Speaker 0: 11 eyes council bill 20 dash 1133 has passed. Council Member Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 1134 on the floor for final passage? Madam President, I move the Council Bill 1134 be placed on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1134 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. We can hear you. It's thank.
Speaker 2: Perfect. Good evening, council members. My name is Bunyan's. I am an associate city planner with a family planning development. Before you today, we have 1055 North Locust Street. It's currently zoned ECD and the applicant is requesting ESU one X, which is for the 80 year. One moment. There you go. It's currently in Council District five in Minnesota and it is in the Montclair neighborhood. The applicant is requesting do you one X and the site itself is approximately over 8000 square feet. And it's a single unit residential. The current zoning is skewed, sits surrounded predominately by the civil union zone district, as you can see. And the existing line is single unit residential, which is predominantly in this part of town. So the subject property is in the upper right corner of the slide and as you can see, some of the existing single unit homes in the vicinity. So before you is this. In this case. It went before the planning board on September 22nd, and it was approved unanimously at that specific hearing. As a as a present, there's been two comments of opposition and as well as one comment in support have been received and they are part of the staff report. The primary concerns related to the group living. Some of the opposition's that primary concerns were related to the group living text amendment, which does not have any direct relation to this application and no residential care or group living uses. I propose that this specific time as well as there is concerns around notification. One specific property owner mentioned that they weren't notified, but they were outside of the required 200 foot requirement. When we're notifying property owners, both of these individuals were notified by staff as well as the the applicant notified these two individuals as well. So whenever we're reviewing a specific map amendment, we look at five specific criteria that are taken from the Denver zoning code. The first one is consistency with adopted plans, and we're looking at four specific plans. The first one is Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver, a land use and transportation plan of 2019 Housing and Inclusive Denver 2018, and the East Area Plan of 2020, which was recently approved last month. There are several strategies found in comprehensive plan 2040 that are specified in staff report. And with that, I would jump into the Blueprint Denver Blueprint. Denver classifies this area as urban edge, which is primarily residential, and houses are typically low scale single and two unit residential with some small scale multi-unit residential. As well as blueprints classified as area is low residential, which is predominantly single unit and two uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate as well as Locust Street is a local street, which is primarily served by residential uses. Within the blueprint, there are specific policy that talk about accessory dwelling units. Housing policy number four specifies that diverse diversity housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas, as well as housing policy five, which is remove barriers to constructing accessory dwelling units and create context sensitive form standards. When we're looking at the housing for an inclusive Denver plan of 2018 specifically and recommendation two under the legislative and regulatory priorities, it does mention including expanding expanding the development of accessory dwelling units. The proposed MAP amendment of said is consistent with the housing and inclusive Denver recommendation because it would expand availability and allow the development of an accessory dwelling in. As well as when we're looking at the East Area plan. Their specific policy and strategies mentioned in this plan about access are going units such as Policy six, which talks about ensuring East Area neighborhoods are inclusive places by thoughtfully integrating compatibly design, missing middle housing as well as accessory dwelling units as well as strategies 6l6d which talks about the expansion of ADU throughout all residential areas. And then we're looking at more specifically at the Montclair neighborhood sections of the plan strategy, M.C. l1e, which does mention integrate accessory dwelling units in appropriate locations criteria two, three, four and five, which is uniformly of disregulation, furthering public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances inconsistent with neighborhood context, district purpose and intent are all specified in the staff report and therefore CPD recommends approval based on all funding and review criteria have been met and I'm available for questions. And the applicant, Christian OVERBY, is also here to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, Edson, for the staff report tonight. Council has received one written comment on Council Bill 1134. There are no submitted comments in favor of the application and one submitted comment in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they read each of their submitted written comments. Do any members of Council need more time to read any of the written testimony that was submitted? CNN council secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 1134 has been read by each member of council, and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. Tonight, we have three individuals signed up to speak, and our first speaker is Jesse Paris. You're up, Jesse.
Speaker 2: Thank you and good evening. Members of council. My name is Jesse Paris and I'm represented for Denver Homicide Allow Blacks, Dogs and movement for Self-defense, Positive Action, Comments, Results and change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. And Mile High News now live in District eight in Christopher Herndon's district. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am in favor of this rezoning tonight. I support it. I will continue to support 18th century dwelling units. I just want to know if this the first zoning proposal for District five. If so, I could please answer those that question. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jessie. Our next speaker is Tess. Dottie Dougherty. Sorry, Ted Storti. And I think we're going to need to promote tests from attendees and to the panelists.
