Afternoon.

We are here for community planning and housing.

Oops, did I get that right?

I think I did.

Thank you very much.

And today is November 4th in the afternoon.

I'm Diana Romero Campbell and I represent District 4.

We have a few action items today and a presentation.

But in the meantime, can we go online and have the council members introduce themselves?

Okay, I'm not yet.

Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver District 2.

Amy Torres, West Denver District 3.

Good afternoon, Amanda Sawyer District 5.

We can start to our right for introduction.

Great.

Sarah Fardy, you're one minute late committee chair.

Thank you, Madam Pro Tem.

Darrell Watson, fine district nine.

And again, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver, District 4.

And Paul Cash from South Denver District 6.

Perfect.

Thanks for the tolerance, everyone.

We had a very late night last night, and so we're all running around like chickens with our heads cut off a little bit.

But I'm very excited for this presentation today.

We are going to care about an ordinance that Council President Sandoval, Councilor Cashman, Councilmember Watson, myself, and our agency partners who are here today have been working on for how long now?

A year and a half.

Yeah, a year and a half, quite some time, to try to get a really solid set of regulations into the Denver Building Code so that we can allow single stairway buildings when it is safe to do so, and thereby make it possible to build more flexibly on small lots.

These buildings are conducive to multi-unit housing, and they just create a lot of flexibility and cost savings.

So I will do if any of my co-sponsors want to say a word before the agency presentation, feel free.

Otherwise, I will turn to you guys again after we hear from Mr.

Browning and Chief DeBair.

You guys can introduce yourselves and take it away.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for having us this afternoon.

My name is Eric Browning.

I'm the chief building official in community planning and development, and I'm joined by Chief DeBar with Denver Fire Department.

We'll be presenting this afternoon on a small suite of building and fire code updates in addition to the single stair topic that Councilwoman Parody spoke of.

There are a couple other items that were including in this package and that were provided in the red line documents of the building and fire codes for your consideration.

And that's true.

There we go.

Okay.

So again, yes, single stair is a primary and important topic for this code update.

There is also language with respect to adoption of the wild and urban interface code, which is something that comes to us uh through the state and is necessary for municipalities to adopt.

And then there are a handful of other miscellaneous and minor updates that are certainly important and timely, that I'll talk through towards the end of the presentation, wrapping up with timeline and next steps for this legislative process.

So the background for single stair, as Councilwoman Parody properly um noted, has been in research and development for well over a year.

Um Chief DeBar and I have uh been working to um craft language most recently following the passage of Colorado House Bill 251273, uh which came through in the regular legislative session of the state uh earlier this year.

We've also been evaluating the 2027 draft edition of the International Building Code and the International Fire Code, and of course, coordinating uh with the four uh council sponsors related to this topic.

And what we have uh be presenting this afternoon is a culmination of all of the research and all of that information and trying to find the sweet spot um to allow single stair small apartment buildings um to be designed and built within Denver.

As I mentioned, in addition, I'll be presenting some information on the wildland urban fire interface.

This also came to us from state legislation, uh which was initiated back in 2023.

Um, however, the state um uh committee that was doing the work didn't complete that work until July of this year, uh and so we needed to uh scramble just a little bit here in the past few months to get that into our regulatory requirements as well.

Okay, so let's dive into a little more depth on single stairs.

As I mentioned, we've been doing quite a bit of research and collaboration with internal and external partners, some of which who are in the audience with us today.

Again, following the state adoption earlier this year, we drafted the language at the direction of and with the review of the council sponsors.

The language primarily matches that of the state.

However, we did make some local updates to allow, I would say, more opportunities for these buildings to be built within Denver.

And as part of the drafting of the language, we also conducted surveys and we held external stakeholder engagement groups, thanks to all of those that participated so that we could receive feedback, questions, comments, concerns, and make sure that we were addressing as much as we possibly could with respect to the consideration of these regulatory requirements.

And just to be clear, with respect to the single stair code updates, we're updating the building code and we're updating the fire code.

There are no zoning code changes associated with this.

I will show a slide here in just a minute that has some zoning information, but there's not any zoning code changes associated with that.

So just to be clear.

And there are a number of criteria that are relevant to the design and construction for these buildings to ensure that minimum levels are life safety of life safety are maintained with the allowance for just a single stair to be provided.

So, for example, a maximum of 6,000 square feet per story is allowed, up to four units per story.

All of these buildings as residential will be fully sprinkler protected throughout all of the residential or other pertinence spaces, storage rooms or utility closets, things like that.

The type of construction that is permitted will be type one, two, three, and four construction.

And I'll take a quick pause here to note that at the state level, types one, two, and four construction are what's allowed.

Type three is a type of construction that is what most would think of as typical wood frame apartment buildings, two by four type construction for walls and maybe trusses or engineered wood joists for floors and roofs, things like that.

That is something that Chief DeBar Dabar and I consulted about for quite some time.

We evaluated the risks or the lack thereof, and ultimately decided to come forward with a recommendation that type three can and should be allowed because of the other redundancies and life safety features that are associated with these buildings.

And so that gives additional opportunity for the design of these buildings in Denver that doesn't otherwise exist in the state current.

Moving on, the width of the stairs is a very critical element associated with these buildings, since there's only one simultaneous use needs to be considered, both for first responders addressing the building as well as for occupants either self-evacuating or evacuating with assistance once those first responders arrive.

And there are limitations in terms of the locations of electrical outlets.

This has to do with those lovely little personal mobility devices called scooters and some of the e-bikes.

And the lithium-ion batteries associated with those can present a hazard, and we certainly don't want those hazards happening in the common spaces like common hallways or within the stairs themselves.

And so while it might seem like kind of an odd code criteria to say you can't have plugs in your stairs, there's a very specific and critical reason why.

In addition, there are a number of other technical detailed requirements.

I can certainly take questions on those later, should we choose, but in you know, just recognizing our time, I want to move on a little bit here.

There is additional language that we've added and proposed with respect to these buildings that is based on the international building code 2027 development process that's really come to fruition in the past couple of months.

And that is up to a four-story single stair building can be designed and built.

And the criteria associated with that from the international code development process, which is a very large consensus-based process, is uh there are less criteria associated with that than there are with a five-story building, right?

You take away a story, you've inherently reduced the risk by some amount.

And so there are multiple pathways and options for designers and developers to choose, depending on if you want to build a four-story or a five-story single-stair building.

And again, all of this has been well coordinated between community planning and development, Denver Fire Department, and any other entities that are involved.

This is the zoning slide I was referring to, and what this shows, and as a matter of fact, we presented something similar in previous presentations.

This is updated and uh and more accurate than the previous map that we had.

And this identifies potential uh zone lots where a five-story single stair building could be uh could be built.

Um I won't go into a whole lot more detail on that, and if there's questions, we can certainly come back as well.

Okay, moving on to the wildland fire urban fire interface.

Sorry, it's a little bit of a mouthful here.

Um I've got a number of slides to talk through on this two primary elements I really want to start with that are absolutely critical to sharing this information.

The first is that the maps that I'll share in a couple of slides affect a very, very small percentage of urban and suburban Denver, city and county property.

As a matter of fact, uh it's a chunk of airport land and a very small number of parcels in Montebello.

And there are mountain parks, so certainly that's relevant.

But overall, the impact of this regulatory update that again comes to us from the state, is quite small when we consider all of the parcels throughout the city and county of Denver.

The other thing that I want to mention before I start talking through some of these other details is that these requirements are only come into play if modifications are made to a home or to a structure.

There's no retroactivity, there isn't anything that requires an owner to go in and start making modifications on January 1st.

Um, you know, hopefully, should these regulations pass here in Denver, it's only if they start modifying the exterior walls or the roof of their buildings, and there are certainly available pathways for them to do so.

So, with that being said, um those modifications that I noted and the lack of retroactivity is very important.

