Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, it is 6.30.

It is July 7th. This is a meeting of the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission. I would like to call us to order by taking a roll call vote, please.

Mr. Haggerty?

Here.

Ms. Austin? Here. Mr. Montiel? Mr. Adams?

Here.

Ms. Hapka? Here. Mr. Renson? Mr. Kaplan?

Here.

Ms. Cesario? Here. Chair Martinez?

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. First item on the agenda is the approval of minutes of the June 16th meeting. Even if you were not here for that meeting, I hope you got a chance to review those minutes. Does anybody have any additions, corrections to those minutes? I was shown as present and I was not here.

That should be a correction. Other than that, I'm sure it's fine.

Commissioner's present.

Shelly, can we just make a note of that? All right. All else? Everybody good? Can we get a motion to approve, please? Oh. For June 16th? So we just need to...

Yeah, so let's strike Carl Adams and Colin Haggerty from the commissioners present.

And with those two changes, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

I'll second.

Thank you.

Mr. Haggerty?

Yes.

Ms. Austin? Yes. Mr. Adams?

MINUTES.

MR. KAPLAN?

AYE.

MS. ASSARIO? AYE. CHAIR MARTINEZ?

AYE. DID YOU GET MY VOTE, HUPKA?

Yes. Sorry about that. All right.

Motion carries. Next item is approval of the findings of fact. These were the two presentations about vacating right-of-way and vacating utility easement. Anybody have any additions, corrections to the findings of fact?

Can I, Jackson, question for you. Does the same expectation apply to these finding of facts? If we were not here for the hearing, should we abstain or can we still vote on the findings of fact?

So if you've reviewed them, you can vote on them.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Can I get a motion? Let's do, I guess we do these one at a time. So, or no, it's one action.

So we're approving both findings of fact. I'm going to get a motion.

So moved. Thanks, Michelle.

Second.

Thank you.

Mr. Haggerty?

Yes.

Ms. Austin? Yes. Mr. Adams?

Yes.

Ms. Hupka? Yes. Mr. Kaplan?

Aye.

Ms. Cesario? Aye. Chair Martinez?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Fourth item on the agenda, public forum. Is anybody here present in the room or online to discuss matters that are not on the agenda?

No. Nobody online?

All right. Then moving on to non-conforming residential uses, we have a staff report.

All righty.

