The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014 Ordinance No. 045. ' • • ORDINANCE NO. t/6" SERIES OF 2014 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 45 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2; TITLE 16, CHAPTER 6, SECTION 1, PARAGRAPHB; TITLE 16, CHAPTER 9, SECTION 4; AND TITLE 16, CHAPTER 11, SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH B, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICfi> AL CODE 2000, PERTAINING TO SMALL LOTS. WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code, adopted in 2004, does not regulate "small lot" residential properties in terms of Development Standards and associated Dimensional Requirements; and WHEREAS, any residential lot not meeting the minimal dimensional standards is treated as a non-conforming lot; and WHEREAS, currently the following properties are not effectively regulated: • In R-1-A and R-1-B Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25 ', but less than 50'; and with lot area greater than or equal to 3,000 sf, but less than 6,000 sf(+ -13 Total in the City). • In R-1-C Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25', but less than 37'; and with lot area greater than or equal to 3,000 sf, but less than 4,500 sf(+ -40 Total in the City). • hi R-2 or R-3 Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25 ', but less than 40'; and with lot area greater than or equal 3,000 sf, but less than 4,000 sf(+ -176 Total in the City). • In Medical Zone Districts : Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25'; but less than 40'; and with lot area greater than or equal 3,000 sf, but less than 4,000 sf+ -1 Total in the City). • In Residential and Medical Zone Districts: Properties with lot width of less than 25'; and with lot area less than 3,000 sf(+ -45 Total in the City). WHEREAS, these properties do not fit the "small lot" criteria and do not have any minimum setback, maximum height, or maximum lot coverage requirements. There are approximately 275 of these properties within the City; and WHEREAS, the nonconforming status of these lot create uncertainty for lenders, who are then reluctant to lend on a property where the entitlements are vague or unknown; and 1 9 b i WHEREAS, these regulations for smaller residential lots, will provide greater certainty for property owners; and WHEREAS, the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission held a Public Hearing on November 19, 2013 to consider amendments to the Unified Development Code to establish regulations for smaller lots; and WHEREAS, the November 19, 2013 Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearin g was reopened on March 4, 2014 and continued to March 18, 2014; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will effectively regulate smaller residential lots (hereafter called "Urban Lots") that contain or contained a one-unit dwelling existing on or before February 23, 2004, and have 25 feet or more of Lot Width, 3,000 square feet or more of Lot Area, and will establish a process for the possible development of vacant Urban Lots of that size; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments will establish criteria and a process for the possible development of Urban Lots with less than 25 feet of Lot Width or less than 3,000 square feet of Lot Area that contain an existing dwelling unit or are vacant; and WHEREAS, additions, redevelopment, or development of these properties will be possible if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing which insures due process and appropriate public notice; and WHEREAS, this proposed amendment is consistent with Roadmap Englewood: 3002 Englewood Comprehensive Plan and. encourages housing investments that improve the housing mix, including both smaller and larger unit sizes ; and WHEREAS , additional review criteria will create a clear basis for deve lopment of these small lots; and WHEREAS , the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that appeals from the Planning and Zoning Commission's decisions on nonconforming lots be brought t o City Council for a de novo determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDA™ED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT : Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 16, Chapter 2, Section 2, entitled Summary of Development Review and Decision-Making Procedures 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 purposes 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 period" will automatically void the approval. See Section 16-2-3.L EMC, "Lapse of Approval,'1 below. 2 • Adaptive Reuse of 16-5-3 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ None Designated Historical Buildings Administrative 16-2-17 ✓ D A None Adjustments Administrative Land 16-2-11 ✓ D A 60 days to Review Permit record Amendments to the Text 16-2-6 R R D ✓ None of 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. Permit See Chapter 16-4 for applicable procedures and standards and Floodplain Variances Historic Preservation 16-6-11 ✓ R R D ✓ ✓ None Landmark Sign 16-6-13 ✓ D A ✓ ✓ Limited Review Use 16-2-13 ✓ D A 1 year Permits 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 D ✓ ✓ ✓ 60 days to Preliminary Plat/Final record 3 Plat 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 t:1120,smfin:mioi,; :Jsgt~ ~ ✓ R 12 A 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 16-5-1.B ✓ D A None Classifications Zoning Site Plan 16-2-9 D A 3 years Zoning Variances 16-2-16 ✓ R D ✓ ✓ 180 days CM/D = City Manager or Designee (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 Mailed Notice Requirements • 4 • Section 2. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 16, Chapter 6, Section 1, Paragraph B, Table 1.1, entitled Summary of Dimensional Requirements for Principal Structures of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows: Summary Table of Dimensional Requirements for Principal Uses and Structures. All principal structures and uses shall be subject to the intensity and dimensional standards set forth in the following Table 16-6-1.1. These standards may be further limited by other applicable sections of this Title. Additional regulations for the residential districts, and special dimensional regulations related to lot area, setbacks, height, and floor area are set forth in the subsections immediately following the table. Rules of measurement are set forth in subsection 16-6-1.A EMC. Dimensional requirements for accessory structures are set forth in subsection 16-6-1.1 EMC. R-1-A District One-Unit I 9,000 !None 135 11s 132 125 11 120 Dwelling One-Unit 6,000 None 40 50 32 25 5 20 Dwelling on a [4] Small Lot [ 5] One-Unit Dwelljng lJUlQ ~ ~ ~ Ill 125. ll 1~ on an Urban Lot [61 Ill [11 All Other 24,000 None 35 200 132 l2s 125 125 Allowed Uses R-1-B District One-Unit I 7,200 !None j4o 160 132 125 Is 120 Dwelling One-Unit 6,000 None 40 50 32 25 5 20 Dwelling on a [4] Small Lot [5] 5 Qoc-Unit JJ~,lling ~ ~ ~ ~ .12 25 .l ~ gn an Urban l~ot [6] Ill Ill All Other 24,000 None 40 200 32 25 25 25 Allowed Uses R-1-C District One-Unit 6,000 None 40 50 32 25 5 20 Dwelling One-Unit 4,500 None ~~ 37 32 25 3 20 Dwelling on a [4] Small Lot [5] CD,-Unii Dwelligg .lJl1lil ~ ~ ll ~ 25 l ~ OD Wl 1.lmiffl LQt [6] ll1 ll1 All Other 24,000 None 40 200 32 25 25 25 Allowed Uses R-2-A District One-Unit 6,000 None 40 50 32 25 5 20 Dwelling One-Unit 4,000 None ~~ 40 32 25 3 20 Dwelling on a Small Lot [ 5] Qnc-Unit D~i;;lligg J.Jlrul ~ !Q ~ ll 25 l ~ OD an Urbiil!, Lgt [Ci] w Ill Multi-Unit 3,000 per unit None 40 25 per 32 25 5 20 Dwelling unit (Maximum2 [4] units) All Other 24,000 None 60 200 32 25 25 25 Allowed Uses 0 • - - R-2-B District One-Unit 6,000 None 40 50 32 25 5 20 Dwelling One-Unit 4,000 None ~~ 40 32 25 3 20 Dwelling on a Small Lot [5] Qoc-Unjt Dwelling JJl1lQ ~ ~ ~ 32 ~ l ~ oo an Urban Lgt [6] 1:Zl 1:Zl Multi-Unit 3,000 per unit None 60 25 per 32 25 5 20 Dwelling unit (Maximum [4] Units Based on Lot Area &Lot Width) All Other 24,000 None 60 200 32 25 25 25 Allowed Uses MU-R-3-A District One-Unit 6,000 None 40 50 32 25 5 20 Dwelling One-Unit 4,000 None ~ill 40 32 25 3 20 Dwelling on a Small Lot [5] Qni.s-lloit Dwi=lling ~ ~ ~ ~ ll ~ l 20 gn an Urban I.gt [6] Ill Ill Multi-Unit 3,000 per unit None 60 25 per 32 25 5 25 Dwelling unit (Maximum [4] Units Based on Lot Area& 7 Lot Width) Private 12,000 None 70 None n/a 25 15 15 Off-Street Parking Lots Office, Limited 15,000 1.5 (Excluding the 50 None 32 25 15 25 gross floor area of parking structures) All Other 24,000 None 60 200 32 25 25 25 Allowed Uses MU-R-3-B District (See Additional Regulations Following the Table) One-Unit 6,000 None 40 50 32 15 5 20 Dwelling One-Unit 4,000 None ~.iQ 40 32 ~ll 3 20 Dwelling on a Small Lot [5] Qnc-Unit D~~lliDg ~ ~ ~ ~ Jl ll l ~ QD an :Umilll Lgt [6J ill ill Multi-Unit 2-4 units: 3,000 per None 75 None 2-4 units: 15 2-4 units : 5 25 Dwelling unit; Each additional 32 More than 4 units: (Maximum Units unit over 4 units: More 15 Based on Lot Area 1,000 per unit [4] than4 & Lot Width) units: 60 Office, Limited 24,000 1.5 75 None 60 15 15 [3] 25 (Excluding the gross floor area of parking structures) All Other 24,000 None 75 None 60 15 15 25 Allowed Uses [4] MU-R-3-C District (See Additional Regulations Following the Table) • 0 • One-Unit 6,000 None 40 50 32 15 5 20 Dwelling One-Unit 4,000 None ~~ 40 32 15 3 20 Dwelling on a Small Lot [5] One-Unit D~elling lJlQQ ~ ~ Z,i 32 li l ~ QD WJ Urban Lot [6J Ill ll1 Multi-Unit 6,000 None 75 None 40 15 5 20 Dwelling Office, Limited 6,000 None 75 None 40 15 5 20 All Other 24,000 None 75 None 40 15 5 20 Allowed Uses [4] M-1, M-2, M-O-2 Districts (See Table 16-6-1.la) MU-B-1 District (See Additional Regulations Following the Table) Live/Work None None None None 100 0 and no more than 5 0 5 Dwelling feet Multi-Unit None None None None 100 0 and no more than 5 0 5 Dwelling [4] feet All Other None None None None 100 0 and no more than 5 0 5 Allowed Uses feet MU-B-2 District (See Additional Regulations Following the Table) Multi-Unit None None None None 60 0 and no more than 5 0 5 Dwelling [ 4] feet All Other None None None None 60 0 and no more than 5 0 5 Allowed Uses feet TSA District Please refer to Section 16-6-14 EMC, of this Chapter 9 and the applicable Station Area Design Standards and Guidelines lf or intensity and dimensional standards. 1-1 AND 1-2 All Allowed None 2:1 None None None Where a building abuts upon, adjoins, or is Uses Except adjacent to a residential zone district, minimum Manufactured setbacks of 10 ft on all sides are required, except as Home Parks required in Section 16-6-7.G, "Screening Requirements." Manufactured Home See Section 16-5-2.A.3, above. Parks Notes to Table: [1] The minimum side setback stated in this table for one-unit attached and multi-unit dwellings shall apply to the entire dwelling structure, and not to each individual dwelling unit located in the structure. [2] The minimum side setback standard for principal residential dwellings in the residential (R) zone districts, as stated in this Table, shall apply to such dwellings that existed on the Effective Date of this Title. However, principal residential dwellings existing on the Effective Date of this Title, and which as of that date are not in compliance with the minimum side setback standards established in this Table, shall not be considered nonconforming structures due solely to the dwelling's noncompliance with the minimum side setback. 