Speaker 1: The Council. Their names and cities is for residents and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their home address when called upon. Please wait until our meeting hosts promote you to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please do not leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera. And if you have one, your microphone. Excuse me. Turn on your camera if you have one. And make sure to turn on your microphone. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you will be available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. You will see your time flash on the screen when you have 30 seconds left. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing. Must direct your comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 794 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 0: Yes, ma'am. Happy to do so. Madam President, I move that council bill 2794 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Councilman, it has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for council bill 20 dash 0794 is open. May we have the staff report, please?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request for request to rezone 1330 to 20 second Avenue from YouTube to YouTube zero three with a waiver. The property is located in Council District nine. The City Park West neighborhood is at the southwest corner of Lafayette Street, 22nd Avenue, just north of the Uptown Healthcare District properties about 9000 square feet and currently has a house on it. Request, as I said, is the result from YouTube, which is urban neighborhood context two unit zoning with a 4500 square foot minimum lot size to the same YouTube underlying zone district with the euro three historic use overlay with a waiver. And I'll get into a little bit more of what that means in a minute. But the applicant is requesting the rezoning to allow for the operation of a bed and breakfast infrastructure. The structure and property is part of the Lafayette Street Historic District. It is a contributing structure to the district which was established in 1987. Here you can see the existing zoning with the same YouTube to the south. YouTube with the grocery store structure use overlay to the east, Jimmy Street to the west and you Amex to mixed use zoning. To the north across 22nd have. Here you can see the existing land uses the subject property currently, as I said, has a house on it with a variety of uses. A unit to multi-unit and commercial and mixed use scattered throughout the neighborhood with the hospitals there. So here you can see photos of the surrounding properties, including the subject property in the bottom right photo. As I said, this is currently YouTube and would go to YouTube which allows you urban house duplex and turn of house building forms and single unit into unit residential uses with a 35 foot two and a half storey maximum height. The Euro three, as I said, is the first structure use overlay, which allows some additional nonresidential uses in our historic structures, which this property would be considered a historic structure for those purposes. The additional uses are non-medical offices, art studios and bed and breakfast uses. However, the bed and breakfast uses allowed under the euro three are more restrictive in the bed and breakfast uses allowed under our mixed use districts. Specifically that in the two or three zone districts, the bed and breakfast has to be managed by an on site manager who is also the property owner. In our standard mixed use, some districts still requires an onsite living manager, but that manager does not have to be accompanied or can be an employee. So the request is to waive that requirement that the living manager be an employee, be that living so still required to live in manager would just not have to be the property owner. This is something staff has looked at and thinks makes sense. It's a change we are considering making to the two of three in the future. We just haven't been able to make that change yet. This went to a planning board on October 5th, our August. So I see the unanimous recommendation for approval went to the unanimous Transportation Infrastructure Committee on August 11th. You have in your packet a good neighbor agreement that the absence of sign with some of the surrounding neighborhood organizations and two letters of opposition. 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 four adopted plan to find this property. The first is comprehensive plan 2040, as described in the staff reports that finds the proposed rezoning consistent with multiple strategies from 2040 relating to historic preservation and providing a mix of uses in neighborhoods specifically in terms of equity. Step finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the strategy for the equitable, equitable and inclusive vision element relating to providing a variety of amenities within neighborhoods. And staff finds the proposed redesign inconsistent with these two strategies from the environmentally resilient vision element. Relating to promoting infill development and providing a mix of uses consistent with the proposed zoning. The second plan is blueprint Denver staff financing from outside the. Plan designates the future neighborhood context for this property as urban, which is consistent with both existing and proposed zone districts. Calls for predominantly residential, but with nonresidential use as mixed in the neighborhood consistent with the proposal. The future place designation is low residential, which again calls for a single and two uses with limited mixed use scattered throughout neighborhoods, including in locations where commercial uses have previously been established. This property has previously been used as an office building and other nonresidential uses. Both 22nd Avenue and Lafayette Street are local streets and some provide local access appropriate for the proposed district and proposed for the property. Falls within the. All other areas of the city. The city's growth area strategy calling for accommodating 10% of the city's new jobs and 20% in housing by 2040. Blueprint number also includes additional strategies and recommendations, some of which relating to historic preservation are appropriate here. The plan promotes providing a variety of uses to encourage adaptive reuse of historic structures, which the proposed zoning would allow. The Blueprint. Denver also includes recommendations about custom zoning, such as waivers. Those are generally discouraged but are appropriate in certain circumstances where a standard zone district wouldn't work and other criteria are met. Staff finds that this is a situation where a custom done district with a waiver is appropriate. The the standard zoned district would be too restrictive in this case, or a mixed use zone district would allow what the applicant is requesting would not be appropriate in this location either. So customs and industry is appropriate here as a bridge to a future text amendment as I believe this is the change we are intending to make in the future to the other for you to restrict your third plan is the Uptown Neighborhood Plan from 1986. It calls for a vibrant urban village with a variety of uses and encourages reinvestment in the neighborhoods. This falls under the subdistrict that's called Midtown in the plan, which calls for allowing nonresidential uses where they have previously been established and also heavily promotes historic preservation, which is consistent with the proposed district. And the final plan is the Uptown Health Care District Plan updates. It mostly focuses on what happens on the Uptown Healthcare District campus, but also has some recommendations for what should happen around the campus, including in this location calling for a variety of uses to support and accommodate growth in neighborhoods complementary to the hospitals. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would meet the recommendations of the Uptown Health Care District plan and finds the first criteria met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. That finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of custom zone districts in this case. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare. City staff finds the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's plans and promoting historic preservation, adaptive reuse of a structure. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances that finds the proposed rezoning is justified by change and changing conditions in the area. Particularly, there's been significant new investment on the campus of the cinema and justice building and other construction in the area. Increasing the demand of. Of visitors to the hospitals and surrounding areas. So allowing additional nonresidential uses in this location, including bed and breakfast uses, it could be used by people. Visiting the hospital is appropriate. In addition, applying use overlays meets an additional criteria in the justifying circumstances for helping to preserve neighborhoods and provide additional needed standards. And then the fifth criterion is consistency within the context of purpose and intent. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the urban neighborhood context and the zone district purpose and intent of the move to the Zone District. That staff finds all five criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Scott, for your report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 20 20794 and we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. The first speaker is Anton Attia, and I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name.
