A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4410 North Fillmore Street in Elyria Swansea. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 4410 North Fillmore Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-23-21.
Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 2101758. Excuse me. Be placed upon final consideration. Andrew pass. Thank you. And we've got the second from Council Member Hines. The required public hearing for Council Bill 175 is open. May we please have the staff report? Certainly, Madam President. Good evening, Council. I'm Brandon Schaefer, senior city planner with CPD presenting an official map amendment application four 4410 North Fillmore Street. The request here is also for an 80 you going from SCADA to view as you see one the subject property is located in Council District nine in the various once used Cisco neighborhood. Here you can see the subject property along one North Fillmore Street between 44th and 45th Avenues. It is a quarter acre and land area, currently a single unit residential structure. Requesting the rezoning from the city that's urban edge single unit de lot size to us you see one which is urban single unit C lot size. That also allows for an urban house and a detached accessory dwelling unit building for the maximum building height of primary structures 30 to 35 feet with a maximum height of 24 feet for an accessory dwelling unit and a minimum size of 3500 square feet. Existing zoning, as I mentioned, is currently, he said. The property is surrounded on three sides by with the zoning as well as you you see it just to the south and east. Land use is single unit residential. Typical for this residential neighborhood as you see a lot of that surrounding along with some two unit residential and public quasi public uses to the Southwest. The photo on the bottom left identifies the subject property and you can see a mix of the other residential forms that are in the neighborhood, mostly single unit and one, two, one and a half stories in height. Speaking to the process, we sent informational notice of this application in November and went to a planning board in February where it was voted 10 to 0 in favor. And today we have not received any letters or comments from our in-house or the public. Moving to the criteria, the first being consistency with adopted plans. Plan 2040 outlines a number of goals and strategies that are supported by this rezoning related to creating a greater mix of housing options. And offering a mix of housing types and promoting infill development for infrastructure and services are already in place. In Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. These areas do have small multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas, but typically embedded in one and two unit residential areas, usually a regular block pattern and a high degree of walkability. This site is just outside of the half mile radius of the 40th and Colorado commuter rail station. The future. Please type here is a low residential place. These are predominantly single and two unit uses where accessory dwelling units are appropriate and future street types. Both East 44th Avenue and North Street are understated because when we have low residential guidance and we are looking to change the lot, size Blueprint says that it's typically only appropriate to allow for a smaller, lot sized in the existing zoned district if there is an established pattern. And looking at the map on the screen, there is a clear pattern of flats that are between 50 507,000 square feet. As this is moving to the urban neighborhood context, the c lot size is the most appropriate using the lot size analysis for growth areas. This is located in all other areas of the city where we expect 10% of jobs and 20% of housing growth by 2040. And then here again, you can see that additional land use policy and blueprint that encourages a to use in all residential areas and it's a city wide holistic approach is in place. Individual rezonings to enable it to use are appropriate. The neighborhood plan was adopted in 2015 and the future land use concept here is Single-Family Duplex. These are residential areas that are moderately dense with a mix of housing types and the recommended building height is two and a half is consistent with the rezoning request in the neighborhood plan . There are also a number of recommendations and strategies for increasing housing choices and increasing access to housing by allowing a large range of housing types. And more most importantly, for this case, the neighborhood plan speaks to updating the neighborhood context to urban as opposed to urban edge to better reflect the use of the alleys and limiting future curb cuts for street access and the continuation of detached sidewalks for possible. The requested rezoning is also consistent with the next two criteria as a result of the uniformity of district regulations and further public health, safety and welfare. By implementing adaptive plans and providing an additional housing unit that can be compatibly integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. This application notes two justifying circumstances, the first being change or change in conditions of I-70, expansion and construction around the National Western Center are noted as change conditions. Also in in thinking through the I-70 expansion, there have been a number of housing units that have been lost in the neighborhood. So allowing for an additional unit here would help correct and stabilize the neighborhood. Also, a city adopted plan serves as a justifying circumstance as this property was resound in 2010, as neighborhood plan was adopted in 2015, and Blueprint Denver was adopted in 2019. And both those plans speak to allowing for accessory dwelling units as long as they are competitively degradable to a neighborhood. Lastly, we found this rezoning to be consistent with the neighborhood context, district purpose and intent statements, and those are found in further detail in the staff report. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on finding or review criteria. Have the Met? I'm happy to answer questions and the applicant and property owner Andrew Garcia is also available. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Brandon, for the staff report. And tonight, counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0175. And we have one individual signed up to speak this evening and we'll go ahead and get started. And we have Jesse Paris. Okay. We're going to see if we can get. Jesse connected here. It looks like his screen froze. Oh. Are you there, Jesse? The. I know you're your audio's kind of breaking up a little bit. You might need to take your video down. Can I be heard now? Mm hmm. Go ahead. E Yes. That evening members of council. My name is just. There is. I'm represented for a lot of formally for being homeless out loud with all of the changes what are you gonna be party. Oh Colorado in front line black news and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. This rezoning tonight I'm the full support of um. As Councilman Carson has voted who who was telling us tonight we need to increase our housing stock honestly if it's going to be affordable for people that can actually afford it in an area that will rapidly gentrify. Um, this area is literally this site in question is like a block or two away from councilwoman candidacy to block this house. So the neighborhood are very small. They have gone through rapid gentrification as well as the whole northeast of Denver. So. It is a step in the world who are going to occupy this 80 you as a representative of the community on which there are plenty already. So as long as this is not going to be a short term hurdle, I'm in full support of it. Thank you for allowing me to be heard tonight. All right. Thank you, Jesse, for joining us. And that concludes our speakers on Council Bill 171 and questions from members of Council on this one. All right. Councilmember Flynn. Hey, man. President Brandon, could you walk me through or walk all of us again through the reasoning for changing the context from urban edge to urban, it's just this little parcel. Why can it not be stay within the urban edge context and the zone for an aide to you? I'm not quite understanding that because this is an urban context area and context means in relationship to its surroundings. That's a great question. And this is one of those, I guess, separate plants that we don't typically or something that we don't typically see a neighborhood plans. But this was a key recommendation from the 2015 plan as many of the residential areas already have a pattern in this area of detached sidewalks with tree lines and consistent alley access. So in changing the context, that would encourage the use of alleys and prohibit and limit new curb cuts and promote the construction of new detached sidewalks where possible. And then in some cases, I'm not this one. The change in the urban edge to urban eliminates the suburban house building form, so that would make sure that new development is complementary to the existing character of the neighborhood as well. Thank you. So is it fair to say then that the intent based on blueprint guidance is that at least this area, it's not obviously not all urban edge areas, but this area in particular. Eventually the context would be changed to urban. That's correct. And then the couple of rezonings that I think have come through in this neighborhood since the passing of the neighborhood plan in 2015 simply has been supportive of changing that neighborhood context. Update the actual character that's there today. Okay. Thank you. That explains it. Oh. One other thing. Does it have any effect on the configuration of an ADU on the parcel? Does the change from urban edge to urban bring with it any differences in minimum lot size or setbacks? Or are they relatively the same? They are relatively the same between the urban, urban context and the detached accessory dwelling units form. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Brandon. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Brandon. So, with the changing of the context, would they be able to split the zone and split this into two parcels and two single family homes and two detached accessory dwelling units? That is correct. The minimum lot, say, is that there is going to is 5500 square feet. And I believe that the subject property is a little bit more than twice that. So that would be an option for them. And is it correct in saying that because this is still excuse zoning, the property owner would have to live on site in order to if they wanted to do a short term rental for the accessory dwelling unit, detached or attached. Yes, you're correct. So one more question before Blueprint Denver. Before we updated Blueprint Denver in 2019, did we have guidance in the former Blueprint Denver 2002 to split zone lots like this through zoning rezonings because I don't remember them coming forward until we adopted the new newer blueprint. Denver, 2018 Was that a recommendation or policy recommendation from the new blueprint? Denver Can you clarify, is it more about is it splitting the lot because Omar Amendment or are you speaking to rezoning to a smaller what size is speaking? Well, when you read zoned to a smaller that size, you're able to do a split. So because it's a it's a smaller minimum requirement, what I'm seeing is this is happening throughout council district nine, in Council District one, often times where you are having developers buy these bigger lots and then rezoning them to X to split the lots and to get two single family houses out of one former prior single family zone lot. So is that a recommendation out of the newer blueprint? Denver Because I don't remember that this happening prior to our update in 2018. Does that make sense? That makes sense now. Thank you for that. So what we do have in Denver and the updated version is we have guidance on what what the appropriate lot size is. And that's where we now conduct a lot, says analysis whenever an applicant is wanting to go to a smaller what size? So in this case, the large size analysis shows us that there's generally a pattern of 6000 square foot lots, and this lot is about twice that size. So if rezoning to a smaller large size, we thought that to see what size is most appropriate to fit that pattern. So in this case that it could result in two single unit residences with two detached aides. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember. So you hear? Thinks when I'm president. Brandon, can you please just clarify for me then? So it's only in the ESU laws that the owner has to live on the property in order to build the ADA, is that correct? That's the restriction that's been placed on any avenue that's built in the city. Regardless of context. The property owner has either lived in the primary residence or in the accessory dwelling unit. Okay. Okay. Great. Thanks for clarifying. I guess I'm a little bit confused because I thought that that was only for the sue zone lots or the zone lots. But you're the expert, so I will take your word for it. Or I can clarify. Are you speaking more to not the neighborhood context, but just the single unit aspect of the zone? All single unit districts that have any use have that restriction as well. Okay. Got it. Perfect. Thank you so much for clarifying. I really appreciate that. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And seeing no other hands raised, I'm going to give it a moment. All right. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 175. Councilmember CdeBaca. No comments. This is a basic idea in my neighborhood and hopefully you will pass it. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Seen no other hands raised for comment. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 175, please. CdeBaca I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. HINES. All right. Cashman. I. Can I? Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black eye. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results there tonight. 13 I's Council Build 20 1-0175 has passed. Thank you, Brandon, for the staff report and for being here to answer questions for us this evening. We're going to go ahead and move on. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 213 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 210213 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Okay.