HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 Ordinance No. 032ORDINANCE NO. 22--
SERIES OF 2015
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO . 23
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER GILLIT
AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE BROADWAY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND
ZONING THE AREA MU-R-3-B
WHEREAS, the subject property of the Planned Development is located at the southeast
boundaries of the City of Englewood, at South Broadway and South Broadway Circle. Areas to the
north and east are with the cities of Littleton and Greenwood Village and are mostly residential in
nature, surrounding areas to the west and south are within the City of Englewood city limits and
are zoned MU-R-3-B; and:
WHEREAS, in 1972 the City established Planned Development (PD) regulations as an overlay
that superimposed additional development regulations upon base zone districts; and
WHEREAS, at that time, development in the R-3 zone district of four or more units required a
PD; and
WHEREAS, the Broadway PD was brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission on
February 22, 1984, the underlying zone district was R-3, High Density Residential, and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the PD was filed July 26, 1984 to reduce the number of buildings
from 24 to 13 while increasing the number of dwelling units from 290 to 312; and
WHEREAS, the amendment to the PD was approved. On May 14, 1985 an administrative
amendment to the Plan was granted for Building 7. The amendment was to accommodate
engineering problems with the building; and
WHEREAS, October 8, 1985 an amendment to the plan was submitted to add a new tennis court;
and
WHEREAS, in 1996 the PD overlay district regulations were repealed and replaced with the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the PUD regulations: "PD developments approved prior to July I, 1996,
shall continue to be governed by the respective development plans and regulations for the underlying
zone districts"; and
WHEREAS , the owners of the property would like to update the communal club house and
recreation facility, as well as construct a new amenity building, and
WHEREAS, the PD was required due to code requirements that any development of four or
more units be developed under the PD process. The 1984 development fully complied with the R-3
District requirements. These code requirements no longer exist; and
1
llb i
WHEREAS, the proposed changes would be an administrative review under the current MU-R-•
3-B zone district requirements. However, due to the required original PD of 1984, a formal request is
required for this change and any other change, regardless of the scope of work; and
WHEREAS, the overlay PD adds time and expense to the property owner because any
development change would require an amendment to the PD; and
WHEREAS, allowing future development to be reviewed under the requirements of the MU-R-
3-B base zone district would be consistent with the reviews for most other properties in the City; and
WHEREAS, following the required Public Hearing on April 21, 2015 the Planning and
Zoning Commission considered public testimony and voted 8 to 2 in favor of forwarding the
proposed Planned Development vacation to City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The Broadway Planned Development is vacated.
Section 2. The area underlying the Broadway Planned Development shall be zoned MU-R-3-B.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 18th day of May, 2015 .
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 21st day of
May, 2015.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City 's official website beginning on the 20th day of
May, 2015 for thirty (30) days .
A Public Hearing was held on July 6, 2015.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 20th day of July, 2015.
Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No3/-;'series of 2015, on
the 23rd day of July, 2015 .
Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 22nd day of
July, 2015 for thirty (30) days .
2
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing i~e copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by
title as Ordinance No Series of 2015 .
3
' .
•
•
•
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DA TE: May 18, 2015 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: Ordinance vacating The Greenwood
11 a i Point "The Broadway'' Planned Development
INITIATED BY: STAFF SOURCE: Audra L. Kirk, Planner I
Community Development
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
There has been no previous Council action concerning vacating The Broadway Planned Development {PD).
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered vacating The Broadway Planned Development following
the required Public Hearing on April 21, 2015. The Commission considered public testimony and voted 8
to 2 in favor of forwarding the proposed Planned Development vacation to City Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that City Council approve a bill for an ordinance authorizing the vacation of The
Broadway Planned Development on first reading, and set July 6, 2015 as the date for a Public Hearing.
ZONE DISTRICT
PD, Planned Development "Overlay District"
MU-R-3-B, Mixed use medium to high density residential and limited office, {underlying zone district).
PROPERTY LOCATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USE
The subject property of this Planned Development is located at the southeast boundaries of the City of
Englewood, at South Broadway and South Broadway Circle. Areas to the north, east and south boarder the
cities of Littleton and Greenwood Village, which are mostly low density residential in nature. Surrounding
areas within the City of Englewood are zoned MU-B-2, a mixed use business district
BACKGROUND
In 1972 the City established Planned Development {PD) regulations as an overlay that superimposed
additional development regulations upon base zone districts. Planned Developments were required for all
multi-family residential projects over four units. The purpose of the Planned Development was to permit
and encourage diversification in the location of structures and the appropriate relationship of various uses.
"Where a conflict occurs between an approved Planned Development and the regulations of the
underlying zoning district, the approved Planned Development prevails except with regard to permitted
uses, dwelling unit density, and off-street parking requirements", (Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 22.4A•
2 as amended by Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1981 ).
