Council approves first reading of 401 Inglewood Parkway PUD after amendments on parking and housing requirements

Englewood City Council on Tuesday voted 5-2 to approve on first reading an ordinance establishing a planned unit development (PUD) for 401 Inglewood Parkway, a mixed-use project proposed by Kimco. Council removed one proposed condition that would have required up to 10% of units be set aside as 80–120% area median income housing and reverted a requested hotel-parking reduction back to the underlying zoning requirement.

The vote followed a public hearing, public comments and extended council discussion about affordable-housing language, a multimodal fee-in-lieu, stormwater drainage and emergency-vehicle access. Mayor Pro Tem Anderson moved to approve the ordinance; Member Noonan Kim seconded. The final roll call was Mayor Pro Tem Anderson — aye; Member Noonan Kim — aye; Member Prang — aye; Member Russell — nay; Member Ward — aye; Member Wright — nay; Mayor Sierra — aye.

Council members and staff said the PUD met the code review criteria. The applicant and city staff submitted revised condition language shortly after the public hearing; council debated whether the new wording was appropriately public and whether it would create an enforceable, project-specific housing obligation. Attorney Carolyn Whiteland, representing Kimco, described the applicant’s proposed compromise as “comply[ing] with whatever rules are in place at the time of building permit” rather than accepting a fixed numerical obligation tied only to this project.

Public comment raised related concerns. Christine Brinker, a District 1 resident, urged council to recalculate the project’s multimodal (bike/pedestrian) fee-in-lieu, calling the packet figure “pennies for what real safe biking and pedestrian infrastructure actually costs” and urging the city to base the fee on a long-term vision rather than short-term quick fixes. Joseph Simone, another resident, said traffic-calming medians proposed for Old Hamden would impede buses, ambulances and large vehicles and asked for a walk-through with project staff.

Council members pressed staff and the applicant on multiple operational details. Director of Public Works Victor Richel explained the multimodal fee was computed from the short-term items in the corridor study because those projects have defined scope, cost and timeframe; longer-term corridor concepts were not yet sufficiently developed to produce reliable costs. Staff said permit-stage impact fees could also contribute to transportation projects.

Members raised safety and service concerns: Member Russell and others asked whether the project’s street-narrowing, speed cushions and new medians had been modeled for fire-truck and bus turn radii; Mayor Pro Tem Anderson said staff provided simulations showing design accommodations for large vehicles. On drainage, Director Richel and deputy staff described the existing 40-foot easement and a plan that would add 30 feet of easement (15 feet on each side) and said further coordination with Mile High Flood District is underway to determine whether upsizing or a parallel bypass pipe would be required.

Council also considered affordable-housing conditions recommended in the Planning & Zoning packet and an aspirational memorandum from the Economic Development & Development Authority (EDDA). After debate, council adopted an amendment to strike the EDDA’s proposed condition (labeled 4A in the packet) that had been written as a specific, project-level requirement. Council then voted on a second amendment to remove a proposed reduction in hotel parking (0.5 spaces per room) and revert to the underlying zoning parking standard; that amendment passed 5-2. The ordinance, as amended, passed first reading 5-2.

The project team told council they expect to seek a joint-venture partner and enter design development in 2026; the earliest possible building permit was described as late 2026. Applicant attorney Carolyn Whiteland told council the proposed housing language was intended to avoid a project-specific obligation that would not apply citywide and said Kimco would comply with any uniform affordable-housing regulation the city adopts.

The council scheduled the ordinance for a second reading; staff noted additional edits may be required to reflect the amended conditions. If the council adopts the ordinance on second reading, the PUD will set the zoning and conditions that will govern project design and future permits.

Ending: Council members split along policy lines over how to tie one-off projects to citywide housing policy: some members said binding project-level affordability without a citywide standard risks legal and practical problems, while others urged stronger, immediate housing obligations. Council directed staff to continue technical follow-up on drainage, traffic access and permit-stage fee options ahead of the next hearing.