A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2535 - 2545 East Asbury Avenue in University Park. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from PUD 278 to E-MU-2.5 (planned development to multi-unit), located at 2535-2545 East Asbury Avenue in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-4-20.
One public hearing tonight. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you were promoted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one. And your microphone. If you've signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you will be available for questions of counsel . Speakers will have 3 minutes. There's no yielding of time. You'll see your time flash on the screen when you have 30 seconds left. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and 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. We have a public hearing on Bill 711. It's a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2535 through 2545 East Ashbury Avenue in University Park. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 711 on the floor for passage, please? Certainly, Madam President, I move that council bill 2711 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash zero 711 is open. May we please have the staff report? Good evening. Council President Gilmore, members of Council Jason Morrison with Community Planning and Development. The rezoning in front of you this evening is 25, 35, 25, 45 East Asbury Avenue. The request is from Puti to 78, which is an old code PED to EMU two and 2.5, which is urban edge multi-unit district up to two and a half storeys. We are in Council District six. So South Denver. In the University Park neighborhood. And the subject site is on the corner of East Asbury Avenue and South Clayton Street. It consists of one multi-unit apartment building and one single unit building for a maximum number of 21 dwelling units with a maximum height of two stories and 20 feet. Maximum height. The property owner is requesting a rezoning to correct a discrepancy between the number of dwelling units permitted by the RD, which is 21 units, and the actual number of units in the development, which is 23 units. The discrepancy was discovered after the property owner purchased the property and requested a zoning letter from the city as part of real estate due diligence. The letter indicated that the existing improvements on the property were not in conformance with the zoning established by P up to 78 and that a rezoning would be needed to correct this noncompliance issue. As I said, the current zoning is a former Chapter 59 students party to 78. The site is adjacent to zoning of Eastside to the north and east and adjacent to UTC to the South and GMU three to the west. Digging a little deeper into Puti to 78 PDT 78 is a former Chapter 59 custom zoned district that allows for one multi-unit building and one single unit building for a maximum number of 21 units with a maximum height of two stories and 20 feet maximum height. Within the Pudi maximum building coverage, including garages and accessory structures, can't exceed 24%. Front, rear and side setbacks are specified within the pad, and permitted encroachments into the maximum setbacks must conform to those allowed in the former chuck 59 hour three zone district. And that's a multi-unit dwelling, high density zoned district. The site is currently occupied by multi-unit residential. Surrounding uses include multi-unit residential, two unit residential and single unit residential. And here's a bird's eye view of the subject property. And we're looking north in this image. You can see East Asbury Avenue to the bottom of the property and South Clayton Street, just to the right of the property. And these five images are some of the multi-unit two unit and single unit residential adjacent and nearby the subject site. The maximum application was unanimously recommended for approval by Planning Board in July and before by committee back in August. Since the staff report was published, we received one letter and support from the University Park Community Council. Two letters of support from area residents and two letters in opposition from residents concerned about limited parking. Falling home values and increased density. As you know, there are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of a request, and I'll start with consistency with adopted plans. In addition to comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, there is one neighborhood plan and that is the University Park Neighborhood Plan from 2007. But first of all, look at comp plan 2040. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies from Comprehensive Plan 2040 listed here and also detailed in your staff report. Specifically, the request is consistent with strategies under the equity vision element because it will enable development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments. It will also create a greater mix of housing options in the University Park neighborhood. The request is also consistent with strategies under the environmentally resilient vision element for several reasons. The site is an infill location where infrastructure is already in place, and furthermore, the proposal focuses growth near existing bus routes, servicing high capacity transit along University Boulevard , Evans Avenue to the South and Interstate 25 to the north. When looking at blueprint Denver context, the requested rezoning as showed on the context map is urban edge. The requested EMU 2.5 zone district is consistent with the future context that is mapped in this area. When looking at future place within Blueprint Denver The future place of this area is low, which is predominantly single and two unit uses on small or medium lots. Buildings are generally up to two and a half storeys in height. The residential emphasis and the 2 to 2 and a half storey height maximums of the proposed EMU 2.5 zone district are consistent with this plan direction. However, the EMU 2.5 Zone District is a multi-unit district with a variety of residential building forms, including single two unit and low scale multi-unit residential. Blueprint Denver acknowledges that since the future place map in the city is a citywide map, the boundaries of the map should be interpreted with limited flexibility, especially at the edges, if the request furthers the goals of Blueprint Denver as depicted in the map in front of you. The residential alley serving South Clayton Street and South Combined Street acts as the dividing edge between the low residential and low medium residential classification. This rezoning request also furthers many of the goals and blueprint Denver via the following policies encouraging high density development and transit rich areas. Rezoning properties from former Chapter 59 zoning. Diversifying housing options by exploring opportunities to integrate missing middle housing into low residential areas and incentivizing the preservation of structures that contribute to the already established character of an area. Furthermore, the creation of the excuse me furthermore the creation of 8278 in the 1990s and able to small scale multi-unit use at this location and