Title.
J[ 8 f.RD RtQPO!Q1 NQ~§ lbs creation of one Pl gr more new lots of record. or
amendment of the boundaries ofexistiog lotsofr;egord.then approyal ofa
subdivision plat shall also be required.
L The,area pf land for the pup zone district ma'Lbe controlled by 0o&or more
landowners and §ban AA developed undenmj fled control or a unified plan of
dcxelomnent
~ Proyjsions shall be made for the estahli§bm@l of an organization for the owner.mm
and maintenanoo of areas designated as private street§Jmd(or oornmoo space mt)ess
other adequate arrangements for the ownership and maintenanre thereof are provided
jn a manner acceotabls to tl)e Qty Q?!tqrj.1,
~ The PUD zone district shall be subject to au applicable use and deyelopment
standards of this Title unless othepyjse waived or modified by the applicant and
approved by City Council in the terms of the approved PUD.
L Apm-oval Criteria, pup rezonings sha11 be made in the interest of promoting the health,
saieU4,.and generaLwelfaJ&of the.,c.ommunity, and shallkconsis.tenLwith thg.
Comprehensive Plan. In addition the review or decJsion making bodv shall only
recpmmendAPPfo-½flJ. g£ or shall only approve, a proposed PlIDJezAlDing ifit finds,lhauh.e
proposed woning meets the criteria listed beJow:
~ The m;oposecl,dQ;elopmentshall comply with,all appHcable.use.Aexe!opment. and
design standard~t forth in this Title that.are pot,o.iliera;seJnqdifiqlor,waiyed
1 1
acogrdiog co the rr . imst fc;o,mng=9pprogal In dd · • pne 0xthe foUowing crit . · .· ~ a itron, the propP§ed reza · ena. · ~ mog sha]Lmeetat
Ai. The proposed deyelopm . levels of public am · • . ~twill excee.d the a,eveiopIDL .
yn!ll;[ 1ru, lid rues, Of I~• g[design jong• t' nt QUall!~ _i!ili!!!l!!!!!!!l>
practicable ,.,t,"';, ~:'a~pg,ql ~mom »:oiti"::'ci":"']:':re applicable ™!!!!l!lenumb f •,... zone dl§llict wjlh cond"f I -i!,.owed or --er O Zorung Vapa ces • :-• 1 ao~a uses or wjth a , -~orAfilmru§lralwoAd' -"' I!le~~ ___ JU51ments:or
-rnx pannot be deyelooed nroperwcan J>,e hi . ---• or 00 reasona~l . . · li9Qdmgpal use.80f eved. updeJ: lhG existing ZP!!li{:. :'9°""0
""' of lbs Mmini straf • • -onable numbq of Zo • ~ l!l!!luli!! them• of --rye Admstments, ~mg Yaaaoces or
"-All PUD rezoruogs shall m u -eet the following · . cntenon:
a... The resultine .r....... ed . .. ~ --_!!dd/n_ property . · 11 those properties su~· wL not have a significant . .
saf¢i ,nd;N<lllare =r.=-JDg ~ !!!SIi i!!!d th negat,ye --•GI Pl!
Q, UD -· gJ,e commumlV wjll be pro~ gcnml lllllzhF hcailh.
.:: ___ 4m,roml ~i .£!imllll!!l" . • tlu_ee <3} steps for PJJD · ' . lJle Planggt.UnitQeveJo . . iwMilllll!ood Dl!iGIID • 'm,JCCI IS¥)""[ and approval; n Pr !""om il!l!l!l d•!l!ill'\ req!!illa
~ll!!
1
J"~ ',/11, up P1stnct Plan review and~ 1PPl)cabon mriQ. 1J!!i
millll!, ll!e l!l.!!l I!iiWct El d ll1JWOWlL _lfan "l!Plicant woiE_'.. 3l l!llP Sjte i!PJnd.fYP Site Deyelgpment PJan es...szte-spegfic deyelqpmeut
Tu~ . . ---ii.!al§ !l!i!X .,., co L-::-1 .
-~ re,nmn....,v '.: •• .. Ill"""'"'
A 1 --~ ~ wocessed · ,com p ete and finaJ :eUD . h . m one phase or two....auh.e..: ·
l!!.ll!Jimi! beJoly ror 11o1i:: tu;!W91 taJce.elfsW!mil awliiiii..[.f'r 11{ tho4e$Per. l!'Ylewcd.and agrums:d b th . 1stnct Pla!l.i!!!,d.ii P!ID Sil n~ 9 'AA mfru;mahqq -~ x _ e City, -___ e YSYelopmenll)an.baye been
The_ruB District Plan is ge · , . -~ ambRAJl®• and,· 1 dJ @ ✓watpfan_fru:Jhe land withi C inl~narJdng rai'"t:.1n~ !r,qaJ land uses and densili i," , _b!!l!llll_!!li es oflho
,...ww • l•lw apprmJ of :r.lJ,;,Y<mt ofJIJc ii~, iz,::J<fpts, geru;w de,ign '""'Ul'ie o[ aBuj)lliag Pei:mili ,iteilqekmmom Plan nrior 1o o JJD Disa:i<I Pli!!! --, ----any deytjopment or
The fUD sit 0e annoo .⇒e ~velop men t Plan is a mored . --: pg th iattndards seLfi h · . · faded plan for th d .. O!l!l!il!,l'lll!l!! iDIR!C dor :i m 1M p,omo1 Pion, but sbaU .ii~ -f°lol1Jllenl of iho iii!W
of ma1oUIJlllsOOdllfum .~ • dam_• D<;<;<;;ii!!l Ii! ~!!:l:• !!! pclwl• a IIWernen• of remurements·
00
. ndcorculallon svstems· nallwl ; !!Wl!!OfUiral lDIODI' locati
d I
I -mmon elements and h I --=g standards· la-.l---· I _on
eveJlPWIII.Will mq;, = 0 Lcr ddails reg 'ed -◄""""™"'•
gualjties of deyelopmeof = Iii!! Slmdi!!!l;i W rw: !lll %:~rale lbaUl!e ~ ---§e reqtured by c ·tv · · · -_zStpct Plan and the J. --' WIii!!!! in th b -
r. re -Application eo· ~ . e ase zone distrjgi.
-1' · -· J)ierepce and N · 2h P_mim,mary proposal iod · .e, borhood Meeting; A · · size of the larul in acw ~~oatmglho R!l!llm:t Ill !11:i m,1 Jlllhoanl sball submiU
and/or numbc(pf gni • "'! '!l'l"G, feel; P!!!l!!!•l!!! IIW;f!!~ ~ the .Prooosed PUD;lho
m@ior c in;ulalion el tunt1omated]>µildipgheiJ!l\ts:.ond l,i!!, maxllll!IID ~~••ill: emeots. Staff may review the T~,mate location of pre unmary proposal and provide
12
•
•
»-:citteo 00mm~_us and recommendaJi@s to ooteptial applicants. No pro;ect .approval
is implied or granted at this early review stage.
Neighborhood Meeting; Fo11owing . the we,application conference. each,applicant for
a Pup shau hold a neighborhood meeting in accordancs with City Prooedures. to
describe their proposal J?efore an apnHcation for rezooing can ru; accepted by the
Citx,-J:he nej ghborhgod meeting is an opportunity for the applicant. to describe the
proposal as well as for area residents arulproperty ownm to offer input about the
proposa l at an earty stage. The applicant shan bolg the meeting at a time and
Jgcation accessihleJUld cgnyenientfor the public. The City shall be represented at
the meetj,gg. Followin2:-the neighborhood roe;ting. the qty representative may
prepare a written reoon summarizing the general g;sc11ssion ofJhe neighborp~
meeting and mgke cwies ayailabJe to the Qty staff. the applicant andJhe public.
