A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4530 North Winona Court in Berkeley and 4345 North Bryant Street in Sunnyside. Approves a map amendment to rezone properties from U-SU-C1 to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4530 Winona Court and 4345 Bryant Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-16-21.
Want to build that attached to you. So that's the reason why they can because they can build in the current state. They can build the bit that you. On these two zoning maps, you can see that we are on a court surrounded, but to the north, west and south, they probably also shown us, you see one end to the east. But you too, you see. Bryant Street is completely surrounded by U. S you see one. But you can see us. You be one district to the north of 44th Avenue. The current land use on both sites is single unit residential and they are both mostly surrounded by other single unit uses and with some two unit and multi unit uses in the case of wind on a court. This right here shows the existing building performance scale for going on record with the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom left. And some images that show the residential character of the neighborhood in the top right image. You can see the two unit residential uses to the east of the property where they go up to 2.5 stories. These houses are just behind the subject property on the other side of the alley. Now this slide shows the existing area for brine stream with the site of the proposed rezoning on the bottom right and so on , even just to show us the very residential character of the neighborhood on the top of this slide. Speaking of the process, information on notice of the application was sent on December 15, 2020. Planning Board recommended approval on March 3rd, and to date, staff has received only one letter of support from an area No. Four 4345 Bryan Street and quality of opposition for the public hearing from the public four 4530 win on a court expressing concerns with traffic and parking congestion. No. I will go over the review criteria in the Denver zoning code. The first criteria is consistency with the class. There are three plans applicable to free zone comprehensive plan 2040 Loop in Denver and then the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan that is applicable for Bryant Street, but only two for the Bryant Street property. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in the Berkeley and Sunnyside neighborhoods, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Now looking at the maps in Denver, the subject properties are both mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject properties as low residential place that these places have predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. We know that Court and Bryant Street are both designated as local streets, which are which are mostly characterized by residential uses. Lupe in Denver also provides guidance on when it is appropriate to respond to a district with a smaller minimum. So look so looks nice. It says it is appropriate when a pattern of smaller nodes with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. The growth theory and blueprint Denver for both sites is all areas of the city serious anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Therefore, it's defined. So the requests are consistent with the applicable adopted plan. Now looking at the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1993 and simply applicable to a property located in Bryant Street. The plan is silent on residential rezoning specifically. However, the proposed rezoning is consistent with residential land use to maintain and sterilize the residential character of Sunnyside and housing goal. Stabilize and upgrade the housing stock by encouraging long term residency and increasing home ownership. If the property is restored to a smaller lot size, the property owner will be allowed to build the detached 80 new building . Forming the subject site and the residential character of Sunnyside will be maintained and the housing stock will be upgraded and will allow the property owners to age in place encouraging long term residents. Locals opines that they requested Sony meets the next debate due to the rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through implementation of adopted plans. Justified circumstance for the rezoning is a city adopted plan. Since the adopt the approval of the existing U.S. you see one on district. The city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint. Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning to be one meets the intent of those plans. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the new sub one zone district. Conclusions. Doctors recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, friend. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 258. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening. Jesse Paris. Go ahead, Jesse. Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just a bizarre personal representative for Black Star music itself, the first positive commercial for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and front line black males. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. We're in favor of this rezoning tonight for this accessory dwelling unit for remote locations. I'm glad to see that it was in the code somewhere that to maintain a cultural integrity of this neighborhood. As we know, Denver is the second most gentrified city in America right now. So I'm glad to see that that was written into the bylaws of. I just have a question again. I'm still trying to figure out why this brother, Brian Johnson, is not allowed one of these 80 for his. Keep your comments to the bill at hand. Jesse Owens could please answer that question. I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 258. Councilman Flynn. Hey, Madam President. Fran, could you speak. A little bit about how these. Two came to be combined into a single application? As far as I can tell, there is no relationship between the owners of the two properties, but it's rather unusual to see them bundled into a single application. In the staff report it said that and I don't know if this was their motivation, but it said it was less expensive and less time consuming because of the similarities between the two properties. Do you know how they came to come together and and why? Yeah, good question because it's my first one. So I was also surprised by. Two this ones. So they I think that they went together to talk to Councilwoman Sandoval's office. So they got advice that they could apply together if the if the applications were similar enough. So they came to me and at first I was like, I've never seen it. Let's do two different applications. But then we talked to a team and we talked to somebody and we realized that they we had the same recommendation for both and they were similar enough that they could go together and that would save them having to pay for two applications. And that would save us the time, 2%, two times the same presentation. So, I mean, they they knew that the the risk was that if one of them gets denied and the other one is denied. So that was their risk. And they were they were made aware of that. Right. And although being so similarly situated in their circumstances and in their request, it would be pretty hard for for the council in a quasi judicial setting to say one meets it and one does. It does. So basically, economy of scale and saving us the time of a third hearing tonight would be. Great if we could do it more often. Okay. And then the only thing that's different from the previous one is that they're looking to go to a to a different zone district designation because of the size of the lot. Under the current regulations, it would allow only an attached ADU and they were looking for detached in both cases. So, so. So they are currently they have the one. So in theory they should be allowed to have an EU, but they don't comply with the minimum. So not to do that. Right. So that's why they need to go down to be one. Okay. Thank you very much. Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval, for saving us one additional hearing tonight. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for the presentation, Fran. You did great presenting them together. So just so we're clear for the public, we are going from CS Omar, which is a bega's so they're actually going to a smaller zone. Is that correct? Because sometimes in at city council we see where people go to bigger zone lots and then add the one behind it, which allows the accessory, the detached accessory dwelling unit. And then they usually split the zone, right, so they can get two out of the one parcel. But that's not what's happening in this situation, correct? They're going down because see the bigger zone at the end? B Yes. So they currently see one and that they should be they would be required to have 5500 square feet, but they only have 4700. So they're liking the. Don't make me do the math. Yeah, I know. 700 square feet. So because they don't have it, they need to go down to be one that the minimum zone lot is 4500. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President And thank you again, CPD. Councilmember Sandoval, I want to give you the softball list of softball questions. You were great in saving us one one hearing tonight. Have you considered going bigger? Like maybe allowing me to use in an entire neighborhood. So yes, I've done Cherokee Park neighborhoods that had three driving units. I have Sloan's Lake in the Q right now. Then I'm headed into West Colfax. So Berkeley is on the list, but not higher. I have like two more neighborhoods that are higher than that. But yes, I'm making my way slowly you up Council District one to make sure that you don't have these one offs too, that it's just all zoned with accessory dwelling units. And then I'll be back to standards and then we'll get into the nitty gritty of all the standards. And you'll see me a lot talking about the standards so that we can get more of the gentle density and attainable housing into the Denver as a whole. But I'll happily use District One as a pilot. Thank you, Councilman. Presentable for your word for general density or missing metal. But if you want to call it. Thank you, council president. Thank you. Councilmember Hines and Councilmember Sandoval for the responses seen their hands raised. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 258. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your presentation. It meets other criteria, and I would ask my colleagues to support these two bills, these two parcels moving forward. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Madam SEC. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 258, please. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black Eye. CdeBaca. Clark. I. So when. I. Herndon. I. I. Cashman. I can eat. I. Ortega, i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce results. 12 hours. 12 eyes Council Bill 21 Dash 0 to 5 eight has passed. On Monday, May 24th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0357, changing the zoning classification for 235 West Evans Avenue in Overland and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0407 Changing the zoning classification for 99b North King Street