Changes the zoning from O-1 (Former Code) to U-SU-A with waivers (Urban Context, Single Unit, lot size 3,000 sf min.) of property at 6801 East First Avenue (Buckley Annex) in Council District 5. (LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE) Changes the zoning from O-1 (Former Code) to U-SU-A with waivers (Urban Context, Single Unit, lot size 3,000 sf min.) of property at 6801 East First Avenue in Council District 5. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-24-14.
Be assured, however, that by mutual agreement and common practice of the City Council, these devices are not being used for texting, emailing or other communications during the public hearing. Councilwoman Lehman, will you please put Council Bill 522 on the floor? I move the council bill 532 series of. 2014. Be placed on final consideration and do pass. And moved and seconded the combined public hearing for council bills 522, five, 23 and 524 is open. Speakers may address any or all of these bills. Council members at the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each bill. May we have the staff report? Tina Axler for Community Planning and Development President Herndon It's my understanding that I am to go through and do the staff presentation for the three separate applications consecutively without taking a break in between. I might take a breath, but. Not a real problem. Okay. I want to just sort of apologize in advance because I'm pinch hitting for a sick colleague who was supposed to do this presentation tonight. So it's going to be a little choppy for me, I'm sure, and I'll be reading more than I usually do. So bear with me. And thank you for the water, Kelli, to get me through this. So tonight we have the what's commonly known as the Berkeley Annex three rezoning applications for the that cover portions of the 70 acre site. There are three applications in front of you council bills, five, 22, five, 23 and 524. Going to walk through each each application separately. They cover three different parts of the 70 acres. They do not total 70 acres. You're going to see more Buckley Annex rezoning applications in the near future for the remaining parts. So these are all rezonings for future planned residential development within the Buckley Annex redevelopment area. And so with that, I will start first. This is Council Bill 522. This is a request for a rezoning of a portion of the Buckley Annex. And here we'll walk you through its location, approximately Monaco and First Avenue. It's within the Lowry Field statistical neighborhood. We're beginning to hone in. So you can see more specifically where this is. This covers, I think, about 14, 15 acres in the northwest corner of the Buckley annexed property. Its context is immediately south of the Mayfair neighborhood, east across Moore Park and across Moore Park neighborhood and close to the north, the existing north with the Lowry neighborhood that's comprised of single unit housing and the like. The Schlozman library site you might be familiar with at the corner of First and Quebec. This provide this slide provides a brief history about the Buckley Annex and its plans for ultimately its redevelopment. It was the a federal facility, of course, through this from the seventies through as recently as 2005, when the comprehensive plan was done and the reuse plan for Lowry was done and blueprint Denver. There was no knowledge at that point in time that this portion of the Lowry field would be available for redevelopment. So it was not planned for redevelopment nor mentioned in the early reuse plans. But in 2005, the Department of Defense, the Air Force, announced the closure of this portion of Lowry Field as well, and the relocation of all federal services offsite in 2008, the Buckley Annex redevelopment plan was completed by the quasi governmental entity of the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. The Redevelopment Authority is a quasi governmental body that has the authority given to it by the City Council of Denver to plan for the ultimate redevelopment of Lowry. The Buckley Annex redevelopment plan was not adopted by the city, but adopted by the Redevelopment Authority. After a very comprehensive and wide ranging public discussion and public planning process. This redevelopment plan provided a clear framework for land use and transportation, including specifying residential areas, mixed use areas, even recommending specific building height limitations, a proposal for a new , interconnected street grid within the 70 acre site and additional parks and open space to add to the Lowry neighborhood in 2011. This The Buckley Annex was vacated by the Air Force and in 2012 the transfer of the property to the LRA was completed. In 2013 we began the city processes for planning the redevelopment of the Buckley Annex and that began with a general development plan that was approved by the city in 2013. I'll be talking a little bit more about that in a bit. This is the analysis and an illustrative of future plans for redevelopment as they stand today for the Buckley Annex. Consistent with the redevelopment plan and the general development plan that have been approved, you can see shaded in the upper left hand corner, a residential area that is the focus of. The first application for rezoning this is 14 acres. Again, the owners are the Lourey Redevelopment Authority. The plan for this area and the intent of the rezoning is for redevelopment into new single family housing. Currently it zoned 010 is does not stand for open space as you might think. We don't know what it stands for. It's an old code zone district that allows a weird mix of uses, which I can tell you a little bit more about, but it didn't really fit with the vision for the redevelopment. So the new zone that this application requests is for as a single unit, a as you daresay in within our urban neighborhood context with waivers and the urban the you assume a zoning is our most our smallest lot and most intensive our single unit zoning in Denver it was drafted reflective of some existing patterns a small lot single families scattered throughout the city of Denver. Waivers are requested to customize our U.S. use own district to fit the vision of the Lowrey redevelopment plan and modify some of the Urban House building form standards in our otherwise standard USDA zoned district. Specifically, the waiver is to make modifications to the Urban House building form, essentially to sub out what's in our Denver zoning code with a more customized urban house building for table. In the application, you have the application as an addendum to each staff report in your packets and the specific and what ultimately will be adopted language for the waivers are in the application. A summary of the waivers is found in the staff report for this application on page six. So in addition to waiving out the Urban House form that's otherwise applicable in our zoning code, we've also done a similar waiver to customize the formed standards for detached accessory structures like the garage in the back. And then finally, the third waiver has to do very specifically with a proposed pattern of development that's more of a courtyard, single family development that faces an internal open space rather than a street. So there was need for a waiver regarding limits on the number of primary structures on the zone lot. Okay. We're actually going to talk through that last waiver, first known as waiver number three. Generally in a single family zoned district on any zone lot in the city of Denver that zoned you as you say, you get one house on one zone lot and that's pretty norm. And that works really well for established neighborhoods in the city of Denver. But what we have here in Lowry is a desire shown in the slide to do some creative site planning still single family, but turning some portion of single family homes to face not a public street, but a neighborhood green or park. So in order to accommodate that that new pattern and bring a bit of diversity to the site, a waiver has been requested to allow a single cell not to contain more than one house. So that's what waiver number three does. It's it's confined very specifically to this new type of pattern. You can't do this if you have a zone that that can, you know, face that doesn't face a common green waivers one and two, which are two the urban house building form and the detached accessory structures are summarized again on page six of the staff report. And here on this slide to boil it down, it essentially allows these homes to be a bit taller and a bit bulkier, sit more shoulder to shoulder and not necessarily step down in height from front to rear, as we have in our more typical urban single unit zone districts like Congress Park or Wash Park, it does allow a more bulkier form. So you'll see the change between the standard USDA standards and the first column of the slide versus what is proposed in the waiver. Shown in the second column, we have an increase in height for the rear third from 17 feet to 35 feet, and essentially allow that two and a half family or two and a half storey building to fill fill the lot, not break from the front two thirds to the rear third nobo claim we have a shallower setback allowance reduced from. 2210. Again, because of this infill condition we have, which is more of a a wide open slate, you're not trying to fit in the House to an existing context. There's a little more flexibility they needed on that primary street setback, which I'll talk about a little bit more rare setback, similarly has been reduced when there is an alley from 12 to 5 feet and building coverage present lot in terms of a maximum has been removed through the waivers again to allow more coverage, less deliberately , less open space, a different style and type of housing that's relatively low maintenance and deemed desirable by certainly some market segments. In Denver, what you get is very similar to what's already been built in Lowry East to Quebec and not too dissimilar from a lot of the single family development in other greenfield communities like Stapleton. Again, changes in waiver number two are to that detached accessory structure. These are typically garages found in the rear the lot here again, we the waivers allow a bulkier, taller, detached accessory structure, noble plane. It can be built essentially to the same height as the main house with a reduced side street setback. Waivers are still enabled by the Denver zoning code. It is an option that can be used in this case. After a lot of deliberation and talks back and forth between the applicant and staff and the counsel office, the applicant chose to go with waivers. We consider it at CPD a bit of a case study in what to do with an infill greenfield site like this, where a more dense form is required without change in the overall single family density. Most areas of change, as this Buckley Annex is designated in Blueprint, Denver typically call for mixed use, high densities. And as I'll talk about further, we didn't really have a zoned district on the books, a standard USDA that fit exactly what the redevelopment plans and the GDP called for. It's interesting to note as a bit of a sidebar and as to why CPD felt comfortable with waivers in this case, is that the code already has built into it a lot of flexibility and provisions to do these same types of modifications