The maximum time J?era:een a required neighboffipod meeting and a public hearing
before the Commission shall not be more tbap one hundred eighty o sm days, In the
event the public hea ringjs not held within one hundred eigbtv (J 80) days, the
applicant shalLbe required to bold another neighborhood meeting.
~ Notice. The CitY__Manager or dessgnee shall require that noti,x of required public
hearings be given in,accordancewith Section 16-2-3. (Q} EMC.
l. City Revi ew. The City Manager or fl~gnee sh@JJ review the proposed PUD. and
may refer the appli cation to any City department or a$00Y £includ ing any utmty
proyiders,:2ther municipalities or other agency as detennined in the City) for its
review and gommeots, andsh aU prepare a reportof its recommendations fpr review
J?X Jhe.,C-Ommi ssion and Coypcil. A copy of the report shall refurnished to the
applicant.
~ Commission Review and Recommendation. The Cgmmission shallre,view the
proposed PUD and the reco mmendatjqp of City staff and shall hold a public heating
on the Pup. Following such hmg the Commission may make a repgmmeodatioq
to approye,approye with conditions.,deny. or modify the PUD,
ill frutsreyiew of the PPP application. in addition to any other criteri~~
finclings applicable to the decision, the Commission's reoommendafiorui shan
include its written 6 od ings on each of the following points;
.L. The appjjcatio11 is or is not consistent with the Comprehensive PJao and WI!
Iitle;,,aud
~ The application is or is not ;u oonfonnance with adopted and generally
accepted development standards, and any oth,er,.ordipapce,Jaw or
requirement of the Citv; and
li The @wlicatioo isor is not substantiaUy consistentwith thepals.
objectives. and policies of the City.
13
~
Council Action, Th C . . of the City staff. and e nunc1l shall review the I!! -, !he reoo da • propose! p1 JD h gmng QD Jh!;prg~ P llllll<!b.Jilll! Q[ !he Cpmmi .=• Le Wllillfl@dati<m QQll(,, ox gr a prop,ooed UD. ~lowing such heori ''"®• and shall Ju,ld a pµbl -
the • fUD ha k ng; tho C'.ou "J IS
regym;mg,ts O[Uri I" m JL to tl\ll Cwumiu" fi ='1£L may "Pl'IPll"-s Jtle. · · ton ;or modificati b ons3sedon
After Apptq I . · . J3 -Lapsmg Period remam m effect until filL .. · . · An approved PUQ W1la2™t of, the PUI) nm~@ hY ~ later or igcpn,jsf"II not lapse.Jwl shall 9£ tbe Official Zo · M . ent amendment to rung an. , or
D· ·1:g. Uowin2 . . ~ appmvalpfa P the4!Ba l run document .f: ,m4_ the execution of.alLGM. .
"9Dl[C;ddOcumcnts Ill II!& Q~m,lli;apµhgD 'l!!!!l!!l.lba fin tf llll '1111!;!1!!DG on Couluv Clede and R<cordc~ Al and lh&CttvA!!!!ll fllCOrd fh J.Jp;md all llll!g
amili@nl and b • . '• I cxponsq~ . . em ll!Jblh!i ill, !,g o pa,d png,r tgn,com· ~~• •l!all bi, b _. mg, ··· ome hx-Jhe
SubmWal Requtrem.ents.
PUDD" . ;. . . J stag; Plan: The p . . h§\ed below . Th . up Distnct Plan sh n · to Citv ' :1' Plaoomg and Zo · •·: ,nelµde all ii!bmilllll ·
1211w!i.1 = £~Laciion o• !""$oi::;Tll\':"ll \"31'" a rec==~~••
PLm,JIP! the Plaooinged for rey,ew without in<b>sio" wrung """l"'1, If a !:J.lll
lil!i1
1
_mchlile a recJ.~• !C<)mmission aoti! 0! • tl;°l? Srte QwlOJllll<nj
lllllY U)C¼ g,guirirur reyi Jon s,r final action on !he -.
0 ~ JlD Disfri!i!.!:11!!! i:!m''"• ind ~g j.o ~ II:! >l•ff onlx. review at a sipwelPJ?P!en/ Plan. which
C!IX ~I. d · .!!!!llW!8!l.mid..addilign· PP "' heanpg hv !l!o remaioi•g fi>LI=!D!LUOOn lhe,si_.'. ,,/;/:;::r ~• a Public hearing bv the . ex1ty or the p]an or issues
PUD§' Distoct flan, the s· Pup Stte Dexelopm .. PUDi_te i;reve1opment Plan; Jf a . Ille PUD Dislriol Pion k_te jF"!ppment Plan shall l!f,cnt flap II "!llmi!lm wj!I! a
IIJ'UD Pistri 1 ' • JJD Site 1-1 rev,ewed at tbs, sa ·
i• I!!.. '' ~at1,.then th• Site ne 1 . ppment Plan ;s :rubPJitted me nme •• ".i!lll!!!MII Di!itrict Pion ~ oprnent Plan shall be , subseouentlY !<I · nm ewed as.specified
PUDDismctPJan: Th • U 2} sets of the propm~Wicao.t s~H submit for City reyiew . . . :r9•.~•I ofall ~•=~ Pll!!l,. AppJigtions shalr ~m ofJwe lve
ew w,H nQI w:cur WJti l n orma11on ind pavm ,:em,d compll'!l; he "!IJWentlv deJai!cd 10 ;;;!F applicrui.r,n is oomp1.,J of all IIJPl!!i~tioo f11Sl, dens11Jes arulio,: miniPPlm I ,catothe gonmUend u,es: I e PpP DWe&! Clan shall ~ l;l!Wl!ation el!'!!lmJS' !!:,•-Per uni!; mrilding ~,;""®-•; deye]ogmg,t
Jnclml• h t h • m1mde<I d • ts. me1or Jra ~ uH not be limited ~ JS•gn ohafAAler of th d ~tiog _ IP, the foll@lffle; e """1oJmwnl ~U
Da The name a d I • nocahon of the m:pposed development:.,,and
Ibe names.Address.es.an deyetopeg and desjgp dphonenumbers oftheappli . ers gffueAeyelopment and ca11ts, owners,
14
•
•
•
iL
Documentation.co · . .
the
prooertv
01
,.,.... nfirming that the :::=t·
a ·· -~osed 6 d -~
1
cant person; and ~ ocevelopnJent o Y nA IW!!Y suffic· · , r is the duly authorizaj nt mterest in
A £up District Pl . agent of such
o "=so· --" an. dra ·· · . dwsi\¥1~~•.Jfb north~ ..:ajc gfngt IGAA than g • • rrJDi • .wmJmand · ncmcl, fi •mmicts, both on -§lpct Plan .ii.u -ll!!!l!ll•c scale, perftv feet
shall addijjopal!y "t:;~:~· t• nw ~j:!:,RII detail f.!t.~ --• oHowm -•Won. Toe • ---:-me
W A. boundarv g, whit!.!! l!l!llliooble; llJsrnci Plan
. . -suzyey and I ~gistered Professional L::l description prepared h ,,, _ Sl!P®ll!!, .. u Q!IQ!i!Wl
.., A descnotio -pri · n of the locati r.?IY <lw.e lggments 91! ~f the myg,:rtv and . eatures and . ' ,...,tJve -an .i . l!l!.Jl[Onenv mamr trapsppdation: """'-i!!l!ll~ti<i!!ioo of lhe • .....Jl!!.I !D l!!!i ; 01u.~-
Ql Adiacs!-romS!!!ai. YJcrnitv of
• ~ts, pro _.i a.Jon routes. dN1N§ of acces • mrcutt· --....... posrn. . "'' i l!Qd m!omal .