When The Broadway Planned Development project was submitted in 1984 with an excess of four units, the
R-3 zone district required a Planned Development. The Broadway Planned Development was brought
before the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 22, 1984. (The underlying zone district in 1984
was R-3, High Density Residential; today this is the MU·R·3·B zone district.) In 1984 the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance (currently the Unified Development Code) had a density bonus of 70 units per acre for
properties with a minimum of 42,000 s.f. This bonus density would have allowed the property to build up
to 1422 units. Under the current UDC, the MU·R·3·B zone district would allow 877 units, currently on the
property there are 312 units. Vacating this property would reduce the potential of 1422 units to a
maximum of 877.
In 1 984 The Broadway Planned Development met the dimensional requirements of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance. This is also true for meeting the dimensional requirements of the current Unified
Development Code; see the chart below for 1984 and current dimensional requirements.
Reauirement 1984 Code Current Code As-Built
Maximum lot 35% 75% 51.09%
coverage Does not include Includes garages and
e:arae:es and caroorts caroorts
Building Heie:ht 60' 60' Aoorox. 35'
f1Pnc;ity 14 22 Units 877 312
Allowed 70 units per
dwelling with
permitted density
bonus
Parking 1.70 spaces per unit 531 598
530 total spaces 1.5 per unit
1 guest oer 5 units
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS
• July 26, 1984 -reduced the number of buildings from 24 to 13 while increasing the number of
dwelling units from 290 to 312.
• May 14, 1985 -an administrative amendment to the plan was granted for a change to Building 7 to
accommodate engineering issues.
• October 8, 1985 -amendment to add a new tennis court.
In 1996, the Planned Development overlay district regulations w e re repealed and replaced with the
Planned Unit Development (PUD). Pursuant to the PUD regulations: "Planned developments approved
prior to July 1, 1 996, are governed by the developmenl plans and regulations of the underlying zone
districts" (Englewood Municipal Code, 16-4-15, July 1996). The change to the PUD still requires that all
amendments to Planned Developments go through the same steps as an amendment to a PUD, including a
neighborhood meeting, Planning Commission public hearing and City Council public hearing and
Ordinance approval.
PROPOSED CHANGES
CH Greenwood Point Communities, LLC the owners of the property since 2011 propose to update the
communal club house and recreational facility, as well as construct a new amenity building. The proposed
changes would be an administrative review under the current MU-R-3-8 zone district requirements,
however, due to its Planned Development status the formal process described above is required, regardless
of the scope of the change proposed.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY
Pursuant to the Unified Development Code PUD procedure, prior to submitting the Planned Development
Vacation application, the applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 2015.
Notice of the pre-application meeting was mailed to owners and tenants of property located within 1000
feet of The Broadway Planned Development property.
CllY DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION REVIEW
The applicants attended two Development Review Team meetings in fall of 2014 to discuss the owner's
desire to update the communal club house and add an additional building. In response to staff comments,
the owners removed a proposed new residential building, but retained the new amenity building. At the
ORT meetings, the owner and representatives were informed that an amendment to the Planned
Development would be required for any future development. Alternatively, they could apply to vacate the
Planned Development, and have future developments reviewed administratively under the regulations of
the underlying MU-R-3B zone district.
-SUMMARY
The 1984 Broadway Planned Development fully complied with the R-3 District requirements. The code
requiring the Planned Development zoning no longer exists in the Unified Development Code, therefore, if
submitted today this project could be reviewed and approved administratively.
The overlay of a Planned Development adds time and expense to a property owner because any
development change requires an amendment to the Planned Development, including a public hearing with
the Planning Commission and a public hearing and ordinance approval by City Council. Allowing future
development to be reviewed under the requirements of the base zone district would be consistent with the
reviews for other properties in the City, except those under a PUD.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is not direct financial impact to the City.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report• April 21, 2015
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -April 21, 2015
Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact -Case #ZON2015-00S
Bill for Ordinance
•
'' C T y 0 F ENGLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO:
THRU:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Michael Flaherty, Deputy City Manager
FROM:
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, Community Development
Audra L. Kirk, Planner 1
DATE: April 21, 2015
SUBJECT: Case ZON2015-002 -Public Hearing
Greenwood Pointe PD Amendment/Vacation ("the Broadway")
APPLICANT:
Kimley-Horn & Associates
990 South Broadway
Suite 200
Denver, CO 80209
PROPERTY OWNERS:
Co/rich, LLC
Jose Ruiz de Chavez
444 West Beech Street
Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92101
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
5312 South Broadway Circle
REQUEST:
The applicant request that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the vacation of
The Broadway Amendment Planned Development.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission approve the vacation of The Broadway Amendment Planned Development,
with no conditions.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
See Attached
Planning & Zoning Division Building Division Economic Development
303.762.2347 303.762.2356 303.762.2599
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110
www englewoodgov.org
ZONE DISTRICT:
PD, Planned Development
MU-R-3-8, Mixed use medium to high density residential and limited office, (underlying
zone district).
