Speaker 6: in 1981 with this original zoning, with a variety of waivers on it that are all included in your staff report packets. The sites within what was known as sub area four of those waivers and the sub area required various different things that varied from the normal B4 standard zoned district of the former Chapter 59. The first thing you did was it established gross floor area for the entire sub area. So within that whole box of which this property is just one part, there was a maximum floor area of 1.2 million square feet. And then there were also limits on specific uses within that 1.2 million square feet. Notably for this application, all residential square footage in the sub area has already been accounted for by development that exists on the west side of Monaco. So there's no remaining residential square footage, although there is still square footage applicable to other uses, including office and retail. Specifically on the site, they are entitled to over 200,000 square feet of office area. Currently, there are 17 use waivers that apply that waive out various uses such as a mirror, silver ring and establishments for tombstones and monuments and the like, some various old code districts, various code uses, but generally allows a mix of retail office and other services, and the maximum height on top of the gross floor area is 280 feet. The the so this map here shows the maximum height in the various sub areas in the adjacent zone district. So within this debris you see aligned in pink. It's 280 feet to the north and other sub areas. They generally have the same use wavers, but they differ in their gross floor area and their maximum heights. So to the northwest, the maximum height allowed is 130 directly to the north across Union Avenue. The maximum height is 210 feet. And then to the east in the team is 30 with waivers area. The maximum height allowed today is 220 feet. If the application were approved to rezone to the Max 12 zone district, the suburban mixed use 12 story maximum zone district, the maximum height in feet would be 150 feet. For a planning context in terms of what's going on with regulations in the surrounding area. The team you throw to the east is a zone to suit that requires the approval of a general development plan that was adopted nine years ago. It does not apply to the subject site, but just in terms of providing background on what's going on in the surrounding area. The General Development Plan generally identifies phasing an infrastructure kind of master planning in that area from Niagara East to I-25. And it does have some recommendations relative to height, but you see them in your staff report and then also on the screen. There's not a height map in the general development plan. It states that generally heights will step down as one moves away from the station, which is located two and a half blocks east of the subject site, with medium rise buildings at the sites western perimeter. It does contemplate perimeter locations, offering opportunity for taller signature buildings as well. And in order to raise, as well as on the eastern perimeter to raise uses above the noise from I-25. This map is for context. It describes the existing land uses in the area. That gray color is vacant. So there's a lot of vacant land in the surrounding area to the west. Immediately our couple office projects, there's multifamily in the surrounding area to the northwest and just to the southeast. A recent project built. And again, a lot of vacant land in the surrounding area. Terms of building form and scale, what's been built on the ground today where buildings do exist, they're generally 3 to 4 stories in height, although there's there's one property that's to the west of Monaco that's taller. But immediately surrounding this area, the office building to the west is a three story building detached from Monaco Street to the north. And then the multifamily area, it's four stories just to the southeast is a six story mixed use building. As I mentioned, the request is for Max 12. So this would take the property out of the former Chapter 59 and into the new Denver zoning code with the standard zoned district. The suburban neighborhood context mixed use to allow a mix of uses, including residential and a maximum height of up to 12 stories. In effect, we've got a summary here of what that rezoning would do today. As it is in that sub area, it is bound up with the other properties in the sub area, not all of which are owned by the same property owner. And so their gross floor area allowed is codependent on the uses and the gross for area of the other buildings in the sub area. If they re zoned out of the former code and into the new code, it will end that codependency so they can develop their project on their own. It would, of course, provide them access to Denver's modern form based and context based zoning code, including the procedures and the design standards of the new code. It would reduce the maximum building height from 280 feet to 150 feet. And it brought into the mix of allowable uses, most notably by introducing residential. What it does not include are the use overlays. So the you are one and the two that currently are on the property. The other one generally allows adult uses and the year two generally allows billboards. Both of these uses were mapped on this area because they are mapped everywhere where they were allowed with the standard zone districts of the former Chapter 59 as placeholders to be considered at the time of rezoning into the new code. But both of these uses were already waived out through their waivers. So they already don't allow adult uses. They already don't allow billboards. And since there's no need to introduce those uses, newly those use overlays are not proposed by the applicant to be included, and they would then use overlays. Those placeholders would go away if the application were approved. So in terms of the process that brings us here tonight, we received a complete application and provide a notice of that to the applicable registered neighborhood organizations and city council members on April 21st of this year and proceeded to a planning board public hearing held on July 1st , at which the board, after considering testimony, voted 