|
|
|
 |
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THRU: FRANK GRAY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
FROM: VINCENT HARRIS, MANAGER OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & ENFORCEMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2002
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF HOUSEHOLD
OCTOBER 7, 2002 STUDY SESSION
On August 19 you conducted a study session at which staff and City Council
discussed the Zoning regulations as they relate to "Households" in
the City of Lakewood. You reviewed a Policy Report that had four alternatives
to possibly deal with the current "Household" definition. At the conclusion
of the study session City Council directed staff to prepare a report that was
based on the Alternative #3 and present it at the October 7 City Council Study
Session. Alternative #3 included amending the 'Household' definition and setting
a cap on the number of unrelated people allowed in a dwelling. At the August
19 study session City Council's direction to staff was to:
· A) Evaluate the possibilities of Alternative #3
· B) Make a recommendation about amortization
· C) Evaluate the definition of 'School' which allows a College / University
in all zone districts in the City.
On page 2 you will find the beginning of the evaluation for the above bullet points A, B, and C.
The issue at hand is concern about the number of unrelated individuals allowed to reside in a single-family dwelling. The neighborhood near Colorado Christian University (CCU) currently has some dwellings that have been rented to students who attend CCU. These houses and other houses throughout the City are allowed to be used as rental homes with unrelated individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit. The existing definition allows 1 unrelated individual per habitable room in a dwelling.
Staff needs to reiterate, every dwelling unit in the City is currently allowed to have unrelated individuals living in it. None of the dwellings near CCU that are or will be rented by students are considered dormitories. They are simply being resided in and rented by people who are unrelated as allowed by the "Household" definition in the Zoning Ordinance.
Other attachments are included with this report, which include letters, emails, and other information relevant to the issue at hand which were received after the August 19 study session.
EVALUATION OF THE ISSUES RELATED TO AMENDING THE HOUSEHOLD DEFINITION
Summary of the alternative to:
· A) Amend the "Household" definition and include a cap (maximum number) of unrelated individuals residing in a dwelling unit
After the last study session, staff has had an opportunity to evaluate the possible methods to calculate the number of unrelated individuals allowed to reside in a dwelling unit. Staff has also been able to determine that any method used to reduce the number of allowed unrelated individuals in multi-family apartment units will severely impact the number of individuals allowed in an apartment. Such reduction in allowed numbers could constitute a large "Taking" throughout the entire City of Lakewood. Staff strongly encourages the City Council to only amend the Household definition so long as the changes only amend the number of unrelated individuals allowed in a single-family home or duplex unit. Apartment units need to be able to use the existing formula of one person per habitable room.
Staff suggests that a formula of 1 person per 400 gross square feet (including basements and excluding attached and/or detached garages) in a dwelling unit, be used to determine the number of unrelated individuals (with a maximum number to be determined by City Council) allowed in a single-family household. This type of measurement is the easiest way to allow staff to determine the number of unrelated individuals allowed in a dwelling. Many ways are available to staff to determine how many gross square feet are in a dwelling without having to get into the dwelling; such as building permits, assessors' records and the City database system. Staff suggests the following definitions be included in the Zoning Ordinance to address the issue.
Included with this report is a chart showing how a cap (cap of 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 individuals) for the number of unrelated individuals would work with the formula of 1 person per 400 and 500 gross square feet in a single-family dwelling. The chart can give you an indication of how the formula works with a cap. Staff has also incorporated a provision that any single-family dwelling would be allowed to have at least three (3) unrelated individuals regardless of the size of the single-family dwelling.
Article17-2 of the Zoning Ordinance (Definitions)
Duplex: A building designed for occupancy by two (2) single family or duplex households living in two (2) separate dwelling units attached by one or more common walls.
Dwelling Unit - Single Family:
a) A building designed for occupancy by not more than one (1) single family/duplex household.
b) Manufactured Home:…….et. al..
c) Factory Built Home:……..et. al.
Family:
1) An individual living alone; or
2) Any number of individuals, who are related by blood, marriage, or legal adoption, including foster children.
Household: This Zoning Ordinance allows "Households". For the purpose of differentiation between allowed single-family dwelling units and duplex dwelling units (allowing a legal Single Family or Duplex Household) and multiple family dwelling units (allowing a legal Multiple Family Household) the following two definitions shall be used to regulate occupants allowed in a household.