PROPERlY LOCATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USE:
The subject property of this PD is located at the southeast boundaries of the City of
Englewood, at South Broadway and South Broadway Circle. Areas to the north and east are
with the cities of Littleton and Greenwood Village and are mostly residential in nature.
Surrounding areas to the west and south are within the City of Englewood city limits and
are zoned MU-B-2, a mixed use business district. The properties in the MU-B-2 zone district
are currently and historically used as auto sales lots.
BACKGROUND:
In 1972 The City established Planned Development (PD) regulations as an overlay that
superimposed additional development regulations upon base zone districts. At that time,
development in the R-3 zone district of four or more units required a PD. The Broadway PD
was brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 22, 1984. The
underlying zone district was R-3, High Density Residential, today this is the MU-R-3-B zone
district. In 1984 this development would have met the dimensional requirements of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This is also true for meeting the dimensional
requirements of the current Unified Development Code, for example: setbacks, height, •
density, etc).
An amendment to the PD was filed July 26, 1984 to reduce the number of buildings from
24 to 13 while increasing the number of dwelling units from 290 to 312. The amendment
to the PD was approved. On May 14, 1985 an administrative amendment to the Plan was
granted for Building 7. The amendment was to accommodate engineering problems with
the building. October 8, 1985 an amendment to the plan was submitted to add a new
tennis court. All of the aforementioned amendments could have been approved
administratively, had a PD not been required.
In 1996 the PD overlay district regulations were repealed and replaced with the Planned
Unit Development (PUD). Pursuant to the PUD regulations: "PD developments approved
prior to July 1, 1996, shall continue to be governed by the respective development plans
and regulations of the underlying zone districts."
The owners of the property would like to update the communal club house and
recreational facility, as well as construct a new amenity building. The proposed changes
would be an administrative review under the current MU-R-3-8 zone district requirements.
However, due to the required original PD of 1984, a formal request is required for this
change and any other change, regardless of the scope of work.
•
•
•
•
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the Unified Development Code PUD procedure, the applicant conducted a
neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 2015, prior to submitting the PUD
application. Notice of the pre-application meeting was mailed to owners and tenants of
property located within 1000 feet of the proposed PD property. A meeting summary is
attached (See Exhibit A).
CITY DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION REVIEW:
The applicants had a two Development Review Team meetings in fall of 2014. The ORT
meetings were to discuss the owner's desire to update to communal club house and add
an additional building. The owner and representatives from Kimley-Horn were told at those
meetings that an amendment to the PD would need to happen for any future development
to take place, or they could apply to vacate the PD, and have future developments
reviewed administratively under the regulations of the underlying zone district.
SUMMARY:
The PD was required due to code requirement that any development four or more units be
developed under the PD process. The 1984 development fully complied with the R-3
District requirements. These code requirements no longer exist.
The overlay PD adds time and expense to the property owner because any development
change would require an amendment to the PD. Allowing future development to be
reviewed under the requirements of the base zone district would be consistent with the
reviews for most other properties in the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Legal Description
Exhibit 8: February 25, 2014 Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Exhibit C: Greenwood Point Apartments Planned Development Amendment Application -
Written Statement
Exhibit D: The Broadway PD ALT A/ ACSM La
•
Greenwood Point Apartments
Neighborhood Meeting Concerning Vacation of the Planned Development
6:00 P.M. Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Greenwood Point Clubhouse
Brian Valentine and Adam Harrison -Kimley Horn (Design Consulting firm)
John Binder -KEPHART Architects
Jose Ruiz -Colrich Multifamily (Property Owners)
Chris Neubecker (City of Englewood)
About 30 -40 people were in the audience. The audience included residents of the
Greenwood Point Apartments, residents and property owners of Englewood, Littleton and
Greenwood Village, which are immediately to the north, south and east of this property.
Many people in the audience were concerned with development at the east end of the site
(on or near the tennis courts or dog park), which could potentially block views.
A majority of those in the audience were OK with amending the P.D., but most appeared
to be opposed to vacating the P.D.
Introduction
Mr. Valentine gave a background report on the proposal, and Colrich Multifamily as the
property owners. There are no plans to construct tall buildings on the property. No high
density development is planned. The current proposal is to improve the clubhouse, and to
possibly construct a separate amenity building nearby.
The consultants met with the City of Englewood earlier in the year at a Development
Review Team (ORT) meeting to get preliminary feedback on some design concepts. At the
time, this included the possibility of a new building at the east end of the site. That building
at the east end of the site is no longer under consideration.
The main purpose of the meeting tonight is to discuss the possibility of vacating the existing
"Planned Development'' document/plan that regulates the site, and revert back to the
existing zoning for this are, which is MU-R-3-B. The owners at this time would like to add a
one story amenity building. The Planned Development would need to be amended, or
vacated, to allow this to happen.
