Department of Community Development
Reference: Mountain View Estates Planned Development
To: Mayor Gregory Mills and Members of the City Council
Through: Michael Martinez, City Manager
Marv Falconburg, AICP, Deputy City Manager
Holly Prather, AICP, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Nicholas Di Mario, Associate Planner
Date Prepared: January 14, 2021
PURPOSE
The Zone Change via a Planned Development (“PD”) application before the City Council is for an approximately 165.7 acre property (the “Property”), generally located north of Bridge St., south of Baseline Rd., west of Telluride St., and east of the Brighton Lateral Ditch. Currently, the Property has a mix of the zoning designations of R-1 (Single Family Residential) and R-1-B (City Neighborhood Residential). Redland is the applicant (the “Applicant”) working on behalf of the Property owner, AMREPCO, INC. (the “Owner”). The Owner desires to alter certain site development standards. As such, the Applicant is requesting a zone change via a PD.
Zoning is necessary as it guides a property’s uses allowed by right or conditionally, and this, in turn, allows owners, neighbors, and the community at large to have a reasonable expectation of what can occur on the subject property. It establishes standards for construction including building height, lot coverage, and building setbacks. There are a variety of zone districts within the City including residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and planned development (PD).
The Land Use & Development Code (the “LUDC”) outlines review criteria upon which the decision should be made. An ordinance to rezone must be approved by City Council via two readings to be considered approved. City staff collects and analyzes application materials, and after a thorough review, presents their findings to the City Council. This request to rezone was brought before the Planning Commission on January 13, 2022 for their recommendation prior to review and final determination by the City Council and they voted unanimously to recommend approval.
PROCESSES
The LUDC, effective January 1, 2020, outlines that the PD process is intended for development concepts that require a higher degree of specific planning based on the scale and complexity of the project, the relationship of the project to the context, and the ability to meet the purpose, intent and objectives of the code with more flexible application of the standards. It goes on to mention that a PD shall include sufficient area to implement planning concepts that generate broader public benefits that can only be gained from flexible application of the standards, and not simply be used to justify deviations for single projects or on a site-specific basis.
Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council uses the Review Criteria outlined in the Land Use & Development Code’s Section 2.04 C. 1. These generally include but are not limited to supporting the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, the flexibility provided promotes the general health, safety, and welfare of the community, standards that support base zoning and design intentions, City and supporting services can be provided for the proposed uses, and the change supports a community need, amenity, or development that is not possible under the current zoning.
STRATEGIC FOCUS AREA
● Recognizable and Well-Planned Community
BACKGROUND
The subject Property was annexed and platted in two parts. The area known as Filing 1 (south of Longs Peak St.) was annexed in 1986 and is currently zoned as a mix of R-1 and R-1-B. The area known as Filing 2 (north of Longs Peak St.) was annexed in 2000 and is currently zoned R-1. The final plats for both Filing 1 and Filing 2 were approved by City Council in September of 2013.
Per the current zone districts, the design and lot standards were permitted under the applicable LUDC. Given that the property was not developed under the prior LUDC, the Owner and Applicant now seek to rezone the property to allow for the design standards intended for the property at the time of platting.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The purpose of the PD, as submitted by the Applicant, is to amend the development standards to create lot standards and to better meet the project goals as set forth below:
● Fulfill the approved 2013 final plats;
● Create a neighborhood with a variety of housing options to meet the current housing demand in the area; and
● Update the Landscape Plans to incorporate a low water / xeric plant palette to reduce overall water demand for the neighborhood.
Additionally, the PD will facilitate any and all infrastructure improvements associated with the Mountain View Estates Development Agreement and provide two parks and trail connections throughout the neighborhood.
The LUDC outlines standards that provide specific dimensional and locational standards for single family detached and attached homes. Among these are lot size and width, setbacks, required lot open space, and limitations of allowed building type. The proposed PD seeks to revise these specific standards to mirror what was allowed per the LUDC under which the land was originally platted back in 2013. More specifically, the proposed PD is intended to provide larger building footprints and reduced landscaped areas via reduction of setbacks. The remaining lot area, typically used for landscaping, will be required to incorporate and utilize xeric / low water use species and design (PD, pgs. 7, 18, 19) . Additionally, the LUDC provides limitations of allowed building types. As a portion of the subdivision was platted and zoned R-1-B, the prior LUDC allowed for two-family units (i.e. duplexes). The current LUDC differentiates between duplex-suburban and duplex/multi-unit house, the difference being architectural design and orientation. The platted R-1-B lots are intended to accommodate suburban duplex (referred to as paired homes in the PD, pg. 8) type units; however, said building types are not allowed in the R-1-B zone district under the current LUDC. Under this PD, suburban style duplexes would be an allowed building type as they were when the subdivision was platted.