"" Exi~n -Wculat
hund
g zonmg and.I d red t , -an use n 1· -ee1 3oo 'l of 11 -or.<LI properf · --a proq~ bo --te§ wtthin at I ~ Location a d . uodary tioes_ea§t
thr
e.e
---_JL area f
1
guasi-public fa • \ ? proposed land . PIPYi<!<
1
-••llll .. ; fo1 ~lil!!!i . -uses. mchldin• · A.l!llll use sch<dul r . WUh multiple use l!!lJ1l\l<. ll!!!l!i& •nd W M._. e ,stmg pemtjtted I ds, agphcant shall -umun boioh. -· an uses. --
_ _Js of proposed
ill bl;tjgg !!lf stT1JCQm. surfac 1.0s for allowed e or structured parki::,® plus a. statement of th . Ill Th · e mlen\lo u
-• ~•mum II A" maximu ·· 3:J?wed densitv . ms or trummum~ gn • d~f_the site, includ' llll A des . . -mJYldual uses, ....m• a!!l( dOQSill:
-cnptLOD of th · necessary · --. e mtended o th d -and mgJQU · · Al!,,, recreali uvelopmem, incl:':''"' propo,;ed lo :k and PQO!l sooce featurn
_,,,.~~ th; illlWIJilllli!tO 1oca"f"W:O::.:'ed goal of
W!l General · a o(gpon
.-. mtent and 1oca . ~icataed to natural · ggp gUandscape . aptllandscaoed . area s• mcJu:=:
Wl
l.o · ~ _,_ &nd I H"'g oorcent of ·
~cahon ofgjstift w ™" ,DDsiU!!!!!II l!!!t<"le
~. g bus SIODS b.k . er areas .
W) . -' J_e Path -
Jhe exl#ing to . sarul Q;destdan..,,.
toggh,;r with &'l~ of the land dJ!)o,. ~~ areas sub" -·--and exist· 1ect to 5 v .mg natural ~ Wl ~ -~-""' and 100 --!#AA!
· ' Locations.of . . -wir flood'nn res, -----an:,; ex.1st· ---~· ---mgeasem ~entsonth --·-e P~!lY·
15
!.W
Wl
ilfil
il2l
Required maior ex.tensions of utilities. including conceptyal layout of
utilitieund storm §Wet systems,
A description of the architectural design concept and development
standards for exterior building materialssufficient to demgostrate that
the development will he compatible with J~ surrounding neighborhoo,d
gr wm ach,ieye a higher 1eyet of design . Deyelppment standards shan
include a list of anom and prohibited ex.terim; materials. standards for
articulation of street facing facades, ~ rpjnimum transparency
('windows} for buHding eJevations.
Minimum perimeter setbacks and other setbacks as approprjate.
A I@ffic hnpact §tudy describing existing conditions projected,,traffi,s
generation fi;oro the new devdopmept,Jpd anticipated impacts onJhe
external street network in the vicinity 0( the proposed Pup,
A written statememgenerally cJescribing the proposed PUD and ~
market which it is jntended to sqye, its relationship to tru;
C.omprehepm:e Plan, and how the design and arcbitectµraJ concwt of
thenroppsed Pup wiU reJatup adjacent property. Where the
applicant's objectives are not substantially cpnsj$Jl\ with the
Comprehensive Plan. the statement shall include the c.haogedru;
changing conditions that justify approval of the proposal.
Other infonnation deemed necessary. reasonable, apd r;gleyant f0
evaluate the application as detenpioed)>v City Manag.eLoi; desomee,
Plann jngand ZoningJ;ommisslon, or City Council.
Pup Site.J&velopment Plan: After or ooncun;ent with the review of the PlJD
District Plan. the applicant shall submit for City review a minimum of twelye O ~ ms of the proposed PUD Site Development Plan, Applications shaU be degned
complete ooly ggpn submittal ofaU required submittal infonnation and payment of
applicable fees . Reyjew wiU not occur unti~ the app]ipi!ion.is compl~,. Jhe PPP
Site Development gtao may jnclµde the entn;e ar~ Within the PUD QismptClan or
the,l!UD Sffe Qex,elopment Plan may conajst of one or mpre phase~, R!fJYJded
howeyer, that the apmoyal of any onephase may be contmgeot on smproyements
~ involve other or all phases, The Pl.ID Site Development Plan shall ~ .
sufficiently detailed and shaU !e'Otaio such inf onnation 8¢ dgcµmenta~1on to fully
indicate the ultimate operation and appearance of the protect and shaU mdude. byt
shall not be Jimiled 1°, the foUowing:
At A boundary survey and legaldescrigtioo prepared bY a Colorado registeraj
Professional Land Sly;ypor,
Structure footprints, loca tions. grossflooc.areas, building hei~ @nd
dimensioned setb.from streets. M well as other structures and other
features.
Sight Jines and shadow studies,
16
•
•
• ~
jL
~
Ills
1h
with existing or planned street networks,
Pedestrian circulation ~~ents includin 7 sid~wal~ path~ays. ~!if~ plazas with material§ md1,AAliel: a"1fi§.td@!I cu;pplauo? rn:,emstt7 .
designed 10 connect with existing or planned sidewalks an _ p,awavs.
Drainage features including retention ao d dete.nU@ a~
OyeraJLgrading showing existing and proposed md4
Lqoaijon, dimensions and descriptions of all existing uti1ity easements on the
property,
Paooqg areas__ a pre ---------· . and 1mu· ·n· arv desim of internal circulation for parking areas
w: structures,
Logation.,and amount of bicycle parking.
Loading and trash areas,
A schedule ofJiwelling,,units Uf applicable} hv building, ~ ~we!Hng ~~t;of•
density based on units myided by acres of net lot a.ma ~m9nugg jflg-g
lYAY dedications.
Location and area of parks. open space anq reccyation Gi2i!i~~c1~~reas
oupts apd l9£iltions of,pla,y areas for children and other recreahon :W 9 0 the Pup Qi.strict PJan,
. oin to include a material schedule listing quantities, plapt. types (_e.g. Y nd
Wb g . hrnb tc \ common name, rmrumum s12.e at deciduous street trees, evergreen ~s, ~ 'A •
planting. area caJculatfoos for requit:ed and prOVJded landwape aWl,
F.ences,waHs or year-round na~rat ~ planting and lan<iJC3J?1Pg S:!r an necessary 10 shield adjacent res1de ottal areas from,oommgcial, rnd u Jd
parking areas.
Site lighting elements, ioclw;liog street tights, pedestrian lights,_andanv;,other
Jj ghting elements .
Areas subJect,_to fl5?9ding from a _major stonnindu~g~~
0
;00;~~~e
year sto · , de~pd re.tenttop args and Pf?Y1810 -:---
of watq; ~m detentio n or retention areas fotlowmg a mamr storm,
Sire signage locationymd lighting of sign~including_specifically adopted sign
standards where applicable,
Public amenities thA' may be included m the develqpm@!.m9RQ® ·JP~ . . ] . ~
public w..
17
Conceptual buUding eLeyations that illustrate how the design standards
established jn lbe PUD District Plan are being implemented. including
m:chitectural concepts. facade treatments, and exterior building materials.as
ns;cessarv to establish how the proposed Pup uses and structures relate
intqnallY and/or to the neighboring properties.
Other mfonnation deemed necessary. reasonabJe, and wmm tg eyaluate the
appliwion as.,detegnined by qty Manager or desjgnee.,J!lanning apd Zoning
Commi§Sisw....gr Qit¥-CopnciJ.
L Amendments.,
District Plan Amendments.
