Welcome back to this weekly meeting of the Community Planning and Housing Committee with Denver City Council.

Your Community Planning and Housing Committee starts now.

No, there it is.

We're on air, okay.

Welcome to the Community Planning and Housing Committee of Denver City Council.

It is January 6th.

That's kind of a grim anniversary, actually.

And we have, let's see, three action items today.

Actually, four of them.

Two of them will be together for a block vote, all from community planning and development.

So we will do council member introductions, and then we will get rolling.

I'm Sarah Parody.

I'm one of your city council members at large, and I'll start on my right.

Good afternoon.

Diana Romero-Campbell, Southeast Denver, District 4.

Today's my daughter's birthday, the David.

Good day.

Okay, good.

I'll wipe out my other phone.

I'll just replace it.

Rural Vibras, Lucky District 7.

Good afternoon.

Darrell Watson, Fine District 9.

Jamie Torres, Best Denver District 3.

And then I think we have one member online.

Yep.

Hey guys, Amanda Sawyer, District 5.

Welcome.

All right.

Edson and- oh, actually, Councilman Mervis, if you want to introduce yourself.

I kind of, you know, jumped that away from you actually.

Okay, Edison, if you want to start with 25-21-47.

Actually, I'm going to let the council member, or do you want me to go?

No, no, I can jump in.

Council member Watson, co-president.

Thank you, committee chair, and thank you so much, Edison, CPD, and the cross-purpose team

for what has been a very collaborative process and the engagement with communities within District 9.

I'm honored to sponsor this rezone as a legislative rezone.

This is for the 3050 North Richard Allen Court in Skyland neighborhood property where Cross

Purpose currently exists.

Just a little background on Cross Purpose and obviously Edson and team are going to

go into the specifics of the rezone, the why and why this has such great support across

the community.

The site is owned and operated by Cross Purpose, a trusted local nonprofit.

The request would change the zoning from R2A to EMX2X.

Cross-purpose provides licensed behavioral health services along with career and community development programs.

Cross-purpose serves more than 1,000 graduates every year.

87% of the graduates are still employed one year later.

However, their state license requires land uses that current zoning does not permit.

And that's kind of what we're going to be discussing a little bit today.

EMX 2X allows those services by right, which means cross-purpose can keep serving neighbors without disruption.

And before we start, I wanted to just say to Pastor Jantz, you're in our thoughts and prayers, and we're hoping for a speedy recovery for you as well.

Edson?

Awesome. Thank you, Councilmember.

So before you today we have a rezoning application that is going from former

chapter 59 which is that R to A with waivers to an EMX 2X which is mixed

use up to two stories with limited commercial that would be allowed in that

zone district. So I'll go through the request we'll look at the location and

context we'll review the process and dive into the review criteria for this

rezoning. So the request is highlighted in red as you can see the property

itself is just over 67,000 square feet and it's owned and operated by Cross Purpose. So Cross

Purpose is a non-profit like the council member mentioned. Their goal is to work on ending

relational, economic, and spiritual poverty through career and community development.

And the rezoning would help better accommodate its current operations and ensure long-term

compliance with regulatory requirements. So Cross Purpose holds a state license for behavioral

health services and this rezoning is necessary to maintain compliance with state licensing

requirements and so moving from the old code to the new code. So looking at location and context

it's located in council district 9 in the Skyland neighborhood as you can see at the very north

east corner and the zoning is R2A with waivers. As you can see the church to the north is R2A with

with waivers as well and then we have an apartment convicts directly to the east as well.

To the south we have a school and then to the west we have ESDX which is a single unit

zone district which is predominantly single units.

Then we have some open space as well as you can see and then campus EI2

which is that education district EI to the north, even more north above Martin Luther.

So the EI-2 is a former Chapter 59 multi-unit dwelling medium density zone district.

It typically allows for up to 110 feet in height, but when we look at the waivers, it waves that down to 35 feet.

But it also introduces more uses like community center, and it allows for elderly care, education facilities.

And so a lot of some of the services that you kind of see now.

And so the waiver kind of allowed some of that reduces the heights and some setbacks there.

So when we're looking at land use, it's classified as public, quasi-public.

And then to the north, we have the church, like I mentioned.

To the south, we have the school.

And to the west, we have about a three-story apartment complex.

And then we have single families directly to the west.

So just kind of giving you area of the site.

The subject property is on the photo on the top right, which is about a one-story structure.

And then you see the apartment complex directly to the east of the site, which are about three stories.

To the north, we have the church.

And then to the west of the site, we have single-family houses that range between predominantly one story,

but we do have some two stories sprinkled in throughout the neighborhood.

So looking at the process, it went before planning board in last month on the 17th of December and it's before today.

It was approved unanimously by the board there.

So far in terms of public comment, we've notified all the RNOs within this area.

We've received one letter of support from the Skyline Neighborhood Association.

Additionally, we received eight letters of support from individuals into organizations,

such as the Paul Birkin Photography and Edgeville Edwork.

One of the letters had 21 signatures in support.

So the nonprofit did have community meetings to just kind of educate the community about

the rezoning process.

And in one of those, there's 21 signatures of individuals that live in the community

that are in support of the rezoning.

the letter of support from the ARNO and the letters and support that we received

highlighted how impactful this nonprofit has been to the community and how the

rezoning would help with their licensing and it's consistent with

adaptive plans and then the commitment that the nonprofit has to the community

as well. So with that we're gonna jump into the review criteria so we're the

Denver zoning code specifically highlights three review criteria that

every rezoning has to follow. The first one is consistency with adopted plans, public interest,

and consistency with neighbor context, zone district purpose, and intent statements.

So when we're looking at adopted plans, we're really focusing on two plans, which is

Blueprint Denver of 2040 and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver.

So within the Comprehensive Plan 2040, I just want to highlight a few. The staff report

highlights multiple strategies, but within this specific presentation, I just want to highlight

equity goals and climate goals. So under equity, we're looking at equitable or one inclusive goal

strategy. So improve equitable access to resources that improve quality of life,

including like health care, amenities, recreation, and the arts, and then ensure neighborhoods offer

a mix of housing types and services for a diverse population. Additionally, you know, promote infill

development where infrastructure and services are in place. So this is an area where, you know,

we have services already in place. When we jump into Blueprint Denver, it's classified as urban

edge. So that's one of the requests of going from former chapter 59 to this staying consistent

within the urban edge neighborhood context. And it's classified as low residential. So low

residential are predominantly single and two-unit uses, and then limited mixed use can occur along

arterial and collector streets, as well as commercial uses have already been established.

The uniqueness of this site is that it was never residential, and it's in close proximity to

Martin Luther King, as well as Colorado Boulevard, that both are residential collector streets.