7 to 0 in favor of recommending approval, finding that all the applicable review criteria had been met. And I'll walk through those in just a moment. I proceeded to the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee who moved it out of the committee on July 22nd. And then we are here tonight at the City Council Public hearing, which has been properly notice for signs on the property and a written notification. There are two registered neighborhood organizations there, the citywide neighborhood organizations on this property, the Denver Neighborhood Association, Inc., and Inter Neighborhood Cooperation, neither of which has commented on the application. But we have received three other public comments which were included in the staff report packets. The first was an emailed letter from the landowner to the east across Niagara Street. They opposed 12 stories and suggested either five or eight stories for building form and scale, and they also expressed some concern about potential downstream sewer impacts. The second letter we received was from a developer of projects in the area who supports the rezoning in light of the changing conditions since 1981, the original zoning of the area. They they support enabling mixed use and promoting transit oriented development. And then finally, we received a letter from the developer of the land to the east, again opposing it based on consistency with his development and potential impacts on both views and infrastructure. So turning to the five criteria set forth in the Denver zoning code for reviewing a rezoning application, the first is consistency with adopted plans. Here, there are no small area plans, so we just have the two citywide plans, comprehensive plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver the land use and Transportation Plan adopted in 2002. So first, as it relates to comprehensive plan 2000, which sets citywide goals, we have we reviewed it against many of the strategies found in comp plan 2000 as detailed in your staff report, including that land should be conserved by promoting infill, that we should promote development that that's accessible to multiple forms of transportation, encouraging quality infill and offering opportunities for increased density and more amenities, encouraging mixed use, transit oriented development, and continuing to promote mixed use development in appropriate areas. And we found that the MAP amendment would be consistent with these because it does enable mixed use development at infill locations and it's near transit. And at the same time, it broadens the variety of allowed uses at the site. So turning to Blueprint Denver, the land use concept in the Blueprint Denver planning map for this area is mixed use and it's in an area of change which is indicated by the hatch marks everywhere. So in terms of area of change, these are areas of the city that where they are focused, areas of growth and redevelopment, where the city's goal is to channel redevelopment and increased intensity of development. The mixed use land use concept contemplates sizable employment base as well as high housing. It specifically is called for higher intensity than in other residential areas. And we find that rezoning to Max 12 would implement those plan goals. It would allow mix of uses at a higher intensity near transit focused allowing redevelopment of the site. And so the map and then it would be consistent with blueprint Denver its land use concept. Turning to the Street Classifications Blueprint Denver identifies plan street classifications for some of the surrounding streets. The union is a mixed use arterial as R Monaco Street, half a block to the west and Bellevue Avenue half a block to the south. Niagara Street does not have a classification because it did not exist at the time of we were in Denver. Generally, when we're looking at the blueprint Denver street classifications, we're evaluating whether the zone district is consistent with those classifications. The future street classification, a mixed use arterial blueprint. Denver contemplates that those are generally found in high intensity, mixed use, commercial retail and residential areas. And they emphasize a variety of travel choices with a high degree of mobility. So with a suburban mixed use 12 story district that will allow mixed uses that are of high intensity and it's consistent with those street types. So we find that it would be consistent with Blueprint Denver overall. The second review criterion. The Denver zoning code is that it needs to result in uniform district regulations. In this case, this MAP amendment actually improves uniformity by zoning out of a favored old code zone district and into a standard zone district, which will have the same regulations that apply in other s-max 12 zone districts across the city. The third review criterion is whether the rezoning furthers the public health, safety and welfare. In this case, it both implements the city's adopted plans as identified earlier, and it moves to the Denver zoning code, which is designed to further the public health, safety and welfare. So we find the MAP amendment would be consistent with those criteria. The fourth is that there's a justifying circumstance and here the justifying circumstances that the land or its surroundings have changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area and recognize the change character of the area . Here, there have been a number of changes since the zoning that occurred 34 years ago. Obviously, the introduction of the RTD system and the light rail station two and a half blocks represents a tremendous opportunity for the city that did not exist in 1981. The Street Network has been developed with a robust grid of that's both that's multi-modal in nature in which you can both bike and walk to the station to other destinations in the area that did not exist in 1981. Obviously, the promotion of transit oriented development, the location near that light rail is that has already happened and that's desire to continue happening in the area. And then the introduction of the new Denver zoning code that didn't exist before are all circumstances that represent changes to the surroundings that, that, that, that justify the rezoning and therefore