HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 Ordinance No. 024•
•
ORDINANCE Nod-·
SERIES OF' 1996
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 19
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER HATHAWAY
AN ORDCSANCE REPEALING TITLE 16 , CHAPI'ER 4 , SECTION 15, ENTITLED
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL
CO DE 1985 AND ENAC'l'ING A NEW TITLE 16, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 15,
ENTITLED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONJ,; DISTRICT.
WHEREAS , the cum,nt Planned Development (PD) procesa is overly complicated
and is not IU.fficient to permit new uses in the rezoning processj and
WHEREAS, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process would be more
appropriate for a large land area or complicated land use proposals because of the
three stage review of any propooed dev elopment; and
WHEREAS, a Planned Unit Developc,ent (PUD) three staged review , with criteria
fo r appro\'&I , provides for a thorough review of all upecta of the proposed
development; and
WHEREAS , the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) process pro,;des
fl exi bili ty to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Co uncil in their
review of a proposed developm ent plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNC IL OF THE CITY
OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
~-The Englewood City Council hereby repeals TiUe 16, Chapter 4, Section
15, •ntitled Planned Development District of the Englewood Municipal Code , 1985
and u acts a new Ti tle 16, Chapter 4, Section 15, entitled Planned Uni t Dev elop ment
Zone Oh trict , which will reRd as fo ll ows :
16 -4-15 : PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUDl ZONE DI STRICT :
A . INTE'IT. TH E PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPM. 'IT (PUD ) DISTRICT
REPI.\CES THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRI CT IN TH E
ZONING ORDINANCE TITLE OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL
CO DE . PD DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1996 SHALL
CONTINUE 1'0 BE GOVERNED BY THE RESPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT
PLANS AND THE RE GULATIONS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONE
DISTRICTS . REZONING APPLICATIONS FOR THE PD ZONE DI STRI CT
NOT APPROVED BY JULY 1, 1996 , SHALL BE REVIEWED ACCORDING
TO PUD CRITE RIA AND , IF APPROVED, SHALL BE DESIGNATED PUD .
NO AD DITIONAL PD DESIGNATIO NS SHALL BE GRANTED AFTER
JULY I , 1996 .
.).
10 b 1
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION APPLY TO ALL LANDS, USES,
AND STRUCTURES IN OR TO BE REZONED TO THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONE DISTRICT. THE PUD ZONE DISTRICT IS
INTENDED AS AN >.LTERNATIVE TO CONVENTIONAL LAND USE
REGULATIONS. THE PUD ZONE DISTRICT COMBINES USE, DENSITY ,
DESIGN AND SITE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS INTO A SINGLE PROCESS ,
AND SUBSTITUTES PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS FOR THE
REQlllRFMENTS OF THIS SECTION. THE PUD ZONE DISTRICT IS
SPECIFICALLY IN'l'ENDED TO :
I . PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS NOT OTHERWISE
PERMITTED WITHIN CONVENTIONAL ZONE DISTRICTS; AND
2. ENCOURAGE FLEXIBILITY, UNITY, QUALITY URBAN DESIGN ,
AND DIVERSITY IN LAND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT,
RESULTING IN CONVENIENT AND HARMONIOUS GROUPINGS
OF USES, STRUCTURES AND COMMON FACILITIES; VARIED
DESIGN AND SITE LAYOUT; AND APPROPRIATE
RELATIONSHIPS OF SPACES TO INTENDED USES AND
ADJACENT PROPERTIES; AND
3 PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
CO'ITROL FOR A SINGLE PARCEL OR MULTIPLE PROPERTIES;
AND
4 . ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE ENGLEWOOD
COMPREHE NSIVE PLAN ; AND
5. PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH , SAFETY , l!ITEGRITY AND
GCNERAL WELFARE , AND OTHERWISE ACHIEW: THE
P URPOSES PROVIDED IN THE PLANNED UNIT DlWELOPMENT
ACT OF 1972, TITLE 24, ARTICLE 67, COLORADO RH lSED
STATUTES 1973 , AS AMENDED.
B . PURPOSE .
I. REQUESTS FOR ZONING OR REZONING TO THE PUD ZONE
DISTRICT SHALL BE FILED ON A CITY APPLICATION FORM,
TOGETHE R WITH ALL PLANS, MAPS AND ANY 0THER
INFORMATION AS MAY BE N ECESSARY, REASm.ABLE AND
RELEVANT FOR REVIEW llY THE CITY. THE APPLICATION
S HALL BE AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER($) OR AN
AUTHORIZED AGE NT . APPLICATIO NS MUST BE SUBMITTED
WITH FEES WH IC H SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION .
2 P UD APPLI CA'T'IIJNS SHALL ONLY BE CONSIDERED F0R
P ROPERTIES GRE ATER THAN ON E-HALF ACRE .
3. PUD APPLICATIONS SHALL GE NERALLY BE I N AC CO RDAN CE
WITH THE STANDARDS FOR ZONING OR REZONIN G
PROVISIONS OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUN ICIPAL CODE (E .M.C.),
TITLE 16, C HAPTER 3 OF THI:: E .M.C ..
-2-
•
·•
•
•
C. PROCESS. THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE
DISTRICT REQUIRES THREE STAGES FOR PUD PROJECT REVIEW
AND APPROVAL: ll PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW; 2) PUD DISTRICT
PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL; 3) PUD SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROV AL .
!. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW . STAFF SHALL REVIEW
PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL.~ AND PROVIDE WRITTEN
RECOMMENDATION~ TO POTENTIAL APPLICANTS . NO
PROJECT APPROVA L IS IMPLIED OR GRANTED AT THIS EARLY
REVIEW STAGE .
2 . PUD DISTRICT PLAN: THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATIO N TO Cl,\'
COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION ON A PUD DISTRICT PLAf:
ZONING REQUEST .
3 PUD SITE PLAN: PUD SITE PLANS MAY BE REVIEWE'u BY THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WITH A
RE CO MMENDATION FOR FINAL ACTION BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OR MAY BE REVIEWED AND FINAL ACTION TAKEN
BY THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM CORT) IF SUCH
AUT HORITY IS GRANTED TO THE ORT BY THE CITY COUNCIL
AS PART OF THE PUD DISTRI CT PLAN APPROVAL .
4 . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM : THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
TEAM CO RT) SHALL CON SIST OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM
CITY DEPARTMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY MANAGER .
THE ORT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING
APPLICATIONS. THE DRT IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR
REFERRALS AS APPROPll!ATE TO : GOVERNMENT AGENCT.ES ,
UTILITIES, NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS , OTHER
INTERESTED OR rtFFECTED PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS .
D . PERMITTED USES. THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN SHALL PEltMIT M'Y
USE WHICH IS A PERMlTTED USE IN ANY zo~ DISTRICT OF THE
CITY , OR AS MAY BE PERMITTED THROUGH THE "SIMILAR LAWFUL
USE' DETERMINATI ON PROCESS IF ALLOWED IN THAT ZONE
DISTRI CT WHEN SUCH USE IS PROVI DE D FOR AND APPROVED IN
THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN AND WRITTEN S1VULATIONS.
E . PUD DISTRICT PLAN REQUJRED . APPLICATIONS SHALL BE
REVIEWED UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND
OTHER APPLICAB LE CITY , COUNTY , STATE AND /OR FEDERAL
REGULATIO NS .
I. PR',-APPLI CATIO REVIEW : TH E APPLI CANT SHALL
REQUEST A PRE -APPLI CATION REVIEW WITH THE CITY PRIOR
TO FORMAL SUBMITTAL OF A LAND US E APPLI CATI ON . THIS
REVIEW SHOU LD TAKE PLAC E PRIOR TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL
I NVES TME M , SUCH AS LAN D ACQUISITION, SITE AND
ENG INEERI:-IG DESIGN OR THE PREPARATI ON OF OTHER
DATA IT IS THE APPLI CANT'S RESPONSIBILITI" TO PROVIDE
.3.
SUFFICIE NTLY DETAJLED PLANS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE
PROPOSAi ,, FOR STAFF TO MAKE THE DETfRMINATIONS
REQUIRED IN THIS TITLE. TYPICALLY THE PRE-APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL INCLUDES A SKETCH PLAN DRAWN TO SCALE
SHOWING STRUCTURE ENVELOPES, AND ENVELOPES FOR
NON-STRUCTURE D USES OF THE PROPERTY SUCH AS
PARKING AND LANDSCAPING . A TRANSMITTAL LETl'ER
DESCRIBING THE PROJEC'! AND LAND USE SHOULD
ACCOMPANY THE SKETCH PLAN . AS A RESULT OF THE PRE-
APPLICATION REVIEW , THE CITY SHALL:
A. INFORM THE APPLICANT IN WRITING OF APPLI CABLE
CIIT POLICIES, PLANS , AND REQUIREMENTS AS THEY
APPLY TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND
B. REVIEW WITH THE APPLICANT THE APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN THIS SECTION AND WITHI N
THE ZO NING ORDINANCE ; AND
C. DISC USS WITH THE APPLICANT THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF THE PRE-APPLICATION REQUEST WITH RESPECT TO
THE POLICIES AND REGULATIO NS SET FORTH \VJTHIN
THIS ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN ; AN!)
