Approves a rezoning of 2000 East 28th Avenue from PUD #572 to new PUD under Former Chapter 59 in Council District 8.  (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 2000 East 28th Avenue from PUD #572 to new PUD under Former Chapter 59 in Council District 8.  A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-22-14.
Thank you, Madam President. I move. Excuse me. Yes, I move. That council bill 304 series of 24 be placed on final consideration and do pass. The public hearing for council bill 304 is open. May we have the staff report? Mr. Heiser. It doesn't seem to be responding. And I don't know if I'll let me scroll through or anything. Yeah, it's on the desktop. Okay. So this is actually. Maybe that will go. Okay. All right. So this next rezoning proposal is for 2000 East 28th Avenue. The proposal is to rezone from existing few number 572 to new 50, number 636 under former Chapter 59. So by way of explaining what that means, we'll rewind a little bit and go back to the time when the city made a policy decision back in 2010 not to rezone existing pads as part of the overall citywide Denver zoning code update. This meant that about 400 distinct former Chapter 59 flood zone districts remain mapped within the city. And so one question is what happens if the owners of one of those old code pads wants to rezone what? We do have an ordinance that tells us what to do in that instance. And that's listed here at the top of this slide. That ordinance provides, spells out what the options are for these old code pads. One option is to rezone to a zone district, standard zone district under the new Denver zoning code. You could also rezone to a new paved district an additional option listed in. The second bullet point there is that you can rezone to a new pad under the former Chapter 59. You'll notice that the ordinance doesn't give the option of amending an old Code PD. It tells you that you can create a new old code pad. So even in the case of reusing 99% of the material from that old PD, which is the case with the proposal here tonight, technically a new PD with a new number needs to be created, and that PD replaces the old PD, which then ceases to exist . So that's the that's the background of what's being considered tonight. And you can see the proposed planning and development attached to the back of the staff report. You'll notice that it does reuse almost all of the material from the existing PD and has a few changes which will be explained here in the staff report moving forward. So this map shows the location of the proposed rezoning within the city, within Council District eight and within the Whittier neighborhood. Specifically, the property is located at the southeast corner of 28th AV and Race. The property itself is an embedded commercial shop at, you might call it, or a corner store type building. This particular building has multiple storefronts for individual businesses within the structure. It faces 28th. AV is about a third of an acre in size and as already mentioned, currently is on PD number 572 and the applicant is requesting to rezone to a new PD under the former Chapter 59. So a little background on PD number 572. It was created in 2005. The purpose of it was to facilitate the improvements at the time for Mandy's restaurant. The development standards for that PD are specific to the property as it exists, and that's a very common approach in some of these older pwds that the standards are written very narrowly. So the allowed building heights, for example, is exactly the height of the existing building. The allowed setbacks are exactly the setbacks of the existing building and on and on for pretty much all of the development standards that are in the pad. That was the standard approach at the time and that was also applied to the permitted uses within the structure. So the only uses that were envisioned at the time were Mandy's restaurant and an office space, and those are the only two allowed uses. Now furthermore, each of those uses has a limitation on the amount of square footage that it can occupy, and it's also specific to the amount of square footage that Mandy's restaurant occupied at the time. So what this has resulted in is that the you know, the tenants have changed over time. Now, instead of one restaurant and the space, there are two restaurants at the space, but they're not allowed to get any bigger than the original footprint of Mandy's because of the strict standards of the PD and how it's been written. Meanwhile, the storefront on the far left of the building, so this one here can only be used for office and sits vacant because there haven't been any office tenants that have shown interest in leasing the space, although many other potential leases have stepped forward with interest. They're not allowed to because they're not an office use. So the proposed PDD retains all of the provisions of the existing PD, which in most ways meets the current owners needs. But and this is the principal justification for pursuing the new PD is that it expands the list of allowed uses to include most of the permitted uses in the E2 district, the B2 being the reference point, because we're talking about a former Chapter 59 plan unit development and then furthermore removes all of the square footage limitations for the individual uses within the building. So if one of the restaurants wanted to expand, it would be able to under the provisions of this proposed putting that has a somewhat of a cascading effect on some of the other sections. When you change the use, you need to update the sections of the plan that are regulated or directly related to use. So off street parking and signage. So