A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 725 West 39th Avenue. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 725 West 39th Avenue from I-A, UO-2 and I-B, UO-2 (Industrial 3,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. zone lot; Use Overlay allowance for billboard) to C-MX-20 (Urban Center, Mixed Use, 20 stories) in Council District 9 IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-9-15.
The public hearing for Councilor Bill 937, as amended, is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Tim Watkins, Community Planning Development Case Manager for rezoning case number 2050 934 Property located in North Denver Council District nine. In the southwest quadrant of the Globeville neighborhood and specifically within the 41st of Fox station area. In fact, very close to the platform, as you can see here in this vicinity graphic, you see the property outlined in red just adjacent south to the 41st and Fox Station Area Platform Park. And you see the pedestrian bridge connecting Globeville to Sunnyside and Highland neighborhoods where continued pedestrian access has been made possible with a pedestrian bridge that is shown at 38th and anchor, which connects pedestrians further south to the city of Cordova Car Park in the South Platte River. The Gold line of transit line will connect from Denver Union Station North with this being the first stop to the north sometime this year in 2016. And there's also RTD bus Route eight, which connects along Fox Street between downtown North Denver and into Adams County. Fox Street is also anticipated as a future study for future bike route. Here's another view of the station, park and ride and infrastructure platform and pet bridge that's under construction and soon to open. And here's the property. The request is for 1.44 acres to be zoned. Access would be at 40th Avenue from Fox Street to the property via 40th Avenue, and the owners requesting zoning that would allow for transit oriented development. The current zoning is I.B. or heavy industrial with the yellow two billboard use overlay and a or light industrial also with a billboard use overlay and the requested zone district is c mixed 20 or urban center mixed use with the 20 storey maximum. This is a zone district that encourages compact, walkable and diverse uses that can be supported by collector arterial streets and multimodal transit, and is intended with design standards to encourage street active uses and pedestrian scale at ground level uses that very much complement pedestrian activity along walkable streets in a transit oriented development environment and up to 20 storeys. Look at the existing land use context is predominantly industrial today. However, that is changing. And just as an example, the area north of the site is shown is industrial. Our current land use mapping, but that is converting to parking, transit or in development facility to support surrounding redevelopment and transitional use into mixed use development. There are also some vacant properties, parking areas and a little bit of scattering of commercial retail and even a few multi-family low rise. Users in the area. The site is shown here in the center in plan view. To the north you see the park and ride facility under construction and advanced stages of construction. To the east is light industrial parking and retail. To the west as industrial and the rail corridor. And to the south is industrial use. The applicant has reached out to the. Registered neighborhood organizations listed here. And that has resulted in a letter of support from United Community Action Network. Or you can and all of the written and posted notice requirements have been met. And this was a case that came before council with a request for. A modified request to modify the application, which Council approved on February 29th, and the hearing was rescheduled to this evening. Let's look at the review criteria beginning with consistency with adopted plans. Comp Plan 2000 encourages conserving land by promoting infill development and promote sustainable centers of live work activity through mixed use development, especially near transit station areas to provide for diverse housing needs and in correlation with public transportation. The concept land is a blueprint. Denver is transit oriented development, which is land use that correlates directly with mass transit, encourages a balance mix of uses ranging from compact mid to high densities. And this is in an area of change where there are public benefits can be achieved by channeling growth. To these areas, such as improved transit, access for jobs, housing and services, and fewer and shorter automobile trips. Blueprint Denver Street Classification for Foxx Street is mixed use Collector Street, north of 40th Avenue and then between I-25 and Fourth Avenue. It's actually a mixed use arterial. Collect your streets, support access between neighborhoods while arterials are focused, or support longer trips between regional destination or urban areas throughout Denver. Both street types are intended to support walking, biking and vehicle mobility with features such as tree lawn sidewalks on street parking in alleys. And 40th Avenue is a local and designated street. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan supports land uses and building heights that are recommended in the 41st and Fox station area plan and just reinforces what's already adopted in the 2940 and Fox Station Area Plan, which shows the concept land use as mixed use office residential, 3 to 20 storeys, and that is defined as land use, supporting employment services and residential uses within walking distance, in particular within walking distance of of nearby services in transit. Second Review criteria uniformity of district regulations cm x 20 would result in uniform application of district building, form, use and design regulations, and it would further public health, safety and welfare by implementing recommendations and the vision for urban center and transit oriented development at the 41st and Fox Stationery fourth review criteria as a change or changing circumstance of the change or changing condition of the property as a justifying circumstance. Specifically, the station platform, the PED Bridge in the Park and Ride facility are nearing completion and that service will soon be available along this important transit corridor. There are nearby properties that were recently resigned to see them x 20 cm x 12 and CMS eight. And there have been recent developments at 39th and FOX and 42nd and Delaware. This DMX or urban center is part of the urban center context encourages compact, walkable and diverse areas, and this meets the vision, not necessarily the land uses today or the context today of industrial, but meets the desired neighborhood vision or context of an urban center. A transit oriented development station area and CM 20 specifically encourages a street active and pedestrian skilled ground level uses to support walking, shopping, public gathering, near transit and up to 20 stories. So CPD is finding is that all review criteria have been met. We recommend approval and planning board also unanimously recommended approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. All right. We have three speakers for this today. I call all three. You can make your way up to the front pew. That Texas. Amanda monroe I believe that white and then Whitney. I'm so sorry I got cut off. And then we have David Roy Bell. So, Mr. Texan, you can begin your remarks. Thank you. That is tax of 4535 Julian Street, Denver, Colorado Council Members. Instead of rezoning this pastoral parcel, you should purchase it as a site for a new homeless shelter and mental health treatment center. After all, apparently you have millions of dollars for a new performing arts complex for the rich. Once again, the wealthy come before the needy. Perhaps you could levy a 1% design and construction tax to first purchase the land. A construction tax on developers in the Arapahoe Square area, out of which you've just driven the homeless in order to facilitate profits for the 1% and 1% tax would seem only fair. But maybe you just don't understand the plight of the homeless. In this regard, it might be helpful if, given the walkability of this zoning site. If you took a walk along of South Platte near this zoning site where you've driven our least fortunate citizens through your camping ban. Thank you, Mr. Tech, sir. Ms.. Monroe Whitney Europe. Hi. Amanda monroe, Whitney. I am the granddaughter of the property owner of 75 West 39th. I live in Denver 45 if I sell to Yosemite. I believe that this amended zoning change that was done on February 29th was not commuted, communicated correctly to the Monroe Investment Company LLC, which is my family's who owns the property. I do believe that Tim Watkins did answer all the questions to the best of his knowledge and in his capacity. But I do also believe that the person that is supposed to be here tonight, which is he is not, has communicated the reasoning of zoning it half and half did not communicate it well whatsoever to my mother , who is the manager of the Monroe LLC. I'm completely against it. I would rather have it zoned all commercial residential that way. It also falls in line with the Fox Street trans oriented development that the city wants. And that is all I have to say. And I do have a question. We are able to change the zoning if this is finalized tonight, correct? We'll have we'll have councilmembers speak to that when it comes to comments. Okay. Thank you. Famous Monroe Whitney. Next, we have David Weigel. Hello. How are you doing? Members of council. I just want to address the offensive training of the Klan. I feel that the clans presence and history needs to be acknowledged by the government in schools. And on that, I just feel that the expansion of the city cares more about the people that are coming here than the people that built the legacy here. Where this redevelopment is happening right across in District one, they have a huge redevelopment from the skate park and none of that is going to be affordable and towards putting in a redevelopment area. I'm not in favor of it because I come from the Sun Valley neighborhood and at the time that little raven was being expanded as a $2 billion project that capitalized between Highlands and downtown. And that's another capitalization of the river area in my neighborhood. The Sun Valley is get ready to get hit next. And I'm not in support of this. Capitalizing and making a high, high income area nor affordable housing. And now the homeless that are down there that can't be at the homeless shelters, you know, where are they going to go now? And I'm just not not in favor of this. And, you know, a lot of the developers, when you live in a neighborhood, when your neighborhood's going to be redeveloped and these are redevelopment come, you know, it's pretty much the same stuff telling you plans and people are powerless, people are oppressed and you know and now Swansea A they've been going through this for so long they're burned out the Sun Valley, we've been going through this for all seven and you know, we don't, we don't want people that are going to come redevelop our neighborhood. We want people that are going to come be a part of the community. And that's the thing about it. Our communities, again, so broken by these new redevelopments because they come move in, they don't reach out to the original people there and the people that are there, they don't want to reach there. And it's just, you know, I just feel there's more community involvement in our city's changing so drastically. And I just hope that it could be a better, fairer Denver and make our city great, you know, for all of us. And, you know, I love Denver and I plan on staying here the rest of my life. Thank you. Members of council. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time questions from members of council. Council members? Yeah. Tim Watkins can. Tim. I had a had a bunch of other questions. Kind of philosophizing on all of this, this redevelopment and the some of the issues. But because of Miss Monroe, who came up and spoke, I mean, that kind of changed everything. Is is the person who who called for the rezoning here. The applicant representative is not here this evening, and I don't fully understand what scheduling conflict may have. Occurred. But they didn't send a representative or. I think the intention was to be here, but I think they could be on their way. Okay. And so when you put forward the recommendation that this be a split rezoning, the. You know, the property owner was not consulted in it. So we received a request to modify the application and put that forward to council. And I did speak with the property owner and had the understanding that the property owner was aware and supportive of this. Okay. As well as the representative. Okay, look. Mr. President, can I call it Miss Moral? Good. So obviously we're getting conflicting stories here. So I'm trying to understand your grandparents, I believe it. Was it was my grandfather and actually his dad that had bought the property in the fifties. And just to let the people know that we're here talking about development. I mean, we helped build Denver and Colorado Springs and everything. We're a rental construction company. Okay. And we closed our doors in 2014. We've been open since the early fifties, early, late 40. Sorry. Okay. And so are you aware that your Grimm father talked to Mr. Watkins? My grandfather. It was my mother. She is the manager of the Monroe LLC. The property is owned by three members of the family Roderick Monroe, Peggy Monroe and Vickie Monroe. Vickie Monroe is the manager. Okay. Are you aware that your mother talked to? I am. And and consented? I am. And I'm still going to disagree with it because I do not think that the person that is supposed to be representing us who's not here tonight gave her clear communication of the reasoning of zoning in half and half. Okay, well, you understand our conflict as well that I did. Okay. I just wanted to go on record and voice my opinion just because I'm highly invested in this, too. I've been the property manager there now for two years since my uncle passed away and close the doors. Okay. So this and I mean, I grew up there. Yeah. So and I don't believe that this forfeits your right on the other parcel to Rizzo. That's what I'm concerned about. This deal proposed. The deal doesn't go through. I'm hoping that we have the opportunity to to go back to our original. Rezoning application, which was the CRM max 24, the entire property. Okay. I'm pretty sure that it can't, but thank you. Thank you. Mr.. Mr.. Watkins, just real quick. You know, we've kind of talked about this before, and there's two, two different questions that I want you to kind of talk about, and maybe they'll be addressed in Blueprint. But then I imac's kind of zoning in flexibility within the IMX. There were some mention of it in in the Globeville plan, and I know you and I have had many conversations on the restrictions within IMX in the city, but just wondering, was that a part of the conversation at all with the with the applicant? The applicant has always requested the sea or urban center mixed use zoning and the 20 story in it. Really this is about phasing for the applicant and the desire to keep the southern portion of the property in productive industrial use and have flexibility to keep it productive and solvent in terms of lease ability while the phase one to the north is under construction. Did you have a question specific to the uses allowed under IMAX and whether that zone district was considered or. I know the uses and you could if r if we had flexibility in our IMX zoning and especially in identifying the IMAX, you could do an IMAX rezoning here, but we don't have that within our zone districts. Correct. Well, the IMAX goes up to eight storeys. That's right. Right. So there's not and so if if maybe they're interest in taller than eight storeys, push them to the CMCs. But I'm just wondering, Max, and wondering about the conversation and blueprint and in saying could there be more flexibility, Max, to go up to 20, the examples that we've seen from cities like Vancouver that have, you know, multiple housing units, have an ability to do light manufacturing, have retail on the bottom, all the things that we kind of, you know, want in our city, you know, this is a part of the city that we are rezoning from industrial into commercial a lot. And if there are not some opportunities for us to, you know, fit the mold and see if there's a go between a hybrid or, you know, we're going to be in trouble. So just was seeing if that was an opportunity. The last piece is this this zone district is recommended in the plan to 3 to 20 storeys. And we we've had a lot of conversations and I don't think that this has been mandated yet with the city. But minimums is minimum has minimums have been a part of the conversation. You know, you've raised two very interesting points that could be very interesting citywide conversations. And just harkening back to your how do we define Emacs and how is our understanding of IMX evolving and how could that be reflected in both the CMS districts as well as the Emacs districts? So that's I think a very. Exciting opportunity to explore that as well as. The point you just raised on the minimum heights. And in fact, I believe Councilman Espinosa brought that up on previous Fox area rezonings. And our response at that time was that there could be a conversation and might have implications citywide and beyond the specific rezoning and the specific station area. So two very interesting topics related to planning and zoning that council might wish to further explore. Yeah, I'll address it in my comments. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I honestly am confused. So I thought the property owner initiated this rezoning. And are you, Mr. Monroe, are you one of the property owners? I have a. Daughter, Ms.. One right where I need to. So I would just like some clarification as to. Okay, originally the property was bought by my grandfather and my great granddad back in the early fifties. Once my grandfather passed in 2006, the property was then put together in a monroe LLC which consisted of the children and his wife. If anything were to happen to the children at all, his wife and vice versa, we all know how that goes. So as of right now, the property is owned by Vickie Monroe, Peggy Monroe and Rod Monroe. And I am the daughter of Vicki Monroe and granddaughter of Peggy Monroe. And Pat Monroe, the original owner. And so. Though they were the owner there. The owners requested the rezoning. My mother did. She is the manager. But like I said, I have been explicit. And is that this rezoning of half and half? The person that is representing us is not here. And I do not think that he has communicated the reasoning behind doing half and half and still instead of the full singer Max 20 And no , we were never told about IMAX. At least I wasn't. And I've been in communication with our representative and my mother throughout this whole thing, except for the February 29th Amendment. So. Yes. So I spoke with Vickie Monroe about the purpose of the application modification request and felt that she had an understanding of it and that she. Was inclined to approve it. And I understand that there are some differences among some of the family members. And like I did say, Tim has answered all the questions to the best of his knowledge in his capacity. But like I said, the person that's representing us has not represented it correctly. And what is the mode of operation in doing this? This is why it's about tonight. And the applicant representative who submitted the request to modify the application. I communicated with him as well as Vickie Monroe at the same time, and I felt that there was collective understanding, but not necessarily agreement among family members. Okay. Thanks. Council. I want to tell you. Thank you, Mr. President. Unless you're somebody that deals with zoning and land use issues on a day in and day out basis, it's complex and not easy to thoroughly understand. So I could understand someone being told, This is what we want, this is what it does. Without going into a lot of detail and thinking, Oh, that sounds all right. But you know, the devil is always in the details. So I had a number of questions it's hard to be able to ask them without the applicant being here. So that's what makes this really kind of kind of a screwy process. I don't know how we justify moving something forward without the applicant even being here to address some of the questions that we have. So, I mean, Tim, I could ask you a few of the questions that I think might be helpful in just understanding what would be proposed for this particular zone category and at this location. So for example, is there open space requirement on this size lot? And if not, what would is the size threshold that requires open space to be incorporated? There is not an open space requirement for the CME zone districts and that's more associated with a general development plan. So the fact that there's no park in the neighborhood, the fact that we're putting so many residential units, at least when we did the Central Platte Valley, we made sure there were two very large parks that would not only serve the new development, but it would serve the entire Highlands neighborhood that was park deficient. So we're creating a community that has no place to go other than their own units. And so. If I could respond to that. The 41st and Fox stationary plan does envision parks, but it doesn't necessarily. Explicitly state which parcel should be purchased for park. So there's an understanding that there should be proposed parks and open space areas, but that those are. What if we're rezoning all of the land and we're not? Requiring any set aside of any of the development for open space, then chances are it could be all gone and we get no open space for the massive amount of density that we're allowing. There was a set aside at 4400 North Fox Street, part of that. The Denver Post say you. Think you just need 2570. But that's for that development. Right. But publicly accessible. Okay. Let me go on to my next question. What is the parking requirement for this Todd category per unit? It is 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit. Okay. And was there any talk at all about commitment to affordable housing in the city's discussion with the proposed the proposer of this application? The development concept is is not advanced enough to speak specifically to affordable housing opportunities. So there's not really the properties in a transaction mode and development would be intended after that transaction is finalized. So we have no idea. Exactly how many stories are being proposed. The zoning allows up to 20 stories, but we have no idea what is being proposed. That's a goofy part about this process, is not having any knowledge of exactly what we're being asked to approve other than, you know, within this grandiose framework, if you will. Let me move on to my next question. In your conversations with the applicant, what specifically did the city do to address public health, safety and welfare with? Consideration of the close proximity to the commuter rail line, which is just immediately the other side. The other side of the. I'm sorry. I meant cargo. It's immediately west of the RTD commuter rail line. Yes. My understanding is those conversations are still underway among city agencies and looking at health risks and how to address appropriately. So that's. So in the meantime. Encouragement, previous encouragement, those discussions are still underway. But there's nothing happening when an applicant comes through the city to ask them to consider looking at how they might be willing to address that. Not during the rezoning phase. There is not currently. Okay. That process is ongoing. We will have a some recommendations that come out of that by. July. But in the meantime, we have lots of applications coming forward along corridors that will be building high density housing right next to rail. We're not addressing any of the kind of details that ensure that we are in fact protecting human life and addressing public health, safety and welfare. So I'm just I will keep asking this question wherever we have commuter rail lines that run alongside cargo lines. And, you know, my hope is that we have people willing to do some things until we do have some clear recommendations in place. Um. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. I'm going to jump in real quick. Tim, the applicant is the the the the Whitney family, correct? I would say who's the applicant? Because we said the applicant's not here. The applicant's representative is not here. That's correct. Because there was never intended for the applicant to actually be. Indeed the applicant property owners out of state. Okay. So so Miss Monroe in if I just want to ask you. So you you just disagree. So your grandmother is for the I might be using a wrong terminology, but she's the head of the estate, correct? She has the most units. Most units. Okay. So you just disagree with the direction. I just want to make sure and because you're your argument is not with what CPD has done, because you said that Tim has answered all the questions. That I do. I want to make that clear. Tim has answered all the questions to the best of his knowledge in his capacity. That's what's very important here. He is a staff member of yours. He doesn't know our personal business. He does not know. Absolutely. And so in his capacity, he has done an excellent job. And I love his pictures. I love how he's presented us. So, yeah, my grandmother is the majority owner of the property and both my mom and her brother Rod have 29.1. So if I may correct me at this wrong, you just disagree with the direction that they move that they're going forward with. Or do you feel your representative who's representing has not and has not represented your family, in your opinion, in the best interests? Absolutely. To the best for our best interests. The representative that is supposed to be here has not represented why we are doing this rezoning this way. But you feel that way. You know, you obviously cannot speak for your parents or your grandmother. That's just the way that you feel about it. That is how I feel. And my grandmother, I spoke to her about it. She does. She's like this. The uncle just sits on the west side. I've been involved with our property since I was born and I've been even more involved in it for the last two and a half years. I've done all the phases in at the environmental. I've done everything with it. So that's fair. Thank you for advice. What make you think? Well, we've got a lot of people in here. Councilman, new Europe. Has been as question in addition to your grandmother, the other two family members who have ownership, how how do they. Feel about this rezoning? My mom is in she she agrees with it, but I do not think that she was communicated properly. And why we are rezoning it this way. My mom has always wanted to do the zone full, commercial, residential, and then all of a sudden this half and half started coming about, which I didn't understand what was going on . And I do not think she does and I do not think that she is clear on it. Tim Watkins has told her, told her the benefits of it. He has told me we have had similar conversations. But the representative, like I said, who is not here this evening, has guided my mom in in in a in a in a way that is representing us to the to the best. What about the third family member of this ownership? I have asked him I have shown him all the documents and he says, just let me know when it's bad. Okay. Thank you. Mm hmm. Um, I think Tim also wanted to. Address your. Question. Do you want. To estimate to the podium? Tim. You like to. As something. Yes, if I could. So, Amanda, we met with the applicant representative, your mother, you and I, the four of us together. And we had a lengthy conversation about what it would mean to modify the application and reduce the area to be zoned to 20. And the pros and cons. And we explored what follow up steps to further research that would be required. And I did some follow up research, and I reported back to all of you. And I felt that that was a very open and transparent conversation between the applicant, representative, you, your mother and myself. And every attempt was made to continue that conversation. And then I did have a follow up conversation with you separately and your mother separately. And I felt that everyone had the same understanding, and it just came down to choices. Do we choose to rezone the property in its entirety or have half options? And so I felt that there was a slight mischaracterization of the. The applicant representative terms of not communicating the purpose and intent. To me are going to talk into. The area to be resolved. So that's. Think. Did you have any. Other questions, Councilman? No, thank. You. Councilman Cashman. Thank you. This is pretty simple for me. I don't see how to possibly resolve this without an applicant here. I mean. Tim is. Staff. Ms.. Munroe is not an applicant. So what. What are. And anybody who knows can answer this. What are our options for delaying this vote? It's funny you mention that. I was just having a conversation with David, so I won't speak for David if you want to chime in. David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney. One option you have available to you is to continue the public hearing and postpone the matter until a date certain to get the applicant here. This is we don't really have a precedent. I don't ever recall an applicant not being here informed, representing their application on any prior actions we've taken. I believe that there that options available to you in this city. CPD staffer Nate. Know some reason why that couldn't occur, but that's a procedural option available to you. Or else you can just go go ahead and proceed to a vote on the merits. So. Councilman, just looking at CPD, they said that is an option that we could do if that's what this body wants to do. Is there something we need to do to make that happen, sir? We need a plan. Yeah, we would. Yeah. David, I'm. I almost feel like we need a motion. Correct me if I'm wrong, David, to postpone until a date. Certain, but we need to have what we need to save the date certain now. Or would we? A postponement needs to be to a date certain. That's always a problem in terms of looking at your advanced calendar. But but also again, the point is we haven't gaveled closed the hearing. So if you want to hear from more people on behalf of the application, you need to keep the hearing open so we don't have to re post notice of the hearing itself. So it'd be a motion to postpone and continue the hearing until a date to pick a date. Well, we got people in the queue, so let's do this. Councilman Cashman, if there are any outstanding questions that councilmembers have now, let's get those out of the way so we don't have to ask the questions later on. And then we can if the sentiment is there, once the questions are done to postpone to a date certain, we could do that. Councilwoman Gilmore, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, I have a couple of questions for you, please. When you're communicating to property owners or the applicant, is that done via email so that there's a record of it or is it verbal communication or how is there a process in place to ensure that there isn't miscommunication from the interested parties? Well, that's a good question. And there has been a mix of in-person communication and phone conversations as well as emails. And I did strive to copy all parties and sometimes didn't have a correct email address, but attempted to forward afterwards. But when I'm the call is placed to me from the property owner, applicant, and then the property owner applicant's daughter, I take those calls and I have direct conversations, but I haven't. Summarize the conversation and emailed it to both parties after the phone call. Okay. And so there is no I mean, so then with with you saying that there there isn't necessarily an official sign off of the interested parties on a confirmation that they clearly understood what was conveyed to them necessarily. I mean, you're communicating with them over the telephone. There's not a process to create a summary and send it back out to them or verify that that they're understanding it explicitly. Well, I rely on the application which the property owner entity has listed and then the applicant representative is listed. And as a case manager, a primary obligation is to communicate directly with the applicant representative who then coordinates with property owners. But when property owners call and ask to have a conversation, very much pleased to to respond and. Sure. Yes. Okay. One additional question on the original, the packet of information for Monday night. There's a document in here that it's the rezoning guide and the rezoning application. So it's page three of three and it has listed I, I believe it's I think it says Vicki Monroe and that it's the property owner interests percentage of area of the zone. Lots to be re zoned and it indicates that she is 100% owner. Of that zone lot and. I guess it might be appropriate for for Miss Monroe, Whitney for or someone to clarify if it's actually three folks that are owners of the zone lot or if Ms.. Monroe is the 100% owner. No, that's not true. My mom is not a 100% owner of specific zone. Lots and specific places of of the property. The entire property. There's never been any any direct. Okay. Vicki owns this part. Right? Owns this part. My grandmother, Peggy owns this part. No, it's never been like that, ever. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa. And I guess this is for Mr. Monroe. Just sort of reading between the lines. It sounds to me like the developer interest development interest is seeking new zoning on their interest, but members of the extended family would like the entirety of the family's land to be resolved. Is that correct? Can I repeat your question? Your question was, is that that a developer wants. I'm trying to figure out and I'll ask Tim, because you said he explained this as the best way forward. I'm trying to figure out how we go from a giant L-shaped property that goes from 39th to north of 40th to something that is only the upper half of that when you're sitting here telling us is that you would rather see the entirety of that parcel. Is that what it was mentioned here in in passing was that this preserves some industrial use of the lower the southern half of the parcel while allowing developed redevelopment potential of the northern half. And so I can see where we would make that split if we didn't want to create a non-conforming situation on the Southern half. But I'm not because of the sort of tenor of what has been described here, etc.. It sort of sounds like it is been conveyed in different ways. And I'm trying to understand how it is that we got to just the northern half TMX 20 because I can see in my development experience because my understanding is historically there were two development interests, two development developers interested in this parcel. And so and I don't know if both the development interests are still interested in this parcel or we're now talking about one. Now we're just securing redevelopment potential for that portion of the land. So how did we get here? Because I do think that if there is no nonconforming if the if you if the building business is shuttered, like you said in 2014, then there is no non-conforming sort of situation. So it does make sense that if we're going to rezone, we'd just rezone the entire portion. Part of me wonders why we didn't just do this as a legislative reason for all of this area. But because this is like the eighth one of these things that I've seen in the last four, eight months. Yes. Yeah. I've done my I've done my research on even the property that is north of the light rail, the gold line. They've all been resolved and they still work at the capacity that they were working at originally. So their zoning was is grandfathered in. My, my and my mother's questions, big questions where is if we did change the zoning to complete SIMEX 20 that the AIA and the IP zoning be grandfathered in? We never really got a clear, concise answer to that. And then I give you a clear, concise. No, I use. Once that rezoning occurs. Now you can't you can't do certain uses there because you've it's not allowed and it's not permitted in that zone district. So you don't just get grandfathered in because the building looks a certain way or acted a certain way. Right. We have we've had renters on the property until the February 29th, and I'm trying to get renters in there. Now that were of the same. You didn't. That would create a problem that were renters. Yeah. That's why that's what. He did that if we don't see him next 20 that abuse would not be we would not be able to use that. Miss Whitney, I don't want to stop your conversation, but, councilman, I want to make sure that you have more so she can come converse with. You, because that that sort of explains to me because, like I said, I didn't it was either one of two situations. And I think it's very clear that that it's it's it's it's a functional issue on why you're ending up in this sort of redefining of the boundary. And it to me now makes more sense why we would do something like this. And it isn't. You're just so for your sake. Yeah. Yeah. Coming back and going through this process and the southern half is not is going to be fairly straightforward. I was here in the future. I've been to the meetings. Yeah. It's going to be fairly straightforward on the on the southern half in the future. What you like you'll never see CPD sort of willfully doing is creating non-conforming situations and that's what you're sort of asking for. But if you want to continue leasing it as a use by right the way it is, that use by right actually goes away when you change the zone district. Which is what we're talking about tonight. If I had if I said anything wrong, I stand corrected, but I think I got it right. So thank you. Thank you. No more questions. Councilwoman Sussman. Okay. I just like I have a couple of. Simple questions for Ms.. Monroe. You are not the owner of the property. You are not the applicant of the property. No, Keith, get out. I get close. Originally was the applicant. Okay. And so. You're. And we don't know. How the applicant or the owner feels about this. We just have your testimony that says they don't like it. Was there a reason. Why I disagree with it? But we don't know if the owner does or the applicant. But there's like I said, there's three owners. One is the manager and she is the one that made the decision. But you are not the owner and you are not the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We are round two of questions, Councilman Ortega. Thank you. I just wanted to ask him if he clearly communicated that if for any reason this rezoning, this zoning application goes down, that the property owner would have to wait a year before they could re file an application for this property. To the same zoned district. And is that all CMC's own districts or just CMC's toe? Just toe could not be applied for for one year. Okay. So if they applied for something different, they could they could apply on the site. So has that changed in 2010 when the citywide rezoning happened? That you could apply for a different zone category or some district, and it would still be okay to do it within the one year time frame. I'm sorry. I'm just receiving notice that the applicant representative is here so might be here. But see, amex toe could not be applied for for one year if you denied the rezoning request this evening, but other zone districts could be applied for within one year. So you're saying the applicant is here in the room. Here at the building? I suppose I'm just getting messages as I'm communicating. If the applicant is in the room where you please raise your hand. We're having this conversation in circles with this. Okay. So he's the representative? Not that. Yeah, he's. He's the applicant on behalf of the property owner. Right. Okay. Yeah. I was just trying to clarify and understand that if this went down, it sounds like we're probably more willing to move to postpone it if the applicant representative doesn't show up before we finish this discussion. If. They are able to change the zoning to a different category if it went down. The applicant is here. Who representative is here? Okay. Okay. Art Vasquez, 2943 Tampa Street. I am the applicant for the zone change and I apologize for not being here earlier. Oh, you missed out on all our questions. Oh, no, I saw I saw I had somebody watching and telling me all the questions. So. So is there a reason you weren't here when we started this? Yes, there is. I had a flat tire and couldn't get all state to show up, so I had to find somebody to give me a ride to get fix the flat, fill it in my tire and drive here and hope that maybe Tim might give me a ride home if my tires flat when I leave. Okay. Um, I don't know that we want to start this round all over again. It's your prerogative, Mr. President. Thank you. If. Well, actually, who's up next is Councilman Brooks. So, Councilman Brooks, you're next in the queue. Did you want to ask some question? Yeah. You know, I was prepared to postpone this just because I don't know if I've ever had a situation in five. Years and I've been on council where this has happened. Thank you for showing up. Thank you. Things happen. So let's just cut to the chase. We we have a member of the family who is objecting to the parcel. Kind of splitting the split parcel rezoning that we did February 29th, saying that you're not clear. You haven't been representing well. So, first of all, I want to give you the opportunity to talk about the person you are representing as the owner and their wishes to split this parcel as CPD did. Okay. Thank you. Let me start by saying that the owner of this property is the Monroe Investment LLC and the manager and decision maker of that is. Vickie Monroe, which is Amanda's mother. She has full authority to make decisions up to this point. These are the decisions she has made. Number one, she signed a listing agreement to sell the property. Number two, she's accepted an offer to sell the property. Number three, she's authorized me and hired me as her representative to change the zoning. At the time that we decided to change zoning, we wanted to change the zoning to CMCs 24, all of the property. We made an application to do so. We then later change that application to change the zoning for half of the property. The reason being is that each and every buyer that was interested in the property. Was only interested in the property if they could keep the industrial zoning on the half the land that had all of the improvements. The reason for that is because those improvements are not conducive. With the zoning, we'd want a change so they could actually rent that property out and subsidize while they develop the other half. And then they would later changes zoning on the second half so that they could further develop that. This is such a big parcel. There is no way there is any developer that's going to develop this property and develop 2.8 acres this close to downtown and spend $100 million to develop it. Plain and simple, the developers that are want to develop this property, want to develop it in stages. That is the reason why they want to do one half of the current zoning the way it is x 20 and leave the current half industrial. So to answer your question, I have full authorization to represent the family on the zone change. This was a decision made by the decision maker. It was an intelligent decision based on the facts and based on the fact that we have a buyer who's willing to buy the property and only wants to buy the property if only half the zoning has changed. Mr. BROOKS. Okay. You have a letter of support from you can, which is conglomeration of global response, the neighborhood leaders. Yes, we do. When you sat down with them, you talked about what you wanted to do. Did you talk about the future of the property? Did you talk about affordable housing? Did you talk about some of those? Absolutely, we did. As you know, the environment has changed. Because of the of the current legislation is not all that well makes it easy or easy for lawsuits to be filed for condominiums to be built. This is the reason why so many apartments are being built, and we have no condominiums being built. We have a high demand for housing right now. And the problem is that we have single family homes, that the newest single family home that you can buy the lowest price. And in Denver is 400,000. Do you hear what I'm saying? 400,000. The reason for that is because we cannot build condominiums. Now, I do understand that city councils change that for the city and county of Denver. But the banks still do not want to lend because the state law allows for two homeowners in an eight to sue. And no investor wants to take the risk. So what we decided to do is said, okay, if we're going to build apartments, let's build apartments. Here's the problem. The problem lies in the fact that we have almost a 20% vacancy rate because of the glut of apartments versus single family and condominiums that are being built in the city and county of Denver. It's a problem. Affordable housing is the probability here. We've had conversations about it right now with where the vacancy rate is and where rates are dropping for rent rental rates. It's not likely that we're going to build apartment buildings for the open market. It may not make sense right now. The current buyer that we have right now is wanting to close and take that risk. And they are talking about affordable housing. And we have met with the neighborhood groups and talked about affordable housing. Obviously, in a capitalist society, you're going to have an entrepreneur go with whatever the best route is to get a return on their investment at this current time. It looks like affordable housing may be that route. Now that I can't guarantee which route the investor is going to take. I can only tell you that in the open market. Apartments are not desirable at this current time. Mr. Brooks. Yeah. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, a month ago, we adopted this amended parcel, and it was for precisely the reason that you just outlined. I'm reading it right here. And Ms.. Monroe, it sounds like we amended it precisely to do what you say you wanted. So I'm very confused as to why you would be opposing this. And this is Vasquez. Yes. Right. Mr. Arthur Vasquez? Yes. Arthur Vasquez. The buyer is buying the entire parcel, correct? Correct. The Family LLC is not retaining any of it. Correct. Okay. And so what we heard Amanda say earlier was that that they wanted to that that she wanted to preserve the right to maintain the industrial activity on that southern portion, I believe. And she's she's nodding your head. Yes. No. She the the idea was that the industrial the south half has all of the improvements. Correct. Which are conducive to the current zoning in order for those improvements to meet the criteria for the open market for TMX 20, that it would require over $500,000 of improvements. Sure. Sure. Amanda. I'm sorry. And I. You're among. I forget your accent. Your last name is what? Can you come forward again? Yes. Monroe. Whitney. It's Monroe. Whitney. Whitney. Okay. Thank you. The where I'm now confused is that if we were to do all Cemex 20, that the industrial zoning would be grandfathered in. And so even if we were rezoning TMX 20, that I could still rent the property out to, say, a construction company that is had the same use as we have done there since the fifties. Okay. And you could not let me down. Okay. Okay, hold on. But the Family LLC is selling the whole parcel. You won't be leasing any of it. That's what I don't understand. That's what's under contract right now. It's under contract. That does not mean that it's been sold. Right. But if you sell the whole thing, you won't be leasing. You're the family won't be leasing any of it. You'll be out of it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. So the Bayesian explanation that was just provided by the applicant is consistent with what I was getting at in my previous comments questions, which is a viable approach to redevelopment of the site. The question I have for you, Mr. Monroe, is do you understand that where you can have a non-conforming situation in a zoned parcel is if that operator continues, it has continuous operations. So it's really the same person or business entity that is operating in that facility from the prior zoning into the new zoning. What happens when you re zone and you then get a new person to lease that space? That's when you lose that. That becomes decoupled and you have to get into it's a change of use and all these other things. So to preserve this development scheme, you have to do this sort of split right rezoning. I was under the impression that not only would we have the industrial and I'd be grandfathered in. And I was also told that if the property is vacant for one year, then the commercial residential scheme next, then it goes into effect immediately. And if I was to make any improvements on the property after the reason to CMCs, then those buildings or any improvements ought to be CMC's 20. Not industrial. Okay. Those are that is what I have been told this entire time. Okay. Mr. Espinosa may make a comment. Sure. Number one, the prior use has to be maintained as the exact same use. And if it isn't what, even if even if we changed, the only becomes a use which is a legal nonconforming use. If that use doesn't meet the criteria of being the same use, not just general industrial use, the same use, it is lost. So for instance, right now there is a it's power equipment that's being rented there. So if it now it's vacant. So if we don't get another power rental equipment, a renter and a taxicab driving company want to be there, it does not meet the requirement to fit within that zoning. And let me just say something to move this thing forward. I've worked with Amanda and she is part of the family. She has zero say in what happens with this property. She has zero authority. She is not on the LLC, nor is she any not even a member of the LLC. She is discontent and she is unhappy with the decision her mother's made. So her presence here is merely to disrupt what is going forward because of her personal opinion. She has zero and I am speaking on behalf of the family and I will swear under testimony that she has zero authority for the family. She is merely here to disrupt this hearing and to prevent this zoning from going forward. And she has no argument why it shouldn't happen and no authority. One related question the do you know if this site would meet the criteria for medical for a marijuana grow? Which you mean on the current zoning to the current industrial building. I'm not 100% sure. I'm not an expert on all of the uses for industrial, but I do believe that the current zoning of industrial now you got to remember, this is a unique property. So let me preface it by saying that we have two separate parcels. We have one parcel with two separate zone lots here. So we have a B zone lot, which is the lot we're looking to change. So it's I, b, so b I zoning. There were like 18 changes here, max 20 the zoning that we're not looking to change is an I a zoning. So I am not 100% sure whether or whether or not it is allowed for medical marijuana to grow. I would think that I a my understanding is that it may be something that would allow a possible grow at this facility. I will say this, that the there hasn't been any any ownership interest previous ownership interest in a grow. I can't speak for the future buyers. Okay. Thank you. We've been at this for an hour. Councilman Cashman, hopefully this is the last question so that we can move forward on this. Yeah, I agree. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I'm not an expert on public hearings, but my experience is that anyone is allowed to testify in a public hearing. And if it wasn't for Ms.. Monroe Whitney being here, we'd have long ago postponed this for for a week or two. So if I were you, I'd buy her a drink after the hearing. I'll buy her three drinks. That's very generous of you. My question is, you mentioned affordable housing. And when you say affordable, what level are you talking it? 80%, Amy. 6030. Where where where are we aiming? Well, here's the here's the deal, Mr. Cashman, one of the buyers, other than the buyer that had the acceptable offer, wanted to come and do a tax credit program. They that's what they specialize. And the current buyers are not experts in that. So they're going to seek outside counsel on how they can move forward. They are buying this property in the hopes that the market continues to move upward and onward. And as it looks now, when you look at the current rental rate for open market, you're requiring about $2.40 a square foot for the project to make sense. If you built a five story building minimum there. And those numbers aren't crunching right now. So when they buy this property, their next step is to go to other experts within the community and talk to them about the tax credit program. One of the persons that we've spoken to is a guy by the name of Andrew Romero that works for, I believe it's KeyBank, and he's an expert in these tax credit programs, and that's going to be the next step for the buyer. Again, I can't speak on completely on behalf of the buyer, but that's the information that I received from the buyer on their intention. Thank you. All right. See no other questions. Public hearing is now closed. And let's see for how long these comments go. Councilman Brooks, you're up. You know, I wish I could say, you know, in my 25 years of doing being on council, but in my five years, I've never witnessed anything like this. And I I'm glad that your tire or whatever it was got put together and you got here because. Well, I'm giving councilman you get you. I don't think you're. Yeah. You go into that breakdown with that. But, you know, there's several comments that I wanted to make on, you know, I it makes zoning, you know, minimal allowable uses and standards here in our zoning code but. You know, I'll just say that just because we've been at this an hour that I am, I'm thrilled that you met with the neighborhood association. I'm thrilled that Armando Payan, who is a huge advocate in this area, knows this area, lived in this area for 50 years, is supportive of this. And that that speaks volumes for me. Who is, you know, a person who's really concerned about this area. You know, obviously, our context is zoning. We try and encourage folks who are thinking about development to think about the values of the community. We can't force those values upon you. Open space design. Ground floor activation. Affordable housing. But those are our values. And I think you got some of that from Armando in the U.K. And so I appreciate that this reasoning lines up perfectly with our plans in the Globeville area plan. And the one thing that I wanted to say is the importance of small area plans in our city. And I know my colleagues to the left of me are excited to see some smaller plans in their neighborhood because this is the result of it is an environment where you have community support and and things begin to happen. So in the context of this public hearing and what we're supposed to be, you know, judging, does this meet the criteria of the planning, the plans that we have in front of us? In my mind, it does and it does perfectly. And we just passed our Globeville planning day. Was it a year ago now? Almost a year and a half ago. And so those are plans that are hot off the presses and excited. I'd love for CPD to start thinking about minimums, and one of the reasons is, is because when we start talking about different economic cycles, people are going to build to what the market is allowing them to do. And it has been a you know, it would be perverse if we had all this investment in rail and a three story would stick project was developed there. And so I really I really believe that we need to think about the investments that we're making public publicly and put it that way. And so I'm supportive of this. I know this was kind of a crazy hearing. I've never heard one like this, but I appreciate you being here. I think you got educated on, you know, kind of some of the stuff that we do here. And I hope that wish you all the best with your family. And thank you, sir, for being here representing the family. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say thank you for clarifying everything. I do understand it now. And Miss Monroe, I think the. This rezoning actually will achieve what you're looking for, that the property can still be used for industrial use. So I think it's a good outcome for everyone. So I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa. Not only because we've already talked this line that I'm going to articulate something that I mean, I said early on one of these rezonings and I've sat on my hands through most of them, and it has sort of nothing to do with this. But everything to do with this is there's a station area plan. There's a Globeville plan. There's no guidelines and standards. There's no minimum built tos that Alvis is talking about. There's no way to sort of ensure we're maximizing the TOD potential for this site. So once again, I'm going to support a rezoning and hoping for the best, but it's really up to the development community to come through in this situation because we don't have any. We have visions, we have plans, we have no obligatory requirements to meet them. And that's really unfortunate. But I do think that this is actually the best way to sort of achieve the balance of the use by right on the industrial with the redevelopment potential on the 20 storey parcel. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly for Councilman Brooks. This hearing will be second place in my memory to the day I believe it was the rezoning on the Diamond Cabaret back in the eighties when I witnessed from the press table councilman, former councilman, Irving, look, do a bump and grind during his testimony. So this is second place. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for that visual. All right, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to first state that, you know, since this is an area of change and it is a Todd location, this is also part of what was envisioned in the Globeville Station area plan. I will be supporting this tonight. One of the challenges with this area is that Fox Street is going to be very much like Brighton Boulevard, where the development is coming in. And then we're worried about how do we address so much traffic on this one road because we're putting in so much density and we haven't really adequately talked about or addressed how we're going to deal with that. And, you know, it's kind of a chicken and an egg. And I think it's important to ensure that CPD is having that conversation around exactly what is being done as each development is coming in to be part of those improvements so that we have the appropriate right of way to be able to move traffic and hopefully it's one of the corridors or we'll have some bike lanes as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I tell you. Any other comments? 937 as amended. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I. Gilmore, I. Cashman. I knew Ortega. Sussman All right. BLACK Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results tonight. Tonight, 1937, as amended, has passed. All right. That's not the tempo for the next two. All right. Next, we have two bills, 69. Councilman Brooks, would you please put accountable 69 on the floor for final passage yet?