A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way at 2329 Eliot Street, without reservations. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Vacates portions of the alley north, east, and south of the carriage lot with the address 2329 North Eliot Street in Council District 1. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-22-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 5-21-15.
I'd like to make some comments. Okay, let's see. We have Councilman Ortega and Councilwoman Rob. So as you recall, this bill came up for first reading last week and I had raised some questions about the fact that so this vacation is actually for a carriage lot owned by the city of Denver, and the adjacent property owner would benefit from the vacation. And in the conversations I've had with city staff, that property owner would not have to buy the land. It would just be, I guess, given to that property owner. This abuts federal boulevard where there is no parking. This is in a neighborhood that we're seeing major transformation or transition, if you will. And the issue of parking is a big concern overall for particularly for those residents that live on Federal Boulevard who cannot park on federal. And a number of those residents have historically utilized this carriage lot for parking. But in addition, there is an application for historic designation on the home adjacent to this particular site. The hearing on that will be July the seventh. On that application. This will give us the opportunity to hear what that recommendation is. And then City Council can do whatever they choose to do with this vacation at that time. So that's why I am requesting that we have a postponement on this bill until July the 13th. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. I do concur with Councilwoman Ortega and would ask that my colleagues seriously consider that. But I had just a couple more questions for public works. Who commented last time? You know, ordinarily in it, customarily, we vacate alleys and it's it's a no brainer. They provide access to a property. Some remain providing access only under private ownership. Some have a bridge built over them. There are all sorts of reasons, some some indeed are developed on. But a carriage lot is much more than access. It's developable land. So I wanted to ask first if you know the size of this carriage lot. I think I might run. For people who don't know what a carriage flight is it? It is a center section behind houses on four different streets. And it's it's like a common backyard or open space or parking area. Go ahead. Hi, Angela. Cassi is with Denver Public Works. And it looks, if I'm reading this correctly, it looks like it's 3300 square feet. Okay. And then I wanted to know the procedure for notifying neighbors when that was done. Yep. So the process in any Ali vacation is that we initially once we receive the application, we notify about 30 internal and external agencies and we allow them three weeks to comment if there's no opposition to that alley vacation from these internal and external agencies, meaning, you know, anywhere from Comcast to excel to any internal city agencies . We then go forward with the public notification so that public notification goes that all letters go out to owner homeowners within 200 feet of the alley vacation. We they have two weeks to respond. And there are two signs posted near the vacation as notification as well. If we receive any sort of opposition to that to that from the public, it then goes into consideration with the manager, Rob Duncanson. The director, Rob Duncanson, who then determines whether there's technical merit to any of the opposition once it's then after that. If he determines that there is no technical merit to the opposition, then we move forward with city council. And so another question I had for you was this notification conducted before the demolition permit, an application for historic preservation? I did. I do not have that information. I was not able to determine that. Okay. It's my understanding that it was. So the reason I would like to see this postponed, as Councilwoman Ortega has proposed, is that this will be integral to talking about the development of actually three lots and a carriage lot. This is not a property rights issue because it's our property. We are actually giving it to someone because at some point in the history of Denver, a property owner gave it to the city. Therefore we often don't sell alleys or or right of way we we give them. But I think in this case, when there is real development potential and also a landmark issue that we should definitely take the time to make sure both are discussed together. Thank you. Let's see. Councilman Brooks? Yeah, I just have a couple of questions. So I was contacted by the person representing this property and tell me if I'm right here. We have 20 neighboring residents that signed a petition of support for this. Yes, that's correct. Okay. And we have. We had one person who was in opposition. But now has that excuse me, has that person turned over, is now supporting this. Position and supporting the project, as far as we know. Okay. And and this one on consent. Was this on consent? I believe so, yes. This was not heard in committee. No. Okay. Yes. You know, I just I just encourage, you know, all of us as council folks to think about this as we were before. You know, there's a there's a ton of support here in the neighborhood. And I think we you know, Councilman Rob raises some interesting points. What we need to think about as a city and considering alley vacations. But for this to not have the the committee discussion for this to go on consent and now to postpone an agreement that public works the community has now agree with it. You know, have a little bit of issue with that. But thank you, councilman. Councilman Ortega, did you have another comment? I just wanted to clarify something, but I can wait until after. All right, great. Thank you. And then I'll circle back to Councilman Shepard. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I do think that my council colleagues, Ortega and Rob, have brought up some very prudent points here, very salient points. This is not your typical Ali vacation. I happen to live about six blocks from this site, and I'm well aware of the incredibly rapid pace of development in this particular neighborhood and how that continues to create additional parking problems for present and future residents. And I'm a little bit I guess I don't quite understand the alley of know why it was okayed for such a large parcel of land. So I do support. What? Councilman Ortega is making a motion for and I and I do think we need to hear what the decision is from landmark regarding the parcel in question. Councilman Ortega. So I wanted to clarify that last Friday I sent out information that I had received from the Landmark Commission on. That they've the research they've done on this property and the history on it is very significant. And so I just want to make sure, if you haven't had a chance to look at that, to see that because it's very compelling. But, you know, I just think it's important for that process to take its course before we take action, because as Councilwoman Robb indicated, these two actions are, although they're independent of one another, they're very integral to what happens with both properties. We're talking about a single family home that would be basically removed. And if this land is added to it, it would create a much larger footprint for development that would take place there. And I think it warrants, you know, the community as a whole having an opportunity to have a discussion about that given the parking challenges that already exist in that neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Rob, did you have a comment? Also your. Backup? Yeah, I just was going to chime in on the process piece. I reviewed the landmark application today. I had the landmark staff send it over to me. And it's certainly not 20 people, but people should know that there are six applicants on the application so that there is community input that this property should be preserved. And then that brings me back to the connection between the vacation and the preservation. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb, Councilwoman Kennish. Thank you. Madam President, I, too, wanted to chime in on process because I think it might have been Councilman Brooke's description might have left out a few pieces that I'm aware of. So I want to just confirm it's my understanding and I was see on emails from residents asking for a delay in the department's decision on the vacation. And it's my understanding that it was once delayed, that the department agreed the first time and that there was another community member who asked for a second delay and that the department declined that request. So there actually was early intervention from somebody asking for this to be slowed down before it came to us. So is my recollection correct that there were requests from residents for delays prior to this coming. In and those determinations are made on whether or not there's technical merit to to their opposition to the to the vacation. So if the if we denied it the second time, there was probably no technical merit to that opposition. Got it. But just to clarify, there was a resident coming forward long before we were on the floor. They made that attempt. And can you clarify, was it a resident? I believe that it was, but I don't have a name. But the one that I have record of is a the property owner on 23, 24 federal. And we resolved that conflict so that that property owner no longer had an opposition to the. So the person the person who requested the delay was the same person that's changed their position. Right. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And one other question, just to clarify, Councilwoman Ortega's comments about parking, is it legal to park on a carriage lot? No. Has it ever been legal? No. Okay. So I just I mean, if I support this today, I don't want to mislead the public that I'm supporting it with the expectation that it that it may lead to a parking lot in terms of, you know, our code not permitting that. So I think that there is good merit. And and I do think there was some attempts to try to clarify this. And that's what postponements are for there to spend more time to make sure that we understand all the issues. So I will be supporting it, but I don't want to have that point confusing for the public that that that's a potential outcome here because it's not a potential outcome as long as this is a piece of alley right away, a carriage lot, whatever it's designated as. That, correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. CORNISH Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam President. A lot of my questions are answered with a couple of the questions I had here. I just I just wanted to remind postponement just so we can actually figure some stuff out in the wash. Doesn't mean necessarily there's a vote tonight on the actual property. And I, too, would just want that extra time just so we can clarify that without making some kind of a rash decision or some kind of mistake in terms of what. I do support the postponement, so I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Robb. In just one other point, I do know carriage slots have been vacated for parking, and that may be something that is discussed in this. I'm not saying that's the highest and best use of this desire, but in the past I know that sometimes that's the use of a carriage lot once it's vacated and no longer right away . Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, Madam Secretary, roll call, please. ORTEGA Hi, Rob. This is the motion to postpone. Yes, I. Shepherd. I. Susman. Brooks. No. Brown. I fox. I. Can eat i lemon lopez i. All I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced the results. 11 eyes. One Nay. Okay. 11 Eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 356 will be postponed until Monday, July 13th. Thank you. Madam Secretary, are you ready to put up the next items related to pending here? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yes. To 98%. Okay.