HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 Ordinance No. 025•
•
ORDINANCE NO. ~
SERIES OF 2015
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 17
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER OLSON
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, TmE 16,
CHAPTER 2, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000, RELATING TO
ADMlNISTRATIVE ADnJSTMENTS.
WHEREAS, land development is subject to review and conformance with the Unified
Development Code which sets development standards based on the zone district, land use, lot
width and lot area; and
WHEREAS, in some limited cases, development is hindered by unusual features of a property
or lot which generally do not apply to other lots in the vicinity; and
WHEREAS, in some of these cases, the existing Uniform Development Code regulations on
Administrative Adjustments (fitle 16, Chapter 2, Section 17 EMC) will allow the City to approve an
alternative design, as long as the proposed development meets the intent of the Code and has no
adverse effects on nearby properties; and
WHEREAS, Administrative Adjustments are cwrently limited to very specific circumstances such
as a 6" adjustment to a required 3' setback; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Board of Adjustment and Appeals is prohibited from hearing a case
that would result in additional residential dwelling units in residential districts above the maximum
permitted by zone district standards, based on minimum lot width or lot area; and
WHEREAS, these limitations in the current Code are preventing redevelopment and investment in
the community in some instances; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance would allow minor adjustments in the minimum lot width or
mjnjmnm Jot area, which should result in more redevelopment and investment in Englewood; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission recommended these changes at
their April 7, 2015 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes the
amending Title 16, Chapter 2, Section 17, Subsection D "Permitted Adjustments", Paragraph I,
Subparagraph b; and Title 16, Chapter 2, Section 17, Subsection D, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph a,
of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000 to read as follows :
1
16-2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
16-2-17: Administradve Adjustments.
D. Permitted Adjustments.
1. General Rules.
a. Except when requested as a reasonable accommodation for Federal Fair Housing
Act ("FFHA") pwposes, a request for an Administrative Adjustment shall not be
used to further modify a development standard that, as applied to the subject
property, already qualifies as an exception to, or modification of, a generally
applicable development standard required under Chapter 16"6 EMC,
(Development Standards). For example, the developer of a residential project
that qualifies for a special variation in the required side setback under the
residential design provisions in Section 16-6-10.B EMC, cannot seek an
Administrative Adjustment to further reduce the side setback allowed under the
special variation.
b. Upless specifically stated in the Scope of Authority below, +the City Manager or
dcsignee shall not approve any Administrative Adjustment that results in an
increase in permitted maximum development density or intensity; a change in
permitted uses; an increase in building height; or a decrease in the amount of
common or dedicated open space required by this Title or other City policies,
standards, or regulations.
2. Scope of Authority-All Adjustments Except Reasonable Accommodations Under
FFHA. An application for an Administrative Adjustment that is not related to a request
for "reasonable accommodation" under the Federal Fair Housing Act may request only
the following types of adjustments:
a. Side er ~ea,. Setbacks: Adjustments to any siee or rear setback standard may be
permitted as follows:
TABLE 16-2-17.1:
PERMITIED ADJUSTMENTS TO
SmE QR: &&I\& SETBACKS
Required Setback ' :Petmitted Maximum Adjustment ·
3 feet 6 inches
5 feet 1 foot
7 feet 1 foot
20 feet 2 feet
25 feet 3 feet
2
•
•
•
•
Section 2. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes the
amending Title 16, Chapter 21 Section 171 Subsection 0, Paragraph 2 "Scope of Authority", by
the addition of a new Subparagraph (e) entitled "Minimum Lot Width or Lot Area" of the
Englewood Municipal Code 2000 to read as follows:
16-2-17: Administrative Adjustments.
D. Permitted Adjustments.
2. Scope of Authority
"6 Minirovm: Lgt Width or Lot Area; MiPrmmmh JP1Y be penpiiSSI 19 tbs
rojuiroum Jot width 0t wiojmµm 121 area is th; "Summary Table of Dimensional
Requirements for Principal Uses and Structw;es" in Section t §-§-J of this Title.
subject to the foJlowipg requirements;
ill The adjustment shall not exceed five percent CS%) of the required
roioimµm lot width or JPioimµm tot area; and
al The adjustment jp the roioiJPWP 101 width or mjnimum tot area may result
in an alternate penpitted land use jp the base zone district where the
property is located; and
Cl A deyeJopmegt for which a mjnjmum 101 width or roivjmum lot area
adjustment is granted shall not be eligible for additional variances or
additional o4roin;stratiye adjustments based on the reduced lot width or
area; and
W The result of an approyed adjustment may result in an increase in the
maximum deyetopment density or intensity; for residential deyeJopmepts,
the result of the admjnjstratiye adjustment §ban not exceed one CJ>
addjtionaJ residentjat dwelling unit,
Section 3. Safety Clauses. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this
Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Englewood, that it is
promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary
for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and
welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the
proper legislative object sought to be obtained.