Major Amendments,-tothe Pup District Plan: Major amendments may be_mpde
~ ~ ~QProye4 Planned Unit Deyelopm.pt District Plan pursuant 10 tbe
Procedures as proyided__within tbis Section 16-2-8 EMC. including A
neighborhood meeting, Major amendments shan include aw of the following:
£.U An increase io the rnaximum hujlding height beyond thaµltowed in the
approved PUD District Plan,
~ An increase Jg the maximum aUoweddensHv or number of units beyond
that allowed io the approv¢ pYD District Plan
W A change in land gse to aJJse nototherwise allowed in the approved PJJD
District Plan.
ill A reduction of the perimeter setbacks from those required jn the approved
Pup Qistt;ict Plan.
t:2l A reduction in the amount gf landscaping regajmJ in the approved J!UD
District Plan ,
!.§l. An increasein the allowed 1qt coverage above that approved in the PQD
District flAA+
Ql agy change ngt considered a minor amendment by the City Mfilwger or
designee,
I?. Minor Amendments to the PUD District Deyelopment,-J:lao; The City Manages
or designee may_ppprove roiu0c a:rnm;tments in the loc-ation of structures gr
facilit~ gr location of streets or walkways if required by engineering or other
cir,cumstances not foreseen at the time tge PJanned Unit Development District
Plan was approved so long as no amendment vi olates any standard or regulation
setJorth jn this,,Sectipn; or any change not listed as a ·~Major Amendment~' fa,
§miPP 16;2-8mt1}Ca) above,
18
•
•
•
. Development Pla ·ed and/or amende l!!l!i -be chang 1
""'™"'"ots may-~ Sile Dqel!!PQ!':°
. ment Planypg .... . Alt pup Site P§'f 100 rt from time to tJmus . D Amendments. -~din whplepqnpL
ll!!l:!ided in this SeGl!ll!I. . llmlprnnen1. Plans:~~:d,as provided m
-!P Pl!D.BJ!c --Ql!IY be am• -dll!!illls Mamr mv.a and "'Rimed :'."c: TI)i§. shall mt:bu -. Amendments · h ooder may . d those a
l!I~ ~~tand fmEM · rill; ~on I§& of the folJowmg mte
which meet any f !ho ~i;xelgpm&111; Ill LU
w
Achangem __ . . . the character o -
. aUo,w,e.dJaru rY ~ d ses;or A. change 10 tbs; -s· or
· --. r land use • -
1 Jncauon o_ • _1.t· _Of' · n II!!; &mllll! -rure ho'l'!L Ill 11. lilionm ;d bui!~!ng or stom_
• h m,ajmum allow . r !ho grp. ss increase m w · . Ji the@bo
O
-
An fdwelling UWIO or!_ in the lll9POsed · the number 0 -gr mcreases An increase m . the land. area, ~[ --r structures to · Jar land use:_g_
florn:ma
9
~ ll!ithin i!!!X gartu;u . "buil!!,lo"
gross floor -"'®¢1 lmos, or -ired setbacks fron,u1 change in the regµ
121 l!,,J_ d c<w<rnge bli
l~r J> ™I (2~ io groun -f more than tw . rease o__ rlci i;?: nr £-..i Ql An Hilb -w:fllce nan ~ . designo=
Jllructure• or' .. 12~..i in th& land ma-. • by more,tan h two percent -
00 ./1 WJli:!IOll . . . kl gross ' fO[ luP<lli;i!l!IIIK I![ ...... g andloq,dmg $nNi<
· f off,-street pa-~ -tures; or £2) A r .. duct1op '° . ..::..her of AweUmg um -• · the ratm_o_ . ·ts in §true --
_ ~" -.,.,_ --•~ '::
0
· !!hts-of-way. floor area w: n d tba;oygh publ,,, --
ess from an h •< affoc:ling !he •cc City. tbrow,h le_
DJll Mlwi . el!lllmOIJI Plilll! '9Js firom !be l:l,l.!;l SIii:
" to PUD Srt• Dey, nunm: devurtmns • r Jd!t of lechnj,al MiD!ll: Ammdmen • gnee, mav Di!lb9Pii" Jear necessary m
I
genruU@ for
Cltv MmJo"'f fi":::iwuu~=:imm11~hal~•~ ~lID l~· Deyet~og coru;iderationf.w of Maim Amq, "L or engme · ncluded wu.bJ!ML.._ any changes i
8{P<2}fal ab.o:.Y:e.
. . or action taken ~Y v detenmnatton petent Anwls . .,,,.., appeal '"'--~tt..C!>w;Ll>t&ow d Rules
. n., ""'*,,_ Ar;mahoe ~ 06 f C\>lo!ril " pup DistrictPlan. ~this Chep<q to an plywilh Rule L o J. he Ci!:< Qijlnoq 1111110 oa1 1o lhec0ltrl.Jmls4!9W t -.-. • Said app ---.iJmsdtetion. -
of Cootfroce,dure,
19
~ Pup Site Development Plan: The applicant may appeal any detennination or action
taken by the City Council under this Chapter to an Arapahoe County court of
competent jurisdiction, Said appeal to the court must comply with Rule 106 of
Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
Editor's note -Ord. 08-48, § 4, adopted Sept. 15, 2008, deleted 16-2-8, which pertained to
overall concept plan review and derived from Ord. 04-5.
Section 3. Safety Clauses. The City Council hereby finds, detennines, and declares that this
Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Englewood, that it is
promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary
for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and
welfare. The City Council further detennines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the
proper legislative object sought to be obtained.
Section 4. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of
competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder
of this Ordinance or it application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 5. Inconsistent Ordinances. All other Ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or
conflicting with this Ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such
inconsistency or conflict.
Section 6. Effect of repeal or modification. The repeal or modification of any provision of
the Code of the City of Englewood by this Ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify,
or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil or criminal, which
shall have been incurred under such provision, and each provision shall be treated and held as
still remaining in force for the purposes of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits,
proceedings, and prosecutions for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well
as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered,
entered, or made in such actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions.
Section 7. Penalty. The Penalty Provision of Section 1-4-1 EMC shall apply to each and
every violation of this Ordinance.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 15th day of December, 2014.
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 19th day
of December, 2014.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 17th day
of December, 2014 for thirty (30) days.
A Public Hearing was held on January 5, 2015.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 20th day of January, 2015.
Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No. ~Series of 2015,
on the 23rd day of January, 2015 .
20
•
•
Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 21st day of
January, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication following final
passage.
Randy P. Penn, Mayor
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by
title as Ordinance No.b Series of 2015 .
21
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
December 15, 2014 11 a i An Ordinance Adopting Amendments to Title 16
Concerning Rezonings and Planned Unit Development
Initiated By: Staff Source:
Community Development Department Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
This item was discussed with City Council during the Study Session on October 29, 2012. This ordinance
advances the City Council goals of having clear regulations, making the development review process easier,
responding to market conditions for rezonings, and ensuring that new developments integrate with
surrounding land uses and responds to the needs of the community.
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this proposal to amend Title 16: Unified Development
Code, Planned Unit Developments at study sessions on the following dates:
• November 6, 2012
• February 5, 2013
• September 4, 2013
• April 8, 2014
The Commission conducted Public Hearings on April 22 and October 7, 2014. There was one member of
the public that testified at the April 22, 2014 public hearing in support of the proposed amendments.
Following the October 7, 2014 hearing, the Commission voted 7-0 in favor of forwarding to City Council
the proposed amendments to Title 16, Chapter 2: "Development Review and Approval Procedures
(Rezonings)", and "Planned Unit Developments" as presented in the attached Bill for an Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Community Development Department recommends adoption of a Bill for an Ordinance authorizing
amendments to Title 16: Unified Development Code regarding "Official Zoning Map Amendments
(Rezonings)" and "Planned Unit Developments" on First Reading, and setting January 5, 2015 as the date
for a Public Hearing to consider testimony on the proposed amendments.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The current Unified Development Code identifies a process for rezoning land {changing the allowed land
uses) by either changing the base zone district or through the Planned Unit Development ("PUD") process.
These procedures list the steps that an applicant must take, and the conditions that must be met, for the
City to review and approve rezonings. However, the current PUD review process does not work well for
land development where a specific site plan and detailed architectural designs have not been developed.
