A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to correct an error in the detached accessory dwelling unit building form standards in the Urban Edge Neighborhood Context. Amends the Denver Zoning Code to correct an error in the maximum building footprint for detached accessory dwelling units in E-SU- Zone Districts. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-13-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-9-21.
Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 US 12 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1331 has passed. Thank you to the folks who presented this evening and the community members as well. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1332 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 21 desk 1330 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1332 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Thank you. Members of City Council for hanging in there. Just one more public hearing of the night. And as Andrew had promised earlier, this is a very targeted text amendment proposed for the Denver zoning code. And before you kick off, do you want to introduce yourself? Apologies. I'm a barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development, and I'm here with a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to correct an error that was introduced into the zoning code with the 2021 bundle of Denver Zoning Code text amendments. That bundle was adopted by City Council in the summer, and the error inadvertently reduced the maximum building footprint that was allowed for detached accessory dwelling units on zone lots greater than 6000 square feet in basically all of the single unit districts in the urban edge neighborhood context. That includes the zone district that was justified earlier this evening to a couple of areas of East Colfax. We'd like to get this corrected. The proposed amendment would have no impact on any other zoned district or building form. We're using a process allowed by the zoning code to begin the adoption process with Council Committee. So Planning Board has not considered or made a recommendation on this proposed text amendment. The next few slides just quickly walk you through what happened here. We're looking at a portion of the detached accessory dwelling unit building form table in Article four of the Denver Zoning Code. That's the urban edge neighborhood context, specifically at the maximum building footprint on a couple of lot sizes for single unit zone districts, the maximum building footprint being the portion of the lot area that an accessory dwelling unit building form can cover, like looking at a lot fewer dimensionally. It has historically been 864 square feet for detached views on lot 6000 to 7000 square feet and 2000 square feet on lots greater than 7000 square feet. This is the public review draft for the bundle of text amendments and you see various proposed changes marked up there which circle those two maximum buildings. Footprints are not marked up as a change, and yet those numbers are different. So just going back to that previous slide, we had 864 square feet and 1000 square feet. Now we're seeing 650 square feet in 864 square feet with essentially a kind of unfortunate cut and paste error. And because that page was filed for adoption with the text amendment, that became part of the official code when that bundle was adopted. So if you look at the code as it's on the website right now, it will have those two maximums of 650 and 860 square, 64 square feet in this form table, which is different than all the other detached accessory building form tables across the code. So the proposed fix is quite simple. Change the numbers back to 864 and 1000 square feet to be consistent across the code. Looking at the review criteria, the comprehensive plan has a number of relevant goals. Probably the most relevant is the first one listed that proposed revisions should ensure that the zoning ordinance remains flexible and accommodating. And you kind of see that as being a keep the code up to date and relevant recommendation, which is also mentioned in Blueprint Denver that the code should continue to respond to the needs of the city by remaining modern and flexible. We'll also just note the blueprint recommendation that we've talked about more this evening that directs us to remove barriers to constructing accessory dwelling units while also creating context sensitive form standards. This is an inadvertent barrier we talked about that ideas in Denver project that we're kicking off now is really going to look at all of the other barriers. But this area is right now, there's actually plans and process in affected zone districts where the design was made thinking that the maximum building footprint was one thing accidentally changed. They can't get the approval until the zoning code is updated. So we're bringing this forward sooner. The looking at the blueprint equity concept staff believe that this text amendment will have a largely neutral impact on the three equity criteria that we look at. And that it'll further public safety, health and welfare by providing clarity and predictability in zoning regulations and by ensuring consistent application of adopted plans, and that it will result in uniformity of district regulations and restrictions. So staff based on a finding that these review criteria have been met. We recommend that City Council adopt this Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment. All right. Thank you very much for the staff report, Abe. And we have one speaker online this evening, Jessie Paris. Yesterday, the members of council, those watching at home the numbers just as we saw Paris Hilton represented for Blackstar a move to self defense positive as a command for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I'll be the next member in 2023. And I live in just a councilman Herndon's district, and I'm in favor of the amendments in my 80 years or so so far of creating affordable affordability, affordable housing in the city, along with safe outdoor spaces and tiny home villages. So this amendment is much needed. Please pass this mine so we can get this error corrected. And that's all I have to say. And then I have a Happy New Year. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Jesse. And the same to you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1332. Councilmember Ortega. I just wanted to ask you one question, Abe. So it looks like this does not apply to any of the mixed use districts, correct? That is correct. So the way our accessory dwelling unit standards are set up now, they only apply in residential zone districts and only apply as accessory to a single dwelling unit use. So in a mixed use district, you might see things that look like an Adu or like a carriage house, but they were permitted in a different path because in a district like that you can there's a lot more flexibility. You could have two primary building forms, for example, and one just might just look like an idea. So even though there are many of our mixed use, some districts that have residential structures, the lots are treated much differently than they are if they were residentially zoned. So the example that I've used before at 38th and Eliot and I think the last time I brought this up, somebody said those were two separate lots. But the house behind the house in the front that was built is so close to the first structure, the initial structure that I it's hard for me to believe that they're separate lots and it's significantly bigger than the house and the front. So if people wanted to do that all up and down 38th Avenue, where these residential structures are that may be zoned as mixed use, they could continue to do the domino effect that happened with that house on the corner. Is that correct? Yes, I am familiar with the project at 38th and Eliot. And so the house is facing 38. And then there was just that homeowner may have owned the other lot at one point, but it's. Separated. Sold off separately and a project permitted by the mixed use zoning happened on it. That's much bigger than the house. Of course, they could have sold both the house and the other property and then a big, bigger project would have covered both. So because it's. It's a mixed use or commercial, there is no setbacks that typically are required in residential zones. That's right. Although there are building code restrictions that would, you know, generally mean that buildings have to have at least some separation unless they have a really high fire rating. Okay. And I know we're not talking about mixed use zones in this particular application, but I just had to understand and wrap my brain around how we're allowing that to happen and could see that happen all up and down a commercial corridor where what maybe once was zoned as residential structures, maybe. I don't know if this goes back to the 2010 zoning changes that happened that turn some of our commercial corners into mixed use, zoned districts, and now allow something that could not only impact, you know, the the corridor and potential parking for some of the businesses, but it then has an impact on the properties across the alley as well. So I don't know that that's something that we're looking at to do a fix on or if we think that that is just okay to happen. And I don't know how many commercial corridors we zoned or up zoned from residential structures to commercial that this would apply to. But I think it'd be worth looking into to see, you know, where we would then create this domino effect that then has neighbors screaming at all of us for something that may be an unintended consequence. So I just wanted to raise that. Thank you. Great. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Abe, did you have any response or. Yes, Councilwoman Ortega, I'll just mentioned that we we are looking at those kinds of concerns. We probably put it more in the bucket of the blueprint recommendations that talk about the design character of our commercial centers and corridors and how they transition to residential areas. And we actually have on our wish list a project to look at, look at those centers and corridors across the city and the zoning tools that apply there. We don't have it on the immediate schedule, so it's probably, you know, a couple of years away. But that's, I think, an important conversation to have. I don't know the specific history of 38, but a lot of those corridors, even before 2010, did have some kind of commercial zoning, even though in many cases they have some single unit houses still on them. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Abe. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. Abe just wanted to say thank you. We discovered this story in the rezoning in East Colfax, which is in the Southern District. And it's a real simple, straightforward, quick change that was fixing a clerical error and just wanted to say thank you for that. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, the public hearing this closed comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1332. It looks like we don't have any comments and so happy to support this correction this evening. Madam Secretary, I just want to make sure council members. Okay, you're you're not in the queue for comment. I'm not. It's just deleting me out for some reason. Okay. All right. Very good. Just wanted to make sure, Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1332. Please see about the. Quite. I. Flynn. I. Herndon, i. I. Cashman. Ortega, i. Senator I. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. What i. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 811 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 1332 has passed. Thank you for being here and doing that presentation. On Tuesday, January 18th, 2022, Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 1455 changing the zoning classification for 2000 Blake Street in five points