Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 14, 2017 <br />Page 3 of 10 <br />Hsu asked why uses such as retail were evaluated in place of one of the churches when <br />creating the fiscal model. <br />Dean responded that staff looked at the change in use for the overall development plan to <br />determine if there was still enough positive fiscal impact when replacing 40,000 square feet of <br />retail and office use in the overall GDP with a church. A church on its own would likely not <br />demonstrate a positive fiscal impact, but since this is an amendment to the GDP, staff <br />considered a comprehensive perspective. <br />Hsu asked why the agreement needed to be revised, since Section 3.3.2., Item 2 in the new <br />agreement stated that Zone 2 can use all uses in Zone 1, which includes churches and schools <br />and does not specify the need for special review. <br />Dean responded that the agreement would need to be updated to match the GDP, which only <br />changes the allowance for religious institutions as a Use by Right in Zone 2. <br />Moline asked how long a GDP stays valid while the plan had not been built. <br />Dean answered that GDPs are in perpetuity. With PCZD, the GDP remains in effect until it's <br />amended or nullified. <br />Zuccaro elaborated that although a GDP does not expire, a PUD expires after 3 years without <br />construction, with one three-year extension available. <br />Brauneis asked for the source of general revenue in the fiscal impact study. <br />Zuccaro responded that the revenue represents the full build -out of the GDP, including sales <br />and property tax from office and commercial buildings. For example, employees in the GDP <br />buildings get captured in the revenue generation. <br />Rice asked if the changes in Zone 2 being discussed would affect the subzones as well. He also <br />asked what subzone the project was being proposed for. <br />Dean responded that the subzones would be affected as well and that the property had all three <br />subzones. She stated that the different restrictions for each subzone relate to density, setbacks, <br />and height, but not use. <br />Pritchard asked for additional questions from the Commission for the staff. Seeing none, he <br />called the applicant forward. <br />Jim Candy, 516 Country Lane, Boulder, CO, stated that Ascent Church wanted to be a benefit <br />to the city. He gave examples of the church's current community -building programs, including <br />house cleanups, mentoring youth, and toy drives. Candy also stated that the church has been <br />working with city staff about where to put their church that would be a benefit and not take away <br />retail dollars from the city. Candy explained that the proposed location was a riskier location for <br />the church, because it would cost less to take over a building rather than building a new on. <br />However, they wanted to have a good relationship with the city and the surrounding residents. <br />Candy also stated that the church community believed it would contribute to the location <br />economically by attracting other development. Candy then introduced David Andrews, with <br />whom they have been working on city compliance issues. <br />David Andrews, 1114 7th Avenue, Denver, CO 80204, explained that there was no SRU, <br />because Use by Right allows the church comfort during the PUD and PLAT processes. He also <br />