the map amendment will be consistent with that criterion. And finally, it needs to be consistent with the neighborhood context and the zone district purpose and intent statements. So first, the neighborhood context. This is the request is for a suburban neighborhood context which is described as having a mix of uses both commercial and residential of varying intensities from from low skill to high rise, where blocks generally are are not necessarily in a traditional grid formation, but curvilinear in shape. The streets are curvilinear. Building forms tend to be sometimes set back quite a bit and sometimes near the streets. So it is it's a neighborhood context that has quite a bit of variety where uses are not necessarily mixed but sometimes separated. And if you take a look at the development pattern of surrounding area, this is classically suburban neighborhood context where we do have standard zone districts in the general vicinity of here. They are also in the suburban neighborhood context. So we do think it's consistent with the neighborhood context. Then turning to the specific intent of this zone district as some X12, it's intended according to the code to apply to areas or intersections served primarily by major arterial streets where a building scale of 1 to 12 storeys is desired . So I mentioned there are three major arterial streets that surround the site. Niagara is a collector street, but Union Monaco and Bellevue are the major arterials. And in terms of identifying what the building scale desired is because there's not a small area plan, we've looked at both the existing conditions and the existing entitlements in the surrounding area . So again, looking at the Building Heights map I walked through earlier, which which identifies what height of building could be allowed within the existing zoning and also projects that are currently underway in the area. And looking at the building scale, the surrounding area, we do think that the rezoning to the Max 12 zone district would be consistent with the zone district purpose and intent. And therefore, having reviewed against all five review criteria, we recommend approval of the application.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have four speakers today. I'll call all four if you can make your way up to the front pew. Randy Schwartz, Shawn Maley, Robert Warren and Mr. Saca. And Mr. Schwartz, you can begin your remarks and you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Randy Schwartz. I'm a resident of Denver. We are the owner of the Bellevue Corporate Plaza Development, which currently consists of two office buildings of approximately 200,000 feet. That front on Monica and an eight acre development parcel that fronts on Niagara between Bellevue and Union. A portion of which is subject of this rezoning. This evening, in 1980, 81, the Denver Tech Center purchased approximately 165 acres, which we were a portion of that for the intent of expanding their master plan development, which was on the east of I-25 to the west of I-25. As part of that, they rezoning the property before with waivers. The waivers were self-imposed by the Denver Tech Center to help protect their development rights in the future. One of those waivers was was put in place to limit the amount of square footage for each of the building types office, residential, retail, etc.. The. Denver Tech Center also at that point incorporated that this property into their DTC master key and are putting additional development criteria on it and restrictions. We went to the Denver Tech Center and told them that we thought the density restrict waiver that was currently on was was no longer valid in this marketplace. They agreed with the Denver Tech Center to put the waivers on. I believe you have the letter of recommendation for the rezoning in your packet. Once we had their approval, we went to the city and we actually came to the city just to have the one waiver removed on the density. We were guided by by the city to rezone the property to bring it into the new code out of the old code, which we agreed to do, knowing that we were giving up certain rights, one of which was the highest going from 1 to 80 to the 150 in the S-Max 12. The design criteria that the Denver Tech Center overlaid and I gave you a handout with a proposed GDP that we're currently in for approval on. We'll show you some of the the significant changes. There's a lot of changes between the two significant ones. So setback requirements, minimum 40 feet opposed to the ten feet in the IMAX, open space, minimum 30%, I believe it's 15 to 20 in the in the s-max. But most importantly is the building coverage, which you can only have the 40% of your site opposed to in the SM. Actually, it's really unlimited subject to you meeting your other criteria. In addition to the city, the the Denver Tech Center HCC requirements, we have also placed additional approvals on the two sites that we're not going to be developing ourself because as the owner of the office buildings and the large investment we have there, we want to make sure that we have good view corridors to the east for our tenants and that we don't block those views. I think our our neighbor to the west has similar interests, although he's looking to protect his his views to the West. From the east. On the GDP. On the handout I gave you just very quickly, I'd like to kind of go through what's proposed on this site. We're currently on parcel two. We're into the city for permits, right where it says parcel two. We're going to be developing aa1 level parking structure to place the parking that's currently on parcel three B to allow that development parcel for we have sold to a developer who's going to be developing a four story, approximate 75,000 square foot building which will house the headquarters for Kentwood Realty Parcel three B We have that under contract to a senior housing developer. They've been through the first two approval process processes with the Denver Tech Center, HCC for a six story senior housing facility of about 150 units, 65% of which would be independent living 35% would be assisted. Which leaves us with with the only parcel that we don't have a specific plan on, which is three way. It's approximately two and a half acres of the eight acres. And on that parcel we'll be developing that ourselves. Or the intent is we're currently looking at a number of different options. Probably primarily right now we're looking at doing some residential condominium development there. It could be residential, it could be office. We're just not sure at this point in time. If you have any questions for me, I went through that as quickly as I could. I was in my 6 minutes and I feel good. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. Sean Reilly.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mr. President. Members, the city council. My name is Sean Maley. I work at CRL Associates. 1660, Lincoln and Denver, and we've been working with Westfield on this rezoning. Briefly want to just review some of the change conditions and adopted plan guidance for this site. The property and its surroundings have changed a lot since the before, with waiver zoning was originally put into place in 1981. Most notably, as Mr. Dalton pointed out, the existing zoning pre-dates blueprint Denver, the new Denver zoning code and perhaps most importantly, light rail and transit. Serving the area predates all of these by more than 20 years. Additionally, the nature of the commercial office market has changed considerably since this property was zoned in 1981, and all of these change conditions guided us to rezone the property from the B4 with waivers which which was intended for more of a single use suburban office zoned district towards a more modern mixed use zone district that you'd find more commonly a quarter mile from light rail. The rezoning to some x 12 is consistent with a number of the land use mobility, sustainability and housing strategies in place in 2000 and Blueprint. Denver again identifies the site as a mixed use area of change. Lastly, I just want to reiterate some of the DTC covenants that Randy mentioned that apply to and will be enforced on this site. Again, this entire site and not just this parcel is subject to a very rigorous set of design guidelines and design review from the Denver Tech Center. The design review process is very lengthy and has a number of steps, and it's all enforced by a seven member architectural control committee known as the FCC. These design requirements go significantly beyond the requirements in Denver zoning with respect to setbacks. The amount of open space, building coverage ratios, landscaping, material requirements, etc.. So we can answer more questions on these if you would like. But again, just wanted to point these out and note that these should help alleviate any concerns from our neighboring property owner about height and density and the overall quality and design integration of the property . As again, these HCC guidelines I believe go even significantly beyond the requirements that they have in their zoning and their GDP. The design requirements again exist to promote a very high quality environment and the protective covenants will run with the land in perpetuity, regardless of ownership. So here for any questions if you have them. Thank you very.
Speaker 1: Much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Next, we have Robert Warren.
Speaker 1: I had written a letter earlier to Joel, too. I need to read it to get it on the record or something.
Speaker 2: You can use your 3 minutes however you want to your choice.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, I am speaking on behalf of front range land and development. We are the master development entity for Belleview Station Building Station's 55 acre transit oriented development just to the east of the subject property. We re zone this property in 2003 to Timi 37. We have filed a general development plan with the city. In 2006, we outlined our entire development strategy for Bellevue Station. The Timi 30 zoning allows for densities up to 5521f air across the entire site and heights of up to 220. In creating this general development plan, however, we took a realistic look at the market in terms of option capacity, competition, infrastructure that was in place and infrastructure that needed to be built. And we voluntarily reduced our densities to around 2.4 FLIR based upon the available infrastructure in the area. And I'm talking about the wet utilities, water, sewer, sanitary and storm. So we draft. We also drafted a set of standards and guidelines for the city staff to review all of the projects for Bellevue Station when they come through. This is a little different than the current zoning, but we have an FCC that reviews it. Then it goes to the city and the city reviews it based upon the standards and guidelines. Those standards and guidelines state that the set, the heights of the buildings should gradually increase from the west to the east, with the highest buildings up against IE 25. And to today we've only built five storey buildings on the perimeter and subject property is coming in and asking for 12. We've got our master plan shows somewhere between a five and an eight storey directly across the street to the east. We're can't quite figure out why we would be looking at a 12 storey zoning immediately to the west that could potentially block the views of the buildings further to the east. It's my understanding that the intent of the city's new form based on is to shape good urban design by reflecting and encouraging forms that mesh with and enhance existing neighborhood context. If we quickly look at the 165 acre acre triangle, that is the DTC West, and we'll see that the vast majority of all the buildings within the area are three story walkup apartments. There's one seven story condo project across Monica. The rest of the neighboring buildings do not exceed five stories. I don't see how 12 story zoning matches with enhances any existing built neighborhood. We've met directly with Westfield to discuss this. They've indicated over half the property has been already committed, as Randi just told you. The northeast corner of the site is where they'd like to construct a residential condominium tower of approximately 80 units. That's 12 stories high. For the record, I and Belleview Station would enthusiastically support a residential tower of under 100 units. That's about 12 stories tall in that location.