Section 4. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of
competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder
of this Ordinance or it application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 5. Inconsistent Ordinances. All other Ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or
conflicting with this Ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such
inconsistency or conflict.
3
Section 6. Effect of repeal or modification. The repeal or modification of any provision of
the Code of the City of Englewood by this Ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify,
or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil or criminal, which
shall have been incurred under such provision, and each provision shall be treated and held as
still remaining in force for the purposes of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits,
proceedings, and prosecutions for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well
as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered,
entered, or made in such actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions.
Section 7. Penalty. The Penalty Provision of Section 1-4-1 EMC shall apply to each and
every violation of this Ordinance.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 4th day of May, 201S .
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 7th day of
May,2015 .
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 6th day of
May, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
A Public Hearing was held on the 18th day of May, 2015 .
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 1st day of June, 2015.
Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinauce No~5: Series of 2015, on
the 411, day of June, 2015.
Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 3rd day of
June, 2015 for thirty (30) days.
This Ordinance shall talce effect thirty (30) days after publication following final passage.
I, Loucrishia A Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is ~ ~e copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by
title as Ordinance No .~ Series of 2015.
4
•
•
•
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
M E M 0 R A N
City Council
Michael Flaherty, Deputy City Manager
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
May 26, 2015
Administrative Adjustments -Second Reading
11 bi
D u M
During the public hearing on the proposed Administrative Adjustments Council members asked
about the proposed ordinance and its impacts on the community. The ordinance is intended to
promote economic development in the community, and to facilitate development on lots that are
burdened by unusual size or shape, through new development of uses that are permitted on the
same block or in the same zone district.
The proposed ordinance is good for Englewood for several reasons, including:
• Allowing the same uses and new investment currently permitted on standard sized lots
on the same block. Due to errors made in platting Englewood properties more than
100 years ago, it is not uncommon for a lot to be less than a uniform lot size,
especially on corner lots.
• Englewood's older housing stock is more than 50% rental. This ordinance will help to
promote new market rate, owner occupied housing. New homes, especially those that
sell at or above $500,000 are much more likely to be sold to owner occupants.
• Higher valuations will result in more tax revenue for the City.
• Developers cannot afford to demolish and build new single family homes on a 50 foot
lot in an R-2 zone, but they can justify the cost to build and sell duplexes. Denver
neighborhoods immediately north of Englewood show the demand and impact of new
investments.
• Triplex lots in R-2 zone districts are 75 feet wide. The properties at 2701 and 2705 S.
Sherman Street are 73.62 feet wide (combined}. This ordinance would allow new
investment on this corner; without an adjustment, these older homes will likely remain
without significant improvement.
• A difference of 5% on lots with 50 feet of frontage is 2.5 feet. This difference will not
be visibly noticeable to most people .
Planning & Zoning Division Building Division Economic Development
303.762.2347 303.762.2356 303.762.2599
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110
www englewoodgov.org
The lots at the north end of the block on S. Lincoln Street and E. Yale Avenue are not the only
lots in this area with oddly dimensioned lot widths. The following lots also share these non-
standard dimensions, possibly due to platting errors or older surveying techniques:
• Sherman and Yale {south-west corner) -2701 S. Sherman St.
• Sherman and Amherst {south-west corner) -2801 S. Sherman St.
• Sherman and Bates (north-west corner} -2895 S. Sherman St.
• Lincoln and Amherst {north-west corner) -2797 S. Lincoln St.
• Lincoln and Amherst (north-east corner) -2798 S. Lincoln St.
• Lincoln and Amherst (south-west corner) -2801 S. Lincoln St.
• Lincoln and Amherst (south-east corner) -2800 S. Lincoln St.
• Lincoln and Bates (north-east corner) -121 E. Bat es Ave.
These are a sample of lots researched by staff. There are likely many other lots in the City that
share these traits. Most of the lots listed above were platted 23.62 feet wide. The lots in the
center of the block were platted 25 feet wide. Each standard siz ed parcel (2 lots} zoned R-2
would allow a new duplex on a 50 foot wide lot.
The corner lots listed above, due to their historic platting anomalies, are burdened and would be
more difficult to redevelop. These corner lots, which are much more visible, but may only be
48.62 feet wide (combined), would likely remain in th eir current c ondition without allowing a
small adjustment to the lot width.
New T ownhome Development
Several new townhomes have developed in the City along S. Sherman Street and S. Lincoln
Street, zoned R-2. Many more new developments are under construction or have been recently
built in Denver just to the north of the city limits. Below are some examples of the developments
in Englewood and in Denver, within 3 blocks of E. Yale Avenue:
New Development Denver {lust north of W. Yale Avenue)
•
Existing Building at 2701 S. Lincoln Street
Notice Procedures
Council requested information on the notice procedures for Administrative Adjustments and
Variances. Following are the notice procedures as required by the Unified Development Code:
• Administrative Adjustments: "Notice. The City shall require that the applicant notify
adjacent property owner(s) and/or occupant(s) by written notice of any application for
Administrative Adjustment" In the past, notice has been provided to the property owner
and occupant on either side of a property. We have traditionally not provided notice
beyond the properties on the two sides of the subject property. No other notice has been
provided.
