CodeNext: Unified Development Code

Removed by moderator.

I am all for the city doing what it can to encourage sustainable growth. We are land-locked so our only option is to build duplexes, row homes and apartments. We should also eliminate parking minimums. The city should then expand the Englewood trolley to better service the people who live south of Hampton. With RTD in shambles it would be nice for my family to get to the city center and library without having to walk 2 miles or take a bus that only comes once every 30 minutes.

I think that the city needs to inform all its residential owners by mail and other media of all the new zoning proposals. I firmly believe that any changes in major building and zoning should be voted on by citizen ballot.

Why are we not more aggressively pursuing options to develop our decrepit, largely abandoned downtown area with actually inviting multi-use complexes, complete with incentives to build big housing structures - 10-20 or more stories - immediately adjacent to our core public transit infrastructure and major roadway arterials? Instead, we are going to potentially allow private developers to tear apart parts of neighborhoods that do NOT have great public transit access or major arterials for largely their own gains, to sell million-dollar duplex units? Of course they will jump on that - massive windfall in profits.

We should not allow 3- or 4-story wood-frame, overpriced, cheaply built apartment buildings in prime, core, transit-oriented areas anymore. Those wood-frame apartment boxes near the light rail line were a missed opportunity. Think big. Think tall.

I’m sick of this metro area allowing developers to skate by with the bare minimum in housing. We have to think differently and incentivize better concepts. I bought my small house because it is specifically what I wanted. We cannot afford to move somewhere else anymore. I wholeheartedly recognize the housing crisis that has befallen this metro area. It’s tragic. We have private profit interests to blame. But I refuse to accept that one of our first solutions should be the tearing down of existing homes when, in my opinion, there are substantially better alternatives and parts of our city to consider first that actually need redevelopment. Average folks, many of whom likely struggled to buy their small homes, should not have to shoulder this burden.

I have every intention to speak at forthcoming Council meetings to remind our elected leaders that I find the mere consideration of loosening the R-1 zoning code to be unacceptable.

The proposed changes seem very thoughtful and the approach humble. I'm very glad about the consideration of allowing 2-4 unit buildings, since it gives our neighborhoods an option to grow just a little instead of either being frozen in amber or radically transformed by a national developer putting in 100-300 new rental units. I would much rather that people in Englewood be allowed to improve their property instead of forcing development to solely benefit mega corporations.

I am curious about the proposed street design guidelines as well. Does the proposed street design tackle intersections? I often walk around my neighborhood, and crossing a street at a controlled intersection always seems to involve traversing 3-4 more lanes than if one were to jaywalk.

I am very concerned about the proposed changes to allow multi-family development on lots zoned R1-A, R1-B, and R1-C in the City of Englewood. I don't think it will better serve anyone except the developers who want to make a profit by buying a $500K home and lot and then building three townhomes, each selling for $400K-$500K. Growth=Profit. Money. More money. More profit. More growth. I have seen first hand what so called "mixed use development" does in communities. It's ugly and it all looks the same from coast to coast. No character. Look at the empty stores by the Englewood City Center, for example. Ugly and empty. Starter homes you say? Then they move with a couple of years and turn them into shoddy rentals? I've seen it over and over. Look at the neighborhoods around Table Mesa in Boulder for an example. Or they make improvements and after two years the property increases in value and they sell for a profit. We bought this "starter home" in 1981 and we're still living here because we love the neighborhood and our neighbors in these single family homes. Yes, we have more apartment buildings close to us at Kent Place and now all along Old Hampden. Density happens, but let's not encourage the loss of the older neighborhoods like mine for some developer's profit. Wake up. Do you want all of Englewood to be rentals? It's ALL about the money. Greed is the motivator to this, not affordable housing. Pay the teachers more. Pay the nurses more. Encourage businesses that hire and pay people a livable wage. Don't ruin what we have for the sake of profit. This thinking is backwards. Create jobs not cheap housing for low wage earners.

Please allow public access and record to today's (Jan. 25) Steering Committee meeting. There is no link on the schedule. I believe the law requires all city meetings to be public. Thank you.