If a roof or an exterior wall is going to be modified or replaced 25% or more of that existing area, then these provisions can come into play.

So there are repairs that can be done to roofs and walls, and it's possible that these provisions would not even apply.

I'll move to a map on the next slide that talks about fire intensity classifications.

Those classifications come from state of Colorado Forest Service.

And we have intentionally selected the maps that have the least negative impact on existing homes and buildings.

There are other maps that are available which identify risk and fire intensity using different criteria.

These are not maps that you know, CPD or DFD created.

We're simply adopting them.

But we wanted to start with a very low bar and a low threshold to have the least impact.

And if we choose to reevaluate and then ramp these up at a later date, we certainly can.

But we didn't want to come in with a tidal wave of regulations without trying to inform all of you know the, well, there's not that many really, but inform the folks that could be impacted by these regulations first.

There are really two intensity classifications.

And I'll move to a map just so we can see this from a color perspective.

Here, the yellow indicates a low intensity, and the orange is a moderate intensity.

There is no red on this map.

Red would be a very high fire intensity.

We do see that in our mountain parks.

And I'll comment that we've been having conversations with DPR, and they are aware of these criteria.

And quite frankly, most of the design and construction that they do for their mountain park facilities already meet these minimum criteria.

From the type of construction to the landscaping of the vegetation associated with the development of those sites or the maintenance of those sites.

So again, you can see from this map, the large area in the center, kind of to the left that's hatched.

That's the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Wildlife Refuge.

So that's actually federal land.

That isn't even city and county jurisdiction.

To the right side of this, the yellow and orange solid areas are entirely within Denver International Airport space and area.

Ironically, the areas that are mostly identified on the airport map are runways, which tells us that there's probably still some room for refinement with respect to these maps.

But again, we're gonna do the best we can, and we've selected those that are least impactful.

So as we zoom in just a little bit here, this is 56th Avenue, the Montbello neighborhood.

This would be Councilwoman Gilmore's district, and we've got 19 residential parcels that fall within the mapped area south of the refuge that would be impacted by these regulations should they make changes to their homes at some point in the future.

And so it is uh CPD's uh intent, we've started creating the documentation to do uh specific outreach for these 19 owners.

Typically, we wouldn't do something like this when we do a regulatory update because it usually affects you know almost the entire city.

This has such a I'll say unfortunate and a small impact that we want to make sure that we touch base with them, that we can provide education.

If there's any questions, we can answer that, and uh try to help you know support them should they want to make changes uh you know to their homes in the future.

Uh so these are the 19 residential partials that are impacted by the adoption of these regulations.

As I mentioned, uh we've got the airport and have been in communication with our partners at Den.

Uh, they're aware of the regulations, generally speaking, there's there's not a whole lot of concern.

I won't speak for them, but the existing facilities or new facilities that they may consider, even if they're within these zones, because of the robustness of the buildings that they design and build at the airport, they're basically going to meet these criteria by default anyway.

Um so let me pause for just a moment before I wrap up with kind of the miscellaneous code updates.

Questions may arise in terms of what are the criteria related to the buildings.

Uh it has to do with the fire rating for roofs, which would be a class A roof assembly.

This is going to be relatively easy to meet from a residential shingle perspective.

We don't have a lot of wood shake roofs in Denver, and that's a good thing, and certainly not in this area, so don't need to be concerned about that.

And it has to do with the robustness or the resiliency of the exterior wall materials, and there are many different options that are available from a wall rating to a non combustible exterior finish to simply having an underlayment that might be a fire retardant treated plywood product that actually goes below a finished material.

There are some other important details for things like EVE vents, so we don't end up with embers up in the attic space.

That has to do with just a wire mesh that has no more than an eighth inch square opening covering those events.

So while there are additional criteria associated with these locations, one could say that they are not overly burdensome, and that the incremental costs associated with compliance with these regulations should not be so critical that it would disincentivize folks being able to make modifications to their homes.

Okay.

I'm gonna go ahead and move on and wrap up with a handful of the miscellaneous code updates that I refer to outside of the single stair and outside of the wild and urban fire interface.

We've made some modifications to our administrative provisions to not expire applications for building projects as frequently as we had in the past.

Quite honestly, it was just an administrative burden for a lot of folks in the city and for customers and didn't add much value at all.

So we're simply going to change the regulations and allow these projects to continue under the original design up until a point 18 months after the next major code adoption.

And when we say major code adoption, what we're referring to here isn't an update like we're doing today, which is a tweak to the 2025 codes, which we adopted back in June.

It's when we move on to the 2027 series of codes.

And so we're at least two years plus out, you know, from that timeframe.

So really we're giving folks a lot of runway to work with, and we're not creating a whole lot of additional administrative burden for anybody on this.

Moving on, we're proposing some updates to our neighbor notifications.

And as it exists in the code today, the only way that you can notify neighbors of improvements, whether it's an excavation or a demolition, or if you want to do an addition, you have to fill out the forms through USPS and do certified mail with return receipt requested.

Those documents have to be provided to community planning and development.

It's a whole lot of work and it's very challenging to achieve and maintain all that.

So we said, gee, wait, we've already got a process through zoning that can achieve something essentially identical.

Why don't we mirror that on the building side?

And so what we've done is we provide proposed language to allow posting of the property on one or two or multiple sides, so that folks that are immediately adjacent see a big sign that says this is what's going to happen here, you know, within a certain amount of time.

So it's not a requirement, it's an alternative option.

So folks could still use the old way if they want, they can use the new area if they'd like as well.

So we're just trying to expand the opportunities for notification of adjacent owners.

We're doing a couple other updates with respect to meeting state criteria.

Um, in reference to House Bill 25 1056 earlier this year, we're gonna exempt modifications to wireless telecommunications or broadband facilities, not new ones, but just modifications to those.

Quite honestly, we were not adding a lot of value in terms of the review and permitting of these, and so really no problem making sure that not only do we meet state law, but we're not adding additional burden or permitting requirements for the folks that are trying to do the updates to these facilities.

We're simplifying the installation design criteria for residential rooftop solar, so those should go through quite a bit quicker and easier using the solar app permitting tool.

And we're going to clarify energy code compliance criteria for small commercial change of occupancy projects, 5,000 square feet or less.

That's really gonna help support adaptive reuse, tenant finishes in these small tenant spaces.

From the energy compliance perspective, we had previously, I think quite honestly, we'd overreached a little bit, and we were asking individual tenants to make changes to the building envelope, the walls or the roof, or to the building systems, the mechanical systems.

And an individual tenant really shouldn't be responsible for those for their particular space, right?

So we're gonna narrow that down and we're going to kind of zoom in on that particular space, make sure that their particular space is compliant in and of itself, but not focus as much on those external elements that really should be the ownership's responsibility.

And then finally, uh, we're making some plumbing code updates in coordination with our partners in Dotti to make grease interceptors, uh hydromechanical grease interceptors, I think is the right term here.

Um design and sizing and installation uh easier.

Um, this is really gonna be helpful for all of our restaurants that are required to have grease interceptors.

Um, and quite frankly, uh we probably should have done this a couple years ago, but hey, here we are now, so should be helping our restaurants move forward a bit quicker.

Okay, uh wrapping up with next steps, uh we're here today uh on November 4th, and uh would love to have your approval to move this forward to full council.

Uh, should that be the case?

Um, believe we'd be in full council for the first reading on the 17th.

Uh, hopefully we'll vote in approval on the 24th, right before Thanksgiving.

The effective date of these regulations will come in right at the end of the year, which will match the code effective date that we already have for our 25 uh suite of codes.

Um, so with that, uh, wrap up.

Again, we feel like um the benefits of these updates will um help ensure compliance with the the state laws, including the wildfire and telecoms regulations, as well as single stair.

Um, we're creating additional pathways for those single stair buildings for residential design and development.

