A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3275 Denargo Street and 3315 Denargo Street in Five Points. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3275 & 3315 Denargo Street from I-B, UO-2 to C-MX-12, DO-7 (industrial to mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-4-20.
Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. First up, council member say advocate, will you please put Council Bill 105 on the floor? I move that council bill 20 dash 105 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0105 is open. May we have the staff reports? Good evening, Captain Brandon Shaver, senior city planner with Community Planning and Development, presenting an official Map Amendment application for 32, 75 and 3315. Donato St going from IBP Wo two to CMC's 12 DEO seven. The subject property is located in Council District nine in the Five Points neighborhood. Zooming in a little bit closer to the site is approximately 3.82 acres currently used for mini storage and warehousing. The proposal here is to rezone TMX 1207 to enable mixed use development. Current zoning on the subject property is, I believe of two which is general industrial with the billboard use overlay. The zoning can also be found west and south of the subject property to the east. Current zoning is a02, which is light industrial with the billboard use overlay and AMI 30 with waivers and conditions. Relevant waivers limit maximum height and allow for a zero foot setback. Pdg 12 is directly north of the subject property and was approved in early 2015. This beauty is based on the C-Max 12 zone district with altered building form standards that anticipate future public open space abutting the South Platte River and the realignment of the Argo Street. Current land uses on the site include commercial retail in the form of mini storage and industrial warehouses. Vacant land uses exist to the north and west, with more industrial uses to the south and multi-unit residential to the east. These photos give you a sense of the building form and scale and the immediate area with the subject properties shown on the top left. This comparison table shows the design standard differences between the existing versus proposed zone districts. The proposed zone district. Again, this IMX 1207 introduces the shopfront and townhouse building forms which allow for a maximum height of 150 feet and includes more stringent build to transparency and ground floor activation requirements. With the river north design overlay. Greater detail of these standards can be found in the staff report. Concurrent with the rezoning, the applicant is also executing a voluntary, affordable housing agreement that will that has been signed and recorded prior to the city council public hearing. This agreement would apply to the entirety of the site, and general terms include a commitment to construct at least 10% of total units affordable to residents earning 80% or less of area median income. A minimum of 25% of these units would have at least two bedrooms. The income restricted units would remain affordable at this level for a minimum period of 99 years. Speaking to the process. Informational notice of the application was sent in mid-September. The applicant then made revisions and resubmitted in early December. Planning Board voted unanimously to move this application forward, and today two letters of support have been received from the nearby registered neighborhood organizations. Now moving to the criteria there for plans that impact the subject property beginning with current plan 2040. This proposed rezoning is consistent with many strategies in the plan which are organized by vision element. This rezoning is consistent, consistent with equitable, affordable and inclusive goals and strategies, as it would create a greater mix of housing options at different price points. Similarly, the proposed rezoning would allow for a broader variety of uses, including housing, retail services and employment. While the D7 overlay would require enhanced building form standards at an intensity consistent with the desire for an urban, walkable and mixed use community, which fits into many of the strategies and goals in the strong and authentic neighborhoods. Vision Element. Therefore, staff finds this request to be consistent with Plan 2040. If you could hold on just a second, Zach. It looks like you're making a move to help us fix the view here. Is that possible? There we go. Thank you very much. Go ahead. But moving to Blueprint Denver, this property is located in the urban center neighborhood context. This context has a high mix of users with good street activity, activation and connectivity and buildings are usually multistory with a high degree of lot coverage. This is in a high residential area and these areas we find commercial uses to be prevalent. Buildings are generally the highest, the tallest of residential places in this context. And the future street types in this area also denote the appropriate, appropriate appropriateness of the CM sub zoning, as Argo Street is a mixed use collector and Park Avenue in Berkeley, Brighton Boulevard or nearby and serve as mixed use arterials. This fits into the growth area strategy and blueprint Denver as part of the high and high medium residential areas and D and been downtown in urban center context where we expect to find 15% of new housing and 5% of new employment growth by 2040. And the River North Plan in 2003. The subject site is recommended as residential mixed use or commercial mixed use zoning or a combination of both. The vision is to create a compact, mixed use and pedestrian friendly environment. And furthermore, the goal in the plan is to ensure the urban design reinforces the pedestrian oriented and transit supportive character of the area. Therefore, the requested zoning is consistent with the River North Plan moving to housing inclusive Denver while not officially adopted by council, this does provide guidance and strategies to create and preserve strong and opportunity rich neighborhoods with diverse housing options. Kroger's and this plan include creating affordable housing in vulnerable areas and opportunities in areas of opportunity. A recommendation of particular importance is to promote development of new, affordable, mixed income and mixed use rental