HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 Ordinance No. 029t
•
ORDINANCE NO . .-Z 7
SERIES OF 2014
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 24
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER JEFFERSON
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTER 2, SECTIONS 2, 7, 9, AND
TITLE 16, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE
2000, PERTAJNING TO ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the current regulations list examples of where formal Zoning Site Plan
review is required. Plan review is performed by the Community Development
Department. Staff reviews and approves or denies the proposed use based on the zoning,
as well as dimensional standards such as setbacks, height, parking and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the current Zoning Site Plan Review process outlined in the Unified
Development Code (Section 16-2-9) does not address projects that involve site planning
not associated with a building permit; and
WHEREAS, the changes proposed to the existing Zoning Site Plan Review process
(Section 16-2-9 EMC) include a change from the term "Zoning Site Plan" to "Site
Improvement Plan"; and
WHEREAS, the changes proposed require Site Improvement Plan review for site
work and landscaping over $5,000 in value; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned that $5,000 would
become outdated and discussed including a CPI component; however, such was not
included in the proposal to City Council; and
WHEREAS, under 16-2-9(A)(4) EMC, the Planning and Zoning Commission had a
great deal of discussion regarding the exception of residential driveways; however, no
recommendation was made; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission extended the lapse date from 60
days to 180 days, which requires a correction in Chart 16-2-2 EMC; and
WHEREAS, Site Improvement Plan review will remain an administrative decision;
and
WHEREAS, appeals to administrative decisions are to the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of these changes at the February 20, 2014 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
1
Tl bi
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado berby authorizes
amending Title 16, Chapter 2, Section 9, of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to
read as follows:
16-2-9: Zeeiog Site Improvement Plan Review.
A. Applicability. No land or structure shall be used, occupied, built, constructed upon,
~ or developed for any use without complying with the Zeemg Site
Improvement Plan requirements and procedures provided in this Section, as
applicable. A Zeniag Site Improvement Plan shall be required for any of the
following:
1. The commencement of all~ development, improvement, or construction
requiring a building permit, except for interior remodel aae or interior
tenant finish.
2 . The construction or expansion of fences, walls, aae ~ accessory structures
(e.g., garages, carports, storage sheds, decks) in all mu: zone districts,
including decks apd patios less than thirty inches (30") in height and
residential accessory structures containing less than eae um hundred
Plleftty (~ ~ square feet in floor area, or commercial accessory
structures containing less than one hundred twenty O 70l square feet that
Ele ~ not otherwise require a building permit.
3. Accessory uses, not including home occupations, marked as "A" in the
applicable table cell in Table 16-5-1 .1, "Table of Allowed Uses".
4. The construction, re-installation, expansion, alteration. removal, surfacing,
paying, or resurfacing of a parking area except for a resideptial driveway,
Site work, land.s;aping, grading, or excavation in excessJ>f five thousand
d0Uws as 000) in yalue as detenpinedhv a rgsopable contract or bid
consistent with prices for such materials and seryjces in the Denyer
metropolitan area,
Addjtions and exterim; alterations of agy structw;c resulting in a changs
equal to or greater \boo ten percent OQ°4l of the (loorar,ea of the structure,
Any change that reduces the setback to a property tine.
B. Initiation. An application for a Zeemg Site Improvement Plan may~ be
initiated by those parties identified in Section 16-2-3(A) EMC. The "Aqant"
shall be the person persons or JegaJ entity that initiates the application for a Site
Improvement Plan.
c. City Review. The Applicant shaH submit a plan of the proposed development or
improvement showing the location of all property boundaries, the location and
djmensjons oLall existing and proposed structures flncJµding accessory structures
such as garages.,sheds, outbuilding§, trash enclpsuu;s shelters, etc,}, the Jgcation
and surface material of an parking areas, driveways and sidewalks, the location of
2
't
•
•
all landscaping finctuding species and size}. fences and retaining walls, Applicant
shall aJso submit plans showing the location of an existing and proposed stonn
water detention faci1ities as required by Section 16-6-8 EMC. The Applicant shall
submit copies of plans. including site plan. floor plans and elevations of an
proposed structures. 1n addition. the applicant shan submit ejther as-built plans or
photographs of an exi sting structures on the property,
1. General Development Applications.
a. Development/Use Requiring a Building Permit. The City Manager or
designee shall review the proposed ZoeiBg Site Improvement Plan as
part of the building permit application process. Based on the results of
t:hese 11w: reviews, the City Manager or designee shall act to approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the proposed ZoeiBg Site
Improvement Plan based on the review criteria stated in Section 16-2-
9{D) EMC, below.
b. Development/Uses Not Requiring a Building
Permit.
The City Manager or designee shall review the
proposed ZeeiBg Site lmproyemept Plan for
compliance with applicable standards of this
Title. Based on the results of these ~ reviews,
the City Manager or designee shall
act to approve, approve with conditions,
or deny the proposed Zenifig Site Improvement
Plan based on the review criteria stated in
Section 16-2-9(D) EMC, below. A copy of the
approved ZeeiBg Site Improyemept Plan shall
be maintained by the City.
