A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 13.15 Acres Northwest of the intersection of Pena Boulevard & East 40th Avenue. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones a parcel of land located in the Pena Boulevard Transportation Corridor from R-X (Residential, Mixed Use) to DIA Zone District. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-10-14.
Madam Secretary. Please close the door. You announce the results tonight. Tonight's 1104 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. All right, we are halfway there. We're now moving on to Council Bill 1071. Councilman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1071 on the floor? I move that council bill 1071 of 2014 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in second and their council bills 1071 to 374 and 1080 approve zoning map amendments. This Council is required by law to conduct hearings on this, and Council's actions are subject to a court review in order to provide a record for the court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presenting to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. We will be doing a combined public hearing for 1071, 1072, 1073 and 1074, which is now open. Speakers may address in your speakers may address any or all of the council bills. At the conclusion of the public hearing, council will vote separately on each of them. May we have the staff report? Mr. President, members of council David Gasper is with Community Planning and Development. Also with me today is Brandon House of DIA. If you have any idea specific questions, he can help answer those. We're here to have a rezoning for DIA own parcels in the piano transportation corridor. All four parcels are in Council District 11. Three of them are in the Gateway Green Valley Ranch neighborhood. One is in DIA neighborhood, a combined acreage of over 162 acres. Map here shows all four of them. We'll run through each one of these, but we'll start on the north with what we use. Application number. Here's a to keep things clear. There's not clear addresses to some of these 65 and working our way down so 00065 is essentially at the 61st and patio station area between Pangea Boulevard and Tower Road on north of 56 and south of 64th. So it's right there at the station for the future. East Rail Line opening up in 2016. Next, moving south is 00066, which is on the west side of Pangea between Grand Valley Ranch and 56. You see Parkfield there on the just to the west of this property. 67 actually straddles Pioneer Boulevard on both sides. It is south of Green Valley Ranch. And then 68, the further south is down by airport way and 40th, essentially the intersection of I-70 and Pinion Boulevard and. The request tonight in front of you is to rezone all four parcels. They are all vacant and undeveloped. They're all owned by. The intent here is really to provide consistent zoning for all DA owned land in the transportation corridor. On top of that 00065. That's the one at 61st. And Panya would also carry forward the airport influence overlay zone on that parcel. So the actual zoning or going to the DIA Zone District was created as part of the 2010 citywide rezoning, specifically for this purpose for DIA owned parcels and the influence area area overlay zone actually comes from the former. Chapter 59 has been around for a while. The intent there was to limit uses a near DIA that could be been in conflict with airport activity, avoiding having residential too close essentially today, similar to how we had issues at Stapleton. So I'll quickly run through existing zoning, land use, building performance scale and most importantly, I think what the PENNER Boulevard Transportation Corridor means to these four parcels, mostly a mix of former Chapter 59 mixed use zoning. That's a CMU ten, 20 and 30. And Alpha PD's out in this area. There is some new code mixed use zones, mainly towards the south in the 5 to 8 story range, again starting on the north side with the parcel at 61st and Panya. Again, it's vacant. Closest development is actually across Tower Road to the east, over a half mile away with some townhomes and I believe a hotel 66 on the west side of Panya. Parkfield is the closest development. Again, vacant. 67. Again vacant. Closest development is kind of the office, hotel and some apartments to the south west. And finally, 68, a same kind of complex of airport related uses to the West is the closest development. In building performance scale, low density, low scale suburban building forms, multifamily, some hotels and offices in the 3 to 5 story range. And as I mentioned, probably of of importance here, the Pinion Boulevard transportation corridor and the scenic buffer. So if you look at this map, everything in the crosshatch is within the transportation corridor that was created when the idea was being planned for. And intent was to maintain the transportation function of Panya to make sure that it was ability to get to the airport. The green border that is overlaid on top of that hashing there is this scenic buffer. So as a subset of the transportation corridor, within the scenic buffer, essentially the land is treated as open space and is developable. It's important to note, because the bottom three parcels you see there are within that scenic buffer. So no development will occur on those three parcels at all. The fourth one, the one at 64 some panya is in the transportation corridor but outside of the buffer. So development can occur on that property. But that is where the overlay zone is applied and limits the type of residential uses that can occur at that site. So running through a process quickly planning board was in November. We went through a subcommittee in early December and we're here with you tonight for the public hearing. I have the wrong date there. I apologize. Typical public outreach occurred with the Arnaud's and was notified properly. We did not receive any comments. I will run through the review criteria, mainly focusing on consistency with adopted plans. Out here we have comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint Denver, the Gateway Concept Plan from the early nineties as well as the most recent stationary plan and GDP for City First and Pana to consider for consistency with adopted plans. Generally