A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2520 Wewatta Way and 2901 Broadway in Five Points. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from C-MX-16, DO-7 and C-MX-8, DO-7 to C-MX-8, DO-7 and C-MX-16, DO-7 (aligns urban center zoning with surrounding districts), located at 2520 Wewatta Way and 2901 North Broadway Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-21-20.
I'm hoping that Council Bill 0708 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 0708 is open. May we have the staff report, please? Certainly. Thank you, Madam President. And good evening, city Council. I'm Fran Schaffer, presenting an amendment application for 2521 way and 2901 Broadway rezoning from CMH 807 and CMCs 1607 to CMI 1607. And CMCs eight. Deo seven. The subject properties are located in Council District nine within the Five Points neighborhood. Again, this request is for Cemex eight and Cemex 16, which is urban center neighborhood context mixed use eight and 16 stories of maximum height. Both of these include design overlay seven. The subject properties are currently vacant on the east, with the multi-unit residential project under construction on the West. The total area to be zoned is approximately 20000 to 27000 square feet and the request is to align the zone lots with the recently reconfigured ownership parcels. First, it is analysis. This is a net down zoning, with more area being rezoning to an eight story district versus a 16 story district and the vacant property at 2901 Broadway is real adjacent and has underwent a consent review plan with development services. Impacts to the project based on real proximity will be evaluated as part of the site development plan process. The current zoning on the subject property is BMX eight and CMH 16 with the don't have an overlay zoning to the southwest and east is generally I be you are to which is happy industrial with the port use overlay while the zoning to the north is residential mixed use in the form of army 30 with flavors and conditions. Concurrent with this rezoning, CPD also amended the De Nada Market Design Standards and guidelines. This DSG was approved in 2008 and as you can see in the screenshot, the boundary was not inclusive of the entirety of the subject. Property is an area to be resolved. CPD presented these amendments at a virtual public hearing on July 22nd and received final approval and signature from the CPD executive director and city attorney prior to today's public hearing. Current land users on the site, as they previously mentioned, are vacant and multi-unit residential under construction. Transportation land use is in the form of commercial and commuter rail exist on the southern and eastern edges of the subject site, while industrial and multi-unit residential uses are found to the north and the west. These photos give you a sense of building performance scale in the area with the subject properties on the top left, in the bottom right. The other photos depict the multi-unit residential projects across the waterway. This list comparison table shows the design standard differences between the proposed down districts. As you can see, they are the same except for maximum height in stories and feet. Also, the inclusion of the D7 overlay includes more stringent built to transparency and ground for activation requirements and greater detail. And those standards can be found in the staff report. Speaking to the process. Information on the rest of this application was sent in late November when board voted unanimously to move the application forward at their July 15 meeting. As I previously stated, staff amended the general market design standards and guidelines, and they were adopted on August 17. Notice that tonight's public hearing was set on August 10th and the property was properly noticed as a present. Staff has received two letters of support from nearby red registered neighborhood organizations, and no letters of opposition were received. Now moving on to the criteria. These are the three plans that impact the subject property. The proposed rezoning is consistent with many of the comprehensive plan 2040 strategies, which are organized by a vision element. This rezoning would allow for mixed use development near downtown, which is consistent with the equitable, affordable and inclusive goals and strategies. Similarly, the retaining of the seven overlay will require enhanced building forms and intensity consistent with the desire for an urban, walkable and mixed use community, fitting into many strategies and goals within the strong and authentic neighborhoods. Vision element. Lastly, the land use patterns mentioned are related to a number of strategies in the environmentally resilient element, and therefore staff finds the request to be consistent with Plan 2040. Moving to Blueprint Denver The subject property is mapped as part of the Urban Center Neighborhood context. This context is described as having a high mixed abuses with good street activation, and buildings in this context are usually multistory with a high degree of coverage. So the proposed zone district and overlay allow for a mix of uses and more stringent building forms that contribute to constructive activation. Proposed presenting to an urban center. Neighborhood context is appropriate and consistent with blueprints. Context Map. Future places. MAP designates such a property as high residential area, aspirational characteristics of high residential areas and an urban center neighborhood context include having prevalent commercial uses and tall buildings with high coverage. Consistent with this guidance, the proposed districts and design overlay provide for a mix of uses stringent building firm standards that create active street level presence and or waterway as a local or a designated street. If it does connect to Argo Street, which is classified as a mixed use collector, the street type supports a varied mix of uses , including retail, office, residential and restaurants. Again in the proposed zone districts with the D7 overlay will for mixed residential and commercial uses at an intensity and orientation consistent with the street type designations. Moving to the growth area strategy subject property map is again a high residential area within an urban center neighborhood context. These areas are anticipated to see 15% of new housing growth and 5% of new employment growth by 2040. Of the employment growth in this kind of an area has been determined to be most appropriate. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with a blueprint of this growth strategy. The third plan is the River North Plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2003. The designated area has residential mixed use and includes specific recommendations for this area, including facilitating the redevelopment of the market area into an exciting mixed use community. The plan recommends residential mixed use zoning, commercial mixed use zoning or a combination of both. The proposed zone districts are consistent with the recommendations of this plan. By allowing residential office and retail uses in a pedestrian friendly form the design and build to requirements of the zone districts in conjunction with the River North Design Overlay would ensure an urban form compatible with new pedestrian oriented development. The proposed rezoning meets the next two criteria, as it will result in the uniform application of zoned district building, form, use and design regulations while also furthering public health, safety and welfare. This will be achieved primarily through the implementation of adopted plans and facilitating density near services and amenities that are close to downtown. Recent physical changes within close proximity to the subject site, including three new apartment buildings in the immediate area and the completion of the reconstruction of Boulevard serve to justify this rezoning. The character of River North and Tanaka Market in particular is rapidly changing, and the rezoning request is justified to recognize the changing conditions. Additionally, the application of supplemental zoning regulations in the form of design overlay seven submitted justifying. Overall, the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with the neighborhood context, district purpose and intent statements for the Max eight, BMX 16 and the design overlay district. CPD recommends approval based on planning. All review criteria have been met. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Brandon. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 708 and tonight we have nine speakers signed up and our first speaker is Megan Turner. All right. It looks like it's going to be Chase Hill. Good evening. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead, Chase. City of members. Thank you for your time. I'll go to the first five or so slides and hand it over to Meghan on a Chase Hill. My address is 2924. Wind up through Denver, Colorado. Two, two, one, one. I am the owner of these parcels in my company. I guess I should say that first foremost, I am going through attachment number 12 that was attached to the agenda. The title of that is Applicant Materials City Council Rezoning Presentation Final. So if you can go along with me, that would be great. I'll try to provide enough color for those of you. So my company, Cyber Solution Advisors was founded in 1995 and we've been active a track record of success in Denver since 27. Multiple projects of fruition across this land in our group market. On slide three shows an overlay of the original back in 2007. For those who can't see, it is found by South River on the North Wright Boulevard on the east, and then downtown to the south. But it's all from Boulevard Brewer. The address of the two parcels, again at 25, 20, right of way, 20 901 North Broadway. Slide four just show you can see it just shows the site plans for these two phases 25, 23, waterways and construction. Now, that's the eight story. It is topped out. And we took both parcels through Rigzone in the summer of 2017, so four years ago, three years ago, and successfully resumed those properties back in 17. Subsequently, we discovered that the we had to do it all after we rezoning. We did a lot line adjustment and we found out that the zone district boundaries do not move with the change in the zone lot boundaries. We tried to handle this administratively, but the only option to have the zone district boundaries marry up with the zone lines is to go through its own process. So some of you were on council back in 2017 and you might remember these reasons. So we did for our site developed permit and building permit on the West. And if I could run away back in 2017 side of open plan is approving 1219 building permits and August 2018 two years ago it was approved in February 2019 and then we broke ground in spring of 2019. And again, that property is now topped out. The next slide. Shows what we're really actually doing, which is taking the green line, which is the current zone white line. And we're marrying it up with the yellow line, which is the zone district boundary is a net reduction in billable area of 62,000 square feet of up and down zone. Thank you. That's the time that we have allotted chase. And we do have Megan Turner signed up to speak as well. And so we can go ahead and turn it over to Megan. Hello. Good evening. Thank you, Madam President. My name is Megan Turner. I'm with Cami Horner Associates. My address for the record is 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400 Denver 80202 Thank you, Jace. As part of this application, we reached out to a variety of the registered neighborhood organizations and community groups. Our main goal with the outreach was to understand the feedback and provide input from the community as we share the development concept and the design ideas for these parcels. We also wanted to share the sequence and timeline that Chase had