Speaker 0: Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council member Sayed Abarca, will you please put Council Bill 20 1-1371 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, I move that council bill 21 1371 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 1-1371 is open. May we have the staff report? And I believe we have Libby. Kaiser from Community Planning and Development. Presenting this evening. Go ahead, Libby.
Speaker 3: Yes, sorry it took a second just to be.
Speaker 0: Promoted as a panelist and as an aside as well. I've been having some Internet issues tonight, so if I get cut off.
Speaker 3: Stacey and Zack do have my presentation and I'll try.
Speaker 0: To hop back on on my phone. All right. Sounds good, LIBBY All right, so I will pull up my presentation. Real good. Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay, great.
Speaker 0: So good evening. I am Libby Kizer of CPD. And we're looking at a rezoning request for 8890 East Lowry Boulevard. The property is in Council District five, represented by Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer. And it's near the east side.
Speaker 3: Of the Lowry Field neighborhood.
Speaker 0: The property is located south of the Roundabout at Lowry Boulevard and Yosemite Way. The property is approximately 7.2 acres and includes a private baseball field owned by the high school. And a surface parking lot is also on site. The property is currently zoned R four with waivers, which allows a church, park, school or theatrical studio less than 37 feet tall. The applicant is proposing to rezone to the suburban mixed use of five storey district, which would allow a variety of residential, civic, commercial and industrial uses and the general shopfront. Drive thru services and drive thru restaurant building forms. The existing zoning, which allows very limited development on the site, is a holdover from former Chapter 59. Adjacent zone districts include B three and oh one, which are also former Chapter 59. Surrounding districts from the current code include open space as well as community corridor, multi-unit and mixed use of three and five stories. The site is subject to the Loughery design guidelines, which define development expectations beyond the zoning code and address site circulation and parking, architecture, signage, lighting and landscaping. It's important to note that while the assignment x five zone district allows building heights up to five storeys or 70 feet, the design guidelines generally limit building heights to four storeys in the commercial context, which applies to multi-family and commercial developments. This means the rezoning would allow a maximum building height of 50 feet, which is 13 feet taller or one storey more than what is currently allowed. The Lowry Design Review Committee is responsible for ensuring these guidelines are met. As the site is larger than five acres, staff conducted a large development.
Speaker 3: Review.
Speaker 0: To determine if a large development framework was warranted. Typically, a framework plan is needed if an adopted plan calls for it, and or if future development will require establishing, extending, expanding or otherwise changing the arterial or collector street grid. An existing regional stormwater system or accessible park open space while the site is over five acres. Staff determined a large development framework was not required as the existing adopted plan. The Lowery Reuse Plan already specifies land use, urban design and transportation goals for the area. In addition, infrastructure needs for the area are mostly constructed, including the transportation network, open space system, water and wastewater lines and stormwater facilities. Furthermore, site specific issues will be adequately resolved through other regulatory processes, including site development plan review, and the applicant has conducted a community information meeting and additional public outreach, as would be required with the large development framework process. For context, regarding the immediate vicinity of the site, the areas land use is a mix of public, quasi public, open space office, industrial, multi-unit and single unit use as the top photo shows the of the property, which is a fenced off field. The middle photo shows the 55 acre Great Lawn Park to the north and the bottom photo shows additional open space to the south. A three storey office building exist to the northeast across Yosemite Street with the Big Bear Ice Arena, which is estimated to be approximately six feet tall and a three story physical rehabilitation center to the southwest along Lowry Boulevard. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements. To date, staff has received three letters from the Lowry United Neighborhoods R.A. documenting their evolving position regarding the rezoning. One initially supported the rezoning contingent on the applicant providing at least 10% of the units at 80% of the area median income as well as enhancements to the trail along Westerly Creek, west of the subject property and a permanent easement for public use of the trail while the applicant drafted a good.
Speaker 3: Neighbor agreement.
Speaker 0: Documenting these commitments. Lunt declined to sign the agreement based on additional public outreach and limited capacity to enforce the agreement once current position is neutral. Staff has also received comments from approximately 54 individuals expressing concerns that the rezoning allowing a taller building is too intense for the area. Redevelopment of the baseball field would reduce open space and obstruct views, and there will be impacts upon the transportation network. In addition, 16 individuals and or organizations have advocated for the rezoning as it will facilitate the provision of senior housing in the Lowry community and will enable the high school to complete capital improvements and provide scholarships and additional learning opportunities to its students. All comments have been provided to City Council. Although a good neighbor agreement wasn't executed. The applicant and the Department of Housing Stability have finalized a voluntary housing agreement that ensures 10% of the senior housing units will be provided to residents earning no more than 80% of the area median income. The applicant also intends to identify trail improvements and dedicate a trail easement during the site development plan process. Moving on to the Denver zoning code criteria, it must be found that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with these five criteria. As a reminder, staff only evaluates the proposed zone district and not a specific development in regard to criteria one. There are three adopted plans that apply to the requested rezoning, including Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Lowry Reuse Plan, as stated in the staff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals in the comprehensive plan, particularly as they relate to providing more housing choices for seniors to age in place and promoting infill development where infrastructure and services already exist. The proposed rezoning is also consistent with the suburban neighborhood context defined in Blueprint Denver as the proposed S.M. X District facilitates commercial development along main corridors near residential areas. As for the future place type, the subject property is designated as other park and open space which are privately owned parks and open spaces, and as such, their use could change in the future. Blueprint Denver says that when larger open spaces are proposed to change, this should include a community visioning process. However, staff felt a community visioning process wasn't worn on this site because it's a smaller site, and the Lowry reuse plan already envisioned appropriate land uses for the community. When contemplating the consistency of the rezoning with Blueprint, Denver staff consider the surrounding future place types, including community center along Lowry Boulevard and campus to the north. Community Center typically provides a mix of uses in larger and smaller scale buildings, with a height up to five stories. While the campus place type tends to be dominated by single institutional uses and are often multistory. In this context, the SE mixed five district is a good fit for the subject property. The rezoning request is also consistent with the future street types defined in Blueprint. Denver as Lowry Boulevard is a mixed use arterial and Yosemite is a residential arterial. Mixed use arterials support a varied mix of uses, including retail office, residential and restaurants and buildings are typically multistory. Meanwhile, residential arterials support primarily residential uses, but may also include schools, civic uses, parks, small retail nodes and other similar uses. The proposed SM X5 district allowing a mix of uses, including residential, is consistent with these street descriptions as it is intended to be applied to areas or intersections served primarily by collector or arterial streets. Looking at Blueprint Denver's growth strategy, the city generally directs growth to key centers, corridors and high density residential areas that align with transportation options. Nevertheless, limited growth is desired in all other areas of the city specifically 10% of jobs and 20% of housing by 2048. They propose, as a mixed five zone district, is appropriate in this growth area as it will facilitate housing for those at least 55 years old, including an assisted living and memory care facility that will provide jobs. Furthermore, the proposed rezoning helps implement the blueprints on a policy related to converting former Chapter 59 zone districts to the current Denver zoning code. The proposed rezoning is also consistent with the Lowry reuse plan, which designates the subject property with a mix of three land use categories including residential education, campus and community service, retirement housing and managed care facilities such as those proposed for within the residential category according to the plan. The intent is to allow flexibility to respond to market demand within a range of acceptable land uses. New construction is envisioned in addition to reuse of existing structures. The rezoning is also consistent with criteria two, three and five, as stated in the staff report, in regard to criteria for the fact the property retained the former Chapter 59 zoning after the city adopted the current Denver zoning code in 2010 is the most applicable justifying circumstance for this rezoning. In conclusion, CPD recommends approval of the rezoning request. Thank you, Libby. Appreciate the staff report tonight. Council has received 38 written comments on Council Bill 20 1-1371. There are no submitted comments in favor of the application and 38 submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? Seen none. Council Secretary. Let the record reflect that all written testimony both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 20 1-1371 has been read by each member of council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing this evening. We have 27 individuals signed up to speak and we're going to go ahead and get started. Our first speaker this evening is Matt Overman. And we'll go ahead and have a timer that will show you the last 30 seconds that you have available. Please go ahead, Matt.
Speaker 1: And you guys hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes. And we ask that you introduce yourself for the public record.
Speaker 1: Great. Hi, my name is Matt Norman. I'm with United Properties. We are the applicant and developer for the site. We spent the past year here plus working on plans for this site and working with the community's key stakeholders. Want to extend a thank you to the community for the time they spent in collaborating with us. They've really helped us make this a better project than it was on day one and special thanks to the city of Denver staff, specifically Libby Kiser with planning and Brad winding with hosts for the time they spent working with us on this project. A couple of key points I want to make as it relates to plans for our site. First, we're very excited to provide to what our knowledge is the first age restricted, affordable rental units in Denver, with 10% of those units as affordable units at the 80% rate. This site was actually exempt from providing any affordable housing or paying linkage fees due to previous agreements that were in place for Lowry as it relates to affordable housing. But we wanted to go above and beyond, and we heard from the Lowry community that it was also important to them that we had an affordable option with this development. Secondly, I want to talk about how we're going to be improving the open space experience based on, again, community feedback. We will be adding a public trail easement along the west side of the site, along an existing path that's there but is on private land. We're also adding site improvements to improve that trail experience along eventually creek. This will protect the trail system connectivity between the north and south side of Lowry Boulevard in perpetuity. Important to note that this site's not public open space. It's private open space, the field not open to the public. And it was never part of Lowry long term plans that this remain private open space. Third we know there's a lot of existing concerns with traffic and pedestrian activity along Yosemite and the roundabout that have been a focus of the neighborhood neighborhood for several years, more specifically , the speed with which some vehicles travel through that area. These problems are not a volume problem. They're not significantly impacted with this added development. And Yosemite and Lowry, we're really designed to take these additional traffic flows. So the problems that exist here, our existing issues. With that being said, we do want this to be a safe situation for the community as well as our residents. We've held meetings specifically with Dottie in East Park on this topic to discuss these issues. We'll continue to do so and we do want to be part of the solution and taking action on what needed improvements there . Lastly, just wanted to say what a great use this senior living will be for this site. This use applies to so many of the criteria that are set forth in Blueprint Denver and the other plans and those criteria about the they talk about senior living are in place for good reasons on a high level. Colorado has the second fastest growing population of people over over 60 in the nation. So the need and demand for these types of residential and commercial developments is growing at a rapid pace. Most importantly, you know, our communities give senior citizens a place they can really thrive in their later years in life that provides a community of people at the same stage of life. And this is really a unique age in place, offering people who live in Lowry and Denver can stay in their community long term. With that, we respect respectfully ask the City Council, approve our application tonight. Thanks for your time and will be available for questions.
