HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 Ordinance No. 027ORDIJ\ANCE NO. 2·1
SERIES Of 20!2 -
BY AUTHORITY
COUNc:TI . BTI.,L NO. 24
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER WOODWARD
AN ORDINANCE AlJTI-lOIUZING THE DENVER SEMINARY PLANNED VNll
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT NO . 3.
WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council sppwvcd the Denver Scmina": P lann ed Unit
Development with the passage of Ordina.~c c. 52, Series of 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood City Council a1 :ro ved the Denver Seminary , nned Unit
Development Amendment No . I with the pas sage of Ordinance NJ. 9, Ser ies o, 2007; and
WHEREAS , the Englewo od City Council approved the Denver Sentinary Planned Unit
Uevelopment Amendment Ko . 2 with the passage uf Ordinance No . 26, Series of 2008 ; and
\VHEREAS , Kent Place Regency, LLC filed an •P?lication for an amendment to the 2004
Plam1t.:d Unit Dcvclopmcm ; and
WHEREAS , this Amendment No . 3, proposes no changes to th e general character of the
development o f re !';ideotial and limited reta il uses; anC
\\-1-IEREAS , the key change to th e origrnal PUU as proposed in this Amendment is :
• Addit ion of Financial Institution with Drive-Through Service to the Table of Allowed
Uses .
WHEREAS, pursu ant to Denver Seminary PUD Distri ct Plan -Development Standards E .. 1.b.,
major moctficauons to the P.U.D. District Plan must be approved pwsuau t 10 Lhe sa me limitati cns
and req 11 ir emer.i s by wlti ch such Plln was originally approved : and
WHEREAS , the En glewood Planning and Zo nin~ Co mmission hcl<i a Public Hcruing or. Morch
20, 20 12, reviewed the Amendment of the Planned Un it De ve lopment and reccmmcnd ed appro val
of this Denver Seminary Pl atmcd U1tit Devebpmenl Amendment No . 3:
• Al l approved conditions and requ irements establi sbcd wider the Denver
Seminary PUD , Den ver Seminary PUD -Amendment I , and Den ve r
Seminary PUD -Amendment 2 sha[ app ly u.,iess amend ed by
Arnencment 3.
• That a Fi11aucial In stitution with Driv e-T11rough Service u::.e sh all be
lintited 10 Lot 3 per the Site Plan .
11 b ii
That the Fi nan c ial hstitulion with Dn vc-Through Se··vicc sha ll he
lim ited 10 two drivc~th ro ugh lam:~.
NO W , THEREFORE, BE IT GHDA INEn IW TIIE CITY CO UN C Ii. n F·;·1 In CITY ()I'
l:NGLEWOOD, CO LORADO, t\S FOLLOWS :
Sect HIii 1. '1 ;1'..: Engh.:w rnid C il y :~l1a:1dl h;1s 1cv icwcd Iii~: J\111cml1111.:11I No . .'\ l 11 tlic Ut.:nvcr
~c111 i11;1ry l'Lm1,cd Un il D1;vdopmcnt nnd li .ul;; 1\u 11 (iic P.ll .l"l . ,111 1crd1111;·11 i~ 111 ..:u11 rc,n11ancc wi ll •
(1 c ;1pprovcd l'lanncd ll :111 Dev elopme nt rcqu1 n.!mcnl s.
&~J.illll..2 . The Eng l:;wuotl Ci ty Ct •l11,c1 : find s th al all requi red duc..:un1t.:11ls . dr.i win gs, n.:ferra!s,
n ·.(:o mnu :11cl :1 1i0 11s and approv:1l s brave hct.:n n,;ccivcd .
~~~W..!!l.J.. ·t·he Englewood City Council finds l11 at the amended P .U .D. District Plan and si le
plan arc 1.xmsis1cnt wi th adopted and generally ncccptcd :-:lnndards of devel opment within the Ci ty.
;i~cti nn 4 . The amended P.U .D. site plan i!i substantia ll y consistc!lt wi 1h 1hr. goals, objr.clivt:s
;11ul p(,I icics :1ml h r :111 y nl hl.!r orcl 1m1 11ct:, law llr requircruc of the: Cit y.
Sg;t io11 5. l'l1c C ily Cr:u,·c il oi" the C i1 y nf l~nglcwooci , Colo;-11<10 llcrc.:hy ;1pprovcs A1nc11clmci11
No.] 10 the Pl an:1cd lJnil Dc vdnpn~cm for the Denv er Seminary, :it ·.nch<.:d hcrc lo ;1s Exhibit A
Section 6. i'un:u:int 10 Arti cle V, Sel.:tion 40, of the Englew ood Home Ruic Ch:1rtcr, th e City
Coundl has dclcrmincd Llw 1 Exhi bi1 /\, ;r111 chctl Lo !hi s Ordi11an cu xhall 1:01 he puh li:i h~d bccm1i;c
of i (~ !:ii7.c . A <.:l•py :,f E.,l1 1hi1 /\, is r.v:1il ;1bl c in the Offo:t of the Englcw o,,d City Clcd.;.
lmroducccl, read 111 lu ll , a:1cl p:1!-:s..:cl on first rc-achng on 1hc 16th tby or Apr il, 201 2.
Puhl i:,d1c.:d hy Title a~ a Bill /i.11 an Orclina ncc in Il ic Ci1 y's officia l th.:wsp:1pi..:r 1111 lhc '.Wtli c.l:1y of
,\pnl , 1 (1 1J
PubL:mcd :1t. :1 r~il l for an Ordin~n cc e n the Ci ty's ol'licii.il website hcgitrning nn the l 8th d:iy of
Apri l, 20i2 [o,-thir•v (30) dnys.
/\ Public Hearing was held on the 711' day of May, 2012.
!(end by ti tle ::nd, 1sscd on final rc.1ding o" the 21" day c,f Mey, 2J I~-
!111hli s l1 L:\l hy 1i1 le in 1he C:i1y's official newspaper as Ordinance No .'1:::..1. St"·1 es of 20 12, on
th e 25th da y of' May, 2012 .
.. ,.•· .. ;, . .-.....
Publi shed by ti<\e on the City 's officia l websit e beginning on the 23rd day of
May , 20 I 2 for tlurty (30 ) days .
ATTEST :
l, Kerry Bu sh, Deputy Ci ty C lerk of the Cit y of Engl ewo od, Colo rad o, hereby cenify tha t the
abo ve and foregoing is a tme cop y of she Ordinance passe d on final read ing and publ ished by
tit le as Ordinan ce No.'.f::l, Series of 20! 2.
~&4-rry B h
,,-._ L ·< _J 0 t-u 1Y 1-(/) 0 i : j I ,( in ! ' • ~ I I f l ,,;;1T1 I /Ii i i i ! ! ii i:1, 1111 Iii MI i ,l,.,; , ... ; It ' , :1 i II ,, . I :i i. I , I. 11 I ( ;; I Ii:; ~ It I ~ ,, ' !I , .. '/'I' I l!li1 I ,, I I ' ; ' ,,1 I 1 ~ l l ' 1!11tLi1!i ~ :H i ; ; ~i H,rr.,, ~.~;~
I
'J' /•,[
; !:.~.: "f :;----
: r ; -----:----
----------
---·--
-~'"'~\f11 J,',,l)&'L 11,., ·-~-
""" . . . . "... . I I
l _ I
I ~~ I I ~;'
-•~y-~, ~•+It~.-; I
I
I
1 1 ··----·
, .. ,,,;.,-._ .....
. , .. ~~
".',': •'! ,,
, .....
I
1·
I
I , .... •• "f'.;.,7 \,:.. I '
••. '··••t.) "·', ·-·-· ---. ---....
. ~-· ""
.. _:·~}-~("::.:.,
~-----......
-.
....... , ,.,
{~~";• /'-.')•\'•Y-".
COUNCIL COMMUl'\ICATION
DATE : Ap ril 16, W I 2 AGENDA ITEM : SUBJECT : Ordinance Adopting D enve r
11 a iv Seminary Plann e d U nil D evebpmenl
(l'UD) Amendment J
-·-·
IMTIATED BY : STAFF SOURCE :
Ke nt Pla ce Re~ency, 11.C. Brnok Bell, Pl ar111 er 11
8480 Eas t O rchard Road , Suite 6900
C rl!c11 vvo0d \/1ll ;ige. Co lor,1do AO 111
COUNCIL GOA ( AN[) PREVIOUS COUNCIi. ACTION
Th ere has bee n no pr e viou s Cou11 d ac tio n co nce rnin g th e proposed D eflver SeminJry l'UD
Am endment 3. C o un ci l apr,rov ·,d the o rigi nal Den ve r Sem inary PUD un Sept em be r 20, 2·)04
by 0rd111 d11c..e Nu1 nlJer 52, Se 11 ~~ uf 2004 ; A me ndm en t I WdS ap µroved un f cbn1M y 23,
~007. by O rdina r1C i:: 9, $e rii:: ,1 1 .'.Q'j7; .m d Ame ndm en t 2 \va :, 1p µr:1·.-e d on June 20. 2008,
by O rdi,iance lb, Ser ies of ~O GIJ.