Pceljminary Review: Applicants arc encouraged to
contact the City in advance of submittal for (onpaJ Site
Improvement PJan Review or application for a BuiJding
Penpit to obtain preliminary feedback on the proposed
development.
PJan Format; Jbe Site Improvement Plan shall meet the following
requirements;
Sites <to.ooo square feet: Scale; t" = 20· or J" = 10·
City Staff
Decision
Initiation
Zening Site
Improvement Plan
Review
Sheet size; 24" x 36" or s ½" x 11" or J l" x 17"
Sites >to.ooo square feet; Scale; I"= 10· or other increments of 10· as
approved by the City of Englewood,
Sheet size: 24" x 36" or 3Q" x 42" or 36" x 48"
Site plans shall depict the property corners and au pennanent survey
monuments, NJ plans shall clearly indicate the size of the site On square
feet and in acres}. existing and proposed building areas fin square feet},
3
building setbacks to property Jines, and proposed building height. In
addition, all existing and proposed exterior building materials shall be shown
on the plan elevations. A landscaping plan shall accompany au site plans
and shall include existing and proposed groupd surfaces, location of all
existing trees and other significant vegetation, as wen as size, species and
number of aJJ proposed landscaping. [Exception; A landscaping plan shall
not be required for development that does not involve the removal of
existing landscaping or the addition of new landscaping.)
D. Criteria. All Zeeieg Site Improvement Plans shall be reviewed, and shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the following criteria:
1. Consistency with Adopted Plans and Standards.
a. Consistency with the spirit and intent of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and this Title;
b. Compliance and consistency with any applicable Station Area
Standards and Guidelines for property in the TSA district;
c. If approval of a conditional use is being requested as part of a ZeB:iBg
Site Improvement Plan, eensisten~ compliance with all applicable
conditional use standards and criteria listed in this Section and in
Section 16-2-12 EMC; and
d. If approval of a limited use is being requested as part of a Site
Improvement Plan compliance with all applicable limited use
standards and criteria listed in this section and in Section 16-2-13
EMC:and
a e. Censisteney Compliance with all other applicable standards,
guidelines, policies, and plans adopted by Council.
2. hnpact on Existing City Infrastructure and Public Improvements. The
proposed development shall not result in undue or unnecessary burdens on
the City's existing infrastructure and public improvements, or that
arrangements 6f8 shall be made to mitigate such impacts.
3. Internal Efficiency of Design. The proposed design of the site ~ achieves
internal efficiency for its ysgs, provide adequate ef recreation; allow for
~ public access;safeey and ether faetefS, mekidi:ng 1:ret net Hmited te
prmjde adequate storm drainage facilities, se•v;er and water faeHities, grades,
and matt:ers relatmg Elifeet;Jy te and promote oublic health and convenience.
All sites shaU he designed and constructed to safely accommodate
pedestrians. bicyclists and automobiles.
4. Control of External Effects. The proposed development eoet;rols shaH reduce
external negative effects orn-Nnearby land uses-;~ movement and
congestion of traffie;, This shall include negative impacts from noise,
lighting signage, landscaping, accumulation oflitter aeise genei:atee;
8:ffafigemeet ef signs and ligbtiag te pre¥est ll:li:isanees, ledseapiag, features
4
•
•
•
•
•
ta pFe•,•eBt littel'ing er aeelHBYl&aen eftrasa, and other factors deemed to
affect public health, welfare, safety and convenience.
E. After.Approval.
t. The City shall approve the proposed Site Improvement Plan ;r the plan meets
an requirements of this chapter or an applicable Planned Unit Development
cPUQ}; complies with an regujred adopted plans. codes and standards; and
any negative impacts 00 existing or planned cjty infrastructure have been
mitigated.
2.
Compliance with Zeeieg Site Improvement Plan Approval. The Zeeieg Site
Improyemcnt Plan shall limit and control the issuance and validity of all
building permits and occupancy permits and shall restrict and limit the
construction, location, use, and operation of all land and structures included
within the Zoning Site lmproyement Plan to all limitations and conditions set
forth in the approved Zeaing Site Improvement Plan. Failure to maintain a
property in compliance with its approved Zeeieg Site hnproyement Plan
shall be a basis for enforcement action under this Title.
Lapse: General Development Applications. A Zeaing Site Improvement Plan
shall lapse and be of no further force and effect if a building permit, or City
Manager or designee approval, as required, is not issued for the property
subject to the Zenieg Site Improvement Plan within~ one hundred and
eighty ( ~ .wl.) days from the date of approval of the Zoeieg Site
Improvement Plan's appre•lal .
Lapse: PUI> anEl TSA f411:1lieatiees. l·, Zening Site Plan shall lapse asEl be of
ne further feree aeEl effeet if a buildieg peBBit, as fe(t\Hred, is eat isffi=¼ed fef
the J:1F0perty ss-ejeet te Ute Zening Site Plan w4this thfee (3) yeafS fi:em the
date efthe Zening Site Plan's appre:r;al.
F. Modification and Amendment ofZening Site hnproyement Plans.
1.
2.
