A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4295 North Inca Street in Sunnyside. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-8 (industrial to urban center), located at 4295 North Inca Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-22-21.
13 Eyes. Council Bill 20 1-689 has passed. All right. Moving on to our next required public hearing. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 694 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President, I move the Council Bill 21 694 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for council bill 694 is open. May we please have the staff report? Hello. My name is Edson. Iranians, and I'm here before you again with CPD. So before you we have 42 and 95 North Inca Street. Currently it is in a light industrial zone district and they're requesting S.R. eight, which is a residential mixed use. It's located in Council District one, Amanda Sandoval's district, and it is in the Sunnyside neighborhood. As you can see, it's in close proximity to the 31st and Fox Station right at the border there. So the request is just for about an acre site. And it's for urban center neighborhood context, residential mixed use, up to eight storeys in height. And so what this means is that the first level allows for street level retail uses and commercial uses, but the remainder upper stories are strictly reserved for housing and lodging accommodation uses. So the zoning is as you as you can see, it's year or two, which is a light industrial zoning district with the billboard use overlay. So there is no billboard on site and the applicant is looking to remove that you or two adjacent to it, as you can see to the northeast or to but to the west and to the south you can see the same zoned district that the applicant is applying for the CRC, which is a residential mixed use, up to eight storeys as well. Through the West. You see IMAX three, which is an industrial mixed use up to three stories and some UTC, which is a22 unit zone district. The land use is industrial and adjacent to it is an industrial single unit. But as you can see, there's a lot of industrial single unit, multi-unit, residential, vacant office as you can see. And here is a aerial photo of the site. It's about half an acre. And the middle and the bottom for photos are the site itself. As you can see, it's a one story industrial building and directly to the north, above 43rd is the electrical substation. Um, directly to the west, you can see a one storey industrial building and then on the top right photo, it's really hard to see, but you can see a one storey industrial building to the south and then about a block and a half away, you see an eight storey S.R., S.R. eight, which is a residential mixed use, up to eight story structure that connects with a pedestrian bridge. So the applicant has entered into a voluntary, affordable housing agreement, which is attached to the staff report of which the applicant is committing to 12.5% of the units as income restricted at 80% or less, ami of which 20% of two or more bedrooms will be income restricted at a 60 year period of affordability. So with the process, it went before the planning board in June and the planning board approved this unanimously. There were some concerns from the planning board. Some of the concerns from the planning board had to do with the 41st and Fox station area plan where it recommends 2 to 8 storeys to like about two blocks to the north of this site, saying that at this site it is appropriate for eight storeys, but anything above this site or to the west as when we dove into that plan, that it might not be appropriate for eight stories. That was one of the concerns they had as well as they had some issues around the neighborhood context, which I'm going to explain in a moment. And it is before you today. So far, several different channels have been notified, as you can see on the screen. And there has been one letter of support from the Sunnyside United Neighbors, Sonny's organization, of which Sonny specifies that they met with the applicant in various occasions and they approved it unanimously, and they provided a lot of input on the design and the material of the building. So there are several review criteria that we analyze based off the Denver zoning code. And the first one is consistency with adopted plans. We're looking at four specific plans, which are a comprehensive plan 2040 blueprint in Denver of 2019, the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan of 1992, and the 41st and Fox Station Area Plan. So there's several strategies found in a comprehensive plan that this application is consistent with. And I will jump into several of these. The first one being under equity, specifically strategy, and B, which is equitable, accessible and inclusive goal one and two, increasing the development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments, as well as create a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood for all individuals and families. As well as for climate under the environment, resilient, resilient and gold strategy A, B and C promote infill development where infrastructure and services already in place. Encourage mixed use communities where residents can live, work and play in their own neighborhoods, as well as focus growth by transit stations. Now when we jump into Blueprint, Blueprint classifies this area as general urban. Which homes vary from multi-unit complexes to complex, compact single unit houses and development should offer a mix of uses with good street activation and connectivity, and it should be served by transit and enjoy access to abundant amenities and entertainment options. So something I do want to highlight is that blueprint Denver and tend to emphasize this area with a future neighborhood context of General Urban, the applicant is applying for urban center. So however however that area plan as well as blueprint in the next slide will show that that this location is appropriate for up to eight storeys, but there is no eight storeys in the residential mixed use for the general urban. So that's why the applicant is applying for this urban center. Residential mixed use eight stories. So as you saw earlier in the existing zoning slide and I have it here, there are other rezonings at this location that have the six eight district which is