Questions From Audience
Q -What is an Amenity Building? -(A-We currently have a small fitness center in this
building (where the meeting was held). Would like to build another 1,500 sf building with a
fitness center, resident lounge/gathering space. We would like to expand the pool deck
with a BBQ area.)
Q -Will you build an apartment building in our backyards?
Q -Are there any written agreements with Littleton or Greenwood Village concerning
development? (A -No written agreements. The zoning is MU-R-3B. This allows apartments
up to 60 feet tall, about 5 stories.)
Q -Why make this change if the Amenity Building can be expanded in the existing P.O.?
(A -The existing development meets the existing zoning. Existing P.O. would need to be
amended to allow this change. )
Q -What type of agreement is the owner willing to sign to prevent development at the east
end of the site? (A-Owner is probably not willing to enter any agreements to restrict their
property rights allowed by the zoning.)
Q -How will the Fire Department review of this site be handled if the City of Englewood is
merging with Denver Fire? (A-Unsure how plan review would be handled in the future .
That is part of the Fire Department negotiations underway.)
Q -Are you aware of drainage issues near the Amenity Building? (Yes)
Q -Are you willing to commit to not develop on the east end of the site? {A -No, probably
not.)
Q-What is the 5 year vision for this site? {A -This plan with Amenity Building is the 5 year
plan. No other major development is planned at this time.)
Q-Could new buildings be added with the existing Planned Development? (A-Yes, with an
amendment to the P.O.)
C-We want to work with the property owner/developer to allow for improvements, but we
would like to see a "no build" zone.
C-Parts of this property may be in the Flood Zone. (A-We are aware of the flood zone. No
development is proposed in the 100 year flood zone.)
Q-Why build this, other than to raise the rent? Why is this good for me as a resident? You
are not maintaining the existing property. (A-All of the property we have bought, we
improve the Amenities Buildings.)
C-It does not make sense to funnel all traffic through one tight area. (A-We can look at
traffic calming measures.)
Q-Please show us where the 100 year flood zone is located. (A-Developer pointed out
than no development is planned near the flood zone.)
Q-Are there any formal agreements between the City of Englewood, Greenwood Village
•
and Littleton concerning setbacks, heights, etc.? {A-No. Part of the process is to provide •
notice to property owners within 1,000 feet.)
•
•
Q-Will this block views?
Q-Did you get a permit for the dog park? (A-No, only structures require a permit.)
C-I want to keep the existing Planned Development in place, because I want notice every
time a major development is proposed.
C-We don't know who the owner is, and we don't know their integrity. (A-We are a family
owned company. We have developed mostly in California. In the past few years, we have
purchased property in several other states. Whatever questions you have, please contact
our property managers, or our consultants.}
C-I am appalled at this presentation. You are asking to double the density and double the
height. My level of trust is so low. You are trying to get us to focus on a small building and
pool. If you proceed, there will be people at the public hearings.
C-We are afraid that tomorrow we will wake up and see a new building.
C-I think you are preparing the site to turn over to a new developer. My property values
will go down. It's not fair. We are not hearing the full story. (A-We will go back to the
owner and discuss the options. One option is to just amend the P.O. to allow the amenity
building.)
Q-Is it common to have a meeting represented by an engineer and consultant? (Yes}
Q-Why are you building a new building when nobody even plans to use the building? The
owners will just raise the rent. They tried to raise my rent by $200 recently.
C-I love my apartment. The owners should ask us what we want to see. Please explain the
two DRT Applications. (One was for the building at the east end of the site. After the DRT
meeting with the City, we decided to remove the building at the east end of the site from
our plans, which we took back to the City for comment.)
Q Is the building on the east end of the site still under consideration? (No)
Q-Who is on the DRT? (A-City Departments including Community Development, Building
Department, Fire, Utilities, etc.)
Q What is the typical hold time for properties? (A -We typically buy and hold.)
Q What is the current occupancy of the building? (About 95 -97%}
Q = Question
C=Comment
A -Answer/ Reply
)
)
)
Kimley>>>Horn
March 16, 2015
Greenwood Poi nt Apartments Planned Development Amendment Application -Written
Statement
Prolect Concept:
The existing Greenwood Point Apartment complex development located at 5312 South Broadway in
Englewood, CO owned and operated by Colrich, LlC (Colrich). The property Is currently zoned Planned
Development, and the underlying zoning is MU·R·3-8. Based off our analysis, the site complies with
the MU·R·3•B Zoning from a density, building height and parking standpoint.
