Speaker 5: Thank you. Madam President, I move that council bill 1190 be placed upon final consideration and.
Speaker 3: Do pass back.
Speaker 6: Again.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded. I think Councilman Hines got in there for the second. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20, dash 1190 is open. May we please have staff report?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Are you able to hear me and see my PowerPoint presentation?
Speaker 0: We are. Thank you, James.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Before you this evening, we have a requested rezoning at 3161 Walnut Street. The request is to go from IMX three with the euro to Billboard overlay and the Dash seven design overlay to see Amex five also maintaining the DEO seven overlay, but not maintaining the Billboard overlay. Person is located in Council District nine in the Five Points neighborhood. The site is located at the corner of Walnut Street and 32nd Street and is approximately 6247 square feet in size. The existing building is a one story commercial industrial building, and as I mentioned, the proposal is to go to a CMA x five with the T7 seven overlay as a mixed use development. Zone district. Existing zoning IMX three. It is surrounded by other parcels with IMAX three zoning as well as parcels with CMA C IMX five zoning. The existing land use is industrial and it is surrounded by other industrial uses as well as mixed use multi-unit, residential and parking uses. Here's some photos for context. The parcel in question, the building that you're looking at is in the. Top two photos and the bottom two photos are awesome. Some photos from the adjacent personals to the south and to. The East. This is a map showing the boundaries of both the defensive and design overlay and the 38th and Blake incentive overlay is you can see the property in question is denoted by the star. This person is within the dot seven overlay. It is not within the affordability height incentive. So. Design standards and the building forms that are allowed for use in the existing zoning versus in the proposed swimming. A process slide. This item was heard before Planning Board on October 21st, 2020, and Planning Board unanimously recommended approval. We have received no comment letters or position statements from NPR News or public comment letters from neighbors or the public in general at this time. Council will need to find the application to be consistent with the five review criteria to approve the rezoning criteria or consistency with adopted plans. Uniformity of district regulations. Furthering public health. Safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood. Context. Zone. District. Purpose and intent. We begin the analysis with consistency, with adopted plans. There are five plans that are pertinent to Dispersal Plan 2040 Blueprint. Denver, 38 and Blake Stationery Plan. The Illyria and Swansea Neighborhoods Plan and the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. The proposed rezoning is consistent with a number of planned 2040. Provisions, including equitable access, accessible and inclusive goals. Strong and authentic neighborhood goals. And Environmentally resilient goals. Moving on to Blueprint Denver. The parcel is located within the urban center neighborhood context, which sees a high mix of uses throughout and is generally well-served by high capacity transit. That is certainly the case for this parcel being within a half mile of the 38th and Blake Station. Moving on to the future place times. This person is located in the hi medium residential areas, which includes a mix of uses including multi-unit, residential and building heights. In this future place, debris generally up to eight stories. Walnut Street is a mixed use arterial, and 32nd Street is a local or designated street. Looking at our blueprint Denver Future Growth Strategies its high in the high and high medium residential areas, which is anticipated to see 15% of new housing and 5% of new employment growth. Moving on to consistency with other. Applicable plans, starting with the northeast downtown neighborhood plans. Here's a list of some of the guiding principles of the Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Plan. They won't read them all, but some of them include the enhanced multi-modal connectivity, capitalizing on transit, protecting neighborhood fabric and promoting diversity. The land use concept for this particular parcel within the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plans is called a mixed use industrial, which is similar to mixed use, but with the recognition that light industrial uses and smaller warehouses are compatible with urban residential housing types. These areas have both a sizable employment base as well as a variety of mid to high density housing options. This is a map of the height guidance for the northeast downtown neighborhood plans. This parcel has a maximum height recommendations of up to five stories in this plan. And neglected to mention this plan was adopted in 2011. Moving on to consistency with the 38th and Blakes stationery plan. This plan was adopted in 2009. Some of the plan goals include additional connectivity, utilizing the station investment to strengthen existing and diverse neighborhoods and create a new center for the community. Wendy's concept in this plan is mixed use employment, which encourages employment