Any approved Zeraag Site Improvement Plan may be modified or amended
as provided in this subsection or entirely withdrawn by the )enEl0•.1mer
Applicant if a building pennit has pot been issued. Once a building permit
has been issued. the building pennit and Site Improvement Plan shall
control, unless both the building pennit and Site Improvement Plan are
thereafter amended or abandoned as identified in this chapter.
The City Manager or designee may approve, or approve with conditions, an
administrative modification to an approved TSA district Zeemg Site
Improvement Plan without notice to the public, if the proposed change does
not produce any of the following conditions:
a. An increase in residential density, nonresidential floor area ratio
(FAR), or ground coverage of structures of more than ten percent
(10%) .
5
b. An increase in external effects concerning traffic, circulation. safety
noise, or provision of utilities.
c. A reduction or increase in building setbacks that would violate the
requirements of the TSA district standards by more than ten percent
(10%).
d. A reduction in the amount of required off-street parking.
~ A reduction in the amount of required landscaping.
3. Any proposed amendment that does not qualify for review and approval as
an administrative modification to a Zemag Site Improvement Plan shall be
reviewed and approved in the same manner as an application for a new
ZaAiBg Site Improvement Plan. and shall be subject to the same approval
criteria and appeal as a new application for a Zeamg Site Improvement Plan.
4. An application for administrative modifications to an approved Zaeieg Site
Improvement Plan shall be subject to the administrative rules and regulations
established by the City Manager or designee. Any proposed amendment shall
comply with the current regulations, standards, and guidelines for
development in the zone district in which the property is located.
6
•
•
•
I
•
•
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado berby authorizes
amending Title 16, Chapter 2, Section 2 entitled Summary Table of Administrative and
Review Roles of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows:
16-2-2: Summary Table of Administrative and Review Roles.
The following table summarizes the review and decision-making responsibilities of the
entities that have specific roles in the administration of the procedures set forth in this
Chapter. For purposes of this table, an "(Approval) Lapsing Period" refers to the total
time from the application's approval that an applicant has to proceed with, and often
complete, the approved action. Failure to take the required action within the specified
"lapsing period" will automatically void the approval. See Section 16-2-3.L EMC,
"Lapse of Approval," below.
Adaptive Reuse of 16-5-3 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ None
. Designated Historical
Builrungs
Administrative 16-2-✓ D A None
Adjustments 17
Administrative Land 16-2-✓ D A 60 days to
Review Pcnnit 11 record
Amendments to the Text 16-2-6 R R D ✓ None
of this Title
Annexation Petitions 16-2-5 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ None
Appeals to Board 16-2-✓ D ✓ None
18
Comprehensive Plan 16-2-4 R R D ✓ None
Amendments
Conditi onal Use Permits 16-2-✓ R D A ✓ ✓ lycar
12
Conditional Use -16-7 ✓ R D A ✓ ✓ ✓ None
Telecommunication
Development Agreements 16-2-R D As stated in
15 Agreement
Floodplain Dev't Permit See Chapter 16-4 for applicable procedures and standards
and Floo dplain Varian ces
Historic Preservation 16-6-✓ R R D ✓ ✓ None
11
Landmark Sign 16-6-✓ D A ✓ ✓
13
Limited Review Use 16-2-✓ D A I year
7
'
Permits 13
Major Subdivisions 16-2-
10 • Preliminary Plat ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ ✓ 6 months to
submit Final
Plat
Final Plat R R D ✓ ✓ ✓ 60 days to
record
Simultaneous Review ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ ✓ 60 days to
Preliminary Plat/Final record
Plat
Recorded Final Plat None
Minor Subdivision 16-2-
11
Preliminary Plat ✓ D A 6 months to
submit Final
Plat
Final Plat D A 60 days to
record
Recorded Final Plat None
Official Zoning Map 16-2-7 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ ✓ None
Amendments (Rezonings)
PUD and TSA Rezonini;s 16-2-7 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ ✓ None
Temporary Use Permits 16-2-✓ D A As stated in
14 Permit
Unlisted Use 16-S-✓ D A None
Classifications l.B • ~ Site Improvement 16-2-9 D A ~
PIBJJ 1§9dw
Zoning Variances 16-2-✓ R D ✓ ✓ 180 days
16
CM/D = City Manager or Deslgnee (Including the Development Review Team)
PC = Planning and Zoning Commission
CC • City Council
BAA = Board of Adjustment and Appeals
1 Notice Required: See Table 16-2-3.1 Summary of Malled Notice Requirements
•
8
•
•
Section 3. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado herby 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 changes, 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.
Rezooings to a Planned Unit Development district (PUD) or Transit Station Area (TSA)
district are subject to additional procedures and criteria as set forth in this Section.
I. After Approval-Lapsing Period.
1. Base District Rezoning. An approved base district rezoning shall not lapse,
but shall remain in effect until superceded by a later or inconsistent
amendment to, or replacement of, the official zoning map. However, if the
City has required the submission of a ZeBiBg Site Improyemept Plan as part
of the rezoning process, and has approved a ZeBieg Site Improvement Plan
for the rezoned property, and the 60Bisg Site Improvement Plan later lapses
pursuant to Section 16-2-9-0;} EMC, the Council may initiate a rezoning of
the property to its prior zone map designation, or to an alternative
designation more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan .
2. PUD or TSA rezoning. An approved PUD or TSA district rezoning shall not
lapse, but shall remain in effect until superceded by a later or inconsistent
amendment to, or replacement of, the official zoning map.
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado herby authorizes
amending Title 16, of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to change the term "Zoning
Site Plan" to "Site Improvement Plan" in the following Sections:
16-2-7(1)(1) -in 3 places
16-2-13(A)
16-2-13(0)
16-2-15 -in the intro paragraph
16-2-lS(A)
16-2-lS(E)
16-2-19(B)(3)
16-2-19(C)(3}-in 4 places
16-2-19(E)
16-2-19(H)
16-3-2(0)(1)
16-5-2(A)(7)
16-5-3(7)
16-5-S(D)(l)
16-5-5(E)(l )(b )(3)
16-6-3(F)(2)(c)(3)
9
16-6-3(F)(2)(f) -in 2 places
16-6-S(E)
16-6-6(B)(2)-in heading
l 6-6-6(B)(2)(a)
16-6-6(B)(2)(b)
16-6-6(B)(2)(c)-in 2 places
16-6-7(C)
16-6-7(E)(3)(b)
l 6-6-10(B)(3)
16-6-10(B)(5)(d)(2)-in 2 places
16-6-1 0(B)(S)( d)( 4)
16-6-13(0)(3)
16-6-14(E)(2)
16-6-14(E)(3)
16-6-l 4(E)(3 )(b)
I6-6-14(E)(3)(d)-in 2 places
16-6-14(F)(3)
16-6-14(G)(3)
16-11-2 -Definitions -Site specific Development Plan ( c)
Zoning Site Plan
Section 5. Safety Clauses. The City Council hereby finds, determines, 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 determines that
the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be
obtained.
Section 6. 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 7. 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 8. 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 9. Penalty. The Penalty Provision of Section 1-4-1 EMC shall apply to each
and every violation of this Ordinance.
10
•
•
I
..
•
•
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 5th day of May, 2014.
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 9th
day of May, 2014.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 7th
day of May, 2014 for thirty (30) days.
A Public Hearing was held on the 19th day of May, 2014.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 2nd day of June, 2014.
Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No.6fj, Series of
2014, on the 6th day of June, 2014.
Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 4th day of
June, 2014 for thirty (30) days.
This Ordinance shall taJce effect thirty (30) days after publication following final passage .
I, Loucrishia A Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify
that the above and foregoing is a tru)~y of the Ordinance passed on final reading and
published by title as Ordinance No~ Series of 2014.
~-{1-3
11
•
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
May 5, 2014 11 a iii An Ordinance Adopting Amendments to Title 16
Concerning Site Improvement Plans
Initiated By: Staff Source:
Community Development Department Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
This item has not been previously discussed by City Council. However, this ordinance advances the City
Council goals of having clear regulations, and also ensuring that large developments can obtain approval of
site plans before applying for building permits, which involves significantly more investment in architectural
and structural plans.
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this proposal to amend Title 16: Unified Development
Code, Site Improvement Plans at a Study Session on January 22, 2014. The Commission conducted a Public
Hearing on February 20, 2014. There were no members of the public that testified at the public hearing.
•
Following discussion, the Commission voted in favor of forwarding to City Council the proposed
amendments to Title 16, Chapter 2: "Development Review and Approval Procedures", 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 Site Improvement Plans on First Reading,
and setting May 19, 2014 as the date for a Public Hearing to consider testimony on the proposed
amendments.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The current Zoning Site Plan Review process in the Unified Development Code (Section 16-2-9) does not
fully address projects that involve site work not associated with a building permit. For example, the
developer of Sprouts Farmers Market on South Broadway was seeking approval of their site plan before
applying for a building permit, which requires much greater plan detail and additional cost to the developer.
The Sprouts developer needed approval of a site plan in order to secure financing. This is a fairly common
requirement in the development financing industry. Site plan review is not currently required for major
landscaping or major site work, other than paving parking lots. The current Development Code also lacks
sufficient detail on submittal requirements and needs updating to reflect new size thresholds for building
permits.
In addition, staff recommends changing from "Zoning Site Plan" to "Site Improvement Plan." This change is
proposed because most of the plan review performed by staff relates more to the proposed site
improvements than to the zoning. This change will clarify that site work, or "site improvements," require
review and approval by the City. This is particularly relevant for existing uses, where there is no need to
review the zoning, but where site improvements requiring plan review are proposed.
ANALYSIS
Site plan review is performed by planners in the Community Development Department with input from
other members of the Development Review Team. Staff reviews and approves (or denies) the proposed
development based on the zoning, as well as dimensional standards such as setbacks, height, parking and
landscaping. In many cases, current codes are not clear if certain development activities require site plan
review. Also, in many cases, property owners or developers are seeking approval of the site plan (which is
relatively inexpensive to produce) before committing resources to the building design (which is more
expensive).
The proposed changes will clarify requirements on the plan format and information that must be included
for plan review. For example, the current regulations do not specify the sheet size of the plan, or the scale
required on the plan. These are basic elements of site planning that should be listed in the regulations.