• Variance: "Notice. The City shall require that notice of required public hearings be given in
accordance with Section 16-2-3.G EMC." Notice is posted on the property and in the
Englewood Herald newspaper. Notice is also provided on the City of Englewood website.
No notice is provided to adjacent property owners.
Options for City Council
City Council has three options on the proposed Administrative Adjustments ordinance. These
options include:
• Approve the Administrative Adjustment language on second reading, as proposed.
• Adopt alternative variance language allowing the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to
hear applications for additional dwelling units in residential districts above the maximum
number permitted by zone district standards for lot area and lot width, based on a
variance of up to 5% of the minimum lot width or minimum lot area . (Note: This option
would require another reading of the ordinance at a later date.) Alternate variance
language is attached for your review.
• Leave the Unified Development Code "as-is", which would likely prevent redevelopment
of some older homes on lots less than standard size or width.
We believe that Administrative Adjustments would be the cleanest and least time consuming
option, as well as least costly for developers. The Variance option would also work, but would
add a delay and uncertainty to the process, which may discourage some investors. The Variance
option would require an additional reading of the ordinance.
Staff will be available during the meeting on Monday night to answer questions from the City
Council. We look forward to your decision.
, .
•
•
Proposed new language is shown in bold nnd donble-nndedioe. unguage proposed for removal is shown as ~-
16-2-16: Zoning Variances,
Two (2) different types of variance are available: (I) Zoning Variances and (2) Flood Plain Variances.
Zoning Variances arc addressed in this section, and Flood Plain Variances arc addressed in Chapter 16-4 EMC.
{Note that the Planning Commission is the decision-making body on Flood Plain Variances rather than 1he Board of
Adjustment and Appeals.) The Board of Adjustment and Appeals pursuant to the procedures in this Section may
grant Zoning Variances from the zoning provisions of this Title otherwise applicable 10 a property.
A. Jurisdiction/Scope for Zoning Variances.
I. Nothing in this Title shall be construed to empower the Board to change the terms of this
Title or to effect changes in the Official Zoning Map of the City of Englewood. The
powers of the Board shall be narrowly inlerpreted and strictly construed so that this Tille
and the Official Zoning Map shall be strictly enforced.
2. The Board shall have the nuthority to require any reasonable stipulation or condition that
might be necessary to properly protect the general welfare when grunting a Zoning
Variance.
3. The Board's grunting of Zoning Variances shall not result in any encrouchment in10 a
recorded eusernent or right-of-way.
4. The Board shall not consider II Zoning Variance application relating to the use of
property.
5.
6.
1.
The Board shall not consider II Zoning Variance applicntion lo allow additional dwelling
units in residential districts above the maximum number permitted by zone district
standards for lot area and lot width, except for u yoriancc of up tn five pcn:cnt (5%) or
the ceguin:d minimum Int width or minimum Int urea, In n:sidcntial districts, the
yarinoce shall not result in the crentiou n[ more thou nm: m ndditinonl tesidrntinl
dwelling unit,
The Board shall not consider a Zoning Variance
applicntion rclnting to Temporary Use Permits.
The Board shall not consider n Zoning Variance
application relating to Conditionnl Use Permits.
B. Initiation. An applicution for a Zoning Variance may be inilialcd
by those parties identified in Section 16-2-3.A EMC.
C. Notice. The City shall require that notice of required public
hearings be given in accordance with Section 16-2-3.G EMC.
D. City Review. The City Manager or dcsignec shall review 1he
Zoning Variance application, and may refer llie application Lo any
department or agency for its review and comments.
E. Board Decisio11. The Board shall review the proposed Zoning
Variance application and the report of City staff, nnd shnll hold a
public hearing on the proposed Zoning Vnriance, Following such
hearing, the Board shall make written findings either approving, Zoning Variancl!S
conditionally upproving, or denying the Zoning Variance . The decision on whether lo approve or
deny an application for o Zoning Vuriance shall bc in writing, based upon subsu1n1iul evidence
presented at the public hearing. A copy of the decision of the Board shall be provided to the
applicant
F. Criteria for Co11sideri11g a Zo11i11g Variance.
I. General Zoning Variances. In pnssing upon Zoning Vllrianccs thlll do nol involve
provisions of the Sign Code, thii Board m11y vury the upplicution of the regulations Sill
forth in this Thi!! only if the Board finds the following:
u. That unique physical conditions e1tist. such as size, shape, location, topogniphy
or surroundings, which ure peculiar 10 the land or struc1ure involved, which
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity;
and
b. The vnriancc is consislent with lhc intent of the zone district regulations 10
secure public health, safoty and welfare; and
c. The variance will not permanently impair the use or development of adjocent
conforming properties or alter the essential character of lhc neighborhood; and
d. The variance is nol 11 self-imposed diflicuhy or h.irdship.
