A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4201 East Arkansas Avenue in Virginia Village. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, 4040 East Louisiana Avenue and 1380 South Birch Street from CMP-EI2 and S-MX-5 UO-1 UO-2 to S-MX-8 UO-2, S-MX-8, S-MX-5, S-MX-3, and S-MU-3 (campus, various districts, to suburban, mixed-use various heights), in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-9-18.
12 hours. Council Bill 1164 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 1075 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 dash 1075 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1075 is open. May we have. The staff report? Good evening. Excuse me. Andrew Webb here from Community Planning and Development to present this proposed rezoning of property at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue from two existing zoned districts c MPI two and S-Max 5ur1 you oh two to a mix of or to s-max eight you oh to s-max 865 S-Max three and SMU three. This proposal is in Council District six. It's in the Virginia Village neighborhood near the intersection of Louisiana and Colorado. This is a an approximately 13 and a half acre property. That is the was the former headquarters of the Colorado Department of Transportation, which vacated the site last year and has moved to a different location in Sun Valley . It's currently has a3124 story office structures built since the 1950s. The proposal here, as I mentioned, is within the suburban neighborhood context and it is for several Emacs or mixed use districts in a range of heights from 3 to 8, and then another zone district within the suburban neighborhood context, the multi-unit district for the property down at the at the southeast corner of the site. This is a this is was project was begun by the city which took an opportunity to to participate in the acquisition of and transfer of the site to a developer. When Scott announced that they were planning to vacate it, a purchase and sale agreement was approved by the council in late 2017 and the goals of the project were to establish or obtain 150 units of affordable housing on the site, 150,000 square feet of commercial space and employment opportunities, among other objectives. The rezoning is recommended by CPD in combination with the development agreement. This was recommended as an alternative to a general development plan. In this case, it actually achieves similar and in some cases additional objectives than a than a GDP would. The development agreement was approved in late October. It does require language. Language in the development agreement requires 150 units of affordable housing on site available to residents earning up to 60% of area meeting. Median income requires provision of open space, either publicly accessible private open space or dedicated spark parks based on a minimum of 10% of developable developable land on the property and that is consistent with the GDPR standard requires multiple traffic and transportation commitments, including a traffic study on and off site infrastructure improvements to go along with development, transportation demand management strategies for individual developments on the site, etc. It requires a drainage master plan and an open space plan. It requires the assignment of a construction manager as a single point of contact to address issues with the community or with the council offices as as issues come up during construction, and it requires a public meeting to present drainage, open space, concept, site plans and the traffic study. So as I mentioned, the existing zoning primarily for the core of the site is CPI two. That is a campus zoned district intended for educational and institutional uses. There's also a parcel up at the northwest corner of the site that is zoned Smc's find that suburban mixed use with the uo one and uo two overlays you will one is the adult use overlay you oh two is the Billboard overlay. The Billboard overlay is proposed to be retained at the site surrounding zoning ranges from a mix of Smc's and SMU zoned districts to the north west and southeast and southwest of the site. Transitioning to SMU and our three former Chapter 59 multi-unit zoned district and said a single unit zoned district as you move to the southeast part of the site and into the Virginia Village neighborhood. So the existing zoning, as I mentioned, is intended for education, institutional or office campuses. And I've tried to highlight a few details here to to get out in front of some of the questions that I've received through this process. The copyright item zone district does permit residential, including multi-unit uses, it permits office uses and eating and drinking uses. It does not allow retail sales, the CPI to permit the maximum height of building, height of 150 feet or 12 storeys, and does have provisions limiting height to 75 feet within 170 feet of a protected district such as a single unit zoned district. And then heights are further limited by the bulk plain standards, which limits height along a 45 degree angle plane that begins ten feet above the street, any adjacent street. Mid midline setbacks in the CPI to district are 20 feet at the at the primary street and 7.5 feet for side streets and side interior. In comparison to the Smic's district, the SM zone districts have a minimum setback of 0% or of zero feet at the primary street, but and 7.5 feet similar comparable for side streets inside interiors. SMU zoned district has a five foot side street setback. I didn't noted here, but it also requires a seven and a half foot setback adjacent to a protected district. And I would also highlight one detail here is that in the two zones and for residential uses, the off street parking requirements are 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit compared to the in the suburban neighborhood context, 1.25 spaces are required per unit for off street parking for residential uses. Existing land use is on the site. Our data shows them as primarily office, obviously, as you can see. Here. The the parcel at the northwest corner of the site is undeveloped and has been used to train Citroen employees on water quality techniques. And then the personnel at the far southeast corner at the. I guess that's the northeast corner of Arkansas on Birch has been used for parking and container storage and other uses. Surrounding uses include a mix of office, commercial and multi-unit residential and some of what our system refers to as industrial. That's an auto body shop directly north of the site. There's more intense uses are generally northwest and southwest of the site with multi-unit and single unit residential uses as you get south and east of the site. This this land or this. Another land use map here shows the site somewhat zoomed out so you can get a feel for how the how this development integrates in the scale the site integrates with the neighborhood and with the Colorado Boulevard corridor. And so you can get a feel for some of the other land use types in the area. You can see Glendale there at the top, the interchange of Interstate 25 and Colorado at the South End there, and Ellis Elementary as a landmark just to the southeast of the site. This aerial photo shows gives a feel for the intensity of of development along the Colorado Boulevard. Corridor. And for the scale of buildings and density of development in the area, these photographs show. These are images of of development on the site itself. At the top left there is the water quality training site at the north west corner of the site, the main headquarters, a former headquarters office building for CDOT, is shown there at the bottom left behind. It is the Hyatt in Glendale. In the middle there, at the bottom and top right are the smaller office buildings on the east side of the site, as well as the existing microwave communications tower. I should note that the the communications tower and approximately 8000 square foot parcel of land surrounding it are not part of this proposed rezoning and will remain under the ownership and operation of CDOT. And finally, the bottom right there shows the the parking lot at the northeast corner of Birch and Arkansas. These photos show development to the north and east of the site, including higher density, residential and commercial uses to the north. Lower intensity multi-unit residential units uses to the northeast and single unit residential uses to the to the east. These photos show development on the at the top left here, development directly west of the site abutting Colorado and then directly across Colorado. At the bottom left there is the is Arkansas street and the middle photo is sort of the current kind of front door to the property from Arkansas. And finally, the the photo at the bottom right there shows multi-unit development to the south of the site. As I mentioned, this proposal is for two different zone districts, the SMU three district, which promotes higher density housing in a suburban context and smacks three, five and eight, which is intended to promote mixed use developments that allow for the convenience of walking to and from services, jobs and residences. These districts are appropriate along corridors for larger sites and at major intersections. As I mentioned, the applicant proposes to retain the you o to existing you o to overlay district at the Northwest Parcel. Staff has no objection to that. There are no adopted plans that we're aware of recommending removal of the you or two overlay in this area. There are two existing billboards in the area which would have to be taken into consideration under the Denver Zoning Codes Cap and Replace program. Were new Billboard B to be proposed for the site. In terms of process, CPD sent out the informational notice of receipt of this proposal in early June. Since then and actually proceeding that, the applicant has held seven meetings with community members to present the project, starting with kind of a visual preference surveys early on and then moving forward into getting more specific about proposals, providing information about how feedback has been incorporated. And I believe the applicants are here this evening and will be able to speak more to that process. The CPD written notice of the planning board hearing went out in late August and the planning board hearing was in September. There was a recommendation of approval with the further recommendation in this case that a development agreement be approved or executed concurrent with this MAP amendment to guide future development at the site. Ludy considered this proposal on October 9th. The first reading was November 5th, and here we are at the final hearing on December 3rd with regard to registered neighborhood organizations and public comment. As of application, there were two neighborhood registered neighborhood organizations that considered the site to be within their boundary. The Virginia Village Ellice Community Association is currently not operational. It's our understanding that they have they have dissolved due to lack of membership and other issues. The Inter Neighborhood Cooperation or I.N.S., also considers this to be within its boundary. Both have received notice multiple times throughout the process, but prior to the Planning Board hearing, we did receive written comment from the Virginia Village Ellice Community Association indicating that the the R.A. was neutral about the proposal. We've not heard from that organization since. In terms of written comment from stakeholders, we've received approximately 60 letters, emails and other documents from community members and other stakeholders as of the deadline, which is last was last Thursday at noon. Of those 18 were opposed to the proposed rezoning and 42 were in support. With regard to stakeholder concerns, I'm going to highlight just a handful of the key issues that the key themes that came up and and note some some ways that those might be mitigated. A major concern is is increased traffic at the site. The applicant's kind of baseline analysis of existing uses and existing zoning and proposed zoning found that under existing or under or under the proposed or potentially under the existing zoning, there could be an estimated 10,000 trip per day increase. This is proposed to be mitigated by several things in the several components of the development agreement, including requirements for the traffic study, infrastructure improvement and transportation demand management, which aims to reduce the number of individual trips in motor vehicles and encourage other modes of travel, such as use of transit. Additionally, staff would note that mixed use developments can help spread trips throughout the day and reduce the impact on peak hour congestion versus a single large office or residential use. Another key concern that was raised was was height and transitions into the neighborhood. The original proposal that came in from the applicant did propose to keep some of the current 12 storey entitlement on the site. They did later revise that to a maximum height of eight storeys in the sort of northern northwestern part of the site. They also proposed a unique system of. Right zone districts. To illustrate a step down into neighborhoods with building heights with which do result in lower heights at the edge of development and what could be done under the current zoning. Other concerns we've heard about are the potential for gentrification with new development, environmental concerns and others. And many of these are addressed both in the development agreement and in the purchase and sale agreement and further detailed in the staff report. In terms of support for the project, we've heard quite a few neighbors speak to the opportunity for creating a sense of place at this location along Colorado Boulevard, which is mostly in this area, especially characterized by auto oriented strip development and excitement about the possibility of destinations and retail that people could walk to. We've heard support for 150 units of housing, which, as we heard from the principal of Alice Elementary, could help stabilize the student population at that's at that school by allowing families to stay in the neighborhood as housing prices increase and then generally sustainability, you know, infill development as an alternative to sprawl, to meet housing demand in places where there is already existing infrastructure, re-use of an underutilized site and addition of new residents and households along transit routes which can help increase ridership and thereby support improvements to the transit system. With regard to the criteria for rezoning, as you know, the Council must find that a proposed rezoning meets these five criteria from the Denver zoning code with regard to consistency, with adopted plans, to plans. In fact, this site, the Denver Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver with regard to the Comprehensive Plan, this proposal would support multiple strategies and objectives aimed at redevelopment of underutilized land and obtaining or encouraging quality, infill development and providing a variety of housing opportunities. With regard to Blueprint, Blueprint identifies the parcel at the far northwest corner of the site as commercial corridor for a as a as a future concept of land use and identifies it as an area of change. The majority of the site, the core of the site is identified as for a future concept land use of single family residential and is that identified as an area of stability. Future street classifications include the commercial arterial and enhance trans enhanced transit corridor designation along Colorado Boulevard. All other streets in the area are des own designated locals according to Blueprint, although I should note that Public Works does consider Louisiana to be a collector at this location. And all of these all of the local streets here in Louisiana and Arkansas do provide Signalized access to Colorado Boulevard without passing through residential neighborhoods. And this is comparable to block design along Colorado and other corridors where side streets from the kind of major arterials serve several blocks in some cases of of commercial and mixed use development . This the land use the future concept land use designation did present some challenges for the analysis of plan consistency. One of those is that it's not clear how this designation came to be in the first place. These images actually show a comparison between the existing land use on the site there on the left and the blueprint concept land use map. From Blueprint. As you can see, there are commercial and multi-unit, residential and other higher intensity uses not only at the site but surrounding the site that have been designated as single family residential in in blueprint. Despite the fact that those developments existed at the time of Blueprint's adoption when it was adopted, the former Chapter 59 or five institutional zoning on the subject site didn't actually permit single unit residential uses. This was a key topic of the planning board discussion as the board grappled with whether, you know, too broad a brush had been applied here with Blueprint. And as we considered it, we we looked at several factors, including the low likelihood of single unit development at this location. Given the surrounding context. We did look at the existing zoning. We considered the developer's commitments to address some of the traffic concerns via the development agreement. And then finally, we looked at other tools in the plan in blueprint, which does provide language to address unique situations like this, including the designation or the identification of committed and reinvestment areas in areas of stability. Acknowledging that there may be cases where, even in an area of stability infill, a redevelopment project may be appropriate, especially where it can provide services and. Employment for neighborhoods. And then the blueprints toolbox for areas of stability also identifies several tools that are consistent with this proposal, including ensuring that commercial development is not impeded but provides appropriate transitions into neighborhoods. And this proposal does attempt to very graphically illustrate the transition into neighborhoods and then the use of public private partnerships to to obtain affordable housing. Redevelopment of brownfield sites. And to promote business growth and job retention. And finally, leveraging redevelopment opportunities to obtain new open space and improved pedestrian realm and other amenities for neighborhoods. With regard to other criteria, with regard to the uniformity of district regulations, this request will result in the uniform application of the Max Zone District's building form, use and design regulations. It will further a public health, safety and welfare by providing jobs and housing near high quality transit. It will result in a pedestrian friendly mix of uses at the site and a clear transition of building scale. With regard to just justifying circumstances. The applicant proposed several, including the growth of population in the city and the well documented need for housing, as well as the closure and vacation of the site. And finally, with regard to the fifth criteria and consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent, CPD finds that this is. This proposal is consistent as further detailed in the staff report, but specifically as mixed use. Districts are intended to enhance the convenience of walking, gathering and shopping within and around the city's neighborhoods and are they are appropriate along corridors and for larger sites and ensure that new development contributes positively to nearby residential neighborhoods and character. So with that, CPD recommends approval in combination with the development agreement that will address certain issues relative to the redevelopment of the site. Based on a finding that all these review criteria have been met, I am happy to stand for any questions. Thank you very much. We do have 53 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So I'm going to ask if everyone sitting in this front row could please move to another seat so that we can make room for the speakers as they're coming up so that we can effectively and efficiently get through this. So if you're sitting in the front row, if you could please find another seat. But until I call the first five. So we're going to call five at a time to sit in a front row. Mr.. CQ Dan, could you if you could clear out that front bench? Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, so I will call five at a time. I do apologize if I get your name wrong when I call you, if you could come up to this vacated bench so that you can be ready to step right up to the podium as soon as your name is called. So our first five are Jimmy Bill Office, Stacy Weekes, Stuart Anderson, Chris Vickery and Sean Maley. If you want to come up and Jimmy gloves, the microphone is yours. Good evening, City Council. My name is Jimmy Office and I'm principal and co-founder of the control group, the local real estate development company chosen by the city of Denver for the Mixed Use Project we're addressing tonight. My parents immigrated from Greece to Denver more than 50 years ago. We gave our company the name Cointreau because it's the Greek word for center, referring to the core of the community, the intersection of families and culture, commerce, the place where we live and grow and raise our children. The Castro group is a company of firsts with a 15 year track record from seeing early potential on Colfax to bringing the first Trader Joe's to Colorado. We also hope to be among the first to create a livable, walkable, vibrant community in southeast Denver, not far from where I grew up. The Colorado Boulevard corridor has always been exciting. As kids, we saw movies at the Cooper Theater and ball at Celebrity Lanes. Today, I take my kids to the IMAX theater on South Colorado Boulevard, and then we hit the Dairy Queen. Restaurants, retailers and friendly neighbors make the corridor a lively north south artery. We plan to create a walkable main street environment where people can live, eat, shop and enjoy the culture, community activities right outside the front door. Together. We need to build a city that's equitable, affordable and attainable. Since the start of the project, we heard from teachers, moms, social workers and others who reported they were being pushed out by increasing prices, home prices and rentals. Rental car rental places. Please know that we are fully, fully committed to 250 units of affordable housing associated with development. Recently, the city announced the 150 units are the reason the city announced a goal to build 2000 affordable units over the next six years. This project alone meets 45% of anything, any single year target. We recognize that the city's affordable housing now is now, not in six years. We have listened to the neighbors, have shared their have shared with us throughout a series of community meetings. As a result, we reduced the building heights and provided a better transition to the adjacent neighborhood. In a development agreement, we recommitted to to the affordable housing units, set aside 10% of the property for open space and so much more. We also developed a good neighbor agreement to address additional community preferences relating to building design, mature tree retention and traffic data. In the last 11 months. I shared more pizza with Virginia Village neighbors than anyone else, and I'm pleased to consider members of the community as friends. And it's these neighbors that I like to think. First, they offered invaluable input in the face of community changes which appear intangible and foreign. We hope to continue to earn their trust and maintain just as we hope to meet the city expectations moving forward as we ask for your support for the project tonight. Also, thanks to many people who worked diligently alongside to get us to the vote. Council Member Cashman All the city agencies are interesting, ranging from CPD Public Works in the Division of Real Estate to the city's attorney office. Thank you for your cooperation. I have colleagues follow me to address other. I'm sorry. Your time is up. Thank you. All right. Next up, Stacey weeks. Good evening, Mr. President. Council members. I'm Stacey Weeks with North Design 11 zero one Bannock Street. I'm serving as the planning principal for the project, and the redevelopment of this property is an exciting opportunity for the community, community and city, an important property to bring reinvestment to the city along the Colorado Boulevard commercial corridor and Virginia Village, redevelop the city fabric and connect the neighborhood. We envision an integration of multifamily, housing, retail, commercial and office in a suburban mixed use context to make a place a place to grab coffee, have lunch and dinner, provide housing for teachers, for retail employees, for medical test technicians and families to become part of the Virginia Village neighborhood. The planning process started with the acknowledgment that there's change for this property. See that transition from this key property that they occupied for 65 years? Blueprint the zoning code. The comp plan provides strategies and tools to accommodate change and reinvestment. Our application is before you with staff and Planning Board recommendations for approval after extensive review, review and the rezoning does meet the city adopted plan criteria for rezoning with suburban type uses in the surrounding area location near Transit City served by two active bus routes and adjacency to Colorado Boulevard commercial corridor. The request builds on three powerful tools and blueprint regulatory tools, public infrastructure tools and partnership tools provided in the toolbox of areas of stability. And Chapter seven Shaping Growth in Chapter three, Blueprint provides guidance and strategies in the areas of change in Chapter three is high density reduces land consumption. Blueprint States for redevelopment has transportation benefit when it's paired with a land use mix that provides destinations with convenient walking in areas that have access to transit and transportation corridors and areas at St Patrick's that are interconnected with developed sidewalks. In addition, the rezoning is consistent with the city's zoning code for all of all criteria rezoning, including 12 .4. ten seven day consistency with adopted plans. The proposed official map is consistent with the city adopted plans or the proposed rezoning is necessary to provide community need, which was not anticipated at time of adoption of the city's plan . We say yes to both and after 11 months, eight public meetings in attendees and support this evening, it's clear demonstrated community need including affordable housing. The neighborhood neighborhood transition. We proposed three stories, which is a sizable benefit adjacent to the single unit residential. There's also the existing residential that's that's adjacent to the protected district, which we have currently 75 feet and five storeys allowed. But we are proposing three stories. We also have the upper story setback with the zoned districts and we eliminate 12 stories from the site entirely. Goods and services integrated greenspace and streetscape improvements for north south connections and pedestrian amenities. All this is a reduction of down zoning from the current CPI to. It started the process to move to a Suburban. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Stewart Anderson. Hello, I'm Stewart Anderson, 1041 Marion Street, Denver. I am the executive director of Transportation Solutions Foundation. We are a not for profit that has been operating for 21 years in southeast Denver. Our primary goal is to create an environment that supports multimodal travel and minimizes the use of the single occupant vehicle. We were obtained by the control group to look at developing a transportation demand management concept level plan. And and we have gone through that effort and have spent the last four months working on a variety of strategies that will make the pedestrian the priority and the bicyclist a priority. And to make transit users our priority, there will be cars. They always come. But we're going to try to maximize a multimodal environment and try to create a sustainable environment that will last over time. Some of the strategies that are included in the concept level plan are a neighborhood mobility hub that will be located on the east side of this property, which would centralize a variety of transportation options, including car share, bike share and connections to the rail station at Colorado station. Also, we are looking at enhanced pedestrian facilities and in particular safe crossings. We are also looked at connectivity to the bike network. Currently they're working on a bike facility along Florida. That would be the closest facility that we would connect to. Also, the fact that there is mixed use zoning built into that, that's one of the best production elements that we have. It not only spreads the peak travel over time, but it also will capture trips by providing different types of amenities such as stores, dry cleaners and others onsite to eliminate that. One of the things that we also discussed was how can we make this a part of that community, not an island, but actually one that is fluid and would allow people, pedestrians and cyclists to take advantage of this facility? We do not take a position on any development project, but I can say that the control group in good faith has worked with us on this concept level plan. They have made commitments that we feel are core to reducing trips and maximizing multimodal travel over time. We also found that they are willing to discuss innovative transportation strategies and new technologies that we think will be part of the future of our transportation here in Denver. We feel that this development will complement that over time. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chris Vickery. Good evening. I'm Chris Vickery, director of development for the Control Group at 1509 York Street. Since the beginning of this project, we are looking for another tool to go along with the rezoning application. Since we're so early, we're at step one of the redevelopment. So as Andrew mentioned, we put together a development agreement that put in city priorities and neighborhood priorities to make it a better place. We held a public meeting on November 14th with the neighborhood to really discuss any questions they may have on that, as it's been posted to our website and the city's websites. Those top priorities that I really want to focus on tonight is, one, is affordable housing. I think with all their outreach we've done is the most important thing here on the site is units not paying a fee. So we've committed to build those units 150, 60% and my or less on this site. We have selected a partner. They're actually here. Luxton McDermott. We're moving forward with a chapter we've made. We're going to make our application in February just to Jimmy brought up this point, but just to bring it back is this is making up 45% of the annual goal of the 2000 inclusionary plan, which is a good step. The next one I think that everybody has heard about is traffic. Traffic is going to change on this site with the zoning or the proposed rezoning as it's going to get developed. We understand that and we want to minimize that impact as much as we can to the surrounding areas. The zoning helps with that. We're looking for potential heights. We're going to bring retail, which has passed by rates that are higher than multifamily. Also, it will encourage live work play development agreement. We're doing a full traffic study. We've already done current counts, level service. We've expanded our scope as per all of our neighborhood meetings. We're being proactive. We've had two traffic public meetings that are outside of the eight that we've had. We've already got a protected left turn on Louisiana and Colorado heading southbound. We're going to provide a North-South connection which will reinsert the grid, which will allow more options for people to get in and out of the site. We're going to do the TDM and implement those as a part of our development plan that Stuart discussed and we felt like we hired the best guy to come up with that concept. Other notable items is containment, continued neighborhood engagement, construction manager, open space requirement, drainage study and subdivision requirement. Along with this, if the neighborhood priorities that couldn't be put into the development agreement, it's not a city related item. We were open to a general agreement, which is a good neighbor agreement. The R.A. isn't currently functioning, but we've had countless neighbors that took time out of their days, came up with great ideas, and we're going to commit to doing those items. And those are design. We said the metro district to enforce those design criterias, additional neighborhood meetings, tower, beautiful location, which is the microwave. If that if that remains, if we can't get it beautified, we're going to keep the line of sight as outlined in our contract for it to have continuous operations. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. And then, Sean, if you want to come up, I'm also going to call the next five. So if you guys could vacate that and I apologize, I'm not sure how this is over. Fox, Curtis Row, Sarah Murphy, David Browning and Denise Cheeky. If you could make your way up to this front row. And Sean, you have the microphone. Good evening. Mr. President, and members of council. My name is Sean Maley, Sierra Associates, 1660 Lincoln Street. I wanted to speak about the 11 months of outreach control group has been formed as I believe it sets a new standard and pioneers some new ground for how an owner and developer engages with the neighborhood. The eight public meetings that we've held on the site sets a high mark for me personally, and adding to these eight meetings, we've convened dozens more special issue meetings with the community regarding traffic, environmental cleanup, with the City Task Force, the. Neighborhood Zoning Committee. Who sent us written memos and exchanged neighborhood priorities, and countless other individual meetings, coffees and house visits, and referring you to the letter control group sent City Council on November 27th. That's included at the front of the packet we handed you tonight. I wanted to draw your attention to the first page in a short list of agreements that Castro has made throughout this process. For an important site like this, with a lengthy process with the neighborhood. We want council to know that this process has yielded a lot of positives that go beyond the existing zoning scenario. Affordable housing, as you've heard tonight, open space, ongoing public engagement. We've included in the DEA a process and structure for ongoing public meetings tied to key project milestones after the rezoning. If at this past lowering heights and neighborhood transition, the application lowers heights on the interior and exterior of the site and goes below the city's zoning regulations for development adjacent to protected districts like the Sue and. Zone districts. TDM As you've heard from Stewart extending the timeframe, we've pushed our application timeframe as much as possible to allow for maximum dialog with the community. And at first reading we agreed to push back our hearing by an additional two weeks to allow for more time for the Community and Council to review the development agreement. We held our eighth public meeting during this time frame for public notice. We distributed fliers, posted signs on the property, create an email database with over 300 neighbors who were repeatedly sent emails asking for their questions and concerns. Built a custom project website where we posted all neighborhood presentations, information and key documents. And there are countless other items I could list, including, but not limited to preserving the mature trees along the Arkansas Avenue, closing Arkansas Avenue, east of Birch Street, and many more. I believe this hard work is reflected in the amount of support that is included in the staff report and package before you. If you see these letters, they're in tab four of the binder we prepared. In closing, I would like to thank city staff for their dedication, time and effort. Councilman Cashman and all of City Council, but in particular, Councilman Cashman for appropriately and persistently pushing all parties for a robust and productive dialog. And most of all, the neighborhood great projects require the community's voice and input. Great development is a two way street. We are inspired and honored by the amount of time, dedication and intelligent and thoughtful ideas that have been given to this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next up for Fox. That's what came through on our system of there. A zoo. Last name Fox. Okay. Last name Fox seems correct. I'm not sure what happened to the first name here. Go for. My name is David Fox. I'm a staff representative here for. I'm just here to answer any questions about the transaction if those come up. Thank you. Curtis Roe. Good evening. My name is Curtis. True. I work with Kimberly Hahn Associates. I'm a traffic engineer and I am also here to answer any questions regarding traffic engineering. That may. Come up. Thank you, Sarah Murphy. Good evening. Denver City Council members, I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Sarah Murphy and I reside at 4622 East Colorado Avenue in Denver, Virginia Village neighborhood. I've been a resident there for 12 years. I'm a licensed architect in the state of Colorado. I hold a bachelor's degree from the Frankfurt School of Architecture and a master's degree from Montana State University. I was on the Virginia Village board from 2011 to 2013, and I'm here to say that I think that the current zoning change pushes that the mass update stories across from residential homes to the sidewalk edge. I think that we have the opportunity to create a party for the site that would prescribe, form, use parking as well as other standards across the site. The images that the developer has presented show a generic form and does not mention parking or how it's meeting at street level. And they see that it's walkable, but it's not greeting the street in a certain way. And I think that's critical. This is a prevents a little bit to no transition. And like they've said, they've scaled it down. But that transition goes to straight to some single family homes on the southeast side. A beauty for the site would help address the concerns raised by the community. This unique zone would allow the district to maintain a maximum flexibility during the planning stage, an assurance that what's proposed is actually being developed. The site is going to impact our community for decades, the community, the city and the site itself. And we deserve the best solution. Not necessarily. It was proposed in the zoning change. An example of this is on the eastern edge of my street, Bel-Air and Colorado Avenue. There's tall, multi-story office buildings at the street level. They are 20 feet setback from the street level. But there are trees and lush landscaping that brings that scale down, which is the current zoning for the site that's being proposed. I think that this would match a similar context and allow us to keep the zoning as proposed or something different. I'm an architect, so I understand that the development is going to happen and that we are going to have to have this for generations. But it's smart development that we need to look at and how it affects Virginia Village as a whole. We want something that will make us proud, and that's something that's rushed through. I understand that there's been a lot of public meetings, but some of those meetings have been open house style, where there's not a general progression of comments coming forward to the council or to the council, to the developer, so that the community is not hearing what other concerns on that is going to be. It's just dialog. Another concern that I have is that the communication has been very digital and a lot of the people in our neighborhood have historically been there from the time that the homes are built in 1950s, those people do not necessarily have communication by email. I personally do not get fliers on my door notifying me of the meetings, and I know that my neighbor next to me does not have email or, you know, internet access in his home. So that's one of my concerns as well. I'm against the rezoning as requested, and I ask that it be denied, tabled or continued until a more appropriate plan can be developed. Thank you for your time and I'm here for any questions, if you have any. Thank you. David Browning. Hi. My name's Dave Browning and. I live at 933 South Milwaukee Way, which I understand to be in the stakeholder area. I'm also here as a residential realtor. Four or five years ago, I was on the Mayor Hancock's Affordable Housing Task Force Committee with Councilwoman Kanis. And during that. Time, boy, we struggled with the affordable housing. Inventory in Denver. We lost a lot of affordable housing units to foreclosure and the 2007 to 2010 period. I think this project just seems like a great way to start to back up that affordable housing. Inventory. Again. Also, as a residential realtor, I've been on the board of directors for the Realtor. Association for more than eight years, and we. Are always in favor of projects that put people closer. To man mass. Mass transit, as it's just more as it's environmentally friendly. Gets people closer to the city center and the light rail. I also want to talk about in my career as a realtor, I have worked in the past in residential real estate with the group that's proposing this project. And I worked with a. Lot of people who did a lot of redevelopment. And I always told people that this is the group that you want to be buying homes from just because of the pride. They took in their work. Just being earnest and. Talking when they didn't need to talk to you about how proud they are of the community and how they want to do a good job and have the people who live there be prideful and the product that they were producing. So just to sum up, I love the affordable housing aspect. I like the environmental impact of it to the point where it's close to light rail. And I think anyone who may be worried about the group doing this, I don't know what the alternative would be, but it would be hard to find a group that would be I would think it would be just about impossible to find a group that would take pride in the development that I know this group would. What's not to like? Thank you. Thank you. We are to our last person in this group. So if we could free that bunch. And Denise Cheeky, you're up at just a second. Let me call the next five. Diane Walter, Nancy Schuetz, Trustee, Frank Pinkerton, Bill Berger and Kristen Jones. If you could make your way to the front and I'm sorry about the last name. That's all right. Go ahead, Kelly. Denise to Kelly. Hi, I'm Denise, too. Kelly, I live in the neighborhood at your door in Mexico for the last ten years. And what drew me to the neighborhood was community appeal, the connection that Susan, who spoke earlier about her neighborhood, was talking about. I wasn't prepared to speak tonight. I thought we could yield our time and found out when I got here, we could not. So please excuse me. I'm terribly nervous. Let's see. On my immediate block, as someone else had just mentioned, most of the homes have been owned by my neighbors for ten, 20, 50 years. Three immediate neighbors are in their nineties. We have an amazing neighborhood. It's so great. The Castro project does scare me a little. The only information I have seen as limited and I recently received a flier from a neighborhood committee. So I know how easy it is to get information out because this was like neighbors put this together. So and I do want to say that our association didn't that I know of didn't it wasn't a membership problem. What happened was it was hijacked by real estate developers and they didn't pay attention to the bylaws that were necessary through the state. And because of that, it's disbanded and it's currently being rebirthed. So hopefully we'll get that to help with this situation. Well, okay. So the Castro project seems to be very dense with multiple large structures. The project also seems to lack conformity with the existing neighborhood. Although I did hear some of the things you mentioned and they did sound very positive, but that's the first I've heard of it. And the project will create an enormous traffic and profit and parking problem with no current provision for resolution. I heard the not for profit person who also was impressive, so those actually were a little hopeful for this project. The court was only a 1 to 2 story building with a lot of parking and a lot of availability. That didn't create any traffic problems that I'm aware of. And I live south of what we're talking about. And so even though there are large structures to the north, everything to the south, if you looked in that picture . Was single dwelled dwelling units. The redevelopment of the project is acceptable, but I would like to see it tabled for the moment until more neighborhood representation is considered. You know, 30% to me is kind of a large percentage, which was the 18 people that the person spoke about earlier. I'd really like to see a really good committee put with a lot of the neighbors participating. I think they would like to participate. I think I, I just wanted to also mention that, as I mentioned, elderly and and younger children, there's lots of younger children with those 25 mile an hour signs. And, you know, I'm. Sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Diane. Diane. Walter. Hello. I'm Diane Walter. Good evening, counsel. I must ask you, where is the proper justification for this particular zoning legally? You must look at the evidence presented tonight and during your quasi judicial and this 18 page comprehensive analysis that was submitted to you all by Tim Karr last Monday points out at least 20 ways in which the rezoning request does not meet specific criteria. This is an attempt to shoehorn in something that is oversize and largely inappropriately zoned for this residential neighborhood. Our neighborhood is one of front lawns and quiet residential streets. Yes, we all want cute retail shops and the affordable housing to be built. But this plan is to dance for the area. Staff has selectively identified plan objectives, strategies and recommendations to support justification for the rezoning. But there are six areas of noncompliance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan listed on page three. Additionally, staff has ignored at least six of the basic principles and recommendations identified in Blueprint Denver. The proposed zoning districts will have adverse impacts on adjacent single family residential development, primarily one story, and will increase traffic congestion, noise and the quality of living in the surrounding area, thus conflicting with the intent of a rezoning that protects the public health, safety and general welfare, staff's assertion of a justified reason for the rezoning is subjective at best lacks foundational facts that demonstrate either demand or need within the community. The idea that this rezoning will be down zoning from the current permitted uses fails to consider the impact of large retail uses and high density residential development on the site of again, quiet neighborhood residential streets. Colorado Boulevard has been mentioned an awful lot here tonight. This is two blocks off of Colorado Boulevard and it's a mile and I'm 1.1 miles from the light rail center. So this is not an actual hub of multimodal. This it's a hub of residential homes. Impacts to the existing road systems will be substantial. A proposal on Louisiana Avenue, for instance, which they're deeming a collector street, is a stretch. It's a two lane street, residential, just like the other streets surrounding this on three sites. And it only runs about three quarters of a mile from Holly over to the other side of Colorado Boulevard. So I'm asking you tonight to either table this or vote no. It just doesn't have all the requirements needed to protect the neighborhood. Again, the neighborhood's not against it. It just needs to be better. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Nancy. Q t I'm sorry. It's sushi. Sushi. It's Hungarian. So I'm Nancy Sushi and I live at 1395 South Grape Street in Virginia Village. And so Denver is changing. It's changing very quickly. And for some of us who have been long time residents, it's hard to say. It's hard to sit in traffic. It's hard to just look around and see things that are so unfamiliar than the way they used to be. But I'm here to speak in favor of this new development and this new zoning, because I believe that we need to embrace change and do what we can to ensure that all Denver residents, the new and the old, have safe and affordable places to live. Now, I believe affordable housing means 30% of am I not 60%, but it sounds like the plan is for more like 60%. But affordable housing reduces stress. Toxins and infectious diseases leads to improvements in physical and mental health. Children in stable housing do better in school and are less likely to drop out. Parents who are less likely to worry about foreclosure and evictions lead to more job and income stability. Affordable housing is critical to Denver's success on a global economy as Denver becomes more economically powerful and essential, the demand for housing increases. We need to support the local workforce so people can live closer to their jobs. Shorter commutes allow workers to spend time with families rather than on long commutes. Construction of affordable housing stimulates economic growth, and a healthy mix of housing options ensures opportunities for all individuals to improve their economic situation and contribute to their communities. Having housing and commercial interest close by the walkability of the neighborhood. Canning. Chris, and make it a more attractive place to live. For me, the bottom line is we need more housing in Denver. People who work here need to be able to live here. My expectation from what I've read and from the presentation tonight is that Cantrell will keep their commitment to make affordable housing along with commercial. And I really fear what would happen if this was opened up to the highest bidder. Thank you. Thank you. Frank Pilkington. Pilkington. Thank you. My name's Frank Pilkington. At 1375 South Claremont Street, my parents bought a house at 1580 South Bel-Air in 1954. I've been a member of this neighborhood since then. I still own property in this neighborhood. My heart is there and I really like this neighborhood a lot. It's been a great place to bring up kids. I was raised there myself. I'm not against the project. I'm not a NIMBY, but I'm literally right behind the SMU three. If you could refer to the map that was presented, it's a small section at the southeast corner. Which is zoned to be 35 feet high. My single-family house there is 12 feet high, eight foot ceiling and a 12 four roof. And when I go out the back door and look up at 35 feet and see three stories, it's going to be a little shocking. I can get over it. But the point that I want to make about that small parcel of land in the southeast corner at Arkansas and Birch, is that as proposed, there are 120 low income or affordable housing units built in that specific spot. Now, as Castro has introduced their plan, they are going to have 450 housing units here. If 120 of those, or approximately one third are located in that small section of SMU three. That's affordable housing segregation. I'd like to propose that those affordable housing units are integrated throughout the entire project rather than separated into one small section at the corner. I don't think the affordable housing should be distinguishable from the rest of the housing and the development. So many points to make in 3 minutes. You know, when the investors come in and a lot of these other 300 units are going to be bought up as rentals, and that does not fit the model of homeownership . At least we can have 150 homeowners right there. So are we going to want all of those low income people to be located in the same exact little corner of this development? The control group has done a nice job presenting some good plans and it has great potential here. This piece of land is really a gem in the city of Denver, but I would hate to segregate the low income people from the rest of the housing development. Thank you. Thank you, Bill Berger. Thank you. I'm Bill Berger. I live at 1585 South Grape Street. I moved to Denver in 1972, so I've been here for 46 years. That entire time I've lived and worked in the city and county of Denver, and now I live in Virginia Village. I'm against this rezoning for a number of reasons. Mostly, I believe. Overwhelming negative impact to our neighborhood. I've observed. Much a great deal of positive. Growth in Denver for the 46 years I've lived here. But in the recent. Years, I've I've observed some really negative development taking place. I've observed, in addition to a lot of this development, being just plain ugly. It's been ultra-high high density minimum, minimum building setbacks, lack of adequate, adequate parking, no new parks throughout the city, negative impacts on the character of neighborhoods, and worsening traffic congestion, especially on Colorado Boulevard. And this rezoning has every. One of. These negative characteristics associated with it. So I ask, who will. Benefit from this redevelopment? Certainly wealthy developers. Wealthy consultants working. For the developers, wealthy attorneys working for the developers, and local. Politicians seeking higher. Office. And who will pay for the costs of this redevelopment? Well, the Denver taxpayers, the citizens throughout the city and county of Denver, homeowners like me. Normal working men and. Women throughout the city and neighborhoods through additional congestion, traffic and all of these other negative impacts. I believe that someday all of this crazy. Redevelopment throughout the city with all of these negative characteristics. Is going to. Go too far. And I think this development is going too far. I think we've reached that point. This is a rare opportunity for a large. Parcel of land to be turned into a park. The city has not added park land for ever. And this is our opportunity to do this. And I think it would be a much better use of this space. Thank you very much. Thank you. And Christine Jones, your next if you want to get ready. But hold on just a second when I call the next five up Liz over Bo loyal Merrick Jacob Graham James or Donny and Bill James. If you could make your way up to the front row, go ahead. Hi. My name is Kristen Jones. I live at 1798 South Eudora Street in Virginia Village. I'm also part of a neighborhood task force that reviewed Kendra's proposal earlier in the year and gave feedback. I'm supportive of this proposal because we need more affordable housing in Denver, and I think this is our best shot to get it in our neighborhood. I'm proud to be among the neighbors who pushed Kendra on affordable housing. We wanted them to commit to building 150 affordable units on site, not to pay to set the fee and not to put it somewhere else. And I'm gratified that they agreed to do that. I also think that 150 affordable units is not enough and 60% AMI is not affordable enough. Like my neighbors, I'm concerned about preserving the character of the neighborhood. To me, the character of the neighborhood that's most worth preserving is diverse, welcoming and family friendly. It really is a beautiful place. It's it's been very welcoming to me and my family. We have two small kids. We have a beautiful park, a community garden. Our elementary schools is a place where you can walk down the hall and hear kids talking to each other in Arabic and Spanish and English. But Denver's housing housing shortage has made Virginia Village whiter and wealthier. Our school is emptying out because families are getting price down. And that, to me is not family friendly. The stress hurts our neighborhood kids, and it's bad for all of us who want our community to be welcoming to everyone. I know that that affordable housing here means increased density, and that doesn't worry me at all. In fact, I would have liked to see Castro go for more density because that would have meant more housing. I also don't like the idea of a lot of big, unsafe parking lots that are going to be difficult for me and my family to navigate. I would have liked to see urban zoning here, not suburban zoning. I don't like sitting in traffic any more than my neighbors, but I also know that if we don't build density in the city, we will have to sprawl out. And that's going to be mean worse traffic for all of us at the same time. When my neighbor Diane said that that it's not a transit hub, that's true. It's very hard to get on a bus from Virginia Village to downtown. It takes forever. It's not back close to the light rail and there aren't nearly enough bike lanes. So keep working on that. Guys. I also want to point out that the demographics of the people who are speaking tonight don't match the demographics of our neighborhood. You're hearing from a lot of white homeowners, and that is not our neighborhood. We are. Our elementary school is about 80% people of color. And so I want to urge city agencies to do a better job in reaching out to the entire community. This is a great place to live. I look forward to welcoming our new, new neighbors, and I hope Kintore will build something we can all be proud of. Thanks. Thank you, Liz. Over both. Good evening. I'd like to share a letter that my neighbor Margaret Bob wrote to Paul Cashman on November 18th, and she's be unable to be here tonight. But I thought it was well-written and certainly represented. It represents the concerns of our neighbors on 1533 South Dexter Way and perhaps the neighborhood at large. Dear Mr. Cashman I'm very concerned about the direction that the redevelopment of this court property has taken. A flier received, received on my door alerting me to this shows that the redevelopment is not what was was is not what was presented to the community at a meeting at Elm Ellis Elementary School. My address is about one quarter mile from the crash site, and having walked the streets of this neighborhood for 35 years, I value the character of our modest neighborhood. I live at 1557. South Dexter Way have lived here since 1984 and try to be a responsible, participatory citizen. Within the past year, I attended one of the developer led meetings about the redevelopment. The meeting I attended was at Ellis Elementary. I paid close attention to the description of mixed use, business and residential. The drawings of the proposed development, the impact on traffic. The amount of open space, and the requirement for affordable housing. At that meeting, I was very satisfied that the redevelopment seemed balanced. Certainly it would bring a higher density of housing and certainly it would bring more traffic. But population growth is inevitable and development is inevitable. And a plan presented seemed balanced and responsible. The drawings presented showed significant open space. The buildings in the diagram seem to be at varying heights, with an attractive profile and diversity. I am all for affordable housing. Thumbs up on that. I received more notices of more meetings but chose not to attend as I was satisfied that the redevelopment was responsible and balanced. Now the flier I've received showing exhibit number 14 S stack de. S Stash mix and s stash m building envelope study does not match what was presented to me at the community meeting I attended. I am shocked and dismayed. I see an illustration of a massive block of three eight story buildings. I see all of the buildings squeezed together with no open space. The flier I received indicates that a rezoning vote is required. Honestly, I don't know what zoning changes are specified. Maybe the original plan I saw months ago requires the same rezoning vote that you will discuss at the December 3rd public hearing. I simply want to convey to you that I feel horribly misled by the developers. As their city councilman who must balance development and quality of life, mitigate and hold this developer, mitigate this and hold the developers. But your time is presented. Thank you. Loyal MCC. Thank you for your time. City Council. My name is Lyle Merrick, and I live in Virginia Village. I'm one of the new homeowners, and my son spent years sitting over there. He's a little guy that likes riding his bike in the neighborhood and doesn't like to get run over by cars. Okay. We don't like our homes getting broken into. And that happens a lot because in fact, there is a lot of affordable housing that totally surrounds our neighborhood. And this is just going to add to that problem. And speaking of traffic, it's had about 10,000 trips a day. He is kidding me. 10,000 trips a day. Like how many people are going to go on their bikes? Like five people are going to use a bike. Traffic studies, traffic studies going to do, that's not going to fix anything. There's way too much traffic on Colorado Boulevard and through our neighborhood right now. Right now it's intolerable. I wouldn't walk more than five blocks. I'm afraid of getting run over all the time. It's already ridiculous. And you can add 10,000 more trips. The scale is absolutely ridiculous. This this does not make sense for our neighborhood. It doesn't make sense for a neighborhood. Things are already. Ridiculous. And no traffic studies are not going to change the basic fact that there's so much space on the road. No new roads are going to be made, no viaducts are going to be made, no underground subways are going to be made. Everything's going to be basically the way it is. We're just stacking tons of people on that spot and we're all going to have to live with them and we're all going to resent them forever. That's it. Thank you. Next up, Jacob Grimm. My name is Jacob Grimm. 