Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Spot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contested rezoning at 1965 N. Virginia sent to full council after split staff and Planning Board recommendations
Summary
CPD staff recommended denial of a rezoning at 1965 North Virginia (ESUDX to ESUB) because staff found no established pattern of smaller lots required by Blueprint Denver guidance, while the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval; the committee voted to send the application to the full council for a final decision.
A contested rezoning request for 1965 North Virginia was sent to the full Denver City Council after committee discussion on Jan. 6 that highlighted differing recommendations from CPD staff and the Planning Board.
Joe Green of CPD opened the presentation by saying staff recommends denial: the application would change a parcel from ESUDX to ESUB (which has a smaller minimum lot size and allows an urban house building form). Staff said the request does not meet Blueprint Denver’s guidance for allowing smaller lots on an individual site because the surrounding blocks lack an established pattern of similarly small lots, and staff therefore concluded the review criteria were not met.
Green noted Planning Board, by a 9‑0 vote, recommended approval. The committee chair read portions of the Planning Board deliberation into the record: Planning Board members said the proposal would maintain a single‑unit detached character while introducing gentle density consistent with the block’s form, and they emphasized neighborhood engagement and the public‑interest case for adding modest housing options.
Applicant Pavel said he owns the property and has lived there eight years; he described door‑to‑door outreach and said splitting the lot would allow additional housing that would help during the city’s housing crisis. He also told the committee he has sheltered several Ukrainian refugee families and said additional units would serve community needs.
Councilmembers debated plan consistency, spot‑rezoning concerns and whether the request should wait for a citywide unlocking‑housing‑choices process. Several members said the issue merits a full council hearing; one councilmember said she would likely vote no on the floor while still consenting to send the item to the council. A motion to move the application to the full council was made and seconded (mover: Alvidrez; second: Lewis); the committee used a thumbs‑up/voice vote and the chair confirmed the item will appear on the council floor for deliberation and a final vote.