The current process also does not work well where a developer seeks preliminary land use entitlements
before investing in detailed site plans and design standards for the site. Furthermore, the existing regulations
do not have clear application requirements for PUDs. The proposed code amendments fix the shortfalls of
the current code and are intended to facilitate development
Early on in the discussions on PU Os it was determined by staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission that
a "two-step" process would be best. This process would allow a developer to obtain initial land use and
density entitlements through a "District Plan", followed by a more detailed "Site Development Plan", which
would include conceptual architecture, location of roads and walkways, landscaping, etc. At the option of
the developer, these two steps could be combined into one step if all required submittal information is
provided up front.
The proposed ordinance will improve the PUD review process by clarifying submittal requirements and
allowing developers to follow the two-step process, if they choose. These changes should help to
encourage development by allowing developers to obtain land use and density entitlements before making
the investment in detailed site improvement and architectural plans.
ANALYSIS
A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is intended as an alternative to conventional land use regulations
resulting in the creation of a unique zone district that offers the City and Applicant forms or qualities of
development or amenities not possible through existing base zone districts. In some cases, this may result in
different land uses, or different densities, from the base zoning district. However, in all cases, the applicant
must demonstrate to the City that the proposed development plan will be as good as, or better than, the
development that would otherwise be allowed as a "use-by-right". In most cases, this is accomplished with
higher quality design, better landscaping, or additional amenities not required by current zoning regulations.
As a result, the public receives higher quality development, and the developer receives increased value
from different uses, higher density, or greater certainty of development rights.
Following are some highlights of the proposed code amendment:
• Allows a two-step process: District Plan and a Site Development Plan. Each step would require
public notice and a public hearing.
• District Plans would need to include allowed land uses, maximum density (number of residential
units, or square feet of commercial uses), site plans showing major roads and location of land uses,
proposed building heights, recreation areas or major amenities proposed, conceptual layout of
utilities, minimum perimeter setbacks, and a traffic impact study.
• Site Development Plans must include building footprints, building sizes, sight lines and shadow
studies, pedestrian circulation {sidewalks and paths), drainage features, grading plans, parking areas,
landscaping materials, bicycling parking areas, site lighting and conceptual architectural designs.
• Minimum land area for PUDs would remain one-half acre (21,780 sq.~)
• Minor Amendments to approved PUDs could be approved by the City Manager or designee.
• Major Amendments to approved PUDs would require public hearings with Planning Commission
and City Council.
• Final approval of a PUD is by City Council; appeals to Council decisions are to Arapahoe County
Court
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There will be no direct financial impact on the City as a result of this ordinance. Indirectly, there should be a
positive financial impact on the City by making development easier and encouraging new development by
facilitating approval of a preliminary District Plan before developers invest in more detailed Site
Development Plans.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Reports -April 22 and October 7, 2014
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -April 22 and October 7, 2014
Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact -Case No. 2012-07
Bill for an Ordinance
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
M EMORAN D
Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan White, Community Development Director
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
April 22, 2014
Case # 2012-07 -Public Hearing
Planned Unit Developments
Recommendation:
U M
The Community Development Department requests that the Planning and Zoning
Commission review, take public testimony, and forward to City Council a recommendation
for adoption as written the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code of the
Englewood Municipal Code Title 16, Chapter 2, Official Zoning Map Amendments
(Rezonings), and Title 16, Chapter 2, Reserved.
Background:
The current Unified Development Code identifies a process for rezoning property (changing
the allowed land uses) by either changing the base district zone or through the Planned
Unit Development ("PUD") process. These procedures list the steps that an applicant must
take, and the conditions that must be met for the City to review and approve rezonings.
However, the current PUD review process does not work well for land development where
a specific site plan and detailed architectural designs have not been developed, or where a
developer wants to obtain preliminary land use entitlements before investing in detailed site
plans and design standards for the site. Also, the existing regulations do not have clear
application requirements for PUDs. The proposed code amendments fix the shortfalls of the
current code, and are intended to facilitate development.
The Commission discussed this topic on several occasions over the past few years,
including public meetings on the following dates:
• November 6, 2012
• February 5, 2013
• September 4, 2013
• April 8, 2014
1000 Engl ewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PHONE 303-762-2342 FAX 303 783-6 895
www.englewoodgov.org
Early on in the discussions on PUDs it was determined by staff and the Commission that a
"two-step" process would be best. This would allow a developer to obtain initial land use
and density entitlements through a "District Plan", followed by a more detailed "Site
Development Plan", which would include conceptual architecture, location of roads and
walkways, landscaping, etc. At the option of the developer, these two steps could be
combined into one step if all required submittal information is provided up front.
Analysis
A Planned Unit Development (PUD} is intended as an alternative to conventional land use
regulations resulting in the creation of a unique zone district that offers the City and
Applicant forms or qualities of development or amenities not possible through existing base
zone districts. In some cases, this may result in different land uses, or different densities,
from the base zoning district. However, in all cases, the applicant must demonstrate to the
City that the proposed development plan will be as good as, or better than, the
development that would otherwise be allowed as a "use-by-right". In most cases, this is
accomplished with higher quality design, better landscaping, or additional amenities not
required by current zoning regulations. As a result, the public receives higher quality
development, and the developer may receive increased value from different uses or higher
density.
Following are some highlights of the proposed code amendment:
• Allows a two-step process: District Plan and a Site Development Plan. Each step
would require public notice and public hearings.
• District Plans would need to include allowed land uses, maximum density (number
of residential units, or square feet of commercial uses), site plans showing major
roads and location of land uses, proposed building heights, recreation areas or major
amenities proposed, conceptual layout of utilities, minimum perimeter setbacks, and
a traffic impact study.
• Site Development Plans must include building footprints, building sizes, site lines and
shadow studies, pedestrian circulation (sidewalks and paths}, drainage features,
grading plans, parking areas, landscaping materials, bicycling parking areas, site
lighting and conceptual architectural designs.
• Minimum land area for PUDs would remain one-half acre (21,780 sq. ft.}
• Minor Amendments to approved PUDs could be approved by the City Manager or
designee
• Major Amendments to approved PUDs would require Planning Commission review
at a public hearing
• Final approval of a PUD is by City Council; appeals to Council decisions are to
Arapahoe County Court
Recommendation:
Staff believes that the proposed draft ordinance will improve the PUD review process by
clarifying submittal requirements, and allowing developers to follow the two-step process, if
they choose. We believe that these changes will help encourage development by allowing
developers to obtain land use and density entitlements before making the investment in a
detailed site improvement plan.
A motion to recommend approval of the ordinance to City Council is needed.
Next Steps:
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval, we intend to move forward
with first reading of an ordinance by City Council.
Attachments:
Amendments to Title 16 pertaining to Official Zoning Map Amendments (Rezonings) and
Planned Unit Developments (PUD)
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
M E M O R A N D U M
Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan White, Community Development Director
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
October 7, 2014
Case # 2012-07 -Second Public Hearing
Planned Unit Developments
Recommendation:
The Community Development Department requests that the Planning and Zoning
Commission review, take public testimony, and forward to City Council a recommendation
for adoption as written the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code of the
Englewood Municipal Code Title 16, Chapter 2, Official Zoning Map Amendments
(Rezonings), and Title 16, Chapter 2, Reserved.
Changes Since Last Public Hearing:
Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this issue on April 22, 2014. After that
meeting, some concerns about the proposed policy language were identified by the City
Attorney's office. Staff has been working closely with the City Attorney's office to revise the
proposed ordinance. Specific changes proposed include:
• Removing the 30 day deadline for staff to provide a written report summarizing the
general discussion of the Neighborhood Meeting. Eliminating the deadline removes
the penalty of jail time for staff failing to meet the deadline.
• References to the Development Review Team (ORT) decisions have been deleted
and replaced with "approval of the City Manager or designee." The ORT will still be
consulted on matters of PUD amendments, but does not make final decisions.
• Procedures for Neighborhood Meetings are included as a separate document for the
Commission's review. We ask the Commission to make a recommendation to the
City Council for adoption of these procedures.