Um, and we're trying to cut back even further on any regulatory burden in red tape that we've identified in the past few months since we adopted the 25 codes.

So with that, we'll go ahead and wrap up and open up for questions.

Thank you.

And actually, um, before questions, I'm sorry, council members.

Oh, no, you're okay.

We have um a public comment period.

Um we have four folks um signed up.

Um, and I will just say that my favorite thing about local government is you never know that you're gonna wake up and learn about hydromechanical grease interceptors.

Um, so with that, um public comment on this is um two minutes apiece for those who signed up.

We have three folks, so I think we're here in person, and one who's here virtually.

Um I wanna make sure that we have our timer ready to go.

Hold on, I'm gonna look for the high sign from Tim here.

We will not see the timer in the room.

So I will keep the time.

That's right, I forgot how this works in this room.

Okay.

Um let me pull up my timer before I say any names.

I don't have a timer.

I do have a timer.

Okay, never mind.

I'm reading reminders.

All right, never mind.

We have a timer.

Um, so the first speaker is um Max Nardo, who's speaking in favor of and Max, you can introduce yourself at that mic and take it away.

Great.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

Can you hear me okay?

Because I moved it.

Sorry, first time at this mic.

Uh Max Nardo, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project on our housing forward Colorado campaign.

I'm here to speak in support of the code reform.

And if you move this to council to remain open-minded to increasing it to seven stories, um, as an advocate for sustainable, affordable, walkable communities.

Um, we support this.

It will expand housing diversity in areas that are connected to public transit and jobs, um, things I think you all know.

Um they support our greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and our public transportation goals, which is extra important at a time when the federal government is really no longer supporting our work around this.

Um we have too many small vacant lots in these convenience areas that have been unbuildable because of these um two-stair requirements.

So thank you for considering that.

So, why am I encouraging you to uh not stop at five floors?

If limited to five, um developers have told us that many developers may only build to four because of cheaper uh type five structures, um if the land value doesn't justify the added cost of a type one or four structure.

Uh and why seven, we have fire trucks that can reach them.

We have higher building standards that kick in at eight stories.

So it might be a nice sweet spot.

Um if we can get additional units, we should take them at a time when our region is relentlessly sprawling.

And what's more, if a couple of extra units allows a project to pencil that might not otherwise pencil because the developer can spread the land cost over additional units.

So we don't just get the extra four units from the extra floor.

We would get the project entirely and all of the development fees and affordable housing fees that are associated with it.

Um I guess I'm out of time.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Max.

Um you prevented me from having to awkwardly tell you that your time was up.

Um the next is Sean Jersonnik, who should be in person, I think.

Sean.

Oh, yep, there he is.

Thanks, madam chair.

My name is Sean Jerznick.

I'm a local architect with SAR architects.

I'm also the co-chair of the AIA Colorado Housing Committee.

Um, here in support of the building code amendments today, and appreciate the collaboration between the uh building department, fire, and city council members uh to uh use their expertise to craft the building code in a way that will create new housing options for the city.

Um City of Denver builds a lot more apartments than single family homes, but the average apartment building is over 50 units, and one of the reasons is because of the building code, and that is being addressed with the amendments that are being proposed today.

Uh, the single stair code will unlock apartments that are smaller scale, 10 to 20 units that'll be able to be built on lots in urban areas where housing's in most demand, and unlock small lots in the city that currently aren't being developed.

So these building code amendments will unlock a new diversity of housing types um in areas all over the city.

Um so thank you for your time.

Thank you, and thanks for your advocacy all along the way.

Um we have Robert Greer in person also speaking for the item.

Hi, everybody.

I think a lot of you guys know me.

I'm Rob Greer.

I'm an eviction defense attorney.

Um I want to thank you for your consideration of this proposal.

It's really important.

Um, we have a humongous housing shortage in Denver, continue to have one.

Um permits are about half of what they were before 2022 or so.

Um, so while rents have been reducing over the last year or so because of a big influx of new units, that trend is gonna stop very soon, and I don't want that to happen.

Um, evictions are at all-time highs.

This is a direct result of the housing uh shortage.

Um, it's also due to the shortage of subsidized housing, and that's something I think has a direct application to um to this proposal.

I would also strongly encourage you to um consider going to seven stories, um, because of the EHA density bonus that allows uh builders to go from five to seven stories.

Um that difference between the current proposal and the seven-story proposal, which I understand is consistent with what the fire department is okay with, um, is really a difference between uh not very many subsidized units getting built and a huge number of subsidized using units getting built under the EHA uh density bonus.

Um, so uh yeah, I just want to reiterate all the stuff that Max said about um environmental stuff.

Um I'm I'm also an environmentalist, and it's really important that we do residential info to stop sprawl um to improve the walkability of our neighborhoods and the viability of transit.

Um this is uh kind of a do-or-die moment for my generation and my kids' generation.

Um, I'm a bike commuter.

Um, this is really important to um uh myself and and the bike community.

Um, so for sustainability reasons, affordability reasons, social justice reasons, I really encourage you to take this as far as you can.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um, our last public commenter, also in favor of the item, is um Jacob Wooden, who is online.

So I will keep the time for you.

Um, as soon as you're ready, you can introduce yourself and you have two minutes.

Thanks for being here.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, so I'm Jacob Wooden.

I'm um a resident of Denver in North Park Hill, and I'm really grateful that I'm able to present or talk to you guys today virtually.

So I appreciate that.

Um, you mentioned, I'm speaking in favor of this as well, and echoing a lot of the points that have already been raised.

I think I'm a big advocate for building more housing in Denver where people already live through allowing more missing middle housing.

Um, that's gonna lead to lower housing costs, it's gonna lead to less impact on the environment and focuses our development on places where people already are so that we can have a more fiscally sustainable built environments instead of trying to um tax and subsidized ways to support a suburban sprawl, which is really expensive in the long run.

So by upload updating our code to allow these single stair designs, I'm confident that we're going to unlock a lot of new smaller scale housing development that also fits better within our existing neighborhoods.

A lot of people are very um bothered by the developments they see happening around the Denver Metro because they tend to be very large, very disruptive projects that sometimes scrape entire city blocks.

This change is going to allow us to have housing that is more context sensitive, going to be focused on where people already are living and allow us to build in some lots that just aren't currently financially viable to build housing on due to their weird location, weird size, weird um dimensions.

And so making it easier for us to build housing like this is just really important for us to get more housing where people already are.

Single stair buildings are already widely used in so many countries, and I know that's been talked about um various times as we've considered this as a city, and I'm really excited about us being able to bring Denver in line with what is really an international norm and pumped for us to do this to make Denver more affordable and more equitable in our housing.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Six minutes or six seconds left.

All right, that was our public comment period.

Um, really appreciate people taking the time to be here today.

And with that, we will go to councilmember questions, starting with Council Member Alvidres, followed by Council Fortin.

Thank you so much, committee chair, and thank you for your work on this, everyone that has been involved.

Um I am a little bit curious around safety.

It sounds like the main plan is sprinklers, which I appreciate.

Um, but my question is around accessibility and how does that work if there's an obstruction on the one staircase.

I'll I'll defer toward operations.

Uh, two things.

I think we have the uh suppression piece taken care of, obviously, with the sprinklers.

We also have the smoke control piece taken care of as far as the ability to um to mitigate any smoke hazards.

But our biggest thing that we generally do is protect and defend in place.

So those individuals, um, if there was something like that, certainly that could be problematic, but we also have ladder backup and ground ladders.

That's why the importance of what we do have at the scale of five stories or less is because we do have accessibility from our apparatus from the street, depending on what the setback is, and then we also have ground laddering, so that's how we would work around something like that.

I think that you're looking at two things, right?

You're looking at people getting into the through that staircase to get to the fire and those individuals to get out of the building.