to building form, grant a little extra height, play with the ball plane, step up that rear height if it matches an existing context. We have something called a primary block sensitive primary street block sensitive setback where if you're tearing down a house in the middle of a intact block face, you've got essentially match what's already there. And that might end up being less than a 20 foot setback as required in the otherwise uniform standards. And that's perfectly all right to again facilitate context sensitive development. Similarly, the code allows staff to make administrative adjustments again to height in storeys and in feet to allow some flexibility on a case by case basis to someone who wants to build something that, when they look around, looks like everything else and it's neighborhood. But the code, you know, built and drafted at a more higher level didn't get down to that. We knew couldn't get down to that level of context sensitivity, but we enabled it through a procedure. So it's just an interesting sidebar that this is not that new way of approach to thinking of what we do with building form standards in the code. But we need it in this case because there is no existing context. We've got a 70 acre vacant site that's being built. We need to build in that same flexibility and that's why we chose the waivers. One of the reasons we chose the waivers. Every rezoning application goes through a city review. In summary, there were no substantive negative reactions from our sister agencies and departments in the city. The first submittal from the applicant did spark a substantive comment from CPD and that was the first submittal included a request for a waiver to require parking spaces for a single unit development. Right now in the entire Denver zoning code, as it as it exists today and the former Denver zoning code as it existed prior to 2010, Denver has never had a minimum parking requirement in a single family zoned district. So the old are zero one the new RSU. You start at zero and developers build what they what they think is new. Needed. So speed felt strongly there was no no reason to shift that policy in this particular zoning request. And so we provide a comment that this was inconsistent with the intent of the code in our plan recommendations, which sparked a recent middle that remove that waiver. And then CPD offered its support of the application to move forward. This is a summary of the public review just after it went into the city process. I'm sure the applicant can speak more about its own outreach efforts, but the city review process, we get notification out at certain key times when we receive the rezoning application. So in April 2014, when it went to Planning Board Notice again was sent out for Liberty and again now for City Council, there are a number of our nos that have stated an interest in this property and they were all notified throughout at this various points of this application. Moving forward, you have attached to the staff report and in a supplemental package that was delivered tonight, no pilot apologized. We just realized today that was left out of the original packet. All the various emails and written comments that CPD has received. There may be additional public comments that you received directly as city council members that should be in your packets or I'm sorry, sit cya. I want to say serious, but that's the Apple phone approach. CYA as well for the single zone at REZONINGS, we had a pretty fairly unanimous or almost unanimous support. Generally, there was a lot of support for the single unit rezoning applications that you have in front of you, primarily because it does provide more of the same of what we already see in Lowry. There were some opposition. Generally this had to do with that discarded parking waiver with a request to seriously consider putting that back into the application. Of course, every rezoning is held up against review criteria that are stated in the Denver zoning code. There's a bit there's a new one that you don't often see when we have a general development plan preceding rezonings, the city council is authorized to take it into consideration. It's not a shell, but you may take the approved GDP into consideration in reviewing the rezoning applications. The other criteria we're all familiar with our shells. You have to do this. You have to look for consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, whether the rezoning furthers the public health, safety and welfare, according to the Denver Zoning Code, whether there are justifying circumstances, and whether the request for the specific zoned district is consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district, purpose and intent. Looking at the GDP again, this is an illustrative of how the GDP invasion, the land use mix and intensity of development throughout the entire 70 acre Berkeley annex. Again, we're just looking at that top left hand corner, the northwest corner closest to Monica home first. But you can see how we have the existing neighborhoods to the north and to the south. And here in this case, the single family development is transitioning from Mayfair to a more intense core within the Berkeley annex that's centered along a newly extended Lowry Boulevard that cuts through the site east to west, providing a new connection in the GDP. This area was designated the First Avenue Residential, and it was described in terms of its future land use plan and intensity as a single unit detached area, maximum building heights of two and a half stories lot sizes, a smallish 3000 square feet with relatively shallow setbacks. That's exactly what the proposed usou a with waivers proposes to provide. You could only do single families the most intense residential you can do under a U.S. way. So it will enable that GDP vision to play out with a mix of single with with single unit detached houses. The height is capped at two and a half storeys. The zone lot sizes match up with the GDP starting at a minimum of 3000. And with the waiver, that more shallow setback of ten feet versus 20 feet is allowed next. Looking at consistency with Adopt a plans blueprint Denver which is our guiding combined land use transportation plan designated this particular sub area an area of change and called out for future land use concept as employment again noting importantly that the plan blueprint Denver was adopted prior to the closure of the Air Force uses and therefore really is of limited applicability in terms of a guiding document. But Blueprint Denver does have a lot to say about areas of change. And so we can look to it for guidance as to what's envisioned generally in an area of change. Again, these are areas where we we as a city, Denver, intends to channel growth. It does call out Lowry as a whole as an area of change and speaks specifically for the potential to create new neighborhoods within its boundary. Transitions between existing areas of stability and and areas of change are very important and stressed in blueprint Denver CPD staff feels that the you as you a requested zoning with waivers does encourage housing development with characteristics of Denver's existing urban neighborhoods, but provides and does provide that transition to the existing single unit, Mayfair and Crest more neighborhoods to the north and east. The waivers allow for development pattern similar to what would be allowed for existing established neighborhoods through other special provision described earlier. And then the future land use employment does but does provide some guidance. Even our planned employment areas speak to the potential for residential to be part of that future land use, calling particularly for special attention to design and buffering between any residential near the employment centers. So other rezoning applications you'll see in the next few months will deal with that Lowry Boulevard corridor and other mixed use areas planned, and we'll really carry for that employment recommendation a little bit more clearly. But as a as the proposed USDA with waivers, it does provide a land use and building high transition between those future planned more intense core areas of mixed employment and residential to single family to the north. Uniformity of district regulations is a review criteria that staff through more detail in the staff report believes is met here. It is a unique zoned district because of the waivers and therefore will be uniform with within itself essentially and that it furthers the public health, safety and welfare through implementation of the city's adopted land use plans and the Buckley Annex General Development Plan. Finally, we look at justifying circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context. What happened to justify in circumstances? Well, let's skip to consistency with neighborhood context, own district purpose and intent. Don't let me forget justifying circumstances though. Anyway, the proposed neighborhood context is urban neighborhood. Urban neighborhoods, as described in the Denver Zoning Code and Article five presumes an existing or planned pattern of fairly rectangular blocks broken up by local streets in a fairly grid pattern to make connections easier. It provides a vision of walkability in the form of detached sidewalks with garages and other vehicle access, typically taken from rear alleys rather than from the street, and with plenty of opportunity for other modes of transportation. Then then the vehicle, the zoned district general purpose that the residential zone districts are intended to accommodate variation of residential development by virtue of the different zone district types within the urban neighborhood context to reinforce desired development patterns in existing neighborhoods while accommodating reinvestment and then the zone district specific intent. Specifically, the USA. A Zone District does allow and facilitates development on relatively small blocks for Denver, as small as 3000 square feet. This district allows the most shallow setbacks and highest lot coverage within the urban neighborhood. Context. CPD staff believes that the proposed rezoning is consistent with that stated intent. The base U.S. Zone District provides a land use and building form that recognizes common residential characteristics, such as two and a half storeys and a minimum size of 3000 square feet. The proposed waivers allow for shallow front setbacks, higher lot coverage and no bulk plane, which does accommodate a variation in residential development patterns and reinvestment in this part of Denver. These waivers reflect patterns in other established neighborhoods that were built built either pre zoning code or under former chapter 59 under are two or other. Multifamily zoning with waivers and other site planning flexibility that was built in. Accordingly. Oh, and let me just say justifying circumstances, since for some reason my slide didn't pop up there. CBD stuff is as detailed. More specifically in your staff report finds that there are justifying circumstances, namely in the fact of the changed conditions that have occurred with the departure of the Federal Air Force Office complex from this park. 70 acres. That justifies a reconsideration of the old zoning oh one to a new zone district. You issue a with waivers altogether. Then CPD recommends approval of Council Bill 14 522 that