Amends Chapter 59-2 to assure continuation of certain building and bulk plane limitations when land subject to Former Chapter 59 zoning is mapped next to lower-density "protected districts" under the Denver Zoning Code. (LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE) Amends Chapter 59-2 to assure continuation of certain building and bulk plane limitations when land subject to Former Chapter 59 zoning is mapped next to lower-density "protected districts" under the Denver Zoning Code. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-17-13.
Announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council. The council bill does pass. Now we are going to the next hearing. Councilman Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 589 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President. I move the council to 589 be placed upon final consideration and you pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 589 is open. This is a bill for an ordinance amending Section 59 to Denver Revised Municipal Code by adding Subsection C relating to former Chapter 59 controlled districts. May we have the staff report? Ms.. AXELROD Good evening, Tina. Axel Ref for Community Planning and Development here to present the staff report and recommendation for Council Bill 589. Just for a point of clarification and correction, the bill will add new subsection C through H to the Denver Revised Municipal Code, Section 59, Dash two oh, which is in the body of your ordinance more clearly with that briefly summarized where we are in the process for this amendment, the purpose and what the amendment does to briefly take you through your review criteria and make our recommendation. This amendment to the Denver Revised Municipal Code has gone through planning board hearing with a recommendation for approval unanimously. Nine zero. It's been through Lady Liberty and a first reading and is here before you tonight with all the appropriate notifications to registered neighborhood organizations and city council officers. What is this amendment all about? Simply, it's to ensure that all residential zone districts in the city of Denver that were considered to have certain protections under our zoning rules continue and in fact, have those protections. And this really has arisen out of the fact, pretty uniquely that Denver has two zoning codes. It's got former Chapter 59 and it's got Denver zoning code. So what happens is how well they play together when they're next to each other, when you have as shown in this picture, you have land under former Chapter 59 zone. For example, arm you 20 with waivers next to land zoned under the other code, Denver zoning code, perhaps a single unit or two unit sound district. The issue arises when your arm you toe. All you have in front of you is the old code to look at, to understand what you need to do. And it never really speaks to the fact that there are zone districts nearby that should be protected because you, as you see, for example, didn't exist under the old code. You'll never find it there. So our question is circled in the bottom there is how do we get development in that arm? You 22 recognize that there are zone districts nearby that need to be protected. So that's what we're trying to do with this amendment. Before I get into the details, just where does this arise? Is it a problem? Is it citywide? We stumbled upon this in doing plan review for certain projects in Northwest Denver. First, that this this issue arises with mapping all the new code lands next to each other. What this map shows is wherever you see red, the yellow immediately next to it should be protected. And the read is old code zone properties that used to be controlled and we never had an issue when we were just operating under one code. But now that we have two codes, we want to make sure the yellow, which is new code residential zone districts are protected next to the old code red. So you can see it's throughout the city and pockets. And so this is something that we definitely want to address through this amendment because it does raise issues in every council district. So what are the types of protections we're looking to assure continue? Again, these are nothing new. These protections have always existed. We just have to make that link between the two codes. For example, building height, limit symbol controls. We have a maximum 75 feet of height for buildings when they're located 150 feet within a protected district. We have increased setbacks in some instances where there's development in a mixed use zone district next to a residential or single unit or two unit zone. We have lots of limitations in the code, not much, but a good handful on specific uses when those uses are established in close proximity, proximity or next door to a residential zone. Some examples are given on the screen, such as limits on drive thru facilities operating hours into the evening when those facilities are located right next to residential zones. So to the point, this text amendment is to section 59 to 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Your screenshot there shows where and then in the muni code library this section is found. This is not an amendment to either of our two zoning codes. It's to the rules in the one place where we talk about how the two codes should relate to each other. Again, this is adding new subsections. You have your ordinance draft in your package. The next two slides simply summarize and verbatim shows those new subsections. You have review criteria for justifying a change like this that this is found in the City Charter for adoption of new zoning related ordinance that are not part of the zoning code. Your three criteria are you need to find that the change is consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan, that it furthers public health, safety and