The Greenwood Point Apartment complex is comprised of 312 total units divided amongst 13 existing
three-story residential buildings on a 20.3+/· acre site, with a clubhouse and five detached garages,
leading to a density of 16 units/acres. The site is providing 598 parking spaces leading to a parklng
ratio of 1.96 space/unit, greater than the 531 spaces required In the MU·R-3-B code. Buildings and
hardscape comprise of 10.38 acres with the remainder being green space, leading to a lot coverage
percentage of 51.1%, within the 75% limit required by code. The tables below outline the Zoning Code
comparison:
Table 1: Density
Units Based on Lot Area
Current Max Allowed
312 *877
16 Units/ Acre 43 Units/Acre
*Per Englewood Municipal Code 16-6-1, MU•R-3-8 District
Table 2: Parking Comparison
Parking by Code
Occupant: 1.5/Unit* 312 X 1.5 • 468
Guest 1/ 5 Units• 312/5 =63
Total Required = 531
Current Total = 528 Uncovered & 70 Enclosed
*Per Englewood Municipal Code Table 16-6-4.l
k1mley-h::irn corn 990 Sou!h Broad,·,c1y, Su,te 200, Denver, CO 80209 303 228 2300
cvu,n,,. ,-.
•
•
•
•
Kimley>>>Horn Page2
Table 3: Lot Coverage
Area
Surface SF AC
Total: 885,372.78 20.33
Roof: 111,403.30 2.56
Green Space: 433,039 9.94
Hardscape: 340,930.48 7.83
Lot Coverage: 51.09%
Max Lot Coverage: •1s%
•Per Englewood Munidpal Code 1~6·l, MU·R-3-8 District
As a result of the above analysis, Col rich is applying for a Planned Development Amendmenttovacate
the existing Planned Development and return to the underlying zoning of MU-R-3-8. Colrich wishes
to vacate the Planned Development for multiple reasons, mainly to provide improvements to their
residents quicker than under the current Planned Development zoning. Currently, proposing
clubhouse modifications or poof deck Improvements requires a Neighborhood Meeting and City
Council action in order for these improvements to be acceptable. With the vacation of the Planned
Development, these Items would be reviewed by Englewood staff and can be approved
administratively.
We appreciate your consideration this of Planned Development Amendment Application to vacate
the existing Planned Development •
k.mley-h:irn com 99;) South Broad1•1ay Suite 200, De:ive r , CO 80209 303 228 2300
. .
•
e
I.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
COMMUNITY ROOtv1/CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
APRIL 21, 2015
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
6:00 p.m. in the Community Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Fish presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth (arrived 6:29), Madrid, Townley, Fish,
Pittinos (arrived 6:09),
Freemire (Excused)
Staff: Mike Flaherty, Deputy City Manager/Interim Community Development
Director
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
Harold Stitt, Senior Planner
John Voboril, Planner II
Audra Kirk, Planner I
Dugan Comer, Deputy City Attorney
Also Present: Brad Meighen, Logan Simpson
Kristina Kachur, Logan Simpson
~
II.
Brian Valentine, Kimley-Horn Associates
Adam Harrison, Kimley-Horn Associates
STUDY SESSION Englewood Comprehensive Plan Update
Harold Stitt, Senior Planner, shared the updated schedule of public meetings and a map
with 13 neighborhood areas identified in the City. The neighborhood areas are designated
to assist with small area planning as well as to identify needs specific to that area.
The next two Planning and Zoning Commission meeti ngs will include a study session to
examine the various neighborhood areas. The neighborhood assessments will result in
strategy and implementation recommendations. Mr. Meighen ex pla i ned that by
examining the City at a neighborhood area level, there will be more guidance for staff in
the Comprehensive Plan when evaluating new development for suitability.
~
Mr. Meighen outlined the various qualities that will be evaluated in each neighborhood.
He used the Bates Logan neighborhood to illustrate the criteria that will be used to identify
strengths, weaknesses and opportunities in each of the neighborhood areas . As an
example of a catalyst in a neighborhood, he poi nted out a school property that may be
available for redevelopment in the future and suggested that parcel may be an opportunity •
to rezone in order to determine what that possible redevelopment could be.
Discussion continued regarding the merits of changing zoning in some areas to encourage
higher density and commercial enterprises. It was determined that the possibility of
changing zoning from Sherman Street to Logan Street between Yale and Hampden will be
presented at the community meeting for the area. Mr. Voboril added that feedback
obtained from the community concerning the potential redevelopment of former school
sites indicates a preference for more senior housing.
Mr. Stitt and Mr. Meighen encouraged the Commissioners to comment on the draft of
Neighborhood Assessment document.
Note: After a brief break, the Commissioners moved to City Council Chambers for the
remainder of the meeting and public hearing. e
Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• April 7, 2015 Minutes
Knoth moved:
Bleile seconded: TO APPROVE THE APRIL 7, 2015 MINUTES
Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections. There were none.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish
None
None
Freemire
Motion carried. e
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #2015-01 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS &
VARIANCES
Knoth moved;
Bleile seconded:
AYES:
NAYS:
TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #2015-01 ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENTS & VARIANCES AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.
Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth , Madrid, Townley, Fish
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Freemire
2
•
•
Motion carried.