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. See Section 16-9-3 (Nonconforming Structures), below. (31 The minimum separation between principal buildings located on the same or adjoining lots, whether or not the lots are under the same ownership, shall be fifteen feet (15~. [4) See Section 16-6-1.C for additional dimensional standards appropriate to the zone district. [51 Small lot of record on or before February 23, 2004. W Uibim lgl gf a:,gnl thilt !iiQQtaincd 1;21: !iii2~iD!i a QD~-11ni1 d~clJing £bit ,3i!i1Ss'1 go or bcfo~ tbc Eff~"ti~ Oi!.1C of thilii Iitlc <Fehru~ 2J. ~CO~l. Vai;.ant l.hbiD Lgts fallg;w; same gm~;§s as Non~oofQt!!!iog Lg~. ~cc s,~tigg 16-2-4, [7] £gr lltbiW, Lots ~itb I~§§ than J.QQO SQ, ft, gf LQl Area O{ lcs§ tb!ilD 25 ft, gfLQl Widl,b fgllow sam; 12~,~li ii:! li1;2~1"2gformiog I.o~ s;, s,cti120 1 ~-2~. - • - Section 3. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 16, Chapter 6, Section 1, Paragraph B, Table l .a, entitled Summary of Dimensional Requirements for Principal Structures Located Within Medical Zone Districts and Overlays of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows: Min Max Min Max Max Minimum Setbacks (ft) Lot Lot Lot Height Retail Front Front Side: Side: Side: Side: !Rear Area Coverage Width (ft) Gross Upper Adjacent Adjacent Adjacent Adjacent (sq ft) (%) (ft) Floor Story Street Alley Side Side Area Setback [1] & [2] [1] & [2] [l] & [2] [l] & [2] (sq ft) Above (Lots (Lots 60 Feet fronting fronting Hampden, all other Jefferson streets) or the 3500 blocks of Logan and Clarkson) M-1 and M-2 Districts and M-O-2 Overlays (See Additional Regulations Following the Table) Live/Work 6,000 None None 32 10,000 0 and no NA 0 and no 5 0 5 5 Dwelling [4] [4] more more than [4] than 10 10 One-Unit 16,000 140 150 132 INA I 1s NA 5 5 5 5 20 Dwelling One-Unit 14,000 1~~ 140 132 INA Its INA 13 13 13 13 120 Dwelling on a Small Lot [5] 11 Qoe-Unit lJlWl ~ ~ J2 & lS. & l l l l ~ D:w:elliog on !10 ill ill ~ban Lot [6) All Other 6,000 None None Height Zone 10,000 0 and no 20 0 and no s 0 s 5 Allowed Uses [4] 1:145 Height [4] more [4] more than [4] Zone2:60 than 10 10 Height Zone 3:32 [4] Notes to Table: [1) The minimum side setback stated in this table for one-unit attached and multi-unit dwellings shall apply to the entire dwelling structure, and not to each individual dwelling unit located in the structure. [2) The minimum side setback standard for principal residential dwellings in the residential (R) zone districts, as stated in this table, shall apply to such dwellings that existed on the effective date of this Title. However, principal residential dwellings existing on the effective date of this Title, and which as of that date are not in compliance with the minimum side setback standards established in this table, shall not be considered non-conforming structures due solely to the dwelling's non-compliance with the minimum side setback. 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. See section 16-9-3 (Non-Conforming Structures), below. [3) The minimum separation between principal buildings located on the same or adjoining lots, whether or not the lots are under the same ownership, shall be fifteen feet (15'). [4) See section 16-6-1.C for additional dimensional standards appropriate to the zone district. [5) Small lot of record on or before February 23, 2004. Uil Urban Jgt gf re~otd !,bat cgo~iu,d or s;ogwi,Qs a oos;-uoit ~;lliog lDilt e2!;i:it;d QD ocbi;fg~ the l1ff~cti~c DiJ,te ofl,bis Iitl; (fehw~ 23. ~gQ~l. Va'-iml ll.rb11D Ls;iui follo:w: :iiUJH, 12rgi.,~:i ~ Ngn~s;mJormigg Lots, ~1;1, ::iei.tion l 6-2-4. [1) Egr lld~an Lot!i ~ith le~§ &bii!D J.oog sg1 f:l, o[l&t a,rca Qr J,~s Shau~~ fi1 of Lot !lidth follsu~ sillQ, gm~,sii ~ Noo"ggfonning Lots, s,, ::i,ction l ~-2-4, - • Section 4. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 16, Chapter 9. Section 4, entitled Nonconforming Lots of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows: 16-9-4: Nonconforming Lots. A. Nonconforming Vaeaat Lot. 2. A nonconfonning ;iaeam lot may be used only for a use permitted in the zone district in which the lot is located. The City Mwgef Bf eesi.gnee Planning and Zoning Commission may waive or modify HHBHmHB epea spaee lot coyerage. l!)ariang lot area. bulk plane. height. setback,@ lot width. or other requirements for any nonconforming lot if hetshe i1 finds that the proposed development meets the criteria listed below: a. The lot cannot otherwise be used for any purpose permitted within the zone district applicable to the property; and b. The waiver, or modification. if granted, is necessary to afford relief with the least modification possible of the development or dimensional standards otherwise applicable to the property~ °"' The proposed development is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan; and The lot coverage. bulk plane. height, setbacks. and massing of the proposed development will not vary sub stantially from the surrounding properties or alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and The proposed development is compatible with the established development patterns and intent of the zone district. luPj appeal ffem the City Maaagef Of eesi.gnee's aeeisiee shall he te the Bofi. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on any development ofa nonconforming Jot shall be made at a public hearing that has been published and posted as required in Section J6-2-3CG} of this Title. Any appeal from the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision shall be to City Council as a de noyo review, Such appeal shall he filed no more than thirty f3Q} days from the date of the Planning and Zoning Commission's final decisjon. ; ~-No nonconforming lot shall be further subdivided or shall have its boundaries altered in any manner that would compound, expand, or extend the nonconforming characteristic(s) of the Jot. Section 5. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 16, Chapter 11, Section 2(B), entitled Definitions of Words, Terms, and Phrases of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, by the addition of the following definition in alphabetical order to read as follows: 13 Let Urban· A legal lot of record existing on the effective date of this Title <February 23, 20Q4l where the Jot width or Jot area is Jess than the minimum st andard for a one-unit dwelling on a smaJl Jot in the zone district in which the Jot is located, Section 6. 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 7. 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 8. 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 9. 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 10. 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 21st of July, 2014. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 25th of July, 2014. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of July, 2014 for thirty (30} days . A Public Hearing was held on August 4, 2014. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 2nd day of September, 2014. Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No.~ Series of 2014, on the 5th day of September, 2014. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 3nl day of September, 2014 for thirty (30) days. 14 . . • 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. q£ Series of 2014 . 15 • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: Agenda Item: Subject: July 21, 2014 llaiii Amendments to Title 16: Small Lot Development Standards Initiated By: Staff Source: Community Development Department Brook Bell, Planner II COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION There has been no previous Council action concerning this matter. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 19, 2013, to consider the proposed amendments to Title 16: Unified Development Code. No members of the public were present to provide testimony. Following discussion, the Commission voted 7 to O to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to approve proposed amendments to Title 1 6: Small Lot Development Standards. Following the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, staff worked with the City Attorney's Office to prepare the Bill for an Ordinance to be presented for consideration by City Council at 1st Reading. During preparation of the Bill for an Ordinance the City Attorney indicated that the proposed amendments required some additional review criteria and supplementary language regarding appeals. The proposed amendments were revised and brought back to the Planning and Zoning Commission at a study session. A second public hearing on the revised amendments was conducted on March 4, 2014 and continued until March 18, 2014, when the Commission voted 8 to O to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to approve proposed amendments to Title 16: Small Lot Development Standards as presented in the attached Bill for an Ordinance. RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommendation from the Community Development Department to adopt a Bill for an Ordinance authorizing amendments to Title 16: Unified Development Code regarding small lot development standards on First Reading and to set August 4, 2014 as the date for Public Hearing to consider testimony on the proposed amendments. BACKGROUND Since the UDC was adopted in 2004, it has become apparent that a number of smaller residential properties are not regulated in terms of Development Standards and associated Dimensional Requirements. Any lot not meeting the minimal dimensional standards is treated as a non-conforming lot. Council was made aware of a few instances over the past 2-3 years where an owner purportedly couldn't sell or refinance a house because of the non-conforming lot status. This package of code amendments is intended to address this concern for a vast majority of non-conforming lots in the City. These lots are non-conforming because they do not meet the requirements for "small lots". The UDC defines a "small lot" as: "A legal lot of record existing on the effective date of this Title (February 23, 2004) where the lot width or lot area is less than the minimum standard for a one-unit dwelling in the zone district in which the lot is located." While the UDC has Dimensional Requirements for "small lots", it does not have requirements for properties that are smaller than the "small lots" described in UDC Table 16-6-1.1. From this point foiward, these smaller lots will be referred to as "Urban Lots". Currently, the following properties are not effectively regulated: • In R-1 ·A and R-1-B Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25', but less than 50'; and with lot area greater than or equal to 3,000 sf, but less than 6,000 sf.