A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2070 South Franklin Street in University. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2070 S. Franklin Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-3-22.
Good evening. Tonight we have six public hearings for those participating in-person when called upon. Please come to the podium on the presentation monitor on the wall. You will see your time counting down for those participating virtually. When called upon, please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will ask permission to allow us to promote you. Please accept the promotion. Once you accept the promotion, your screen will flash and say, reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one. And your microphone. You will see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you have finished speaking, you will change back to participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their Home Address. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member Black. Will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash 471 on the floor for final passage? Yes. Yes, Madam President. I moved to cut Council Bill 20 20471 on the floor for final consideration. All right. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 22, Dash 471 is open. Maybe. Please have the staff report. Good afternoon. Members of City Council. My name is from Senior City Planning City, Senior City Planner with Planning Services. And today I'm here to present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 2017. South Franklin Street. The subject property is located in Council District six. In the university neighborhood. The property owner is proposing to rezone his property to a district with a smaller minimum standard size at 9370 square feet. The subject property is more than twice the 4500 square foot minimum lot size of the required of the requested USB one. Therefore it is rezone a future zone. That amendment would create two separate standards, with each being permitted to have a single unit dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit. The property is currently currently in the urban single unit season district, which is which in this location would only allow for the urban housebuilding for minimum standard size of 5500 square feet. And as you can see on the map, the property is surrounded by properties also. So and you as you see with some others, three and some all could be two on Evans Avenue. The current land use of the site is single unit residential and it is mostly surrounded by other single unit uses and commercial retail uses along Evanson. You can also see in the land use map that the University of Denver campus is only two blocks east and Asbury Elementary School is two blocks west. This slide shows that the subject property is located in a residential area and it gives you an idea of the character of the neighborhood. Now, if you take a look at the image on the bottom left of the slide, you can see that the existing one storey house is located all the way to the north of the property. This will allow for the construction of a union, a union new unit, without having to demolish the existing structure. Now, speaking of the process or informational notices have been sent out. According to the Denver Zoning Code Requirements Planning Board recommended approval anonymously on April 20th, and the city county public hearing was scheduled for July 13th, but then had to be rescheduled for tonight. To date, staff has received seven Komen letters, six in support and one in opposition to the rezoning. The letter in support of the rezoning outlines. The letters of support of the rezoning, outline their support to your rezonings in general and to this particular location. Given the size of the lot and its proximity to Evans Avenue, stop, receive one letter from the University Neighbors Neighborhood Association that is opposing all requests for variance that could potentially increase the number of residence vehicles and fits to be suspended until CPD can clarify the impacts and specific requirements are addressed. Given that this is a rezoning and not a request for a variance, stuff replied to the R.A. and explained They are different processes and different boards. The letter or responses are attached to a staff report. Now let's look at the Denver zoning code. We have seen five review criteria. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to rezoning. We have a comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. As they do in the staff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals of the comprehensive plan 2040. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Moving on to Denver blueprint Denver the subject properties mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context in blueprint Denver. And the future places map designated as low residential place names displays the display states have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Franklin Street is designated as Residential Collector Street, which are mostly characterized by residential uses. In Denver also provides guidance on when it's appropriate to respond to a school district with a smaller minimum standard size. It's appropriate when a pattern of smaller loads with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. Well, most of the single unit residential loads contained in the same block as a subject property have a lot size consistent with existing us. You see district and I 5500 square feet or greater the block to the north northwest and northeast of the subject block show a clear pattern of lots that are smaller than the 5500 square feet more consistent with the US. You be one. Well, not as prominent. The block to the east of the block. To the west of the subject site site also shows a pattern of lots that are smaller than 5500 square feet. Therefore, there is a pattern of single unit residential, smaller lot sizes in the surrounding blocks, and the applicant's proposal of a district with a smaller in both size is consistent with the future. Places map and Blueprint. Denver. The growth area in Denver is all areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing policy number four focuses on diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Staff also finds that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of this regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through its implementation of at the top the plans. As discussed above. According to Blueprint Denver, it is appropriate to respond to a district with a smaller load size than the current district. If a pattern of similar nodes with similar uses exists in the surrounding blocks. It also specifically recommends the city diversify housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. This plan was adopted after the date of approval of the existing zone districts. Therefore, these are appropriate, justified circumstances for the proposed rezoning. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the US would be one. So this stuff does work. I'm in approval based on finding all the review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, Franz, for the staff report. We have two individuals signed up to speak on this this evening. Our first speaker is Mitchell Benson in person and chambers here. Yeah. Thank you, Fran. And good evening, City Council. Thank you for serving our great city and for taking the. Time tonight to review this matter. My name is Mitch Benson. I'm here on behalf of myself and my longtime friend and business partner, Joe Miller. Joe and I were born and raised in Denver and grew up together in Platt Park, just blocks away from the property being discussed. We both attended DPS, including the neighborhood schools of Asbury and South High School. After college, early career opportunities and graduate school took us all over the country. But we. Both knew. Deep down that we wanted to make our way back to the Mile High. City to build our. Businesses and raise our families. In fact, I. Personally owned a home at 1836 South Franklin Street since. 2010. I'm very familiar with the character of the university neighborhood, having lived off and. On just two blocks from 2017 South Franklin Street for the last. 12 years, as discussed 2017 South Franklin Street has a very large lot is right off a very lively Evans Avenue sits three blocks from the University of Denver and is in a group of blocks, as well as a broader neighborhood where there is. A pattern of homes being zoned for us to be. When looking at the zoning map. There's a established pattern in the surrounding blocks of smaller lots with similar uses. We believe that this free zone request is consistent, which with such uses and general character of the surrounding blocks and is sensitive to the existing character while offering residents a mix of uses. We're also confident the proposed map change is consistent with the objectives of the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040, including, but not limited to increasing development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments. This free zone will allow additional housing close to the University of Denver light rail station and multiple RTD bus lines on Evans, AV and Downing Street. Also increase in the development of senior friendly and family friendly housing, including units and multiple with multiple bedrooms and multi-family developments. This rezone will allow for one rundown, two bedroom house to be replaced by two family friendly houses with accessory dwelling units that aid use are desired so that our grandparents. Always have the option to live close. To health and are in their grand grandchildren. This would also promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. This free zone will allow for a second single family house with accessory dwelling units in this location without placing additional burden on the city's infrastructure. In fact, the law already has two Denver water meters, so it is likely split at some time in its history. This was also. This will also increase housing in a walkable neighborhood within close proximity to city transit. And then finally, this will focus growth by transit stations and along high and medium capacity transit corridors. This free zone will allow for additional housing within 2.6 miles. That's the time we have a lot of OC. And so I might ask you to come back up and answer it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our next speaker is Jesse Perez joining us via Zoom. City Council. The mayor behind. Okay. I'll take that as a yes. My name is just Allyson Paris, and I'm represented for Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Positive Vaccine Command for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residence Council, front line Black knows, and I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. And I reside in District eight and Christopher Herndon's district. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. As you all know, I have supported 80 youth since their inception into the Denver code, which allowed for them to be built in the first place since 29, when I ran for city council at large and almost 15,000 with no money or media representation or exposure. And in 22, I still continue to support accessory dwelling units. I would love to see them in every single district and neighborhood in the city, along with tiny whole villages, a safe outdoor camp. So I'm in favor of this rezoning. Good job, Kathleen. You got this for. All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0471 Council Member Flynn. Thank you. Madam President. Mr. Benson, could you. I think you said there were two water meters serving the property that I hear there correctly. The reason I ask is there is a structure in the back on the alley that is not a garage, but it looks like it already is and perhaps made to you. Are there there are two water meters there. Yeah, there's two separate water meters. The only ones in use. There's, there's a shed on the back side of the property. But. But nothing else. So what does the second tap? What did that serve at one time, do you know? I don't know the history there. I just would assume that at some point it was split. It's a very large lot. And as Fran mentioned, the south side is is more or less just the empty lot that's connected. There was never a second house on the site. Yeah. Not to my knowledge. I don't know. And you. You grew up up the street or you lived up the street? Yeah, I grew up in Platt Park, just across in. Okay. But what is that second structure? There's a small house, and then there's a small shed. Much storage shed. Basically a storage shed. Yeah. And so if this is approved, you would you could apply for a lot split and develop two single units into it. Correct. So increasing it greatly increasing the value of that property. Correct. Okay. Thank you. A friend. How often do we rezone properties into a different letter of the code? So we're going from, as you see, to as you be. And so what we're doing on that block is