And I think that like the most important thing I would say is our defend in place strategies are gonna have to be, you know, we're gonna have to make sure that we are honed on that skill set, which we already are operationally, and then also we'll need to make sure that um we have robust systems in place that are regularly, um, we ensure that all of those are inspected by the fire prevention division.

I think that's the best thing we can do.

There's always going to be things that occur, and there will be opportunity for um, you know, stairwells get blocked, and like anything else, we'll work around that.

And if I can add on, you know, one of the criteria that are part of the regulations, which I didn't call it specifically in the presentation, does have to do with emergency escape and rescue openings facing the right of way.

So typically that's going to be the street.

Um, usually doesn't access from the alley.

So those are requirements that are part of the code amendment.

I didn't pack all of them into the presentation for the purpose of today.

Um, but I think um, you know, Chief might agree that should the stair become compromised, there are alternative ways that operations can get to and within the building without using the stair.

Um, and that's one of those areas that they could do that.

Which alludes to the apparatus and the ground laddering that we do on the same.

Okay, great.

And then what with the sprinkler system requirements, um, what risk mitigation plans are there if a sprinkler system were to fail, is there any kind of water supply or fire pump requirements for these structures?

So, yeah, we will have all those provisions in place.

I think the biggest thing is going from a 13 rather than a 13R system.

There's going to be a more robust system that's in place to begin with.

But yes, we will have all those backup provisions with a fire pump in place, but also understanding that on a five-story building, many times depending on where the fire is at, we may not become dependent on the system itself because we understand that fire truck works every time.

So sometimes we won't even use it in a building of this size because of the size of the floor plates that are also maximized and even to our reach that we have for all of the different doors to the separate units.

Great.

And what about uh rooftops?

Is how will those be evacuated?

Um that would also be something that we'd utilize.

That's the benefit of having the amount of stories that we do with also having an occupiable uh rooftop, like we've alluded to before with the provisions, is that we can still reach those with our apparatus from the street if necessary and do uh we have a full scrub area with our apparatus, so we have both straight stick and towers that we could utilize to afford rescues off of the rooftop.

Great.

And then this will be my last question, and this is for CPD.

Um, what how do you feel like this will affect review times?

And are there going to be trainings and staffing around an uptick potentially theoretically, hopefully, in applications specifically for this new type of structure?

Well, certainly we'll be doing more robust training as we move forward with the legislative process.

Many of our staff have been involved in the conversations around this particular topic.

So they've got a level of familiarity with it.

Um, this is in the big scheme of all of the regulations that we apply, a small ad.

So I have no concern about us being able to maintain our on-time reviews associated with this type of design and construction from a plan review perspective.

Um we'll make sure that our teams are properly trained.

We'll also be updating our websites to make sure that we can disseminate this information externally, um, much of which has already been shared in draft format, as we've, you know, again spent the last year, year and a half discussing this.

Um, but I don't have any concerns about us being able to manage the volume, even if the volume should increase, you know, more than you know, a few percent or so.

But we see thousands and thousands of projects go through our um, you know, across our desks on an annual basis.

And um, you know, while I'd love to see um you know great volume from these, um, you know, I'm sure we can handle it.

Yeah, I would love to see the reporting over the next couple years on that.

We will be tracking this and absolutely can report on the quantity of single-stair buildings that are designed and built in Denver once once this comes into play.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Thank you, Committee Chair.

Thank you for those questions.

I think a lot of members share those.

Um, because of time and the other items, let's maybe stick to two, but no shade on Councilman Romitas because I know other members were wanting to ask those same things.

Um Council Pro Tem, followed by um Councilmember Torres, who is online.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, just is there guidance for, and thank you to the sponsors for bringing this forward.

I think there are a lot of areas that I looked at on the map that fit within Southeast Denver, and I think that would be great.

Um I was wondering a little bit about like the staircase entrances.

Is there some guidance as to uh where the staircases would be placed, or is it like in the middle of the building on the floor, or is that part of the guidance, or is that just up to the builder and the design?

It's part of it is in fact just a design feature from the design and development perspective.

However, the access uh to these is a critical component of meeting the safety for the regulation.

I think practically speaking, most likely these stairs will be on one of the exterior sides and probably on the front uh exterior sides, whether it's a corner or the middle, depending on how they want to configure the units.

Um that just seems most practical.

Um I'm not an architect though, so um I certainly won't step into that scenario, but that seems probably like the most feasible configuration for uh the stairs associated with these buildings.

Right.

Um, and then a follow-up to that is I think about um we talk about aging and community.

Um I have a lot of older adults um that are looking to stay within um community.

I am not looking at you, Mr.

Cashman.

You've looked at me.

I'm sorry, me someday I'm gonna be.

Anyway, um, do you speak louder?

I think.

Not at all.

Um I wanted to ask about uh, is it also in guidance or is it a, is it up to the architect um stairs?

I think just in general from one floor to the next um can be very steep and are there is there any guidance for like breaking it up and having a landing in between i'd like if you're you know if you're a parent you have a stroller or if you're an older adult having that steep um stairway often is challenging and i think would restrict maybe some people from their ability to move into those spaces yes thank you for the question and those regulations already exist within the building codes and they're not changed for this type of design and construction there are um what I'll just call maximum slope or steepness associated with stairs and a maximum distance from landing to landing and those would all have to be met with these buildings as well okay um thank you I don't have any other questions and I think um councilman cashman was looking at you okay councilman cashman you in the queue sir no I'm not oh all right he was just looking at me he was okay he was transmitting his thoughts we did not sometimes um all right council member Torres followed by Flynn both online thanks um thank you Eric and Chief DeBair uh one comment that came up during my briefing Eric that I just wanted to make sure got reiterated about the um uh wildland urban interface piece was that there is no in uh insurance impact to those 16 uh parcel homeowners and that it only applies if there's a structure within the actual orange designation is that right yes that's absolutely correct and thank you for for mentioning that we have had conversations with a number of the insurers that serve Denver and Colorado um and quite bluntly what they've told us is they don't use our maps in order to uh determine insurance values they have their own analysis and methodology um that they use to evaluate risk um and so our um adoption of maps through the state and here in Denver uh and the regulations um that will apply will not impact how insurers um move forward uh with rates associated with these properties whether they're in a low or moderate zone um so so absolutely correct in that regard okay thank you so much on the uh single stair map that you showed is is there a um or what's the criteria that made properties eligible is it just the height and or what was the zoning criteria?

We have representatives from CPD uh zoning here with us today that'll come up and answer this question.

Thank you.

That's a great committee members uh I'm Abe Marge with community planning and development.

Thank you for the question uh councilman Torres uh so the map uh it's pretty simple we basically just looked for uh zoning classifications around the city that would allow for more than three stories with the logic being that you can build with single stair up to three stories now so what this reform affects is anywhere where you're allowed already to build more than three stories and then could potentially take advantage of this building code reform.

That's perfect thank you I've just wanted to know the um reasoning behind the the the map um I'm good madam chair thank you so much so much um council member Flynn is next up followed by council member watson eric um a couple data questions maybe uh and I don't need the answers here maybe the best thing to do would be to do a memo on it to get back to us but on the miscellaneous code updates um thank you for mentioning the uh grease interceptors I lost the restaurant because of the tremendous cost of a sudden need to do a lot of work regarding the grease interceptor so I want to have some more uh detail on what these changes mean and how they will make it easier, as you say in the presentation uh for grease interceptors to be uh to be installed and sized.

And and along with that on that same list, uh the uh modifications to most wireless telecommunication telecommunication sites uh per house bill 1056 of this past session.

Can you in a memo to all of council uh tell us what are those exemptions?

Because I had a couple of instances in my district where we were able to work with the uh the wireless companies to uh uh to make some modifications.

So I want to make sure.

Are we exempting?

I want to make sure that we're not exempting the things that we were able to work with them on, and that I don't lose that ability to do that.