It is not deja vu. This is another non-conforming use discussion. This one is hopefully a little bit smaller. This one kind of came out of some of the non-conforming use discussions. We also had a couple of property owners that were going through the process of expanding their basically duplexes in single family districts. And they had a couple of issues with the regulations, and so they wanted to discuss it. So we took this to a study session with council. And I'll go through what we discussed with them, and then show you what their thoughts were, and then also get any of your thoughts as well. So without further ado, so for residential non-conforming uses, these are They are basically things where they have too many units for that zone district. Additionally, as far as expansion of these things, it's pretty flexible in the code. There are a lot of additions during Code Next that made it possible, basically, to build up to the same standards that a property in that zone district could do. whereas as far as a full destruction of a property they wouldn't be able to rebuild so that's kind of where the drawbacks are so as far as the current regulation so basically what the first three bullet points on this say is that if it meets basically the same kind of visual look of what is allowed by the zone district you're allowed to expand like that for these non-conforming uses The bottom one is an additional carve-out for these where if you have, say, your structure is currently two feet from the side and it's a five-foot setback, you could extend along that same two-foot setback for 50% of whatever you're currently knocking for. As far as reconstruction, it's a lot more strict than that. So there is a 60% valuation cutoff. So if either you demolish the structure or the structure happens to have an event happen, like it burns down, where 60% of the valuation is lost for the structure, you cannot rebuild that structure. You would have to rebuild to the current standards for that zone district. So if you had a triplex in a single family district, you don't want to be able to rebuild one unit. There are two exceptions to that rule. The first one being for detached houses that don't meet the setback. You can rebuild on that same foundation. So if it's a nonconforming setback, you can rebuild on that. And then also for multi-unit residential structures and multi-unit residential districts. If they don't meet the basically density per acre requirements, they're allowed to rebuild up to that same density. It's a little quirky where you can rebuild some multi-units, but only in those multi-unit districts. So there were, I believe, in the low 200s of these during Code Next, We went through and took a look at them and saw which ones with the additions to Code Next that allowed for higher densities and accessory dwelling units and things of that nature, how many are left, and there's about 55 of these. You can see that they're mostly concentrated in those R1 districts, and then there's a few in those R2s. So looking at these standards, it's pretty clear that one portion of it for expansions is very flexible, whereas the portions for a full reconstruction, if something was to happen to the structure, are pretty strict. So with that, like I said, Council asked us to bring this to them, I believe about a month or two back. Through that, these were kind of their direction points that they wanted us to look at. So the first would be to allow for damaged structures to construct new structures. So we basically told them there's kind of two ways if you want to make it more flexible. One would be to, if the structure was to burn down or be demolished, you could rebuild that structure and then still follow the non-conforming expansions from there. The other option is just a full you're allowed to demolish, or if the structure gets destroyed, build a new structure on there with no looking back at what the structure looked like before the damage. So they had opted for the one that's a little more flexible, allowing just a new structure. Additionally, there's another portion of this that's a little more hidden, and that is For some areas of the city, like particularly Broadway and also the industrial areas just north of here, think where Ironworks Village and just south of Ironworks Village, that area where there's some residential mixed in with those industrial properties, allowing these, basically do we want to allow it for those structures as well, allow those ones to rebuild, or is this something purely for residential structures and residential zones? Council's opinion was more on the allow it for those ones as well. And then the last portion was we talked about this a bit with the commercial non-conforming uses that currently the code has a one-year timeline from whenever something does happen to the structure to rebuild. Otherwise, you have to become conforming. So this would also push that out to somewhere in a three- to five-year range. All right, so that is it for the presentation. I'm going to go ahead and sit over here so I can take notes if you guys have anything. But leave it open for discussion.

Is there a recommendation of that? Is it three to five? Like, what's the preference there?

So I had written it for the existing commercial structures at three years. There isn't really, you know, I THINK ANYWHERE IN THAT RANGE WORKS. IF THERE'S A PREFERENCE BY THIS GROUP, I THINK THAT'LL BE THE ANSWER.

NEW SPEAKER. LET ME ASK A QUESTION. INCREASE THE REBUILD TIME. NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY HAVE THREE YEARS FROM WHAT'S THE START TO THE FINISH? THE START IS WHEN THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED, AND THEN THEY HAVE, LET'S SAY, THREE YEARS BEFORE THE RULE RUNS OUT, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO BUILD A CONFORMING STRUCTURE, OR DOES IT JUST MEAN, I MEAN, PLEASE DEFINE THAT A LITTLE BETTER FOR US.

NEW SPEAKER Yeah, so the way the code currently reads is Basically, if... So there's those kind of carve-outs, like I said, where, you know, for different structures like the ones with the non-conforming setbacks or the ones with the multi-units, if something was to happen to those and they wanted to rebuild, right, they would have a one-year timeline from the time it was determined that it was damaged to the time that they...

I believe it's... obtain a permit within one year.

So right now it's from timeline from determination of damage to permit pulling is one year. So this would expand it to somewhere in that three to five year range.

And what's the thinking of why that would be more helpful?

There's a couple of reasons. One, as far as financing, if something was damaged from a fire, that might take some months to get through. And at that point, you're kind of against a clock to then get permits pulled for it, things of that nature. One year gets really tight whenever you start looking at getting through the permitting process as well as figuring out the damages. That was the thought.

I think three years is right. Five seems long.