general welfare and results in uniformity of regulations. Very quickly, as detailed in the staff report, staff has found that the amendment is consistent with the plans. We need to assure that our zoning code remains flexible and accommodates a variety of land uses, also encourages that quality infill development while respecting existing character and intensity of development nearby. This does just continue the status quo of what we all thought we were doing when we kept two zoning codes in place, which is to keep the restrictions on former Chapter 59 lands the same so that this amendment will assure that we don't unintentionally provide some loopholes that we didn't think were there. It does further the public general welfare by assuring the continuation of those protections and will result in uniformity of zone district regulations regardless of what zoning code you're operating under with that CPD staff, which who initiated this amendment recommends approval. And I'm happy to answer any further questions you may have. Thank you, Gina. We have two speakers signed up, Joel Noble and Keith Pryor. I'd like to call Joel Noble to this podium. Before I begin, I think Keith Pryor meant to sign up for the rezoning on 3099 Arapahoe and got the wrong number. Madam Secretary, does he need to sign up? I can change his card. All right. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Mr. Noble. Thank you for letting us know. I'm Joel Noble, 2705 Stout Street, president of Curtis Park Neighbors. In your staff report, you have a letter from Curtis Park neighbors supporting this. This is very technical, but it's very important. Right now, we have loopholes, as Tina Axelrod said, that someone who has properties zoned to the old zoning code where the old zoning code says you can't do certain things when you're adjacent to a residential district, can look next door at a residential district. But the residential districts in the new zoning code and see what residential district that one doesn't count. And it could drive drive a truck right through that. So it's interesting that this oversight didn't get noticed for a few years until the upturn in the market and development started. And our our friends in Jefferson Park ran into it with someone who saw that loophole with regard to protected districts. Staff was very quick to say, you know, we have a loophole here. We should fix it to propose that. And I just want to communicate to council what a delight it is to work with staff. Because when I decided to be, you know, a little detail oriented and say, you know, okay, I'm going to look through the code and find some other things that might be there that we should do. At the same time, staff said, Great, you know, rather than saying, no, we're the experts, you know, leave it, leave it to us. They said, That's great. Let's see if we can find even more. And they did. They found the biggest one, which is the residential, all the different ways that residential zoning districts are called out in the old code that, of course, don't refer to the new code. So I felt this has been a little bit of a collaboration and I appreciate the ability to go to planning board meetings and go to hearings and and fix this so it works the way we intended. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Noble. And thank you for your wonderful volunteering effort efforts. That is, it concludes our speakers call on council for questions. Councilwoman Ortega. I have a question about how this proposed change would impact the use of regulating plans. And is that a tool that the Zoning and Planning Office is still using of financing the zone changes? To answer your first question, since we didn't have a regulating plan in the old code, this amendment doesn't speak to regulating plans at all , and there's no effect on their use, voluntary or mandatory in the new code. Okay. So is that a tool that the department is using with the new code? Yes. Okay. I just have not seen any come through recently. Do we have any expected to be coming through with. They do not go to city council for final action. It's after zoning entitlement is in place. So it's all administrative when we do use them. Well, I know in some of the zoning that we've had there referred to. Yes. Thank you for. And I continue to be concerned that there really is no tool to ensure that the things that are in the regulating plan, in fact, can be enforced. Because if somebody can get zoning approval. Mm hmm. Contingent on a regulating plan being worked out with the neighborhood, and they turn around and sell the land to somebody else who wasn't party to that agreement. That next person developing that project does not have to adhere to that regulating plan because there's nothing any place that really holds either the city's feet to the fire or the landowners feet to the fire to ensure those things get done. And I think when we talk about loopholes, that's one that I know neighborhoods have expressed as a big concern to us, even though it's not directly on point. I can respond to. I was going to say, was there a question in that Councilwoman Ortega's question. Was if regulating plans were being utilized, and I was just expressing my concern about them. So. All right. Does it sound like there's a question? Okay. Thank you. Thanks. I have no further questions or comments. Okay. Councilwoman. Councilman Levitt. Thank you, Madam President. I'm a little reluctant to ask detailed questions because I didn't go to committee when this was presented. But I think I have a question that can be fairly simply answered. So the the the old code made accommodations for protected districts but was blind to the protected districts in the new code. And presumably it goes the other way around that the new code obviously makes accommodations for protected districts but didn't recognize the protect