AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code to revise parking exemptions for pre-existing small zone lots. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to revise the Pre-Existing Small Zone Lot parking exemption. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-14-17. On 2-27-17, Council held this item in Committee to 3-20-17. Amended 3-20-17 to ensure that the parking exemption is applied for all uses. Some parking requirements are calculated based on gross floor area while others are on number of units and not explicitly for gross floor area, to further clarify the legislative intent of the proposed bill to emphasize the city’s commitment to more comprehensively address transportation demand management strategies in the short term, and to require a Zoning Permit with Informational Notice for all new buildings on Pre-Existing Small Zone Lots that request to use the small lot parking exemption; Enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption; and clarifies at what point an “existing building” is considered 
All right. Pursuant to Council Bill 3.7 consideration of the Council, Bill 285 will be postponed for one week until Tuesday, March 28th. No formal motion or vote is required. Madam Secretary, can you now put up Council Bill 161 on a screen? Because from where you put Council Bill 161 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 161 be ordered published. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Council. Councilman Clark, is this. Is this one of your. Why are we doing the this other amendment before my. Yes. Council secretary. Mm hmm. The ghost. GROSS. Hmm. Oh, yes. Okay. Thank you. From CPD. The gross. GROSS floor area. Yes. Okay. So this is a technical amendment to the the small lot proposal that we're bringing forward. And this this has no major concerns over it. But I want to read it and we can get comments from members of council on page two. Line 16 strike the gross gross floor area of colon on page two. Line 18, strike two. The gross floor. Area of and and replace with all colon on page two lines 2021 strike the gross floor area of and replace with the uses in house in an on page two line 25 strike the gross floor area of and replace with all and on page four line four strike the gross floor area of and replace with all. It has been moved by me. Second, about Councilman Herndon. You know what? I'm going to call up a representative from CPD, Jeff Hart, to explain this amendment that we needed to get it done for the gross floor area on these small lot plants. Yes. So Jeff Hurt with CPD. So this is an amendment. It's more of a technical clarification. The purpose of the amendment is that the original ordinance was drafted specifically relating to gross floor area of buildings per as it relates to the minimum parking requirements. And we had an issue raised from our staff, which is that some of the parking requirements are not linked to gross floor area other based on number of dwelling units. So it's just more of a clarification where we were concerned that there might be sort of a loophole where if it was an exclusively residential project, then there would be kind of an omission with the text amendment that says it's based on gross floor area, whereas it's based on number of dwelling units. So it's the the the quick answer is it's a technical fix that doesn't change any of the substance of the amendment. It just makes it more clear. Excellent. And in comes questions by members of council. All right, Madam Secretary. Councilman Espinosa. Said. Actually, you've confused me more by the answer on the confusion and dwelling units, and I apologize for not having the full text in front of me and let me put up here. So give me that explanation one more time. So if you look at the ordinance. Let's see if you look at Section two to the A3 where it says exemption allowed. All of the language says that. So depending on where the exemption applies, it says the gross floor area of all uses housed in those floors. And so we have struck the language that says the gross floor area and just says all uses housed in those floors, which has the same effect. But by excluding those floor area, it sort of eliminates that potential loophole where when parking is not calculated based on gross floor area and by number of units. It's a very it would be a very strict interpretation, but it could happen. So we wanted to make sure we close the loophole before it was exposed, I guess, as well. All right. Thanks for the slow reading. I appreciate. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Councilman. All right. As we move in second, Madam Secretary, roll call. Clark i. Espinosa. I Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman Can each. Lopez Hi, new. Sussman I black. I Mr. President. I. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 11 eyes. Okay. 11 eyes. This technical amendment has been passed, but we're hearing that our attorneys believe we have the wrong information. Is that true? That we read the wrong information into the. Adam Hernandez. Adam Hernandez, Sun City attorney. One of the amendments you made, the last one said on. Page four. Line four, strike the gross. Floor area of and replace with all that should have been on page. Line three, line three, page four. Line four does not contain that language. Okay. So in the future, Adam, when you hear that, if you could pop up a little sooner so we don't vote on it, it would be helpful. Madam Secretary, what would you like us to do? Would you and the correction just be made in the record? Mr. President? David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. I see people looking at me now. So I'd recommend you remove it with the correct the correct line number and page number and and voted again only to read the whole thing again. Just to have. Somebody move a corrected motion. Okay. So we're going to move. I move that we have men council bill 17 161 especially on on page three line three strike gross gross floor area of and replace with all. It has been moved and seconded. Mr. BROUGH Well, is that okay, sir? Sounds good. Okay, great. Let's move the second amount of secretary roll call clerk Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Susman my black eye. Mr. President. I please close voting. Announce results. Espinosa. Espinosa. Hanging, firing. Is it frozen? There we go. Thanks. 