Speaker 1: All right, Tess. Dougherty. There you go.
Speaker 0: All right. We seem to be having some technical difficulties getting tests. Into the meeting. We'll try it one more time here. All right. Or unfortunately unable to get Cass her audio to work here. Our next speaker we have is David Hagan. And it doesn't look like we have David with us anymore. So unfortunately for the with the technical difficulties tests was against this.
Speaker 1: Rezoning.
Speaker 0: I believe so that we can have that for the the record. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1134 Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Madam President, and thanks. And then I know that there has been a bunch of confusion with some comments that were sent in. So I just wanted to ask a few questions to kind of clarify what's going on here. So this is an AEW reasoning, and some of the comments that came in were around an application that came through for a different property, also in the neighborhood that was for and residential, a large residential care facility. So can you just talk a little bit about the difference between an 80 year rezoning and a zip pin for a large residential care facility just to kind of get on the record the difference between what we're doing here and what that is.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So for a specifically residential care large facility, there is a notification requirement that has to go out to property owners. Similarly, whenever there is a rezoning, whether that's an accessory dwelling unit or another specific type of rezoning, it does get notified to the property owners. And so sometimes you have to property on properties that might be adjacent to each other, that might be applying for different things, that property owners get notified. And so for you, there is specific requirements on the property owner has to live on site for example, which is different from a residential care large facility which is more operated . There's a specific operator that will be in charge of that. And so a lot there is there is a lot of concern. Property owners that gave me a call and then two specifically that submitted letters of oppositions that were just mixed the two. And we're concerned about a large group home being placed at this location, and we're concerned that a group home would also have an ADU. And so with with that, I was able to clarify to some of those those all those property owners that gave a call, as well as the ones that submitted letters of opposition, that there is no group home or large residential care facility at the specific location as well as the applicant reached out to those individuals. The two that submitted letters of opposition also clarified that as well.
Speaker 4: Awesome. I really appreciate it. So in an 80 you then this is a. A an accessory dwelling unit is one small unit that goes in the back of a property that is a single family dwelling. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: That is correct. And it is only allowed in the 35% of the zone.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. And if there was a, you know, a large residential care facility that was, you know, an assisted living facility where there were up to 20 people living there, would they be allowed to have an 82 on that property?
Speaker 2: It would.
Speaker 4: They wouldn't.
Speaker 2: The answer is no, they wouldn't. They wouldn't.
Speaker 4: That's right. Under our zoning code, they wouldn't. That's right.
Speaker 2: It wouldn't be allowed.
Speaker 4: Okay, cool. Thank you. And so then would they if there was a short term rental on this property, what are some of the short term rental limiting factors that go in that are in play here?
Speaker 2: So some of the short term that that the property owner has is submit a short term life license approval. And so they would have to go to accessing and licensing for that specifically as well as some of the requirements would be that the property owner has to live in one of the units, which is a requirement. But if they're applying for a short term license, such as for an Airbnb, for example, that he can't live in the primary section every be the 80, it has to be like a specific room within the primary structure.
Speaker 4: Right? So they've got to live on the property if they were going to use this as a short term rental. Right?
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 4: Cool. Exactly. And then if they were going to use this as a long term rental, they would would they have to live on the property then as well?
Speaker 2: Correct. They still the property has to live on either the primary structure or the accessibility unit.
Speaker 4: Awesome. Thank you so much for that information. Okay. And then I'm just trying to check and see if there are any other as I go through kind of these questions. So in terms of kind of other confusing things about the group living proposal in general, that people are confused. So there are there are no there are no you know, I'm just quoting a letter that we received today in opposition and I'm quoting here directly violent offenders, convicted felons, sex offenders allowed to living on this property because it's an adu by virtue of the fact that it's an Adu. Right.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 4: Right. Great. Thank you. It is not. I'm just quoting again from the email we received today directly proposed transitional housing in the middle of a family neighborhood. And that's a direct quote. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. It is, again, I'm quoting directly from an email I'm reading from here that we received today. It is not a quote, proposed plan to erect a large eight bedroom building in the midst of a single family neighborhood. Correct.
Speaker 2: That is correct. And the applicant is here and you can answer that one specifically.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, it's an 80 you. So I just wanted to clarify yet that that's the case. So. Perfect. I just wanted to make sure and on the record that we got it very clear that the emails that we received were just a misunderstanding based on some incorrect information that was shared on next door and were not true and were, you know, just based on misunderstanding. So I just wanted to make sure that that was on the record. Thank you so much, Edson, and thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Sawyer. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. The this in my memory, which could be I could maybe not be recalling one instance in the past, but in my memory, this is the first 82 rezoning that we've had that is not on a parcel that backs up to a public alley. I'm not sure about all of the Chaffey part ones that we did a blind to rezoning recently, but I'm not used to seeing an 80 you request on a parcel that doesn't have an alley access. So just to be clear, ads and this is a a detached adu that's being proposed.