Speaker 0: And. Q Our next speaker this evening is Marcus partner.
Speaker 1: Good evening, council members. This is Mark. As partner. I am here for questions. I am in support. I certainly can provide some additional background on the community outreach, but I am here for questions. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Monti force. I believe you're unmuted, Monty. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Yes. This is my fourth. I'm the executive director for the Lowry Redevelopment Authority, and I'm here only this evening, not in support of or against. Just to answer questions about maybe some of the historical background that might be necessary or questions that might come up.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Phil Workman.
Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening. So, Workman 130 Rampart Way, Suite 225. I'm a Lowry resident of 18 years. Also a proud matchbox parent. Match up is a. Or your high school that has a diverse population of students throughout the entire city, every council district in the city and county of Denver. We conducted a community outreach for the proposed rezoning where we conducted over 35 community meetings and many more individual meetings with neighbors and stakeholders. These include small group meetings as well. Specifically, one East Park neighborhood. Larry Business Alliance. Larry Design Review Committee. Larry Redevelopment Authority. Although we are still dealing with COVID, we have some of the meetings in person and a majority via Zoom. Those virtual meetings were also made available for review by the community. We utilize social media, physical posting of the property, certified mail and social media, and a combination of certified mail and fliers as well, and a combination of all of those. And I will admit, sometimes that is still even that is an imperfect side. One of the basic tenants of our outreach strategy or outreach strategy has always been to listen and to respond to the concerns of the community as best as we can, and also to enable a process for open communication, not only during the rezoning, but throughout the entire development process in response to the concerns we heard throughout this process. We have addressed community concerns regarding affordable housing, parking, trail accessibility and collaboratively working with the Lowery community and existing issues with traffic and safety. And in response to these, we might we are looking to memorialize these agreements, and there will be some discussion here and the future of how we are going about to memorialize those agreements and those things that we have heard as concerns of the community as part of this process. Every step of this process has been done in a thoughtful matter with the community in mind from the formulation of the RFP by the Archdiocese and selection of United Properties to the library design review process to the community outreach process and responses. And with your support this evening, we look forward to move to the next process, we have already said, for the Foundation for Ongoing Community Engagement. Thank you very much for your time and we would appreciate your support this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Kaylee Robinson.
Speaker 3: I am just.
Speaker 0: Here to answer questions. Would you mind introducing yourself for the public record? Keely Robinson Norris.
Speaker 3: Design 1101.
Speaker 0: To be an extreme. All right. Great. Thank you. Our next speaker is Dana Hoffman.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening, counsel. This is Dana Hoffman. I'm with the Denver Department of Transportation Infrastructure. I'm on the community design team. I'm just here to answer some questions that may come up around transportation projects in the area. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Marco CAVANAUGH. US. And I believe Marco is joining us via telephone this evening. If I'm not mistaken, our producers have Marco's phone number that they can look for. Or Marco, if you want to hit Star nine to raise your hand, we can get you moved in. Right. And doesn't look like I'm seeing Marcus in the queue right now. And so we're going to go ahead and move on here. Next, we have Norman Schwab. Norman, please go ahead.
Speaker 1: I am Norman Schwab. I reside at three, two, three Altman way in Denver. I speak on behalf of 80 East Park residents who signed and submitted public hearing testimony on January six. My comments are drawn from that letter. We are opposed to the zone. It s2fm you five. We ask the city council one to postpone the recent decision until the developer in residence can resolve the intensity of use, location of uses, buildings and design compatibility to remand the case to city staff to consider the less intensive SMU three zone. Given that a floodplain designation, high water table and utility easement constrained development on portions of the site and because surrounding land uses, the existing zoned designations are less than ten, including height and three removed the good neighbor agreement referred to in the Zone Report from the record. The developer put this forward, but the Lowry United Neighborhoods Board has not agreed to it. The height allowed by the reason would lead to extremely intensive use of the developable portions of the site. The high water table prevents underground parking. Recent developments along Lowry Boulevard is three stories in height. Single family homes along Yosemite way are two stories. Zoning along Lowry Boulevard and nearby is a mix of SW in U five, SMU three and other zones. Most of the zoning limits heights to three stories. East Park residents particularly oppose a large four story parking garage putting up against the neighborhood on Yosemite Way and the Sports Boulevard entrance to the regionally significant Lowry Sports Complex Park. What other large park in Denver has a four story parking garage at one of its major entrances. Are there any other four story parking garages in Lowry? We believe the answer to both questions is no. The parking garage would create a dead zone for pedestrians and bicyclists on the existing Yosemite sidewalk, an important connector to valued open space and recreation. It is not compatible with Lowry plans and design guidelines to minimize the impact of parking on neighboring properties. Lowry has been planned as a walkable, well-designed, pedestrian community. Recent multifamily developments in Lowry have ramped housing units around parking or put it underneath residential units. That is not so here. The location and visibility of the parking garage is problematic. The developer has said that it cannot be located elsewhere on the site. Please postpone a decision on this rezoning and remand it to staff for further review.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Norman. Our next speaker this evening is we're going to go back to Marco Cabana. Where was Cabana was. Go ahead, Marco, please. And you're going to have to unmute yourself.
Speaker 1: Good evening. This is Marco Cabaniss with Duty Transportation and engineering supervisor for the Transportation Review Team. So we work in partnership with CPD and and arrange for for the concept plan to get around through the department so that it gets all the, the eyes on it that we want to do a thorough traffic and transportation review. So I'm here to answer questions tonight.
Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you, Marco. And we're going to go ahead and move back to our list. Paul Brandus.
Speaker 1: Good evening, city council members and happy New Year. My name is Paul Venice. As an introduction, I served on Denver's Expanding Housing Affordability Committee, as well as the Board of Lorrie United Neighborhoods. R.A. But to be clear, I am here not to represent either organization. My opinions are my own. My family has lived in Murray for six years. We live about one mile away from the site in question. The affordable housing crisis is extremely important issue for me. Our family actually moved to Denver from Boulder six years ago, partly due to skyrocketing cost of living in Boulder. I believe that the unaffordable housing prices in Boulder are that mostly due to restrictions that the municipality has placed on new development. Denver's population has exploded. Murray needs to contribute to this solution with new housing units that this development will provide. Murray also needs a commitment to long term affordable housing for our community that the free markets otherwise wouldn't provide. I'm proud to live in Murray Plan community, where the development of income restricted housing has been a cornerstone of our legacy. Mandates for affordable housing are part of the origin story of Lowry, as they were core provisions in the sale of the Air Force base to allocate homeless housing units back in 1994. When I first heard about this development here in Lowry, a group of us raised the issue of ensuring that provisions would be made for allowing low income housing units. The developers are receptive to feedback and have worked with hosts to negotiate the affordable unit agreement that you see today. For that reason, I am here to speak in support of the zoning request and believe that it meets all criteria as the developer shared their plans for the property. Many voices of opposition to the rezoning and project have come forward, mostly from immediate neighbors who are concerned about traffic views and density. While we may want to point blame to the developer for the developer for not appeasing nearby neighbors, I believe that the root cause of the opposition is due to a broken zoning application process that does not require site plans to be submitted in conjunction with zoning applications. The reality is that no one here actually knows the design of the site that will be ultimately built. This is a result of the system of the city has in place, not the fault of the developers. That said, the one unique thing to us here in Lori that lets me sleep at night is the fact that we do have a unique ability to control the design of the site design plans. The Lowry Community Master Association is our home and has a Larry Design Review Committee that is comprised of community members, architects and landscape architects to utilize a four phase process to evaluate proposed plans. I believe that the Larry Design Review Committee will hold the developer to the high standards that they have held all developers to, and that Larry's voice will be protected and amplified through the Audi RC as it relates to traffic concerns. My understanding of recent studies show that traffic speeds and pedestrian volume volumes that did not warrant additional interventions. I do urge you to continue to monitor the traffic condition of the site. Thank you for your time and for the opportunity for us to make a small dent in the affordable housing crisis and approve this zoning request. Best wishes to you and your loved ones. See you next time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Paul. Our next speaker this evening is Ryan Padilla.
Speaker 1: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Oh, thank you for your time. I'm here to speak against the rezoning to a mixed five. I personally believe the the site does not lend itself to a high density use. The sewer easement that runs through the property makes it very difficult for the site design to be flexible. The floodplain issues on the property in the high groundwater table, if you develop it at a high density, it's going to lead to a large parking garage being required. And having a four storey parking garage in front of a park is an eyesore for the neighbors. It's going to. It's I agree with what someone said earlier about the dead space being created along that sidewalk along Yosemite way. And I believe the pedestrian safety. I live at 500 Yosemite way and I have to walk across the roundabout to the bus stop. And going in and having traffic coming in and out of the new complex is going to be very dangerous, especially in the winter. I just having a four storey development on that site is not a good idea. I'd urge the Council to reconsider a lower density development due to the site constraints that will not involve a massive parking garage right in our neighborhood. I think that will be a for my time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Morgan Spencer. Hold on one sec.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Okay. Hi, I'm Morgan Censor. I am a library resident and I am speaking in support of the rezoning.
Speaker 0: I have two children.
Speaker 3: In preschool here in LA and I enjoy the opportunity to take advantage.
Speaker 0: Of all of the carefully planned.
Speaker 3: And balanced parks, open space and everything the library reads about the Library Master Association provides.
Speaker 0: I think that this proposed development.
