1000 Englewood Pkwy Council Chambers Englewood, CO 80110 AGENDA Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes October 4, 2016 a. 10-4-2016 Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT 4. Study Session 2016-05 Ground Floor Commercial Requirements in MU-B-1 and MU-B-2 Zone Districts a. Ground Floor Commercial 4th Study Session 10-18-16.docx BROADWAY_3300_3500 5. 2013-01 Accessory Dwelling Units a. PZC SS October 18 2016 ADU Memo Potential ADU Gegraphical Zone District Options Map 6. Staff's Choice 7. Attorney's Choice 8. Commissioner's Choice 9. Adjournment Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood (303-762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed. Page 1 of 11
MINUTES Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, October 4, 2016 1000 Englewood Pkwy City Council Conf. Rm. 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Brick, Fish, Kinton,Townley, Madrid, Pittinos, Austin Absent: Bleile (Excused), Coleman (Excused), Freemire (Excused) Also Present: Brook Bell, Planner II John Voboril, Long Range Planner II 2. Approval of Minutes September 20, 2016 Fish moved; Madrid seconded: To approve the minutes of September 20, 2016 as written. Aye: Brick, Fish, Madrid, Kinton Nays: None Abstain: Townley Absent: Bleile, Freemire, Coleman, Pittinos (arrived 7:05) 3. 2016-05 Ground Floor Commercial Requirements in the MU-B-1, MU-B-2 Zone Districts Mr. Bell reviewed the previous study session materials. This is the third study session on the topic of commercial requirements in the MU-B-1 and MU-B-2 zone districts. The requirement has been included in the Unified Development Code since 2007. There have been 5 variances granted to exempt developments from the requirement since the regulation has been in effect. DRAFT Mr. Bell researched the topic with developers and architects and presented his findings on the cost and challenges of building a residential building with commercial on the ground floor. The Commissioners discussed the financial hardship on developers because it is difficult to obtain financing for a mixed use building. Consensus was reached that the regulation is appropriate in the 3300, 3400 and 3500 blocks of South Broadway to preserve the commercial nature of the area. Mr. Bell will present draft code language at the next study session. Mr. Voboril will prepare a map of the blocks under consideration. 4. 2013-01 Accessory Dwelling Units Mr. Voboril asked the Commissioners what zone districts they feel ADU s would be most appropriate. Staff recommends allowing ADU s in zones MU-R-3-A, Page 2 of 11
Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2016 MU-R-3-B, R-2-A, R-2-B zones because these zones already allow for higher density. Mr. Fish feels that ADU s are appropriate for R-1 districts due to larger lot sizes. Mr. Voboril pointed out that there are many single family homes in the recommended zone districts. The Commissioners reached general consensus that allowing ADU s will increase options for home ownership including flexible, affordable housing. The Commissioners agreed that there should be an owner occupied provision. Mr. Voboril will be presenting information to City Council on October 10 th. 6. Public Forum This is an opportunity for the public to bring forth issues to the Commission. Comments will not be allowed on pending development applications which must be presented during a formal Public Hearing. Jeremy Lambert, Englewood resident, addressed the Commissioners regarding his support for ADU s. 7. Staff's Choice Mr. Bell asked the Commissioners if they are prepared to take case 2016-05 Ground Floor Commercial Requirements in the MU-B-1, MU-B-2 Zone Districts to public hearing. He will prepare a black line copy for their examination prior to the public hearing. Mr. Bell reminded the Commission that City Council will be discussing ADU s at the October 10 th study session. 8. Attorney's Choice Interim City Attorney Comer was not present at the meeting. 9. Commissioner's Choice DRAFT Mr. Brick expressed his appreciation for the citizens who attended the meeting. Ms. Austin asked about the property at Clarkson and Hampden. It is a property that received a variance but is not being developed at this time. She asked Mr. Bell and Mr. Voboril how the Commissioners can assist staff. Mr. Brick commended staff for their preparation and professionalism. Mr. Fish stated that he did not feel that if a Commissioner has made a decision regarding a case prior to the public hearing that they should not participate in the hearing. 10. Adjournment Page 3 of 11
