A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4353 Fillmore Street in Elyria Swansea. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to U-TU-C (urban edge, single-unit to urban, two-unit), located at 4353 Fillmore Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-9-20.
12 eyes. Council Bill 520 has passed. Councilman Herndon, would you please put Council Bill 524. On the floor? Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 203524 be placed upon final iteration and two part. Thank you. It has been moved. May I get a second? I can. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you. The required public hearing for council bill 20 dash zero 5 to 4 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Good evening. Council President Gilmore, Scott Robbins with Community Planning and Development. Just give me a second here to get the presentation pulled up. All right. Sounds good. It's gone. It's not. There you. All right, Christina. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So, as you said, this is a request to rezone 4353 Fillmore Street from the SUV to you use. The property is located in Council District nine in the Elyria, Swansea neighborhood. It is just south of the intersection of Fillmore Street and 44th Avenue. The property is 6250 square feet and currently has a single unit house on it. Trust us to resign from the study which is urban edge context single unit with a 6000 square foot lot size to you to see which is urban edge context or urban context to unit with a 5500 square foot lot size and the applicant is requesting rezoning to allow for construction of a duplex. Property is surrounded by the same ESU zoning, except you can see just to the Northeast property that was recently resolved to the UTC that the applicant requested. Here you can see the existing land uses, mostly surrounded by single residential with a few to it and multi-unit scattered around . And then the property just to the west of the subject property is a church. Madam President, I'm sorry to interrupt, Scott. I apologize. I think your technology is working fine, but is very hard to hear you. Okay, then. Good for everyone else. So I don't know if maybe the mic can come a little closer. Maybe speak up. I know you have a soft voice, even on a irregular platform, so a little louder, please. Okay. I will try to speak louder. Sorry about that, Scott. So you can see the subject property in the bottom right photo there and then some of the surrounding properties as well. The you too, you see would allow a single unit and two unit residential uses in urban house duplex and tandem house building forms. As I said, the 5500 square foot lot size and then the two and a half storeys, 30 foot maximum height and the 37.5% maximum building coverage are the same between the two you see in the existing. This went to a planning board on June 30th, received a unanimous recommendation of approval went to Moody on in. A few weeks ago. You have in your packet three letters of opposition that are concerned about the impacts the size of a new building on the property. And that also raised some concerns about the public notice, which I addressed at Moody and then in a follow up email. So you have all that information in the packet as well. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three adopted plans that apply to this property. The first is Comprehensive Plan 2040, which is organized by Vision Element under the strong and authentic neighborhoods. Vision Element Status found the proposed rezoning consistent with these two strategies relating to offering a variety of housing types and providing appropriate infill development relating to the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision elements that has found the proposed rezoning consistent with the strategy about providing additional housing options in neighborhoods for individuals and families. And relating to the environmentally resilient provision element staff has found proposed rezoning consistent with this strategy relating to infill where services are already in place. So staff finds the recovery zone inconsistent with comprehensive plan 2040. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2019. Staff has found a boat or the property is designated urban never in context, which is consistent with the proposed U.S. zone district context. The future place designation for the property is low residential, which calls for predominantly single and two unit residential on smaller lots consistent with the proposed UTC. Fillmore Street is a local street which is again appropriate for the scale of the proposed development. Blueprint provides additional guidance on when it is appropriate to. Down to two units in a single unit saying that it is appropriate if the intent is to set a new pattern as expressed by an adopted small area plan, which is the case in the situation for the Illyria Swansea, a neighborhood plan which I'll get to in just a minute. And then also provides guidance on when to change or when it's appropriate to change the lot sizes saying when there is an established pattern in the surrounding blocks of smaller lots. So the proposed rezoning would reduce the minimum lot size from 6000 square feet to 5500 square feet. Staff has done an analysis of the lot sizes in the area and found that they range from much smaller than 5500 square feet to much larger than 6000 square feet with everything in between and a lot of them in that sort of 5500 square foot range so that the coast lot size of 2500 square feet would be appropriate. The growth area strategy for this property is all other areas of the city intended to accommodate 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing in the city over the next 20 years. That's fine and consistent with Blueprint Denver. The third plan is the Elyria and Swansea Neighborhoods plans, as I mentioned. The this property is designated single family duplex in the land use map. And that plan, which calls for a mixture of housing types, including single family duplex rowhouses and small apartment buildings, intended to provide a broad range of housing types and increase the options of housing types in the neighborhood. So we proposed presenting two two units as appropriate. The plan also says explicitly that when properties are rezoning, they should be brought into the urban Denver context instead of the urban edge context. So that's why the U. T u is appropriate for this project, so that staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with all of the plans and the first criterion that. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the UTC Zone District. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and promoting additional housing options within the established neighborhood. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances that France's proposed rezoning would be justified by changing changing conditions in the area, putting changes in the neighborhood. There's a fair amount of construction going on in the neighborhood that has resulted in loss of housing. So replacing some of those housing units by allowing this rezoning is appropriate. And then also the adoption of the new neighborhood plan, which again calls for allowing duplexes in the urban network context here. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Stat finds the proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the urban neighborhood context, district description and the purpose and intent of the UTC Zone District. With that stat finds all five criteria have been met and recommends approval of the app and answer any questions. All right. Thank you, Scott. Any questions from members of council? Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I got it. Just a clarification question. I think it came up in a recent win that you brought to Ludi as well. But when a proposed rezoning changes the Blueprint Denver guidance or isn't consistent with blueprint Brendan Denver guidance because it's supported by a small area plan. Is that what you were describing here? No. In this case, the both the blueprint and the small area plan are in alignment. Blueprint provides more general guidance, saying that a single unit and unit uses are appropriate. But for that urban neighborhood context, which is the same that the area and 20 neighborhoods plan calls for, which is the urban context and says two units are appropriate. So the plans are pretty much in line here. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Scott. In the staff report, in the presentation, you said the justifying circumstance was a new neighborhood plan and I didn't see the date of Illyria Swansea neighborhood plan. Is that that that's 2015 I think. I just want to make sure that it actually is new. 2015. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sade Abarca. Thank you, Madam President. Scott there were three letters of opposition that the applicant was planning to deal with between now and our presentation in committee. Can you or the applicant speak to those concerns that were being addressed? Yeah. I can have the African. I believe the African is here. Have her speak to conversations, if she's had any, with the neighbors. Part of their concern was about the public notice. So essentially that information about public notice and we're confident that the applicant and the city have met the public notice requirements for those. And then I can let the appearance speak to other issues. The applicant's name is and tell you if we can get her quoted. Okay. We'll work on getting her promoted here. And maybe as we're doing that, staff are working on that. Councilwoman Sandoval, do you want to go ahead with your question and Councilman CdeBaca will? Well, you know, we've got the the applicant in. And so we'll go ahead and let Ms.. Kerry speak. Hello? Uh huh. Hi. Hi. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. We can hear you, and we can see you on the video. So, yes, I am. My name is Anna. Last name? Prabhu, and I'm the owner. Of the property in question. And to answer the question of Councilwoman. Yes, I. Have tried to talk to my neighbors. Two of the. Neighboring houses are tenant occupied, so I was not. I left multiple messages with tenants and I was not able to get hold of the owners. I gave my contact information and I've talked to the tenants multiple times. So did. My husband. And then the owner occupied property. That's on the left. If you're facing the house, I did talk to the roommate who lives where the owner also left the message. And the owner never did back to me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval. Madam President. The fact that. The. Question for you. No. To be implemented kind of a form now where you can get online and you can email in your letter of support or letter of opposition instead of having to email it to the planner. When you receive that, I've asked a couple planners in the city when you are receiving that, are you emailing them back, letting them know that you've confirmed this letter? And then are you also letting them know that you will let the applicant know about their letter of support or opposition? Tell me about your process with this new form based inquiry that you guys have implemented. I think you're muted if you're talking. Is that the question for Scott? Yes, it's for this question for Scott. Yes. We're working on muting Scott here. All right. Can you hear me now? Mm hmm. Yep. Okay. Sorry about that. So I'm not totally familiar with all of the details of how the system works. I believe there is an automated response when somebody fills out that form that tells them what happens with their comment. And then we do pass that information along to the applicant when we receive those letters and then pass it along, obviously, to planning board and to city council. But I am not totally familiar with what is in the automated response because. It would be interesting for me if you could send that to my office. I would like to see what that automated form is because. A couple of. I've heard from a couple of my constituents that they're not quite sure what happens and in a couple of cases they had misinformation in there. So it's just nice if life is as automated as we try to do everything, we, we, the people and we use that. We're all servants of those people and we're all servants of tax dollars. So even though we're representing the applicant for CPD, we also have to be representing the neighborhood. Right. I think this dynamic would be really interesting for me to talk about that process. Can you tell me when you started implementing that process? Again, I don't know exactly. I believe it's been in the last few months. I think it happened earlier this year. But yeah, we can absolutely. You're absolutely right. You know, we represent the city and all the constituents and so that we can actually get to that information. And it is, as you said, a fairly new system. So we are open to improving it if improvements need to be made. Great. Yeah. So if you could just follow up and get me what the automated, automated reply is and talk to me about like offline, you can just email it to me about the process that it goes through to make sure that everyone's on the same, on the same wavelength when it comes to making comments to these rezoning applications. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. And for the public record, just want to make sure that folks knew that there were no people signed up to speak this evening. And so we were able to go straight into questions from members of council. Seen no other questions from my colleagues. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0524 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman set up. I think. Oh. Councilwoman. Councilman. There. You're unmuted. I think you're muted, Councilwoman. Councilwoman CdeBaca, did you have any comments on 052 for. Okay. Councilwoman CdeBaca, if you're having trouble with your audio belt. Got it. Okay. All right. We are good. Councilwoman didn't have any questions. Seen none other. No other questions by my colleagues. Madam Secretary, roll call. The tobacco. I. Clark. All right. When I. Herndon. I. I. Cashman. I. Me. High in the. I. Sawyer. I saw as I. Black eye. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12. 12 Eyes Council Bill 524 has passed. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 538 on the floor?