So we do know that, you know, it is adjacent to residential, but in the uniqueness of this site,

that it was never residential and it, you know, you have existing zoning that allowed up to 35 feet

of multi-unit, which is what you exactly see to the west of this site. And so with this,

they would limit that height to the EMX2X to two stories here. And then the building height to

generally up to 2.5 stories in height. Within the growth area strategy is classified as all other

areas of the city so we anticipate a 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new

employment growth by 2040. Additionally when we're looking at you know equity

within blueprint the small small scale rezoning can help implement the following

goals by looking at the land use and built form economy goals to support

locally owned businesses new and all to expand and evolve to meet the changing

needs of residents and visitors as well as rezone properties at a former chapter

59 zoning. So this would be an example of here we're moving from former chapter 59 into the

Denver zoning code. Additionally under climate multi-unit and mixed-use buildings are more

energy efficient than low density residential element types and it's consistent with the public

interest as this would help and it's consistent with several policies that talk about the expansion

of services especially to diverse populations here and it's consistent with the neighborhood

context on district and purpose statements as specified within the staff report therefore

cpu recommends approval that based on all the findings of your career have been met

i'm available for question the council member here and the pro member of the property owner

as well is here to answer any questions thank you thank you so much um i was going to introduce

She's Council President Sandoval, and she had to step out for a moment, but she has now joined the meeting.

And then I have a queue started, but I thought, Council Member Watson,

even though you were able to speak a little bit to kick things off,

I thought I'd let you start off as usual since it's in your district.

So if you have any clarifying questions that you want to tee up or anything else.

And, Council Member Parity, thank you so much.

And Edson and team, once again, thanks for this work.

The one thing I just want to really clarify is I think the two really great changes for this request.

Number one, it moves from Chapter 59 into current zone.

And number two, the request for the zoning change is specific to allowing for the existing uses that currently Cross Purpose provides.

This rezone allows them to continue providing those services as we move from old zone to new zone.

And Edson can speak to what that state changes are that is impacting their licensure.

This rezone will not impact height.

It will not impact any changes for development on the site.

It's simply to make sure that they can continue to work,

that they've been doing fantastically for community.

Yeah, I appreciate you stepping up to co-sponsor

because it does sound so important.

Okay, so first in the queue, I have Council Member Torres.

Thank you.

Thanks so much.

Just a couple of clarifying questions.

What is it about the state requirement

that requires the zoning change?

I can answer a little bit,

and I'll have the owner representative.

But the big thing is, you know, they offer multiple services at this specific site.

You know, like the current zoning, former Chapter 59 allows for community center.

And over time, that specific use has changed since the 50s.

And so previously used to allow multiple uses.

Now, nowadays, it's a lot more restrictive as even within former Chapter 59 has changed.

And so, for example, they offer medical, kind of a combination of medical office education,

officiating workforce training. And so some of that is not fully encompassed under the current

zoning. And so rezoning that would allow them to do that. And I can allow them kind of add to that

as well. Feel free to just introduce yourself and we'd love to hear more. Yeah. My name is Bob

Schofield. I'm the vice president of campus operations for cross purpose. Let me speak

to this a little bit here. All of our students whom we refer to as leaders in our program

will undergo a very intense course of personal development. And our counseling services

are a large part of that personal development process. BHA, the Behavioral Health Administration,

will not allow us to continue operating and providing these services under our current

zoning. So we're sort of being forced into the rezoning process. Without this, we would not be

able to bill Medicaid for the counseling services that we provide, which is a minuscule amount as it

is. So because of the fact that our zoning doesn't specifically say medical office use,

that is the reason that we cannot provide the services under the current zoning.

Got it. Okay. And that is an allowable use. It doesn't require special circumstance or anything

like that. MX2X. MX2X. Okay. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

Plan support for MX2X, is the street an arterial or a collector? Richard Allen Court?

It's a local street.

Richard Allen is a local street, but we felt that this site is unique in the sense of it was never residential.

And we looked at its proximity to Martin Luther and its proximity to Colorado and how it's served.

So we looked at that specifically to kind of draw from like limited commercial can be allowed in some low residential areas.

So we explored that specifically.

And 2X, I have Urban Edge in Council District 3.

I've not seen a lot of 2X used.

What's the, like, what's that max height limit?

It sounds like this is being, the zone district is fitting

as opposed to future opportunity.

That's, I think, what I'm trying to understand a little bit.

So the existing zoning allows for up to 35 feet with the waivers.

The EMX2X would allow for two stories up to 30 feet.

So the existing zoning allows for three stories up to 35 feet.

The proposed zoning of the MX would allow for two stories up to 30 feet.

What is the X signal in that?

It stands for limited commercial.

So it allows, it's much more restrictive because it's more embedded in low residential areas.

So it's more restricted to uses that are more neighborhood serving.

You can't have a facility.

You can't have a liquor store.

You can't have it's all of those uses.

So it's supposed to be in that transition zone.

The adult range of mixed use.

I think one on 35th and Irving because it's in the middle of a neighborhood.

Yeah, okay.

Okay. It looked like the ownership of this property also owns the property just east of it and has kind of an L shape.

Is it similar? Does that cross purpose? You own both lots?

So, no. I think there was a little confusion on that at some point in time.

But the 16,500 square foot facility that's highlighted in that drawing is our specific property.

There's been some confusion at certain points in time that the apartment complex was somehow incorporated into that.

But that is separate ownership.

No, I'm looking at kind of an L-shaped property that's just to the east of your building.

And there's a building on it.

Is that the school?

I'm not sure what it is.

I'm just looking at satellite.

Yeah, the orange.

Yeah, so that is the apartment complex.

Oh, that is the apartment complex.

And that's the right-of-way into the apartment complex.

Yeah.

Okay.

And so that's totally separate ownership than your building?

Correct.

Oh, weird.

Okay.

The record online doesn't reflect that.

Okay.

Got it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Those are my questions.

Okay.

And I actually don't have anybody else in the queue.

I'll pause in case anyone wants to get in

and then I have one question.

Okay, cool.

My only question was just I'm looking at all the support letters, and I was curious if anyone, whether that would be the District 9 office or the applicant, has heard any kind of pushback or concern.

I can't really imagine what that would be, but just a good blanket question.

So Cross Purpose spent a great deal of time physically knocking on doors and telling neighbors, hey, here's what we're trying to do.

First of all, let's clarify, we're not looking to reconstruct.

We're not looking to bulldoze this building and build a new facility.

We've provided these services forever.

The only thing we're trying to do is remain in compliance with the BHA.

So we clarified that with the neighbors.

And the only thing that we received, to be quite honest, is some support from the community that they would like to volunteer and come volunteer their services at Cross Purpose.

There was no opposition whatsoever. The Skyland Neighborhood Association was in great support of this effort.

Yes, there was one letter from the association, but there was numerous parties at that meeting who were in support.

So, yeah, we've had no opposition whatsoever.

Yeah, no, the letters are pretty overwhelmingly supportive and a joy to read, honestly. So thanks.

All right. I don't have any further questions. We need a vote.

Can I get a motion?

Moved by Torres, seconded by Romero Campbell.

I think thumbs-ups are sufficient.

I'll check my chat for a thumbs-up from our member who's online.

All right.

We are good to go.

Thank you guys so much.

All right.

And what's next?