opportunities that allow for a mix of uses that includes warehouse, retail, research and development, creative services, office incubator businesses, arts culture uses and compatible recreational uses. And multi residential development is also appropriate in this area. The height guidance. In the station area planned for this parcel is one, two, three stories. I did also want to note that they're associated with the 30th and Blake Station area plan. In 2016. There was a height guidance amendment for portions of this plan. However, the parcel that we are considering today was not a part of those amendments. The final plan that we're looking at is the Illyria and Swansea neighborhood plans. While the subject property is not located in either of these neighborhoods, the plan incorporates all persons within a half mile radius the 38th and Blake Station. However, no additional guidance is provided for this site within the plan and just reinforce further reinforces the findings and recommendations of the station area plan. So I wanted to highlight with this slide. That's the little recap of everything we just went through with the different plans. And there is some conflicting guidance that I wanted to highlight. The Station Area Plan, which was adopted in 2009, recommends a three storey height. The neighborhood plan from 2011 supports proposed, supports heights up to five storeys, and Blueprint Denver, adopted in 2019, supports heights up to eight storeys in this specific context, but also shows difference to small area plans. It's always a bummer when you have conflicting guidance. In the past. For five years or so, I would say CPD has gotten very good at when new plant guidance is coming in. That will offer a different height guidance than a previous plan is very explicitly called out in that new plan that this height guidance replaces whatever a previous plan said. We do not have the luxury of that being remedy of the conflicting high guidance being remedied between the various small area plans. However, staff finds the proposed rezoning to five storeys to be consistent with the totality of plan guidance. The neighborhood plan was adopted more recently than the more restrictive station area plan and blueprint. Denver also supports the higher heights again with deference to neighborhood plans. The This will result in uniformity of district regulated district regulations consistent with criteria. Two step also finds that it furthers public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation implementation of adopted plans and also facilitating increased housing density near transit and mixed use so districts can provide better health outcomes through increased physical activity and allowing more walkable neighborhoods where you're able to work, live and play. Justifying circumstances cited in the application are changed or changing conditions in a particular area. The applicant notes that since the most recently, since the most recent zoning map adopted in 2010, the area has transformed from one predominantly dominated by industrial and commercial uses to more mixed uses of commercial retail and residential neighborhoods, including a living creating a live work environment. Light rail station at 30th and Blake and the creation of the River North Art District have changed the context of the area significantly to promote vibrant pedestrian street frontages with active uses and street frontage, commercial and residential developments. The neighborhood has changed to promote more active lifestyles, providing transportation options such as light, rail, walking and biking. Staff concurs with this assessment of the changing neighborhood over the last decade or so and agrees that it qualifies as a justified circumstance consistent with section 12 .4.8.8.4. And consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. So again, the urban center. District will include multi-unit, residential and mixed use, commercial strips and commercial centers. It's also described as follows. Multi-unit residential uses are typically in multi-story mixed use building forms. Commercial buildings are typically shop rent in general forms, and the multi-unit residential uses are primarily located along residential collector, mixed use, arterial and local streets. So this is consistent with the neighborhood context, this proposed rezoning and looking at specific zoning districts, the general purpose of the zone districts promote safe, active and pedestrian scale diverse areas through the use of building forms that clearly define and activate the public street edge. Given the existing land use pattern in the current zoning and the aspirational future character of this location, the CMC's purpose is appropriate for this particular location, particularly when you add in the existing and to be maintained. D7 overlay. And looking at Arizona District Intent stated in the DCC, the CMA s five district applies to areas or intersections served primarily by collector or arterial streets, where a building scale of 1 to 8 storeys is desired. The site is served by mixed use arterial street. KPD finds the application to be consistent with all five review criteria and is recommending approval. That concludes my presentation.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, James. We council has not received any written comments regarding Council Bill 20 Dash 1190 tonight. And we have two individuals who are signed up to speak this evening. And our first speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 8: Yes, team members are counted as watching at home. However, still, if you have a house to live in on this cold, snowy in my name, just listen carefully. They're behind the sell out Blackstar exhibition for self-defense powers the best of them all for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High North. And I will be the next November in 2023. Another one of these zones we just saw. Developers run this town. Oh, I wrote in a report and I love responsible for this rezoning what is proposed to be here. And as we've seen over the last week, I mean, this is a rapidly gentrify area uptown, which I was born and raised in. I'm a native of 30 plus years. I really know if this is going to be a residential rezoning with the dam level is going to be for this area. It's going to be a commercial zoning that is going to be here. So please answer those questions. I will greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Doherty. Mm hmm. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to. To ask you guys. You know when you all we're saying that the mechanisms for the criteria, the mechanisms the tools are not there. So like if a doctor is performing surgery and he doesn't have a tool, he doesn't perform surgery, does he? So if you are making decisions without the correct tools, then the decision should be postponed. So if you don't have the right tools for any of these things, it should be in the best interest of the city and the community of Denver and everyone on this council to do everything they have in their immediate future, to get the right tools, find the right people, find the right information. It's asinine. So in a once in this neighborhood, it's being gentrified. I would just ask you to consider those things when you're making your decisions rather than, you know, succumbing to this notion that you have to make a decision one way or another. If you can't make a decision, if you don't have the right tools to say yes, then you say no. For now. And then you get the right tools and then you come back to the table. This process is so, so infuriating and it's very frustrating. And we've come. How many people have to come, you guys? How many people have to come? How many people do we need? Give me a number and I'll get them here to get the community support, to get you all to make decisions in that. We're telling you, we told you what we wanted and what we what we didn't want. And you did it anyway. I just don't understand what how this is representative, how this is a divide. This is not a democratic institution. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on 1190. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam President. My question is why, with the conflicting height guidance, why were going with the taller height when the 38th and Blake instant affordability incentive overlay was premised upon the lower height. Why did we go above this? And we're not getting affordability.
Speaker 1: So thank you for the question. This parcel is not located within the height incentive overlay. If it was, then I would to get the additional height they would have to provide affordability. But it is not located within that portion of.
Speaker 5: How close to the border of the affordability incentive overlay is it?
Speaker 1: I will share my screen and bring that map back up. So the project is roughly represented by the star. I would say it is. Eyeballing it here is a two or three blocks outside of the height incentive overlay.
Speaker 5: So one block away from the incentive overlay and we would default to the higher height instead of the lower height.
Speaker 1: So I think that that's you were asking a very reasonable question, and I don't. Think that I'm not intending to default to anything. And if there is a question over which I guidance should be used, I think that that's a perfectly reasonable discussion to have. I based my findings on the more recent guidance rather than the more restrictive guidance. That was my analysis and what was supported by CBT. However, it is an objective fact that there is one plan that says three stories and there's one plan that says five stories, and there's an overarching plan that says eight stories. So there is conflicting guidance. There is not a strict answer one can divine. And there has to be one does have to be chosen. I believe that I have to be supportive, but it's also reasonable to come to a different conclusion.
Speaker 5: And why was the vulnerability of the neighborhood and the affordability incentive overlay not considered?
Speaker 1: So the affordability overlay incentive was not considered because it was not. This parcel is not in the overlay. If it was in the overlay then it would have been considered. I do not know why the or how the boundary was drawn four years ago. When. This incentive was put in place. Perhaps folks who have been with the city longer would have a better memory of that. However, because it's not in the overlay, it was not able to be considered. The overlay was not able to be considered for this parcel.
Speaker 5: But we didn't take into consideration the fact that it was part of the initial overlay application area.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I do not. I did not understand the question.
Speaker 5: So the red line is where the design overlay.
Speaker 1: Yes, correct.
