A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5 Cook Street in Cherry Creek. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 20 to C-MX-8 (planned development to mixed use, 8-stories), located at 5 Cook Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-14-21.
Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Pro Tem Torres, will you please put Council Bill 1019 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 1-1019 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 1019 is open. May we please have staff report? Good afternoon, members of City Council. My name is Jumping FPL and I'm an associate city planner with Planning Services. And today we're going to be looking at the rezoning for five scope, five Cook Street from a period 22 CMCs eight. Subject property is in Council District ten, represented by Councilman Hines. In the Greek neighborhood. The property is located on the northwest corner of Hook Street and Ellsworth. The site is 6262 square feet and currently contains a two story building used as an alternative medicine office. The applicant is requesting to resign from Chapter 59 beauty to see him x eight to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. The proposed urban center neighborhood context means mixed use eight storeys maximum height allows for a mix of uses and it allows for the town house building. For the general building for the shopfront building for. Previously mentioned, the existing zoning is an old buddy. 20 established in 1979. Surrounding zoning includes eight directly to a North Sea IMX five to the east. A beauty to Israel and GMU 12th to the west. 20, was established in 1979 and converted the building to a business use in 2004. That structure was torn down and the current building was constructed on the existing foundations with the second floor building 2007. The beauty states that the business use is limited to those allowable under B1 Sun District regulations of former Chapter 59 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver. The B1 Zone District allows for uses such as residential use, banking and financial services office use, retail fire station, museum, police station. Church Childcare Center. Postal Facilities Library and parking of vehicles. Purity is very prescriptive and is and states in detail the land coverage and use for this 6262 square foot lot. The current land use for the site is office use and in the immediate vicinity the areas land use are multi-unit residential. Other office uses commercial retail and some parking uses. You can also see on this map some mixed use development at the corner of Steele Street and First Avenue. As shown on these photos. The two storey building currently on the site is surrounded by much bigger and higher buildings on all fronts. West of the site is a 16 storey multi-unit residential building. North of the site, there is an eight storey multi-unit residential building. West of the site, there is a ten storey office building, and south of the site there is a four storey parking garage structure and a 13 storey multi-unit residential building. Concurrent with the rezoning, the applicant is also facilitating a voluntary, affordable housing agreement signed and to be recorded by the property owner. The agreement will apply. To the entirety of the site and it will require the property owner to commit to at least 10% of the total units affordable. 75% of those income restricted units will be affordable to residents earning 60% of the area. Median income and 25% of the income restricted units will be affordable to residents earning 80% of the area. Median income. The income restricted units would remain at this level of affordability for a minimum period of 60 years. Throughout the rezoning process, application modifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously on September 1st. Today, staff has received comments from only two individuals opposing the rezoning. Three of those letters were received in January 2021, before the applicant voluntarily postponed his public hearing to allow for more community outreach. One of the letters refers to the potential for this project to ruin their views and negatively affect their building and reduce the value of their property. The other three letters of opposition were sent by the same community member and they mostly express concerns with setbacks and lack of on site parking or service loading area for the project . The applicants met with the R.A. and the stakeholders 11 times between June 2020 and May 2021 to introduce a project and develop a good neighbor agreement. In January 2021, Councilman Hines referred the applicant, the CCE, R.A. and the neighbors to a free mediation service performed by a third party neutral facilitator. All parties participated in good faith to work towards a memorandum of understanding or better known as a good, good neighbor agreement that is intended to mitigate the neighbors concerns over the rezoning and proposed development. For the draft good neighbor agreement. The developer has made several commitments to CCE including. To not exceed seven storeys in building height to comply with the setbacks required for the pending Cherry Creek East Commercial Overlay Plan. To take specific steps to minimize impact on the griffin the building to a north. To consider the effect on existing buildings and pedestrian experience in the architectural design of the project. To have the delivery trucks access the