Rezones property at 1555 and 1597 Stuart Street from Former Chapter 59 PUD 559 to C-MX-3 (Commercial, Mixed Use, 3 stories) in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 1555 and 1597 Stuart Street from Former Chapter 59 PUD 559 to C-MX-3 (Commercial, Mixed Use, 3 stories) in Council District 1 (2014I-00050). A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-10-14.
Madam Secretary, please close the vote and announce the results. 1201 Nay Baba has won the council bill 1100 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are moving on to the next one, which is Council Bill 1047. Councilman Watts, will you please put 1047 on the floor? Certainly, Mr. President. I know the council bill 1047 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded council bills 1047, 1075 and 1076 all approved zoning map amendments. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and Council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become part of the record. The Council Bill for the Public Hearing for Council Bill 1047 is now open. May we have the staff report? So there we go. Thank you, Mr. President. And good evening, council members. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. This request for rezoning at 1555 and 1597, Stewart Street is located right next door to what we've been talking about for the past hour in Council District one in the West Colfax Statistical neighborhood. It's located on the west side of Stewart Street, all the way to Tennyson Street between Kansas Place and 16th Avenue. And it's directly across from the old St Anthony's parking garage. And Colfax Elementary is just to the south of it. And it's the L-shaped or the backwards L-shaped property indicated in the in the yellow dashed line. The property is a former religious assembly structure with attached school facilities, and the property owner is the one requesting rezoning tonight there requesting rezoning in order to facilitate redevelopment of the site and remove an old restrictive specific plan unit development. And our staff analysis is based on the rezoning and not any specific development project. They're requesting to rezone to the C three zone district in the Denver zoning code. The C stands for our urban center neighborhood context AMC's indicates that it's a mixed use zoned district and the three indicates the maximum height allowed in the district. In terms of number of stories, the property is sandwiched between two neighborhood contexts. To the east is the urban center see neighborhood context as their requesting and to the west is urban neighborhood U. Zone districts to the east are more intense. Mixed use districts to the West are less intense residential zone districts. And then all along Colfax are Main Street mixed use commercial zone districts. The current zoning is a plan. Unit development in the former Chapter 59 are known as the old zoning code number 559. It was established in 2004 and is based on the R-1 Residential Zone District, with the addition to allow the construction of a dormitory which otherwise wouldn't have been allowed in the r-1. In a very specific site development plan that I saw in just a second, it allows continuance of the existing school as well as that religious assembly sanctuary with some remodeling. But the detailed district plan included in the PD does not allow reconfiguration of the site. And so this slide really is the nuts and bolts of why they're here tonight. The this is a site plan out of the the plan, unit development zoning that exists for the property today. It acknowledges the existing school and the existing sanctuary at the southeast corner of the property, and it proposed a dormitory at the north end across a parking lot. Well, here they are today, and they recognize they no longer have a need for that sanctuary facility. The congregation that was here has long since moved. The school doesn't recognize that that that's a a use that they need for their school. And it's actually a more fitting site for their dormitory where it can be attached to the adjacent school rather than located across the parking lot. But again, under the current PD, this is all they can build. So the dormitory is currently off site, a few blocks to the east. They want to move it here and they want to move in that location adjacent to the existing school, but they can't under the current zoning, hence the request to rezone. Here's a look at the existing context around the property. The blue indicates the the school. So there's the school on the site as well as Colfax Elementary School just to the south. The hatching to the east is the parking garage and beyond is the the vacant property under redevelopment to the west and the shades of yellow are residential zoned districts. And then there's the pink commercial along Colfax. In terms of the building form in the scale of buildings, the site is is right in a transition from lower scale buildings to the west of one and two storey single family homes and some multifamily units further west, as indicated by the top graphic, that middle graphic shows the existing school site, 1 to 2 stories and scale. And then to the east is the parking garage. It's a four story building currently there in terms of process. This application was received and we were provided informational notice of receipt in September. On September 17th, 2014, it followed the regular