A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 689 West 39th Avenue, 700 West 40th Avenue, and 725 West 39th Avenue in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 689 West 39th Avenue, 700 West 40th Avenue, and 725 West 39th Avenue from I-B, UO-2 and I-A, UO-2 to C-MX-20 (industrial to commercial-mixed use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-4-17.
Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 362 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 362 be placed upon final consideration and do pass it as it has been moved in second it. The hearing for Council 362 is open. May we have the staff report? Sarah White. Good evening. I'm Sara. It was CPD here to present the staff report for 700 West 40th Avenue, 689 West 39th Avenue and 725 West 39th Avenue. The request is to rezone from IU oh two and Ibeju oh two to CRM 20. The subject property is in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. The property totals just over two and a half acres. And again, the request is to rezone to urban center neighborhood context mixed use 20 storey maximum height. The current zoning on the subject properties are I be you too and I you are to the zoning adjacent to the northeast is also IAU oh two. To the west is ibe u O2 to the north is C-Max 20. And to the south and east are seems 12. The existing land use in the area is a mix of industrial parking, office and commercial to the west of the subject. Property is showing it is transportation, communication, utility. Essentially the railroad tracks to the north is industrial, to the east is vacant and parking and also commercial and retail . And to the south is additional industrial parking and commercial or retail. The Planning Board heard the request at their meeting on March 15 and voted unanimously to remove to move the to recommend approval to City Council the land use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I saw this at their meeting on April 4th and voted to move it forward. All of the appropriate answers have been noticed and we did receive two letters of support throughout the public process. One from the You Can Globeville Civic Association. Number two, and one for the Globeville Civic Partners, both speaking to how this is an appropriate request for the transit oriented area. And to review criteria. We are reviewing this application for consistency against four adopted plans. Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver, the 41st and Fox Stationary Plan and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. The request is consistent with several strategies in Comprehensive Plan 2000, which is detailed further in your staff report, but it's primarily related to quality infill development, encouraging mixed use in transit oriented development, and identify areas where density and new uses are desirable. Blueprint. Denver identifies this area as transit oriented development, which is described as a balanced mix of land uses with compact mid to high density development and walkable with active street edges. It is also identified as an area of change and the requested CMCs 20 zone district has provisions that provide for all of the things that are called for in the transit oriented development description of Blueprint Denver. Additionally blueprint Denver's Future Street Classifications. The site is directly adjacent to 39th and Gallup PAYGO streets, which are on designated local, but it will be primarily served by Fox Street, which is a mixed use arterial. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan also has land use concepts in it. The subject site is outlined in the green box on your slide, and it is identified as transit oriented development. Again, it has descriptions very similar to a blueprint has in terms of mixed uses and mid to high density, walkable, pedestrian friendly areas. The Global Neighborhood Plan also identifies recommended maximum heights and the subject site is outlined in the blue box on your side and is in an area that is called for it to be 20 storeys. So therefore the 20 zone district is consistent with the recommendations in the global neighborhood plan. The 41st and Fox stationary plan also has land use and building height recommendations. The site is outlined in red on your screen and it is identified as a mixed use office slash residential use with heights of up to 20 stories. This land use calls for employment services and residential uses within walking distance of the station. The CRM x 20 zone district would provide for the allowance for this type of development, and the 20 storey maximum height is consistent with the heights called for in the 41st and Fox stationary plan. Therefore, the recommendation is consistent with the 41st and Fox stationary plan recommendations. Therefore, CPD finds that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. Do you require recommended? Rezoning would result in a uniform application of the CMC's toe zoned district and it would further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans, but also because the requested zone district would allow for pedestrian friendly development within areas close to transit, making transit more accessible, which contributes to the public health, safety and welfare. The justifying circumstances identified in this application are changed or changing conditions. And given the opening of the 41st and Fox station station area and other rezonings to similar zone districts in the area, we do find that there are change conditions to justify a rezoning. And the request is consistent with the neighborhood context and CMCs 20 zone district purpose and intent. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. All right. We have one speaker this evening that one person can come to the front. Tim Scheidt linked. Schlichting. Schlichting Yes. Good evening. My name is Tim Schlichting with LCP Development. Our business address is 2150 West 29th Avenue in Denver. My private residence is in Aurora. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and for considering our application this evening. I don't really have anything at this time to add to the staff report, but I'm more than happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Schlichting. All right. Questions by members of Council Councilwoman Ortega. So my question first is for staff. I'm sorry. Your name? Sarah. Sarah. Sarah. Has there been conversation with this applicant and other applicants on Fox Street about any expectation from the city to participate in helping address the 38th Avenue Fox, a 25 Park Avenue interchange? And if not, what are we doing as a city as we continue to? Be asked to approve high densities in this area, to look at that interchange and not wait until all of the development happens. And then we're stuck dealing with a mess that we can't, you know, we have to deal with. So can you is that something that comes up either with the applicants? And I was going to ask the application applicant the same question. If you've had this conversation with CPD as you've talked with them. Sure. And I can let the applicant say if they've had any discussions, but I can speak to some of the area wide mobility concerns in this. So the 40 person block stationary plan does have mobility and infrastructure recommendations in it. Recommendations in the plan that have already been implemented include a pedestrian and bike bridge over the rail at 41st Avenue, the anchor street pedestrian bike bridge over 38, the Anchor Street Multi-Use path from 30th 45th and the 38th AV underpass improvements. You know, when additional development increases, demand mobility projects will be constructed in accordance with the stationary plan as funding is available and several mobility projects in this station area are being considered for the geo band process that's going through right now. So that's what I have to answer the question more specifically about the interchange. I don't have anything specific related to that one. I know we have a lot of folks who live at the Regency that move back and forth to downtown. I don't know how many of them are trying to walk through Park Avenue, but that interchange, as we see it built out, as we see Fox Street built out with the projects that have come through here and requested very high densities. I'm concerned about pedestrian safety for more and more people who were selling it as a TOD site. We're going to encourage people to walk. I think to get to the west will be great because you do have the bridges, you've got the 30th Avenue underpass for people that want to go up to Highlands or any of the businesses on 38th Avenue. But for traffic that's wanting to move across under I-25 and into downtown, I think it's going to be a nightmare of an interchange. And so I'm just concerned that we're approving all or we're being asked to approve all of these applications without having any context of what's happening or what we will create to happen as a result of our actions. And so I'm. I just think it's important to be raising this so that we don't wait until it's a problem. And to my knowledge, that intersection is not in the bond issue. I can remember when the Regency Hotel was used as a nightclub, and it used to cause traffic to back up on I-25 on a on a weekend basis every weekend. And so when you start adding the volume of traffic and yes, it's a TOD site, but many of those developments are going to have parking and people will still have their cars until we become a true, multi-modal city. And so I'm just a little concerned about that. So I just wanted to ask that question and make sure that we're being very cognizant of what we are creating. I know that at this particular location we've got the the buffer of the RTD train from the cargo traffic. So the issue of, you know, how do we address proximity to rail and ensure that we're protecting life and property, I think is. Will be addressed as a result of, you know, the buffering that's already there. But I just wanted to raise that issue because I think it's something we're going to be dealing with and just want to ensure that CPD is having this conversation with the applicants that are coming into the area, that are requesting huge densities and want , you know, and yeah, it's what was planned for in the community engagement process. But so I just want to ask the applicant if you want to add anything further. Sure. I don't I know I don't have an explicit answer to your question about what the impact on the, you know, that interchange will be. I do share your concern. When we're you know, we're still evaluating different, you know, development alternatives. So when we come forth the site development plan at that time, we would have a traffic study done and see how that, you know, based on the density that we'd be bringing at that time, how, you know, what the impact would be on that and that intersection. I will I will tell you, you know, I can't make any promises along these lines, but I would tell you that as an initial project in that location is a first, you know, kind of a first mover, if you will, to to really bring a significant amount of private developments. That location. I don't think that the first project out of the ground will be 20 stories. There is precedent already with the property, the north, there's 12 on two sides, as Sara pointed out. But I would certainly if we're developing it, it wouldn't be a 20 story project. And and we're in some talks with some folks that may either acquired from us or a joint venture with us. And those folks are also thinking along the lines that we are that is the first project in that location. It wouldn't be 20 stories, but would would an eight story project have an impact on that intersection? It sure would. And until we know what we're doing, we haven't, you know, hired a traffic engineer to really, you know, kind of evaluate that. So but but definitely duly noted. We our concern as well. Thank you. I appreciate your input. Can you just clarify that this is the same corner property that has the liquor store and the new pizza shop. So that that is on the heart corner of 39th and Fox. Right. And then just to the west. Just to the west is what word still has a sign that's called power rental. So you're immediately west of that. Immediately west. And then further west of us is Wagner Rentals. That's not the property. And then our property actually wraps and fronts on the it's definitely adjacent to the the RTD station. So it's kind of L-shaped a little bit. Thank you. All right. You. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Espinosa and the applicant, Tim could and I apologize because there's some redundancy in your your last answer. But I did have three questions and they sort of are linked. So are you familiar with the Gold, the Globeville small area plan? And how do you intend to fulfill those plan recommendations? The Globeville small area plan or the neighborhood plan? The Neighborhood Plan, 2015. Yeah, I can't you know, I can't cited chapter and verse, but as far as I think, I think Sara touched on a number of the, you know, objectives of that to create a walkable, mixed use community. I think it calls for density around transit, which is why we think this is appropriate. Our thought is that it probably would be a combination of of multifamily, residential housing and some street level retail. It doesn't benefit from some of the frontage on Fox Street that that the the crafty fox that was that. Councilwoman Ortega just asked about it is a little bit embedded there. So as far as a a retail type of a location, you know, it it probably doesn't have a it would have to be a destination type retail. But I don't know if we'd see a lot of you know, could be in street