Speaker 3: Is perfect to use without putting in more multi-unit apartment buildings. I wish this resident was residents was open ten years ago for my grandmother who is looking for senior residences and had to go down the Highlands Ranch. And as I continue to grow my family here in Lowry, I think about my parents and having them close by and just having this sort of opportunity in this neighborhood, I think would bring a lot of wonderful experiences and not monetary wealth, but wealth to the neighborhood. So I thank you for your time and supporting this rezoning effort.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Megan Brady.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name's Megan Brady. I'm a resident of the East Park neighborhood in Lowry here. I live just across the street from the proposed development on Yosemite Way, and I am here to oppose it for a variety of reasons. I know Norman and Ryan touched on this earlier with the high water table preventing parking beneath the property for residents, which is not in line with the surrounding design of the Lowry neighborhood. As somebody who will be looking at this every day directly at the parking garage, this is a huge concern for me because this is not why I moved to the area. I think this will also significantly decreased property values on our side of the neighborhood. The sewer easement in the middle prevents the property from being able to put the parking in the middle to wrap the building around the residences around. So again, just limiting the options they have there and in the floodplain on the side of the creek prevents them from building too close to that side of the property, which means this development will be right up against Yosemite Way. Adding this number of residents to the neighborhood will significantly increase the density of cars and pedestrians throughout the area, which I think will increase the danger and hazards of an already hazardous intersection due to speed and density. So I am again asking the Council to oppose this rezoning request. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jarrett Lehrer Way.
Speaker 1: All right, I. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: I thank you. I wanted to share there a way. 1300 south to the streets. I am. I actually work for the Denver Archdiocese. And this is a project that I've been working on for a bishop bishop matchup of high school. I wanted to thank the council and committee members and the public for allowing me to speak this evening. We started this process nearly two years ago where we met with the CMA and other stakeholders in the community and asked them questions on what would be a good benefit for the community. Because we the the baseball field is underutilized. We only use it for practices in the spring. It's very expensive and some games and games for the Loughery baseball team, but it's very expensive to maintain. And the school, which is going on 15 plus years old now, needs significant upgrades in its infrastructure. So we decided to pursue a rezoning and selling of this property through an RFP process based on the feedback that we received from and Mary and the stakeholders and the community prior to ever engaging any developers. We had ten developers who submitted on this project and we chose the United Development Team due to their their concept of providing senior housing for the community. Because a market study shows there is actually a need for senior housing and living and aging in place and in this community. We thought that it would be the least impactful to the community based on low cars and traffic counts. It would also provide jobs because there will be some support with the development's senior assisted living as well as, you know, living, independent living. And we also felt there was a great need for Bishop Match Path High School. With the money generated, we could do the much needed infrastructure improvements and provide scholarship opportunities to our students. I think Phil had said this before, but knowing we had 200 plus students that come from all over the Denver metro area, but also in every district in the city of Denver, it's a very diverse student body. We also have almost nearly half the students are on some type of scholarship or assistance. So this money would be greatly needed for this for this, for the needs of match both. And I think this is a great addition to the neighborhood having worked in and around the Lowry neighborhood on different development projects for over 20 years . Thank you for your time and I thank you for your consideration. And I hope that you support this this redevelopment, this rezoning request.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Chad Crean.
Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Chad Crane and I live at 470 Yosemite Way. I'm opposed to the rezoning of the area, to the zoning that they are requesting. I agree with Norman that it should be looked at as possibly the lower zoning, where it would limit the density of what could be built on this site for the reasons , again, that have been mentioned, the flood water plane, the amount of density that will bring more traffic, although people seem to say it won't we that live on the street can say with very honest and true opinion that it will bring more. And I have some concerns about the safety for people that will be at the park and people that will be living at this center with having a structure on this large on this spot and site. I think that I do commended that they are looking to do this for senior living opposed to other multi-unit housing or apartments , but I feel that it should be postponed. On making this vote or change until there is better clarification of exactly how this site will be laid out, especially to with the garage site being four stories. Again, as people mentioned, there is nothing else in Lowry that is four storeys high for a garage site for this kind of use. If we're going to have something here, let's make it something that blends in with the neighborhood and the surrounding area a little bit better. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker has been ro henninger. Monroe. You'll have to go ahead and unmute yourself. Monroe HENNINGER. Go ahead, please. Are you there, General?
Speaker 1: Yes. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. My name is Monroe Manager. I live at seven, six, nine, eight East seven Drive and Lowry in the North Lowry Development. I've been there for over 20 plus years. I'm in support of the rezoning of this for a couple of reasons. First, firstly, right now it's a private ballpark. So none of the Lowry residents have access to any of the land or the land surrounding it. My understanding is that with additional trails added to the neighborhoods surrounding there, that.
Speaker 3: We will have.
Speaker 1: Additional places where the whole community can enjoy some of the open space there. Thirdly, as you know, a son in law who's had a.
Speaker 0: Father in law in.
Speaker 1: A nursing home and had to travel great distances every day to get there. And a lot of the residents and Lowry having parents that are reaching the age where a nursing home would be necessary. I believe that having a closest is important. And so I'm in full support of this. I hope you do, too. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: And you. Our next speaker is Stephanie Crane.
Speaker 3: Everybody hear me okay?
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 3: All right. Good evening, council members, and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Stephanie Crane and I'm a 12 year resident of East Park. I live it for seven years now anyway. And I will be able to see this new development from my front porch. So it's very near and dear. But tonight, I want to focus on the density of this development. In a letter that was dated May 19th, 2021, the developer requested that the LaRouche Design Review Committee approve a variance allowing our buildings to exceed the 45 foot height restriction by up to five feet, to give them the flexibility with the final dimension and design of their buildings. I think it's important to note that this now a 50 foot building height that they're requesting, would not include mechanical screening. A building of this height does not fit into the landscape of the East Park neighborhood. This parcel of land is currently a baseball field, as many have said. To the far end of the large sports park at Fairmont, and Lowry is a one story office building that houses the Colorado Department of Public Health with ample surface parking lot. It would seem out of place to have a 50 foot building as you enter into another residential neighborhood and park. In addition, a building of this magnitude designed to butt up against the sidewalk would provide little to no snowmelt, causing an increase of icy road conditions at an already unsafe roundabout and adjacent sidewalk that's used daily by pedestrians, runners and cyclists. The developer has also asked for an increase in parking spaces a lot in one and a half spaces per unit for the adult. I'm sorry, the active adult rental and 0.8 spaces for assisted living and memory care. But to me that seems odd that this development would need these additional spaces, given that they have repeatedly stated that many of their senior residents have either downsized to one car and rely on public transportation, or that the memory care residents are not allowed to drive or even own cars. So the current parcel of land already has a significant amount of surface, lot space and mature trees that will now be removed to accommodate this large four storey above ground parking garage. We are told that this development will be between 260 and 300 units. Seems like the largest Colorado project for assisted living and memory care. I guess my question is why does this have to be so massive given what we know about the parcel of land? We know that there are constraints doing the flood plains, high water table, sewer easement. Our biggest concern is this four storey above ground parking structure that will sit right along Yosemite Sports Boulevard. All other parking structures in Florida seem to be two stories within a commercial area of the neighborhood, and they're either underground or wrapped. And this doesn't seem to be the case for this particular structure. We do understand that loan land zoning changes occur and we're not against this particular development, but it is extremely severe and it doesn't fit within the current landscape of the community. So I'm just asking you to please reconsider what you plan on.
Speaker 0: Allotted for each speaker. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next speaker. Leo Nyholm.
Speaker 3: Okay. I have to go. Good evening. My name is Jarrell Nyholm. I live at 8031 East Bay Avenue. I've been a resident for a little over five years. Thank you for your time. And I would like to express my support for the project. As an architect and a resident. I am fully in support of a variety of types of resident residential and uses. Excuse me, in the neighborhood. And I believe that the senior living is needed. And I think it's perfectly located because it's close to transportation and it's close to parks. And in addition to that, I fully trust, I think it was Paul that mentioned the Larry Design Review Committee, and I fully trust their professional standards as residents or as additional opportunity for input. And I believe that that particular process hopefully will address the concerns of some of the residents have. That's all I had. Thank you again for your time. I appreciate it. Have a good night.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Julie Zimmerman. Okay. It looked like we had Julie in the queue. Well, there we go, Julie. Julie Zimmerman, we'll have to have you go ahead and meet Julie.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Can you hear us?
Speaker 0: I'm sure I can hear you, Julie. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Please. Thank you so much. Thank you very much for having us. Meaning we appreciate all of you. I I live at 520 Yosemite way. We are the second home in from Yosemite and fifth avenue. So we were the second home essentially built in this part of Larry East Park. And we live across the street directly from this new build as it we very much oppose the development of this. And I would like to show that primarily people who are in support of this do not live in East Park. As far as open space, there is one block of open space I think is very important that the city council understand that it is one block basically that they are seeing. The developer says that they will make this wonderful place. It's not a huge area. It's a block. You can come and look at it within by you. It's beautiful, but it's not a big space. I think it's an area in which they are willing to acquire some development, productivity and money to do this. As far as a senior community, there was one closed at Lowry Boulevard, which was replaced recently with, I think, alas, I don't know how you say it, Alice or Glass or whatever in that multi unit rental property is. So it seems to me very much this is about money. Finally, as far as community outreach, primarily they reach out to people within 200 feet of this building. We are the second closest home to this property that is being proposed to be built up by Matt and his associates. And we received a flier, as they say, but due to work, we're unable to make that meeting. But they did not. They, despite what they say, there has not been a big outreach as far as traffic and the decrease in travel between those 55 and up. I will be 55 on Saturday and I have a 13 year old, so I travel plenty and I have parents who are approaching 80 who live in East Park as well, not with us than in a different single home unit. And they travel all the time, including picking up our children because we both work as far as multi residential to the woman who commented on this is a good use. There are 300 plus units scheduled to be on this. So thank you to you as a preschool teacher. I so appreciate you. I can't even tell you how grateful I am, but this is not a good use of a property directly across from our home. As far as match clubs we agree, we support Match Local. We have a son who went to Regis. We agree in the tradition of that type of education. But I will tell you that other people can purchase can purchase this property.
Speaker 0: Truly, that's the time we have a lot of outreach. Speaker We're going to go ahead and move on to our next speaker, Greg Ryan.
Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening. This is Greg Ryan. I'm in support of this rezoning. I've lived in Lowry for a little over five years now. I moved here in 2016. I first lived off of Lowry Boulevard for about four years, and then earlier this year moved a few blocks north at 1028 Tamarack Street. So still a little bit further north. You know, I appreciate the opportunity to live in the city and county of Denver's place is great, really. You know, there's a lot a lot of good stuff going on here. There's a diversity of housing mix in Lowry, and I like that. You know, I formerly lived in like a condo and now I'm in a more of a single family home. So, you know, I do appreciate the diversity housing mix and the addition of a senior living residence is perfect for the mix of Lowry and kind of the southeast Denver neighborhood or, you know, just part of the city . So I hope you can join me in supporting this project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Scott Zimmerman.
Speaker 1: I know that.
Speaker 0: We can, but we might need you to mute another device there. Scott, I think we've got an echo. Go ahead and try it again.
Speaker 1: Sorry about that.
Speaker 0: There you go.
Speaker 1: All right. Is that better?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I also live at 520 Yosemite Way. And I just wanted to echo a lot of the points that have been made in terms of opposition to this project. I would reiterate that there was a previous senior living facility to the west of where we live and to this proposed development that failed and went under. And we also currently have one senior living development called Brookdale, which is in the Lowry Central area. So I'm not entirely sure why we need a second facility. I think that I would reiterate that a lot of the people that are really for this don't live here and will not have to see this every day as they drive by it, or just look out their front porch to see this kind of monstrosity of a four storey parking building. I think that the development plan is a little bit disingenuous when they talk about specifically Matt Warman community outreach because we received one flier over the course of two years and other people have talked about social media and other community notifications, but a lot of the notifications were through the LC or the Lewellyn and other redevelopment properties which we have no stake in or ability to receive notification. I think that this is an ill conceived project and I think it's being kind of rammed down our throat. We understand the plight of Matchbox, but there are other people who will be willing to purchase this property for other mixed use development that doesn't result in the current plan. I have not seen any reference to the Dotti study on traffic, so I can't really comment on that. And I was actually quite surprised that they said it's not a really big deal because I witnessed this traffic every day. And I think that the overwhelming sense of the community is that we have not been included in this, irrespective of the developer's notifications or at least attempted notification. We didn't really hear about this whole thing until I think, Oh, there was a flier in May and then we had a meeting back, I believe, in December, and that was the extent of their notification. So as you can tell, I'm not in support of this.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Scott. Our next speaker this evening is David Andrews, and I believe David is joining us via phone. And we're going to go ahead and get a manicure. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead, David.
Speaker 1: My name is David Andrews. I'm a resident of Lourey and I want to support this project and the proposed estimates. Five reason. First, because it provides jobs which are so needed these days it sits on arterials, so its traffic impacts should be de minimis. Despite other assertions. It's consistent with the reuse plan with Blueprint Denver. It provides affordable units. And as a former employee of the Lowry Redevelopment Authority, I can tell you that this was always private, open space and never in the calculus to remain open space throughout the master planning. In addition, there's the old CRC, which is going to ensure that what, however the site plan moves forward, it is responsible and fits within the context. In short, I support the project. Thank you for your time this evening.
Speaker 0: And cue our next speakers, Jesse Paris.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening, members of Council.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. My name is Justin Paris. The number of positive for black stocks and more for self defense positive Mexican mafia social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and the East Denver Residents Council front frontline black males and I'll be the next November 2023. This rezoning is very alarming. It actually hearkens back to the Dennard rezoning. I haven't seen this much opposition since then. 54 letters of opposition, 38 letters in opposition presented to this council. Oh, so much to go on with this. 300 plus units at 80%. Am I the. And am I level $68,592 as of 2019? We have a housing crisis, an affordable housing crisis, and this is not going to help with that. I'm all for housing for seniors. I'm all for allowing seniors to age in place. Those are wonderful things. But this rezoning, I don't think is going to get the mark. I really don't. Like previous speakers have already stated this just on a flood plain on a water table, 10% of the units are going to be affordable at 80% AM-I I'm still trying to figure out how that's affordable, but that's based off the hood guidelines. Yeah, it's just all around. But I wouldn't be surprised if you pass this tonight, seeing as you passed the marble rezoning a few months back. So I wouldn't be surprised, but I would recommend that's not passed. And go back to the drawing board with this. I had a few questions in regards to this rezoning. Has there been a traffic study done because of pretty previous speakers have stated that this sits around a roundabout several roundabouts. I'm aware of only one RTD bus route that services this area now would be the six. Has there been a parking study done on the standards? It's going to be a four story garage space here. There's no way for there to be underground parking because it's on a floodplain. Um, how many units? One of the speakers said it was going to be 300 plus units. What are going to be the size of the units? Are they going to be one or two bedrooms? This is going to be assisted living or is this going to be independent senior living? If somebody could please answer those questions, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Cathy Head. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 3: I'm Cassie Head and I'm co-chair of our United Neighborhood Line.
Speaker 0: Thanks for giving us a chance to speak tonight. I want to summarize kind of our involvement in this project from.
Speaker 3: The time that we were originally.
Speaker 0: Contacted by the developers. And we're not.
Speaker 3: Taking a stand either pro or an opposition at this point. Lower United Neighborhoods has been in discussion with the senior housing development team, including Matt Oberman.
Speaker 0: And Phil Workman. We were originally contacted.
Speaker 3: And sat in on our project presentation in March of 2021.
Speaker 0: And followed by three meetings with the One committee. One urged that active.
Speaker 3: Living apartments include units for lower income residents, including public access.
Speaker 0: Along.
Speaker 1: It.
Speaker 3: Along the east side of Westerly Creek.
Speaker 0: Benches and trees for that path and that a publicly.
Speaker 3: Accessible pickleball court be.
Speaker 0: Considered.
Speaker 3: The senior housing team has agreed to the 10% low income.
Speaker 0: Units to the project. The lower income rentals are to be codified in agreement with Host. An easement along the path phone can be held by Lowry Community Master Association or the City of Denver. On October 21st, one hosted a town hall presentation.
Speaker 3: Via Zoom for the Lowry Community. Community current.
Speaker 0: Concerns expressed during.
Speaker 3: The October 21st presentation included vehicular site.
Speaker 1: Access.
Speaker 0: Pedestrian safety and traffic.
Speaker 3: At Lowry Boulevard. Just some of the traffic circle and along a summary loss of greenspace preservation of existing mature trees.
Speaker 0: Building height Lowry design guidelines limit to a.
Speaker 3: Height of 45 feet.
Speaker 0: And potential parking conflicts.
Speaker 3: Along Sports Boulevard through two follow up meetings on December 2nd and December 7th, which included city staff.
Speaker 0: It was determined that the pedestrian safety and traffic.
Speaker 3: Issues will be addressed through the.
Speaker 0: Ongoing monitoring by JT.
Speaker 3: And Site Plan Review. Once the city receives a development package, the Lone Board determined after the October 21st community meeting that.
Speaker 0: It does not have the capacity.
Speaker 3: To seek a sufficiently representative vote from.
Speaker 0: The R.A. community to either express or withhold support for this rezoning. The board also determined that rather than executing agenda.
Speaker 3: The provision of lower income housing and the path right of way can be achieved through host agreement and an easement with the City.
Speaker 0: Of Denver.
Speaker 3: Or the LACMA. One appreciates the conversations prepared with United Properties team as well as multiple conversations with city staff.
Speaker 1: And submits this.
Speaker 3: As a record of these interactions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thanks. Thank you. Our next speaker is Christopher Schenk.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Excellent. My name is Christopher Shank. I reside at 460 Yosemite Way. I'm eight houses down from the proposed project and. I think most of what has been said tonight is very spot on from those who strongly oppose this project going forward. I don't think anyone here is arguing the merits of the project. I think we all think this is a wonderful idea and it's a very good idea. However, this is a horrible place for it to happen. I'd like to reiterate the point from earlier. Speakers of those who speak in favor are not the people who will be directly impacted by this on a daily basis. They are not the people who drive by here every day. They are not people who walk their children to the park every day. They are not the children who walk their pets in this area every day. And I would go so far.
Speaker 0: As to say that most people.
Speaker 1: Who have spoke in favor.
Speaker 0: Have a financial.
Speaker 1: Issue with either gaining from the property itself or scholarships through the school. We're being told here the traffic will not increase or if it will, it won't be that much. I would really like to know how the addition of 300 extra residents plus their families, plus their friends, plus the employees who will be at the site, will not add traffic and safety issues to an already unsafe area. I myself have been involved in two fender benders in that roundabout at Yosemite and Lowry Boulevard. I think that this is not irresponsible use of this site and it is not consistent with the neighborhood nor the neighborhood of East Park. I have to iterate again that we as a neighborhood do not feel that there was sufficient community outreach, despite what the developments development the proposed developers have said. Those of us who live on Yosemite, very few of us had any idea this was happening until the rezoning meeting. We're talking about public health, safety and welfare, and I cannot see how increased traffic in this area with no plan that's in place is going to support that. So I'd like to say that I am strongly opposed to this process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker is Steve Zigler.
Speaker 1: Go ahead. You hear me? Okay? Yes. Okay. Great. My name is Steve Ziegler, and we've been Larry since 2004. My wife and I have three kids, and we also own a business, a radio and a space, actually right across the street from Ashcroft High School. This is not going to impact us financially, positively or negatively simply. And if we to grapple with the concerns of the traffic and its impact on our neighborhood. Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer, for working with me and our neighbors on those issues. Much like the East Park neighborhood, our house borders preexisting traffic concerns. Super, super frustrating. It's certainly gotten worse over the years. That being said, this property is not open space. It's its property that's going to be developed. And I feel like what's being proposed is perhaps the most advantageous use for our community outside some sort of police substation. But I. I would like to see this pass. We are for it. I'm supportive of senior living, and I think it's a good mix. Overall in Lowry Southeast Denver. I do trust and believe in the Lowry Redevelopment Authority and everything that things will come to an agreeable solution. So I hope you join me in supporting this project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: In. Q And our last speaker this evening is Blair Licht and Phil. Go ahead, Blair. Yes, go ahead.
Speaker 3: My name is Larry, looking out of the addresses for 10/17 Street Street.
Speaker 1: 2210 Colorado Street across the.
Speaker 3: Street.
Speaker 0: Claire, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but for some reason, your audio is really garbled. I wanted to see if if you try again. I know you don't have your camera on, but go ahead. Okay. Dr.. A little bit. We'll go ahead and try it again. Go ahead. Okay. Is that better? Yes, I think so. Okay.