property between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., not to block the alley for more than 15 minutes to ensure owners that city's required parking ratio is achieved through parking agreements with neighbors to ensure owners that construction has reasonably minimal impacts on neighbors. The Cherry Creek East Association sent out a survey to the Cherry Creek East constituents, who then voted in favor of the rezoning contingent on the execution of the Good Neighbor Agreement negotiated with the applicant. Informed by the survey, the GCA R.A. voted to support the rezoning. Just a quick note here on some of the early access traffic and parking concerns raised by the leaders of opposition. It is important to note that responding to a southern district, not a specific development proposal, potential traffic impacts related to a particular development are not assessed as part of the rezoning request because the development plan is subject to change. At the time of the site development plan, transportation engineers will identify if mitigation measures are required by intuition issuing a permanent. Okay. So now moving on to the Denver zoning code criteria, it must be found that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with five criteria. In regards to criteria number one, there are three adopted plans that apply to a requested rezoning Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver and the Cherry Creek Area Plan. A stated in the stuff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals in the comprehensive plan. The rezoning is consistent with two key goals in the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element. A seat allows additional housing in a rich, mixed use environment. Near Arctic transportation opportunities. The proposal. The proposed rezoning would allow for mixed use development, including an increase in allowed housing density, while also enabling additional housing units close to services and amenities , some of which would be restricted to residents earning less than the area median income. It is therefore therefore consistent with the strategies in the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision element. Finally, the rezoning is consistent with two key goals in the environmentally resilient vision element, as it will enable mixed use development at an infill location where infrastructure is already in place. The requested zone district broadens the variety of uses allowing residents to live, work and play in the area. Therefore, the response is consistent with Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 recommendations. Now moving on to consistency with Blueprint Denver, the proposed TMX eight zone district is part of the urban center context and is intended to promote safe , active and pedestrian, skilled, diverse areas through the use of building forms that clearly activate the public street edge. Mixed use districts are focused on creating mixed, diverse neighborhoods, since the proposed district allows a mix of uses and allowable building forms that contribute to street activation. The proposed rezoning is to an urban center. Context is appropriate and consistent with the plan. The Future Places MAP designates the subject property as a regional center and describes it as providing a mix of office, commercial and residential uses. Buildings are typically large in scale and orient to a street with a strong degree of urbanism and continuous street frontages. Heights can be generally up to 12 storeys in the taller areas and should transition gradually within the center's footprint to the surrounding residential areas. The proposed mixed eight zone district allows for a variety of commercial residential uses in a pedestrian oriented pattern with an active street level. Therefore, the requested CMC is appropriate and consistent with the future places and direction. Blueprint. Denver directs growth to key centers, corridors and high density residential areas served by transportation options. The subject property falls within the plan's growth strategy area of regional centers, which anticipates a 50% of job growth and 30% of new housing by 2040. The proposed rezoning will achieve this goal. Finally between Denver on the land use and build for general section policy three encourages owners to rezone properties from the former Chapter 59 Zoning Code to new code so that the entire city is covered by the Denver zoning code. Now looking at the Cherry Creek Area plan. This plan was adopted by City Council in 2012 and applies to subject property. The plan notes that the area where the subject site is located should benefit from new development, reinvestment and more intense use. The plan recommends that the city modify land use policy, zoning regulations and design guidelines to encourage appropriate reinvestment to assure that these areas continue to mature in a positive way. The requested rezoning to see them exceed such change in zoning regulations and would enable reinvestment and development in such property as expressed in the plan. Additionally, the future land use map for the Cherry Creek Shopping District designates the subject property as a regional center, where the recommendation is to continue to support a mix of uses, including office retail, commercial use, multi-family, residential and hotels. The maximum building height recommended in the plan for the site is eight storeys. Therefore, the requested CMCs site is appropriate and consistent with Cherry Creek Area Plan recommendations. Stuff also finds the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district relations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. The application identified several changes or changing conditions of the justifying circumstance, the adoption of Denver's zoning code in 2010 and the retention of the former Chapter 59 Zone District on the subject property, including custom zoning during the property to a 1979 site plan, is an appropriate, justified circumstance for the proposed rezoning. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban center neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and with the CMC's proposal and intent. With that stuff. Requirements, approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, friend, for the staff report. And this evening, we have two individuals signed up to speak, both online. Our first speaker is Meredith Gabel. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Meredith. Gabo and I live at two Adams Street across the alley from the subject's site. Last time I was in front of city council, actually, it was November 2018 for the historic designation of the his the Henderson House. Community Planning did an exceptional job preparing the application. But today I'm in front of you opposing the rezoning of five Cook Street. I regret that CPD has yet to develop small guidelines. The property's own p you date. It could have been part of the zone map overlay in 2010 or 2012. I forget when the adjacent block phase was being redeveloped as an apartment building, but both times they opted out. And now we have a 50 foot orphan lot asking for rezoning to see him exit with limited open space entry requirements. The proposal for the project is 30 units plus retail, with no onsite parking and no mechanism in place from either Doty or CPD to administer the adjacent buildings, use a common access and parking easements in their deeds. And this isn't a parking agreement. This is actually recorded. So. I know that the applicant is saying that in Cherry Creek East the there is a large availability of parking, especially at the seasons that Pudi has over 900 spaces, but those are required by the Pudi. So any type of parking agreement would have to be above and beyond the requirements for the PUDI. But the reason why there is so much availability in Cherry Creek is, is because apartment buildings charge $100 plus monthly for a space and folks are just parking on the street. A presentation to the Cherry Creek Steering Committee by Denver Police explained how the majority of car break ins come from these apartment buildings. COVID pandemic has made everything a little complicated. I know that there have been meetings and things like that. I do have 70 people who came to me to sign a petition in opposition to this rezoning, the neighborhood association, actually. Well, let me skip that real quickly and just go to say that that enclosing no small lot zoning guidelines, no onsite parking, no way to enforce this monumental change for parking requirements. I can only say no, and I hope that you take this seriously. I hope that there is an education component from that used to happen for neighborhood organizations so they understand how to work with the city so that we don't have things like that time. We have a lot of speaker. Our next speaker is joining us online as well, Jesse Paris. Any member of the council cannot be heard. Yes. Yes. My name is Jessica Sampras and I'm representing the Black Sox and will win for self defense, positive action committed for social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am against this rezoning tonight, even though it's supposed to be the consistency with adopted plans, the uniformity of district regulations for further public health, safety and welfare, justified circumstances, inconsistency with neighborhood contexts, zoned district purpose and intense. I had several questions. Um, I think during the presentation they said something about there had been a traffic study or it couldn't have a traffic study because it was still plan developments. I want to know if there was a traffic study done on this, if there was a parking study done. As the previous speaker has alluded to, there will be no on site. Parking. So this seems like a disaster just waiting to happen. These units are not going to be affordable. I mean, I guess it's affordable for Cherry Creek where the average income is 120% AMI level. But overall, this is not affordable. We have a housing crisis in the city and I guess Cherry Creek is not be exempt from that. By creating housing that is not affordable. Only 75% of units for them, we are 60% among and 10% of the units are only going to be affordable. Out of the only 75% of that, 10% are going to be 6%. 25% are going to be at 80%. This just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. 30 units plus retail. What exact retail is going to be here? What exactly units are going to be here? What is the square footage of the units that are going to be placed here? As the previous speaker said, she had a system fine with 7070 people signed a petition in opposition. There was mention of five letters of opposition from three neighbors. Like I said, this is a disaster waiting to happen. So I would urge Denver City Council to may not vote in favor of this rezoning. And seriously, developer, go back to the drawing board and rethink this because this doesn't make any sense. You have a property that's going to be eight stories with no onsite parking and there hasn't been a study done. There is one thing I'm glad about this neighborhood agreement. So the affordability will be in place for years to come. But outside of that, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1019. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Fran, could you describe the Cherry Creek East commercial overlay provisions that are referenced throughout the staff report and in the Good Neighbor Agreement? What are those provisions? So it's still not approved. It's still on the works. But there is some setbacks that are going to be in place. I don't have the details of it is because I know it's changed recently. So. We still don't know what's going to happen with the overlay, but the application has been in the conversations and he said that whatever comes from the overlay, he's going to he's going to comply. So he'll comply with whatever setbacks they require. And this is the overlay. It's being revised. So, Councilman Hines, I heard that you were like today. I heard that you're working on kind of like the revision of that. And it's. I don't know if you can speak a little bit too. Ahead, Councilman Hines, if you want to. Thank you, Madam President. Councilmember Flynn, the the Cherry Creek East Area neighbors is currently in the process of creating both a residential and commercial overlay in the jerker case neighborhood. That is not an approved plan, but it's something that they've been working on for, I think, two years now. So a considerable amount of time. So it's getting close to close to prime time. It's, you know, so we're still we're still in conversations. But but we should if the schedule moves forward as we're expecting it, we should see it in the next couple of months, you know, moving through the process. Okay. Can someone tell us what are some of the provisions that it is likely? To contain. So and again, I saw it at the beginning when he was like giving very you know, it's I know that it's changed a lot in the last months. So that's why I don't want to go in what I saw. There's a lot of details like in materials of the facades. What's going to be the setbacks required for commercial uses? There's there's a lot of details are going to look. I think that some of some of the issues that CBD is having is like figuring out what's more the best use like design guidelines and what's code. So because there was a lot of little details in like that, having certain materials in the facade or how high should the ground floor go up to where should be like the second story set but stuff like that. So. Okay. I'm a little concerned about having this before us before that as a before that's nailed down. But I understand that that's not always up to us. Does 55 cook? That's the eight story building that's just north of this property. As I looked at that, does that have a five foot setback from the street? The primary street. I'm not sure which one is 55 is the one on the Griffith. It's the, it's the eight storey building, the Griffith Griffith's apartments. I'm pretty sure they having the fifth because the code right now requires 24. I think it's 20 foot in the fifth floor, so I'm pretty sure they have it on the fifth floor. A as I said, back. From the from the street. I think so. Okay. So this would this would have a five foot setback. The property in question. We have a five foot setback from the primary and the side street. Yes. Okay. At least the ground floor. Yes. Okay. No, no, no, no, no, no. Sorry. Like in the ground floor, it's not going to have, like, cmcsa. It has zero setbacks. As what? Zero setbacks. See, I'm excited. Okay. Because when I looked at 55 Cook and the current building that's at five Cook, they are set back somewhat. And it looked to me like that could be at least a five foot setback. I'm just curious if it would if the new structure would match the Griffith's structure as far as the setback? Yeah, I think that that's also part of like the good neighbor agreement that they're going to match what's existing there. And I think that that's also guided in what's going to be on the overlay. Okay. Thank you. I do have I'm puzzled by when I looked at the site in question and the Griffiths Apartments that the eight storey building is literally this far from this, the building that occupies the site in question. So under this eight storey but limited to seven under the good neighbor agreement, if there is a seven storey building next to it, would the neighbors have balconies that where they could like a stranger, a cup of sugar on the seventh floor? Will they be that close together? Is there no set back from the lot line? So they have like five requirements that are going to I'm sorry, they have five requirements that make them have certain said there will be. Yes. Do we know what that would be? No, I'm not sure. But also, like in the Good Neighbor Agreement, part of the design that he's proposing is that the windows are not going to match. He's going to try to make it so that they have certain privacy, the apartment, so that the windows are not. Looking in. There. And when I looked at the Griffiths, I'm not quite sure how that would work because the entire side that would face this new building is marked by balconies and and windows and things like that. And again, like, that's the tricky part of like the rezoning process, you