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Th e Planning and Zoning Coc1miss ion con sdered Denve r Sem in ary PUD Am endment 3 al a
Publrc H eari ng condu cted on March ~U . lO 'l 2 Th P Con uniss,o n conside red l eslimony and
vot ed 9 • 0 t o forward the proposed Ame ndment 3 to Ci tv COlon c il wi th a favorable
reco mm e11d ati o11 for ad option \V ith lhe foll O\•vin g :on diti ons:
1. All approved co ndi t''"" and req u ire m ents estab li shed und er th e D enve r Sem ina ry
PU D, De nve r Semi nar1• PU D Amendm ent I , and D enve r Se minary PUD ·
Amendm e nt 2 s.,all ,1 ppl)' un less amtindec.J by Arm~ndm enl ).
2. Thal a Fin anc ial In sti tuti o n w ,th Dr ive-Thruugl1 Ser vice use shall be li m ited lo Lot 3 per
the Si te Plar .
3. That the finanual lr1 11il1Jti on w ilh Drr,e-Thro ugh Se rvice sha ll be lim il ed lo 1,v,, drive-
thr o ugh lanes .
RE COM MENDED ACTION
SlJ lf I L!LUflllllt'r11..b Jt.luµliur t u f ,t p ru po~t:'d bill fu1 di! u 1Ui11 c111Lt! dlJlJII W ing th e Denve r
Seminary PULJ Amendment 3 and se ttin g l\.lav i , 201 ] as the dat e ior Publi c H ea rin g to
co nsitfl'r puhlic 1es t1monr vn th r •in cnd ment.
BACKGROIJNO
The . 1bjec1 pro p erty is an 11 .4 1 tK rt.· )ll~ at the northwest i.:u rner uf Sou th University
Boulevard and East H,,mpden Ave nue (US 285 ). The site was occupied b~ a seminary for
more th an 40 years In 2004 it was ·e zoned by Council upon a requ es t b\' )VF , LLC fro m R-3 -
8 1esidPrtt ial zoning to r lomn ed Unit Dcvelopn,cn t. Th e rezoning all o1;ve d 350 for -sa le
res id en11al unit s an d up to 65 ,000 square fe et of ret ail spac e.
In D ec ember 2 0 05, JVF . LLC 1r a11s (e~rE:!d ownersh ip o f th e sit e to Continuum Partn ers , ll.C. In
Feb ru ary oi _007, Continuum Partners requested and receive d approva l ol Amendment I
which include d
• A ,educti nn in re1ai l area .,m d rel,llP<i pr1rking rntinc.
• Modii1C~1 tio1 of bui ld ing co nfi gura ti ons tn in cre as e cff icic1lCy.
• A chanr,e ir tum-la ne configu rdlion .
Followine ;i pprov~I of Am(•ndrn Pnt i . l nn1inuum rl Pmo fi c,;hr ci ;i ll h11r nne h11i ld ing o n th P <;it <-'
and constru cted so und wa lls on th e west and north bou~dari cs.
In lun e of 200 8 , Continuun 1 Partners reques1ed and rece ive d app rova l of Amendment :!
wh:ch included
• CreJti u;1 o f th rt•e UuilUin g e11v~lup1:~ in w hich c1 11 .illuwt'd u~l-' o r dCtiv il y 111 ,.ty u Lc u r
prodded all PUD dimens iona l il'Quir ements are met.
• Th e addition of Single-unit Resi de nti al. 1wo-unll Residen tial. and Hotel use s to the Tab le
of All ow ed U ses .
• An in crease in the permitt ed retail/co mm ercia l spa ce.
• A decrease in the permitt (;'d number of re siden ti al nnits .
• Dormer restri cti ons on structures along \ves t property line.
Amendment 2 acknowledged the need for flexible de ve lopm ent opticns .
In lul y of 2010, C ontin ~um Partne rs propos1~d .i nev.• (.oncepl fo r a retail development Ihat
included :
• An in creM,e in the perm itt ed retail/c omrnl'r,-i;I :-.pace.
• C hanges to the Table o i All owed Uses incll•1i ng th e .1dd iti o n of Fu el D ispens ing and th e
removal oi Res identia l mes.
Th e 11 eighbor h ood did not su ppo rt th e propos ed co ncep t and a for mal PUD amendm ~nt
;:1 pµlicarion fo r th e propos ed conce pt was no t submitled.
In Novembe r of 2010. Continuum P.u!ners prese nt ed anoth er d evelop m e nt co nce pl to Staff
tha l maintained I es,dential us es and includ ed ap~roxim at ely 58.000 square feel of re tail us es .
The proposed concep t :ompli ed with th e dim ensi onal and use requirem ents of th e appr oved
PU D a~ ame nd ~d .
In D ecemher nf ::!0 10 . C n111irnn11 n p,;,rtne ~,:d with Regen cy (~nt~:rs fo rm ing KPnl P .\C~
Re gency, LLC to ~icve lop th e re ta il portion of th e site . Owners hi p o f ~he re sidential po rt ion or
th e site was trans ferred to Kent Place Assoc iates, LI.C for iuture deve lopm ent of th e
res,d ential portion of th e sit e.
In lune of 2011, Ken t Place Regency. LL C submitted plan s for th e first constru c lt on permit o n
th e ret ail p orti on of the sit e. Th e rl'tail portion of the sit e inclu des :
• A small grocery market on Lot 1, of 30,000 sq uare fee t plu s a 10,000 square fe et ,ecnnd
stO,)' mezzanine.
• Two sin gle sIory re tail buildin gs (A ,ind B) on Lot 2, with 8,960 square fee t ,111d 4,<>00
squar(~ feet.
• A 4,34 4 ,qua,e fee t bank on Lot ].
In M arch of 20 I 2 building permit applications fo r th e marke , and two sing le story retail
buildings were approv ed. Constru ciion of utiliti es, strt'el i111µruv~me111s, retai11111g walls,
erMHn g . .1 nri c..torm w;1ter det enti on for th e retail portion of th f\ site is subs tantiall y <.:o mp lete.
AMENDMENT 3 OVERVIF.W
!n Novemher oi :0 1 I. Ken t l'lace Kegen cy, LLC desired to include a drive-t hrough teller lan e
and a drive-throu gh ATM lan e in tonjunc:t ion with th e prr)pose d t'.l ank on I 0 1 1 Th P ar,prnve~
PUD ,IS amended all ow s a Finan :ial Institution without Drive-Thr ough Service; however, th e
additi on of a Financial In stituti on w ith Drive-Through Serv :ce re quires a PUD amendment
applica ti on pursu,,nt to the s,une pro Le dur es unde r whic.:h lh e o riginal plan s were approved.
The focu s oi Amen dm ent J is to add Fina nci al lnslia,t io n with Dri ve-Through Serv ice to th e
Table (,f ,'\ll owe d Uses . Amendmen t J pr opose s 11 0 chang es to th e PUD "s buildin g crw clopcs,
setba cks. building heiAht, parking, drainage, land sca ping, and signage requi rements . A
detailed si l e plan, landscape pl an, and build ing eleval ions ha ve been included in th e PUD
am~ndment appli cat io n. The µruµuse U Ua!:k bu ilding t!levativn s ar~ compatible with th e
grnc ery mark et and relail building elev ations thal have been approved . If Am endment 3 is
approved, th e app li can t will be requored 10 conslruct th e project per the pronosed sit e plan
and ele,·ati o ns.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The propo,ed 4,3 44 square ieet bank on Loi J will genera le app ro ximatel y S 1 1,0 00 in one-
ti me "se .:ix "nd bu il din g permit fees. As 1he prop e'!\' trans it ions fr om vacan t to deve loped,
additio n..i l pr operly t11x re ve nu es wou ld also be genera ted.
UST or AlTAClli,l "NTS
Staff Report (March 20, 20 121
Planning and Zoc mg Co mmi s~1on Minut es (M.1rch 20, 20 I.:::!)
Pl annin u and Zor.inp, Commissi o n Findings of F;i ct
Prop ose d Bill for an Ordinan ce
'' C T y 0 F ENGLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO:
THKlJ:
Planning and Zoning Conunission /
Alan White, Cornrnunity Development Director ~
Brook Bell, Planner II V FROM:
DATE: March 20, 2012
SUBJECT: Case ZON2012-001 • Publi c Hearin g
Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment 3
APPLICANT:
Ke nl Plac:e Regeric\', LLC.
0400 East Orchard Roiid, Suil;, 6900
Greenwood Village, Colorado 8 0 111
PROPERTY OWNERS:
Kenl Place Regency , LLC.
