A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4552 South Ulster St. in Hampden South. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4552 South Ulster Street from B-8 with waivers UO-1, UO-2 to S-MX-12 (business zoning in the former chapter 57 zoning to suburban, mixed-use) in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-27-18.
11 Ice 11 are accountable to 88 has passed. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put council bill to 91 on the floor? Yes, I move that council bill 291 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. Can I get a second? Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Accountable 291 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Thank you. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 4552 South Ulster Street from B8 with waivers you 0102 to s m x 12 properties located in Council District four in the Hampton South neighborhood. It is in the Denver Tech Center, just south of I. 225 on Ulster Street. Property is about an acre and a half. It's currently mostly vacant with a parking lot on a portion of it. And as I said, the request is to rezone from B eight with waivers. You are one, you are to be eight. Is former chapter 59 commercial mixed use zoning. It allows office retail and residential on it and if you are one and you are two, are intended as placeholders to indicate that the B8 allows both adult uses and billboard uses. And if this were to be resound, they may be appropriate here. However, as I mentioned, this property currently has waivers on it and one of those waivers prohibits both adult uses and billboard uses. So those uses are not currently allowed on the property. The other waivers limit the maximum height of the building, limit the maximum square footage of the building, and require a certain amount of open space. And the request is to go to as an x 12, which is suburban neighborhood context, mixed use zoning with a 12 storey maximum height and the request is to rezone in order to facilitate redevelopment. Surrounding zoning is the same zoning to the east and south, and then the requested some x 12 to the north and west. Surrounding uses are mostly office to the east and south with the freeway to the north and there's an electrical substation across Gloucester to the west. You can see the vacant subject property there in the top left photo, some of the surrounding office buildings. Top right is looking towards item 25 and the bottom right is the electrical substation. This went to the planning board on March 7th, where it received unanimous recommendation of approval. There was no public comment. Went to the committee on March 27th and as of the date of the staff report, we have not received any public comment on this application. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are only two adopted plans here. There's not a neighborhood plan here. So the first plan is comprehensive plan 2000, as described in the staff report, satisfied that the proposed rezoning is consistent with these four strategies from Top Plan 2000. These relate to infill development and mixed use development. And there's one strategy specifically related to development in the Denver Tech Center, which calls for continued buildout and a balanced mix of users in the area consistent with the requested as a next 12 zoning. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 22. The concept land use for this property is employment, which calls for office warehousing, light manufacturing and relatively little residential. So I proposed as a next 12 would allow the property to be developed entirely as residential or entirely as commercial or a mix of the two. But the city does not have pure commercial zoning, so there's not a zone district that we could zone this to that really implements this desire for almost entirely commercial. The next 12 is is not the closest we can get. And when looking at the larger tech center area, it is predominantly commercial does fit in with this definition of employment. So even if this property were to develop entirely as residential, the overall area would still be consistent with the concept of land use. The plan designates this as an area of stability, which calls for maintaining character while accommodating some new development consistent with that character which the proposed rezoning would allow. And Foster Street is a mixed use arterial, which calls for more intense mixed use development consistent with the proposed next 12 zoning. So the first criteria and status found is met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations as described in the staff report. Staff believes that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the same X12 zoning. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating development of a currently vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the change conditions in the area. The existing zoning was put in place in 1984 as there's been pretty significant change in the area since that time. Continue to build out of the tech center. Major improvements to the highways as part of the T-Rex program, the addition of the light rail in the area. So those changes justify rezoning to a modern select 12 zone district. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context. Zoned district purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the suburban neighborhood context and the purpose and intent of the mixed 12 zone district so that staff finds at all five criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. First up, Phil Workman. Thank you very much. My name's Phil Workman. 