we're saying this lot because it's a little larger, we're going to zone it B instead of C like everything else around it . In order that we can then put two houses on smaller lots. That's a little bit out of character for that block. How often have we done that? Well, we have that language in European that allows that when there is a pattern. So we. Are. We only allow it because of that language in Blueprint Denver that talks about the pattern. So we only recommend approval or we support the cases where we see a pattern. So we see that even when there might be some see actually we see that there is enough of these lots that have more of like the pattern of the be. We also are not supportive when it involves demolishing a house. So we've had cases where the houses smack in the middle and we try not to encourage demolishing. So but in this case, it's clearly all the way up the north. So you'd be pretty easy to develop south. So we think it's a because there is the pattern and because the house is not in the middle, we think that it is possible. Okay. Thank you. Just one last thing. Not necessarily a question, but a comment. In the staff report, it says that the the route, the RTT routes 21 and to 12 run on 12 hour and 15 minute had ways. They do not they run 30 minute headways. And that might have been 15 in the past. But with the service challenges RTD has had, I believe they cut back, but they're currently on a half half hour headways. So I know that. Maybe staff could just check the current RTD schedules on things like those half hour headways are not frequent transit. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Hoyer. Thanks, Madam President. Is it still. The case that. You cannot build an 82 on a lot unless you live on the lot. Unless you. I'm sorry. Live on the lot. Yes, that is right. That's correct. Okay. I'm just. I guess that would be something that would be discussed in the site planning process of this, but never. Be able to permit the edu the owner needs to be. The owner needs. To reside on the lot. Yeah. Okay. So based on the information we've been provided tonight, the plan that's in place is not possible. And I mean, for what I understand and I'll leave this to the applicant, but it's him and his friend that they're going to once they split the lot, each one is going to live in one of the lots. So then you would have the owners living on site. So then they would be able to build the area after. Yeah. So it would be two separate permits. Yeah. Okay. I guess I. Understand what you're saying. So just one last question. I guess to clarify then, is there a. Is there specific language in Blueprint? I understand. That there's specific language around. The. Situation we have here. Is there specific language improved in Blueprint that addresses spot rezonings? So I don't think there's specific language and maybe I could ask Andrew if he can confirm, but I don't think there is specific language about what we signing. But this wouldn't be a really spot rezoning because we're following like the guidance group in Denver. So it's well, like the fact that it's one rezoning doesn't mean that it's not on. Okay. But so it is about rezoning. It's just that blueprint. Denver hasn't an exception for this specific kind of spot rezoning in it. If everything around it is us uses you as you see and worries on in one parcel to USB one, that's a spot rezoning. There's a few inside. Good evening. Oh, we've. Changed the microphone. Here. Andrew Webb, Community Planning and Development. I'm one of the team leads for our rezoning team. Typically, I would I would think of us of a spot rezoning where we're making a significant change that is in conflict with a plan, guidance for a specific site rezoning an individual property consistent with planning guidance would not qualify as a spot rezoning and blueprint does recommend as as Fran noted, changing or acknowledging that existing zoning on a site may not be a match in terms of lot size. So Councilmember Flynn talked about the letter at the end of the of the zoning description. Those refer to specifically the minimum lot size for development. And in this case, it's fairly clear that the much larger lot with development only on one side. And so according to blueprints, language about establishing different or changing minimum lot sizes, it would be consistent with that plan guidance and so therefore would not be what we would consider a spot zoning. Okay. But the criteria that we have to look at for the uniformity of context is would create a situation where this is not a uniform context. But is that correct? Well, the context the neighborhood context would not change. And that's I think that's what that's in reference to. The only thing that would change here would be the minimum lot size and that we applicants propose rezonings to change minimum lot size fairly frequently when their property doesn't actually match up with the zoning that exists. And so Blueprint has that language about, you know, if there is an existing pattern of of of lot sizes in that smaller that would be would would align with that smaller minimum lot size district then it is appropriate to rezone to those smaller lot sizes. And so in this area we look at the pattern of loss and in a particular neighborhood and if we see a variety like we do in this particular location and a pattern of smaller lots, we would support a rezoning based on that language and blueprint. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Clark. Then he. Becomes president. I feel like we've gotten different answers about this. So I just want to clarify and maybe this is something that we could get some follow up on. It was my understanding from previous conversations about aid use. Anyone can build the developers in Central Park. I've got developers in Platt Park who have built a house with an idea that the rule is in order to have two different leases or two separate groups living there. You have to live in one. But it has happen all the time in. That I've seen in. Entire areas of Central Park that were developed by some a developer who was never going to live there with an idea that the rules around ideas were around who can reside there, not about who could build in 80 because they could build in 82 and then rent that entire thing to someone totally different. I just can't rent to you in the front. I have to live in. One of them. No. So, I mean, anyone can build it. But once you primitive, like the person that lives in the area, you can you can move out and rent the whole