Speaker 2: That's what the applicant is pursuing.
Speaker 3: Okay. Does this with this rezoning allow an attached adu?
Speaker 2: It would.
Speaker 3: It would also. Okay. All right. Because I do have a concern about lack of valid access to a building. And as you said, in the rear, 35% is do we have in the code, anywhere in the code, a requirement for a at least a minimum side setback that would provide clearance for fire access or for whatever would have to get back to that other dwelling unit in the rear. 35% of the lot when there is no alley.
Speaker 2: Let me look this up.
Speaker 3: I think what it says in the staff report is that in this zone, there is a minimum of five foot side setback. I believe is what I read. I don't I don't have enough skills.
Speaker 2: You are correct. And it would be five feet.
Speaker 3: Okay. I don't have enough skill on Google Earth to measure what this particular parcel is, but do you happen to know what the size of the setback is that it looks like on the satellite photo? That it's probably in excess of that now, but I'm not sure. And maybe the owner or applicant could answer that, madam.
Speaker 2: I don't have that on the top of my head. Okay. We could ask the applicant.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then my last question has been for you is in the staff report, the ADU height can be a maximum of 24 feet, but in that zone, the maximum height in the rear, 35% of the lot is at least when it's the primary structure is 17 to 19 feet. But the ADU can exceed that up to 24 feet. So if it's a separate structure, in other words, it can be taller than what the primary structure could be back there. That doesn't seem to make sense to me, but that's what it says in the staff report.
Speaker 2: Let me look it up real quickly, and we can ask the applicants some questions just to verify that. That is correct. I have the Denver zoning code up, so I can specify that really quickly.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. And we're getting the applicant promoted.
Speaker 3: It seemed like from all the discussion, Madam President, that we're talking about a detached structure. I just wanted to confirm that because like I said, my I do have a concern about the lack of valley access. And this is the first time I've seen any to you that that is not a detached state to you, that it's not on an alley.
Speaker 0: Perfect. All right. Well, Councilman Flynn, we do have the applicant promoted here, and so hopefully I can answer your question.
Speaker 2: Hey. Hi. Can you introduce?
Speaker 0: Yep. Thank you for calling.
Speaker 3: Just introduce yourself and tell us, is this an attached day to you or a detached.
Speaker 2: Okay. Hi. My name is Christian OVERBY. Yes, I'm the property owner. I've owned it for about 12 years. So you've actually pinpointed a very critical piece here. My goal was simply to allow the ag view, and I've looked at it both ways, attached and detached. And it is a tricky design problem. I'm an architect, so I've looked at it both ways and I haven't come to any conclusions. It was more a matter of let's let's figure out what the options are and try to figure out what was possible. So so I mean, in some ways you're asking me kind of like what the last one was like. So I like the idea of the Adu just because it allows more people to live in the neighborhood. And it is a walkable neighborhood, as Ed Small probably explained for the other parts of this. So I kind of looked at it both ways. I tend to lean towards less driveway, so I want to kind of walk to the front, partly because it's one you're paving less of the lot. I think it's under the current zoning code. It's a whole lot easier to put it in the back. But then I've got this long driveway like I have now that makes it goes all the way to the back. And I look at it and say, Why? Except that? Well, because that's where the garage goes. Right.
Speaker 3: And you would also already run for sewer and water.
Speaker 2: Well, yes, all that is important. Right. So right now, it's it's a small house. And, you know, my goal is to actually, one, make it a more valuable property, but also a nicer property. So and a lot more people live there. All right.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Christian Edson, you have your hand up again. Do you did you have the the answer to that?
Speaker 2: Yes, I do.
Speaker 3: Okay. What is it.
Speaker 2: The one eight when we're dealing with the height specifically in the Urban House building form in the first 65% of the lot, the front basically you're allowed to go up to about 30 to 35 feet in height. But when you go into the like, let's say you have a very large attached and primary structure, and if that primary structure somehow gets into the rear 35%, for example, then at that point it can go up to 19 feet, 17 to 19 feet. Okay. So it would start off if you were looking at it, it would start off about 30 or 35. And then if that structure would dip down to 19, if it was one, which structure.
