CodeNext: Unified Development Code

The Accessory Dwelling Unit size should be tied to the size of the lot! Also, the need for the ADU to be subservient needs to be carefully considered. The height of the ADU should not be completely dictated by the height of the main structure. A well done 2 story unit behind a unit is totally ok.

Why should a small lot have the same size ADU as a large lot? We don't specify the size of the main homes to be the same across all lots.

Also, the ADU should be allowed to be unique. There is no need to limit the ADU height to that of the main home. A larger building footprint is caused my not allowing vertical building for most lots. This increase in roof area increases stormwater runoff.

If the City is serious about having tabled the multi-unit provision in R-1 zoning, then the FAQ should be changed.

"Will two to four-unit dwelling units be allowed in R-1 zoning districts?
Based on discussions with the city council about opportunities for small multi-unit housing options in R-2 districts and options for two-unit dwellings in R-1 districts, the possibility of allowing two to four-unit dwelling units on corner lots in R-1 districts emerged. Council members have indicated that in exchange for this type of development, at least one unit would be required to be affordable to a renter or buyer earning a certain percentage of the Englewood median income. Additional information has been requested by city council related to this possible change to the development regulations in the R-1 districts; and therefore, this option was discussed at the March 13th City Council CodeNext Study Session."
Thanks,
Betty

In an effort to provide affordable housing in Englewood which is in high demand, lots that can accommodate ADU's while maintaining the unique Englewood character, including MU-R-3-C should be allowed to have ADU's.

Senate Bill 23-213, like many legislative efforts, is an abomination and should be soundly defeated and buried. This bill would replace local "home rule" with all-encompassing state rule. We do not want this to happen. Local government is always best and SB23-213 removes local control.
As other commenters have stated, we live in R-1 zoned areas for a reason. We do want 4-plexes and "MDUs" in our neighborhoods. This type of construction would completely (and negatively in our opinion) destroy the various Englewood neighborhoods. This appears very much like a scheme to raise tax money for cities and further enrich property developers. This is a bad idea in every way.
One seemingly easy and amenable way to promote property ownership is to convert the thousands upon thousands of apartments built in the last 10 +/- years into condominiums which people can purchase. We understand there are state laws either discouraging or prohibiting such a conversion; these should be repealed.

Please do not change the R-1 Code. As home owners we purchased our houses desiring this type of neighborhood for our families. We have spent all our savings, much of our incomes and paid property taxes on these homes each year. I feel it is criminal to take this investment away from people. New developments planned for multi-housing in areas where they can be designed correctly should only be considered. Please do not take away our hard earned dreams!!!

Leave R1 as it is

What is the exact definition of "affordable" housing? It means different things to every individual. I want the government approved version.
Thanks to Big Lots and Hobby Lobby leaving (Due to development plans), I have to drive and live in Distrinct 2. In fact, my house is one of the last of those early 20 century ones and we are being pushed out. Englewood has made it clear, infustructure is meaningless (crowded roads, waste, water, etc), squeezing as many slot homes/increase density as possible (screw communities, it's all about those property taxes), ignoring major ice problems we have in the winter, along with parking. MM2 and MM1 zones will be disgusting examples of failed local government policy. My Distrinct 2 rep, was happy to knock on doors for signatures, but not to ask the home owners about development.
Slot homes start over 550k a pop and new attached houses are now starting over a million. This is about squeezing out those who have been here, to bring in the wealthy who will use DEI and the environment as shields. There is nothing "affordable" about the new housing. Nobody has the "right" to live anywhere they want. If so, I would occupy a property in Cherry Hills screaming about the "environment" and building an "inclusive community" or else current narrivative things. Many newcomers are happy to destroy the middle class, push them out, then going on about "affordable" housing. This is a replacement plan. What they want is what they get. Everyone else must move out. Btw, I love how the new housing lack yards but the owners have dogs. Yeah, but the "environment" and DEI are the go to shields.

What is the exact definition of "affordable" housing? It means different things to every individual. I want the government approved version.
Thanks to Big Lots (not sure why they left) and Hobby Lobby leaving (Due to development plans which are occuring when?), I have to drive and live in Distrinct 2. In fact, my house is one of the last of those early 20 century ones and we are being pushed out. Englewood has made it clear, infustructure is meaningless (crowded roads, waste, water, etc), squeezing as many slot homes/increase density as possible (screw quality of a community, it's all about those taxes), ignoring the major ice problems we have in the winter, along with parking!!! MM2 and MM1 zones will be THE examples of failed local government policy. My Distrinct 2 rep, was happy to knock on doors for signatures, but not to ask the home owners about development. Sorry, I am not her barista. Yeah, I heard about her lack of caring. Word spreads.

This type of development is what destroyed Denver. I bought my house here because of the neighborhood feel. This plan will only remove all the character and charm that englewood has offer

I am against the city council making this decision and would rather see this proposal go to a special vote by us homeowners. I am also putting Joe Anderson (my area 3 rep) on notice that I will vote against him in the next election if he continues to push for this rezoning. Maybe his recall is what is needed..

