Department of Community Development
Reference: Bromley Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) 39th Amendment
To: Mayor Gregory Mills and Members of City Council
Through: Michael P. Martinez, City Manager
Prepared By: Nick Di Mario, AICP, Principal Planner
Date Prepared: October 1, 2026
PURPOSE
The Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment application (the “Amendment”) before the City Council is for an approximately 5.92-acre property, generally located southeast of Bromley Business Parkway, northwest of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (“BNSF”), and south of the Prairie Vista Youth Services Center, and more specifically addressed as 196 Bromley Business Parkway (the “Property”). The Property is currently zoned industrial under the Bromley Park PUD 1st Amendment (the “PUD”). The Property is owned by King Paul 1 LLC, Jacobs Colorado LLC, and IVE Colorado LLC (collectively, the “Applicant”). The Applicant is requesting changes to the existing accessory outdoor storage allowances as included in the Land Use & Development Code (the “LUDC”). As such, the Applicant is requesting a Major Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, which is a form of a zoning map amendment, also commonly known as a rezoning.
The Amendment proposes to increase the accessory outdoor storage allowances beyond existing maximums included in the LUDC. The Bromley Park Land Use Regulations (the “Regulations”) is the prevailing land development standard document for the Property. For properties zoned industrial by the PUD, the LUDC specifically mentions that any proposed area of accessory outdoor storage shall be limited to no more than 100% of the primary building footprint.
PROCESS
A zoning map amendment is the second step in the land development process with the City (Annexation > Zoning Map Amendment > Platting > Site Plan Review > Permits). Before development can proceed, a site plan will need to be administratively approved and permits issued. All applications will be reviewed using the Regulations and LUDC, as applicable, to ensure compliance with City codes and policies. It is important to note that the Property is currently platted and therefore may only need to go through the platting process if deemed necessary under Section 2.02 A in the LUDC.
Zoning dictates whether uses at a property are 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 a 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 PUD.
The Regulations were adopted in 1986 and outlined the amendment process for the PUD. Per these regulations, the proposal does not meet the criteria for a Minor PUD Amendment, and as such, must be processed as a Major PUD Amendment and is “subject to the review of the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council after public hearings.” The Regulations do not include specific review criteria for a Major PUD Amendment; however, any items not covered by the Regulations default to the LUDC. The Planned Development process outlined in the LUDC is most closely aligned with the PUD amendment process. As such, Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council shall use the review criteria outlined in Section 2.04(C)(2) of the LUDC.
CRITERIA BY WHICH CITY COUNCIL MUST CONSIDER THE ITEM
Section 2.04(C)(2) of the LUDC outlines the review criteria upon which the City Council must consider the Amendment. Specifically, the City Council must consider the following:
a. The plan proposes the most closely applicable base zoning district(s) for specific portions of the property in terms of land use, development intensity, and building form and scale.
b. The proposed change is consistent with concepts or plans in the previously approved Planned Unit Development and does not increase development beyond the capacity or impacts proposed in that plan.
c. The proposed plan either meets the standards provided in this code, or where deviations from the base zoning districts or other standards of this code are requested, they bring the project closer to the intent or design objectives of this code than was otherwise anticipated under the approved Planned Unit Development.
d. The plan meets all of the review criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment.
BACKGROUND
In 1985, the Property was annexed as part of the Bromley Park Annexation and was subsequently zoned industrial by the Bromley Park PUD 1st Amendment. The Property is platted under the Bromley Park Filing No. 101, 7th Amendment plat.
Proposed Amendment, Subject Property Limitations and Location:
As noted prior, the Amendment proposes to increase the accessory outdoor storage allowances. As the Regulations do not include standards concerning accessory outdoor storage, the review of accessory outdoor storage would default to the LUDC. Under existing LUDC standards, the area of accessory outdoor storage would be limited to 100% of the building footprint. By way of example, a property with a 10,000 square foot building would be allowed a maximum accessory outdoor storage allowance of 10,000 square feet. The intent of the Amendment is to allow an accessory outdoor storage area that is larger than a primary building.
The Property is approximately 5.92 acres and is bisected by a spur of the BNSF railroad. Further, the Property contains approximately 3.13 acres of easements. These easements were created for various purposes, including gas and electric, water, drainage and railroad purposes. While certain easements may allow for storage to be placed over them, they almost always prohibit the construction of permanent structures within their limits. The existence of these easements leaves an area of 2.79 acres not encumbered, drastically reducing the developable area of the Property from a building and use standpoint.