Speaker 5: And we have the blue line that cuts that in half. And this is right on the edge of the blue line. I just don't understand why we would default to the higher height with no affordability instead of the lower height. It. You can't answer the question. That's it for my questions. Council. Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Are there any other questions from members of council? All right. Seen none of it. A moment. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1190 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca.
Speaker 5: Just to reiterate, Madam President, this is not consistent with the intent of all of the affordability mechanisms we are trying on and trying to make fit for our cities needs. If we have conflicting plan guidance in an area vulnerable to displacement and we've had an overlay incentive right next to it. Why not simply go with the lower high incentive, knowing the implications of going with the higher height incentive without an affordability incentive overlay? It doesn't make sense to me. And so this to me is very clearly not consistent with the plan that matters the most to this area. And I don't think we should just be picking and choosing which plans that we're following. It doesn't make sense. Any plan, anything can be consistent with any plan. If we have multiple plans to cherry pick from, it doesn't make sense. This is not consistent with the plan for this area. I would encourage my colleagues to recognize that the station plan was designed specifically for this area, and there may have been overlapping guidance, but there was a reason that this was specific with the station plan. There's a reason that we were trying to capitalize on the toady nature of this area. And I and and I encourage you all to recognize that I'm a no on this one. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Seen no other comments on this one? I can see how James had to make a subjective decision on it. It's disappointing that maybe the council office doesn't feel like they were communicated with or had an opportunity to weigh in on it. But this did go through planning board. This was part of the process. It went through committee. And so seeing that it does meet all of the guidelines, even though CPD staff needed to make a subjective decision, I will be supporting it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: CDEBACA No. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 5: Hines.
Speaker 1: I. Cashman No.
Speaker 5: Can each. I.
Speaker 2: Ortega, I.
Speaker 5: Sandoval. I. Sawyer. Now.
Speaker 2: Torres.
Speaker 5: I. Black I. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Three knees, ten eyes.
Speaker 0: Ten I's Council Bill 20 Dash 1190 has passed. Councilwoman Kenny's, will you please put Council Bill 1215 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 5: Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 1219 be placed upon Senate consideration and do pass. Did I say that right?
Speaker 0: Yes. That was perfect. It's been moved. May I get a second.
Speaker 6: Sergeant?
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20, Dash 1215 is open. Can we please have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Hello. I just want to make sure that you can hear me. And you can also see the PowerPoint presentation.
Speaker 0: Yep. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 3: Awesome. Thank you so much. Well, I'm Sarah, Course, senior city planner in community planning and development. And I will be presenting this exciting rezoning case for you tonight. Slash this morning for the property located at 36010305 and oh seven North Race Street. So the rezoning request is to hear from you as you want to. You are h two and a half. So we'll start off with some background information over the review criteria and then I'll have the staff recommendation. And so in the background information, this is located within Council District nine. Councilwoman Zellerbach is district zooming in. It's within the whole neighborhood. Zooming in even further. Here is the property. It's about 10,400 square feet. Almost a quarter acre in size. And it has a one story multi-unit residential building on it that has four units. The existing zoned district of USA A1 allows the Urban House building form as well as the detached accessory dwelling units. The proposed zone district or the requested zone district also allows the Urban House building for and detached accessory dwelling units. But in addition to that, the requested zone district would also allow duplexes, tandem houses and row houses. So here is an image of the existing zone districts. As you see, this property is outlined in red and it's zoned U.S. one as well as many, if not all of the surrounding properties that are adjacent to it. So primarily most of the properties around it are also used to a one. But in addition to that, there are a few other properties differently, including zone districts, OSA and um, access to x. In terms of the existing land use. Right now, the property is multi-unit residential. There are other multi-unit residential uses in the area and there are also more or less primarily two unit and single unit residential uses in this area. Here's the image of the property today. So as a reminder, it's a single storey building that has multi-unit uses. It has four units within its. The surrounding properties are primarily single family homes that range from one or two stories in height, and there are also a few two unit structures that are single storey. Before I go on to the review criteria, I