Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-01-05CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29T" Avenue, Municipal Building October 15. 2001 The City Council Study Session was called to order by Mayor Cerveny at 7:00 P.M. Councilmembers present: Jerry DiTullio, Vance Edwards, Odarka Figlus, Dean Gokey, Harry Hanley, Ralph Mancinelli, Janelle Shaver, and Claudia Worth. Also present: City Clerk, Wanda Sang; Acting City Attorney, Carmen Berry; Director of Planning, Alan White; and staff. The City Manager, Scott Staples, was absent due to a family emergency. Judge Randy Davis announced his resignation effective November 14, 2001, due to his appointment by Governor Bill Owens to the position of County Court Judge in the new Broomfield County. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 17, 2001. Motion by Mr. DiTullio for the approval of the Study Session Minutes of September 17, 2001; carried 8-0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the Agenda. Item 1. Auxiliary Dwelling Units Mr. White presented Item 1 and explained what has been happening regarding these units. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended he meet with Ms. Figlus and Mr. Gokey to come up with a solution. They have not yet had a meeting. Mr. Staples and Mr. White agreed that the issue needed to come back to be discussed at the Study Session. Discussion followed. Consensus 8-0 to "Stay the Course which was one of the options the Planning Commission presented at an earlier meeting. City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum TO: Scott D. Staples, City Manager FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director SUBJECT: Auxiliary Dwelling Units DATE: October 8, 2001 OF WHEAL ~ P A COC OR PI Council requested that staff look into the issue of auxiliary dwelling units. This term is being used to include ancillary dwelling units, illegal duplexes, basement apartments, mother-in-law apartments and basically any situation where there is one additional dwelling unit on a property than is allowed in the zone district. This issue has been presented to Planning Commission for a recommendation. Several options were explored as outlined in the attached memorandum. At their April 5, 2001 meeting, the Commission recommended no change in existing regulations or policies. This is explained in Option #5 in the attached memorandum. This recommendation was presented to the City Affairs Committee. There was no consensus by the Committee on a direction for this issue. The Committee decided to appoint two members to work with me to look at changes in policies or regulations. I have not met with these two Council members. CAMyFiles\WPFiles\Pmjects\zoning amendment \am wits cm2.wpd OE WHEgl City of Wheat Ridge P~ Planning and Development Department m Memorandum TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director0 SUBJECT: Auxiliary Housing Units DATE: March 30, 2001 Council has given direction to staff to find a way to deal with second living units within residential structures when located in a single family zone district. This issue crops up at least once week when we get a call about an illegal duplex. You recently had a rezoning case of a two unit dwelling located in a single family zone district. Council would like to find a way to deal with these aside from rezoning. Some things to consider when pondering a possible solution:. 1. Second units exist in both the R-1 series zone districts (single family) and R-2 zone district. R-1 doesn't allow two units; R-2 does. Creating a process or regulations allowing two units in single family zone districts is equivalent to giving a use variance. The variance process cannot be used to legalize a two unit structure in a single family zone district. This is a use variance which is not permitted. The regulations provide that only single units can be built on non-conforming R-2 lots, but variances can be granted for two units in the R-2 district for lots that don't meet the width, size or coverage requirements. 2. Should the intent of new regulations be to "grandfather" existing units, allow new units, or both? "New Urbanism" concepts include second units located in either the main structure, as an accessory structure on the lot, or over a garage. Which situations in Wheat Ridge are appropriate for auxiliary units? 3. The new Code requires that any use be lawfully established prior to any change in zoning or zoning regulations that makes the use legally non-conforming. Current policy in the department to determine if second units are legally non-conforming is to require proof that the appropriate permits or variances were approved either by the City or Jefferson County. Page 1 of 3 4. Just because a second unit exists, doesn't mean it was lawfully constructed. Depending upon the date of construction, a permit was required by either Jefferson County or the City. County records for construction prior to 1969 were delivered to the City upon incorporation, but were inadvertently thrown away some 12-13 years ago. 5. There are instances of a second unit being constructed under an approved permit, but the minimum requirement for lot width or lot size for two units is not met. In such cases, the lot is non-conforming with respect to the use on the property. Many times there is no evidence of a variance being approved for lot size or lot width. 6. The definitions of family, rooming house, and boarding house in the Zoning Code essentially allow up to three unrelated persons to live together in a dwelling unit. A dwelling unit is defined as "complete, independent living quarters for one (1) or more persons, having direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall, and having living, sleeping, kitchen and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of the occupants." 7. In the Building Code, dwelling units are considered separate units if there is not free movement between all areas of the structure. In other words, if there is a wall or wall with a locking door separating areas of a house that contain living quarters described in #3, then the units are separate units. If there is no such separation, it is one unit. The Building Code contains no limitation on the number of stoves, refrigerators, sinks, and bathrooms a dwelling unit may have. 8. The Planned Building Group regulations cannot be used to add a second unit on a lot in a single family zone district. 9. Any new regulation might legalize a conversion that was done illegally and which additionally might not meet lot standards or might not be permitted in the zone district. A law abiding citizen on an adjacent lot with the same zoning, which would be large enough to accommodate two units, has not done an illegal conversion (but could have) and now his neighbor gets to keep the second unit. There is an issue of what is fair and equitable as well as what is logical and compatible with the neighborhood. Some possible options to discuss: 1. Register the Units. Require all those owners who want second or auxiliary units recognized as legal second units to "register" them with the department by a certain date this year. After that, recognition would be only by proof that the unit was lawfully built under the regulations in effect at the time construction occurred. This would be an administrative process basically legalizing non-conforming units up to the year 2001. This would be a simple procedure to administer, but would recognize second units in single family zones that are not allowed by zoning. This is essentially a use variance. What about units that don't get registered? Page 2 of 3 2. Require Special Use Permits. Allow second or auxiliary units by special use permit in single family zone districts and on non-conforming R-2 lots. This would include developing regulations for minimum or maximum sizes, whether they are allowed in the main structure or an accessory structure, and other requirements. This is a lengthy process for a landowner, requiring Planning Commission and Council hearings. Even though this is not a rezoning process, it will take as long to process a request. Although called a special use, it is still a use variance in single family districts. 3. Create a Zoning Exception Process. Allow second units only in a main structure, either existing or new, under a zoning exception process. This process would entail a hearing before only the Planning Commission. Criteria for approval would include size of lot, whether lot coverage is still met or not, whether adequate light and air to adjacent properties is preserved, and others. This is a shorter process than requiring a special use, but is still a use variance in disguise. 4. Change Definitions. Rework the definitions of family and dwelling unit to permit second, separate units for persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or legal custody only in a main structure. This limits the use of second units only for relatives and does not allow for rental to others. This would allow the creation of new second units. Monitoring would be difficult, especially if the property was sold. 5. Stay the Course. This is the "do nothing different" option. We would continue to require owners to prove the second unit was lawfully established. If no proof was provided, the unit would need to be removed or the structure altered so that it was not a separate unit. Do we really want to legalize two units in single family zone districts? If this is the case, the regulations should be changed to permit two units in a single family zone district. Staff contacted four other jurisdictions about how they handle these situations. Three jurisdictions responded. All three jurisdictions had a similar approach: all recognize them as non-conforming uses and do not require compliance with zoning regulations. Two jurisdictions register each non-conforming duplex and monitor continued use and whether any modifications have been done. Basically, they seem to treat these units as not a problem and a low priority. C:\MyFiles\WPFilesTrojectszoning a ndments\auz units.wpd Page 3 of 3