Englewood residents weigh in on ADU zoning proposal

BY ELISABETH SLAY ESLAY@COLORADOCOMMUNITYMEDIA.COM

Many residents voiced their opposition, support, concerns and praises regarding proposed changes to Englewood’s zoning polices for accessory dwelling units at the Planning and Zoning Committee’s July 11 meeting.

e proposed increase in ADU allowances with no parking requirements were at the heart of many concerns, along with the proposed elimination of owner occupancy.

According to the Englewood Municipal Code (§ 16-5-4.C.7.b), the city now de nes an ADU as “a smaller, secondary residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a principal dwelling unit” that is “independently habitable and provide the basic requirements of living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation.” e city code also states there are two di erent types of ADUs, including “garden cottages which are detached residential structures on the same lot as the principal detached one-unit dwelling and carriage houses, which are dwelling units above or attached to a detached garage or other permitted detached accessory structure on the same lot as the principal detached one-unit dwelling.”

In the meeting, several citizens came forward and submitted correspondence to the committee regarding their opinions of potential changes to the zoning code of ADUs.

“ADUs must resemble the architectural style of the principal dwelling and cannot exceed 650 square feet,” the code reads. “Englewood restricts ADUs to the rear part of a residential lot. For instance, ADU placement is limited to the rear thirty- ve percent (35%) of the lot.”

One of the proposed changes in the most recent CodeNext draft is the size of an ADU, whether it’s attached or detached from the prin- cipal building on the lot. e proposed code states “the total oor area of the accessory dwelling shall be limited to no more than 800 square feet, if in a detached building or if attached or internal to the principal building or equal to the building footprint if internal to the principal building and in a basement.” e proposal also reads, “detached houses in the R-2-B and MU-R-3 districts may have multiple accessory dwelling units provided only one unit may be in a detached building; and there shall be at least 2,000 square feet of lot area for each unit, including the principal dwelling unit.”

Some residents expressed confusion over this proposed change in correspondence to the committee.

In the meeting, residents showed support or concern for proposed changes speci cally regarding parking and owner occupancy requirements.

According to the most recent draft of Code Next, “no additional parking space is required for an accessory dwelling. Where a parking space is provided, it shall be subject to all lot coverage and frontage design standards” and there are no owner occupancy requirements.

Resident Paul “PJ” Kolnik shared his support for the changes in street parking and owner occupancy at Tuesday’s meeting.

“I really want to applaud the no parking for ADUs. I think that’s very important if we want to back up what we’re trying to do here,” Kolnik said. “I also think that it’s important to stop building this city just to cater to cars.”

Additionally, Kolnik stated his approval for no longer having an owner occupancy requirement for ADUs.

“If we ever want these homes to be homes people can have access to some day, especially if they have ADUs, and if we want other multigenerational families to buy into these, that exibility is important,” he said. “Overall, I think this is a good step to more gentle density.”

In contrast to Kolnik’s support, there were other residents who felt these changes would be hurtful to those currently living in Englewood.

Resident Joyce Condon stated at the meeting that she is strongly against the proposed ADU changes.

“When ADUs were allowed we were told it was to increase the a ordable housing available in Englewood,” she said. “ e requirements for owner occupancy and parking were measures to safeguard the rights of property owners in the neighborhood. is change in requirements would undermine the use of the ADUs as a ordable housing.” e Arapahoe County commissioners approved ADUs in unincorporated areas of the county on July 12 and those new regulations will go into e ect Sept. 1. e Englewood meeting lasted about three hours and the committee decided to continue the discussion in its next meeting on July 25.

She explained she feels the changes could provide “absentee homeowners” or an opportunity to utilize ADUs for pro t. She also opposes the lack of parking requirements because it would increase competition for parking space in front of her own home.

“I think the property rights of all the citizens in Englewood should be taken into consideration,” she said.

Many others addressed the committee at their meeting July 11 with similar opinions of support and concern.