2. Sign Code Vari11nces. In pussing upon Zoning Variances lo the Sign Code, Section 16-6-
13 EMC, lhc Board may vary lhe application of the regulations set forth in chis Title only
if it dctcrmi ncs thut:
a. There arc special circumstances or conditions such as the existence of buildings,
topography, vegelation, sign structures, or other mailers on adjacent lols or
within tbc adjacent public right-or-way, which would substantially restrict the
effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special
circumslances or conditions must be peculiur 10 the particular business or
enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw auention, and do not llpply
g,.mera\ly to all businesses or enterprises; and
b. The variance will nol weaken 1he general purpose of this Title nor the
regula1ions prescribed for the districl in which the sign is located; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential characler of the district in which the sign
is localed; and
d. Tl1e variance will not substantially or permanenlly impair the appropriate use or
udjuccnt conforming property.
0. After Approval.
1. All Zoning Variances shall be effective on the date of final action by 1hc Board. For the
purpose of this subsection, final action by the Board shall be deemed to be the approval
of the findings of fact for lhc Zoning Variance request
2. The City shall record all Zoning Variances with the office or the Arapahoe County Clerk
and Recorder.
3. Any Zoning Variance granted by the Board shall run with the Jund unless the Board
•
specifies olherwise as a condilion of the Zoning Variance.
4. Any Zoning Vlll'ionce gran1c:d by lhe Board shall nulomatically lapse wilhin one hundred
cigh1y (180) days of1hc date it was eITcclive, or within such olher time as lhc Board may
prescribe, unless a building permit for the action thal was lhe subject of the varillnCc is
obtained and work stnrled.
H. Post Decision Remedies. 1nitialion or the following remedies must occur wi1hin lhirly (30) days of
the Boord decision. For the purpose of lhis subsection, Board decision shall he lhe vote on the
Zoning Variance requesl.
I. Rehearing. If 1hc npplicnnt or an intcresled third pany finds evidence that was noL
ovoitable al the time or the hearing that may materially bear on the case, a request for a
rehearing may be mude lo lhe Board. The requesl shall be in writing and contain the
roUowing:
11. A summary of the new evidence.
b. The reuson the evidence wns not avuilable to the Boord al the original hearing:.
c. A statement as to why it is believed thal the evidence will materially affect the
decision of the Board.
The Boord shall hear the request for rehe11ring and shall vote on the issue or granting a
rehearing. The chairperson shall announce the Board's decision. If a rehcnring is granted,
a new dntc will be set for D public hearing nnd all posting nnd publication requirements
shall apply and shall be the responsibility or the original applicant. If 11 rehearing is
denied, the original Board decision sbnll stand.
2. Reconsideration. If a Bonrd Member believes that the Board would benefit from
reviewing a Board decision, a motion for reconsideration or the decision may be made. Ir
the motion to reconsider foils, lhe original decision stand,;. If the motion lo reconsider is
approved, the original variance request shall be reheard by lhc Boord. The Board may
reconsider the variance request immediately or may conlinuc the reconsidcralion to a date
certain.
The reconsideration shall be limited 10 the focts presented in the original variance request
and no new evidence shall be taken. The Board may confirm, reverse, or modify the
original decision.
I. Appeals of Board Decisions. Appeals or linal decisions or the Boord may be made pursuant to
Section 16-2-18 EMC, "Appeals".
•
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
May 4, 2015 11 a i An Ordinance Adopting Amendments to Title 16
Concerning Administrative Adjustments
Initiated By: Staff Source:
Community Development Department Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
This item has not been previously discussed by the City Council. This issue was identified by staff as
an impediment to redevelopment. The proposed changes have been reviewed by the City
Manager's office.
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2015 to consider the
proposed amendments to Title 16: Unified Development Code amending the regulations
concerning Administrative Adjustments. One member of the public was present and testified in
support of the proposed ordinance. Following discussion, the Commission voted in favor of
forwarding to City Council the proposed amendments to Chapter 2: Development Review and
Approval Procedures, as presented in the attached Bill for an Ordinance.