Speaker 4: Hello.
Speaker 1: Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 4: So we started for some reason, so. Yeah. My name is Antoine. I'm the petitioner.
Speaker 5: And I'm.
Speaker 4: In my shoes. Just a quick comment about the two letters that we got that were saying no. One of them ended up because we did a good neighborhood agreement and that person agreed on it and signed on it. And the second letter, we think that the person did not understand the objective of what we're doing, because he was talking about, I don't want you to tear down the building and build the duplex, which which is not what we are doing. I think he misread he misread the you know, the the sign on the, you know, on the property. That was just my two comments were not open.
Speaker 5: To any questions if.
Speaker 4: You if you have any.
Speaker 1: I think you were in the the public comment portion right now. And so we have another speaker. And then there might be questions for you by members of council. Our second speaker is Jesse Paris. We're working on getting you unmuted here, Jesse. All right or. Working on getting Jesse back in. All right. Unfortunately, I'm no longer seeing Jesse in the queue. And either attendees or. Panelists here, and so we'll go ahead and proceed. Are there questions from members of councils? Sorry, I was buying time here, Jesse. All right. Go ahead, Jesse.
Speaker 4: And also not just because of what was left behind. The cell block. Stocks of all facilities. The maximum. The Colorado and Mile. I feel like 2020. The.
Speaker 1: Jesse, if you want to turn off your camera.
Speaker 4: Just drive when it comes to the made.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We might need you to turn off your camera, Jesse, so we can hear your audio.
Speaker 4: Okay. So she disappeared. Now Blackstone Examiner discovered the first positive actually coming for social change. It's all in my mind this year, in 2023. I will do anything tonight. The I saw the criteria so I can say my name is. I just had to push through the acquisition of technical difficulty. So I think I'm starting with those letters of opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilwoman Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Hey, Scott. So. On Registrar. The council staff report, unfortunately, is not the staff report that matches up with this rezoning. So none of us are able to see the application or read the letters of opposition. It's it's four one in University Park by DU. So I'm wondering if there's any way that you could email it to us because I'm having a hard I'd normally do a lot of I didn't want to interrupt the presentation, but the app, the on your staff, the one that you have posted is 25, 35 through 25, 45 as very avenue. So none of us on council are able to see the staff report which is. What I see a lot of questions on.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Sorry about that. I don't know what happened there. I guess I'm happy to email the staff report to all of you. I can do that real quick.
Speaker 1: And I went in, Councilman, when I initially went in, I had the same problem. But then I went in through Granicus and it was let me see everything, but we'll go ahead and have Scott email. Okay. Okay, we've got it. We just emailed. That's all that told me so.
Speaker 2: Okay. Can I have a few minutes? I'll come back in the queue, but I want to just read the comments. Okay.
Speaker 1: Perfect. All right. Thank you. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 0: Madam President, I wanted to ask a question of our city attorney. Do we have someone from the city attorney's office on?
Speaker 1: Yes, we have Nate Lucero.
Speaker 0: Okay, Nate. So first of all, let me ask somebody on our staff if the public which which of the two systems the public gets to review those documents from? Because if they're the wrong information, my question is whether or not that poses any legal challenges for us in terms of what they get to view and respond to . So can someone on our staff clarify which system the public can see the documents from? Is it granicus or like to start? Sack or.
Speaker 4: Mr. O'Brien. And both of the latest are.
Speaker 5: In I legislate.
Speaker 4: As well as critics are all one system. The files are up there, just errant.
Speaker 5: Files in one of the.
Speaker 4: Locations.
Speaker 5: But the files of Scott reference are up there and you upload.