speaking, strong consistency with adopted plans here, especially with the mobility objective of air transportation. And then as with the 64 something as site land use mobility strategies that encourage TOD in walkable neighborhoods because it's in that scenic buffer blueprint, Denver did not actually attach a feature length designation to these bottom three or southernmost properties. But with the 60 person panel one, we do have the more recent stationary plan that recommended transit oriented development and designated this as an area of change and specifically had a mix of land uses there between eight and 12 storeys in height for this property and that de zoning would allow that to occur. The general development plan also called for a dense, walkable, mixed use community community at this site. So there's consistency with the GDP that was just finished mid 2014. So CPD does find consistency with adopted plans for these four rezonings. There's also a unit for uniformity of basic regulations. We're actually creating a situation here where we have DI zoning consistently through the transportation corridor for property that's owned by DIA, furthers public health, safety and welfare. We're maintaining open space and creating opportunities for TOD. Just trying. Circumstances are the same for the Southern three properties and since that there has been change or changing conditions, the previous zoning out predated the airport actually there and the de zone district wasn't created till 2010. They weren't brought over because they were pads or had waivers and conditions with the property. I think for some, Hannah, it's actually a mistake to fact the intention 2010 was to zone all down property to DIA, but the state went from OTU to O.C. so that was a mistake. My mistake to fact. Excuse me. With the consistency, with context and zone district. There is no neighborhood context as the airport, but there is clear district intent with the DIA zone district that is for DIA own property. So it's consistently under their purvey. And so with that, CPD recommends approval of all four and requests. Thank you. We have two speakers for these bills. First one is Mr. Sake. Who? And then Josh Bieber. Yes. Chairman Sekou blacks are actually movement self-defense. You know, this is my most enjoyable moments when these kind of presentations are given, because I'll guarantee you the people that was watching this on TV don't have a clue about anything you just said not one word. So I'm opposed to this thing for the lack of clarity for the listening public that's paying for this. And we are. So I would like for you to please. Any one of you, city council people, all of you come together and have a group huddle to please break this down as to what he's talking about so that we will know basically, right from what I gather, the only thing they want to do consistency with the zoning on it. And so they're going through a technical thing to get this thing done. But there's not going to really be nothing done there because they're doing some things with the airport and it's a no fly zone. Is that what you told me? Somebody help me out. Images of Mr. Josh Bieber. Good evening, counsel. I would like to speak on this so that. I can see how you want. They want to build more and stuff. I agree. If those three councils. Are there that it's kind of confusing. Why don't they just, like, put the cost into, like, hybrid fuel and electric planes and solar panels on the planes and stuff like that and using it and not. Using high. Costly gas and stuff like that. I, I agree with them that it's kind of confusing. And so that was my. Kind of question comment. I think that. That was the comment and a question. And at the same time. Great. Could you say your name for the record? Oh, sorry. My name is Joshua Bieber. Right. 1259 Avenue. Albion Street. Thank you. Well, that concludes our speakers. Time for questions from members of council. So I'm not taken. So I'd like to have the map pulled back up. That shows us the northernmost boundary. I'm trying to pull that on here. And it's not giving me the the full scope of. All those shots. Some of the that one's good for right now. So some of the work that we've seen related to the development. Right at that location. So how much of that was already reasoned? I mean, we see so many of these people that it's hard to understand, you know, the big picture of what we're dealing with. So. Help me understand what you've got shaded in yellow on this one. How that's different from what we've already approved. Well, in this location here, which is. So this map is from the 60 person and Panya stationary plan, which we adopted last January. Actually, it recommends a land use and building heights in that plan. But there has not been a rezoning since that time in this area. So this is the only parcel of that whole plan that we're changing the zoning? That's correct, yeah. Will we be seeing other parcels in that development come forward with different zone changes? Yes. CPD does anticipate that the property owners that are in the station area plan area will come forward with rezonings here in the future. So that's that's part of the confusion, is seeing them all piecemeal as opposed to the plan, looking at what the zoning is for the different parcels to help us understand, you know, sort of the scope and scale of what can can be with that site. We would also anticipate that that would any other rezoning in this area would come all at once, essentially. So there's essentially three property owners outside of DIA that are within the station area, and they have been working together. So to support a rezoning that would come together. All three property owners at the same time. So there's some sort of consistency. So they're not pushing. They didn't all come together. Excuse me. Is there a reason all of them haven't come together as one? That'd be up to the applicants there. It's, you know, they're property owners and they have just not moved forward with a rezoning at this time. Okay. I'd like to ask the DIA representative in question. So I think maybe this map might be good, but can you show me? And if it's not this map, maybe one of the others. If you could pull it up where the lda noise contour is on dere property. Yeah, probably now, but. This might