Rezones property located 270 South Madison Street from PUD 624 to G-RH-3 in Council District 10. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located 270 South Madison Street from PUD 624 to G-RH-3 (General Urban,Row House, 3 stories) in Council District 10. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM.  REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-24-15.
Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become part of the record. The public hearing for Ford Counsel Bill Fortin is now open. May we have a staff report? Good evening, council president, members of city council. My name is Ryan Winter. Very glib with community planning and development to present a rezoning at 270 South Madison Street. That's application to 2015. i00033 from. 640 2grh3i sorry. 624. So what I'll do tonight first I will orient you to the subject site, will then walk through the existing context and an overview of the process that has led us to tonight's City Council. Public hearing will then go through the five rezoning criteria used to evaluate a rezoning that then determines the staff recommendation that you'll see before you. So here's the subject site. It is located in South Central Denver in Council District ten. It is within the Cherry Creek Statistical neighborhood. And to orient you to the site a bit, zooming in, you can see it's outlined here in yellow. It is one parcel north of the intersection of South Madison Street and East Alameda Avenue. Pulaski Park and the Gates Tennis Center are directly across the street. That's East Madison. And access to the Tree Cherry Creek Trail is available from Cherry Creek Drive. East Alameda Avenue directly to the south is served by four RTD bus routes. So the property is 6250 square feet and it is comprised of one assessor's parcel. It is currently occupied by a single family residential structure with a detached garage. The property owner is requesting a rezoning to redevelop the site under the RH three zone district standards and remove PDE 624. So the request before you today is to rezone from PD 624 to G RH three. And just a reminder that the approval of a rezoning is not the approval of a specific development proposal. And should the rezoning be approved tonight, development consistent with the grh3 zoned district would be allowed. Moving on to the request we are considering the grh3 zoned district tonight. It is within the general neighborhood context. It is a row house district and it permits buildings with a three storey maximum height. Of course, that is Article six in the Denver zoning code and will now walk through the existing context first to existing zoning. You can see our subject site is called out in yellow and it is surrounded by the g, rh3 zoned district. On two sides we see to the north and the east g are h three and various PDS throughout Cherry Creek East. We see the B four zone district to the south across Alameda. That is a former Chapter 59 zone district, as well as several flavors of the C Zone district. We see the OSA Zone District across East Alameda excuse me, East Madison at Pulaski Park. And the Cherry Creek Trail is zoned O.C.. So now moving on to the existing PDP 624. It was established in 2009 and permits to dwelling units includes a maximum height of two stories and that's 35 feet, as well as a maximum gross floor area of 5482 square feet. It also sets forth parking and setback standards, as well as a district plan and the district plan. There's an excerpt of it here. Included on this slide, I've outlined in Blue for you the permitted building footprint enabled by that PWD. And this is the building footprint that would have to be complied with for construction under par 624. PD 624 also includes detailed facade, facade elevations as well as materials, and it's really specific to very specific development contemplated under this Puddy dispute. 624 is an example as seen here as we've seen that many chapter former Chapter 59 Pdes are too restrictive often and too detailed, and are unable to adapt to the changing market and preference conditions that we see over time. Specifically, this PD was approved in 2009 and has not been developed under. And we also see specifically, I guess, the way to explain it is that for a development to want to build anything other than what is specified in this building footprint and these facade elevations, we must entertain a resounding like we are here tonight. So moving on to the Cranmer Park View plane, it applies to the subject site. Our site here is with the yellow star and view. Planes are intended to protect and preserve panoramic views of the mountains from various locations throughout the city. And of course, Cranmer Park originates in Cranmer Park specifies maximum view, maximum heights for all structures. And for this particular site, a maximum height of 146 to 148 feet would be permissible, of course, far exceeding the grade three maximum height of 30 feet. Now moving on to the existing land use, we can see our subject site is called out in light yellow, indicating that it is a single family residential structure to the north and the east we see rowhouse, duplex, multi-family as well as scattered single family sites. To the south, across Alameda, we see office and multifamily. And then to the west we see the open space at Pulaski Park. Moving on to the building form scale, this is a photo of the subject site. You can see that is a one storey single family structure. It features a curb and driveway access at the primary street and a narrow, attached sidewalk. So to orient you a bit to the building form and scale in the surrounding area. The photo that we see in the upper right hand corner is indicative of a three storey multi-unit structure on the same block face that would have been constructed under the former Chapter 59. In the lower right hand corner, we see the subject site just to the east. It is a row house development as well as some of the remaining single family residential in this sort of postwar context that we do see in Cherry Creek East, the photo in the lower left hand corner is a multi-family multi-story residential structure across Alameda Avenue. And then in the upper left hand corner, you can see Pulaski Park. And now to an overview of the process that's brought us here today. We notified RINO's and City Council members of receipt of application on April 7th. The notice of the Planning Board public hearing was sent to R.A. and City Council on May 19th, as well as notification signage posted on the property advertising of the Planning Board public hearing. On June 3rd, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning to City Council. And then on June 24th, the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee moved the bill to City Council for final consideration. Tonight, and notice of tonight's City Council public hearing has been sent to all R.A. and City Council on July 20th, as well as notification signage has been posted on the property. The following. Four registered neighborhood organizations have been notified throughout the process, and we have received communication from two of those registered neighborhood organizations. As of today, we received from the Denver Neighborhood Association R.A. position statement offering that the Denver Neighborhood Association did not take a vote on this particular issue. They generally don't involve themselves in such neighborhood specific matters, but did indicate support of the rezoning generally supporting rezonings of former Chapter 59 PDS into the Denver Zoning Code and I believe the G RH three was an appropriate sign district. Additionally, we received a letter of support from the Cherry Creek East Association stating that the R.A. did vote in support of the application. So now I will walk you through the five rezoning criteria used to evaluate a rezoning request, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. And three adopted plans will apply to the subject site Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver, which is our Integrated Land Use and transportation plan as well as the Cherry Creek Area Plan adopted in 2012. The first is comprehensive plan 2000 and KPD did find that the rezoning request is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2000, and we look to a number of different strategies to inform that determination, including environmental sustainability through the promotion of infill development, as well as encouraging opportunities for people to live where they work. The land use strategy again encourages quality infill development that is consistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the neighborhood strategy that recommends invest investing in neighborhoods through a range of housing types. Moving on to Blueprint Denver. Our subject site is called Out in the Yellow Box, and it just indicated that it is within an urban residential concept land use category where the plan recommends higher intensity, primarily residential uses and a variety of housing types, including single family townhouses, small multifamily and sometimes residential. We do find that the RH three zone district implements these land use recommendations through that variety of housing types consistent with the existing character. And we also find that our subject site is located within an area of stability. You can see there is an area change located to the south at Alameda indicated by that hatch and of course blueprint. Denver recommends in areas of stability, maintaining character while allowing some new development. And we do find that the G RH three zone district is consistent with that recommendation. Blueprint. Denver also includes a number of street classifications that inform the appropriate mix of land uses. South Madison Street is called out as an undesignated local, where it is more appropriate for local access rather than regional access. And East Alameda is called out as a mixed use arterial, and such an arterial would have a greater importance on regional traffic and distribution. We do find that the G, r, h three zone district is appropriate at this particular location for this on designated local street by allowing residential uses that are consistent with the existing context. And East Alameda Avenue and Cherry Creek North Drive are also identified as enhanced transit corridors, and these are corridors within the city that blueprint Denver recommends increasing transit ridership, improving service and efficiency. And this would primarily be achieved through a supportive mix of land uses. And we do find that the residential development that would be enabled by this RH three zone district would be able to take advantage of that transit corridor. Now moving on to the small area plan. This is the Cherry Creek Area plan adopted in 2012. So this is after Pwds 624 is approval in 2009. The Cherry Creek Area Plan sets forth framework strategies that will apply to all of Cherry Creek, as well as sub area strategies that apply to specific geographies. So our subject site called Out Here in Red again is reinforced as an area of stability where the Cherry Creek Area plan recommends maintaining a mix of low scale residential building forms and where infill development should reinforce pedestrian friendly qualities. Additionally, the the plan recommends respecting the existing character of stable residential neighborhoods. And we do find that the grh3 zone district is consistent with the strategy through enabling development