El
V. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #ZON2015-002 VACATION OF PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, GREENWOOD POINT APARTMENTS/AKA ''THE BROADWAY"
Knoth moved;
King seconded: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #ZON2015-002
VACATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, GREENWOOD POINT
APARTMENTS/AKA "THE BROADWAY"
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish
None
None
Freemire
Motion carried. e
STAFF PRESENTATION
Audra Kirk, Planner I, was sworn in. Ms. Kirk reviewed the applicant's request and the
history of the property. The application is to vacate the Planned Development (PD) on the
property at 5312 Broadway Circle, Englewood, Colorado, known as the Greenwood Point
Apartments. Ms. Kirk clarified that the property owner is CH Greenwood Point LLC, and
not Colrich (which manages the property).
(@
The vacation of the PD would result in the property reverting to the underlying zoning,
MU-R-3-B without development restrictions other than what currently exists in the Unified
Development Code. The prior amendments to the PD were reviewed. If the PD is
vacated, new development could be reviewed and approved administratively.
Q
Ms. Townley asked about the difference in density between the former R3 zoning and the
current MUR-3-B. Ms. Kirk responded that they are the same. e
Mr. Bleile asked if the current site building, size, density and parking are below the
current development requirements. Ms. Kirk responded that they are well below current
n~1Jlations that could be approved administratively.
Mr. Fish asked how many PDs are located in the City. Ms. Kirk responded that there are
20 other properties governed by PDs . Mr. Fish asked if they are similar types of properties
to the one being addressed by the public hearing.
El
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Neubecker explained that there 20
PDs scattered throughout the City. Mr. Neubecker was unfamiliar with the original
creation of the PD process. The PD process is no longer in the code. The PD process
3
creates an overlay and does not affect the underlying zoning as opposed to a PUD that
changes the zoning for a particular process. Discussion continued regarding the purpose
of Planned Developments. e
Mr. Fish inquired about the boundaries of the property. Ms. Kirk reviewed the map of the
area illustrating the boundaries and the adjoining properties. The parcel is adjoining to
Greenwood Village, Littleton and unincorporated Arapahoe County. e
The vacation of the PD would not create any non-conforming uses. Vacation of the PD
would not change the underlying MUR-3-B zoning. The parcel would no longer be
subject to the requirements of a public hearing to make changes within the development. e
Ms. Kirk explained that the applicant is proposing to build a new amenity building. With
the vacation of the PD, issues such as setbacks, height and other regulations per the UDC
(Unified Development Code) for the zone district MUR-3-B would apply to any future
development on the property. e
APPLICANT TESTIMONY
Brian Valentine, Kimley-Horn, 990 South Broadway Suite 200, Denver, CO, was sworn in.
Mr. Valentine thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to present their case. Mr.
Valentine represents Colrich, the property owners. He reviewed the history and other A
properties owned by Colrich in both the Denver metro area and nationally. He has •
worked on several properties that have undergone improvements after they were
purchased by Colrich.
~
Mr. Valentine reviewed the property via a PowerPoint presentation. Through the review
process with the City, it was determined that there are several barriers to adding an
additional residential building at the east property line due to fire access requirements and
constraints with utility service. e
At this time, the owners are considering adding an amenity building, expanding the pool
deck and remodeling the existing clubhouse. He stated that after meeting with
neighboring residents, the developer may be willing to adopt a development agreement
that would restrict building height on the east end of the property that is adjacent to
Greenwood Village. Any such agreement would be a permanent condition recorded w ith
the land.
El
Mr. Brick clarified that the Commission is not ruling on the merits of the buildings or
amenities; he also asked about the financial impact of the PD on the property owner. Mr.
Valentine confirmed that they are only seeking to vacate the PD and that the cost of
bringing changes to the PD to the Commission are approximately $10,000-$20,000,
which includes consultant expenses related to the public meetings, preparation for
hearings and preparation of renderings.
4
•
Mr. Bleile asked what the new building would be used for; Mr. Valentine responded that it
will be a fitness center. Mr. Bleile asked if the developer has intentions to sell the
property; Mr. Valentine replied that the company generally holds properties for long term
investment.
Mr. King inquired about the potential development agreement and the possibility of a
height restriction on the east end of the property. Mr. Valentine offered that the details
have not been established. Mr. King asked about the current building heights; Mr.
Valentine responded that they are approximately 60 feet in conformance with the MUR-3-
B regulations. e
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Todd Biggs, 6 Sunset Lane, Greenwood Village, was sworn in. Mr. Biggs' property adjoins
the Greenwood Point Apartments property. He expressed concern about changes being
made to the property without public review. His concern is about future development
and building height on the far east end of the property. Mr. Bleile asked how Mr. Biggs'
property would be affected should a building be constructed where the tennis courts and
dfl park are located. Mr. Biggs responded that his privacy and views would be affected.