RECOMMEN OED ACTION
The Community Development Department recommends Council adopt a Bill for an Ordinance
authorizing amend men ts to Title 16: Unified Development Code regarding Administrative
Adjustments on First Reading, and setting May 18, 2015 as the date for a Public Hearing to consider
testimony on the proposed amendments.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
ln February 2015, staff was approached by a builder about the possible redevelopment of a
property in the city, including demolition of two single family homes and the construction of three
new townhomes. After researching the property, staff noticed that one of the lots was platted about
14 inches narrower than most other lots along the same block. As a result, this particular lot ( even
when combined with the adjacent lot) would not meet the minimum lot size for three new
townhomes. Also, the current code does not allow an Administrative Adjustment to the minimum
lot width or minimum lot area . Additionally, under current codes, the proposed redevelopment
would not be eligible for a variance because the Board may not consider a Zoning Variance
application to allow additional dwelling units in residential districts above the maximum permitted
by zone district standards for lot width and lot area.
The proposed ordinance would allow minor adjustments to the minimum lot size and width. Some
of the key elements of this proposal include:
• Allow the City Manager or designee to make minor adjustments of up to five percent (5%) of
the required minimum lot width or minimum lot area.
• Clarify that the result of the adjustment to the lot width or lot area may result in an alternate
permitted use for the property.
• The result of the administrative adjustment may be an increase in the maximum development
density of up to one (1) additional residential unit.
• Authorize the City Manager or designee to make administrative adjustments to front
setbacks. Current codes only allow adjustments to side and rear setbacks.
No changes are proposed to the application process, or review criteria. Applicants are still required
to provide a written request with a Site Improvement Plan, along with their justification for the
requested adjustment.
• The adjustment must still be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• The requested adjustment shall not authorize encroachments into recorded easements.
• The adjustment does not waive or reduce any building or safety codes.
• The applicant shall still provide notice to adjacent property owners of the proposed
administrative adjustment.
• Appeals to approved or denied administrative adjustments can still be made to Lhe Board of
Adjustments and Appeals.
ANALYSIS
Administrative adjustments are used when the small size of the adjustment and the unlikelihood of
any adverse effects on nearby properties make it unnecessary to complete a formal zoning variance.
These adjustments tend to be very minor and are usually not noticeable from the street or from
neighboring properties. In addition, because they are reviewed at the staff level, administrative
adjuslments are a much quicker to process (usually less than 7 days) than formal zoning variance
(usually about 45 days).
As part of the review process, the City Manager or designee will consult with relevant departments
for their input and advice. This is sometimes in the form of a Development Review Team meeting.
Administrative adjustments are allowed only for zoning related codes. All other applicable codes
relating to Building Division, Public Works, Traffic, Fire, Parks, Utilities and Waste Water still apply.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no direct impact to the City as a result of this ordinance. Indi rectly, it is anticipated that this
ordinance will have a positive financial impact on the community by encouraging redevelopment of
aging properties and promoting new investment. As a result of the new construction, property
values are likely to increase resulting in additional tax revenue for the City. Additional building
permit fees and building use taxes would also likely result from the new investment. •
• LIST Of ATTACHMENTS
•
Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -April 7, 2015
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -April 7, 2015
Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact -Case No. 2015-01
Bill for an Ordinance
M EM ORAN
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THROUGH: Michael Flaherty, Deputy City Manager
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
April 7, 2015
Case 2015-01 -Public Hearing
Administrative Adjustments & Variances
Recommendations
D u M
The Community Development Department requests that the Planning and Zoning
Commission review, take public testimony on, and forward to City Council a
recommendation for adoption of the proposed amendments to the Unified Development
Code, Title 16, Chapter 2, relating to Administrative Adjustments and Variances.
Background
Land development is subject to review and conformance with the Unified Development
Code which sets development standards based on the zone district, land use, lot width and
lot area. In some limited cases, development is hindered by unusual features of a property
or lot which generally do not apply to other lots in the vicinity. In some of these cases, the
existing Uniform Development Code regulations on Administrative Adjustments or
Variances (Sections 16-2-17 and 16-2-16, respectively) will allow the City to approve an
alternative design, as long as the proposed development meets the intent of the code and
has no adverse effects on nearby properties.
Administrative Adjustments can be approved by the City Manager or designee (usually the
Community Development Director). However, Administrative Adjustments are currently
limited to very specific circumstances such as a six-inch (6") adjustment to a required three
(3'} foot setback. This section of the code does not allow Administrative Adjustments to the
minimum lot width or minimum lot area. Also, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is
currently prohibited from hearing a case that would result in additional residential dwelling
units in residential districts above the maximum permitted by zone district standards, based
on minimum lot width or lot area.
These limitations in the current code are preventing redevelopment and investment in the
community in some instances. The proposed code changes would allow minor adjustments
in the minimum lot width or minimum lot area, which should result in more redevelopment
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PHONE 303-762 -2342 FAX 303 783-6895
www.englew oodgov.or g
and investment in the City. In some cases, approval of an Administrative Adjustment or •
Variance could result in an increase in the permitted maximum density of up to one ( 1)
additional residential dwelling unit. Also, adjustments to front setbacks are proposed to be
allowed, which are currently prohibited as an Administrative Adjustment.
