A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 1683, 1685, 1687, 1691, 1693, 1695, and 1699 Cedar Avenue in Washington Park. Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from PUD-G 5 to PUD-G 22 (changing the footprint and floor area limitations), for properties located at 1683, 1685, 1687, 1691, 1693, 1695, and 1699 Cedar Avenue in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-30-19.
Their names and cities of residence, and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you're here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium. State your name and note that you're available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There will be no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall, you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing. Must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 403 on the floor? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 19 0403 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 403 is open. May we have the staff report? We have Scott Robinson for the Community Planning and Development. Thank you, Madam President and Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 1683, 1685, 1687, 1691, 1693, 1695 and 1699. Cedar Avenue from Pdg five to Pdg 22 property is located in Council District six in the Washington Park neighborhood. It is just south of the Denver Country Club and it is a sort of flag lot accessed off of Cedar Avenue with the majority of the lot set behind another house. The property is about two and a half acres and there are currently six single unit houses on the property. Request, as I said, is to rezone from Pdg five to Pdg 22. The intent in changing the PUD is to mostly to loosen some restrictions on the size of the houses that can be built. I'll go into more detail on that in a minute. As I mentioned, the zoning is Pdg five. The zoning to the north is OSB, where the country club is, and then adjoining the property is assumed zoning. That's suburban single unit zoning. And then to the south, across Cedar is U.S. You see that suburban neighborhood context, single unit zoning. The current PD, PD G5 was adopted in 2013, but there's a bit of a history with this one. This property was initially developed in the 1980s, and when it was split off from the large house in front of it, the zoning did not allow more than one primary structure on a single zone lot without a what's called a planned building group or a PUBG. So that PUBG was put in place to allow up to seven houses on the property. Six of those houses were built when we adopted the citywide rezoning in 2010. The intent was to leave all PGS in place and not rezone those. Leave those in the old code zoning. Somehow we missed this one. The fact that it was in a PUBG and we re zoned it to SCD a couple of years later we realized we'd made a mistake in that and so created PD five. That basically replicates the old PUBG from the 1980s, once again allowing up to seven houses on the single zone lot and is based on the assumed zoning and it includes some limits that were found in that original PUBG to the building pad or footprint of the house. There can be no longer than no larger than 2000 square feet and the total floor area of each house that can be no larger than 6000 square feet. And those are two of the items requested to be changed. The current land use, as I said, is single unit houses and it is surrounded by other single unit uses except for a golf course to the north and east. And then there's some denser housing to the southwest of you to unit and multi-unit in the Walsh Park neighborhood. You can see the subject property in the bottom right photo. In that photo, north is to the left. So Cedar Avenue is on the right. And you can see the flag lot with the six houses that exist there now. The photo next to that to the left is the house that's in front of it along Cedar Avenue and then some of the other surrounding properties. So as I mentioned, Pdg 22 is the proposed new pad carries forward almost all of the regulations from the existing Pdg five with just a few changes. It, as I mentioned, removes those building pad and floor area limits. It also clarifies where the front setback and rear setbacks are measured from. That was a little vague in the original PD, so not changing the setbacks, but just clarifying what's front and what's rear. It also allows amendment by sub area. So if in the future an individual property owner wanted to amend the PD as it applies to their property, they could do that without amending the entire PD. And then it also introduces some standard language that we have developed over the last few years that wasn't included in 2013. But now, six years later, we've developed language that we want, including all parties. So it includes that as well. This went to a planning board on April 17th, 2019, received unanimous approval and there was no public comment at that meeting. Went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on April 30th. There is one public comment letter in your packet from the Washington Park East Neighborhood Organization stating they do not object to the proposed rezoning. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. In addition to these five, there are also additional criteria that apply to PD rezonings. So I'll go over these five and then I'll go over the PD criteria. First criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are only two plans that apply to this property, the two citywide plans. There's no neighborhood plan for this property. So the first plan is comprehensive plan 2040. As described in a staff report, staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with these three goals from Plan 2040, mostly relating to preserving and enhancing neighborhood character and also more efficient use of land, allowing more types of housing. As I said, the property for the PD would allow up to seven houses on a lot that would otherwise only be allowed to have one. The second plan is Blueprint Denver, 2019. This property is in the suburban neighborhood context. As I mentioned, the underlying base zone district for the PD is assumed, which is in that suburban neighborhood context. So it's consistent with that. And the. Land or the place designation is low residential, which calls for predominantly single unit uses on larger lots, which is again consistent with what the Peabody would allow. Cedar is an UN designated local street intended to provide local access to houses, and it is in the all other areas of the city. In our growth strategy, which of course calls for moderate new housing and jobs, staff finds the first criterion, and that the second criterion is uniform, even district regulations. Staff finds the proposed zone district will result in the uniform application of the PUD to the property, to the structures within the property. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of city staff finds the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and helping to maintain the existing character of the Washington Park neighborhood. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed rezoning is justified by changed or changing conditions in the area. There's been a fair number of scrapes and rebuilds or additions in the watch park. Neighborhood houses in the area are getting larger. These houses are currently capped at their existing size and not allowed to grow in a way that's consistent with the neighborhood character and the way the neighborhood is changing. And so this period would allow that incremental change, again, consistent with the existing neighborhood character. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of the underlying assumed zone district is for single unit residential consistent with this area. And then this also gets into the approval criteria, as I mentioned. So the first criterion is that the district is consistent with the intent and purpose of such districts stated in the code. This is described further in your staff report, but staff finds that it is consistent with the intent and purpose by bringing the PD in to closer conformance with the underlying zone district. The underlying study does not include limits to building footprint or building floor area. So by removing those limits, it actually brings it closer to the underlying this study, which has a maximum or a minimum open space area of 50%, which is also found in the party. So that is consistent and this change would bring it closer to being consistent. But while this does bring it closer, there are still several variances or waivers that would be required to the underlying study for this development to work. And so it's also justified by that and allows for a more efficient use of land, as I mentioned, allowing up to seven structures where otherwise only one would be allowed. And it is a development pattern that's consistent and compatible with the existing neighborhood. The second criterion is that the PD is consistent with the technical standards found in the zoning code, which staff has found that it is. The third criterion is that the proposed development is not feasible under another existing zone district without an excessive number of variances or waivers. As I said, our staff has found that's true in this case. The fourth criterion is that the hub establishes uses that are consistent with the existing land uses in the area. As I mentioned, it allows single residential in an area that is predominantly single unit residential. And the last criterion is that it establishes building forms that are compatible with the existing building forms and development. So the few would allow the suburban house building form, which is consistent with the surrounding sub zoned district. So staff finds that all criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. If you could all come join us up in the front right here. We have Philip Steffan, us, Andrew Peters and Jessie Parrish. And we have Mr. Safana. Your first. Good evening. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. I'm Philip Stefanos. I live in one of the residences that is affected by the pad. I represent the six homeowners in the H-2A, and there's not much for me to add to the presentation that Mr. Robinson gave other than to say we're not seeking to change the character of the area or the development at all. We're just seeking to clean up these couple of dormant provisions that were discovered and if they were enforced, would make all six houses non-conforming. So that's that's really the nature of our request. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Andrew Peters. Good evening, members of Council. Andrew Peters My address is 950 17th Street, Denver. 80202 I'm here as a representative of the applicant. I'm just here to answer any questions you might have. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Parrish. Jesse Paris and I represent for Denver Homicide, a low black star action movement for self-defense and positive action commitment for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for at large this past May 2019 election, and I got 15,000 votes with no money. I was neither for or against this. I just wanted to know what it was all and in the previous speakers have already answered my question. So I have nothing to say. You going to approve this anywhere? Because it already me saw the criteria. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. The public hearing for Council Bill 403 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the work done by staff to clean up the conflicts in the PD and bring it into today's standards. It's a lovely part of our neighborhood and I would ask my colleagues to join me in approving this. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. I also from the presentation. It meets all five of the review criteria and I will be voting in favor of this as well. Madam Secretary, roll call. Cashman I. Black eye. Flynn All right. Herndon I. Can eat. Right. Lopez. New. Ortega assessment. Right. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Eight eyes. Eight eyes. Council for three has passed. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 477 on the floor?