I wouldn't even agree with three years, to be honest with you. I think two years is generous. I think that there's a misconception that getting a permit takes a year with this city, and it really doesn't. And we don't have... Building never wants to come and talk to us, which annoys me. It always has since Code Next that they won't come. And we don't have any metrics from them. How long does it take to get a permit? I will just tell you from personal experience that it really sucks to live near a damaged or or scraped home for three years. And I don't want another neighbor to ever have to deal with what I'm dealing with right now. So I would be willing to find the middle ground at two years. Because that's really when permit starts. It's not start to finish construction. It's damage. Give them two years to get a permit is way more than generous. And financing. And most of the time, if it is damaged, they've got insurance money coming in. A claim might take a year. I can see that. But I think three years is even more than generous.

I think there's a lot of steps to the development process or redevelopment process in this case, including financing, design, development. Two years can be constrained as well.

I've done it. I've gone through it.

And this is not just for a single family home. This could be for a fourplex or for a small multifamily. I mean, this is going to apply to those as well.

Yeah, I know. I live right next to four new duplexes that they've built and apartments that have still not even started construction for five years now.

Any other thoughts on timelines?

Yeah, I have some thoughts. I've actually personally experienced this as well. But I will tell you that sometimes insurance, settling insurance can take up to a year almost. It can be really because there's PERSONAL PROPERTY AND THERE'S THE REAL PROPERTY AND ALL THIS SORT OF STUFF AND IT CAN GO ON FOR A YEAR OR A YEAR AND A HALF EASILY. SO I WOULD ACTUALLY BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH BEYOND THREE YEARS. BUT I'LL BE HAPPY TO GO WITH WHAT THE COMMISSION DECIDES. I THINK AT LEAST THREE YEARS IS GOOD. NEW SPEAKER OTHER OPINIONS?

My comment was going to be also on the insurance that sometimes it does take 6 months to a year depending on the the the extensive the damage so not necessarily the city, but I think over 3 years is too long.

That's where I am too I think 3 is the right number I think that gives you time for all the steps that have been described, but it doesn't create an incentive to drag out and have a potentially damage or vacant, you know property for

too long of a period so i to me three feels like the right number is there a timeline from once they get the permit they have to construct um so from the time you obtain your permit you have 180 days to make meaningful progress on it so usually that's an inspection um so from the time of pulling permit to first inspection to 180 days, and then after that, it basically pushes that clock out each time you get a new inspection.

So if you haven't started, then does that permit then default, and then you would basically be out of that non-conforming use, and you'd have to go back to some sort of conforming use for the NICRA?

Right, yeah. So if, like, if, yeah, if you, if you, well, so it's, so this is saying to obtain obtain a permit i would think if you let your permit lapse we would consider that yeah as not you wait till three years to pull your permit and then you don't do anything for six months and then you're out yeah yeah at that point you don't have a permit so you would have to conform but most of the time you just have to reapply for the permit if it falls out

But this would say you couldn't do that.

Correct. But yeah, so right now you have 180 days to make progress on it. Otherwise, the permit expires. So at that point, we would re-look at this regulations and say you don't have a permit pulled for this work that was damaged.

So they would be outside of the three-year compliance window.

Yeah.

Carl? If it's a fire, there could be other things there, but If it's a fire, it should be cleaned up within a year to get all the debris out of there. And the permits can be, I don't know, two or three years working from the time of the fire until they actually build. I know some of these apartments around here, the Elks Club, they haven't even started building over there. Four years, five years.

But those are conforming uses for those areas, so... you know, that's not the same as this issue right here.

For the nuisance that Carl is talking about, is there maintenance code that covers that of a fully damaged total loss structure that it's going to come down within a certain time?

I would assume that that would fall under building code for, like, you know, an unsafe condition. I'm not entirely sure on that. Either that or, like, code enforcement. But I can double check after this with those groups and make sure it's covered by them.

That would be the place to regulate demolition timelines rather than zoning non-conforming.

The only problem with that is that you can have some mitigating circumstances to like asbestos or something like that that can take quite a bit of time. People don't necessarily have the money to do that stuff if it's been burnt down. So if you have to wait to get the, you have to spend what you have just to get the asbestos removed or something like that. I mean, I just, it's really complicated pretty quick.