Analysis
Administrative Adjustments
As proposed, Administrative Adjustments would be expanded to include minimum lot width
and minimum lot area. These adjustments are proposed to be limited to five (S%) percent
of the required minimum width or area. For example, a lot which is required to be SO feet
wide could be adjusted by S%, and developed if it was only 47.5 feet wide. Similarly, if a lot
is only 22,800 square feet, but is required to be 24,000 square feet to meet the requirement
for "All Other Allowed Uses", an Administrative Adjustment to the minimum lot area of up
to S% could be granted. These adjustments can be very helpful in cases where platted lots
do not meet the typical lot dimensions in a neighborhood. This can happen when section
lines do not match up, leaving some parcels or lots with odd dimensions.
Also included within the proposed code amendment is a change that would allow
Administrative Adjustments to the front setbacks. The current regulations allow adjustments
only to the side or rear setbacks. In some cases, there may be a need to make similar
adjustments to the front setbacks. In each of these cases, an applicant will need to explain A
why they cannot meet the standards, and show that there are no adverse effects on nearby W
properties. No changes are proposed to the criteria for review of Administrative
Adjustments. Notification to adjacent property owners will still be required.
Variances
Changes are also proposed to the variance requirements (Section 16-2-16 AS). This is
necessary because appeals to administrative decisions (including Administrative
Adjustments) are heard by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. However, the current
jurisdiction and scope of authority for zoning variances does not allow variances to allow
additional dwelling units in residential districts above the maximum permitted by zone
district standards for lot area and lot width. If a decision on an Administrative Adjustment
for such a case is appealed, the Board needs the authority to hear such an appeal.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission review the proposed code
amendments, take public testimony during a Public Hearing, and make a recommendation
to City Council that the proposed code changes be adopted by ordinance.
A motion to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to City Council is
needed.
Next Steps
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval, we intend to move forward
with first reading of an ordinance by City Council.
Attachments
Amendments to Title 16 pertaining to Administrative Adjustments and Variances
►
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
APRIL 7, 2015
I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Fish
presiding.
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
►
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley (arrived 7:05),
Pittinos, Fish
None
Michael Flaherty, Deputy City Manager
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner
Dugan Comer, Deputy City Attorney
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• March 17, 2015 Minutes
Knoth moved;
King seconded: TO APPROVE THE MARCH 17, 2015 MINUTES
Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections. Chair Fish requested a
change to the minutes to omit his comments regarding attendance and cancellation of
meetings by staff.
AYES:
NAYS:
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion carried, minutes are approved as amended.
►
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #2015-01 ADMINISTRATIVE AD!USTMENTS AND
VARIANCES
Knoth moved;
Bleile seconded: To open the public hearing for case #2015-01 Administrative
Adjustments and Variances
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish
None
None
None
Motion carried.
►
Staff Presentation
Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Neubecker reviewed the background
of the request to adopt the propo sed amendment to the UDC (Unified Develop ment Code)
relating to Administrative Adjustments and Variances. Staff is requesting this amendment
in order to obtain approval to administratively allow minor adjustments in the minimum
lot width or minimum lot area of a property in order to facilitate red evelo pment and
investment in the City.
Administrative Adjustments of up to 5% would enable staff to address lots that are oddly
shaped or sized due to historical plats, or township and section lines that are not
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. It would be the re sponsibility of the
applicant to provide information to justify the adjustment and sho w that there are no
adverse effects on nearby properties. In some cases, approval of an Administrative
Adjustment could result in an increase in the permitted maximum density of up to one (l) .A
additional dwelling unit. Notification to adjacent property owners will still be required. W
Appeals of Administrative Adjustments made by the City Manager or designee are heard
by the BOAA (Board of Adjustments and Appeals).
►
Commissioner's Comments
Mr. King asked Mr. Neubecker what the definition of a "significant impact" on adjacent
properties would be. Mr. Neubecker responded that should the property owner of an
adjacent lot have issue with the adjustment, they can present information to staff or the
City Manager and would also be entitled to appeal to the BOAA within 30 days of the
decision .
Mr. Bleile asked about the criteria staff would use to make an objective decision on a
request for an Administrative Adjustment. Mr. Neubecker responded that staff would
examine the requested adjustment in relation to the character of the neighborhood and
factors such as size, height, parking and the rights and uses existing on the surrounding
properties.
►
Mr. Bleile questioned how changes in staff could affect the issuance of Administrative
Adjustments. Mr. Neubecker replied that staff is responsible for researching precedence to
2
ensure that decisions are consistent and taking into consideration the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
►
Mr. Knoth asked about the cap of one additional dwelling unit. Mr. Neubecker said that
increasing density is a function of the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the adjustment
would increase the allowed density, staff would examine the property and the surrounding
neighborhood to ensure that the adjustment would not negatively impact the neighboring
properties. The zoning regulations in place would determine the maximum allowable
dwelling units for the property. A maximum of one additional dwelling unit can be the
result of an Administrative Adjustment.