D. DISCUSS \V!TH THE APPl.lCANT THE ISSUES RELATED TO
LAND USE , LANDSCAPING CO NCEPTS , AND OVERALL
PROJECT DES!GN ; AND
E . D•SCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT THE ISSUES RELATED TO
ANY ANTICIPATED IMPACT; AN D
F . EXAMINE AND REVIEW WITH THE APPLICANT POSSIBLE
ALTERNATIVES OR MODIFICATIONS RELATED TO THE
PROPOSED APPLI CA TION .
2 . PU D NE IGHBORHOOD MEETING AND NOTIFICATION :
A . MEETING REQUIRED . THE APPLICANT SHALL HOLD A
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING I N AC CO RDANCE WITH CITY
PRO CE DURES TO DESCRIBE THEIR PROPOSAL BEFORE A
FORMAL PUD APPLICATION S HALL BE ACC EPTED BY THE
CITY .
-4 -
•
•
·•
•
•
B . PURPOSE. THE NBIOHBORHOOD MEETING IS INTENDED
TO BB AN OPPORnJNITY FOR THE APPUCANT TO
DESCRIBF THE PROPOSAL AS WELL AS FOR ANEA
RESIDEJ1;1 ,'S AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO OFFER INPUT
ABOUT T'ilE PROPOSAL AN EARLY STAGE. THE
APPUCANT SHALL HOLD THE MEETING AT A TIME AND
LOCATION ACCESSIBLE AND CONVENIENT FOR THE
PUBLIC . THE CITY SHALL BE REPRESENTED .'lT THE
MEETIWG. THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE SHALL PREPARE
A WRT.ITEN REPORT OF THE MEETING AND MAKE COPIES
AVAILABLE TO THE DRT STAFF, THE APPLICANT AND
THF. PUBLIC.
C . MAILED NOTICE . THE APPUCANT SHALL MAIL
WRIITEN NOTIFICATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
MEETING TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN FIVE
HUNDRED FEET OF THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT. NOTIFICATION SHALL BE TO PROPERTY
OWNERS OF RECORD AT TR& ARAPAHO E COUNTY CLERK
AND RECORDS OFFICE FROM DATA AVAILABLE WITHIN
NINETY DAYS BEFORE MAILING . THE APPLICANT SHALL
PROVIDE A MAILING LIST TO STAFF AND CERTIFY THAT
LETTERS WERE MAILED VIA THE US POSTAL SERVICE TO
THE LISTED ADDRESSES AT LEAST TEN DAYS PRIOR TO
THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING .
3 . PUD DISTRICT PLAN: THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FOR
CITY REVIEW A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) SETS OF THE PROPOSED
PUD DISTRICT PLAN . A COMPLETE SUBMJTTAL SHALL BE
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW NOT LESS THAN FORTY-FIVE (45 )
BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE REGULAR PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AT WHICH THE DISTRICT
PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION .
APPLICATIONS SHALL BE DEEMED COMPLETE ONLY UPON
SUBMITTAL OF ALL REQUlRED INFORMATION . REVIEW WILL
NOT OCCUR UNTI L THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE . THE PUD
DI ST RlrT PLAN SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY DETAiLED TO
INDICATE THE GENERAL OPERATION AND APPEARANCE OF
TH E DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL INCLUDE BUT SHALL NOT
NECESSARILY BE LIMITED TO, THE FO'.,LOWING :
A. THE NAME ANu :..XATION OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT; AND
3 . THE NAMES . ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMB ERS OF THE
APPLICANTS . OWNERS, DEVELOPERS AND DESIGNERS OF
THE DEVELOPMENT; AND
C. DOCUMENTATION CONFIRMING THAT THE APPLICA.11/T
HAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT INTERE ST I N THE PROPERTY
PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT , OR IS TH E DULY
AUTHORIZED AGENT OF SUCH A PERSON ; AND
-5 -
D. AN AMERICAN LAND TITLE SSOClATION AND
AMERICAN CONGRESS ON SURVEYING AND MAPPING,
LAND TITLE SURVEY (ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY)
AND URBAN CLASSIFICATION; AND
E. A PUD DISTRICT PLAN , DRAWN AT A SCALE OF NOT LESS
THAN ONE INCH PER F1FI'Y FEET '1"■50') ALONG WITH
NORTH ARROW, WRITTEN AND GRAPHIC SCALE, OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE DISTRICT PLAN SHALL
BE OF SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO DETERMINE IMPACTS ,
BOTH ON AND OFF SITE, THAT MAY REQUIRE
MITIGATION. THE DISTRICT PLAN SHALL
ADDITIONALLY SHOW OR STIPULATE THE GENERAL
LOCATION, ARRANGEMENT, EXTENT, AND CHARACTER
FOR THE FOLLOWING, WHERE APPLI CABLE :
I . ADJACENT STREETS AND PROPOSED POINTS OF
ACCESS; AND
2. EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE WITHIN AT LEAST
THREE HUNDRED (SOOl FEET OF ALL PROPERTY
BOUNDARY UNES; AND
3. THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC CHARACTER OF THE
LAND AND EXISTING NATURAL FEATURES; AND
4 . LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIONS OF ANY EXISTING
UTILITIES OR EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY; AND
5. LOCATION AND SIZE OF PROPOSED LAND USE; AND
6 . APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND HEIGHT OF
PROPOSED STRUCTURES REFERENCED TO LOWEST
FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE;
AND
7 . PARKING PLANS INCLUDING ; LOCATION , DRIVE-
THRU AND ACCESS POINT, STACKING , DRIVE AISLES ,
STANDARJ;J PARKING SPACE, DISABLED PARKING,
COMPLIANCE WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS , LOADING ,
FIRE LJ:rlES , DIMENSIONS, QUANTITY OF PARKING
SPACES , AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION OF PARKING
AREA:l OR STRUCTURES; AND
S. THE CHARA CTER , AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION
AND DENSITY OF ALL DWELLING UNITS, IF
APPLICABLE; AND
9 . THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND AREA OF OPEN
AND RECREATION SPACE ; AND
-6-
•
•
•
•
10. IDENTIFY CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANS
lNCLUDING TYPICAL MATERlAI.S OR CONCEPTUAL
LANDSOAPlNG AND IRRIGATION CRITERIA )F
DIFFERENT FROM CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE CRITERIA; AND
11 . IDENTIFY TRANSITIONAL BUFFER AREAS
REQUIRING FENCING AND I .'.NDSCAPlNG BETWEEN
INCOMPATIBLE USES; AND
12. IDENTIFY PEDESTRIAN ClRCULATION ROUTES
INCLUDING SIDEWALKS. BUS ST0°S, BIKE PATHS;
AND
13. DIMENSIONS OF SEPARATIONS BETWEEN
BUILDINGS, STREETS, AND OTHER FEATURES; AND
14 . AREAS SUBJECT TO 5 YEAR AND 100 YEAR FLOODING,
RETENTION AREAS, DETENTION AREAS AND
SURFACE DRAINAGE ; AND
15. SIGNAGE PLAN INCLUDING; LOCAT!0N, SIZE,
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS AND
ILLU?.!INATION; AND
16. FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS ; AND
17. TRAFFIC PLAN Dl,;SCRIBING EXTERNAL
ClRCULATION OF VEHICLES ENTERING OR LEAVING
THE srrE; AND
18. OTHER ELEMENTS SUCH AS CONCEPTUAL
ARCHITECTURAL AND BUILDING DESIGNS, FACADE
TREA1 MENTS, AND EXTERIOR BUILDING
MATERIALS, AS NECESSARY TO F.STABLISH HOW
THE PROPOSED PUD ZONE DISTRIL7 WILL RELATE
TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES; AND
F . A WRITTEN STATEMENT GENERALLY DESCRIBING THE
PROPOSED PUD AND THE MARKET WHICH IT IS
I NTE NDED TO SERVE; ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , AND HOW THE PROPOSED PUD
DISTRICT Wl 1 L RELATE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY.
WHERE THE APPLICANTS OBJECTIVES A'lE NOT IN
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITP. THE
COMPREHENGIVE PLAN , THE STATEMENT SHALL
INCLUDE THE CHANGED OR CHANGING CONDITIONS
THAT JUSTIFY APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL; AND
G. A GENERAL STATEME NT OF THE ANTICIPATED LEGAL
TREATMENT OF CO MMON OWNERSHIP AND
~ INTE 'ANCE OF SUC H AREAS , IF APPLICABLE ; AND
-7 -
H. A GENERAL INDICATION OF THE EXPECTED SCHEDULE
OF DEVELOPMENT IN'OICATING :
1. THE APPROXIMATE DATE 'WHEN CONSTRUCTJCIN
OF THE PROJECT CAN BE EXPECTED TO BEGIN ; i\ND
2. THE STAGES I!< WHJCH THE PROJECT WILL BE
llUILT ; >.ND
3. THE COMMON AREAS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITV.D
TO OPEN SPACE , DRIVE AISLES , PARKING AND
SERVICE AREAS THAT WILL BE PROVIDED AT EACH
STAGE ; AND
I. OTHER INFORMATION DEEMED NECESSARY ,
REASONABLE, AND RE '.EVANT TO EVALUATE TH E
APPL,CATION .