More times than not, I don't think it's going to be, we're going to, you know, it's not going to be very often, and there are not that many properties. More often than not, you'll probably find a small developer will buy a property, and it's been determined to be a wreck, and They may or may not do anything to mitigate those damages. And tailcoat enforcement sends them about three notices. And then they're really just an LLC hidden in a PO box. I mean, I've followed through on some of this stuff. So I think you're all very forgiving about the individual person who's had a fire versus what, in reality, is usually a developer who's going to take full advantage of our lives to the nth degree. So that's the only reason I'm trying to bring it in. I'll go along with your three years, but it's just been my experience that these aren't poor, sodden homeowners trying to get through insurance.

Yeah. Just a reminder, this is only for non-conforming uses. So if developed buys it and doesn't use it for 180 days, it goes back to a conforming use and they couldn't do anything anyways. So this is kind of a very specialized niche for this non-conforming.

I know. It's 180 days from... Once they apply for the permit, they have to start doing it. But they've got three years to get a permit now. We're saying they've got three years, right?

Three years to obtain a permit.

They've got three years to let that property sit there.

But what I am hearing is a general consensus of three years, extending the rebuild time from a one-year limit to three years to keep their non-conforming use. Does anybody have anything to add to that? That's what I'm hearing.

Okay, great. Just to make sure I'm clear, this is only if a property is damaged? 60% damage. That's all we're talking about for this particular one.

Correct. So keep in mind there's two types of damage. There's intentional and unintentional. So a fire where it burns down, that's one thing. There's also if someone just wants to demo the house and then build a new house. So there are two things that we try to treat the same because you don't want to encourage... accidental activity so we try to keep it the same regulations so this would these changes would be for not only someone that's house burns down but it would also be for someone that wants to demo the house and then build a duplex again quick question then in the draft code language and 1618

C, non-conforming uses, point three. It says if non-conforming uses, it still says if non-conforming uses discontinued for a period of 180 days or more, regardless of intent to resume, any future use of confirmed to the code, does that then need to be changed to three years?

So that one is just, I believe, more about the... Like, if you had the property sitting vacant for a reason or another. Because right now, there's another portion in there where it talks about... That's a good point, though. I'll take a look and see if that one needs to be changed, too. I think that one is more about, like, vacancy, and then this would kind of supersede that whenever the damage happens. You know, like, it's not sitting vacant. It's destroyed. You know, but I'll... I'LL LOOK AT THAT ONE AFTER THIS AND IF WE NEED TO WE CAN CHANGE THAT ONE TOO.

NEW SPEAKER I HAVE ONE MORE.

NEW SPEAKER GO AHEAD.

NEW SPEAKER ONE MORE QUESTION ON WHAT IF A PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED AND THEN THE CITY TOLD THEM THEY HAD TO TEAR DOWN THAT PROPERTY? DO WE COVER THAT?

Yeah, so that would be, so if it was condemned, I would assume that that would cross over that 60% threshold.

Okay.

But again, if it was condemned, they would have, by the time it was condemned, they would have three years to pull a permit to rebuild to that same density.

Okay. Right, so let's say there's a meth house in this pad part of town. They've gone through the abatement process, which takes a long time. And this vacant house is sitting there, and now it's been condemned. It can sit there another three years to get that permit. So it can sit there two years, 11 months, right? Until they have to, until now they're not conforming anymore. And now they just simply have to rebuild the same structure. So it can sit there for a long time.

I feel like we're getting into a lot of weeds of it. At the end of the day, it's from the time it's determined to be damaged to the time you pull a permit is three years. Whatever those extenuating circumstances on the beginning OF IT BEFORE THAT ISN'T REALLY SOMETHING WE CAN CAPTURE.