11 eyes. Okay, 11 eyes. That technical amendment has passed. That's why you pay lawyers to be in the room. All right, Councilman Clark, you can go ahead and read your amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that health bill 161 be amended in the following particulars on page one after line 15, add the following. Whereas the City Council recognizes that a comprehensive citywide program is desired to manage demand for vehicle parking and to further citywide objectives to promote the use of multiple modes of transportation. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Community Planning and Development, City Council and other agencies have expressed a commitment to pursue a comprehensive citywide program with the purposes of managing demand for vehicle parking and reducing vehicle trip generation. It has been moved in second. It comes from a member of council. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment is in the preamble language. It doesn't do a lot, actually, legislatively, but kind of captures the intent that we've been talking about at all of these meetings that I think is widely shared by council, that we are kind of having a big conversation in a little box. And really what we need to be working towards is a smarter ordinance, a transportation demand management ordinance. This kind of captures that in here to allow us to express that intent and continue pushing and working with staff across agencies to get that work done because it's going to take something great. And as someone proposing Council Bill 161 I've been working on for the last nine months, I would say that this is the area most of us on city council agree on, that this is the direction we want to go in. Right now we are talking about probably an 18 month fix with this bill. But the hope and the overall transformation that we're looking for is a transportation demand management system that many cities have has instituted, and the last one being San Francisco. We think this is the right thing to do. And I'm just so excited because Councilman Clark is going to be leading this two year effort with CPD in public works. And so this is something that I'm really supportive of. Councilman, Councilwoman, can each. Oh, thank you, Mr. President. Actually, I think you may have answered my question since this this stated that these departments have committed I just wanted to clarify that they were in the room, that that was accurate and that indeed, there is a commitment to establish a policy. And if there's not, then I would ask them to come forward and clarify, because I would like to know that before I put it into the preamble. Thank you. Yes. And I think folks from CPD are they're happy to come up here. But we've had many discussions with Brad Buchanan, Jose Cornejo, the current director of public works around this. And Councilman Clark, I know you want to jump in as well, who have stated their intent to move forward with this ordinance. Yeah. And anybody who wants to come up, feel free. But there is an RFP that's going out on the street soon to start that process, engage with a consultant to look at the beginning steps of that. So I think it's already starting and in motion this is reaffirming the. Yep. Thank you. Good evening. Sarah Showalter from CPD and the citywide planning supervisor. I just wanted to clarify, we we have been working really close to public works, very committed. But the RFP that's being discussed that's going on streets would be focusing on two D areas and downtown. And so we just wanted to emphasize, depending on resources and what this looks like, we don't know exactly what the program's going to be. And it is going to be a huge resource conversation, especially because the only way these programs work is if you can effectively administer them over time. So looking at our peer cities that have these, as the council president mentioned, there's a lot of them that do. They have staff that are making sure that developments that have committed to do these TDM strategies are doing them, you know, years and decades into the future. So there's a lot of different pieces we have to figure out, but we're definitely committed to the concept and continuing the conversation for sure. Thank you, Sarah, for for bringing that up. And I think it's important that this body who approves the budget every year, think about that as part of giving resources towards that. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I think that it did happen. I wanted to let people know that what we are talking about is transportation, demand management. A lot of people know it as TDM. And while the preamble doesn't doesn't say that specifically, that is what it's about for those who who are familiar with that language train. And glad to see this. Thank you very much, Councilman. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, Councilman Espinosa, I see you in there. I apologize. I'm sorry. I was like, keep fun in there yet get kicked out. Maybe somebody is working the monitor behind the screens. You know, I lost my train of thought, actually. I want to thank Councilman Clark for making for taking this on and making it a point, because I well, I'm sure this study would have been financed or funded. I think his leadership has moved it forward or higher on the queue, but is absolutely critical that we get these two independent agencies working together on this and talking about CPD and public works because there's a huge gap here where our city, our zoning and what we allow in this form based, context based zoning and what goes on in our right of ways serving those properties or they are not speaking to one another in a in a way that is that works uniformly. What I mean by that is that there is a plan, review process and for a lot of for probably 95% of the cases in Denver, that's going to be perfectly fine . But as you're finding in the TOD and in downtown and there are other areas, so I wish you'd be open to having counsel sort of inform where we have this sort of disconnect between conditions on the street and the zoning that is that is being put in place. We can also then sort of inform these other areas that are critically important that need additional scrutiny. And what I mean by this is if we take where one bit of disconnect is, and I hope your study covers this is let's take the 1600 Humboldt example that has already been part of this whole small lot exemption process is our current process would allow that. I mean, it is they can build it tomorrow. It's a use by right situation and permits already been approved. And that'll be 100% residential construction on two parts to 6250 lots, 108 units. And that would not be subject to the residential permit process. Why? Because we don't pit residents versus residents. When we do that impact. But as far as zoning is concerned, completely immune or agnostic to what that uses in a mixed use zone district. That could be 100% commercial, 100% retail, or 100% residential. And the difference is, is in the case of the 100% commercial redevelopment, in the same exact parcel, the same exact square footage, public works would do a residential parking permit process, the IRP process, and whereby they both would have impact on the right of way. Somehow we need to get public works and CPD sort of using the same sort of logic. And I don't mean it in that I don't want public works to to not start looking at any of these things the way we've done it. CPD and say I actually want CPD to two. Well. I almost lost my train of thought. Well, the point being that they're both a structure of that size, regardless of what its uses, will have impact on the public right away. The comments that that Councilman Clark keeps expounding upon. And so we need to have a better way of addressing I mean, looking at the situation, being proactive in the process and responding to it during the during the review process proactively. I think one way we can do that and I'm talking about these other areas that don't necessarily fall in the Todd's is we already have this process of the 5 a.m. sort of surveys that public works where they're going around at 5 a.m. and looking at the right of way utilization and it's over 75%. It's a heavily impacted area, whatnot. Those are areas where, you know, there's a lot of on street residential parking and so why not? Compel in certain set such scenarios, compel that survey to process to be done. And if a certain level of congestion is already found in the right of way, why not then use that as one of the things that informs the tier, the team process, so that you're you're compelling. A developer who wants to get to these minimum parking requirements to deliver on actual alternative means of transit is a part of getting there. And so my whole point is, is that I am encouraging this language because we need a tool. We've needed a tool for the last six years. And if it takes two years, so be it. But we need a tool to be able to look at these things, these situations on the ground. The conditions that are zoning has set up so that we're actually working proactively with public works and compelling developers to address these transit needs for these on street parking needs, these right away needs and in the public realm. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to jump in on the beginning of where Councilman Espinosa started and offer my also my thanks to you, Mr. President, for leading this effort. Leading this conversation, I think we've had such great conversations. And as we as we face the intense growth that we're having and, you know, I know we get a bill up here and start talking amendments, but really, I feel like, you know, the council as a whole has come from the very from the very same place, the same place of caring about this community. And sometimes, you know, in the details, we get disagreement. But you've just had such an open door policy to me as I've explored this in my possible amendments. And I don't think we would be having this conversation or the team conversation at all had you not taken this on. So I just want to say thank you before we got too far into this thing. Thank you, Ms.. Clarke. Councilman Neal. Sarah, I just had a couple more questions, please. Just for the public. We hear a lot about the Denver ride and the transportation strategic planning going on there. How does that relate to the tedium? Could you explain that? Sure. I think it's a great question. So particularly for Blueprint Denver, which is the land use transportation plan that's part of Denver. Right. That is the document that sets the policy for everything related to our land use regulations and the connection to transportation, which is really a lot of what this is about. And I think there's a great opportunity through that process to explore some good policy guidance on some of these tough issues to talk about, you know, how much we want to try and accommodate off street parking needs versus allowing flexibility in the market to set that. You know, there's there's a lot of different opinions out there on this topic. So Blueprint Denver in particular is part of Denver. Right. Is a great way to plug in and start shaping, giving us some better policy direction on these topics. Right. And I just miss the team program that we're proposing. It is funded. Right. No. My understanding is that they're right now Public Works has actually been taking the lead