A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5611 East Iowa Avenue in Virginia Village. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 5611 East Iowa Avenue from S-SU-D to S-RH-2.5 (suburban, single-unit to suburban, rowhouse) in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-10-18.
Nine ice nine as council bill 848. Has passed. Councilman Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 705 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 dead 0705 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 705 is open. May we have the staff reports? Sorry. It's asking me to sign in. Yeah. Activate office. You just get my. Sorry about that. Thank you. My name is Chandler Van Skog. I'm from Community Planning and Development. As you know, this is for an official map amendment 5611 East Iowa AB from sued to SRH 2.5. The subject's eight 5611 East Highway AV. Is located in Council District six in the Virginia Village neighborhood. The lot is approximately 14,191 square feet or about a third of an acre and is currently vacant. Again, the proposal is to rezone this lot from SUD to as RH 2.5 to allow redevelopment of the parcel with two duplexes for a total of four units. So the requested zone district suburban stands for suburban neighborhood Context Rowhouse, a 2.5 storey height limit. So that's RH 2.5. As a multi-unit district, it allows suburban house duplex and row house building forms up to two and a half storeys in height. So a bit about the existing context. So the subject site, as you know, is currently zoned SUD. It is adjacent to several other zone districts to the north. You have some ex to to the east, you have more as a said to the west across Holly Street and there is some zoning as well as SRH 2.5. And to the south it's said. In terms of land use. As I mentioned before, the subject site is currently vacant and has been for as long as we have records surrounding properties and include a variety of uses to the immediate north. There is not a repair shop across Holly. To the west is our town homes and then single family dwelling units are adjacent to the lot on either side. Further to the north, south of the border, and there's an insurance office, gas station and a retail store. So in terms of the building form and scale, these are some pictures of the existing context. Starting from the upper left, you can see the existing townhomes across Holly Street. On the upper right is the existing auto repair shop that's adjacent to the site to the north. The bottom right picture shows the subject site currently in it's vacant state. And then down to the left is a single family home across the intersection there, which is representative of many of the other homes in the area. And so a bit about the process so far, this item on the planning board on June 20th, 2018, our planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval. That was five zero with one abstention. And it went to Luti on July 10th. And today it is here before you council. In terms of public comment, prior to the planning board hearing, staff did receive three letters of opposition which were forwarded to the board. On that planning board, a member from the R.A. spoke in support and several neighbors were there to speak in opposition to the proposal. Since then, the applicant has signed a good neighbor agreement with the R.A. and the R.A. has provided a letter of support. Both of these are included with your packet. So jumping into the review criteria. Proposals for rezoning are reviewed against these five criteria. So the first criteria required or criterion requires consistency with adopted plans. In this case, the Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver are the two adopted plans that apply. Staff has found that the proposal is consistent with several strategies listed in the comprehensive plan. I won't read all of them, but generally these strategies are centered around promoting quality, infill development, increasing densities in appropriate locations, creating a diverse mix of housing types, and supporting addition of housing, particularly in infill development. In terms of the consistency with Blueprint Denver and this is a land use designation map showing that the subject property has a a land use concept of single family residential. This land use concept anticipates single family homes as the predominant residential type. It's worth noting that the historic development of this block north of Iowa has a lot of properties that are designated single family residential. But the development of this block does not reflect the underlying designation and blueprint. Denver does address this to an extent, and that it mentions that land use building block boundaries are not fixed and some areas are in a state of transition. Another aspect that we look at here is whether it's in an area of change or an area of stability. In this case, the lot is in an area of stability. The purpose of areas of stability are to maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. So there is a very unique character, this area between Iowa and Florida. It's worth noting that the existing Townhomes, Auto Body Office use and retail have all been there for 50 years or more. So in that sense, they are very much a part of the existing character on this block. And that was really what staff took into account when deciding that this was consistent with the area of stability designation. In terms of future street classifications, East Iowa, ATVs and designated local. So that is tailored to providing local access primarily at slower speeds. South Hadley Street is a residential collector. This is intended to balance transportation choices with land access without sacrificing on mobility. These are generally designed to accommodate more trips per day than local streets. And the staff found that SRH 2.5 is consistent with the street classifications because the zone district enables low intensity and low scale multi-unit residential uses along streets designated for residential purposes and traffic levels. So step KPD finds that the rezoning is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver Criteria two and three have also been met criteria and to requires uniformity of district regulations. So in this case, the request is consistent. There are no waivers or special exceptions being requested. It also furthers the public health, safety and welfare by implementing the city's adopted plans and allowing development of an underutilized infill site consistent with the existing residential character in the area. Criteria. Number four requires justifying circumstances. In this case, the proposal was found to meet change or changing conditions in a particular area or in the city generally. So as outlined in the staff report, there's been significant new development at the Colorado station area as well as on the Colorado Boulevard corridor. Also, in terms of citywide changes, there's been an increased demand for housing. This rezoning would facilitate the provision of additional housing, again, an underutilized infill site. And then the fifth criterion requires consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district, purpose and intent. So the zone district purpose itself doesn't specify too much, but there is some language in the suburban neighborhood context definition which works well here. So the suburban neighborhood context is generally characterized by single unit and multi-unit residential. Multi-unit building forms are typically separated from single unit residential and consist of row house and occasional mid and high rise apartment building forms. And perhaps most importantly for this proposal. Multi-unit, residential and commercial uses are primarily located along arterial and collector streets. So staff finds that it meets criteria number five and that it separates. It keeps essentially the multi-unit and single family generally separate in terms of character. And it is located along a collector street, which is designed to handle slightly higher traffic levels. So in closing, I see that he recommends approval of application 2017 I 190 based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you very much. We do have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. I apologize if I get your name wrong. When I call you up, please step up to the podium and your 3 minutes will start. First up, Andre Pavilion. If. Thank you, counsel. Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Andre Coogan to eight, nine, nine North Sphere Boulevard. I'll keep this brief. Just wanted to say, you know, we've been working on this with the community for quite a while now. We actually met with the park or the Virginia Village Neighborhood Organization on Valentine's Day night with Council Cashman, Councilman Cashman present. And I've been working on it since then. We actually then realized we needed to move over and be talking with the Park Neighborhood Organization. And as as Chandler said, we have come to a good neighbor agreement that has been signed with them. It is SRH 2.5. But our our intent was to build duplexes, not to do townhomes. That was, I think, a good portion of the neighborhood concern in the previous public forums. Just very quickly, the the good neighbor agreement that we've signed stipulates that we are going to use the duplex form. Of the Rowhouse District. Which limits it to which limits any development to the same building height, the same lot coverage, the same setbacks in the same book. Playing requirements that are required under single family are under SUD, which is the current zoning. Literally, we are just asking for two more front doors. I ask for your support in this? I think, as Chandler pointed out, I think the increased density without it being harmful to the neighborhood that blueprint Denver and the comprehensive plan both call for I think are applicable here in the vacant lot, being on a collector street, being close to a neighborhood center and be the presence of that zoning district across the street. Thank you for your help. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next up, Kelley Smith. Thank you. Kelly Smith, 1864 South 18th Street. I'm here representing Cooke Park Neighborhood. If there's any questions. Thank you. And last up, Keith Niland. Hello. Thanks for having me. So my name is Keith now and I'm the owner of the lot at 5611 East Iowa Avenue. Personal addresses for two. Well, excuse me, 43, South Gilman Street in Denver. And I'm here to just answer any questions you guys have as well. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Yes. Uh. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Chandler. I'm sorry. Councilman Cashman. Have questions first. Okay. In the staff report, it says that the public comments, including letters of opposition, were included. But they're not on the attachment that's been uploaded here in our system. Could you describe what the what the opposition was in the staff report? It says there were two folks who who opposed the rezoning unless there was a good neighbor agreement which has subsequently happened, but that there were three people who said they were against it, regardless of whether there was a good neighbor agreement. What was the opposition based on? So I think initially the opposition was based on the allowable rowhouse building form of the district. Right. Because the suburban context, it doesn't have a two unit zone district. This is the next step up essentially from single family. So when the proposal came in for RH 2.5, people kind of saw that. I think there is. It allows ten units per 6000 square feet. So the lot theoretically, although I don't know how you would fit, it could have 20 units on it. So I think there was an initial kind of scare with people that that's what they were proposing to build. So that's kind of where the Good Neighbor agreement came from. And then the people who showed up, the people who were kind of conditionally opposed, I guess you could say, were those who spoke at planning board. And they kind of expressed concern with the potential to have 20 units, but they said that they would be less concerned if some sort of agreement was reached to limit it to duplexes. Okay. And the subsequent specifics of the good neighbor agreement are what. The specifics of the good neighbor agreement are, that they will build two duplex units. They're limited to four units total. And that and the code kind of already requires this anyways, but also that they will meet the setback building coverage, building height and bulk standards for single family dwellings. And the code requires that anyways, but it's just kind of laid out in the Good Neighbor Agreement as well. Oh, and there's one more piece which I don't I believe this that has to be listed for sale for a minimum of six months. The units. 