for example, originally you're allowed to have two signs in this PD because it envisioned having two uses the restaurant and the office use. This approach allows it to be more flexible. So we have to change that provision so that if each of the individual storefronts has a different business unit, each of those businesses is able to have a sign, for example. And then finally, there are some sections in the PD requirements that were waived because no new exterior construction is proposed and so they don't apply. So for example, your construction schedule or phasing those types of things don't apply in this situation. And so they were waived. So the adjacent properties in this area, almost everything in the neighborhood is zoned you as you b1 there is a you mx2x zone district map directly across the street. The current uses in the space. As I've mentioned, there are two restaurant tenants currently and then the vacant office space adjacent single family residential on all sides except to the north, which has an office building. And here's some photos of the property. So this top photo here is taken from the corner of 28th and Reyes looking across 20th as well as the the property to the bottom. So it's one largest building with the multiple storefronts. This is the alley and adjacent residential to the east and the tap image on the bottom image, you can see the adjacent single family residential to the west. The office building across the street is the image at top, and at the bottom is a shot of the rear of the property, its parking lot and adjacent single family. The Planning Board recommendation on this application is for approval. They made that recommendation on April 2nd. And beyond that, we followed our standard notification procedures throughout the rezoning process, including written notification to all neighborhood organizations in affected city council districts. And today, we have not received any comments on this particular application. The excuse me, the the normal five criteria that you're accustomed to seeing that is specific to the Denver zoning code. Remember, we're talking about former Chapter 59. And under the criteria for form a Chapter 59, there are four and those are listed here and we'll go through each of those. The first is consistency with adopted plans, of which there are three that apply here. The first is comp plan 2000. And there are there's consistency with this proposal with several comp plan 2000 strategies, mostly related to the promotion of retail commercial development, as well as encouraging the identification of areas where new uses are desirable and can be accommodated. Blueprint Denver has a land use concept of single family residential and identifies the property as being within an area of stability. The street classifications for both East 28th and Raise is designated local for both. So although the blueprint Denver recommendation here is for single family residential and it's identified as an area of stability, the blueprint Denver definition of single family residential does acknowledge that single family neighborhoods can have a limited employment base. And this particular structure was constructed in an era of the 1920s, when it was common and customary to have corner store retail uses within residential neighborhoods. So by making the changes in the proposed PDE that increase the lease ability of the vacant, chronically vacant commercial space, it would help to enhance the stability of the Whittier neighborhood. The Whittier neighborhood has a plan that was adopted in 2000 that clearly expresses support for the concept of reestablishing commercial uses in locations where they have been historically located. And there are three strategies related to this. The first is land use and zoning strategy number three, which is to encourage effective use and redevelopment of underutilized, underutilized commercial facilities within the neighborhood. Urban Design Strategy six is to encourage the redevelopment of commercial sites to compatible retail services and economic development strategy. One is to inventory and evaluate vacant properties in order to recruit neighborhood businesses. So going back to the four criteria, we do find that there's consistency with the relevant adopted plans for the area. The second criteria is to reasonably necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and general welfare, which the finding is consistency given implementation of the city's adopted land use plans. The justifying circumstance for this rezoning is changed or changing conditions specifically at the time when the pad was originally written in 2005. It was envisioned that both the restaurant and office uses would be viable and with the chronic vacancy of the office space, it's been found that it's too limiting for that space to be successful with office being the only allowed use. And so this is a proposed correction to allow for a wider variety of commercial uses in the space. Fourth and last, the criteria is uniformity of district regulations and restrictions. This particular rezoning, because it's a pad for a single property, would apply only to the subject property. And so this criteria is met by virtue of the fact that no other properties would have a zoning designation within the city. So upon conducting this review, CPD does recommend approval based on the finding that all of the review criteria for new pads under former Chapter 59 have been met. I mean, you finished? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. I didn't know you were about to say something else. We have two speakers I'd like to call Herb Kastner to the podium. Thank you. My name's Herb Kastner. I'm the applicant representing the property owner, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you very much, Mr.. Sekou. Some say cube like soccer moves self-defense. But I'm in poor working, poor, homeless, homeless people. Here we go. Prime example. I hope all are listening. Used to be, Piers. I mean, used to be Amanda's restaurant, Black, owned 30 years, ran into a situation the economy popped, couldn't get a refinance on a loan, but yet tired of covering folks over there. You've got to refinance. Twice. I was here. I watched it. Gentrification of my neighborhood. And now we have a white pub. They're looking to go back to the way the zoning was so he can expand his business and getting all the help that he need. Where was the help when M&A was going under? You cannot be serious. There is a contradiction here. All right. Make it easy for them. Make it hard for them. And now we got a white pub and a black neighborhood, and we lost a black institution that never got a chance to get 80 years like Bonnie Brae. Explain. So how does that happen? Is that accidental? Come on, y'all real? For real. And you're watching it happen. This is really getting scary. It's almost like free Germany. Nazi is the silence the non speaking to let it just flow. Why black people disappear in this town and nobody cares. Yeah. Nobody care where to go. Have anybody seen them? Are they working anywhere on any of the construction sites where they had where they go or they just, boop, there it is. They disappear. Oh, we just solve the negro problem. The Negroes are gone. Magic. Outstanding, America. And then you sit up here and you sit looked at black. Are you kidding me? Okay. We have questions from council members. Councilwoman Kenney. Thank you, Madam President. Courtland, you mentioned or I was reading the staff report, but that there weren't a lot of changes from the original to the new party and the uses you focused a lot on for the office space. But you mentioned early on the specificity of the height and some of those things. And I'm wondering if you are using this opportunity or we are using this opportunity to also kind of give a little bit bigger envelope should they need to renovate, expand something like I just. Are we are we thinking towards the future or being so short sighted that we're just doing the teeniest changes that have to be made for. This particular economic challenge. Without thinking about what the next one might be? Know so we are not proposing any changes to the existing party beyond what's necessary to accommodate the change in use. So the specific standards for the building, for example, they remain as specific under this proposed party as they are currently. So no, we're not making any broader changes in the minimum necessary. No, I guess I. May I. Madam President, go ahead. The follow up question is for you. Why? Why? You know, I don't know the age of the building, but it's not uncommon for, you know, businesses to need to expand or update. And so would would it not be typical in other parties to be a little more general or similar in height to what the appropriate zoning would be in the code, even though there's restrictions in there that make it mean that you want to keep it a pudi. All of all of that is on the table. With the initial discussions with the applicant. The, the first thing that we talked about was remapping to the, um, x to x, which is located across the street. Another option would be to do a pad with more sweeping changes. Like what, what you discussed. Ultimately, it falls on the applicant and what they choose to apply for. And this applicant was mostly happy with the pad, didn't like the restrictive use list, but didn't see a need for anything else to be addressed. So it is applicant driven in this case that they chose to apply for this minor fix, if you will, to deal with the users and not open the door on everything else related to the potential development of the site. Madam President, one last question, which was why do you do you remember why they didn't choose or what the lack of fit was with the, um, x? Yes. So the um, x2x has compatibility standards, 4 hours of operation, which the existing PD does not have. So if rezoning to the um, x to x, they would be subject then to those new hours of operation, more limited hours of operation. Actually, not even the current restaurant business. It would be the next restaurant business that might come after that one. Okay. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Councilman Kennish, Councilwoman Ortega. I just wanted to ask a few questions about parking and what the requirements are for a building that was built in the twenties. So if, for example, they wanted to turn the whole building into one big restaurant, are are the parking requirements per square foot the same in a building built at that time, or are they completely different? So I'm just wondering what the potential effect on the adjacent neighborhood would be. I don't know if there's a lot of on street parking. I haven't looked at this particular property, so I'm just curious about that. So the the PD prescribes the parking ratios. And it provides the specific number of spaces per square feet. I'm trying to find that now. So for the restaurant, use one space per 250 square feet is the standard for an office, use 1 to 400. Those are the same ratios that are in the current existing field for all other permitted uses. They would then be directed to the requirement as written in the B2 Zone District. So as part of that, your question is what if the whole thing became a restaurant? Would there be enough parking? The answer is yes. Under the prescribed