A. Single Family or Duplex Household:
1) Any Family; or
2) Any unrelated group of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit up to a maximum of one person per four hundred (400) gross square feet in the dwelling unit (including basements and excluding attached and/or detached garages) not to exceed ____?___ individuals per dwelling unit; or
3) Any two (2) unrelated individuals and their related children and/or parents.
4) The following words, terms and phrases, and the following criteria, when used in this definition, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection.
a) Every dwelling unit shall be allowed at least three (3) unrelated individuals regardless of the number of square feet in the dwelling unit.
b) Any household which meets the definition of a group home or group living quarters shall be evaluated, permitted and regulated as a group home or group living quarters rather than as a household.
c) "Living together as a single housekeeping unit" is generally characterized by a family like structure, and/or a sharing of responsibility associated with the household, and a concept of functioning as a family unit with a sense of permanency, as opposed to the transient nature of a bed and breakfast establishment, motel or hotel.
d) A household shall not include more than one individual who is required to register as a sex offender under the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-3-412.5, as amended. This Subsection (d) shall not apply to a registered sex offender who is living with his immediate family. For purposes of this Subsection (d), immediate family is defined as a person, the person's spouse, the person's parent, the person's grandparent, the person's brother or sister of the whole or half blood, the person's child, the person's step-child or the person's child by adoption.
e) Enforcement of Subsection (d) above shall occur only after notice of the violation has been sent by regular mail to the owner and tenant of the household and ten (10) days have elapsed after mailing of said notice.
B. Multiple Family Household:
1) Any Family; or
2) Any unrelated group of individuals living together as a single housekeeping unit up to a maximum of one person per habitable room;
3) Any two (2) unrelated individuals and their related children and/or parents.
4) The following words, terms and phrases, and the following criteria, when used in this definition, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection
a) "Habitable room" is space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Not included in this definition are bathrooms, toilet compartments, porches, balconies, unfinished rooms, closets, halls, storage and utility spaces, and similar spaces.
b) "Living together as a single housekeeping unit" is generally characterized by a family like structure, and/or a sharing of responsibility associated with the household, and a concept of functioning as a family unit with a sense of permanency, as opposed to the transient nature of a bed and breakfast establishment, motel or hotel.
c) Any household which meets the definition of a group home or group living quarters shall be evaluated, permitted and regulated as a group home or group living quarters rather than as a household.
d) A household shall not include more than one individual who is required to register as a sex offender under the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-3-412.5, as amended. This Subsection (d) shall not apply to a registered sex offender who is living with his immediate family. For purposes of this Subsection (d), immediate family is defined as a person, the person's spouse, the person's parent, the person's grandparent, the person's brother or sister of the whole or half blood, the person's child, the person's step-child or the person's child by adoption.
e) Enforcement of Subsection (d) above shall occur only after notice of the violation has been sent by regular mail to the owner and tenant of the household and ten (10) days have elapsed after mailing of said notice.
Section 17-13-3 g) Home Occupations allowed in single-family zone districts
· The renting of rooms to not more than two (2) persons per dwelling
only in conjunction with an owner occupied Family in the dwelling.
· B) Amortize the existing households relying on the current "Household" definition
Roger Noonan, City Attorney, has researched the issue of amortization. He found that essentially no court cases pertain directly with amortization of single-family households. Roger has indicated that an amortization period of five years is defensible in a court of law. A period less than five (5) years could increase the potential for a legal challenge. However, there is no guarantee that if the amortization timeframe is challenged, that it will be successful in a court of law. The Community Planning and Development Department recommends that a five (5) year amortization be included in the ordinance for approval.
Staff also suggests that if an ordinance is approved to change the Household definition, that a time period of 6 months be given to property owners throughout the City to register their address as one that is utilizing the existing standards for the number of unrelated individuals in a single-family dwelling.
The changes discussed above are a citywide issue, and should be considered as a package. The Zoning Districts where a College or University is allowed is a narrower issue and should be considered separately.