►
Mr. Freemire asked what the advantage to the property owner would be with adoption of
the amendment to the UDC. Mr. Neubecker replied that as the code is currently, a
property owner could not be granted a variance that would result in an additional unit of
density.
►
Chair Fish requested clarification of the possible outcomes of an Administrative
Adjustment in the proposed addition to the UDC under section 16-2-17-D(2)(e)(2). Mr.
Neubecker explained that the terminology includes the word "may" is used to indicate
that the outcome is possible but does not affect the permitted usage of the property.
►
Ms. Townley asked about the order of events and if someone could request an
Administrative Adjustment in order to increase the value of a property. Mr. Neubecker
responded that it would be a possibility as individuals often inquire about the code
regulations for a particular property before purchasing.
►
Public Comment
Matthew Casey, 6364-53 South Lamar Court, Littleton, was sworn in. Mr. Casey spoke in
favor of the proposed amendment to the UDC. Mr. Casey is interested in developing the
corner of Yale Avenue and Lincoln Street in Englewood, southwest corner. The property
is 14 inches short of meeting the required minimum lot width for development of a multi-
unit dwelling. He has examined the original plat of the property and determined that the
original surveyor adjusted for the lot sizes on the properties at the north and south ends of
the block. The original plat was recorded in the late l 8001 s and in his experience, it is not
uncommon to see this type of discrepancy. He encouraged the Commissioners to allow
staff and the City Manager to make Administrative Adjustments.
►
Knoth moved;
King seconded: To close the public hearing for case #2015-01 Administrative
Adjustments and Variances
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Chair Fish
None
None
3
ABSENT: None
Motion carried.
►
Knoth moved;
Bleile seconded: To approve Case #2015-01 Administrative Adjustments and Variances
AYES: Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Fish
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion carried.
►
Comments by the Commissioners
Mr. Madrid -This is a common sense approach to streamline the process and is a tool to
provide flexibility.
Mr. Bleile-Yes, this change makes development and redevelopment easier for applicants
and the fact that the local area was platted over a hundred years ago and could possibly
be off, not incurring additional expense for applicants
►
Mr. Freemire -This is a reasonable change, it streamlines the process, is not without
safeguards and gives the applicant opportunity to appeal.
Mr. Brick -Concurred with Mr. Bleile and Mr. Freemire.
Mr. King -Concurred with Mr. Bleile and Mr. Freemire.
Mr. Kinton -Concurred with Mr. Bleile and Mr. Freemire .
Mr. Fish -Concurred with Mr. Bleile and Mr. Freemire and added that the proposed
amendment to the UDC is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
►
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
Matthew Casey commented on the Commission's efforts regarding Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) and encouraged the Commissioners to continue pursuing the subject to
increase flexibility for development options. He spoke about the advantages of vacating
lot lines to increase lot size and create the opportunity for developers to build larger
homes.
►
V. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
4 •
• Chair Fish reviewed the history of the Commission with regards to election of officers. It is
the purview of the Commission as to how long the Chair and Vice Chair serve in those
positions. Discussion regarding the history of the Commission continued.
Chair Fish opened the floor to nominations for Chair and Vice Chair.
Mr. Bleile nominated Mr. King for the position of Chair.
Mr. Brick nominated Mr. Fish for the position of Chair.
Vote for Chair: Mr. Fish -5, Mr. King -2, Abstain -2
Mr. Madrid nominated Mr. King for the position of Vice Chair of the Commission, Mr.
Freemire seconded.
Mr. Bleile nominated Mr. Kinton for the position of Vice Chair of the Commission.
Vote for Vice-Chair: Mr. King -6, Mr. Kinton -1, Abstain -2
Mr. Brick requested staff to schedule discussion regarding elections for the January 2016
meeting.
►
VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE
Deputy City Attorney Comer did not have any comments for the Commission.
►
VII. STAFF'S CHOICE
Mr. Neubecker outlined options for the Commission to improve communications with
City Council. Mr. Fish expressed that he would like to improve the relationship between
the Commission and Council in order to more effectively collaborate on priorities for the
City.
Mr. Bleile asked for the number of recommendations that have been forwarded to City
Council by the Commission that have been altered prior to approval or not approved.
Mr. Neubecker outlined the upcoming schedule of meetings regarding the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Freemire commented that his observation is that the Commission would prefer to
understand the goals of City Council for the near future and identify the milestones by
which progress can be measured.
►
Mr. Flaherty spoke to the Commissioners about City Council and explained that City
Manager KeLk b working closely with them to establish a consensus on goals for the City.
►
Discussion continued regarding how to best work with Council and ensure that goals and
objectives are met through collaboration on topics that are important to the advancement
of the City.