NEW SPEAKER NO, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN CAPTURE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING FOR THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER, THE REALITIES OF WHAT GOES ON IN ANKWOOD. I'M SORRY. AGAIN, I WISH YOU WOULD ALL GO WITH TWO YEARS BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO STRICTURE LIKE THAT. BUT WE'LL GO WITH WHATEVER THE BOARD SAYS.

I think it's very rare or I cannot think of a circumstance where it would be a benefit for somebody to wait longer than necessary to get a house rebuilt and resold or occupied.

I can tell you, you get a tax write-off. You have a depreciation charge.

And you're paying property taxes.

Now you make more money on the vacant property and the vacant building than you do in property taxes. You actually, people who have vacant lots, well, first you do the demo. That's real cheap. Then you make your money on the vacant lot and the vacant building and a tax and a depreciation schedule. For instance, the apartments that are not built on 3600 Gallipago, I estimate their depreciation has been over a half a million dollars so far. They make money doing nothing. There's no incentive to build that house. You see what I'm saying?

Does anybody feel different about three years?

So if we could, just so there were, you know, kind of these three overarching bullet points. I think we've talked about the bottom one, but is there any heartburn, any extra comments or anything on the other two that we want to discuss tonight?

I just have a question about for these structures that you've identified that are nonconforming, are any, you know, have a history of nuisances or other infractions that, you know, these things should not be rebuilt?

Not that I'm aware of. There are 55 of them, so I'm sure some of them have a violation or two in their past.

But no, I don't think there's any that are like that.

If the house is destroyed in one manner or another, does it have to be built back up as it was?

exactly yeah so that was kind of what we talked about with um council during their study session is kind of gave them two options one would be that so right basically rebuild like for like the other option is just meet the district standards with your density that you had before they had preferred the second one kind of feeling that it it's kind of just if you if you basically if you make them rebuild it and then they can expand it it's just kind of shoehorning around regulations rather than just making it you know neatly forward um i get that i get the other option too um but yeah so this this as it stands would say you could just rebuild a new structure don't have to consider the old one what i'm thinking is that if it's destroyed and then your your neighbors do

big buildings next to you, and you want to change your design, what's the options for that?

Yeah, so, I mean, keep in mind, you know, all the other regulations of that district still apply. So your setbacks still apply, the bulk plane still applies, your height, your lot coverage, all of that. The only thing that's changing is the quantity of units that you can put in the structure. So, you know, it's kind of one of those, does it look like a duct, quack like a duct kind of things, where from the outside, besides having an extra door, there shouldn't really be that big of a difference on how the structure can look.

I have just a question that's not really related to what we need to decide, but I was just curious as to there's four in R1C that have more ADUs than permitted, and is that from long time ago, or was that recent?

Yeah, so any nonconformities were created through changes in code. So most of these, I would say, are predating a couple of rounds of code. For most of the last round of code, ADUs weren't even allowed. So I would say most of these are probably in the 60s and 70s when they were developed. I can say for those ones where they have too many accessory dwelling units. Most of those are like tiny little out structures on the back of the lot where they're all kind of separate.

So there's six of them total that have, you're allowed one ADU, so there's six of them that have like two ADUs or three ADUs? Yeah, it's just multiple.

So, you know, for the R1C ones, they're allowed... I believe for both of those districts, R1C and R2A, you can have one detached accessory dwelling unit. So that would be, you know, probably for most of those it's two.

Yeah. It's just an awful lot to fit on one lot, but that's why I was curious.

Yeah.

Okay.

Are they still in existence? Sorry, what was that? The ADUs that were more than permitted illegally, basically.

Are they still existing? Any of the things that are on this list were constructed legally. They just, through changes in code, whether that's them getting annexed into the city, a rezoning, or a change in the regulations, has now made them a prohibited use.

So it's all before our Code 16 changes and everything.

This wouldn't apply to anything that was built illegally. Correct.

If it's built illegally, this wouldn't apply to it.

Yeah, no, I was just curious, because it seems like to have more than one ADU, it's like that's a lot of people running around in one property. So OK, thanks.