The primary changes proposed to the existing Zoning Site Plan Review process (Section 16-2-9 EMC)
include the following:
• Change from "Zoning Site Plan" to "Site Improvement Plan"
• Require Site Improvement Plan review for site work and landscaping over $5,000 in value. (This
amount was chosen because it was determined as a cutoff between "minor" and "major"
landscaping.)
• Require Site Improvement Plan review for alterations to existing structures resulting in a change of
•
floor area of 10% or greater, or any change that reduces the setback to a property line
• Provide more detail on the submittal requirements for plans and plan format •
• The lapsing period for approval of site improvement plans would change from 60 days to 180 days
• Change the size threshold for building permits to match new building codes
• Other syntax changes to improve readability and enforceability of the code
Site Improvement Plan review will remain an administrative decision. Appeals to administrative decisions
are to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. As proposed, this policy would apply to both residential and
nonresidential properties.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There should be a positive financial impact on the City through additional collection of Use Tax identified
through the Site Improvement Plan review process. This ordinance should also have a positive financial
impact by encouraging new development and facilitating approval of site plans before developers move on
to the more expensive architectural and structural plans required for a building permit.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -February 20, 2014
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -February 20, 2014
Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact• Case No. 2013-09
Bill for an Ordinance
•
•
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
M E M O R A N D U M
Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan White, Community Development Director V
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner ✓
February 20, 2014
Case 2013-09 -Public Hearing
Site r mprovement Plans
Recommendations
The Community Development Department request that the Planning & Zoning Commission
review, take public testimony, and forward to Oty Council a recommendation for adoption
the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code of the Englewood Municipal
Code, Title 16, Chapter 2, Development Review and Approval Procedures, relating to
Zoning Site Plan Review .
Background
The current Zoning Site Plan Review process outlined in the Unified Development Code
(Section 16-2-9) does not fully address projects that involve site planning not associated
with a building permit For example, Sprouts Farmers Market on S. Broadway was seeking
approval of their site plan before moving forward with the building permit process which
requires much greater plan detail. landscaping and major site work are also not listed as
activities requiring site plan review. The current code also lacks sufficient detail on submittal
requirements and needs to be updated to reflect current size thresholds for building permit.
rn addition, staff recommends changing from "Zoning Site Plan" to "Site Improvement PlanH
to clarify that plan review applies to improvements proposed, and not just compliance with
zoning.
Analysis
The current regulations list examples of where formal Zoning Site Plan review is required.
Plan review is performed by planners in the Community Development Department Staff
reviews and approves (or denies) the proposed uses based on the zoning, as well as
dimensional standards such as setbacks and heigh~ parking and landscaping. fn many cases,
it is not clear if certain development activities require zoning site plan review. Also, in many
cases, property owners or developers are seeking approval of the site plan (which is
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PHONE 303-762·2342 FAX 303 783-6895
W\-.,nslewoaclaov.org
relatively inexpensive to produce) before committing resources to the building design •
(which is more expensive).
The proposed changes will also set clear requirements on the plan format and information
that must be supplied for plan review. for example, the current regulations do not specify
the sheet size of the plan, or the scale required on the plan. These are basic elements of a
site plan that should be listed in the regulations.
The primary changes proposed t o the exis tin g Zoning Site Plan Review process (Section 16-
2-9 EMC) include the following:
• Change from "Zoning Site Plan" to "Site Improvement Plan"
• Require Site Improvement Plan review for site work and landscaping over $5,000 in
value
• Require Site Improvement Plan review for alterations to existing structures resulting
in a change of floor area of 10% or greater, or any change that reduces the setback
to a property line
• Provide more detail on the submittal requirements for plans and plan format
• Other syntax changes th a t improve the readability and enforceability of the code.
Information on the Development Review Team (ORT) that was included in previous
versions of this proposal has been removed. We have determined that while this service is
valuable to property owners and developers, it is not something that directly regulates the •
review process, and should not be included in the Unified Development Code.
Site Improvement Plan review will remain an administrative decision. Appeals to
administrative decisions are to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission support the proposed code
changes as presented.
A motion to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to City Council is
needed.
Next Ste ps
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 Site Improvement Plans
•
►
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Englewood Civic Center City Council Chambers
February 20, 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 Brick
presiding.
Present:Roth, Knoth, Brick, Kinton, Townley, Fish, Freemire, Madrid (alternate)
Absent:Bleile (Excused), King (Excused)
Staff:Alan White, Director, Community Development
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
-Dan Brotzman, City Attorney
•
Chair Brick added election of officers to the agenda.
►
II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 4, 2013
Fish moved;
Freemire seconded: TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 4, 2013 MINUTES
Chair Brick asked if there were any modifications or corrections. Mr. Fish requested
that the attendance record be modified to remove Mr. Welker and reflect that Ms.
Townley and Mr. Knoth were in attendance.
AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire
NAYS:None
ABSTAIN:Brick
ABSENT:Bleile, King
Motion carried.