would resume property located at approximately 90 Monica Street Parkway from 012 U.S. way with waivers based on finding all review criteria have been met. Well, look at that, right? The next one. I could. I completed my presentation on Council Bill 1405 to 2. Next, we'll move to the staff presentation on Council Bill 1405 to 3, which is for property located at approximately 7000 to 7300 Archer Park Place. Again, we're honing in on the Buckley Annex Council District five, part of the larger Lowrey statistical neighborhood. In this case, we're talking about a relatively small sliver of a little more than four acres in the southeast corner of the Buckley Annex. Again, just a portion of the entire 70 acres. Um, here we we abut Lowry Southwest, which is part of the Lowry development. Single family homes on larger lots. We also about a portion of an existing older multifamily townhome and taller apartment building complex called Park Heights. And there you have some pictures of those adjacencies. And then across Québec Street, an existing Lowry neighborhood of single family homes facing Quebec. Again, this is a picture from the general development plan showing that area highlighted in yellow. Property owners, again, as the Lowry Redevelopment Authority here. The intent with this rezoning is to redevelop into new single family, and specifically a rezoning from former Chapter 59 Orchard Zoning of oh one to Urban Neighborhood Context Single Unit B with waiver. So you as you be with waivers here, the waivers are somewhat similar to the waivers we discussed with the previous council bill were with the U.S. you'll be starting as the base. We're at a slightly larger minimum zone, lot of 4500 square feet rather than 3000 square feet. The waivers are similar, though, to the Urban House form and to the detached accessory structure form. Again, primarily to allow a bulkier, taller structure, very similar to what already exist and what is built out to the south and east in the existing Lowry, the Lowry neighborhood. So again, we see a bump up in height. We see the departure from a break in height from front to rear and no bulk claim. We see a shallower setback of ten feet. We have a smaller rear setback when there is an alley. And when there is no alley, though, it's still the same. And we we leave the building coverage behind with the waivers on the detached accessory structure. Again, these are typically rear garages or other similar secondary buildings. On the site. We go taller from 1 to 2 stories and 17 feet to 35 feet. No bulk lane and a shallower street setback. Waivers are enabled by section 12 .4. 10.6 of the Denver zoning code. Again, we're looking at a fairly unique circumstance presented here, where we have a planned area of change where we intend to channel growth, but with a clear cap on density of of of no greater than what single unit zoning would allow. So if need needed to customize the zoning with the waivers again reminiscent of other tools we have in our current arsenal zoning codes but wouldn't apply here because it's not technically infill development. So we're getting to a similar end that we allow a property owner that's rebuilding in the middle of an existing neighborhood, the same degree of flexibility through the waivers to this new 70 acre redevelopment that doesn't have existing neighborhoods on the same blocks. Again, City Review has occurred and all other sister agencies have approved with no comments or no substantive comments on the proposed rezoning. And we had a first submittal from the applicant with a proposed parking waiver to require a minimum amount of parking spaces for single unit development. Again, in its first round, CPD recommended the removal of that request for waiver is contrary to the intent of the code and the parking policy of the city as exists and the remainder of the code and other issue districts not to require minimum parking for single unit development. Subsequently, that proposed waiver was dropped and what you see before you does not include that waiver notifications were sent according to code when we received the rezoning application prior to. Planning Board again prior to committee and again prior to this public hearing. Again, we received a lot of public input in the form of written emails and letters which you have before you in your packets, primarily all in support of the proposed use and zoning with waivers. A couple of other opposition comments, again requesting that that minimum parking waiver be added back to the application that went or before you today review criteria again because there is a predecessor GDP. Council is authorized to give consideration to that GDP. And in weighing this rezoning and its appropriateness, also our standard rezoning criteria are in play. You need to find that this application is consistent with adopted plans will result result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare. You'll need to find that there are justifying circumstances for considering a rezoning of this property from its current oh one zone, and that the proposed USA bee with waivers is consistent with the neighborhood urban neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statements. Again, we look to the GDP for advice and guidance. The yellow shaded portion in the bottom right hand corner of this illustrative future development plan that's consistent with the GDP shows this corner to be plan for single unit development. There is no street between the rear of these homes and the adjoining Lowry homes, so these do not have a rear alley, but they do face a public street. That's Arch Archer Place. The GDP specifically called out this area as the Community Park South Residential Sub area and called out for this being single unit detached residential with a height of no more than two and a half stories. Staff finds that in considering the GDP, this proposed rezoning is consistent with the sub area intent language. The USPI with waivers will provide land use of single unit detached housing and a height maximum of two and a half storeys. Huh? What happened to my. Can I have a moment just to unhide some slide? So go ahead. Sorry I got in at 430 today, so I didn't have a chance to. You know, this. Quality control tech. And they would love for me to go through this much faster. But because it's a separate application, I have to go through each of these criteria again so that it can stand on its own post action by the City Council. So please bear with me. Okay. I think we're back on course. Okay. So again, we're now looking at criteria for your that you need to hold this proposed rezoning up to. The first one is consistency with adaptive plans. We look first to comprehensive plan 2000, which has a number of strategies and objectives relating to infill development and the potential for new housing in the city that offers quality infill development consistent with the character of any existing nearby surrounding neighborhoods. We look to strategies that talk about extending the street grid into blocks of land that don't have it, which the GDP definitely envisions for this area and providing that interconnectivity. Modifying land use regulations where necessary to ensure the flexibility to accommodate changing demographics and lifestyle choices. That's something that we can do through a rezoning application as well. So the proposed rezoning, Steph feels, is consistent with a comprehensive plan, recommendations and strategies. The rezoning to an urban neighborhood context type of zoned district reinforces the street pattern and goals of current Plan 2000, which has rear alleys as its primary vehicle access. The waivers which allow more gross floor area. Essentially you get a bigger house on the same site, a bigger amount of floor area in a house on the same size zoned as a zone. Lot does allow and accommodate differing lifestyle choices to live in the city of Denver, but perhaps have as much square footage as you might find outside the city. The Lowry reuse plan, which was re adopted in 2000, again is of limited applicability here because it didn't anticipate the change in use from the Federal Air Force Use Blueprint. Denver oops showing the wrong area. But again, remember, we're down in the lower right hand corner. This is an area of change. The land use concept, again, is that future employment, which was based on the announcement of the closure of this portion of Lowry. But we look to blueprint Denver for very good guidance on what's supposed to happen in our areas of change. We look to channel growth there. We have specific goals for Lowry as an area of change where it's this particular redevelopment is seen as an opportunity to create new neighborhoods and offer more choices. Addressing transitions between existing, stable neighborhoods and areas of change as a major theme in Blueprint Denver New development redevelopment should be sensitive to those edges. Staff feels that the UCB with waivers, encourages housing development that are consistent with existing traditional neighborhood development. It provides those transitions to the south and east, in this case, to existing Lowry neighborhoods. The waivers allow for a development pattern similar to what would be allowed for existing neighborhoods, both in Lowry and outside Lowry. Through special provisions described earlier. And then in terms of the future land use recommendation of employment blueprint, Denver, while describing employment as being in primarily job based, does envision a mix of residential uses within that future land use category, calling out the need for special attention to transition between those employment areas and residential. You'll see future rezoning applications for that inner core of Lowry along Lowry Boulevard that will hone in on those more mixed use and employment areas within the Buckley Annex. But the USPI with waivers provides a land use and building height transition from those established neighborhoods to the south and east towards that more planned intensive core of the Buckley Annex. Other criteria uniformity of district regulations. Because the proposed zoning you should be with waivers. It is a unique customized zone to strike, so it will be uniform in terms of the application of the district regulations within the area that it's mapped. Staff recommends finding that this will further the public health, safety and welfare because it does implement the city's adopted land use plans and more specifically, the implements the Buckley Annex General Development Plan. Finally, justifying circumstances. Rezonings may be justified when it's found that the land or its surrounding environment has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage redevelopment the area or to recognize that change character. So again, we have the closure of the Air Force facilities at Buckley Annex in 2011 and its subsequent sale to Lowry Redevelopment Authority in 2012, and numerous planning recommendations for coverage in redevelopment to meet citywide planning goals for areas of change . That's a significant change in what this land has been. It's no longer office. Federal employees are no longer there, which justifies considering a change in its zoning. Finally, we look at consistency of the proposed USPI with waivers with the YOU part of this own district, the urban neighborhood context. Again, our code describes