Andy Buettner, 7 Sunset lane, Greenwood village, was sworn in. Mr. Buettner is
concerned about potential development on the east end of the Greenwood Point
Apartments property.
He is appreciative of the willingness of the developer to consider a development
a~ement.
Debbie Perry-Smith, 5475 South Clarkson Street, Greenwood Village, was sworn in. She
presented an e-mail that was written by Greenwood Village City Councilman Jerry Presley
who was unable to attend the public hearing. A copy was received for the record . She is
in agreement with the previous testimony by Mr. Biggs and Mr. Buettner. e
Mary O'Brien, 5548 South Washington Street, Littleton, was sworn in. She is opposed to
development at the east end of the property. e
REBUTTAL
Ms. Kirk responded to the question regarding the costs related to amendments to the PD;
in addition to the costs outlined by Mr. Valentine it would cost the applicant $1,000 in
fees to apply for a PD amendment.
Ms. Townley asked Ms. Kirk if the developer would still be required to go through the
Development Review Team process should the PD be vacated. Ms. Kirk responded that
although the Development Review Team process is not mandatory for projects, it is highly
encouraged as a valuable tool to address issues related to the development prior to formal
submittal.
5
Mr. King asked about the review process; Ms. Kirk responded that plans can be submitted
without going through the Development Review Team process but it would potentially
take longer for the approval process if they had not previously been reviewed.
El
Mr. Fish asked if applicants propose ideas that may not be feasible would the
Development Review Team offer feedback. Ms. Kirk responded that the Development
Review Team consists of members of various departments including Public Works,
Utilities, Fire, Building Division, Traffic, Wastewater as well as Community Development.
If there are issues with the plan, comments are provided to the applicant.
Mr. Bleile asked if vacating the PD would require a full Building Department permit
review for future alterations to the property. Ms. Kirk responded that any permit would be
subject to review for compliance with the UDC. Mr. Bleile asked if the current PD
includes a height and density restriction. Ms. Kirk replied that the current PD has density
and height limits of 60' (sixty feet). The density included in the current PD plan has a
density bonus that would allow for greater density than the underlying MUR-3-B zoning. e
Mr. Kinton asked if any precedence exists for vacating Planned Developments. He asked
if there is a process to continue with notification and public input into further
development. Ms. Kirk replied that there is not; that was the function of the PD. e
Mr. Madrid asked about the previously mentioned developer's agreement. Ms. Kirk •
reonded that the issue just became known prior to the public hearing.
Mr. King asked if it is practical to develop the section of the property in question . Ms . Kirk
indicated that it is permissible from a zoning standpoint but she could not comment on
the opinion of other City departments. e
Mr. Bleile asked if the PD limits the development with regards to heights and density . Mr.
Valentine responded that the underlying zoning dictates the height and density of the
development.
~
Ms. Townley asked if the company has any other properties that have development
agreements. Mr. Valentine responded that they do have one in Denver that is being
developed with height limits with waivers.
0
Mr. King asked Ms. Kirk if additional documentation exists for the PD . Ms. Kirk replied
that there is not.
~
Brick moved;
Knoth seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #ZON2015-002
VACATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GREENWOOD POINT
APARTMENTS/AKA THE BROADWAY.
6
. .
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish
None
None
Freemire
Motion carried.
~
Bleile moved;
King seconded: TO APPROVE CASE #ZON2015-002 VACATION OF PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT GREENWOOD POINT APARTMENTS/AKA THE
BROADWAY AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH A FAVORABLE
e RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
Discussion
Mr. Brick reminded the Commissioners that the task is to decide whether or not to vacate
the Planned Development. The Commissioners discussed the difference between a
Planned Development (PD) and a Planned Unit Development (PUD). e
Mr. Kinton commented on the unique location and features of the subject property with
rirds to being a good neighbor to adjacent jurisdictions.
Mr. Knoth stated that he feels this process is eliminating the need for time and resources to
bring deyelopment issues to the Commission.
Vote: e
Bleile -By reverting back to the base district zoning, it allows for pro-development, lower
cost of ownership that may be passed on to tenants; we want to make doing business with
Englewood easier, prevents large increases in density.
Brick -The original PD was perhaps created to be able to review the property. The
Englewood Comprehensive Plan states that Goal 1, Objective 1.5 -shape the region
pattern of growth and development by buffering and defining communities and 1.6 -
protect prominent visual features such as the Rocky Mountain Front Range and the South
Platte River corridor. There has been a history of solid cooperation between Englewood
and Greenwood Village. Because of the ambiguity of the PD document, he votes no
because he believes the public should have input.
King -Yes, continuing to require the landowner to amend the PD could negatively affect
the property due to the costs involved with requesting a change. His recommendation is
that the owner and the owner of the adjacent properties reach an agreement prior to the
City Council decision on the matter.