housing. And the executed housing agreement fits with this plan. Moving to the next two criteria, the proposed rezoning is consistent as it would implement the adopted plans and facilitate increased housing density near services and amenities while fostering the creation of a walkable, mixed use and urban neighborhood within close walking distance to downtown. This application as to justifying circumstances, change or changing conditions and the river north area, generally speaking, and the application of supplemental zoning regulations with the design overlay. Seven Lastly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the neighborhood context, which is urban center and the zone district purpose and intent statements. With that, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria have been met. Thank you very much. Tonight, Council has not received any written comments on Council Bill 105. And if I could ask you, we're going to have we do have one public speaker. So maybe if you can give a little bit of space there, even in the second row. There you go. Thanks. So our one speaker this evening is Jesse Pearce. Good evening to members of council, those at home and those that are president. My name is just Allyson Paris and I ran for city council at-large last year, got almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running again to be your next mayor in 2023. And the slogan still stands just for the poor people have a profit and I am represent for Denver homeless out loud, black socks, the Movement for Self-defense, Positive Action, Commitment for Social Change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado at Mile High knows where to begin with this. It meets all your criteria, so there's nothing I can say that's going to change this vote. It's obvious in appearance you have dotted all your I's and cross all your teeth. My question is, where do you get off thinking 25%? Am I level or 80% and my level is affordable in reference to the 2020 2040 plan. Comprehensive plan is not affordable. Affordable for who? This whole area has been rapidly gentrified. It has become a yuppie oasis. It is sickening to my stomach to know that I have moved all kinds of people that do not look like resemble me in any shape, form or fashion into this area. It is not affordable and you are a steady person, are unhoused house neighbors out of this area. So of course I'm going to vote no on this and I ask that the council have some sense of a conscience vote no as well. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers on this item. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to ask the staff person from CPD to come back up, please. Can you tell me if the applicant was given the information and report on the railroad work that CPD committed was going to be part of the zoning process? It's supposed to be part of the design review and development review. When we have projects that are going in adjacent to rail. Yes, the applicant is aware of those processes. They were usually informed at the Pre-Application process and I think it is a developer that is familiar with the area and familiar with those processes as well. So the zero setback applies even abutting the railroad. Is that correct? Is that a year setback? I believe the. First spoke to the setbacks being zero setback. And I'm just asking, is that for the entire property? Does that also apply to the adjacency to the railroad for property? All I have on the table is the primary straight setback as 0 to 10 feet. I'm not looking at the maps and I've scrolled through all of them. It looks like the prob the project can build right right adjacent to the tracks. Is that your understanding? That is my understanding. I can double check on those numbers back to you. So this is very concerning to me because as we have tried to pull data from CPD on, I mean, I could say this from my comments, but we're just not seeing that any of this is being adhered to by the developers. I'm not sure our city agencies are taking this as serious. I've had conversations with where. We do have a few more questions. Do you want to add if you have anything else? You know, I get to question and then we'll get to you in comments. That's fine. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Brandon, if you know, maybe, maybe you don't have the whole development agreement down, but the affordable housing portion of it, 10%, a minimum of 10%. All of them had 80% or less. Question first, is there an actual project proposed here? Do we know how many units are being proposed? So 10% of what is it, 10% of maybe ten units or a thousand units? Do we know? I'm not aware of the project specific numbers. The applicant as president might have that information. Oh, great. Okay. Could this present class the applicant to come up? Please do. Thank you. Applicant, please come up. Thank you. Can you introduce yourself? And yes, I'm Chase Hill with Cypress Real Estate Advisors, the developer and applicant for this for this reason. Okay. We anticipate actually having two buildings on this 3.8 acre site. 650 units in the aggregate. So 65 affordable units. Okay. Thank you. Very good. Brandon, one last question, and that is and I think I know the answer to this, but I just want to make have it out so that I know it. So I understand it correctly. But the area median income is uniform across the across the area. And is it Denver Boulder or is it just Denver, Aurora? Am I? I believe it's just Denver. Just Denver County. That's my understanding. Yes. Okay. And it's it's applied uniformly, no matter whether it's the most expensive neighborhood in the city or the. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Cashman? Yeah. Councilman Flynn asked most of my questions. Around the. Affordable housing. I would just. I'll save it for comments. Thank you. Member We will get back to you during the comment section. Councilmember Hines Thank you, Mr. President. I also am interested in affordable housing with the 10%. Was that just volunteered by the borough applicant or was there something that was given to to obtain the 10%? That is a voluntary housing agreement that was worked out with the Department of Housing instability. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Customer and customer, we are taking you sitting here for another question or just for comment. Common question. Go ahead. So, Brandon, do you know if the commitment is for both rental and for sale housing? I believe this is a rental. So if they do for sale, we're not holding their feet to the fire. I'm for sale. Just on rental. So let me ask the applicant if he would mind coming forward. If you could tell us if you're just doing rental or if you're planning to do any for sale housing. Yeah. Again, Chase Hill with Cypress Real Estate Advisors, it's all it's kind of to be 100% for rent. Okay. That's what we've done across the street. We've never developed condos. It's a good question. I believe the agreement that we've negotiated and signed authority housing stipulates that it's, I believe is actually residential of any free. So whether it be for sale or for rent, the 10% would apply. Are you looking to access like tech funding or any other city housing resources to help offset the cost of the affordable? We are not we're proposing that that is our cost. Okay. Can I ask you a question about the adjacency to rail while you're up there? Is this something that you all looked at? Did you review the report that was handed out about railroad safety, adjacent development adjacent to railroad addressing safety issues? Yeah, we have we've actually looked at extensively with Union Pacific, who had some building restrictions related to residential in particular. And we've negotiated to have those restrictions removed on account that the most proximate line that's at grade behind us is actually a spur that is extremely rarely used as a turnaround point. There's an elevated line farther back up above, but the lines that are at grade adjacent, the site aren't really used. And furthermore, we have to have a perimeter fire access road on the back end side anyway. So our building will be stepped back 40 feet from the existing real spur. Okay, that's good to know. I appreciate you sharing that. Thank you. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. I don't see any other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 105 is closed. Comments by members of Council member state advocate. This one's in your district. Did you want to go first? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I strongly encourage my colleagues to not support this rezoning tonight. I do not believe that it meets the criteria, because I do not believe it is consistent with our our plan goals, especially around equity and housing and health and safety and connectivity. I think that there are some major issues to overcome and to address, including with some of the real issues that Councilwoman Ortega brought up this evening. But I also think that this process for public engagement was cut short by COVID. I have two letters of support in here, neither from residents, both are from business associations and the art district. And so and I also have been talking to the neighborhood and residents in the neighborhood who have been participating in the development of an equity plan, that they reached out to this developer and requested to meet with this developer, shared equity plan goals with the developer. And so to see a 10% commitment to housing in the context of one of our most vulnerable neighborhoods, and looking at that Reno plan that has less than a fourth of it designated for housing, and this project itself is about a 16th of that fourth, and it's still only 10% . That doesn't feel like it's consistent with what we're trying to do in this area. This is also a couple it's just steps away from our crossroads shelter. And we've been concerned about how development that area is going to honor, support, connect that project, which is a city owned project now. And so we haven't heard any responses. I don't believe there is a development agreement, am I correct? Is there can you nod your head? Is there a development agreement there? There's no there is not a development agreement and so on. On principle, I do not think this is consistent with the plan and does not meet all of the indicators required to support this tonight. So I will not be supporting and I hope that my colleagues can respect that this is in my district and nobody knows our constituents more than we do. And follow suit. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. So another development, 650 units. So 595 market rate units in 65, slightly below market rate. I don't have a problem with a developer trying to make a profit. That's what a developer's goal is in the course of doing business. But I have a problem that we keep taking this 10% number like it's it comes from the sky, from God. And I know other jurisdictions are being more demanding in their requirements to meet their housing goals. And I think we need to do that. Yeah, ten, 10% is not going to get us where we need to go. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I am troubled by the comments that Councilmember CdeBaca had mentioned. In some ways, our process doesn't really afford us. I can't ask questions anymore because questions are over. I would say I would agree with Councilmember excuse me, Councilmember Cashman. We have turned down or not turned down. Sorry. We've pushed back on projects with 10% affordable housing in District ten. And. And while I hate it, what am I trying to say? Celebrate that this is a voluntary commitment. I know that that we have a lot of need for affordable housing in the city. And and as we continue to take up real estate that is of in historically underserved neighborhoods, that that makes it even more difficult to. We only have so much land. We're landlocked. So I just want to put those thoughts on the on the record. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Mr. President. The question for the developer around the equity conversation, if you. Can come to the make. On check with legal. We did closed the hearing for questions and we were in the comment section. So I just want to double check before we start bringing people back up for questions. What? Remind me, we haven't had one of these for a little while. Are we clear? There are, because the hearings aren't even closed and we're just in the comments. Is it too late for that? Jonathan Griffin, Deputy Legislative Counsel I believe that's fine. Okay. Thank you. And so, Councilman Hines, since you also referenced that, I wanted to make sure that we had clearance on that. Go ahead. Thank you. What's your can you respond to that issue around some of the neighborhood interests in an equity plan and what your recollection on that was? Yeah. So we reached out to all the people nose spent the most time. Some of them were unresponsive. Those who did respond we met with on multiple occasions for the most amount of time with the River North Art District here in their thoughts and concerns, several people within that organization at their office. We felt like on this location the fact that it's currently a dilapidated, self-storage facility and we weren't displacing any existing residents. It's not adjacent to single family. It's not casting shadows on any people's backyards or having an impact on any residents in the immediate area. In fact, our only neighbors on all sides or other apartment complexes of the similar size and scale as far as what we're proposing. So that's why we feel in talking with River North, our district and other organizations that issue letters of support that they wanted to steer growth and density here. So we did not meet a lot of opposition. Candidly. Respectfully, of course, Candy did mention some concerns and voiced opposition, but it seemed that the organizations and individuals we reached out to, if they were going to have to steer the development and growth of Rhino, it was better here than the other side of the tracks is what we kept hearing. So I'm not sure if I answered your question, but that's that's the conversations we had with the various stakeholders. So Councilman CdeBaca referenced neighbors bringing an equity plan to you. You don't recall. That. Can you can you. That that is the communication that I've had with the Globeville Swansea residents. They've reached out and CPD is well aware because they're a partner with us in the equity development plan. And so that has been something that's come up. We've mentioned that and that they have stated goals in there and I recognize you don't have a development agreement yet, but this the 10% is a slap in the face to the goals that they've outlined. And this project, the size of it impacts the whole ecosystem, even if it's on the other side of the tracks, if that makes sense. We addressed whatever was asked of us with the organizations we met with in order to get their letter of support they wouldn't have issued. I would have ignored their requests. 10% at 80% might not be perceived as enough to some, but to the organizations we discussed, they saw it as a voluntary gesture. And if the city was to mandate more than we would, we would have to do more. We just thought, given that our competition across the street on all sides has none, that was probably the most we could bear to have this project come to fruition, which is still challenging in this environment. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So we're back in comments. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I will attempt to stay there at this time. Yeah, I am a little concerned about just kind of where we're going with the whole railroad safety issue. We're actually working on an ordinance and we'll be meeting with not only CPD, but with development folks around the city. We keep building and building right next to rail, not always addressing the access issues so that if there is an incident with the various types of material, mostly flammable liquid that are on the tracks, the railroads need to be able to have access to the tracks, and so do our emergency responders, because they're also expected to show up and contain a situation. These are also adjacent to storage yards. Not only is it close to where some of the trains turn around, but it's very close to where a lot of the trains are staged, meaning they sit in the you know, in these areas. And I don't know if this particular development is anything like some of the others in the area that have roll up windows like garage doors where they can sit and overlook the train tracks. That's an accident waiting to happen. And I am not sure, you know, if this developer, even with a 40 foot setback, is looking at any additional kind of buffering. But. Those are some of the details that we want to make sure are being addressed by our agencies as well as by the developers of these projects. And when we tried to pool data to find out what kind of input we had from the agencies and what actual improvements or how they were addressed by the developers, there was no data. We could not find any information. And so what that says to me, and in the conversations with CPD, basically they said they didn't have anything that holds the agencies feet to the fire to make sure that these issues are being addressed. So what that means is when you let it be done voluntarily, it doesn't happen. So I think we need we're at the stage where it's been two and a half years since we did this study and have had very clear recommendations for trying to see that these issues are being addressed. And I you know, in pulling the data, there's there's nothing to be seen. And so I think we're at a stage where we have to do an ordinance which we're working towards. I don't think 40 feet is is adequate in protecting life, but I'd have to see the development plan and the fact that there is no development agreement. I don't know how we as a city hold feet to the fire on ensuring that the 80%, the 10% at 80%, which you know anymore, that's not addressing the affordability needs in our city. And I don't know why our city keeps negotiating so high instead of trying to get more affordable, truly attainable units for so many people that are struggling because we have enough at that range, at that higher end range already throughout our city. So I am struggling with being able to support this one tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Sandoval. Yes, thank you. Council President. So in the plan, in our packets, it talks about one of the adopted plans being an affordable Denver. And I think that we could all read that plan and pick and choose pieces that would go with any rezoning. And so today I got a very thoughtful text message and it said there can be no equity of opportunity in the United States so long as poor children are segregated in neighborhoods. And there is only one viable solution building affordable