mentioned with those groups and those discussions. We have since received four letters of support for the applications before you today. I know Brandon have noted two, but we'll make sure that city staff has all four of those on record as well. With those conversations in mind, we thought it would be valuable to share with you some of the key design elements of the project . So if you're looking at the attachment, Slide seven goes through some of those. So open space and a pickleball. Court were key design considerations. From the public input, the development team has decided to make that amenity public. Additionally, the street level activation along Tanaka Street and Waterway is lined with public uses of retail and restaurant space, consistent with both the design guidelines and activation and transparency goals. Local art will also thoughtfully be incorporated into both projects. The dam for building will also have large scale pieces by local muralists and the spaces are intended to be used to showcase some of the local artwork, as you may see alongside the state of play in the art galleries there. Additionally, we appreciate the feedback shared by Councilwoman Ortega when we reached out on another project regarding the proximity to the adjacent rail brand and noted that that would be something of a view through that process, which we are already well through and we've reviewed the information and made sure to incorporate the best practices into the project design . In summary, we wanted to share some notes as we wrap up our Alcan portion here starting in 2016 and concluding the summer of 2017. Both the Dam three and Dam four sites for rezone to support the CMC and CMC's 16 zone districts with the initial alignment. The Dam three project is under construction now of course, topping out in the final ESDP processing and building permit for the M4 is currently under review. One thing that we wanted to reinforce tonight is that the zone changes being discussed here are consistent with the original intent, but as own changes back from 2017, the net effect of the applications before you result in a reduction in buildable area of over 60,000 square feet. In wrap up, we appreciate the opportunity to be with you all tonight, as well as the hours and time of dozens of valuable thoughts shared by the community. Thank you, Madam President and Council, for your time and consideration. Thank you. Next up, we have Nola Miguel. Go ahead, Nola. Okay. Sorry, I thought I got kicked up there. Good evening, councilmembers. I just have to say congratulations on an open space really quick. Which means congratulations on that. I wanted to do public comment tonight because ongoing we feel disappointed about the lack of equity being evaluated in any and all of these reasons especially. There's a lot of them happening in our market right now. And what we're talking about at this site is over 300 units, not a single one of them affordable. It seems like that even though this is being presented as the technicality, this is a need that the developer has and a chance for the city to chime in and apply. Blueprint Denver You know, since Blueprint Denver. Granted, we're looking for these inclusive and diverse communities and just not seeing it here. The city has invested a large amounts of money in Bright Boulevard in the 30th in Lake Station and all the infrastructure around that. And we should get something back. We should be getting affordable housing as part of this. We had a meeting, the global response, a development committee had a meeting August 11th. We had five different groups represented, and not a single one of them is supporting this project. We wrote a letter out to council and that didn't get to CPD but were in opposition because of the lack of affordability and that there's no clear benefit to the community in this project. We didn't. The Pickleball court is not a benefit to Globeville neighbors, especially when it's going to be an exclusive thing just meant for the people that can live in those market rate units. Their reasoning for not having affordability is that it doesn't pencil out and that there's no precedent for that. And right now, they nobody else has to do it. So we're just going to keep developing and keep developing market rate units with no affordable units, because that's the precedent that this is setting. So how can how can we shift this? There's several other rezonings coming up. We were also really disappointed not to get any follow up from from the developer. We had a call with them where we suggested a community benefits agreement. We suggested equitable development, affordable development. Even several different types of retail were discussed. And, you know, that wasn't followed up on it at all. So we were disappointed by that as well. And that's it for tonight. Thank you. Nola, thank you for the public record. Would you please reintroduce yourself in your address, please? Sure. My name is Nola Miguel. I'm with the Gas Coalition. My address is 4930 Vallejo Street. Thank you. We have up next, Matt Vince's team. Hello. I'm Matt Barnes. Justine. I'm the director of the Pop. Art. Collective. We're the registered neighborhood organization in the Ballpark District. This project borders the area that. Oh, my address is 2127 Larimer Street resident. And business owner. In addition to. Working with the ballpark collective. And this. Project Borders Ballpark District and Rhino District in the Five Points neighborhood. We met with the project design team and we felt the project. Was in line with our goals to. Protect, improve the safety, health, welfare and quality of life in. The neighborhood. And is in line with other projects and our board. From our perspective, we. Supported it and so. I'm not going to go to the three fourths for 3 minutes, I guess. All right. Great. Thank you, Matt. Up next, Alfonso Espino. We'll get Alfonzo. You unmuted here. Little City Council. My name, for the record is on Point Ospina. I