schedule for rezoning. So there was a public hearing at the planning board on November 19th, which was properly noticed under the terms of the Denver Zoning Code, at which planning board recommended approval unanimously of this case. It went on to the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee who moved it out on December the fourth of 2014 to register. Neighborhood organizations have commented on this case, both of recommending support of the case. That's the West Colfax Association of Neighbors and the West Colfax Business Improvement District. And we received no other written comments on the case, and there was no one else has testified on the case. We reviewed it against the five rezoning criteria. And I'll I'll get to the salient points here real fast. First, the criterion for a rezoning is that it be consistent with adopted plans. So first, we have the citywide comprehensive plan 2000. There are a number of strategies and comp plan 2000 that address this rezoning, which staff feels that the application is consistent with in terms of promoting infill development. That is a quality that broadens the variety of compatible uses that are allowed and that promotes mixed use development, which allows people to live near work and retail and services and that they need in their daily lives. It also relates to the Comprehensive Plan 2000 strategies regarding recognizing the traditional ethnic ethnic neighborhood, which the school has been a part of for a long time, strengthening the positive attributes of our neighborhoods and then reviewing and updating city processes for zoning, this this rezoning, all of the old code and out of a putting into a standard zoned district. And the Denver zoning code is a is a great implementation of this land use strategy. And for those because of that, we find that the application is consistent with comp plan 2000. Turning to the blueprint, Denver, which is the city's land use and transportation plan adopted in 2002. This map shows the Blueprint Denver Plan Map. The pink color is the land use concept indicating that the site is has a mixed use land use concept which encourages a variety of uses, including employment and housing and services. Intensity is higher but can vary, and then the diagonal hatching across the site and to the east indicates that it's in an area of change. In our areas of change channel are areas where the city desires to channel growth, where it will be beneficial to the city, and where we should allow an appropriate mix of uses. Now again, the current PD limits, development limits the available uses on the site and doesn't implement these recommendations for Blueprint. Denver We do find that rezoning to a mixed use zone district would be more consistent with this blueprint. Denver Land Use Recommendation Blueprint. Denver also has recommendations regarding the street types, and here all four streets around the property are local streets. Blueprint Denver doesn't give a specific direction for local streets, but that lower volume designation makes rezoning to a low intensity, mixed use district appropriate. And here the applicants have selected the lowest intensity mixed use district in the urban center context, the three story zone districts. So again, we find it most appropriate. Then turning lastly to the West Colfax Plan adopted in 2006, even more specific plan, the West Colfax Plan had its own land use concept, which again is a pink color , and the property is shown here in the blue dashed line. That pink color stands for the town center and it's designed to be an activity center with mixed use retail, employment, housing, civic amenities like a school in the language of the plan, specifically calls for this town center to vary in scale where the greatest intensity should be . At the core, it should radiate to lower intensity at the fringe. Again, the sites are at the fringe and so rezoning to the lowest intensity mixed use district, a mixed use three story district is consistent with this plan direction. So having reviewed it against all of the plans, we find it consistent with that review criteria. It would maintain uniformity with the Cemex three zone district as applied throughout the city of Denver and through implementing their plans and is further detailed in your written staff report, we find that the rezoning would further the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Denver. The fourth criterion is that there be a justifying circumstance here to justify in circumstances that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area and recognize the change character of the area. There are a number of changes happening in this area, some of which you've heard earlier that we find provide a justifying circumstance for this rezoning, including the adoption of the West Colfax Plan and the new Denver zoning code in 2010, both of which have transpired since the time of this PD being adopted. There's been a lot of investment in the West Colfax area and the redevelopment of the Saint Anthony site are all changes occurring in the surrounding environs that provide a justifying circumstance for this rezoning. And then finally we review rezonings for consistency with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. The Urban Center Neighborhood context includes a regular pattern of blocks with consistent orientation and mixed uses in the X