Rezones property located at 301 South Cherokee Street from I-B/UO-2 and C-MX-16/UO-2 to PUD/OU-2 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 301 South Cherokee Street from I-B/UO-2 and C-MX-16/UO-2 to PUD/OU-2 in Council District 7. 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 5-20-15.  
I need a second. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 346 is open. May we have a staff report? Tourism. Sara With Community Planning and development, just getting the PowerPoint loaded. So this application is located at 301 South Cherokee. The proposal is to rezone the property from IP you oh two and CMA 1602 to PWD you 002 property is located in southwest Denver in the Baker Neighborhood Council District seven, near the directly adjacent to the Alameda station and the Broadway market place two blocks west of Broadway, two blocks east of I-25 and the Platte River. The property is 19,000 square feet or nearly half an acre. There is an existing general manufacturing use on the property. Councilman Nevitt is requesting rezoning of this property to restore the land used to conformity and to allow the business to expand. So again, the proposal is to rezone from IP you oh two and connect 16 year old to two PUD. You are to the scenic 16 zone district is the base zone district. These days when we do parties, we base the beauty on an existing zone district. So the Cinemark 16 is that district. The beauty changes that we make would add the manufacturing fabrication and assembly land use to the allowed land uses in the Puti would alter some building form standards on Alameda Avenue, a build to and it would change the build to from zero to 15 to 0 220 to accommodate the existing building and allows some existing parking to continue there. So we already talked a little bit in the last application about the urban center context. It is that mixed use, slightly denser area where we are seeing multi-unit, commercial and in this case industrial land uses. In this case the mixture is sort of horizontal rather than vertical. We've got a couple of five storey buildings on either side of this property that are responding to the TOD. But we have also area plans that say we want to hold on to this use. So it is truly a diverse mixed use area. So again, the current zoning is Cmmc 16 0202 is an overlay that allows billboards. This is part of the Denver Design District General Development Plan. There is a view plane from Washington Park that would limit heights here to actually about 6 to 7 storeys. There are four existing 1 to 2 storey structures on the property surrounding zoning. See them x five and see well see them x 16 in the Broadway marketplace industrial to the west along the railroad tracks, the x five is a five story residential property I was talking about a little earlier. Just to the south. In the CMC, 16 is another five story residential property under construction directly adjacent to the to the transit center. The land use isn't industrial, it's an existing business. Again, we're adjacent to the Alameda station, we're adjacent to Broadway Market Place and to TOD Multifamily. These are the photos of the area. The top right is alameda avenue on the north side. The red arrow is the buildings themselves. The bottom on the right is the Kmart. Across the street, the light rail station bottom left. The middle left is the five story residential to the south of the property. The top left is the five story residential directly across Alameda. This was seen at planning board a public hearing on May 6th at NAP committee on May 20th. And of course, today, the all of these public hearings were duly, duly notified by electronic notification and for planning board. And this hearing signs posted on the property the RINO's notified were the baker, his neighborhood association, Santa Fe Drive Redevelopment Corporation in her neighborhood cooperation. Denver urban resident. The Association and Denver Neighborhood Association. There have been no letters or public comments on this proposed rezoning. So the criteria, consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances. Consistency with neighborhood context. And then there are some pretty review criteria. The relevant plans are a comprehensive plan. 2000 Blueprint Denver, the Baker Neighborhood Plan, the Alameda Station Area Plan, and the Denver Design District General Development Plan. All of this is is summarized in your staff report. I don't want to get into specific standards or every single one of these plans says hold on to this industrial. We are with this party trying to do two things, which is why it ended up a party. We're trying to encourage tod development in this site that's directly adjacent to a TOD station, but also to hold on to existing employment and an existing business that are city policies in our plans tell us we want to hold on to. So that's what all of these plans are saying. Redevelop high density housing. But a hold on to that employment center. The station area plan calls for it to be employment. The GDP says existing industrial. We're holding on to that in this area of this sub area of the GDP. So staff believes this proposal is consistent with the adopted plans that by basing our Pudi on an existing zone district, we are not affecting the uniformity of district regulations as the majority of the standards will be c IMX 16 standards. And that by planning this rezoning, according to our adopted plans, we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances on this one is also changed conditions. We are trying to accommodate the change at the transit oriented development, but also hold on to an existing land use. So we do believe that the changed conditions has been met. We did talk a little earlier about the neighborhood context, the urban center neighborhood context that we believe this this area meets and the zone district purpose and intent. The main pretty criteria that staff looks at is unique and extraordinary circumstances. We believe that this is a unique circumstance where we are trying to accommodate the TOD as well as an existing industrial development. So we believe the PD criteria are met and with that, staff recommends approval. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Lucero. Madam Secretary, how many speakers do we have signed up this evening? None. We have no speakers. So let's go to questions from members of council. First up is Councilman Ortega, followed by Councilman Kennish. Thank you, Madam President. I'm just trying to understand. So this is an existing operating business that's been there for how long? Over 35 years. Okay. So as zoning got changed in 2010, it's been a consistently operating business. So has been they they're grandfathered in. But under the CMA zoning, it didn't factor in that they became non-conforming. And the business license to expand, they can't expand. That's exactly right. There should be some other way than having to go through a whole rezoning process. But I appreciate the fact that Councilman Nevitt is the applicant as opposed to making the owner be the applicant for this. So I appreciate that. I was just trying to understand what do they manufacture their pharmaceuticals? Okay. All right. Thank you. Clearly, this is not an incompatible industrial use with residential. So one of the things that I didn't say that I maybe should say is the definition of this general manufacturing land use is that it doesn't require toxic, hazardous or explosive materials or produce them. So it is an operation that has little noise, odor, vibration, glare, pollution and therefore minimal impact on surrounding properties. That's the definition of general manufacturing and the zoning code. Okay. Thank you, Theresa Hilton. In fact, I'm sorry, Councilman Kinney. There often. You know, we're on the mind of. Thank you, Madam President. Just one quick question. Why not? I am ex zoning. We started at IMX, but the IMX didn't really accommodate the Todd next door, so we sort of found ourselves. Just one observation. I don't think we got the IMX zoning right. We generally it hasn't benefit for almost any manufacturer. It's limited some of the types of manufacturing that I think truthfully are compatible. And so we may we need to look at that further because we continue to not use it for use. Is that it by name, industrial mixed use should be appropriate for us. So I think we need to work on that a little more. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Any other questions from members of council? See? None. The public hearing for counsel Bill 46 is closed. Comments by members of Council Health Benefit. Thank you, Madam President. As the Lord giveth so the Lord taketh away. You do have me to thank for the fact that we have a third public hearing tonight after the long public hearing. But you also have me to thank for the fact that there is not one single person here to testify. So I want to get some credit for that. Indeed, Councilwoman Ortega put her finger right on it. What we're doing here is really correcting an error of enthusiasm. Back in 2008, 2009, we did a station area plan and in conjunction with a general development plan there, there's a big landowner here that owns the vast bulk of Broadway marketplace. And we got very excited about the future of this site and wanting to, in the 2010 zoning code update, the new zoning code set the table for our station area plans. And so when we set the table for this area, we set it with CMCs 16. The only problem was that in the back and forth of the writing of the different C-Max districts, the s m district manufacturing isn't allowed. Use the e m x. The manufacturing isn't allowed. Use the U.S. manufacturing allowed used not in the CMCs. And so we inadvertently zoned to a non-conforming use this pharmaceutical manufacturer. That would all be okay if they didn't want to make some changes to their building. And so they find themselves in a in a, in a pinch that was not of their own making. And so we're correcting it here. We're still leaving the table set for the ambitions that we have for this site, but we're allowing this high quality manufacturing good employer to remain there and do what they need to do to. Be successful for as long as they can be there. So. Thanks very much. Thank you. Councilman Levitt, Councilman Brooks? Yeah. Just 2 seconds, Madam President. Just want to thank Councilman Nevitt for his problem solving ability in getting this done. And, you know, I want to say to this council who's been receiving a lot of criticism in the media and even tonight that none of you are lame and none of your ducks. I am very grateful to. Be serving with you. And thank you. For your incredible hard work on this council. Thank you. Oh, thank you. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call, please, on council. Bill three, 4 seconds. Councilwoman Shepard. Oh, I just said. Oh, I. Just saw you. I'm sorry. Thank you. WOMAN Brooks. Thank you so much. I know council president pro tem just said it, but I wanted to say to thank you. Oh, God. Are you back in the queue? Yeah, I just. I just want to ask one question of Kelly Valez, and that is whether this was the shortest rezoning in history. Pretty sure. Yeah. Man. Guy looks skeptical. It won't be if you keep talking. All right. Are we ready to vote? Yes. Okay. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 346. NEVITT Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. I. Brooks Brown. I forgot. I can reach Lehman. Hi, Lopez. Hi. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 eyes. We have. 11 eyes. Council Bill 346 has passed. On Monday, July 27th, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 385, changing the zoning classification for 3540 East 31st Avenue. Any protests against Council Bill 385 must be filed with the council offices no later than Monday, July 20th. See no other business before this body? This meeting is adjourned. Denver eight. On TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source. You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from. Members of council? Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I would like to ask Colonel Dalton to come back to the microphone, please. Got a couple of questions for you. In my perusing of the document. I didn't see anything that deals with the. The whether there was discussion about. Continuing to do the general development plans the way they're being done now in in a wanted clarification on whether or not there's a size of a project that requires a general development plan. So can you can you speak to that? Sure. Yeah. So this text the moment does not propose any changes to the current general development plan rules. As I mentioned, the process.