Next up, we have items 2163 and 2164, which is our CPD mini-bundle.

Next amendment and former Chapter 59 amendment to be presented by Fritz.

Good to see you, Fritz.

Thank you so much, Edson.

Whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

Great. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Councilmembers.

My name is Fritz Clausen with Community Planning Development,

here to discuss the 2025 mini-bundle of text amendments.

We'll look at the requests, the specific requests

and an overview of the mini-bundle,

then dive into proposed changes by the topic area,

talk about process and the comments that we've received,

and then go through our review criteria

for a text amendment to the zoning code.

So starting with the requests and overview,

there are two specific requests for advancement.

First is the mini bundle text amendment

to the Denver zoning code.

Second is the DRMC, the municipal code update

for chapter 59 zone properties

that essentially carries over the changes to former Chapter 59 or current Chapter 59.

So our mini bundle, it's a proposed text amendment package to the zoning code and the municipal code

covering four topic areas.

First, Proposition 123 slash expedited reviews for affordable housing projects,

wireless telecoms, accessory dwelling units, and site development plans.

Generally, the purpose of this text amendment is to align our regulations with state mandates

and incentive programs while incorporating procedural improvements to support good governments

and affordable housing.

Looking at these topic areas in detail, we'll start with Prop 123, expedited reviews for

affordable housing.

A little background, Prop 123 is a voter-passed program to provide additional state funding

for affordable housing projects.

A requirement of the program is to have a compliant review process

that can review a qualifying project within 90 days.

So we are making a few changes, or we're proposing a few changes

to support that implementation of the 90-day review process

that our colleagues in development services are doing currently.

First is to coordinate the approval dates for different types of applications,

including zone line amendments, to be the date of final decision rather than recordation to avoid a delay.

That means that as soon as something is approved, if that's what was holding it up, it can move forward.

We don't have to wait for the official recording date.

We're also looking at changes to Denver zoning code language about design review boards

and urban design standards and guidelines.

related to that, updating urban design standards and guidelines for Terry Creek North slash West

and downtown, specifically to exempt fast-tracked affordable housing projects from formal review

by those design advisory boards.

Those are the two design advisory boards that we have.

The minor change to Denver zoning code language is to just say that those urban design standards

and guidelines documents say what gets reviewed and how.

Next, wireless telecommunications.

This is to comply with state law changes made last year.

We will be adding not physically substantial modifications to existing telecommunications facilities

to the list of development types that do not need a zoning permit, provided the city is notified in writing.

There's a related rules and regs change, again, to the urban design standards and guidelines

for Cherry Creek North slash Cherry Creek West and downtown.

A little graphic on the side here just to make clear what we're talking about.

We're talking about existing antenna facilities generally mounted on rooftops

or to the side of buildings.

We're not talking about the poles in the right-of-way.

Those are regulated by DOTI.

They have their own review and approval process and design guidelines for those.

Right.

So I'm happy to go back in detail through these if you have any questions.

So for accessory dwelling units, we are looking at removing the owner occupancy requirement

or providing an exemption to the owner occupancy requirement for constructing an affordable

housing unit on the same property as an existing single family home for the Denver Housing

Authority and properties that they own.

We're also looking to clarify Denver zoning code language to ensure plan unit developments

or PUDs allow ADUs if they allow single unit dwellings, similar to single unit zoning in

the rest of the city. Going along with that, stating clearly in the zoning code that if

there are specific prohibitions against accessory dwelling units in PUDs, they will not be enforced.

Now, I do want to just circle back to the Denver Housing Authority question, because

we've gotten a couple comments on that. So I just want to discuss and clarify some things.

There are comments that basically state a few people think it's unfair to exempt Denver Housing Authority from the owner-occupancy requirement without exempting everybody else.

That is to say, doing away with the requirement.

And we've heard from city council members that basically that existing owner-occupancy requirement would like to be maintained,

but you're open to flexibility for an affordable housing provider like DHA.

So we initially considered and proposed broader flexibility for affordable housing providers,

but we ran into technical issues around the definition of income-restricted units

and who's an affordable housing provider and our ability to enforce restrictions.

This mini-bundle process is meant to be pretty targeted, pretty streamlined, and pretty quick,

So we weren't really prepared in the process to develop a way to administer one-off affordable housing agreements, like through Host.

Instead, what we're trying to do is solve for a specific issue that DHA came to us with.

DHA is a known and trusted partner.

They're our affordable housing provider in the city.

We know they have a mission to provide affordability.

That makes us, and I hope makes you feel okay with exempting DHA from this requirement,

and it doesn't require us to develop a new tracking mechanism for affordability.

DHA has a number of dispersed single-family properties around the city

that could benefit from adding additional accessory dwelling units.

To some of the comments, to the questions that were raised,

We don't have specific concerns around displacement

regarding DHA properties.

If they're improved with the addition of ADUs,

the properties are owned by an organization

dedicated to providing affordable housing.

Again, a trusted partner.

Happy to come back to those,

but I'm gonna look at the other two topic areas,

or I think the last topic area.

Finally, site development plans.

We will be extending the approval period

to 30 months for all site development plans

without requiring an extension.

We will also be removing, cleaning up some of the language

around detailed PUD district plans

to say that they don't expire.

PUD district, detailed PUD district plans

are sort of like both a site development plan

and a custom zoning, so it does not make sense

to have the zoning aspect of those expire.

Mainly on the top one for site development plans,

just a little bit of background.

Currently, it's 18 months approval process.

We always grant a 12-month extension if it's requested.

We felt it made sense to remove the administrative step

and potential issues created if applicants don't request an extension by the deadline.

Basically, we are clarifying that 30 months is the approval period.

Once you have a site development plan approved,

there won't be an opportunity to extend beyond that.

So, looking at our process and comments, this publicly kicked off with the posting of the

shared public review draft and the 30-day comment period on November 14th.

We went to the planning board with an information item on November 19th, followed by a planning

board public hearing on December 17th.

Here we are today, January 6th, Committee Planning and Housing Committee.

Looking ahead, we will have a tentative first reading date on January 20th and a public hearing on February 17th.

Public comments, all R&Os received written notice of the amendment.

We posted a public review draft for 30 days, although it's still posted on our website.

You can still make comments, but that was our official period.

We received nine comments during that time.

Sixty percent of those were regarding ADUs.

Some of those comments revolved around a request for a change to permitting policy to allow homeowners to self-contract for building an accessory dwelling unit, similar to how they can be their own primary contractor for other home renovations.

The other comments were the ones I discussed earlier about the fairness or perceived fairness

of granting DHA an exemption to the owner occupancy policy and not granting it more broadly.

So on to our review criteria.

Denver zoning code has three review criteria for a text amendment.

First is consistency with adopted plans.

Second is furthering public health safety and welfare.

Third is uniformity of district regulations and restrictions.

Go through those.

We have two plans that apply here, Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver.

Comprehensive Plan 2040, we think, has a number of goals that apply to this.

The intention of the text amendment is to help create equitable, affordable, and inclusive neighborhoods

by adding to the housing options available in residential neighborhoods.