But so on their mortgage, it would normally say non-conforming structure, and this is going to remove that, right?

No, they would still stay illegal.

It would still stay on there unless they...

Convert it back to a conforming use.

Okay.

I guess I have a question about a scenario where there are all these little ADUs. They rebuild to modern bulk plan and setbacks and have that many dwelling units that probably would be much larger. I imagine the impact to infrastructure could be a lot more. What would that look like?

Yeah, that's a good point. I hadn't considered that before. But for these ones that have too many accessory dwelling units, is that something where we want to limit still to having one detached accessory dwelling unit, and then you can keep the same density just as attached?

This is where I have a question. I've been trying to ask my question, and my light keeps turning off. It's OK. My light keeps turning off. So I'm a homeowner, and I bought one of these properties. I'm not really. But I brought one of these properties, and the way I qualified to get it was that I'm getting rent from two incomes in addition to the one I live in. And that's how my insurance is. And my insurance and my mortgage is going to require me to build it back to what it was. So we don't want to take that away from them if they have a mortgage. Now, if they don't have a mortgage, I mean, I don't think we could separate that out if you have a mortgage or if you don't have a mortgage. But I just think we have to be cautious of the person who qualified to get into that house and rented out those two units. If something happened, they wouldn't necessarily be able to rebuild another house that they can't afford to live in that would be within the scope of what the new code looks like.

Yeah, but would they have gotten a mortgage on a non-conforming ADU? Because it's non-conforming, and that's usually something that hangs up a mortgage.

But also, these duplexes and triplexes wouldn't necessarily be non-conforming, would they? I don't think so. I think it would just be a triplex. That's just how you would buy it. You wouldn't know that it was non-conforming.

But that's not an ADU. You can rebuild that.

Yeah, that's not an idea. So for most of these, right, so like the two mini unit, primary units, duplex, triplex, quadplex. So for most of those, you know, the second unit wouldn't meet the requirements to be considered an accessory dwelling unit. So maybe that's a side-by-side where they're, you know, both on the front of it. That could also be something where both units are 1,000 square feet or something like that. We did kind of look through all of the other nonconformities and kind of eliminate the ones that are illegal nonconforming use for more units but could rebuild to the same, like, to a legal standard today. So if they wanted to rebuild the exact same thing, we wouldn't consider it nonconforming today. Does that make sense?

Well, and I would think that when you Try to qualify for a loan. It's based on your income. True, it could include a couple other income streams from an ADU. But, you know, life happens. And even if you didn't have those ADUs, your income could go down for other reasons, too. So I don't think it really affects the mortgage so much. It would just affect how stretched you are personally. That's all.

But it would affect, because if the mortgage and insurance is requiring you to build back the same structure, and the city is requiring you to build a single family instead of a duplex,

No, that's what we're not. We are allowing them to put back a duplex or a triplex.

I guess that was my question earlier. I was asking, does that still allow me to do that? Okay.

We're making it easier for that to happen. So the current regulations, no. The proposed regulations, yes.

My thing is, like, if there's, like, a duplex with two ADUs, there's not supposed to be four units there, you know, does something, you know, four townhomes go up side by side there, would that be still legally nonconforming?

Yeah, so, and that was kind of, you know, the, you know, with what you brought up before, what's a good question, kind of, would like input on is, you know, for these ones where maybe they are in all detached structures, do we want to require them to be more of an attached structure rather than a bunch of single structures. But yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, if you were one of these few quadplexes in the R1C, yeah, you could come back and have a four-unit structure where they're each facing. You would get really limited by your bulk plane and your lot width, but you could do that.

Okay.

So you did allude to saying maybe you wouldn't allow the ADUs to rebuild. I think we're all in agreement that ADUs could rebuild into the same code requirement of basically allowing within three years, as long as you're building the same thing. I think that's what I'm hearing.

Yeah, or like, you know, you take the unit count, you know, pre-destruction, so if it was three or four, and then saying you can have your one accessory dwelling unit, and then the rest need to be in the primary structure, or we could say whatever was there before, if you had three structures, you can have three structures. And so which one is the preference?