►
Ill.PUBLIC HEARING 2013-06 NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES
Fish moved;
Knoth seconded: To open public hearing for Case #2013-06 Non-Conforming
Structures
AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick
NAYS:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:Bleile, King
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Neubecker reviewed the history of
Case #2013-06 Non-Conforming Structures. The issue was raised when the Community
Housing Development Association (CHDA) contacted the City in August, 2013,
requesting a zoning text amendment. The existing UDC contains language which
prohibits non-conforming structures from being rebuilt to the same size and scale as
they currently exist if that element of the design is not conforming. CHDA purchased
and renovated properties in the MU-R-3B district that are over the allowed density for
that site (21 and 22 units each) based on the lot area. If the buildings were destroyed or
incurred damage of 60% or more based on cost, the buildings could only be rebuilt at
11 and 12 units respectively. The entities financing the properties are concerned
because of the potential loss of value.
The UDC was reviewed and revised language is being proposed to allow the buildings
to be rebuilt. Language has also been revised to allow voluntary redevelopment in the
event that a property owner would want to demolish and rebuild, even when there is no
damage to the building. A time limit is also proposed that would require the applicant
to obtain a building permit within one year from the time the building was damaged or
destroyed.
Staff recommends that the text amendment be submitted to City Council for First
Reading.
►
Questions from the Commission:
Ms. Townley requested clarification that the issue is the non -conforming structure or the
land use. Mr. Neubecker responded that this ordinance does not address the
•
•
•
nonconforming use of the land, only the structure.
Mr. Knoth asked if the density could be increased; Mr. Neubecker responded that the
structure could be rebuilt to the current allowed density for that zoning area or the
previous density of the non-conforming structure, whichever is greater.
Mr. Freemire inquired as to what the remedy would be for an aggrieved party who did
not agree with the changes made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr.
Neubecker responded that the decision would be made by staff and would not come
before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Appeals of administrative decisions go to
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Mr. Roth commented on the actual number of structures in R-1-A, of which 5 are
known, and the desire of City Council to preserve the standards for R-1-A. He
expressed that in C (1 )(b) of the proposal, he was concerned with the language in the
last sentence regarding "undue burden on the owner" in regards to meeting the zoning
standards. Mr. Neubecker explained that the intent is to determine the impact of the
redevelopment in the area and the rights of property owners, seeking a balance
between the two. Mr. Roth asked who makes the determination of undue burden and
Mr. Neubecker responded that the staff is responsible for the administrative decisions
regarding redevelopment.
Mr. Fish asked how it is determined if a property is deemed to be non-conforming in
light of the fact that there is no accurate list of properties. Mr. Neubecker replied that
the list that the Community Development department has is a list of non-conformities
based specifically on lot size and existing density. The list is created using information
from Arapahoe County Assessors office, which contains information regarding the
number of units in a structure.
Dan Brotzman, City Attorney, was sworn in to address the issue of "undue burden" as it
relates to property development. Mr. Brotzman explained that "undue burden" will
always be defined by discussion between Staff and the property owner. Mr. Brotzman
agreed to supply the Commission with a document defining "undue burden."
►
Chair Brick verified that the City Attorneys office would like "undue burden" to not be
tied to economic factors.
►
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, stated that when applicants seek remedy with the
Board of Adjustments, the result is generally a variance. He read the standards that
apply to variances, and suggested that similar criteria would be used to determine -
"undue burden". He offered that the language in 16-9-3:C(l )(b) can be amended to
delete the statement "and where meeting such zoning standards does not create an
undue burden on the owner."
►
Jo Ellen Davidson, Director of Community Housing Development Association (CHDA),
325 Inverness Drive South, Englewood, was sworn in.
Ms. Davidson thanked the Commissioners for their consideration of CHDAs request for
amendment. Ms. Davidson described the mission of the CHDA and its history in
Englewood. She supplied the Commissioners with information regarding the financial
investment CHDA has made in the buildings comprising the Canterbury East and South
apartments and the Presidential Arms apartments in Englewood. One objective of
CHDA is to make a significant improvement in the community. Their funding is from a
variety of both pub I ic and private resources. She expressed that they are concerned
over the potential loss of the properties in light of the fact that all improvements are
completed up front when CHDA acquires the property. They have a long term
commitment to the properties and make improvements for long term use.
►
The Commissioners did not have any questions for Ms. Davidson.
Staff did not have a rebuttal to present.
Mr. Knoth motioned;
Mr. Fish seconded: To close the public hearing for Case #2013-06 Non-Conforming
Structures
AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick
NAYS:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:Bleile, King
Motion to approve staff recommendation for Case #2013-06 Non-Conforming
Structures
Knoth moved;
Roth seconded: TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR CASE #2013-06
NON CONFORMING STRUCTURES
•
•
•
Mr. Roth offered a friendly amendment to strike language from 16-9-3 C(l )(b) "and
where meeting such zoning standards does not create an undue burden on the owner."
Mr. Brick commented that in line with the Comprehensive Plan, it is important to
support organizations both private and public that are interested in improving the
housing stock in the City of Englewood and it is important that the Commission support
these efforts, particularly for buildings such as CHDAs to promote the health and
welfare of the community.
Mr. Fish agreed with the exclusion of the language due to the fact that the property
owner does have recourse if they disagree with the decision of the staff.