►
Mr. Flaherty informed the Commissioners that the Council meeting on April 13 th will
include an update on the Next Steps Study, Walk and Wheel Plan and the Comprehensive
Plan and encouraged the Commissioners to attend in order to hear Council's feedback.
►
Mr. Neubecker referred to Englewood resident Doug Cohn's comments at the prior
meeting requesting that the Commission reclassify groups as they relate to group homes
allowed in the City. The Commissioners agreed that the topic should be addressed at a
future date, but is not currently a priority.
The Boards and Commission Appreciation Night will be held June 22, 2015, at the
Englewood Recreation Center.
The meeting April 21, 2015, will begin at 6:00 p.m. to accommodate discussion on the
Comprehensive Plan and the scheduled public hearing.
The Commissioners were provided a schedule of the upcoming meetings for the
Comprehensive Plan, Next Steps Study and Walk and Wheel Master Plan.
►
The May 5, 2015, meeting will be a public hearing for a small lot development plan and a
conditional use application for a brewery will be scheduled soon as well.
►
VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE
Mr. Brick requested information from Mr. Flaherty on how the Commission can assist
Council with budgeting and prioritizing capital projects.
Mr. Bleile expressed that he believes the decisions of the Commission should be based on
data. He commented on the monthly report from Community Development and that he
found it very helpful. He requested data on ordinances that were altered by Council.
►
Mr. Fish recapped the discussion at the previous meeting on attendance.
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
_______ _, Recording Secretary
6
•
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF CASE #2015-01
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS &
VARIANCES
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING
TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
INITIATED BY:
Community Development Department
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 8011 O
)
)
)
}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE
CITY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Commission Members Present: Bleile, Brick, Fish, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid,
Townley
Commission Members Absent: None
This matter was heard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on April 7, 2015,
in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center.
Testimony was received from staff. The Commission received notice of Public Hearing,
the Staff Report, and a copy of the proposed amendments to Title 16 Unified Development
Code which were incorporated into and made a part of the record of the Public Hearing.
After considering the statements of the witness and reviewing the pertinent documents, the
members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission made the following Findings and
Conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THAT the Public Hearing on the Unified Development Code (UDC) Title 16
Administrative Adjustments Section 16-2-17 was brought before the Planning and
Zoning Commission by the Department of Community Development, a department of
the City of Englewood, on April 7, 2015.
2. THAT notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on March
27, 2015. Notice of the Public Hearing was on the City of Englewood website from
March 1 a, 2015, to April 7, 2015.
3. THAT the Staff report was made part of the record .
4. THAT Staff is requesting a change in the UDC to allow up to a 5% Administrative •
Adjustment for those properties that are inconsistent in lot width or lot area with the
surrounding properties.
5. THAT the proposed change would allow Administrative Adjustments to the front
setbacks as well as the side and rear setbacks.
6. THAT the proposed change will allow Administrative Adjustments that will result in no
more than one (1) additional residential dwelling unit as a result of the adjustment.
7. THAT appeals to Administrative Adjustments would be heard by the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals (BOAA).
8. THAT one member of the public was in the audience and spoke in favor of the
proposed ordinance .
CONCLUSIONS
1. THAT the proposed amendment to the UDC would grant the City Manager or designee
authority to make minor Administrative Adjustments to properties of not more than five
percent (5%) to the minimum lot width and minimum lot area to a property.
2. THAT appeals to an Administrative Adjustment made by Staff would be remedied by
the Board of Adjustments and Appeal s.
3 . THAT there are no changes are necessary or proposed to the review criteria or
notification requirements to adjacent properties.
4. THAT by granting the City Manager or designee the authority to make Administrative
Adjustments of up to five percent (5%), the approval process for site development will
be more efficient.
5. THAT safeguards are still in place and applicants will still have the opportunity to
appeal the decision of the City Manager or designee.
6. THAT the language proposed by staff concerning variances is not necessary, and the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals can still hear appeals to administrative decisions.
7. THAT the proposed changes are in conformance with Roadmap Englewood : 2003
Englewood Comprehensive Plan by supporting Redevelopment, Revitalization and
Reinvention .
•
•
DECISION
THEREFORE, it is the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission that Case
#2015-01 Administrative Adjustments and Variances should be referred to the City
Council with a favorable recommendation, excluding the revisions to Section 16-2-16:
Zoning Variances.
The decision was reached upon a vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City
Planning and Zoning Commission on April 7, 2015, by Knoth, seconded by Bleile, which
motion states:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
TO APPROVE CASE #2015-01 AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16:
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENTS AND VARIANCES AS WRITTEN, EXCLUDING THE
CHANGES TO SECTION 16-2-16 ZONING VARAINCES, BE
FORWARDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A
FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.
Bleile, Brick, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Madrid, Townley, Chair Fish
None
None
None
Motion carried.
These Findings and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting on April 7, 2015.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
rikr-~~~ onFis ~ Chair