The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014 Ordinance No. 021• • ORDINANCE No.~/ SERIES OF 2014 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 22 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GILLIT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2 AND CHAPTER 9, SECTION 3, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000 PERTAINING TO NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. WHEREAS, in August 2013, the Community Housing Development Association (CHDA) applied to the City requesting a zoning text amendment to the Unified Development Code concerning nonconforming structures. The request centered on the fact that damaged or destroyed nonconforming structures cannot be rebuilt to the same density, if the existing structures are over the currently allowed density; and WHEREAS, CHDA recently purchased and renovated the Canterbury East (21 units) and Canterbury South (22 units) Apartments, located at 3550 and 3600 South Delaware Street, respectively. If these properties are zoned MU-R-3-B, and are used for affordable housing with a variety of rental rates. If these apartment buildings were damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than 60% of their value, the existing buildings could not be rebuilt under the current development code with the same number of units. The new buildings would need to be reduced in density, with a maximum of 11 units in one building, and 12 units in the other. CHDA and its financing partners are concerned about the potential loss of value in case of significant damage to the buildings; and WHEREAS, the concerns raised by the CHDA are not unique . There are 104 properties in the City that are nonconforming due to density; and WHEREAS, if any of these properties were to burn down, or were otherwise damaged or destroyed by more than 60% of the value of the structure, the rebuilt structure would need to conform to the existing zoning at the lower density; and WHEREAS, due to this potential loss of value, some lenders have concerns about the financing of these properties; and WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment language is broader than originally proposed by the Community Housing Development Association (CHDA). WHEREAS, based on support from the Commission and Staff, the proposed ordinance would allow any nonconforming structure that is damaged or destroyed to be rebuilt at its original density. However, the proposal requires that rebuilt buildings "be brought into compliance as much as practicable with existing standards of this Code"; and WHEREAS, this language gives staff the flexibility to work with architects and property owners to find a building design and site plan that accommodates the density, but also updates the property to current standards; and 1 9 bi WHEREAS, a one year timeframe for submitting a building permit application to rebuild a nonconfonning building has been included in the proposed ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of these changes at the February 20, 2014 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 16, Chapter 2, Section 2 entitled Summary Table of Administrative and Review Roles of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows : 16-2-2: Summary Table of Administrative and Review Roles. The following table summarizes the review and decision-making responsibilities of the entities that have specific roles in the administration of the procedures set forth in this Chapter. For pwposes of this table, an "(Approval) Lapsing Period" refers to the total time from the application's approval that an applicant has to proceed with, and often complete, the approved action. Failure to take the required action within the specified "lapsing period11 will automatically void the approval. See Section 16-2-3.L EMC, "Lapse of Approval," below. Adaptive Reuse of Designated 16-5-3 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ None Historical Buildings Administrative Adjustments 16-2-17 ✓ D A None Administrative Land Review 16-2-11 ✓ D A 60 days to record Pennit Amendments to the Text of 16-2-6 R R D ✓ None this Title Annexation Petitions 16-2-5 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ None Appeals to Board 16-2-18 ✓ D ✓ None Comprehensive Plan 16-2-4 R R D ✓ None Amendments Conditional Use Permits 16-2-12 ✓ R D A ✓ ✓ 1 year Conditional Use -16-7 ✓ R D A ✓ ✓ ✓ None Telecommunication Development Agreements 16-2-15 R D As stated in Agreement Floodplain Dev't Pennit and See Chapter 16-4 for applicable procedures and standards Floodplain Variances Historic Preservation 16-6-11 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ None Landmark Sign 16-6-13 ✓ D A ✓ ✓ 2 • • I • Limited Review Use Permits 16-2-13 ✓ D A 1 year Major Subdivisions 16-2-10 Preliminary Plat ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ ✓ 6 months to submit Final Plat Final Plat R R D ✓ ✓ ✓ 60 days to record Simultaneous Review ✓ R R Preliminary Plat/Final Plat D ✓ ✓ ✓ 60 days to record Recorded Final Plat None Minor Subdivision 16-2-11 Preliminary Plat ✓ D A 6 months to submit Final Plat Final Plat D A 60 days to record Recorded Final Plat None l::!aoi:onfoaniog ~~!.1Ua:s ~ :L ~ ~ Official Zoning Map 16-2-7 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ ✓ None Amendments (Rezonings) PUD and TSA Rezonings 16-2-7 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ ✓ None Temporary Use Permits 16-2-14 ✓ D A As stated in Permit Unlisted Use Classifications 16-S-✓ D A None l.B Zoning Site Plan 16-2-9 D A 3 years Zoning Variances 16-2-16 ✓ R D ✓ ✓ 180 days CM/D "' City Manager or Deslgnee (Including the Development Review Team) PC = Planning and Zoning Commission CC = City Council BAA ... Board of Adjustment and Appeals 1 Notice Required: See Table 16-2-3.1 Summary of Malled Notice Requirements Section 2. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 16, Chapter 9, Section 3 entitled Nonconforming Structures of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows: 1 ►9-3 Nonconforming Structures. A. Applicability and Exemptions. This Section shall apply to all nonconforming structures, as defined in Chapter 16-11 EMC, except that the following structures shall not be considered nonconforming structures and shall be considered exempt from the terms and limitations of this Section and Chapter: 1. Principal one-unit residential dwellings existing on the effective date of this Title, and which as of that date are not in compliance with the minimum 5ide setback standards established in Chapter 16-6 EMC, shall not be considered nonconforming structures due solely to the dwelling's noncompliance with the minimum 5ide setback standards. Such dwellings are "grandfathered," and shall be considered legal, conforming structures for the purposes of sale and development under this Title and other City building and safety regulations. All future 3 expansions and alterations of such grandfathered dwellings shall comply with all applicable standards of this Title, including minimum siee setback standards, unless the City grants a variance. Multi-unit dwellings existing on the effective date of this Title, which are not in compliance wjth the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards, shall not be considered nonconfqnning due solely to noncompliance with the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards. Such dwellings are "grandfathered." and shall be considered legal, confonniog buildings or structures for the purpose of sale and dQtsopmem under Jhii IiUs and other City huiJdjng ang a fetv n;gulatjgps. However, au future expansions and alterations of such grandfathered dwellings shall comply with all applicable standards of this Title, including minimum setbacks standards unless the City grants a variance, B. Nonconforming Building or Structure. 