Please allow public access to today's Steering Committee meeting. There is no link on the schedule. I believe the law requires all city meetings to be public. Thank you.

Colorado is in the middle of a severe housing crisis. Our inability to produce enough housing has priced out many essential workers like teachers, nurses, bus drivers, and childcare providers, exacerbating the labor shortage. Many low-income residents are housing cost-burdened and have to choose between paying the monthly rent and affording other basic life necessities like medicine and food. To stabilize the housing market, Colorado needs to double the rate of housing production to 54,000 units per year while also making a concerted effort to build more permanently affordable homes for low-income Coloradans so they can live near where they work. By allowing housing choices like duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and accessory dwelling units in single-family zones and encouraging more compact development near transit stations and job centers, local governments can expand housing opportunities while reducing driving and pollution, and a strain on our natural resources. Imagine how much pollution we’d save if everyone could reach their jobs and daily errands with 10 miles of driving instead of 22, the current state average. Failing to pursue climate-friendly land use means more of the same low-density, car-dependent sprawl that Colorado has been experiencing for decades. Compact development, even at modest levels, also fosters enough density to support a variety of nearby businesses and frequent transit service within walking distance.

This is a pivotal moment in Englewood’s history where we need to decide how we want to grow in the future. It’s past time for policymakers to recognize that climate-friendly land use is an important lever to tackle transportation pollution and our housing affordability crisis. Updating land use policies to allow more housing choices, support affordable housing and mixed-use development near transit and jobs, and prevent sprawling development on open space will result in a more sustainable, healthier, and equitable Englewood community.

Supportive of the development of unused lots (Hobby Lobby/Dollar Tree) and increased mixed use on main thoroughfares (Broadway, Hampden). I The city needs more housing, but these aforementioned places make much more sense for high-density housing than putting it in our R1 historic neighborhoods. Can we please consider developing those locations first before impeding on the R1 neighborhoods? We purchased here because of the neighborhood feel and the character of our historic homes. Thank you

The last UDC was updated in 2004. Think about that for a moment - 20 years. Englewood has grown quite a bit since then and will continue to do so and I fully support a revision to the UDC in order to accommodate the inevitable growth. Additionally, I support and advocate for additionally density along major corridors and within transit rich areas. The Denver metro area is in a housing crisis and missing middle housing (duplex, townhouse, condo, small multi-family) is not only needed in our urban area, it's appropriate. We are not Highlands Ranch. When you live in an urban area you should expect growth and you should embrace the ability to walk, bike and take transit. Strictly single-unit development is not appropriate in these areas, and those residents that only advocate for such development on this comment board continue to discriminate against renters and those that can't afford such housing product. Additionally, buy not allowing for a variety of housing units to be integrating into these established neighborhoods these opponents are essentially pushing this type of growth into the suburbs which eats up land/open space, drains resources, and increases carbon footprints by putting people into cars. Those are facts. I'm excited for Englewood to grow up and look forward to participating in the process.

I live in Englewood, and am in full support of some redevelopment. The stretch of Broadway from 285 down to Belleview is horrendous, it feels unsafe and is full of obnoxious used car dealerships. If this area could be turned into some type of opportunity zone, which would allow redevelopment with some type of incentive, that would do wonders for south Englewood. Less asphalt and more greenery, locals restaurants/breweries, and other types of family friendly development. Maybe some type of pleasing barrier between Broadway and the sidewalk. Local residents would be given the opportunity to walk to these amenities, and it would attract out of town visitors to bring in additional money to the business's and tax dollars for the city to make improvements.

I also think turning lots zoned for Industry to Multifamily, and allowing denser development throughout Englewood is a necessary next step. The population of Arapahoe County (And all of Colorado) is expected to almost double by 2040, and whether or not we like it more people will be moving to the front range, and will need places to live. Denser development will allow more tax dollars to be collected, and a city without an HOA cannot collect all of the necessary funds they need to maintain themselves off of just R-1 zoning tax dollars. These additional tax dollars could be used to revamp the dated underground utilities in Englewood, and upsize them for future population growth. Additionally, many homes in Englewood will be approaching 100 years old by 2040, which is typically considered the useful design life for a CMU or old poured concrete foundation. Residents in these old houses will be forced to pay hefty amounts of money to lift/rebuild their homes (Upwards of $100,000), or we could incentivize some type of redevelopment that would allow them to have a new house altogether (or duplex), fully up to date with modern day building codes.

