for immediate release
The Eiber Neighborhood Assoc would like to bring to your attention a couple items that are being considered right now by Lakewood’s Planning Commission, before forwarding on to City Council. We believe these items represent potential consequences to the character and vitality of our neighborhood. We’ve attempted to condense this rather complex topic into a few key points below, and encourage you to give this some thought and provide your opinion to the Planning Commission on LakewoodSpeaks.org or in person at an upcoming meeting. We also ask you to consider contacting your City Council representative with your opinion as this proceeds to Council in the coming weeks and months after the election.
There is a Planning Commission regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday Nov 8, 7pm in Council Chambers or virtually on LakewoodSpeaks.org to discuss the two topics below; Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) policy change, and development of an Affordable Home Ownership policy.
Agenda Topic: Proposed changes to the zoning ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Briefly, as part of a greater effort to address housing affordability, city staff is currently reviewing the city’s regulations regarding ADUs. In its current form, the zoning ordinance expects an ADU to be a relatively diminutive accessory structure, basement apartment, or addition, commonly referred to as an in-law apartment. Especially in older parts of the city with large lots such as Eiber, developed earlier in the last century, there already exist many secondary residences which were converted from old orchard sheds or chicken coops to provide housing for vets returning from WW II. Those structures predated the city of Lakewood by decades, and were grandfathered in when Lakewood incorporated and established its early zoning regulations.
When the ADU class of structure was formally introduced into the zoning ordinance a decade ago, the stated intent was to accommodate the pre-existing uses mentioned above and, going forward, to provide a means for elders to age-in-place or for retirees to supplement their income with an on-site rental, among other benefits. In order to mitigate impacts to the character of existing neighborhoods, regulations were developed to limit the size of ADUs, and require that the property owner reside on the property, either in the primary residence or in the ADU. These regulations were intended to discourage non-resident owners from using the property as simply a two-unit income property, and through their absence allowing the property to suffer from neglect as rental properties often do.
Today, with renewed attention being placed on housing affordability, ADUs are now being viewed as a convenient option for adding density to what are currently single-family residential (R-1) zones. To encourage more ADU development, the city is suggesting eliminating many of the current restrictions. Below, we’ve noted the changes to the zoning ordinance that are being considered by the Planning Commission along with a brief interpretation of what we believe these changes imply.
You can find the full text of the draft resolution at https://lakewoodspeaks.org/items/3304. You can also provide your comments via this site.
The Items listed below are the subsections of the ordinance that are being changed, along with our analysis. Other subsections in the ordinance are not discussed here.
Item 2
Current language: “Waivers or variances shall not be granted for an accessory dwelling unit.”
Proposed change: “Waivers are allowed only if approved in conformance with Section 17.2.6.4(A).”
ENA Interpretation: This change would allow for waivers to ADU regulations, whereas waivers are not possible under the current language. Section 17.2.6.4(A) authorizes the Planning Commission to grant Major Waivers, and the decision of the Commission is final. There is no Council oversight in this scenario.
Item 4.
Current language: “Accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted on lots smaller than 9,000 square feet, regardless of the zone district.”
Proposed change: This regulation will be removed.
ENA Interpretation: All single-family properties – i.e. R-1 – would be permitted to build an ADU, regardless of property size. Note that this might not apply to neighborhoods represented by HOAs, which have their own covenants.
Item 5
Current language: “The owner of the property on which an accessory dwelling unit is located shall occupy either the primary or accessory dwelling unit. Prior to approval of an accessory dwelling unit, the owner shall record a covenant with Jefferson County stating that the owner agrees to restrict use of the primary and accessory dwelling units in compliance with this sub-section. The covenant shall run with the property.”
Proposed change: Language above will be removed and replaced with “A permit for an ADU shall only be issued to an owner occupant or their designee.”
ENA Interpretation: Taken literally as it is re-worded, the owner is only required to occupy the property in order to obtain the permit. However, they can later vacate and rent it out, or they can sell it to someone who would rent out both units. By altering the wording, and dropping the covenant requirement, there is nothing that can be used to enforce owner occupation after the permit is granted.
Item 6b - Dimensional Standards
Current language: “The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be 30 feet.”
No change proposed, but this regulation is relevant to the items that follow. The height allowance was originally intended to accommodate ADUs over a detached garage.
Item 7a - Single-family Dwelling Design Requirements:
Current language: “An accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 700 square feet of gross floor area and shall contain no more than one bedroom.”
Proposed change: “An accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1400 square feet of gross floor area.”
ENA Interpretation: The 700 sq ft and bedroom limitations intentionally limited the scale of a back yard ADU. Relaxing the size restriction, in combination with the height allowance above, effectively permits a full-size (e.g. 2 or 3 bedroom) second house to be built on any R-1 property in the city. In other words, this wording essentially eliminates all R-1 zones of any size, and in a practical sense renders them R-2.