1. A nonconforming building or structure may continue to be used, except as otherwise provided herein. 2. A nonconforming building or structure may be repaired, structurally altered, or expanded only if the alteration, repairt or expansion complies with this Title. If the nonconforming building or structure or any portion thereof, is declared unsafe by the Chief Building Official, the building may be strengthened or restored to a safe condition. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A ~.2, above, a nonconforming building or structure in a Floodplain District may be modified, altered, or repaired to incorporate floodproofing measures, but shall not be extended or expanded. }Ile aeaeeefermiBg auilemg er strueft!R! teat is Eiesa-e::,ceel er elamaged ta tke eJEtent ef mere thaa sactay percent ((jQ%) ef its :r,ialue, as deteFmiBed p\H'SUant te tke metkeEl ef EletermiBiag the va~ien ofa1:Hleliegs for auilemg permit isS'dal¼ee, sball '3 e rep a4n d ar r e&\¼iJ t e~eeept m eampliaeee w-itk E:ee ~eait oft,hie ~ ➔ ~-If a nonconforming building or structure becomes conforming, it shall not be changed back to a nonconforming building or structure. e ~-No person shall move a nonconforming building or structure to another parcel unless the building or structure and its location on the new parcel comply with the use regulations of the zone district applicable to the new parcel. ~ Redeyelonment of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures, The City of Englewood encourages redevelopment of outdated. nonfunctional or obsolete buildings and structures. In an effort to encow;age redevelopment of such buildings or structw;es and to promote economic deyeJopment, nonconforming bu ildin gs and stru ctures mav:.b e remov ed and reoonsmicted, whether damaged gr not only in compliance with the folJowing requirements: 4 .. • • • • • ~ • ~ The recon structed buildin th at \be structure · • g or _§tn1cture shall not ~oped or !!:"1stial •IIIJQe<liatcly nrior rp"ft:1: nopconf?JllPII• ~ut not to exceed, the 4 ttucted buddmgs or structures sh WIIIS™'on, rt 1;11ii!ed immediot 1 "'?"'IY of !lie !!<>ll"911flllllling b .~) be allowed YI! Ill, e Y pnor to the redevelop ~ mg or structure as ment. whichey · The f9'9!lilructed b ·1d· ern grealSL h ut mgorst mu► as practicabJe with . :mcture shall be brought . setbacks, parlrio I d e,g§tmg zoning standards f ! 0 19 compliance ill ''n · g. an scapml! b lk O futs Code <E racttcable" will be ~-JL pJane, etcJ, Th d ~ 0'3'1'W;s: pmwed use and des:de bv the Qty Manarer or ki etemunatmn of mdustrv methods a d of the structure site corulif gpec based µpop the consider 1191 o O ~ards-The Citv Ma ,cos, apd currem unjcruc cin; .. 11lvn:llill IS oossilile but also nai,er or desumee shall mdilioos. wusiaoces of the building or slru~ Ii ieasonahlc based mg the e, proposed use and · • site If the damage to th . e nonconfi . mtentionaJ act or c • _onpmg building or s !wilding or structu mmnal !illD!lvct of llJe mmer ~ lllilS Gi!llsed ~ the slructure shall on1~t the_ owner's agent or ~:-mmnu cgpsj!lered mmdfathe!J'"* m compjiaoce with Ibis I'f" !be building O! ~•llll>l• forredevd ' wlieUllis Section, aruI furth U ;rnd shall not be opment under Section 16_9_3CC} dj'lf ore shall not be Regardless of any wa · ' th' T' iyers or le · isitle, all new deyetos~enmg of standards oth . bµtJ~gs or structyre,) PIMPI /mobJdi11g rq;gpstruC(io GJWJSe WIYired in codes m eff'la at th r shall meet the amiliQ!ile llllild. o of PPIJ!iWlfonoiog A . . e •me of a®hcation for a b ·14. iog, fir< Wllll safctv 9Pl11ii111on f™11s, w mg pennjt, Reconstruction of a 1m nonconfo · h · • proyement Plan R · rmmg Jitldmg or s wrianoes are w~lf =ess· i~fied io secn°?a"i!~vouow the Sire cases, vanances shall r, 11 er ch1119JSIQO@! w dew:I EMC, unlm ~• OW the Zoning V)!ri oprneQt standards, In IL h ance process in Section 16-2-I 6 uc A building permit ap r . n P tcatton fo oncoofonping buildinr reconstruction of a d th• !late of the ~ th• or structun; shall be ,µbmitted am~•';'! or dcs!!!!ml application is ,umn n f lrylWied the damage or desl!J.J _WIIhm one m vcar li!!m b ·1d· 1 e Wtthin (I) ctton Ifn b "1d" w Jllgs or structur ·-""" vear. damag d d' _ _.0 ...111 • ...1112 nennit d ~ on the ·t h e or estr ed )PLer ~ectioo 16-9-3/Q £:Mi!,,. ull no lonw: be eligible ~ noocoofrurning d110<0S1ooal and dey 1 , above and the redeveI -~mdeyelopment A e oprnent standaqls of the mH:"°1 sh3!l confonn to the ppea!s, e zone district Any appeal from the City Admstment and A Manager or designee' d · · ppeaJs pursuant to 16-2-1 BCB}s €ilg10n shall be to the Board of 5 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 aetermines 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. Section 6. Effect of re;peal 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 7th day of April, 2014. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 11th day of April, 2014. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 9th day of April, 2014 for thirty (30} days. A Public Hearing was held on April 21st, 2014. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 5th day of May, 2014. Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No. ,/1./, Series of 2014, on the 9th day of May, 2014. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 7th day of May, 2014 for thirty (30) days. 6 • ,- • • This Ordinance shall take 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 a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No. /J../, Series of 2014. ~ '-ff? ~f:!"6 7'.;ucn~ 7 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: Agenda Item: Subject: April 7, 2014 11 a i An Ordinance Adopting Amendments to Title 16 Concerning Nonconforming Structures 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 City Council. This issue was brought to staff by a citizen through a Zoning Text Amendment application. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this proposal to amend Title 16: Unified Development Code, Nonconforming Structures at three different Study Sessions: September 17, 2013; December 3, • 2014; January 7, 2014. The Commission conducted a Public Hearing on February 20, 2014. One member of the public was present and also testified at the Public Hearing. Following discussion, the Commission voted in favor of forwarding to City Council the proposed amendments to Chapter 9: Nonconformities, as presented in the attached Bill for an Ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Community Development Department recommends adoption of a Bill for an Ordinance authorizing amendments to Title 16: Unified Development Code regarding Nonconforming Structures on First Reading, and setting April 21, 2014 as the date for a Public Hearing to consider testimony on the proposed amendments. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED In August 2013, the Community Housing Development Association (CHDA) applied to the City requesting a Zoning Text Amendment to the Unified Development Code concerning nonconforming structures. The request centered on the fact that the current regulations prohibit reconstructing nonconforming structures to the same density or unit count as they previously existed, if the existing structures are over the allowed density for the zone district (based on lot area). CHDA recently purchased and renovated the Canterbury East (21 units) and Canterbury South (22 units) Apartments, located at 3550 and 3600 S. Delaware Street, respectively. The properties are zoned MU-R-3- • B, and are used for affordable housing with a variety of rental rates . The apartment buildings are nonconforming for the zone district due to the number of units. If the buildings were damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than 60% of their value, the existing buildings could not be rebuilt w ith the same • number of units under the current regulations. The new buildings would need to be reduced in size (based on the zoning and lot size), with a maximum of 11 units in one building, and 12 units in the other. CHDA and its financing partners are concerned about the potential loss of value in case of sign ificant damage to the buildings. The concerns raised by the CHDA are not unique. Staff is aware of 104 properties in the City that are nonconforming due to density. If any of these properties were to burn down, or were otherwise damaged or destroyed by more than 60% of the value of the structure, then the rebuilt structures would need to conform to the existing zoning at the lower density. This situation can happen when zoning is changed to a new density lower than that of the pre-existing structures. D ue to th is poten tial loss of value, some banks have concerns financing these properties. I n an effort to support investment in the community and to maintain the existing density, the proposed code amendments would allow nonconforming buildings and structures to be rebuilt up to their previous density. ANALYSIS Nonconforming structure policies usually require that rebuilt structures come i nto compliance with the new requirements of the zone district, including unit count, setbacks, height, parking, la ndscaping, and other dimensional requirements. These policies help ensure that new buildings, and those rebuilt after significant damage, are compatible w i th the character of the neighborhood. However, meeting the new density of the zone district may re sult in a smaller building, and a reduction in p roperty val ues. By rebuilding to the same size and density, nonconforming structures sh o uld have no more i mpact th an currently. Neighbors of existing nonconforming structures already understand their impacts, since, in many cases, neighbors purchased their investment after the nonconforming structure was built. As proposed, owners of nonconforming structures would be required to comply w ith current regulations w here it is "practicable" to do so. Exceptions to this are building and safety codes, which must be met. Specifically, the proposal requires that rebu ilt buildin gs "be brought into compliance as much as practicable with existing standards of this code". This requirement strikes a balance between what is "possible " and what is ureasonable ". For example, a rebuilt struct ure might be able to conform to new landscaping and parking requirements, but not setbacks. Other developments may be able to comply with setbacks, but may not be able to meet c urren t parking standards. The prop osed ordinance provides flexibility for the owner and sta ff to work together on a plan that protects property rights while reducing impacts on adjacent properties. Zoning Site Plan review would be required for new structures. As proposed, this policy would apply to both residential and nonresidential properties. Th is ord inance would not affect nonconforming uses. Some of the key elements of this proposal include: • Allow re-building to the same unit count or density (square feet) • Require re-built structures to comply with current codes where reasonable • Applic ants would be required to demonstrate why they are not able to meet current codes, if reprieve is requested • Allow voluntary redevelopment to the same unit count or density • • Building permit applications must be submitted w ithin one year of "destruction" event • • Voluntary Redevelopment In addition to disasters such as fire, this proposal would encourage redevelopment of older, nonfunctional properties through voluntary teardowns and new construction. Language is proposed to encourage voluntary redevelopment by allowing the existing density to be rebuilt. Redeveloped and rebuilt structures could maintain the existing density or other nonconformities, but owners would also be required conform to current standards, to the extent practicable. Staff believes that this language encourages redevelopment, although it is unlikely to be used frequently if additional density or other incentives are not provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on the City as a result of this ordinance. Indirectly, it is anticipated that this ordinance will have a positive financial impact on the community by allowing redevelopment of nonconforming structures in case of disasters, and encouraging redevelopment. The ordinance would allow buildings to be rebuilt to their current size, which could result in additional residential and commercial activity and additional revenue to the City when compared to smaller structures. The change will also facilitate financing of nonconforming structures, which should help to support investment and property values. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -February 20, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -February 20, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact -Case No. 2013-06 Map of Nonconforming Structures Bill for an Ordinance M EMORAN D U M TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THROUGH: Alan White, Community Development Director FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner February 20, 2014 Case 2013-06 -Public Hearing Nonconforming Structures Recommendations The Community Development Department request that the Planning and Zoning Commission review, take public testimony, and forward to City Council a recommendation for adoption the proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code of the Englewood Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 9, Nonconformities, relating to • Nonconforming Structures. • Background In August 2013, the Community Housing Development Association (CHDA) applied to the City requesting a Zoning Text Amendment to the Unified Development Code concerning nonconforming structures. The request centered on the fact that damaged or destroyed nonconforming structures cannot be rebuilt to the same density, if the existing structures are over the allowed density. CHDA recently purchased and renovated the Canterbury East (21 units) and Canterbury South (22 units) Apartments, located at 