A bill for an ordinance vacating the alley located between Irving Street and Hooker Street north of West 17th Avenue, without reservations. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Vacates an alley between North Irving Street and North Hooker Street, North of West 17th Avenue in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 4-28-16.
You. Yeah, I'm going to read actually from a paraphrased email that I sent not on this particular parcel, but it's the exact same situation. And I've asked that other situation, vacation, alley vacation be brought to committee to talk about this very issue. So I'm bringing this request to the attention of the Denver of Denver residents. This is a land grab utilizing city policy that gives considerable deference to developers with total disregard for the impact on the surrounding community. For 100 years, Northwest Denver has had these mid-block carriage lots that have been de facto open spaces. Since 2010, the city with a complete lack of foresight created zoned districts that allow a destabilizing amount of lot coverage and density in historically single family and duplex neighborhoods. Prior to 2010, these mid-block carriage lots existed almost solely in. In. Means being more creative in the earliest days of Denver. So these are square lots with a with a carriage lot that exists for actually for more of a public facility historically if these. So when a developer makes a request for these land parcels, we charge them $1,000 application fee and two $300 additional fees to give them the right to take. I mean, to have tens of thousands of dollars of development land developable or land. So if this vacation is found to be technically feasible, the request proceeds unchecked and the developer will gain the ability to develop and sell additional square footage and units. That would not be possible without this vacation. And there is no recourse by the adjacent property owners when this is requested because it is a technical consideration only. So that said, it then falls upon council after everybody else has vetted it and said, well, there's no technical violation, is there actually any need to actually vacate this land ? And so when we vote on these items, we're voting on whether it's acceptable or not for us to to, to, to to surrender this land. Now, I understand there's policies and we're I've asked that we look at to how we dispose of these properties because other municipalities don't do it the way we do it. And I understand that we do it by some amalgamation of state statute and city charter and in our own policies. But this is these are occurring since 2010 in our historic neighborhoods that have these square blocks, which is the original town of Highlands. And unfortunately, where we have GMU three zoning, which is fairly egregiously dense land coverage with minimal parking standards, you're taking you're allowing new development into the center core of a block where these units look into the backyards of house after house after house after house. And we're not getting anything as a city in return for this. And I just my question, why? So I would like to I called this out for a vote because I, I don't see despite the technical lack of technical and feasibility, I don't see any reason or purpose to to grant this property moving forward. I do see a need to maintain this sort of open space that we have historically had in this city. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect to my colleague, Councilman Espinoza, this is Council District three. And first of all, this is the other than watching the mayor council and realizing there was an issue with it, I understand that there's a larger policy question on vacation rallies. But first of all, I you know, this isn't the highlands, this is the Slums Lake area. This particular area in Irving along 17th between Irving and Hooker is pretty highly developed. And it would. You know, it's basically chasing down jumbo jet fuel. And on the runway, this development has always taken, already taking place, and it has substantially changed the character of this particular area. So the the second I think is an issue, and I wanted to call on our assistant city attorney, Mr. Broadwell. There's an inference of us getting something for the vacation. It's my recollection that in state statute, that's illegal. That prevents us from the city from getting compensated for any kind of vacation to an alley. Is that right, Mr. Burrows? There's something that I guess is can you help clarify that that question? Mr. President? David Broadwell, assistant city attorney, the the state statute doesn't make it illegal. The state statute doesn't. Require compensation for a. Vacation. It's silent on the question of whether or not you can charge. Traditionally, the city attorney's office has expressed concern about. Charging for real estate as an. Asset that the city didn't pay for to begin with. And in the absence. Of a provision for. Compensation in the statute. We've interpreted it strictly by the book following the procedures. Following the criteria. In the statute, without adding a compensation element. As a matter of custom and practice, I think Councilman. Espinosa was alluding to that. But it doesn't flat out say you can't charge. It's just been interpreted by us for years to. Say that we shouldn't. Thank you, Mr. Broadwell. And like I said, that's a larger policy discussion, I think. I don't see it fit or necessary to to hold this up until we have that policy discussion. You know, this has its due process and it's moving through counsel. This was brought up relatively recently. So like I said, I think when it comes to the character and the area. You know, this is not unique in any way in that particular corner, in that particular part of the city. So and I haven't had any kind of public. No. I mean, nobody's called my office opposed to it or concerned about it. Certainly nobody in that particular area. So thank you. I think that I'll just I'm going to vote for this to move it forward. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. I have a couple of questions on this. The first one is just trying to clarify. I know we've seen development all up and down 17th Avenue in this area. Is this a site that has already been developed and that this land has been incorporated into? Can somebody has just come? Angela. Hi there. Angela Casey is for Denver Public Works. And I believe they are in the process of of creating the development. Now, I don't know how far along they are and in the development. Okay. I know sometimes this is a chicken and an egg situation, but I think before we allow development and I'm not sure that we actually have had other situations where the development starts and then we come back and do the vacation later. But if for some reason City Council decided not to approve one and the development had already started, I think that puts this body in the city in a very precarious situation. So I think at a minimum, we would want to make sure that the the vacation of any street or alley takes place before, you know, the development is allowed to begin. That that that is usually the case. And in fact, I believe now that this this situation is coming back to me there. There the owner the property. Owner owns. Like the adjacent property. And so is just asking for a vacation to complete the parcel. Okay. I know we had another one of these in the Jefferson Park neighborhood where the city was asked to vacate land. And this allowed, you know, a pretty high density development to go in where there was some parking challenges. And I don't know how much we're addressing the parking issue as part of this, but I think it's important to make sure that all those details are covered as part of the project before, you know, it's allowed to proceed. And so I'm just trying to get clarification on this one before I know how I'm going to vote on it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you back up? Yeah. So? So I can almost be assured that they're not moving forward with the development because they don't have this right today. They can develop their existing parcel that fronts the street to whatever GMU three allows, but they can't develop on the carriage lot because it not habitable units because it doesn't address the street. So what this vacation does then allows them to connect these two parcels and develop an additional six or so units on that on that property, all deeply. Right, smack smack in the center of this square block. This is exactly what's going on in Jefferson Park. Time and time again, more recently, this is the first one that's come up since I've been on council, which is why I'm opining here and I'll opine more heavily on the one that is in my district. But more recently, this is the exact case of the Anderson House and I did not sit on this dais for that . Otherwise I would have countered the developer, I mean, the arguments that were laid out there. But the reality is, is that when you when a homeowner who owns these parcels sells them individually, they have a certain value. But when you vacate this valuable land that joins these two parcels. Now you've increased the development potential dramatically. And so this was the case in the Anderson House where the homeowner had three distinct parcels and two of them, I mean, two were separated from one through a vacation. The city vacated that land, and that's where that $1.6 million valuation came from, because now you've added that additional development potential . So it's not lost on me that three days after that property was sold, the developer then turnkey that whole development for $2.26 million, making more money in three days than the prior owner had made in 30 years. And so that's what's going on here. The developer has acquired both parcels with this, with certain development rights on one and not on the other. By virtue of us vacating it, we're granting significant additional development potential. And in again, this is not through a rezoning process. It's not through a public process. The only reason we're talking about it is because I called it out. And and this is if you look at the character of that block, aside from what's going on on 17th Avenue, you don't have this sort of density. And you didn't historically, you know, you had a certain amount of density in the former, what I believe would have been R3, but it had open area requirements and and more parking requirements than what we allow in the GMU today. And so this is character altering and dramatic. And so I am going to I'm articulating all this because this is a conversation that never occurred in 2010 aside from in local areas, and it hasn't occurred until now. And so I'm going to be talking about this now, and I respect the votes where they go. But we need to have this discussion because there aren't. The good news is there's so few of these square parcels in the city of Denver with these cares lots that this won't be happening very often, but there are still a few and they still impact surrounding neighborhoods. Councilman. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez, you back? Thank you. Like I said, with all due respect, this is not a rezoning. And the second thing is that it's an open kind of parcel. And it's an alley that needs to be vacated. Is going to not going to dramatically change the character of this particular block. It's something that, you know, we see these alley vacations go through all the time without any major hiccups. And there are some absolutely in in the north side that, you know, that prompts a closer look. But this is not one of those. At least not not from what I can tell in this area. And I said in Council District three, you know, fortunately, you know. We don't have that that issue up there. So most of this area has been developed the way it is with the heights that it has. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilman Brooks. I'm not getting into this debate, but I just want to have this a clarifying question. Don't you notify neighbors, council people for any Ali vacation? Yes. Okay. We have a public process. Okay. I've been through about four or five of these. And I know that it's a huge public process for for our neighbors. And I just wanted to make sure that folks didn't think that the city was sneaking through alley vacations. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. All right. Hey, Councilman Espinosa. You betcha. I know. I got notified. What is the actual notify notification that goes to adjacent property owners? I believe there's a notification that goes out to the ages of property owners, to the RINO's in the area as well. I believe there. Is a sign posted physically on the property with a with an email address and contact information for people to reach someone to give public input. So was there any public input received? No. Thank you. In that. And just for the record, that when we submit those vacations, when we submit our ordinance requests, if there is public comment or any. Or anything that we are. Not able to resolve, we'll let you know in the ordinance request. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that's another think, Angela. And the other comments, questions to 97. All right. It's on the floor. So seeing no comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. ESPINOSA No. Flynn Hi. Gilmore I can each. Lopez I knew Ortega. Susman. Brooks Clark. All right. Mr. President, I. Councilman Ortega. I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close me now. So, results. Ten eyes, one knee. And eyes one day 297 has been ordered published. All right. That was all that were called out. So all of the bills for introduction are ordered published. We're ready for the block votes. Councilman Ortega, could you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption and a block? Absolutely. For resolutions. Number 3083093 1034 315. 301302 316 299 and three or four. All be ordered published.