want to talk a little bit about what can happen within the existing zone district today or the existing entitlements. So as you saw, it's zoned single unit, but there are also four units on the property. There's a section within the zoning code that addresses this scenario and essentially allows that the multi-unit dwelling uses to occur and also for those units to continue whether or not the building is modified or demolished. So I'll point you to that blue summary box essentially is summarizing what's in the zoning code, and it says that the existing building today may be modified or demolished and rebuilt as a four unit structure as long as it complies with the Urban House building form standards. In addition to that, as we see, the property is quite large. So there's another option that could be done. There could be maybe a zone law amendment that can happen where there could be three lots created that could each have an urban house as well as a detached accessory dwelling unit. And that could get to a total of six units. So that's a little bit about what can kind of happen on the property today. In terms of the process, I just want to point you to the italic texts in terms of the public hearing at Planning Board. So Planning Board voted 6 to 4 at the public hearing to recommend denial. And those who voted to recommend the denial cited that the application didn't meet certain review criteria. In terms of the public comment, the whole neighborhood association submitted a letter of support and they cited the idea that the Rowhouse Building Forum would be suitable for their neighborhood. There was a letter of opposition and in that letter they stated a concern for the added density, as well as concerns of traffic and parking. There were five letters of support similar to what the neighborhood association said, claiming that the Rowhouse building for could be a good fit as well. And there was one letter indicating support of the project specifically, but no mention of the actual proposed rezoning. So moving on to review criteria, I'll go through each one of these individually. In case if you forgot what they are. The first one is consistency of the doctor plans. I'd like to point out that this property is a little unique in the fact that there is no neighborhood plan as well as no small area plan that applies to it. So there are only the two city wide plans that apply to this property that we use as part of the review criteria. And they are the comprehensive plan and blueprint Denver. So moving into the comprehensive plan, this application was consistent with some of the strategies outlined in the plan, which is great. However, there was an inconsistency with one of the strategies identified the strong and authentic neighborhoods vision element, and that was saying to encourage quality infill development that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and also offers opportunities for increased amenities. Moving it to Blueprint Denver. So Blueprint Denver identifies the future context. And the future context for this property is urban. And the urban context says it should vary from multi-unit to compact, single unit residential, as well as have small unit residential and low intensity mixed use buildings that are typically embedded in single unit and to residential areas . We found that the application is consistent with this criteria. Blueprint. Denver identifies the future place types and the future place type for this area is residential and residential. Low says it shouldn't have single and two unit uses on smaller lots and that accessory dwelling units and duplexes can be appropriate as well as buildings up to two and a half storeys. We found that the rezoning request is actually inconsistent with this criteria or with this policy. Partly because the current zone district right now today aligns well with the place type that's identified place type of residential low. And the proposed zone district would actually allow multi-unit residential uses at a scale and building coverage that is not consistent with this place type. In addition to the residential workplace place type, there's also specific guidance in Blueprint Denver kind of guiding us on how we apply this residential low place type to propose rezonings, which I'll talk about on this next slide. So it outlines kind of three main things that we look at when we're evaluating these rezoning requests in the residential low area. The first one is looking at small area planning guidance. Unfortunately, there is none for this property looking at is there significant neighborhood input? And there was. We're kind of neutral on that. There is a mixture of neighborhood input that we had and then also looking at existing zoning patterns, which today the existing zoning pattern is us, you a one. So in addition that I want to point out, we use that criteria that the land use patterns are not a consideration when we evaluate the appropriateness of zoning changes in the residential place type. And the evaluation is more specifically for a request to change the zoning to from single unit to then allowed to unit uses. But this rezoning request goes beyond two unit uses and is actually asking for multi unit residential uses. So in this case it doesn't even necessarily apply. Moving on to blueprint Denver's growth area strategy. So this area is identified as all other areas of the city that should see about 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new employment growth. And we found this application to be inconsistent with this criteria because the