3550 and 3600 S. Delaware Street, respectively. The properties are zoned MU-R-3-B, and are used for affordable housing with a variety of rental rates. The apartment buildings are nonconforming to the existing zoning due to the number of units. If the buildings were damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than 60% of their value, the existing buildings could not be rebuilt under the current development code with the same number of units. The new buildings would need to be reduced in size, with a maximum of 11 units in one building, and 12 units in the other. Understandably, CHDA and its financing partners are concerned about the potential loss of value in case of significant damage to the buildings. The concerns raised by the CHDA are not unique. There are 104 properties in the City that are nonconforming due to density. (The numbers of units on the properties exceed the allowed density based on the lot dimensions or the underlying zoning.) If any of these 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PHONE 303-762-2342 FAX 303 783-6895 www.englewoodgov.org properties were to burn down, or were otherwise damaged or destroyed by more than 60% of the value of the structure, then the rebuilt structures would need to conform to the existing zoning at the lower density. This situation can happen when zoning is changed to a new density lower than that of the pre-existing structures. Due to this potential loss of value, some lenders have concerns financing these properties. In an effort to support investment in the community and to maintain the existing density, Staff supports the proposed code amendment, which would allow nonconforming buildings and structures to be rebuilt up to their previous density. Furthermore, in an effort to promote economic development and improve the quality and design of buildings in the City, Staff also supports voluntary redevelopment of such nonconforming buildings and structures, up to the existing density. As proposed, this policy would apply to both residential and nonresidential properties. Analysis The proposed text amendment language is broader than originally proposed by the Community Housing Development Association (CHDA). Based on support from the Commission and Staff, the proposed ordinance would allow any nonconforming structure that is damaged or destroyed to be rebuilt. However, the proposal requires that rebuilt buildings "be brought into compliance as much as practicable with existing standards of this code". This language gives Staff the flexibility to work with architects and property owners to find a building design and site plan that accommodates the density, but also updates the property to reasonable, current standards. We believe that this language helps strike an important balance between maintaining value for the property owner and the desire of the neighborhood for compatibility. For example, a rebuilt building may not be able to meet setbacks, but might include better landscaping and more parking. Other projects may include updated design and materials, but may not solve the site planning issues that previously existed. This flexibility will allow the Staff, property owner and architect to find the best option for the situation. The new building or structure would be no less conforming than it existed before redevelopment; in most cases, the new building or structure will be more conforming. Voluntary Redevelopment In addition to disasters such as fire, this proposal would encourage redevelopment of older, nonfunctional properties through voluntary teardowns and new construction. Language is proposed to encourage voluntary redevelopment by allowing the existing density to be rebuilt. Redeveloped and rebuilt structures would be allowed to maintain the existing density or other nonconformities, but owners would also be asked to come into conformance with then-current standards, to the extent practicable. Staff believes that this language encourages redevelopment, although it is unlikely to be used extensively if additional density or other incentives are not provided. Timeframe for Redevelopment The timeframe for rebuilding a nonconforming building has been included in the proposed ordinance. As proposed, a one year deadline for application for a building permit is proposed. This will ensure that a site is not cleared for redevelopment (after a disaster or • • • voluntarily), then vacant for several years. It will ensure that building owners do not claim that a nonconforming structure previously existed on the site, with no records or evidence on file. Definition of Nonconforming Structures Following is the existing definition of nonconforming structures. This definition, which along with the proposed modification to Section 16-9-3, would clarify when current codes and standards apply: "Nonconforming Building or Structure: Unless otherwise exempt by Chapter 16-9 EMC, a structure or building, the size, dimensions, or location of which was lawful prior to the adoption, revision, or amendment to this Title, but which fails by reason of such adoption, revision, or amendment, to conform to the present requirements of the zone district in which such structure or building is located." No changes are proposed to the current definition. Rather than adding language to the definition, as previously proposed by Staff and reviewed by the Commission, we have left the definition as it exists. This will ensure that the definition merely defines nonconforming buildings and structures, and is not used to regulate. Recommendation Major damage or destruction of a nonconforming building or structure will be very rare, and this text amendment should not negatively impact the community. In some situations, the building that was destroyed will be rebuilt to look like it did prior to the destruction. In other cases, the new building will be an improvement on those design elements that were nonconforming. This code amendment will also encourage voluntary redevelopment of out- of-date buildings. Either way, these text amendments are significant to investors and lenders, and should help reduce concerns about financing a real estate investment. 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 Nonconforming Structures • Attachment to Planning Commission Meeting of February 20, 2014 1 ~9-3: Nonconforming Structures (New language shown in double underline. Language removed shown in strilcetkrnugh.) A. Applicability and Exemptions. This Section shall apply to all nonconforming structures, as defined in Chapter 16-11 EMC, except that the following structures shall not be considered nonconforming structures and shall be considered exempt from the terms and limitations of this Section and Chapter: 1. 