Kent Place Investors, LLC
8480 E,tsl Orchard Road, Suite 6900
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80 I I I
PROPERTY OWNER (Adjacent):
Keri•. Place Associates, LLC
2 IO udversity Bouleva rd, S~rite 700
Denver, Colorado 80206
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
3 495 South University Boulevard
REQUEST:
The applicant has submitted an application to amend the Denver Seminary Plannf'cl Unit
Develop ment (PUD) which was first approved by City Council on Septembe, 20, 2004 as
Ordrnance Number SL, Se rres oi 1004; with Arnenrl111Pnt l approved on f-ebru,1ry 23 ,
2007, by Ordinance 9, Series of 2007; and Amendment 2 approved on J1111e 20, 2008, by
Ordinance 26 , Series of 2008.
1000 Engle1,,V<1od Parkw,1y En p,lcwoc-d . ':olor.:trlo 00 11 0 PHO,'\JE J UJ -76~·2 3 4.:!. FAX VB -n3-6G9 :l
.-w.., e11~le,w n r11lgov o r~~
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Community Develop ment recommends that the 1-'lanning and Zoning
Commission review the Denver Se min ary PUD Amendment 3 and forward a
recommendation for approval to City Council with the following conditions:
1. All approved conditions and requirements establish,:d under the Denver Seminary
PUD, Denver Seminary PUD -Amendment 1, and Denver Seminary PUD •
Amendment 2 shall apply unless amended hy Amendment 3.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
1.ots 1, 2, and 3, Kent Place Fir s! Filing Second Amendment, and Loi 2 K enl Pla ce First Filing
First Amendment
ZONE DISTRICT:
Denver Seminary Plann ed Unil D evelopment, as Amended.
PROPERTY LOCATIOl'I: AND SURlOUNDING LAND USE:
The subject property of this PUD amendment ;_ lo ca ted at th e northwest corner of South
University Boulevard and Ea sl Hampd en Av enue. Land to the north and west of the subject
property is wi thin the City of Engle:wood. AJjui11i11i; laud lu tire 11urtlr is 1.011ed R-1-A
Residential Single Dwelling Unit District and contains detached single-un ;t dwellings .
Adjoining land to the west is zoned MU-R-3-8 Mixed-Use Resid ential/Limited Office-Retail
District and con tains an attached si11gle-u11il dwelling development known as Kent Village.
La nd l o the east of the site , across South University 13ou :evard, is within unincorporated
ArdtJdlrue Cuu11ty and is zoned R-2 (County zo1 :lng design 2.tion). Land south of the site is
within Cherry Hills Village and is zoned R-1 and R-3.', {Cherry I ·lills Village zoning
designation ). Land within these areas contains re si dential detach ed single-unit dwellings .
PUD AMENDMENT PROCEDURE:
As stated in Sections Elb and E2b of the original Denver Seminary PUD District Plan
Development Standards, major modifications to the District Plan and site plan amendments
may only be made pursuant lo the same procedures u. ,der which th e original plans were
approved . Therefore d pre-application neighborhood meeting, City review and public
hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission an d City Council are required.
BACKGROUND :
The Planned Unit Development is a rezoning process that estab lishe s specific zo ning and
site planni11g criteria lo meet the needs of a specific development proposal that may not be
accomm odated within existing zo11i11g dP.vclopment regu lations . A PUD rezoni ng provid es
tile opportunity ior unified development controi ior multiple propr,rlies or multipic uses .
The Denver SPminar\' PU[) is an 11 .41 acre site previously occupied by a theological
seminary fo r more than forty years . The site was the subject of a rezoning application by
JVF, LLC. Th e rez on ing was approved by Council on September 20, 200,1 as Ordinance
Numbe, ~2, Series of 2004. The properly was transferred from JVF, LLC lo Continuum
Pa rtne rs, LLC in December oi 2005 .
2
) In February of 2007, Continuum Partners requested and received approval of Amendment
1 which included:
• A reduction in retail area and related parking ratios.
• Modification of building configurations and associated building ,:,nvelopes.
• A change in tu rn-lane confi guration to mitigate intersection conflicts identified by
Colorado Department of Transporta'ion .
~allowing approval of Amendment 1, Continuum demolished all but one building on the
site and constructed sound walls nn th~ wPsl and north boundaries .
In June of 2008, Continuum Partners requested an d received approval of Amendment 2
which included:
• Creation of three building envelopes in which an allowed use or activity may occur
provided all PUD height, setback, bul k plane, and floor area requirements are met.
• Auued Single-unit Re,ide111ial, Two -unit Residential , and Hotel uses to the Table of
Allowed Uses.
• An increase in the permitted reta11fcommcrcial space to 75,000 sq uare feet from
51 ,500 square feet.
• A decr ease in th e permitted number of res :dential units from 350 to 300.
• Dormer restrictions on structures along wes t boundary (as negotiated with Kent
Village)
Amendment 2 acknowledged the : . ' ··. r flexible development options by establishing the
three development envelopes.
In July of 2010, Continuum Partners proposed a new concept for . .1 retail development that
included:
• An increase in the permitted retail/commercial space to 125,000 square feet from
75,000 square feet.
• Changes to the Table of Aliowed Uses including the addition of Fuel Dispens ing use
and the r~moval of Residential uses .
Con tinuum Partners then conducted the required PUD Pre-application Neighborhood
Meeting where lh e public did 11ot ·support the µruµu,eu cu11cepl. A fonnal PUD
amendment application for the proposed concept was nol submitled .
In Novemb er of 2010, Continuum Partne rs presented another develorment concept to
Staff that maintained re si dential us es and included approxima1el\' 58,000 square feet of
retai l us es. The pro~osed concept comp li ed with the dimensional and use rt!quirem ents of
the approved PUD as amP.nded, and did not require a new amendment . Conlinuum met
i nfor mal!,-with neighborhood representativ.:,; to obtair, feedback on 1he proposed concel't.
In Uecember of 2010, Continuum then partnered with f-.pgency Centers forming Ken t Pla ce
Investors , LI.C and subsequentl\' l :t:?n t Place Regency, LLC r, r.~velop th e retail portion of
the site. The residential portion of th e d te was subdivided and transferred to Kent Place
Associates , LL C for future development of th e reside'ltial ,)ortion of the site.
In June of 2011, Kent Place Regency, LLC submitted plans for the first construction permit
on the retail portion of the site. The retail port ion of the site includes :
• A small grocery market on Lot 1, of 30,000 square feet plus a I 0,000 square feet
second ,tory mezzanine.
• Two single story retail buildings (A and B) on Lot 2, with 8,960 square feet and
4,800 square feet.
• A 4,344 square fe et bank on I ot 3 .
Since lune of 2011, site plans and building elevat ·ons for the grocery market and two single
story retail buildings have been approved. Building permit applications for the market and
two single story retail buildings are currently unr!er rPviPw . Off-site utility and street
improvements to US H ighway 28j and University Boulevard (including the required traffic
signal) are substantially complete. The on-si te r •taining wall, utilities, grading, ;:,nd storm
water d etention are also substantially complete.
In November of 20 11, Kent Place Regency, LLC indicated they desired to include a drive-
through teller lane and a drive-through ATM lane in conjunction with the proposed bank on
Loi 3. The approved PUD ,11 amended allows a Financial Institution without Drive-Through
Servi<.:e; huwi:ver, the Judition of a Finan cial Institution with Drive-T hrough Service requires
a PUD amendment application pursuant to the same proced•Jres under which the original
plans were approved.
NEIGHllUKHUUD MEETING SUMMARY:
Pursuant lo the D enver Seminary PUD amendment procedure, the applicant conducted a
neighborhood m eeti ng on January 12, 2012, prior to submitting the application for
Amendment 3 on JJnuary 2-l, 2012. Notice of the pre-application meeting was mailed lo
property owners ancl occupant of property within 1000 feet of the site. The notification
area included prop , ,ies within Englewood, as well as Cherry Hills Village, Denver, and
unincorporated Arapahoe County. Neighborhood meeting notes are attached to this
report (See Exhibit B).
CITY DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION REVIEW:
Th e Amendment 3 PUD District Plan and Site Plan were rev iewed by the City's
Df'vPlopmPnt RPVi<"W Tea m (DRT) on Fehruary 7, 20 12 . lrlentifierl is~11P~ werP ;icirlrr.ssed
by :he applicant and the final Denver Seminary PUD Amendment 3 packet was submitted
on Fe bruary 1 S, 2012.
OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS:
Preliminary plans of the proposed Denver Seminary PUD Amendment 3 were refe rred to
Arapahoe County, the City ilnd Cou,1ty of D e nver, Cherry I lills Village, Tri -County Health
ani the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) for review and comment. COOT
rnn1111e11ts and the applicant's responses ar e attached as Exhibits D -F. Cu1111n~11ts from Tri -
County Health and the applicant's respons e are attached as Exhibit C-H. Arapahoe County
comments are attached as Exhibit I. If any other formal comments are received before the
public hearing, Staff will present them during the hearing. Cherry Hills Village and the City
ol Uenvcr did not provirle comments.
4
ANALYSIS:
Unless modified through this Amendment 3 application, all conditions and requirements cf
the PUD as amended remain in effect.