4. CITY REVIEW :
A. UPON COMPLETE SUBMITTAL , THE CITY SHALL REVIEW
THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER . THE CITY SHALL
FORWARD WRITTEN RECOMME'IDATIO NS TO THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND SHALL
SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING WITHIN FORTY-FIVE
DAYS OF RECEIVINO A COMPLETE SUBMITTAL .
B. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL
FORMALLY CONS IDER THE DISTRICT PLAN IN A PUBLI C
HEARING . THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SHALL MAKE THE FOLL OWING FINDINGS :
I . THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN IS , OR :S NOT , IN
CONFORMANCE WITH THE DISTRI CT PLAN
REQUIREMENTS AND THE COMPREHE NSIVE PLAN ;
AND
2. ALL REQ UI RED DOC UMENTS , DRAWING S,
REFERRALS, RECOMMENDATIONS , AND APPR OVALS
HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ; AND
3. THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN IS CONSISTENT WlTH
ADOF'!'ED AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS
OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD ;
AN D
4. THE PI ID DISTRICT PLAN IS SU BSTANTIALLY
CO NSI STENT WITH THE GOALS , OBJECTIVES ,
DES IG N GUID ELINES , PO LI CIES AND ANY OTHER
ORDINANCE , LAW OR REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY ;
AND
-8-
•
•
·•
•
•
6. WHEN THE PUD DlSTRlCT PLAN IS WITHIN THE
F.NGLEWOOD DOWNTOWN DEVi;LOPMENT
AUTHORITY (EDDA) AREA, THE PLAl-1 IS
CONSISTA"IT WITH THE EDDA APPROVED DESIGNS,
POLICIES AND PLANS.
C. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION S.!L\LL
FORWARD THE DISTRICT PLAN TO THE CITY CclUNCIL
WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS AFTER THE l'LAN?ilNG AND
ZO?l.'ING COMMISSION'S FORMAL CONSIDERA'f-JCN OF
THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN , ALOt;G WITH A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE DISTRICT PLAN BE
APPROVED, APPROVED WITH CONDITION,,, OR DENIED
BASED UPON THE COMMISSION'S FINDING,, UNDER
(EX3XB) OF THIS SECTION .
D. UPON RECEIPT OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISS IO N"S RECOMMENDATIONS , THE COUNC1L
SHALL TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE, APPROVE WITH
CuNDITIONS , OR DENY THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN , TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT THE CRITERIA LISTED IN (EXS XB) OF
TH!S SECTION . IF APPROVAL IS GRANTED, THE COUNCrL
SHALL ALSO DETERMINE WHO WILL HAVE APPROVAL
AUTHORITY FOR THE PUD SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN .
E. THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN AND DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
EFFECTIVE THIRTY (30i DAYS AFTER FINAL COUNCIL
APPROVAL .
F. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE TWO REPRODUCIB LE
COPIES OF ALL SHEETS ON MYLAR WITH ORIGINAL
SIGNATURES IN INK. ONE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS
WILL REMAIN ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD ,
THE OTHER WILL BE RECORDED AT ARAPAHOE COUNTY .
RECORDING FEES MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE
DOCUMENTS AND THE DOCUMENTS SHALL INCLUDE
SIGNATURE BLOCKS FOR THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY
CLERK AND RECORDER.
F. AMENDMENT . THE TERMS , CONDITIONS, THE ADOPTED PUD
DISTRICT PLAN AND LOCUMENTS MAY BE CHANGED AND /OR
AMENDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FR ~ TIME TO TIME AS
PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION .
1. MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE PUD DISTRICT PLAi'<. THE CITY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE MAY APPROVE MINOR
MODIFICATIONS IN THE LOCATION, SIZING AND HEIGHT OF
STRUCTURES OR FACILITIES IF REQUIRED BY ENGINEERING OR
OT HER CIR CUMSTANCES NOT FORESEEN AT THE TIME THE
PLANNED UN IT DEVELOPMENT DI ST RICT PLAN WAS
APPROVED SO LON G AS NO MODIFICATION VIOLATES ANY
STANDARD OR REG ULATION SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION .
.9 .
2. MAJOR MODIFICATlONS TO 1·HE PUD DISTRICT PLAN . MAJOR
MODIFICATIONS MAY BE MADE TO THE APPROVED PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLAN PURSUANT TO THE SAME
LIMITATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS BY WH ~H SUCH r.LAN s
AND DOCUMENTS WERE ORIGINALLY APPi ,VEDAS PROVIDED
\VITIIIN THIS SECTION.
G . APPEAL· PUD DISTRICT PLAN. THE APPLICANT MAY APPEAL ANY
DETERMINATION OR ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY U. IDER THIS
CHAPTER TO AN ARAPAHOE COUNTY COURT OF COMi'ETENT
JURISDICTION AS TO WHETHER 'J-HE CITY COUNCIL'$ FINlJINGS
WERE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. IF THE DEC!dlON OF THE
CITY COUNCIL IS FOUND TO BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRI CIO'L'S, THE
CITY COUNCIL SHALL REVIEW THE MATTER AGAIN . SAID APPEAL
TO THE COURT MUST OCCUR WITHIN 30 DAYS OR SHALL BE TIME
BARRED.
H. PUD DISTRICT PLAN REVERSION . PUD DISTRICT PLAN ZONING
SHALL REVERT TO THE PREVIOUS ZO NING THREE YEARS AFTER
COUNCIL APPROVAL IF THE CITY DETERMINES THAT NO
SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE TO DEVELOP THE SITE
ACCO RDI NG TO THE APPROVED PUD DISTRICT PLAN .
SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEAN AJ 'PROVAL
OF A PUD SITE PLAN AND ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PEIOIIT.
APPLIC.\.,VfS MAY REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING AND 'lONING
COlllM IS.:ilON A ONE YEAR EXTENSION.
I. P l.JD SITE PLAN REQUIRED.
I. P UD SITE PLAN: AFTER OR CONCURRENT WITH THE REVIEW
OF THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT
FOR CITY REVIEW A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) SETS OF THE
PROPOSED PUD SITE PLAN . A COMPLETE SUB~flTTAL SHALL BE
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (3 0) DAYS
AFTER FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNC IL.
APPLICATIONS SHALL BE DEEMED COMPLETE ONLY UPON
SUBMITTAL OF ALL REQUIRED REVIEW INFORMATI ON .
RE'.lEW WILL NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE APPLICATION IS
COMPLETE . THE PUD SITE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE THE ENTIRE
AREA APPROVED BY THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN . THE PUD SITE
PLAN MAY CONSIST OF ONE OR MORE STAGES, PROVIDED
HOWEVER. TH.AT THE APPROVAL OF ANY ON E STAGE MAY BE
CONTINGENT ON IMPROVEMENTS THAT INVOLVE OTHER OR
ALL STAGES . THE P UD SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY
DETAILED AN D SH.ALL CON TA1.N SUCH INFORMATION AND
DOCUMENTATION TO F ULLY IN!)!CATE THE ULTIMATE
OPERATION AND APPEARANCE OF THE PROJECT AND SHALL
I 'CLUDE BUT, NOT NECESSARILY BE LIMITED TO, THE
FOLLOWING .
• 10-
•·
..