2. Principal one-unit residential dwellings existing on the effective date of this Title, and which as of that date are not in compliance with the minimum siee setback standards established in Chapter 16-6 EMC, shall not be considered nonconforming structures due solely to the dwelling's noncompliance with the minimum siee setback standards. Such dwellings are "grandfathered," and shall be considered legal, conforming structures for the purposes of sale and development under this Title and other City building and safety regulations. All future expansions and alterations of such grandfathered dwellings shall comply with all applicable standards of this Title, including minimum side setback standards, unless the City grants a variance. Multi-unit dwellings existing on the effective date of this Title. which are not in compliance with the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards. shall not be considered nonconforming due solely to noncompliance with the minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards. Such dwellings are "grandfathered." and shall be considered legal, conforming buildings or structures for the purpose of sale and development under this Title and other City building and safety regulations, However. all future expansions and alterations of such grandfathered dwellings shall comply with all applicable standards of this Title. including minimum setbacks standards. unless the City grants a variance. B. Nonconforming Building or Structure. 1. A nonconforming building or structure may continue to be used, except as otherwise provided herein. 2. A nonconforming building or structure may be repaired, structurally altered, or expanded only if the alteration, repair, or expansion complies with this Title. If the nonconforming building or structure or any portion thereof, is declared unsafe by the Chief Building Official, the building may be strengthened or restored to a safe condition. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A._a.2, above, a nonconforming building or structure in a Flood Plain District may be modified, altered, or repaired to incorporate floodproofing measures, but shall not be extended or expanded . 4. No nonconforming building or structure that is destroyed or damaged te the extent of mere than sixty percent (GO%) ef its 'value, as determined pursuant to tf:ie method of determining the valuation of buildings for building permit issuance, shall be repaired or rebuilt except in compliance with the requirements of this Title. 4§.. If a nonconforming building or structure becomes conforming, it shall not be changed back to a nonconforming building or structure. 56. No person shall move a nonconforming building or structure to another parcel unless the building or structure and its location on the new parcel comply with the use regulations of the zone district applicable to the new parcel. (Ord. 04-5) C. Redevelopment of Nonconforming Buildings or Structures. 1 . The City of Englewood encourages redevelopment of outdated, nonfynctiornd OLJlbwJ,ete.b,uildings and structures, lo an effort to eneourage redeve lgnwent of such buildin gs or structures and to promote e:eooomfc development nonconforming buil dings and structure s may be remoyed and reconstructed. whether damaged or not, only io cqmpliance with the following requirements; a, Ibe..reamstructed bu ildin g or structure shall notbe more nonconforming than the structure as it existed immediately prior to the reconstrucuon. Redevelopeq..o1 reconstructed buildings or structures shall be allowed up to. but not to exceed. the current allowed density or the density of the nonconforming building qr_s.tcu.cture as iLe~ta<i immediately prior to the redevelopment. whichever is greater. b..Jhe te&QosJructed building or structure shaH babrnught into compliant;ef)SJiluch as practicable with existing zoning standards of this code (Examples; setbacks. parking. landscaping bulk plane. etc.}. The determination of "practicable" will be made by the City Ma na ger or designge based upo n the proposed use and desig n of the stru cture , site conditions. and current industry construction methods and standards. The City Manager or cie$igogg §he!II consider not only what is possible. but also what ;s re asonable,.b.as.-ed.on.the unique circumstances of the building or structure. proposed use. site conditions. and where meeting such zoning standards does not create an undue burden on the owner. c. If the damage to the nonconforming building or structure was caused by the intentional acLOLqim inau:onduct of the QXY□er of the nonconforming building or structure. or the owner's agent or representative. the building or structure shall only be rebuilt i □ compliance with this Title and shall not be considered grandfathered under this Section. and furthermore shall not be eligible for redevelopment under Section 16-9-3 C of this Title. d, Regard less..of any waivers or lessening of standards otherwise required in this Title. all ne.w df~opment <in duding reconstruction of nonconforming buildings or structures) shall meet the applicable building. fire and safety codes in effect at the time of application for a building permit. • • D. h Zoning Sjte . · Process, h II WIiow t e Apphcallon . d. or structure La ariances are . onconUlrming b~IL,ns_ -2 of this Iitle, unless v ses, variances 1. Reco~str:'.~':o~e~s"identified ii" 0~"J!'.'e'lo1p~~n~ stani~~~ ~ ;~i~Tf.~e. Plan ev I thee dimens,ona in Sectoon l · requested 4lr o oniog Yaciance process destroyed shall UlHow the Z tion of a damagw or fl l vear from the · f r reconS1ruc_ · d withm one ----· . . mit application 4l h fl be submott~ ~ building perrmt . 2. A bu,ldTg pe~. building or structuJe sii~e or destructoon. ~f n~ 0Ved nonconformmg noncon4lrmo I that caused theam ar damaged or ~es.r development date of the ~ven b itred within one I l l ye I • ager be eli gjble for re the dimension al application os su m n the site shall no o nl shall conUlrm to tructures O d developme buildings ors i&-2-3 c above,•□~ re f b1e zone district. under Section ndards of the app ' and development sta • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ► I.CALL TO ORDER Englewood Civic Center City Council Chambers February 20, 2014 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 Brick presiding. Present:Roth, Knoth, Brick, Kinton, Townley, Fish, Freemire, Madrid (alternate) Absent:Bleile (Excused), King (Excused) Staff:Alan White, Director, Community Development Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner Dan Brotzman, City Attorney Chair Brick added election of officers to the agenda. ► II .APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 4, 2013 Fish moved; Freemire seconded: TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 4, 2013 MINUTES Chair Brick asked if there were any modifications or corrections. Mr. Fish requested that the attendance record be modified to remove Mr. Welker and reflect that Ms. Townley and Mr. Knoth were in attendance. A YES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire NAYS:None ABSTAIN:Brick ABSENT:Bleile, King • • Motion carried. ► Ill.PUBLIC HEARING 2013-06 NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES Fish moved; Knoth seconded: To open public hearing for Case #2013-06 Non-Conforming Structures AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick NAYS:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Neubecker reviewed the history of Case #2013-06 Non-Conforming Structures. The issue was raised when the Community Housing Development Association (CHDA) contacted the City in August, 2013, requesting a zoning text amendment. The existing UDC contains language which prohibits non-conforming structures from being rebuilt to the same size and scale as they currently exist if that element