(+/-13 Total in the City) • In R-1-C Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25', but less than 3 7'; and with lot area greater than or equal to 3,000 sf, but less than 4,500 sf. (+/-40 Total in the City) • In R-2 or R-3 Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25', but less than 40'; and • with lot area greater than or equal 3,000 sf, but less than 4,000 sf. (+/-176 Total in the City) • In Medical Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25', but less than 40'; and with lot area greater than or equal 3,000 sf, but less than 4,000 sf.(+/-1 Total in the City) • In Residential and Medical Zone Districts: Properties with lot width of less than 25'; and with lot area less than 3,000 sf.(+/-45 Total in the City) These properties do not fit the "small lot" criteria and no minimum setback, maximum height, or maximum lot coverage requirements are established in the UDC. There are approximately 275 of these properties within the City. ANALYSIS If the owner of a property that is smaller than the "small lot" standards proposes an addition, improvements, or development on their property they currently have two options: 1. Apply for a Variance through the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (BOAA) to establish dimensional requirements for minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage, etc. for the individual lot. This option is time consuming, requires an application fee, and has no assurance of being approved. The uncertainty of approval can cloud the sale and development of a property. Over time, the BOAA could have as many as 275 of these Variance requests. • • It should also be noted that the BOAA does not have the authority to consider a variance application if it involves a nonconforming vacant lot because of the following provision in UDC Section 16-2-16:A.5., ''The Board shall not consider a Zoning Variance application to allow additional dwelling units in residential districts above the maximum number permitted by zone district standards for lot area and lot width." 2. If the lot is vacant then the following provision in the UDC may be utilized: 16-9-4: -Nonconforming Lots. A. Nonconforming Vacant Lot. 1. A nonconforming vacant lot may be used only for a use permitted in the zone district in which the lot is located. The City Manager or designee may waive minimum open space, parking lot area, setback, or lot width requirements for any nonconforming lot if he/she finds that: a. The lot cannot otherwise be used for any purpose permitted within the zone district applicable to the property; and b. The waiver, if granted, is necessary to afford relief with the least modification possible of the development or dimensional standards otherwise applicable to the property. 2. Any appeal from the City Manager or designee's decision shall be to the Board. 3. No nonconforming lot shall be further subdivided or shall have its boundaries altered in any manner that would compound, expand, or extend the nonconforming characteristic(s) of the lot. Though this provision may be utilized to develop the dimensional requirements, it lacks certainty, could be viewed as arbitrary, and only applies to vacant or soon to be vacant properties. The nonconforming status of the lot creates uncertainty for lenders, who are then reluctant to lend on a property where the entitlements are vague or unknown. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS In order to effectively regulate these smaller residential lots, and to provide greater certainty for property owners, staff is proposing UDC amendments that are summarized below. A more detailed copy of the proposed edits to the UDC follows the amendment summaries below in the attached Bill for an Ordinance. • UDC Table 16-2-2.1 : Summary of Development Review and Decision-Making Procedures has been amended to add a procedure for development proposals involving nonconforming lots. Review of the development proposal is by staff, decision making is by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and any appeal is to City Council. • UDC Table 16-6-1.1: Summary of Dimensional Requirements for Principal Structures has been amended to add a row for Urban Lots to each residential zone district in Table 16-6-1.1. Corresponding notes to the table !6J and [7J make a distinction between Urban lots with an existing dwelling unit, Vacant Urban Lots, and Lots with less than 3,000 sq. ft . of Lot Area or less than 25 ft. of Lot Width. Urban Lots that do not, or did not contain a one-unit dwelling that existed on February 23, 2004 are required to follow the same process as Nonconforming Vacant Lots as outlined in Section 16-9-4. • UDC Table 16-6-1.1 a: Summary of Dimensional Reguirements for Principal Structures Located within • the Medical Zone Districts has been amended to add a row for Urban Lots. Corresponding notes to the table [6} and [7j make a distinction between the different types of Urban Lots. • UDC Tables 16-6-1.1 and 16-6-1.1 a: have been amended to increase the maximum lot coverage percentage for a one-unit dwelling on a small lot. The increase raises the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 40%. This change applies to all residential and medical zone districts except for R-1 ·A and R-1-8 which already have a maximum lot coverage of 40%. This change uses the logic that a small lot already has greater space constraints than a standard lot, and therefore should not have a lower maximum lot coverage percentage. • UDC Table 16-6-1.1: has been amended to decrease the front setback for a one-unit dwelling on a small lot in the MU-R-3-B from 25' to 15'. Staff believes the current figure of 25' is a typographical error. • UDC Section 16-9-4: Nonconforming Lots has been amended to create a process for establishing dimensional requirements for Vacant Urban Lots, and Lots with less than 3,000 sq. ft. of Lot Area or less than 25 fl. of lol Widlh. The review process and criteria for nonconforming lots has also been amended to shift the decision-making authority from the City Manager or designee to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Including the Planning and Zoning Commission in the decision-making process ensures a public hearing with due process and appropriate public notice. • UDC Section 16-11-2.B. Definitions of Words. Terms. and Phrases has been amended to provide a definition for an Urban Lot. SUMMARY The proposed amendments to the small lot development standards will accomplish the following three objectives. 1. The proposed amendments will effectively regulate smaller residential lots (defined as "Urban Lots") that contain or contained a one-unit dwelling existing on or before February 23, 2004, and have 25 ft. or more of Lot Width, and 3000 sq. ft. or more of Lot Area. These Urban Lots will no longer be considered nonconforming and will have appropriate development standards codified in the UDC. This will provide approximately 214 residential properties with a high degree of certainty for the purposes of appraisal, sale, additions, redevelopment, etc. 2. The proposed amendments will establish a new process for the possible development of Vacant Urban Lots that legally existed on or before February 23, 2004, and have 25 ft. or more of lot Width, and 3000 sq. ft. or more of Lot Area. Development of these Vacant Urban Lots would be possible if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Any appeals to the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision would be to City Council. There are approximately 15 properties in this category. 3. The proposed amendments will establish a process for regulating Urban Lots with less than 25 ft. of Lot Width or less than 3,000 sq. ft . of Lot Area. These lots might be vacant or could have an existing dwelling unit on the property. Additions, redevelopment, or development of these properties would be possible if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Any appeals to the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision would be to City Council. There are approximately 45 • • properties in this category, although 31 of the properties are unlikely to see any redevelopment activity since they are attached townhomes. The maximum number of all Urban Lots that could potentially come before the Planning and Zoning Commission is approximately 29; however, it is unlikely that it would ever approach this figure as the majority of these properties are remainder parcels associated with a larger developed parcel. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impacts are anticipated from the adoption of the proposed amendments. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -March 4, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -November 19, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -February 4, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -March 4, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -March 18, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact Amended -March 18, 2014 Bill for an Ordinance • • {' C T y 0 F ENGLEWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Commission Alan White, Community Development Director ✓ Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner ✓ Brook Bell, Planner II ✓ March 4, 2014 Case # 2013-02: Amendments to Small Lot Development Standards RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission review, take public testimony, and forward to City Council a recommendation for adoption of Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments regarding small lot development standards. BACKGROUND: On November 19, 2013 the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments regarding small lot development standards. Following discussion, the Commission voted 7 to O to forward to a favorable recommendation to City Council to approve proposed amendments to Title 16: Small Lot Development Standards. Following the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, staff worked with the City Attorney's Office to prepare the Bill for an Ordinance to be presented for consideration by City Council at 1st Reading. During preparation of the Bill for an Ordinance the City Attorney indicated that the review criteria for the Planning and Zoning Commission's consideration of nonconforming lots was insufficient and required supplementary language. In addition to calling for supplementary review criteria for nonconforming lots, the City Attorney recommended that Planning and Zoning Commission decisions on nonconforming lots be final, and that any appeals to a decision be directed to a court of record having jurisdiction rather than City Council. During a study session on February 4, 2014, the supplementary review criteria and revised appeal process were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. There was discussion about the remedy for appeals and whether or not the appeal would go through City Council, Board of Adjustments or District Court. The consensus of the Commission was that the proposed changes were acceptable as written, which would require appeals of decisions on nonconforming lots to be brought to a court of record. The Commission 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PHONE 303-762-2342 FAX 303-783-6895 www.englewoodgov.org I I recommended that staff bring the revised code in its current form to the Public Hearing and if the Commissioners wish to change it, they may make a motion at the hearing so that a formal vote and record can be made. PROPOSED CHANGES TO 16-9-4: NONCONFORMING LOTS: The text on the following page shows the proposed changes to section 16-9-4: Nonconforming Lots including changes since the November 19, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. The recent changes include additional review criteria for nonconforming lots, and revisions to the language regarding appeals. Following this report, Exhibit A contains the full text of the proposed amendments to Title 16: Small Lot Development Standards as presented at the public hearing on November 19, 2013 with the additional review criteria for nonconforming lots, and revisions to the language regarding appeals included. 