A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2280 South Bannock Street in Overland. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-TU-C to U-TU-B (increases minimum lot size to 5,500 sf), located at 2280 South Bannock Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-5-19.
Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 183 on the floor? Yes, I move that council bill 19 dash 0183 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. And second in the public hearing for Council Bill 19 0183 is open. May we have the staff report? Hi. I'm Alice. Stevie and this is the proposed rezoning for 22800 South Bannock Street from YouTube C to YouTube. So we are in Council District seven in the Overland neighborhood. The site is located on South Bannock Street, north of Isle of Avenue. It is 9370 square feet and has a single unit house on it presently. The applicant is seeking to resolve this to split the lot in two and build an additional unit or duplex. The Urban Neighborhood two Unit B zoned district allows up to two units and either duplex or tandem housebuilding forms on a minimum zone lot area of 4500 square feet. Urban House building forms are also allowed on certain smaller zoned lots. So the existing zoning the subject site is currently you to you see the immediate surroundings are the same zoning transitioning to you RH 2.5 a block to the north I am x three. You go to a couple blocks west and you three you are one and your two a block and a half to the east. The current site, the current site is a single unit residential and that is the predominant land use in the area with many two unit and multi-unit uses interspersed. Then you have industrial uses farther west in commercial, retail and office uses further east. So this is within the state home park view plane, but the maximum allowable height is approximately 86 feet. So that's not going to impact this rezoning. And then the image on the left here highlights the subject property. And on the right are some examples of the surrounding residential buildings. And then here are a few more. So planning board recommended approval on February 20th. In this case was moved forward by a ludy on March 5th. From the public receipt, we received five letters or emails in support which are included as an attachment to the staff report. So for the rezoning criteria, starting with number one, there are four plans that are applicable at this site. CBT found that the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several comprehensive plan 2000 strategies, as it would facilitate residential infill redevelopment at a slightly higher density within a transit node. And Blueprint Denver This area is mapped as single family duplex, which blueprint defines as being primarily residential but with some complementary small scale commercial uses. It is also in an area of stability which is intended to maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. Bannock Street and Isle of Abner are both under designated local streets, and we found that YouTube is consistent with the plan direction. The proposed Zone district allows single and two unit residential uses within building forms that maintain the character of the area. So the Overland Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1993. One key recommendation in this plan is to encourage property owners in residential areas to invest time and necessary resources in the beautification of the neighborhood. This rezoning facilitates redevelopment by allowing slightly higher density, yet compound compatible development. And then we have this Evans Station area plan from 2009. So this plan also talks about maintaining the residential character and encouraging a range of housing types. This area is mapped as single family duplex and it specifically recommends a 4500 square foot minimum lot size. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the plan direction as it allows single and two unit uses within a minimum lot size of 4500 square feet. So CPD found that this rezoning is consistent with adopted plan guidance. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form use and design regulations, and also furthers public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans and facilitating housing density near transit while maintaining compatibility with the neighborhood. The application lists changes in this area, including recent rezonings, new duplexes on Bannock and significant commercial development along Broadway. Therefore, the proposed Map amendment is justified to recognize the change character of the area. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context which exists in the surrounding area and consists primarily of single and two unit residential uses. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose of the residential districts, which are intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods. And finally, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the specific intent of YouTube, which is intended to allow up to two units on a minimum zone lot area of 4500 square feet. So based on finding all review criteria have been met. CPD recommends approval and I am very happy to answer any questions. I did just inherit this case about a week and a half ago, so I apologize if I'm not able to answer questions that are more relevant to previous steps as I was not taking them through. But I will do my best. Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you signed up to speak on this issue, if you'd come up to the front bench, when I call up your name, when I call your name, you can step right up to the microphone. First up, we have Amanda Phillips. Amanda Phillips. All right. Next up, John Roberts. Okay. Councilmembers. I'm actually the applicant in John Roberts, and I'm just here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pearce. We'll let you know if we have questions. Six. Jesse Paris represented for Denver Homicide, Low Black Star Action, Movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I'm on top of the ballot for our large May 2019 election. I was originally against this because I thought it was going to be more gentrification as usual. I had a few questions. I wanted to know if this was a accessory dwelling unit that was going to be included in this rezoning and what the AMI level was going to be for this proposed rezoning addition to this lot. So if you could please answer my questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa. Just a couple of