Speaker 3: I would like to make reference to that certain letter from me on behalf.
Speaker 0: Of the applicant to the.
Speaker 3: Members of Council dated January 1st, 2022, and to ensure that my letters entered into the record for tonight's public hearing. The letter outlines in detail how the applicant's request for rezoning.
Speaker 0: Of the subject property meets and exceeds each of the criteria for approval of rezoning.
Speaker 3: As established by the code. By way of an update to the aforementioned letter, I wanted to let Council know that the applicant.
Speaker 0: And current owner of the.
Speaker 3: Property.
Speaker 1: Bishop Bishop.
Speaker 0: High.
Speaker 3: School, have agreed on material terms for a community commitment agreement between those two parties which obligate the allocated use for things. First, to enter into the agreement to provide affordable housing in favor of the city of Denver, obligating the applicant to make 10% of the residential units and the active.
Speaker 1: Adult building available.
Speaker 3: To private residents. 80% or less of area median income. Second to work with neighbors, the city and body to strategise.
Speaker 1: With respect to.
Speaker 3: Mitigation measures intended to alleviate or remedy existing traffic conditions on the Assembly and Barry Boulevard. Third, to provide a public open space easement in favor of the city.
Speaker 1: On.
Speaker 3: Over and through the existing Westerly Creek Trail.
Speaker 1: On the.
Speaker 3: Property, which easement will include an application of.
Speaker 1: The property owner.
Speaker 0: To.
Speaker 3: Improve, provide and maintain benches and other amenities along that trail. And finally, to pursue.
Speaker 1: Opportunities.
Speaker 3: For publicly available recreational.
Speaker 1: Programing.
Speaker 3: On the property subject to city approved. Otherwise, I'm here tonight to answer questions about any of the agreements the applicant has entered into or has agreed to enter into with.
Speaker 1: Respect to.
Speaker 0: The application.
Speaker 3: Thank you in advance.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'd like to thank all the members of the community who joined us tonight for the public hearing. That concludes our speakers. We're going to move to questions from members of Council on Council Bill 21, DASH 1371. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. I really want to just first thank the community members for coming out and speaking on this issue. It was really helpful to identify a number of the questions that I have for tonight. So to start, I want to ask about the current zoning on the property. So Libya, I think maybe this is a question for you in terms of or possibly if Monti force is still on, I believe it might be a question, a historical question for the LRA, the LRA Redevelopment Authority, but wondering how so? So first, Monti, when what year exactly was the the Lourey community and all of that property conveyed from the U.S. Air Force to the city of number?
Speaker 0: And Monty, if you go ahead and reintroduce yourself for the public record before you respond.
Speaker 1: This is Monty Force. I'm the executive director for the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. My address is 130 Rampart Way. Denver 80230. And again, I'm not justifying for or against in just offering any. Historical perspective that I can help with, and I might be fuzzy on some of the facts. It's been a while since this property was conveyed. The property from the Air Force to the Redevelopment Authority for implementation into the master plan was done over a number of years, starting all the way back to 1994. So great.
Speaker 3: No, that's great. So so in general, what I was asking was, you know, when did when was the Library Redevelopment Authority, I guess instituted and what? And so my follow up question to that is, what was the property zoned as back then when in its original form?
Speaker 1: When the property came to Denver from the Air Force, there was it wasn't zoned. All of the zoning had all the property had to be zoned into Denver.
Speaker 3: Oh, okay. Great. Thank you. So so I guess follow up question to that and maybe I'm not sure if you're the person to ask about this or not, then the current zoning on the property is ah four. So when the property was conveyed from the Air Force, was there a discussion about what the, what the zoning was going to be. Because we re zoned city council resolved all but 20% of the city in 2010 into the new zoning code, and this property stayed in the old zoning code in the Chapter 59 zoning code. So I'm wondering, was that a a specific decision that was made at that time of conveyance?
Speaker 1: No. The Air Force, first of all, wasn't involved in the zoning process ever. And often times we tailored zoning to meet the intended uses that we were selling the property for. So the words Bishop match above may have come to us. I don't recall the details exactly asking to put in a ball field. So then we looked for zoning through our zoning consultants to come up with his own district. That would satisfy that need.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's good to know. Thank you. So. So the current zoning on the property is ah, for which allows for today a senior living facility to be built on the site. So I'm I guess a little I'm trying to unwind them. The issue of is that is that the waivers that that then ensure that it that we have to go through this rezoning. I guess I'm I'm trying to get the background on that.
Speaker 1: I think I'm probably the wrong person to answer that question.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 1: Differently.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's what I'm happy to answer. That's okay. This is Marcus Pok near 4700 East Sixth Avenue. I am a consultant to the applicant. Mr. Foresman is correct that oftentimes when LRA did transfers, they would put a deed restriction on the property and then find the appropriate zone district. So, Councilwoman, this is zoned for today. I'm looking at the ordinance in front of me. It's a 1998 zoning on this subject property, as Libby mentioned, at the very beginning. It allowed, again to reflect that this was transferred to an educational use. We waived out, which is traditionally how we did things in the early days of Lowri. We waived out all of those other uses except for those educational things. So a church, a school or a theatrical studio could still be on the site. And as Libby said, at less than 37 feet tall today. So that could happen today. There are restrictions on that. And Councilwoman, you are correct in the existing are for an old chapter 59. Senior housing is a permitted use and a house assisted living facility is a use by special review. So that has always been contemplated. I would also mention just quickly that in that Lowery reuse plan, as you saw and was noted in the presentation, it also showed that senior housing is allowed in that Lowery reuse plan always envisioned for this use at that site.
Speaker 3: Okay. Great. Thank you. I really appreciate that. So the so I guess follow up question to that for Libby. You mentioned that blueprint. Denver has identified this parcel as a future use open space. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: That is the current future place type. But the plan acknowledges that that applies to large, private, open spaces that are likely to turn over due to their private nature.
Speaker 3: Got it. Okay. And then is anyone from Parks and Rec here? I would love to just ensure that, you know, is Parks and Rec going? Is there a plan? Or would Parks and Rec be willing to purchase this land for open space for the city of Denver? Yes.
Speaker 0: We do have a representative here, Kathleen, but Becky should be on. If we can promote her.
Speaker 3: Kathleen, if you could just hit the raise hand button, maybe so that they can find you in the ten and ten these lists. That'd be great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. There you go, Councilwoman Kathleen.
Speaker 3: Hey, Kathleen, thanks so much for being here. Really appreciate it. I just want to reiterate my question in case for some reason, you were not able to hear it while you were getting switched over. This would be a lot easier to do in person, I think. But just want to confirm, is the is Parks and Rec willing to purchase this land for open space use for the city and county of Denver? Kathleen Levesque with Denver Parks and Recreation and Denver Parks and Recreation has not had any conversations with the property owner about purchasing this land and does not have any intent to purchase it. Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. So then let's so open space. Matt, maybe you can answer this question for me. It seems like we have sort of a discussion ruins here or a disagreement between the Lowry reuse plan and Blueprint. Denver.
Speaker 0: What is Blueprint Denver?
Speaker 3: I guess what was your sort of take on that in the application?
Speaker 1: Thank you for the question, Councilwoman Sawyer. Um, I, I guess I would reiterate what Libby said on how it is designated for private space and future use, that it can be turned over for private development. I think we're we're very we're very much in line with many of the criteria and blueprint. Denver, you know, as it relates to the context of of other surrounding designations there, if you look at the future place and street types in the future neighborhood context, they call out for community center suburban neighborhood context. I mean, those are all good fits for for what we're planning here and for this senior living use.
Speaker 3: Okay. Great. And Matt, while I've got you, I just want to also confirm. So you do you have a signed agreement with host that you will dedicate 10% of the of the spaces or the units to affordable at 80% am I.
Speaker 1: Yes, we signed it. Host doesn't sign it unless the reason becomes formalized. But yes. And Brad, I hope Brad's on. He could speak to that as well. Host If you would like to see.
Speaker 3: It, looks like Brad just raised his hand. Perfect. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And while we're waiting, Brad. Yeah, I think we're waiting for.
Speaker 0: Going to get him in here. There we go.
Speaker 3: Hey, Brad, thanks for being here. Just wanted to confirm with hosts that that agreement is signed, sealed and delivered.
Speaker 1: Confirms we have it executed by the winner in our contracting system for authorization on our side if and when the rezoning is approved.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Thank you so much. And can you please just introduce yourself for the record?
Speaker 1: Sorry. Hi, everyone. Brad wanted staff for housing stability or host the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 3: Perfect. Thank you so much. Really appreciate that. Okay, so there were a few issues that were identified. There was the sort of disagreement between Blueprint and the Lowery reuse plan with regards to the future use type. Libbi, when when blueprint when there is a neighborhood plan because there are many neighborhoods in the city of Denver where there is no neighborhood plan. What does Blueprint say about which one controls the neighborhood plan or blueprint?
Speaker 0: The neighborhood plan typically controls.
Speaker 3: Okay. So in this case, then that does that mean that the Lowery redevelopment plan, as put in place when all of those parcels were transferred over, is the controlling document that we should be looking at here.
Speaker 0: Correct? Yeah. Usually with our analysis.
Speaker 3: Whenever there's a neighborhood plan.
Speaker 0: Like, for instance, if blueprints on Bruce's five stories are appropriate and a neighborhood plan says three stories is appropriate.
Speaker 1: Usually we would go with the.
Speaker 0: Three stories that's in the neighborhood plan. So typically we defer to that smaller area plan that had kind of more targeted input from the public.
Speaker 1: Then Blueprint Steinberg, which was a citywide process.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. I appreciate that. I just want to you know, as I'm going through the criteria that we are, the five criteria that we're required to look at, I want to make sure that I understand, you know, whether this is consistent with the adopted plans, because we have two adopted plans that are potentially not in line with each other. Right. Okay, great. So the so the neighborhood plan is what's going to what's going to guide us there and the neighborhood plan. Can you just refresh my memory on what the neighborhood plan says for this this parcel?
Speaker 0: The neighborhood plan calls for a mix of uses and that include residential education, campus and community service. And within that residential category, retirement housing and managed care.