a transition to the EMU 2.5 zone district will not disrupt the existing character along East Asbury Avenue. Therefore, the request to EMU 2.5 is consistent with the overall intent of the future. Places MAP and staff finds that the EMU 2.5 zone district is the closest district available that balances plan direction and the existing condition. And finally, within Blueprint Denver, I'm looking at the growth strategy. The request is also consistent with Blueprint's growth strategy, which maps this area as all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new employment growth by 2040. And finally, looking at the University Park Neighborhood Plan from 2007, general recommendations from the plan include creating a community that accommodates a wide variety of uses. This is done by respecting the urban design and the architectural character of established and preferred residential forms and providing a diverse mix of housing types near transit amenities. The subject site is located in a single family residential neighborhood sub area, which is characterized as having predominantly single family homes and occasional duplexes interspersed. Buildings of one or two stories and height characterize the prevailing degree of development, and any higher intensity buildings should help form a transition between the prevailing neighborhood pattern and an activity center. Staff finds that the request is consistent with both the general and suburb recommendations because the previously established small scale multi-unit use will continue to provide an important transition between the varying neighborhood pattern of single and two unit uses to the east and south, and a higher density activity center about 3 to 5 stories along University Boulevard and University of Denver to the West. The proposed EMU 2.5 zone district is an appropriate zoned district on the edge of this sub area and will encourage any development that results from this rezoning to be consistent with the sub area's urban design and land use recommendations by reinforcing residential character and maintaining the established scale of the primary building forms. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building for use and design regulations. It will also further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans, as well as providing additional housing units that are compatible with the University Park neighborhood and the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code in 2010 and the retention of a former Chapter 59 zone district. On the subject, property, including custom zoning, is an appropriate justifying circumstance for this proposed rezoning. The requested EMEA 2.5 zone district is consistent with the neighborhood context description, zone district, purpose and intent and staff. Fine's staff recommends approval based on the finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Council President Gilmore. Thank you, Jason, for the staff report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 711 and we have one individual signed up to speak tonight. And we'll go ahead and maybe have you stop sharing your screen for us, Jason, and we'll thank you. And we'll bring up Jesse Paris. You're on mute, Jesse. Good evening, members of Council. My name is just a microphone and we're almost out loud. Last night I was about to commemorate the party of Colorado and Mile High Note and I will be your next mayor in 2023. I'm in favor of the three zoning out. So anytime that the council passing rezoning pertaining to housing I'm in favor of I just kind of question, you know what what's going to be the ammo level for. Sorry. And also, was there a traffic study done? Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Cashman. Oh, yeah. And you saw. I'm showing that you're unmuted, but we're still not. People to hear you. Not yet. Okay. Well, we might need to get Councilman Cashman to come back into the queue here and seen Councilman Flynn. We'll go ahead and go to your questions. Thank you, Madam President. While we're waiting for Councilman Cashman's audio, Jason, can you explain? One of the letters of opposition said that the current PD allows 21 units, but there are already 23 on the site, so it's in violation of the existing zoning. Can you explain that? Is that is that the case? Yes. I appreciate the question, Councilman Flynn. That is correct. So kudos to 78. Allows for up to 21 total units. And as I mentioned in the staff report and during the presentation, there was a discrepancy that was discovered after the property was purchased, that the property has been operating as 23 total units since about the mid to late 1990s. Right. But do we know how that happened? How. You know. I'm trying to get it. Right. Yeah. And so, unfortunately, I don't know that example. I don't know the answer to that question. I did a search in our system and I could not find an issue with with the permitting. It just, you know, something something occurred in the in the 1990s and it's been operating as 24 units ever since. Thank you. And, you know, under this new zone class, would how many units could be developed there? You know, and a lot of it depends on how they're configuring and what the square footage is. But what's your idea of that? Yeah, so I don't know the answer for sure. As you alluded to, it certainly depends on on a new construction. It is my understanding currently that the property owner has no intention to actually develop the site. It's simply to bring it into conformance. But if I had to venture a guess and in talking to my colleagues with Host, we had thought that it'd be about the same number of units. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I am. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman, good to see you back, sir. Well, I hope you can hear me this time. We can? Well, how about that? The miracle of turning things on and off. You know, I'm in. Councilman Flynn literally took my questions right down the list, wanting to see what future. And while it I understand that it's to come into compliance wanted to be clear on on the future entitlement for that parcel it's only a third of an acre but still wanted to get that straight. So my questions have been answered, ma'am. Approaching. All right. Thank you, councilman. The public hearing for council bill 20 dash zero 711 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I believe this clearly meets the criteria we're called to to judge this application. I'm I'm confident that the it doesn't present any kind of dramatic increase in entitlement that would cause me to question. So I'll look forward to supporting this this evening. Thank you, sir. And looking at the presentation as well, it meets all the criteria. And so thank you, Jason, for joining us. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Ashman. I can eat. She was trying to get a muted I. Very go yes. Is not clicking thank you. I Ortega I. Sandoval, I swear. I, Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Park I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. Council Bill 7-Eleven has passed. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill seven and 16 on the floor for passage?