90 days. Mm hmm. Okay. Could could you explain why I believe that neighbors were concerned about them just becoming rental properties right off the bat. So, yeah, so they're they have 90 days to sell them and then if they're unable to sell them, I think there's a clause that allows them to rent them at that point. Ah, thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Andre or Keith? Some specifics about what you're planning. I believe the neighbor is it the neighbor to the east had an easement across the north portion of the property. What is the status of that easement? I'll address that. So the easement is recorded and is, you know, a public document and will be will certainly be observed regardless. It's his access easement to his garage off of Holly. But we also included it in the Good Neighbor Agreement that, you know, it will not be. It will not be blocked or, you know, nothing. Nothing will prevent him from being able to use to use his garage during construction or once the project is completed. Great. Regarding what you're planning on building, which we describe as two duplexes, give me an idea about what size are you envisioning? What price point are? Is parking garage part of the project? What do you envision? Well, so I'll I'll let Keith. We haven't actually started design yet. And I can tell you that each duplex will have would have its own two car garage. I'll let Keith address address the rest of that. Thank you. So we're looking at building two duplexes that would both face Iowa, the front doors, and then use that the alleyway that he has deeded access to. That's where we would put detached garages in the back so each duplex would have a two car garage back there. And we're probably looking at depends on our price point, but probably around the 6 to 700000 per unit in roughly about 2200 feet per unit above grade with an unfinished basement. That's kind of what we're looking at. So this thing, like you said, the single family structure that we could build in that envelope, just adding that extra door, it's the same size structure. We're just putting the wall down the middle for each of those units. Okay. Thank you, Chandler. As you know, my heartburn was not so much about these duplexes as as more so being. Does this now signal that this ACA neighborhood is now wide open for duplex development? Is there is there something unique about their property that might not? That makes it a unique choice for this opening where the next door neighbor or the guy across the street might not be. Yes. As I as I tried to kind of outline on the staff report, I think a big part of it is support for this comes from the the unique character between Florida and Iowa. Essentially, you have the neighborhood center that's at the intersection of Holly and Florida and that's, you know, designated neighborhood center and Blueprint Denver. And kind of extending from that, it's more of a mixed use context than the rest of the neighborhood. So when we're looking at a site and looking at the existing context and the surrounding uses, you know, this is a pretty unique site and that it's on a collector. It's been vacant forever and it has a gas station next to it on one side or an outer repair shop next to it on one side. It's immediately across the street from one single family home and then a townhouse development. So the way that we were looking at it, you know, the adjacency is much more of a mixed use context, whereas if you cross the street or go immediately east or west, then lots no longer have all of those qualities. They're either not on a collector or they're not adjacent to mixed use context. So in that sense, this is a very unique lot. Right? So the next door neighbor, even though he might say, well, hey, my neighbor has duplexes, he doesn't meet those unique criteria of being on either a collector or being adjacent to commercial property. Is that correct then? I mean, I can't say 100%, you know, without seeing an application whether or not we would we would make the finding that it met the criteria or not, but just kind of at first glance from a very high level. No, the other lots in that neighborhood would not have the same strength in our view. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel CASHMAN Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for House Bill 705 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. As I mentioned, when this was first brought up, I was concerned about that that firewall. This is a single family, a neighborhood, and we have this unique property on the corner. But there's that concern about does does this open the door as a kind of a de facto zoning change, a legislative rezoning for the entire neighborhood I've spoken with? Chandler several times about it. I spoke with Sarah Showalter this afternoon about it. And I'm confident that, as the staff report states, that this parcel has unique characteristics, that the others next door, across the street, down the block don't don't present. So I'm comfortable in approving this. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Raquel. Kathryn can each new black high brooks. When I. Gilmore i. Herndon, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Sorry. You have to find one more. 9898705 has passed. On Monday, September 10th, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 880, approving the service plans for the creation of 40 2001 Arkansas Metropolitan District Number one and 4201 Arkansas Metropolitan District number two and a required public hearing on Council Bill 881 approving the service plan for the creation of the 2000