• Require the public hearing to be held within 180 days of the Neighborhood
Meeting. This requirement was listed for general rezonings, but not for PUDs.
• PUD rezoning processes and requirements are all contained in Section 16-2-8. This
change should simplify the process, and eliminate the need to refer to two different
sections of the code for information on PUDs . Most references to PUDs have been
removed from Section 16-2-7.
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PHONE 303•762-2342 FAX 303 783-6895
www englewoodgov.org
Background:
The current Unified Development Code identifies a process for rezoning property (changing
the allowed land uses) by either changing the base district zone or through the Planned
Unit Development ("PUD") process. These procedures list the steps that an applicant must
take and the conditions that must be met for the City to review and approve rezonings.
However, the current PUD review process does not work well for land development where
a specific site plan and detailed architectural designs have not been developed, or where a
developer seeks preliminary land use entitlements before investing in detailed site plans and
design standards for the site. Also, the existing regulations do not have clear application
requirements for PUDs. The proposed code amendments fix the shortfalls of the current
code and are intended to facilitate development.
The Commission discussed this topic on several occasions over the past few years,
including public meetings on the following dates:
• November 6, 2012
• February 5, 2013
• September 4, 2013
• April 8, 2014
• April 22, 2014
Early on in the discussions on PUDs it was determined by staff and the Commission that a
"two-step" process would be best. This process would allow a developer to obtain initial
land use and density entitlements through a "District Plan" followed by a more detailed
"Site Development Plan", which would include conceptual architecture, location of roads
and walkways, landscaping, etc. At the option of the developer, these two steps could be
combined into one step if all required submittal information is provided up front.
Analysis
A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is intended as an alternative to conventional land use
regulations resulting in the creation of a unique zone district that offers the City and
Applicant forms or qualities of development or amenities not possible through existing base
zone districts. In some cases, this may result in different land uses, or different densities,
from the base zoning district. However, in all cases, the applicant must demonstrate to the
City that the proposed development plan will be as good as, or better than, the
development that would otherwise be allowed as a "use-by-right". In most cases, this is
accomplished with higher quality design, better landscaping, or additional amenities not
required by current zoning regulations. As a result, the public receives higher quality
development, and the developer may receive increased value from different land uses or
more development rights.
Recommendation:
Staff believes that the proposed draft ordinance will improve the PUD review process by
clarifying submittal requirements, and allowing developers to follow the two-step process, if
they choose. We believe that these changes will help encourage development by allowing
developers to obtain land use and density entitlements before making the investment in a
detailed site improvement plan.
Also, changes recommended by the City Attorney's office should help to reduce legal
challenges, and ensure that staff and the applicant are following reasonable procedures for
processing applications and Neighborhood Meetings.
A motion to recommend approval of the ordinance to City Council is needed.
Next Steps:
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval, we intend to move forward
with first reading of an ordinance by City Council.
Attachments:
1. Amendments to Title 16 pertaining to Official Zoning Map Amendments (Rezonings)
and Planned Unit Developments (PUD)
2. Procedures for Neighborhood Meetings
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
City Council Chambers -Englewood Civic Center
April 22, 2014
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Fish
presiding.
Present: Bleile, Brick, Fish, Freemire, King, Kinton (arrived 7:05}, Knoth, Roth, Townley,
Madrid (alternate)
Absent:
Staff:
None
Alan White, Director, Community Development
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
Brook Bell, Planner II
Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney
Also Present: Toby Terhune, Shadow Creek Homes e
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 8, 2014
King moved;
Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE THE APRIL 8, 2014 MINUTES
Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections. There were none
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish
None
Freemire
Kinton (arrived 7:05)
Motion carried .
81
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #ZON2014-001 3299 SOUTH LOGAN STREET
RESIDENCES PUD
Brick moved;
Knoth seconded : TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #ZON2014-001 3299 SOUTH
LOGAN STREET RESIDENCES PUD
Page 1 of 9
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: e
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish
None
None
None
Staff Presentation
Brook Bell, Planner II, was sworn in. Mr. Bell reviewed the project as proposed to allow a
maximum of three one unit dwellings, one two unit dwelling and three detached accessory
structures above garages that may be used as dwelling units.
The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from R-1 -C to the "3299 South Logan
Street Residences PUD". The PUD would encompass the property at 3265 and 3299
South Logan Street. A variance was granted in 1967 to allow the Shrine club use with
conditions that narrowly defined the proposed use. With the narrowly defined variance,
and the lack of enough land area to allow other permitted uses, the marketability of the
property was limited. In order to meet the minimum size requirement of½ acre for a PUD,
the applicant purchased the property to the north at 3265 South Logan Street.
Three of the garages are proposed with detached accessory structures above them (400
square feet maximum). The property owner has the option to use the accessory structure
as they see fit but must occupy either the principal structure or the accessory structure if
the accessory structure contains a secondary suite ( dwelling unit).
The proposed design includes the defined architectural requirements. The plans provided
to the Commission are conceptual and subject to minor changes, however any changes will
need to meet the design standards, guidelines and setbacks of the PUD.
tl)
The density of the proposed PUD is lower than some of the properties to the west and
southwest of subject property (across the alley) that contains multi-unit apartment buildings.
The proposal includes two garage parking spaces for each principal unit and either one
garage or surface parking space for the accessory units. Because the property is located on
a corner, 240 linear feet of on street parking is available, the equivalent of 10 parking
spaces. e
The Public Works department reviewed the plan and concluded that a traffic impact study
is not required due to the minor increase in traffic over the existing volume. The Logan
Street and Floyd Avenue intersection is signalized and controls the traffic near the site. e
The UDC requires that 40% of the property is landscaped and the PUD matches that
requirement as well as meeting the landscaping requirements for R-1 -C zone district.
Drainage plans have been approved by the Public Works Department. The dedication of
park land requirement will be satisfied by a fee in lieu payment amount between $1 ,600
and $3,000.
El
Page 2 of 9
The Commission may consider the findings included in the Staff Report when reviewing the
proposed PUD.
Staff has reviewed the PUD application and found that it is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission review the 3299 South Logan Street Residences PUD request and forward a
favorable recommendation for approval to City Council.
0
Comments from the Commissioners:
King -What is the proposed height of garage? The maximum height of the detached
accessory structure is 32'; if it does not have the accessory unit above the garage, the
maximum height is 16'.
Kinton -How long has the property been on the market? (Mr. Bell: About 2 years, during
which time the City received inquiries about the property. The zoning would not allow
uses other than residential and those permitted by the variance. Without a change in
zoning, the opportunities were limited as far as how the property could be used.)
G
Bleile -What is the minimum lot width in R-1-C? (Mr. Bell: There are two lot widths in R-1-
C: a standard lot is 50', the minimum lot width for an existing small lot is 3 7'. The lot
widths can vary in a PUD. The two new lots are 37 ½ wide which meets small lot
standards. There are some existing lots in R-1-C that are only 25' wide.)
0
Bleile -What is the intent of including the detached accessory unit? (Mr. Bell: The PUD
provides 3 possible uses 1) home occupation, 2) secondary suite (living unit), and 3) flexible
living space.
G
The UDC does not currently address new detached accessory units. Many communities
locally and nationally are adopting provisions into their code to allow them.)
G
Bleile -What is the minimum square footage for a single family residence in R-1-C? (Mr.
Bell: There is no minimum square footage requirement. These detached accessory units
would be limited to a maximum of 400 square feet.) e
Roth -Most of the parking is provided in the garage spaces. There is enough space to
make the garages larger or add surface parking area. For lots 1,4,5 which do not have
detached accessory structures, there is minimum of two garage spaces for each dwelling
unit.
El
Roth -Is the rear setback of 6 feet enough for the garages? (Mr. Bell: The traffic
department commented that garages setbacks from the alley more than 6 feet can become
~roblem with the rear end of cars extending into the alleys.)