1750 South primary way I actually hold a not that amount of people hold a master's degree in real estate and. Real estate and development from University of Denver. So I kind of understand the complications of development. It's got to make sense for a developer to in a way, we can believe that things are going to be easy, that you can do it. However, everybody needs to make sense financially in a way as well. So I support this. I also want to add that I, I am from Norway, so I'm actually one of those minorities we talk about, but I might not look that way. Growing up in Oslo, Norway, we have the best public transportation per capita in the world. But also being a European, I understand that for public transportation to work, you have to have density. Consider a popular belief in this country. Sprawl is the enemy of traffic, not density. Density does the opposite with density. We can figure out how to transport more people efficiently than the way we've done for the last 50 years in the United States of America. We drive. The reason why we're coming back to cities is because people are tired of spending two to 4 to 6 hours on the road to get home. And by building more units, I don't care if you call it affordable or whatever. More housing and a more diverse housing stock. We provide homes for people that don't want to live 2 hours away because that's where they can afford to live. We have to have more diversity in our housing stock to have more diversity in our city. And that's I think people fail to see being a European again. I know that we have density, more density in most places in the United States. I lived in Manhattan. The traffic in Manhattan doesn't come from Manhattanites. That comes from everybody else that travels into Manhattan every day. Manhattanites take trains for public transportation. It's the only way to get around. Anybody who's been there will know that. So if you want public transportation to work, we need density. If you want more affordable housing in Denver, we need density. So. I think this is a great way to solve parts of our problems in Denver. Thank you, James or Danny. James Zanoni I live at 1568 South Fairfax. I've been a member of that community, Virginia Village, since 19 early 1969. The question before the council this evening is one that I think involves the issue of virtue, and by virtue I mean knowing the difference between good and bad and choosing what is good. And I'm asking you, council members, whether or not this proposal before you, in approving this massive change that occurs in southeast Denver is good for the people who live there. I've heard any number of speakers this evening address the issue of affordable housing. And I ask the question, what is affordable? Affordable to whom? Millionaires. Those that have only $100,000. Or those that have only $5,000. The issue is never addressed. Really. There is an immutable law of physics and there is an immutable law of economics as well. And the law of economics applies to some of the issues before us this evening. Subsidies. Subsidies are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. City councilman or any politician and elected officials in any case cannot call themselves charitable by giving away someone else's money and think that that's compassionate. It isn't. That's taxpayers money who you're giving away. Subsidies are wrong. And we, the city of Denver right now is on a long and dangerous path, in my opinion, providing subsidies to all different kinds, both commercial as well as individual subsidies. We're not headed in the right direction, folks. And I wish you would evaluate your stands on some of these things. As for the citizens who live in Virginia Village, there's a double, double whammy that's put upon them today, because no one is mentioned thus far this evening about the other development of C Dart along South Hawley. That's going to monumentally increase the traffic on that already overdriven thoroughfare. Colorado Boulevard is the most heavily traveled the road in the in the entire state, I believe. I see my time is expired. Thank you very much. Next up in this round is Bill James. And if you hold for just a second what I call the next five up, Kate Adams, Kelly Dufner, Karina Santini, John Strafford and Nicolas Lundberg. If you could make your way up to the front, draw them like volunteers. Good evening, council members. Excuse me. I'm Bill James. I live at 1145 South Glencoe Street in the Virginia Village neighborhood. I'm here to support the application for this reason. As you know, a few years ago I was on the board of directors at Regional Transportation District, and since then also I've been elected to the board of the House in Colorado. And since 1997, excuse me, I've been a board member of Stuart Anderson's Transportation Management Association, Transportation Solutions. I'm here as a citizen of the neighborhood, but I have a perspective from my practice of as a commercial real estate appraiser and consultant and who specializes in transportation oriented development and affordable housing properties as well. The most dramatic change which may result from the application is as approved as reduction of the maximum building height of the interior of the property from by four stars, from a maximum of 8 to 12 storeys to the on the edge of the site to a maximum of two stories from 3 to 5 stories. So there's a significant reduction in the. Density that. Would be with the proposal from what would be permitted by other developments. So the. Density is. Actually being reduced from a as a potential. The as you know, the control group has engaged transportation solutions to conduct a transportation demand management study for the site. I know from my many years on the Board of Directors of Transportation Solutions that such a study can significantly reduce the signal to see the single occupancy vehicle trips, and that will reduce the traffic congestion considerably. In addition to other transformational changes. That are happening in the transportation industry of which you're aware, I'm excited about the potential this site holds for multimodal transportation opportunities because of its proximity to Florida station. Colorado Center station. Sorry, I believe the requirement for the reason application for affordable housing will also benefit the area, particularly if substantial senior component is included there, and make it so that those who are growing older in the neighborhood can remain in the neighborhood. It is clear that many in the community agree with the developer that affordable apartments on the site will benefit the neighborhood. I applaud Cointreau's commitment to this area be another element of the. The reason that will take place is the permission of retail use, which is not permitted by the existing zoning. The the opportunity for placemaking to make the this site has the opportunity to be a center for the community and with it takes a neighborhood oriented retail type uses in order to make that. Sort of thing possible. For developers and to create combined with the open space. I'm sorry, the place your time is equal to two hour lift. Thank you very much. Next up, Kate Adams. Good evening. My name is Kate Adams and I live at 1392 South Edison Way. I'm asking each of you to vote in favor of the Virginia Village community, which, in my opinion, means to. Oppose. The rezoning of 4201 East Arkansas. It seems the city has allowed or made up a process, so we don't know what will actually be developed except density and an increase in traffic, which seems to be a theme without a soul in Denver these days. As was observed at Planning Board, this is a process turned on its head. If this were a GDP, the community would have had input on areas of open space, streetscape roads, access points, connection to surrounding areas, character and building design. As I have said before, we are being asked to sign a blank check not only by Castro but by the city of Denver. The zoning request does not follow current zoning code or current plans. Arkansas birds in Louisiana are local streets. Only MH three is permitted. If Louisiana is considered a collector, it would be Amex five, not Amex eight. In current plans, this is an area of stability. This is not modest infill. This is an area large enough to qualify for a GDP. As part of this transaction, it appears the city has made exceptions to the documented rezoning process. I cannot find a process in the code that does not offer a conceptual plan, site development plan or active community involvement in a rezoning to know what will be developed. This is not a small impact on Virginia Village. It is major. The fact that there is a development agreement that may possibly will try to address some neighborhood concerns after rezoning. It should not take the place of a GDP. This is the final buzzer in this lead them to believe game planning board and the land use committee were led to believe the full community participated in the development agreement. In fact, it was four people on the zoning committee with no community meeting for discussion. The divide and conquer approach and the community meetings will be continued. A public review for the conceptual site plans will be within 45 days of the submittal, not allowing community input before submittal and the construction manager will address concerns and. Questions on a case by case basis, just like. They have done in the rezoning process. Tonight we get the answer to Planning Board. Statement Council may say this doesn't meet plans, but do it anyway. How is a Denver neighborhood supposed to participate in major change when the city has rules but makes exceptions to benefit its desires over the well-being of a community? I quote Councilwoman Ortega from Denver, right? If we can keep the density downtown, hopefully we don't have density overtaking our neighborhoods. We will hear this very loud and clear. In the next election cycle. Neighborhoods fighting to protect their residential community. Please protect Virginia Village. Thank you. Thank you. Kelly Dufner. Kelly Dufner. All right, Karina Santini. Hello. My name is Carina Santini. I live in Virginia Village and am a longtime resident of the city of Denver and have several concerns regarding the proposed rezoning request. The last time I had to deal with an issue like this was when I lived close by in the Hilltop neighborhood. In January of 2016, macKinnon proposed that the zoning be changed at the existing church lot on Colorado Boulevard. They initially proposed a five storey building with retail on the ground floor and a 105 unit apartment complex. However, when the neighborhood R.A. fought the plan, developers in 2017 scaled the project back to just 54 units or about half the size. However, even in that case, they were turned down by city council by an 11 to 0 vote. As of January 2018, the project had been scaled down to 22 duplexes with a maximum height of 35 feet. Developers obviously needed to work with residents on getting the project to a workable scale, which illustrates how community involvement should work. And how it is a critical component of successful rezoning. Why am I mentioning this case? This has nothing to do with Virginia Village right now because there are common denominators between these two neighborhoods being they both are connected to and located directly east of Colorado Boulevard. Both neighborhoods deal with the transition space between commercial development and a quiet residential area. One difference is that the area mentioned in Hilltop is actually designated an area of change for Blueprint Blueprint Denver. While the area being considered for rezoning and Virginia Village is designated an area of stability, taking into account that areas of stability include stable residential neighborhoods where no significant changes in land use are expected over the next 20 years. How is the proposed rezoning? An enormous development project may have no issues being located directly in my neighborhood. Why was the much smaller development at Hilltop opposed until further refinement? While the much more aggressive development of Virginia Village may go through in a post, the central plan is a much more aggressive development aimed at slipping by the neighborhood in order to move the project into the area without proper procedure and disclosure. And I'd like to state that I tried to contact the Virginia Village registered neighborhood organization on three separate occasions since mid-summer and received no emails or calls back in response to questions I had, or about my request to know when any R.A. meetings would be held. There was zero information. In short, there is no way to get in touch with the answer. R.A. And it was very clear that neighbors neighbors did not know how to get involved. This is a far cry from how the transparent to the press. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, John Strafford. Good evening, Mr. President and council members. My name is John Stafford. I live at 1907 South Leighton Street as a part of the. Virginia Village neighborhood. I'm a professional civil engineer, and I've been. Involved in a significant. Amount of redevelopment projects in the Denver metro area. I'm excited. For the opportunity to finally be speaking in support of a development as a. Neighbor within the Virginia Village instead of as a. Professional. To start, I'd like to commend the transparency Kentaro has provided. Like a lot of neighborhood, like a lot of the neighborhood over. I have a young. Family and a busy job that has hindered me from attending any neighborhood meetings. A simple Google search led me to the East, our Kansas control. Website, where all the neighborhood meeting. Notes, development agreement, neighborhood agreement, among. Other documents, were available. I'm excited. To hear the reason reduces the potential height and density of what is. Currently zoned, as well as ADD retail and. Restaurants as a potential use. I'm glad to hear Castro has committed to it conduct a transportation management demand study, which is different than your typical traffic impact study. Transportation Management Studies. Demand studies provide recommendations on. How to provide. To make a development more pedestrian friendly and how to take vehicles off the road. This is this particular area. Virginia Village is not very. Pedestrian friendly and I. Suspect after this redevelopment. It will be. I also commend control for. Going above. And beyond with working with a neighborhood on a. Good neighbor agreement. I assure you. This is not a typical offering from most developers. I understand the multiple concerns any given development presents traffic, utility capacities, esthetics to name a few. It is important to note that all of these concerns are required to be addressed throughout the rezoning. And entitlement process, and any deficiencies found will require improvement. I trust the City Review Engineers will work with the redevelopment to ensure the infrastructure well will accommodate. Bottom line is this. Parcel is going to get redeveloped. I just assume it be redeveloped by a local developer. That's willing to listen to the neighborhood, which I believe Castro is willing to do. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Nicolas Lundberg. And but before you start about to call the next five up to the front row, both Beth Fine, Silver, Florence Seaburn, Gerald Walsh, Wil Carpenter, Nancy Barlow, if you could come to the front and Nicholas, my crunchers. Thank you. Council president and honorable council members for the opportunity to speak at this this meeting. My name is Nicholas Lundberg and I reside at. 1595 South Claremont Street. I have lived in Colorado for 23 years of that 15 in. Denver and of that 1511 in Virginia Village where I bought my first home as a home buyer. About myself, I have a bachelor's degree in. Accounting from Brigham Young University, and I, most of my career has been in the waste management and recycling industry. I'm here to present on an aspect of the rezoning process. The aspect is the process which affords affords real property owners within 200 feet of the property to have a unique, unique voice in this process, a voice that would require a city council supermajority vote on this Rees own matter, the voice that may or may not have been known to available to them excuse me, a voice in something that will directly impact them as they live or own property. Right on the perimeter. Of the zone site. The purpose of of a circulation of the signature gathering process was twofold to inform the property owners within 200 feet of their only opportunity address City Council. By virtue of this meeting tonight, many of the property owners and ranchers we contacted were not aware of this December 3rd opportunity second to present a petition for signatures to sign if they so choose. That would for city council in a supermajority vote on this rezoning matter. The signature properties process had a very short window per the rule as the clock started on Tuesday, November 6th, the day after the the the city council first reading and ended on noon on Monday, November 26th. Coupled with the Thanksgiving holiday, the actual window of opportunity was much shorter than the 20 calendar days, as the signature process is a face to face in-person informational discussion process, many property owners were simply unreachable on multiple attempts. The rules of the signature gathering process required getting signatures of property owners totaling 20% of the square footage within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning property. We successfully gathered 20 signatures from 14 properties, a mix of single family homes for plex's and commercial property, but fell short. The 20% threshold was 100. 78,000 square feet. We reached 150,000 square feet with our signatures, a 3.1% shortfall, a 16.9% success rate. Everyone in the Virginia Village community should be afforded the opportunity to have their voice heard, whether it is in support or opposition. We are not against development. We are not against rezoning. We are against this rezoning as presented. Either deny this rezoning proposal has presented or consider tabling or continuing this matter so that Virginia Village community can. Cooper elaborate to support the right type of. Job from this site. I'm sorry your time. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Beth finds over. Hi. I am Beth. Fine. Silver and I live at 1445 South Elm Street as a third generation Denver. I am 36 year resident of Christina Park. I have a vested interest in my neighborhood and my community. I love my neighborhood. That's an. I take great interest in the redevelopment of the court property. I am in favor of the rezoning. It is a given that this large parcel of land will be redeveloped. It is my hope that the community will continue to play an active part along with Centro and the city of Denver, in how this large parcel of land will be zoned and redeveloped. I have attended many of the community meetings held by Cantrell in the last 11 and half months. I appreciate Castro's willingness to have these meetings almost monthly and to be proactive in staying involved with the neighborhood as this project begins to take shape. I have also met with them to voice my questions and concerns, and in both instances I have found the members of the Centro excuse me, the Centro team to be communicative, open to answering all questions, willing to consider suggestions and ideas, and to talk about their visions for the redevelopment of this property. I understand that it is still very early in the process and that not all questions can be answered at this time. It will be impossible to please everyone. I have had many questions, as have many neighbors, as to the size and density of this project. What I understand. About the proposed. Rezoning and the reason I am in favor of it is that in addition to other elements, it will decrease the height of some of the buildings, establish setbacks, establish open space, add retail to the mixed use, include lower income housing, and that there will potentially be a decrease in the amount of traffic overall compared to that of current campus zoning because the traffic flow will be spread out over more hours. The development has the potential to benefit both the surrounding neighborhoods by creating walkable meeting areas, including retail shops, restaurants and open spaces for which the neighbors have wanted for a long time. I am hopeful that with the development agreement and the Good Neighbor Agreement in place, comprised in part from over aforementioned meetings, the city of Denver, Kentaro and involved and concerned neighbors will be able to work together into the future on the design and development of this property. Castro has a huge and exciting opportunity to make their mark locally and nationally in creating an innovative, exceptional and neighborhood supported development. Kentaro has gone beyond my expectations. To work with our community. As. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Florence Seaborn. Good evening and thank you very much for hearing all of our comments tonight. My name is Florence Seeber and I'm at 1140 South Fourth Street. I was born and raised in Virginia Village, and for the last 26 years I've been raising my own family there. A total of 47 of my 57 years have been happily spent in Virginia Village. My background is in administration and parliamentary procedure. I'm a former multi term officer of the Virginia Village Ellis Neighborhood Association, and I very much appreciate objective foundational processes which allow for analytical discussion. My main concern for this proposed rezoning is the lack of compliance with existing norms. The Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint. Denver. I spent countless hours giving input into both of these documents because I believe the community in part is important. I believe that we who live in the neighborhood know the neighborhood best, and I believe my elected council members. When you assure us that adopted plans will be properly applied and adhered to, fully three quarters of this area to be zoned is a defined area of stability. The defined goal for an area of stability is to identify and maintain the character of the neighborhood while accommodating some redevelopments. Only a small part of the of the area to be rezoned lies within a defined corridor area which is used to support higher density. The proposed rezoning. Would drastically alter the character of our neighborhood and destabilize it with traffic, light and sound pollution and unwarranted density. Colorado Boulevard is already gridlocked in that sector. The anticipated tens of thousands of car trips per day does not make logical sense. The 60% am-I affordable housing that is being touted requires a $23 per hour wage. That doesn't sound very affordable to me. I echo the statement of the councilman from District one during the Ludie committee meeting. This is a radically different from anything in Blueprint Denver. It's far more intense. It's a huge ask and a slippery slope. Please assist our neighborhood in maintaining what generations have worked so hard to build. As quoted by the councilman from District six in a 2015 Denver Post article. About Virginia Village. He also noted that the neighborhood has been almost immune from the development craze sweeping the city. He said the neighborhood architecture mostly has been maintained. Virginia village else is kind of one of those largely undiscovered jewels in the city, he said. It hasn't been swallowed up by gentrification. Please deny or to table this particular rezoning request. It's simply not a good fit for the neighborhood. Thank you again for your time and kind consideration. Thank you. Next up, Gerald Walsh. My name is Gerald Walsh. My wife and I live on South Elm Street between Louisiana and Florida. About five blocks east. Of the current city property. We enthusiastically support this rezoning request and the proposed redevelopment of this site. The proposed zoning is not only appropriate for this site, but is vital for the redevelopment project planned by Castro. Castro's proposal will deliver the new housing, retail spaces and amenities that are much needed on the east side of Colorado Boulevard . For those of us that live in this neighborhood, Colorado Boulevard. Has always been a physical barrier. To the amenities. We need. Almost always requiring a car to traverse the proposed new retail. Mixed zoning will allow for Castro to create a space in our neighborhood that. Is accessible by foot. Or bike, with many options for dining, entertainment and other services that we are currently lacking. I've been particularly encouraged by Castro's willingness to engage and include the community through their many neighborhood meetings and outreach. It allowed us as a community to share our concerns and make sure Castro are aware of the things that are important to us . As they finalize their proposal for this site. For example, as an avid cyclist, I talked about the importance of creating cycle friendly development with safe entry and exit points and secure bike lock and parking areas. Kentaro has been very receptive to this feedback and have been very honest with respect to what realistically would work for this site . I was very encouraged when I learned that he had engaged a multimodal transportation firm to consult on the overall trend transit strategy for the development and its potential impact on the neighborhood. Finally, I'm heartened by Kendra's commitment to build affordable housing on this site. The lack of affordable housing is a nationwide problem that has become more and more acute in Denver over the last few years. We all say we want to be part of the solution as a community. The way we show that support is by supporting developments like this. If not in our backyard, then where? Control is a local company that has clearly demonstrated their interest in creating vibrant and engaged communities that all levels of the socio economic divide get to participate in. I want the entry level teacher to be able to live in the same neighborhood as the kids they teach. I want the service industry folks that I engage with every day to be invested in the community in which they work. Please approve this zoning request. Thank you. Thank you. Will Carpenter. Good evening. My name is Will