Speaker 2: Mr. Warren, your 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Next, we have Mr. Sekou.
Speaker 4: My name is. Chairman Sekou on the founder organizer for the next action movement which I've had the. Proud pleasure of representing in this hall for the last going on five years. We represent poor, working, poor and homeless people. We are, we stand opposed to this ordinance change. Because on the surface. It looks good. It's very good. And the city is in the process of boom development. Jobs are going to happen. A lot of people are going to be employed. And as a free market works. Both go make some money. For a long, long time. And in the process, the question becomes, as always. What does this mean to poor, working, poor and homeless people? Where do we fit in to any of this? Because we're city wide to. And when these developments come up and decisions are made here and everybody knows well, not everybody very by looking on TV knows that this is a 13 zero vote already coming out of committee of seven. So I already know how this is going to work. But for the new people who are on this board, I charge you with the awesome responsibility. And that is. We need your help. The help that we didn't get from the previous folks who was here, including some of the six folks who are still here. You are now the majority and we represent a new paradigm shift. So as you give up this thing here and allow them to do this, you have the awesome responsibility to monitor these projects. Check what these developers are doing and see if any black people are included. Any poor people working? To pick up a shovel and lift up going up, because unless we participate in the economic development, we are no longer stakeholders. And then we have to go for broke. And so what does our hopelessness and despair lead us to? Well, we already have examples throughout the country of what it does. You end up with Ferguson. It looked like it was about police brutality, but there was no jobs there. There was despair, all the rest of that, because those people were systematically excluded from the process and city council went along with it as coconspirators to the event . And we take 100% responsible for that because as advocate for poor and working.
Speaker 2: Mr. Sekulow.
Speaker 4: Your three.
Speaker 2: Year treatment is up, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker 4: Asking for your consideration. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All right. That concludes our speakers. Time for questions from members of council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 1: A couple of questions for. Mr. Maley. Sir. So I see two existing residential structures in sub area for. Do you know how many square foot square feet each one of those is?
Speaker 7: I do not know. The square footage is in some of the zone districts. Randi might and the city might have that data.
Speaker 1: Okay. Maybe there's somebody here that can answer that question.
Speaker 7: The excuse me, the square footage is you're asking of the.
Speaker 1: Two existing residential buildings in Siberia for.
Speaker 7: I'm not sure what they are, but I know that the 225,000 feet that was originally allowed under the waiver, that's been extinguished. So I don't know if they're over that to 25, but they're certainly at least 225,000. And from the looks of them, I would think that they're. Well, I don't know for sure.
Speaker 1: Well, I was checking that I brought the real property records. There are 65 units in the bigger of the two buildings. Most of those are an average of 1500 to 1700 square feet with the penthouse units $3 million units about 3000 square feet. I don't get to 140,000 square feet on that unit. And then the building adjacent to it is significantly smaller. But when you're coming for a rezoning, deciding that the maximum square footage is exceeded or met, I would appreciate if you guys knew well if we were.
Speaker 7: Told that by the city. So I guess we, you know, maybe we should have researched as well, but we were told that it was maxed out.
Speaker 1: Okay, maybe the city. Kyle, I'm sorry. Kyle, what is the maximum building height in sub area for today? I believe it's 207.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm. Yeah. The maximum building height in Siberia for today is 280 feet.
Speaker 1: 280 feet. So a 5 to 8 storey building is considerably smaller than that. So you could build a building that is substantially larger than 5 to 8 storeys today as a use by rights provided. It's not a residential structure, correct?
Speaker 6: That's right.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I. I'm pointing that out because. Once again, we're blindly zoning on some criteria that we know, but a lot of criteria we don't know because you have a 500,000 square foot maximum on a hotel. I have no idea how much of the $1.2 million Million square footage build out is. They're just calculating based on the sizes in this GDP and the two building, the three structures are in the balance. I don't get to 1.2 million square feet. So there is a developable structure on that parcel today that could exceed 5 to 8 storeys in height, theoretically. And that analysis isn't isn't done. And so thank you, Chairman CQ, for reminding me on part of why I'm here. And so I don't want to disrupt my colleagues, but this is one of those things that if anyone's been paying attention to council in the last four or five years prior councilmembers have sort of lamented the fact that we don't have we don't have the rigor on an analysis of what's being proposed when we're doing these sort of blanket rezoning. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Oh. Would you mind staying there? I have a question. Are there any view corridors in this area?