of the design is not conforming. CHDA purchased and renovated properties in the MU-R-3B district that are over the allowed density for that site (21 and 22 units each) based on the lot area. If the buildings were destroyed or incurred damage of 60% or more based on cost, the buildings could only be rebuilt at 11 and 12 units respectively. The entities financing the properties are concerned because of the potential loss of value. The UDC was reviewed and revised language is being proposed to allow the buildings to be rebuilt. Language has also been revised to allow voluntary redevelopment in the event that a property owner would want to demolish and rebuild, even when there is no damage to the building. A time limit is also proposed that would require the applicant to obtain a building permit within one year from the time the building was damaged or destroyed . Staff recommends that the text amendment be submitted to City Council for First Reading. ► Questions from the Commission: Ms. Townley requested clarification that the issue is the non-conforming structure or the land use. Mr. Neubecker responded that this ordinance does not address the nonconforming use of the land, only the structure. Mr. Knoth asked if the density could be increased; Mr. Neubecker responded that the structure could be rebuilt to the current allowed density for that zoning area or the previous density of the non-conforming structure, whichever is greater. Mr. Freemire inquired as to what the remedy would be for an aggrieved party who did not agree with the changes made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Neubecker responded that the decision would be made by staff and would not come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Appeals of administrative decisions go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Mr. Roth commented on the actual number of structures in R-1-A, of which 5 are known, and the desire of City Council to preserve the standards for R-1-A. He expressed that in C (1 )(b) of the proposal, he was concerned with the language in the last sentence regarding "undue burden on the owner" in regards to meeting the zoning standards. Mr. Neubecker explained that the intent is to determine the impact of the redevelopment in the area and the rights of property owners, seeking a balance between the two. Mr. Roth asked who makes the determination of undue burden and Mr. Neubecker responded that the staff is responsible for the administrative decisions - regarding redevelopment. Mr. Fish asked how it is determined if a property is deemed to be non-conforming in light of the fact that there is no accurate list of properties. Mr. Neubecker replied that the list that the Community Development department has is a list of non-conformities based specifically on lot size and existing density . The list is created using information from Arapahoe County Assessors office, which contains information regarding the number of units in a structure. Dan Brotzman, City Attorney, was sworn in to address the issue of "undue burden" as it relates to property development. Mr. Brotzman explained that "undue burden" will always be defined by discussion between Staff and the property owner. Mr. Brotzman · agreed to supply the Commission with a document defining "undue burden." ► Chair Brick verified that the City Attorneys office would like "undue burden" to not be tied to economic factors. ► Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, stated that when applicants seek remedy with the Board of Adjustments, the result is generally a variance. He read the standards that • apply to variances, and suggested that similar criteria would be used to determine "undue burden". He offered that the language in 16-9-3:C(l )(b) can be amended to delete the statement "and where meeting such zoning standards does not create an undue burden on the owner." ► Jo Ellen Davidson, Director of Community Housing Development Association (CHDA), 325 Inverness Drive South, Englewood, was sworn in. Ms. Davidson thanked the Commissioners for their consideration of CHDAs request for amendment. Ms. Davidson described the mission of the CHDA and its history in Englewood. She supplied the Commissioners with information regarding the financial investment CHDA has made in the buildings comprising the Canterbury East and South apartments and the Presidential Arms apartments in Englewood. One objective of CHDA is to make a significant improvement in the community. Their funding is from a variety of both public and private resources. She expressed that they are concerned over the potential loss of the properties in light of the fact that all improvements are completed up front when CHDA acquires the property. They have a long term commitment to the properties and make improvements for long term use. ► • The Commissioners did not have any questions for Ms. Davidson. Staff did not have a rebuttal to present. Mr. Knoth motioned; Mr. Fish seconded: To close the public hearing for Case #2013-06 Non-Conforming Structures A YES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick NAYS:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King Motion to approve staff recommendation for Case #2013-06 Non-Conforming Structures Knoth moved; Roth seconded: TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR CASE #2013-06 NON CONFORMING STRUCTURES Mr. Roth offered a friendly amendment to strike language from 16-9-3 C(l )(b) "and where meeting such zoning standards does not create an undue burden on the owner." Mr. Brick commented that in line with the Comprehensive Plan, it is important to support organizations both private and public that are interested in improving the housing stock in the City of Englewood and it is important that the Commission support these efforts, particularly for buildings such as CHDAs to promote the health and welfare of the community. Mr. Fish agreed with the exclusion of the language due to the fact that the property owner does have recourse if they disagree with the decision of the staff. Mr. Knoth commented that the amendment would protect the income of the property owner by insuring that they could continue to receive the same income from the property if they are allowed to reconstruct the building with the same number of units. Mr. Fish added that the Board of Adjustment and Appeals does not rule based on monetary issues, but strictly deals with variances which are exceptions to the code regarding safety issues. His experience with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is that they would not rule based on financial impact. Mr. Roth reiterated that the intent of the change in the zoning code is to allow the owner to rebuild to the original density. ► Vote: TO APPROVE CASE #2013-06 NON CONFORMING STRUCTURES AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO STRIKE LANGUAGE IN 16-9-3 C(l)(b) "AND WHERE MEETING SUCH ZONING STANDARDS DOES NOT CREATE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE OWNER." ► Mr. Fish -We have series of non-conforming buildings that will continue to degrade and as a community need to seek a mechanism to maintain and improve these buildings. As evidenced by testimony received, at least one situation has occurred in which these