As noted, some easements may allow the placement of storage within their limits; however, construction of permanent structures is usually prohibited. Even though the current zoning may allow for a plethora of uses, the existing easements present limitations on the feasibility of these uses. The Applicant is proposing to increase the accessory outdoor storage area allowances in order to find more feasible land uses.
Lastly, the Property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Bromley Business Parkway. It is one of two remaining vacant lots and separated from I-76 Frontage Road by existing industrial development which limits the visibility of this property from major thoroughfares.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE AMENDMENT
Land Use & Development Code:
The City Council in making its decision shall use the criteria outlined in Section 2.04(C)(2). Below, Staff analyzes how the Amendment meets and/or exceeds the criteria.
a. The plan proposes the most closely applicable base zoning district(s) for specific portions of the property in terms of land use, development intensity, and building form and scale.
The proposed Amendment does not change the existing zone district of industrial, rather it aims to increase accessory outdoor storage allowances. The increased allowance would not cause an increased intensity or scale that is not ordinarily found in industrial zone districts.
b. The proposed change is consistent with concepts or plans in the previously approved Planned Unit Development and does not increase development beyond the capacity or impacts proposed in that plan.
As noted, the Amendment would not change the existing underlying zoning of industrial. The Property, and the surrounding properties, have been zoned for industrial uses for 40 years. The increased allowances for accessory outdoor storage would not increase development beyond the capacity originally anticipated by the PUD. Rather, this site would likely be underutilized without the proposed Amendment due to easement and railroad restrictions on the site, which are disproportionately impactful due to the size of the lot as compared to neighboring properties.
c. The proposed plan either meets the standards provided in this code, or where deviations from the base zoning districts or other standards of this code are requested, they bring the project closer to the intent or design objectives of this code than was otherwise anticipated under the approved Planned Unit Development.
While the existing standard of limiting accessory outdoor storage to 100% of primary structure footprint may be appropriate for other industrial properties, the limitations placed on the Property, as well as its location, create circumstances that must be looked at with special considerations. As noted in the Regulations, the intent of the industrial zone district is to “accommodate most light manufacturing, fabrication, processing and storage.” Further, the LUDC denotes that that accessory uses shall be located on the same lot as an allowed principal use, are compatible with general character of the area and do not produce visible impacts that are harmful. The proposed Amendment does not violate either the intent statement from the Regulations or the general standards for accessory uses in the LUDC. Lastly, the Amendment aids in pursuing the intent of the base industrial zone district by proposing new accessory use limits that will not have a significant impact on adjacent uses.
d. 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:
d1. 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.
Comprehensive Plan:
The future land use portion of Be Brighton, the Comprehensive Plan, has designated the Property as Industrial. The Future Land Use designation of Industrial aims to concentrate industrial uses away from residential areas and place industrial uses in areas with access to rail and major transportation corridors. In this case, the Property has direct access to Bridge Street and I-76 Frontage Road, with access to Interstate 76 in its proximity. Further, distribution and storage are listed under the designation’s Primary and Secondary uses. Based on the above considerations, the Amendment meets this portion of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Amendment meets other policies and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Within Chapter Three, where the Comprehensive Plan considers Opportunity Areas, the Amendment pursues Opportunity Area No. 9 Retain and Expand the Bromley Interstate Business Park. This Opportunity Area specifically mentions that storage areas shall be located further from Interstate 76 with incorporated screening measures. The Property is setback from Interstate 76 and is separated by right-of-way and existing buildings. If the Amendment is approved, the Applicant will be required to submit a site plan to the City where the necessary screening techniques would be required.
Within Chapter Four on ‘Citywide Principles, Policies & Strategies’, the proposed Amendment advances a number of these goals:
Policy 1.1 - New Growth Should Favor Existing Areas of Infrastructure Investment and Planning
● The Property is adjacent to an existing roadway, with water and sewer services directly adjacent. That said, development of the Property as allowed by the Amendment would build upon established framework of roads and utilities.