these urban neighborhoods as characterized by single unit and two unit. Residential uses. A regular pattern of rectilinear rectangular block shapes the tight sidewalks and the presence of alleys. Residential buildings have consistent orientation and setbacks, and there's a balance of modes enabled that can get people into it and through it by bike walking or car. We look to the general purpose statement of the Urban Neighborhood Residential Zones and see that they are intended to recognize common residential characteristics but accommodate some variation, reinforce desire development patterns in existing neighborhoods, while again looking forward to reinvestment and providing standards for two and a half storey urban house forms. Specifically, the U.S. B Zone District intent is to allow detached single family homes until not 4500 square feet or larger. And this district does allow relatively shallow separates and higher lock coverages than some of our other U.S. zone districts that require a larger lots staff that signs and recommends. You find that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the above intent, language and context description. The base U. SUV Zone District provides a land use and building form that recognizes common residential characteristics, such as two and a half storeys and a minimum lot size of 4500 square feet. The proposed waivers allow for those shallow but consistent front setbacks, high walk coverage and no bulk plan, which accommodates variation and reinvestment in this part of Denver to accommodate growing and changing needs and demands for housing in Denver. With that, based on this presentation and the staff report in front of you, CPD recommends approval of Council Bill 1405 to 4 seeking a change in zoning of the property noted from 012g ups that should be you as should be with waivers based on finally finding our review criteria have been met. I'm really tired of hearing myself talk. I'm sure they're hanging in there. Oh, we're loving it. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. On the edge of our seats. Just. Okay. Next before you. Is application Councilor Bell 14 dash 052 for seeking a rezoning of property within the Buckley Annex, located at approximately 7000 to 7300 Archer Place. This is seeking a rezoning from the existing Denver zoning up from Mr.. Say that over again seeking a rezoning from oh one to grh3 with waivers. The grade three stands for General Urban Neighborhood Context, a different neighborhood context than what we've been talking about so far tonight. Our H has road home again, a different building form and intensity than what we've talked about earlier with a maximum height of three stories, but again customized to further implement the GDP and adaptive the plans by the addition of two waivers to get your bearings once more, we're zooming in on the Buckley Annex in Council District five. Now you see the yellow highlighted portion is more of the central area within the 70 acres no longer really abutting existing single family were either surrounded by a proposed single unit development within the Buckley Annex as described in the earlier two applications or by proposed employment mixed use areas or existing multi-unit, high rise and townhome development to the south. Am I missing some key facts? So summarize for you. This is again approximately 15 acres. The owner is the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. It did take ownership through the transfer. So all you need to know, we have the same history of the Berkeley Annex itself through its previous life as an air reserve personnel center with some 3000 employees through the reuse plans adopted by the city updated in 2000 by Denver's Comp Plan Blueprint Denver in 2002. With the change in conditions being the 2005 Department of Defense announcement that it was closing the Buckley Annex and the 2008 completion of a Buckley Annex redevelopment plan by the Redevelopment Authority. This is a plan that was not adopted by the city, but was followed up closely after the property was vacated and transferred by the 2013 General Development Plan, which was approved by the city. Now we're talking about an area, again, fairly internal to the 70 acre Buckley Annex site. This illustrative plan is is consistent with the general development plan that now calls for this area to be a mix of no longer single unit but row home and single family attached housing. The current zoning is one. This allows a variety of civic and public uses like jails and schools, but doesn't allow the type of residential the the plans call for and very limited commercial the grade three with waivers. Again this is a general urban neighbor context different than the urban neighborhood context with the introduction of multi-unit housing and development potential, but specifically a form of of housing that multi-unit dwellings that's a real home form. So more attached units vertically attached to each other rather than stacked row house requires each dwelling unit to have a ground storey street facing entrance. In this case, the waivers are to each of the building forms allowed in the otherwise standard. You are a three and I'll summarize this briefly in a minute. And again, there are building form waivers for the primary building and then again for detached accessory accessory structures. Here we have a summary from the staff report that shows the difference from the base grade three to what is being proposed with the waivers. The theme is familiar. We're seeking a slightly boxier, bulkier form of row homes, no longer a break in height from front to back, as we might see in a general urban neighborhood like Capitol Hill, which is a more infill, contextual requirement, which goes from 30 feet to 40 feet with the waivers across the entire depth of the zone lot, no sidewall height maximum. We get a shallower setback with the waivers at ten feet and a shallower rear setback when there is an alley of five feet. Those are the changes sought in the waivers to the Rowhouse building form. In addition, there are waivers that seek changes to the urban house and duplex building forms. Should a single unit or two unit homes structures be built within this area, similar to what we saw with previous applications? The waivers enable taller bulkier structure, no break in height from front to rear. You get the same 35 feet across the entire zone lot. No sidewall height marks a shallower primary street setback of ten feet allowed a shallower rear setback when there is an alley and no building coverage. The third waivers deal with detached accessory structures such as garage and the rear of a lot. Here again, we see a request through the waivers for a bulkier form and taller form of two stories and 35 feet, essentially no taller than the main house or building on the lot. Waivers are enabled by Section 12, 14 and six of the Denver Zoning Code. Again, CPD has viewed this application as a case study within a larger effort that needs to be undertaken to understand where else in the city we might have designated either currently or future areas of change combined with lower intensity land land use recommendations such as attached single family. Most areas have changed our plan for some type of mixed use development, and so the zoning recommended typically as a mixed use zoned district and that we've had plenty of success with implementing our plans in areas of change through mixed use zoning here was a unique circumstance where we have an area of change that a recommendation for lower intensity of residential, hence the need to modify and build in some flexibility with the waivers. Again, noting that this is allowed through other means in the Denver zoning code. When you're in an infill position within an existing fabric, we allow variations in the front setback to go shallower than what's otherwise required or to bulk up or go taller when it's consistent with other existing buildings around it here, because there's no existing pattern that you're building and slotting into. But the result would be similar. We needed a new tool and new way to get there. Hence the waivers that allow that bulkiness and height in as in a row home zone district. This has gone through a full city review. All our sister agencies listed have approved it with no substantive comments. CPD did have assessment and comment in the first round after the initial submittal of the application did include a park parking waiver that would have increased the required minimum parking for multi-unit dwelling use from 1 to 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. CPD looked at our other general urban zone districts and saw the intent to carry through the rest of the code, which for this type of urban neighborhood did not require a minimum of two. And so asked that this waiver be removed to remain consistent with the parking policies embedded in the rest of the code. The applicant did resubmit and eliminated the parking waiver from the application. Public review was primarily through the form of public notifications. Initially at the very onset when we receive a complete application, notice is sent by email to all RINO's and to all affected city council offices. Property was posted and notice sent before the Planning Board Ludie and again tonight before the City Council public hearing. There are a number of renos at issue here. They were they've all been notified in this case for this application. We received a lot more public input in opposition to the proposed rezoning than in support, you'll see. And in the packets in front of you, we've got about 13 emails and letters in support, just as is in the application you have in front of you tonight. But we had numerous 54 at last count letters, emails of opposition primarily boiling down to that minimum parking requirement. Those in opposition were not. I look through them again tonight. I didn't see any opposition necessarily, you know, taken as a whole to the idea of row homes or multi-family uses. According to plan, it was a parking minimum firing from that standard grade three zone district of one parking space per unit. All those who oppose would prefer that that parking minimum be raised to two parking spaces out of a concern for overflow and impacts, perhaps on surrounding neighborhoods from overflow parking demand both of residents get. US within proposed the planned multi-unit development. You'll see here. Recap in more detail some of the themes that we read about and saw in those letters of opposition. Again, we look to the review criteria and the Denver zoning code to guide this rezoning through council. The first is that the City Council may approve an official rezoning application that's located within an approved general development plan, taking into consideration the objectives and recommendations of the approved GDP. What you have in front of you is a graphic illustration of the general development plan. This portion is highlighted in the Orange is the central residential portion of the GDP. It's identified as the Rowhouse Boulevard sub area. It straddles the proposed extension of Lowry Boulevard and calls specifically not just for multi-unit, but single family attached multi-unit. So it got to the type of building form as well as the level of intensity proposed for this area. Maximum height of three stories, pedestrian entrances facing