Permilled Uses:
ThP following ~rfrfilion to the Table of Allowed Uses is propo,ed:
Financial Institution with Drive-Through Service. Please 1101 " that currently, the
category "Financial Institution without Drive-Through Service" is permitted. Adding
"Financial Institution with Drive-Through Service" as an allowed use does not add
"drive through" to all the other uses in the table . In other words, this particular PUD
Amendment is for a specific drive-through use and "drive-through" is no,
transferrable to other uses. Any other uses for which a drive-through is contemplated
must go through the formJi ruu Amendment process (unless it'5 another bank).
Phasing: The retail development including the proposed bank with drive-through service is
anticipated to be done in µlid>e> with a co111pletio11 of the project by the end of 2012.
Envelope Plan:
Amendment J does not propose any changes to the Envelope !'Ian; however, th e
applicant's proposed site plan and elevations (PUD sheets 5-8) provide a more detailed
proposal for Envelope 3 than the previous PUD amendment. If Amendment 3 is approved,
the applicant will be required to construct the project per the proposed sitt= plan and
elevations.
Setbacks: A setback is the minimum distance a structure rnust be located from an adjacent
property line. Amerrdm?nt 3 does not propose any changes to the setbacks and the
location of the proposed structures comply with the existing PUD .
Building Height: All building heights in the PUD are based on United States Geological
Survey (USGS) elevations. The most restrictive building height limit in the existing PUD's
Envelope 3 is 5,432 feet (USGS ). The proposed bank building height is 5,426.20 feet at its
hig~est point, which complies with the existing PUD.
Parking: Amendment 3 does not propose any changes lo the exis1i11g PUD parking
requirements. The parking ratio for retail use is 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet; therefore 18
spaces are required ior the proposed bank. 27 parking spaces are provided which meets
the existing PUD requirement. The bicycle parking ratio remains unchanged, and the
proposed bank meets the requirement with 2 bicycle spaces .
Traffic: Amendment 3 proposes no changes to the site's access/entry points. The project
will meet a ll State, City and County Cle velr ,Jment requirements . The applicant's traffic
engin eer, Fox Tuttle Trans portation Group, provided a letter with the applir.ation (Exhibit C)
regarding the increase in the proposed bank's building square footage from 3.800 square
feet to 4,344 square feet. The approved traffic study anticipated a 3,800 square foot bank.
The increase in square footage dnU any <1ssociated traffic impacts a,e dddre»eJ in !he Fox
)
Tuttle letter (Exhibil C), associated referral response from COOT (Exhibit D), and
subsequent correspondence (Exhibits l & F). CDOT and the City Traffic Engineer reviewed
the correspondence in Exhibits C through F, and concurred that the proposed increase in
square footage has a minor net effect on site traffic impacts.
Drainage: Dr ainage and grading concepts remain a~ approved ii' ·he existing PUD.
Landscaping: No landscaping amendments are proposed . The proposed landscape plan
complies with the requirements of the existing PUD.
fencing and Signage : No iencing or signage amendments are proposed . The proposed
signage for 1he bank complies with the requirements of the existing PUD.
SUMMARY:
Community Developmen t considers the proposed PUD Amendment 3 to be a relatively
minor request. Ame:1dm en 1 3 proposes no changes to the PUD's building envelopes,
setbacks, buildinr height, parking, drainage, landscaping, and signage requirements . The
inclusion of a detailed site plan, l.111rlscape plan, and building elevations provides the City
and community with greater certainty as to what will be developed . The propos ed bank
l,uildi11!l elevations are compatible with the grocery market and retail building elevations
that have be en approved . If Amendment 3 is approved, the applicant will be required to
construct the project per the proposed site plan and elevations .
The focus of Amendment 3 is to add Financial Institution with Drive-Through Service to the
Table of A11owed Uses . The existing PUD allows Financial lnsti~1tion without OrivP-Through
Service as a permitted use . The proposed amendment would simply allow drive-through
lanes for a financial institution. In terms of hours of operation, noise, odors, and business
characteristics, the proposed bank has potentially less impacts than other uses that arc
perm i tted by the existing PUD . Addilionally, a11y impacts associated with the drive-through
lanes are mitigated by the positioning of the drive-through canopy and the proposed
landscaping.
l'LANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Amendments to the Denver Seminary Planned Unit Developmenl are addressed under the
same procedure as the original f'UD application . Therefore the Commission must
determine if the modifications proposed in Amendment 3 meet District Plan and Site Plan
criteria as established in the PUD Ordinance. Consideration at this time is made only to the
modifications addressed 111 Amendment 3.
PUD District Plan
The Districl Plan se ts forth the zoning regulations u, ·Jer which the proposed amendments
will occur.
1. The PUD District Plan is, or is no1, in conformance with the District Plan requirements anr/
the Comprehensive Plan .
6
Amendment 3 is in conformance with District Plan requirements and does not alter
the Comprehensive Plan objectives for housing, cultural arts and business and
employment iuentilied in the original l'l m.
2. All required documents, drawings, referrals, recommenclations, and approvals have been
received.
All appropriate documents concerning Amendment 3 ha ve been received. All
future documents and drawings associated with a building permit application shall
be reviewed for compliance by the Development Review Team .
3. The PUO Oisttict Pldll ;, wrni,u,,,t with adopted ;111<.l i;enerdlly ilLCepted swndards of
development m the City of Englewood.
The Amendment 3 District !'Ian remains consi stent with accepted development
standards established by the City of EnBlewocd.
4. Th e PUD Disrricr Plan is su bstantially consis tenr with the goals, objectives, design
guidelines, po/ides and any other ordinance, /aw or requirement of rhe City.
Amendment 3 conforms to all other ordinances, laws and requirements of the City.
5. When the PUD Dislrict Plan is within the Eni:lewood Downtown DevelC'pment Authorit1•
(EDDA) area, th e Plan is consistent wir.h the EDDA approved des,gns, pcdicies and plans.
Not applicable .
PUD Site Plan
The Site Plan sets forth the site planning and des ign p;irarneters under which the proposed
amendments will occur .
1. The PUD Site Pian is, or is not, in conformance with rhe District Pfon rcquireircnt,.
The building envelopes, setbacks, building height, parking, drainage, landscaping,
and signage proposed in A111e11d111e11I 3 are i11 confonnance with lhe Dislricl Plan
requirements .
2. All required documents, drawmgs, referrals, recomrn er,dations, and approvals have been
rer.eivf'rl
All required site plan materials h,we been received . All ft11ure documents and
drawings a~socia•cd with a building permit application ihall be reviewed for
compliance by the Development Review Team .
J . The PUD Site Plan is consiste/11 wit/, adopted and gener,.1/y d<.:t:epted sta11da1ds of
development of the City of Englewood.
Amendment 3 is consistent with development standards set iorth in the District Plan.
4. The PLD Site Plan is substantially consistent with the goals, obiectives and policies and/or
any other ordinance, law or requirement of the City.
The propnsPd Pl JD ~itP Plan preser,:ed in AmPndmPnl 3 is in substanti2I
conformance with all .other ordinances, laws and requirements of the City .
A IT ACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: 11P.nver '.eminary r1 .. D Amendment 3
Exhibil B: Neighborhood Meeting Summary -January 12, 2012
Exhibit C : Fox Tuule Transportation Group• Leiter dated January 19, 2012
Exhibit D : COOT Region 6 -Email dated February 1, 2012
·, Exhibit E: Fox Tuule Transportation Group• Letter dated February t 6, 2012
Exhibit F: Regency Centers -Email dated February 17, 20' 2
Exhibit G: Tri-County Health Department -Letter dated February 9, 2012
Exhibit H : Regency Centers -Letter dated February 29, 2012
Exhibit I: Arapahoe County (Engineering) comments dated February 10, 2012
8
Denver Seminary PUD Amendment
Neighborhood Meeting
Denver First C.hurch -Fellowship Hall, 3800 East Hampden Avenue
lanuary 12, 2012
AttendLes : Ap proximalely 39 (see allached sign-in sheels)
Applicanl Presentation
1. Frank Cannon of Kent Pla ce l<egency, LLC , went over the agenda for the evening and
inlroduced the development team .
2. Eric Chckal of Kenl Place Regency, LLC provided an update on lhe status of the
proje ct:
• Forum (own er of lh e multi-family resid ential portion of the PUD) was 1101 able lo
attend lonighl. Forum is nol an applicant in this PUD Amendment : however, Forum
is work ing on lhe ar chiteclure of !heir buildings and anlicipates presenting elevations
to the City and steering committee in the next 60 days .
• The existing Seminary building will likely be demolished beginning in Februar·,.
• Traffi c signal will be les led in Janu ary , nol sure wh e n they will activate .
• Wat.,rli11 e and other infrastructure is complete Site work is current!)' on hold ior
weamer, site is fenced .
• Described "fresh fare " 11rocery concept. Will be 40,000 sf, typical grocery store is
80,000 sf.