proposal and district of you are two and a half would allow additional housing types that would then allow for significantly more housing growth on the site than what blueprint Denver anticipates. Another thing that we look at is the fact that the future place type informs the growth area strategies. So we look to we look to see that these applications are meeting the future place type as well as a growth area strategy. Next. So uniform your district regulations. So the proposed rezoning will result in the uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations. It is consistent with that criteria. Next the proposal the proposed UN District does further the public health, safety and welfare. However, the proposed zone district is also inconsistent with Blueprint Denver's plan policies and therefore does not contribute to implementing the city's adopted land use plan. And because of this, it does not further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city through implementation of the city's adopted land use plan. So we could say that the application is inconsistent, at least with that aspect of review criteria. Number three. In terms of justifying circumstances, looking to see that there was a change to such a degree that the proposed rezoning is in the public interest. First when we're looking at this, the the application references that the rezoning would allow the property owner to redevelop an underutilized property and place modest rental homes that provides for families, families with children and multi-generational living opportunities. But however, the existing zoning entitlement, as I stated before, allows for the property to respond to the changing conditions and to be redeveloped to better utilize the land. Again, as I stated, there could be a new four unit structure or three houses and accessory detached accessory dwelling units that could be built with additional amenities that better serve a wider range of potential residents. So we have found that the application is inconsistent, at least with this justifying circumstance. In addition to that, the application also references other properties in the neighborhood with row houses or that have the row house building building form. But most of those properties that were called out also have the same zoning of USC, where one and a lot of them are also structures that have existed for quite some time. So it is our perception that there has not been a changed condition in the area. Next in terms of looking at city adopted plans for justifying circumstance, the application references the adoption of Blueprint Denver. But as I as I talk through Blueprint, Denver does not call for a different context, place type or street type than what already exists. And what we really want to know or what we really look into is we want to make sure that if a city adopted is a for a city adopted plan to be used as a justifying circumstance, that it actually specifically calls for the change in the area that would then justify the new zone district or it would justify the rezoning request. But in this case, the current zoned district is consistent with the city adopted plans. And lastly. This application is consistent with the neighborhood context. So the urban neighborhood context as well as of some district intents. But we found it inconsistent with the zone district purpose because it does state that the regulations are intended to reinforce desired development patterns in existing neighborhoods while accommodating investment and blueprint. Denver is that plan that provides the guidance for the desired development pattern, and that pattern is for the residential low place type, which we found application to be inconsistent with. So it wouldn't necessarily be reinforcing that desired development pattern. And then lastly, for the staff recommendation, CBT recommends denial based on the finding that not all of the review criteria have been met. So I will be here for questions. I believe the applicant should be on the questions as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Sarah, for staying with us and for the staff report tonight. Council has received 12 written comments on Council Bill 1215. There are no submitted comments in favor of the application and 12 submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read the written testimony that was submitted? Seen none. Council Secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 1215 has been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing and to night. We are. This morning we have four individuals signed up to speak. And our first speaker is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 8: This morning, members of council and those are still watching. My name is Jesse Michelle Perez. I'm a little black star. It's a movie for self-defense, positive action, commercial social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado. In my notes and I will be in Denver in 2023. I am against this resolution declared clear the criteria. I just had a question that would be the am I level for this rezoning for this property and I just looked it up in the average income for Denver is $68,000 plus a year. So all these. Inside the mall area. Low income, 50%, 60%, 80% is not a field. No matter how you slice it. So. Please answer that question before I go to sleep. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Next up, we have David part of.
Speaker 1: Hello. This is David Pardo. I currently live in District ten in the Highland.
Speaker 6: Neighborhood, but I've lived in District nine for the six.