As previously noted, the proposed PD does include standards from the prior LUDC in order to accommodate development per the subdivision plats approved in 2013. Among these are residential design standards, structural projections, and fencing. As the intended use of the property is not changing, staff has found it appropriate for certain deviations from the current LUDC to be proposed, while maintaining some standards from the prior LUDC, in order for the property to develop as intended when platted and maintain its conformance to surrounding uses and densities.
Under this PD, no uses or densities are changing. The PD would limit the allowed uses to single family detached and attached products, the same residential uses that the Property was originally zoned for. The PD would govern an already platted subdivision; henceforth, the lots meant for detached and attached products, including tracts for parks, are currently existing. It is important for the City Council to consider the rezoning under the entire scope of uses that could be allowed with the desired zone district.
CRITERIA BY WHICH CITY COUNCIL MUST CONSIDER THE ITEM
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The future land use portion of Be Brighton, the Comprehensive Plan, has designated this area as appropriate for ‘Low Density Residential’ land uses. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan lists single family detached and attached homes with an average density of 0.5 - 5 dwelling units per acre as the primary uses. The same Comprehensive Plan designation of low density residential can be found to the east, west and south. Notably, the Preserve PUD (across Telluride St. / N 35th Ave. to the east) contains the same use and density as Mountain View Estates. It is important to note that while the rezoning request would allow for a deviation from some standards set forth in the LUDC, the proposal does not change the Comprehensive Plan designation, nor does it seek to deviate from the primary uses.
In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s chapter on ‘Citywide Principles, Policies & Strategies’, the proposed PD can be found to advance a number of the goals within the chapter. The Managing Growth Principle, Policy 1.1 is supported as new development at the Property will favor an existing area of infrastructure and planning. As the Property has already been subdivided, aka platted, the Development Review Committee previously determined that existing and surrounding infrastructure has capacity to serve this area and that the Property has been planned for the allowed uses under the PD. In essence, development at the site will be able to connect into the existing roadway and utilities networks. The site is bounded by two Collector Streets (Telluride St. / N 35th Ave. and Longs Peak St.) per the adopted Master Transportation Plan. As for The Freestanding City Principle, the proposed PD supports Policies 2.1 and 2.2 as its adoption would maintain the allowed uses to promote low density housing and will help focus urban development within the Urban Service Boundary where the City has invested in infrastructure. The Open Space and Natural Environment Principle, Policy 3.3 that looks to protect and enhance water resources through public and private actions could be supported by the proposed PD as the landscaping requirements would decrease the use of highly irrigated turf and promote the use of xeric / low water use species and techniques. Moving to the Economically Vibrant Community Principle, Policy 5.2 could be supported by the proposed PD as the Property’s development can be seen to support nearby commercial centers if developed. Furthermore, the Property is located in close vicinity to varying commercially zoned properties.
LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT CODE:
The City Council in making its recommendation shall use the following criteria (Section 2.04 C.):
a. The plan better implements the Comprehensive Plan, beyond what could be accomplished under application of general zoning districts and development standards.
The proposed PD will encourage development at the site that meets a number of policies of the Comprehensive Plan and will allow the Property some flexibility to further encourage development that a general zoning district would not.
b. The benefits from any flexibility in the proposed plan promote the general public health, safety and welfare of the community, and in particular, that of the areas immediately near or within the proposed project, and the proposed flexibility is not strictly to benefit the applicant or a single project.
The flexibility in the proposed PD will allow the Property to develop under the conditions that were in place at the time of its platting while also providing benefits to the community as a whole, such as low water use and xeric landscaping. The surrounding areas are of similar or the same comprehensive plan designations. The surrounding established and future uses conform to one another and promote access to public and commercial uses. Additionally the PD is seen as the next step in the development of the subdivision, and as such, addresses a general demand for housing.
c. The flexibility in the proposed plan allows the project to better meet or exceed the intent statements of the base zoning district(s).
The proposed PD will allow the project to develop as originally intended. Similar zone districts and densities can be found in close proximity to the proposed development.
d. The proposed adjustments to the standards do not undermine the intent or design objectives of those standards when applied to the specific project or site.
The proposed standards do not undermine their original intent or design objectives.
e. The plan reflects generally accepted and sound planning and urban design principles with respect to applying the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan to the area.
The proposed PD will allow the Property to develop in a manner that will support and advance a number of policies of the Comprehensive plan and widely held sound planning and design principles.
f. The plan meets all of the review criteria for a zoning map amendment.