housing in affluent neighborhoods. And Reno has turned into a very affluent neighborhood since I was born. So with that, I think that we can pick and choose any adopted plan and we can make pros and cons. And I would say that if I looked at building an affordable Denver that are 10%, although it is somewhat generous during this time of COVID , I think all bets are off. I think everything needs to be reevaluated. I think our entire infrastructure needs to be reevaluated. I think housing projects that were once moving forward before Monday, March 16th, need to be evaluated because we will be getting out of COVID on the backs of my grandchildren. And so with that, I cannot support this rezoning and do so for public record. I do know someone who represents this neighborhood and the applicant did meet with them and they did give them their equity plan. And this is someone who I trust and I have worked with since 2012, and they recommended 30 units at MMI and the applicant disregarded them. And this person has worked and represented this community and fought for global variance frontier for as long as I can remember. So with that, I will not be supporting this application. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Black. Thank you, Mr. President. And I absolutely agree with everyone's comments about our great need for more housing and more attention paid to our equity plans of our neighborhoods. Unfortunately, we don't have the tools to require this now. We all know there was an. Offered at the state legislature to pass a bill that would allow municipalities to require developers to put in a certain number of affordable units. But we don't have that law right now. It it didn't make its way through the state legislature before they temporarily adjourned. And so we actually don't have the tools to do that. I look forward to it coming back next year and hopefully it will pass. Our job is to look at the criteria, and I believe that. Brandon did a good job. Showing that this project does meet the criteria. So I will be. Supporting. It, although I do agree with everything that everyone else has said. And I do hope that our society as a whole will be moving toward a more kinder, gentler and generous society. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. So you had mentioned to Councilmember Ortega that you wanted to stay out of question, so. I know you had brought it up. If there's something that you need to ask, then get get it going. Get it going. All right. May I ask the applicant to come forward? I just want to. I have one question about. You had mentioned the I think it was about the Reno Arts District. I think the comment was it is better to have it here than on the other side of the tracks. What's on the other side of the tracks? Yeah, let me address it. That I thought you might mean the tracks right behind the site. Well, we heard time and again from a number of constituents in the district was that if we're going to concentrate development, it's better here where you're surrounded by raw land and other apartments than went out to the other side of tracks. I mean, Blake Wilton, Larimer, the other side of Reno, where there's been rapid gentrification, as there has on our side as well. But on that other side is where you have a little more history. There's historic buildings that maybe they're not deemed historic, but it could be argued they should be in here with a self-storage facility. We just kept hearing time and again that, well, where where is it in Reno? And we'd have to explain where exactly it was. Honestly, some of the constituents were not fully aware this is within Reno. And so that's what they meant when they said it's better that you concentrate on development and growth in this high residential area as part of the 2040 plan than others. Okay. Thank you. I'm glad I misunderstood my I when I was growing up. I grew up poor and I literally grew up on the other side of the railroad tracks. And so I was like, he couldn't be saying what I did. So I misunderstood and I'm glad. So. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Mr.. Mr. President, just one last comment. I agree 100% that we need to pay attention to the criteria, and I might debate with you one, two, four and five. But three speaks to furthering public health, safety and welfare. And that that's where I think applications like this continue to fail us. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Is there anybody that I missed? Sorry. I keep forgetting to look up and realize some of you can't press the button to let me know. Adjusting to the new normal. Okay. Thank you very much. Am I seeing nobody else in the queue? I wanna say thank you to staff for being here, being our first hearing back and coping with our getting caught back up with how this all works. So thank you for that. Thank you for your hard work. I think, you know, lots of tough discussions. And I you know, I think everyone makes good points on both sides of this. And I think that we do need to take a bigger picture, look at what our requirements are, not just from what the state can do, but also what our requirements when it comes to linkage fees are so that we create a space where people understand what is it that we want to happen better? Because it's a little I think it's a little unpredictable for what do we want on any given Monday when these come for me, I think that staff did a good job showing that this meets the legal criteria. And I think that while I would love to have 650 units that were all 30%, am I or below 650 units and still 650 units? And if those aren't built with 10% of them being some of affordability, then that is more people competing for fewer units in Denver, which doesn't help the price of any housing go down . So I think that this has met the legal criteria and for that reason, I will be supporting it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call. CdeBaca No. Black. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Herndon. Hines. No. Cashman? No. Kenny Ortega no. Sandoval, No. Sawyer de Torres know. Council President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because voting in those results. Seven days, six and seven days. Six eyes counts below 105 has failed councilmembers CdeBaca Tobacco, will you please put Carlsberg one of six on the floor?