According to the US Census Englewood has 17,045 housing units of which 15,950 of them are occupied. This leaves 1,095 available units for those seeking a place to live in Englewood Colorado. With over 2,491,404 housing units available in Colorado and the continuous building I see here in the metro area, the potential for over building and empty units does exist causing Land Lords to take financial hits, squatters and vandals opportunity to destroy what has been built in good faith. Englewood saw over 1340 people leave in 2021 leaving our population from a thriving 34840 in 2020, down to 33,500 in 2021 a number not seen prior to 2018 when we had 33820 residents here in the city. These numbers do not support the claims being made for additional housing units being requested and need better clarity as to the motivation behind this push for increased numbers of housing in our city. With your push for increased numbers of housing units we have heard from City Council Members that the average income for those in the city $90,000 plus the US Census does not support these inflated numbers instead showing the average income of Englewood Residents at $72,193 and the average income of a Colorado Resident at $82,254. When these numbers are entered into a mortgage calculator an Englewood Resident earning $72193 annually could afford a home valued at $185,967.00 dollars with a monthly payment of $1406 dollars and Colorado Residents earning $82,254 could afford a home valued at $220,017 with a $1705.00 dollar monthly payment. With homes currently being sold in the Englewood area for $500,000 plus a resident would need to make $164,000 dollars per year to buy a home valued at $511,000 dollars with a payment of over $4154.00 dollars per month. For those that agree with the proposed changes to Englewood I must ask where do you find a job in our city making $164,000.00 dollars per year. Are you pricing yourself's and every potential resident out of existence in the City Of Englewood. I find your decision to proceed forward as very reckless and self centered to allow yourselfs the opportunity to build ADU's on your own property violating any right to vote you may have, considering the financial gain that you and your family will benefit from by allowing the ADU's to be built on your properties. You took an Oath Of Office and over the course of this proposed extension of Rezoning our neighborhoods we have witnessed you violate your Oath Of Office in many ways, shapes & forms. We do not support your decision and will be forced to show our opposition and reaction to your decisions in November when we VOTE to retain your services or to relieve you of your services due to your inability to represent those you took an Oath To Represent. I strongly caution you in your decisions as your career as a City Council Member hangs on what you do to our City.
Best Regards,
Kevin Wright

Removed by moderator.

We are senior citizens who have owned a home in Englewood since 1988 in an R-1 area. When we purchased our home, our income was very modest, and family members helped with a down payment. We have always been economically "middle class" and we have worked hard to improve our home and yard through the years. We wonder why we should be forced to give up the quietness, friendliness, and economic benefits of long-term home ownership in order for developers to build 2-story, multi-family units across the street, add to on-street parking congestion, block our view of the mountains, and force some of our beloved neighbors to move away to a different neighborhood in order to replace the less-congested neighborhood we currently enjoy. On what theory of "fairness" must we be forced give up what we love and have worked hard to achieve. Yes, improve public transportation and give subsidies to riders if needed to those who can only afford to live distant from their work. Yes, improve salaries to those in "housing crisis." Yes, improve safety issues near the more-affordable downtown Englewood zone to make living near there more desirable. But do these and more BEFORE forcing draconian changes upon peaceful neighborhoods like ours. Thank you.

Removed by moderator.

Englewood has changed so much in the almost 20 years since the last update, and this concept hits on many of the issues plaguing not only the city, but the environment as a whole. It seems like many that are against this are those that had the opportunity to get in on the community long ago. Today, that's much harder to do. And I know many, including myself, that would love to stay here but currently cannot afford to own a house and are renting. Will the new homes be expensive? Yes. Will an increase in supply have a downward pressure on housing prices in total? Also yes. We should be doing everything in our power to increase density.

This also has positive effects like reducing the average number of miles driven if we can allow more people to be able to walk or bike to amenities instead of having to take a car. The environment cannot support endless single-family homes. It's times to acknowledge the benefits of how the rest of the world develops and Englewood should make an example for other cities to follow.

Englewood is fortunate to have two RTD stops. The majority here are in walking distance of a stop. There is absolutely no reason we shouldn't allow duplexes and above within that distance.

I am strongly in favor of this plan and hope that others can see the benefits that come from this. We need to think not only about the present, but about the future and how we want to look decades down the road.

Failing to increase the housing supply is a long term disaster for both the cost of living and climate change, and we have limited space to do that on. We live in a rapidly growing metropolitan area, and the zoning restrictions need to be updated to account for that. The only solution is building upward, not outward, in addition to making it easier to get places using alternative forms of transportation

I am in STRONG support of CodeNext. With this code update, we will certainly see thriving change in Englewood. At the moment there are plenty of transients walking around, dangerous individuals who have not realized that change is progress, and thus are angry at this change, as well as the new residents of Englewood. Im a 1st time homeowner who bought a single family home off of Oxford near Sams, and im in 100% in support of developing this area even more, bringing more business, and thus more tax payer money.

We need to remember that Englewood is NOT the country, we are not in farm land, this is a metro area, and should be treated as such.

I have lived in Englewood over fifty years. I see the density of one house on 50 feet changing to one house on 25 feet and I don't like it. I do not think it should be in the future for Englewood. This kind of change in density increases the fire hazard creating a chimney effect which increases the fire risk. Witness Louisville and Superior. This should not be in the future for Englewood. Once you make this kind of change, there is no going back.

Gentrification is destroying Englewood. More multi-family housing is not the solution. Englewood has allowed so many developers to swoop in and build multi-family housing and list it for rent for ridiculous amounts. The rich continue to line their pockets while people who grew up in Englewood are pushed out due to being low income. Protect those who have been there for many years, especially for generations!