that is consistent with the existing context and character. Moving on to the sub area strategies. Our subject site is located within the Cherry Creek East Sub area. It is called Out here in Red. And again, we see the same reinforcement of the concept from Blueprint Denver that the site is located within an urban residential area. The Cherry Creek Area Plan recommends continuing supporting a variety of housing types in this particular area, including low and mid-rise multifamily rowhouses, duplexes, single family and accessory dwelling units. And we do find that the application of G, r, h three does provide for this appropriate mix of land uses. The Cherry Creek Area Plan also recommends respecting the existing existing excuse me in character and scale of low resident low scale residential development within these residential areas. So this area called out here in pink specifically does have a maximum recommended building height of three stories. And we do find that since the RH three recommends construction of no higher than three stories, the application of this Stone district at the site is appropriate. And within the Cherry Creek Area plan, sub area strategy. We also find that the plan recommends rezoning pods, that these aging undeveloped pods there are nearly 100 of them within Cherry Creek East are typically unable to adapt and provide the flexibility needed to react to changing real estate market conditions. And of course, the plan recognizes that the only way to remove this pool is through a rezoning process. So we do see the recommendation to rezone pods that as the opportunities arise with new development or property owner interests , that we should seek an appropriate zone district to rezone into the Denver zoning code a request you see before you tonight. So based upon CPD's analysis, we do find that the request is consistent with adopted plans. And moving on to the second criteria. Uniformity of district regulations. We find that the application of g, r, h three at the subject's site will result in the uniform application of the Zone District throughout the city. We do also find that the application of G, r, h three at the Zone District at the subject site furthers the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted city plans. Moving on to the fourth criteria, that there be a justifying circumstance for the rezoning as stated in your application. The land or its surrounding environs 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 change character of the area. And as stated in your application, recent infill and redevelopment of the area is consistent with the grh3 zone district and also according to the application. 624 Site and facade design no longer reflects the property owners desired character. Additionally, CPD does fine to change conditions since the approval of PUD. 624 in 2009, including the approval of the Cherry Creek Area Plan in 2012. Setting forth a new vision for the area as well as the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code in 2010. Introducing G, r, h three as a zone district tool that would not have been available at the time of. 624 approval in 2009 to implement the Urban Residential Land Use recommendation. Now moving on to the fifth criteria consistency with neighborhood context. The general urban neighborhood context is described in the Denver zoning code as including a mix of residential uses and a variety of building forms embedded low scale residents, low scales, skinny commercial uses, as well as regular block patterns, a consistent street grid and detached sidewalks and the neighborhood context description in Article six actually calls out Cherry Creek East as an example of a prototypical general urban neighborhood context neighborhood. So we do find that it is appropriate to apply the grade three zone district to this prototypical general urban neighborhood context area. And finally moving on to his own district. Purpose and intent. The RH three zone district promotes and protects higher density residential neighborhoods within the general urban neighborhood context, and specifically the grh3 zone district is a multi-unit district, allowing urban house duplex and row house building forms and specifically row houses no taller than three stories. And we do find that the application of g r, s, r, h three at this subject site is consistent with these recommendations, as well as the recommendations that we have seen earlier in the presentation as represented by adopted plans. So based upon CPD's review of the criteria, we do find that the rezoning meets all five criteria and do recommend accordingly approval of application 2015 IE 00033 from PD 624 to grh3. And I'm available to answer any questions you may have as well as the applicant is here tonight. Thank you. We have one speaker today, Howard Kent. So, Mr. Kent, you can make your way up to the podium to begin your remarks. Hello. I'm Howard Canton. I represent the new owner of the property of an architect here in Denver. My office is located over Downing and 17th Street and I reside at 2463 South Primary Street here in Denver. The simplest way to explain what these pods are is they're a zoning married to a very specific design. The process was brought about because rezoning was so nebulous that designs were sold to communities. So that rezoning was allowed and then the person who did that would build something somewhat different and it made people very unhappy. So over time, particularly in the 1990 and early 2000s, the PDS and PBGC were developed with very specific design requirements . The exact look of the building materials, the height, the size of the windows, location of windows, all of that. How much coverage was completely mandated by that zoning, which