Page 3 of 9
Bleile -Will parking be available on Floyd? (Mr. Bell: Yes, on street parking will be
available on Floyd Avenue.)
0
Applicant Presentation
Toby Terhune, Shadow Creek Homes, 2535 West 11 S'h Drive, Westminster, Colorado, was
sworn in. Mr. Terhune presented a slide show with images of the proposed development.
Mr. Terhune introduced the members of his team who were present at the meeting.
0
The neighborhood meeting held last November influenced decisions about the design and
density of the project. The home at 3265 South Logan will be remodeled and updated, two
new homes will be added and the Shriner building will be divided into two units. Four new
garages will be added. The accessory dwelling units above three of the garages will be
added as an option for their customers. e
Bleile -What is the timing of construction? (Mr. Terhune: As soon as possible.) e
King -Why limit the ground floor of the garage to 400 square feet? (Mr. Terhune : This can
be changed based on buyer preference.)
GI
Townley -Is there any discussion about paving the alley? (Mr. Terhune: No.) Who is
responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping? (Mr. Terhune: The property owners.)
Freemire -The existing grade rises 4 feet higher than the level on Floyd, how will that be
addressed? (Mr. Terhune: The bottom floor of the building is below grade, the lot will be
leveled where it has been built up. The garages will be at the alley level.) e
Public Testimony
John Taylor, 3261 S. Logan Street, was sworn in. He feels that the development will create
traffic problems. He cited Cherry Creek North parking issues. e
Conclusion from Staff
The site has very few allowed uses as it is currently zoned. The proposal is for a very good
project that will be beneficial to the community.
El
Bleile -How is the requirement enforced that the owner resides on the property? (Mr. Bell:
The PUD sets the regulation; Community Development does not seek out properties for
compliance. The requirement that the owners live in either the main or the accessory unit
provides some assurance that the property will be w ell maintained with the owner present
on the propertyJ e
Roth moved;
Freemire seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #ZON2014-001 3299
SOUTH LOGAN STREET RESIDENCES PUD
Page 4 of 9
A YES: Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion passes.
King moved;
Freemire seconded: TO APPROVE CASE #ZON2014-001 3299 SOUTH LOGAN STREET
RESIDENCES PUD APPLICATION AS WRITTEN AND FORWARD
TO ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION.
Brick -A substantial amount of landscaping is included in the plan and the parking is
adequate for the development. The inclusion of the requirement that the owners live on
the property is a positive.
0
King -Should the building revert to its original use as a club, parking would be more of an
issue. The requirement of the owner to live on the property would be addressed during
title commitment in the purchase process.
GI
Chair Fish -This is a good use for the building.
El
King -The bulk plane as it exists in the UDC is too restrictive and this development would
set a new standard for the City.
0
Roth -Accessory units already exist in Englewood; it appears that this will be a trend in the
future.
Vote:
~
Bleile -Yes, despite his resistance to change, it is a necessary change to encourage
development and reuse of existing buildings that could otherwise potentially fall into decay.
The transition from the new buildings to the older homes on the street is good.
El
Brick -Yes, the project meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan with a balanced
use of housing. The quality of the materials and type of work will exceed the standards that
exist currently. The density does not significantly impact the surrounding neighborhood.
El
Freemire -Yes, commended the developer for listening to the neighborhood and adapting
the plan. It is appropriate and meets the goals of the City. e
King -Yes, it is a difficult site to develop and the developer has done a good job with the
design. The owner is sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood.
0
Page 5 of9
Knoth -Yes e
Roth -Yes, the project meets a number of elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The
owner occupancy requirement is a positive. The development is different but fits the
neighborhood.
~
Townley -Yes, the development is unique, it has appropriate scale, adequate parking and
the proposed development fits the Comprehensive Plan and complements the
neighborhood. e
Fish -Yes, he agrees with the Commissioners. Englewood's housing stock is maturing and
a5 is an issue that the City faces going forward, this will enhance the variety of housing
available. e
Kinton -Yes, the project makes good use of the existing structure and brings a needed
diversity of housing. The project meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
G
Motion passes to approve case #2014-001 3299 South Logan Street PUD with a favorable
recommendation to City Council. e
Bleile moved;
Knoth seconded: TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-07 AMENDMENTS TO
PUD PROCESS
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
G
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish
None
None
None
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, was sworn in. The history of the case was reviewed. e
A two-step PUD process will enable developers to obtain entitlements to the property prior
to developing a detailed plan which would result in cost and time savings. The
amendments will clarify the current code and additionally provide increased detail outlining
the PUD process.
Commissioner Comment
El
Brick -What is the potential benefit to citizens? {Mr. Neubecker: The two step process
allows for additional opportunity for public comment. The advantages to the developer
would potentially increase development opportunity which would be beneficial to the
community.)
0
Roth -Noted typographical errors. e
Public Comment
Page 6 of 9
Lewis Fowler, 3700 South Cherokee Street, Englewood, was sworn in. Mr. Fowler spoke in
support of the amendments to the PUD process. He likes the fact that public has more
olortunities to comment on applications.
Mr. Neubecker thanked the Commissioners for their cooperation and feedback during the
long process of amending the code on this issue. e
Bleile moved;
Knoth seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-07 AMENDMENTS
TO PUD PROCESS
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish
None
None
None
Motion passes.
Bleile moved;
Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE CASE #2012-07 AMENDMENTS TO THE PUD
PROCESS WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL.
Comments
Q
Bleile thanked Staff for their work and believes that future applicants will see the benefit of
the improvements.
Fish -The time taken has resulted in a quality product, he thanked Staff.
King -A lot of time and input has been devoted to this topic and Staff did a great job. e
Kinton -This is a significant improvement in the PUD process and hopes that it will
encourage more development. e
Roth -Makes the process clearer and will eliminate the types of issues that arose in the
past.
El
Townley -An efficient and streamlined process, likes the opportunity for more community
init.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish
None
None
None
Motion passes.
Page 7 of 9
JV. PUBLIC FORUM
No Public was present to address the commission.
El
V. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Ms. Reid requested that the Commission adopt the Planning Commission Handbook.
Knoth moved;
Bleile seconded: "To Adopt a policy allowing Staff and the City Attorney to include within
any ordinance the necessary amendments to the Unified Development
Code that are necessary to ensure that portions of the Englewood
Municipal Code that refer to existing or amended code language, or
that is needed to reference the new language, shall be included within
said ordinance, and that such housekeeping and editing issues shall not
require further discussion or hearings by the Planning and Zoning
Commission".
Vote: All Commissioners voted in favor of the policy. Motion passes.
Brick -Believes that this policy change will be beneficial to the process of making changes
to the code.
El
VI. STAFF'S CHOICE
Director White added that the adopted policy change will allow Staff to fix administrative
issues without having to take the issue to Public Hearing.
Mr. Neubecker stated that Part 3 of the TSA overlay district will be presented at the May 6
meeting. Other items that were included on the 2014 work priorities are bulk plane.
Director White suggested that discussion regarding Accessory Dwelling Units be delayed.
The Capital Project budget will be presented to the Commission.
VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE e
Mr. Madrid commented on PUD project and is looking forward to seeing the change, feels
that the inclusion of the Accessory Dwelling Unit allows for a more diverse population and
provides good options for residents.
El
Mr. Brick asked for an update on the Martin Plastics property; Director White stated that he
anticipated a request for a change to their plan.
0
Mr. Bleile asked about the Winslow property. There have been discussions about multi-
family development but with the current restrictions on the property there would be an
amendment to the PUD.
0
Page 8 of 9
Ms. Townley asked if it would be beneficial to have a representative of Economic
Development attend the meeting regarding the TSA Overlay to provide input.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
"""/sa.-/...1.:lu=l=ie:.....:B=a=il=ey,.._ __ --.J. Recording Secretary
Page 9 of 9
►
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
OCTOBER 7 1 2014
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Vice Chair King
presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
►
Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Madrid
Fish (Excused), Freemire (Excused)
Alan White, Director, Community Development
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• September 23, 2014
Kinton moved;
Roth seconded: TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 MINUTES
Vice Chair King asked if there were any modifications or corrections. There were none.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Roth, Townley
None
Knoth
Fish, Freemire
Motion carried.