Speaker 6: Do in view planes? Yes, there are no view planes.
Speaker 5: Okay. So no protection for the views? That's correct. One of the speakers raised question and there was mention about opposition, I think, in your comments about views that might be affected from the development. So in any portion of the code, is there protection for folks who want their views protected that are not in a view plane area
Speaker 6: ? They would just be subject to the the zoning standards that apply to each site. So each site's building heights and gross floor areas I think look.
Speaker 5: I think those are the only questions I have. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Kyle, while you're up there, anything in the new zoning? What elements? Control density in open space.
Speaker 6: In the ESA max 12 zoning. The. The. There are no requirements relative to density or open space. Both of those would be a factor of what's developable within the building form standards that apply to the site, including maximum building heights. The setbacks and and then and then how else you could configure the site relative to meeting your parking and landscaping needs, that kind of thing.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Schwartz, can I ask you a couple of questions? I'm sorry if I missed this. Could you go over again what you envision for parcels one and two?
Speaker 7: Parcel one and two are currently existing office buildings.
Speaker 8: Okay. And what heights are the parcel?
Speaker 7: One The building is six stories in parcel. Two It's a three story. And then on parcel two, right where the label is, we're currently in for a building permit to construct a one story parking structure there to eliminate the surface parking that's currently over on Niagara Street.
Speaker 8: Okay. So and then on three, you says about two and a half acres and it's maybe condos. Condos, it may be office.
Speaker 7: Yes. And because of the setback requirements of the Denver Tech Center design criteria and so forth, you know, certainly a condominium project has a much smaller floor played. You know, you might get four to maybe six condominiums per floor. So your density is going to be much less. And that's where the height may help. Again, you know, we've all we own a lot of properties such as this where we currently have the right to go to 280 feet. But, you know, the practical application is, do you ever get there or not? It's the flexibility that helps to be able to, you know, address the market now and in the future.
Speaker 8: And so what would you envision height wise for parcel three three?
Speaker 7: It's just we haven't designed anything yet. You know, it you know, certainly if it were more along the lines of what's been developed to the east of us, you know, those are very dense projects. Those are, you know, 4 to 5 storey buildings that are, you know, 250 to 300 units. Certainly on our three B, you know, we're going six storeys, but we're only going a density of 150 units because of the senior housing. So to me, sometimes height and density, you know, the correlation between the two doesn't necessarily match up.
Speaker 8: Can you envision maxing out your height on that parcel?
Speaker 7: You know, in today's market, maybe not if we didn't develop this for 5 to 10 years. Obviously, if you if you look at other TOD developments now here in the metro area, but you know, around the country, you do start getting some very high dense multi use projects. So certainly if I didn't think there would be any possibility, you know, we probably would have come in with something different. But certainly as we go more towards the condominium, the smaller floor plates, I think that's where the possibility would would potentially be to go higher.
Speaker 8: And can you address your your time frame for the parcels that you're looking at developing?
Speaker 7: And well, I mean, we're looking at it right now. We're in the process right now of, you know, we own two or three residential sites within the city of Denver. And, you know, we're taking a very hard look, even with the, you know, the. Defect legislation that's now in place doing condominiums. So where we're looking at all of them, we're not specifically today looking at this site over actually, we're looking at a couple of the lower downtown sites as it's quicker development. But we would like to think that we will come up with something in the next 2 to 3 years.
Speaker 8: Okay. And the last thing I wanted to ask, do you have any thoughts on open space for the parcels that haven't been developed yet?
Speaker 7: Well, the open space, if you look at the side of the of the GDP that I showed you, in most cases, you know, we certainly are. I think the real lower ad is 37% open space. And that's on the I believe it's on the senior housing site. 34, that's actually 39%. So the open space in this development, it will always be up around that 35 or larger. And again, because of the setback requirements, the 40 feet, this remaining site has union frontage as well as it has Niagara. You know, we've got the first 40 feet all around the perimeter that there's open space. And then obviously you're going to have into interior as well the setbacks on the three B and on the partial floor. Where were the offices for? Those are both in excess of 70 feet setback. So there's you know, that's not all open space, but it's some parking as well.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Malloy, a couple of questions. Maybe you made me a lawyer for a book. I'm sorry. The gentleman from Belleview Station. Oh.