Mr. Knoth commented that the amendment would protect the income of the property
owner by insuring that they could continue to receive the same income from the
property if they are allowed to reconstruct the building with the same number of units.
Mr. Fish added that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals does not rule based on
monetary issues, but strictly deals with variances which are exceptions to the code
regarding safety issues. His experience with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is
that they would not rule based on financial impact.
Mr. Roth reiterated that the intent of the change in the zoning code is to allow the
owner to rebuild to the original density.
►
Vote: TO APPROVE CASE #2013-06 NON CONFORMING STRUCTURES AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO STRIKE LANGUAGE
IN 16-9-3 C(l)(b) "AND WHERE MEETING SUCH ZONING STANDARDS DOES NOT
CREATE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE OWNER."
►
Mr. Fish -We have series of non-conforming buildings that will continue to degrade
and as a community need to seek a mechanism to maintain and improve these
buildings. As evidenced by testimony received, at least one situation has occurred in
which these buildings that were non-conforming have not only been maintained but
improved. This is something that needs to be encouraged by the city as it pertains to
the Comprehensive Plan. Higher density exceptions have been granted through the
PUD process as exceptions to the underlying zoning structure and this is a trend for the
City of Englewood and may be included in a future Comprehensive Plan to align with
the trend not only in Englewood but nationally.
Mr. Kinton agreed with Mr. Fish that anything that can be done to improve the housing
stock should be encouraged.
►
AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick
NAYS:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:Bleile, King
Motion carries.
IV.PUBLIC HEARING 2013-09 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW
►
Knoth moved;
Roth seconded: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-09 ZONING SITE
PLAN REVIEW
AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick
NAYS:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:Bleile, King
►
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, described the Zoning Site Plan Review process as
outlined in 16-2-9 of the UDC. The proposed amendment would change the title of 16-
2-9 to Site Improvement Plan Review. The proposed amendment would outline the
process staff uses to review an application that is not otherwise going to the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Examples are a building permit, review of a landscaping
plan, a major site plan and projects that are not large enough to require Planning
Commission or Board of Adjustment approval. The majority of the work performed by
current planning staff is review of plans against current codes.
►
The proposed changes would allow an applicant to go through the Site Improvement
Plan process before moving on to the permitting process which requires a higher level
of detail and formal building plans. The process is not always about zoning, but about
the actual layout of the site itself. The proposed changes would clarify when the Site
Plan Review process is necessary and also the types of application materials that are
required to be submitted including the size and the scale of the plans for review.
Should a property owner be challenged by these requirements, staff can assist with
creating plans containing the information.
►
The major changes proposed in dude changing the title of the code to Site Improvement
Plan Review, the requirement of plan review for large site work projects and
landscaping over $5,000 in value, alterations of floor area in excess of 10% of the floor
area or reduction in the setback to a property line, additional detail on the plans
submitted and minor syntax changes that improve the readability and enforceability of
the code. Previous recommendations, including language on the ORT (Development
Review Team), have been removed from the proposed amendment. Site Improvement
Plan Review remains an administrative function and appeals to administrative decisions
are made through the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
►
Ms. Townley asked if this process would apply to any type of property. Mr. Neubecker
responded that it would apply to all properties regardless of zone area. He also
clarified that the requirement for the process would not preclude a property owner from
occupying their home.
Mr. freemire commented on the language in 16-2-9 A(S) and the threshold of $5,000
for the project value. He suggested that some type of multiplier or index be included to
account for inflation and increased cost of a project. Mr. Neubecker stated that there is
not precedence for including a contingency for inflation, which would be difficult to
calculate and hard for some people to understand .
Mr . Roth questioned the need for the additional language in 16-2-9 (A)(4) regarding
residential driveways . The current code does not contain a definition of a residential
driveway. Mr. Neubecker supplied the Commissioners with information on the
definition of a driveway as it is stated in the City of Englewood UDC as well as from
other sources. The reason for adding the phrase "residential driveway" is to clarify that
Site Improvement Plan Review is not necessary, and to eliminate a conflict with a
previous citizens initiative.
►
Mr. Fish noted a change to 16-2-9 (8)(3) to correct a typographical error "Sites ~
10,000 square feet: Scale 1" = 10.
► -
Fish proposed changes to 16-2-9 D(l )(band e) to associate the term "compliance" with
standards and policy, and the term "consistency" with guidelines.
►
No public was present at the hearing.
Alan White, Director, spoke about the 180 day time limit as a commonly accepted
standard for a time frame for a project to be completed from the time it has gone
through the Site Improvement Plan Review process.
►
Knoth moved;
Roth seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-09 SITE
IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW
AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick
NAYS:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT:Bleile, King
Knoth moved;
Fish seconded: TO APPROVE CASE #2013-09 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW AS
WRITTEN BY STAFF
►
Mr. Fish requested that the length of the lapse between review and implementation be
changed from 60 days to 180 days. Mr. Knoth accepted the Friendly Amendment. The
clerical error will be corrected to reflect the proper scale for plans.
AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick
NAYS:None
ABST AIN:None
ABSENT:Bleile, King
Motion passes.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM
No Public was present.
V.AlTORNEYS CHOICE
►
Attorney Brotzman had no comment.