Lowry Boulevard as a primary street. So fairly specific guidance in the GDP. Staff feels that with this guidance, the G RH three with the waivers was a good fit to implement the GDP recommendations. That Zone District provides a land use for multi-unit form standards for a rowhouse urban form with those pedestrian entrances required for each dwelling unit facing Lowry Boulevard or other primary streets and a height maximum of three stories. Next, we look at consistency with adopted plans, with comprehensive plan 2000, we find strategies and objectives called out here, more detail that seek to promote infill development, that encourage development of housing that meets increasingly diverse needs of of different populations and new residents and older residents like. We see strategies that seek to encourage quality infill development consistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, and that looks to extend the prevailing street grid and interconnected parkways and detached sidewalks. And Trayvon's in our urban neighborhoods, where that is the existing pattern and strategies that acknowledge that our land use regulations might need to be modified in some cases to ensure flexibility to accommodate these planned demand are changing demographics and lifestyles. Staff finds the proposed rezoning with the general urban neighborhood context. RH three reinforces the desired street pattern goals of the comp plan 2000 and will enable residential housing types that meet changing needs of Denver's present and future residents. We look to other adopted plan specifically than the Lowry reuse plan. But again, because this plan, even as adopted in 2000, did not foresee the vacancy of the federal government from that site is of limited applicability. We look to blueprint Denver again. I'm sorry, it's showing the wrong hash yellow, but the application in front of you is correct and the area is that central area plan for single unit in Blueprint Denver. It's designated an area of change and a future employment land use. Again, the plan was adopted. Blueprint Denver Plan was adopted prior to the closure the Air Force uses. That element of employment is is somewhat of limited applicability but we still gain some guidance certainly. Blueprint Denver speaks to objectives for areas of change of which this rezoning application falls within. These are areas in Denver where we seek to channel growth there. Lowry has called out specifically in Blueprint Denver as a place where the potential to create new neighborhoods is of utmost opportunity there. Addressing transitions between areas of stability and areas of change is a consistent theme in Blueprint Denver and staff fires that the proposed you are H-3 with waivers. Rezoning is consistent with blueprint goals for areas of change and creates the potential to create a new neighborhood that includes characteristics of Denver's traditional urban general or general urban neighborhoods that we see elsewhere in the city. As to the future land use recommendation of employment in Blueprint Denver, the land use concept does describe a need for special attention to design, screening and buffering when those employment land uses include residential areas or uses. Again, staff finds that the the proposed RH three with waivers rezoning. Does provide that special attention to design and specifically those building form standards by providing a land use and building height transition between those more intense to future planned employment and mixed use areas and more single family both within the Buckley Annex plan planning area and outside the boundaries. And therefore this criteria has met. SAP also finds that the proposed zoning of grades three fulfills the criteria that that Zone District B results in uniformity of district regulations. This is a unique zone district tailored to implement those adopted plans because it will be applied right now, at least only to this Buckley Annex area. Its staff finds that the regulations would be uniform within the district itself. Staff also recommends a finding that this rezoning will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of the city's adopted plans. The Area of Change Recommendations and Blueprint. Denver and the Buckley Annex General Development Plan. Next, we look to whether the rezoning fulfills the review criteria that there are justifying circumstances. Rezonings may be justified when the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character area through a rezoning. Well, certainly the closure of the Air Force facilities at Buckley Annex in 2011 and the ultimate sale to Lowry Redevelopment Authority was a substantial change in circumstances in regard to the future redevelopment and reduce potential this property. We have plans adopted that recommend redevelopment of this parcel and therefore we feel the rezoning is justified through this change in circumstances. Finally, we look to consistent whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with the general urban neighborhood context, description and the specific purpose and intent statement for the RH three zoned district's general urban neighborhood. Context, as described in the Denver Zoning Code, is characterized by multi-unit. Residential uses, a regular pattern of rectangular block shapes, detached sidewalks, presence of alleys and vehicle access from alleys, consistent building orientation and setbacks from those primary streets, and a pattern that enables a balancing of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle reliance with greater access to other modes of transportation. The zoned district general purpose for the G RH family of zone districts is to promote and protect higher density residential neighborhoods, reinforce desired development patterns in existing neighborhoods while creating standards for new neighborhoods. Provide standards for buildings to orient to the street, take access formally, and have high lock coverage in shallow front yards. And then specifically, the grade three is intended to allow for a mix of building forms and uses accommodated through the urban house, duplex and row house building forms, including uses from single unit to unit to multi-unit to not taller than three stories here staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the above intent language. The base g three zone district provides a land use and building form that promotes the higher density seen typically in general urban neighborhoods and in row home zone districts. The proposed waivers allow for a shallower front setbacks, high lock coverage and higher sidewall height, while which accommodates for a new neighborhood within a designated area of change. Additionally, the requested zoning implements the neighborhood context vision for grid streets, blocks, alleys and sidewalks and therefore implements the Buckley and external development plan is consistent with those objectives as well. Taken All Together is more detailed in the staff report. CPD recommends approval of Council Bill 1405 to 3, which would change the zoning of property located at approximately 7000 Archer Place from oh one. That's wrong to you two g rh three with waivers. Just ignore the rest of those words. I'll finish you on the. Last two flip. I notice that grade dropped into 310. Okay. All right. Let me like that. We have six speakers for it, for the three combined, and I'm going to say all six names. You can come up to the front pew. Bob Golic, Marty Forest. Kevin. Yoshida, Greg Kerwin and Brian Word and David Smith. So you all can come up to the front pew and Mr. Golic, you can come on up and begin your remarks. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. I feel like I need to take a deep breath for Tina. My name is Bob Garlic. My address at 609 South Gaylord Street in Denver. I'm here this evening on behalf of Laurie Economic Redevelopment Authority. I will combine all my comments for all three of these proposed bills. Council Bill 522, five, 23 and 524 of the Boulevard one property is relatively small in comparison to the rest of Lowry, but it's a very significant parcel. It's it's the last large parcel that's under Lowry control. As Tina mentioned, all of the Boulevard one property is classified in blue for Denver as an area of change. And there have been significant changes over the past few years to the site. Probably the most significant is that in 2012, the United States Air Force turned this property over to the control of the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. Prior to that, it was controlled by the United States Air Force. So upon that transaction, Lowry entered into the general development or GDP process, getting an approval in front of the Denver Planning Board in 2013, which is another very significant change conditioned now that approved general development plan establish sub areas throughout all of boulevard one in the evening. You're looking at three of those sub areas. You're looking at the First Avenue residential, which is single family, and that is the northern parcels that Tina described. You're looking at Community Park South, which is also single family, and that's the southern part that Tina described. And then Rowhouse Boulevard, which is the attached townhouse project or product, and that's in the center of those two, combining those two other sub areas. All of these are in conformance with the approved general development plan. We feel that we have the appropriate zoning that we're proposing this evening. The proposed Usou A and U suburb are both single family districts. They simply have a different minimum lot size. The USDA requires 3000 square feet while the US sub requires 4500 square feet. Otherwise they're almost identical. And the grade three, which is the Rowhouse Boulevard site, it permits identical uses in the general development plan with a maximum height of three stories, which is again what the general development plan recommends. This proposed map amendment, if approved, will bring the zoning in the complete conformance with the general development plan. It will become the catalyst for development in these three sub areas. We're proposing nothing outside the approved land use or guidelines in that general development plan. And as Tina went into detail on, there are a handful of waivers in these three zoning applications. The reason being in 2010, when the zoning code was updated, we lost the ability to use plan building groups or PBDEs. And that necessitates these some of these waivers. We were allowed to have multiple structures on his own lot at that time, no interior setbacks. And so not being able to utilize plan building groups necessitates these waivers. I will be here to answer any questions you may have as the rest of our development team will as well. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Garlic Monte Force. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council, I'm Monte Faust. I'm the executive director for the Lowry Redevelopment Authority and we are the master developer for Lowry. Address is 7290 East First Avenue, and I'll be speaking to all three of these bills as well. 522, five, 23 and 524. I commend Tina on a great presentation on these details, even though she came in at the last minute. And so I'm going to be brief, but I'd like to amplify or emphasize a couple of points that were made earlier. First, we are very happy to be here finally. It's been a long road to get to this point. We've been through an exhaustive, inclusive public process that started in 2007. We have had well over 60 public meetings with robust debate with all the stake holders that we have to gather input to hear their concerns and finally to reach some compromises. The result is what I feel is a very balanced plan that recognizes the surrounding context but still has a broader view to the community needs. Secondly, Boulevard one, you've been hearing Buckley antics all night, but Boulevard one is what we call it now, as part of Lowry, is the last development parcel of Lowry. It consists of 70 acres out of a total of 866 acres of Lowry. It was the site of the former Defense Finance and Accounting Service Center that vacated the site in 2011. The overall boulevard one plan actually calls for 800 residential units consisting of about 450 apartments, 120 single family detached, 230 single family attached. In addition, we have up to 200,000 square feet of commercial in the form of office, retail, restaurants, neighborhood services. And there's also about 13 acres or 19% of the site that is dedicated to open space. What we're seeking tonight is the approval for the zoning for the first phase of this development. About half of this site that will have about 250 residential units on it. There's not any commercial development or apartments in this first phase. Thirdly, as was noted by staff, we're asking for waivers to the zoning as this request is because we have narrowly tailored and crafted the zoning is to match the plan that we had negotiated with our neighbors and in which in turn large part replicates development partners that are already established at Lowry. The tools that, as Bob said, the tools that were previously available to us in the old code such as PGS are no longer available. So we saw that the least impactful approach to accomplish the same end result. Finally, with respect to parking that you've heard about, we have added parking standards into our design review process so that we weren't didn't have to have it in the zoning applications themselves. That concludes my comments and I ask for your support in these rezonings and I'm available answering your questions. You might have. Thanks. Thank you. Kevin Yoshida. My name is Kevin Yoshida. My address is 8025 West Colfax. I'm the architecture and planning consultant for the Library Redevelopment Authority and member of the Lowry Design Review Committee and available to answer any questions you have. Thank you, Greg Kerwin. Good evening. I live in the crust. More district in the crust, more neighborhood in District five, which will be directly harmed by the overdevelopment of Buckley Annex. I speak in opposition to the three current zoning proposals which restore the use of zoning waivers, a tool that the city had decided not to use with the 2010 zoning code . In addition, the third proposal for row houses continues to ignore neighborhood requests for adequate parking. First on waivers, the three zoning proposals set a dangerous precedent for this council. Instead of using existing zoning categories in the 2010 code, CPD and the developer are back to using customized zoning by proposing waivers from standard zoning categories. CPD says this is a test case, but it is going down a slippery slope or asking the council to do so by reintroducing waivers to the Denver zoning process. Neighborhoods around Buckley Annex are concerned about density, traffic and parking in an area that is not a transit oriented development. Buckley Annex is miles from light rail. It has infrequent bus service. It's an area where surrounding intersections on Quebec, Monaco and Alameda are gridlocked. The LRA has been refusing for years to listen to and address neighborhood concerns. Instead, it is moving forward with its plans for a high density, high traffic development with minimal parking. In contrast, I note Councilwoman Robb has set an excellent example of how the zoning process could work with her recently completed legislative rezoning of Cherry Creek North. After a bitter, contentious meeting with this council over Cherry Creek North in 2012, with the help of a mediator, a consensus has been reached in Cherry Creek North. Instead of allowing that kind of process here, instead you have an ad hoc, customized zoning proposal that brings back the tool of waivers. If you allow waivers, you should expect developers to request waivers on many future zoning requests. Second on parking. Editorial writers for both The Denver Post and the Denver Business Journal have commented on Councilwoman Sussman recent article that Denver does not have a mandate from voters to minimize car spick car parking spaces. There's no light rail service to this property, and the existing infrequent bus service will not allow people to live in these new buildings without cars. It is not in the interest of Denver residents to provide inadequate minimum parking at a new development like this. One is only serves to advance the interest of developers because it will cost them less while providing inadequate parking. The excess parking will spill over to and burden adjacent neighborhoods. Please restore the condition that was dropped and call for two parking spaces per residential unit. Thank you. Thank you. Brian Ward. Good evening. I'm Brian Wert. I had resided to 50 Eudora Street in Denver, and I want to mention that there were some other speakers here who have had to leave. So I made hopefully you appreciate small numbers. I currently chair Larry's Community Advisory Committee, or CAC, as we know, and and I have been a member of the CSC since its inception in 1994. I mostly want to verify for you the intensity of the public process surround Berkeley Annex and Boulevard One, and I think that's primarily related to the fact that there are many more residents now at Lowry than there were in previous planning efforts on Lowry land. There are far more people who are interested in what's going on at Berkeley Annex, and they participated in the numerous meetings and many mentioned. The result of that participation is that nearly all, if not all, of the changes that the involved neighbors wanted in the reuse plan and in the GDP and now in reflected in the zoning applications before you are incorporated and those in those various documents. So with that, I just want to encourage your approval of these applications. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker is David Smith. Thank you. Counsel. Thank you, President. I am David Smith. I live at 7135 East Bay. I'd avenue my backyard abuts the Buckley Annex. There's no alleyway there. We will have a house or homes right behind us. I speak in qualified support of the amendments. If this is the best that we can do, then this is what we need. We have a an existing neighborhood in Park Heights that will be affected by this. It is a lot of density going into a low density neighborhood. I've lived all around the city from the west side to the north side, all around here. This is a special neighborhood. So if this is how we're going to do it, I speak in support of this. I'm very proud that we have VHA going in there and the developer listened to us about where DACA would go. I'm proud of what's what's proposed, but there are many concerns about this neighborhood. And if you could, as this moves along, please take a look at it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Smith. That concludes our speakers. So it's now time for questions from members of council. I just remind council members that the question period is for all three council bills five, 22, five, 23 and 524. So we're going to start with Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to start in the details I noticed in some of the letters that were in front of us tonight or emails and in some comments that traffic is an issue. Jay Breeze, in his email or letter to the Planning Board, talked about a traffic study and projected new traffic. And I wondered if anyone here could address whether a traffic study was done, maybe during the GDP and if that was a net increase in traffic over what was generated from the former finance center or. What shapers could not be here tonight. The traffic study that the LRA did noted additional trips of approximately 9000 to 10000 trips per day. As to whether that's a net, the LRA justifies it because they say commuters at Buckley Annex were commuting there before to work at the Finance Center. But when the Finance Center was there, the rest of the surrounding homes at Lowry were not. So what we're seeing now is immense. Traffic, because Lowry's been built up and the finance centers shut down. Okay. Mr. Borst, did you want to comment, please? We did a traffic study as part of the GDP process. Indeed, it demonstrated I forgot the number of exactly 9500 trips, I think, that were generated by the new development of this site. But prior to this development on this site, it was also occupied by 3000 employees in a 600,000 square foot building that generated approximately the same amount of traffic. I know we're facing similar issues at eighth in Colorado, at ninth in Colorado. My other question is about the density point. I think the parking's been covered, but the density point, I understand that these are single family home and row homes, although Cherry Creek was alluded to tonight as a model, which delights me. We are not talking about single family homes when we talk about density in Cherry Creek. So I'm just wondering if you have a density per acre. That's another figure I'm familiar with. A lot of the R two is about 12 units per acre. And I just was curious. It's in the neighborhood of 11 units to the acre net. Okay. So that's Cherry Creek North, for example. The Lowry Town Centers approximately the same density. Okay. All righty. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Ortega. So I have several questions. So, Mr. first you went through a number of the units that are proposed on the overall 70 acres. And I noticed if somebody could pull up one of the map showing the full site to you, if you wouldn't mind just pulling up one of those maps. So it looks like there's one area that is not being changed, but three of them are correct. What we have before you tonight are three zoning for about half of the site. So the area to the along first Avenue from Monaco east to Hodiak or Oneida, Oneida and south all the way to. Can you point with that? You can't see it on there. So the first rezoning covers the northern portion of the site. The second rezoning this U.S., a Yusufiyah, rather, is along the adjacency to Park Heights neighborhood on the South Side. And where it's highlighted there in the middle is the Grange three. What's not in the zoning application are the two dumbbells to this development that is on the Lowry Boulevard at Monaco and Lowry Boulevard at Quebec. Are not part of the zoning for you tonight. Okay. So the 800 acres you spoke about, you said there would be 450 apartments. So that would be at the the rowhouse site. The 450 apartments would be composed in two areas, one on the south side of Lowry Boulevard, adjacent to Quebec Street, and a future parcel along the southern boundary. That's another 80 units or so between the two of them. So 400. So the other which you just spoke about that the pieces that part of one of these three sites. Okay. So those numbers are a little confusing. So I'd like to have you give me an idea of how many proposed units for each of the three applicant applications. That would help me to visualize. The applications tonight. The applications tonight are about 250 units because we don't have final planning. Can you break them down personally? And then so the first area that Usou a I believe is around 80 units. Okay. The U.S. B, U.S. B is in the neighborhood of 20 units and the RH three would be the balance. So 150 units. But we don't have detailed planning on all of these areas. But that's a rough number. Got it. Got it. So can you speak to the affordability of the units? I know you made some about VHA, but that's not part of these three applicants, so. Sure. Lowry has delivered to the market at this point about 1000 affordable units between for sale and apartments. This apartment or this development will have approximately 80 affordable units as part of the development that we're partnering with. Okay. If I may, I have a couple more. Unless you have other people that want to ask, go it. Okay. So is there a proposed developer for the project at this point or you're trying to get through this first and then we can market it? Where's the master developer? So we do all of the horizontal development and then we sell to the vertical developers. We have at this point selected our first seven single family detached builders. We're in negotiations with attached builders and with apartment builders. So there won't be one builder for a particular site. You're looking at different builders that work. For the multiple builders on site. And then can you address how the planning board addressed the requests from the neighbors asking for the two units to parking spaces per unit on the Je RH three applet application? I'm going to have to look back at the staff report because I. Think they're what you do while you're doing that. I have one other question. Okay. So this would be back for you, Mr.. First, if there were two parking spaces per unit on the Rowhouse section, so area, how would that change the proposed number of units that you're recommending for this? It wouldn't. We are planning what we are doing and lacking. The neighbors are very concerned about parking, as you've heard. So we initially put parking conditions or waivers into the applications to more mimic the old code for parking requirements, because the new code lowered the standards. When that was rejected as an option, we included parking requirements into our design guideline process so that the road homes will have two parking spaces per unit as well as the single family detached. Who manages the design guideline process. Is that done by Lowry? It is done by the Redevelopment Authority, as we have for the past. Not in parking, but all of the design review is handled by the Lowry Design Review Committee. Is there a reason you would not have it in the in the rezoning application, since you're recommending that the two parking spaces per unit are going to be handled by your design review process? Is there a reason why it would not just be part of the reason application. We included in it originally, but at the request of staff? We removed it from the application. And I saw in here somebody thought that staff wouldn't support it if it was left in there. And I don't know what that's about. That's true. And to respond to your previous question about what planning board did, they did hear testimony similar to what you heard, and they had all the same written testimony that you have in front of you. They declined to add any conditions to their recommendation of approval, which was unanimous. They declined to add any condition, suggesting additional parking be required for the grade three application. And that was with the understanding that LRT was going to include that in the design review. Yes. They heard the same testimony. Yes. Okay. I think those are all the questions I have for right now. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Sussman. Tina, I do have some other questions. I just want to make something pretty clear. In an area of change, you usually look for density, don't you? That's been the case to date until now. Most of our area of change that you can all visualize, that blueprint, every map that you have on the wall of all your offices. They're typically along fairly heavily infrastructure, transportation corridors around station areas. In our larger master planned areas like Gateway and Stapleton. That's all right. That's all I need. I wait. I'm not finished. So what you have here is a developer and neighborhood who did not want density. And so you had to make waivers in order to make this less dense. Then blueprint Denver would have suggested right. As most other recommended areas of change have gone, and even the rest of Lowry was zoned into a multifamily zone district that allowed a lot, much more intensity than what was ultimately built. And that zoning still exist east of Quebec. So so actually the waivers were done at the behest of a community that wanted it to be less dense. And we're talking here about 230 single family detached homes. And what about 100 of the rooftops? It's about 100 and I'm sorry, about 120 detached and about 230 attached. Attached. All right. So these are all single family homes. Yes. I mean, we could have pulled back and rezone the whole thing mixed use. Right. And then let the master. Go first, which is what we did. And this was in response to the one. Very specific land use recommendations and height recommendations that were in the plans to reduce the density. And then when you break it out into multiple rezonings, it's your only way to guarantee that you'll get that through the entitlements. Now, you had mentioned before, and I don't know if my fellow fellow council people probably already know this, but just we don't have parking requirements for single family homes, do we? No, no. We're not in the old code and not in the new code. Correct. Every city said every single city scene, so that three times west cities single family detached home has no parking requirements to my. Now in terms of Standard Basin districts, I can say that's true. There might be some customized ones that required it. And if we began to require them all to have two parking places, that would mean everybody would have to build a garage or something, right? That's true. There'd be no choice because they would be required off site. I mean, you wouldn't have to necessarily build a garage, but you'd have to build pads or driveways to accommodate them. And so because of that, because the neighbors asked the the Laurie Authority did request two parking spaces for. For the row homes they do already have the zone code has one parking space for the row homes and they did request it for CPD. Turn them down. Right. We recommended or we suggested that they would lose the support because it was such a deviation from other similar zone districts and the policy embedded in this similar zone district to bump up the parking requirement. Now the zoning code that had one parking place for row homes was done with a large public process, wasn't it? Yes, it was. We just we distinguished or differentiated the parking requirements based on the type of neighborhood. And so we have higher parking requirements in suburban multi-unit versus urban or in this case, even more dense general. Urban types of general area, neighborhood. And yet the single family homes don't have any parking requirements. The townhomes have one. Their design guidelines call for two in both of those instances. Right. And it's a minimum. And it's a minimum. The minimum. And as it's worked through the market and demands, it gets built to varying levels beyond the minimum or. At the minimum. And generally developers will provide two parking spaces. Well, as we see in the rest of Lowry, for example. They certainly they certainly do even in the some of the townhome developments. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilwoman Sassaman, councilman noted. Thank you, Mr. President. This question is for Tina. And by the way, whoever it was who got sick of you. Big time. Big time. I'm actually on vacation today. Oh. Oh, I'd hate to be them, but right now I'd hate to be you. So I don't I don't think I agree with Mr. Kerwin about the the the parking and traffic issues. As they say, our citizens hate nothing more than urban sprawl and density. But I do have to agree with him on this. The the use of the waiver. I'm just help me get over what seems sort of Orwellian to me. So we usually when Orwellian. Yeah. I mean when when you when you wave something, you're usually waving a right. It's like I have a right to ABCD, F and G and I'm waiving my right to F and G. In this case, we're sort of waving our hands and creating more height. It's just way too many partners. So that's part of the evening. I mean, we're we're waving an increase. It's an odd name for what the tool has traditionally been used for in the city of Denver. For better or. For worse, it can go either way. You can wave its take a height standard through the legislative process. Even for a quasi judicial rezoning you through a waiver, you can take an existing standard of 30 feet and wave that right to build 30. But instead you have to. Okay, so you waive it. It goes away. That's. That's true. You wave bye bye. It goes away. What you put back in its place can either be an increase or decrease. Okay. We do administrative adjustments to adjust to existing. But so if you had your house in Wash Park or you know, if you tore it down and on the same side of the street, everybody or the majority had built to 35 feet in the rear third that now we have a process through the administrative adjustment review to allow that new infill house to match the bulk and height that's otherwise there. Right now that makes perfect sense to me. That's the yeah we don't. But the problem is that that process is tied very specifically to compatibility criteria. You have to be compatible to something that exist here. We don't have anything that exists to compare it to. Fair enough. But we do have a complete zoning code. We have a very complete zoning code. But, you know, as you all know, our ability to foresee the future through zoning is not perfect. And therefore, we have the capability, smart people that the city council was in 2010 to adopt. A code. That offers tools to vary or flex otherwise standard zoned districts. Sometimes it's a party which in practice now we require applicants to tie to a standard zone district and just vary from it. So they're not making things up totally out of whack with the rest of the zoning. Lessons learned. We have overlay zones which sometimes can be used to add an additional layer of standards that aren't otherwise in the standard zone district. We still have waivers and conditions. It's in the code. We did not get rid of it in 2010, though personally, I would have loved to wave bye bye to waivers. But it's another tool and it's there, and we're trying to be very, very judicious in the way we use it. This would be the first case of a rezoning going through with waiver. Since 2010, we've been able to accommodate other needs for flexibility through other pdes or overlays, and you'll see more of that coming through. In