ratio of 1 to 250 square feet, they they would have enough spaces. Okay. So given the fact that it's a twenties building, I know in some neighborhoods if you, you know, put a certain use in an existing older building, it didn't have all the same parking requirements, but because it's a pad that was already built into it, is that correct? No, actually, what you're describing would be a provision in the new Denver zoning code and it would be unaddressed in this period. And it has its own parking ratios that are prescribed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Levitt. Thank you, Madam President. So I. I'm kind of frustrated here because, you know, we're taking a pod, which is something that, you know, we wanted to get rid of and we're replacing. It with a new pod. I mean, I know there's provision for doing. That, but, you know, we could not get to an ordinary zone district. I mean, this whole thing sort of reminds me of the story of the guy who goes to the county. Clerk and says, I want to I want to change my name. And the clerk says, well, what's your name? And he says. John Jacob Dingell. Hammerschmidt Clerk's like, Wow, okay, I understand you want to buy you want to change your name? What do you want to change it to? He says, Steve, Steve, Jacob, jingle Hammerschmidt. I mean. That's I feel like that's what we're doing here is changing, you know, one pad to another, you know, to accommodate a little use. But we're still. Working with this bad. Tool I have. I mean, don't know where to get. Well, maybe it's I don't want to, you know, put the applicant through more process to get to an ordinary zoned district. But I guess I'm looking to use or how did we. Get to the spot? Well, like I said, we we did have those conversations. It was the first thing we talked about was, you know, what standards on district would work for you. And I think that had, you know, the applicant was generally receptive to it until discovering the limitation on the hours of operation which the existing Whittier Pub currently operates outside of those hours. And so it was viewed as an impact to the existing business. That was not a risk that they wanted to take. And so they decided not to apply for that zone district and instead to go this route. And I guess you already know my answer because you referred to it, but this is a viable route that's available to people and they can apply for it and they did apply for it. Okay. Thank you, Councilman and Councilwoman Robb. Well, I'm I'm on the same tack. As. Councilman Nevitt and Councilwoman Sheperd. And I can I mean, excuse me, Councilwoman Kenney and I can read Councilwoman Sheppard's mind because she spoke it clearly in committee. We all questioned the Pudi and frankly looked at how we allowed rezoning to the old Pudi. But the way I want to phrase the question is these have more restaurant hours inside and outside than in a mixed two embedded retail zone. And this would allow so allow both a retail marijuana store or medical marijuana store, which are no longer allowed, I believe, or at least the retail would would would be allowed the medical might go, I don't think either could get in. So how does that lead to creating more stability for the neighborhood? Which planning in your report said that by doing this zoning change we were creating more stability? That was one of your rationalizations or reasons for the rezoning? Well, what I meant when I stated that is that the the commercial space that's been sitting vacant, they haven't been able to find someone to lease it for office use. There is indication and interest that, you know, non office users would jump at the chance. So you'd be removing a chronically vacant space that's been sitting there for a long time. It would have a neighborhood business in it. Yeah, that does make sense. So thanks, because that helps me with our criteria for rezoning, which we've been talking about tonight. I just don't think it's very predictable for people who are moving into the neighborhood when they see that sort of neighborhood, embedded retail, they expect one set of conditions and they're going to find another set. Okay. Would you like me to address the marijuana issue? Yes. Okay. Just what would be allowed and what wouldn't? Right. So the party doesn't say anything about marijuana, so it defaults to all the other city laws governing how where marijuana related uses can be established at this particular location. It's about 750 feet away from Manual High School. So in licensing, if someone tried to establish that use, they would run into the standard of not being able to be within 1000 feet of a school. So it's zoning doesn't address it, but licensing does address it. And you would not be able to have marijuana at this location. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks, did you have another question? You know, I'll do it because he's right here. Yeah, I just had a question. It's 750 feet from manual. Do we do any provisions with city owned buildings, library libraries within even shorter? I don't do know that at all. I'm not sure. I don't I don't look it up in the light. Okay. Okay, great. Okay. Schools, I know for sure, are included. Yeah. All right. Well, that looks like all the questions. So I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks. Yep. Thank you. This is kind of a tricky one. We we kind of debated this and in committee, and I think we need to split it up into sort of issues. One is a business owner that is trying to grow their particular business and make sure that the hours of operation is not hindered and their business is not hindered. And then two is a macro kind of PD issue that we have in