7
Kinton -Mr. Kinton concurs with Mr. Brick; we should take our neighbors into
consideration. He is also concerned about voting for something that reduces the public
process and public input. He is sympathetic to the applicant for the costs involved, but
without precedent he votes no.
Knoth -Yes, the requirement that the applicant submit to a public hearing is not in the
best interest of our City.
Q
Madrid -Yes, based on the testimony he does not see any additional gain in height or
setbacks between keeping the overlay vs. the MUR-3-B zoning. The current
administrative review process is adequate for this property. He also agrees that a
developer agreement would be appropriate. If the developer chooses to increase density
it will be in accordance with the City's goals. His vote is to remove the PD overlay.
Townley -Yes, although the current PD provides a process, it also creates barriers to
development and improving the housing stock within Englewood. A developer agreement
would be the right thing to do and would be a good thing to have in place prior to the City
Council meeting. e
Fish -Agrees with the Commissioners who voted yes. He believes the Comprehensive
Plan is very clear in its intent of Revitalization, Redevelopment and Reinvention that can
only be implemented with flexibility to allow developers to change their properties
appropriately.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bleile, King, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish
Brick, Kinton
None
Freemire
Motion passes.
VI. PUBLIC FORUM
No members of the public had comment for the Commission.
VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Deputy City Attorney Comer did not have any comments for the Commission.
VIII. STAFF'S CHOICE
Mr. Neubecker reminded the Commissioners that the meetings on May 5th and May 19 th
will begin at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the Comprehensive Plan.
VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
The Commissioners did not have any further comments.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
/s/ lulie Bailey , Recording Secretary
8
. .
r
•
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF CASE #ZON2015-002
GREENWOOD POINT PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT VACATION
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING
TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
INITIATED BY:
Kimley-Horn Associates
CH Greenwood Point LLC, Owner
4747 Morena Blvd. #100
San Diego, CA 92117
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE
CITY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Commission Members Present: Bleile, Brick, King, Kinton, Knoth Madrid, Townley, Fish
Commission Members Absent: Freemire
This matter was heard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on April 21,
2015, in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center.
Testimony was received from staff, the applicant and members of the public. The
Commission received notice of the Public Hearing, the Staff Report, and a copy of the
proposed change to the Greenwood Point Planned Development which were
incorporated into and made a part of the record of the Public Hearing.
After considering the statements of the witnesses 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 Case ZON2015-002, Vacation of the Planned
Development at 5312 Broadway Circle, also known as the Greenwood Point
Apartments (AKA "The Broadway"), was brought before the Planning and Zoning
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 9,
2015, Notice of the Public Hearing was on the City of Englewood website from April
14, 2015 to April 21, 2015.
3. THAT the Staff report was made part of the record.
4. THAT a Public Meeting was held on February 25, 201 S, and that notice of the Public
Hearing was mailed to owners and tenants of the property located with 1000 feet of
the subject property.
5. THAT testimony was received from the public at the Public Hearing.
6. THAT the applicant met with the City Development Review Team twice in the fall of
2014.
7. THAT the property is adjoining to multiple jurisdictions: Greenwood Village, Littleton
and Unincorporated Arapahoe County.
8. THAT the applicant proposes to vacate the Planned Development overlay in order to
allow flexibility for development of the property.
9. THAT the original Planned Development requirement for development of four or more
units is no longer included in the Unified Development Code.
10. THAT the underlying zoning of the property is MUR-3-8 and the regulations as such
will apply to any future development of the property.
11. THAT the Planned Development overlay requires a formal request and public process
in order to make amendments to the approved plan, which creates a financial burden
on the property owner.
CONCLUSIONS
1. THAT the proposed vacation of the Planned Development overlay will allow
changes to the development to be approved administratively by applying the
regulations contained in the Unified Development Code for the MUR-3-B zone
district.
2. THAT by vacating the Planned Development overly, the property owner will have
greater flexibility to improve the property.
3. THAT the property owner will be spared additional expenses related to the property
by having further development reviewed and approved administratively.
4 . THAT the underly ing zone district MUR-3-B allows for less density than the existing
Planned Development allows .
. ;
•
•
•
5. THAT the proposed changes are in conformance with the 2003 Englewood
Comprehensive Plan by supporting Redevelopment, Revitalization and Reinvention.
DECISION
THEREFORE, it is the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission that Case
#ZON2015-002 Vacation of the Greenwood Point Apartments/AKA "The Broadway"
Planned Development snould 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
Planning and Zoning Commission on April 21, 201 S by Bleile, seconded by King, which
motion states:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
TO APPROVE CASE #ZON2015-002 VACATION OF THE
GREENWOOD POINT APARTMENTS/AKA NTH£ BROADWA r•·
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS WRITTEN BE FORWARDED FOR
APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FA VORABlE
RECOMMENDATION.
Bleile, King, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish
Brick, Kinton
None
Freemire
Motion carried.
These Findings and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting on April 21, 2015.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION