A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3880 Holly Street in Northeast Park Hill. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3880 Holly Street from I-MX-3 to I-A (industrial, mixed-use to industrial, light-use) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-8-18.
Now speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments the council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Flynn, would you please put. Thank you. Will you please put Council Bill 365 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 18, dash 365 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Well, okay. It has been moved and seconded probably here. Four, three, six, five is open. May we have the staff report? Scott runs. Thank you, Mr. President. And Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 3880 Holly Street from I Annex three to I. A property is located in Council District eight in the Northeast Park Hill neighborhood. It is at the southeast corner of 39th Avenue and Holly Street. The property is about two and a half acres, so there's a 40,000 square foot building used for marijuana cultivation and extraction. The request is to rezone from I am x three, which is industrial context to mixed use zoning with a three storey maximum height to I.A. , which is still industrial context in the area is the light industrial zoning. The request is to bring the existing uses into conformance. The existing marijuana cultivation use is considered plant husbandry, which is not allowed under the existing. I am extreme that that use is considered non-conforming and the proposed rezoning would bring that into conformance. The property is surrounded on three sides by the same ix3 zoning and to the north by the EIA. The requested zoning to the south across 38th Avenue is a mix of single unit and two unit residential zoning. You can see the surrounding uses mostly industrial in the area. Across Holly Street is the District two police station and then again, south of 38th is a mix of residential uses. You can see the subject property there in the center and then some of the surrounding buildings around it. This went to the planning board on April 4th, where planning board voted five three to recommend approval. There was no public comment at that meeting, went to the Liddy Committee on May 8th. I did notice in the packet you have a letter of support from the Northeast Parochial Coalition and letters of support from seven surrounding property owners . In order to approve a rezoning, council must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property. First plan is comprehensive plan 2000. As described in the staff report, staff has found the proposed rezoning consistent with these three strategies from campaign 2000 relating to infill development and relating to economic activity in the northeast quadrant of the city. Maintaining and strengthening that as a business area, which the proposed rezoning would be consistent with. Movement. Denver is the second plan from 22. The concept land used for this property is industrial, which calls for light and heavy industrial and manufacturing consistent with the proposed zoning. It's also an area of stability which calls for maintaining the character. But rezonings may be appropriate to better match existing uses such as this proposal. Holly Street is an industrial collector and 39th Avenue is a non-designated local, both consistent with the proposed zoning. The third plan is the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan from 2000. The Park Sale Plan calls for keeping a separation between the industrial uses north of 38 and the residential uses south of it. But basically maintaining each of them where they are consistent with the proposed zoning clause for retaining existing businesses that do not propose a nuisance to the residential area and creating a buffer between the industrial area and the residential area. The proposed AIA Zone District is intended to act as a buffer. The definition of area says it is compatible with adjacent residential and this rezoning would not put a directly adjacent to residential. There would still be some Annex three between the residential south of 38th and this property. And it would help act as a a transition from the residential to the Annex three to eye to eye, be the heavy industrial further north north of the railroad tracks. So staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the adopted plans and the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the zoned district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating the continued existence of a building or a business in an existing building. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds the proposed rezoning is justified by change conditions. When this property was rezone to I Annex three in 2010 as part of the citywide rezoning and adoption of the new zoning code. Recreational marijuana was not allowed in the state. That was approved later. And as the city's regulatory regime for recreational and retail marijuana has evolved, it ended up this property being non-conforming. As the council amended the the municipal code to limit the number and location of places for marijuana cultivation. It has increased the demand for places like this that are approved and that has increased the need for the zoning in this location because this is an approved location that's likely to stay that way and the zoning is therefore appropriate and justified by the change conditions. The fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context. So in district purpose and intent, as I mentioned, the is intended to serve as a buffer, a transition from residential to higher intensity industrial uses, which this location would do and the proposed use would. The proposed zoning would allow uses in development consistent with the industrial context and the purpose of the intent of the design district. That staff finds all five criteria and recommends approval. I'll idea. Answering questions. All right. Thank you. We have three speakers this evening who each have 6 minutes. Please come to the front as I call you up. Daniel Markovsky. There you go. Oh, yeah. Daniel. Kevin Daley and Chairman Sekou. Mr. Markovsky, you are first. Thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is Daniel Markovsky. I am the attorney for the applicant. I have just a brief statement of the reason for this application and the outreach efforts. I'm joined here by the applicant's managing member, Kevin Daly, who's going to speak next. And Jeff White is seated over there, and Jennifer Kelly, the compliance officer and director of operations. And we are all available for any questions council members may have. So the reason we're here is that in January 2010, you have to get at least an empty warehouse. The property at the southeast corner of 39th and Holly across from Denver police district headquarters to the property was zoned zero and plant husbandry was a used by. Right. The applicant obtained a plant husbandry use permit in February of 2010. Then in June of 2010, with the citywide rezoning, the property's zoning was changed to IMX three, which doesn't allow plant husbandry. The use continued as legal non-conforming and the non-conforming status has been maintained with great expense and effort. The non-conforming status creates an increased administrative burden on the applicant and on the city. The non-conforming status gets flagged every time the applicant goes to the city for any sort of interaction, whether it's building permits, inspections or licensing. In March 2016, the Doug Moreland Family Group purchased the property and requested that the applicant pursue this rezoning. So the goal of this reason is to remove administrative burdens and create certainty. We've conducted a substantial amount of outreach in the summer of 2017. The applicant commenced informal outreach to eight neighbors and six registered neighborhood organizations. I made a formal presentation to the Northeast Park Health Coalition and their letter of support. A letter of support is in the staff report. We attended a Greater Park Hill community meeting. They requested that we post a notice to their official Facebook page, which we did. The post received two likes and no other comments. We reached out to I.N.S., the Opportunity Corridor Coalition of United Residents and the Denver Arts and Culture Initiative. And we did not get a response to emails and voicemails that we sent. The final R.A. is the Denver Neighborhood Association, and that one is no longer active. So we also researched the nine neighbors within 200 feet, one of them being Denver Police District two. We contacted the other eight by phone, email and even walk up visit. We've received five letters of support, two letters of no opposition, and one of the neighbors never responded. And those letters are in the application packet. In support we have Marshall Rodino, Associated Metro Taxi, Denver Rescue, Mission Live, Green, Cannabis and PECO Images not opposed as a company called Architectural Doors and Solsbury Hill Land Company. And we'd never heard back from the Church of Pentecost Denver District. So we respectfully request the Denver City Council approve this application. And I will be available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Kevin Taylor. Good evening. My name is Kevin Daley. I live here in Denver at 2414 Glenarm place. I am the founder and one of the managing partners of Mindful here in Denver. When we went before the Board of Adjustment, one of the board members asked a question to the city which said it all to me. He asked, Were these guys done correctly when we rezoning them in 2010? And the person from the zoning department answered Yes. The goal of this rezoning is to remove administrative burdens and create certainty. The operations at the property are going to continue unchanged. We have invested approximately $8 million into this facility thus far. We were in front of the Board of Adjustment because the building department thought our use permit would only let us use a small part of the space. We have a 43,000 square foot building, though that variance was granted. Going to the Board of Adjustment is a great burden on our ability to do business, attract investment and make long term plans. Nonconforming use is a great burden on us. Through careful compliance efforts, hard work by our architect, engineers, lawyers and compliance staff, we manage our nonconforming status. It is always an issue. It was an issue when Doug Moreland purchased the property and we had to agree to apply for rezoning. We respectfully request that the Denver City Council approve this application. I am happy to answer any questions anyone may have. All right. Thank you, Mr. Daly. German psycho. My name is Chairman Sekou Blackstock. Movement for self-defense. Defending the human rights of poor, working, poor, homeless senior citizens and youth. We stand opposed. To this ordinance change. And. Yes. All of the. Things that are listed that makes it qualify for it. Is there, except for one thing. You're in the black community. 3530 Holly Street is where I grew up, went to Smith High School. You're talking about a residential area that stops at 38th Avenue. 40,000 square foot facility to grow, manufacture and market marijuana. Are you kidding me? And these are the same folks in the industry who sit by silently and have our sons and daughters locked up in jail without any moral authority to even speak upon it. As they gather up millions and millions of dollars of the blood, sweat and tears of our people. And then you have the audacity to come up in here. And then prior to this, we just give away proclamations about the suffering of humanity. And yet nothing is said about what's happening right here in the city county of Denver, where they're proposing to do this to get rich on the misery of our people. If Candy sounds violently in this room, you pass this. Did everybody need to go through? And stop standing up for that flag because you disrespect the integrity of why it was written. But we're talking about justice for all. And you're talking about justice for the few and the rich for real. And now you have a monopoly cartel where it takes millions of dollars just to get in the game. One of those unintended consequences. Huh? Yeah. So are we going to take a serious for real? How are we going to trust you for real? Tomorrow is the neighborhood day. We're talking about making it funky for real. And the smell of marijuana in those schools in that area. Why do we have to live under that? Why don't you take it to Cherry Creek? Funk up your neighborhood. Have massive traffic jams. And then sit here and smirk as if it means nothing. Nothing. Well, the real test this evening. Because the world is looking just like you're looking at Texas. Let's see what Colorado does and Colorado for its residents. And if you can't do it here at home, how are you going to do it somewhere else with any integrity? Are you serious? So. What are we doing? What we do it this to make the balance of justice. To make those who have privileged opportunity to make millions and million dollars of the suffering of those. Who are in jail now still. Four years. Since 2014. No voice, no reason to look the other way, because the real truth is this industry is putting money in your pockets to finance your reelection. Now tell me a lie. Tell me I'm lying. Jolene taking no money from the marijuana industry to get reelected. And then you vote for this speaks of corruption. So I'll close with this king. One, said the. Truth. Like a mighty river. Will sleep all and justice into the dustbin of history. And those who are in it for the rug gets caught up. In the movement of the river, but there is no return of your humanity. If you vote for the inhumanity and the exploitation of the people that you represent. That's all I got. All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Mr. Robinson, can you come up here just for a second? Let me. Do we get a letter of support from the Northeast Park Hill Coalition? I believe you said that. Yes, it should be in the packet here. Let me see if I can. I ended. Yeah. Here it is, dated March 5th, 2018. And who signed that? Michelle Wheeler, President. Thank you. Okay, Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Scott, if you could stay there for a second, can you tell us what the height difference is for the I.A. zoning? So for the i3, it's obviously three stories. Is there a limit in the idea? There is not. The air is governed by a floor area ratio instead of a height. Okay. So I want to ask the representative, maybe, Mr. Daly, if you can come forward. So there's an operating business in the facility. Is that correct? Since 2010. Okay. And. The nonconforming use is something that. Requires an annual application for their permit or. Help me understand why that's been an issue. Sure. So any time we go to change anything, for example, adding a new grow room or using our trim area differently, whatever under the normal permitting that we're going for, we'd be permitted. To do the same footprint of the existing building. That is. Great, because you just. Can't expand beyond the building. It's yes. It's not. It's not even just that as we can't change and maneuver within the existing building that we have. Are. Does the company have plans to expand the building? We do not. Okay. So it's really just to not have to go through that brain damage each time you want to do something. Right. It's it's extremely costly and time consuming. Okay. I think that's the only other question I have. This is very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Castro. Thank you, Mr. President. From CPD, that five three planning board vote. What was that about? Yes. Yes. Three of the from what they said at the meeting, three of the planning board members had concerns that the request did not meet the fifth criterion consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. They felt that the. The buffer or the transition between the residential south of 38th and the industrial area was better served by the larger I am x3. That was more appropriate for that context and and the district purpose and intent. If we were to vote no on this, the operation wouldn't cease. It would just continue to be hampered. A bit by regulation. Is that correct? Yes. They can continue indefinitely as a non-conforming use with the restrictions and burdens that have already been mentioned, but they would not have to leave or close the business. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman are currently. Thank you, Mr. President. Just heard. I'm sorry. I forgot your name. You said that the facility opened in 2010. Yes, sir. And there was nothing. Are you the owner of the building? We are not. Mr. Moreland. Douglas. Okay. You're the owner of the business. That is correct. I am. The business opened in 2010. That is correct. And do you represent Mr. Moreland? We're here with authority from the Moreland family. When when did when did Mr. Moreland buy the property? In March of 2016. Or just recently. Okay. Okay. So you saw the business opened under the prior owner. Okay. Now, in 2010 is when the zoning code was changed, so this immediately became a non-conforming use. Scott, could you explain the timing? Yes. So this mindset is the business went in in early 2010. Okay, the new zoning code was adopted summer of 2010. So it was June, a matter of months after months opened and when the zoning changed. Okay. So it became non-conforming almost immediately after it opened. Do you know and I don't blame you if you don't stop it. Do you know how many nonconforming uses exist right now in the city? I do not. Who would it be? Like dozens. Or could it be hundreds? Marijuana specific? No. All non-conforming users. Hundreds? Yes, hundreds. So would the fact that a nonconforming would we consider it as a justifying circumstance in all cases of any non-conforming use to change that to a zoned district that would permit. That non-performing used to be an allowable use? Or do you see circumstances where that would not be the case? Yes, I could imagine circumstances where that would not be the case. If it's a sane industrial use embedded in a residential area, right, there would be a non-conforming use. You wouldn't want to resort to an industrial. The changes in the area would notate against zoning to industrial. If the cultivation facility were to. Well, let me let me back up. The extraction the right to do extraction there was obtained subsequent to the 2010 zoning code. When did that. Occur? 2014, I believe. Okay. And what kind of process that required a zip c? Yes. A special zoning permit with special exception review. Right. Okay. If that facility were to close with this new zoning, aia in right in the middle of an image three zone. What types of uses would be permitted there that might not be permitted otherwise under its current zone? I don't have the full list of uses. If you have a couple examples, I would help you out. Yeah. Besides the obvious plant husbandry. I believe it allows more manufacturing uses than the iron actually does. It does not allow the residential that the Annex three does. So, yeah, there's a difference in. Okay. Immediately across 39th. Avenue to the north. Is the idea. Correct. If this building were magically overnight. To move a block. North, this wouldn't even be an issue. Correct. Okay. That's that's all the questions. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. That's a question for the business operator. And I was really going to comment on it. But since you're here, I might as well ask one of the one of the. Opponents. That spoke spoke about sort of the you know, I don't expect you to solve all the problems of of us as a society. But there is a we do know demographically there is a bigger big difference between ownership of these businesses versus the population in general and the lack of minority representation in these things. You are now obligated to produce a community engagement plan. Do you do you think that there is at least some some daylight or opportunity there in a future community engagement program to maybe make some inroads to sort of that might help introduce or create opportunity for local residents. To work in the facility? Or are you talking about sort of just in work or train or education. Or leadership or there could be so many different things very open. But. So our company has about 20% of our roughly hundred employees are minority at the moment. And several years ago we had engaged in the community by growing organic vegetables and giving them away at the community center just down the road on Holley Street. And that was very successful and a lot of gratitude from the people there. The media ultimately disallowed us from growing organic vegetables in our backyard. So that's that was all I was going to do is in my comment, sort of expressed my my, my desire that you you always maintain that that level of creativity and openness and see what you can do to sort of address just sort of historic inequities that persist in the neighborhood that surrounds you. Absolutely. I think, you know, collectively, our organization, one of the reasons we undertook this business was because of the inequity in in terms of the drug war and how many particular people of color have been locked up. I think that's one of the things we're trying to change through this business. And we've been very active. My partner and I were just in Washington last week for three days meeting with several justices on that very matter. That's that's a great response. And that is one that was one aspect to this. But one part of that problem was the lack of opportunity. And so absolutely, let's hopefully you can help complete that cycle and reverse that trend. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. This question is for Scott. So looking at the PowerPoint presentation, it shows that this site is pretty much surrounded by IMX zoning. And typically the planning department does not like having zoning. That is not consistent. So were there other considerations besides the EIS zoning that could have been? Used as opposed to AA. Well, first the idea was the zone district requested by the applicant. And so we process the application that they submit. But as far as what would work, there is probably the best zoned district that would work for their needs. Plant husbandry would also be allowed in the EIB, I believe, but that's the heavier industrial, so that would be less appropriate and then it would be allowed in some of the open space zoning, which obviously would not be appropriate in an industrial area. Okay. So it really was. Kind of by default that I really kind of made the most sense. Yes. Yeah. For what their needs were. I think the idea was the most logical choice. So even though you all typically don't like changing zoning, that's not contiguous to one another. Mm. Well it is contiguous with the air to the north across 39th Avenue. But yeah. Ah. This map isn't showing that. Sorry. Yeah, the the line is 39th Avenue between the three. So yeah, it is contiguous with the air to the north. It would be contiguous with the air to the north if approved. And yeah, we don't have any longer, we don't have minimum area requirements or these contiguity requirements. So we evaluate the request against the five criteria. And as I said, we found all five criteria have been met. So we recommend approval. So under the IEEE zoning, if they want to expand, they would have the ability to do that. They just have to go through the process with exercise and license to be able to expand their building beyond the current footprint. Correct. I haven't looked at. You know, all the the regulations, the setbacks and my coverage and all of the things in the air. But yet, presumably, they would be allowed to expand the building under the ACA if they got approval from exercise in license. Okay. Thank you. All right. All right. That concludes our questions for members of council. And the public hearing is now closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I've been in this building. I've toured it. I'm very familiar with this because as it was mentioned, it's right across the street from Police District two or Northeast Park. You'll have their community meetings. And so this is something that I am supportive of. We have an owner who wishes to do the right thing by put himself in conformity. It will not be an impact to the community if this council would ever want to have a conversation about marijuana and its impact on communities of color. I've been speaking about that since we legalized it. So anyone want to join me in that conversation? Let's have it. But for this sake, we're having a conversation about changing the zoning, and I believe this is something we should support. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just wanted to thank Mr. Markovsky and the rest of the ownership team for hearing my concerns and the things that I expressed at LUDI and doing additional or seemingly doing additional outreach and coming together with a complete for me, a truly complete application. And with that, I will be supporting this rezoning. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't believe that I can support it. I find that it does not meet some of the criteria despite the recommendation of planning. I agree with some of the planning board comments that were related to us. In fact, I don't I believe the current zoning actually conforms to the neighborhood plans better, particularly where it calls for a buffer area between the industrial and residential uses in the neighborhood. Here, we're moving an industrial zone closer to the neighborhood. The other three citations from the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan all are met by the current operation and it's with its current non-conforming zoning. The 2010 zoning overhaul actually violated blueprint Denver's area of stability an area of stability criterion where. Let. Me let you get back to it. Where said that it may be appropriate to change the zoning to better match existing uses. In 2002 and then in. 2010 we changed the zoning to make it non-conforming. So we. Actually the 2010 rezoning didn't meet the criteria, but there obviously had to have been a purpose to it or. We wouldn't have put the. The IMAX three in that location. We wanted to have that buffer with the neighborhood. So I agree with the dissenting votes on the planning board, and I vote no on this. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no other comments. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Raquel Herndon, I. Cashman. No. I. Lopez. I knew. Ortega Black. Clark, I. Espinosa Flynn now. Gilmore, I. Mr. President. I was voting. And as a result. Some people haven't entered this our screen. Madam Secretary is. It's flipping out a little bit. The Council. So I'm just making sure. Okay. Ten eyes, two knees. All right. Ten eyes, two nays. Counsel Bill 365 has been approved for translations. All right. We are moving on to our second public hearing for this evening. Councilman Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 412 on the floor?