130 Rampart Way, Denver, Colorado 80230. Thank you. Scott outlined the prima facie case. We believe this certainly meets the criteria to have this approved and reasoned. This evening, December 12, I will make a few comments. Hopefully you received in your packet a letter of support from the Goldsmith Goldsmith Metropolitan District. This is in the Denver Tech Center, which, of course, Councilwoman Blackwell remind you this is in Denver. And but the Goldsmith Metropolitan District has designed guidelines, and they're in charge of a lot of the development there as far as making sure that it maintains the context of the surrounding area as far as design, and they are in support of this application. Also this the context, this area is currently a 61,000 square foot undeveloped land. It's got an indicated adjacent as a some x 12. This allows us to move from the old Section 59 zoning code with some waivers, some other things, and just have more conformity in and context of the surrounding area. As far as future plans that certainly it could be office, it could be residential. There's a lot of different potential uses with that as some X 12, but we believe that this is the proper zoning for this area and allows the some development at this site at some point soon hopefully. Thank you. Thank you very much. Questions. Thank you very much, Jesse Pierce. Jesse Paris German homosexual Black Sox more self defense on further consideration. I actually agree with this. So I changed my disagreement with this and I am for this all the way. Thank you. And our last speaker is Chairman Sekou. As chairman of the group Black Star Action Movement, we stand for the recommended approval by planning of this changed ordinance change. Congratulations, Councilman Black, for bringing this forward because it will begin to address some of the issues that we have in terms of people who are in need of housing, especially along these major arteries that are major . Channels toward employment and also traveling in terms of that area. And. Want to add that one of the things that we need to start looking at in terms of these approvals is the impact that these things are going to have on public safety and police protection. And also transit and safety in terms of these areas. You can find on any given day at noon. Major traffic jams that look like we're in New York City now. We got 10,000 people coming to Colorado every month, every month. And with the shortage of housing that we got, we need to see how we can begin to plan and flow the traffic exchanges in this kind of thing and to look at the timing of lights and changing lanes and, you know, making this thing work and also the city encouraging more people to use the train and to use the busses systems so that this thing don't spiral into a bunch of madness for real. Come to this meeting tonight. I had to start out leaving my house at 230 this afternoon just to get through Martin Luther King before the bang happens with the traffic folks getting off from work. Never in my life did it take me an hour to get from 34th and Elm Street downtown or Martin Luther King for real? That's crazy. That's not plan development. And that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to development. I need some planning. And when we come out with all of these plans, we got to plan for the traffic man and inconvenience that keeps people from having to want to deal with any of this unless we're really trying to, like, keep people out. Because I know since you moved from New York City to come here and get caught up in the same traffic jam, I mean, the legal system and this, you know, the rent is more cheaper. So congratulations. And if we could put the kind of thing in there to further the public health and safety and welfare and put a little bit more planning into that as we go about doing the building and whatnot. I think we can figure this thing out where it's. Thank you, Chairman. So your time's up. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Guzman? Espinosa Yeah, it's kind of related to that last comment. I sort of understand if I'm just looking at this parcel. I mean, it's its own lot by itself, but I'm actually looking at it to sort of orient myself in context and. My question is it? I'm looking at it in context because this area has developed obviously different at different points in time with a lot of owners changing hands and a zoning code change that that happened that created this opportunity as well. So when what is the is there any sort of was there any sort of discussion with the bigger picture about urban the urban design in of this area and how how our form based code could and should inform infill development in what was essentially a greenfield greenfield development historically intended to have these sort of open spaces. And now we're we've created this opportunity through the zoning code to do infill in these areas. And how. And the reason why I'm asking that. Is related to this decision in particular. But we have other areas like and I'm asking it because I'm sort of foreign to this context because we don't have this maybe save for Diamond Hill in my district. So I'm not understanding this because I look at this and I see similarities and analogs to say Penn Station and things that decisions we've made there. And I'm going, is this is this how we want? I mean, is this is this sort of logical city building or we just sort of react, you know, reacting? I mean, so is there there's some sort of content mean discussion about this area on this parcel and then the areas surrounding it. I mean, not explicitly. As I mentioned, we don't have an area plan or a neighborhood plan for this neighborhood. So we're relying on the citywide plans that look at this. And there are recommendations, as I mentioned explicitly, for the Denver Tech Center in the citywide plans. But we don't have a neighborhood plan giving us that really specific guidance for this. But, you know, we in 2010, when we developed the new zoning code and the suburban neighborhood context and this these kind of mixed 12 zone districts, they were intended for these kind of areas. So, you know, Steph believes that this