If you could uh do a memo on both of those items, that'd be very helpful uh for me and I assume for everyone else.

And my second question is also could you do between uh Chief Dabar and uh Eric a memo for all of council on enumerating the building code requirements for a single stair uh uh structure of four or more stories that are not required in a five-story uh double stair building.

So, what additional work has to be done to assure those safety uh uh requirements that we want to have on a single stair buildings versus one that has uh more than one.

And uh for both of those, I'd appreciate a memo to all of council.

Yes, understood, and we can certainly get back to you with all of that information.

Thank you.

Because I know in our briefing, the uh pressurized stairwell, for example, was one of them.

Is that is that not a requirement if there are two stairs in a building?

Not of a low rise uh building design.

So the a five-story or probably even a six-story uh would not necessarily require pressurization.

Um in the single stair building criteria, um, to be clear, it's it's possible that pressurization is not required uh for a single serial building either, uh, if it actually is an exterior stair for the building as well.

Um but we can we can articulate that in a memo uh and again provide it to all council persons.

Thank you.

I recall that one of the uh criteria was that the uh a single stair had to be within 20 feet of the entry to each of the four units per floor.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

The door between the unit and the door into the stair is 20 feet maximum.

Right.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, uh Chief Debar for your uh your uh email to me on the on the uh track record of the performance of these buildings in emergency situations.

Uh realize there's a very, very limited set of data on that.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Councilmember Flynn, for those asks, and thank you for meeting those, and I agree all of us will be really interested in that.

So thank you so much.

Um council member Watson.

Uh thank you, committee chair.

I was gonna say thank you, uh Eric.

Thank you, uh Chief.

Um my one question and have a comment.

So my question for Chief, uh, we spoke a lot about the building itself, the internal, um, the setup for stairs, for pressurization, access by ladders, but the external um environment, shrubbery trees.

Is there can you speak to kind of the recommendations or for you know developers or architects who are building these things that may not impede uh the um uh ability for Denver Fire to um be able to access, get the ladders up to these buildings.

Are there anything specific that you're wanting us uh for folks to know that will be uh expectations within this um these new types of uh developments?

We had initially had some things in place on the bill and removed those only because there's a lot of ambiguity there, and we didn't know exactly how from an enforcement mechanism we'd be able to accomplish that.

I think that's gonna come down to again um strong inspection process through the fire department and what our expectations are even after the construction.

And we do the same thing with like the FDC and everything else.

We ensure that there's not shrubbery or anything like that within um certain distances, and then just as importantly as we're you know involved very much so that the sometimes good thing and sometimes bad thing about the fire department is not only are we part of the construction process, but we also have that building in perpetuity.

So we have the ability to do more um compliance measures with how we want to see that landscaping.

So to your point, certainly that will impact our um, most importantly, our setbacks from the standpoint of where to throw ground ladders, but also um even looking at some of the the changes with the zoning and everything is also the setbacks of where we have our fire apparatus and where people park even on the street.

So all those things will be taken into account.

Yeah, and I know that was removed, but I wanted to make sure we brought that back into the room, and we'll do it again if this moves to the floor to make sure folks are aware that there is a there are steps that Denver Fire will be taking on this.

Absolutely.

Um my comment was to share what my husband and I, when we travel, we have over the last year, year and a half been seeking out single stair um uh buildings to be able to uh do Airbnb or whatever.

And Italy was the last place we're at, and um, we stayed at a single stair building that was built quite a while ago.

And we wanted to feel the feel the sense of safety, and we wanted to just really see the use.

And we spoke to the owner who's I think I can't remember how long she said she's lived here, but she's lived there for a while.

Um, this uh building um form has been um uh used in Europe for a very long time and um uh has been very safe there, and so um wanted to make just to elevate that this is newish for Denver.

Um it's really not newish uh across the world.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Um and Councilmember Sawyer online has our last question, I believe.

Thank you.

Um I think this is fantastic.

Really appreciate uh all of the conversation and I'm supportive of it, but just want to confirm that the changes to the downtown and Cherry Creek Design Advisory Boards are not included in this package.

That is correct.

None none of that is in this package.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

Really appreciate it, and I am happy to make a motion to move this forward to the floor.

Great.

Um, thank you.

Can I again?

Uh Councilmember you aren't on the committee.

Um, but I'll take it from Council Pro Tem.

Um does anybody need a it's funny because usually that's me.

Does anyone um need a voice vote?

And if not, um, can I just get thumbs up from the committee members?

Um great.

Just checking our folks online.

Um, great.

Looks like we are good for 1634 to move to the floor.

Um, and with that, we'll move on to our two presentations about Regis.

Thank you both so much.

And Chief De Bar, I'm sorry that I mispronounced your name.

Oh no, that's okay.

I go by whatever.

Okay, don't be out.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Luchuga, it is your show, sir.

Okay, I may.

We have um 26 1636, which is the Regis campus rezoning, um, and then separately presented 1635, the Regis Town Center rezoning.

And I will open the queue on those items.

Okay.

Yeah, we're gonna have campus up first.

That's fine, it doesn't matter.

Ready when you are.

Oh man, half the committee left.

All right.

We got a lot of folks online.

Yeah, um, so my name is Tony Lechuga with community planning and development.

Um, we're gonna take a trip to North Denver, Council District 1 today to talk about um two different um projects.

Uh, one property owner, Regis University.

Um, so the first we're gonna start with um is a project that we've been calling sort of the Regis campus.

Um, so what they're looking to do is take the heart of the traditional Regis campus outlined in red here.

Um, this is largely um the property that's bound by Lowell Boulevard to the west, um 50th Avenue or Regis Boulevard to the south.

Um, and then it covers about two-thirds of the way to Federal Boulevard to the east there, and everything to the north is Adams County.

Um, what they're looking to do is take this property from R5, which is our former Chapter 59 uh zone district associated with institutional uses like a university, and bring it into the Denver zoning code, and specifically bring it to campus educational institution two, which largely aligns with their existing R5 zoning.

Um, and this represents about 62 acres of the campus that includes multiple campus buildings, sports fields, and parking lots associated with um the heart of the traditional Regis campus.

Um, so as I said, this is in North Denver, located in Council District One, represented by Council President Sandoval.

It's located right here in the Regis neighborhood, a neighborhood that is named after the anchor institution that is the university, because the university predated everything else that's built up in that area.

Um, and while we're looking at the zoning, you can see it has this R5 zoning today.

Um, it is otherwise largely surrounded by Denver zoning code districts that are sort of low-scale districts, uh, low-scale residential districts.

You can see at the corner there of 50th and Lowell, there is some UMX3 that's associated with some mixed-use development.

There's a brewery, there's a couple different restaurants, pizza place.

But otherwise, the campus has this old code zoning.

A few seconds ago, I referred to it as an anchor institution.

That's sort of like a planner term for any site within a city that's large, institutional, sort of has single ownership, and is embedded in the community ideally for the long haul.

And as an anchor of that community, they provide a lot of jobs, services, and useful amenities to the community.

So while we're looking at this zoning picture, I'll note the campus, as I said, predates everything around it.

This neighborhood of Regis generally lacks access to public parks, a Denver Rec Center, or a Denver public library.

However, the university as an anchor institution provides almost all of those things.

The campus is itself, an arboretum, which is open to the public 365 days a year from dawn till dusk and represents access to open space.

The campus rec center, similar to Denver Rec centers, is open to the public to purchase membership.

And the library, similar to Denver Public Libraries, is open to any member of the public who would like to acquire a library card to come and check out books.

So the proposed zoning is campus EI2.

Again, its specific intent is for educational institutions.

It provides flexibility for locating buildings, allowing for unified treatment of signs that we associate with large institutional uses, lots of open space, landscaping and site elements.

And it's typically applied to smaller or medium scale campuses that are embedded in low-scale residential, such as this.