Secondary effects of these changes impact sustainability, including: reduction of permeable surface area which adds runoff to the watershed; increase in the heat-island effect; reduced opportunity for sustainable uses such as gardening or solar; impacts to neighboring back yard privacy; increases in demand on open space due to loss of back yard recreation opportunities; and reduced opportunity to keep large animals and urban livestock.
Item 7d - Single-family Dwelling Design Requirements:
Current language: “Accessory dwelling units located above garages or located on a second floor may be accessed by a separate external stairway. However, a new stairway shall not be located on any street facing façade.”
Proposed change: Remove second sentence prohibiting stairways on street-facing facades.
ENA Interpretation: The new stairway can be located on the front of the home or garage leading to the new dwelling unit. This includes a stairway to the basement of a home for entry to the basement rental area. Note that historic districts expressly prohibit this type of modification to maintain the historic integrity of a structure. There is generally no such limitation on side or back faces of a structure.
Item 7e - Single-family Dwelling Design Requirements:
Current Language: “Parking shall be provided in accordance with Article 8.” [Article 8 defines minimum and maximum parking requirements for all zone districts, among other things. Article 8 can be found at this link.]
Proposed change adds to the language to read: “Parking shall be provided in accordance with Article 8 if off street parking is legally or practically unavailable. Off street parking will be deemed unavailable if the property is located on an arterial or collector street, or if the property is located on a block on which the street is determined to be less than 28 feet wide, or if there are official traffic control signs posted in front of the property prohibiting parking where otherwise permitted.”
ENA Interpretation: It’s unclear what the wording of this change implies. It would make more sense if on-street parking were unavailable for an arterial or collector, or a narrow street. The reference to off-street availability is confusing. We are researching this item. Tune in to the Planning Commission meeting to hear the discussion. Recent controversy over parking city-wide makes this a hot-button topic.
Agenda Topic: Affordable Ownership
This is an ongoing discussion by Commission regarding a proposal to create a new zone district which (among other things being considered) would allow smaller lot size and duplex development as a use-by-right. This implies that, in such a district, there would be no public process required (e.g. rezoning by Council) to develop a duplex on a single family property, with certain restrictions to sell at a price dictated by Area Median Income (AMI), a common gauge for affordability.
ENA Interpretation: It remains to be seen just where this district might exist within Lakewood. It seems certain though, since Lakewood is already mostly developed, that such a district would have to replace existing R-1 zones. This new zone would also be smaller in size, suggesting that larger R-1 properties could be subdivided into multiple “R-tiny” properties, more than is possible today; i.e. higher density. It should be noted that the R-2 zone designation already exists for duplexes, so the value of this proposal is questionable, other than dictating a market price for such a property.
If you’ve read this far, you probably have a valuable opinion about this topic. Please go to LakewoodSpeaks.org and select the appropriate agenda item to provide your comments to the Planning Commission, or contact the ENA if you have questions.
Thank you for your attention!
Eiber Neighborhood Association
There is a Planning Commission regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday Nov 8, 7pm in Council Chambers or virtually on LakewoodSpeaks.org to discuss the two topics below; Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) policy change, and development of an Affordable Home Ownership policy.
Agenda Topic: Proposed changes to the zoning ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Briefly, as part of a greater effort to address housing affordability, city staff is currently reviewing the city’s regulations regarding ADUs. In its current form, the zoning ordinance expects an ADU to be a relatively diminutive accessory structure, basement apartment, or addition, commonly referred to as an in-law apartment. Especially in older parts of the city with large lots such as Eiber, developed earlier in the last century, there already exist many secondary residences which were converted from old orchard sheds or chicken coops to provide housing for vets returning from WW II. Those structures predated the city of Lakewood by decades, and were grandfathered in when Lakewood incorporated and established its early zoning regulations.
When the ADU class of structure was formally introduced into the zoning ordinance a decade ago, the stated intent was to accommodate the pre-existing uses mentioned above and, going forward, to provide a means for elders to age-in-place or for retirees to supplement their income with an on-site rental, among other benefits. In order to mitigate impacts to the character of existing neighborhoods, regulations were developed to limit the size of ADUs, and require that the property owner reside on the property, either in the primary residence or in the ADU. These regulations were intended to discourage non-resident owners from using the property as simply a two-unit income property, and through their absence allowing the property to suffer from neglect as rental properties often do.
Today, with renewed attention being placed on housing affordability, ADUs are now being viewed as a convenient option for adding density to what are currently single-family residential (R-1) zones. To encourage more ADU development, the city is suggesting eliminating many of the current restrictions. Below, we’ve noted the changes to the zoning ordinance that are being considered by the Planning Commission along with a brief interpretation of what we believe these changes imply.
You can find the full text of the draft resolution at https://lakewoodspeaks.org/items/3304. You can also provide your comments via this site.
The Items listed below are the subsections of the ordinance that are being changed, along with our analysis. Other subsections in the ordinance are not discussed here.
Item 2
Current language: “Waivers or variances shall not be granted for an accessory dwelling unit.”
Proposed change: “Waivers are allowed only if approved in conformance with Section 17.2.6.4(A).”