level retail but some I mean, certainly there is a really cool building in there. A lot of what we do is repurposing old buildings. There's that there's one that we've really looked at as far as repurposing we think it'd be, you know, there's a lot of this happen in the city, but we think it'd be a really cool brewery and taproom. You know, no promises there. But we're we're very interested in that type of a use. So we like to bring some kind of retail that would activate the street. We'd like to be very sensitive to pedestrian connections. There are a couple of vacated gallery both Galapagos and 40th alignments have been have been were vacated and are part of our property. We're looking at bringing the street cred back through the property and dedicating that back to the city or make them private drives or private pedestrian ways. So we're you know, we're trying to to be very sensitive to what the plan calls for. Okay. Maybe not specifically, but do you know what the different the differences in a closed developer, developable square footage both today with the existing use zoning and after the rezoning. What would. How much square footage would be allowable under the new zoning? We've had you know, we've had what density study done by an arc by Shiraz Atkinson Rockmore in an architecture firm here in Denver. And, you know, we kind of had them look at the low, medium and high kind of scenarios. Not to scare anyone, but the high was up to upwards of a million square feet. And that assumed with some reasonable setbacks and some, again, would bring in some bringing back in through some streets. I don't I think that is the unlikely scenario. I mean, I would I would probably put the density if I if I had to guess, if I you know, if I were betting today, I would say a full build out the density would probably be on the order of half that it might be a half a million square feet between multi-family, residential and commercial. But until we've really nailed down a specific plan, you know, I can't I can't tell you exactly what that would be. I mean, where it is today under industrial I mean, kind of a right now, it's there's a lot of yard area, so there's not a lot of structures on it. But, you know, a typical density on an industrial project is maybe 0.3, 2.4 air. So I'd have to do that math what it would be, take the land area, times that ratio and then that's what. Not much. Yeah, right. Not much. So. And then the fee that the city charges for rezoning is based on the square feet of the parcel. Do you know what the fee the city charged was in this case? I'm sorry that you're talking about the linkage fee or the or the. The fee to you with your application. Oh, I don't know offhand. We wrote that check a while ago. 60,000 or. Well, it's a thousand for the first acre and 500 for any portion afterwards. And this is about two and a half, so, uh, 2500, roughly, maybe 3000. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. All right. This concludes our speakers from four members of council public hearing of Council Bill 362 is now closed. Comments from Members of Council. Gentlemen. That's one other. Yeah, I might as well connect the dots. I'm pretty sure you all sort of did the same math. But the fee, there's a certain amount of development right in industrial land that isn't a whole lot of a new development. And when we rezone to 20 storeys and we go somewhere upwards of 500000 to 1000000 acre feet, the city only charges a fee of 2500 K for that additional development rights. And in the case since I've been on council, we've done several of these rezonings in Globeville. And the problem is, is Globeville is an area with definite infrastructure needs, as Councilwoman Ortega was expressing. And, um, and if we don't have a way to sort of address that through the development process that falls back on the taxpayers to then pay for that infrastructure in a different way. And so I just want us to be cognizant because we haven't seen massive redevelopment, even though we've given granted massive redevelopment potential over there. There was a definite vision that was laid out in the Globeville plan, and it's sort of like everyone is. I've said it before. I'll say it again. It's a mexican standoff. Everyone's sort of waiting for that developer to sort of take that leap of faith first. Um, and, and, and so it's just that what worries me is that when we do this, we grant this additional development, right? For 2500 square feet. That's more marketable land. And that money goes to the speculator that put the money down on the industrial land and then paid this fee, and then they hired consultants or did it themselves. But it's not a very rigorous process. Right. You just make the case the stationary plan lays it out for you. You just go in and ask and prove that it meets that intent and then you get this far. And so if the then property changes hands and it gets resold, that value gets sucked out of Globeville. And it could be in infrastructure, it could be in built environment, better architecture, better materials, or a flexible space down on the grade level or a grocery store that, heaven forbid, that we keep asking for. And so it's not this developer's fault. It's not it's our policies. It's our policies that create this sort of grant this this maximum flexibility with little to ask for in return. And it's just wanted to be cognizant because this is one of those things that I've been harping on, and I've tried to make the case in different ways, but I thought I finally realized, let's just let the normal course play out. And you see what that is, 2500 bucks, $1,000 per half acre or acre, anything less than an acre, thousand dollars. All you got to do with the application fee and then in the neighborhood plan and say, look, it supports 20 storeys. That's what I want. And and, you know, and so with that said, you know, you know, I'm not going to oppose this rezoning because I've supported many in Globeville. I have opposed mining Globeville as well. But I hope for the best. I hope that you guys actually start giving us both buildings and infrastructure that are much, much needed over there. But to date, it hasn't happened except for the Salazar's small little the brewery and stuff that have gone in already. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Madam Secretary, roll call. Okay. Sorry. One woman got to the wrong place. CLARK All right. ESPINOSA All right. Flynn Hi. Gilmore. Herndon. I Cashman can reach Lopez. I knew Ortega. Reluctantly. I'm sorry. That's an I. I think, Mr. President. I believe scores of voting and as results. Lebanese. A Lebanese council Bill 362 has passed. All right, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 366 on the floor? 66. I move the council bill 366 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and second it a public hearing for Council Bill 366 is open.