I've lived in Englewood for many years, went to Englewood schools. I love my little home. I have wonderful neighbors, and many of us are concerned about the very broad changes City Council is trying to push through. Putting in more housing units without requiring parking is only good for the developers. It seems clear that the majority of City Council members want to go full speed ahead with these changes, to the point that the word "development" is replaced with "opportunity" in everyone's vocabulary. Take care to regulate any "development" so it does not destroy our small town. We live here because we like Englewood the way it is.

We do not want multi family homes or slot homes in our neighborhood.
We bought here in 1998 and loved the small town feel. Big wide street and walkable. No way should developers be able to buy up homes and destroy our neighborhood.
I don’t live downtown for a reason!!!

Most residents in my neighborhood do not want to see slot homes or live next to an apartment complex. We bought here and live here because our yards are larger, have ample access to sun, and we do not have a high density of popoulation here. Our alleyways, roads, sidewalks, sewer and water infrastructures are not acceptable. We have flooding in the alleys, water that smells and tastes like mold, and severely outdated sewer, drainage, and water infrastructure. Maybe we should fix the basics before we go rezoning our neighborhoods for high density living.

A pathway to slot homes? Residents do not want slot homes. Had the survey asked that question, th team would have learned that. Instead, the survey questions were framed in such a way to seem similar in size and shape without the word "slot." Denver has banned them, and instead created a task force.
If the committee does not consider the solar access muni code I will return to council and let them know.
I am quite tempted to take a survey on Nextdoor about the popularity of slot homes.
Keep in mind, the citizens vote to council and expect them to adhere to the wishes of citizens and how we want our city to grow. City staff should keep that in mind please.

Would really like there to be revisions more friendly to native lawn and xeric/pollinator landscaping. The current 6" height limit really prohibits options for these.

Hello Team,
I spoke to council and members of our community and council agreed that Code Next should incorporate a SOLAR ACCESS Municipal Code modeled similarly like the City of Boulder. You can find all of that on their weblinks.
CodeNext can focus on these three things to bring about productive improvements in a timely manner:
1. Requiring that new residential builders where neighborhoods are established confirm the facade to a style consistent and similar to the surrounding homes.
2. Require builders in the residential areas to perform a solar analysis, and should the new or replacement structure create shade onto the property to the south on any portion of the property, they would need to seek a variance.
3. Overhaul the process for getting building permits to include a web-based, user-friendly intuitive platform.

If the city will approve a solar access code, that will provide, by default, a uniform height and width for all the zones, without having to prescribe such sizes for each zone.

All other considerations such as future parking, streetscapes, walkability, & street design are applicable only to green-space areas, and I cannot imagine where such areas exist in Englewood.

Thank you for your time.
Brenda Hubka

Street design - should be sidewalk, amenity zone, bicycle lane, parking, car lanes, parking, bicycle lane, amenity zone, sidewalk. It is great to keep pushing bike lanes but please consider cutting down the danger that bicyclist still face because we are still a car centric country, city, neighborhood. By placing the bike lane between amenity zone and car parking, you'd be cutting down on bicycle-car interactions. Bicyclists can move through their lane without worrying so much about traffic and cars don't have to worry about bicyclists while parking.

I wholeheartedly support changing the city code to allow denser developments. I would like to see the city completely eliminate parking minimums. I would also like to see all residential zones allow mixed use developments, allow ADUs, reduce minimum lot sizes, allow multi-unit housing like duplex or triplexes. Additionally, let's redesign our streets for people and not cars. City streets should be safe for pedestrians and cyclists. City streets should prioritize public transit over private cars. Let's make Englewood a city where all forms of transportation are encouraged and reduce our dependency on cars.