•
·•
•
•
A. ADEQUATE DESIGN OF GRADES, PAVING, GUTtERS,
DRAINAGE AND ACCESS POINTS ON ADJACEN1'' PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE STREETS. PROPER ARRANGEMENT OF SIGNS,
LIGHTING DEVICES, LANDSCAPING AND STRUCTURES
WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC,CONTROL DEVICES, TRAFFIC
SITE DISTANCE AND ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS; AND
8 . A STATEMENT OF ZONING AND LAND USE ON SUBJECT AND
ADJACENT PROPERTIES; AND
C. A PLAN FOR THE ADEQUATE TREATMENT OF ON -SITE
DRAINAGE TO HANDLE STORM WATER FLOWS, PREVENT
EROSION, PLANS TO MINIMIZE THE FORMATION OF DUST
DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION, TO MINIMIZE
ADVERSE IMPACTS OF DRAINAGE AND GRADING TO
ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE
TREATMENT OF EXISTING NATURAL FEATURES; AND
D. THE LOCATION , DIMENSIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF ALL
UTILITIES OR EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY; AND
E . WITH MULTIPLE USES , PROVIDE A LAND USE SCHEDULE
LISTING PERMITTED LAND USES AND THE AREA DEVOTED
TO EACH ; AND
F. A PLAN SHOWING STRUCTURE LOCATIONS , GROSS FLOOR
AREA , FINISHE D FLOOR ELEVATION, AND BUILDING
HEIGHTS. AND , ADEQUATELY IDENTIFING BUILDINGS,
PARTICULARLY IN PROJECTS WHERE TWO (2) OR MORE
BUILDINGS US E ONE STREET AllDRESS OR WHERE TWO (2)
OR MORE BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED ON PRIVATE STREETS
OR DRIVES . SITES WITH MULTIPLE BUILDINGS REQUIRE
THE FOLLOWING :
1. THE INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY SIGN»
IDENTIFYING EA CH I NDIVIDUAL BUILDI NG AT THE
BEGINNING STAGE OF ITS CONSTRUCTION; AND
2. THE INSTALLATION OF PERMANENT IDE ,,TIFYI NG
SIGNS ON EACH BUILDING WHI CH WlLL ALLOW
QUICK IDENTIFICATION BY EMERGENCY SERVJCE
PERSON NE L AND VlSITORS ; AND
3. THE INSTALLATION OF LEGIBLE MAPS AT THE MAJN
VEHICLE E NTRY PCINTS AND/OR SIGN S SHOWING
ALL PRIVATE STREETS OR DRIVES AND THEIR
ALIGNMENT THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT ; AND
0 . PARKING PLANS INCLUDING : DRIVE AISLES, FlliE LANES , •· PARKING SPACES, LOCATIONS, DIMENSIONS, SPECIALLY
DESIGNATED SPACES FOR LOADING OR THE DISABLED ,
SCHEDULE OF REQUIRED AND PROVIDED SPACES,
COMPLIANCE WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS, AND PLANS OF
THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION OF PARKING AI,EAS OR
STRUCTURES; AND
H. A SCHEDULE OF DWELLING UNJTS (IF APPLICABLE) BY
BUILDING, NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, AND DWELLING UN1T
DENSITY BASED ON UNITS DMDED BY ACRES OF NET LOT
AREA REMAINING AFTER RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS ;
AND
I. A PLAN SHOWING THE LOCATION AND AREA OF OPEN AND
RECREATION SPACE , INCLUDING ADEQUATE AMOUNTS
AND SAFE LOCATIONS OF PLA\ AREAS FOR CHILDREN AND
OT HER RECREATIONAL AREAS ACCORDING TO THE
CONC ENTRATION OF OCCUPANCY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ;
AN'\
J. THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS INCLUDING MATERIAL
SCHEDULE LISTING QUANTITIES , SPECIES, COMMON NAME ,
MI NIMUM SIZE AT PLANTING , AREA CALCULATION S FOR
REQUIRED AND PROVIDED LANDSCAPE AREA AND
IRRIGATION PLANS , INCLUDING DETAILS AND CROSS -• SECTIONS . THE PROVISIONS OF ANY SPECIFI C
LANDSCAPING CRITERIA APPROVED IN THE PUD DISTRICT
PLAN THAT DIFFERS FROM THE CITY OF ENGLEW OOD
LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE SHOULD BE CITED ON THE PUD
SITE PLAN ; AND
K. A PLAN SHOWING FENCES , WALLS OR YEAR -ROUND
NATURAL SCREEN PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING WHE N
NECESSARY TO SH IELD ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS
FROM COMMER CIAL . INDUSTRIAL AND PARKI NG AREAS ;
AND
L. A PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN INCLUDING
SIDEWALKS , PATHWAYS AND INDICATING MATERIAL S
AND DIMEN SIO NS ; AND
M . A PLAN SHOWING DI MENS IONS OF SE PARATION BETWEEN
BUILDINGS , STREETS , AND OTHER FEATURES ; AND
N. A PLAN SHOWING AREAS SUBJECT TO FLOODING FROM A
MAJOR STORM INCLUDING THE 5 YEAR AND 100 YEAR
STORMS, DETE NTION AN D RETENTION AREAS AND
PROVISIONS FOR CONTROLLED RELEASE OF WATER FROM
DETEN TIO N OR RETEN TIO N AREAS FOLLOWI NG A MAJOR
STORM ; AND •
· I 2-
•
•
0 . A JIONAGE PLAN SHOWING LOCATION, SIZE, MATtRIAL
AND UGHTING OF SIGNS INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY
ADOPI'ED REVIEW CRITERIA WHERE APPLICABLE ; AND
P . PUBLIC AMENITIES THAT MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL; AND
Q. OTHER ELEMENTS SUCH AS ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS ,
BUILDING ELEVATIONS, FACADE TREATMENTS , AND
EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS, AS ~:ECESSARY TO
ESTABLISH HOW THE PROPOSED PUD USES AND
STRUCTURES RELATE INTERNALLY AND/OR TO THE
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
2. CITY REVIEW .
A. AS STATED WJTHIN THE APP,,OVED PUD DISTRI CT PLAN
AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL, THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM (ORT) SHALL EVALUATE
THE PUD SITE PLAN FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE
APPROVED PUil DISTRICT PLAN AND THE PUD SlTE !'LAN
CRITERIA HERElll. THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY SHALL
REVIEW THE SIT2 PLAN AND SHALL MAKE THE
FOLLOWING FIN0\1,'1S ·
1. THE PUD SITE Pl.AN IS, OR IS NOT, IN CONFORMANCE
WITH THE DISTRICT PLAN REQUIREMENTS ; AND
2. ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS, DRAWINGS , REFERRALS ,
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND APPROVALS HAVE BEEN
RECEIVED ; AND
3. THE PUD SITE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH ADOPTED
AND GENERALLY AC CEPTED STANDARDS OF
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF E NGLEWOOD ;
AND
4 . THE PUD SITE PLAN IS SUBSTANTIALLY CONSISTENT
WJTH THE GOALS. OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES AND /OR
ANY OTHER ORDINANCE, LAW OR REQUIREMENT OF
THE CITY .
B. THE REVIEW ING AUTHORITY SHALL RETURN ONE OR
MORE COPIES OF THE PUD SITE PLAN TO THE APPLICANT,
MARKED TO SHOW APPROVAL, APPROVAL WITH
COND ITIONS , OR DENIAL. THE ORT SHALL, WHEN THE
S ITE PLAN IS APPROVED , BUT NOT PRIOR TO THE
RE CO RDING OF THE APPROVE D PUD DISTRICT PLA'.'1 AND
DO CU MENTS. RE CO RD A COPY OF SUCH PORTIONS OF THE
PLAN AS MAY BE APPROPRUTE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUN TY CLERK AN D FILE A CO PY WJTH THE CITY .
-I 3-
3. MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO PUD SITE PLAN : THE CITY .,
THROUGH THE ORT MAY AUTHORIZF, MINOR DEVIATIONS
FROM THE PUD SITE PLAN WHEN SUCH DEVIATIONS APPEAR
NECESSARY IN LIGHT CiF TECHNICAL OR ENGINEERING
CONSIDERATIONS . MINOR DEVIATIONS SHALL NOT BE
PERMITTED IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES
RESULT :
A . A CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT ; OR
B. A CHANGE IN THE LAND USES; OR
c. A CHANGE IN THE GENERAL LOCATION C\F LAND USES; OR
D. AN INC REASE I N THE MAXIMUM HEIGIIT OF ANY BUlLDIN G
OF MORE THAN FIVE PERCENT (5 %); OR
E. AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS , OR IN
THE RATIO OF THE GllOSS FLOOR AREA OF STRUCTURES
TO THE LAND AREA, OR INCREASES IN THE PROPOSED
GROSS FLOOR AREA WITHIN ANY PARTICULAR LAND USE
OF MORE THAN TWU PERCENT (2%); OR
F. A REDUCTION IN THE SETBACKS FROM PROPERTY LINES ;
OR
G. AN INC REASE OF MORE THAN TWO PERCENT (2%) IN • GROUND COVERAGE BY STRUCTURES OR SURFACE
PARKJNG ; OR
H. A REDUCTIO N BY MORE THAN TWO PERCENT (2%) IN THE
LAND AREA DESIG NATED FOR LANDSCAPING ; OR
I. I. REDUCTION IN THE RATIO Of' OFF-STREET PARKI NG
AND LOADING SP',CE TO GROSS FLOOR AREA OR NUMBER
OF DWELLING UNITS IN STRT !CTURES : OR
J . A CHANGE AFFECTING '!'HE ACCESS FROM AN D THRO UG H
PUBLIC RJGH'n:i-U~'-WAY ; ,0 ROVJDED , HOWE VE R, THAT
CURB CUT LOCATIONS MAY SHIFT UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
ESTABLISHED BY THE DISTRICT PLAN .
4. SIT E Pl.AX AMEN DME NTS : ALL PUD SITE PLANS APP ROVED
A.N D RE CO RDED HEREUNDER MAY ONLY BE AME NDE D
PURS UAA"T TO THE SAME PROCEDURE AND SUBJECT TO THE
SAME LIMITATIONS AND REQ111REME!'."TS BY V.111CH SUCH
PLANS WERE APPROVED .