We think the proposed changes we're proposing here will encourage development of affordable housing by assisting with our future fast-track program for affordable housing, allowing us to qualify for Prop 123 grants.

Also, aids in creating strong and authentic neighborhoods through preservation and reuse of existing structures for properties within planned unit developments, as they can now build accessory ADUs they were previously not allowed to.

We also think that we have seen through peer city research that ADUs can aid in preserving existing primary structures.

When homeowners are able to reinvest in their property and remain in place, they are less likely to sell it.

That means the property is less likely to be scraped.

Also allows, has potential to allow for additional housing options for seniors to age in place,

receive income by renting out either an accessory dwelling unit or primary unit on their property.

For Blueprint Denver, we believe the proposed amendment is responsive to the needs of the city,

including staying current with state laws, amendments regarding telecommunication facilities

in site development plans, modernize the regulations, and eliminate unnecessary review procedures.

Removing zoning permit review for non-substantial modification of existing wireless infrastructure

ensures the service remains viable throughout the city and encourages minor expansion of

existing sites rather than construction of new sites. Extending the approval period for

site development plans acknowledges what has become a standard practice in accommodating

longer development timelines without wasting staff and customer time processing extensions.

We also think the amendments proposed also provide clarity to applicants and property owners

and support policies to increase the development of affordable housing.

Revised regulations clearly allow ADUs in all residential areas including planned development

units where they may have been previously permitted. Planned unit developments, I got that mixed up.

The zoning updates align the beginning of the approval period for plans, permits, and

applications to be the date staff makes a determination of approval rather than the

date the application is recorded.

This helps to tighten the approval period, helping staff meet the state's expedited

review timeline for affordable projects, and again, making city eligible for grant funding

to increase affordable housing throughout the city.

Next, public health, safety, welfare, and public health, safety, and welfare.

We think the proposed amendment furthers public health, safety and welfare of

Denver residents, landowners and community members by providing clarity

and predictability in the zoning regulations, by removing regulatory

barriers to plan development and by continuing to implement the city's

adopted comprehensive land use and transportation plans. Finally for

uniformity of district regulations and restrictions we think the text amendment

will result in updated regulations that are uniform within each zone district.

So based on that, the criteria for review in the zoning code, we recommend that this committee move the text amendment as well as the DRMC amendment bill forward for consideration by the full city council.

Thank you so much.

I have a queue somewhere, starting with Council President Sandoval, and Sawyer will be up next.

Thank you.

Can you go back to the design review?

So if it's in a hard track, like a fast track,

or is it how do you get out of the design review?

How do you get out of the design review?

Good question.

You qualify into our process, basically.

The state definition of qualifying into a process

is more than 50% affordable.

So basically a significantly affordable building.

And we're going with the state definition?

This is maybe an area that DS could provide more context on.

I think we want to have an expanded definition beyond the state definition to include as many affordable housing projects as possible.

So what's our definition? What are we using?

That's a good question.

Abe, do you have that?

Beyond the state definition?

Hi, members of committee.

Abe Bartsch with Community Planning and Development.

Unfortunately, we don't have our AHART staff here to answer the specifics of that definition.

But I think Fritz is right.

We're compiling our own definition that is as inclusive as possible while also meeting the state definition.

And then just to clarify, the design review process change that's proposed is just that no formal recommendation is required from the design review boards.

Staff will still conduct design review of the projects.

But when the AHART and the consultants created a workflow for meeting the relatively aggressive timelines for the proposition,

they found that basically it wouldn't be possible if board recommendations were required as part of the process.

That's why we're just proposing to amend the two sets of urban design standards and guidelines that involve advisory boards.

The others don't.

So let me give you a hypothetical.

So Ball Arena builds their buildings for their all affordable,

which they're required to do.

And their architect is building a building

and it doesn't follow the design review process

for the downtown area

because they're supposed to go through that

and according to that zone district that we created,

we created that nuance of them having to go

through the downtown advisory board.

What if they, it's an egregious building and they're saying, hey, this is part of an A-heart building.

Let me say this in a different way.

Oftentimes, architects will value engineer, I know you're not supposed to use that term anymore, but everyone knows what it means, affordable housing.

So it looks shoddy.

And everyone knows that you live in an affordable housing about one.

So that's why we created that zone district for Ball Arena

that required that people go through the design review process

so that they had to have uniformity without.

So how do we make sure if we update this,

how do we make sure that we're holding architects accountable

and builders accountable that don't value engineer

the affordable housing units

and then the luxury units right next to it look like luxury units

and everyone can tell that that's the affordable housing building.

Yeah, those are great thoughts and question. So the project, so Ball Arena, that's in an area subject to the downtown design standards and guidelines. And an affordable housing project there that's fast track would still have to meet the downtown urban design standards and guidelines.

They just don't need a formal recommendation from the downtown advisory board.

And we also can actually say no based on the staff design review.

Part of the process is basically for the fast track.

We need to have things broken out into smaller chunks where we say, like, no, actually, you cannot move forward.

And it stops the clock when we do that.

And we can't actually accommodate the step of going to the board and getting their recommendation within one of those chunks.

So it's just a process difference.

They still have to follow the review design and the design guidelines.

They just don't have to go through the step of going to the board.

That's right.

And we have the capability in the Denver Municipal Code or the zoning administrator to say, no, you can't move forward.

You're not meeting these design guidelines.

You have to go redesign the building.

That's right.

Okay.

Awesome. Thank you.

So then my other, I don't think we can do anything about it,

but in my council district, I have a building off of 38th and Tijon

that has more wireless cell.

It's the Gaetano's building, and it's a nightmare.

And so I just have a concern that we're,

the state mandate is mandating us to do these things,

and when I asked in my briefing what's a substantial modification,

I don't know if we had a definition.

Did you find one?

Yeah, we have a definition, a set of definitions in the zoning code.

I'm afraid that these people are, it's a lot of money.

It's a huge moneymaker.

So I'm concerned that we're going to start, when these small towers came online and I was a council aide,

everyone was like, oh, they're not going to be a big deal, blah, blah, blah.

And now they're these green poles everywhere.

We had no oversight on them.

So in three years from now, if you all start getting telecommunications because of this,

and that's what the state mandated on us, I just want to say, let me say that I forewarned you

because this is all going to go up in Council District 1.

I've had six or seven of these that my neighborhood has battled out and said no to.