Speaker 4: Them and reexport now to. But this the files have not changed since the.
Speaker 5: Due.
Speaker 4: Date which for the 22nd have any files.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, okay. So I just wanted to clarify with our city attorney if if the public was not able to view them as Councilman Sandoval is raising, is there any legal issues with us proceeding tonight? Given that concern, I mean, I'm hearing you say they're there now. Or they will be there. But I just want to ask that question. Nate, would you mind addressing my question?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. New research assistant city attorney. So it would not be an issue with counsel to starting this matter this evening, so long as all noticing requirements have been met. Then staff has met their notice obligations with the notice staff usually provides contact information. And so if members of the public were worried about viewing documents, always contact staff and request those documents or request how to view those documents. So I don't have any issues with counsel deciding this matter this evening.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Nate. Thank you, Zach.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Sandoval. Wanted to give you a little bit more time if you had a question.
Speaker 2: I'm almost done. Just a few more minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Councilman Flynn, we'll go ahead and go to you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I knew the answer to this, so I wasn't going to chime in. But just in the interest of filling the time here to give Councilwoman Sandoval time she needs. Could you, Scott, clarify for me or confirm for me that the essential point of this rezoning seems to be to allow the owner of the property to have a manager reside in the bed and breakfast rather than he or she as the owner. Because one of the requirements is that they have to be an owner. And the justification for it, as I read in the staff report on the mess or in the presentation, is that the underlying zoned district does allow for a non property owner to be the resident manager. Is that the I have that correct or did I get something wrong?
Speaker 5: The first part is correct. What you described the request is absolutely correct.
Speaker 4: It's to.
Speaker 5: Allow the resident manager, other than the.
Speaker 4: Owner to live.
Speaker 5: On the property and operate the. The reason that the sporting aspect of the criteria is because this is additional restrictions placed upon practices in the other three overlay and is not applicable in mixed use districts for the same breakfast use except things that are restricted. Otherwise the criterion transport and is looking to change that in the future in a future text amendment to allow this in all your three jump districts. So that's why staff is supporting it and thinks it meets the criteria.
Speaker 3: And it is this property a bed and breakfast at the moment?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines.
Speaker 4: But thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to.
Speaker 5: To take a look what time looks like. Council Member Singapore is ready. So I just.
Speaker 4: Wanted to.
Speaker 5: Thank staff for all their hard work. Here's to you, Mr. Robertson. Thank you, Madam President. Or both, Madam.
Speaker 4: President and manager.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval, go ahead with your questions.
Speaker 2: So thank you so much for the time to review this staff report. You have to tell me how to get to the backside of Grande in case I don't want it to shrink. So scar on the documents that I was sent. Did the manager of revision real estate end up signing the good the good neighbor agreement?
Speaker 5: Yes. Yeah, I think it should be. They're all on different sheets.
Speaker 2: Crikey. Yeah, I see. Most of are no signs, but the manager of of the mansion didn't sign. So I was just hoping that somewhere in the paper trail that there's a. Executed on the owner and the good neighbor and the the ah knows that that's executed. So that's that's that's simple. You can get back to me on that if you need. And then. Are there other areas are there. So if you wanted to do this, you all three. Is it like sports? Is it structure by structure? And the structure has to meet a certain type of criteria.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So the you oh three applies to a lot of properties, especially in this part of town. Um, if you look at the zoning back, you see the properties just to the east across Lafayette for all zone you have three. And for many of those properties you are three. Doesn't do anything for that because as you said, you have to meet additional criteria, one of which is being in a historic structure, either individually landmarked or a contributing structure to a historic district, which this property is. And then even beyond that, there are additional requirements relating to the size of the property, such as the structure that have to be necessary to be allowed.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then the i, i it's probably totally user error to make. What were the two letters of opposition that came in for this reason? Me. What concerns?
Speaker 5: Yes. So there's one that came in from a Christopher Love Joe that was concerned about. The impacts of a bed breakfast relating to traffic, parking and noise as they are considered. This person was then a party to the agreement, so presume their concerns have been satisfied by the conditions of the agreement. Then there was another one from a Julien Chalabi that was concerned about the structure being torn down and this being split into two properties and do question on it. And as they said, that's not the intent of this property or of this region with the storm structure on it. It couldn't be torn down without approval from written permission to build new structures.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's it. Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for your patience with this process.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilman Sandoval. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 20794 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Seeing comments by members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 2: CdeBaca, I. Clark.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 4: When I. Herndon, i.
Speaker 5: Hines i.
Speaker 2: Cashman. I can each. I. Ortega.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Sandoval. Hi. Sawyer. I summarize I. Black eye.
Speaker 1: Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 794 has passed. On Monday, October 13th, 2020. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 20, Dash 0961 enacting an interim zoning regulation to allow certain temporary unlisted uses in former Chapter 59 zoned districts due to the COVID 19 disaster emergency, there be no further business before this body.
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1332 East 22 Avenue in City Park West.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-TU-B to U-TU-B UO-3 with waiver, located at 1332 22nd Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-11-20.