I mean, I think we're talking about 11, I'm sorry, not even 11, 10 locations. I feel like they, should be able to go back to the way they were before and not have to mess with different numbers.

I think just stick to unit counts.

I mean, I don't think specify a building form or a number of structures. If y'all are good with that, that is easier to write.

So is there a second question then about allowing either to construct back to the pre, basically rebuild the same thing or allow for them to build anything with the same number of units? Is that still a question that we need to

So for that one, council made it pretty clear which one they wanted. But if you guys have any additions to that, you know, if there's any, like what we were just talking about with whether to allow multiple structures and that kind of thing, if you have any input like that on that one, I'd be happy to hear it.

What was council's preference?

Their preference was this so allowing for damage structures to be you know rebuilt without consideration of what was there before So you know basically what you guys have kind of said, you know, take the unit count.

That's that's what's important.

Yeah, okay Anybody have any thoughts other than otherwise Carl No matter whether it's fire what if if the house is made Not livable. Like it's a meth house or too many rodents in there, fire, whatever. Whatever creates it to be non-livable should be cleaned up or I think within a year or something. I think there should be a time frame on that.

YEAH, I'LL DOUBLE CHECK. I FEEL LIKE THOSE SITUATIONS ARE GOING TO FALL MORE UNDER THE BUILDING CODE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT. BUT IF THERE'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT ADDING IT, BUT I'LL DOUBLE CHECK THAT IT FITS UNDER THOSE.

I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CODE CHANGES PROPOSED. Are these nonconformities nonconforming uses or nonconforming structures? I understand that setbacks and things like that would be a nonconforming structure. But the use, these are residential uses in residential zones. So from a definitional perspective,

multi-family residential or is that considered a different use or is that a matter of the structure being divided like can you yeah we would so a non-conforming use would be these where it is a density that is too high or a unit count that's too high non-conforming structure is more things like setbacks and height and bulk plane and that those kinds of standards Right. The reason why there was that extra piece in those draft language where it also moves out into three years was just really to keep consistency between all these things. It would seem a little weird to, if your house burns down all the way, you can rebuild for three years, but if your house burns down a little bit, you can't rebuild after 180 days.

Okay. Next question, do you know, is it possible that any of these have divided ownership? Like, could you have a condo situation with any of these?

I'm not sure if any of them do have condos. I will say none of them could get a condo subdivision today. So if one of these applied for a condo subdivision, the answer would be no.

OK, but we don't know if they

might have done that?

Because that would complicate this whole thing, right? If you have a situation where one of these properties has multiple owners.

Yeah, and I think that's a lot of the tricky part of the way the current regulations stand is And even if it's not a condo, at some point you're saying that some people's homes are just not able to be rebuilt.

Right. Okay. And then the last thing I wanted to note about the language that's proposed here is just that you used properties plural instead of properties possessive.

Yeah. We'll fix it. Yeah.

Yeah.

Colin?

Yeah, just I guess maybe a quick follow-up question that I totally lost because I was thinking about your properties for a second.

I'll come back. Thanks. Okay, I remembered you. All right, so I think you're saying you all would prefer and almost have a requirement that it's not just if it burns down, but if it gets demolished also. To me, that feels like someone would be, I'm just going to come in and demolish this house and then rebuild what I want. But you're saying that's actually a better way to make sure there isn't any mal... Nefarious activities going on. Okay, so even though it feels a little weird and I don't necessarily like it, that's the better way to go about it?

Yeah. You know, it's one of those things where, like, you know, whenever you have that conversation with someone, you go, yeah, you can't... tear down your house but if something happens to your house you know it it it puts in an awkward spot where like you don't you don't want to force people to do that calculus so it it makes more sense to do treat them both the same and i guess i just you know these are non-conform uses these are uses that are in the neighborhood that's not supposed to be there theoretically and so for somebody to come in

and then buy it, and then tear it down, and then rebuild basically back what it was. It feels a little disingenuous also, but if that's the better way, then good.

