Rezones 620 West 1st Avenue and a portion of 90 Galapago Street from U-RH-2.5 to I-MX-3 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 620 West 1st Avenue and a portion of 90 Galapago Street from U-RH-2.5 (Urban, Row House, 2.5 stories) to I-MX-3 (Industrial, Mixed-Use, 3 stories) in Council District 7. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM.  REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-2-15.
There's not a specific development proposal here, and if nothing else, this slide will really explain why they're here before you. Tonight has to do with a parcel line adjustment that was done since the time of zoning in 2010. So before with the map that's on the left, it shows how the parcels were previously split with 90 Galapagos being A to the West and 620 West first being be to the east. After that time, the then owner adjusted the parcel line through an assessment, through assessment and sold parts of the parcel separately but did not do a zone lot line adjustment with it with the Development Services Department. So what happened was it changed the parcel lines which are shown in red to what you see on the right hand side afterward today. So a is 90 Galapagos and includes the surface parking that goes all the way to the alley b is 620 west first avenue includes the four unit residential and surface parking behind it, but the zone lot lines remain the way they were before. So what? So the result is that on the parcel A that one parcel owned by one owner is actually split into two zone lots at one part, one zone lot, and then a portion of another zone . What if they were to rezone? They could do a zone lot amendment to conform their zone. Lots to their parcel lines would be separate from each other, but because the area marked and B to the east is zoned for 2.5, it has a minimum zone lot area of 6000 square feet. So in the urban rowhouse 2.5 story zone district, there's a minimum lot area and they cannot amend. There's a lot below the minimum allowed in the zone district. If they were to rezone to a different district that didn't have that minimum lot area, they could amend their zone lot and then be separate from each other. And so that's why they're here requesting to rezone the property. A And on all of the rest of this half block are already zoned. IMX three has the industrial mixed use three storey zone district. The requesting to rezone the B portion of the property into that same IMX three zone district that the rest of the half block already serves. And and importantly, the IMX three zone district does not have a minimum zone lot size. So if they if this rezoning were approved, they could then amend their zone lot to conform to their current parcel boundaries, be separate from each other for zoning purposes, and not have to need the other's permission for coming in and getting his own permit to build a fence or whatever they may do in the future on the property. Again, there's no current development proposal. The IMAX three zone district does allow industrial, commercial and residential uses up to three stories in height. There are also protected district standards in the building form standards that relate to this property because it is adjacent to the yards, 2.5 to the east. So here's a map of of that zoning. Already you can see the balance of the half block IMX three to the east and to the north is that urban real house 2.5 zone district. As you move further to the west, closer to the railroad tracks, it grows in industrial character, stepping up to IMX five on the map and then into our more general and heavy industrial districts. As you move further to the west and south to the north and east is a solidly residential rowhouse neighborhood. There also is on the Galapagos Street block, some old code zoning that's similar in nature in terms of allowing commercial mixed uses. If you look at the existing use pattern, again to the north and east, it's pretty solidly residential. As you move south and west, you find some office and commercial and industrial mixed in with multi-unit residential. Terms of building form and scale, this area is generally 1 to 3 stories in scale. You can see the the photo two at the top shows some two story homes located east of the subject property. The subject property is shown in the middle photo. That's the two storey four unit building that's there. The lower photo shows the one storey 90 scale office and to the right are three storey multi-unit residential that have been built just to the south. So in terms of process, this application began about four months ago and we provide a notice of receipt of the application on June the first at a planning board public hearing in August, proceeded to Neighborhoods and Planning Committee on September 2nd and has its final public hearing tonight. For public comments. We received only one on this application that was received from the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association Register Neighborhood Organization, who had a meeting of their full general membership, voted to recommend approval of this application, and no other comments have been received. The Planning Board held a public hearing on August 19th to consider this application and after testimony from the applicant, the unanimously recommended its approval. So I'll, I'll browse through the five review criteria which do apply. The first is consistency