Speaker 3: Facilities are specifically listed. Okay. Great. Thank you. Really appreciate that. And then the the open space section. This may be another question for you. So you can you explain to me the easement and what's happening? Tell me more specifics about what's happening there.
Speaker 1: Sure. So a couple of things. So there's an existing trail that goes along the west side of the site along Westerly Creek. Unfortunately, that trail is on private land. The land that we are, we are purchasing. It's been used as a public trail. I don't know for how long, but it's so it's being used that way. So one of one of the ask through the community outreach was, can you can you put a public trail easement over this, which will protect effectively forever protect this trail to actually be a true public trail. And it provides great connectivity there between a bunch of the trail system that's on the South and a bunch that's on the north. So we will be doing that as part of this. And the bounds of that easement and exactly where it falls will all be flushed out through the process that we go through with with the city there. And then in addition to that, through the again, through the community feedback, we're going to be enhancing that trail experience. You know, no specifics really on what that would be. We've talked about at adventure that trees but you know making that a better trail experience there along Westerly Creek that will now be a public trail
Speaker 3: . Okay. And then I believe someone mentioned briefly pickleball courts. What is what's that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So that was another thing. Through the feedback, they requested that we tried to put a publicly accessible pickleball court there, which we do plan to do if we do run into any.
Speaker 3: Issues there.
Speaker 1: With with noise issues, that that is our just our one concern. We would figure out something, something else to put there. That was it was less noisy but was a publicly accessible recreational activity. So that was something that was asked of us and that we will be doing with this development.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. I appreciate that. And then so that is I appreciate that you have stated your commitment here at the rezoning hearing on the public record. Is there signed paperwork on that?
Speaker 1: There is not currently, as I think Blair's Blair stated, we are doing a community commitment agreement that we're now working through with Matchbox. You know, the history there of the Jena was spoken about by a few folks. And, you know, we we drafted that in plan with Lorne at one point. And unfortunately for us, we we just found out recently here that that, you know, wasn't that they were not capable of of of reviewing and executing that. So we did reach out to a couple other entities. LOWRY Redevelopment Authority, the. Lowry Community Master Association, you know, looking to find another party to do a put on that agreement. Unfortunately, those folks also didn't have the the ability to do that. So we are drafting an agreement that will show that with with Matchbox, who is the seller of our site, and we'll be there in the community there long term . And so the other, you know, but the other mechanisms that are in place there, as you mentioned, the critical piece, the affordable housing, right. We have the agreement with host and the trail easement, the trail improvements. Those can can be handled through the process as well as the publicly accessible recreation activities that we'll put on the site . We can handle that all through the process. The Denver.
Speaker 3: Okay. Great. Thank you. And the the parking lot. So we heard a lot of comment from the public about the parking lot. Can you talk me through that?
Speaker 1: Yes, sure. I mean, the site plan is something is definitely still in flux, having been through the SDB process yet and in a in an effort to be open with the community and get feedback, you know, we're showing them some very early plans of what we we have planned for the site. And I think in the most recent one we showed, we have shown a four storey above structure or above ground, part of the structure at the corner of Sports Boulevard and Yosemite. That that plan, while it is still in flux, it has not been done in a vacuum. Folks here have mentioned the Lowry Design Review Committee. We've been through several conversations and iterations of that site plan with them, working with them to see what their thoughts were on best ideas for where to locate an above ground structure here. So I think it's it's it's a little bit premature on the on the conversation there. You know, I will say, I know people are concerned about looking at a parking structure, you know, that will be screened again. LOWRY So lucky in that they have these gatekeepers that protect the architecture of. LOWRY And, you know, this these further steps will take in the process. They'll be there to enforce the Lowry design review guidelines that have dictated everything that's been built there. Lowry.
Speaker 3: Okay. Great. Really appreciate that. And I will just say, as an aside, I think there was a speaker earlier who mentioned the way the process works. And I want to just make sure that it's clear for all of the residents and the public what we're talking about here. So the the rezoning process happens first and then the site development review process happens second. And so as council, we can only look at the criteria that we're allowed to look at in terms of rezoning. But it's good to get an idea of some of the feedback that the community has had for you and some thoughts about that. And it's good to know that the design review board in Lowrey is has very specific requirements and that you're in conversation with them as well. Okay. So then I want to ask a question of, I guess, one of the representatives from Dotty about the traffic. This is an area that my office has spent a significant amount of time with the police department and with Daddy working on. And so I know that there was a community meeting. I was not there because as a quasi judicial role that I have in this rezoning to vote yes or no, I can't I couldn't be there to hear the discussion. So curious if I can get a report on the conversation and what may have come out of that in terms of potential mitigation of the issues?
Speaker 0: All right. We've got Dana Hofmann ready to answer that question, Councilwoman.
Speaker 3: Hi. Deena Hoffman again. Department of Transportation Infrastructure. I'm the community designer for this area. Councilman Sawyer, I can speak to that meeting. So we did have a meeting with the East Park community. It was hosted by LUHN. And the intent of that meeting, just for the record, is was to talk through existing transportation issues, not issues very specific to the potential impacts of this rezoning and redevelopment. In terms of the meeting content, so some of it was just hearing concerns from a community about transportation in the surrounding area. I would summarize that as primarily speeding safety issues within the traffic circle there at Yosemite and other traffic circles and excuse me, roundabouts there and the other roundabouts in the area. And then also some requests for additional crossing treatments. Dottie has looked into some of these concerns prior to that meeting and also subsequent to that meeting and some of the concerns we've heard more recently brought up by this development. One of the changes that will be coming as a result of that additional analysis are some safety improvements at the roundabout there, and those will primarily be done with signage and striping, and it will better clarify essentially which lane assignment cars will be entering into making sure that folks are traveling at an appropriate speed as they enter into the roundabouts. I have the draft work order available, which I can share with council if you'd like. There are just minor modifications being made to that before it's approved and it goes out. So that's probably the most significant change that's being made at this point in response to community concerns. We are going to look at some additional crossing treatments. There are none that are approved at this point. I hope that helps. Yeah, that was great. Thank you. Really appreciate that information. And, you know, oftentimes when we have a development like this, the developer makes a commitment to do a traffic study during the site development review plan and potentially even make some upgrades or enhancements to to the, I guess, the roadways, the travel ways outside of but adjacent to the development. Has anything like that happened here, Dana? Do you know or maybe Matt, maybe you can speak to that. Yeah. Dana, go.
Speaker 1: Ahead. I guess I'll go ahead, Dana.
Speaker 0: But we'll make sure to hear from both of you. So, Dana.
Speaker 3: Matt may want to speak to this and Marco also could speak to this as well. So we don't have any specific commitments from the developer, although, you know, we've definitely heard interest and doing best interests for the neighbors. What I am aware of is that some a traffic study would be conducted once the development was ongoing. Some specific requirements we've asked for if that traffic study was done. So so Marco could speak in more detail about what they would have to look at moving forward. But there aren't any commitments at this time. Okay. Great. Matt, did you want to jump in? Thanks, Dana. Did you want to jump in and fill out some some of that information further?
Speaker 1: Sure. I mean, I'll just reiterate that we want to be part of the solution here and we want it to be safe for our residents as well as the community. Right. So certainly we were doing a full traffic study through the typical process here in Denver for through the ACP and the civil design. And it's expanding the scope of that to collect some more data points to to help Doddy come up with ideas or solutions here. I mean, we're definitely open to doing that and we want to be a part of the solution here and see how our development could help alleviate some of these concerns.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. And so is there have you committed to I guess it's hard without a good neighbor agreement based on the inability of any one particular organization within Lowry to have the I guess, the ability to do a good neighbor agreement. Have you committed to that in some other way, or what does that look like?
Speaker 1: Not at this time other than obviously, you know, we're here saying it now on public record that we want to be a part of the solution. And and, you know, we're going to be long term members of this community. So we want to be a part of that. We we spoke to the the agreement with Matchbox that we're working on. So that's an avenue we could potentially take there. But I guess that's yeah, we're we are still working through that. So.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Appreciate it. I've got a few other questions, but I know that there are a couple of other council members with their hands up in the queue. So I'm going to step back and let them answer their questions. And then if my questions are not answered based on the things that they ask, I will pop back into the queue. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. We're going to go ahead and go to Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. I just have one question. I need a clarification. Libby, can you tell me, reading through the staff report on this five story, three story, the existing zoning allows three stories. The request is for a five story zoning, but the Lowry design guidelines limited two apparently to four stories. And so I'm a little concerned why we selected the SMU five rather than the SMU three with waivers to four stories, rather than just giving a blanket entitlement to five stories. When we did Loreto Heights, we did SMU three along along federal, but with a waiver to allow up to five stories. And so why what is the mechanism in the rezoning that we're being asked to vote on tonight that would guarantee that it will not be five stories, but it will be, in fact, limited to 50 feet.
Speaker 0: I appreciate the question. It is a rather convoluted story with what's existing and what's allowed with the some X viruses. LOWRY But the Lowry Design Review Committee will be reviewing this in tandem with the site development plan process. And so any development within this area is going to have to meet the design guidelines and go through that review process, which would limit the building to four stories slash 50 feet. So that is the mechanism.
Speaker 1: Okay. Is there a mechanism within the Lowry? That's that's all the way on the other end of town. I don't get out that far all that often. So I'm just curious, is there anything in the Lowry design guidelines process that allows it to be changed down the road? In other words, that we're we're letting loose. We're being asked to let loose an entitlement for five storeys, 70 feet. Could those design guidelines change down the road as early as this design review on this project prints, for instance?
Speaker 0: And that is a really good question. I do know that they did have a older version of design guidelines, and the one that they have now is only a couple of years old. And some of their terminology and some of the ways that they're addressing things have changed. But I don't know how much like they're. The design guidelines themselves and height limitations have changed.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I understand, you know, things change. Times change. This was 1994. Could Marcus Parker maybe address that? That Marcus, you were there at the time. Can you tell us what is the process with the design guidelines and how how can they be revised or would they be revised within the life of this project? Absolutely. And Councilman, I just want to stay on record again that all the RC we've actually already started and going through that process and LOWRY And so this site actually going through it is already capped at that 45 feet that we talked about. It's interesting, Councilman. It kind of is somewhat out of order the way it happens there. But we actually and that's why the community knows a lot, if you will, about the suggested parking garage and so forth, is because there is this process. So, Councilman, we have gone through there as to your question. There may be a way somebody mentioned that you didn't get a variance for some of the structures on the roof, but all across. LOWRY There is a height limitation. And, Councilman, that has been true. The only thing I read, though, is that existing buildings like the hangar immediately to the west of us is 67 feet. So the big bear ice arena, which is right there, is actually something that's higher than that. We certainly will not get there. So, Councilman, we will stay at that 45 feet. Okay. Thank you. I think the hangars were there long before ABC, long before the people were there. That's right. Thanks. Thank you, ma'am. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Marcus, for the public record, would you please introduce yourself?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Marcus Park, near 4700 East Sixth Avenue, consultant to the developer.