•
·•
•
•
J . APPEAL-PUO SITE PLAN .
1. THE APPLICANT MAY APPEAL ANY DETERMINATION OR
ACTION 1'AKEN BY THE CITY UNDER THIS CHAPTER TO AN
ARAPAHOE COUNTY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AS
TO WHETHER THE CITY COUNCIL'S FINDINGS WERE
ARBITRARY ANO CAPRICIOUS. IF THE DECISION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL IS FOUND TO BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, THE
CITY COUNCIL SHALL REVIEW THE MA'ITER AGAIN . SAID
APPEAL TO THE COURT MUST OCCUR WITHIN 30 DAYS OR
SHALL BE TIME BARRED.
2. THE APPLICANT MAY APPEAL ANY DETERMINATION OR
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ORT UNDER THIS CHAPTER TO THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION SHALL MAKE A FIND>ING OF WHETHER
THE DETERMINATION OR ACTION OF THE ORT WAS
ARBITRARY ANO CAPRICIOUS . IF A FINDING IS MADE THAT THE
DRT'S DETERMINATION OR ACTION WAS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS THEN SUCH DETERMINATION OR ACTION SHALL
BE OVERTURNED . THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMM ISSION MAY BE APPEALED TO AN ARAPAHOE
COUNTY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AS TO
WHE affiR THE PLANNING AND ZO NIN G COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS WERE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. IF THE
DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS
FOUND TO BE ARBITRARY ANO CAPRICIOUS, THE PLANNING
AN D ZO NING COMJ\fiSSION SHALL REVIEW THE MATTER
AGAIN . SAID APPEAL TO THE COURT MUST OCCUR WITHIN 30
DAYS OR SHALL BE TIME BARRED .
3 . NOTI CE OF APPEAL . APPELLANTS SHALL FILE AN APPEAL
FROM A DRT DECI S ION ON A CITY APPLICATION FORM ANO
SHALL SPECIFICALLY STATE THE BASI S OF THE APPEAL. AN
APPE:AL SHALL BE FILED WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE FINAL
DATE OF A SPECIFIC DETERMINATIO N OR ACTION . NOTICE OF
AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ORT HEARI NG SHALL
CONFO RM TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL NOTICE
FOR THE APPLICATION WAS GIVEN . THE APPELLANT SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NOTICING MATERIALS REQUIRED IN
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION .
~. Safety Clauses Th e City Council, hereby finds , determines, an d
decl a r es that thi s Ordinance is promulgated under the ge neral police power of the
City of Englewood , that it is promulgated for the health, s afety, and welfare of the
publi c. an d that thi s Ordinan ce is necessa ry for the preservation of health and
safety and fo r the protection of public co nve ni ence and welfa re . Th e City Counci l
furth e r determin es that the Ordinance bears a rational re lation to the proper
legislat i\'C obJec t sought to be obtain ed .
-15 -
~-SeverabiUt·, If any clauae, 1entence, paragraph, or part of thia
Ordinance or the application thereof 1D any penon or circumatances 1hall for an y
reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, 1uch judgment
sh all not affect impair or invalidate the remainder of thia Ordinance or ill
application to other persons or circumstances.
~-Inconsistent Ordinances All other Ordinan ces or portion s thereof
incQnsistent or conflicting with this Orrlinan ce or any portion hereof are hereby
rc;:-ea led t~ th e extent or ■uch in conaistency or conflict .
~-Effect of repeal or modifica t-ion... The repeal or modifi cation of an/
prov is ion of the Code of the City of Englewood by thia Ordinance shall not r ele aae ,
extinguish , alter, modi fy , or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or
liabilit y, either ci vil or criminal, which ahall have been incurred under ouch
provision , and each provision shall be treated and held as still remaining in for ce
fo r the purposes of sustaining o.ny and all proper actions , suits, proceedings, and
prosecution s for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiturr ,r liability, as well as for
the purpose of s ustaining any juf'l!""~t, decree, or order which can or may be
rendered , entered , or made in such action&, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions .
~-l:e.wlJ.u . The Penalty Provision ofE.M.C. Section 1-4-1 shall apply to
each a nd e very violation of this Ordinance.
Introd uced . read in full , and passed on first reading on the lat day of April , 1996 .
Published as • Bill for an Ordin ance on the 4th day of April , 1996.
A Public Hearing was h eld on M•y 6, 1996.
Am ended , reintrodu ced , read in full, and paased on the 20th day of May, 1996.
Published as amend ed on the 23 r d day of Mey , 1996 .
Read by title and passed on fin al readi ng on the 3rd day of June, 1~96.
Published by title as Ordinance No . l:i. Series of 1996, on the 6th day of June,
1996.
~d.rb,
Loucrishio A. Ellis, City Cle rk
-16·
•·
·•
•
•
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Cl erk of the City of Englewood , Colorado, h ereby
certify that the abov e and foregoing is a true copy Jf P,e Ordinance pasa,tl on final
reading and publish ed by title as Ordinance No . ;!;f., Series of 1996 .
~£/4 (£..
Lo ucrishia A. Ellis
-17-
•
•
COUNCIL CQMIIUfflCATIQN
DATE: May 20, 1996 AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: Amendment of
Comprehensive Zoning
11 ai ii Ordinance
Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Ordinance
INITIATED BY : Office of Neighborhood STAFF SOURCE: Mark Graham
and Business Development Neighborhood Community Coordinator
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Council Goal;
Community /rueractlDn --Creating a development process where clUZen s can be notified
early of PUD development proposals and attend a public n,eetlng about the proposed PUD
before the development appl!caUon Is submitted. The PUD process provi des several
opportunities for the public to offer suggestions for Improving a project and mitigating
Impacts In public meetings and hearings. The proposed amendments create a process
that better responds to the market on routine requests .
Economic Development --Quality development helps Englewood promote Itself as an
attractive place to do business. The PUD process not only assures the quality
development demanded by residents but Is also market driven so It advances the Cl,v",
pro -bustness commitment
Prcyioua Council Action;
City Council conducted the public hearing on the PUD on May 6, 1996. The Council
requested an amendment to Include a public meeting early In the review process. City
Council accepted the Ordinance for first reading on April I and set the public hearing
date. The PUD Ordinance was discussed at the March 4, 1996 Council Study Session
when Council recommend~d minor changes and directed sta!T to brtng the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment forward to a regular Council meeting. Prtor to Council's
Study Session , the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal on
February 6, and January 23, 1996 and vo ted unanimously to recommend approval of the
Plan ned Unit Deve lopment ordinance (as amended) to Council .
RECOMMENDED ACTION :
Th e bill for an ordinance Is being reintroduced with the requested amendment for a public
meeting before a formal appli cation for rezoning Is accepted . Council is requested to
approve the ordinance as amended and schedule a vote for final passage on June 3 . 1996 .
BACKGROUND, ANAi.Jiii, MP ALJ'IMATM".f m1KDF11P ;
BACKGROUND--Under current provisions. Englewood requires developers of projects over •
one acre or over four attached dwelllng unit,, :o obtain a Planned Development (PD)
Ove rlay approval. The Issue Is often neither res1:lential density nor land use but In most
cases the PD Is necessary to obtaln slle plan review and approval. The current PD
ordinance requires that Overlays be consiste nt with the underlytng zone district. Based
on stalfs assessment there are two Iss ues: First. the current PD process Is ove rly
compllcaled for reviewing site plans: and s e cond . the c urrent process Is not clearly
sufficient ro pennll new uses as a rezontng process. The first problem requtres a new
property deve lopment ordtnance for reviewing use-by-right site plans. Staff has begun this
n ew process. It Is anticipated lo be before Plannlng Commission and City Council later
this year. The s econd pro blem Is resolved with the adoption of the pro posed PUD
ordinance.
ANALYSIS--S taff recommends that Englewood develop zontng processes more appropriate
to develo pment ,equests. Under the pn pos ed PUD . large land area or co m plicated land
use pro posals wo uld be reviewed ln three ,, •• :.es by s taff. and two stages by the Planntng
and Zo ning Commission, and City Co uncil. 'l'trat. the proposed PUD process requtres a
pre-a ppllcatlor, conference between staff and developers followed by a s taff response to the
d eveloper. ~cond. staff, the Planning and Zontng C.ornmlsslon and City Council would
always review :h~ Pl~ District Plan which establi shes the permitted land uses. locations.
and d, . c, ;,ment standards. Third. the proposed ordtnance also requires stair to m1ew
all PUD !. ite Plans and gives discretion to the Planning and Zoning Commlssi<in and Ctty
Co uncil which may require their review of PUD Sile Plans or a uthorize st aff to complete
the review of specific site plans .