• Gro r.ery store elevations ha\~ been approved by lhe City . Elevations for Retail A & ~
buildin11 s have been submitted for revi ew.
• A Building Permit application has been submitled for the grocery store and is under
review . Anticipate that grocery store construction will begin in late February .
• A11licip a tes that cu11~tructiun of Retail A & B will begin in April .
3. Al Coluss i of Klipp Archilecls discussed the plans for the commercial portion of the site .
• As th e master plann ed his goal was to bring some unily to the site.
• The grocery store was situated to hide its service functions beh ind a wall and solid
roll-up door .
• Parking ratios were kepi to a minimum and the parking lot is much lower than the
slreet. Wide 1idewalks will be pr ov ided .
• Th e residential building wraps the commercial building . The residential parking is
below the residenti al building.
• Mr . Colussi showed 30 1rn~i,es of lhe commercial buildings wrapped by the
residenti;il.
• Retail Building A will ha ve 3-1 tcnanl s with possible outdoor scaling. The elevaled
patio for Retail A is a good gathering place .
4. Frank Cannon of Kent Plac.e Regen c)', LLC provided information on the proposed PUD
Amendment ior a bank with a drive-through operation .
) • Th e bank is proposed with one drive -up leller lane and one drive -up 24hr ATM lane.
• Of the bank 's teller transactions approximately 80% of the transactions occur inside
the bank and 20% occur at the drive -up teller .
• Of the bank's ATM transaclioni approximately 45% of the transactions occur at the
ATM inside the bank and j5% occur at the drive-up ATM .
• Mr . C~nnnn review,Jcl lhe Pl JD Amendment process and anticipated schedule.
5. Public Comment
The public a5ked questions and provided commenLs. The comments from the public
varied bctw ~e 11 questions about the overall Kent Place project as well as th~ drive-
through bank. The applicant respond e d to the questio11s and comments (in italics). Key
issues were : (not in any order)
Traffic
How will the bank drive-through affect traffic patterns? Mr. Cannon wenl over the
traffic patterns.
Will car lights from the drive-through shine into the neighborhood? When car; are at
the drive-through ca nopy they will be (acing west with lights pointed towards the
proposed res idential portion of the projecl. As ca rs appro,1eh the drive -through th eir
lights will be shie lded by a landscaped berm to the ca.st and land.scape plantings lo I.he
north .
Does the traffic study take into account a drive -through bank? Yes, the original
approved traffic studr took a 3,800 square foot drive-through bank into account. An
addendum is being prepared to account for the increase in square footage of the
propo sed 4,344 square fool drive -through bank.
Bank
If you eliminate the drive -though, is a stand-alone bank viable? No, Chase Bank will
not locate there withoul a rlrive-through . The other banks we pursued had the same
need for a drive-through .
How often will armored cars come to the bank? We can 't answer that question fr.,,
sernrity purposes.
How many customers will the bank have per day? The applicant did not have an
estim,1te on-hand for thi s size of bank at this exact lorntion.
Does the drive-through have an attendant in th e main bank or a l the canopy? The
teller servicing th e dri,,c-through will be located in rhe main bank rather than th e
canopy.
The neighbor who li,,es directly north of the proposed drive-throu gh bank spoke in
support of the drive-through bank as he believes il will have fewer impacts tban
other uses lhat would be allowed by the existing PUD.
Overall Kent Place Development
Concern for th e aes th P.ti c, of the str ee t light associated with the traffic sig na l. The
street lighl associated with the traffic signal is a standard for this type of application.
We are cummtly looking into .iltern:itives for shielding and lo wer w:illagc-fixtures.
Will the grocery store have a bank inside of it? Currently, the fixture plan for the
grocery store huilding permit does not have a bank shown.
Will the grocery store be open 24 hours per day/ That has not beer. determined yet.
Do you have elevations of the wesl side of the residential develop men I yell The
developer oft/re residential portion oft/re project is c:urrentlr working on Vd riou s
building elevation alternatives.
How many trucks will come on to the site per day? Approximately t/rree semi-trucks
~nd ac/c/itiona/ smaller dE"livery ve/ric/es .
3
Do you have signed leases yet on rP.tail huildint.. A & B1 Not at this time, but t/,ere is
a lot of interest and we are speaking with high qualit.y tenants that WP. think will be the
best fit.
Will the sidewalk on the east side of University Blvd . continue to Hampden Ave.I
The sidewalk on the east side of University Blvd. will extend from East Floyd Ave.
southward to the bus ;.'op and cross walk direct/)' east of the Kent Place entranc e from
University .
6. City staff outli11eci the PUD process and next steps. City staff contact information was
provided
1~0 x•t'IIMII
TAAN ■PCIRTATICN CJRDUP
To:
From:
Data :
Project:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
Eric Chekal, Regency Centers
Steve Tultle , P.E., PTOE
January 19, 2012
Kent Place
Bank U•e Trip Generation Addendum
EXHIBIT C
Per our discussions, we understand that the bank use proposed in the Kent Place development
is planned to be a 4 ,344 square foot (SF) drive-in bank facility . This represents a larger use
than previously analyzed In the Kent Place Traffic Impact Study , prepared by Fox Higgins, dated
June 29 , 2011 . The purpose of th is memorandum is to document the proposed change within
the context of the traffic study assumptions and with respect to the sije trip generation.
The Kent Place Traffic Impact Study assumed a 3,800 SF drive-In bank . Per ITE trip generation
ratas for this use and intemal trip factors , It was estimated that the bank use would generate
479 dally automobile trips on a typical weekday, with 40 trips occurring in the AM peak hour (22
in , 18 out) and 83 trips occurring in the PM peak hour (42 In , 41 out). Note that the original
traffic study had assumed a drive-in bank facility vs . a walk-In only bank .
With the change to 4,344 SF and using the same ITE trip rates and methodology, the bank use
Is estimated to generate 547 dally , 46 AM (26 in, 20 out), and 95 PM (48 in, 47 out) automobile
trips . The net result is 6 additional AM peak hour trips (+4 in, +2 out) and 12 additional PM peak
h,,ur automobile t~p s (+6 i~. +6 o·Jt). This results in less than one vehicle pe r cycle al the
adjacent signal ized intem~-ctions . The Impact of these addit ional trips is negligible In terms of
operational impacts .
I hope that the contents of this memorandum are helpful to you . If you have any questions,
ploaso feel free to give me a call .
SGT/
Attachments :
Trip Generation Table 2 • Original and Revised
►
----·-------------------+
P,O. aox 19788, ISOULOl!:R, COLORADO 1!03Dfl•Z76B
PHONE: 303•652·3571 I F'AX: 303·65Z•6574 I WWW.F'CXTUTTLE.COM
FHl1:,0Z5
l~~-~-ltltilll •
LandUH
R'E 850 • Supemwr1Utl
ITE 914-Spedalty Relll Cenler
ITE 932 • High-.Turnover (Sil-Down) Rellluranl r.ea·,2 -~·ea.
ITE 220-Apanr,enl
Totall:
LandUM
rre 150 -Supennarket
ITE 114 . Speclally Retai ,::.rue,
JTE 832 • Hlgh-Tumcwet (SM-OoMI) Rea&euranl lire tt2-~.iioiik
ITT: 220 • Apartment
'--'
Kent Place
Traffic Impact Study
1111112
Table 2. Trip Genention &tlmate -Original Bank Uaa C3,IO0 SF) --A-.Dollll'Trlllo IJI.PN~H-T,_ P.11. 1-~I: Ho..-Tripe
Size Unll _rr1pi..io,-.Roat :r-.1 Ill -Dul Roat IT-I In l 0ut --T-In 0ut
'40 .018 1.000 SF .... 102.24 ( .. ,~1 1739 17311
3~ I ':I ,. 48 10.50 357 112 175
11 .36 1,000SF 0 .15 <M .32 A:il 214 214 ,.oo i 1a e 4 2.71 28 11 15
2.4 1.000SF OJ5 127.15 259 / 130 129 1.1-521 24 : 12 12 11 .15 23 14 • 3.1 ;·_oooSF o:SS ,4·9_95 4~1 2◄0 , :iia , 12.35 40 , 22 1) · is.12 ri 42 4 j
300 o.u. 0.85 6.65 16'6 848 ' 5411 0.51 1301 28 104 0.62 158 103 55 I
~«:I sno1 sm I SHI 140 111 1471 312 2H
Table 2. Trip Gonerallon Eallmale. Modlliod Bank Uae (4,344 SF) -40.018
11 .36
2.4
4.3-<I
300
~ 'L ...... ..,...._;:rrt,,o · I Ali.:l',Nli-J_ ..... I P.IL--T ...