zone requested zone district is appropriate for this area, consistent with the type of development that we would like to see in the Denver Tech Center. Okay. So. And no one can possibly know this. But, you know, I. A block away. You know, this was the infamous JD Edwards campus that became PeopleSoft. And I mean, this is the adjacent parcel to that. And if I'm looking at this aerial, there was an area that was mapped with a sea of surface parking in this suburban in what was originally mapped out as a suburban business campus and a commuter business campus. And yeah, that was the thinking. Back then, JD Edwards lost out big time after a huge rise in what was supposed to be a campus of a bunch of five story buildings with associated parking lots and a 20 story or more tower as the centerpiece is now three storey apartment buildings with a surfeit, a whole bunch of suburban parking lots as well. And and so now we're doing another infill piece like that. That's what is essentially being rezoning for is another infill piece. I'm not saying there's anything particularly wrong with that, but I just don't understand. You know what? I would like to know if the city is consciously thinking about, you know, are we about this sort of how forms relate to one another in order to sort of most benefit this study, which is sort of the justifying sort of justify circumstances, changing conditions because the new zoning, the proximity to this rail, you know, I'm comfortable moving forward because of the criteria as we know it. But I'm a little bit you can sense some hesitation and sort of concern because having seen sort of the progression of the tech center from nothing to something and then now something radically different, I'm wondering what's guiding it if we don't have any area plans or anything. And so I don't know, I don't expect you to have the answers, but I do I do raise this concern because we have other development opportunities throughout this city, Greenfield and Brownfield, that might end up in this sort of weird. Physician as well. And I don't know if it's healthy or not from a police fire safety public works because no one's sort of informing me that it worked. This is the proper way to develop because it is something very different than the way we're treating lower downtown or the central Platt Valley or 30th and Lake 41st. And I mean Globeville Island. So thanks. Hi. Sorry, I switch. I forgot to still in. That's all right. We're going to move on, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Scott, I have a question for you. Does the city have any criteria for residential developments that are within in close proximity to highways, specifically around the windows? Do we require any particular either thickness or we require double pane windows when we're doing when we're approving developments that are within a close proximity to residential. I mean, two highways. Yeah, that's a good question. I do not know the answer to that. That would be handled on the development side. So with as part of the site development plan. Okay. So I don't know if the applicant knows that, but I'm not aware. Okay. I'm going to have have to come up in answer a couple of different questions. But if you know the answer to that one, it would be helpful. Yeah, unfortunately, I don't know the answer directly to that one. But and I was thinking in terms also of Councilman Espinosa's comments, I will get a copy of those design guidelines for this area. Just yeah, I think it would be helpful to know wherever we are approving. I know we had one that came through last week on a parcel that was owned by the city, and I didn't think to ask that question. But we do know that residential that's within 500 feet of a highway generally has greater health impacts on people that live there. So the windows, the outdoor patio, sometimes those things are important to look at how we're how we're addressing those. Do you know what percentage of the development would include residential? Yeah, at this point, I'm not sure. There was actually originally when this process got started, a residential developer, multifamily developer that was interested in the property. And during this process, they no longer. Wanted to continue for whatever reason, contractually. So I kind of came in in midterm with this now with the applicant, the property owner saying, you know, to continue to market this property and have it have the same context as the general area. But that was the original thought process. I know of some sort of residential at this property and I think that maybe the highest and best of what the those developers said. Do you know what their plans are for the site? But to this point, I don't know of any solid plans for the site, nor do I think is anything has been submitted to the city as far as site planning for the site at this point. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Seeing no other questions for the public hearing for council bill 291 is closed. Other comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting this. There's really not much to oppose. It's part of the Denver Tech Center. It is a suburban office park. It does have very restrictive guidelines in the Denver Tech Center. And we couldn't reason it downtown and expect to have that kind of density there, because that's not what the Denver Tech Center is. Anyway, I'm in favor of it and it'd be great for housing. It's nice to see housing now going sprinkling in to the Denver Tech Center. It's great for people who work out there. It is not a tod. You can perhaps ride a bike to the Belleview station, but it's not really walkable to the police station. But thank you. I will be supporting it. Thank you. Councilwoman Black's. You know other comments. Madame Secretary Walker. Black Eye Espinosa, I. Flynn, I. Herndon Cashman. Canete Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 11 eyes.