Rezones property at 3401 Pecos St. from PUD #27 to CMP-EI2 in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 3401 Pecos St. from PUD #27 to CMP-EI2 (campus education institution, 2 restrictive form standards) in Council District 1. 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 4-13-16.
It has been moved. We need a second council. It is being moved and seconded. Public hearing on 253 is now open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. My name is Sarah with CPD and I will be presenting the rezoning at 3401 Pecos. It is a request to go from PUD number 27 to see MPI two with a waiver from a maximum height of 75 feet down to three stories. 45 foot is in Council District one in the Highlands neighborhood at the corner of 34th and Pecos, about three blocks east of town. The property is little over 34,000 square feet. It's an existing structure that was previously used for education and nonprofit uses. The rezoning request is to use the existing building for missionary housing. The height waiver requested on this case is to bring the maximum height down to three stories 45 feet. No other modifications are included in this waiver. This is the second case in recent months where the maximum height of 75 feet in the two district within 175 feet of a protected district has come into question. After research, CPD agreed that the existing maximum height is not necessarily compatible with the intent of the district, which is to be applied at small embedded sites. As a result, CPD is committed to a future text amendment regarding the copy to district, and therefore the waiver is consistent with CPD's waiver and conditions policy. The campus education districts are intended for educational uses and facilities, as well as other types of civic, public and institutional uses. This to district is intended to be applied to smaller and medium scale campus sites, generally adjacent to single unit two, unit townhouse or rowhouse. Residential zoned districts where it's important to require more space and limited building height than this to II district to ensure these adequate transitions to the lower scale residential neighborhoods. In addition, certain land uses with the potential for offset impacts are more strictly limited in the capital district, such as restrictions on multi-family housing, lodging and laboratory research and development. The current maximum height allowed by the puti is actually higher than the requested waiver. The current maximum height is 50 feet and the waiver is down to 45. The proposed use would actually be permitted under the current Pudi. However, there's a square footage restriction for the residential portion. That's not sufficient for the intended user. And a more detailed summary of the Pudi was included in the staff report. The zoning surrounding YouTube to the west, north and south to the south is another old cut and to the east is YouTube. To surrounding land uses are a mix of single-family duplex and the current. The beauty to the south is showing up as mixed use because it is a religious assembly as well as a monastery use. The current context, low scale multifamily. Summary of the notice. We received the application in February. Planning Board Public Hearing was March 20th with a unanimous vote of recommendation of approval. Planning Committee moved it forward on April 13th of the appropriate are our and those were notified and we did receive a letter of support from the Highland United neighborhood. R.A. Which is in your packet. The first criteria consistency was adopted plans. We have comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Highland Neighborhood Plan. The request is consistent with various strategies identified in the plan. The Blueprint. Denver calls for single family duplex, which is a moderately dense area. The proposed zone district with the waiver, will maintain the character of the existing neighborhoods. It's intended for small scale campus uses in these low scale neighborhoods. The form standards and use limitations as well as the proposed height waiver. Height waiver will ensure development is compatible with the existing character. The Highland Neighborhood Plan describes this area as a predominantly single family, low moderate density residential area, and the suggested land use is to retain this low density residential. The request will respect the existing low density character due to the intent to be applied in these small scale sites, as well as with the height waiver. Staff concludes that the proposed map moment will result in the uniform application of the CPI to zone, district, building, form, use and design regulations, with the exception of the requested waiver to a maximum height of three stories 45 feet. However, the waiver provides better integration with the surrounding You Tube Zone districts and is consistent with the CPD policy to use waivers in situations where the waiver helps to solve an issue that CPD is committed to resolve through a future text amendment. Staff also finds that the requested will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. Justifying circumstance in this case is that the land or its surrounding environs have changed or is changing to such a degree that it's a public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area. And CPD finds that this criteria is met. The copy to district is intended to be applied to small and medium scale density areas. And given this, the overall proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and with this to purpose and intent. Overall, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all of your criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you. We have two public speaker two speaker for this publication, Robert Sasse and Mark Trimmer. So, Robert, you can come on up. And then followed by Mark Turner. Ah, good evening. My name is Robert Soares. I'm an architect with Tito's architects representing the honor, the Archdiocese of Denver. My address is 5400 Greenwood Palace, Plaza Boulevard, Greenwood Village, Colorado. I'm here primarily just to address questions, but I did want to make a couple of comments in representing the owner. First of all, this particular reuse of this school for the creation of city missionaries will essentially be a place for them to reside while they are serving the community in the downtown Denver area. And they will also utilize this as a chapel and classroom area for educating the missionaries who are residing there. The former school that was there had a playground area that is now basically just going to be a very quiet area where we will have kids playing outside. The intention of the building with its reuse is not to add on to the building, but just basically respect the existing character of the neighborhood. And finally, the other thing that's a nice advantage for the neighborhood is because we won't have a loading and unloading zone. All of those wonderful parking signs can be taken down that that the neighborhood can park there and they can park there as we have a very small parking requirement for only 16 stalls, which we will have offsite. And they really don't intend to use more than about half of those anyway. So anyway, I'm here for your chance to address any of your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Robert. I'm