Speaker 2: Mr. Warren.
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm sorry. I was reading the letter of objection. Who is Mr. Malloy then?
Speaker 1: I work with her.
Speaker 4: Oh, okay. Thank you. Could you expand a little bit on that? Does your parcel still have before with waivers?
Speaker 1: No, it's all to me.
Speaker 4: It's all 2D now. And that the rezoning was done in 2006 when the station opened. That's correct. Okay. And then you made some reference to residential development. Was that solely on your parcel or were you talking or were you advocating residential development on one in the in the fourth quadrant also?
Speaker 1: We would not be opposed to a 12 storey residential project that they're discussing here. What we are opposed to is a. The zoning allows for 12 storeys with unlimited density. So we're not really talking about a small floor plate that's 12 feet or 12 stories tall. We're talking about full site coverage at 12 storeys as a possibility. Now, if they deliver the condo project that they are talking about, we would more are more than happy to support it. I just don't know how you get to there from this zoning.
Speaker 4: Okay. So the height is not necessarily the issue so much as the density.
Speaker 1: The height in a11 specific area where the entire front range would not be obscured would not be a problem for us because it's just one little piece, whereas an entire wall at 150 feet would be a problem because it would obscure the entire front range. Right.
Speaker 4: All right. That's why I. And I apologize for calling you Miss Malloy.
Speaker 1: No problem. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Mike from.
Speaker 5: Did her. Okay. Kyle, a question for Kyle and a question for Sean mainly. So Councilman Espinosa was questioning the maxed out development of the residential. Can you please address that? Because I know that there are, I believe, at least three different residential projects in that area.
Speaker 6: Sure. Yeah. So I don't have the numbers with me tonight of the exact square footage of the projects as built. But what I did indicate in the staff report is the summary of.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 6: Research about this. Think about what the square footage is, are of the different buildings and what's allowed today. So at the bottom of page three and the beginning of page four of our staff report, we indicated that the Zone Light Amendment, which is the the document that controls square footage to each parcel within the sub area, the most recent zone, not amendment for their parcel that's being subject to the rezoning, entitles it to 215,000 square feet of office only because all the residential had been spoken for. So. So the way this works is within the sub area as parcels are created that then become zoned lots that then get developed. They, you know, they, they claim some of that square footage and it's documented through a zone lot amendment, which is an administrative process through development services. I think there've been like 30 over just this one sub area. The parcels get real. The parcels that that they provided to you tonight are even different than the parcels that they were before. So every time they move the lines a little bit, they say this much square footage here, this much square footage there. So if you trace the lineage, all the residential has been spoken for before and what they have today on their parcel is 215,000 chest of office.
Speaker 5: So to be clear, the rezoning is so that they can build residential units in addition to changing the height.
Speaker 6: That would be enabled by the rezoning.
Speaker 5: Hey. Thank you. Can I ask you something, please? So I understand Mr. Warren's concern about a. Lot lined, a lot line structure. That would be 12 stories. Can you please relate that to what the architectural committee covenants are and how they would impact that?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. So as Randy explained, the Denver Tech Center self-imposed protective covenants on these properties that consists of a very thick book of design guidelines and a design review process that's reviewed by a seven person architectural review committee. With respect to our neighbors, concerns about a wall of 150 feet that would be blocking views that just simply can't happen. Just a few of the key design guidelines within these covenants are a 30%.
Speaker 1: Minimum open space that applies to the whole site.
Speaker 7: So on that GDP that you see in front of you, that's why we have such large open spaces is because, again, this is.
Speaker 1: Enforced upon.