And there's some more limited uses allowed on campus EI2 than what you might see on a campus EI-1.

And the only building form that's allowed is the general building form.

In its context, you can see the university campus, the public and quasi public uses are everything that's in that bluish-purplish color.

And as I said, it's largely surrounded by single family residential, except for that corner along 50th and low there where we do see diversity of uses.

While this site would normally trigger large development review because of its size, this and the property adjacent to it, which we're going to talk about after this one, were both sort of brought to the large development review development review committee back in November of 2021.

That was triggered by them coming in for the property on the eastern third of the property.

And in that, we recognized that this old code property would also benefit from being rezoned into the Denver zoning code.

And so while the eastern third was deemed applicable for LDR, this part was not because there is no proposed development.

There is no proposed infrastructure, and so it is not going through that process.

And that's true for the high impact development compliance plan on this site as well.

While it is larger than 10 acres, which would sometimes trigger a high impact development compliance plan, there is no proposed development on this site.

If there were proposed development in the future, they would have to potentially negotiate with host about what would be required of a high impact development.

Let's talk about process.

So informational notice about this application actually went out in November of last year.

Then there was a bit of lag time while they were waiting for the second part of this application, the one we're going to talk about in a second, to catch up.

But planning board notice went out in September.

Planning board heard this item in mid-October, which brings us to today.

And we have a tentative city council public hearing date of early December.

And on this particular application, we have no comments from the ROs or the general public.

It has provided no controversy whatsoever.

And planning board held hearing on this item and voted unanimously to recommend approval, noting it aligns with our plan guidance.

So jumping into the review criteria, which we look at to determine the appropriateness of a request, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans.

And for this area of the city, we only have comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver.

But for comprehensive plan 2040, we do see that it aligns with some goals.

Notably, it calls for us to partner with higher education institutions to ensure that residents have access to local quality higher education.

We believe by working through this rezoning, we're ensuring the continued success of the university with our updated design standards of the code.

And then in terms of economically diverse, we do believe that maintaining the university would help economic mobility through allowing for workforce training, career development, quality education.

It would ensure a broad range of jobs that are associated with the university, whether you work in the library, you work in the recenter, or you are a professor.

It also helps to develop highly trained workforce as one of our few higher education institutional uses within the city.

And that brings us to Blueprint Denver.

And the guidance here is actually fairly simple.

So Blueprint Denver calls for this to be a district, which are unique contexts with specifically designed purposes, such as educational campuses.

In terms of future place types, it does call for it to be a campus, which the CMP EI2 aligns with.

And in terms of growth areas, it's also listed as a district where we anticipate limited housing growth over time, a more modest growth in jobs, all of which can be provided by allowing the campus to continue to its natural growth as is.

Because of its size, we did conduct an equity analysis.

Some of the biggest things that we found were factors of concern around housing.

This neighborhood has a lack of missing middle housing.

It has a higher percentage of owned homes rather than rented homes, and a lack of income restricted units.

However, allowing the campus to continue to naturally grow and provide potential for housing would help us alleviate some of these concerns.

This campus in particular does have a large student population that lives off campus.

And so allowing them to provide more missing middle housing on campus would be great.

And then in terms of narrative goals from Blueprint Denver, it does call for us to rezone properties out of former Chapter 59 into the Denver zoning code, which this would help us achieve.

We believe that this helps address some climate concerns by promoting infill development, encouraging growth within the campus, and also noting that campuses are these unique mixed-use places where people sort of live, work, and find entertainment, and allowing for that continued growth would be ideal.

It also has better design standards than the former Chapter 59 district that better align with some of our climate goals.

And we believe it's in the public interest through not only the implementation of our adopted plans, but also allowing for the continuation of an existing and important campus to the community and updating those design requirements as I mentioned before.

And then necessarily it will result in consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent statements as written into the Denver Zoning Code, as it will comply with the campus EI2 zone district.

And with that, CPD recommends that the committee move this on to a vote of the full council.

Great.

I do not have anyone in queue just yet, but I will start with Council President Sandoval since it's her district.

And I know she's online, so I'll just give a moment to see if she wants to take us up on that.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Again.

Okay.

I have unstable internet, so I'm keeping my camera off.

Just want to say thank you to Regis and Tony.

And my community in the Berkeley just United Members, we've been working on this for since I was a council aide, so for a long time.

And it's taken a lot to get us here.

So just ask that we support this and move it on.

I feel like it meets all of the criteria.

And I think you all should have in your packet a letter from Berkeley, we just united neighbors.

So I just asked that you all read that because they've been negotiating on this for over a year.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Tied up with a little bow.

Rezonings in Council District One so often are.

Thank you.

Does anyone else have questions on this item?

Anybody online?

Speaking sure.

Okay.

In that case, does anyone want to voice vote?

Well, motion and second.

Thank you.

I'll move by Alvader and second to by Council Pro Tem.

Would anybody like a voice vote to move this one to the floor?

1636.

Thumbs-ups ups.

Okay, we'll check our folks online.

Great.

Okay.

We will see you on the floor on this one.

And I'm glad that we've reserved some time for 1635.

Yeah, great.

So this is very similar, but also extremely different.

So we're moving just slightly east of where we were to that eastern third of the property that is owned by Regis University and is to some extent considered part of the campus.

So what they're actually requesting is to take that eastern third of the property and rezone it from a couple of districts.

One is R5 with conditions.

So that's that institutional use, with the one condition being that there were some limitations on what they could build on that site.

B3, which is a former Chapter 59 business district that's designed for sort of like large big box retailers, like what used to be on this site.

For a long time was a Kmart located on site.

And the ECC3X, which is an urban edge community corridor, 3X, so up to three story buildings.

And that's just a small part of the property that currently contains a drive-thru McDonald's.

And what they're trying to do with this property is take it into a PUD or a planned unit development, specifically number 37.

And so it's this eastern 23rd acres.

And what we currently have there is significant surface parking and some strip mall commercial.

So in terms of location and context, as mentioned before, it's in North Denver, represented by Council President Sandoval.

It's also in the Regis neighborhood.

This one, quite importantly though, shares a border with the Chaffee Park neighborhood.

So considering that neighborhood's concerns, opinions, and plan guidance for over there, is also important.

So again, I'll sort of reiterate the campus predates everything around it.

The campus itself serves as a big community gathering space.

And this PUD attempts to extend that community gathering space throughout the corridor.

Oh, and importantly on this zoning slide, the federal corridor contains significant zoning that is mixed-use zoning.

So we see the EMX3 and ECC3X.

What's not showing up on this map is they are all zoned with the design overlay eight as well.

So really strong zoning for encouraging ground floor active uses, mixed-use development along the federal frontage, with the exception of this current 23 property, 23 acres.

In terms of context, you can see it's some of it's considered public quasi-public.

That's some of the soccer fields, baseball fields, and parking associated with the university.

But otherwise, we see that commercial retail that is associated with some of the strip mall commercial and the fast food restaurants that are located on site.

But again, you see along federal strong commercial retail and some office and mixed use developments as well.

I want to note a couple of things about this one.

It's important to the PUD.

Federal Boulevard is one of the city's established parkways.

And Federal Boulevard has pretty standardized requirements for what the parkway setbacks are for most of the city.

And from Colfax to the northern boundary of the city, those setbacks are 20 feet, except for on this property, where it's only 10 feet.

And so as you'll see in a second, part of the PUD is actually proposing to reestablish that 20 foot setback, which is aligning with some of our plan guidance to reinforce the importance of our parkway standards and reestablish them where they've been lost.

So important to note for this particular site that it was something that came up in the years of negotiating that we've been doing on this.

Now, large development review.

As I mentioned before, back in 2021, they came forward with some proposed idea for this area that they're calling Regis Village.

We did determine that LDR was applicable for this for a few reasons.