16-9-4: -Nonconforming Lots. A. Nonconforming Vacant Lot. 1. A nonconforming vacant lot may be used only for a use permitted in the zone district in which the lot is located. The Ci~ Manager or designee Planning and Zoning Commission may waive or modify minimum open space lot coverage. parlcing lot area, bulk plane, he.ight, setback, Sf lot width. or other requirements for any nonconforming lot if hefshe ll finds that the proposed development meets the criteria listed below: a. The lot cannot otherwise be used for any purpose permitted within the zone district applicable to the property; and b. The waiver or modification, if granted, is necessary to afford relief with the least modification possible of the development or dimensional standards otherwise applicable to the property~ c. The proposed development is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan; and d. The lot coverage, bulk plane. height. setbacks. and massing of the proposed development will not vary substantially from the surrounding properties or alter the essential character of the neighborhoo& and e. The proposed development is compatible with the established development patterns and intent of the zone district. 2. An)' appeal from the City Manager or designee's decision shall be to the 8oard. Ib..e Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on any development of a nonconforming lot shall be made at a public hearing that has been published and M§.te.d as re.quired in section J 6-2-3:G. of this Title, ~ ~-Any appeal from the City Manager or designee's Planning and Zoning Commission's decision shall be to the Board by appropriate legal action to a court of record having jurisdiction. Such appeal shall be filed no more than thirty [30} days from the date of the Planning and Zoning Commission's final decision. :3-:l.. No nonconforming lot shall be further subdivided or shall have its boundaries altered in • any manner that would compound, expand, or extend the nonconforming characteristic(s) • of the lot. • SUMMARY: The proposed changes will provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with additional criteria to consider when making decisions and in preparing findings of fact on non- conforming lots. The proposed change to make Planning and Zoning Commission decisions on nonconforming lots final, and to direct appeals to a court of record, allows City Council more time to focus on citywide matters rather than specific decisions on individual properties. EXHIBITS: • Exhibit A -Proposed Amendments to Title 16 as presented on November 19, 2013 (with review criteria, and revisions to the appeal language added). • Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -February 4, 2014 • Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report -November 19, 2013 • Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -November 19, 2013 • Planning and Zoning Commission Findings of Fact -Case No. 2013-02 i, C T y 0 F ENGLEWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Commission Alan White, Community Development Director Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner Brook Bell, Planner ll V November 19, 2013 Case # 2013~02: Amendments to Small Lot Development Standards RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission review, take public testimony, and forward to City Council a recommendation for adoption of Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments regarding small lot development standards. BACKGROUND: Since the UDC was adopted in 2004, it has become apparent that a number of smaller residential properties are not regulated in terms of Development Standards and associated Dimensional Requirements. The UDC defines a "small lot" as: "A legal lot of record existing on the effective date of this Title (February 23, 2004) where the lot width or lot area is Jess than the minimum standard for a one-unit dwelling in the zone district in which the lot is located." While the UDC has Dimensional Requirements for "small lots", it does not have requirements for properties that are smaller than the "small lots" described in UDC Table 16-6-1.1. From this point forward, these smaller lots will be referred to as "Urban Lots". Currently, the following properties are not effectively regulated: • In R-1-A and R-1-B Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25', but less than 50'; and with lot area greater than or equal to 3,000 sf, but less than 6,000 sf. (+/-13 Total in the City) • In R-1-C Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25', but less than 3 7'; and with lot area greater than or equal to 3,000 sf, but less than 4,500 sf. (+/- 40 Total in the City) 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PHONE 303-762-2342 FAX 303-783-6895 www.englewoodgov org • In R-2 or R-3 Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25', but less than 40'; and with lot area greater than or equal 3,000 sf, but less than 4,000 sf. (+/- 176 Total in the City) • In Medical Zone Districts: Properties with lot width greater than or equal to 25', but less than 40'; and with lot area greater than or equal 3,000 sf, but less than 4,000 sf. (+/-1 Total in the City) • In Residential and Medical Zone Districts: Properties with lot width of less than 25'; and with lot area less than 3,000 sf. {+/-45 Total in the City) These properties do not fit the "small lot" criteria and do not have any minimum setback, maximum height, or maximum lot coverage requirements. There are approximately 275 of these properties within the City. ANALYSIS: If the owner of a property that is smaller than the "small lot" standards proposes an addition, improvements, or development on their property they currently have two options : 1. Apply for a Variance through the Board of Adjustment and Appeals {BOAA) to establish dimensional requirements for minimum setbacks, maximum lot coverage, etc. for the individual lot. This option is time consuming, requires an application fee, and has no assurance of being approved. The uncertainty of approval can cloud the sale and A development of a property. Over time, the BOAA could have as many as 275 of these W Variance requests. It should also be noted that the BOAA does not have the authority to consider a variance application if it involves a nonconforming vacant lot because of the following provision in UDC Section 16-2-16:A.5., "The Board shall not consider a Zoning Variance application to allow additional dwelling un its in residential districts above the maximum number permitted by zone district standards for lot area and lot width." 2 . If the lot is vacant then the following provision in the UDC may be utilized: 16-9-4: • Nonconforming lots. A. Nonconforming Vacant Lot. 1. A nonconforming vacant lot may be used only for a use permitted in the zone district in which the lot is located. The City Manager or designee may waive minimum open space, parking lot area, setback, or lot width requirements for any nonconforming lot if he/she finds that: a. The lot cannot otherwise be used for any purpose permitted within the zone district applicable to the property; and b. The waiver, if granted, is necessary to afford relief with the least modification possible of the development or dimensional standards otherwise applicable to the property. 2 2. Any appeal from the City Manager or designee's decision shall be to the Board. 3. No nonconforming lot shall be further subdivided or shall have its boundaries altered in any manner that would compound, expand, or extend the nonconforming characteristic(s) of the lot. Though this provision may be utilized to develop the dimensional requirements, it lacks certainty, could be viewed as arbitrary, and only applies to vacant or soon to be vacant properties. The nonconforming status of the lot creates uncertainty for lenders, who are then reluctant to lend on a property where the entitlements are vague or unknown. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: In order to effectively regulate these smaller residential lots, and to provide greater certainty for property owners, staff is proposing UDC amendments that are summarized below. A detailed copy of the proposed edits to the UDC follows the amendment summaries as attachment A. • UDC Table 16-2-2.1: Summary of Development Review and Decision-Making Procedures has been amended to add a procedure for development proposals involving nonconforming lots. Review of the development proposal is by staff, decision making is by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and any appeal is to City Council. • UDC Table 16-6-1.1: Summary of Dimensional Requirements for Principal Structures has been amended to add a row for Urban Lots to each residential zone district in Table 16· 6-1.1. Corresponding notes to the table f6] and f7J make a distinction between Urban Lots with an existing dwelling unit, Vacant Urban Lots, and Lots with less than 3,000 sq. ft. of Lot Area or less than 25 ft. of Lot Width. Urban lots that do not, or did not contain a one-unit dwelling that existed on February 23, 2004 are required to follow the same process as Nonconforming Vacant Lots as outlined in Section 16-9-4. • UDC Table 16-6-1. la: Summary of Dimensional Requirements for Principal Structures Located within the Medical Zone Districts has been amended to add a row for Urban Lots. Corresponding notes to the table [6J and [7J make a distinction between the different types of Urban Lots. • UDC Tables 16-6-1.1 and 16-6-1.1 a: have been amended to increase the maximum lot coverage percentage for a one-unit dwelling on a small lot. The increase raises the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 40%. This change applies to all residential and medical zone districts except for R-1-A and R-1-B which already have a maximum lot coverage of 40%. This change uses the logic that a small lot already has greater space constraints than a standard lot, and therefore it should not have a lower maximum lot coverage percentage. • U DC Table 16-6-1.1: has been amended to decrease the front setback for a one-unit dwelling on a small lot in the MU-R-3-B from 25' to 15'. Staff believes the current figure of 25' is a typographical error. 