buildings that were non-conforming have not only been maintained but improved. This is something that needs to be encouraged by the city as it pertains to the Comprehensive Plan. Higher density exceptions have been granted through the PUD process as exceptions to the underlying zoning structure and this is a trend for the City of Englewood and may be included in a future Comprehensive Plan to align with • • • • the trend not only in Englewood but nationally. Mr. Kinton agreed with Mr. Fish that anything that can be done to improve the housing stock should be encouraged. ► AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick NAYS:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King Motion carries. IV.PUBLIC HEARING 2013-09 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW ► Knoth moved; Roth seconded: TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-09 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick NAYS:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King ► Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, described the Zoning Site Plan Review process as outlined in 16-2-9 of the UDC. The proposed amendment would change the title of 16- 2-9 to Site Improvement Plan Review. The proposed amendment would outline the process staff uses to review an application that is not otherwise going to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Examples are a building permit, review of a landscaping plan, a major site plan and projects that are not large enough to require Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment approval. The majority of the work performed by current planning staff is review of plans against current codes. ► The proposed changes would allow an applicant to go through the Site Improvement Plan process before moving on to the permitting process which requires a higher level of detail and formal building plans. The process is not always about zoning, but about the actual layout of the site itself. The proposed changes would clarify when the Site Plan Review process is necessary and also the types of application materials that are required to be submitted including the size and the scale of the plans for review. Should a property owner be challenged by these requirements, staff can assist with creating plans containing the information. ► The major changes proposed include changing the title of the code to Site Improvement Plan Review, the requirement of plan review for large site work projects and landscaping over $5,000 in value, alterations of floor area in excess of 10% of the floor area or reduction in the setback to a property I ine, additional detail on the plans submitted and minor syntax changes that improve the readability and enforceability of the code. Previous recommendations, including language on the ORT (Development Review Team), have been removed from the proposed amendment. Site Improvement Plan Review remains an administrative function and appeals to administrative decisions are made through the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. ► Ms. Townley asked if this process would apply to any type of property. Mr. Neubecker responded that it would apply to all properties regardless of zone area. He also clarified that the requirement for the process would not preclude a property owner from occupying their home. Mr. Freemire commented on the language in 16-2-9 A(S) and the threshold of $5,000 for the project value. He suggested that some type of multiplier or index be included to account for inflation and increased cost of a project. Mr. Neubecker stated that there is not precedence for including a contingency for inflation, which would be difficult to calculate and hard for some people to understand. Mr. Roth questioned the need for the additional language in 16-2-9 (A)(4) regarding residential driveways. The current code does not contain a definition of a residential driveway. Mr. Neubecker supplied the Commissioners with information on the definition of a driveway as it is stated in the City of Englewood UDC as well as from other sources. The reason for adding the phrase "residential driveway" is to clarify that Site Improvement Plan Review is not necessary, and to eliminate a conflict with a previous citizens initiative. ► Mr. Fish noted a change to 16-2-9 (B)(3) to correct a typographical error "Sites ~ 10,000 square feet: Scale 1" = 10. ► - Fish proposed changes to 16-2-9 D(l )(band e) to associate the term "compliance" with standards and policy, and the term "consistency" with guidelines. ► No public was present at the hearing. • • Alan White, Director, spoke about the 180 day time limit as a commonly accepted standard for a time frame for a project to be completed from the time it has gone through the Site Improvement Plan Review process. ► Knoth moved; Roth seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-09 SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick NAYS:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King Knoth moved; Fish seconded: TO APPROVE CASE #2013-09 ZONING SITE PLAN REVIEW AS WRITTEN BY STAFF ► Mr. Fish requested that the length of the lapse between review and implementation be changed from 60 days to 180 days. Mr. Knoth accepted the Friendly Amendment. The • clerical error will be corrected to reflect the proper scale for plans. AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick NAYS:None ABSTAIN:None ABSENT:Bleile, King Motion passes. IV.PUBLIC FORUM No Public was present. V.A TTORNEYS CHOICE ► Attorney Brotzman had no comment. ► VI.STAFFS CHOICE Mr. Neubecker announced that the March 4th meeting will be a continuation of the discussion regarding the TSA overlay in the industrial area. Staff members attended the "Safe Routes to School" meting and information received was helpful. He thanked Commissioner Townley and Commissioner Kinton for attending. ► VII.COMMISSIONERS CHOICE Chair Brick requested a motion for a nomination for Chair. Mr. Roth moved; Mr. Knoth seconded: To nominate Mr. Fish for Chair and Mr. King for Vice Chair of the Commission AYES:Fish, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Freemire, Brick NAYS:None ABST Al N:None ABSENT:Bleile, King ► Ms. Townley -Legislation in House of Representatives may allow Planning and Zoning commissioners to receive pay. She also attended a meeting with DRCOG regarding • Healthy Spaces in regard to Comprehensive Plan and is encouraging cities to include • health and safe routes to school. Mr. Fish complimented staff for the helpful way in which the cases were presented for consideration and for the information provided to the Commission regarding Home Occupations and City Councils opinion. ► The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. /s/ Julie Bailey, Recording Secretary CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF CASE #2013-06, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE NONCONFORM- ING STRUCTURES INITIATED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1000 ENGLEWOOD PARKWAY ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Commission Members Present: Fish, Freemire, Knoth, Roth, Kinton, Brick, Townley Commission Members Absent: Bleile, King 1 This matter was heard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on February 20, 2014 in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center. Testimony was received from staff and one member of the public was present and testified at the hearing. The Commission received notice of Public Hearing, the Staff Report, and a copy of the proposed amendment to the Unified Development Code which were incorporated into and made a part of the record of the Public Hearing. After considering the statements of the witnesses, 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 Amendment of the Unified Development Code Section 16-9-3 Nonconforming Structures was brought before the Planning Commission by the Department of Community Development, a department of the City of Englewood. 