TO: THRU: FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission Brad Power, Community Development Director Brook Bell, Planner II DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Ground Floor Commercial Requirement in MU-B-1 and MU-B-2 Zone Districts Request: Please review the accompanying material for discussion at study session. Background: At the October 4 th study session, staff presented additional information on one of the previously identified alternatives that could encourage the incorporation of commercial uses into multi-unit residential development in the MU-B-1 and MU-B-2 zone districts. The alternative under discussion was a potential requirement that the ground floor of any new stand-alone multi-unit residential development have a minimum ceiling height of 10-12 feet. With the increased ceiling height, the building could be more conducive to possible commercial uses in the future. Staff presented additional research focused on the following questions: If a minimum ceiling height on the ground floor were to be required for stand-alone residential developments, what would be the appropriate height? How much of a practical or financial burden would a required increased ceiling height place on developers? The additional research into commercial building codes showed that designing a building to first be occupied by a residential use and then converting it later to a commercial use involves much more than just ceiling height. Additionally, constructing a residential ground floor that is easily converted to a commercial use at a later date would likely increase the upfront construction costs by 70% to 85%. The additional cost would be a significant financial burden to residential developers. After the Commission discussed the additional research, the Commission decided that requiring a minimum ceiling height on the ground floor in the MU-B-1 and MU-B-2 zone districts was not the preferred alternative. Instead, a majority of the Commission voiced a preference to implement the following alternative. Keep the requirement for new multi-unit residential development to incorporate a commercial use into at least 50% of the ground floor space in the Unified Development Code (UDC), but limit the requirement to properties fronting the 3300, 3400, and 3500 blocks of South Broadway. Page 4 of 11
2 Please review the draft language for the proposed amendment to UDC section 16-6-1:C.4. below. Also see the attached map of properties fronting the 3300, 3400, and 3500 blocks of South Broadway. 4. Residential Use in Properties fronting the 3300, 3400, and 3500 Blocks of South Broadway MU-B-1 and MU-B-2 Districts. a. Dwelling units may be incorporated into the same building as the commercial use (not as a stand-alone use) b. The commercial use occupies the majority of the ground floor of the building, and is directly accessible from an adjacent public street or sidewalk. If the draft language is acceptable to the Commission, a public hearing will be tentatively scheduled for November 8, 2016. Attachments: Map of Properties Fronting the 3300, 3400, and 3500 Blocks of South Broadway Page 5 of 11
FLOYD AVE 3300 S S BROADWAY GIRARD AVE 3400 S HAMPDEN AVE 3500 S US HW Y2 85 Broadway Corridor: 3300, 3400, and 3500 Blocks Page 6 of 11
TO: THRU: FROM: Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission Brad Power, Community Development Director John Voboril, Planner II DATE: October 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU s) Continued A strong desire was voiced to lay out a formal case and purpose for why ADU s should be reintroduced as an allowed housing option in portions of the City. Comprehensive Plan The 2003 and 2016 Comprehensive Plans focus on the following themes for housing: Diversity in size, character, style, type to appeal to different life cycle stages Affordability, housing at various price and rent points that can be afforded by low and moderate income groups Mixed Use and Jobs/Housing Balance Quality and improvement of existing housing stock Improved pedestrian and bicycle orientation Public and private design ADU s have been listed under Housing Goal-1 in the 2003 Comprehensive Plan and under Live Goal-1 in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Goal Live-1: Promote a balanced mix of housing opportunities serving the needs of current and future Englewood citizens. Objective Live-1.1. Allow for housing that meets the needs of all income groups, including appropriate type and location of housing. Objective Live-1-2. Allow for housing investments that improve the housing mix and serve different lifecycle stages and groups with special needs in appropriate locations, including both Page 7 of 11
2 smaller and larger unit sizes and wider range of housing types, including single family, duplex, townhome, condominium, multi-family, and accessory dwelling units. The main purposes of reintroducing ADU s as an allowed housing option in portions of the City that relate to Goal Live-1 of the Comprehensive Plan include the following: Provide flexibility for changing family situations, including caring for elderly family members, and providing accommodations for young adult family members Providing an affordable alternative to renting in a large multi-unit apartment complex or an expensive single family house (more privacy at an affordable price point) Provide a supplemental source of income for fixed income seniors to continue living in their homes Provide additional income to a first time home buyer that helps afford mortgage payments Provides increased investment and property value by offering greater flexibility and expansion of options Provides additions to the City s housing stock in a way that more closely preserves neighborhood character Additional Benefits of ADU s Environmentally greener option (less energy resources consumed) More efficient use of existing infrastructure Crime