A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 610 South Vine Street in Washington Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 610 South Vine Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-7-22.
Thank you. Thank you. We have no individual signed up to speak on this item this evening. Are there any questions for members of Council on Council Bill 20 20583. Seeing none. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council and Council Bill 20 20583. Councilwoman CdeBaca. I'm just I'm very supportive of this and hope the rest of my colleagues will be as well. Okay. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20 20583. Can I? CdeBaca, I. Black Eye. Clark I. Gillmor, i. Herndon Hines. I. Cashman, i. Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 12 hours. 12 days cancel 22 days, 0583 has passed. Councilmember Haynes, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0654 on the floor for final passage? I move the council bill 22 to 0 654 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 20654 is open. May we have the staff report? Hello, everyone. My name is Ed Semifinals. I'm here with 616 South Main Street. The current zoning is a single family zone district applying for a single family zone district with an 80 year. Now we're looking at a different part of town. This is Council District six in Cashman's district. This is located in Washington Park neighborhood. The site itself is just east of Wash Park. It is a single family house that is 6240 square foot. And the request is to allow for an excessive volume. The site itself is currently on us, you see, which is urban single unit C with the minimum block size of 5500 square feet. It is surrounded by us, you see. This single unit is on the street all around it. So the site itself is in the top left corner, which is a one story structure. But throughout this neighborhood we do see one, two, two story structures predominate single unit. So it went before the planning board on May 2nd. It was approved unanimously. But to date, we have had several comments. We've had two letters of support that are in the staff report, but we've had six letters of opposition, including the East Washington are are now who voted voted that the application is not consistent with the with the review criteria and they specified it within the staff report and then as well as six letters of of opposition mentioned concerns with property values, parking, traffic, noise, quality of life, short term rental impacts to the neighborhood, as well as safety concerns as well as density concerns specifically and opposition. There are several review criteria that we look at when analyzing the specific Maps amendment. The first one is to see what the plans for this specific part of town. We're only focusing on two plans, which is comprehensive plan 2040 as well as Blueprint Denver Land Use and Transportation Plan 2019. So there's several strategies specified in comprehensive a plan that are mentioned in the staff report. And I'm just going to jump into a good blueprint to classify this area as urban. When we look at the future place type, this area is classified as residential low, where it's predominantly single and two unit uses where accessory dwelling units are appropriate here. Vine Street is a local street, which is primarily characterized by residential uses. And then this specific site is classified as other areas of the city within the Future Growth Strategy Map, where we anticipate to see 10% of new employment as well as 20% of new housing. Blueprint has specific language around accessory dwelling units, which is found in the land use and built form housing policy number forward. It calls for diversifying housing choices through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. For review criteria two, three and five. It is specified in the staff report and for the fourth criteria which is justifying circumstance. It is consistent based on a city adopted plan from Blueprint Denver that was read earlier. Therefore CPD recommends approval based at all the findings of the report to have been met. Staff is available for questions as long as the applicant check is on for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening online. We've got Fred Blick. Thank you, members of council. I appreciate your time tonight. My name is Fred Glick. I live at 3850 North York in Denver's Clayton neighborhood. I am the vice chair of the Denver Planning Board. But I'm here today in my individual capacity. And while I'm here to speak in favor of this map, amendment is made. Be clear by the plan for post rezoning meets the criteria and given our commitment to it using Blueprint Denver. There's really too much to my mind, no good argument against this rezoning. However, I was so deeply concerned by one of the letters received in opposition that I felt compelled to be here tonight to speak to the points raised by the applicant's neighbors. These neighbors state that their neighborhood is one of Denver's most expensive, and they make clear their belief that they view potential edu residents whom they anticipate to be people of lesser means as a threat to the safety of their teenage daughters. They go on to describe 80 residents is generally transient and in transition. They mention in the midst of divorce, recently unemployed, in rehab, convicted criminals. I'm not even quite sure to start with this. The idea that certain people have no place in our residential neighborhoods for at least our most expensive ones because they're of lesser means that people in transition shouldn't be around families. There are no divorces with children who are loving parents. There are no recovering alcoholics who are washed. Park homeowners, rich people with criminal convictions are more worthy somehow than poor people with convictions. And sadly, I'm reminded of the ugly rhetoric around blockbusting. People who are different from you are coming. Hide your wives and daughters. I have an 80, you and my ten. It is admittedly in transition. She's an oncology nurse completing her pre-med requirements so that next year she can start med school. She's transitioning from being a nurse to being a doctor. I urge you to reject the sort of fear mongering that the neighbors have put forth and support this rezoning. Thank you. Think. Think, think, think, think. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0654. Councilman Cashman. Yeah, just a couple of questions for you, please. Would you remind me what is the maximum size accessory dwelling unit that's permitted under the request to district? So the maximum size is 864 based off the large size that can be built here. And there's a height as well as four detached structures. It's 24 feet. Okay. Do we have any evidence whatsoever that the addition of an accessory dwelling unit diminishes property values? No. Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no one else in the queue. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 20654. Councilman Cashman Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I do think this I think this application meets the legal criteria by which we assess rezoning applications. I think Blueprint Denver is clear in its direction that accessory dwelling units are applicable in all neighborhoods. This is a neighborhood that has had tremendous change in the past couple of decades. My my friends, council Councilman Clark grew up in this neighborhood and I think is very as familiar as anyone with the level of change. I lived on Virginia Avenue across from Wash Park for many years and in a bungalow that still exists. But in throughout the neighborhood, these small bungalows have been replaced block after block by extremely large homes, and that have certainly changed the nature of the neighborhood. I still think it's a wonderful community in which to live, and I don't subscribe with due respect to the neighbors that that are in opposition. I don't believe that the addition of an 850 square foot home addition is a threat to the character of the neighborhood. I think it has every opportunity to gently diversify that community and provide much needed housing for for those that are not going to be able to afford property in that neighborhood. So I fully believe it's, uh, something worth supporting.