questions. Your staff. Do you happen to know? What the front property line with the zone lot with this on this in this part in this will not. I don't. I'm sorry. I don't know how they get to the. Last. 75 feet. So that's right on the sweet spot. So do you have any was there any understanding on why it was. No. I mean, the area was zoned to, you see, for the 5500 square foot lawns versus the 45 that is being sought. So I looked into that a little it was are two previously and I didn't in the in the notes from the 2010 rezoning there wasn't anything specific to this area. My guess is looking at the lot sizes in the area, it's kind of a mix. And so I think if you had to pick the most predominant one, it was probably in the sea size. There are, you know, several you know, a lot of other lots in the area that are the size. But they may have just gone with what was the most common at that time. And sorry, because you did adopt this. So maybe you're not aware on those multi-unit on the in the existing forms land use map. Actually, I think I can tell here. Any sense about the existing duplexes? There's looks like there are three on Bannock. Are they. Modest in their in their in their stature. Because because the only reason I'm asking is, you know, I've seen this play out many times in my neighborhood so this zone lot reduction would would allow because the the minimum lot with is 35 as opposed to 50 feet. So you would allow a 75 foot wide lot to be then subdivided into two lots and they would both be eligible for a duplex form. So now you're putting four units where a single family previously was occupied and that in and of itself is not a problem. The problem that I see in too often is modest. Homes that are affordable being displaced mean the occupied units, occupants being displaced, and then being replaced by market rate units of this scale, you know. And so what sort of what is the. From a zoning staff perspective. Is there any consideration when we make this move from A to C to A to B that will create those conditions that are favorable for that sort of gentrification to occur? Are you guys having that discussion, which is is this our intended outcome? Are we trying to encourage subdivision of lots for more units that are more expensive, more units and agnostic to the to the cost of those developments? Or, you know, because it seems fairly clear that this whole area was mapped this way to begin with. Mm hmm. I think that can be that that is, you know, part of the discussion, I think, in this case, because the Evans Station area plan specifically calls out that smaller lot size. We felt that that was, you know, having that kind of input from the community on this exact issue made us feel that this was this was still consistent, even even if, you know, there were some different iterations that could come out of it. And this is really my again, my thinking going forward. Once Denver rite with its equity components is adopted sort of a new world order as far as I'm concerned. When on on adopted plans would that alter the thinking with regard to is it just proximity to Todd that then results in this sort of encouragement of density? Or would we actually see there are recommendations for affordability? Would we actually be asking the applicant, what are you doing to to meet these other objectives of this of this plan in this similar situation? I think there are definitely conversations about that. The specifics I haven't been part of. Exactly. So I don't want to speculate. But, yes, that is you know, there will be a lot of discussions on. How how. Our valuations are going to be affected by the adoption of the new blueprint. Thank you. Because that's been consistent with other conversations I've had in the staff, which is that we will start thinking about some of these metrics, I mean, these other sort of aspects. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I have a question for you as well. So I'm trying to understand if the tube is being used just for the sole purpose of being able to split the lots versus, you know, the the existing zoning that's on the site. Can you just clarify that? Yeah, well, the difference between the current zoning and the proposed is the smaller lot size. And under the current minimum lot size requirement, the the applicant would not be able to split the lots, but under this rezoning they would. So by splitting it still allows the does that. I don't have the screen pulled up to show what the size of the lot is once it's split. Is that within the 4500 feet? Yes. Yeah. The full site is 9370. Okay. So by doing that, then each lot then allows a duplex on them. Is that correct? So was there a conversation about what kind of precedence this sets in terms of. What happens if if more of this stoning occurs, you know, on a contiguous block and then the sites are assembled? What then would that look like if you had two or three parcels that had the to be zoning? Does that what does that assemblage do? The do you mean if if like a larger swath of the properties in this area all did the same thing if. They were contiguous to one another? How how does that change? So if you've got three or four lots that have all been split and they can all allow up to four units on them, does that then allow a different building form to exist on those properties? Moore Do they all have to continue to be what we've just discussed? It's there's still going to would be within the t u so the two units that they would only be able to have two units per 4500. Unless unless they assembled and nothing came back and then resold the entire area. Correct. They would have to then rezone the entire area. Like any other. OC. Rezoning. Okay. That's what I was trying to understand. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. Public hearing for Council Bill 183 is closed and will move in to comments. This one is in my district, so I'll start. I just wanna say thank you for picking up an inherited application and thank you to staff for putting this together. I think that there's clear plan support and the staff report shows how this meets the criteria. So I will be voting to support this, this evening and seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Black Brooks II. Espinosa, i Flynn, i Gilmore. I Herndon, I. Cashman. I can teach Lopez. I knew Ortega. I assessment. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 1313 I as council bill 19 0183 has passed. Councilwoman Blackwell, you please put Council Bill 187 on the floor.