un11 11',tp~ R!•dt01111 I 1a · j .0u1 Raii i_l'iiil/ 1nTOu1.•:Ro1o :)roc.il l 1n I 0ut
1,000 SF o.~,; 102.24 .. ,., 11:w 1739 3.50 ··1 .. 1 ·1 .. ~ 1,000SF 0.85 44.32 426 214 214 1.00 10 6 , ,4 271
1,000SF 0.85 127.15 250 130 tzt 11.52 ~• •.~I •-~ "-!~ 1:000SF o-:is 148.;5 .., i i• 273 ,:z:;s 48 291 20 '25.12
D.U. 0.85 8.85 16961 841 148 0.51 130 '. 26 104 0.52
357 1 ,12I 17! '6: ,,, 1! nl 14 ' as a .;
158 •~I 55
Totall, I I -1 :1214) HNI I S:UJ 1~[ tjif [-i~l ~ >01
• A!>llles a 1 !'JI redudion In retail llflls to accoml for,...,,. trips (rips where a rellll patron visits mora lhan oae relail use In one trip); applies a l!'ll non-aufD""' tJr-lrip•
"'acx:ount for 1esldents of !he apal1menll on si1ewl-o wait to relall uses .drive ID relal uses, ••llontop al ooe or more $Ile use5 on lheirwayinlDorOUlof lhe stre (and do noraeate a
uniQue.e-vehicle Idol
1Cl02S_qJ g,en,,f,EW ..... -T,.~
Brook Bell
From :
'lent:
'o:
Cc:
Subject:
Allen , Kirk 1Kirk.Allen@DOT.STATE.CO .USJ
Wednesda,·, February 01 , 20 . 2 3:39 PM
Brook Bell
Ladd Vestry; Sheehan, Bradley
CDOT Ref# 006712 for SH 285 , Englewoor' Case# ZON2012-001
EXHIBIT D
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTI. fENT OF TRANSl'ORTA TJON
Re&ion b Tn111ic
AcccWUt:litics Penn.its
Ru,1.bidc Adv(:ltbina
20<(i Snu1l1 I-lolly Slrecl
l ~env ~r, Cohuudo 80222
,o~-7S7-1J.Sll FAX 303-7S7-91k6
1 Fchrunry ~:) 12
Brook Bell
City of Englewood, Couun . Dev.
1000 Englewood Parkway
'nglewood, CO 80110
RE: KENT PLACE ACCESS PF,RMIT REVISION
Dear Brook Bell ,
The Colorado Department ofTransportation does not object 10 the increase in size of the drive in bank (TTE
91 2) from 3800 sq. ft. to 4344 sq . fl . It should be noted, however, 1hat the incrc;1sc in tl1c drive in bank trip
gcnerntion shall be absorbed hy the CUtTently pennitted adt. This may be accomplished by either reducing the
traffic generation by one of the other permitted uses or adjusting the internal capntre based on observation.
Please conluct me with uny questions or concerns and thank you for including CDOT in your plam1ing pro c.,ss.
Sincerely,
Kirk Allen
Colorado Dcpanment of 'l'ransportation
Region 6 Acct"Ss Manager
~irk.all_en@dot .state .ca .ui
EXHIDIT E
IFO X ll'ii·l·lftl-------------... ►
TRAN ■,aaR ·'"ATIDN GROUP
MEMORANDUM
To : Kirk Allen
Colorado Department of Transportation Raglan 6 Access
From : Steve Tuttle , P .E ., PTOE
Date : February 16, 2011
Project: Kent Place
Subject: Access Permit Revision
We have reviewed the February I , 20 12 letter that you provided lo lhe City of Englewood in
response to the proposed increase In the drlve -lhrough bank sile (3 ,800 lo 4,333 sq . H) wllhln
the Kent Place development. Within the context of your letter and to follow up on the Bank UH
Trip Generation Addendum letter provided by Fox Tuttle (dated January 19, 2012), we would
like to clarify the volume of anticipated addlllonal site trips that will be incurred at the Hampden
Ave. (US 285) access and subject lo the provisions of the ~DOT Access Permit .
The existing Access Permit specifies a PM-peak volume of 195 vehicles per hour. Using the
same lrlp generalion and distribution assumptions discussed In detall In the lrafflc lmpacl sludy
and addendum letter, ii is estimated that the increased bank size will result In one add itional
inbound trip and one additional outbound trip at the Hampden Blvd. access In the PM pook
hour. Thus, the anticipated increase represents 1 % of the total permitted access volume .
Given that we feel that the original traffic study internal capture auumptions were
conservatively low, we feel that these additional trips can be absorbed within the currently
permitted access volume without restudy and/or adjustment (reapplication) of the Access
Permit .
It addilional changes lo the lar.~ use plan are proposed that would increase the site trip
generation estimates and potentially affect the Hampden access driveway totals . II Is
understood thal these changes will need to be addressed similarly al that time . Please let me
know if you have any questions or would like to discuss.
SGT/
P,□, B □X 1976B, BOULDER, COLORADO B03D8•276B
PHONE: 303 ·6S2·3S71 I F"AX: 303 ·6S2·6574 I WWW,F"OXTUTTLE .C □M
Brook Bell
From:
~nt:
lo:
Cc :
Subjtcl :
Atlachments:
Drook
Chekal , Eric (EricChekal@RegencyCenters .com(
Fr iday, Fe!>ruary 17, 201212 :55 PM
Brook Bell: Ladd Vos try
Steve Tuttle
FW : Kent Place Access Perm it
10025_access permit-bank use .pdf
~XHIHIT F
The attached memo and the email bel ow from COOT should clc.sc the loop. Please let me know if you have
uny questions or need anything else.
Eric
From: Allen ,Kirklmailto :Kirk .Allcn@DOT,ST ATE.CO .US(
Sent.: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:33 AM
To: Steve Tuttle
Cc: Chckal, Eric
Subject: RE: Kent Place Access Permit
Sieve,
Thank yo-.. for the clarification and the commihnent to address potential trip generation changes as they arise .
do concur with yo ur analysis.
Kirk Allen
R-6 Acce ss Pennit Manager
Colorado DOT
2000 S. Holly Street
Denver, CO 80222
J03) 757 -9531
hir~-J\Uc n1ii1doLJili1 c .co 1s
1rom: Steve Tuttle l1 :1:tihn :hu tl c(1il ll1 ~1u11lc .c11111J
Scnl: Friduy , Fobn111ry 17, 2012 R: 11 AM
Tn: Allen . Kirk
Cc: 'Chekul, Eric'
Suhjcrt: t.enl f'lncc Access i'ermit
Kil'k :
Please review the u1111chcd memo and let me know if you concur and /n r if anything else i, needed at 1his point.
This information should be lwlpful for the developer and City as the project moves forward and thl'· remaining
p~ds /umt s urc butlt out.
Thank s,
Steve
Sl el'e li111/e , P.E.. /'TOE
l·i ,.t 1il11/e Trmuportalion Group , LLC
P.O . /J o.,· /9 768
8011/r/,·r. CO 80 308-2 768
Plto11 e: .!U3-652-3 57 I
Fm . JnJ .J74-6347
Mohile: .103-8 75-2180
Ft,bruary 9, 2012
Mr. Brook Bell
Planner II
Cily of Englewood
"'Tri-County r Health Department
Community Development Department
Englewood, Colorado 80110
RE : ZON2012-001, Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development• Third Amendment
TCHD Case #2662
Dear Mr . Bell:
EXHIBIT G
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the third amendment to the Denver
Seminary Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Tri-County Health Department (TCHD) promotes community planr,ing that makes ii easy for
people to choose healthy behaviors. An example of a heallhy behavior would be regular
physical activity, such as walking , which helps prevent heart disease, diabetes, and other
serious health conditions. We applaud the architectural character statement of the PUD, which
encourages physical activity by future residents and visitors by emphasizing the importance of
the pedestrian realm .
While this amendment would allow for a new use that would generate what is estimated to be
only a modest increase in automobile trips through the development, the design of the
intersection at South University Boulevard could be improved to ensure pedestrian and cyclist
safety. We would ike lo offer the following comments related to ways that the applicant can
ensure the creation of a healthy community :
1. Consider re-aligning the angled crosswalks al' the inlersection of South Universily Boulevard
and E. Girard Place so that they are designed to function the same way as those proposed at
the intersection of E. Girard Place and the as-yet unnamed street that runs north/south.
Angled ramps send pedestrians Into the Intersection rather than directing them squarely Into
the crosswalk . Reducing the radii of the two comers will also encourage drivers to reduce
their speed as they enter the development, further ensuring the safety of pedestrian .
2. Consider the inclusion of a small pedestrian refuge area in the median at the easVwest
crossing of South University Boulevard . A refuge, combined with the proposed crosswalk. will
provide a safe waiting space for travelers who are unable to cross the entire width of Iha
street before automobile traffic resumes .
Again, thank you for this opportunity to review and provide comments on the Denver Seminary
Planned Unit Development-Third Amendment. If you have any questions, please don't nesitate
to contact me .
Serving Adams, A1apah0t: dlld OouyJcjs Cou·1tie:, T Ri Chdrd L. Vog t. MO EA-:c.;uti .,.e Oirudu1 T www.tc hd .or~
5162 S Willow Drive , Suite 100 • Greenwood Village , CU 80111 -5 114 • 303-220 -9200
Sincerely,
(ltJt(llkd-tiA .