►
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #2012-07 PUD PROCESS AND REZONING
PROCESS
Knoth moved;
Bleile seconded: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2012-07
AMENDMENTS TO THE PUD PROCESS AND REZONING
PROCESS
AYES: Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton , Knoth, Roth, Townley
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN : None
Page 1 of4
ABSENT: Fish, Freemire
Motion passes.
Staff Presentation
►
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Neubecker outlined the changes
that are proposed to the current code. The proposed changes to the code are :
1) Removing the 30 day deadline for staff to provide a written report of the
neighborhood meeting.
2) Delete references to the Development Review Team decisions .
3) Change procedures for neighborhood meetings. A separate document outlining
the department's policy and procedures regarding neighborhood meetings was
su pplied to the Comm issioners.
4) Require the public hearing for PUDs to be held within 180 days of the
neighborhood meeting.
5) The rezoning process and requirements are all contained within section 16-2-8
rather than in multiple sections. References to PUDs in section 16-2-7 have
been deleted.
Commissioner's Comments
►
Mr. Knoth asked about the timeline for the written comments on the neighborhood
meeting and what the consequences of not completing the comments would be. e
Mr. Neubecker responded that Staff is accountable to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and that Staff generally has the comments prepared well in advance of the
Public Hearing for a case . In most cases, the written comments are prepared within a
few days of the neighborhood meeting.
t1l
Ms. Reid added that the 30 day time limit on preparing the neighborhood meeting notes
is a policy and not a statute. The proposed meeting procedures include verbiage
outlining the timeline for staff to complete the notes.
0
Mr. Roth asked if neighborhood meetings are posted for the public. Mr. Neubecker
responded that there are requirements for mailings of notice to property owners and
occupants within 1000 feet of the subject property and a notice is posted on the
property. The requirements for the posting are outlined in the neighborhood meeting
procedures and in the code .
~
Public Comment
There were no members of the public present who wished to testify before the
Commission.
►
Townley moved;
Page 2 of4
Knoth seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2012-07
AMENDMENTS TO THE PUD PROCESS AND REZONING
PROCESS
AYES: Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Fish, Freemire
Motion passes.
►
Knoth moved;
Roth seconded: TO APPROVE CASE #2012-07 AMENDMENTS TO THE PUD
PROCESS AND REZONING PROCESS AS WRITTEN AND FORWARD
TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.
AYES: Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Fish, Freemire
Motion passes.
Ill. Adoption of Neighborhood Meeting Procedures
►
Ms. Townley expressed that she agrees with Mr. Roth that the notice of neighborhood
meetings should be posted on the City's website. Mr. Kinton concurred.
Brick moved;
Roth seconded: TO ADOPT THE PROCEDURES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
AS WRITTEN WITH THE ADDITION OF THE REQUIREMENT TO
POST NOTIFICATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ON THE
OFFICIAL CITY OF ENGLEWOOD WEBSITE.
AYES: Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Fish, Freemire
Motion passes.
► IV. PUBLIC FORUM
No public was present to address the Commission.
►
V. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Page 3 of4
Assistant City Attorney Reid stated that she will not be attending the next meeting.
VI. STAFF'S CHOICE e
Director White reviewed the case for Signature Senior Living Case #USE2014-003.
The applicant requested a letter to assist with financing stating that they are permitted to
build 134 units. An Administrative Decision to allow the applicant to have 134 units
was made after review of the parking plan and other revisions to the site plan. The
decision can be appealed, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this meeting. The
project was approved as a Conditional Use that must be reviewed annually. The
applicant is open to pursuing other options with regards to parking should it become an
issue in the future.
Mr. Bleile stated that he agreed with Director White's decision, Mr. King concurred.
Mr. Neubecker asked the Commissioners about upcoming meetings and if they wished
to cancel the second meeting in December. It was decided that they would make that
determination at a later date depending on whether or not a case needs to be brought to
public hearing. The next meeting is November 4 th which is election night, however that
would not interfere with holding a meeting.
VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
El
Mr. Bleile asked about the new City Manager. Ms. Reid stated that we do have a new
City Manager, Eric Keck, and he will most likely be attending a meeting soon.
Mr. Roth and Mr. Kinton commented on the field trip to Arvada and Littleton and said
that it was very informative .
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
_____ , Recording Secretary
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF CASE #2012-07 )
AMENDMENTS TO PLANNED UNIT )
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW )
PROCESS, FINDINGS OF FACT, )
CONCLUSIONS AND )
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING )
TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE )
)
)
INITIATED BY: )
Community Development Department )
1000 Englewood Parkway )
Englewood, CO 80110 )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE
CITY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Commission Members Present: Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley
Commission Members Absent: Freemire, Fish
This matter was heard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on April 22,
2014, and on October 7, 2014, in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic
Center.
Testimony was received from staff. The Commission received notice of Public Hearing,
the Staff Report, and a copy of the proposed amendments to Title 16 Unified
Development Code which were incorporated into and made a part of the record of the
Public Hearing.
After considering the statements of the witness and reviewing the pertinent documents,
the members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission made the following Findings
and Conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THAT the Public Hearing on the Unified Development Code {UDC) Title 16 Chapter
2, Official Zoning Map Amendments {Rezonings) and Title 16, Chapter 2, Planned
Unit Development {PUD) Rezoning Process and Requirements was brought before
the Planning Commission by the Department of Community Development, a
department of the City of Englewood.
2. THAT notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on April
4, 2014 and notice of the Public Hearing was on the City of Englewood website from
April 8, 2014 through April 22, 2014. Notice of the second Public Hearing was
published in the Englewood Herald September 26, 2014 and posted on the City of
Englewood website from September 26, 2014 to October 7, 2014.
3. THAT the Staff report was made part of the record.
4. THAT the revision to the UDC would allow a two-step process: a District Plan and a
Site Development Plan. Each step would require public notice and a public hearing.
5. THAT one member of the general public testified during the April 22, 2014, public
hearing in favor of the proposed code amendments, and indicated that the proposed
code amendment and two-step process would allow greater opportunity for public
comments.
6. THAT Major Amendments to approved PUDs would require Planning Commission
review.
7. THAT final approval of a PUD is by City Council; appeals to Council decisions are to
Arapahoe County Court.
CONCLUSIONS
1. THAT the proposed amendment to the UDC will allow a two-step process: District
Plan and a Site Development Plan, and that each will require a public hearing, and
that the additional public hearings will provide additional opportunities for public
comment.
2. THAT the proposed code changes will help encourage development by allowing
developers to obtain land use and density entitlements before making the
investment in a detailed site improvement plan.
3. THAT the proposed code amendments will create an efficient and streamlined
review process.
4. THAT the proposed code amendments will make the PUD review process more
clear and will eliminate some of the problems that arose in the past with PUD
reviews.
5. THAT the proposed changes are in conformance with Roadmap Englewood: 2003
Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
DECISION
THEREFORE, it is the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission that Case
#2012-07 Planned Unit Development Process, Unified Development Code Title 16,
Chapter 2, Official Zoning Map Amendments (Rezonings) and TiUe 16, Chapter 2,
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning Process and Requirements should be
referred to the City Council with a favorable recommendation.
The decision was reached upon a vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City
Plannlng and Zoning Commission on October 7, 2014, by Knoth, seconded by Roth,
which motion states:
CASE#2012-07 AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16: UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO THE PUD PROCESS AS
WRITTEN BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY
COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.
AYES: Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Freemire, Fish
Motion carried.
These Findings and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting on October 7, 2014.
1JiOER-OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
G( ._/
; ' ....
I,