three zone district is as accurately applied to the site where we do have that kind of pattern of blocks and uses. And even more specifically, the Cemex three zone district is intended to apply to areas served primarily by local or collector streets, where a building scale of 1 to 3 stories is desired. So as I indicated earlier with Blueprint Denver indicating that these are local streets around this property, around this property, and with the scale of two and a half to three stories to the west, five stories and up to the east here, the Cemex three zone district is that perfect transition and it is also consistent with the intent of the zone district. So again, we find it consistent in having reviewed it against all five criteria. We recommend approval. Thank you, Mr. Dalton. We have one speaker for this public hearing. And Rabbi Wasserman, you can make your way into the front pew and you can begin your remarks. Thank you, Aaron Wasserman, president and CEO of the Yeshiva, as well as a resident of the community for the last 42 years. I first wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Community Planning Development Department, as well as Councilwoman, Councilwoman Susan Shepherd and the rest of the City Council for their work and the recent years of the area, as we heard much of tonight. Grateful for that. It's certainly exciting to see all the transformations happening in our neighborhood. And we are thankful for all to all of you to help make this helped this process along. I am grateful as well as a resident watching this over many years, growing up in the community and seeing what's going to happen now, it's really amazing to watch. As you know, the Yeshivah has been a proud, active member of the Sloan's Lake community for the last 48 years. Since 1967, with activity happening in the area, the Civic sees the opportunity to reinvest in the neighborhood and and the community by renovating the Stewart Street campus and relocating our dormitory, as well as renovating our current facility, which will enhance the neighborhood as well. The look and feel as well for our students and our community. We believe connecting the dorm directly with the yeshiva will better be a better solution for our students by providing them security, as well as better connection to the existing school. Overall, we look forward to renewing and invigorating our presence in the community for next 50 years. And again, thank you to all of you and to the staff, the city council, staff and council for all the work that you have done. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes our speakers is now time for questions. Do we have any questions from members of the Council? Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a question for Mr. Dalton. Do you happen to know what year the PUD five, five, nine was passing. I think it was 2004. Okay. Would you consider it a detailed beauty? Yes, he has a boy. I'm sorry. Would you call it a detailed beauty, sir? Yes. The former Chapter 59 didn't make the distinction the way the new code does between detailed in general, but it is a highly detailed beauty. Am I to understand that we are being asked to change this zoning tonight in order for the current or owner who I believe was the owner in 2004 to move the project from one side of his property, their property to another side. That is why they're requesting a reason. That's what I'm just asking you to confirm. Yeah. So in this case, what I'm. What I'm asking is. Well, actually, maybe I'll just leave it for the comments that that's my question. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sherrod. Any other comments on 1047 seen on public hearing on 1047 is now closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Mr. President. I am definitely very happy to support this rezoning tonight. The reason why I was asking Mr. Dalton about the detail is because I think it exposes some of the issues that come up around a detailed pad when you get so specific and prescriptive about how a site may be developed that it doesn't leave flexibility for changing conditions, changing uses, changing broader implications, that can happen. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, that is why community planning and development has really been moving away from detailed Pwds is because in this case you have the owner of the property having to file for a rezoning just to move a project from one side of his property to another. And I find that problematic, you know, and so I think. That there are reasons. Some of which are quite valid for why we as a city are trying to move away from the DFL PD situation. So I applaud the recommendation of CPD. Thank you very much to the Orthodox Jewish community and to the Yeshiva for coming forward with this and I'm proud to support this tonight and wish you all the best. And I know the community is growing, so I'm here to help support you as I can. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other comments on 1047 C? None, Madam Secretary. Raquel Shepherd. I susman. Brooks Brown. I thought I can eat lemon, i. Lopez Montero. Nevitt Ortega Ortega. Rob I Mr. President. II. Madam Secretary, please for the voting and announce the results. 3939 1047 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are moving on to the next one. 1075. Councilwoman Fox, would you please put council Bill 1075 on the floor?