sorry. Mark Trimmer. My name is Mark Turner. Obviously 3430 Quiver Street, my neighbor, directly to the west of the post change. And all of the neighbors support everything the previous speaker just said. We think it's a great use. The problem we have with it is the 45 foot. An elevation, which is basically increase in 15 foot. It's our understanding could be wrong could answer this question is that the existing building can't support another story as it exists now. And in addition to that, if it goes up another story, the setbacks come into play and changes the. Feel of the general neighborhood and that you can go two blocks and three blocks and most directions look back. And that will be definitely higher than anything that you see with the exception of some church steeples. So we think the waiver is too restrictive and not restrictive enough in that in the need of future expansion, the neighborhood . Well, let me speak for me since we didn't do a petition or anything as requested as could have been done, is that we think that more coverage of the lot should be considered as a waiver as opposed to just codifying a 45 foot there, that there's better options to get better architectural design and proper massing to fit the neighborhood that things better. So sum it up, definitely support the use that they're going for and have always been good neighbors since I've been in the neighborhood. But we'd like to see more leeway so there could be a better conversation on how the property could be redeveloped as opposed to being. That's only considering height on the redevelopment. So that's it. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from members of council. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So, Mr. Sass, would you mind coming to the microphone? So just to be clear, the expectation is to use the existing building and not to add anything on to the site. Is that correct? That's correct. We don't intend to change the footprint. The only modifications actually really being made as a as a street access for safety issues that the building department requested. As we're going through the the plan review process, we've made that modification. But we don't intend to add to the heights of the building, increase the footprint, change the the exterior expression of the building. I'm assuming you need to do some interior improvements. Yeah, there's a. Lot going on. Yes, exactly. But. But as far as the outside of the building, we we don't intend to change it. The archdiocese basically has owned the building from the get go. They don't intend to sell the property. They just want to reuse the facility that they have and repurpose it. What's the maximum number of people that can be in there at any given time? There will be essentially 40 residents in the facility that will be on the upper level and then the lower level will be utilized for there's there's a kitchen in there that'll be utilized as well as a little cafeteria area. And there will be a chapel there. There are offices will be in that particular area and also be a chaplain classroom. And will the missionary be used, utilized year round? Yes. Okay. They'll be rotating people. They typically will be on site for a year. And then other than then, they'll bring another group in. So how it works is college kids doing this? Great. I have no further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Actually, a question for you again, Mr.. I didn't even write your name. The architect from Adios. Can you if this goes through, can you make sure that the owner, the archdiocese, somebody from the ownership can contact my office? Most definitely. I'm I am. I do want to know, when we had a prior campus rezoning, we actually had a real good way forward for this, for the community. I think that would probably work here if we get in that situation. Now, that'd be wonderful. Thank you. They'd love to connect. Thank you. And then I have one question for CPD. So how do we. Did you maybe you mentioned this, but how do we get around the minimum area required? Because for a CPA to I2, it is a six acre minimum. Unless it's adjoining and exists, there. Is no minimum area for a rezoning from an old code zone district, and it's an old. Computer. So it's a waiver for the PD. Okay. Um, could we consider, since you're doing text amendments, take it back to CPD. I go that we actually reduce the area requirement to go to campus rather than a six acre requirement. I think that minimum area requirements are already on our list of things to consider for various reasons. So all of them will be looked at. Okay. Thank you. And if you want to go ahead. Yeah. So I'm Kyle Dalton with CPD. I would just add, you know, we have a list of that that currently numbers about 250 possible text amendments and and the minimum area requirements are one on the list. We don't know yet if that will be in the bundle tax amendment, but we plan to do this year or if it will have to wait for future years because of other priorities that we need to work on. But it is on our radar and we would like to to revisit those in the future. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Any other questions? Two, five, three. CNN. Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just this one was I just could have been contentious. So I want to thank CPD for and I don't know which came first the the text amendment or this rezoning issue. But I appreciate the flexibility in approaching this waiver request from the Highland Neighborhood Association, because it is it is a appropriate compromise for that site and that location. I respect your concerns. Fortunately, there is a significant piece of property that is a buffer between your your property and this parcel. Mr. Jimmer, if if if you're going to rebut, please come to the podium. There is a significant buffer. That's true. The height really doesn't particularly affect me specifically, and that's really not my concern. It's more the architectural design on the corner that the other neighbors are worried about the height. Yeah. And so there's that there is that future with by right. Concern. And so specifically, if this rezoning goes through, that's actually what I would intend to discuss with the owners going forward is is how we address that with the community impacted. So with that said, again, thanks again for the waiver because it would have been really hard to understand how this was appropriate without that. But that makes a huge difference in this community. So thank you. With that, I will be supporting this. Thank you, Councilman. Any other comments? Two, five, three. Seen. And I'm secretary roll call. Black Eye Brooks. By. Clark. By Espinosa, by Flynn I. Gilmore, I. Cashman. I can. New Ortega. I. Assessment. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting results. To our right to. Our eyes. To find three has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right, last one we have tonight, 322 and remind remind my colleagues after 322, we then have to vote on 323, 324 and 325. So please don't leave after that public hearing. All right. Let's first get this on the floor, councilman. Clerk, will you please put 322 on the floor for final passage? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill 320 to be placed one final consideration and do pass.