Speaker 7: Us at the site plan, at the HCC level, another one is 40% maximum building coverage. So again, we could not max out this site with a wall of 150 feet because we're going to also have to comply with that maximum building coverage from Niagara and from Union. We have 40 foot setback requirements. Those again, far exceed Denver's zoning code from Bellevue. We have a 100 foot setback requirement. I should point out that that these design requirements in these covenants do apply to our entire site. They do not apply to our neighboring property owner. They do have a GDP. They have design guidelines within their GDP, their team, you throw in reviewing, you know, Denver zoning code and knowing GDPs fairly well. That's why I said in my remarks, these design requirements far exceed the GDP requirements. So I think it creates a really quality environment where the design integration can happen, views will be exchanged, and it'll be a very high quality environment. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And the questions for 98. Seen none. Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: This project is in my district, and it's a very different kind of project than we've been hearing a lot at our city council meetings. I don't know if a lot of people know this part of town. It's the southern edge of Denver. It goes all the way to Bellevue. Many people don't even know that it is in Denver. It is adjacent to Cherry Hills in Greenwood Village, and it has a very different feel than a lot of parts of our city. It's a tremendous development, and I have to commend Mr. Warren and his company for what they have invested in this project. It's 55 acres and it's a tod. There is a light rail station there. It is in the Denver Tech Center where thousands of people work. It's a great opportunity. They have invested 50, $15 million in infrastructure and utilities that will be dedicated to the city. They've also dedicated 12 acres of right away that is now owned by the city. They have an incredible investment in this, and it's going to be a significant economic impact for our city. It's very well planned. Trains worked very hard to plan this development with residential retail restaurants, which we're very excited about and office. So it's a it's a really great ideal project. I believe it's about a quarter built now and the full buildout when it's done is going to be about a $2 billion project. This parcel we're talking about is adjacent to it, and I know that we can't approve development plans before we approve zoning, but we do have a good idea of what they are going to develop. The four storey realtor office building is is very appropriate. There will be lots of open space. The senior living development is is a nice and a nice scale with open space. It's also a very needed project. And like Trey, we do hope that you do build condos there. I know the scale of that would be great and also very needed. So I do support that. As Randy and Sean both said, that the design guideline guidelines are much more stringent than the than CBD. So I think it's a very well planned development overall. Trace Parcel is along with yours and I will be supporting it and I encourage all my fellow council members to get on the light rail and come down and check it out, because I'm guessing some of you have never been there and it's really cool and it's going to be a great addition to our city. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, Councilwoman Black, I'm sorry. And not nothing against this particular rezoning in that, you know, but my vote is going to be more about, again, process, because what we have here is I mean, I see a definite need. This is a land that's underutilized. It's proximity to toddy is undeniable. That's a changing condition that you couldn't have imagined in 1981. The highway was narrower. The railroad, the rail didn't exist. So there's there's a definite need to explore what goes there. But what gives me pause is, is in one of the prior staff reports is, you know, the existing zoning description says the current B4 District with waivers was adopted in 1981 following extensive public involvement in the rezoning of the then vacant land. At the time, much of the area between built in it goes on extensive public involvement. That is something that we sort of have short circuited. And here's a situation where you had extensive public or I'm assuming some extensive public involvement on the station area and the 2D. And you had a group of people essentially working towards sort of 12 story unobstructed views and adjacent property that had encumbrances that sort of limited its development potential. Even, you know, with four empty parcels here, too, you would hit that 1.2 million square feet on some very low level buildings very quickly. And so any adjacent property owners should have I mean, would have recognized that in their due diligence. And here now we're going to grant, without certain covenants, potential maximum height. You know, I've already heard that there's a proposal for a six story and a 12 story that would somehow be situated on the site that could result in some waivers, very minimal, to sort of ascribe certain height restrictions to two to something that would sort of work with everybody and get some buy in and move forward. But our process is such that we don't need to do that and that's pretty, pretty frustrating. So unfortunately, I do think it's the right zoning. I think the guidelines and and standards are there to sort of ascribe decent, you know, civil aspects to the project going forward. But just as a matter of principle, because I'm pretty sure it's going to carry this vote. I'm going to vote no, thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. You know the comments for 98. CNN. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 3: Black eye. Brooks Clark. All right. Espinosa. No. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Cashman. I can each. Lopez. New Ortega, I. Sussman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close. Very nice result.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes one day.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes one day for 98 have been placed on final consideration and does pass seeing no the business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 5: Denver eight TV. Your city, your source.
Speaker 0: Denver eight on TV and online to stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
Speaker 5: Fabulous. Yeah, wonderful. I teach two private groups. Wonderful. So that's hanging out with writers? Yes. You know, and that means once every week I'm with one of one or the other of my groups, an aspiring writer. And then there's the free.
Rezones 6502 East Union Avenue from B-4 with waivers and conditions, UO-1, UO-2 to S-MX-12 in Council District 4. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 6502 East Union Avenue from B-4 with waivers and conditions, UO-1, UO-2 to S-MX-12 in Council District 4. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM.  REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-22-15.