protected districts in the old code. They pretended they didn't exist. Actually, we caught it going in that direction. Okay. So the new code recognizes the protected district and the old code is just the old code, not protecting, not accommodating the protected districts in the new code. So now that they do lose protections. TRUMP So do they behave? There's no trumping because you're either under one code or the other. There's no conflict there. If you're in my diagram, the old code arm 20, you only look at the old code, plus this DMC 59, dash two for your rules. Got it. So if you are under the old code and you're now the scales have fallen from your eyes and you're now recognizing the protected district next door, you protect it with the regulations written in the old code, correct? Not the regulations written in the new code. Correct. Got it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman Nevett. Councilwoman Robb. Okay. I was wasn't committee in that series of questions just sort of got me. So how does someone figure out there? They're an army of 20. Under the old code. How do they know to look at section 59, dash two? Well, that's a bit of a challenge, certainly, but they're still rules. And in the DRC that apply to lands retaining all code that leads you to know what you need to do. When you look on the Sony map and CRM, U20. It tells you, first of all, that the firm form of Chapter 59 code was kind of placed in amber and frozen in time on June 25th, 2010. And those are your rules. That's what it says, first off. And then it's then it goes into more detail. We've just added a few more things they need to look at. So there is you know, we we do rely on staff. And our our best. Public outreach in terms of our website on what what your zoning and what you need to look at. This amendment has been, you know, quite, quite a bit discussed and heads up across CPD. And I'm working with the zoning administrator to assure that if this gets adopted, it will go into effect this week and we will immediately send out a copy of the ordinance to all reviewers and all CPD. So they have already been prepared. I've met with every single review group who does development review, residential and nonresidential, and so they know this is coming possibly. So we're going to do our best to assure that at the front counter and in development review. At the very least, we we know what the rules are and that we're able to point people, you know, as much ahead of time during concept and pre-op meetings to these provisions. Well, the good news is that I and C is aware of it for alerted neighborhoods. And it's important that our officers. Yes. Be aware enough. So if someone comes in initially, we can say you better check it. Yes. So that, you know, this obviously is available through the city clerk's office as soon as adopted. But I'm happy to include you on the heads up email all your aides as well. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. And seeing no other questions, I'm going to close the hearing on Council eight 589 and asked for comments by members of Council Councilwoman Robb. Oh, am I still up? Well, no, for comments. You're calling it first because it's a lady issue. I didn't know if you had a comment or not. It's just this is a needed change. I support it. Okay. Very well done. Councilman Shepherd. A woman Shepherd. Madam President. So, District one was the guinea pig for this. See, in the old code versus the new code and how they interact together. And I do really think CPD for quickly identifying the fact that, you know, this cannot continue and for taking the initiative to bring it forward as a, as a standalone amendment and bring it forward in front of the omnibus text, amend text amendments that we'll be considering here in the next few months. You know, it's been a few months since this happened in my district, but, you know, essentially the conflict was around bulk plans for a developer who wanted to develop under old code but was right next to protected zone districts. I'm not going to go into any more details because I'm not sure if I'm even clear at this point what unfolded there. But quite frankly, it was a big mess and there were appeals to the Board of adjustment. And, you know, there was a lot of anger on the part of the neighborhood for us not having noticed this. There was multiple rounds of mediation with the developer. Of course, the developer didn't want to sort of go with the intent of things. It was a big, hairy mess, quite frankly. And a lot of people became very angry. And, you know, I would really like to avoid all of that going forward. And I'm sure all of you who are struggling with the challenges and opportunities of infill development in your neighborhoods, trust me, you don't want to have to add this one to your plate as well. So I really encourage all of you to support this. It's it's good policy. It makes sense. And thank you, CPD. And so Jefferson Park, I hope someone is watching this and I know I'll see you tomorrow night, but you won. Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Madam President. Talk about getting down into the weeds. I really appreciate CPD for for locating this and understanding what's going on. You know, I wanted to just give a shout out to my man, John Noble, who is our resident expert in District eight. And thank you for giving your time to work on something like this. We really appreciate it. And we lean on him in District K. Thank you. Yeah, I can see why. Okay. I see no other comments. So, Madam Secretary, let's do that roll call thing. Rob Shepherd. Brooks Brown. I thought I heard in Kennett Lemon by Lopez Montero. I. Never i. Ortega, i. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The bill does pass. Councilman Herndon, we're going to our next hearing. Will you please put council bill 862 on the floor for final passage?