Speaker 0: All right, great. And prior to you, we had Libby Kiser, our community planning and development planner. And so thank you, Councilmember Flynn. We're going to move to Council Member Sandoval. We're going to have to have you a new councilwoman. For some reason, we're not hearing your audio. Okay. We're going to go ahead and see if you can work on that or if we need to have you leave the meeting, councilman, and bounce back in. We can certainly do that. Councilman Cashman, do you want to go ahead and go ahead with your questions?
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you. Just one quick question. Whether it's from Marcus or the developer, if there's someone there.
Speaker 2: That can answer.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm just wondering, a lot has been made people concerned about the view of the parking garage. We see a lot.
Speaker 2: Of developments.
Speaker 1: Now and now a days where the parking garage is wrapped by the residences.
Speaker 2: Is is that an option? Has it been.
Speaker 1: Considered? Just wondering. Yeah. Councilman. All this joker. Marcus Falkner consultancy. The Development. We have started that process. As I mentioned, the DRC. We will have to go through the full step and want those neighbors, particularly the neighbors immediately across the street to be involved in that. So, Councilman, we did show some massing and I think, frankly, that's what shows brought those comments forward. I think that massing we will go through that architectural review and talk about screening all of that. I would note that someone who's been involved in Lowery a long time, councilman, this is a wonderful thing that we're dealing with, is actually parking structures immediately across the street. It's a very large parking field. And that really leads to kind of something that I don't think is the the type of context that we want to develop today. So we are working through those challenges. Councilman, I guarantee you those neighbors will be involved. Lowery has a great process that that LDR. So, yes, sir, there are some slight limitations on that, that low water table. But we will work through those issues with the neighbors and find the proper screening. All right. Thank you, Marcus. Appreciate it.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Next up, we have Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 3: Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. I had to tell the woman the technical difficulties. The matrix is in the computer. So I don't know who this question will go to, but when Larry was built out, how much affordable, affordable housing was developed with this master plan?
Speaker 1: So, Councilman, I'll defer to Marni Fauci if he is still on. One thing I will note if he's maybe getting promoted is that we were subject to the original Ice Age ordinance, so we had inclusionary housing throughout the site. We greatly exceeded LRA, greatly receded that 10% limitation. So, Councilman, there was an agreement for all of Lowry, including Boulevard one, which is the last phase that was developed on the west side of Quebec. So this subject property, if you will, Councilwoman, was already subject to that agreement, to a preexisting agreement. The neighbor said that's not enough. We frankly agreed with them. We said we wanted to go further. And we believe this is the first senior housing deal that actually has a deed. Restricted affordable housing agreement in place with host.
Speaker 3: So you're saying what I hear you said was like 10%. So 10% of housing. So including single unit homes, single family homes, 10% of apartments. Because I know Central Park had like a specific master plan where they had a portable housing developer. Who was your affordable housing developer?
Speaker 1: Councilman, I'm sorry again, if I'm blind and don't know if money force can answer it. So you let me jump in.
Speaker 0: Monte is on so we might take it over. And Monte, if you want to introduce yourself for the public record.
Speaker 1: Marty Faust. I'm the executive director for the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. And the. Affordable housing for all of Lowry was entered into? Well, first of all, there was the I show. We negotiated a 200 units of for sale units. It was in that plan. But overall, affordable housing amounts to about 800 units in Lowry between rental housing for formerly homeless and for sale units.
Speaker 3: Okay. And that was that. Thank you, Marty. And that was throughout the redevelopment of the whole entire project, is that correct? Right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then who is your affordable housing developer? Is it same as the developer who built everything? And then were they restricted? Or can you explain that process a little bit?
Speaker 1: It's a fairly complicated but the um we the for sale housing was developed by a land trust. It was not deed restricted. It was a land trust, the Colorado community land trust to develop those properties with help from the Lowry Redevelopment Authority as to affordable housing for the formerly homeless. That was done through the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless and some other force or for rent developers as well as we required certain developers when they were developing property to include affordable rentals in the program. It goes to multiple developers.
Speaker 3: Okay, I hear you. I got that. Thank you. And then a comment was just made. And inform us who are as familiar with the whole Lowry development. It was said that during the site development plan that there would be participation by the public. That doesn't happen in northwest Denver. If a project gets rezoning and a site development plan goes through the process. It's between the community planning and development development services more specifically and all of the processes that go through a site development plan. So for those who are watching this, Lowry have a different site development plan that people can actually participate in.
Speaker 1: Who answered this in part. And that is the Lowery Community Master Association has oversight of the Lowry Design Review Committee, and I'm sure that they post their meetings and projects on the website as they're going through the process. It'd be better directed actually to the Lowry Community Master Association because they actually now control the design review, that is the community design controls to review it.
Speaker 3: So I understand her design review process. I'm just I'm just confused on how it keeps being said that the public who are on here, who have talked in opposition can be part of this site development plan is I just don't understand where there's a trigger that would have public participation in the State Department then. Can someone on the team help me understand.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 1: It's all in the what I site I can. Sorry Matt. If you jumped in Marcus partner again, what I cited was exactly what Marnie Faust just mentioned, the elder C Lowry Design Review Committee. Those are public meetings, Councilwoman, that are posted for members of the public to be able to attend. And they have a process that goes through that. There's public comments that would be allowed, Councilwoman. And I'm sorry, I don't know if it's at the beginning of the end of the meeting. That is a process, one of the processes that we've already started going through, and they had a public posted meeting and where they allowed that to happen. And we will continue to go through that process.
Speaker 3: For the Site Development Fund. And so when you do the site development, spend the whole entire site development spend, so the traffic, the water, wastewater, all of the things that have to be checked off on the site development spend that's posted through this.
Speaker 1: RC Yeah, I think their purview is a little less right councilman than the whole councilwoman and the whole ACP, but all of the elements that are within their purview will be available. I think what we're offering to do and we have done throughout, is to continue to communicate with those neighbors. So, Councilman, we're happy to to share some of those details, give updates at the age of the RC process. Lowry is known, as you say, for a little bit of a different process where that is a much more open and involved process that will go through on the site plan.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. And Libya, I have a question for you. So although this is been asked for five story entitlement, did I hear correctly that this whole area has a height cap at 45 feet, which I think is under five stories. So even though they're going asking for an entitlement of five stories, they can't build five stories. Is that is that what I'm understanding?
Speaker 0: It is correct. Yeah. Sorry that that's confusing.
Speaker 3: But per the DRC process.
Speaker 0: They had their design guidelines that max height at four stories. And I do believe that the applicant's team is actually pursuing 50 feet instead of the 45 feet. That's typical, but that is still significantly less than the 70 feet that would be allowed with the five storey s-max.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's I think that's a that's a valid point for this hearing, is that although they're asking for more entitlement, that there's already a cap at 45 feet, can one someone from the development team. Is it are you going to 50 feet? Is that including all of the equipment on top of the building, the back and the elevator shaft? Or are you going 50 feet plus the age back and elevator shaft?
Speaker 1: Yes, this is metformin with native properties, but we're certainly not far enough along the design process to know exactly what the heights will be. But let me add some clarity on the 50 feet. So we did go through a height variance process, a public process with the DRC to go from 45 to 50. And the reason for that is you really you really can't even fit a four storey building with a flat roof and 45 feet. So we made that case to them as well as it allows us to do more articulate architectural articulation along the roofline. Right. Going up and down, you know, things that make it look like not one big massive block. So that was really the reason for the 50 feet as it relates to mechanical screening, mechanical penthouses. Yes, that is outside of the 50 feet. That's how they've written the Lowry design review code. But you know, those the goal is right to set those back into the middle of the roof. And and you'd have to be standing a pretty good distance away to see those. But those are not within that 50 foot 50 foot restriction.
Speaker 3: Okay. I have one question for you. One last question for you. I keep hearing public comment about the water table. Have you or has your team done study that indicates the water tables higher over in this neck of the woods than it is in other places in Denver.
Speaker 1: I can't I can't speak to how it compares to other places in Denver. But, yes, we do have a relatively high ground water table here. You are right next to Western Leigh Creek there. Right. So I think that's part of it. I'm not a geotech expert, but yes, we do have some areas on that site that seem to be higher than we might typically see in Denver.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Madam President, first of all, for my questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And we're going to go ahead and move to Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Some of my questions have been asked, but I did want to ask a couple that have not been asked. I heard some reference to other senior living, one that I don't know if it existed and then went away or they had applied for the zoning to do it and it never happened. But Marcus, I see you on there. How many senior living projects are on the Lowrey property?
Speaker 1: Yes, Councilwoman. So just for clarification, there was a senior housing development that was just about the equivalent of four or five, maybe six blocks to the west of the site that went away because, councilwoman, that was a facility that came from the Air Force, had very aged facilities. And interestingly enough, when that went away, it became a very intense multi-family development. So that became a much more intense multifamily use. There is councilwoman and existing senior center right out of callback that has a facility there. Matt and his team are experts in this. They did a very detailed analysis, market analysis of the site, and there was a remarkable need for senior housing. It's actually reflected in the equity analysis in an ad that went through the zoning and really looked at this was very much needed. So we would believe that this is actually a very beneficial use and a very needed use at this site.
Speaker 0: So the market analysis wasn't just of the Lowry community. It was of the broader age population that needs affordable or needs senior housing, but includes the 10% that's in it. Okay.
Speaker 1: That's correct, Councilwoman.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then I wanted to get. The. Lowry folks back on. Because I had a question about the. So the design review process that you talked about with Councilwoman Sandoval. So that was that was to ensure that all the new buildings coming in met that criteria. But for the ones that were assumed because some of these properties were of gifted, if you will, to some of those nonprofits. Correct. Monte, are you on? We do have to go.