know, like it's we don't really look at the other project. It's like, that's unfortunate. I know, I know. I wish Councilwoman Ortega were here to back us up on that. Finally, there's no onsite parking for 30 to 36 units. So he has an agreement with the parking lot across the street. That's a parking structure. So he's going to have an agreement to provide the parking there because there's no way to make it feasible to have the parking like the biking requirements on site and the code allows to have an agreement. It's going to be in the deed. So it's it's it's recorded with the land. And he would provide I think he's required .75 parking spots per unit. So he'll provide that across the street. There's a building across the street. You mean to the east on Cook Street? South. South it's. Go south. Okay to see a parking. Structure like a. Five story structure. Okay. Do we know that the owner of that parking garages is willing to lease spaces for 30 to 36 units? I believe so. Okay. Is there someone here from the owner? The representative. Of the owner should. Be. Um. Is the owner all. Answer questions, I. Think. Okay. Because the way I read the good neighbor agreement before there could be a building permit obtained, there would have to be. Yes. Agreement for the part at the point 75. That's spaces per unit. Yes, that's correct. So he wouldn't get the permits to build like he wouldn't be he wouldn't get this ESDP approved unless he has that like that agreement already. So. So under this reasoning, the owner of this building could not redevelop it without getting a parking. Without leasing parking spaces from the folk across the people cross street. What? I wish I owned that parking garage. But then he wouldn't be able to develop it. That's correct. Correct. If I owned that parking garage knowing that the guy across the street couldn't develop it unless I leased him some spaces, I could set an interesting price for it, probably. All right. Thank you, Madam President. I think that's all I have. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn and Fran, the owner, we had two companies listed. Could you give us a name of the owner or we can ask them to raise their hand. Canon law or canon law. Law. Family. Okay. Councilmember Flynn, did you want to restate your question? Yes. A couple of questions. Number one, about the parking. And is there have there been talks about leasing some of those parking spaces? Apparently, that will be a prerequisite to getting a building permit. And then as to the design of the building, how what are the anticipated setbacks? Side setback from the Griffis units, which I'm looking at here on line of that is covered that that side facade is covered with balconies and windows of the neighboring building. So I'm curious just how close your north wall can be to the south wall of the Griffis Building? I completely agree. It's definitely a design challenge. We do want to have offset windows, like I mentioned earlier. We're also actually included in the Good Neighbor Agreement. We have a requirement that would consider different ways to make that a facade is, as I guess visibly pleasing, is possible for the neighbors of the Griffiths. So that could include a green wall or something along those lines. But yeah, we're very cognizant of that challenge. Right now we're kind of focused on the rezoning, but we do know that that's going to be a challenge and something that we'll have to compensate for. Right. So the first designs kind of basic math things that we put together have at least a five foot setback, but that could change and be be larger in order to kind of allow more breathing space between the two buildings. So that's where we are with the facade on the north side. As far as the setbacks, that's also included in the Good Neighbor Agreement as part of the traffic use overlay that we, you know, agreed in principle to abide by, that's actually said within the agreement that will have five foot setbacks. So it would be a similar setback to what you see at the Griffis. So just think of, you know, you see the existing building, the new envelope would follow a pretty similar envelope to what exists on the site right now. That kind of gives you a good visual. As far as the parking, you know, we haven't had in-depth conversations with the neighbors, but, you know, we're just aware of there being, you know, low occupancy rates in parking garages in Cherry Creek. So, you know, we're confident our ability to move forward there and find some long term parking agreements. But like Fran mentioned, we're not going to be able to get our permits if we don't get those agreements in place anyway. So there's no way that there's not going to be parking accounted for in this project. Why is it that there's no parking on your site? Because of the dimensions of the site, it's extremely challenging to actually fit the required amount of parking and it's also extremely cost prohibitive. At a certain point, it's only 50 feet by 125 feet. Those types of dimensions make it really hard to try to build a ramp in there. And if we want to have ground floor retail, which is something that was also included in the Good Neighbor agreement that the neighborhood really wanted, we would in it would have two ground floor parking only. And then we wouldn't actually have the, I guess the cafe or the retail tenant that the neighborhood also requested of us. So it was just kind of, you know, the best way to move forward