Speaker 3: Okay. But then the detached adu that's in the rear, 35% of of the parcel could go up to 24 feet.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's that does seem a little odd to me. That might maybe something that CBD could look at going forward. If the primary structure can't go up to 24 feet why cannot life in 80 you. Right? Right. What difference would that make? All right. Thank you, Madam Price. And that's all I had.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Edson I don't know that you're going to know the answer to these questions, but I just wanted to get them out there. I heard Councilman Flynn asking some questions about being in the back of the of the lot. Are you aware of single family homes that can be in the back 35% of their lot or that already exist in the back? 35% of their lot.
Speaker 2: No, I don't. Okay.
Speaker 4: I'm familiar with with a number of them. The second question I had is about existing 80 use or there's an other term for them. I was trying to look it up and I can't remember what it is, but where you walk through the yard of the first home to get to the home in the back in northwest Denver in particular, there's a number of those in historic districts, in fact, but not all of them back onto alleys. And so I was just curious if you're familiar, I'm not sure what the term for that is, but. But existing housing stock that already has this form.
Speaker 2: Their account.
Speaker 3: I think Random House, maybe.
Speaker 4: Random House. Thank you, Councilman. Yeah. Edson, were you going to say something else? Thank you. For Councilman Flynn. I mean, did you have anything to add about that?
Speaker 2: There is some existing church homes as well where you do have to go through an existing driveway, for example.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. That's all, madam.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. So I have a question. I have heard that community planning and development is actually having people who apply for accessory drawing units go through concept, design and review process at the same time. Because a lot of times people are going through the accessory dwelling unit rezoning process. And then by the time that they get to concept and submit their site development plan, their denied because of some issues. Do you know this site has gone through a site development plan yet?
Speaker 2: Not that I know of. And we can ask the applicant if they submitted.
Speaker 1: Have you think they're starting to have has has community planning and development talk to you about that? Because I am the kind of person who is on the entire neighborhood for accessory dwelling units. And so we've started they've started doing that recently. And I was just wondering if if you were too early in the queue to have had that happen or if that that's been made that's often been offered to you yet.
Speaker 2: That hasn't been offered to me personally. I know that we sometimes have some applicants that come in and are interested in like some sort of concurrent review, and we just specify to them that they're always comes with some challenges and you assume the responsibility of doing a concurrent review. So. Personally, I haven't dealt with one specific case, but there's been other partners who have dealt with it specifically, and I can get you a better answer as well.
Speaker 1: So I would just say in for future reference, I think it would be good policy that I know this has been talked to to me before. So I it'd be good for all of us to get on the same page because I don't think we'd be having a lot of these discussions at council if when this happens . But I do know that all of the accessory dwelling units that are coming through right now in my council district are also going through the site development plan review process so that before they come to council, we have this information. And maybe that's just because I'm a little bit more involved in zoning because I have a planner. But it really is helpful when we get to this point because a lot of times we can ask specific questions such as this, and they've already gone through the site development plan with development services. So just a little FOIA of something.
Speaker 4: And Christian.
Speaker 1: To you, the applicant, you haven't met with development services yet and you haven't offered a site development plan, is that correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1134 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sawyer.
Speaker 4: Thanks so much, Madam President. I think, you know, it's I don't have a lot to say here. It's pretty clear that 80 views are the compromise between sort of the the adding gentle density to the neighborhood and making sure that we maintain that kind of character of that that thing that people love about our neighborhoods. So for East Denver, Far East Denver in particular, east of Colorado Boulevard, the thing that people truly love about this area is that the yards are big, is that the houses are a little bit smaller, is that, you know, it's a little bit quieter. We get that sort of feel of living in almost the suburbs. But we live 5 minutes from world class restaurants and museums and downtown Denver, and it's amazing and that's what makes it unique and that's what we love about it. And that said, we have to find the balance where we bring in that added density so that we are adding housing, so that we are bringing, you know, that that lower price point that people can afford, that missing middle housing into our neighborhoods as well. And the answer to that is to use. And so I do support this and with a word of caution that I think it's really important we talk about the fact that, you know, that not capital affordable that lower a affordable housing only works that middle missing middle housing only works if we're using these 80 years for long term rentals and not short term rentals. And so I think it's important to just point that out again. And with that, I hope that my colleagues will support me in this. I think it meets all of the criteria. And so I'll be voting yes.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. And it does look like it meets all the criteria. And thank you, Edson, for a great presentation. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Hines.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Cashman.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Can each I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1055 Locust Street in Montclair.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1055 North Locust Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-27-20.