And so I have a lot of concern, and I understand that we're following what the state is making us do.

but if you start seeing telecommunication towers all over your area because I get a lot of dropped

calls I get dropped calls on the rear gulch just know it's because of this text bundle

lucky you don't have coverage at all so that's just my little food for thought of being on

council for a while I I they know I have strong feelings about this um and also I think I have

a station area like a called when Excel puts in a general station I have a substation and on that

substation they have put catalytic communication things on top of there off of 40th and Inca

and it looks awful and there's nothing we can do because Excel rented them out to them and now I

think we're going to open up a loophole so just food for thought that let it be warned on January

sixth sound of what weren't you also in a couple years if you have a tissue I'm straight like I

told you but there's not much I can do about it because and so I have strong feelings if if it

were up to me I would not be approving that point that that part of the bundle at all and then the

other one is I was reading the comments for the accessory dwelling unit some of the it's not as

many public comments as I thought it had been I feel like there's some confusion with some of the

comments that came in they're saying that if we get rid of it if we get rid of the owner occupancy

that it opens up home ownership you still can't buy the adu if you don't own the primary house

so i just want to say that on the record because i read through the comments and i'm like uh that

doesn't actually help our affordability like home ownership issue because you still have to

own the house and the adu but what it would do in my council district if you have a renter

a renter could build an accessory dwelling unit on a property and when I was rezoning my council

district I heard huge opposition like I they said they wanted home ownership for an ADU

and but I do agree with opening it up for Denver Housing Authority I think that they already have

a system where it's not going to have displacement it's not going to have gentrification

they're a trusted entity, they're a trusted partner.

They go through who's going to be, they know their process of renting out units.

So I feel fine with that, but I just wanted to go on the record saying I still do not agree with Denver getting rid of the home occupancy,

having to pull a permit, because in my council district, I would have a lot of people who rent pulling permits and not informing,

and I could just see all of us getting calls and we'd all have to say that's a civil process,

that's a civil dispute we can't do anything to help you we opened up up that and i think it could

help lead to displacement i don't think it leads to more affordable housing in the research that

i've done on accessory dwelling units that i have extensively researched since 2019 when i got into

office it just it's there's pros and cons there's a benefit and a burden to all of these and i just

don't believe opening it up so just wanted to go on on the comments yeah thank you madam chair

Thank you. We will switch online to Councilmember Sawyer and then Councilmember Torres will be after that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ditto everything Council President Sandoval said.

I definitely don't have a problem with removing this or exempting Denver Housing Authority from the ADU requirement.

I do just want to say thank you to Fritz and the team for spending extra time talking through with the Cherry Creek stakeholders exactly what this meant for the community, especially with regards to the design review board.

So really appreciate you guys taking the extra time to do that and just wanted to acknowledge it and say thanks.

Thanks.

Good.

And then, yeah, Councilmember Torres.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Fritz.

and the coordinate approval dates for types of applications.

The final decision, the date of final decision rather than the recordation date,

how much time is saved there?

That's a good question.

It can be maybe a couple days to a week sometimes.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

But when we're talking about a 90-day timeline, even a day is important.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

On the site development side, extending the approval timeline to 30 months, when they

would come for an extension and it was automatically granted, was it always for one year or was

it for a time that they said that they needed?

How did you arrive at 30 months?

There was the allowed extension period in the Denver zoning code.

And that extension was not automatically granted,

but pretty much always granted under the discretion of the zoning administrator.

Was it 12 months?

That's what the code says.

That was the extension.

Okay.

So we arrived at 30 months by 18 plus 12.

Yeah.

Okay.

So you just kind of flattened it.

That's great.

I'm super supportive of the DHA side of this.

It is curious.

I think the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative, which has been the largest pusher of ADU development for anti-displacement efforts and affordability,

have at times been very supportive of lifting that ownership application piece,

because they also see that we currently have owners that currently rent the primary unit, and they can't build an ADU.

And we've had folks when I was doing West Barnum, Barnum and Villa Park ADU rezoning, that there were folks who owned properties who wanted to come back to their primary home once an ADU was built, but they can't build the ADU until they actually occupy that primary unit.

It is kind of a curious kind of space.

And I've heard Renee and others at DHA say it actually could open up a bit more if they were allowed that flexibility.

But overwhelmingly, I hear kind of the other side of it.

So I appreciate that.

I will say somewhere between 500 and 1,000 properties that DHA has that they can build an additional unit on.

And that could be an ADU.

I'm working with them right now on potentially building two unit or what's the version?

Not duplex.

Not shot.

Uh-uh.

Sorry.

Everyone but Fritz is answering.

Tandem house.

Tandem.

Thank you.

Next thing you're going to say.

But for home ownership and you know there's the there are partners of ours who are always

going to be trying to work people who are coming out of DHA into a home ownership opportunity.

So I love I think that piece they definitely have the real estate where this could be a

meaningful opportunity so appreciate the move for them.

Thank you.

Great.

I have Councilman Romero Campbell on deck followed by Councilman

.

You know what I mean.

Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I think some of the questions have, some of my questions have been

answered.

But just looking at the ADUs and the with DHA like what is the

scope?

It's 500 to a thousand homes and is that distributed across the

city or is that in specific neighborhoods or what does that

look like?

I believe it's distributed across the city.

We, I don't think even they necessarily have a list that they've been able to give us yet.

I know the, they know where they are.

They know what properties they are.

The, we've had this ongoing correspondence with the commenter, Sue Fry, who is asking them for a list.

We've just directed her to, yeah, so I don't, I don't have the list, but they are distributed.

I don't think, like HIPAA, you can't just hand over, I mean, that could,

lead to people protesting because people...

Right. Well, yeah. And Susan lives in my district. And so she's also

contacted me as well. And I've spoken with her. I know that

she had talked about just disaggregated and wanted to know more about

Denver Housing Authority and where

not where properties are, but is it throughout the city what it looks like?

I think also as a property owner and having rentals,

this would mean that she wouldn't be eligible for this as well.

Let me say this another way.

If it's just DHA, it means that if she were to put an ADU on properties that she owns,

it would have to be an owner-occupied property, so she would not be exempt.

Right.

Just DHA.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure that that was on the record,

that we are understanding what that means

because she was asking about that specifically

or if it was open to other entities that are not DHA,

other developers.

We say DHA and affiliates,

that basically means owned by DHA.

Yes, and again, we had wanted to maybe go a little more

broad with this initially but just ran into technical issues not to overwhelm a future

process. I think it's something that could definitely go into the unlocking housing choice

process there as we look at ways to open that up more. Okay. Well, thank you. I wanted to be able

to get that on record. As far as the telecommunications, I agree they're popping up more and more.

and I mean it seems like a building, a location gets selected

and then everything else gets to be a barnacle on that.

So I hear what you're saying.

That's all my questions.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Council Member Alvarez followed by Lewis.

Thank you so much.

So just to follow up, I do appreciate a lot of the concerns

Council President brought up about the devices.

What are they?

The poles.

Wireless? Yes. Telecommunication.

That piece. I'm curious, so if we were to not make that change, we could lose Prop 123 funding. Is that why we're doing that?

No, they're not related, but basically a telecommunication company could point to state law and say state law allows us to do this.

So they could sue us over not making this change.

Potentially.

Okay, that's interesting. Thank you for that.

But I did want to say, one, for the ADUs, I do have a concern that people can't afford to build them.

Even with the Westside Collaborative, like, it's still extremely expensive.

And so I do think it could potentially add value to have other entities be able to do this,

like when they're fixing and flipping a home or, you know, fixing up a house.

because as someone that hopes that my parents will live in an ADU behind me one day,

I would like to buy a house with one instead of have to build one myself.