and to maximize the use of the site and this location and this kind of corner facing lot you want to have retail is to have the parking off site. All right. Thank you for those answers. I appreciate it. That's all right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And for the record, if you could please introduce yourself. I know we've got you listed as Canon Law, but we appreciate you introducing yourself for the record. Right. My name is Canon Law. I'm the son of the owners of the property. So the current ownership is through my property LLC. The members are my parents who have operated and own this property since 2003. As an acupuncture clinic, we've been neighbors in the neighborhood for a long time and just intend on continuing to be neighbors in this neighborhood in perpetuity. And I hope that that's reflected in the amount of time that we spent in negotiating this good neighbor agreement and the number of times we actually postpone this hearing so we could have our voices heard here. Great. Thank you very much. Next up for questions, we've got Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President Minutes. Did you are. You aware of this? Miss Gable talked about 70 letters of opposition or of a petition. Are you are you aware of that? Well, we she was aware that she could have done a protest petition. And I sent Harold the documentation to do that. She told me multiple times that she had letters of opposition, but the only letters I received were from her. So, I mean, we have multiple ways through receiving everyone's comments and opposition and support, but I didn't receive any. Okay. So so that's I did notice a bit of a discrepancy between our packet and and and then the testimony from his that about the all the letters of opposition. So we, we don't have any way to verify that that all of those members, whoever they might be, are in opposition. No, but she has my email. She's emailed me multiple times. So like she could have sent them to me and of course there would have been part of the package if I receive them. So I everything that I included is everything that I received through the whole process. From the beginning, the public hearing was postponed multiple times. And you describe to her the process, should she want to submit letters and or collect letters or encourage neighbors to submit letters? Yeah. Or to request a protest petition as well. Okay. Um, can you can you briefly describe what a protest petition is for our viewers? I have never done one, so this would have been my first one. But I went through the process of asking like what it required. So I talked to our technician and he gave me a buffer of all the percentages of the buildings, how many signatures we required from each building. So I even got that map and then it requires I can't remember where the numbers because this was a few months back, but he was like us. I want to say. Here, let me how about I phrase it in the form of a question? So the idea of a protest petition as if many of the surrounding but some percentage of the surrounding neighbors disagree that they can come together and they can file a protest should they meet that certain threshold. So, you know, I'm not looking for specific numbers, but that's no, no, no, you're fine. And I don't understand why you're answering the way you are. But but just theoretically, there is a way to to lodge an official protest. And should that protest be lodged, then supermajority is required to pass the rezoning. Is that right? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Um. Yeah. I don't. I don't have any, um. I don't have any further questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council member Hines. Next up, we've got Council member Cashman. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I'm not sure if this is for planning or for referral, but. So we've been talking about that it's a requirement to have parking spaces to get the building permit. Okay. What I'm wondering is, so how long does that what type of contract do we have to see? Because if it's a five year contract on spaces and they build, they're building it, what enforcement do we have that in perpetuity? They need to present parking. Oh. You're welcome, mate. Good evening. Members of Council Nate Lucero, assistant city attorney. Here's your question. What do we do when when a new owner comes in and they don't have the parking agreement. Or they they build the building? Well, in. One way or another. Whoever occupies that premises is required to provide whatever parking it is that the city requires. So even the owner that is requesting the rezoning now is required to provide parking, whether that's on site or via a shared parking agreement. The fact of the matter is the zoning code requires them to meet the parking requirement, whatever, whatever that is. So it could become a challenge at some point in the future, but that's not really the city's problem to solve. It's it's the developer or the property owner. It is their problem to solve. And they have to prove to the city that they that they meet the parking requirements, whatever they are at the time. So their certificate of occupancy would. Be invalidated if they cease to provide that parking. And I don't intend to beat this horse too much more, but I'm just wondering what our enforcement tool is. Well. So I think they would have to submit a site development plan. Right, that complies with the city's rules and regulations. And if they can no longer comply with that site development plan, then they would be in violation. Then they would be in violation of that and that would be a zoning violation and it would go to at least the Board of Adjustment hearing, possibly through the court process. So that's where our enforcement is. All right. Well, it sounds like it's not something you've dealt with thus far in your time with the city, but that you're confident that there are enforcement mechanisms. Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And we've got Councilmember Sandoval. You're up next. Thank you, Madam President. My questions for neatly Syria as well. Who does the audit on the parking site parking program? I'm sorry, Councilwoman. Can you repeat that question? Guess who does the audit on the offsite parking program? So if they do offsite parking right now and that parking goes away, who audits that? Mike What agency does the audit? Well, I think it would be. It would come back to community planning and development whenever there is a change in the site plan. I think that might be a question for Fran, because I really don't know how they address that. And I mean, do you have an answer? I can look into that and get back to you for sure. Because this is an issue that keeps occurring in Council District one. And so I'm. Sure it's going to occur everywhere else and nobody seems to have an answer. There doesn't seem to be a program to do the audit for offsite parking that we allow in the zoning code. Nobody goes back and audits these type of parking permits. So Councilman Cashman has a very good point that what triggers an audit for the offsite parking program? Yeah, I can definitely look into it and get back to you with an answer, because if it's going to keep coming up, I think it's important that we clarify it. So thank. You. Thank you for the question. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Seeing members in the queue. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1019. Council Member Hines Thank you. Council President I, uh, I suppose I'm a little surprised to hear about the, the 70 letters in opposition. But since we can't find them, I don't know if they're for sure. I don't know how to reconcile that. The testimony by Mrs. Gable. And and so I just have to set it aside for right now because. Because there's no way for me to reconcile that. That having been said, the developer and the surrounding community as as as was already stated, had 11 meetings and they also took advantage of our we we offered a mediation session, which is something that the city offers at no cost to either party. And so they voluntarily entered into that mediation session. And after that, after all of those 11 meetings, they they came up with a signed Good Neighbor agreement, which was one of the requirements or one of the strong desires of the the R.A. that oversees this area, the Cherokee East Association . Ah, no. And and I don't know if you noticed, but the affordable, affordable housing component was 75% at 60% AMI. And that's something that we as a council and in our discussions for the Golden Triangle Text Amendment decided was very important that we re the standard of of affordable housing to 60% AMI whereas you know, most of the rest of the city it's 80% AMI. So I thought that was a great move on behalf of the developer to try to match some of the the value statements that we've made clear as a as a council that as I mentioned, it was a sign good neighbor agreement. And regarding parking, I I'm not sure that that. I'm not sure exactly where that might fit in the five criteria. But. But what I would say is that the last Cherry Creek steering committee meeting, we had a a robust discussion about parking in Cherry Creek. And several of the people who were there, including Nicole Masters, the head of the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District, and and others, have talked about how there's plenty of parking in Cherry Creek, both Cherry Creek, north and east. And so while there might not be as much street parking anymore, there's plenty of parking in some of the structures. And as we already discussed, there's there are requirements, although we might not have all the details about exactly what the enforcement provisions for those requirements are. We have the requirements nonetheless. So as I said, we've got a letter of support from the R.A. and the letter references, a survey that they performed to to to their members. And the survey did ultimately result in a favorable recommendation, which the Reno factored into their letter support. So with I recognize that not any rezoning is unanimous or perfect for every neighbor. But but the the neighborhood spoke and and said that they agree and want this rezoning to move forward. I believe it meets the five criteria. And I hope that my colleague I will vote yes and I hope my colleagues will also vote yes. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hines and I do agree that it does meet all of the rezoning criteria and happy to support it tonight as well and not seeing anyone else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 1019. Sandoval. I. Hynes All. Right. Cashman I. Can. I. Sawyer No. Torres I. Black I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. One May ten 810. Ies Council Bill 20 1-1019 has passed. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Bill 1021 on the floor for final passage? I move that.