ENA Interpretation: This change would allow for waivers to ADU regulations, whereas waivers are not possible under the current language. Section 17.2.6.4(A) authorizes the Planning Commission to grant Major Waivers, and the decision of the Commission is final. There is no Council oversight in this scenario.
Item 4.
Current language: “Accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted on lots smaller than 9,000 square feet, regardless of the zone district.”
Proposed change: This regulation will be removed.
ENA Interpretation: All single-family properties – i.e. R-1 – would be permitted to build an ADU, regardless of property size. Note that this might not apply to neighborhoods represented by HOAs, which have their own covenants.
Item 5
Current language: “The owner of the property on which an accessory dwelling unit is located shall occupy either the primary or accessory dwelling unit. Prior to approval of an accessory dwelling unit, the owner shall record a covenant with Jefferson County stating that the owner agrees to restrict use of the primary and accessory dwelling units in compliance with this sub-section. The covenant shall run with the property.”
Proposed change: Language above will be removed and replaced with “A permit for an ADU shall only be issued to an owner occupant or their designee.”
ENA Interpretation: Taken literally as it is re-worded, the owner is only required to occupy the property in order to obtain the permit. However, they can later vacate and rent it out, or they can sell it to someone who would rent out both units. By altering the wording, and dropping the covenant requirement, there is nothing that can be used to enforce owner occupation after the permit is granted.
Item 6b - Dimensional Standards
Current language: “The maximum height of a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be 30 feet.”
No change proposed, but this regulation is relevant to the items that follow. The height allowance was originally intended to accommodate ADUs over a detached garage.
Item 7a - Single-family Dwelling Design Requirements:
Current language: “An accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 700 square feet of gross floor area and shall contain no more than one bedroom.”
Proposed change: “An accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1400 square feet of gross floor area.”
ENA Interpretation: The 700 sq ft and bedroom limitations intentionally limited the scale of a back yard ADU. Relaxing the size restriction, in combination with the height allowance above, effectively permits a full-size (e.g. 2 or 3 bedroom) second house to be built on any R-1 property in the city. In other words, this wording essentially eliminates all R-1 zones of any size, and in a practical sense renders them R-2.
Secondary effects of these changes impact sustainability, including: reduction of permeable surface area which adds runoff to the watershed; increase in the heat-island effect; reduced opportunity for sustainable uses such as gardening or solar; impacts to neighboring back yard privacy; increases in demand on open space due to loss of back yard recreation opportunities; and reduced opportunity to keep large animals and urban livestock.
Item 7d - Single-family Dwelling Design Requirements:
Current language: “Accessory dwelling units located above garages or located on a second floor may be accessed by a separate external stairway. However, a new stairway shall not be located on any street facing façade.”
Proposed change: Remove second sentence prohibiting stairways on street-facing facades.
ENA Interpretation: The new stairway can be located on the front of the home or garage leading to the new dwelling unit. This includes a stairway to the basement of a home for entry to the basement rental area. Note that historic districts expressly prohibit this type of modification to maintain the historic integrity of a structure. There is generally no such limitation on side or back faces of a structure.
Item 7e - Single-family Dwelling Design Requirements:
Current Language: “Parking shall be provided in accordance with Article 8.” [Article 8 defines minimum and maximum parking requirements for all zone districts, among other things. Article 8 can be found at this link.]
Proposed change adds to the language to read: “Parking shall be provided in accordance with Article 8 if off street parking is legally or practically unavailable. Off street parking will be deemed unavailable if the property is located on an arterial or collector street, or if the property is located on a block on which the street is determined to be less than 28 feet wide, or if there are official traffic control signs posted in front of the property prohibiting parking where otherwise permitted.”
ENA Interpretation: It’s unclear what the wording of this change implies. It would make more sense if on-street parking were unavailable for an arterial or collector, or a narrow street. The reference to off-street availability is confusing. We are researching this item. Tune in to the Planning Commission meeting to hear the discussion. Recent controversy over parking city-wide makes this a hot-button topic.
Agenda Topic: Affordable Ownership
This is an ongoing discussion by Commission regarding a proposal to create a new zone district which (among other things being considered) would allow smaller lot size and duplex development as a use-by-right. This implies that, in such a district, there would be no public process required (e.g. rezoning by Council) to develop a duplex on a single family property, with certain restrictions to sell at a price dictated by Area Median Income (AMI), a common gauge for affordability.
ENA Interpretation: It remains to be seen just where this district might exist within Lakewood. It seems certain though, since Lakewood is already mostly developed, that such a district would have to replace existing R-1 zones. This new zone would also be smaller in size, suggesting that larger R-1 properties could be subdivided into multiple “R-tiny” properties, more than is possible today; i.e. higher density. It should be noted that the R-2 zone designation already exists for duplexes, so the value of this proposal is questionable, other than dictating a market price for such a property.
If you’ve read this far, you probably have a valuable opinion about this topic. Please go to LakewoodSpeaks.org and select the appropriate agenda item to provide your comments to the Planning Commission, or contact the ENA if you have questions.
Thank you for your attention!
Eiber Neighborhood Association