prevention (Eyes on alley) Additional households support small business Density Increased density has been mentioned as a negative aspect of ADU s. However, ADU s effect density much less substantially than multi-unit apartments. ADU s by their nature are diffused throughout a neighborhood, rather than clustered in a specific location. If two ADU s are developed in a single block, density would increase to 7.1 units per acre from the original 6.5 units per acre. This figure would still be considered as a low density development pattern. Zoning A majority of Planning and Zoning Commissioners were favorable to staff s recommendation for allowed zones (MU-R-3-B, MU-R-3-A, R-2-B, R-2-A, R-1-C). Other viewpoints expressed included limiting ADU s only to the R-1-C zone district, as the other zone districts already have other options for adding a unit, a skepticism of the value to the City in general from allowing ADU s in any zone district, and a desire to create a Limited or Conditional Use process that would allow ADU s in R-1-A and R-1-B zone districts. Staff believes that prohibiting ADU s in zone districts designated as mixed use and two-unit districts is inherently contradictory to the expressed description of the districts. Mixed use zone districts are designed to provide the widest degree of housing types at densities that can be as Page 8 of 11
3 high as 40 unit per acre, as well as single family homes. Two-unit zone districts already allow two units on a standard fifty foot lot. An accessory dwelling unit does not increase the number of units allowed per fifty foot lot. No more than two units are allowed per fifty foot lot in either R-2 or MU-R-3 zone districts. Owner-Occupancy Requirements A slight majority favored strong consideration of owner-occupancy requirements for ADU s. October 10 City Council Study Session Community Development gave a presentation to City Council on ADU s structured in the following manner: Description of ADU s and the history and experience with ADU s in Englewood Briefing on Planning and Zoning Commission progress on ADU s Key questions to Council concerning appropriate zones and owner occupancy requirements In the dialogue between City Council and Community Development Staff, Mayor Jefferson revealed that a number of his constituents were pushing for ADU s as an alternative development form to townhome structures in R-2 zones. Allowing ADU s in R-2 zone districts would allow a second unit on a fifty foot lot while still preserving the original home. This sentiment was also expressed by Englewood Historical Preservation Society members at a previous Council study session. Overall, City Council felt comfortable with the recommended allowed zones. However, City Council signaled a preference for a more conservative approach regarding occupancy requirements: R-1C: Family members only R-2-A, R-2-B: Owner must live on site, may rent to non-related tenant MU-R-3-A, MU-R-3-B: Owner occupancy not required The requirement for family members only in the R-1-C zone district may conflict with the desires of a number of Englewood property owners who have expressed interest in constructing ADU s in the R-1-C zone district (16). It may also inhibit the sale and use of the property in the future as the family provision could limit the potential market for the property. City Council was also intrigued by the significant number of existing ADU s from the 1930 and 1940 s. Concerns about property maintenance, living conditions, and non-conforming status as a barrier to renovation were discussed. October 18 PZC Study Session Points of Discussion Purpose of reintroducing ADU s as allowed uses Page 9 of 11
4 Description and characteristics of R-1-C, R-2, and MU-R-3 zone districts Consistency of allowing ADU s in R-1, R-2, and MU-R-3 zone districts City Council s preferences for allowed zone districts and occupancy requirements Att: Potential Accessory Dwelling Unit Geographical Zone District Options Map C: Brad Power Harold Stitt Brook Bell Page 10 of 11
EVANS AVE. ZUNI ST. VALLEJO ST. TEJON ST. RARITAN ST. PECOS ST. WARREN AVE. ILIFF AVE. WESLEY AVE. HARVARD AVE. VASSAR AVE. YALE AVE. AMHERST AVE. BATES AVE. CORNELL AVE. DARTMOUTH AVE. S. PLATTE RIVER DR. LIPAN ST. JASON ST. HURON ST. FOX ST. DELAWARE ST. BANNOCK ST. BROADWAY 00 SHERMAN ST. LOGAN ST. PEARL ST. CLARKSON ST. OGDEN ST. DOWNING ST. LAFAYETTE ST. FRANKLIN ST. WILLIAMS ST. RACE ST. GAYLORD ST. UNIVERSITY BLVD. EASTMAN AVE. FLOYD AVE. GIRARD AVE. U.S. 285 HAMPDEN AVE. JEFFERSON AVE. KENYON AVE. U.S. 85 SANTA FE DR. LEHIGH AVE. MANSFIELD AVE. NASSAU AVE. OXFORD AVE. LOWELL BLVD. IRVING ST. FEDERAL BLVD. DECATUR ST. PRINCETON AVE. QUINCY AVE. RADCLIFF AVE. STANFORD AVE. TUFTS AVE. UNION AVE. LAYTON AVE. WINDERMERE ST. CHENANGO AVE. GRAND AVE. BELLEVIEW AVE. CENTENNIAL AVE. Potential Accessory Dwelling Unit Geographical Zone District Options 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 City of Englewood Feet September, 2015 H:\jvoboril\gis\ADU\plots\ADU_City_8x11.pdf Existing Accessory Dwelling Units Comprehensive Plan Transition Areas R-1-C Zone Districts R-2 and MU-R-3 Zone Districts Zone District Boundary Lines City Boundary Arterial and Collector Streets Local Streets I Page 11 of 11