3 • UDC Section 16-9-4: Nonconforming Lots has been amended to create a process for establishing dimensional requirements for Vacant Urban Lots, and Lots with less than • 3,000 sq. ft. of Lot Area or less than 25 ft. of Lot Width. The review process for nonconforming lots has also been amended to shift the decision-making authority from the City Manager or designee to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Including the Planning and Zoning Commission in the decision-making process ensures a public hearing with due process and appropriate public notice. • UDC Section 16-11-2.B. Definitions of Words, Terms. and Phrases has been amended to provide a definition for an Urban Lot. SUMMARY: The proposed amendments to the small lot development standards will accomplish the following three objectives. 1. The proposed amendments will effectively regulate smaller residential lots (hereafter called "Urban Lots") that contain or contained a one-unit dwelling existing on or before February 23, 2004, and have 25 ft. or more of Lot Width, and 3000 sq. ft. or more of Lot Area. These Urban Lots will no longer be considered nonconforming and will have appropriate development standards codified in the UDC. This will provide approximately 214 residential properties with a high degree of certainty for the purposes of appraisal, sale, additions, redevelopment, etc. 2. The proposed amendments will establish a process for the possible development of • Vacant Urban Lots that legally existed on or before February 23, 2004, and have 25 ft. or more of Lot Width, and 3000 sq. ft. or more of lot Area. Development of these Vacant Urban Lots could be possible if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Any appeals to the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision would be to City Council. There are approximately 15 properties in this category. 3. The proposed amendments will establish a process for regulating Urban Lots with less than 25 ft. of Lot Width or less than 3,000 sq. ft. of Lot Area. These lots might be vacant or could have an existing dwelling unit on the property. Additions, redevelopment, or development of these P.roperties would be possible if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Any appeals to the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision would be to City Council. There are approximately 45 properties in this category although 31 of the properties are unlikely to see any redevelopment activity since they are attached townhomes. The maximum number of all Urban Lots that could potentially come before the Planning and Zoning Commission is approximately 29; however, it is unlikely that it would ever approach this figure as the majority of these properties are remainder parcels associated with a larger developed parcel. 4 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A -Proposed Amendments to Title 16 Nonconforming Lot Exhibits (5) 5 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Community Development Conference Room February 4, 2014 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 Community Development Conference Room of the Englewood Civic Center, Vice Chair Fish presiding. Present:Roth, King, Knoth (7:10), Kinton, Townley (7:10), Fish, King, Freemire, Madrid (Alternate) Absent:Brick (Excused), Bleile (Unexcused) Staff:Alan White, Director, Community Development Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner Brook Bell, Planner II John Voboril, Planner II Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney I> II.APPROVAL OF MINUTES · January 22, 2013 King moved; Kinton seconded: TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 22, 2014 MINUTES Vice Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections, there were none. AYES:Fish, King, Kinton, Roth, Knoth, Townley NAYS:None ABSTAIN:Freemire ABSENT:Brick, Bleile Motion carried. ► Commissioners and Staff introduced themselves to Patrick Madrid, newly appointed • Alternate to the Commission ► Ill.STUDY SESSION Case 2013-02 Small Lot Development Standards UDC 16-9-4 Brook Bell, Planner II, reviewed history of the topic of Small Lot Development Standards and explained the process of changing zoning text and executing amendments. He explained the appeal process for citizens that do not agree with the code once it is amended. Additional approval criteria and revised language were included in the Staff memo. There was discussion about the remedy for appeals and whether or not the appeal would go through City Council, Board of Adjustments or District Court. Consensus of the Commission was that the proposed changes are acceptable as written, which would require appeals of decisions on nonconforming lots to be brought to a court of record . Staff will bring the revised code in its current form to the Public Hearing and if the Commissioners wish to change it, they may make a motion at the hearing so that a formal vote and record can be made. The tentative Public Hearing date is March 4, 2014. Members of the Commission were encouraged to submit their opinion to be included in the next meeting packet. Light Rail Corridor Zoning Reform Discussion John Voboril, Planner II, presented options and ideas for encouraging development in the vicinity of the Oxford Light Rail Station. One possibility would be to establish a TSA overlay district that would be applied to the industrial areas to facilitate non-industrial and multi-family development in the future. The presentation included findings and suggestions on the following topics: · Establishing Boundaries for Oxford Station TSA Overlay oProposed boundary would extend south to Layton · Setbacks oProposed front setbacks are 0-10 to create an urban environment conducive to pedestrian traffic. · Minimum Lot Size oConsistent with current code; no new lots would be created that are less than the current minimum. · Minimum Lineal Street Frontage 075% of the main street and 25% of the side street. Landscaping could be substituted between the right of way or sidewalk in lieu of the structure to maintain a linear form along the street frontage . · Zone of TransparencyC,. oEstablish minimum requirements for building transparency. Alternatives to windows should be considered for retail businesses. Design could be addressed in light of specific business needs. · Required Front Street Entrance oWould establish business presence; side and rear doors would be permitted. Ideally parking would be located in the rear of the building. · Building Height► oCurrently there are no height restrictions in industrial zones. It was generally agreed that a five or six story building approximately 75 in height would be an acceptable maximum. · Residential Parking► oBecause the area is designated to be transit oriented, the assumption is that there would be fewer parking spaces required due to fewer vehicles. Due to time restraints, the presentation will be continued at a later date to discuss the following: · Commercial Parking · Design Guidelines/Standards · Street Network ► IV.PUBLIC FORUM No members of the public were in attendance. V.ATTORNEYS CHOICE Ms. Reid distributed suggestions regarding proposed changes to UDC 16-9-3 Non- Conforming Structures as she will not be attending the Public Hearing February 20th. Discussion ensued regarding procedures for Staff and the Commission when presenting proposed changes to City Council to increase efficiency in the process. ► VI.STAFFS CHOICE Director White stated that there will be a second Public Hearing regarding Home Occupations at City Council on February 18, 2014. City Council has several changes to the proposed amendment regarding uses in R-1-A. ► Director White shared an article in Commissioners Journal that contained information regarding code changes that he feels would be helpful to the Commissioners. This article will be forwarded to the Commissioners. The next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be the Public Hearing scheduled for Thursday February 20, 2014 and the topics will be Zoning Site Plan Review and Non-Conforming Structures. ► VII.COMMISSIONERS CHOICE Vice Chair Fish welcomed new voting member of the Commission, Michael Freemire. Chris Neubecker informed the Commission of a meeting regarding safe routes to school and offered to share the invitation and information with the Commissioners. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. /s/Julie Bailey Recording Secretary • • • • • e I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers -Englewood Civic Center March 4, 2014 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: Brick, Fish, Freemire, King, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Madrid (alternate) Bleile (Excused) Staff: e II. Alan White, Director, Community Development Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner Brook Bell, Planner II John Voboril, Planner II Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 20, 2014 Knoth moved; Roth seconded: TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 20, 2014 MINUTES Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections. Mr. Freemire requested that the minutes be modified to reflect City Attorney Brotzman's statement that he would supply the Commission with legal definitions of substantive burden and undue burden. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Freemire, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish None King Bleile Motion carried. e Ill. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #2013-02 AMENDMENTS TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Knoth Moved; Freemire Seconded: TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-02 AMENDMENTS TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 1 of9 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 6 Brick, Freemire, Kinton, King, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish None None Bleile Assistant City Attorney Reid advised the Commission that her office was asked to provide a memo on substantive due process regarding appeals and Small Lot Development Standards, but the memo has no t yet been prepared. She suggested that the Commission may want to continue the hearing until the information has been provided to them. Chair Fish stated that the Commission chooses to continue the hearing with the Staff presentation. G Brook Bell, Planner II was sworn in. A Staff report has been submitted and the Public Hearing was posted in the Englewood Herald and the City of Englewood website. The history of the case was reviewed. Following the initial Public Hearing on November 19, 2013, Staff worked with the City Attorney's office to prepare a bill for ordinance for Council consideration at first reading. The City Attorney's office advised staff that the review criteria fo r c onsid e ra tion w as insufficien t and required additional language. It was also recommended that Planning and Zoning Commission's decisions on non-conforming Small Lots should be final and that any appeals to the decision should be directed to the court of record. At the study session February 4, 2014, the supplemental and revised appeal process was reviewed by the Commission. The consensus of the Commission was that the proposed changes were acceptable as written. Appeals of decisions regarding non- c onforming lots w ould be bro ught to the court of record. The additions to the review criteria are outlined in the Staff Report for 16-9-4 : Nonconforming Lots. Mr. Knoth expressed that there is confusion between the appeals process for Non- Conforming Structures, for which appeals are directed to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Nonconforming Lots, which appeals are directed to the court. Mr. Bell deferred to Director White. 