Is there a difference in regulations on commercial or residential? For nonconformities? Like your picture there, it's... The left one looks residential and the right one looks commercial.

Yeah, so that's kind of the second bullet point on this. So there are some of these primarily on, like I said, Broadway, and then also the industrial areas just north of Dartmouth, where there are some residential areas houses in that area that are zoned industrial or commercial so those would not allow under current regulations to be rebuilt as single-family homes so the way the way this is currently written would allow for those to be rebuilt as well so it's kind of the same idea just in a different district

How would you determine what that allowable standard would be for an industrial district if you're rebuilding a single-family home?

So we would just take the same requirements that are allowed for that industrial district and then allow those for that single-family house. So you could get some goofy-looking house in there if you really wanted to with the zero-foot setbacks, but that's your own choice at that point.

I might have missed this at the top when you were explaining the changes. This applies to 60% damage and over. What about just people who want to change the footprint of their structure?

Yeah, so they already can. Okay. expand the structure to basically the same thing that they could expand if they were a conforming use. So this doesn't change anything about that. This just kind of, you know, if they wanted to demo more of the house to make it a different floor plan, this kind of makes that even easier too.

Okay. Carl?

There's a couple trailer parks down on Santa Fe. If one trailer catches on fire, it's basically going to destroy three. It's the primary and the neighbors of it. So are these regulations applied to trailer parks?

Let me see. I believe. Those are aye.

I think it's allowed.

So for trailer parks, I know they are a non-conforming use these days in those districts. I can't remember if they are... Yeah, so they... So right now, the way we regulate those would kind of be the same, where if you had a space and they... either they took away that trailer or that trailer got damaged, they can replace that same trailer. So we kind of treat those as the trailer or the mobile home park is the non-conforming use, and you had 50 spaces. So as long as there are 50 parks all in the same spots they were before, that's allowed. Does that make sense? I don't know if I explained that well or not.

So we have a lot more rentals or apartments nowadays. It's probably up to the owner of the apartment building, not the renter, if there's a fire in an apartment.

Yeah, so for apartments, most of those, I'm not sure if there are any in these single-family districts, but the way the current code, so not this updated one, but the current code, says is basically if you allow for that number of units, you just don't have the lot size for it, that's still already allowed. So if it was like a 16-unit apartment building on a piece of land that was only big enough for 12, you could still build up to 16 under the current code.

And the new code still says the same thing, but yeah.

Other questions? For Will.

Will, do you need more clarity from us on any of these?

I don't think so. So just to recap, I think we landed it around three years for the rebuild time. I'll check about the 180 days in C3 section. We're good with If there are, we're basically just keeping track of the unit count, not necessarily requiring a certain design type. And then fixing some typos. I think that was it.

Sound good?

Appreciate it. All right. Thanks, Will. All right. Well, that takes us to staff's choice.

Will, you have anything for us?

I'm done talking.

All right, Colin.

I'll add one thing. So for the next meeting, July 21st, we are anticipating another study session. This is going to be on an overview of the water supply element, as well as the strategic growth elements, which were a part of the 2024 Bay Lips legislation. So we'll bring that forward.

And that's all I've got.

All right. Thank you and welcome. Shelly?

Okay. Attorney's choice.

Jackson. Nothing from us tonight. Thank you.

Thanks. And Commissioner's choice.

Let's start with Colin. Good. Thanks. I'm good.

I was just going to say I'm going to attend the next meeting online via Zoom. And Nancy knows. She'll send me a link. Just thought I'd let you know.

Thanks. Michelle. Carl.

Right across the hall here is the Inglewood History Museum, and it's going to be opening with a display of the Inglewood schools from the first schools to now. That will be opening this Saturday. This Saturday? The 11th is, yeah. So it's free. If you're here and you want to walk through there, you can just come in and look around. NEW SPEAKERS.

NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS. NEW SPEAKERS.