Englewood planning commissioners give staff direction to amend code after state housing and landscaping laws

Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission members heard a staff presentation Aug. 19 on a package of state housing and landscaping laws that require changes to the city’s development code, and they gave nonbinding, high-level direction for staff to draft ordinance changes and take them to City Council.

The item covered five main areas staff said require city code edits: a state ban on enforcing some minimum parking requirements for multifamily housing near transit; new statewide ADU (accessory-dwelling-unit) rules and a Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) guidance package; limits on local household-occupancy rules that reference familial status; and new restrictions on “nonfunctional” turf for certain development types. Staff said they will return to council with draft language after getting the commission’s direction.

The parking law was the most contested subject. Staff member Brian (presentation), explaining the state statute, said the law prevents cities from enforcing minimum parking requirements for multifamily residential development located roughly a quarter‑mile from bus routes or transit stops and for projects that are at least 50% residential. Brian said the statute allows a city to adopt a one‑space‑per‑unit requirement only for projects of 20 units or more or for qualifying affordable housing projects, but the city would have to demonstrate a negative traffic or parking impact to exercise that exception.

Commissioner Noah (Planning and Zoning Commission) urged the commission to consider removing minimum parking citywide, saying, “Minimum parking requirements are a…intervention in the market” and that eliminating them can reduce development costs and encourage more housing near transit. Several other commissioners, including Eric and Amy, voiced support for at least meeting the state’s minimum compliance and for making the rules as clear and administrable as possible.

Commissioner Brenda (Planning and Zoning Commission) strongly disagreed with full compliance as the only option, arguing that the law overrides local community input and home‑rule authority. She said she would support pursuing legal action alongside other Colorado cities challenging the statute, and urged staff and counsel to explore joining that litigation.

The commission did not take a formal vote on a motion; staff summarized the group’s high‑level direction as a general consensus to comply with the state minimums for parking, with several members indicating they would prefer more extensive local changes (including at least two members who favored removing parking minimums citywide) and one member advocating legal resistance. Staff said any final ordinance will return to council for direction and formal adoption.

ADUs and related timing

Staff also walked commissioners through the state’s ADU requirements and DOLA guidance. Brian said the city has received a DOLA extension to comply on ADU items through Dec. 30 and that required code edits include: (1) defining ADUs and clarifying what they are not (for example, excluding RVs and travel trailers from the ADU definition); (2) reducing certain rear‑setback requirements for attached and internal ADUs (state guidance calls for smaller rear setbacks than Englewood’s current 20‑foot rear‑setback for some ADUs); (3) allowing ADUs in planned‑unit developments (PUDs) that permit single‑family detached homes; and (4) removing some “design compatibility” language that relied on subjective determinations.

Commissioners generally supported the ADU changes as described. Several commissioners said they favor removing the phrasing that required an ADU to be “secondary” in appearance to the primary house, while keeping objective limits such as a 25‑foot height cap for detached ADUs above garages. Staff said they are still discussing with the state whether certain newly introduced subdivision types (courtyard and front/rear corner subdivisions) must also allow ADUs; staff will seek clarification from DOLA before bringing code language to council.

Occupancy definitions

The presentation also covered a change in state law that prohibits municipalities from basing occupancy rules on familial status. Under the new statewide rule, cities cannot define “household” to limit the number of unrelated people living together. Staff told the commission the most straightforward option is to remove the familial‑status wording from Englewood’s code and rely on the International Property Maintenance Code and building‑code occupancy metrics (square footage and bedrooms) to regulate overcrowding and safety. Commissioners voiced general support for that approach.

Turf and landscaping rules

Staff summarized two state measures that restrict “nonfunctional turf” — turf areas not used for recreational or similar public functions — on certain types of development. The state language staff quoted lists playgrounds, sports fields, amphitheaters, picnic grounds and the playing areas of golf courses as examples of functional turf; areas not meeting that definition are considered nonfunctional and are subject to limitations on installation.

Under the state law as presented by staff, the restriction applies to commercial, institutional and industrial projects and (in a later extension) to multifamily projects above a unit threshold. The statute uses a 12‑unit threshold; several commissioners recommended applying the restriction to buildings with five or more units to match Englewood’s local definition of “multiunit” and to avoid an extra layer of definition. Commissioners asked staff to return with clearer, administrable language that avoids subjectivity about what counts as “functional.” Commissioners also debated whether small private dog‑run areas or amenity lawns should be treated as functional turf; staff said they will research other jurisdictions’ implementations and propose a clear definition.

What happens next

Staff said they will use the commission’s direction — broadly, to meet state minimums on parking while offering options that could go further, to implement the listed ADU changes consistent with DOLA guidance, to remove familial‑status language from occupancy rules, and to apply turf restrictions to multifamily/multiunit projects at a threshold to be determined — to craft draft ordinance language for City Council review. Brian told commissioners the ADU extension runs to Dec. 30 and that the parking statute was already in effect; he urged commissioners that the city must move faster on some items to meet state deadlines. No formal votes or ordinance adoptions occurred at the Aug. 19 meeting.

Commission participation and context

The discussion drew active participation from most commissioners and multiple staff members; the parking topic generated the most disagreement. Commissioners raised local concerns about neighborhood impacts (street parking, driveway encroachment and community engagement when projects otherwise avoid public hearings) alongside arguments that the measures will reduce development costs and support housing production near transit.

Staff will present draft code amendments and options to City Council in upcoming study sessions; commissioners and some members of the public may have further opportunities to review proposed language before any ordinance vote.

Ending

Commissioners closed the study session after asking staff to return with ordinance language that reflects the commission’s direction and with clearer definitions for terms such as “functional turf” and the ADU‑related subdivision questions. Staff reiterated DOLA’s Dec. 30 extension for ADU compliance and said they will provide schedules and draft language for Council review.