There was going to be a need for significant new infrastructure because they plan to continue the regular neighborhood grid through this property to take it from being a super block into being smaller blocks, reflective of those blocks south of this site across Regis Boulevard.

There was a need for a rezoning to achieve the sort of development they wanted, and there was gonna need to be an amendment to a planned building group.

And so all of those reasons pushed us to say, yes, let's make this go through LDR.

With that, they held a required community meeting back in June of 2022.

That was the one required community meeting of our LDR process, but I'll note they did robust community outreach over multiple years on top of that.

And then we completed a large development framework, which was included in the materials that were sent to you in November of 2022.

That sort of outlines this image, which shows sort of a conceptual rendering of what might be built out there.

And you can see the continuation of that street grid to break up those large super blocks, with the goal of blending the plan guidance for both the campus and the sort of mixed-use development that's allowed along federal.

In terms of the high impact development compliance plan, again, this site is over 10 acres.

However, as was discussed with Regis University, there is no development plan for the time being.

Typically, we negotiate these high impact development compliance plans alongside known development, so we can negotiate number of units, types of unit sizes, things like that.

Since all that we have here is a conceptual vision and no vertical development, it was decided that they would not complete the high impact development compliance plan in advance of the rezoning, but they did include a letter committing to doing so before they get any site development plan approval.

And we have representatives from host here to talk about that if you have any questions.

So let's get into the proposed zoning because PUDs are a little different than our normal districts.

So the goal of this PUD was to create flexibility for two things: the growth of the campus, or the growth of anticipated development along Federal Boulevard, and to provide flexibility to this anchor institution to either expand pieces of their campus or to create development that looks like what we see along federal.

So what we did is wrote a PUD that has UMX3 as its base zone district with particular customizations.

And some of those were meant to reflect the campus.

So we do allow for broader placement of buildings, larger lot sizes than we might see in a UMX district, or more buildings than we would typically see on a single lot in an MX district, but we would see in a campus.

Some of those customizations also allow for uses that you would see on a campus, but maybe not in an MX district, such as the construction of a hospital or healthcare facility, which would be useful for the universities, growth of those particular disciplines, but also useful for a community that currently has no access to hospital care.

Customizations to respect the parkway, so building in those additional setbacks along federal, but then also encouraging street level active uses along federal by building in some building in some regulations that reflect what we see in DO8, which is not allowing for residential uses, but encouraging those non-residential street level active uses.

Something that was very important to the community when we were negotiating this.

So what it has is UMX3 as its base, but it actually customizes the heights to go up to 75 feet or 95 feet with incentives, which is more reflective of what we find in a five-story district.

So I'll note that that itself is a customization up from UMX3, but it's actually a customization down from what we would see in the campus districts, which allow buildings up to 150 feet in height.

So this was seen as sort of a give and take where they could build up to the five stories with incentives that goes up to seven stories, but all of that is significantly lower than what they would get under the campus zoning.

As I mentioned, reestablishing the parkway setbacks, high requirements for ground floor active use along federal, and then those use allowances that reflect either a campus or an MX district.

So trying to blend the two there as much as possible.

So let's turn to process and the review criteria next.

So in terms of process, this one's very similar to the last one.

They submitted their application back in November of 2024, but then there was some ongoing conversations with the community, some modifications to their PUD to reflect those discussions before we actually got to a point where they wanted to move forward with the application bringing us to today.

On this particular application, we have received letters from both of the applicable RNOs on both the Berkeley Regis United Neighbors side and the Chaffee Park side.

The Berkeley Regis United Neighbors did not voice support or opposition.

We would categorize it as sort of a general comment letter, where they noted that they had some concern about the lack of a substantive site plan for development here.

They wanted some more concrete examples of how many units of housing, what types of businesses would be located here.

It's not common for us to include those in a PUD.

We do often see some of those things alongside rezonings because we have a developer who knows what they're going to build.

But in this instance, what we're trying to do is provide flexibility to the institution over time.

And so that isn't there.

The Chaffee Park RNO did send a letter of support, noting that they believed strongly in the activation that this would provide to federal, the new housing it would provide, and the economic benefits that this would provide to this part of federal.

And then we have 10 letters of support from neighbors and other stakeholders within the area that have key themes, including activation of the corridor and the potential for new housing that wouldn't be built otherwise.

And then same as the last one, the planning board had a hearing on this item.

They voted unanimously to recommend approval.

They had a few nuanced questions about how the PUD works, but otherwise recommended approval.

So diving into the review criteria, so this one has the standard three review criteria, but as a PUD, it has five additional criteria that we'll get to after those.

But as I mentioned before, this part of the city only has the two plans.

So Comp Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver.

Each of these slides has a lot of text, and I'm not going to read them to you, but I will sort of summarize.

In terms of comprehensive plans, equitable, affordable, and inclusive goals, we believe that this achieves quite a bit of them by increasing development near transit and mixed-use corridors, as well as using land use to encourage private development of affordable missing middle and mixed income housing.

In terms of strong and authentic neighborhoods, we believe that this will ensure the neighborhoods offer a mix of good housing and services in typologies that they're currently not seeing today.

And in terms of connected, safe and accessible, we believe that this particular PUD would promote transit-oriented development.

Feels so foolish, should have mentioned at the beginning.

Federal Boulevard is one of our proposed BRT corridors following Colfax and Colorado Boulevard.

And so the city and state have been planning for ongoing BRT to be developed along here with stops along this section of Federal Boulevard.

And in terms of being environmentally resilient, we believe that this would help connect parks, open spaces, trails, river corridors, parkways, and street trees into an integrated green infrastructure network by reinforcing our parkway, connecting to some parks to the south, and ongoing infrastructure work.

Now let's turn to Blueprint Denver, where we get a little more nuanced, and that's because the Blueprint Denver guidance for this never says PUD.

We don't have that guidance in Blueprint Denver.

What we do have is it calling out that this should be a district, which again are unique contexts.

They're usually designed with a specific purpose in mind.

But we want to note that Blueprint Denver also has this language that says neighborhood contexts are mapped at a citywide scale.

And so they should be interpreted with limited flexibility if we believe that the outcome furthers the goals of Blueprint Denver.

And so at the time of Blueprint Denver, no one could have anticipated that Regis might want to forego some of its traditional campus in order to build out neighborhoods serving commercial mixed-use development and housing.

So providing that flexibility at the edges allows us to consider what are the types of neighborhood contexts and place types surrounding it.

And so the PUD is based on that UMX, which represents, which reflects what's built to the south in the urban context.

And then in terms of place types, it's very similar.

Our Blueprint Denver guidance anticipated the further build out of this as a campus.

But Regis is now emphasizing that they would like to build out with a different purpose in mind, which could be more reflective of what we see in that community corridor to the south or that local corridor that we see to the east along federal.

And so their PUD is meant to be reflective of both this plan guidance for a campus and the plan guidance for community corridors along federal here.

And then again, it anticipates it being a district which has limited housing growth and modest job growth.

But of course, that would change would this be built out according to the PUD and might be more reflective of what we see in the green area to the south community centers and corridors, which anticipate higher levels of job and housing growth.

And again, the same equity considerations were put forward in the PUD and the community conversations, and factors of concern were largely related to housing in the area, which is largely homogenous, is largely owned, and does not have income-restricted units for the most part.

And so we believe that actually building out this site with some potential new housing allowances that we wouldn't see on a traditional campus could result in alleviating some of these factors of concern.

And again, lots of text, but not going to read it to you.

They're here for the public record.

But lots of blueprint Denver narrative guidance that we think this advances.

So again, allowing that flexibility at the edges if we're advancing some of our goals.

So in terms of land use and built form general goals, we believe that this would encourage mixed use communities near transit.

It would limit auto-oriented uses on site, notably the PUD doesn't allow for the drive-through building forms, and it would help rezone properties out of former chapter 59.

