Rezones property at 7200 East 36th Avenue from S-MX-3 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 3 stories) to S-MX-5 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 5 stories) in Council District 11. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 7200 East 36th Avenue from S-MX-3 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 3 stories) to S-MX-5 (Suburban, Mixed Use, 5 stories) in Council District 11. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-7-15
Thank you. Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Deirdre Rose, Community Planning and Development. Before you as an application for a site in northeast Denver at 1770 200 is 36th Avenue. This is a proposed rezoning from sx3, which is suburban context mixed use three storey two smc's five or five story can in the Northeast in Council District 11, this is at the southwest corner of Quebec Street and 36th Avenue, just west of Stapleton, across Quebec. The applicant property owner is Quebec property one and two. Jeff Grassy The applicant is here tonight to answer questions. Current zoning on the site is SRM X three proposed as SRM x five. The subject property is to the north is some x three zoning also the same zoning as well as SCC three x. That is a suburban commercial corridor. Three story zoning to the south is ba3a business district from former Chapter 59 that was never rezone during the 2010 update. It's in a planned building group and then to the West as ESU, RDX or urban edge as a single unit d x, which allows both suburban and urban form homes on the subject site is a vacant parcel, and to the south of that site is a corridor along Quebec. You may remember this corridor is the Stapleton kind of the hotel corridor in the seventies that is transitioned over time. This is one of the redevelopments in that lower picture to the south. Please. And then to the north there is a hotel and a restaurant to the west. This to the west is an alley. And then the rear yards of the neighborhood to the west side and then to the east is Quebec, which is a fairly large arterial split as a not a parkway, but with greenspace going in between the north and south directions. The rezoning application is submitted to various agencies for comment. We've received no substantial comments from any of our review agencies and our survey for the site has been approved. Notice in public review it has been sent out from informational notice sent on October 24th, Planning Board recommended approval by a vote of 8 to 0. There were three letters of opposition from neighbors, not necessarily adjacent neighbors, but no one actually came to the hearing to speak against the item. Neighborhood and Planning Committee meeting was held in January 7th and notice was sent for city council. The Register neighborhood organizations included here included greater Greater Park Hill Community and Stapleton United Neighbors. We haven't received an official response from these Arnaud's. The review criteria for rezoning include consistency with adopted plans, the uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. We also look at justifying circumstances for the rezoning and then consistency with the neighborhood context, the zone district purpose and the intent. So within our adopted plans, we have comprehensive plan 2000. We have Blueprint Denver, our land use and transportation plan, and then a fairly older plan of Park Hill neighborhood plan. I'll go over a brief highlights. These are also in your staff report in greater detail within comprehensive plan. 2000 highlighted our policies regarding legacies and land use to encourage quality infill development, encouraging redevelopment of vacant and underutilized land, identifying areas in which increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated. Certainly vacant parcels along corridors that are redeveloping to fit that description and conserving land throughout the city by promoting infill where services and infrastructure are already in place. And in this case, by virtue of the fact that it is adjacent to Quebec and to 36th, an existing infrastructure, that that situation does exist within Blueprint Denver, the site is actually identified as single family residential. This is one of those sites within the city that taken out a 30,000 foot view blueprint. Denver didn't look at every parcel in great detail and certainly parcels along the Quebec corridor, which has historically been commercial, would be fit into one of those parcels that deserve further analysis. Within Blueprint Denver, there is a concept called Reinvestment Area, and even in an area of stability, you do have areas that would benefit from reinvestment through modest infill or redevelopment or major projects in a smaller area. In this particular vacant site that is to the east of a stable residential neighborhood. Fitz fits that description. Staff believes, and it is a reinvestment area for targeted growth. Quebec is identified as a commercial arterial, which is one of the very most widespread commercial street types. It's historically auto oriented. Over time, we have seen, especially with our mixed use districts in the new code street and sidewalk improvements with new development that provide a better pedestrian friendly access to these sites. Because Stapleton's to the east and Stapleton has been an area of change and has generated a lot of commercial activity. There is actually quite a bit of pedestrian activity that comes from the west across Quebec. So the connection to the area of change generating a lot of the improvements is important in this case and the site is pivotal to that. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan identifies that there's a need to develop vacant land with compatible context sensitive uses. Quebec is designated in that plan as a Quebec street corridor, where it's encouraged to maintain the viability of the corridor. And that also means looking at transitions in land use over time. Certainly when the hotels in Stapleton left, there were definitely opportunities for that transition to occur. Also to create sensitive transitions between commercial industrial uses and residential areas, improving corridors and other shopping nodes for residents in adjacent neighborhoods, and then voluntary urban design guidelines were sort of established in that plan to encourage pedestrian oriented ground floor redevelopment. So some of the tenants in the plan would a would exist at least as plan guidance upon redevelopment of the site. The MAP Amendment does result in regulations that are uniform across the district. This means that the Smc's five or propose zone district for mixed use is already a mixed use district or simply asking for an increase in height that would result in the same application of that district at this site as it would anywhere else in the city where it's owned some x five. There are no waivers or conditions or special changes to this district on the site. The proposal furthers the public health, safety and welfare, provides for a modest reinvestment of major projects in a small area along the evolving Quebec corridor and development of vacant underutilized land promotes eyes in the street and improves the neighborhood edge. Within justifying circumstances pursuant to Arizona Code Section 1214 eight, the land or its surrounding environment has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area. Again, it's west of Stapleton, along a commercial arterial that has historically been developed as a nonresidential land use. Now this is continuing to evolve it so that there is even a better transition to the residential to the West. The same X5 district suburban context which is characterized by multiple uses, typically less vertical and mixed use that can be vertical mixed use. You do see some commercial strips in office parks. Reinvestment would allow for a variety of building forms to occur here for a modest increase in height at this location, sensitive transitions to the residential block to the west would would be afforded within this district. The intent of the some x five is to apply it to areas served by collectors or arterial streets where building heights of 1 to 5 stories are desired. Here's a little comparison for us. Some X three and some x five. So the district that it currently is zoned as some x three has a current height limitation of 45 feet. The request essentially asks for a height increase of 1515 feet to 70 feet, sorry, 25 feet and then storeys. There are three stories allowed. You would allow five storeys, so five storeys and 70 feet. The location for an some x three typically is on a slightly less busy streets, a local or collector streets. Here the S-Max five is appropriate for collectors or arterials. Upper story setbacks are also important at this location because it is to the west is the residential neighborhood in the SM x three where a building goes up to 27 feet high. There would be a 15 foot setback in into the site to provide for a height transition adjacent to residential in the SM x five. There's an additional 15 foot setback when you get the building at 51 feet. So there's a total of 35 feet setback if you have a building that's taller than 51 feet and that's not set back from the ground. It's an upper story setback, essentially. So with that and that comparison, CPD recommends approval of this zone district finding that all criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ross. We have one speaker this evening and Mr. Jeff Crosby. Yes, Mr. President. And City Council. My name is Jeff Grassi. I live in Denver at 463 Locust Street. I'm here to answer any questions that city council may have. All right. All right. Thank you, Mr. Grandy. That concludes our speakers. Now, moving to questions, are there any questions of members of council? Councilwoman Ortega. Mr. Garza, can you just give us some idea of what you plan to put there? At this point, we would love to see something like a retirement home retirement center with retail space on the ground floor. Beauty shop, convenience store, that type of thing. We don't have any plans on the drawing boards. We're in the process of negotiating with another with a developer, actually, who's worked on some other projects with us and see what we can do with it. But as far as anything concrete, no, there's nothing really on the drawing board at this point. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other questions on accountability in 96? All right. Seen none. The public hearing on 1096 is closed on and we'll move to comments. And as this is in Council District 11, I will speak I something I drive by nearly every day an opportunity for something better than just this empty lot I am certainly excited about, and I certainly hope my colleagues will support this. I just do find it interesting that just east of the site is one of our infamous red light cameras at 36 in Quebec. So just thought I'd just throw that out just for a good laugh. All right. Any other comments from members of the Council on 1096? Scene and we are ready for roll call. Secretary Roll Call. BROOKS Hi. Brown Hi, Fats. I can eat Lemon Lopez. I. Monteiro. Nevitt. Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Sussman Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 3939 Council Bill 1096 has passed. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.