with adopted plans. We have comp plan 2000. We have Blueprint Denver. And importantly, there's a small area plan adopted since the time of Blueprint Denver, the 23 Baker Neighborhood Plan. So first, turning to the citywide comp plan 2000, as we've explained in further detail in the staff report, we do find it's consistent with many of the strategies in comp plan 2000, including enabling and promoting mixed use development, encouraging quality infill development in a way that's compatible with surrounding character of the neighborhoods. So we find it consistent with that plan. Blueprint Denver, adopted in 2002, identified a different plan direction than the later Baker Neighborhood Plan in 2000 to identify this entire block as single family duplex, which are areas moderately dense and primarily residential, but with some complementary small scale commercial and in it identified this area as an area of stability where the goal is to identify and maintain the character of the area. You can see the Blueprint Denver map. I created the the transition from stable residential to area of change, industrial and employment and mixed use right along Galapagos Street. Both of the streets at issue here are residential in nature. First Avenue's a collector street Galapagos and designated local. But the 23 Baker Neighborhood Plan provided a refined direction from the direction that we had previously had in Blueprint Denver. So the site here is shown in the yellow dashed line and the heavy blue dash is the historic district again. But you can see in the Baker Neighborhood Plan that the direction for both area of change, stability and for land use has changed. So it following the small area planning process it was the neighborhood in the in the area plan adopted by council identified that both sides of galloping go would be an area of change comprised of residential and office and a blend of uses from the residential area, which is the yellow area to the solidly industrial area, the blue area to the west. So in both respects, the Baker Neighborhood Plan changed the area of change designation as well as the land use designation supporting a mix of residential and office on both sides of Gallup ago, which is reflected in the current zoning. The goals articulated for that area of change directly address this this rezoning request. Again, it's about creating a logical change between the residential to the east and the heavier industrial to the West, providing a range of office and residential uses that allow property owners flexibility over time. It does specifically call for reinvestment in the light industrial and commercial properties in this area, and that we should support rezoning applications that allow for a mix of uses. So all these goals from the Baker Hood Neighborhood Plan in 2003 were pointing to a solution that we have on the books today, like our IMX three industrial mixed use, three storey zone district. So we do think the application is consistent with the Baker Neighborhood Plan. It also would be uniform in its respect to rate district regulations as as the same regulations would apply as they do to other annex three zoned districts. And it furthers the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of the city's adopted plans. Here, the change that just provides a justifying circumstance for the rezoning is the change of an ownership that's resulted in the current situation that the property owners have with the split zone. Zone lot, as well as recent development on Galapagos Street, has actually reinforced the character as identified in the Baker Neighborhood Plan, with three storey residential and mixed use development that that all support that this kind of continuation of the rest of the half block in the IMX three zone district. So we do find that there's a justifying a circumstance for the rezoning. And then turning to consistency with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statements. The IMX districts are designed for a more urban context where you have a rectangular street grid and to provide a transition from mixed use in I.A. and IP areas while accommodating a variety of uses. And then specifically IMX three is for an area for with local or collector streets and where three stories is desired. And really, this this area seems like the perfect fit for that kind of a context, description and zone district purpose in intent statements because it already contains that mix of uses. Three stories is the character of the area and there's already IMX three zoning on the rest of the block. So we do think that the site and the rezoning request are consistent with those statements. And so having reviewed against all five criteria, we find that all have been met and the staff recommends approval. Thank you. We have one speaker, Enrico Cascio. Good evening, Mr. President, and council board members. I mean, there is there is very little I can add, really, given this very comprehensive presentation that I did. I mean, I think what I like to stress is that really for us, the need is is to to to be able to get these two owners to not be dependent on on each other. And that was the main reason why we we started this process. I'm not really fully understanding how much work it was going to entail. But so, I mean, I'll be really happy to address any question you may have otherwise if if there are no questions that I would