Speaker 1: Or seven years prior. Good morning to counsel. I want to first thank you all for doing this and putting in the time. We're 7 hours into this meeting and I have a lot of respect for you guys doing doing what you're doing right now. I wanted to talk about this specific rezoning because I saw it come up in the Liberty and I thought it was a really interesting case. The existing zoning, as was mentioned, allows for three single family homes and 380 use and RH 2.5 zoning would allow per zoning code for ten dwelling units, which, whether it's consistent with the neighborhood or not, I'll be completely honest. I lived in District nine. I don't think other than maybe passing by on 36, I never paid any attention to that particular property. But I think it's an interesting thought experiment effectively. And what does it mean to add density to a neighborhood? Does it make sense to say, hey, let's allow more houses that are all the same size, assuming row houses, six, eight and whatever get built on that property versus allowing three single family homes. That, given the lot size, could potentially be, you know, like 3000 square feet. And then the 80 used would be at most 640 square feet. I think one serves one purpose and.
Speaker 6: Rho has to serve another purpose.
Speaker 1: And I just think it's worth talking about and I thought it was a really, really interesting rezoning. So that's why I wanted to get comment and now I'm going to shut up so that you guys can keep moving.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, David. Next up, we have Kimberly Brewer. Are you still with us, Kimberly? We've got muted. If you're still with us, Kimberly. Okay. We'll go ahead and move on to our next speaker test story.
Speaker 5: So I guess I'm just curious if the if the. If the complaints were traffic and parking is a concern, but it would create more housing for people. I you know, I think that that's something I don't know that that is you know. Really? Did they weigh out? It seems like we've been talking. We talked to even the first zoning, you know, about how much housing is needed and affordable housing is needed. And this would be small rental, you know, a small rental area. So it seems it seems like in the neighborhood association, you know, said that they wanted to approve it. I'm just curious to get more information about what this would actually look like in, you know, what the rezoning would, how like maybe the city planner woman could comment on what it would actually look like and how whether this would create more affordable housing or not. And and I think it's also important to note that, like, you know, when we talk about growth in one area, we're saying we need growth in this area. And then, you know, but growth in other places is bad because of parking and traffic. So I'm just curious about what kind of growth we're really where why it's good in some places and not in others. And who is really getting to where, who's affected by those decisions? Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and see if we can get Kimberly. Back on. All right. Last call, Kimberly. All right. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Bill 1215. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Tess, can you help answer why the Planning Department allowed the application to even move forward if there was? Opposition and concern that it is totally inconsistent with the neighborhood plans and, you know, all the things that you elaborated on earlier.
Speaker 3: Was that directed to me?
Speaker 0: I think, yeah. Okay.
Speaker 3: Sorry about that. Okay. I think you.
Speaker 2: Know my name. Sorry.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's fine. So that that is a great question, and I can answer that appropriately for you. So it is not in my right to deny an application for moving forward. It is my my role to essentially evaluate it, to do my staff, you know, staff review, staff report, which you guys all got to gather the information to lay it out for you and for the planning board to then make decisions. And, you know, keeping all that in mind, we're all looking at what the review criteria are and what we have today to judge it on. I know we have different opinions on what it could be in the future, but what I have, you know, it's going to be different from other projects. And so I think maybe part of the downfall is this project or this side of this property, or we had the city wide plans to go from and there wasn't specific neighborhood guidance. So, you know, maybe if there was other guidance there, it could have met certain criteria. But I do in my analysis that it really wasn't hitting the mark on almost most of the criteria. And so we will communicate that with the applicant, ensure they know kind of what CBD stance is. And obviously they were at Planning Board and heard Planning Board's recommendation and then after that it still has to move forward to city council. And so that is kind of the process that they're allowed to do.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: So in your conversations with the applicant, did you present other options for recommendations versus the what we have in front of us?
Speaker 3: Yeah. So there's discussions on maybe what some of the other options could be, but the applicant seemed very interested in getting into a zone district that would allow row houses. So this zone district more specifically.
Speaker 2: And the max density that could go in on this site is and units.
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3161 Walnut Street in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from I-MX-3, UO-2, DO-7 to C-MX-5, DO-7 (industrial to mixed-use), located at 3161 Walnut Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-3-20.