0 Alan White, Community Development Director, was sworn in. Director White stated that the difference is that the decisions for Nonconforming Structures is an administrative or Staff decision and under the UDC any appeals of administrative decisions go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as this issue has been drafted, would be appealed through court. Mr. Knoth asked why the decisions for nonconforming lots could not go through the BOM rather than the court. Director White responded that there is another provision in the code that states that appeals to Commission decisions go to City Council; however thi s proposed amendment preempts that procedure with the court requirement. Page 2 of 9 • Mr. Bell added that the BOAA is prohibited from reviewing cases that would result in an additional residence being added on a lot where there was not sufficient lot width or lot area. A decision by City Council or the court would be the best way to resolve an appeal on a nonconforming lot. Chair Fish asked if it is a legal requirement for the appeals to go to court. Mr. Bell referred to the UDC regulation concerning variances to the zoning code that states "The Board shall not consider a Zoning Variance Application to allow additional dwelling units in residential districts above the maximum number permitted by zone district standards for lot area and lot width." The cases that the Commission would be reviewing do not meet the standard lot area and lot width. e Mr. Freemire asked for clarification of the reference to the "Board"; Mr. Bell stated that he was ref erring to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The BOAA cannot make a determination relative to the number of residences on a particular parcel. There are other zoning variances that they cannot rule on as well. Mr. Freemire asked if there is anything in the code stating that the Planning and Zoning Commission are under the same obligation and restriction and/or freedom that the BOAA has. Mr. Bell replied that the Planning and Zoning Commission can hear appeals to subdivisions, interpretations and conditional use cases. (Staff Clarification: The UDC specifies that the Planning and Zoning Commission is the appeal body for Administrative Land Review Permits, Limited Use Permits, Minor Subdivisions, Temporary Use Permits, Unlisted Use Classifications, and Zoning Site Plans. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the decision-making body for Title Interpretations, Conditional Use Permits, and Landmark Sign cases.) El Mr. Freemire asked if there is any other provision in the code that states that if an applicant is not satisfied with the determination of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision that they should go to court and there is not an opportunity to go to an elected official. e Mr. Bell responded that there is a provision in the appeals section 16-2-18; there are appeals to administrative decisions they go to the BOAA, and if they wish to appeal the decision of the BOAA further, they may then go to district court. D Appeals to the Commission will go to City Council unless this title specifies that the appeal shall be to another party. Further appeals from the Board or Council would go the court of record. 0 Mr. Freemire asked if there is a provision in the code for appeals from the Commission to be sent to court without the opportunity to appeal to an elected official . Mr. Bell replied that there is not. Mr. Freemire asked why Staff would recommend that this particular item would not be given the opportunity to be vetted in a Council setting with elected officials for due process and equal treatment under the law. He questioned the motivation fo r the recommendation and Mr. Bell deferred to the City Attorney's office. e Staff recommendation in the first draft of the amendment and the first Public Hearing was to direct appeals to City Council. Mr. Freemire asked if the current draft of the amendment Page 3 of 9 represents what was recommended by the City Attorney's office, Mr. Bell responded yes. Mr. Freemire asked if there was any other influence and Mr. Bell responded no. El Mr. Knoth asked if it was true that BOAA cannot rule on cases where density would be increased on a site. Mr. Bell responded that is correct. Mr. Knoth asked if the issue of nonconforming buildings refers to more density than code allows, Director White responded that situations where zoning may have changed and the lot area per unit was increased thereby lowering the density were grandfathered to the existing density. It is not a BOAA decision but will be allowable s hould City Council adopt th e ordinance. It would not be an appeal to BOAA for a density issued. Should an applicant disagree with an administrative decision, the appeal would go to BOAA. e Ms. Townley asked if an applicant would provide a site plan for a nonconforming lot, Mr. Bell responded yes. The applicant would provide a site plan and it would be reviewed internally not only by the Community Development Department but also by six other departments in order to incorporate those commen ts into the Staff Report. The Planning and Zoning Commission would receive the Staff report just as they would a PUD and a Public Hearing would be held in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a decision. El Mr. Fish stated that for the record, he is examining table 6-2-2, which does lay out the various review, appeal and decision proce sses in the City. Conditional Use Permits and Conditional Use Telecommunications process are review by Community Development Department, decision by Planning and Zoning Commission and appeal to Council. There are different processes in the City for various reviews, decisions and appeals. He stated that it is important for the Commission to know that these different avenues exist. For example, for Administrative Land Review permit the decision is by the Community Development Department and appeal is to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 0 Mr. Bell responded there are some cases where Planning and Zoning Commission hears the appeal as a result of a Staff decision. D Mr. Fish requested counsel in light of the changes that were made upon the suggestion of the City Attorney's office to explain the rationale behind the changes that were made between the first and current version of the proposed amendment. El Assistant City Attorney Reid responded that she would not testify in a Public Hearing but can give legal advice. She recommended that the Public Hearing be continued and have the information included in the next meeting packet for the Commissioners. The Commission can make a decision without the input from her office if they choose to do so. D Mr. Fish noted that no public was present at the Public Hearing and asked if Staff had any additions to their presentation. Mr. Bell responded that he had nothing further to add. g Mr. Freemire moved; Page 4 of 9 e. Ms. Townley seconded: To continue the Public Hearing for Case #2013-02 Discussion: AMENDMENTS TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS until the next regularly scheduled meeting March 18, 2014. Mr. Knoth questioned why the Commission would wait to make a decision on this issue. fJl Mr. Fish stated that this is the time for the Commission to consider the introduction of a different kind of decision process that does not have precedent and a new process. e Mr. Brick -This is not an urgent case and feels that the Commission should wait for the Attorney's comment to make a decision. D Mr. King -Questioned why a case coming before the Commission would be better served going to a political entity when the Commission is ahead of the curve. He does not see the advantage of a case going to a political organization. The Commission seems to be favorable to working with people regarding their property. If a case were denied by the Commission it would be a long uphill battle for the individual to have their request aflroved. Mr. Knoth -This amendment removes one part of the process (City Council) by sending appeals directly to court He is not in favor of having to hire an attorney to represent a case in court. G Mr. Freemire -The request for a continuance is not related to the necessary agreement with the City Attorney's office. He does not agree that people should be treated differently and have a different place to go for appeals. Counter to Staff recommendation that appeals would go to City Council, he does not agree with the City Attorney's office that the Commission should change both Due Process and Substantive Due Process under the 5 th and 14th Amendments. He is interested in hearing the motivation behind the City Attorney's office for making the change. He feels that it is better to be slow to act and long to consider and just in consideration. He is not aware of any other provision that would require discussion but where to go if there is disagreement on the decision. He would like to know what case law justifies the recommendation. D Mr. Roth added that one argument on the other side is that the "waiver or modification" is similar to a variance. If a variance is not approved, appeal is to the court. He can understand why an appeal to the Commission would be sent to court. The chance of there being a case for the Commission to hear is small and the chance of an appeal is e0onentially smaller. AYES: Brick, Freemire, Kinton, Roth, Townley, NAYS: King, Knoth, Chair Fish ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Bleile Page 5 of 9 Motion passes 5-3 in favor of continuing the Public Hearing. B Mr. Freemire requested a transcript of the meeting today due to the fact that Staff was - explicit in their recommendations. He was advised that a detailed account would be recorded in the minutes and that the audio recording would be available as well. B IV. Light Rail Corridor Zoning Reform Discussion Continued John Voboril, Planner II, presented the remainder of the original presentation from the previous study session. e Commercial Parking In Denver, little off-street parking is provided for mixed use developments. Parking needs are expected to be partially or fully met by on street parking on front and side streets. He presented examples with various ratios of parking per square foot of the retail development. Compared to Englewood's standards, the required parking is considerably less. The opinion of Staff is that we should retain the current ratios for retail and reduce the restaurant ratio from 1 :200 to 1 :300. It is also recommended that the available space in front of the building on the street be counted as available space. E1 Ms. Townley -Within the Oxford Station area, is RTD planning to help build a garage or will the light rail users be expected to use on street parking? E1 Mr. Voboril -RTD is not interested in providing additional parking because of the 4I accessibility of the Oxford Station and also the fare zone that falls within the other stations. Cost of obtaining land would be very high and would require taking land out of private ownership resulting in a loss of tax revenue. Ms. Townley asked if time limits could be imposed on street parking. Mr. Voboril stated that if the parking demand increased substantially, the issue would need to be addressed. e . Mr. Knoth remarked that development would be hampered if parking is too limited. Mr. Roth cited the example of East Evans Avenue where the parking is interfering with residents' ability to park near their homes due to the lack of off street parking. 