very comparable to the closest groups five in terms of like built to requirements as well as limitations of parking structures and the pedestrian realm. So Blueprint does provide specific guidance on the flexibility of a neighborhood context, which is found on page 66 of Blueprint, which says a mapping of a neighborhood context is at a citywide scale. So the boundaries of the context may be interpreted with limited flexibility if the request furthers the goals of Blueprint Denver and is consistent with the overall intent of the neighborhood context. And so at this specific application, they are providing affordable housing option, they're promoting comparable design and providing a walkable mixed use center here. And so when we look at the future place type for this site, it it's classified as high medium residential, which offers a mix of low to medium scale multi-unit residential uses with some neighborhood services servicing mixed use distributed throughout. And buildings are generally up to eight storeys in height and block patterns are consistent and pedestrian scaled buildings form clearly define and activate the street now 43rd and industry are on designated local streets and I know that it's not adjacent to a arterial or collector street but the but it is served in that area by light pan and 38th, which are arterial collector streets as well as the pedestrian connection that is about a block and a half to the south that connects to the commuter rail. So I also wanted to provide a comparison similar to what's found in the staff report. In the staff report, we do industrial to what this proposes. But I also wanted to show that in Blueprint recommends General Urban and the applicants applying for our urban center because there is no x eight. But when you look at Greece five in comparison to Syria, it's very similar when you look at setbacks. They're identical when you're looking at the stories. They're different in this sense because one is five and eight is what applicants seeking for. But when you look at surface parking between buildings in Primary Street, they're identical. And when you look at the bill two, they're very similar. So these districts are very similar. When we jump into a blueprint for future growth strategy, it's classified as all areas of their city where they're anticipated to see 10% of new job growth and 20% of new housing growth by 2040. And something to highlight is that we're going from an industrial use to a residential mixed use is that this subject site is not in a manufacturing district or a manufacturing preservation area. Now when we jump into the sunny side neighborhood plan, the sunny side identified this area as industrial and it states that the far eastern portion of this plan should be industrial. Given that it's it's it's close proximity to the rail as well as the interstate. And then it also says that there's scattered residential mixed in through the industrial and that should be redeveloped as industrial uses. And so so although the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan was it is an adaptive plan and continues to shape the overall policy and development decisions of the area. There's a newer plan that was adopted in 2009, which is the 41st and Fox station area plan that gives more specific guidance for this area. That station plan is in response to new opportunities presented by the commuter rail. As a result, it provides a substantially different land use recommendation in the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan, which pre-dates the conception of the fast tracks by more than a decade. And then the 41st and Fox station area plan does not recommend industrial like this plan does. So when we jump into the 41st and Fox station area plan, it provides a vision for a diverse, transit, supportive and environmentally sustainable urban center. And something that I do want to point out is that when you look at the actual plan, this specific site is classified as a electrical substation, which I showed you earlier below and previously, is that the electrical substation is above 43rd, not below 43rd. So there's a mapping error with this. And so the inferred land use for this site is urban residential, 2 to 8 storeys, as you can see. That's what's to the north, to the south, to the west. And so when we're looking at urban residential, it's new moderate density neighborhoods forming a new edge between the station and the existing neighborhood to the west, as well as it provides a lot of urban design recommendations, such as asking for it to be closer to the street, the building, and to minimize the setbacks. So the proposed S.R. eight zoning meets the land use intensity and design intent of the 41st and Fox station area plan. And when we're jumping into review criteria to uniformly disaggregate nations, the request is consistent as well as furthering the public health safety in general welfare. And it does this by implementing adaptive plans as well as it's furthering the city's goals by creating a cohesive, walkable community around the 41st and FOX Station. And then for the fourth criteria justifying circumstances, the applicant stated change and changing conditions in a particular area in the city in general by this is a mixed use redevelopment in the area and the 41st and Fox commuter station and pedestrian bridge that is in close proximity and the Inca Street multi-use path that connects downtown. And for the fifth graders here, consistent with neighborhood context, is this your purpose and intent? Sierra Zone District Promote safe, active and pedestrian scaled diverse areas through building forums that activate the public realm. Therefore CPD recommends approval based based on all findings that the review has been met. I am available for questions. Andrew Johnson from host is here to answer any questions as well and the applicant is online Billy Wang as well to answer questions. All right. Thank you, Anderson, for the great staff report. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening, and he's joining us virtually. And we have Jesse Paris. Yes. There's a council of those watching at home. Those are in the council chambers. My name is Jesse with some personal work resume for Blackstone, maximum for self-defense powers of actually come in for social change as well as the unity party of Colorado and frontline black knows and I would be the next my member in 2023. I am against this rezoning tonight for several reasons. The first reason is this is not affordable 80% or less than mine in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood that is not affordable. Maybe if it was 40%. Maybe if it was. 50% or less. I would be in favor of it, but I'm not in favor of this. Only 12% of the units are 80% or less. That is definitely not affordable. I have three questions. Is there a traffic study done on this particular site? Has there been a parking study done on this particular sites? And last but not least, has there been a neighborhood agreement at this particular site? How many square feet are these apartments going to be? Now, you say it meets all five of the criteria, which is consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, further public health, safety and welfare, justified circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context and zone sense. This is rapid gentrification. You're going to continue to fuel rapid gentrification if you pass this tonight. This is not affordable by any means. I don't know who you think can afford this, but 80% am I. That means you have to make 80% of $75,000 a year to be able to afford to live in these units. So this is not affordable. Please stop saying this is affordable, but it is clearly not. And don't pass it to me. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers for this hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 694. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask a couple of questions. Is the applicant around? Yes. I believe we have the applicant in the queue. Billy. Okay. Billy. Wink, I believe. So the first question I want to ask is whether or not the applicant was provided the information from the railroad working group that basically has a check off box on the application to basically alert them that they need to be looking at how they would address railroad safety issues. So to the applicant, did you receive that when you came to the Planning Department? Okay. We're double checking that we have the applicant in the queue. Can you hear me? This is Billy Wang. Very good. Go ahead, please. Good evening, council members. We did not receive a railroad plan. Council woman Ortega. And regarding the traffic study, we were informed that that would be required when we submit prior to the site development plan what we've proposed to SUNY thus far and get their unanimous support from the PC, SUNY Pcdi and the Sunni neighborhood is a conceptual plan that shows the elevation and a concept of units. We don't have those defined in terms of how many units, what's the square footage. But we would be pursuing that. As we progress with design. That said your application was within a close proximity to railroad. Is that what you're saying to me in when you submitted your application? It is. Yes. It's adjacent to the railroad tracks, correct? Did your application check that box. I would have to look. It's an I have a question for you about what the tallest building is along that corridor adjacent to the tracks close to the light rail stop. I may answer that question, but before I do, we did provide them with a railroad study at the Pre-Application phase and as well a few, maybe a few weeks before the planning board as well, because I know this question would be brought up. And this building, if you remember correctly, this is the one where we discussed what previous applicants have done in the past and with noise, TDM and different things of what the plan talked about specifically. And you mentioned about how you wanted to maybe mimic some of that stuff if you remember correctly. But I did send it to you, Billy, on two occasions and we did talk about it Zoom as well. But going by it for your question, I don't know that specific. I do know that it's eight storeys and it's about a block and a half to the south. It's that C development which is eight storeys. I don't know. The height, the maximum height that it is allowed to be is 110. I'm not sure if it's at 110, but the zone district allows for that one, which is exactly this one district to S.R. eight. It would allow for a 110. I'm not sure if it's below that or around that, but it should be around that. Okay. I've driven and I don't remember that any of them were eight stories in in height. And perhaps Councilwoman Sandoval can address that. Yes. The Zia apartment building on 40th and into from 40 from 40th to 41st. The entire block is eight stories currently built and occupied. Okay. And do you know if they addressed the railroad safety concerns in their construction, in their work with the planning department? From what I understand, they met all requirements for building. I don't know specifically if it was the railroad construction because there is the street and then the anchor pedestrian trail, the promenade and then more land and then the rail yard. Okay. Thank you. It's an. Can you tell me if there are any limitations on the first floor activation that you talked about that would happen on this site? The limitations are only if it's strictly residential, but if it's commercial, it's the setbacks can be zero. In terms of the types of uses that could be in the commercial space, that's what I'm referring to. It's mainly focused on retail and commercial uses, not necessarily industrial uses, as you see in Mumbai, but it will be mainly retail and commercial uses office as well. Okay. And then the applicant said he wasn't clear on how many units there might be, but with these stories that potentially can can be pretty significant in terms of the number of units, somewhere in the 70 to 80 ballpark, depending on size, you know, number of bedrooms, etc.. So this is trying to get an idea of that given its proximity to rail. Can you just talk about how many parking spaces this would require? Again, knowing that sort of tied to the number of the units that will be on the site. I'm going to let the applicant speak on that because he has a breakdown of parking and the number of units that he's been discussing with House as well as well. Thank you. Billy. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes. So to address your question regarding first, the commercial spot right now from the concept plan, we have allocated commercial space right on the corner of the northeast corner of 43rd and anchor. Alongside that would be a plaza because one of the key components is to activate 43rd and activate anchor and drive as a community center. So we would streetscape that from both angles and create a commercial site. Right now. I believe. Let me look. The concept plans is about 74 units. Councilwoman Ortega But that may adjust and as it adjusts, the affordability scale would adjust as well. Regarding the parking, we would certainly adhere to the parking requirements for that zone district and we would take into the future traffic study plan of trying to minimize parking or try to minimize. The number of use of cars. Along that well and try to promote the the fox and 41st light rail plan, car sharing, smart cars etc.. So tied to that question. Have have you ever encountered a bank being concerned that if you didn't provide adequate parking, that if for some reason the project didn't move forward, they didn't want to be stuck with the project. They couldn't park the units. I have not personally encountered that. Q I have no further questions. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Up next, we have council member Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Hudson, I have one quick question. I recall from I think I recall correctly from a long ago billboard overlay issue that here we're getting rid of the overlay is our is the city under any obligation to maintain a certain amount of billboard overlay areas in the city. Is there some sort of an agreement still in effect? And, Nate, I don't know if you can answer that. I do. It was a long time ago. I remember this came up in a hearing. I just wonder what the current status is. Not that I want to see billboards here. Good evening. Members of council. Neighbors their assistant city attorney. There is no obligation for the city to maintain the billboard use overlay. Okay. So conceivably, if we re zoned any place with a billboard overlay we could do away with. We're under no obligation to keep. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Could I ask, is there someone here from host? Oh, Andrew, I forgot. You're over and hosts now. Thank you. Hello. Andrew Johnson with the Department of Housing. Could you raise the microphones here to Andrew Johnson with the Department of Housing Stability? Thank you. In the affordable housing agreement, it read. It has two alternative paragraphs if they're for rent or for sale, but they seem to require the same thing. Can you describe, first of all, do we know what the owner intends to do, what the developer intends to do here? Yeah. His intent is actually to do rental to the rental. And so the focus during our conversations when we were going through this agreement was to do rentals. We always put up for sale paragraph in there as much as possible just in case, because 60 years is a long time. It could change somewhere down the road just in case it goes condo. Correct. Okay. I would we normally have this ask for the same percentages and affordability levels between a rental project and a for sale project. Just because of a different economics. We usually have different AMI levels on a for sale sign. Right. We did talk about a different percentage on the for sale side. But because was very confident that he was doing. Rental just focused on the just the rental AMI level. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I had. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And thank you, Andrew. Up next, we have Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. For the owner or developer. I'm wondering, you said 74 units. Was we talking the whole development or the affordable portion? A. Can you hear me? Hello? Yes, we can hear. Okay. I apologize. The 74 units is in concept right now. That's total number of units. So if we were to meet the agreed host agreement of 12 and a half percent, what would that be? Nine units, approximately eight or nine units, and then 20% of 74, which would be two units. I think 20%, 20 for me. Total units, not of the affordable units. Just 274 is the total number of units in concept right now. Yes. 12.5% of that is going to be affordable at 80%. So 20%, two bedrooms, 20% of, what, 20? And it's got to be 20% of the 12 and a half percent. Correct. It'll be about. One one or two units. Yes. Okay. So it's a lot of math, but it's about one or two. Units in back. All right, I. You're all brave doing math on the spot. So I was just going to let you go ahead and do that. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And thank you, Andrew, for helping out with those questions. All right. Seen no other members of council in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments from members of Council on Council Bill 694 Council Member Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I know that the applicant, Billy Wing, has worked with the Sunnyside neighborhood to get their support as it was just brought up by my colleague. I wish the affordability was going deeper. 1 to 2 units does not make a dent into the Sunnyside neighborhood. But that's another day, another story for another day. I know that my colleague, Councilwoman Kenny and I are sitting on the expanding affordable housing task force, which hopefully we will get more units out of rezonings such as these. So with that, I ask my colleagues support. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval and seen no other speakers. I will go ahead and chime in that I do believe that this has met all of the review criteria and will be voting in favor of this tonight. And I want to also let folks know that Councilman Hines needed to leave the meeting. And so that's why we're skipping him in the roll call in case anybody caught that. And so we'll go ahead, Madam Secretary. Roll call on Council Bill 694, please. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black I. CdeBaca No. Clerk. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. Hi. Cashman. I can each. I. Ortega. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. One May 11 Nice. 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-694 has passed. Thank you Edson and Andrew and the community members who joined us for those two hearings. Next up, we have our third required public hearing. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put council Bill 7 to 1 on the floor for final passage?