was fine if that zoning was going to be enacted at that moment and that development happened. Remember, these pods were never built. And as market forces change, it changed or people's personal tastes changed. The PD might not have been what the person who owned the property wanted to build. In this case, a new owner has purchased the property, wants to build a townhouse similar in essence to the side by side townhouse that's in place, but with a different esthetic and different, different coverage. One of the good things about the Garage three is it's not allowing the lot fillers that you see around town. So we're actually going to end up with less coverage and less square footage in the new Grange three than would be allowed under the current PUD. The current PUD has about a 59% site coverage, whereas the grade three would allow a maximum of 50. The current PUD allows a 35 foot height, whereas the Grange three only allows 30 feet and the rear third of the lot can't be built in for habitable space. Whereas currently, as you could see from the original, the original PUD, there was a very small courtyard with the residents really pushing into the rear third of the lot. So any new development would allow for a backyard and less coverage. But there is an opportunity with a third story to do some roof deck, which allows you to have a nice view across Pulaski Park. So a lot of what this pud change to a Grange three is getting at is a different esthetic and a different opportunity for the new owner of the property. Are there any questions for me? We will. Do questions. After. Sorry, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. All right, councilmembers. That concludes our speakers. Now it's time for questions. Any questions of members of the council? Councilwoman Ortega, you're up. Thank you. Mr. King, can you tell me how many units then that allows you to get on the site to. Just to and under the pad. Did that allow two? Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you're up. And it should be noted that the two units might be restricted to maybe the 6250 that you have. However, this could be assembled with either of the two adjacent grade three properties and then fit what is called the garden court form. I actually have several questions for Ryan, if I could. It is still. So is the garden court form still allowed in the grade three? It is correct. Has that has the sort of garden court, the discrepancy between garden court form as shown and as permitted? Has that been cured yet. As shown as. Illustrated in the zoning code? There's a very specific graphic content of what a garden court form looks like, yet how it's manifested in the grade three today is very different than how it's portrayed. Okay. Has that been addressed? I'm afraid I'm not aware of that particular situation, but I can definitely follow up with you after seeing the. Reason why I bring this up is I listened to I watched the hearing, the committee hearing, and I'm actually going to pull this committee hearing and share it with my colleagues who weren't on council at the time. There was a very robust discussion about the fact that there's all these PDS, there's no project coming forward. This is just a straightforward rezoning. And I can tell you that the Cherry Creek that we know and love grew up in formed in that old zoning code, and all of these pods created what is desirable today. And to sort of blame the PDS as being the fault, I would argue, is what sort of preserved and created what is desirable today. The reason why I'm saying all that is you cited several plans, B 1.1, where it specifically said single family duplex and row homes. The graphics showed the row home, single family character. The The Cherry Creek adopted 2012 Cherry Creek adopted plan A again sited single family duplex and row homes. And then in your own slide note five talked about why grades three was appropriate because it allowed single family duplex and row homes, but you omitted garden court in the garden court form is a perpendicular townhome that is very different in character than a grade three. I mean, than a single family duplex or ten row home form, which all orient themselves towards the street. And so why this matters is an appropriate rezoning should have waived in order to respect the small area plans in place should have waived the garden court form from this proposal. I encourage CPD to look at an overlay that somehow addresses this discrepancy between what is desired and in the smaller plan versus what is allowed in the existing zoning. Why this all matters. Is. Page 14. The this is an area of stability. It is outside the area of change. And if you're going to justify modifying an area of stability by virtue of the fact that the area has changed around it. When by Design Blueprint Denver calls those areas of change, then you've opened up the area of stability to change because you're justifying it by the very change that the plan is desiring. So there's a big this there's there's sort of an incongruence between what the plans support, what the zoning allows, and what you guys are moving forward. I urge my colleagues to take tell this to vote no and to send this back to CPD for a modification that that modifies this and consistent with the smaller plans that are in place, because that grades three will in fact allow building forms a larger and in or in a different orientation and row house. Thank you. Great point. One of the get to the photos. Here we go. Images of the existing form and scale within the surrounding area here in the upper right hand corner. We do see a multi-family structure that was constructed under the former Chapter 59, and it does closely resemble the garden core concept. There are some