111 Mr. Brick -Adequate parking needs to be provided if the industrial area becomes residential. Mr. Voboril explained that there is not a great deal of retail development expected near the Oxford Station. Mr. Roth commented that restaurants that do provide a parking area in Englewood are seldom full and that decreasing the ratio would not be a major issue. El Design Guidelines and Standards Page 6 of 9 • • Guidelines can be provided and the adherence would basically be voluntary . Communicating the values of the community would provide direction for development. There is a variety of materials and designs present in the existing buildings in the district. Mr. Freemire commented that the best way to insure integrity in development is to communicate with the developers and existing businesses so that they are clear on e0ectations. Some requirements should be mandatory. Mr. Roth asked if the existing buildings would be used as a standard for future development. Mr. Voboril replied that the focus is on the residential side. The questions is whether the desire is to have new development fit in with what exists or do we want to create something completely different. e Mr. King remarked that most communities have standards for hard surfaces and mixed materials. It is common in newer developments to see an eclectic mix of materials. El Ms. Townley asked if there are similar standards in the PUD requirements for transparency and fa~ade treatments. Mr. Knoth commented that he would support aligning standards with the current PUD requirements. 0 Mr. Fish is in favor of encouraging variation to avoid having blank spaces and solid walls. g Ms. Townley supports Mr. Freemire's opinion on communicating with the neighborhoods and developers to preserve the integrity of the community. Mr. Madrid commented that we are not as much preserving character as creating it with new development by setting a standard. D Mr. Kinton added that in most cases he would lean toward preservation but the current buildings were built for function and virtually none that cry out for preservation. El Ms. Reid commented that the current PUDs in the district will serve to set a standard for development in the area. A variety of roofs currently exist representing a number of different materials and profiles. It was agreed that roofs are going to be determined by the developer, but that different treatments should be encouraged. El Ms.Townley suggested a requirement for funding through a fee or performance based system to ensure that common space and/or parks are included in the development. Mr. Voboril stated that the inclusion of parks and open space will be addressed in the Next Page 7 of 9 Steps study which is a way of locating money and the consultant will be tasked with dBeloping a strategy to incorporate public space in conjunction with the development. • Mr. Freemire added that the long range cost of "green roofs" would be prohibitive as the technology is still developing and it would not be feasible to include requirements that are not cost effective. D Discussion about how to incorporate green space included possible incentives and ways to promote green space development voluntarily by a developer. e Mr. Voboril presented slides with various architectural styles including Alexan Littleton, Riverton Apartments, Evans Station Lofts, new developments at 10th and Osage and use of color. Mr. Roth commented that unless a true form-based code is instituted, there will be a variety depending on the developer's preferences. e Mr. King recently visited a development in Houston that included small lots with detached houses that appear to be popular. D Mr. Voboril presented other developments that are designed to fit in with the industrial area or repurposing of the existing buildings such as in the River North area of Denver. G Director White commented that the TOD would be designed to replace the PUD process. Most of the development requirements would be satisfied through administrative review. D 9 Mr. Voboril commented that height restrictions previously discussed are still under consideration as is a means of addressing the transition area between the residential areas iacent to the TOD and possible high rise development. Mr. Madrid added that amenities are market driven and would not be chosen by City Council and are added to lure a tenant and make a property more desirable. e Ms. Townley spoke to creative reuse of buildings and new development should be careful not to disconnect existing buildings. e Additional examples of local developments were presented. e Mr. Neubecker added that there needs to be at least minimum standards to avoid blank walls. There are some existing rules in the code to establish architectural styles and design . The Commission can establish additional development guidelines if needed. Mr. Roth noted that the PUD standards contain specifications for materials and articulation but this may be scaled down for smaller properties. D Street Network TOD literature recommends relatively smaller block size to create connections to the station and create visual interest. Oxford station has irregular blocks and larger parcels can A benefit from creating a street network within the development. W, Page 8 of 9 e One consideration is to have the consultant develop a street network within the TOD areas in the Next Steps plan. Feedback from the existing property owners will dictate the direction of the development guidelines and requirements. I V. PUBLIC FORUM No members of the public were present. El VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid did not have any topics for the Commission. e VI. STAFF'S CHOICE Chris Neubecker reviewed future agenda items including the PUD review process for the meeting on March 18 1h and possibly organizing another field trip for the Commissioners. Suggestions for field trip include Golden, Arvada and the redeveloped RINO area where residential areas have been incorporated into an existing industrial area. B VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE The Commissioners did not have any additional comments. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. /s/ !ulie Bailey Recording Secretary Page 9 of 9 fJl CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers -Englewood Civic Center March 18, 2014 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: Bleile, Brick, Fish, Freemire, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Madrid (alternate) King (Excused) Staff: D Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner Brook Bell, Planner 11 Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 4, 2014 Roth moved; Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE THE MARCH 4, 2014 MINUTES Chair Fish asked if there were any modifications or corrections. There were none. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Freemire, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish None Bleile King Motion passes. GI Ill. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #2013-06 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES Roth moved; Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE #2013-06 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Freemire, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish None Bleile King Paget of 6 Motion passes. Gl IV. FINDINGS OF FACT CASE #2013-09 SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW Roth moved; Brick seconded: TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR CASE #2013-09 SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW AYES: NAYS: Brick, Freemire, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish None ABSTAIN: Bleile ABSENT: King Motion passes. e Ill. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #2013-02 SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Continued) Continuation of Public Hearing from March 4, 2014. Bleile moved; Freemire seconded: TO RE-OPEN PUBLIC HEARING CASE #2013-02 AMENDMENTS TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AYES: NAYS: Brick, Freemire, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Bleile, Chair Fish None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: King Motion passes. 0 Discussion Ms. Townley asked Ms. Reid for clarification of "arbitrary and capricious". Ms. Reid explained that if the evidence and the ruling are examined and it appears to the appellate body that the board did not have evidence to make a decision or made a decision contrary to the evidence, it would be considered a capricious action. GI Mr. Neubecker asked Chair Fish to recognize on the record that someone had signed up to speak to the commission during public comment, but did not present themselves during the public hearing. Bleile moved; Knoth seconded: TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CASE #2013-02 AMENDMENTS TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 2 of 6 • AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: e Bleile, Brick, Freemire, Kinton, Knoth, Roth, Townley, Chair Fish None None King Mr. Roth moved; Knoth seconded: TO APPROVE CASE #2013-02 AMENDMENTS TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS WRITTEN Discussion: Q Mr. Bleile asked if there was discussion to change the proposed amendment in order to name City Council as arbiter of appeals rather than the court. Chair Fish recapped the previous study session and subsequent Public Hearing, in which such discussion happened. e Mr. Freemire stated that one amendment was proposed to change the process to include appeals to decisions of the Commission to City Council, as opposed to the court as recommended by the City Attorney. He requested a Friendly Amendment to the motion to remove District Court as arbiter of appeals and add City Council. El Mr. Roth declined the Friendly Amendment stating that his opinion was to send the case to CS Council as written, and let them decide if they want to be responsible for appeals. Freemire moved; Brick seconded: TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ALLOW FOR APPEALS TO DECISIONS BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE MA TIER OF SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS . e Discussion: 0 Mr. Knoth -It is appropriate for an appeal to go to City Council to avoid incurring legal eQenses for an applicant. Mr. Brick -There will not be many appeals and agreed with Mr. Freemire that citizens should have the opportunity to appeal to City Council. El Mr. Roth -It was noted by staff that there are 45 properties in the City that would potentially make use of this process, 31 of which are attached townhomes and the remaining 14 properties are not likely to be developed. 