We also believe that it would provide flexibility on large info sites that lack clear adopted neighborhood plans, but could build could create a better compatible neighborhood development.

And I'll note that this policy six strategy C specifically says that we should be looking at these institutional sites that might want flexibility to do something different in the future, and that they might be a good opportunity for introducing more intense uses.

In terms of the housing goals, we are called on to capture 80% of new housing growth in these types of community centers and corridors like we see along federal, and we believe this would help achieve that.

It also calls out university campus districts as places where we can achieve more housing.

In terms of design quality and preservation, this would provide standards for new mixed use development and require strong street level active use standards, which are associated with these particular goals.

And then we believe it would achieve multiple mobility goals by increasing the number of services and amenities that are available to people who live nearby, and it would align private development with new transportation infrastructure development, such as our planned BRT corridor.

And in terms of quality of life infrastructure, there is this very specific goal, as I mentioned before, to preserve and rehabilitate our designated parkways and boulevards, and the PUD seeks to do that specifically by re-establishing the 20-foot parkway setback, which would create room for new street trees, wide sidewalks, and reestablish that.

We believe that it addresses many of our climate goals, but a few of them are by promoting infill development where we already have people, services, and future transit, again, encouraging growth on a BRT corridor and proposed mixed use where people can live, work, and find entertainment all within a walkable environment in a part of the city where we might be lacking that.

We believe that this is in the public interest through implementing our adoptive plans, but also through fostering this mixed-use transit-oriented development and allowing for flexible growth of the campus over time.

And we believe it would be consistent with the neighborhood context, zone district purpose, and intent statements written to the code, either the campus or the urban mixed-use districts by blending those appropriately within the PUD.

And then, as I mentioned, PUDs have additional review criteria, five of them to be specific.

We'll go through them pretty quickly here now.

The first of which is that the PUD needs to be consistent with the intent and purpose of PUDs as written into the code.

And this site achieves that because it has special characteristics related to the scale of development that would demand more customization than we would find through a standard district.

And so we believe that that is within the intent and purpose of the PUD.

And it will also result in the diversification of land use, exemplary pedestrian connections, and advance numerous city goals that would not be achieved through a standard district.

The second criteria requires that the PUD comply with all applicable standards and criteria for PUDs.

There's language within the PUD that asserts that it will meet all of the standards and criteria of Division 9.6.

C references that the development would not be, the proposed development would not be feasible under any other zone districts and would require an unreasonable number of variances and waivers.

We believe that is true, and thus the PUD allows us to tackle all of those issues in one swoop.

The fourth criteria requires that the PUD establishes permitted uses that are compatible with the existing land uses and adjacent properties.

And again, the PUD blends the uses that would otherwise be allowed on the campus to the West, or the mixed-use districts that we find along federal.

And so we do believe that any use built on there is compatible with either of the surrounding uh land uses.

And then the final criteria establishes that the permitted building forms are compatible with adjacent building forms.

And again, this was designed very specifically to blend both the campus and the mixed-use court or building forms.

In some cases, raising heights, in some cases lowering heights, and in all cases requiring those stronger uh street level active uses.

And so we believe that it is compatible with all adjacent building forms.

And with that, CPD recommends that the committee move it along to a hearing for the full council.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

The applicants are here, and as well as uh representatives from host if you have questions about any of that.

Great.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate everyone who came out today for this.

Um we will of course start with Council President Sandoval, as it's in her district.

I know she has patchy internet, so we can be a little.

Then if we need to, we'll go to another member.

Oh, it looks like she um fell off, uh fell off.

Hopefully, shouldn't fall.

Her internet quite working.

Um so hopefully she'll be back.

Um, but I had Council Member Torres next in the queue, who's also online.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Hi, Tony.

Um curious.

Uh noticed on the large development review slide that the uh it said the eastern third was deemed applicable for LDR, um, but was not included in the process.

If they come back through with development plans, will it undergo a new, like a new LDR process?

Uh you mean the part that is the traditional campus part?

I think so.

This is slide 10.

Okay, let's go.

So um, so in terms of LDR, um, they came in with um their proposal for this part of the pro of the property, this eastern third of the property.

So this part was reviewed for large development and was deemed applicable.

It's the western two-thirds of the traditional campus that we didn't have go through LDR because there is no development proposal for the traditional campus, only this part.

Um but if they if they did come in with some robust development that changed the expected development patterns of the traditional campus, then we may consider sending that part of the campus to the LDR.

But to date that campus has largely just been built out as a campus.

Yeah.

Thank you for that.

Is there somebody in the room representing Regis or online?

Yeah, uh just curious if you could share a little bit about what Regis plans to do, either on um this property or the prior rezoning package.

Thank you.

My name is Mark Balkovich.

I'm um life trustee at Regis University student way back in 1964.

But our plan for the portion of property we're talking about here is to incorporate that into the campus with integrated housing.

We have a need uh for like graduate students that uh are married.

We have children, we have no place for them to live on campus.

This would provide a housing option for them to uh reside right next to the classrooms they're attending.

Um we have a very large uh health portion of the institution.

We provide nursing degrees up through masters and uh doctors in uh physical therapy, all of those type of things that require some clinical experience for each one of the patients or each one of the students before they can receive their uh degree.

This would allow us to have some limited on-site uh health type facilities, um, could include some uh medical offices, could include some uh uh elderly care units that uh these.

Recording in progress.

Or we this recording in progress.

Tony said it was a Kmart.

I happened to be there when the KmR was built and opened, and it provided a tremendous benefit to the whole surrounding area.

The parking lot on weekends was always just packed full, and that went on for many, many years until Kmart uh mismanaged and and then uh forced the property in and their whole company into bankruptcy.

Um we want to re-establish areas where our students can have some limited uh shopping, uh just convenience type of things.

We're not looking for a big major shopping center or anything of that sort.

We're looking for something that is neighborhood type, and also in today's time, we'll I'm sure generate more revenue for the town and for regis than we had before from the old Kmart.

So that is the uh tenants that are existing.

We're not trying to displace them.

Uh we're working to incorporate them back into the project so that they have uh just a new and better home.

So those are um the idea of uses and plans we have for the project.

That's perfect.

Thank you so much for sharing that, and I really appreciate um getting in some insight into how the campus uh plans to uh grow.

So thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilman Stores.

And Council President Senoval has been able to rejoin us.

So it's to me she didn't lose in red again.

Hi everyone, sorry about that.

Um just wanted to say thank you again to Regis.

Um, the design overlay eight, as you all know, is something that is really important to my community.

And so adding this to this section of Regis, I had rezoned the across the street with the design overlay eight in Chaffee Park, and so having it match on this side was um extremely important.

Um so that was something that took a really long time to work through on the design aspect.

So just want to say thank you.

Um for working with my community and getting to an outcome where um the neighborhood feels like they can support this application.

Um the one concern that is still penning is in the use on the use table, can be a hospital, and so they have a nursing program, and we all need more nurses and more doctors, so we'll just have to monitor that as it comes out, um, as it advances if that happens.

But thank you all for working on this.

As you all know on this committee, I love land use.

This has been my something a pleasure.

Um, and just want to say thank you to Melissa and thank you to Poppy Park and the Brent Zone District, and I hope that we advance this forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um thank you, Councilman.

Um, I do not have any other members in queue, so I will pause and see if anybody wants to get in there.

Um, okay.

That's funny because this is exactly our normal amount of committee time, but we've got the four and a half hour.

Um, so does anybody well can I get a motion in a second?

Okay, moved by council pro temp seconded by council member Lewis.

Um, anybody looking for a voice vote on this, and I will pause and check our online folks.

Okay, um, looks like we are good to move to the floor.

Um, thank you everyone for the work and thank you so much, Tony.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Half an hour ready to send us or started early.

We would have gone out.

Exactly.

That's how it works.

Right.

That's true.