Policy 2.1 - Brighton Will Continue to Develop in a Self-Sufficient and Sustainable Manner (Live, Learn, Work, Shop and Play) with an Appropriate Balance between Residential and Non-Residential Uses
● Due to the existing easement and railroad limitations, the Property may continue to sit vacant without the increased allowances. The Amendment aims to increase development potential for the Property, further increasing diversity of industrial uses in the area. With the increased development opportunities for the Property, the Bromley Interstate Business Park would be one step closer to full build out.
Policy 2.2 - Use Infrastructure Investments and the Urban Service Map to Focus Urban Development
● Whereas the Applicant could consider annexation and zoning of existing unincorporated properties, as well as the extension of new roads and utilities, the Amendment allows for development at the existing Property. This in turn, would maintain new development within current municipal boundaries and Urban Service Area.
Policy 2.4 - Concentrate Urban Development in Urban Areas, and Agricultural Operations in Agricultural Areas
● The Property exists in an already urbanized area and should develop as such, As noted, the Amendment allows for increased development opportunities, and would aid in maintain urban development in an already urbanized area.
Policy 5.2 - Support Brighton’s Non-Downtown Commercial Centers, Focusing Growth within Existing Investment Areas Where Possible
● The Amendment increases the development potential for the Property, which directly supports the surrounding industrial area. Further, the Property is within an area of high infrastructure investment, and development should be encouraged at the Property to take advantage of such.
d2. 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.
As noted, the Property is within an already urbanized area containing mostly industrial development. The surrounding area contains several industrial uses including self-storage, warehousing, distribution and outdoor storage. The Amendment would not introduce any use or accessory use that is ‘out of the ordinary.’ Further, future development of the site would require a site plan submittal, where staff would ensure conformance to screening, design, landscape and parking standards.
d3. 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 adjacent to existing right-of-way and utilities, the Property can be adequately served. Further, any future site developer would be required to pay the applicable costs to connect to City infrastructure.
d4. 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 Amendment aims to increase development opportunities for the Property. Thus, the surrounding area and the City would benefit by seeing the Property development to incorporate new and expanded uses that have historically been prevented by the site limitations.
d5. The recommendations of any professional staff or advisory review bodies.
City staff finds this Property appropriate for increased accessory outdoor storage allowances given its specific limitations and location. Site development, including buffering and building design, will occur in accordance with the applicable zone district standards as outlined in the LUDC and the Regulations. Any development on the Property will only be permitted with a design that ensures it fits in with the context and development patterns of the area.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed this project and recommends approval.
Note: 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 300 feet of the Property, as required by the LUDC. These mailings were sent on September 4, 2026, and included a letter describing the proposed rezoning, a map of the Property, as well as the time and place for the public hearing. A notice was published on the City’s website on the same day. City staff also posted public hearing information on Facebook and NextDoor in the days leading up to the meeting, and the Interactive Development Map was updated to include the date, time and location of the hearing. On September 2, 2026, a sign was posted on the Property, detailing the date, time and location of the hearing. As of the posting of this report, Planning staff has not received any formal inquiries regarding the project in anticipation of the public hearing.
On March 27, 2026, as required by the LUDC prior to the submission of the Amendment to the City, the Applicant held a virtual neighborhood meeting. The notification mailings, sent by the Applicant to property owners within the applicable mailing radius of the Property, included information on the meeting. No members of the public attended the meeting. A copy of the neighborhood meeting minutes is attached to this report.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the Amendment is in general compliance with the requirements as outlined in Section 2.04(C)(2) of the LUDC and therefore recommends approval of the Bromley Park PUD 39th Amendment. Staff has drafted an ordinance for the approval of the Amendment if the City Council agrees with this recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission heard the request on September 24, 2026, and unanimously recommend approval (See attached Resolution #26-14).
OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The City Council has three options when reviewing this Amendment City Council may:
1.) Approve the Amendment;
2.) Deny the Amendment and provide justification for the denial;
3.) Continue the item to be heard at a later, specified date if the Council would like changes to be made to the Amendment or feels it needs additional information to ensure compliance with the approval criteria as set forth in the Land Use & Development Code.
Note: A second reading of the ordinance, if approved at first reading, will be required at a future meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
● Draft City Council Ordinance
● Planning Commission Resolution #26-14.
● Proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment (Exhibit B to the Ordinance)
● Aerial Map by City Staff
● Neighboring Area Property Owner Notification
● Buffer Map
● Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
● Affidavit of Sign Posting
● Website Posting Proof
● Draft Staff Presentation