be the closest. Yeah. I don't have anything. That might be good. We don't have the contours of Brendan House, the Planning Office. We don't have the contours shown on this map. But within the entire 61st and the general development plan, stationary plan area, the contours are not within. That area whatsoever. They are to the north. That's not what I remember us being told when the whole station area plan was brought forward. That part of the noise contour included part of the development. And we're trying to understand is if any of the residential and I'm understanding it's going to be rental, not for sale housing. You can clarify that if I'm wrong about that. If if that if the housing is included within that area yet. I believe it's since I was a project manager on the station area plan, I can kind of talk a little bit more about that. So Brandon is correct. The the noise contours do not lay go that far south, essentially. So they're farther north. But the airport influence overlay zone, that air air overlay, which is kind of that pink there is actually what's regulating the land uses within that 60% panel to limit the type of residential development that can occur. So that overlay zoning does not allow a single family north of 56 and does not allow multifamily north of 62nd. But that's outside of the noise contours that would be typically applied to the airport. These are actually further south that we're being. I would like someone to provide me the actual LDA noise contour map so I can look at that and be able to determine that. Because I remember asking this question when we did the planning the area plan for this area. And I recall somebody saying that the the noise contour line had changed. And I don't know what justified that change. So I don't know if you can address that. Can explain it in a I'm not an expert on it, but a general overview. The noise contour lines year to year to year change slightly depending on the number of flights. But then there's also adopted noise contour lines. The adopted noise contour lines are for maximum build out of the airport in future runways. So a future southern runway that has not been developed yet would be the closest runway to this area. But it's not expected that that runway will be for another 30 years, it's estimated. But what is going to drive the other and I mean, the primary focus of the airport is to operate as an airport. And so are we saying that by allowing residential development that close to what would be, you know, one of our airfields, you know, it may be the last one. It may be the next one. You know, I don't know what the schedule in the pecking order is of which one is going to go next. But, you know, I just don't want to see us put Denver in a situation where I very clearly remember Denver being sued by Park Hill, by Commerce City because of noise issues . And they know some of the technology is changing on the planes and a lot of that kind of stuff. But there was a lot of careful consideration when this land was purchased and where those contour lines were were set. And so that's why I'm raising these questions. Sure. And I'd be happy to provide that map to you. And the airport influence overlay is kind of an extra layer of protection in that area. And that's why it was adopted to provide the protection from single family houses being developed specifically and even multi-family at certain point. So will this site. And I see it's the the red dot the further north actually have residential within it. It's possible you could have multifamily residential in this site. No single family would be allowed. But what's making the distinction between allowing single family and multifamily? The multifamily building techniques have better sound insulation than the single family homes. Okay. Thank you for answering my questions. Thank you, Councilwoman, to you. Any other questions for 1071? Seen on public hearing for 1071 is now closed time for comments as the representative for District 11 where these rezonings are moving forward. I was asked in my colleagues to to support these. I have no other comments, any other comments from members of council. All right. We're going to be voting on 1071, two, three and four individually. So we're starting with 1071. Madam Secretary, roll call. Rob Shepherd. Brooks Kinnick. Lehman. Lopez. Monteiro Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi. Mr. President. I want to tell you I need your vote. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight, 1071 is in place upon final consideration and does pass. Councilwoman Ortega, could you please put 1072 on the floor? I move the council bill 1070 to be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in second and seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Rob Brooks. I can each layman, Lopez Monteiro Nevett. Is left the dais. He what? Sorry. Ortega, I. Shepherd. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 99 hours, 1072 have been placed upon final consideration and does pass. Councilwoman Ortega, could you please put 1073 on the floor? I move the council. Will 1073 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It's been moved in second and seeing no comment. Madam Secretary, roll call. Rob Brooks. I can eat lemon. LOPEZ All right. Montero, I. Nevitt, I. Ortega, I. Shepherd Mr. President, hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight, 1073 have been placed on final consideration and does pass. Councilman Ortega, could you please put 1074 on the floor. And move the council? Will 1074 be placed on final consideration and do pass? It has been moved and seconded the mining sector. Need to correct that seen no comments from members of the council secretary roll call. I see the rock I. Brooks I can eat lemon. Lopez. All right. Montero. I never. I. Ortega. I shepherd. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. Tonight. Tonight's 1074 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are up to our last publication, the nine on 1080. Councilwoman Ortega, would you please put 1080 on the floor. And move the council bill 1080 be placed on final consideration and do pass. We're going to wait for technology to catch up so you get a move and a second. Thank you. Public hearing on ten eight is now open. May we have the staff report?