this case, there is a lot of advantage to maintaining that base zone district on the map as a usou a or UCB. BE It is very transparent right on the map what it is, we're just allowing a bulk here for its only form standards that we're very we're not burying other parking were the general design standards that you typically would also see in PDS that come before PDS tend to cut across the whole code and do things or add things or take away things, right? This was just one very kind of a whole need to change the bulk and height of these buildings. And so a waiver felt like the most precise way to get to a turn of the dial rather than a pad and an overlay. There are other reasons with overlay, including a minimum area requirement and the fact that you can't use an overlay to give more than what the underlying zone allows. So we couldn't get to that greater height or bulk through an overlay zone. So that left the kind of looking hard APD or waiver and PD felt like a real overkill for this type of variation. Yeah, I guess I would have. I'm sorry. I don't know if. We'll ever do it again, but. Well, that's I mean, I find that comment reassuring, honestly. It's, you know, we went to a lot of trouble to. We did. Do. We did. Zoning code you referred to you know in of the previous council that adopted that. We. Tried very hard to push it into other that peg into other holes but it's still a tool that you know is might be useful. But generally we were able to accommodate it through other means. Okay. Well, thank you. You've given me somewhat more comfort. Are you feeling less Orwellian? I still like that. It's called a waiver. I'd rather be called banana or something. Tara thank you. Councilman there, Councilwoman Lemon. Thank you, Mr. President. Tina, how more can you pass? Will people be able to park on the street in this area? Yes. These are public streets being, as you see in the illustrative correct mistake. So we're creating new punching through the local street grid into this. And, of course, LOWRY And on street parking will be available on all public streets as per other general design standards for Denver streets. And not counted in the number of parking places somebody could take their apartment, say, oh, there's there's mice. You don't you don't get to count on street parking, torture, minimum required off street parking. Okay. Thank you thank you. Councilwoman moment. Councilwoman Susman. To Councilman Leavitt's question, I don't think we actually heard why we wanted to change the Bolt plane or why we wanted to have taller buildings. And I think we understand why in order to get those, we had to do a waiver because there was no comparison nearby houses to say, oh, well, we want it to look like that house and therefore couldn't do an adjustment. Then I don't know that we got an answer form of why would in the first place did we want to go higher and have a bulk plane? Did you get feel like you had that answer? I mean, I think I know why is because the developer wants more square footage too. So no, it's for net zero. It's for. Oh well let's have an answer to that. Yeah, that's, it's for. Ecological reasons. Do you want to monitor or do you want to address them? Sure. First, with respect to the bullet point, for instance, we have neighborhoods just across Quebec from this neighborhood that have two storey elements of garages and a garage with living space above them, adjacent to the alley under all the rest of their lives. And we were trying to replicate that pattern. And by using and we didn't have a PBGC available to us. So, for instance, that was zoned to a with waivers and conditions and had an overlay of a PBJ to it to allow us to have the development pattern that we had. Under the new code, we couldn't do that because we didn't have PBGC available to us, which is why we're asking for those waivers. With respect to sustainability on this site. We're trying to reach really high standards with respect to water usage, energy usage. And this more compact development pattern certainly lends itself to that. The main reason. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Ortega. Mr. Force, if you could stay up there, I do have one more question for you. Out of the 250 units that are proposed for these three applications, are they all proposed to be for sale units or will they be a mix of rental and for sale? In these three applications, these would all be for sale. Okay. And the DA. Are those proposed to be rental? Those would be rental. Okay. I do have a question for Mr. Yoshida, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. So I know you have a lot of experience as an architect in working with different developers who build projects. And the zoning always says one thing in terms of the requirements. But the reality of what a developer ends up building doesn't always exactly match what the zoning code says. And again, as Tina said, it's a minimum. So can you just speak to what your experience is when there is, you know, a requirement that sets something lower than what the demand may be? In regards to speaking specifically. To the Rowhouse project, where residents have raised question and concern about, they believe that two two parking spaces per unit should be more apropos. And again, I understand that in the design review process that can be spoken to, but, you know, that's a process down the road and. I'm happy to describe that. You can tell me if it's responsive for the real homes in particular. It is relevant to the time and place and market forces that. Lowry We understand and heard the neighborhood concerns about one or not having two spaces per unit. The nature of as a developer, this discussion is relevant to multi-family as well as density increases. A developer winds up not only thinking about what the maximum or minimums are allowed to by zoning, but his target market. So in this case, as as resolution is brought on the plan, as Mr. Force indicated, two spaces per unit seems to match with the developer's expectations for what they want to be perceived as successful product for this site. So at this point, staff, lay staff and the design review board are continuing to communicate that to space minimum to potential developers, and that's being accepted as parallel to their market interest right now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, are there any questions on 522, three or four and seeing and the public hearing is now closed. This is an opportunity for councilmembers to comment on either five, 22, five, 23 or five, 24. And we will start with Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Tina, for your marathon presentation of the of the Bills. And thank you to everybody who spoke this evening. This has been a very long process and very lots of public input. And you can see the results of the public input. It is less dense than it started. It does have design guidelines that are responsive to what the public has asked for, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to speak for to why this is an appropriate rezoning for the site and to the waivers and conditions issue. Yes, we kept it in as a tool on the zoning code task force. I feel like I'm the last living member of that. But at any rate, we kept that in the toolbox with the intention that it would not be used very often, but that it was a viable tool. And Councilman Nevett, I agree with you. It's weird to waive things in instead of waive them out. We had that problem under the old code. But the interesting part I think, of why we kept in waivers and conditions was because the citizen representatives on the task force really wanted it us to from Steve Kaplan to the architects, they said, yes, we shouldn't use them so much, but we're not going to get rid of them entirely. If there is anybody in the room like maybe Bob Golic who sat through some of those meetings, even when we interviewed the potential consultants, we said, do you see these in other cities? Are they still necessary tools? And there was some advocacy to have that. The way I look at it, there's only one other way this could possibly have been zoned it. I'm not going to apply to work at the Planning Department after my stint here, but another thing we could do that I'm glad that we did in Cherry Creek and the neighbors are. Necessarily recommending is go to a higher zone district is someone implied and not a mixed use district of some sort and then put either the overlay on that tone it down or the regulating leading plan. And the regulating plan is something that is done after the zoning. And I probably would have given neighbors ulcers as we experienced in Cherry Creek about that. Ultimately, I think that project is going to work out okay. There have been some changes and it still fits in the regulating plan, but you're just picking a tool to meet all the needs. And it's certainly clear to me that Lori is a strange dog. No offense to anybody who lives in Lowrey, but throughout I mean, I still didn't find out tonight what one stood for. So throughout the zoning of it, there have been tools used there that have been unique because filling in what was 866 acres when we started is a unique situation in a city that's landlocked. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you, Councilman Rob. Councilwoman Sussman. I just wanted to talk to the oh one. My understanding and I don't know if maybe Brian can remember this back in 1994 when we started, oh one means no zoning because the it was a military base. It didn't have any any need to respond to any zoning codes. And that's how we always understood it. Oh, one man not zoned. Maybe we should just put waivers and conditions on that. Yes, right now don't zone and don't do this either. They just won't want filler. Thank you. Councilman Sussman, any other comments from members of councilors on 522, three or four? Okay. Scene none right now, 522 is on the floor. So we are first voting on that one. Madam Secretary, roll call. Sussman. All right, Brett Brown, I thought Kenny Lehman. Lopez Monteiro Levitt, right. Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd. Sheppard. Hi, Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please. Thursday announced the results. 12 ICE. Provides 522 has been placed on file consideration does pass. Councilwoman Lehman, will you please put Council Bill 523 on the floor? Mr. President, I move the Council Bill 523 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, rollcall. Assessment by Brooks Brown by Fats Kenny Lehman II. Monteiro. Nevitt I. Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the vote. And now the results. For Vice. Provost. 523 have been placed upon final consideration and does pass. Councilwoman Lehman, would you please put Council Bill 524 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. And I move the council bill 524 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. And second it. Madam Secretary. Roll Call. Susman Brooks. Hi, Brown. Hi, Fats. Can each layman. Lopez, Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. Hi, Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 by 524 is in place upon final consideration and does pass. There will be a required public hearing on Monday, September 14th, 2014, on Council Bill 610, which limits and controls growing marijuana for personal use in your private homes due to the Labor Day Holiday Council will not