Personally, my background's in construction.

I built an addition to my house, and it is not fun to go through that process

and to contract with a contractor that can mistreat you, steal money from you,

and all kinds of things.

So it is very stressful to try and build something yourself.

On another note, on the DHA, I do agree about the ADUs.

One of my neighbors have a single-family home is a DHA renter, so I think that would be great.

Our lots are very big.

I'm just curious.

The ADUs would only be added to single-family, right?

Because we have, like, townhomes also on my street that are DHA, and they wouldn't be able to add ADU.

Is it, like, blanket across any zoning could add an ADU?

or is it for single family?

Anywhere it would be allowed by zoning already,

but for the owner occupancy requirement.

Okay.

Just to clarify,

with community planning and development,

the owner occupancy requirement only applies to single unit right now.

And so it already doesn't apply to adding ADUs to townhomes

or to a duplex or other situations like higher level zone districts.

So they don't need that exception.

They've already got the ability.

I'm curious.

Something I've run into in my district is that there's areas that are zoned single family,

but the actual house there is a townhome or multifamily, even though the zoning doesn't allow.

What would that, would the zoning in that instance defer to the actual zoning or the reality of what's built on that property?

That's a good complicated zoning question.

So we have special provisions that make like existing duplexes, for example, that are in single unit districts.

Like essentially you could rebuild one even after voluntarily demolishing it.

So there's some acknowledgement that there's a different reality than single unit on the ground.

That doesn't extend to the ADU allowances.

So not technically allowed unless there was a rezoning.

Interesting.

Okay.

Great.

That answered my question.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis and then Watson will be after that.

I have one question and then I have a request.

The only question that I have for you is with the mini bundle, are you able to break each

of these decisions into separate things that council would be able to vote on in the event

that council members were supportive of some of the things that are within the bundle and

not supportive of some of the things that are within the bundle would not like to vote

no on the entire bundle when it comes to the full body.

Wow.

I probably would need to defer to where our attorney is on that, honestly.

You don't have to answer it in this moment.

Yeah.

Potentially, but we might need to redo some parts of the process.

I'm not exactly sure about that. Sorry.

That's good. And then the second is if I could just get a briefing on these.

Of course. Yeah.

That's it. Thank you.

Council Member Watson.

Thank you, Committee Chair.

And the ADU question, I'm curious, Fritz and team,

did you create or could you, giving you more work, unfortunately,

a clarifying document, whatever you want to call it,

that demonstrates the impacts of this mini bundle ADU change?

Because I think it's still not clear,

and Council President clarified it in her original comment.

However, as this is moving to the floor,

is there something that community, as they're following this,

to see these based on ADU zoning change that we pass as City Council,

this targeted process for DHA, this is how this is impacted.

This is how it's not impacted.

I mean, our offices can do that to people coming to us,

but I'm curious if you all have done that.

I couldn't find it in your stuff like you had.

Not frequently asked, question, whatever you want to call it.

Just to clarify, this is what current ADU requirements are

within the city and county of Denver.

This is the state requirements.

This is what we're asking for the exceptions for DHA.

And kind of a simple one-pager assembly.

It would be helpful instead of us having to articulate it on the floor.

Sure.

If not giving you more work, but that would be helpful.

I might follow up with you on that to get a better sense of it.

It's all the questions that we're asking, just simply a one pager, clarifying it in

that one pager.

Because folks aren't going, they're going to confuse the current processes and there

are two different ways we're doing ADUs now.

We're doing what the state is requiring.

And the city and county of Denver has differences in RAD.

It would be very good for us to see that in writing.

Yes.

And this exception for DHA is closer to what the state is requiring.

It's actually not related to state compliance.

Okay.

But we can make that clear.

Correct.

That's what I'm saying.

Having that clarifier would be helpful, at least for me, so we can provide it to folks.

We'll be on touch on it.

And the DHA piece, I've got to be clear.

I think it's a great idea.

I think it makes sense.

And so I appreciate that work.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

I don't have any questions.

It is an action item, so we need a motion and a second to move both items to the floor,

moved by Torres, seconded by Sandoval.

Does anyone want a voice vote?

Okay, great.

Thumbs up.

I will check our online member for her thumb.

I'm just pausing for Sawyer, but it looks like we're good to go.

I'm good.

Thumbs up.

Thank you.

Okay.

And with that, we have one more action item today.

It's an action-packed day.

and nothing on consent because we weren't here last week.

Thank you so much, Fritz.

All right.

Joe, good to see you.

Anytime you're ready, you're good to go.

My name is Joe Green with Community Planning and Development.

Today we're looking at a rezoning at 1965 North Virginia.

I'm going to start with the end because I realized it was a little buried in my staff report.

Staff is recommending denial on this, and planning board recommended unanimously for approval.

So that's the tension that we're bringing.

So we'll walk through my analysis, or our analysis, and then I briefly touch on planning board's analysis,

but you have documents of deliberation that go in a lot more detail of how they got to their decision.

So I'll try to go a little fast through the first three sections since there might be some questions

and spend most of the time on the review criteria.

So the applicant is requesting ESUDX to go to ESUB.

The biggest difference with these two districts is that ESUDX has a minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet

and ESUB has a minimum lot size requirement of 4,500 square feet,

which within lot size of over 9,000 square feet would allow them to split the parcel and build changes.

So looking at the location and context, it's in Council District 8, Council Member Lewis's district.

It's at the very northern border of East Colfax neighborhood.

Again, the existing zoning is ESUDX.

The X in this case stands for the allowance of a suburban house building form as well as the urban house building form.

The proposed district just allows the urban house building form.

It is completely surrounded on all sides by ESUDX.

There's some old Chapter 59 zoning just to the north that's a school.

Again, it is used as a single unit use.

Surrounded by single unit uses, there is that school just to the north, which is showing up in blue.

Most of the houses in this neighborhood are relatively small scale, single story, as is the one in question.

Looking at the process, this application was submitted in June, so it has taken us six months to get here.

We did have a planning board session scheduled in September, but the applicant requested a little bit more time to prepare for the hearing,

so that was pushed back to December 3rd.

All of the notices and signs were posted.

Planning board, again, voted unanimously to recommend approval.

They said that there are many plan policies and goals in Blueprint Denver and Comp Plan

2040 that support this application.

They found it to be in the public interest and thought that it fit with the intent statements

found in the Denver Zoning Code.

Again, there's more detail in the documents of deliberation.

This is very high level.

The applicant does have a letter of support from the East Colfax Neighborhood Association

where they talked about how smaller lot housing is more affordable and that more housing,

your amenities is in the neighborhood's interest, the amenities along East Colfax.

The applicant also provided the names and contact information of 41 neighbors who are supportive

of the rezoning, and we have received no comments to say, opposition or support, and no plea of

testimony. So getting into the review criteria, as you know, there are three rezoning review

criteria that we must find it through, starting with its consistency with adopted plans.

Starting with Comp Plan 2040, we do find this application to be consistent with Comp Plan 2040.