The proposed PUD process provides fo r ln~reasing levels of detail as th e revi ew
prc.i;resses. while providing ttrnely answers to developers a t spectfied Intervals In the
process. The propos ed PUD process provides fi c:dbllity to the P'lanning and Zoning
Cornmlsslon and City Council lo determine whether their review of the PUD Site Plan ts
desirable. The PUD rezonin g process requires developers lo design thelr projec ts lo
mlllgale lrnpacts Identified by deve lop ers, staff. Planning and Zo mng Commission , City
Council and the public . The new PUD process and criteria. to gether with the exi s ting
criteria for rezoning. Is s uffi cient to s pecifically review the land u ses and d ensities
approved on the PUD District Plan by the Planning and Zoning Cornmlsslon and City
Council. fl. proposed PUD Sile Plan must be consis tent with a PUD District Plan and will
provide sufficient detail to assure tha t project Imp acts are adeq uately addressed .
FlNANCIAL lMPACT:
No funds are requested with this p roposa!
UST OF ATTACHMENTS :
Proposed BUI for Ordinance
Staff Re port Case # OR-96-2
H \G ROUP\PLl.:--'\CCPUDd DOC
•
•
•
•
Staff Report
To:
Thru :
From :
Date :
Su bject:
RIQUIST
Enslewood Plannina 1111d Zonina Commission
Robert Simpson, Manqer, Neiahborfiood and Business Development
Marie Graham, Neighborhood Community Coordinator
February 2, 1996
PC Date: February 6, 1996
Planned Unit Development (P ) Zon~ District
In&lewood CompnhctUive Zoain1 Ordinance Ameadmenl
Case# OR 96-02 (Continued from January 23, 19'";6)
The request before the Engle wood Planning and Zoning Commission is for the approval of a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone district, as revised . After your review, comment and
approval suffwill forward the PUD o, .. ".unce to City Council for approval . Council approval of
the PUD zone distric t ordinance will amend Englewood's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance .
Find anached a copy of the draft, ~ Planned Unit Development zone district ordinance for
your consideration.
RICOMMENDA TION
l . Staff recommends that the Englewood Planning and ::oning Commission approve the
attached Planned 'Unit Development (PUD) zone district I! an amendm ent to Englewood 's
Comprehensive .Zo;ung Ordinance .
1-. Staff recJmme1ids that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to City Cc:lllcil
approval of the zoning amendment.
BACKGROUND
The propo.ed PUD ordinance has been revised in response to Englewood Planning and Zo ning
Commission comments at the January 23, 1996 Public Hearing . Staff has added provisions for
appeal , zo ning and site plan reversion, design consic eratio n, and model find ings . Staff revised
othe r pr ovi sions , includ ing : waiver of subminal requi rements and the authority of the Commission
to review both the PUD Distric t Pb.n and by rcquc~. the PUD site plan . Other revisions are
based on funher research into simi iar ordinances of adjacent cities and comments received from
other City depan men ts .
REVISIONS
Six sipiilicam rwvisio111 are addressed in the revised PUD Ordinance. Those • ,·.vuions are Ii.Md •
below with I brief commentary about CICh.
I . wR91 . Appeals to staff decisions about a project may be made to the Planning and
Zoni.,g Commission (PZC). Appeals to PZC decisions on PUD requirements may be
made to !he City Council . City Council decision& 1111}' be appealed to the cowu .
2. Revmjon Clause . PUD District Plan zoning shall n:wn to the previous zoning two
years after Council approval if the City dctcnnines Iha.. no substantial progress bas been
made to develop the site acconlin4' to the approved PUD District Plan . Progress shall be
dcerne,j to mean approval of a PUD Site Plan or issuance of a Bw1ding Permit. Applicants
may request a one year extension . The Planning and Zoning Commission may dctcnnine
whether substantial progress is evident based on the information prescnte,j with the
application.
PUD Site Plan shall become null and void two years after Planning Commission approval
if the City detennines that no substantial progress has been made to develop the site
according to the approved PUD Site Plan . Progress shall be deemed to mean issuance of
a Building Permit within a two yeAI period . Ap plicants may request a one year extension.
The Planning an d Zoning Commission may determine whether substanti al progress is
e-.ident based on the information presented with the application .
3. Submittal Requ irements . The authority to waive submittal requirements is more clearly
defined . On PUD District Plans and Site Plans that require PZC review, suffmay onl y
make recommendations to the PZC to waiv e subminal requirements . The final decision is
up to the PZC which may accept or revise those requirements at their hearing . For PUD
Site Plans requ iring administrative review, suffmay waive submittal requirements if they
determine that they are not applicable or otherwise unnec essary for the review of a
specific project . In both cases staff must explain their decision in writing to the PZC when
any submittal requirements are waived .
4. Dcsjgn Reyjew . Staffs authority to review design issue s ;s stated expl icitly . Staff may
review architectural elevations and building materials, landscape plans and materials, and
may approve, condition approval on changes, or deny plan approval if the designs or
materials are inappropriate .
5. ~-A pro vi sion has been added that requ ires all contiguoos property under one
ownership be included in a PUD applicati on.
6. f ind ing s for App rov al. The PZC shall make findings for tpproval of the Di strict Plan and Site
Plan and may add others deemed appropriate based on the infonnat ion contained in the
documents and st atements at the public hearing .
lL."'pvup'fllan'C/'pud.OOC , ...
•
•
•
•
1'0TDtC! .. TION
Notice oftbis Ena)ewood Compr~!lensive Zonina Ordinance amendment wu published within the
Ena)ewood Herald a minimum of 15 days before this Plannina and Zoning Commission public
llwina-
cc : Robert Simpson, Manager
Case# OR 96-01 FIie
attachment Planned Unit Development (PUD) onlinance
MEMORANDUM
TO :
FROM : Dan Brotzman, City Atto
DATE . May 1.5 , 1996
REGARDING: C .B. 19 -PUD Ordinance
Attached are pages 4 , 5 and 8 with th e sections in bold of the amended ordinance.
CC: Doug Clark
Bob Simpson
DB /nf
•
•
•
•
SUFFICIENTLY DETAILP.D PLANS AND DESCRIPI'IONS OF THE
PROPOSAL, 110R STAFF TO MAKE T~E DETERMINATIONS
REQUIRED lN THIS TITLE, TYP!OALLY THE PRE-APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL lNCLUDES A SKETCH PLAN DRAWN TO SCALE
SHOWING STRUCTURE ENVELOPES, AND ENVELOPES FOR
NON-STRt;!"'i'URED USES OP THE PROPERTY SUCH AS
PARKING A IID LANDSCAPING. A TRANSMJTTAL LETTER
DESCRIBIN(l THE PROJECT AND LAND USE SHOULD
ACCOMPAN'\'' THE SKETCH PLAN . AS A RESULT OF THE PRE-
APPLICATION REVIEW , THE CITY SHALL:
A. INFORM THE APPLICANT IN WRITING OF APPLICABLE
CITY POLICIES, PLANS , AND REQUIREMENTS AS THEY
APPLY TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT; AND
B. REVIEW WITH THE APPLICANT THE APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN THIS SECTION AND WITHIN
THE ZONING ORDINANCE; AND
C. DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT Tf:E APPROPRIATENESS
OF THE PRE-APPLICATION REQUEST WITH RESPECT TO
THE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS SET FORTH \VlTHIN
THIS ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN ; AND
D. DISC USS WITH THE APPLICANT THE ISSUES RELATED TO
LAND USE, LANDSCAPI NG CONCEPTS, AND OVERALL
PROJE<,'T DESIGN ; AND
E. !JJSCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT THE ISSUES RELATED TO
ANY ANTICIPATED IMPACT; AND
F . EXAMINE AND REVIEW WITH THE APPLICANT POSSIBLE
ALTERNATIVES OR MODIFICATIONS RELATED T O TH E
PROPOSED APPLICATION .
2. PUD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND NOTIFICATION:
A . MEETING REQUIRm. 'r.aE APPLICANT SHALL BOLD A
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY
PROCEDl.JRF.<i TO DESCRIBE 1BEIR PROPOSAL BEFORE A
FORMAL PUD APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCEPTED BY THE
CITY.
-4-
B. PUBPOOE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD MD'l1NG IS INTENDED
TO BB AN OPPOlrnlNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO
Dl!:SCIUBE 'l1IE PROPOSAL AS WELL AS JIOR ABBA
RE!m:•ENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS TO OFFBR INPUT
ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AN EARLY 8I'AGE. TBE
APPLICANT SHALL BOLD THE MEETING AT A 'nME AND
LOCATION ACCESSIBLE AND CONVENIENT FOR THE
PUBLIC. THE CITY SHALL BB RBPRESBNTED AT THE
MEETING. THE CITY REPRESENTAflVE SHALL PREPARE
A WR1TI'EN REPORT OF THE MEETING AND MAKE Cf •PIES
AVAILABLE TOTBE ORT STAFF, THE APPLICANT AND
THE PUBLIC.