kindly ask you to, to support this request. Thank you. All right. Now time for questions from members of council. Any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa. Just for you, Councilman Brooks, I would like to speak to Tim. Or not. Tim. Abe. So I'll. Keep going. You'll get it. Right? Right. See, it's not just you, Kyle. The what is the minimum? And this is sort of not relevant. But you said there is no minimum zone lot for I am x three. What is the minimum lot sizes in order to reason time x three? There's no minimum area to Arizona. Wow. So a two by two square foot I mean a four foot square foot parcel could be mean. A zone like could be created and imx three. That's theoretically possible. That's right. Yeah. You know, in this case, there wouldn't be a minimum even if there were a minimum, because they're zoning to the center near adjacent to the minimums wouldn't apply. Even if there would be if. There wasn't, there would be the 6000 square foot or what is there? There's no minimum. There is no minimum for the mixed use districts. No, I'm asking that because that it's a flexible zone district and it's something that I might want to consider elsewhere. Then the last one. You referenced the change in ownership as sort of the Article 12 trigger for change of conditions. That is not a hardship in the eyes of the Board of Adjustment, but it is a hardship in the eyes of CPD because, I mean, where does due diligence in that process sort of play into play a role at this level? So yeah, the change in ownership is one of the justifying circumstances that we identified, one of the changes that we found that apply to this property. A rezoning does not have to meet the hardship criteria of a variance. And so it it's not the same as the hardship that a board of adjustment can. I'm just saying that because you didn't state it in your testimony, but it was the word hardship in the connection with this change of ownership as a hardship was in the presentation. Sure. Yeah, yeah. The property owners definitely are experiencing this as a hardship as it makes it difficult for them to do work. It's not the same as needing to meet the hardship criteria for a variance in the code though. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Kyle. Just a quick question. I saw in the presentation that Baker has started Neighborhood Association voted to support this. No other comments were received, but I didn't see anywhere in here what other neighborhood associations were notified of this. Are there any other nos other than ANC and Denver Neighborhood Association that cover this particular area and were they notified? Sure, yeah. All of the registered neighborhood organizations that claim territory within 200 feet of the property were notified 21 days in advance of this hearing, as well as the other hearings and public meetings. So in addition to ANC and the Denver Neighborhood Association, the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association, Santa Fe, Santa Fe Drive Redevelopment Corporation, and the Denver Urban Resident Association, which is a new citywide organization, were all notified. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, councilman flynn. Catherine that follows you back up. Kyle, while you're up here. I do want to apologize to you directly because as soon as I'm sort of reflecting on like I have two Baltimore pictures flashing in my head, I'm like, there's no resemblance that I'm very sorry for for uttering their name. So thank you so much. Thank you, Catherine. Any other questions? CNN public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. This is in seven. So this is this is it. We had council Councilman Clark. It says Brooks on the script. I knew that wasn't right. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think this. Thank you for the presentation. I think this clearly meets the criteria for a rezoning and also cleans up our zoning in this area and provides these homeowners with the opportunity to exercise their right as homeowners to act independent of one another. And so for that, I will definitely be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Espinosa. I just wanted to. I spared my colleagues the sort of my comments on the last rezoning. But on this one, I just wanted to sort of emphasize that this is a this is a 40 a pretty flexible zone district with some pretty interesting development requirements next to a protected zone district across the alley. And and with the sort of combination of what they're asking for and the small area plan that's in place, this is sort of, to me, an example of when it when all the things that are in place to sort of support a rezoning without a sort of future plan, this is this is this is how it in my humble opinion, it should be done. Bank Accounts mechanism. Any other comments? 615 as amended. Scene? None. Madam Secretary. Roll Call. Clerk I. Espinosa. I. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Cashman I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman Black eye. Brooks. I miss Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please, for the vote in the results. 3939 615 as amended has passed no pre adjournment announcement seen no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Denver eight TV's Your City, Your Source. Denver eight. On TV and online. To stay connected to your community, your city, your source.