2. THAT notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on February 7, 2014 and was on the City's website from February 61h through 201 1,. • • • 3. THAT all testimony received from staff members and the public has been made part of the record of the Public Hearing. 4. THAT the change in the zoning code would allow an owner of a Nonconforming Structure to rebuild to the original density in the event of destruction or damage of more than 60% of cost. 5. THAT voluntary redevelopment would be allowed in the event that a property owner would choose to demolish and rebuild to the current allowed density for that zoning district or to the previous density of the nonconforming structure, whichever is greater. 6. THAT a Building Permit application to rebuild any building or structure destroyed or damaged would be required to be submitted within one (1) year from the date of the event that caused such damage, and that if such Building Permit is not submitted with one ( 1) year, then such rebuilt a structure shall comply with all applicable zoning codes and shall conform to the dimensional and development standards of the applicable zone district. 7. THAT the City staff is aware of 104 structures in the City that are nonconforming due to their density or unit count. 8. THAT the existing nonconforming structures in the City will degrade over time, and that the City encourages renovation of the local housing stock. 9. THAT the proposed amendments related to the Nonconforming Structures are consistent with the goals and objectives of Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan, which supports renovation and improvements to local housing. 10. THAT higher density has been approved in Planned Unit Developments in the past, and that the trend in Englewood is to encourage higher density. 11 . THAT the proposed Amendments related to Section 16-9-3 Nonconforming Structures should be adopted as part of Title 16: Unified Development Code of the Englewood Municipal Code. CONCLUSIONS 1. THAT the Public Hearing on the Amendment of the Unified Development Code Zoning Site Plan Review was brought before the Planning Commission by the Department of Community Development, a department of the City of Englewood. 2. THAT notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on February 7, 2014 and was on the City's website from February 6ui through 201h. 3 3. THAT all testimony received from staff members and the public has been made part - of the record of the Public Hearing. 4. THAT the change in the zoning code should allow an owner of a Nonconforming Structure to rebuild to the original density in the event of destruction or damage of more than 60% of cost. 5. THAT voluntary redevelopment should be allowed in the event that a property owner would choose to demolish and rebuild to the current allowed density for that zoning district or to the previous density of the nonconforming structure, whichever is greater. 6. THAT a Building Permit application to rebuild any building or structure destroyed or damaged should be required to be submitted within one (1) year from the date of the event that caused such damage, and that if such Building Permit is not submitted with one (1) year, then such rebuilt a structure shall comply with all applicable zoning codes and shall conform to the dimensional and development standards of the applicable zone district. 7. THAT the City staff is aware of 104 structures in the City that are nonconforming due to their density or unit count. 8. THAT the existing nonconforming structures in the City will degrade over time, and - that the City encourages renovation of the housing stock. 9. THAT the proposed amendments related to the Nonconforming Structures are consistent with the goals and objectives of Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan, which supports renovation and improvements to local housing. 10. THAT higher density has been approved in Planned Unit Developments in the past, and that the trend in Englewood is to encourage higher density. 11 . THAT the proposed amendments related to Section 16-9-3 Nonconforming Structures are consistent with the goals and objectives of Roadmap Englewood: The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan and the Englewood. 12. THAT the proposed Amendments related to Section 16-9-3 Nonconforming Structures should be adopted as part of Title 16: Unified Development Code of the Englewood Municipal Code. DECISION THEREFORE, it is the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission that Case #2013-06, Amendments to Section 16-9-3 Nonconforming Structures should be referred to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. The decision was reached upon a vote on a motion made at the meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on February 20, 2014, by Mr. Knoth, seconded by Mr. Fish, which motion states: CASE #2013-06, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO 16-9-3 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AS STATED BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 1. 16-9-3 C(l)(B): TO STRIKE THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE "AND WHERE MEETING SUCH ZONING STANDARDS DOES NOT CREATE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE OWNER." Knoth, Roth, Fish, Brick, Kinton, Freemire, Townley None None Bleile, King Motion carried. These Findings and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting on February 20, 2014. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION John Brick, Chair .. ~ 11 t ~ .. i) a t I) ~ -):. ~ ~ ~ :R 0 !ti ~ c,, 0 i ~ ~ ~ a.s.. ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ Q Q" Al §- 11 I I ILJ HURON ST. FOX ST. DELAWARE ST. BANNOCK ST. BROADWAY00 SHERMAN ST. LOGAN ST. PEARL ST. OGDEN ST. DOWNING ST. LAFAYETTE ST. J===l=~IP-...._----i,.._ __ lllj;:r FRANKLIN ST. WILLIAMS ST. •MI j~LJLJLiJ~ .. -l LJLJ□~~--ILJ. ?hi R-1-C •n •□□DD ~□□G- --□□□ ,---.~□G~DD ir=:7~ .-------,~ ~tJ DO_ • I ,ODD □ ffiLJ§□ _ n p= DODD 10D [ I i OJDDD □rn ~ DD~~~- Dr-::Jr:iCl-~ • = ~ DD! M II II I l3-1-t_J • □□Go_ ·: o~ -□□DD , I II '1 701 B-1 ~8 MANSFIELD AVE. NASSAU AVE. OXFORD AVE. PRINCETON AVE. QUINCY AVE. RADCLIFF AVE. STANFORD AVE. TUFTS AVE. UNION AVE. LAYTON AVE. CHENANGO AVE. GRAND AVE. ~-r, 11 IF II 11 "11 6 11 t-BELLEVIEW AVE. CENTENNIAL A VE. Locations of Nonconforming Duplexes and Apartment Buildings Based on Current Lot Area Requirements per Unit 0 LEGEND Nonconforming Duplex • Nonconforming Apartments Cl Zoning District Boundaries December 2013 {t 8 1,200 2,400 Feet