A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2975 Huron Street in Five Points. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2975 Huron Street from R-MU-30 with waivers to C-MX-12 (residential, mixed-use to urban center, mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-15-19.
There we go. And it looks like we have motion in second. Thank you. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 1057 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Courtney Livingston with Community Planning and Development. And this is a map amendment application is located at 2975 Huron Street in the five point statistical neighborhood in Council District nine on the western edge of the five Points neighborhood, just a half mile from Union Station in the CPV Prospect and neighborhood area, the request is to rezone the southern two thirds portion of the property, which is about an acre and a half to Cemex 12 to match the existing zoning on the northern third of the property. There's an existing five story multi-unit building that was constructed recently about in 2013. The applicant is not proposing to demolish the existing building or redevelop in connection with this requested rezoning. The objective, as stated in their application, is simply to unify the zoning on the property. So in terms of existing zoning and the portion of the property that is the subject of the rezoning is currently zoned r m you 30 with waivers and that's outlined in red. You can easily see here from this map that the existing split zoning is asking to rectify with a single existing multi-unit building spanning both the C-Max 12 and the RMU 30 zoning on that site. The waivers from 26 for that arm, you throw the old code zoning, those waived all open space and setbacks. You can see from this the surrounding zoning that there's a lot of CMCs 12 already in the area and AMI 30 is interspersed in there, but primarily it is Cmax 12. So a portion of the subject property is within the cause field view plane. The View Plane was enacted in 2009 to maintain and protect mountain views from the upper deck seats. Of course the view plane limits, building height, then a portion of that subject property. So that little bottom piece right there to a maximum of 73 feet in height. So that's about six storeys. In terms of existing land use. The property containing the subject site currently has a multi-unit residential building, as I previously mentioned. The properties in north is vacant land to the east. There's more multi-unit, residential and some office industrial uses and directly to the south as a restaurant and to the west is a multi-unit residential. So that gives you a flavor of what's going on in that area. The tap photos is of the existing building to which the southern portion of that existing building is the subject of this rezoning. The bottom of the photo is that restaurant that's to the south. Next, there are some photos of properties to the east. The yellow arrows shows where it is in relation to the subject site. And here are some photos of the properties to the West. In terms of process. The Map amendment application was noticed according to code requirements. A staff has not received any comments related to this application. The applicant has reported to reach out to the surrounding Arnaud's and the tenants in the area as well as the Union Station Arno. Union Station, North Arno. No concerns were expressed. In terms of public comment that I received, a few questions were asked and they were mostly clarifying in nature and they stated that they didn't want to submit a formal comment because they just had questions about what is the rezoning if the building was going away. So the code provides five review criteria for evaluating map amendments will step through how the application meets each one of those. There are four plans that apply to this rezoning plan 2040 Blueprint Denver, the downtown area plan and the CPV Comprehensive Plan Amendment. That's from 1991. So the application is consistent, consistent with many goals and strategies outlined in comprehensive plan 2040. More detail can be found on page 13 of the staff report. More specifically highlighted is how this request is for rolling policy under the equitable, affordable, inclusive vision element of the comprehensive plan. By allowing the existing residential development to remain in, that's near transit, and that helps those residents have access to transit relatively nearby. Secondly, the request furthers environmental goals by enabling existing building remain and preventing additional demolition waste. Furthering our climate and environmental goals. Next, move on to how the request is consistent with Blueprint. Denver Blueprint identifies the subject site as being part of the urban center neighborhood context and Blueprint. Future neighborhood contexts are used to understand differences across land use in built form and mobility options at a higher scale. And the urban center context is generally described as a higher intensity. Context has a mix of residential and employment, uses the sense the site promote proposed is being asked to be zoned to see x 12 and that allows for all those things and is within the urban center context. Hence the see it's consistent with that plan guidance. The future places map shows the subject property as part of the high median residential area. Blueprint describes those aspirational characteristics of the urban center. Context is a mix of uses, including multi-unit residential with heights generally up to eight storeys. It's important to note that blueprint also caveats. Height guidance provided in the plan is simply to provide a general sense of scale and is not intended to send exact minimums or maximums. So may be instances like these where building heights taller than what specified are appropriate. Taking into the surrounding context of all the CMCs 12 zoning around that, that entire entitlement and the close proximity to Union Station, which is the mobility hub. Additionally, the site is primarily served by 20th, which is a mixed use arterial. Moreover, blueprint's growth strategy. That's one of the criteria and blueprint we looked for consistency with. This is a version of the future places map showing aspirational just distributing