units that do phase out towards the street, but there also are inward facing units on that courtyard. So we do believe that the G RH Three Zone District, with its inclusion of single family, duplex, garden court and indeed row house is consistent with this existing context. I do apologize. The exclusion of Garden Court was by no means intentional. But row houses wouldn't allow street facing garages. That is correct. You know, there's there's a character and an intent in the zone, in the small area plan, and there's a community input that drove that. And that's codified at least to whatever degree they can, because there's deliberate attempts to remove prescriptive language out of smaller plans. I think if we looked back at those discussions, we would find that the neighbors were actually calling for something far more prescriptive than what got written. And so I don't think that perpendicular townhomes and and curb cuts is probably the future that they all saw in there in that write up. We do see language also. I just was saying, Councilman, I want to I want to make sure that we say are these you kind of going in a comment period or any particular questions you want to ask? And I'll certainly afford after the question a little bit, definitely give you your your opportunity to comment on that. So does zero three the proposed zone district allow for forms other than some single family duplex in row homes that do not have to face? Well, it doesn't allow for other forms other than those three forms. It does. Correct. But I believe in the garden court form standard that a certain a number of units must indeed face onto the primary street. And does that allow occupied levels above three stories? Not not habitable space, but occupied levels above three stories. Occupied as in a rooftop space. I believe not occupy able space. I believe perhaps the applicant is more familiar with the zone district standards as he is designing the project. But I do not believe that third story does allow for Occupy able space. It does allow for the doghouse, you know, a limited square footage on the fourth story. That is. Not Occupy Wall space though. But the decks that they then that's why I said not habitable but occupy wall you can have mean occupy the rooftop. Yes. An individual could spend time on that rooftop. Correct. But it's not habitable space. All right. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Any other questions on 410? Scene. Nonpublic hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilman New, you're up. You know, I respect my esteemed colleague there on his wonderful zoning knowledge. I do want to support this rezoning. I'm very familiar with Cherry Creek, which is a booming residential growth area. And this proposal fits along very well with that street. It's just a wonderful location, though, right across from Pulaski Park. What a beautiful, gorgeous park it is. And and I'm so glad that some of the older pads are being converted to much more modern residential homes. And I'm so familiar with the neighborhood association there. Talk to many of them and they're very, very supportive. And and so I do want to support this this rezoning tonight. I also think that Councilman Espinosa has a good point that we ought to be considering in the future and talking about how how this should be discussed further. So. But I don't think they should delay that as the rezoning tonight. I support this rezoning. Thank you, Councilman. Do any other comments? Councilman Espinosa. I do have to respond in that my concern, Councilman new isn't there's a lot of very wonderful projects that can come about in this zoned district. And I have no doubt that this team is probably capable and ready to deliver that. However, I don't know that. I mean, I wish there was more public input on this process simply because this does allow something that is consequentially differing significantly, formally different than what was presented today as the way the by it I mean the existing fabric and the desirability. It actually allows far more intense development than what was portrayed. And that disconnect will always concern me. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. In the comments on 14. Scene nine. Madam Secretary. Roll Call. New Ortega Sussman. Black Clarke Espinosa. No. Flynn, I Gillmor. Cashman. Can each Lopez. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please. First of all, he announced the results. 11 eyes one night. 11 eyes one day for ten has been placed on fine consideration and does pass. All right. Our next one is for 24. Councilwoman, can we please put 424 on the floor? Mr. President, I move that council bill 424 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved to second. It has been moved in segment public hearing on 424 is now open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. My name is Tim Watkins with the Community Planning Development here to present the zoning application 2014 nine over 90 for property at 5975 South Jackson Street. Property is located in central Denver in the Council District ten Cherry Creek neighborhood. Specifically in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. And here's kind of a overview of the property from the Google Earth View. And you can see that it's situated along Bayard Avenue between Burns Park, within easy walking distance of Burns Park to the east and also beyond excuse me, Polaski Park along Bayard Avenue to the west. Colorado Boulevard has high capacity transit running north and south, and also within easy walking distance is Alameda Avenue, where there is also significant amount of transit service available. Property is just under 19,000 square feet. And it's on the corner of Jackson Street and Bayard Avenue.