C. MAILED NOTICE. THE APPLICANT SHALL MAIL
WRITl'EN NOTIFICATION OF THE NEIGBBOh.HOOD
MEETING TO PROPERTY OWNERS wrrBIN FIVE
HUNDRED FEET OF THE PER.NETER OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT. NOTIFICATIO'.'J SHALL BE TO PROPERTY
OWNERS OF RECORD AT THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY CLERK
AND RECORDS OFFICE FROM DATA AVAILABLE WITHIN
NINETY DAYS BEFORE MAILING. THE APPLICANT SHALL
PROVIDE A MAILING LIST TO STAFF AND CERTIFY THAT
LE'ITERS WERE MAILED VIA TIIE US POSTAL SERVICE TO
THE LISTED ADDRESSES AT LEAST TEN DAYS PRIOR TO
TBE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.
3. PIJD DISTRICT PLAN : THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBM!T FOR
CITY REVIEW A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) SETS OF THE PROPOSED
PIJD DISTRICT PLAN . A COMPLETE SUBMITTAL SHALL BE
AVAILAB LE FOR REVIEW NOT LESS THAN FORTY-FIVE (45)
BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE REG ULAR PL-\NNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AT WHICH THE DISTRICT
PLAN WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION .
APPLICATIONS SHALL BE DEEMED COM PLETE ONLY UPON
SUBMITTAL OF ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION . REVIEW WILL
NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE APPLICA'rION IS COMP LETE. THE PL'D
DISTRICT PLAN SHALL f\E SUFFIC! '.'.'ITJ Y DETAILED TO
INDICATE THE GENERAL OPERATit,ti f ND APPEARANCE OF
THE DEVELOPME NT AND SHALL IN CLUDE BUT SHALL NOT
NECESSARILY BE lt'.UTED TO , THE FOLLOWING :
A. THE NAME AND LO CATI ON OF ~ HE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT: AND
B. THE NAMES , ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS OF THE
APPLICAIITS. OWNERS , DEVELOPERS AND DESIGNERS OF
THE DEVELOl'MENT; AND
C. DOC UMENTATION CONF IRMING THAT THE APPLICANT
HAS LEGALLY SUFFI CIENT INTERE ST IN THE PROPERTY
PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT, OR IS THE Dt:L Y
AUTHORIZED AGENT OF SUCH A PERSON ; AND
-5-
•
•
•
H. A GENERAL INDICATION OF THE EXPECTED SCHEDULE
OF DEVELOPMENT INDICATING :
1. THE APPROXIMATE DATE WHEN CONSTRUCTION
OF THE PROJECT CAN BE EXPECTED TO BEGIN ; AND
2. THE STAGES IN WHICH THE PROJECT WILL BE
BUILT ; AND
3. THE COMMON AREAS INCLUDI NG BUT NOT LIMITED
TO OPEN SPACE, DRIVE AISLES, PARKING AND
SERVICE AREAS THAT WlLL BE PROVIDED AT EACH
STAGE; AND
I. OTHER INFORMATION DEEMED NECESSARY ,
REASONABLE , AND RELEVANT TO EVALUATE THE
APPLICATION .
4. CITY REVIEW :
A. UPON COMPLETE SUBMITTAL, THE CITY SHALL REVIEW
THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF TIITS CHAPTER . THE CITY SHALL
FORWARD WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
PLANNING AND ZONING C0MMJSSION AND SHALL
SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING WITIIlN FORTY-FIVE
DAYS OF RECEIVlNG A r.OMPLETE SUBMITTAL.
B. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL
FORMALLY CONSIDER TH.O: DISTRICT PLAN IN A PUBLIV
HEARING . THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SHALL MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
l. THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN IS , OR IS NOT, IN
CONFORMANCE WlTH THE DISTRICT PLAN
REQUIREMENTS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
AND
2. ALL REQ UIRED DOCUMENTS , DRAWINGS ,
REFERRALS , RECOMMENDATIONS , AND APPROVALS
HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ; AND
3. THE PUD DISTRICT PLAN IS CONS ISTENT WITH
ADOPTED AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS
OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD ;
AND
4. THE PUr, DISTRICT PLAN IS SUBSTAi'ITIALLY
CONS ISTE NT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES,
DESIGN GUIDELINES , POLICIES AND ANY OTHER
ORDINANCE , LAW OR REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY;
A'.'<D
-8-
·•
•
•
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE :April l, 1996 AGENDAITEM SUBJECT: Amendment of
IO aiv Comprehenshe 2'.onlng Ordinance
INITIATED BY : Office of Nei&hborhood STAFF SOURCE : Mark Graham
and Bus iness Development Nei&hborhood Community Coon!~ r
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACl]ON;
Cmwsil...Gsllli
Commwrily l111r.rae1to11 -Creatin& a development process wheN: citizens can express objective in a
Public hearing on significant development proposal . Creating a proom \hat better responds to the
market on routine requests .
Ec.,nomic Dn>elo~N --Quality development helps Englewood promote iuelf as III lllr8Clive
plal'e to do business. The PUD process not only assures th e quality develop ment demanded by
resicients but is also market driven so it adv111ces the City's pro-business committnent
PreyjousCouncilActjoq;
City Council previously considered this proposed amendment at the March 4. 1996 Council Stud y
Session . On March 4, the Council discussed the proposal and recommended ch111gcs . Council also
directed staff to bring the proposed :Z.Oning Ordinance Amendment forward to a regular Council
meeting in order to request that Council schedule a public hearin& on the proposal . Prior Ill
Coun cil's Study Session, the Engl ewood Planning and :Z.Oning commission reviewed the proposal
on February 6, and January 23 , 1996 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
Planned Unit Development ordinance (as amended) to Council .
RECOMMENDED I.Cl]ON;
The City Council is reque sted to schedule a publi c hearing for citizens and businesses to provide
comments ~r, the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone district .
1-\CKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALn.',ltNA1JYU 1111:NJJDEQ;
BACKGROUND-Under current provisions, Enalewood requires developen of projects over one
acre or over four IIIIChed dwellins units to obwn a Planned Development (PD) Overlay appro val .
The issue Is often neilher residential density nor land use but in most cases the PD is necessary to
obtain site pl!n review and approval. The current PD ordinance requires that Overlays be
consistent with the underlyin& :r.one district. Based on staff's assessment there are two issues:
First , the ::unena PD process is overly compliCltcd for reviewina site plans; and second, the
current process is not clearly sufficient to permit new uses as a re:r.oning process . The first problem
requires a new Propeny Development Ordinance for reviewins use-by-right site plans. The second
problem is resolved with the adoption of the proposed PUD ordinance.
ANALYSIS-Staff recommends that Englewoo.l develop :r.onin& proces,u more appropriate to the
requests . Under the proposed PUD, lar i:,e land ai;ca or complicated land use proposals would be
reviewed in three stages by staff, and two stages :>y the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
City Council. Firsl , the proposed PUD pnx ~u ·.cquircs a pre-application conference between staff
and developers followed by a staff response to the developer . S«oad, Slaff, the Planning and
Z.Onin& Commission and City Council would always review the PUD District Plan which
establishes the permitted land uses , locations , and development standards. Third , the proposed
ordinance alsc• requires staff to review all PUD Site Plans and &iV"_;, discmion to the Planning and
Z.Oning Commission and City Council which may require ttcir review of PUD Site Plans or
authorize staff to complete the review of specific site plaHS .
The proposed PUD process provides for increasing lcvds of ::ct.ail as the rcvi.cw progresses , while
providin& timely answcn to developers at specified inle,-,als in the process . The proposed PUD
process provides flexib ility to the Planning and Z.Oning Commission and City Council to determ ine
whether their review of the PUD Site Plan is desirable . The PUD rezoning process requires
developers IL design their projects to mitigate irnpi.cts identified by developers , stair, Plannin g and
Z.Oning Commission, City Council and the public . The new PUD process Md criteria, together
with the existing criteria for rezoning, is sufficient to spe cifically review th e hilld uses and densities
approved on the PUD District Plan by the Planning and Z.Oning Commission and City Council. A
proposed PUD Site Plan must be consistent with a PUD District Plan and will provide suffici ent
detail to assure that project impacts arc adequately addressed .
FJ NA NCIAL IMPACT;
No funds arc requested with this proposal.
Li£r QF ATIACHME!IITS:
Pr0p<1sed Bill for Ordinance
Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD ) Regul ations
Staff Rcp<,n Case #OR -96-2
March 4, 1996 Council Study Sess io n Minutes
Findings of fact from Planning Commis sion
February 6, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes
January 23 , 1996 Planning Commission Minutes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Staff Report
To :
Thru :
From :
Date :
Subject:
REQUEST
Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission
Rohen Simpson, Manager, Neigh~orhood and Busines s Development
Mark Graham, Neighborhood .:ommunity Coordinator
February 2, I 996
PC DMe : February 6, 1996
Planaed Unit Devel11pment (PUD) Zone District
En1lewood Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Case# OR 96-02 (Continued from January 23, ,996)
The request before the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission is fe,; the approval of a
Planned Unit Devel opment (PUD ) zone district , as revised . After your review , comment and
approval staff will forward the PUD ordinance to City Council for approval. Council approval of
the PUD zone distri ct ordinance will amend Englewood's Comprehensi ve Zoning Ordinance .