Carpenter. The house on the corner of or excuse me, on the street of 1365 South Claremont. My next door neighbor is Frank. I would love to hear this proposal being either tabled or turned down, at least at this time. Again, my name is Will Carpenter. Nick or excuse me, Jimmy from Castro. I'm right here. I've never met anybody from Central. My backyard is about to the. What's currently the storage container area. I was informed by Florence who was able to find me. I'm not hidden anywhere. She was able to find me so that I could come and participate and listen to what's going on. I'd love to have more information so I could be more informed as to how this process. And how it's going to continue to go. At this time. Like I said, I'd just like to see it tabled or denied for this evening. Thank you. Nancy Barlow. And well, Nancy, if you're holding for I can also I can pull the next five up. Rebecca markham, Russell Welch, Annette Carpenter, Mark Sharon Maker and Tim Karl, if you could make your way to the front bench and go ahead, Nancy. You can go ahead. I can go ahead. Good evening. My name is Nancy Barlow. I live in southeast Denver. Within this corridor that this development is in. Most importantly, I'm here tonight because I'm the president of the East Evans Business Association. And I would like to. Read a letter that the board drafted for our membership and our. Membership approved. The RBA board would like to express its support of the rezoning application for. From control group. For the vacated set up property located. Located on East Arkansas. In the past year, control group has been proactive about connecting with the EPA to. Ensure that they are including. Business owners from the community in their outreach. Efforts. They have led to discussions with the. EPA members in which they shared their proposal for the redevelopment of the now vacated set up property on East Arkansas. These conversations provided opportunities for our members to ask questions about the proposal and to consider. The broader implications. On the business community. Based on these discussions with Control Group, the EPA Board is in support. Of the rezoning because it is in. Alignment with our mission statement. We aim to recruit, retain and grow the local businesses as well as bring investments into our community. The approval of a mixed use zoning code. Would open up the possibility to completely. Re envision a commercial retail space that could provide net new business opportunities for owners looking for. Alternatives to the limited real estate. Available in them in our corridor today. It also has let's see, it has the potential to create a strong sense of place. That could rival other well-established. Destinations in other parts of Denver, and it would potentially provide affordable housing. For the employees of the businesses. Within our corridor. We hope to see the City Council approve the zoning application so that our members can continue their discussions with Castro and to shape the development into an asset that supports. The stability and growth of local Denver business owners. Thank you. Thank you. Rebecca Markham. Rebecca. Mark, I am. Right. Russell Welch. Good evening. My name is Russell Welch. I'm a 1964 South Pontiac Street, and I'm speaking tonight in favor of the redevelopment. I really think it's a thoughtful solution to the redevelopment at this property. And I've set back over the past year and really watched what Kentaro has done and I'm really impressed, quite frankly. We've had eight separate meetings to get the public's input and it's been very thoughtful. There's been concerns about massing and density, and I've seen the density drop from for the size from from 12 storeys to eight storeys. And it's really refreshing, ideal pretty regularly with developers in the commercial construction world and in the ever increasing desire to increase densities to meet performance, they're doing exactly the opposite. They're trying to be thoughtful. And I'm really struck by the affordable housing component that is extremely important to me and my family. We want to. Have a well-rounded community. And I really think that does that 150 units. That's incredible. And so, you know, the other piece is the retail. There's so many great components, which, of course, somebody mentioned previously the existing zoning doesn't allow for retail. So again, I think what Cointreau has done here has has been really thoughtful. And again, these guys are local and that means a lot to me. I face a lot of out-of-state developers and they don't necessarily care about my needs, about my family's needs. They're into to develop their project and move on. Ken chosen the neighborhood. Kensho has done several developments on Colorado Boulevard and in the surrounding community. I fully trust that they'll do the right thing and they have my unwavering support. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Annette Carpenter. Good evening. So thank you for listening. I am a property owner at 1365 South Claremont and I'm reading from it because it's actually a rental property. My husband and I who spoke earlier, purchased the property four years ago and I happen to live in kind of a blocks district now, but a rental property is there and we made a thoughtful purchase of a property because we know what Denver what's happening in Denver with housing prices made a thoughtful price. So I'm nervous. We made a thoughtful purchase when we purchased in that neighborhood thinking that our kids could move back to that house when they graduate from college or when my husband and I retire. We mow, we fertilize, we do all the right things. We try to be a good neighbor. We've owned a rental property in the city and county of Denver for the previous ten years. We rented to only Section eight tenants. That was tough. We did it. We support affordable housing. We decided as we were getting older or careers were getting broader, that we would scale back and rent to one family, not four. So again, we take care of the property. Are property in that map that was up there, we sit within the 200 foot, what is it called, proposed amendment. So our neighborhood or excuse me, our backyard backs directly to that area where they're holding the storage containers. Again, we have tenants in the home. They communicate with me regularly. I had no idea until 45 days ago when Florence and Nicholas stood on my front porch and talked to my 17 year old son and then came back two weeks later to track down my husband and I that this development was happening. Right. I knew I'm not dumb. I knew that Scott had moved out, but I search city pages trying to find out what the development plan was. Couldn't find anything. Like I said, didn't know anything, hadn't received a flier, hadn't received anything in the mail until the two stood on my front porch. So I'm in support of affordable housing. I said that earlier. I'm in support of a rezoning because I know that that space is not going to sit empty. Not that silly, but I think there could be more thought. And so I'm asking for it that we deny or that you deny or table this rezoning application. Again, I haven't had enough time to research. My husband hasn't had enough time to research. The last plans I saw show the building sitting right on the sidewalk. I don't understand where parking is. They're promises that Castro's made about mass transit are driving accessibility to mass transit. I know we're. The. I'm sorry about your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, Marc Schaaf and Acre. Hi. My name is Mark Charpentier live at 1302 South Harrison way. Last ten years. First thing I want to do is thank Councilman Cashman for all his facilitation of all these discussions between the neighborhood and the developers. It's been very impressive. I'm here to support the vote to rezone. I had things I could say. You've heard them all. Thanks for your patience. Vote for it. Thank you. Next up is Tim, Carl and Tim. If you'll hold for just a second, I'm going to bring up the next five. Nick Troiano, Jesse Paris, Eric Everett, Mike McDaniel and Don Gorsuch. If you could come to the front row and Tim. Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. I do have a couple of slides that I'd like presented as part of this discussion, and they were given to the Secretary, as I understand. With that in regard, let me introduce myself again. I am Tim Karl. I'm a resident of Virginia Village and have been so for 23 years. I am very privileged to also tell you that I have a strong background in planning. I worked as the planning director for Jefferson County for several years, was the development director and have spent 30 years of my life in planning. And while I appreciate very much all the comments that have been shared and they are very passionate and a reflection of our community, I really want to make sure that we understand for everyone that's present that this is, in fact, a discretionary decision that you're making. That means that ultimately when you make your decision, you have to look at a series of components before you ultimately decide if this is appropriate. And if you consider the facts of the comments that have been made, you think about the adopted plans that we're looking at, a comprehensive plan blueprint. Denver And the fact that as a community, we took our time and presented to you a 20 page document that outlines specifically where there is noncompliance. We ask you to take that into consideration. I want to thank council member from District One who identified in context of Blueprint Denver that the impacts on traffic, on character of area in terms of the zoning are substantial. While we certainly support the effort that staff has taken. Ultimately, in the end, if you make a decision to approve this, this is vested with the land it runs in perpetuity. We as a community will not have a say once the land use is in place. We must rely on the fact that the zoning will exist, and what we ask of you in that situation is to consider the impacts that this has on us. The character of the area. You've heard discussions around traffic impacts, studies indicating that up to 11,000 average daily trips on top of the already 58,000 average daily trips that exist on Colorado right now will have a significant impact to all of us. I don't think there's a person in this room that couldn't tell you about the challenges we face on dealing with traffic on Holly or Florida, etc. The impacts are substantial, and when you consider some of the statements related to the fact that we are single family, low density residential development, looking at the potential impact of three storey rowhouses, that's a considerable impact. Please, as a community, we ask you to be clear, specific, and do the right thing, either deny or if appropriate, table, or continue the matter. Thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. Next up, Nick Troiano. Good evening, everybody. Nick Troiano at 1798 South Eudora Street. I was speaking in favor of this rezoning for three reasons. Number one, I think the switch to to the mixed use gives us greater flexibility to adapt to economic changes that are sure to occur as more and more people move to the Denver area. Number two, affordable housing is critical for schools like the Alice Elementary, where I plan on sending my two boys to be able to to not only retain students, but also retain the funding that is so vital for that for the schools that attempts its turnaround. Number three, that the the greater density and public transportation, in my opinion, will actually facilitate improvements in traffic over the long term if we're willing to undergo a little bit of short term pain to get there. So to my first point about flexibility, I point to the big box retail model. It's clearly under threat from e-commerce that exists all over Colorado Boulevard. You got these huge retail stores with giant parking spaces. It's an eyesore to look at. It's not safe for children. I took my kids over there and tried to get across to the Safeway. It was the last time I attempted any type of walkability with my family in the neighborhood. I now I guess my better judgment and I'm driving. So I think we need a new type of retail model that emphasizes open spaces, walkability, access to public transportation. I think it's vital for the future of this community as we as we transition to the next level. Comments about Alice Elementary. As I mentioned, it's the place that we're probably going to send my two boys. We visited. We love the diversity that's in there. You hear the kids speaking different languages. It's an open and, well, welcoming community. I love it. I think the principal is doing a wonderful job. They're trying to turn it around. But in order to turn it around, they're going to need the funding. And if we keep losing students because they can't afford to live in the neighborhood, we are we are going to lose funding. And and families like myself are going to send kids to other schools in the neighborhood. So I think it's vital that that that we have this affordable housing and that to keep people in the neighborhoods where they're working. Lastly, regarding transportation, in order for for in order for public transportation to take off, we need greater density because we're going to need the demand that that requires. And so I am willing you know, I'm not speaking here from the ninth on the golf course. I'm sandwiched in between I-25, Colorado Boulevard and Evans. I know all about traffic, trying to make that right on average to get over the highway to drop my kid off at school is is challenging but I'm willing to undergo some short term pain to get longer term benefits. And I think we need greater density as Denver becomes a destination for families across the nation. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Jesse Paris. I reside at 2842 Josephine Street and Albert Brooks District District nine, and I'm also now large candidate for City Council at large in 2019 and I speaking for Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud in Community Positive Action. Commitment for Change. We are in favor of this. I actually started my academic history, if you will, at Alice. That was actually the first school I attended back in 1990, 1991. So, yeah, I'm familiar with this area. My whole concern is the people of this neighborhood and the people of the city in general are upset and fed up with the ways in which council goes about ushering in these zoning rezoning classifications. You claim that you have reached out to people, but I've heard many testimony today this says otherwise that they were not approved and they were not notified of this in time. They were not given an ample amount of time to decide if they wanted this for them. I support affordable housing if you didn't already know. But 60% AMI is not affordable housing. We have a housing crisis in the city. 60%. am-I is not addressing that at all. 150 units out of a need it. 26,000 units is not addressing the problem at all either. This is just a Band-Aid, and it's going to cause more traffic congestion in an already highly traffic congested area. And people that stay on this street in Arkansas were complaining about traffic already. It's only going to get worse. So I think you need really you need to take their best interests in mind and do further study on this project. I see that you have mentioned that you are going to do a traffic study, a drainage master plan. I had two questions. I wanted to know who were the 18 people, 18 letters opposed to this and. Exactly the amount of people that will be residing at this property. Thank you. And what the demographics of that would look like, because I heard earlier that Virginia village is pretty diverse. But when I look into this audience and see the people that have spoken and the testimony of this, it is all whites. So I'm tired of being the only fly in the sea of buttermilk. Thank you. Thank you. Next up. Eric ever. Hello. My name is Eric and I live at 4702 East Arkansas. Two blocks east of this development. I want to speak in favor of the rezoning of the property at 4201 East Arkansas. This is a property in a project that directly affects my family and the families that live in my community. Our neighborhood needs goods and services, including restaurants that are within a walkable distance. We do not want to always have to get into a car to get to our goods and services. I have been an active participant in the meetings concerning this rezoning application and attended the planning board meeting. I'm a member of the Virginia Village R.A. Zoning Committee now dissolved. There has been a lot of hard work in meetings, in discussing the wants and needs of our community with control through these discussions and meetings. I believe Cantrell, along with the city of Denver, will be able to create a true asset to our neighborhood. Though there are items that the city did not want added to the development agreement, Kendra has written and committed to a good neighbor agreement, making this rezoning project something that will benefit this community for years to come. I cannot ignore in the recent days a group of people who have decided that now they want to make their voice against this project. It is our privilege as Americans to disagree and voice our opinions. However, I do not believe in doing so. Using false information and bullying tactics are the given rights. I have spoken with many people who do not agree with the redevelopment, but I have done so at public meetings and were able to have productive conversations with all parties. However, to have people deliberately trying to sabotage the hard work of community members and not want to participate in open public discussions is wrong. I hate to think that deceitful and intimidation tactics will be considered as true testimony and use as a voice for my family. I am a husband and a father of two great young children that are also active in our neighborhood. My family deserves the ability to live in a community that is prosperous, vibrant and active. This is what I. This is what I believe this rezoning can offer. And because of this, I am in favor of the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Mike McDaniel. My name is Mike McDaniel, and I'm here as a close neighbor of the project. I appreciate the opportunity to lend my voice in support of this rezoning application. From my perspective, the opposition to this project generally has little to do with what is currently allowed on the site under existing zoning and even less to do with what Cantrell proposes to do under their proposed zoning. Rather, the opposition is based on a more visceral objection to the realities of a growing Denver. But growing it is, and I see no practical options to halt that reality. Nor would I want to. I'm of the mind that Denver is already too crowded for its current infrastructure. Anyone traveling on Colorado, Colorado Boulevard would likely agree. However, we seem to be not quite big enough to justify the bold steps that would make it more livable for all residents. For example, back to Colorado Boulevard. What would travel look like if there was a streetcar or a bus? Rapid transit and dedicated lanes connecting the same at Colfax and Evans, etc.. I would use it in a heartbeat, as would many others. Others would still drive, but every one of us who did not drive would be one less car on the road. Currently, this site is on the RTD 46 bus route, which offers a short ride to the Colorado Light Rail Station. Similarly, from an affordable housing point of view, every worker who can afford to live near their jobs in the city has likely one less single occupancy vehicle traveling in and out of the city from the more affordable suburbs. The future demands that we move away from our current car sector. Drive it til you qualify. Paradigm as a chicken and sweetheart. Arkansas represents a rare and valuable opportunity to do exactly that. In regards to the affordable housing component. What I'd like to see more and a lower AMI Absolutely. But I recognize under our current economic systems that people willing to build things need to be able to make money. And there are far less sensitive ways for a developer to make money on this site. Additionally, many of the commercial options being considered at this site, such as grocery, daycare, restaurants and the sort add to the already underappreciated but surprisingly strong walkability and bankability of this part of town. All of this adds to the potential of creating an excitingly more human friendly and rich pocket of Denver. Finally, I wanted to share that I find the outreach by Councilmember Cashman, Centro and various neighbors to be quite thorough with every single resident of the area, asked personally for their opinion on the issue. No, but such is the nature of this sort of process. Over the last many months, many attempts to bring the voice of the neighbors were made. It's unfortunate that not everyone stays informed or chooses to not engage, but subterfuge is not to blame. Besides offering a really compelling opportunity to explore lighting powered by canine generated methane, there are options available to developers under the current zoning for the site, which create more problems than solutions. Then the project proposed by Cantrell. I would prefer more density and less parking. I believe it would be a shame if that's what we end up here as another. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you, Don. Don Garcia. Don Gorsuch. I live at 473 East Arkansas Avenue, approximately four blocks east of the site. First, you know, I've never attended a council meeting before. Thank you for what you do for us. As an 11 year Virginia Village resident, I am in support of the proposed redevelopment zoning application of this site at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, as presented by the control group. I appreciate the thoughtful approach and concern for the impact on the neighborhood I have experienced through numerous meetings these past few months. I want to thank Kensho for working with See Dot. I feel like we're already seeing benefits of that affiliation. I look forward to saving trees along Arkansas. They know that's one of my perspectives, but I really appreciate these guys. I understand this is a rezoning. Process and specifics. Are not yet determined. People purchase homes in our community because they're relatively affordable. And they're close to convenient services and quality. Schools. There's transportation and we. Have a really strong sense of neighborhood. I feel the 4201 East Arkansas, the redevelopment and proposed zoning changes have been thoughtfully presented and envisioned and they honor the interest of the neighborhood and the greater Denver community because we are part of the community. It is a priority for me that we have affordable housing and that it's included in the plan. I look forward to all the retail, the restaurants, the services and the transportation, and I'm proud to say I do use the transportation, both light rail and the bus system. It's not that far a walk. I remodel my home because I'm going to retire here. So this is a long term investment for me. The Virginian Village neighborhood is already walkable, and we have such a mixed and interesting mix of people. Our diversity is based on age, income, race, ethnicity. There is just so many things that work in our community. Denver is growing and I smart. I really support smart growth to meet the future needs of all of us and we can't predict them. So we need to present something that makes sense over time. I want to quit driving my car. I'm really proud of Glendale. I think they're doing a good job, and I want us to do a better job than they are. I think that we have a lot of potential on this proposed site, and I think it's inevitable that we're going to do a good job because of your leadership. And I want you to approve this rezoning process. And I've attended probably five of the last eight meetings. I was notified numerous times and all of us talked at our at our neighborhood picnic. There has been so much information. Thank you to all of you for doing this and listening. But I think you next five or Debra Powers, Montee Powers, Adam Astrof, Sujit mudd, Jude Ma and Robert Fisher and Debra Powers, you are first up. Hi. I'm Debra Powers. I live at 4503 East Arkansas Avenue. I'm a Denver native. I was born at Denver General. My best friend in junior high lived on East Wyoming place. I spent weekends at her house enjoying movies at Century 21 and Continental movie theaters. We hung out at the Celebrity Sports Center. We cruised Colorado Boulevard with her older sister. You could say that I have some history and fond memories in the neighborhood. 31 years ago, I purchased my house on the corner of Claremont and Arkansas, just around the corner from where my best friend lived. It's a short plot to the side up property from my house. Development is not new to the neighborhood. Nothing has remained the same. Change is constant. The control group made communication a priority. I have attended seven out of eight meetings. They asked for feedback. We talked. They listened. Sometimes spirited conversations took place. Of utmost importance was the character of the development. Overwhelmingly, neighbors wanted a main street feel with walkability to amenities that are included in the rezoning application. We understand it's going to be offices, commercial, apartment and retail. Affordable housing is very important. I've learned what an envelope drawing is, and I've watched these drawings change over time. I've seen the height of the building envelope drop from 12 storeys to eight. They listened when we asked for a step down in height. As the development neared our single family homes, my husband and I were approached by a group to sign a protest petition. I had a problem with that. The information that we were given said that 800 cars per hour would be driving by our house from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. I know a traffic study hasn't been done. They also said we could lose their property to eminent domain. The value of our property would go down as a result of this development. These are a few of the statements they made and quite frankly to me, they're outrageous statements. The conversation was divisive and a subtle form of intimidation. I understand that this is a complex project with complex processes and multiple phases. It will take several years to develop the property. The city will require development reviews. My understanding of the next step in this process is the rezoning hearing today, and then the planning framework can be executed around what is approved. It's a partnership with the City Council Control Group and the people who live in this neighborhood. We can define a neighborhood that considers the people who live and work here and make conscious decisions for quality of life that will outlive all of us. Please vote for the rezoning tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Monte Powers. Hi. My name's Marnie Powers over there. My address is 4503 East Arkansas Avenue. Uh, my neighborhood is becoming more vibrant and diverse as time goes on. I believe this development will serve to enhance that vibrancy and diversity. Over the past year, I've attended eight meetings hosted by the control group. I've learned a lot about the redevelopment process at these meetings. The control group is proposing to rezone former secret headquarters at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue. I believe the control group will give my neighborhood an awesome development. Given rezoning permission by city council, I embrace a change of zoning from Campus 12 to suburban mixed use. I don't want a hole in the ground because construction stopped. I don't want an empty parking lot. I don't want Campus 12 zoning approval that will leave several 12 story buildings on a 13 acre lot. I understand dissension is voice with a project like this. Some of my neighbors have legitimate concerns. However, false information given to me by fair developer Virginia Village makes me question their motive and not trust anything they say or do going forward. Please vote for rezoning 4140 201 East Arkansas Avenue from campus 12 to Suburban mixed use. Keep my neighborhood vibrant and diverse. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Adam Astrof. Hello, counsel. Thanks for letting me speak. My name is Adam Astrup. I live at 1801 chestnut place in District nine, and I am here as part of the Yimby Denver Group. I support this project, particularly because of the affordable housing that is going to be a component of it. And I want to credit council the neighbors in Virginia Village and Castro for putting it on site and not taking the opt out with the fee. And I also believe that this neighborhood, Main Street and adding retail is going to be very forward thinking. There are a lot of other great mixed use areas in Denver. South Pearl, 12th Street through Congress Park. And I believe that this can be another great art for a really great neighborhood, Virginia village. The additional density will also enable, you know, better transit options and connections. The Colorado Light Rail Station, which will allow people to get into downtown more easily. And I think all of these things will just be a great part of the project to keep us moving forward for the next 50 years. I know that Denver I'm a Colorado native. Denver didn't have a lot of population growth from 1960 to 2010. The last eight years have been very striking. And so I really hope you guys will approve this rezoning and continue improving our city for the next 50 years. Thank you. Thank you so much, madame. Sorry if I got that wrong. We're very close. Thank you, everybody, for your time. Good evening. My name is Sushi Majumdar. I live in a Cary Merrill neighborhood, approximately point four miles from the proposed development project. I want to speak in favor of this rezoning application for a variety of reasons. Number one, Cointreau. Is a local developer. Trust, integrity and transparency should be part of any developer's values and based on the process and communication that control group has proactively undertaken. I feel like they've embodied those values. I have known Jimmy Bill Office, one of the principals of Control Group for the last nine years, and I believe that they want to be successful not only on this project, but multiple projects in the future. And they have a vested interest in making sure that this is done with excellence. Second of all, secondly, objectively and practically the components of the rezoning application and development agreement that are part of this deal, namely affordable housing, retail development, open space reduction of height on both the interior and perimeter of the project and a proactive neighborhood partnership are key characteristics of winning a deal for neighborhood residents in the city of Denver. I also want to point out that while I know everybody does not have access to high speed Internet or technology, when you Google for 201 East Arkansas, the results that come up are two MapQuest listings and the third is a PDF. With all of the information related to this project, the rezoning development that is on the central website. So I believe that there's plenty of information available to those that want to be informed. The combination of having a local. Developer. With its principles, having longstanding Denver routes, and a very fair deal that appears to offer terms and conditions far superior than the alternatives make me strongly supportive of this zoning proposal. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up is Robert Fisher and I'm going to call the next five to the front row, Maureen Welch to see Denny's. Caitlin Murray, chairman, say COO and Bill Parkhill, if you could work your way to the front. Go ahead. Yeah, hi. My name is Robert Fisher and today I am representing the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition to Seek D.C. office is located at the corner of Louisiana Avenue and Colorado Boulevard to see CDC supports the rezoning of the old headquarters because Denver needs density and Denver needs housing. The 2017 Un-Habitat three conference, the Urban Agenda, states the population of the world's urban areas will double by 2050, the HUD Habitat three report says. By 2050, 75% of the population growth in the U.S. will be in urban areas and urban sprawl. HUD is calling this the century of cities. Denver's population is expected to reach 1 million by 2050. Where do we go from here? Denver needs to embrace overpopulation. Denver needs housing. Almost all the housing in Denver being built or for those above 60%. Am I 100%? 120%? Am I? According to a 2018 Urban Institute report, I've been speaking to Mr. Sean Maley and he assured me that Cantrell will be building the 150 affordable units that will be for families at 60% AMI for a family of two, that's an annual income of about $43,000. And for a family of four, that is an annual income of about $54,000. Control group has done what it can to be a positive community neighborhood partner. They have held eight public taskforce meetings and they have listened to and addressed concerns of the neighborhood control group has reduced the allowable height from 12 stories to eight stories and they have adopted a good neighbor agreement. I have spoken, spoken with Mr. Sean O'Malley and I have given him some ideas on how to improve his neighborhood. Good neighborhood agreement. Please vote for this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Maureen Welch. Maureen Welch. All right. Until I see Dennis. Good evening, counsel. My name is Attila. Denis, my wife, Amy Rubin. I live at 1360 South Broad Street. And her parents. Actually purchased that property initially in 1947. So as a family, we have 70 years of investment in the community. We're here in support of the rezoning. We're probably more directly affected by this application than many others in that our lot not only is directly across the street from the court complex, but also directly abuts the parking lot of the northeast corner of Arkansas and Byrd. So we've faced the redevelopment on two fronts. The we've attended several of the control group's meetings from the outset and have been very impressed by their transparency and willingness to engage with the community. I know that emotions are very high around this issue and we certainly respect that. But at the end of the day, something is going to happen to the property in question. We believe that Kendra's proposal is reasonable and appropriate. There have been questions raised about the transparency of controls proposal. A lot of these questions have been raised by people who are, I believe, very well intentioned and very passionate, but frankly, live several blocks away. And I'm not sure. That they have quite the level of involvement that those of us. Directly across the street would share. We simply do not agree that control has been anything less than completely transparent in this process. You know, to be quite honest, we'd prefer, as you get down to the nitty gritty, that we not have a three storey apartment complex directly next to our property. But that's probably more fine detail than the council is really considering this evening. We believe that the proposed development will, on balance, be positive for the city and for our neighborhood, and we would recommend approval of the application. Thank you. Thank you. Caitlin Murray. Good evening, counsel. My name is Caitlin Quander Murray. I live at. 1967 South Locust. Street. In the Virginia Village neighborhood. Initially, I want to disclose that I'm an attorney. That's not the disclosure. But I'm aware that my law firm, Brownstein Hyatt, Farber Schreck, has performed work on the proposed project. It's a large firm. I did not. Perform any of that work. And tonight I'm here to testify and support as a resident of the neighborhood. My husband, Dan and I have owned our home in the Virginia Village neighborhood for over a decade. We're raising our two young children here. We love the neighborhood parks and playgrounds. We ride our bikes with our kids regularly in the area. My husband helped organize the annual neighborhood 4th of July parade at Cook Park. We've seen the neighborhood change in the last ten years with a number of redevelopments and existing homes being sold. We believe that this changes. For the better, bringing a greater sense of community and encouraging. Interactions between neighbors that didn't previously occur. The proposed rezoning and redevelopment at 4201 Arkansas Avenue is another example of this momentum. The prior set out site has had little to no interaction with the neighborhood itself. This redevelopment has the opportunity to enhance the neighborhood and bring a mix of uses, incomes and backgrounds to an already thriving community . The current campus zoning restricts potential development and leaves the neighborhood with a lot of unknowns. The City of Denver and Country Group have worked closely with the neighborhood to reach a mix of zoning designations that acknowledge neighborhood concerns about overall height down from 12 storeys, maximum to eight storeys, with some areas limited at three stories on the neighborhood perimeter. And we also believe it promotes a mix of uses and multimodal neighborhood center that's appropriate in this location. We hear the outcry for more affordable housing throughout Denver, and we've seen home prices explode in our neighborhood, too. We believe that our neighborhood needs to be part of the solution to this crisis as well. We support the opportunity for good urban design and inclusion of affordable housing at this site, and we encourage you to vote in favor of the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Sekou. Yes. My name is German Sekou, representing poor. Voiceless. Oppressed. Broke. Disgusted. And don't trust none of your. As the next mayor of the city, county and. These are the challenges which our city is going to be faced with in terms of what are we actually committed to? And then do that. Stop playing games. Stop using words that you don't mean and just be, do you? Because I'm telling you straight up. This has always been a white, only segregated neighborhood. Tell me. I'm like, I grew up here. We come from over, man. You go play at that night court behind the police station in Glendale for $100 a game against the team that played for Thomas Jefferson. Them and then come back and do that every day for the summer. And that was our summer jobs. We made money on segregation. We got no problems with it. We went back to our neighborhood. We had a life. We had a community. We wasn't interested in being around folks that didn't want to be around us without full self-esteem going in our neighborhood. Well, let's do some training. We can work it out. I don't want to be around. No. Folks that don't want me in their neighborhood. I don't. I want my own neighborhood. I don't want to develop the way we develop with peace, harmony and diversity among my own people. I've got white. Folks that are black folks. Chairman Sekou, if you could just adjourn Caldwell, could you please address the council, not the audience? Well, why didn't you? So as we go through this thing, let's stop playing. I want fair trade. I want jobs. I want housing. I want my people to be invested. That means we want ownership of the housing and we want all of it because we not. And we've got nothing to lose to go head to wear and tear it down. Mr. Sekou, please check your language. Now you can play. And there's the go explore and you grab another Ferguson. And the more you cut us out, we come and go. The last. Word. Chairman Say, do you have some? Thank you. Good work. Next up, Bill Parkhill. And then I'm going to call. We're almost there. Thank you for sticking with us. We only have three more to call up instead of five Aaron Varnum, Frederick Mackey and Jeff de Hardy. If you could come up to the front bench. Go ahead. Thank you. My name is. Bill Parkhill and I reside at. 631 High Street. I am the principal of Tributary Real Estate. We are a real estate asset investment company and we own the property at 4100 East Arkansas. At 4100 Arkansas, East Arkansas, which is directly south of the subject property. It is the triple play of Colorado building that it was there for 60 years and that's what you probably know it as. We purchased that building in 2017. We transacted a 20 year lease. We intend to hold that property as it is. For the next 20 years. Our tenant currently has 225 employees with six full time employees on the site and 665 employees. That rotate through once a quarter. We are here in support of the Cantrell project. First of all, we think it's an asset to our building and to our employees. We think it actually will cut down on traffic because it will give them opportunities without having to get in the car and drive for lunch, for breakfast, for dinner . As real estate professionals, we find that the. Thoughtful approach that they've used to combine the tools of several zone lots development agreement and a good neighbor agreement to create bulk plain density step downs. Add in a retail mixed use component, creating onsite and open space. All has been a creative use of tools. Finally, what I like to say is. We have known the control group and the office family for many years. We consider them both peers and competitors. And we are here to tell you tonight that they are the highest character and one of the best partners that the city can have, one of the best partners the neighborhood can have. They do great work. They do exactly what they say. And we're proud to have them as a neighbor. So thank you. Thank you. Eric or Erin Varnum. Hi. I'm Aaron Varnum. I live at 1500 South Street, about two blocks south of the property. I'm here in favor of the rezoning. Most importantly, I think we we need new and updated retail in the area that's walkable for the neighborhood. Currently, we'd have to cross Colorado Boulevard by foot, and that's not really feasible with the traffic on the highway there. So what we end up doing is driving or taking Ubers to other Denver neighborhoods like the Gaylord Street, Cherry Creek or the Highlands. So we're really excited about something within our own neighborhood. I also think that the control group has been very helpful throughout this process. We we've attended several meetings with them. I think as a local developer, they're they're committed to the neighborhood. And I think with the affordable housing, that just demonstrates that commitment. For those reasons, I think the council should vote yes in favor of this rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Frederick Mackey. Hello. My name is Frederick Mackey. I live at 1650 South Albion Street, apartment 207. I'm a renter and I live three blocks away. I'm here to support this project because I think it's a great opportunity for the city and county of Denver to kind of right some of the wrongs of the past 56 years in. Zoning. And get this. Opportunity to. Make. Some improvements. I've watched the control group do several projects over the years and I've seen them improve each one by listening to their neighbors. And I believe they'll do the same at this project. One of the things that the city has stated as a goal is to improve transit ridership, and this project is basically on Route 40 and 46. And I believe that actually being such close proximity to those two bus routes will actually help lessen some of the traffic impacts of this potential project. I also think. This is just a. Unique opportunity to help a local. Developer because we all know that if a out-of-state company came in, they would go with whatever the zoning is already there and build something that we would probably think is even worse. So for those reasons, I support this and I urge your your support as well. Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker tonight, Jeff Tardy. Good evening. My name is Jeff Hardy. I was at a 1970 South Clayton Street as a fellow resident within District six. I am speaking with you tonight in support of the proposed rezoning for control group at the former secret headquarters. The Castro group has a solid reputation and that is a local developer and owner of commercial real estate that is critical to my support. Alongside with his successful track record as a willingness to engage multiple community meetings alongside implementing a good neighbor agreement. I think any good developer will say that the development process is iterative and that in nature and only with critical input and thought, well, the development output truly maximize the benefit for the community. Specific components that I am encouraged by are the fact that Castro group was selected by the city and county of Denver with strings attached to adhere to some of those in the development agreement, which I am encouraged by specifically are the ability and the requirement to add jobs, 200 permanent jobs, 150,000 square feet of commercial retail. Increasing our sales tax base. Furthermore, when we look at what the property tax revenue is for this site, c docked is sometimes exempt in their tax base. If there is a ticks tive component to this project that is utilized, that phases out. Keep that in mind. So we're building revenue base for our public components to utilize beyond reduction from the current zoning. They've been thoughtful and tasteful in their development approach. I've been at these community meetings with them. While I do emphasize emphasize with the adjacent neighbors who are concerned about increased traffic in construction. I believe a successful rezoning for the former C. That site will provide thoughtful redevelopment that greatly enhances the community experience in the neighborhood by providing a wonderful gathering space. In my opinion, a wonderful gathering space is the core of creating vibrant neighborhoods. Please consider an approval vote for the rezoning request of the rezoning request. But let's not stop there with this critical step. Forward. And let's hold the Castro group accountable, accountable for the development agreement and the good neighbor agreement. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to thank everyone for taking time to come down here to the building and to come speak and to stick with us on this late night. That does conclude our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Virginia Village Neighbors, for being here until 9:00. You know. I know those benches are hard and uncomfortable and the lights are really obnoxious. So thank you for being here. I have three questions. My first is for OED, someone from OED. I'm curious about the development agreement and the 150 units of affordable housing that they are going to build. I'm curious about you may not know this offhand, but maybe, you know, a ballpark of of the new developments. You know. That have been constructed since we passed that affordable housing linkage fee. How many of them have paid the linkage fee versus actually building the units? Hi. Hi. Melissa Tardy, denver, oed. I don't have that on hand, but i could find out for you. Okay. It is my understanding that that the majority of the projects have actually paid the fee and not built the unit. So I would be interested to hear that. But I think it's great that as part of the development agreement that they are going to build 150 units and that is actually quite a lot of units compared to other projects that we've seen up here. Also, I'm interested if anyone knows if if there wasn't a development agreement, what would the linkage, Phoebe, for this project? Does anybody know that? No. Okay. All right. So my next question is for maybe you, Chris Vickery. One of the things we're hearing from a lot of the neighbors is that they don't want density there at all. But the zoning that is already in place actually would allow for much more density than this proposal. So it's my understanding that this application is actually a down zoning. So can you explain to me why you all are doing it down zoning? Why didn't you just use the zoning that was in place and not have to go through this lengthy, yearlong process and have to come to a city council meeting? Why didn't you just use that existing zoning? Yeah. So Christmas party control group is a reminder. So as a part of our PSA, it laid out that we need to go through a rezoning process. I think as we've kind of gotten under the wing of the redevelopment and looking at what potential could come here, we were retail specialists. We think retail in this area is going to be great. And as we mentioned earlier, campus doesn't allow retail. So I think for us, it's a balance between getting the retail that we know will help make this a destination and be great for the neighborhood and help with units and affordable housing and creating this neighborhood in itself and balancing out reducing the density. We think there's a balance between those two things and that's where we felt we pushed down as low as we could with the economics that we're paying in and the city while still providing a great amenity for the area. So the reason you did it was because with the existing zoning, retail could not have gone in. Correct. But you could have done 12 stories with office and residential. Those two uses. Yeah, that is primary for office. But you can do a residential there. 2 to 12 stories in those steps down to like a pyramid as you step in. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. My last question is for Stuart Anderson. So I have the pleasure of knowing Stuart Anderson and I serve on the board of his organization called Transportation Solutions and Paul Cashman. And I had the pleasure of working with you on some other Colorado Boulevard issues, mainly around the Colorado station at Buchtel and Evan's. And I can attest to your knowledge and your expertize, expertize and the results that you got from that study. So thank you very much. So I'm really excited that you're involved with this. It is so centrally located, but it is a little over a mile to Colorado station. I know the Cherry Creek probably is maybe just a little over a mile to the north. You know, Cook Park is a little bit to the east, you know, wash parts a little bit to the west. So if. I think about living there myself and I like to ride my bike. Those are the places where I would want to go. So when you are thinking about what you're going to propose there, are you going to be looking at enhanced cross crossings across Colorado Boulevard and as far away as Monaco and getting people to car station and getting people to the Cherry Creek Trail? Yes, Stewart Anderson. Yes. That that project actually falls within the realm of the of a study that we did a year ago on the stationary master plan for Colorado's station. And we are looking at access to that station. Currently, the 46 bus is on the east side. The 40 is on Colorado Boulevard. We have been in conversation with the city of Glendale of potentially adding services that connect to the station that would go by this property. We're looking at other methods to connect to the station. The the issues right now we're connecting to the bike system is that there are the facilities are pretty poor east of Colorado Boulevard. And while there are improvements along Florida, we feel that there is a need for greater improvements from a safety perspective. We also feel that the pedestrian environment really needs to be improved, the area especially connecting to Colorado Boulevard. Currently, if you look at where this property is located and imagine yourself walking to Colorado Boulevard, crossing the street and taking the 40 bus, it's not very appealing today. And so one of the other elements we have is an upgraded bus, a bus stop along Colorado Boulevard that would provide shelter and information for the users in looking at a variety of different modes. Okay. Thank you. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Thanks. That's all right. Next up, we have Councilman Cashman. Espinosa. Oh. Nope. We've got you up next, sir. Councilman. Thank you. Andrew Webb. It's okay. Andrew, let's start with the plans and the development agreement. I think a drainage plan and open space plan, etc.. Remind me all them, all of the plans. And at what point do they go for public comment? When when the planning manager essentially determines that they are that they are complete is when the requirement for a public meeting is triggered. So complete. That means there that the application is complete, not that they've been accepted or finalized. That's correct. Okay. And what what is are there multiple meetings, one meeting? What's that process? It could vary depending on whether all of these were done at the same time or if they were produced in a in a staggered fashion. But it could be it could be one meeting, as is the case with the general development plan system, which requires one. A single applicant led meeting upon completion of the application. Okay. And explain what is allowed. Some. Some. Some retail is allowed on that site. Right. Food and beverage. And what what all does that include? Food and beverage services. So sold for consumption on site prepared food and beverage sold for consumption on site, which is a complicated way of seeing restaurants. Restaurant, brewpub. That's right. Bar. Fast food. That's correct. All that's possible. The way we've heard from a couple of people that controls engaged a traffic demand management study. Is there anything in any document that requires any implementation, not not of any particular item, but of transportation demand management principles. So the the development agreement does go into some detail about how transportation demand management principles or studies and implementation need to apply to each component of the development. But I think I may suggest you ask the applicant a little bit more about, well. First, I'm interested in what the development agreement actually says here. You. So it essentially requires that a master transportation demand management study be provided to the city for review and approval early on. And then each concept site development plan for an individual parcel of development within the property shall submit a letter identifying the transportation demand management practices utilized and let's see which. And then each each development within the property has to provide a traffic memorandum to the city showing conformance to the master traffic study. Okay. And those. That's all for you. Someone from Kentaro. I'm wondering, as far as the 150 affordable housing units, 1 to 3 bedrooms studios, what are these envisioned as? What do you know at this point? Christmas card again. Right now, we're still working through those details. I think there is a focus on family. We obviously know that, you know, the community and the schools population is decreasing and family is very important to this area. So there's going to be a component of family and then a mix of ones and studios. But the big key to this is we know it's a family year and we need to deliver family units and we're still working out the unit mix at this point. Okay. And one more, if you don't mind, Mr. President, and not for you. Have a seat. Melissa's still there yet? Misstate, I presume, Melissa, since they're still in the planning. What what would you normally expect? What's what's a normal mix for the affordable programs that we've seen recently? Can you shed any light on that? Yeah, sure. So, Melissa Tardy, Denver, OPD, it really varies depending on the projects, the different financing terms that are used throughout the project. And I do want to make one clarifying point that hasn't been made tonight, which is that the development agreement says a maximum affordability restriction of 60%. Am I. So it means it could be lower. We're not saying all of the units would be at 60%. In terms of bedroom sizes. You know, some weigh heavily on the on the family size units. It sounds like that might be something that would be considered here. Okay. That's all for right now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Espinosa, you're next stop. All right. A question probably for OED and I apologize because this just struck me tonight, the lowercase p versus the capital projects and previous readings of the developer agreement in item 12 of the developer agreement is the affordable housing section. It states the project shall be exempt from the link from the project shall be exempt from payment of the linkage fees in connection with the issuance of any building permits for structures in the project. Small P in the first project. Large P in the second, meaning that linkage fee will not be generated from any of the structures developed on these parcels, not just the affordable housing structure. Is that correct? That's my understanding. Okay, great. Questions for Andrew. Thank you. Andrew. Sorry, I don't know. There's this thing. What is the numerical designation called that differentiator between SMC'S eight, five and three? That last number. What do you guys call that? Oh, gosh, I'm. Not sure if it if it has an official name, but it refers to the number of stories permitted. So it's essentially the the height limiter. Height number. We'll call the height, as you know, as as you know, I was both confused and intrigued by this notion of banding heights within a particular zone district using that height number. Yeah. Is it fair to say that this banding effectively results in deeper upper story settlement step backs than would be required by Smc's eight zone district alone? That's a that's a great question. So let me if you don't mind, I'm going to pull back to the map really quick. That actually shows the banded zoning here. Okay. And so I have my zoning code here. So let's see. In the Smc's eight zone district. There is a. If you're adjacent to a protected district, which can mean which essentially is as a single unit zone district or a low intensity residential zone district. I'm just want to make sure I'm giving you the correct answer here. There is a 20 foot upper story set back above 27 feet. So these bands of zoning are essentially within the actual property itself. The Band of Smokes three begins, of course, at the street at the midline of Arkansas, but has an impact on the actual property back of curb of approximately 20 feet. And then the second band that is illustrated there also has a impact of approximately 30 some feet. Perfect. And that's just the Arkansas side, which wouldn't necessarily be it's only partially a protected zone district. That's correct. But you have an effective upper story, deeper upper story. Step back on that east side, do you not? On the east side, yes. The the proposed smokes three there where it directly is across the street from some some zoning is closer to 200 or so feet there. Is this being done to transition the mass and scale from the commercial environment of Colorado Boulevard to the lower scale single family neighborhood adjacent to the eastern half of the property? I think that's a that's a fair assessment of what the intent is here. The depth of this transition area on the East End is approximately a half a block. Is this an appropriate amount, a step back for a transition from an eight story down to a three story? Well, the I mean, you there are places in in the city and even near here where there is eight storey zoning directly adjacent to single unit zoning. And so in those cases, the the building the upper storey setbacks would apply for four, six, eight, four, eight storey or above. So effectively, more transition is being provided here or proposed here than would be required by something that is directly abutting or a giant across the street from an SUV zone district. I know. It's more bummer. I was hoping you'd say yes, but thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Neal. Mr. Stewart, can you come up? I know you've been dealing with that with different transit alternatives, trying to improve, you know, the whole situation on Colorado Boulevard and the immediate effect of this property. Can you describe a little bit about, say, the New York City shuttle that myriad that how it seems to be testing out and and how it's work to do you and how it could be also be an application maybe for camera? Yes. Stewart Anderson, we recently launched a micro transit service between Cherry Creek and downtown, and we're monitoring that service we launched. Want to do you station as well. The one at Deuce Station has been there since July 9th. It's exceeding its expectation as far as performance. This property actually sits right on one of the proposed lines that we have for micro transit. That would be a first and last mile service into Cherry Creek, the going up birch and cherry through Glendale and into Cherry Creek. So this would be a service that would benefit this property significantly in connecting to the station. But right now, that's speculative. There's there's no basis for that other than let's watch what happens with our first line. Compared to other transit opportunities is much less costly and probably easier to implement. So if it works out favorably, it could be something that could be helpful. Yes. When fully implemented, it would come out at about one third. The normal cost of transit and the current bus line that's there is the 46. It has one of the highest public subsidies in the city right now. It has low ridership. It needs to be replaced with micro transit, it would say dollars, and it would be more efficient in getting people around. I have talked to a control group about this and I've asked whether or not they would participate if we did create a line along there and they are very interested in that. I actually even took them out to see the electric driverless shuttles and talked about how that might work. No commitment in that. It was just come and see. So we actually went out and it last week rode one of those. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Traffic engineer, if I could ask you questions. I notice on the map that maybe there's a connection of the street going across the property. And I guess it is the the exit and entry ways to the to the site will be the affected by that maybe. Can you describe how that traffic is going to flow around that area? And and if there are any kind of improvements that you're thinking about? Yes. Hello again, Curtis Roe with Kimberly Horne. You're correct. The plan is to connect Belair Street through the property. However, any access or anything else with the specific development hasn't been planned yet. You know, obviously, this is in a preliminary stage right now, so we don't know exactly the access. However, you know, the connection of Bel-Air through the property will provide a good connection to the North because Bel-Air connects up to Mississippi and so it'll provide traffic in and out of the development from that direction. We have good connection to Colorado Boulevard. Through both. Arkansas and Louisiana. And so those will be the. Primary directions of travel. There will be some traffic, obviously expected to travel Louisiana to the east. Over to Holly. Okay. And you'll be working with with the public, with the residents as you're going forward with that mitigation plan, right? Yes, absolutely. And I have. Enjoyed working with the public thus far on this process. All right. Thank you very much, Andrew. QUESTION One question. There have been several issues tonight about some kind of zoning violations or maybe some misunderstandings about the zoning or something. Do you know anything about this? Zoning is can you discuss it or address it at all or. I'm sorry. I'm not sure I quite understood the question. I was sitting my code down. Several residents have mentioned that this project was violating zoning or or blueprint in or in Ridge. Can you sort of clarify who? Sure. Thank you for for clarifying. So as as mentioned in the in the presentation, the the future concept land use proposed for this site by by blueprint is single family residential. And we we noted in our analysis that, you know, it's hard to understand exactly why that was applied in this area because this site and multiple surrounding sites all had higher intensity residential, commercial and mixed uses at the time of blueprint's adoption. And yet many of those did receive that same that same future concept land use designation. So the analysis had to take that into consideration and, and look at how blueprints, language addresses, unique situations like this where you may have a redevelopment opportunity to, you know, in a or abutting, in this case, a residential neighborhood. But I believe that is what some some commenters. Were, which is just more and more of a change in zoning rather. Than. Do you think that's inappropriate? Well, you know, I think we we leave it up to the discretion of the council to decide if, you know, if they find that the proposal meets the criteria. The staff reports the staff report sets forth CPD's argument for for why it does meet the criteria. So thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman and Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. The first one is for Jeff Steinberg, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the podium. So, Jeff, if city council were to pass this tonight, what would be the next steps with this property? I'd have to say that that depends. The fact of the matter is that there is a contract in place. Control could elect to develop the property under the existing zoning. They could sell the property to another developer that could develop it under the existing zoning. The city would not close on the property if control did not close on the property, and that at that point said it would likely go out for a sale to another developer. Thank you. So my next question is for Mr. Bill office, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. To be able to do the affordable. Are you looking at accessing Colorado housing finance tax credits to be able to meet the emission levels that you're looking at? Yes. So we're going to put an application in February with Schaefer. And so we we. Understand that affordable. Housing needs to work with subsidy subsidies. And so we you know, we're not an expert in it. And that's why we're doing a joint venture with McDermott. And so they're going to be our partner. It's a 5050 joint venture, and they're kind of kind of lead the way with us and teach us the ropes. And we hope, you know, from this project we can become an affordable housing going forward. And is that application intended to be phased out, or are you looking at submitting an application for the entire 150 units you're looking at? You know, we. Want to deliver 150 units. So I feel, you know, we're going to try. We're going to try to do it all together. Okay. Thank you for that. And then, Andrew, I had a question that was similar to the one that was asked earlier. So the site today has the campus zoning. That's right. And. You know, as as if the development moves forward, what are the protections for the single family character of the adjacent neighborhood? You know, looking at the zoning, we do have some sites directly across the street from the site that are not single family zoning. They may be single family properties in some cases, but the zoning is not entirely single family all the way around this site. But as you get, you know, further into the fabric of the single family character of the neighborhood, what are the protections that would kind of ensure that we don't see development just begin to happen as we've seen across the city with so many of our neighborhoods? You know, my neighborhood being one of those in the Highlands community. And are you thinking about this in terms of development on the site itself or development? I'm talking about the development that would happen here would then attract more people to want to develop in the neighborhood. We saw that occur in Cherry Creek. You know, as we started seeing single family homes being acquired, we saw duplexes going in. We've seen that in the slow slate neighborhood in my neighborhood of Lower Highland. So what are some of those protections for the neighborhood, which is really kind of independent of the project, but may be a result of the investment in this site? Sure. So the the pseudo zoning, which is what the. Which is the primary single unit zoning that exists to southeast the southeast of the project site does have does have standards for, you know, site design. The in the suburban neighborhood context, you have higher lot coverage or lower lot coverage allowances. Deeper residential setbacks. So those are the types of, I guess, development standards that would would control development in the neighborhood resulting from change on this particular site. One thing I would note is that the study zone district does have a 30 foot maximum height. So there currently is not something that would prevent somebody from adding another story or or a story and a half on to the, the, the onto their home or to build a new home that is of that height in this zone district. So let me ask the question in a different way. One of the criteria that is used by the planning department is changing conditions that justify a. New rezoning application in the single family fabric of a neighbor. Okay, I. See. And so I guess that's sort of the impetus behind my question about how do we protect the single family character. Okay. And just one point that I think is really important to make is that as we see the changes coming forward to the Denver Rite process, we completely get away from the terminology of neighborhoods, of protection, of stability and changing neighborhoods, neighborhoods. So that would be an analogy. But but my concern is that as we see the verbiage changing, does that create the I don't know, the sort of assumption across the board that if we no longer have neighborhoods of stability, that they're they're all open for, you know, three free games, if you will. Understood. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question the first time around. So I can't speak specifically to the proposed new blueprint plan because it's, you know, not adopted yet and still under review. However, under the existing system, it would be very difficult to to change the zoning of a single unit, of a property that has a single unit zoned district in a neighborhood where there is not an adopted plan of some sort, calling for a major change in youth types to a, you know, row house or something like that. So in other words, the current blueprint and I expect the new blueprint under development right now will contain those types of protections where neighborhoods can work as part of a community effort to to consider things like accessory dwelling units or or other perhaps targeted changes in density. But there are, you know, blueprint and and neighborhood plans and other kind of policy documents would make it very difficult to do a radical up zoning of a single property in a single unit zoned district. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilman or Councilman Herndon. Mr. President, I'm good. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr.. President. Andrew, I have a bunch of questions for you, and maybe I'll break it up and get. Back in line. But short answers, please. Just real quickly, what happens to the parcel that has the communications tower on it? That's not part of the rezoning that would remain then campus? That's correct. Which seems a little ridiculous, too, because it's not a campus at that point. Is that acceptable to CPD? That that that that remain? Well, you know, because they didn't apply to change it. I don't believe CPD really takes a position on that proposal. So it's just sort of an oddity that's leftover of the. Okay. Is it. Necessary. For a rezoning application to be consistent with every strategy and comp plan 2000? Or is it possible that because we've dealt with a lot of rezonings and obviously we don't address all the strategies, does that are we to read into that that the applications are are benign as far as how they relate to all the other strategies and we're just picking out the strategies that justify the rezoning. Typically in early review, we might look at it, take a wider look at at all of the strategies. You know, it's usually obvious pretty, pretty quickly if something is completely inappropriate with regard to adopted plan policy. But generally speaking, the goal is to to further or be consistent with policies relevant on a case by case basis to the proposed rezoning. Okay. What happens when CPD identifies an inconsistency with a strategy and income plan or or one of the items in blueprint with an application? And if there were a preponderance of of of that type of scenario, then we would work with a potential applicant kind of in the Pre-Application stage to look at a more appropriate proposed zone district. Okay. So you do deal with inconsistencies that that you identify? That's correct. How does the density that's available right now with the campus to zoning, how does the density that's possible there now compare with what's requested here? It is it's challenging to make a like for like comparison. But generally speaking, the the the height allowances under the CPI i2 zone district are taller than by several. Hundred and 50. Feet. That's that's correct. And what is proposed here are 12 storeys versus a maximum of eight stories. And then. Density is also driven by a number of factors, but they can includes required off street parking on a site because that takes up space on a site and the CMP zoning has less park off street parking required than the Smc's eight and SMU three zone districts. Okay, so I let you draw your own conclusions there. But but I think generally speaking, there is perhaps less possible overall density allowed by what is proposed than what could be possible. But then here's here's a real, I guess, the foundational question I'm trying to deal with as I listen to the testimony from the public and from the applicant. And that is, you know, under blueprint areas of stability, areas of change. Much of this site is within an area of stability. That's right. Does an area of stability imply that if that parcel is underutilized as far as its existing entitlements? If it fully developed those entitlements and greatly increased its density. Does that does anything in Blueprint say that that changes our consideration? And that's you know, that's not an area of stability anymore. If if an owner has developed his full entitlements. Not specifically. Not in so many words. But the but blueprint does provide in in in the text as talked about as discussed in the staff report and more briefly in the presentation, where situations like this arise if the property were to be redeveloped under its existing zoning in a future past. At assessing future concept land uses and current land uses the we would hope that the that the existing land use at that time would be taken into consideration. Okay. Well so in other words, developing a parcel with the existing entitlements in an area of stability is consistent with the blueprint. Denver not inconsistent. If it has existing entitlements. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Read. I'll ask a few other questions afterward. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you. President Clarke. I think my first question will be for somebody in the control group. So there were some residents who were here tonight who spoke and said that maybe their property were they were abutting the new development and didn't know anything about this process. And so I just wondered if if somebody could come up and share a little bit to their outreach and education process, please. Certainly. Councilman Gilmore, Sean Reilly, Sierra Associates. We're helping Castro with the public outreach. You know, we tried extremely hard to reach as many. Residents as possible. Like like we said, we. Held eight meetings. We flier the neighborhood three times at a radius of 2000 feet from the site. That is ten times the city's mailed requirement, which I believe is 200 feet. We posted signs on the property. We know that city council sent out e blasts we sent out. I don't know how many emails I sent out a lot. I walked the. Neighborhood within the legal protest area. We delivered. A dear. Neighbor letter that we posted on our. Website. We made a lot of attempts, and we apologize to anybody that did not find out about this, and we'll pledge to continue working with them. Thank you. My second question is, and it might be for Stewart Anderson, folks that also testified were very concerned about traffic and the increase in traffic. Could you talk a little bit about, you know, if this is approved tonight, what that would look like with trips spread throughout the day versus morning and evening? It's adjacent to Stewart Anderson. It's adjacent to a very heavy traffic corridor. Recall, Erato Boulevard. So there's extensive traffic there. This would definitely increase the amount of cars that would come from the facility. But we're trying to mitigate that through mixed use first, as well as promoting all forms of transportation, looking at getting car share, bike share on site, looking at capturing trips within the site, improving the pedestrian environment, the general areas characterized by what I would call Hollywood sidewalks. It's not the easiest place to walk around. And I think that this project will actually improve this. We've looked at three places where we want to install enhanced crosswalks. That would be a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood, in particular with the students. The school students would be walking. Louisiana is not a safe street to cross currently. And what we've talked about is, is creating that broader environment, including going beyond this property and looking at connecting the Florida for the bikeway. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, President Park. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just thought maybe it might be helpful to for folks to understand what am I is and the 150 units. But if I could ask you questions, can you tell us what am I stands for? Area median income. Area median income and what is the area median income of Denver? Oh, gosh. Put me on the spot D $2,760. Yes. So that's 100% of the area median income. So at 60% am I your target audience is people who make. We want to know that number to $37,600. That's your target. You have 150 residences for people that make $37,000. Do you know what the average fire fireman's pay is in Denver? More than that? Actually, no. What? It's $34,860. And do you know what the average server in a restaurant makes? Much less. $30,000 is the average median income. So this this probably means that those homes are for people who work nearby or in the city. Right. Absolutely. Okay. Thanks. I thought to be helpful to talk a little bit about what am I means and what 60% of I am. I mean, thank you for doing that. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Cashman and Councilman Espinosa. Okay. If I go to Councilwoman Kennedy because she hasn't had a chance yet. All right, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you. Just to follow up questions, the first was Councilwoman Ortega was asking about protection for single family areas. And I didn't catch a mention, but I thought we were pretty close to the Christina Park Overlay District, which has some design standards and things. So can you just tell me if my geographies correct in that? There is. There is. And it's not just that, it's some zoning. There's also a pretty significant overlay protecting some of this area. Yes. Thank you for reminding me of that. There is an overlay district to the to the east of the site. It doesn't directly above the site. It's a it's it begins a couple blocks east. But if you think about the question about what's happening, what how does a development change the next sets of areas, which I think is an important question. Absolutely. There is some protection in one of those outer rim circles. Okay. The second question was, and I think this may be more for the team, but for anyone, I guess is about I heard a number of residents say that they saw images and were concerned about buildings that went right up to the sidewalk, right up to the sky, you know, with the full height. And I wanted to ask if someone could talk a little bit and I don't I guess we're beyond the math point, but about the residential neighborhood transition area that looks like it goes along, Arkansas and Birch, all of Arkansas, a good portion of Birch. And just talk a little bit about what that is. Sure. And I will I'll ask the applicant perhaps to add to this. But any any zone, district or higher intensity zone district is bound to the requirements of the protected the protected district standards and the zoning code, which typically impact any development within 175 feet of a protected district, which essentially in this case begins at the midpoint of Arkansas South and at the midpoint of Birch and for a short distance east. And in that area, heights are typically limited in the code. It's limited to 75 feet in this proposal there. So that's about roughly five stories in this proposal. They're further lowering that at the street edge or at the edge of development to three stories. But what is being illustrated as a neighborhood transition area is, I believe, a response to the protected district standards in the code, and I think perhaps some additional efforts to try to address community concerns that have been expressed. Great. Oh yeah. Please, can I add one thing? Christmas party with Control Group. If you go to the exhibit that we provided you, if you go to the the page right before two, it kind of shows the the massing that in the envelopes that we kind of talked about, we never really got into buildings because we're just not there yet . So we're really talking about these massing. But I think this does a good job to show existing campus the transition from our first proposal, which was in May, and this was after getting shaped many times for a public meetings and then our final application that you're looking at today, so you can see the progression as you get closer to that single family housing. We really tried to push that house down as much as we could. And then I think one more thing. When you when you start developing and we start going through our type process, we're going to be delivering amenity zones. So it won't be right to the edge of the property. It'll be you've got an eight foot tree line and a five foot sidewalk that's going to be installed that isn't there today. So it's going to really help that street presence and it's not going to feel like the buildings on top of you if we build right to that sidewalk. Great. If I may ask one more follow up question, which is I heard mention of some tree saving and I didn't know if those trees were on the perimeter. Yes. So it's on the south side of the site along Arkansas, mainly in front of the main building. There's there's many trees that are along that side. So it's a part of our development agreement. Public works was willing to potentially flip flop the amenity zone. Typically, it's that eight foot tree line I talked about and the five foot sidewalk. In this circumstance, we were able to flip it because those trees are actually about 13 or 14 feet away. From the street where it lies today. So if the goal is to preserve, preserve. So I just want to just close this out by saying, to the extent someone saw a picture that had a building up to the street edge with no greenspace, no, you know, no alterations, that that picture was probably not an accurate representation of what would be required. Yeah, we haven't we haven't gotten deep enough in detail to show what that street level experience would be. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor McKinney. As we head to a second round of questions for folks, I'll just remind us that it is nearly 10:00 and ask those asking and answering questions to be as clear, concise and quick as possible. Councilman Cashman I think I'd be frivolous for a little bit to say I'm enjoying sitting here. Let's see. I'd like to ask either Jeff Steinberg or Roe mine. The question being, I need you to opine. This is a 14,000,000 million piece of property, I believe. I'm assuming whatever is done on it will be millions of dollars in site preparation. What I'm asking is what might happen to this site? I mean, could it be a park? Could could it be single family homes? Give me your thoughts. Jeff Steinberg, director of real estate for the City. The what you come back to is at this point in time, Seawright owns the property and they have an obligation to sell the property at the highest value that they can. The way we got into this deal to begin with was they have the opportunity to offer qualifying government agencies to have a first crack at it. And since we had an objective of creating jobs and creating housing, we took that. It's been a two year process since the court put the market put the property on the market. My sense is, is that they would probably go out and get a new appraisal of what the value of the property is and market it at that number, which I would assume would be a higher number, number one. With regard to the question of a park, I mean, it comes back to this. If there were monies available where folks would come in and pay that value for the property and decide to make a park out of it, they could do that. I know that in working with parks, when we were looking at another area of a one acre parcel, so forgetting the cost of the acquisition of the real estate, but the cost to activate one acre of land to have it become a green area park, it was about $5 million. So when you talk about making it into a park, it depends on how you make it into a park. But the land would have to be acquired first and then everything associated with the irrigation and activation of the real estate to make it a park would have to be funded as well. Then the next question, I can only answer it on the basis of 20 South Holly. That site was looked at. It was a similar site in size, but it was about 40% of the cost. And when the MRI levels were looked at that were natural for the neighborhood and single family residences being developed on the site versus multi-family, it turned out that you couldn't build a multifamily site on that property even at 40% of the cost because the numbers wouldn't work for the development. So if you apply some of those principles over to this property similar size, but about two and a half times more expensive, it would be very difficult for single family residences to be built on this site at the price that is being proposed. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Ball. Office, real quick, if you don't mind. Two questions for you, sir. My understanding is you've delayed closing on the property till the end of February. Is that correct? Yes, we we were planning to close the earlier the later of demo. Completion. Or March 29th, which has a hard date that they need to sell the property by. Okay. And why the delay? Why the delay? We just the demolition has taken a little bit longer. We are we started specifying abatement a little bit later than we thought. And we need a debate about this before the building comes down. Are you doing the demo or is that c. C that's doing the demo. Okay. And so the next question is, so if this zoning fails, what are you going to do with the property? Right now we're thinking of this plan A, we've focused on just, you know, buying it and going with the the proposed zoning. We we have a lot of time and resources spent in it. But right now, it's plan A and plan A includes the zoning. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilman Espinosa. Quick question for you just on assignment. It says The assignment of the I mean, my question is, the assignment of the agreement of obligations involves only Castro transferring the obligations and providing a copy to the city. We have recent history of not monitoring obligations such as these. What mechanism is in place to assume, I mean, is to assure that Castro or any of its societies are following will follow through. You know that that's something I need to happen to the city attorney's office with. The reality of the matter is, if there's a contract in place that deals with the acquisition of the real estate and there is an assignment done, all the provisions of the contract would go along with that assignment. Well, sort of. The problem is in that same assignment section, it basically says that if if if the assignee doesn't follow through, we can't hold control responsible for that. So if we don't monitor the assign E, who assumes that we could be left holding the bag? I mean, you know, awkward space again. And so how to I'd much rather us have the mechanism in place to make sure that whoever's developing on these parcels is developing consistent with this developer agreement as opposed to what happened in Green Valley Ranch and finding out sort of after the fact that now we have to litigate or do something else. So is it does anyone have a plan for that? Good evening, Counsel, Navy Services and City Attorney. Councilman Espino, just just to clarify, are you talking about the assignment provision and the development agreement? Correct. Okay. And that particular provision expressly says that the assigning will take over the obligations of this development agreement. So the development agreement only comes into effect if this rezoning passes, otherwise the agreements void. With that being said, the agreement will be recorded at some point after the after the zoning passes. So again, that's that was the problem, right? On our problem, on the northeast section of town was all of those things were deed restrictions, covenants on the title. So they were recorded, yet they were overlooked. So it says specifically in that assignment section that it says and the so it says the express assumption of any of care obligations under this agreement concerning the property and rights and duties subject to assignment by its assigning or transferee, shall therefore be relieve care from any further obligations under this agreement, which is appropriate and shall release the city from further obligation to care with respect to the matter. Soon care of shall provide the city of copy. Okay. Wait. I'm sorry. In no event shall a default by any such as assign with respect to the obligations assumed by this assignee, affect the rights or obligations of care of or any other assigning under this agreement that were not assigned or assumed by such defaulting. Assigning. So. So yes, somebody will assume that responsibility if they acquire land subject to this agreement. How are we making sure that these terms are going to be followed through in real time? So the development agreement will be maintained by city staff and administered by city staff. So there are other provisions within the agreement when it talks about site development plans and the construction manager. And so those things will be put into place and and administered by the city so that those things don't fall through the cracks. Okay. I wish I had some confidence there that somehow city staff, when these drawings come in for a site development plan review, that there is some acknowledgment somehow that there is these there are these obligations that they should be looking for. Because I have recent history where we've put waivers on a on a property. So the zoning has that labeled and somehow a project went all the way almost to to to permitting without anyone recognizing that it was not an allowable form. So this is this is this lives in that gray area. And I don't see anything special being done to make sure that this is followed through. Other than that, a lot of watchful eyes. So. So. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. I have just two quick questions to clarify some of the neighborhood impacts. And the first one is maybe Mr. Anderson or Mr. Tuscany or. Well, maybe those two the adjacency to the single family neighborhood. My understanding is that I want to deal with what is right now. It's largely underutilized and mostly I don't want to say vacant parcel, but not very highly developed. But it has entitlements that allow significantly more development. So I want to deal with what's possible without the rezoning versus the rezoning as being requested, so adjacent to the single family areas on Birch and Arkansas. Right now, my understanding is under campus zoning, a 75 foot structure could be built right across the street from a single family from single family homes with a 20 foot setback from the street. Is that the Zacharek? And Andrew, if they give a wrong answer, let them know. This is Chris. Andrew will correct me if I'm wrong. So, yeah, that is correct. In addition, the site to the east, that's also campus E2, so that one could also go 75 feet. So in both of those circumstances, one, the stuff of West Birch in Arkansas that's getting stepped down. The other side would get stepped down. Plus a change in use wouldn't allow commercial. That's what that's what I'm getting at now. And especially with that parcel that you say is on the other on the east side of birch although a 20 foot setback on all on on the on all four sides would might mitigate that a little bit. You have a little point tower maybe. Now but with the. IMU has a 20 foot setback against protected districts and that's different than AMEX. Okay. And now with the requested zone, you would that that adjacent parcel could the maximum height would be, what, 40 feet, 35 feet. Of 45 feet in residential. And residential? Okay. And then last question. What is the process in a development agreement? There is a or there is a provision for closing Arkansas Avenue east of Birch to the alley pending a traffic study. What are the specific? Do we have specific triggers for that? Because that's kind of a very undeveloped little strip of asphalt. Yeah, it's interesting. That was, you know, one of the the bigger comments that we received from the neighborhood is what was this? Was it an alley? Was it a street? Right. So public works is open to exploring that. That's what you've you've seen in your development agreement. We met with Public Works actually this week to kind of talk about what those trigger points are. Okay. And I think what they're looking for from Curtis and I is some concepts of what that might be. I think we've been talking about really just closing it off for cars and it would be more of a pedestrian bike kind of connection, then maybe you would be able to connect down to Florida on the new bike route that the city did. So the next step, I think, from our perspective, is providing some high level concepts of what that might look like and how that could be designed and then start working through public works. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. That's all. I. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. Jeff Steinberg, could you come back up? I just want to clarify something for the public record. I believe you had said that to build one acre of parkland, it was $5 million. And I just want to make sure and clarify with Hugh that that's the correct number, because a lot of the parks that we're getting in the far northeast are between half a million and a million an acre, not 5 million acres. So what I referenced specifically was a one acre parcel of land that Parks and Rec was looking at acquiring. So there was a cost associated with that and that property also for it to be activated, to have irrigation dropped in and be excavated, everything that needed to be done, it was going to be $5 million to activate it. I would venture to say that it depends on what irrigation and how it's being activated. If it's being purely done up as as pure grass, that is fields versus mixed different aspects of what it is and where they have to bring irrigation in from. What I can tell you that that one specific parcel which was in the Golden Triangle, the cost was $5 million for the one acre. Hmm. Well, because in the far northeast, we need all the infrastructure put in, and you're talking about a built environment. And so I still am not totally along with that. But if somebody could follow up with me on that, I'd be very interested because 5 million for a one acre park is just. That's. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Ortega. I just have one last question, and it is probably for someone on the development team, and it's about the edge along Louisiana. Just ensuring that you all are looking at it being in the shadows where during snow time, you know, you have ice. And that's always a concern of neighborhoods. So will there be proposed setbacks from the Louisiana side? I know you don't have that level of detail now, but in the conversations you've been having with the neighborhood, is that one of the issues that you've been asked to address? Chris again? Yes. In the first few meetings, I think that was a some questions that came up. I think, you know, when we're talking about eight stories, that doesn't mean that's what it is exactly getting built up to the edge. I think for a good development and a cohesive development, people need to be able to get in and out and get in and out safely. So I think actually having a a robust development and, you know, people wanting to come here, we've got to make sure all these components work. And I think in regards to ice, I mean, I think it's a safety issue and making sure there's ice, sand and salt. And we set up a metro district on this site really specifically to not capitalize it, but really for certain things such as design and cohesiveness and maintenance and to really make sure everything's happening on the overall development, not just in little pieces. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 1075 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. First, let me start by thanking everybody who came out tonight and who has played a role in the evolution of this rezoning process, from the neighbors to the city staff to my staff to the team at Castro Group. While there have been some challenges and some unfortunate community disharmony along the way, it has largely been a positive process with much good debate. For four decades, I have watched similar rezonings unfold and have watched council members sit at this dais struggling to fairly evaluate complex situations in their district with loud voices on both sides trying to gain the upper hand. Tonight, it's my turn. I have never spent more time evaluating any topic that has come before me, either in my career as a journalist or during my time on council thus far. A constituent wrote me recently urging me to stick to my guns tonight and not give in to please people. And I had to laugh at that. And no matter which way I vote tonight, I'm going to make a bunch of people very unhappy. This is about a legal obligation to evaluate this project according to the criteria discussed earlier in the staff report. Pleasing people is a not part of the formula, and b it's impossible anyway. The community is divided on this issue, as we've heard tonight and as I've heard in recent months, I have neighbors on Louisiana, on a handful of blocks from the site on the same side of the street that are diametrically opposed. One one feels this will be a great development that will enhance the community, the other brought to tears by fears of traffic, noise and safety. Some value, the promise of affordable housing and the possibility of restaurants and retail closer to home. Some aren't willing to make the trade for tall buildings and increased traffic. We've got the right developer and we've got the right concept for me. We've got the wrong zoning. The proposed plan allows for a level of density that I do not believe the infrastructure in the area the roads can can handle. We need to take a step down in density and a step up in open space and we need to be more prescriptive in the zoning. Perhaps a peu de style approach. I know we all need to carry a bit of the growth, the load in accommodating our city's continuing growth. But the roads servicing this site are not up to the load and I fear they will lead to cut through traffic on neighborhood streets that the neighborhood can't tolerate. This site is over a block off of Colorado Boulevard, not accessed by the arterial itself, but by local street, Arkansas, and a low level collector, which would be Louisiana . That ends at Holly Street. CPD has been unable to find me another such access challenged property with density akin to that proposed here. This property will develop C that is selling the land. The value of the land would indicate it will become considerably more active and dense than when c dad's headquarters made its home there. Much has been made of the fact that the existing zoning would allow considerably more density than the proposed plan. This may or may not be true. The microwave tower on the east side of the site limits building heights to some degree. The State Office of Information Technology and C++ are currently in negotiations around that issue of what can be built on the site. Now, I have no knowledge of those negotiations. They could limit building height or agreement could be made to pave the way to allow for the full 12 storeys permitted under campus zoning. As has been said at this rezoning fails throw could back out of the deal. They could build under campus zoning. They could close on the deal and sell to someone else. Building under the existing zoning does not have open space requirements, does not require affordable housing, allows for a bit of increased height and areas along the border . My guess is that anyone coming in to this site will need TIFF funding to make their project work, and I can't imagine approving a project without many of the elements. Castro has agreed to. My preference would be that either Kentaro hangs with the project and comes back with a less overwhelming proposal. Where the city takes control of the land, initiates a more formal community, community based planning process, and creates something that would truly enhance the community. I would love to be in a position to enthusiastically support a TIFF application that facilitates a true community partnership. I can write you a script where if this rezoning fails, we get a much better project that is more fitting for a Virginia village than what is proposed here. And I celebrate taking this position and I can write you a script where we get something worse than what is proposed, and I sadly regret my vote. I have run those scripts over in my mind. Night after night till the wee hours. But I am not here to predict the future. Nor am I able to. Or to pick the lesser of two evils. I'm here to evaluate this application according to the criteria. And with that in mind, as I said above, I cannot say confidently that this application meets the third criteria of being protective of the public health. We answer calls daily about traffic concerns. Already, without this development factored in, though, Denver has sworn its commitment to Vision Zero, traffic related deaths in our city continue to rise. Since first hearing about this proposal, I've struggled with this proposed density and in response have struggled to improve the plan as best I could in case it should pass this Council. I unsuccessfully urged a substantive reduction, further reduction in density. What I did achieve was meetings between Denver traffic engineers and control consultants to take preemptive looks at what improvements might be made to attempt mitigation of the expected traffic increase. Further, I urged Cantrell to consult traffic demand management professionals to begin looking at options for reducing the number of auto trips from the site, which, as you've heard , they have done. I have received a written commitment from the Mayor's Chief Projects Officer to facilitate periodic meetings between my office, the developer, neighborhood representatives and the Departments of Community Planning and Development and Public Works throughout construction should the project proceed? I was also an early and insistent voice saying that I couldn't imagine approving a development on the site that included a buyout option in place of construction of affordable housing. As we've heard, the buyout no longer exists. Whatever happens tonight, we are not done. We will be facing years of development, review and construction planning in one form or another, whether it's the Castro group and this iteration or someone else with whom we're dealing. I am ready for either. It is, however, essential that the community pickets are now up off the floor as soon as possible, dusted off and get back to the business of serving the neighborhood and serving the city. I look forward to facilitating that revival in any way I can. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you. I jotted down some notes during all the comments today, and I just want to address some some of them. So a wise former Denver city councilwoman who was also the director of public works advised me when I first became a council member that all the decisions that I make as a council person should be for the future and should be for the next generation. And I feel like that's what we're doing tonight. We're talking about the future of Denver. And like many of you here tonight who came to public comment, I am a Denver native. I went to celebrity, the Cooper Theater, the ah, the Century 21 theater. And I've lived most of my life in southeast Denver. Denver has changed a lot. It's changed a lot very recently. And it continues to change really before our eyes. It is remarkable. Month to month, it changes. So now I'm going to respond to some of the concerns that people expressed tonight. One is about ugly development. And I agree there is a lot of new ugly development, but there's also a lot of ugly old development. And Colorado Boulevard, quite frankly, is one of the ugliest streets in Denver. And if I have people visiting here from other cities, I avoid Colorado Boulevard. I find it embarrassing. It's a bunch of strip malls and parking lots. I think we're just used to it, but I think it's unfair to imply that somehow we're going to be losing something of beauty on Colorado Boulevard. I don't I don't think that's true. And I'm hopeful that can grow. I think it's great that your local and your design team will design a project that is esthetically pleasing and that is going to include green spaces and preserving those trees. Affordable housing. First of all, I'd like to respond to someone who came up to the podium and implied that people who live in affordable housing are somehow connected to crime in the area. I find that very offensive, as I'm sure everyone up here does. We do have a housing crisis in Denver and it's something we all talk about every single day. Housing is extremely expensive in Denver and we have a lack of supply. And so the answer to that is to build more housing. And I sometimes talk to people who don't seem to understand that basic issue of supply and demand. So we need more supply. And the only way we're going to get more in Denver is through density. Denver is landlocked, and we need density in Denver, and density is the opposite of sprawl. Diane Zuhdi, if you're still here, she had some great comments about sprawl also. Jacob Graham I think that was his name, the guy from Norway. Sprawl is really bad and when you have suburban sprawl, people get in their cars in Douglas County and drive into Denver in one car, in one person. That is the that is what traffic is caused by it is caused by sprawl and people being in their cars, having density in Denver, having less places to shop, places to work. That is how you get people out of their cars. So. I just wanted to clarify that. I, I think a lot of people would like to just see what is at sea that stay that way, which it's essentially some grass in a parking lot and some buildings. That's not going to happen. Beth Fine. Silver, you said it's a given that it will be redeveloped, and I think that is accurate. It's not going to be developed into single family homes. If if they were, they were going to they would be $2 million houses. You can't spend that kind of money on the land and clean it up and redevelop it. They would not be affordable. They would be multimillion dollar houses. I had a similar situation on a much smaller property a couple of miles south in my district where a developer wanted to put lower place duplexes and couldn't get this part of the neighborhood. And now they're putting in eight one and a half million dollar houses, which is not helping our housing crisis. I often quote a bumper sticker. Many of you have heard me say this, but it says you are not in traffic. You are traffic. Traffic is caused by everyone here tonight who drove here in a car by yourself. I did. I'm guilty, Stuart. You probably did it, but Jolan probably didn't. But that is the cause of traffic. We are the cause of traffic. It's not somebody else. And so if more people move to Denver, traffic is going to get worse. And so the way you address it is that you you live in a city and you don't drive. You take the bus, you take the light rail, you take the chariot, you take a scooter, you take your bike, whatever. And multimodal options are those solutions. So I'm really excited that you guys have engaged with transportation solutions. So those were just kind of my responses. I think it's very clear that a more dense development could go here that wouldn't have some of the neighborhood uses that community members would like to have, like the retail. I think this is an improvement over the existing zoning and I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilwoman Black Councilman, New Yorkers, I'm just really so proud of all the residents who participated in this whole discussion and the outreach programs. There's nothing more impressive, I think, to all of us on council when we see active participation by all the resources in a community about a project, especially an important project like this. So all your involvement is very, very important. I'm so proud of Control and the outreach. They did all the meetings and the information they shared and and being willing to to negotiate and improve a project. And I have to say, I'm really proud of my colleague, Councilman Cashman, for stepping in there and and actually helping with discuss this important project and trying to make all of this all those parties working to try to find out what is the best solution for this community. And I think we're coming to it. I'll say a word about, you know, ugly Colorado Boulevard. It's supporters of my district, too. And it's the busiest street in all of Colorado, the busiest street. And we all have our problems with Colorado Boulevard. But I can assure the residents here, somewhere down the road, the transit alternatives for the city are going to be implemented in Colorado. The car boulevards can be at the heart of it. So I think the things you heard tonight about transit improvements in Colorado are going to happen. It's just a matter of time and money and we'll all be pushing to make sure that happens this area. I mean, so as Paul mentioned, I mean, you know, see, I mean, you just know don't the area it looks terrible and so so this development will make a great improvement and also really reinforce to the residential aspects that it didn't have. Now it's just a governmental use now that that now can be really improved. And so I see this as really a positive step in and I can see why Denver said it was stable. They said, oh, well, see, you know, don't never move. Well, I'll just be stable. Well, everything changes. And so this region blueprint, Denver is being updated now. So I think it's going to be a positives, though. And the one thing I'll finish comment on is one thing come is I heard tonight, you know, had several people mention what was important to them was having a local respected developer and we have one and given all of us and control. So I think the residents can be assured that we're going to create that and what will be created here will be a very valuable asset to me to work with you to make sure that it meets the needs and minimum. Ours is the traffic and, you know, all the improvements that are desired. And I think you'll you'll be pleased with the end result. So I'll be supporting this tonight. And I would like to thank all the participation in this whole discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. So thank you, Kristin. And the residents for supporting the elimination of the opt out on the affordability that was never acceptable. Tim Karl, thank you for the comprehensive assessment. I wish I had had it earlier because I think there are enough unique circumstances the advancement of a State Department headquarters, a brokered sale of state land through the city. I believe a solid case could be made for a tool that is less blunt than what is being proposed. And I guess I have been told I guess I have been told no to custom zoning enough that I thought never that the thought to recommend it had never crossed my mind. Thank you, Sean Maley, for highlighting how much further your team went beyond the zoning the city's minimal zoning requirements to transition into protected districts and how honored you were to work on this transition because it's a good one. Kentaro, thank you guys for hearing some of the community and council's concerns and compromising with the community in this unique, unique set of circumstances. I will say that I still believe the scale is tipped in your favor, so I continue to maintain that it is on you to exceed expectations. Thank you, Andrew, for your answers to my questions. In my judgment, this negotiated transition is closer to the appropriate depth to transition from 8 to 3, let alone one story. Like many of the homes that flank the property than the base smacks step of her story, step backs. I continue to hope that your agency becomes more mindful of the deficiencies in its current both definitions. In relation to so-called protected districts and where area plans call for transitions in scale. This city needs to recognize that this type of transition, this type of transition is more consistent with the layperson's understanding of the transition in mass and scale. It's critical that this transition was codified in zoning. It is. It's critical that this transition was codified in the zoning. For me to at all begin to find this map amendment appropriate, because based upon reviewing the application, I would have been tearing into the actual 71 page rezoning application that is only a partial page on the consistency with adopted plans and oddly leans heavily on Denver write language a plan five months from adoption and not at all intended to be used this way. I raised this issue because that aspect is bothersome to me and dubious given community concerns about Denver. Right. The Denver right places map and recommendations being used for zoning. I recognize that the bulk illustrated is highly unlikely to be built, but development need not be that massive to be disruptive to our sense of a quality public realm. Many can recall the abruptness that came with a much smaller mass on the west side of Colorado at Ninth Boulevard. I mean, Colorado Boulevard at night. One thing is certain, a full buildout and full buildout. The on street parking and traffic volumes will be far different from the years as pseudo headquarters, where many of the car trips were limited to the workday and had no on street overnight parking need. Once again, this highlights the persistent disconnect between land use infrastructure and soon to be mobility operating in silos in this city. All these concerns are familiar to me because I represent a part of town where projects like those feared are shoehorned into areas with even less capacity than this area to withstand the substantial impact maximum development would have on community and infrastructure. However, like some of the speakers, I'm inclined to support this application because the table is set for a potential catalytic success. Success which would mean redevelopment that would offset hassle with convenience. My reservation isn't a dense placemaking project. My concern is that market forces in the area would result in something far less dense and more transient and lacking any sort of destination aspect. But both outcomes are possible in the zone. And while the fewer car trips associated with fewer units and lower scale may sound ideal, there are considerable downsides to that outcome. The potential positives that have been mentioned by proponents come with the critical mass. The move toward walkable communities require more households proximate to those amenities. This rezoning doesn't compel any outcome, but the combination of the MAP Amendment and the developer agreement respond to real concerns. Should the maximum development be achievable? Councilman Cashman You've done yeoman's work trying to get something workable in an area that hasn't seen anything but car centric development that makes Colorado Boulevard miserable at times. Density along that corridor will create opportunities that can benefit and preserve by supporting the viability of the adjacent single family neighborhoods in the proposed zone district or in some other. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to. Just. Appreciate everybody that's stuck. Stuck through. I mean, 1030 is not the latest we've been here, but it is rather late. You know, I like. Folks who have. Spoke before. I'm also a native. I think, you know, I've seen Colorado Boulevard change, but then I really haven't thought too much. I think there's a lot of that that parking lot is a lot of the the strip malls. It's very much like like like like some of our areas just west on South Federal Boulevard. We see that and it becomes a challenge because you don't have that depth becomes a challenge because you don't really have the opportunity for that density to move through without and at the same time have transit nodes. We have to go in and rebuild it. We got to go in and redesign it. And that's tough because you're looking at three decades before you even touch anything, before it actually starts to take place. Denver's growing and we have to figure out how to accommodate that growth before we're all priced out of the neighborhoods that we grew up in. Before. We won't be able. To jump in a car and get. From point A to point B on time. Problem isn't necessarily the roads is that we haven't we haven't designed or thought anything other than just roads. Right. We really we don't think of Denver as that transit city, but we have to we have to think about how to do that. Congestion isn't going to just go away. It's getting worse. I used to be able to brag that I get here 5 minutes from my place on on on the west side here. 5 minutes. I don't know who told all these folks. About these shortcuts. Well, I'm not happy that you all told. Anybody about shortcuts because there. Are no shortcuts in Denver anymore. I used to say 15 minutes. I'm there. Not anymore. We have to accommodate that. There's always something that's missing in zoning and by charter. And by our criteria, we really can't go off of looks about what is that you're going to build? We can't mandate that folks come up to us and say, I want to. Is this going to be brick? Is it going to be nice? Is it going to be a setback? Are you going to build the above plane? Our zoning for is prescriptive. Is it can be. It isn't right. It's still form based, but it isn't to the point where somebody can show you a rendering and say, this is exactly what's going to happen now. If I was somebody who was in front of this council, I would actually do that. There's nothing to stop you either. And I think in these chambers, I have seen people who just come up and I was not too far away from this site quite actually people to say, well, I'm just zoning it because I can't. And we've to our frustration to the frustration of so many people in in these chambers over the years, they've done that. And it really doesn't create an opportunity for us to. To build that trust. Establish that trust, however. That's up to a well-organized community. That's up to the councilperson in the area, and that's up to us to follow that lead. I think I would like to see something great for the neighborhoods out there. I look at that neighborhood and I think of Barney the very much it's very, very similar. It's still very working class. I think a lot of people don't realize that these neighborhoods over here, just because they're on the east side or the south side, they're not working class. They are. That's why we got to do it right. At the same time. As we grow and as we look at how we design some of these parcels, it's hard for us to be able to get to get a hold of land like this. Now, I come from the perspective where I do think it's the role of county and municipal government to be able to landbank for the future. We didn't do that when we needed to. So the fact that we have this opportunity is great. That means there's going to be public accountability. Not just somebody who's who, who bought it straight outright, has no accountability to the public, but there's going to be accountability on us. And I say as I say everybody we get the shape that. Winick So I understand and, you know, these neighborhoods, including mine. It's hard to believe. I live right on the cusp of Barnum and Bailey Park. It's hard to believe that there were ever suburbs. They were they were built like it. They reflected it for a different Denver. Those aren't suburbs anymore. You've got to look beyond the city, beyond our boundaries and realize, oh, man. When did all these folks back here come? Where did what you look at that Denver metro area, it's huge. It is sprawl. And they're not growing out there. The fight against density, the fight against vertical development out there is even stronger than it is here. You mention affordable housing and some of these other outside counties and cities outside of Denver. All hell breaks loose. We get it in Denver. We're a little bit different and we are the capital city and we are the center of the metro region. We can't just say over there. Every zip code. Every zip code. People should be able to live in every zip code and afford to be able to live in every zip code. A teacher, a police officer, a firefighter man, if that's what they're doing on the fire department, $37,000 a year, that's embarrassing. We've got to do better, right? We have to. And. A teacher, a firefighter, a police officer, someone who's who's working on their masters and pouring coffee, trying to make a living, trying to get by an honest living should be able to live in any zip code in our city. And we have to be able to create that opportunity. So with that, I think, you know, I do think futuristic. I do think this is you know, it's a conversation. You this isn't going to happen just overnight. I would encourage folks who those of you who stuck it out late at night, there are more people that are going to care about this. So continue that conversation. Councilman Cashman's, a great representative. He's a great councilman. He's somebody that that I really look up to on this council in terms of his approach and how how he's always listened over the years. So with that, you know, I am supportive. Of this moving forward. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Lopez. I'll be happy to show you some of the shortcuts that I still have in my back pocket. Don't say it publicly, because they're known for. Not not giving it away here. Mr. President, I'm supportive of this application. I find that it meets all of the criteria to justify the rezoning. And in fact, I regard this as a down zoning, because people are so used to seeing that old city property in which I spent many, many hours covering and writing about sweetheart projects , and they see that as all the open space. But the fact is that the underlying zoning allows much, much more deleterious impacts on the neighborhood should it remain in place than the requested zone class. The impacts on the single family neighborhood will be less. The impacts on dense total density are less. And the addition of the amenities that I think some of the neighbors have expressed an interest in as far as additional retail, beyond what ancillary retail is allowed in the campus zone, which is quite, quite limited, are a benefit to the neighborhood. And so I find that it actually meets all the criteria to qualify for rezoning and I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clarke. First and foremost, I have great respect for Councilman Cashman. And I know that this process has been a long road that has been a struggle because we are growing and changing as a city. And it's hard because you're representing your constituents at this point in time and looking at a rezoning such as this . We truly are looking forward to the next hundred years of the site. And it's difficult because we are changing as a city, but based upon what has been presented tonight at this hearing. I think it does meet all of the criteria for a rezoning. The majority of speakers who are here tonight were in favor of the rezoning. And just a quick snippet of some of the things folks said. You know, they're ready to have short term pain for long term benefit, keeping the neighborhood vibrant and diverse. They want to be part of the solution in Denver. Forward thinking, thoughtful, re-envisioning, this area. And then on the flip side, some of the concerns that people brought up were traffic density and affordable housing. But through the conversation and through the questions and the presentations, 150 units of affordable housing that will help stabilize the elementary school that is on this or near the site. And we need to make sure that we're keeping the the diversity that we love as our city. And we're encouraging folks who would have maybe never looked at this site as an opportunity for them to reside and live. They might now have this opportunity. Density creates conservation and sustainability for us as a city. Just last Wednesday, we had a sustainability summit here in the city, and if we don't have that density, we're not able to conserve water, heat, all of the things that we need to do better at as a city. On top of that, having parks and open space, a good neighbor agreement and that retail. What I wouldn't give to have somebody ready to bring in a main street, fill grocery, daycare, workforce opportunities and then layered all on top of that is the multi time mobility piece. This site is primed to be a model project for different transit transportation solutions, multi mobility. What could we do with autonomous vehicles like we're testing right now at Panasonic at 61st and Pena? This I see is really the future of the city. And I just think all of the speakers who were here, all the folks who emailed and the real time and intentional process that I felt this rezoning has taken on. I didn't feel like it was rushed, like it was pressured. It was very, very intentional. And I think we're going to get the best outcome. And so I am in support of this because I believe it fits all of the criteria and I will be voting in favor of it tonight. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you. What a thoughtful discussion tonight. And my colleagues as well. I really appreciated all of your comments. In looking at the criteria, I spent a lot of time looking at the staff report on the conformance with plans in terms of reinvestment areas and making sure that the conformance to plans was criteria was met. And I felt like the staff report, which did not mention that overwrites, I don't know if that was the applicants or someone else, but the staff report does not mention it. Anyway, I thought it was very persuasive. You know, I had to think a little bit after hearing your comments, Councilman Cashman, about the public health and safety criteria. And it's interesting because just to put my law school hat on for a minute, I mean, the origins of the public health and safety criteria was about public nuisance. Don't put a hog lot next to a water source. Don't put a, you know, a school next to a factory that, you know, had toxic lead. You know, it was about separating users. I mean, we didn't have great sanitation, right? It was just kind of coming into to to to form a zoning. And so I think about that as a really old criteria that kind of doesn't acknowledge the ways that we've created, for example, environmental standards. So why can you have, for example, a mixed use area with with some light industrial? Because we have clean rooms that didn't exist. And so some of the things about that and but does that mean it doesn't matter anymore? I don't think it means that. But I think it's interesting to think about what's the definition of the criteria for public health and safety today. And so, I guess, you know, you think about the idea of of of a walkable space, right? So so we could put in a less dense development that was simply parking lots and that would not encourage walking. And so, you know, so you could have less density and have less health because people would be not walking in and out of the space or using the green space that'll be created. You know, I think about traffic and this is may not going to be a popular statement, but there are less traffic deaths where there's more congestion because when people aren't going quickly, it's harder for I mean, the injuries are less severe when you're going at a low speed. So if this is a heavily trafficked area with a lot of cars coming in and out, probably not going to see as many fatalities as if people are continuing to to breeze through at high speeds because, hey, there's not there's not that many cars. So it's interesting how, you know, one of the traffic calming measures that we we do is to kind of narrow streets and cut out lanes so that cars are a little closer to each other. They got to pay attention. So I guess and the other challenge I had kind of understanding or trying to think about how to apply the criteria, the way you defined it in future cases is if more cars is by definition not supportive of the health and safety. I don't know what rezoning could ever meet the criteria. Right? So if more cars than see. So what's the magic number of cars? You know, if one more car is one more risk of someone getting hit, then I just don't know how you'd ever meet the criteria. So I don't. So I think that there is something about the modern interpretation of health and safety that we have to grapple with. But I just am not sure that I can agree with that application as described because of some of the things Councilwoman Gilmore mentioned and and others. And, you know, in terms of safe and sanitary housing, that was another reason for zoning was to create more safe and sanitary housing. And certainly we have that happening here. And we do have homeless people who are not living in safe and sanitary conditions. So for me, I, you know, thought a lot about it in the last 10 minutes since you said it. But I do feel like I still see that that criteria is met by virtue of, you know, the walkability, the open space, the fact that it's creating safe and sanitary housing and it is not next to or near any dangerous uses. There are some environmental questions on the site and improving and cleaning those up is an is is a safety benefit. So to me, putting something to residential standards that right now may or may not be at them as you go on with your environmental reviews is a net positive. So it meets the criteria. The, the next thing I just wanted to comment on a little bit is the question of what happens if this doesn't get approved. So that's not a relevant criteria. But we're all trying to figure is what what will happen. I mean, many folks know I spent many years advocating for in negotiating with and, you know, some would say squeezing developers for things that they maybe didn't think they wanted to give in the initial stages of their development. And, you know, one of my jobs in that case was to communicate with the community and describe that there's not an infinite possibility. There is a point at which you hit the tipping point where the developer can't do it all. And there, you know, it might not be the community benefit that you've negotiated. It may be the economy in the gates rubber factory. Councilman Cashman. And I remember. Thing about it is a great example. It's not a safe and sanitary condition when in a location can't be developed and it sits there vacant. Someone died in a derelict building and on the Gates site. There were numerous graffiti, all kinds of criminal activity. Vacant buildings are not good for neighborhoods. And I will say that there is you know, there's some costs involved in this project. And there is a tipping point at which if you don't have the density to support the retail, if you don't have the density or the open space, then you can't build it. And I think that tipping point is real and I think the density is relevant to that. So I just got to say that, you know, and this comes from someone who's an advocate for community benefits. I don't think you can get more open space, less density and guarantee that this can weather what is I mean, we're in the strongest economic period we're in and it's not going to get stronger. I think, you know, every economist predicts some form of a slowdown. If we're fortunate, it's not a serious one, but it's going to be harder in the next five years when this project's trying to develop. So I will just throw that out there. In terms of how you're weighing the risks, I weigh the risks a little heavier than you, my, my, my friend, because I feel that I've seen projects not happen and I've seen what it does to communities. Last point I'll make on affordability. I so appreciate the really great dialog we had and from from folks on both sides about how much you value affordability. Just two quick comments. We have more than 3000 severely cost burdened households in this am I level in the city? So is there a need for housing at this level? Our data says yes. Thousands of families are spending more than half their income because they can't find a unit at 60% of am I. Councilwoman Sussman did a great job identifying some of the occupations that those folks are in. So I also am an advocate, though, for deeply affordable housing. And one thing I would like to just share is the fact is that as a condition of any of our housing investments and how these things work, folks are required to accept vouchers from folks who may have vouchers from the housing authority or the Veterans Administration. And so in many of the projects priced at this level, you will find residents that have, you know, 0 to 30% of income because they come with a voucher. So this project, if our rules are in place, Melissa, today somewhere, they would be required to accept those vouchers. And you could, in fact and hopefully will see a number of residents at lower AMI. So I hope that most folks feel a little better that you might see a mix of incomes with that. I'll be supporting the zoning tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank everybody for their thoughtful engagement in this entire process. I had the benefit of being able to sit through a couple of the meetings. I went to observe the process and hear the concerns and hear some of the commitments that were being made to the community and just appreciate the time that everybody put in to, you know, getting to a point. And, you know, we don't always get everything we want out of a process when we engage in that. But a couple of things I want to highlight. First of all, I've seen some of the work that this team has done across the city, and I know that when they make a commitment, they're going to do something. They will follow through in the fact that they're a local developer. They have a reputation to protect, and I can't see them making commitments to this neighborhood they're not going to follow through with. So I think that's important. This project actually has way more details than this Body Accounting Council normally sees on developments. When we went from the previous zoning that I probably am the only one on this on this day is who actually worked with the old zoning code where before we we changed it to a form based zoning. We used to get all the details on how many units, how many parking spaces we'd see the traffic studies done , a lot of that kind of information as part of the zone application that was brought before this council. So the neighborhoods had a clear understanding of what they were getting. I think there was a little bit more predictability for the developers because now they go back and continue to deal with the planning department on more of the details that have to be put into the project that otherwise were done on meaning. Much of that was done on the front end. So just seeing some of the level of detail and commitments that were made in the development agreement with the community is is a big deal. You know, on the west side of town, we're going to see over 300 acres that are being proposed for redevelopment from the Denver Post site to Elegies to Mile High Stadium, parking lots to Sun Valley. And not before long we'll see the Burnham Yards, which is the railroad land just on the west side of Denver water. And we have to be thoughtful as a city about how we're going to look at the impact to the adjacent neighborhoods, look at the impact to the infrastructure, very similar to what this project was trying to do. And, you know, we'll be seeing some of those rezoning applications coming before us. And I am hopeful that we are as thoughtful with those neighborhoods and those big projects as we are with this one to ensure that we're doing right by all of our communities across this city and looking at the impact and making sure that we are getting some affordability in trying to meet the needs of so many people that are struggling in this city to afford to even stay here. I would just challenge the neighborhood to stay completely engaged in ongoing dialog with the control group around the the additional, you know, details that will move the project forward. I would also encourage you to advocate that in the Denver write process to be arguing, we need to keep the verbiage neighborhoods of stability in there. Because I'm concerned that by removing that, it sort of gives the message that we no longer have stable neighborhoods that are worthy of protecting across this city. And I don't know how many people across the city have really paid attention to the details that are in that document. Lots of people have attended meetings, but that doesn't represent, you know, broadly across the city. The. You know, the depth and the breadth of the people that live within this city. Lastly, I just want to really thank the the administration for their sort of thoughtfulness in looking at taking advantage of this first. Right. Of refusal with this court property to try to. Figure out where across the city we can garner affordability. And it is important that we have affordable housing across the city and not just in certain neighborhoods in the city. And I think this the fact that we'll have 150 affordable units in this development is is really a big deal. And it's really important and for lots of different reasons that have already been articulated. And so the last thing I want to say is. We have neighborhoods in the city that are screaming for some of the neighborhood services that will be at the site for a grocery store, for restaurants, for a dry cleaning facility. Some of these services that neighborhoods across our city get to enjoy don't exist in many of our neighborhoods that are adjacent to industrial areas. And the fact that you already have a lot of those kinds of things in your neighborhood is is great, but you're going to get more that you can walk to. So I think and the fact that we do have some of those protections and we do have an overlay to the neighborhood immediately to the east of this site is important for for the adjacent community. So for all those reasons, as well as the fact that it meets the criteria and all of that, I will be supporting this application tonight. And the very last thing I will say sorry is, you know, just down the street, we went through a very lengthy process with the ninth and Colorado site. And what's going in there is blending in very well with the entire community. And it will serve not just the new development going in there, but some of the commercial that will be there will be serving the entire community. So I'm a yes vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you. So, so many people on the States have said such wonderful things about this project. I'm just so happy about Denver and its neighborhoods and how they engage. I mean, our neighborhoods do get involved very well and they study the thing very well and have come to us and let us know what their perspective is. I'm also very happy to be with this group of council people because you can tell from their discussions how much they study these things. They don't just take it lightly. This is mainly what a council does, is land use to decide about land use and it is so important. And you can hear too that neighborhood neighbors and council have learned a great deal about what density means and what it means to reducing our car traffic and and its benefits to a call to the environment and it, you know, creating walkable spaces and how important that is. I don't think, you know, 20 years ago that most of the people I knew and certainly I didn't understand what that means, you know, how to how to best improve our environment. And I particularly liked the little history that Ms.. Santini brought about the, uh, the church that we had on South Colorado Boulevard. Yes, we turned it down at first, not so much because of the number of homes, but because the number of homes would have created an enormous difficulty of being able to get around that property. I mean, it was it was it's simply the the the density of it. It was like that density would support that one acre facility. So and that was neighborhood involvement. And sure enough, they came back with something that was going to work for a one acre property. And I, I think that what the neighborhood has been able to craft with the developer and what the developer has done is, is in keeping with what we know about providing enough homes for people. If we don't provide enough homes for people, they move to the suburbs. And as somebody has said, that's where most of our traffic comes from. But if we can keep them in the city, then we have a chance to provide transit and reduce our number of cars. But we don't have any other chance but that one. But we also need to keep them in the city for our workforce. If our workforce moves out of the city, we don't have anybody that can do the jobs that a city needs just to survive. I looked up because I was asking about the Americas, the average median income, and you know what 60% am I meant. And that would be a $37,000 income. Well, the median income of Virginia Village is $40,000, so just $3,000 more. These are homes that are going would be affordable to the people who live in Virginia Village and they would be affordable perhaps to. The more. Children that are just newly married or your seniors that want to look for a new place to live that would be affordable for them. So I also will be voting in favor of this project. Thank you for all of the neighbors, for all the work you did on this. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Seeing no other comments, I'll just end by saying thank you to everyone for coming and for sharing your opinions and sharing your stories. There are a lot of people tonight who talked about either growing up here or how long they lived in the community or, you know, when their parents bought the house and the community. And as someone who also grew up here, it is hard not to be an installed fix for Sunday night or multiple people bring up celebrities or anything is officially the Celebrity Sports Center. Which boy what I would give to bring that back and be able to take my kids to celebrities. They can't even begin to communicate how special that place was for me growing up. And it's hard also not to be afraid of turning around and losing the city that we grew up in or the city that we've been in for how many years in the city that we love. And these things are hard and I appreciate everyone taking time. And as Councilman Cashman said, you know, at the end of the day, it comes down to a yes or no vote. And there can be some people who are upset and and feel like this is not in line with their their hopes and dreams. I'll say that. And in my district, there's been a lot of development and a lot of people who are angry and a lot of people who are struggling with the changes in the. Our community. And the hardest ones of all of those are the ones that are used by. Right. Those are the developments that don't have or notify a neighborhood association. I don't even know about them until somebody says, hey, why this fence go up? Because they don't come through city council. There's no development agreement. There's no design guidelines. There's no negotiations. And they build to the maximum. And, you know, I think that that often we see things and then people say, I want it to be what it is or I want it to be what the you know, the the the plan shows it as as an area of stability in a single unit. But the zoning on it allows for 12 storeys and that is the use by right. That people can build do and there's no no community engagement. I mean buildings popping up in my district where the community has never even notified that they're doing anything. And those are really, really hard. And so, you know, I would say that looking at this, there are there's a lot in here that goes a lot further than what is used by right. Development could be. And I know we can't predict the future and there are a lot of things that go into that. But somebody could develop on the site with no open space, no affordable housing on site to a much higher height. A lot of those things could happen. That's what's happening in my district. And so it's it's often hard to marry those two things of what I wish it would be a park or single family homes with what someone already has a right to do on that property versus what we might negotiate through a process that is messy and hard and takes community work like this. And so at the end of the day, I do think that this is in a much better place than what the existing zoning would allow to happen. And for that, I am glad at the real end of the day, this comes down to the legal criteria for the rezoning and I echo what many of my colleagues have said and thank you to staff for putting together the presentation that I think clearly shows that this does meet the legal criteria. And this is at the end of the day, what that decision for us is isn't about what we like or what we miss or what our vision is, but does it meet those criteria? And I believe that this does on top of that, I think that this is a much better outcome than the use by rate development that is on it. So for those reasons, I will be supporting this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. Cashman. Black Eye. Espinosa. Bess Flynn, I. Gilmore, i. Kimmage. Ivan Lopez. I knew Ortega I. Susman, i. Espinosa, I. Mr. President. I. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. You have 11 eyes one day. 11 eyes, one knee accountable. 1075 has passed. Thank you all for sticking with us late into the night, seeing no other business before this morning. This meeting is adjourned.