Elizabeth Kay Marchetti, AICP
Built Environment Policy Coordinator
CC: Carol Mac1~nnan, Warren Brown, Hope Dallon, Vanessa Richardson, Laura DeGolier
Serving Adams , Arapahoe Jnd Douglas Counties • Ric hard L. Vogt , MO , Executive Direc tor "' www .tchd .org
6162 S. Willow Drive . Suite 100 • Greenwood Village, CO 80111-5114 • JJ;;.220-9200
February 29, 2012
Mr. Urook Uell, AICP
Planner II
City of Eni:lewood
I 000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
RE: Kent Pluce PL'D Amendment Tri-County Health Departm en t Response
Dear Brook,
Thank you for forwarding tlte Tri -County Health Departrncm (TCHD) lotter lo us fur a rcspo11se. Wi,ile
we appreciate their recognition of the· architect's intent to "emphasize the importance of the pedestrian
realm " and Iha! there will "only be a modest increase in automobile trips through the de\'clopment'' we do
wish to respond to the two listed comments .
1. The radius of the curb returns at th e intersection ofE. G irard Place anJ University Boulevard
were designed based on City nf Englewood standards which nre based on the road classir.cations
and the type and size of vehicle that muy access the site ; fire trucks, moving trucks , delivery
trucks, etc. The city standards call for this type of 45 degree ramp because the radius size and
sidewalk configuration do not allow for two 90 degree ramps nt the intersection . In response to
reduced vehicle speeds, when vehiclc3 enter th e devdopment they will cncounler A landscaped
drive lane which leads to a pedestrian friendly internal intersection. This drive lane configuration
with landscaping , a narrow ing drive lane , accent paved cross walks and two buildings close to
the road will result in traffic calming.
2. The cross walk on the south side of the E. Girard Plac e and U1u,:ersity Boulevard inlersection has
been designed to direct pedestrian traffic to the receiv ing ramp on the cast side of the interse cti on
and docs not cross a raised median therefore there is not a loc ation for a pedestrian refuge .
In addition the improvements that TCHD speaks uf revising arc not part of th e PUD Amendment request
ond are locntcd off nf the proposed honk site. These improvements (handicap ramps, curb returns. street
medians) have actually already been permitted and constructed in the field .
Please let me knuw if there. are aoy additional requests associated with this submitwl or if you have any
questions.
Sincerely ,
Regency Centers
~--A•~
/
Senior Project Manager
1480 EAST ORCHAkO RO~D . SUITE 6900 . im~wooo VILLAGE , co 801 I I 303.300 .IJO O . 888 .920.9100 . fl,J., 303.69 1.6901 R[GEN CYC[NlERS .CmA
P lJ H l I C W U H K ~ A t~ lJ U l V I I U I' M l: f~ I
Dave Schmit , P.E. I Di,o t:tor
February 1 O. 2012
Brook Bell, Planner II
Clly of Englewood
Community Development
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
ARAPAHOE COUNTY
rinoTEOT, CONNECT. ENJO'I.
RE : Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment (Kent Place Development)
City of Englewood Case No.: ZON2012-001
Arapahoe County outside referral #012-007
Dear Mr . Bell,
EXHIBIT I
The Arapahoe County Public Works and Development -Engineering Services Division (Staff)
values the continued coordination between our jurisdictions regarding the Kent Place
Development. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Slaff has no comments on the
subject referral at this lime. However, Staff would appreciate that this coordination continues
with any future revisions that could impact operations to our shared infrastructure.
Please also note that the Arapahoe County Planning Division may follow with their comments
under a separate document.
Thank you again for including Arapahoe County In your process and for the opportunity to
respond . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our department.
Sincerely ,
c)k.:taG __,
Irene Valenzuela, PE
Engineer Ill
Cc Cfforlc:, V H~.si<in.s, E11gir:eed119 S<:MG~~ Or'ti$/o,), DiviW11 MtWfl!J'IT
Lairy Nimmo. Fi~ld C•(Hlrt:/ions Ad,11•;11!!tatcr. C1.'1 of E,1g/9wood
011t$kk f«lfeml l!nginHnr.9 ,=,:.,
IVRC>R
692'1 Soulh Lima Street I Centennial, CO c:;112
720-87''1 -GtiOO M,1111 I 720•07'1 •6611 ~a it I 720-874 -6!i7'1 TOD I vN,w.co a,:ipahoo.co 1,19
Bulltllng
720-874•6600
e:11gh 1ee1 ing
720,874,6~00
Suppor1 Scrv1cos
720·0'/4 ,0500
Tra111:1µortntion
7?.0•874 •0500
Pl ,inning
720 -874 ·66~0
RoucJ 011<.1 Bridur,
7~0 •H74 •6U20
PlanninK and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing
Case #ZON201 l-OOI. Dem.er Seminary Ammdmcnt No. 3, Drive-through bank
Much 20, 2012
Page I ors
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 20, 2012
Minutes and audio are available at:
http://www .cnslcwu1.1dgov.org/Jndcx aspx?pnge=152
I. CALL TO ORDER
l~:
The regular meeting of the Cily Planning and Zoning Commi;sion was called to c der at
7:06 p.m . in the City Council Chamber~ of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Knoth
presiding.
Present:
Ab sent:
Staff :
Bleile, Roth, King, Welker, Knoth, Fish, Brick, Kinton, Harbaugh
Townley (alternate)
None
Alan White, Community Development Director
Brook Bell, Planner II
Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 6, ·201 2
Ruth moved:
Bleile seconded: TO APPROVE THE MARCH 6, 2012 MINUTES
Cha ir Knoth asked if there were any modifications or corrections.
There were none.
AYES :
,\IAYS:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Bleile, Roth, Welker, Knoth, FJSh , King, Brick, Kinton
None
I larbaugh
None
.\.1otion Cdrlied.
tQ
Fish 11,ovo;u :
Bleile seconded : TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASES #2012-01 ,
#2012-02 and #ZON2012-004
PlaMing and Zoning Comminion
Public lie.iring
Case l#ZON20\2 .00I , Demer Smiinary Amendmcnl No . l. Drivc-lhrough bank
March 20, :?012
f'agc 2 of)
Chair Knoth asked ii there were any modifications or corrections.
There were none.
AY[S:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT :
Bleile, Roth, Welker, Knoth, fish, King, Brick, Kinton
None
Harbaugh
None
Motion carried .
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING
lQ
CASE #ZON2012·001, DENVER SEMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 3
Bleile 11 ,oveu :
Roth seconded : TO OPEN CASE #ZON2012-001
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAl:--1 :
ABS[NT:
Bleile, Roth, Welker, Knoth, Fish, King, Blick, Kinion, Harbaugh
None
None
Nu11e
Morion carried .
Mr. Bell was sworn in and presented the case . He stated Amendment No. 3 would add
Financial Institution wilh a Driv e-Through Service to the Table of Allowed Uses .
APPLICANT TESTIMONY
lOl
Mr. Frank Cannon of Continuum Partners was sworn in and gave a PowerPoinr slide show .
Mr. Erik Chekal al Regency Centers was sworn in and answered ti ·~ Commis sion's
questions.
DISC USSION POli'JTS :
• How many lanes are being requested
• Is this a new bank branch or a relocation
• New traffic signal and reconfigured intersection at University and Hampden
• Stacking of vehicles on,sile
• Traffic flow
PlaMina and Zonin& Commission
Public Hearing
Case #ZON2012-00I , Denver Seminary A.mendmen1 No . ], Drive-th1ough bank
March 20. 201'?
PaQe 3 ofS
• On-sit~ p;irking
• On-site grade differences
• Screening of t1eadlights
• Detention area
• Number of exits onto Universitv Boulevard
• Interaction between pedestrian~ anu vehicles
• Other potcnti;il permitted uses for the site
PUBLIC TlSTIMONY
LQ1
Testimony was received from :
John Binder. He suggested the Commission consider limiting the PUD to one drive-
up and one A TM lane.
Martha Kirkpatrick. She stated she has been involved with the Kent Place
redevelopment for the past two years and felt a bank was the most logical solution , the best
use of space and the least impactful on the neighborhood . She stated she had received
suff,cient information and communication regarding the proposed change. The Developer
has made a very thoughtful and win win situation for both the development, the neighbors
and the community.
Michael Sares. He said for all the reason; Martha stated he is also in favor in this
change to the PUD . He felt other uses, such as a restaurant, would be a much worse
option. He said he feels the Kent Place redevelopers have done their best not only to
accede to the community regarding the lighting out also even in 1ero11s of the la11dscaJJing.
He said he has been very pleased and is in favor of the change.
Bleile moved :
King seconded : TO CLOSE CASf #ZON2012-001
AYES:
NAY~:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bleile, Roth, Welker, Knoth , ~ish , King, Brick, Kinton, l~arbaugh
None
None
None
Motion carried.