There's three goals that I have listed here. I won't spend too much time on them. They're high

level. Getting into Blueprint Denver, the plan designates this property as urban edge, which

says that these areas should be low-scale, single, and two-unit residential uses, and

they should promote and protect residential neighborhoods.

We find that the application is consistent with this language.

It would allow a single unit use, and it would protect and promote residential neighborhoods.

It designates the future place as residential low, which talks about single unit and two-unit

uses on small or medium lots.

This is a single unit use on a small or medium lot, relatively small in our code.

So we do think it's consistent with this language.

However, on the same page as that language is this yellow box that calls out exactly how staff should apply residential low guidance to proposed rezonings.

And it talks about uses, which is mainly focused on two unit uses, and it talks about minimum lot size.

So this box down at the bottom is the most relevant.

language, which I've called out here, bolded. So it says, for applicant-driven requests on

individual sites, which is what we're looking at today, an individual site proposed by an applicant,

it is only appropriate to allow smaller lot sizes if there's an established pattern in the

surrounding blocks of smaller lots with similar uses. So Blueprint Denver doesn't define what a

pattern is. So there's some interpretation that has to happen for this language. So when

staff looks at this, when we interpret surrounding blocks to mean adjacent. So anything that is

touching this block. An established pattern, we're looking for a few lot sizes that are

consistent with the requested zone district that are the same. Yeah, a few on each different

block. So to do that, skip this slide and come back to it, we look at the lot size analysis.

So this shows basically color-coded the lot sizes of all the different parcels in the

immediate area. Again, we're looking at the ones that are just adjacent to it. Anything in yellow,

orange, or red, we'd say contributes to a pattern of smaller lot sizes. On the block, you can see

there are two parcels that have a lot size that would be allowed by the zone district.

On the block to the east, there are four parcels that we'd say would contribute to a pattern,

but there are none on the blocks to the west or south or southeast. So staff does not find this

to be a pattern. I do want to go back to this slide. Blueprint Denver also directs us to when

we can depart from the established lot pattern. It says a departure may be appropriate if there

The request includes a larger area, generally greater than one block, and the intent is

to set a new pattern for the area.

This can be expressed by small area plans or significant neighborhood input.

Since we are just looking at an individual parcel, not a larger area, not anything greater

than a block, we don't think the small area plan or significant neighborhood input has

a whole lot to play here, big role to play here.

But we're going to look at the East Area Plan because Blueprint Denver does give a lot of

deference to neighborhood plans. It doesn't have a lot to say about lot area. Most of what is found

is in the description of low residential single unit, which is the designated future place here,

slightly different than Blueprint Denver. It says that additional primary units would only be

appropriate where they already exist or as determined through a future regulatory process

to integrate missing middle housing. We consider unlocking housing choices to be that regulatory

process. So we do not think it meets this plan guidance.

It would allow an additional primary unit where it does not currently exist.

Looking at the next criteria, public

interest, the proposed

generally staff interprets this guidance as

whether it implements our adopted plan guidance or not. There's obviously a lot of ways to

argue that an additional housing unit is in the public's interest when we have

housing crisis. But Blueprint Denver and the East Area Plan both call for more housing,

but they call for it to be implemented at a citywide scale and not with one-off rezonings.

So we don't find it to meet this criteria, but understand that there's lots of ways to argue that

it does. And then finally, consistency with the purpose and intent statements found in the Denver

zoning code. We can walk through each one of these in turn. So at the broad scale, the urban

neighborhood zone districts are primarily single and two unit uses on local or residential streets.

This meets that. Fits with that guidance. The residential districts in particular are supposed

to promote and protect residential neighborhoods and accommodate reinvestment in residential

districts. This rezoning would fit with that guidance. And then specifically to ESUB,

It talks about it being a single unit district with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet.

This doesn't fit with how Blueprint Denver calls us to implement lower minimum lot sizes.

So we don't think this minimum lot size fits with like that.

We don't think it meets this criteria because of that.

So we do recommend denial based on finding that the review criteria have not been met.

I'm available for questions.

The rezoning supervisor, Liz Weigel, is here if you stumped me.

And the applicant is also here for questions.

Great.

Thank you for that.

I'm going to go ahead and read the planning board document of deliberation into the record

for the council meeting.

I know you guys all have it, but just so that we have that perspective.

I don't remember this ever happening since I've been on this committee or its predecessors.

So.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

Okay.

Not since I've been chairing this committee, but yes, that's true.

It has happened in the last two years.

So I'll just, I won't read the whole thing, but I'll try to neutrally summarize their primary concerns,

because it was a 9-0 vote.

So first they say, the proposed rezoning still maintains an established single unit detached character,

while providing another lot on which to construct one,

introducing gentle density that's consistent with the development pattern throughout the neighborhood

and on the specific block.

So even if there hasn't been a pattern of lot splits,

they're sort of making an argument that the building form

that would be added would remain consistent.

The setbacks in the building form requirements

preserve the same relationship to the public realm

that exists throughout the zone district.

And then if properties are not permitted to rezone

to a designation that aligns with the context

and adds a slight increase of density,

the area will struggle to support

Blueprint Denver's growth strategy,

which calls for the neighborhood to absorb collectively

as a neighborhood 20% of new households in the city by 2040,

particularly near corridors and transit as this location is.

Recommendation L6 of the East Area Plan does talk about housing retention

and introduction of missing middle housing

and promotes future citywide efforts to add housing.

Let's see.

I think those are the main points.

I just want to make sure I'm kind of fairly capturing them.

Yeah, I think that's probably a fair summary.

They also just at conclusion, I think the planning board members relied on the public interest and said that, you know, this isn't strictly, you know, it's not violating plans.

It falls under some things that plans would support and seems to go against other portions of plans, but it's not sort of a clear cut violation.

and in their view, the proposed rezoning serves the public interest,

particularly because it's proposed by a member of the community

who has been involved in neighborhood planning,

has done a lot of neighborhood engagement,

which is also considered by the plans,

and goes towards efforts to gently add density.

So I think that's hopefully an okay summary of the planning board document.

And with that, I am keeping the queue,

and we'll start with Council Member Lewis,

if she wants to since this is in her district no okay cool in that case um councilmember

sawyer is first followed by council president sorry councilmember sawyer i kind of sprung that

on you and i know you're all good thank you um i just my camera wouldn't turn on and i couldn't

figure out why for a second there but here i am um so question for cpd um about spot rezoning so the

is there anything in Blueprint Comp 2040 or the East Area Plan,

I literally cannot remember even though I spent three years of my life

involved in the East Area Plan,

that is specific to prohibitions on spot rezoning?

Probably intelligently about spot rezoning than me.

Good afternoon.