the city that has certain allowances for applicants that for one, it's their right to be able to choose this. But we have this kind of policy conversation and level up here saying, you know, we want to start moving away from Pwds. Well, if we want to start moving away from Pwds, we need to have that solidified with CPD. And I believe at the time that this was coming through CPD, we did not have a director, which again kind of points out that, you know, there needs to be some vision around this and we need to have kind of a deeper conversation around this issue. And in my opinion, the applicant shouldn't suffer for something that I think is a is a city issue. So I am. With that being said, I'm in favor of this moving forward with this kind of caveat that I hope that we can go back to the drawing board and have a larger conversation, whether it be with Councilman Rob and Ludi, to say how do we handle applicants that come in that need to, you know, that want to have amendments to the certain pwds? How do we want to handle it so we don't come to this this point again where we don't, you know, as a city, we want to be able to work for all. We want to be able to make sure that businesses can work. But at the same time, we have a certain vision that we're trying to to understand here and see implemented in our city. So I'll be voting in favor of this and excited to to see that this business thrive here on the 20/24. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sheppard. Thank you, Madam President. Well, actually, I just wanted to address my colleague, Councilman Nevitt, regarding the John Jacob jingle. Hammerschmidt wanting to change his name to Steve. John Jacob, jingle Schmidt. So Councilwoman Robb and I initiated a very lively discussion around this particular issue at Land Use and Transportation Committee. We both had a lot of heartburn over precisely what you expressed a while ago, and I believe we have adequately expressed that heartburn to both others on Land Use and Transportation Committee as well to community planning and development. And they have heard loud and clear that, you know, we you know, there's and then also, I took the opportunity to speak to Mr. Hancock about this. It is unwieldy to be moving forward with two codes four years after, you know, a very intense rezoning and comprehensive citywide zoning code revision. So it has all been duly noted. And there is a firm commitment from CPD to move towards the day when we will no longer allow such a thing and we will be pushing people into coming into conformity. With Ozone District that is appropriate in the new code. However, we couldn't deal with that hiccup regarding this particular situation. So we all recognize that. And I will be supporting Councilman Brooks in this endeavor this evening. Thank you, Councilwoman. Seeing other comments. Let's take the roll call on council fell three or four. Brooks. High. Brow high butts I can each high layman monteiro nevett. Grudging grudgingly I. Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd, I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close to voting the results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. The zoning passes. We have a third public hearing this evening. Council Bill 30504 See? What do I do? Councilwoman Sheppard, will you please put Council Bill three or five on the floor? Thank you, Madam President. I move that the following Bill Council Bill 305 Series 2014 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you, Councilwoman. Public hearing for Council Bill 305 is open. And may we have a staff report. Yes. Good evening. My name is Tim Watkins. Community Planning and Development present tonight the rezoning application for property property located at 3600 East Alameda. Other addresses as part of this property under consideration is three one and 319 South Garfield Street as well as 314 South Monroe Street. Property, though, is located in Central Denver in Council District ten, in the Cherry Creek neighborhood, southeast corner in an area known as Cherry Creek Triangle. The site is just over an acre in size that fronts Alameda, which is a parkway that connects Pulaski Park like one block to the west, and Byrnes plot Burns Park, like three blocks to the east. And it's just one block north of the Cherry Creek Greenway. Here's a photo of the site. Existing building on the site from Monroe Street and alameda looking to the east. This is the view of the site from Alameda and Garfield looking to the Southwest. The majority of the site is actually service parking. The building existing building footprint area occupies only about 20% of the site. The applicant is Rachel L Trust, represented by Robert Smith. The applicant is present tonight and is available to respond. Any questions or comments that you might pose to them? The current zoning is general business or B for this district allows commercial uses adjacent to arterial streets and also permits residential, single family and multi-family uses. There are two waivers. Applicable to the site. Weaver, 74, has a 72 foot height limit, as well as some use limitations, as well as waiver age 60 and both of these wave intensive commercial industrial manufacturing and warehouse uses. There are also two overlay districts, year one adult use and your two billboard uses. And so the proposed rezoning to the new zoned districts would retire all of these existing entitlements and replace with two zone districts, two proposed zone districts, CMCs five and CMC. I would just point out in the first rezoning case that we heard related to the Welton Street Station that we were talking about split zoning and Cortland mentioned