►
VI.STAFFS CHOICE
•
•
Mr. Neubecker announced that the March 4th meeting will be a continuation of the
discussion regarding the TSA overlay in the industrial area. Staff members attended the
"Safe Routes to School" meting and information received was helpful. He thanked
Commissioner Townley and Commissioner Kinton for attending.
►
VII.COMMISSIONERS CHOICE
Chair Brick requested a motion for a nomination for Chair.
Mr. Roth moved;
Mr. Knoth seconded: To nominate Mr. Fish for Chair and Mr. King for Vice Chair of
the Commission
AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick
NAYS:None
ABSTAIN:None
ABSENT :Bleile, King
►
Ms. Townley-Legislation in House of Representatives may allow Planning and Zoning
commissioners to receive pay. She also attended a meeting with DRCOG regarding
Healthy Spaces in regard to Comprehensive Plan and is encouraging cities to include
health and safe routes to school.
Mr. Fish complimented staff for the helpful way in which the cases were presented for
consideration and for the information provided to the Commission regarding Home
Occupations and City Councils opinion.
►
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
/s/ Julie Bailey, Recording Secretary
-CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
•
IN THE MATTER OF CASE #2013-09,
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSlONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATlNG
TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT CODE ZONING SITE
PLAN REVIEW
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: Fish, Freemire, Knoth, Roth, Kinton, Brick, Townley
Commission Members Absent: Bleile, King
This matter was heard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on February 20,
2014 in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center.
Testimony was received from staff and no public was present at the hearing. The
Commission received notice of Public Hearing, the Staff Report, and a copy of the
proposed amendment to the Unified Development Code 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 f ACT
1. THAT the Public Hearing on the Amendment of the Unified Development Code 16-
2-9 Zoning Site Plan Review 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
February 7, 2014 and was on the City's website from February 6th through 20th•
3. THAT all testimony received from staff members and the public has been made part
of the record of the Public Hearing.
4. THAT the title of 16-2-9 will Change from "Zoning Site Plan" to "Site Improvement
Plan''.
5. THAT property owners will be required to complete a Site Improvement Plan Review
for site work and landscaping over $5,000 in value.
6. THAT the revised code will provide more detail on the submittal requirements for
plans and plan format as outlined in the revised Site Improvement Plan Review
process.
7. THAT other syntax changes will improve the readability and enforceability of the
code.
8. THAT the proposed amendments related to the Zoning Site Improvement Plan Review
are consistent with the goals and objectives of Roadmap Englewood: The 2003
Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
9. THAT the proposed Amendments related to the Zoning Site Plan Review process
should be adopted as part of Title 16: Unified Development Code of the Englewood ~
Municipal Code. W
l 0. THAT the proposed updates are necessary to clarify the submittal requirements and
review process for approval of a Site Improvement Plan.
11. THAT the proposed code amendment helps citizens to better understand the review
process, and that this revision advances the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
CONCLUSIONS
1. THAT the Public Hearing on the Amendment of the Unified Development Code
Zoning Site Plan Review 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
February 7, 2014 and was on the City's website from February 61h through 201h.
3. THAT all testimony received from staff members and the public has been made
part of the record of the Public Hearing.
•
4. THAT the title of 16-2-9 will Change from "Zoning Site Plan" to "Site Improvement
Plan".
5. THAT property owners will be required to complete a Site Improvement Plan
Review for site work and landscaping over $5,000 in value .
6 . THAT the revised code will prov ide more detail on the submittal requirements for
plans and plan format as outlined in the revised Site Improvement Plan Review
process .
7. THAT Other syntax changes will improve the readability and enforceability of the
code.
8. THAT the proposed amendments related to Zon ing Site Plan Review are cons istent
with the goals and objectives of Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood
Comprehensive Plan and the Englewood.
9. THAT the proposed Amendments related to 16-2-9 Zoning Site Plan Review
should be adopted as part of Title 16: Unified Development Code of the
Englewood Municipal Code.
10. THAT the proposed updates are necessary to clarify the submittal requirements and
review process for approval of a Site Improvement Plan.
11 . THAT the proposed code amendment helps citizens to better understand the
review process, and that this revision advances the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
DECISION
THEREFORE, it is the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission that Case
#2013 -09, Amendments to 16 -2-9 Zoning Site Plan Review 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
Planning and Zoning Commission on February 20, 2014, by Mr. Knoth, seconded by Mr.
Fish , which motion states:
CASE #2013-09, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
RELATED TO 16-2-9 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW AS STA TED BE
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN;
ABSENT:
1.
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITION:
16-2-9 (E/(2) lapse: General Development Applications. A Site
lrn~r~~ement Plan shall lapse and be of no further force and effect if a
?ul/dmg permit, or City Manager or designee approval as required, is not
issued for the property subject lo the Site Improvement Plan within ~
hundred eighty QBQ) days from the date of approval of the Site Improvement
Plan.
Knoth, Roth, Fish, Brick, Kinton, Freemire, Townley
None
None
Bleile, King
Motion carried.
These Find· ings and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting on February 20, 2014.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
' .
i /.
-,/C·~ .
Jolin Brick Ch . ( •