Planning and Zoning Comm ission
Public Hi:;mng
Case #ZON201 2-001 . Ocn,er Seminary Amcndmcn1 Nu . l , lluvc-1hmu,h ha11k
March 20,201 2
Pa"e4 110
[Qi
Welker moved:
Bleile secu11t.led : CASE #ZON201 2-00I, DENVER SEMINARY PLANNW UNIT
rJEVELOPMENT AMENDM/"NT NO J BE RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL '/0 CITY COUNCIL WIT/-/ A FAVORABLE
RECO/\·IMF.N/JATION FOR ADOPTION WITH THE
FOLLOWING AMENOMf.NTS :
► All approl'ed co nditi ons and rcquiremmls e,r.iblished
under rhe l)cnve, Seminary PUD, Den ve r Seminary PUrJ
-Amendment No . I, and Denver Seminary PUD -
AmendmMI No . 2 sl,.1// ~pply unless amended by
Amcndmenl Nn l
► Thal a Financial lnslilulion with Drive -Through St•rviw me
shall I,,. limit ed to Lot 3 p e r the Sire Plan.
► Thal th e Financial Institution with Drive-Through Servi ce
.1hal/ be hm,tecl lo lwo driv e-through lanes .
Mr . ~isb said Amendment No. 3 is in compliance wirh the PUD District Plan and the PUD
Site Plan; it Is a good option.
Mr. Welker said he likes the cvolurion of rhe proje< I and a bank is a better use than other
possibilities. l·le saici he feels there will be rrnnimal i~ pact lo the neighborhood.
Mr. Kinton stated he feels the bank is the best 1,se possible for the site.
Mr. Harbaugh st,110rl he fcPls a hank is a coud use for lhe property.
Mr. Bleile s,1id ii ,s a good plan and lhe developer has clone a phenomenal job of working
wilh the cr,01m11nily . He slated he apprec iated the public speaking out on the project.
Mr. King appreci,11ed lhe positive, and no negative, comments from the public.
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
llleile, Roth, Welker, Knoth . Fish , K:ng, Brick, Kinion, 1 larbaugh
None
NonP
None
,"1otion carried .
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
l~
The'e was no public commenr.
PlnM ing ;md Zcninii Comr.1iss1on
Publ ic Hcmng
Casc#ZON2012 -00 1. Den.,.er Seminary Amrndmen1 No . J, Drive -through b;w1k
Match lO, 2012
PagcSofS
V. ATTORNEY'S CHOKE
LOI
Ms . Reid had nolhing furlher lo reporl.
VI. STAFF'S CHOICE
LG
Direclor While slaled the April 3'' and 1 ;•h meeting discussion will be Sign Code
Amendrnenls . He provided an anlicipaled limeline lo finalize 1he S'gn Code Amendmenls .
VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
LO
Mr . I larbaugh announced he will Le 1esigni11g fru111 Ille Cu111111issiu11 effeclive immedia1el1•.
He thanked lhe members and said his lime on lhe Commission has been enjoyable.
Mr. Fish said he was so 11y 10 see Mt . Hdtbaugh go.
Mr. Bleile slated several pipe bombs exploded in his area of town anci ~sked Staff 10 follow•
up •nu , eporl bdck at 1he 11ex1 meeting.
Mr. Rolh said he found lhe letler from Tri-Counly Heallh inlere;ting.
Mr . Bri ck said if 111011ey co•rld be se cured he would like lo see lhe pedestrian refuge area
recommended in Tri-County's leller built
The meeling adjourned al 6 :3 0 p.m.
Barbara Krecklow , Recording Secrelary
CllY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF CASE #ZON2012·001
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND
AMENDMENT NO . 3 TO THE DENVER ) CONCLUSIONS Of THE
SEMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) CITY PLANNING AND
INITIA TEO BY:
Kent Place Regency, LLC.
) ZONING COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
8480 E Orchard Road, Suite 6900
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
)
)
Commission Members Present:
Commission Members Absent:
Elrick, Fish, Knoth, Roth, King, Bleile , Welker, Harbaugh,
Kinton, Townley
None
This matter was he ard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on March 20,
2012, in the City Council Chambers of the b1glewood Civic Center .
Testimony was received from Staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission received
notice of Public He aring, Certification of Posting, Staff Report and supplP.mP.ntal
information from Staff, which were incorporate:J into and made a part of the record of the
Public H earing.
After conside-ing statements of the witnesses, and reviewing the pertinent doc uments, the
membe · ,e City Planning and Zoning Commission madP thP fnllnwin8 Finding< anrl
Conclu»-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THAT thP Englewood Estates Planned Unit Development was app rov ed as
Ordinance No. 52 , Ser ie s of 2004; with Amendment No. 1 app roved on February
23, 2007, by Ordinance 9, Series o :007; and Amendment No . 2 approved on June
20, 2008, by Ordinance 26, Series of 2008.
2. THAT the request for Amendment No. 3 to the Denver Se minary Plann ed Unit
Development was filed by Kent Place Regency, LL( on Januar y 24 , 2012.
3. THAT Public Notice of the Public Hearing was given by publication in thP
Englewood Herald on March 2. 2012 and was on the City's websile from February
27, 2U'l2 through March 20, 2UH.
4. THAT the property was posted ,.s required, said posting setting forth the date, time,
and place of the Public Hearing.
5. THAT pursuant to the Denver Seminary PLO amendment procedure, the applicant
conducted a neighborhood meeting on lanuary 12, 2012.
6. THAT notire of the neighborhood mcr,ting was mailPrl lo property owners ~11d
occupants of property within I 000 feet of the site.
7. THAT the Amendment No. 3 PUD District Plan and Site Plan was reviewed by thc
City's Development Review Team (ORT) on February 7, 2012. ldentificd issues were
addressed by lhe applicant and the final Denver Seminary PUD Ameridmc,1t No . 3
pvckel was s ubrnilled on February 15, 2012.
8 . THAT Planner Bell testified the request is for Amendment No. 3 to thP. DP.rWP.r
Steminary Planned Unit Developrnt:nt. Mr . Bell testified to the criteria the
Commission must consider when reviewing an amendment to a PIJIJ application.
Mr. edl further testified thal Staff recommends approval of the amendmenl.
9. THAT Amendment No. 3 will add Financial Institution with Drive-Through Sc,rvice lo
the Table of Allowed Uses for the Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development.
CONCLUSIONS
1. THAT the dpµlication was filed by Kent Place Regency, I.LC seeking approval for
Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment No . .1.
2. THAT proper notification at the date, time, and place or the Public Hearing was
given by publication in the oificial City newspaper, posting on the City's website and
by posting of the properly for the required length of time .
3. THAT all 1eslimo11y received from staff members, the applicant and the public has
been made part of the record of lhe Public Hearin!\.
4. THAT the request meets the criteria for an amendment.
THAT the Denver Seminary Planned Unil Development Amendment No . 3 is i11
conformance with Roadmap Englewood: 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan.
6. THAT Amendment No. 3 is in compli,1nce wilh the PUD Districl Plan and the PUD
Site Plan.
7. THAT Amendment No . 3 will have minimal impact on the surrounding
neighborhoods and is the best use of sµace for the sile .
8. THAT a Financial Institution wilh Drive-Through Service use shall be limited to Lot 3
per the Site Plan.
9. THAT the financial In stitution with Drive-Through Service shall be limited to two
drive-through l~nes.
DECISION
THEREFORE, it is the decision of the City Planning and Zon ing Commission that the
applic:ation filed by Kent Place Regency, LL C. for Denv e r Seminary Planned Unit
Development Amendment No. 3 be recommended to Citv Council for approval.
The dec ision was reached upon a vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City
Pldrming arnl Zoning Crn 1111ri s,iu11 u11 March 20, 2012, l.,y Mr. Wc lker, seLu11<lc<l l.,y Mr .
Bleile , whic:h motion states:
AYF.S:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABS[NT:
CASE #ZON2012·001. DENVER SEMINARY PLANNED UNIT
rJfVFI.OPMENT AMEN OM ENT NO. ·i . RE RFCOMMfNOEO
FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE
RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION WITH THE
FOi i OW/NC CONnlTIONS:
► All approved conditions and ,equirements es1ablisl1ed
under the Denver Seminary PUD. Denver Seminary PUD
-Amendmenl No. I, and 0t'nver Seminary PUO -
Amendment No. 2 shall apply unless amended by
Amendment No. 3.
► That a Financial lnslitulion will, Drive · Througl, Service v,e
shall be limited lo Lol 3 per the Sile Plan.
► Thai ihe fir,anciJI Institution wilh Drive-Through Service
shall b e limited to two d,ive-1/Jrough lanes .
King, Knolh, Roth, Bleile, rish, Well:er, Harbaug,,, Kinton, Brick
None
None
None
The motion carried .
3
These Findings and Conclusions are effective as of the meetinii; on March 20, 2012.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Chad Knoth , Chair
4