Speaker 1: Ahead on muted now. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. So so the properties that were gifted to nonprofits and this was back when Councilwoman Polly Flowback was the councilwoman of this district. And I remember her and Cathy Reynolds going to Washington and asking for $5 million to assist because there were more nonprofits that had. Basically applied for some of those existing buildings. And Marcus just talked about one of them that just went away. Right. But. Some of those nonprofits were given money to go do their projects elsewhere as opposed to on the the Lowry property. But for those that did remain. Did they have to go through or if they do upgrades in the future, will they have to go through the design review process?
Speaker 1: Very good memory from those days. Yes. The design review. Just a couple of questions there. But first of all, the design review process holds for any past development that has already occurred and also applies to anybody that is going through the process now for redevelopment of a site. We anticipated that there would be redevelopment of properties or you know, it's been 25 years plus since the original buildings were first done here. So, yes, we anticipated that there would be changes and that there would be a need for continued design oversight on redevelopment of properties. And yes, there were a number of affordable housing units that were actually created off of Lowry based on the settlement agreement between HUD and numerous parties.
Speaker 0: Right. Okay. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Monte. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilwoman Sawyer, we've got your back up.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Madam President. I think the vast majority of my questions have been answered. Really appreciate. I feel like there's like so many moving parts here. The history of Lowry is very complicated. And there are, for lack of a better term, a lot of hands in the pot when it comes to anything happening in Lowry, a lot of different oversight and then a lot of different community outreach. So I really appreciate all of those different kind of sectors coming together to explain, you know, what is happening here and some of the complicated challenges that are happening with this rezoning, which is why so many questions have been answered. I'm wondering, I think sort of final question. If Blair is still in the queue somewhere and Blair, if you don't mind raising your hand, if you are if we could upgrade her. I feel like I just would like some more clarification. You know, Matt, no offense. You seem like a great guy. United Properties seems great, but I don't trust you. I would like to know a little bit more about an agreement and what that might look like in terms of, you know, there's a lot of there's a lot of really good promises being made. But I would like more certainty the attorney in me needs more certainty than that. So, Blair, if you are back up, would you mind kind of just walking through how that certainty might end up existing? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Sure this is Blair lifting files. Attorney for the.
Speaker 0: Applicant.
Speaker 3: I missed part of your question while I was being upgraded, so let me know if I don't answer it.
Speaker 0: But the applicant and much boss have come to a material term agreement.
Speaker 3: It's not signed, but we have agreed on the material terms of what we're calling a community commitment agreement. And this is sort of in lieu of some of the things that.
Speaker 1: We have offered to.
Speaker 3: Put in writing in favor of one. And they have said that they're unable to sign an agreement at this time. And so we've taken the.
Speaker 0: Same community.
Speaker 3: Commitments that were intended to go.
Speaker 0: Into that agreement with one and put it into an agreement with us. Because as everyone, you're not as much by much, but.
Speaker 3: We'll be retaining the property across the street by the high school. And so there are three primary components to the.
Speaker 0: Agreement, I would say. The first is obligating us.
Speaker 3: As the applicant properties to sign the agreement to build affordable.
Speaker 1: Housing.
Speaker 3: I think that's in your your pocket and I think you can see that.
Speaker 1: Both us and.
Speaker 0: The applicant is signed that.
Speaker 1: That becomes effective.
Speaker 0: Upon the rezoning getting.
Speaker 3: Approved. The second piece is.
Speaker 0: An acknowledgment by both my.
Speaker 3: Staff and the applicant that there are some existing traffic conditions that are.
Speaker 0: Causing some consternation among the neighbors and some concerns about safety and whatnot. There's a commitment.
Speaker 3: In there for.
Speaker 0: The developer.
Speaker 3: To work with the residents of the neighborhood.
Speaker 0: And members of the community.
Speaker 1: The city.
Speaker 0: And Dottie to strategize with respect to mitigation.
Speaker 3: Measures that are intended to alleviate or remediate those existing traffic conditions.
Speaker 0: So we don't know exactly.
Speaker 3: What those are. We do know.
Speaker 1: What we can.
Speaker 3: Do to assist or are committed to helping with that process and continuing to engage with the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: As we do.
Speaker 3: So. And the third and final piece is an obligation.
Speaker 0: To grant an.
Speaker 3: Open space easement to the city over the existing Westerly Creek Trail and to improve that trail to provide benches and other amenities. The easement itself will also obligate the property owner to maintain those the trail, the benches, any other amenities in perpetuity. And then finally, there is an agreement to pursue opportunities for recreational.
Speaker 0: Programing on the property.
Speaker 3: You guys have heard us talk about a pickleball court. I think that the applicant is excited about a pickleball court.
Speaker 1: There's some concerns about.
Speaker 0: Noise and.
Speaker 3: If that isn't the exact public, the available amenities, and we will come up with something else.
Speaker 1: That works for the community to serve.
Speaker 3: Those recreational interests. Okay. Great. Thank you. So I have never heard of this before. And do you know, is this the first time that something like this has ever been done? As far as I'm aware. Yes. It really looks like a good neighbor agreement, to be honest with you. But instead of being with an R.A., it's actually with another property owner and with another entity in in the neighborhood. I think Matt had previously mentioned that we had talked to both the FEMA and the LRA to see if they were interested in being a counterparty. Right. All agreements need a party and a counterparty. And they had also said that they were unable to sign it for a variety of reasons.
Speaker 0: And so because of I don't want to speak for much about.
Speaker 3: That, because they will continue to be a neighbor. They do have a vested interest in being as a community member and being.
Speaker 1: Supporting.
Speaker 3: That. That's a.
Speaker 1: Concern of.
Speaker 3: Mine and whatnot. And they have the ability to be a counterparty and.
Speaker 1: Enter into.
Speaker 3: This agreement. So I'm not aware that this has been done before.
Speaker 1: But it's still an enforceable agreement between two parties.
Speaker 3: Okay. Great. Thank you. Really appreciate the clarity on that. Thanks so much. Thanks so much, Madam President. That, I think is the end of my question.
Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Blair. And thank you, Councilman Sawyer. The public hearing is now closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 1-1371. Council Member Sawyer.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. This is a tough one, I have to say. Again, I want to thank the community for coming out and not just coming out tonight to speak on this, but repeatedly and really engaging with this potential development and and making it, you know, truly better. I have always said that if something is going to be developed, it has to provide a community benefit and it has to be something that works for the community or it's not worth doing it. So, you know, for example, I'm I am also concerned about the the the traffic circles I drive over in this area all the time. And it's it's really bad. So I really appreciate Dottie's willingness to engage in this as well and find some solutions during the site process that makes sense for the community and works for the community should this rezoning be approved. So, you know, I've talked about the traffic circles and the concerns there and how the developer has gone above and beyond to be willing.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 3: Provide some mitigation. I've talked about, you know, the concern of green space, open space and how that kind of doesn't mesh necessarily. Blueprint number doesn't necessarily necessarily mesh. I'm sorry, it's getting late with the with the Lowry reuse plan, but that the Lowry reuse plan is really the thing that the controls here, you know, it's incredibly frustrating that, you know, nothing has been done yet in terms of the those roundabouts. But I'm really excited to hear that there are improvements coming and appreciate all of the work that the Lowry United Neighborhoods Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Group has done with Dottie and with the community on that. So, you know, that's really exciting. And I think, you know, this has gone on really long, so I'll keep it short. You know, this property is going to be developed, right? Matchbox has said that they have goals that they want to achieve. And the way that they as a school can achieve those goals is by selling this property. I looked into it and asked some questions and I know that there were a number of other offers for this property. This was the only one that provided a community benefit at all. All of the other ones were more multi-family residential properties, like the ones that we just talked about a minute ago where there used to be an assisted living facility that closed and then was raised and then a number of multi-family units were built on that land. So I don't want the same thing to happen here. If we can ensure that there is a community benefit that does help, you know, not only in terms of affordability, but in terms of aging in place and in terms of more options. I really am appreciative of that. I also think it's important to note that this developer, not once but twice, was able to say tonight that they are offering something that is doesn't exist in the city and county of Denver right now. So not only with the agreement to formalize the open space easements and the, you know, traffic mitigation, but and the outreach to the community. But also then that this is the first of its kind in terms of providing affordable units specifically to seniors. Our community is struggling with that, and that will only continue and get worse over time because of the number of people who are aging in East Denver and because right now we are seeing that those people are getting lost to Arizona and to Littleton. That's where they go because there's no place for them to age in place in the city and county of Denver that's affordable. And when they're ready to move out of their larger houses for whatever reason, that's the only choice they have. So it is really exciting, I think, to see that I think it's going to, you know, fill a community benefit. And and so I'm really, you know, I had to work through the consistency with adopted plans piece. But I think that this is extraordinary what we have been able to get from the community in terms of feedback , what the developer has said that they are willing to do. It's extraordinary. And, you know, given the fact that it's our fourth with waivers right now. So, I mean, tomorrow there could be a four story set of classrooms built on that site. That is, I think, really important to recognize as well. And so, you know, walking through the specific criteria that we are looking at, I am I am hesitant, but I am supportive of this. So. Thanks, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And I don't have anybody else in the queue. And so I'll go ahead and round out the comments that I do believe this meets the rezoning criteria. I want to sincerely thank the community members who came and testified tonight and the robust questions and answer session that we had to really dig into this a bit more. And so I will be supporting this this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21, dash 1371, please. Sawyer, I. Torres. I am black. I see tobacco. I. Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Flinn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 0: Herndon.
Speaker 1: I. Paint. I.
Speaker 0: Cashman. I can eat. Ortega. I Sandoval. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announced results. 12 Eyes, 12 eyes. Counsel build 20 1-1371 has passed again. Thank you to the community members and city staff who stayed with us for that hearing. We're going to go ahead and move on to the next one. Councilmember say to Baca, will you please put council bill 20 1-1372 on the floor for final passage?
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 8890 East Lowry Boulevard  in Lowry Field.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from R-4 w/ waivers to S-MX-5 (residential to suburban mixed-use, 5-stories), located at 8890 East Lowry Boulevard in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-16-21.