Find ~!•~ched a copy of the draft ,~~ Planned Unit Development zone distri ct ordinance for
yL ,r c ... ;,:,11eration .
•u:c .'MM ENDA TION
I . Staff rec ommends that the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
attached Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone district as an amendment to Englewood's
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance .
2. Staff recommend s that the Planning and Zoning Commission reco mmend to Ci ty r 0 11ncil
approval of the zo ning ame ndment.
BACKGROUND
The proposecl PUD ordinan ce has been revise d in respon se to Englewood Planning and Zoning
Commission comment s at the January 23, 1996 Public Hearing . Staff has added provisions for
appeal , zoning and site plan reversion , desig n consideration , and model findings . Staff revised
other provisions , incluciin g· waiver of submittal requirements and the authority of the Commission
to review both the PUD Di strict Pla n and by request , the PUD sit e plan . Other revisions are
bas ed on funher research into similar ordin anc es of adjacent cities and comments received from
other City depanments .
h v ou rplanstfpud do..
prooecutiona for the enfon:ement of the pe nalty, forfeiture, or liability, n well aa '.or
the purpooe of auataining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be
rendered , entered , or made in such actions , s ui ts, proceedings, or prosecutions.
~-~-The Penalty Provi.ion ofE.M.C. Section 1-4-1 shall apply t<,
each and "'"ry violation of thi s Ordinance .
lntn<!u,ed, r ead in full , and passed on first reading on the 1st day of April, 1996 .
Publish!!<! •• a '3ill for an Ordinance on the 4th day of April , 1996.
~
L1111t.
Loucrishia A. Ellis , City Clerk
!, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify
th at the above and foregoing is a true co py of a Bill for an Ord.in ce . introduced ,
,ead in full , and paS!led on first reading on the lat day of ril 99€.
Loucrishia A. Elli s
-15 -
•
•
• REVISlONS
•
•
Six signifie&nt revisions are addressed in the revised PUD Ordinance . Those revisions are listed
below with a brief commentary about each .
I . ~-Appeals to staff decisions about a project may be made to the Planning and
Zoning Commission (PZC). Appeals to PZC decisions on PUD requirements may be
made to the City Council . City C1Juncil decisions may be appealed to the courts .
2. Reversion Clause . PUD District Plan zo ning shall revert to the previous zoning two
years after Council approv al if the City determines that no substantial progress h.ss been
made to develop the site according to the approved PUD District Plan . Progress shall be
deemed to mean approval of a PUD Site Plan or issuance of a Build ing Permit. Applicants
may request a one year extensio n. The Planning and Zoning Commissio n may determine
whether substantial progress is evident b&Y-d on the information pre se nted with the
application .
PUD Site Plan shall become null and void two years after Planning Commission approval
if the City detennines that no substantial progress has been mad e to develop the site
according to the approved PUD Site Pl 1<n. Progress :;hall be dee med to mean issuance of
a Build ing Pennit within a two year period . Applic :.·1s may reques t a one year extensio n.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may dete rmine · Nhether substant ial progress is
evident based on the information presented with the application .
3. Subminal Requirement s. The auttority to waive submittal requirements is more clearl y
defined . On PUD District Plans and Site Plans that require PZC review , staff may only
make recommendations to the PZC :o waive submittal requirements . The final decision is
up to the PZC which may accept or rC1'ise those requirements at their hearing . For PUD
Site Plans requiring administrative review, staff may waive submittal requ irements if they
determine that they are not applicable or otherwise unnecessary for the review of a
specific project. In both cases staff mu st exp lain their decision in writing to the PZC when
an y submittal requirements are waived .
4. De,:ign Review . Staff"s authority to review design issue s is stated explicitly . Staff may
re view architectural elevations and bu ilding materials , landscape plan s and materials, and
may approve, condition approval on changes, or deny plan approval if the desi gns or
materials are inappropriate .
5. ~-A provision has been added that requires all contiguous property under one
ownership be included in a PUD application .
6. Findi ngs fo r Approval. The PZC shall make fi ndings for app roval of the District Plan and Sit e
Plan and ma y add oth er s deemed app ropri at e based on the information conta ined in the
do cuments and stat ements at the public hearin g .
h:'«roup pl&n .stfpud.doc
NOTIFJCA TION
Notice of thi 5 Englewood Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance amendment was ooblished within the
Englewood Herald a minimum of I 5 days before this Planning and Zoning Commission public
hearing .
cc : Roben Simpson, Manage r
Case # OR 96-0 I File
atta chm ent Pla nned Unit Devclopmcn • (PUD ) ordinance
·•
•
•
CITY 1 )F ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MA lTER OF CASE IOR-96-02
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDA 11ONS RELATING
TO A PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE BY ENACTING A NEW )
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DIS TRICT l
INITIATED BY:
NEIGHBORHOOD & BUSINF.SS
l>E 'VH,OPMENT STAFF AND CITY
PLANNIN G AND ZONING COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF 'flfE
CITY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Case P'O R-96-02 was cµened for Public Hearing before th ~-Cit y Planning and Zoning Com -
mission on Januarj 23, [996 in the City Counci l Chamber! of Englewood City Hall.
Com mission m,:mbers present:
Comm ission members absent:
Home r. Shoop , Tobin , Weber , Douglas, Dummer Mason
Garre n Redpath
The Public Hearing was continued on February 6, I 996.
Commission members present :
Commi ssio,1 membe1 absent :
Doug las , Dummer, Garrett, Homer. Redpath. Shoop ,
Tob in, Weber , Mason
None
Testimony was received from staff. Commission members received the Notice of ~~tbli c
Hearin g, and Staff Repons dated January 18, 1996 and February 6, l996 , with attached drafts
of proposed Planned Unit De velopment regulations . Mr. Celva of the Downtown De\l lop-
menl Au1hority had been in attendance on Febrnary 6"'. but depart ed prior to public inp •Jt on
the Hearing. No audience was presem to address the Commission .
FINDINGS QF FACT
I . TBA T the Public Hearing was initiated by the staff of the Office of Neighborhood and
Business Development.
2. TBA T Nolicc of Public Hearing was published in the J:.n&lewood Hera!d on Jmuary
11 , 1996. giving IIOlicc of the date, time, and place of said Public Hearing .
3. THAT Mark Graham , Neighborhood Community Coordinator, testified rqarding the
proposed amendment of the Comprc.'1ensive 7.oning Ordinance by implementing a new
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Di1ttict . Mr. Graham's testi111011y addressed the
need .,. ,'t!ell gthen and clarify cuncnt procedures (Planned Development) by repealing
the cx.•»i ng PD regulations , and implementing the proposed PUD regulations.
4. TBA T Planning Commission members posed questions regarding the impact of the
proposed new regulations on existing Planned Developments, the procedure to be fol-
lowed as outlined in the proposed Planned Unit Development regulations , the impact
5 .
•he new procedures may have both on developers and on the approving bodies , the dif-
rerencc between a "Disttict Plan" and a "Site Pi.in", and posed questions to provide gen -
eral clarification of the proposed process .
TBA T Planning Commission members gave staff suggestions of issues lo be included
in the proposed regulations , such as inclusion of standards, a revcrsionary clause , and
clarification of "substantial progress".
6. TBA T Commis.tjC'llers Douglas, Tobin , and Mason did not agree with the proposed
app li cation of the l'UD ~:andards to R-1 Residentially z:oncd districts .
CONCLUSIONS
I. THAT proper ,. ryf the Pu blic Hearing was published in the Eng)cwood Herald on
January 11 , 19%, giving notice of the date, place, and lime of the Public Hearing.
2. THAT testimony was received from the staff, both verbal and written, which is incor -
porated into the record of the Hearing .
3. TBA T the proposed Planned Unit Development District will provide for :
a. Flexibi lity and creativi:y in z:oning and land use st::ndard~ which are not pro-
vided for within standard z:o ne districts and not characteristic of the existing
Planned Development prov isions .
b. Clarity in language and administration not characteristic of the existing Planned
Development section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi nance; and
•
•
•
c. Improvement of the development process, control, and enforcement, based on
the conceptual PUD District Plan and on detailed Site Plan documents .
DECISION
THEREFORE, it is the decision of t11e City Planning and Zoning Commission that the pro-
posed amendment of the Comprehensi•~ ?oning Ordinance , by repealing the existing Planned
Development (PD) regulations and enacting new Planned Unit Development {PUD) District
regulations, should be approved .
This decision was reached upon a vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning
and Zoning Commission on February 6, 1996, by Mr. Mason , seconded by Mr . Weber , which
motion states :
The Planning Commission approved the proposed Planh.'11 Unit Development (PUD)
~lations, as amend ed with language changes cited this date [February 6, 1996), and
refer said regulations to the City Council for approval.
The vote was caJ:r,J:
AYES :
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Shoo,>, Tobin, Weber, Douglas , Dumme r, Garre tt. Homer , Redpath , Mason
None
Non e
None
The motion carried.
These Fin ding s and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting of February 6, 1996.
~/ ~
b\1roup \boarcb\pl1ncomm lfo fo r::!96