on this. So I am. This is why I'm hearing second hand. We were looking at potentially under our toady manager within CPD, sharing the costs with public works. And public works is still trying to identify in this calendar year, this budget year, where they would be able to find money. So they're working on an RFP, trying to get it out, but trying to identify the money now. The last I heard, they were still trying to find that. Half. The agency was committing to provide the other 50%, and that would just be for phase one. I understand correctly, which would be a first study. So it would help identify additional resources we might need. Like I mentioned, like how do you establish the program and make sure you have enough resources to have it be successful administered over time? So I would not say at this point that we have all the resources we need. Then what about an estimated timetable to complete the project? Yeah, that's a great question. I think you could easily spend a couple of years doing a project like this. Thank you. Yeah. Good questions. Councilman, new councilman Espinosa. See you back up. Yeah, I'm just doing the math here. Tonight's agenda. Over $12 million worth of appropriations and the $50,000 we need to do this study. I'm asking the mayor's office. You're here. Find the money. I mean, this is 50 million. $50,000 is nothing in our budget. If you can't move forward on TDM, you're showing that you're not committed to doing smart, responsible transit and compel developers to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, not just part of the problem. So thanks. Thank you. Councilman Clark, I. Just wanted to jump in and I had some conversations just this morning, and I believe that those dollars have been identified. So I think we're you know, we've got a long road to go. And I think we're going to have to prioritize this as council as we go through the budget season. But I do think and I want to thank staff for, you know, reacting to this process, too, and on a short string coming up with moneys to get this thing started. And for council again, we approved the budget and we're memorializing this, which is an indicator in support of how we can, you know, set money aside in this upcoming budget. And so I hope that we will remember this conversation. Councilman Clark, I trusted you're going to make sure that we remember this conversation in September to make sure it's included in the 2017 budget. Madam Secretary, roll call. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Kinney. Lopez. All right. New Sussman. Black. Mr. President. I was voting. And as a result. Your vote is. I'm an I. Sorry. 11 Eyes. 11 eyes. The preamble language including TDM, passes into the amendment. Okay into the bill as 161 councilman clerk your next amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 161 be amended in the following particulars on page two, lines 17 insert the phrase including any modifications, alterations and expansions after the word building on page to strike the existing language on lines 18 through 22 and replace with the following. Any building located on a small zone lot that is voluntarily demolished shall not be considered an existing building. Voluntary. Voluntary demolish shall have the same meaning as the term demolition. Voluntary defined in Article 13, on page two, line 23. Other words new buildings on before the word small zone lots located within proximity to transit service. On page two line 28, replace the word shall with May on page three, line two other words new buildings on before the words all other small zones on page three, line five replace the word shall with May, and on page six after line eight, add the following. Section five. Section 12 .4.2.2 of the Denver Zoning Code dealing with the applicability of zoning permit review with informational notices amended by the addition of a new subsection D that reads as follows The construction of any new building on a small zone lot that includes a request for parking an exemption in accordance with section ten .4.5.1.8. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Hasn't been seconded yet. I have a second. Okay. It has moved second to now. Councilman, catch. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment requires that a zoning permit with informational notice for all new buildings on preexisting small zoned lots. That request to use the small loft parking exemption enables all expansions to existing buildings to receive the full parking exemption and clarifies at what point an existing building is considered a new building for the purpose of applying the small parking exemption. That is voluntary demolition. We talked a lot in committee about the difference between new construction and this rise in micro apartment construction and also trying to get the levers as as right as we can to not incentivize the demolition of existing structures. And so I think that part of this is that commitment to try not to incentivize demolition of existing structures unduly. And also adding the zip notification was something that a lot of the neighborhood groups had come and asked, said, hey, if this is going to happen, the potential impacts for us on the street of, you know, 108 units with zero parking are considerable. Could we have notification that gives us time to sit down with a developer and talk about what's your plan to mitigate for those parking? How is this going to work? And while it doesn't give a lot of control to the neighborhoods, it does allow that space and time for a conversation to be had between the neighbors and the developers and for the neighborhood to know what's coming so that they can decide if they want to have those conversations and engage in that with the property developers. So that's this amendment. Happy to answer any questions anybody has that didn't get answered in committee. Thank you, Mr. President. Great. Thank you. Councilman Clark, any. Any questions? Remember, as a council. You have a comment? Okay. Councilwoman come. Councilwoman Black. I. I am supporting this because I think it's really important that neighbors are informed about what's happening in their neighborhoods. The microphone. Two concerns. One that Councilman Clarke alluded to is that Xp-Pen doesn't actually give the neighborhood any power over what is going to go there. It gives them information and an opportunity to provide input. And I'm just concerned that people might think that it gives them some kind of power over the project. So I think it's very important that neighbors know that. My other concern is that our zoning administrator and her department could possibly be very overburdened. So it it is sort of an unfunded mandate and I feel for you. So just wanted to say that I had those two concerns. Right. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. I have a couple of comments. So in our so folks understand, Councilman 161 came out of a working group that met five times that has professional leaders all over the city of Denver. And this topic came up and the group decided not to support it because it takes away from the predictability. And then it came before the planning board, and they decided not to support it because it also takes away from predictability. You know, in the planning board, the purview is pretty centered on the zoning code. And they do not have the the purview that we have on city council where we have to balance neighborhood interests, notification and things like that. The other thing that they don't have is an understanding of what has happened with some of these current projects. And most of these larger projects are in Council District nine. And I've seen firsthand that when neighbors can talk with a developer, there are some changes that happen in the neighborhoods favor. And so a case in point on on the Humble Project 16th in Humboldt, after a long conversation, we had the developer supply a parking not structure, but a parking lot adjacent to the property, which will alleviate some of the concerns on 16th and Humboldt. So I am even though CBD cannot support this, I'm going to support this because there's been so much consternation in neighborhoods and I do believe in the opportunity for people to sit down, talk and come up with reasonable solutions. So I'll be supporting this as well. Any other comments? Questions for members of council? All right. Seeing none. Madam Secretary Rocha. Clerk. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. All right. New assessment. Black eye. Mr. President. I. Lebanese. All right. Thank you. 11 eyes. The zipping motion passes. Councilman Clark, want to offer another amendment or. Thank you, Mr. President. I did have another amendment that we've been discussing a lot in committee, and I will not be offering that tonight. I'd like to have that debate with the full council, if possible. And so I'm going to look at see if there's a date where we can have that debate and continue working on that . That being said, I will be voting to move this forward as amended, but without my my my planned Third Amendment with hopes that I can at least have that conversation in front of the the full council before we get to the public. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Clark. All right, Councilwoman. Councilwoman, can each we have now amended this puppy. We need a motion to order published as amended. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that 161 be adopted as amended. No order publication. Ordered. Published as amended. Thank you. It has been moved in second it comments by members of council. I'll just make a quick comment. We we again started working on this bill or this conversation. And in October, September, October. What makes this process great on city council is the input from your colleagues and the input from the public. And I think the amendments that Councilmember Clark and others who've worked with him has made this bill better and more palpable for for folks in the community, even though we're talking about it. And I want to make sure we're talking about a very small percentage of lots in the city of Denver. I want to keep saying that, but I think this makes it a little bit more palpable. And so thank you, Councilman Clark. It's been great to work with you. I know you still got another amendment coming up at some point, but these ones I can support, it's been moved in second it to be order published as amended . Madam Secretary, Raquel Clark I. Espinosa Flynn Gilmore I. Herndon Cashman. I can eat. Lopez All right. New assessment. I'm black. All right. Mr. President. I was wearing nice results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. Counselor 161 has been ordered. Published as amended. All right. Madam Secretary, is there any other. Than Mr. President? All right. All other bills for introduction are order published? We are now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members. This is your last update. This is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last opportunity to call on an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Kinch, will you put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor, please? Yes, Mr. President. I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be passed, placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 288 to 80 9 to 70 9 to 90 5 to 90 6 to 80 6 to 80 7 to 7148. All series of 2017. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Black I Clerk I Espinosa, i Gilmore, i Herndon, i Cashman. I can each i Lopez. Hi, new Susman. Hi, Mr. President. I 11 i 11 ays. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be require a public hearing on Council Bill 84. Change the zoning classification from 1 to 1 five zero East Andrews Drive and a required public hearing on Council Bill 277, providing an extension of approximately two months of an existing