future grocer in across Denver. The subject site is part of the high median residential area and citywide these areas are anticipated to see around 30% of new housing growth and 5% of new employment growth by 2040. Again, this is not proposing a new building on this site at all. It's just asking for the existing building to remain with unified zoning. So we're going to move on to the downtown area plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2007 and applies the subject property. The plan shows the subject as part of the Central Valley District and part of the Prospect Subdistrict of the plan. There's no specific discussion of the plan related to future land use or building heights, however, does generally describe the area as mixed use with residential general commercial retail. So the proposed zoning is consistent with the plan as it will allow for the mixed use as recommended in the final small area plan that applies. This MAP amendment is the Central Platte Valley Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted way back in 1991. The plan identified the area as general, mixed use and recommended low rise heights. But those low rise heights was not specifically defined in the plan. The proposed TMX 12 zone district, as with all other existing zoning in this sub area, allows for more mid-rise heights rather than the low rise as recommended by the plan. And also that kind of the higher zoning that's requested is mitigated by the view plan and more recent planning guidance in the area. That said, on balance defines the application to be generally consistent with this adopted plan. So all in all, Sefton's requested zoning also meets next three criteria. The rezoning will result in a uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans and by supporting the existing housing density in mixed uses that are already in place and the application meets the justifying circumstance criteria. As the city adopted the new code in 2010 and the portion of the subject site, which is the what we're talking about to be re zoned retained former chapter 59. So that justifies the rezoning. And so the final review criteria is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent statements. The requested zone district is within the urban center neighborhood context, which only consists of multi-unit, residential and mixed use commercial areas with high levels of bike and pedestrian access to transit. That said, CMCs 12 would support the existing multi-unit residential with convenient bike and PED access to Union Station. Consider with consistent with the urban center context, description, description and mixed use intent. Purpose X 12 is also intended to apply to areas in intersections primarily served by major arterial streets and building scale. 3 to 12 storeys site is generally served by 20th, which is a mixed use arterial, and the proximity to Union Station makes this zone district requested appropriate. So finally, we recommend approval of the application based on finding all review criteria have been met. The applicant's representative is here if you have any more specific questions for them. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We have four individuals signed up to speak on this item this evening, so I'm going to call you up. First up is James dear. And so. Darren. So I apologize. I think I got that one wrong. It's Italian. Good evening. Thank you for the time. James dear Enzo. Proud resident. Of the Baker neighborhood. And Lucky District seven. Thank you for the good work, Councilman. Council President. Clerk. I am a representative for Griffiths Residential, the owner and manager of. The subject community. We are a locally based apartment owner. Operator. We are not a developer. We hold our properties long term. And try to focus heavily on the. Resident experience. We'd like to say thank you to Courtney for. The hard work and diligence. On this process. It's been great to work with her. We when we acquired this property in 2017, we noticed. In kind of. Diligence that it had two. Different zoning. So that was confusing and difficult. For us. To understand, especially given that the. Southern two thirds was zoned. Under the old code, which was revised in 2010. So this is. Just a clean up for us. It's really more about just making sure it's consistent and within the new zoning code. And. You know, no absolutely no plans to. You know, disrupt or the buildings actually was built in 2013 I think last year was 2015. So very. New. Nice building that we're not changing anything about. Thank you very much. All right. Next up, Caitlin Quander. Good evening. Council President Members of Council Caitlin Quadrillion, Youth Counsel to the applicant. I'm a resident of Denver in District six, so this application meets each of the criteria in the code for rezoning approval as a staff report and ah, submit a letter walk through. And as Jim described, this was an interesting zoning analysis. When Griff Griffiths first looked to acquire the property in 2017, there was a kind of question of, well, it has two different zoning laws and one's old code and one's new code and do we comply? We were able to determine that the property does comply. But when the opportunity arose to clean this up and provide that clarity and uniformity across the building and property, we wanted to pursue that. I think after reviewing the property and discussing with staff. It's clear to us that if the waiver. Is on the review 30 had not been in place in 2010, this portion of the property would have been zoned along with the northern portion that was resolved in 2010. So hopefully tonight we're hoping to clarify that and and come away with one uniform zoned district across the property. So if that were available, if there's any questions. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Seiko. Yes. My name is TerraCycle, founder. Organizer. That's action movement for self-defense. Born and raised 5.67 years old. To celebrate my birthday on Thanksgiving, 1952. It was on a Thursday. Okay, here we go. Here we go. Zoning changes. Protect the existing owners for future appreciation of value of property. Out of money made on the zoning changes? No. Nobody asked for zoning change without a plan. But now is the time to tell folks what the plan is. This area has been totally gentrified. No. Well, very few black folks exist. So this is really a zoning change to make it appear as if it's okay to do this by city council approval to approve the gentrification process and make it appear as if it's okay. Kind of like how the West was won when you killed all the Indians and then you declared the changed names and they're like five points. We're museum relics. We no longer exist other than pictures on the wall. About where black folks used to be. And the diversity that exists and the privilege is very clear. Look at who's the owners. All white people with white women as a front. Taking advantage of the civil rights movement where we died for legislation to make it there, and then we're systematically excluded. Yeah. Yeah. But nobody surprised. Because this is what you've been doing ever since. I've been down here for almost 20 years. So we go basis. I. I can't go because you said you were different than the ones that you replaced. And now, again, we have profit over the people because who can't be there in that area. Are you going to come back and repatriate people who was ethnically cleansed? No. That's not part of the plan. And you ain't got to, because that's not part of the requirements with the zoning. I'm sorry. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse first. Good evening. Members of council, members of the audience, those watching at home. My name is Jesse LaShawn Pearce. I ran for city council by a large, almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running again in 2023 to be your next mayor. And I'm represented for Denver. Homeless out loud, Black Star. It's a moment for self defense, positive action coming for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and a universal African People's Organization. The Denver Chapter and Mile High knows. In regards to this rezoning change. As Temasek, who has already alluded to this, is full blown gentrification. I know firsthand who is residing in this property right now because I've moved people into this. White supremacy on clave because that's what it is. When I was moving people into this property, they were constantly calling the police on our on house neighbors who just so happened to be in the alley. I asked them to leave them alone, but they consistently called the police on them because they don't want undesirables in the area. This area is prime real estate. It is nothing but rich white millennials living here. I did not feel safe in this area. I did not feel at home. I felt like I was in a completely different area of town. And yet this is still the five points. So I have a few questions that I would like the property owners to answer. I want to know what is the current AMI level for this property? Because the person that I move said they were paying at least $2,000 a month for a one bedroom. And then what businesses are you going to put here because you're rezoning this for commercial use? I want to know exactly what businesses are going to be here is going to be another restaurant like it is like across the streets where there was no people of color, so-called in the vicinity. It was all whites from beginning to end, like I said. So I want to know those questions and I don't know how you can get away with calling us affordable because this place was nowhere close to affordable. It looks like you have to have big money to even attempt to walk down the street over here, let alone the rent there. So I want to sue to answer those questions, especially since we can do better and we have a housing crisis in this town. But get your rezoning properties that are at, I'm guessing, anywhere between 60 to 100% at my level. What I would like the occupant to answer those questions for me. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers on this item. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flint. Thank you. Courtney, could you. I'm having a little trouble understanding what is gained by the rezoning versus what is is what is lost by not rezoning. If it were to remain as it is, what harm is done? Any? No. So the change is being sought. It's an existing building. In fact, it's all part of a single structure, is it not? Yep. Okay. And it just straddles two different zones, and it met all the requirements of both. Let me rephrase that as a question. Did it meet all the requirements of both zone districts when it was built? Yes, it did. And the applicant provided a very thorough analysis of the site plan and how it is a compliant structure in both zone districts. Okay. I did read through the staff report, but I didn't. I must not. Is it in the staff? No, it's in the application that's in attachment. Thank you. Are there different rules? Governing the structure depending on which side of the building you're on. No. You see him? Cinemax 12 and Army's 30 are pretty similar. Kind of like they translate over pretty well, you know, in Army 30. But that is the uses that are not okay and Army 30, but they're allowed in. CMCs 12 are very sporadic, like a car wash or car sales. Right. So there's a few uses that are not okay in one, but okay and the other. And they're they're not really applicable because this site is is not. Proposing. Any change. Right. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no other questions. The public hearing for Connersville 1057 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Um. Councilman CdeBaca, did you want to go first? This one is in your district? Yes. Yeah, I have no comment. No comment. All right. And Councilman Flynn, your name is still hanging from questions or you back up for now. Mr. President, my. That's just there. I have no idea why it's there. Right there. I took it off. All right. All right. So no comments. I will just think staff for the staff report and for all the hard work in putting that all together for us. I think this clearly meets the criteria and I will be voting to support it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call. I. Blank. I. CdeBaca. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 1339, his council Bill 1057 has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1058 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill of 19 dash 1058 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.