house. Like, let's say I own a house in Central Park and I move out and I want to rent my house and I rent it to just one family . Like what you're saying? So they. And for them to leave and use it. You can you can do that. That's not allowed. People do it. It's very difficult to enforce it, but it's not legally allowed. They can read the entire thing. As long as I'm renting to one family that occupies the Adu and the house, they just can't rent the house to one person and rent the area to a second person. You can rent like in theory, you're supposed to disable the edu, so you're supposed to take the gas lines and you're supposed to remove the. I think it's like a closet. It's something. That it's crazy. But you're supposed to look like and we've had cases here where the applicant had to do that and then come and resign because they didn't know. So we brought before you like cases where like I remember clearly one case, one person that she did that and she got in trouble because one of the neighbors kind of got her in trouble. So she had to disable the new common reason for to your district. And then she was able to. The ability to get to you if it makes sense. I think we're talking about multiple things here. So I'll get back to you and maybe I will have some questions maybe for your ADD. That doesn't have to happen right now. But back to what you had said, and I think we both said anyone can build in 80. So a site development plan can come in to say I'm going to build two homes with two to use. It is about who then occupies lives and possibly owns there that the rules around but anyone you do not have to currently reside on the property to build in to you. Know I mean if you have a developer and the owner is already. A. I'm usou a one or b one. It already allows for you to use like if it's already sewn for you to use. A developer could come and build their house with an idea you and then the person that buys that house would have to be only one like. Or if the the person that rents the house, you'd have to be only one. But be sure you would have to be only the owner, right? Because if he was a renter, like if you were renting it out, if the developer was renting it, couldn't rent it. If it had the you. It makes sense because that. The 80 you. Bishop is right. Oh, sorry. It's just. That they went up like. That. It is correct that somebody could build an accessory dwelling unit and have two dwellings, a primary dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit on a property, and then sell that property. And then for two households to rent on that property, one living in the primary house and one living in the accessory dwelling unit would not be possible. The owner of the property would either have to live in the primary dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit. But a developer or or a home builder can build a house in an ADU, but it does release back to who is actually living there. So anyone can build it. Anyone can build it. No restriction. And if I own that property, I can rent the entire property out. I just cannot rent to two different people. I is the owner don't have to live there. I can rent it to one person or one family unit and they can occupy the entire thing. But I would I would like to get back to you on that one, because that's one of the issues that we're looking at, the ideas in Denver about renting the whole house. That's that's been a big issue that we're like in the eighties in Denver. And I think Councilwoman Blake is in that committee. Like, we were like, that's one of the issues that we're having is like people don't want to build an 80 U because again, I've had multiple applicants that are having that issue that they don't want to build it because they're not sure if they're going to move out. They like this attaches me to a house because they can rent it if it has the issue. Yeah, my again, my understanding was now I have two units and a mortgage big enough for two years and I can't rent it like two units. I can only write one. But but I think I'll get back to you. I think we've gotten to the crux of what I was trying that what I heard or understood from this site plan wouldn't be allowed. It would, right? Because anybody can build it. It's about who occupies it. But I would love to follow up on the other question outside of this hearing, especially with everything we have going on tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you, President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clarke. The public hearing is closed comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 471. Councilmember Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. You know, for me, we have a lot split. The the main question is, does it become an anomaly in the neighborhood or does it fit into the neighborhood pattern? And the map that is in this slide deck shows that they're the larger lot size that exists currently is only 3% of that area . And the smaller large size that the applicant is requesting is about 27% of that area. So the new large size, it seems to me, would actually fit in better than in the existing large size and should be owner should the applicant end up making a profit on that at some point? We're living in a capitalist world and that's probably not the only case of profit in our city that year. So I do think it meets all the criteria and I will be supporting the application. So I do hope my colleagues will join me. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn. Madam President, I just want to briefly remark that I'm glad that CPD isn't recommending that you go all the way down to A because this large size could support, as you say, the minimum lot size of 3000. You can fit three units and three, eight years on there. I certainly hope that's not the policy to jump down to levels, but just one. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And also in support of this this evening, it does meet all of the criteria and will be voting in favor of it. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 471, please. See tobacco. I. Hines. I. Can each. I. Sandoval. Cashman. Ortega. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black CdeBaca. Clark. All right. An I. Herndon. Not everyone. All right. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. You have a nice. 11 I's Council build 20 2-471 has passed. Councilmember Black, will you please put council bill 20 2-475 on the floor for final passage. I move that council bill 20 20475 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.