0 Mr. Fish -Per the City Attorney's office, this potential appeal situation is similar to the variance process and the precedent of sending appeals to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals rather than the court; that precedent provides justification for sending appeals to the City Council for resolution. e Page 3 of 6 Mr. Freemire -1) Cited Colorado law with regard to the right of a citizen to appeal to the governing body; 2) by law, we are to begin with local officials and work up through the system to resolve appeals; and 3) we can never prohibit citizens from presenting their case to an elected or appointed official. .Et Vote: TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ALLOW FOR APPEALS TO DECISIONS OF THE AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Bleile, Brick, Freemire, Kinton, Knoth, Townley, Chair Fish Roth None King Motion passes. Motion: TO APPROVE CASE #2013-02 AMENDMENTS TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE PROVISION THAT APPEALS WILL BE ARBITRATED BY CITY COUNCIL. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: e Bleile, Brick, Freemire, Kinton, Knoth, Townley, Roth, Chair Fish None None King Brick -This amendment will provide opportunities for residents to be current and creative with their properties without causing harm or offense to other residents. Bleile -There has been much discussion regarding this topic and Mr. Freemire has added to the discussion with his professionalism and insight. Agrees with changing "District Court'' to "City Council." Brick -The text amendment promotes the general welfare of the community to improve properties. Freemire -This is good for the community. It grants equal rights to property owners (to appeal to elected officials) regardless of property size. Kinton -Anything that can be done at the local level rather than through the courts is beneficial to the citizens of the community. Knoth -The Commission has been fixing holes in the code and processes and this amendment can help pull those properties that may have had issues back into the code. Roth -Feels that this is a good fix to the code as this issue has a long history. Ten years ago we had a discussion on this same topic that some properties do not meet all the parameters of the code. This fixes that problem. Townley -This amendment will help support property owners who want to make improvements. Chair Fish -Agrees with other Commission member that this is a needed "fix" to the code that was previously omitted. The additions by the Attorney's office strengthen the code by Page 4 of 6 • • adding additional conditions. There is not a compelling reason to alter the traditional appeal process. The subsequent decision by the Commission to have appeals go to City Council is the correct decision. u IV. STUDY SESSION -Policy on Code Amendments Chris Neubecker, Senior Planner, explained the necessity to administratively make changes to the UDC when an ordinance is adopted. Other elements in the code sometimes refer to an amended section and will also require updating. To date, staff has not brought all of the changes to the Commission in the interest of time and effort. 0 Bleile -Asked for clarification on what the Commissioners will receive to review the additional changes to the UDC. Mr. Neubecker responded that as proposed, they would not receive the text changes to other parts of the UDC, but would receive the "meat and potatoes", the significant proposed changes. e Ms. Reid explained the process for correcting the code and that the intention is to make the code as consistent as possible. Mr. Knoth expressed that he would like to see all of the changes. A synopsis of the changes can be supplied to the Commission. G Mr. Freemire suggested that a way to address the process would be to supply the commission with an outline of all the changes and supply city council with an ordinance once a year to "cleanup." e The consensus of the Commission is to accept Staff recommendations and at the next public hearing, take a vote to adopt the procedural change. e V. PUBLIC FORUM No Public was present to address the commission e VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid did not have any further topics for discussion. e VII. STAFF'S CHOICE Mr. Neubecker -Councilmember Wilson has requested that staff meet with homebuilders in Englewood to share feedback on the development codes and processes. The informal meeting will be held at Civic Center on April 2nd• e VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE The next meeting will be April 8, 2014, provided there are items for the agenda. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m Page S of 6 /s/ !ulie Bailey Recording Secretary Page 6 of 6 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF CASE #ZON2013-002 SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 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: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Fish, Welker, Townley, Kinton Commission Members Absent: Bleile, King This matter was heard before the City Planning and Zoning Commission on November 19, 2013 in the City Council Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center. The public hearing was reopened on March 4, 2014 and continued to March 18, 2014. 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 Hearings. 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) ZON2013-002 Small Lot Development Standards were brought before the Planning Commission by the Department of Community Development, a department of the City of Englewood . 2. THAT Public Notice of the Public Hearing was given by publication in the Englewood Herald on November 8, 2013, and was on the City's website from November 5, 2013, through November 19, 2013. Public Notice of the March 4, 2014 Public Hearing was given by publication in the Englewood Herald on February 21, 2014 and on the City's website from February 19, 2014 through March 4, 2014. 3. THAT the Staff report was made part of the record. 1 4. THAT since the UDC was adopted in 2004, it has become apparent that a number of smaller residential properties are not regulated in terms of Development Standards and associated Dimensional Requirements. 5. THAT the UDC defines a "small lot'' as: "A legal lot of record existing on the effective date of this Title (February 23, 2004) where the lot width or lot area is less than the minimum standard for a one-unit dwelling in the zone district in which the lot is located.'' 6. THAT while the UDC has Dimensional Requirements for "small lots", it does not have requirements for properties that are smaller than the "small lots" described in UDC Table 16-6-1.1 . 7. THAT from this point forward, these smaller lots will be referred to as "Urban Lots". 8. THAT there are approximately 275 of these properties within the City. 9. THAT in order to effectively regulate these smaller residential lots, and to provide greater certainty for property owners, the proposed UDC amendments are necessary 10. THAT the review process for nonconforming lots will transfer th e de cisio n-maki n g authority from the City Manager or designee to the Planning and Zoning Commission . 11. THAT including the Planning and Zoning Commission in the decision-making process ensures a public hearing with due process and appropriate public notice. 12. THAT Section 5, O bjective 1-3 of "Roadmap Englewood : 2003 Englewood Com p rehen sive Pla n " encourages housing investments th a t improve the housing mix, including both smaller and larger unit sizes. 13. THAT Section 5, Objective 2-1 of "Roadmap Englewood: 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan" encourages home ownership, property improvements and house additions. 14. THAT during preparation of the Bill for an Ordinance the City Attorney indicated that the proposed amendments required some additional review criteria and supplementary language regarding appeals. 15 . THAT the public hearing was reopened on March 4, 2014 with additional review criteria and supplementary language regarding appeals and that the hearing was continued to March 18, 2014. 2 • • CONCLUSIONS 1. THAT the Public Hearing on the Unified Development Code ZON2013-002 Small Lot Development Standards Amendments was brought before the Planning Commission by the Department of Community Development, a department of the City of Englewood. 2. THAT Public Notice of the Public Hearing was given by publication in the Englewood Herald on November 8, 2013, and was on the City's website from November 5, 2013, through November 19, 2013. Public Notice of the March 4, 2014 Public Hearing was given by publication in the Englewood Herald on February 21, 2014 and on the City's website from February l 9, 2014 through March 4, 2014. 3. THAT the proposed amendments will effectively regulate smaller residential lots (hereafter called "Urban Lots") that contain or contained a one-unit dwelling existing on or before February 23, 2004, and have 25 ft. or more of Lot Width, and 3000 sq. ft. or more of Lot Area. 4. THAT the proposed amendments will establish a process for the possible development of Vacant Urban Lots that legally existed on or before February 23, 2004, and have 25 ft. or more of Lot Width, and 3000 sq. ft. or more of Lot Area. 5. THAT the proposed amendments will establish a process for regulating Urban Lots with -less than 25 ft. of Lot Width or less than 3;000 sq. ft. of Lot Area. 6. THAT additions, redevelopment, or development of these properties will be possible if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Any appeals to the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision will be to City Council. 7. THAT the previously discussed amendments be forwarded to City Council. 8. THAT Section 5, Objective 1-3 of "Roadmap Englewood: 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan" encourages housing investments that improve the housing mix, including both smaller and larger unit sizes. 9. THAT Section 5, Objective 2-1 of "Roadmap Englewood: 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan" encourages home ownership, property improvements and house additions. 10. THAT the Planning and Zoning Commission achieved consensus on the additional review criteria, and that any appeals to the Planning and Zoning Commission's decisions on nonconforming lots be brought to City Council. DECISION 3 THEREFORE, it is the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Commission that Case #ZON2013-002 Unified Development Code Small Lot Development Standards Amendments 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 March 18, 2014, by Freemire, seconded by Brick, which motion states: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CASE ZON2013-002, AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATED TO SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE PROVISION THAT APPEALS WILL BE ARBITRATED BY CITY COUNCIL. Bleile, Townley, Knoth, Chair Fish, Roth, Freemire, Kinton, Brick None None King Motion carried. These Findings and Conclusions are effective as of the meeting on March 18, 2014. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Ron Fish, Chair 4 •