Section 2.03 B. outlines the below criteria to be used for such a review:
1.) The proposal is in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and any other plan, policy or guidance adopted pursuant to that plan.
As stated above, the Property’s rezoning will help support policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2.) The proposal will support development in character with existing or anticipated development in the area, including the design of street, civic spaces and other open space; the pattern, scale and format of buildings and sites; and the integration, transitions and compatibility of other uses.
The development of the land as allowed under the proposed PD, will ensure that the site develops similarly to other properties in regards to use and densities. The surrounding allowed uses are compatible with the use of the Property as single and two-family residential.
3.) The City or other agencies have the ability to provide services or facilities that may be necessary for anticipated uses in the proposed district.
As the Property is still a few years from actual vertical construction, Staff anticipates that the necessary capital projects to serve the development will be in place. Additionally, as part of the release of permits, the developer and/or builder will pay applicable development and impact fees to connect to existing infrastructure and to off-set future improvements to City infrastructure.
4.) The change will serve a community need, amenity or development that is not possible under the current zoning or that was not anticipated at the time of the initial zoning of the property.
The property is currently zoned for limited residential uses, and the proposed PD would not expand those uses. As the property was zoned and platted under a prior LUDC, the current standards of today’s LUDC would not allow a portion of the property to develop as it was intended.
5.) The recommendations of any professional staff or advisory review bodies.
City staff finds this site as appropriate for residential uses given its specific location, initial zoning, and based on the desires of the community as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Site development, including buffering and building design, will occur in accordance with the applicable standards as outlined in the PD. Any site on the Property will only be permitted with a design that ensures it fits in with the context and development patterns of the area.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed this project and recommended approval. A complete list of comments and the agencies who made them are available upon request.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND INQUIRY
Mailings were sent to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed zone change, as required by the Land Use & Development Code according to Section 2.01 F. 3. C. (1), as there are several large parcels on the perimeter of the subject Property. These mailings were sent on January 14, 2022 and included a letter describing the proposed rezoning as well as the time and place for the public hearing. Also, included with the letter, was a map of the subject area. Four public hearing signs were posted within the property on January 13, 2022 with one located at the west corner of Bridge St. and Telluride St., at the intersection of Chavez St. and Telluride St., at the intersection of E 164th Ave and Telluride St., and on Tract B of the Mountain View Estates Subdivision Filing No. 2. A notice was published on the City’s website on January 14, 2022. As of the posting of this memorandum, Planning staff has received one (1) inquiry regarding the project in anticipation of the public hearing on February 1, 2022. City staff will be publishing public hearing information on various forms of social media in the days leading up to the meeting.
On April 12, 2021, as required by Code prior to the submission of the application to the City, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting. Given the pandemic, potential attendees were notified of a virtual meeting via Zoom. The notification mailings, sent by the Applicant to property owners within the applicable mailing radius of the subject Property, included information on both meeting options. The Applicant and Property Owner had several members of their team available to present their proposal, field any questions, and take feedback from meeting participants.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission heard the request on January 13, 2022 and recommended approval unanimously after a public hearing was held (see the attached Resolution #22-1). All required postings were conducted before this meeting and notice was posted to various social media sites.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the Zone Change via PD is in general compliance with the requirements as outlined as approval criteria in Section 2.04 C. 1., Review Criteria, of the Land Use & Development Code and therefore recommends approval of the PD. Staff has drafted an ordinance for the adoption of the PD if the City Council agrees with this recommendation.
OPTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The City Council has four options when reviewing this PD application. City Council may:
1.) Approve the Zone Change via PD as presented via ordinance;
2.) Approve a modified Zone Change via PD via ordinance;
3.) Deny the Zone Change via PD via ordinance with specific findings to justify the denial, or;
4.) Continue the item to be heard at a later, specified date if the Council feels it needs additional information to ensure compliance with the approval criteria as set forth in the Land Use & Development Code.
Per the Code and corresponding law, it is necessary to note that a denial by the City Council of the item before it must be because the Council does not find the item to meet one or more of the review criteria outlined in the staff report. If a denial is put forth, the motion must outline the particular review criteria that the Council finds the request does not meet.
ATTACHMENTS
● Draft City Council Ordinance
● Aerial Map by City Staff
● Proposed Mountain View Estates Planned Development by Applicant
● Copy of the Planning Commission Recommendation, Resolution #22-1
● Neighboring Property Owner Notification
● Addresses of Property Owners Notified
● Buffer Map of Mailing Area
● Website Notice
● Website Publication Verification
● Sign Posting Verification
● City Staff’s Draft Presentation