Liz Weigel with CPD.

spent the three years with Councilman Sawyer on the East Area Plan. So spot zoning, and I know

our attorneys could probably chime in if they need to, but that's specifically maybe when you would

rezone inconsistent with your plans or without the guidance. So even if you have a small lot

versus multiple lots, as long as you can find it consistent with our criteria, it's not considered

a spot zoning. But maybe the question you're asking is more about what the East Area Plan

recommended, which it's very specific about having a comprehensive process for how we

integrated additional units. And again, having been through that process, we did at one point

have discussions about more specific guidance in certain neighborhoods and it was a discussion of

like, we would like this to be done comprehensively so that we can think about kind of the other tools

that we may need in place and not kind of burden one neighborhood more than another. But it does

say that we should look to a comprehensive process for integrating more units.

Yeah. Okay. So I remember the conversation about having a more comprehensive process.

And I think as an aside, you know, we never had that conversation and this is just one more

example of the ways in which we have created these NPI plans and then not moved forward with

the conversations that it said to have in the MPI plans, which is kind of frustrating.

But I want to just make sure I'm wrapping my mind around this. So a spot rezoning is kind of defined

in our comprehensive plan and blueprint as a rezoning that occurs in an area where you can't

find the pattern and what you have presented to us here can't find the pattern. Is that correct?

We don't technically design to find spot zoning anywhere in our comprehensive plans. That's more

of like a legal term I think that gets used sometimes. But yes, the plan speaks to looking

at one-off individual rezoning, so single site and how we should evaluate that. And that's what

what we often call the yellow box in our in in blueprint demo which is kind of adding additional

guidance to look at for small single site rezonings and that's the piece where we need to look to see

is there a pattern basically is our existing zoning maybe not reflecting the existing pattern

in the neighborhood and that's a reason that an individual one would be appropriate

so we analyze that guidance about what to do with this one site rezoning okay um

I really appreciate that.

So it's hard to jump back and forth between online and in the room.

So I will just say now while you guys have me online, I'm really concerned about this.

I'm willing to move it forward to the full council because I think that everyone who comes through for rezoning should be entitled to the entire council hearing it.

I have some significant reservations about the disconnect between CPD's lack of a recommendation and the planning board moving it forward anyway.

So I will save that for the floor and think long and hard about this.

But I do think it is ready to go in front of all of council to be considered.

And so I will move it forward.

I'm that does not mean that I'm going to be a yes on the floor. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. Um, let's see. That might be everybody that's in the queue.

Actually. Does anyone else want in? Oh, council president. Oh, I'm so sorry.

I had you two reversed in my head. Council president. Um,

so I'm looking at the, um,

planning board deliberative document.

And I feel like they're,

they put Councilman Alvidrez in the same pickle,

and they're putting now Councilwoman Lewis in the same pickle

and circumventing the process that we just had a whole entire meeting on

with planning board unlocking housing choices.

So, yes, it does say that in, I mean, their recommendation

that aisle six of the East Area Plan is focused on housing retention

and introduction of missing middle housing.

so does my plan in northwest Denver so does the west area plan so does the area

plan that we just approved for council member Flynn so does the sparse

southeast plan every plan says that and I feel like we should go through the

process and follow the process of unlocking housing choices and if that's

what we choose to do is open up zone districts like this then that's what we

can do through that tool and not just have these one-offs because once you

rezone this the prop the properties over across the street can use this as a precedent and rezone

and then other people in this area can use this as a precedent for rezoning and once i just don't

want that a flood to come in and from council from council district 7 or council district 8

when we have a process called unlocking housing choices that is talking about this so i mean every

Every bullet point that they make, I can go into the plan

and find contradictory information

and actually contradict every single bullet point

that they have in here with that plan

and Blueprint Denver and Comp Plan.

So I think that you get a piecemeal

when you do these deliverative,

because we need you to have these deliverative

planning board documents.

I like them because we understand where their vote is coming from.

But I just, our plans are our plans right now.

And I can make a, if this happens in this council district,

so you all know, I get these all the time in council district one.

And I tell them no, that we have to go through the unlocking housing choice process,

that we have to go through the neighborhood planning process,

and that I will vote these down because they don't rep, they don't meet plan support.

So just so you know, I think I've had like three of these last year in my council district.

So I feel like if we open it up for one in the city, we open it up for all of them in the city.

So I'll end there.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Okay, I think that is the end of the queue.

I'm just pausing to think if I have any real questions, and I don't know that I do.

Is that a getting in queue face?

Anybody?

Okay.

I just always hesitate when there's only a few of us.

So we need a motion and a second to move it to the floor.

I just had a quick...

Yeah, I will say something because...

Great, thanks.

For me, I think it's sufficient to say that because Blueprint Denver allows for the interpretation of the term established patterns,

that we've seen this in surrounding blocks as well.

And I think this is an opportunity for us as we look at the splitting of the lots,

that it could potentially open the opportunity in East Colfax in particular that has really large lots

to be able to offer additional housing.

And so I would like to see this go to the floor.

You all can vote as you do, and I'll do the same.

But I do think it's worth us having a more robust conversation.

I will also note that I did not know that this was up today

because it was tagged as Council District 7 instead of 8.

And so I wanted to also be able to get some time to really dig into what this is

So if you all could support and just move it to the floor

so that I can at least dig into what this is and is not,

I might appreciate that.

Yeah, and you know what?

I did want to ask, I have one question,

which is that I think Joe said that the applicant is here,

is in the room.

Okay, yeah.

If you don't mind coming up to the mic and introducing yourself,

and my question for you would just be,

I thought giving you a minute to explain

why you feel like this is in the public interest

and, you know, maybe talk about some of the community engagement

that you did I think would be helpful. So thank you. Thank you everyone. My name is Pavel. I am

the property owner of 1965 Verbena Street and I did or I submitted the request to resell my property

just because I know that we are in in a housing crisis in Denver. I have been part of the community.

I've been the homeowner of my property for over eight years, and it's something that I'm passionate about.

I have housed, so my background, I immigrated from Ukraine back in 2002, and more recently with the war in Ukraine that started.

There's a program, it's called You4U, Uniting for Ukraine.

And during that period, since we've gotten influx of Ukrainian refugees, I have taken in three different families to stay in my home because we had some spare bedrooms.

But I feel like splitting, rezoning my property, splitting the lot and having more additional housing would just benefit our community.

So those are, I think, are great intentions.

And then I saw a mention on the planning board document of community engagement, so

I was just curious about that too.

Oh, right.

So I reached out to East Colfax Neighborhood Association, and I've gotten a letter of support

from them.

And I also did neighborhood outreach.

I spent several Saturdays, a couple hours a day, and I walked around to all my neighbors,

door-knocking and gotten positive engagement from my neighbors that they

would not be opposed and if needed I could also get their signatures to

support my cause. Thank you that does make a difference to me I think because

that's not always the case so thank you so much and thank you for being here and

for everything you're doing. Okay any further questions triggered by any of

that and if not I'll take a motion in a second. I'm moved by Alvedra, seconded by

Louis does anybody need a voice vote okay and thumbs up to go to the floor and I'll watch for

Sawyer online all right she said she was good to go so I won't make her pop up again okay um thank

you so much we will see you on the floor thanks Joe yeah 10 minutes left committee for today

Thank you.