· C) Limit where a College/University use is allowed
As discussed in the recent study session on August 19, "Schools" as currently defined in the Zoning Ordinance allow Colleges/Universities; K-12 schools; and Vocational, Trade or Professional schools in all Zone Districts throughout the City. Staff suggests that the R1A, RR, 1R and 2R zone districts be amended to not allow Colleges/Universities or the Vocational & Trade schools as a Use-by-Right. College/University (otherwise referred to as Higher Education Classrooms and Offices) should be allowed as a Special Use Permit (SUP), which is currently in the Zoning Ordinance. The SUP would be for classroom and office space only. Schools, including a College/ University, would be allowed in all other zone districts in the City as a Use by Right.
In addition, staff recommends that the Vocational and Trade School use in the School definition be excerpted out and added as its own definition. Then a Vocational or Trade School would be allowed in the Office and Commercial zone districts.
Staff suggests the following definitions and wording be included in a future
Zoning Ordinance amendment to address the issue of schools.
School: An institution for instruction. For purposes of this Ordinance, schools
are classified by the type of instruction provided and by student grade level.
a) College/University: A school providing higher education beyond grade twelve, which offers either a two year or four year degree in specific disciplines.
b) K-12: A place of learning, whether public or private, which meets state standards for providing instruction for students in kindergarten and grades one through twelve.
Vocational, Trade or Professional School: A place of learning providing instruction in specialized skills, such as drafting or a craft such as welding, carpentry, or auto repair to prepare students for a specific occupation.
Section 17-5-7 (2) (19) R1A: RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE should be amended to read
as follows:
Permitted Uses:
· Schools, public, parochial and private, except colleges and universities.
Section 17-5-8 (2) (15) RR: RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT should be amended to
read as follows:
Permitted Uses:
· Schools, public, parochial and private, except colleges and universities.
Section 17-5-9 (2) (14) 1-R LARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT should be amended
to read as follows:
Permitted Uses:
· Schools, public, parochial and private, except colleges and universities.
Section 17-5-10 (2) (14) 2-R: ONE FAMILY SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT should
be amended to read as follows:
Permitted Uses:
· Schools, public, parochial and private, except colleges and universities.
To date, Colorado Christian University has continued to indicate they are willing to work with the neighborhood to assist in resolving concerns that the neighborhood has relating to students renting dwellings. CCU has offered to place additional limitations (such as limiting the # of students in a dwelling; limiting the number of cars to be parked at the dwelling) on the dwellings students will rent if they can work out those agreements with the neighborhood. However, some neighborhood residents and leaders of the neighborhood Associations have indicated that they do not want to work with the University on this issue.
ENFORCEMENT - As you are aware the Lakewood Zoning Enforcement Section is one that operates on a 'complaint' basis. When residents in the City see possible violations they contact our Code Enforcement staff to check out if a violation exists. If a violation is determined to exist by the Code Enforcement Officer the property owner is required to remedy the violation or a summons is issued for a court appearance.
There are two elements in the enforcement process, the first, is the role of the code enforcement personnel and the second, is the role of the municipal prosecutors. If an owner does not correct the violation then the code enforcement officer will issue a summons to the municipal court. Municipal prosecutors then are responsible to prove the case. They must prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' the ordinance violation in order to obtain a conviction. It is very difficult to prove a violation exists without the assistance and testimony from a neighbor. The reason a conviction is so difficult is, that short of having testimony from neighbors, most information from code enforcement officers is 'hearsay' and inadmissible under municipal court procedures.
Another alternative for enforcement is by filing a civil action in Jefferson County District Court. A civil action has a different burden of proof from a criminal action. It is also more time consuming and expensive.
SUMMARY
Staff requests that the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance include the standards as outlined above in this report. Staff suggests that the above proposal addresses the issues at hand revolving around the fact that houses are being rented by unrelated individuals. The measure of performance using the 1 person per 400 gross square feet is the easiest to determine. Staff recommends that in all single-family homes at least three (3) unrelated individuals be allowed; and that a maximum number of six (6) unrelated individuals be allowed, while using the formula of 1 person per 400 gross square feet.
Lastly, any amendment has a risk of challenge in the courts by a variety of residents or property owners in the City currently relying on the existing standards or by disagreeing with a new standard.
SUBMITTED BY:
FRANK GRAY, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
VINCENT HARRIS, MANAGER OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW & ENFORCEMENT
REVIEWED BY:
MICHAEL J. ROCK, CITY MANAGER
JONI INMAN, DIRECTOR OF MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER'S OFFICES
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