am a member of the GC Coalition and my address is 4716 Gaillard Street and Radio 216. I'm here as a member of my coalition and globally responsive, which is right outside and borders the Five Points neighborhood where this proposed rezoning development is. And I am here to suggest city council and urge and challenge City Council to change the narrative of development, to actually focus on adopting equitable practices when it comes to development. As my colleagues in the College Food Coalition have already pointed out, there is no affordability in the units that are being proposed here. And there was very staunch opposition and a lot of questions posed to the developer, and we are very disappointed that we wouldn't even get an answer back. No follow up. So so that shows that there was actually no community input, despite the fact that we may not be inside of five points on that call that night on August 11th, that was reference to there was a five points. I know. And they are also an agreement that we should reject this proposed rezoning. And I would also just like to say that earlier today or earlier in the presentation, this project is being cited as complying with Blueprint Denver. And I would just like to say that that is false. That is incorrect. And that is a very big stretch, as is outlined in Blueprint Denver on page three. This rezoning request would actually fail to improve access to opportunity in terms of creating more equitable access to quality of life, amenities, health and quality education. And it absolutely fails to address reducing vulnerability to displacement for the surrounding populations and would actually, in fact increase displacement pressures in the surrounding areas. The developer's proposal fails to expand housing diversity, which blueprint Denver correctly points out as important in order to enable more inclusive and actually diverse communities. We do not need more of the homogenous housing stock that has been proposed in the bill and Rachel for the past decade that is has been targeted and has only successfully attracted middle to upper class white individuals. And if the city wants to finally change the narrative on equity, if it finally wants to do something for those that have been left behind when it comes to development, then put a message out tonight and let the developers know that Denver needs to move towards affordability and they need to move away from suggesting that our development should only be concerned about its profits. Thank you. Thank you, Alfonso. Up next, we have Vanessa Quintanilla. And then in the meantime of us getting Vanessa promoted to panelists, we also had Angela Garcia and Gail LaRue, who were signed up. And so I know that we have a couple just phone numbers in the attendees. So if that is either one of you, Angela Garcia or Gail. LaRue, please raise your hand. And up next, we have Vanessa Quinton of. I mean, my name is Vanessa, but I'm a resident of District nine. My address is that's one East 31st Avenue. I'm also the president of the of Reclaim the Eastside R.A., which represents the five points. I submitted a letter of opposition on behalf of Reclaim the items of this project, because the proposed projects intends to accelerate involuntary displacement by creating homogeneous high income communities and cultivating a culture of exclusion with its retail proposition. It has been demonstrated that Marc housing creates forces to displace low income residents and our neighbors of color. It has also been demonstrated that this area's retail market rate rental properties caters to homogenous population as coincidentally white and affluent, and excludes the rest of us who are brown, black and poor. Therefore, creating this culture of exclusion, right policing based off of culture and who belongs unknowing, our state is experiencing a housing crisis. It is absurd to continue this trend of approving market rate rents without thought or consideration for the Democrats regarding the poor. Please do something for us. The developers and those among the project's supporters are willfully ignorant to racial and economic equity and willfully blind to the humanity of the poor to participate in support of this project on alignment of documents while void of equity in the vision for a Denver inclusive of all people, including those of us with less means and darker skin, is absolutely appalling. This project does not enhance our lives, create a healthy community, or increase opportunities for all people, especially, again, those who are marginalized by oppressive policies and decisions by elected officials. Therefore, I call upon Denver City Council to deny this zoning change and please find the moral courage to actually begin serving the poor. Thank you. You're your. Thank you, Vanessa. That wraps up our public speakers tonight. And sorry, we had one more. Jesse Paris. Hi, Jesse. Go ahead. Hey, don't forget about me. Never. Never. I reside in District eight, Christopher and his district, and I'm represented for Denver Homicide Low Black Star Action Movement for self-defense by their backs to commemorate for social change, as well as the party of Colorado. Now, I know in the Universe African People Organization. The newspapers have summed up everything that I was going to say. This is not inclusive. This is not equality. Especially who you want to build housing that is not affordable. Any of the units are not affordable. That is not what we need right now. We have a housing crisis. We are on the verge of having upwards of 200,000 people on the streets. So for you to sit up here and pass this resounding tonight is appalling. Absurd. I suggest this. Not pass. This. Even though it meets the so-called criteria on paper, it is not inclusive. It does not include the community. Jesus is correct in their violence that they are being excluded from this. It's appalling that the owner did not reach out to his position and I would add shoot tonight to not approve this. If you have any kind of morality, any kind of sense of character, you will not pass the story. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilwoman Black Actually, I think Gail LaRue is still in queue. I'm trying to. See. Which one her name is showing up. Okay. We can go ahead. We haven't closed the. Hearing yet. On 1/2. I'm trying to get her to see what her name says. If we could have her just raise her hand in the attendees. I don't know how they do that if they're on the phone. I do. We see anybody? There's a problem, Martinez. No. I'm asking staff to look, but we might need to just go ahead and move along. Thank you for for bringing me, councilwoman. And so questions from members of council Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam President. I have some questions for Nate Lucero, our zoning attorney. All right. Go ahead, Nate. Go ahead, Councilwoman. We've got Nate off mute. He's ready to go. Hi, Nate. So a lot of the speakers talked about the need for affordable housing. And I think everyone here. Agrees that we do have a need for affordable housing. But can you tell us a little bit about the criteria we have for a rezoning and if affordable housing is one of those criteria? Good evening. Members of Council. Nate Lucero, assistant city attorney. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. There is no requirement for affordable housing within the zoning criteria. And from a legal perspective, any city or county cannot require affordable housing through zoning, as it would be in violation of the rent control statute and the Telluride case. So, no, there is there is no zoning criterion that specifically addresses affordable housing. So under state law, if we were going to require that in order to approve this rezoning, we would be violating state law. Um, I guess I would, I would say if you, if council were to use the lack of affordable housing as a basis of denial for the rezoning, it would not be consistent with state law. And you may be subjecting yourself to a challenge if that were to happen. All right. And then can you remind all of us a few years ago, Councilman, can each and the mayor's office led an effort to institute a linkage fee on all new development, and that was to go into affordable housing fund. Can you remind us a little bit about that and then if this developer would be required to pay into that fund? Yeah, I am not the affordable housing expert, but what I can say about that is that all developments that are going to build housing and I think even in for a commercial development, those developers are required to pay into the linkage fee. So I hope that answers your question. If not, maybe there's someone else on the phone that could better answer that question. I don't know who else is on on this call, but I guess the developer could talk about how much they. If they're planning on paying the linkage fee or building units. And I think we learned that they're planning on paying the fee and how much that would be. If they're still in the meeting. We should be able to get either CHACE Hill or Megan Turner. If you wouldn't mind raising your hand. Then you have me. In. There you go. Mm hmm. Go ahead. Taste it. All. Yes, this this this project would be subject to the affordable linkage fee, and it's estimated about $480,000 on the phase four. And if I could, I'd like to quickly just say that we respectfully like to respond to the no follow up, no input from Noel, and just say that we very much see this as an ongoing discussion. Our conversation with other stations within the day have dealt more with scenario six, which is a block away. The letter that they since we've today had the 3225 ten Argo address, which is the M6. So we saw the denial in that letter being more in relation to that rezoning, which is a clear up zone, whereas this is an administrative law and we are very much planning to continue the dialog with them on the up zone down the road and we are not at all ignoring them and we have much more substance to have at them related to that. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So I have several questions for a community planning and development paper and. Can you explain to me? This is almost four acres. It's just right under four acres. How come this didn't go? I know. For the large development review process. It's technically five acres. But how come this site was this site even thought about going through the large development review process? Thank you for the question. And it was not. I am having trouble pulling up the staff report right now. But first to produce analysis. The actual area to be down here is 27,000 square feet so far under the five acre plaza and everything again. So on your staff report, it says the area of the property is 3.91 acres. Is that not true? So 2520. We want to weigh in. 2901 Broadway. The summary of the rezoning request. If you go down to. The area of the property, it's 170,000 square feet. I just. I just found the staff report. You're correct. So that is the total land area of the properties. But the actual area to be zoned is 27,000 square feet. And where do you see court? Where does that. Where is that in the stuff? I believe it's once again, I have to go back. No problem. It's hard with it in virtual. So I'm I'm confused. If you go to the staff report and you go to page one and you put summary of rezoning request and you go to bullet point five, the northwest area of 13,730 square feet. Currently zoned axiom x 16 would be reason to see x eight. Is that true? Yes, that's correct, sir. When looking at those reports, those post descriptions of the actual property area to be resolved. Okay. And then concurrently, this southeast area of 13,278 square feet would be reserved from Cemex. Hate to seem 12. So we're we're we're adding entitlement from 8 to 16. No, you are adding some entitlement from 8 to 16, but you're down spending more from 16 to 8. So the difference is like 13,736 and then 13,278. That's why I'm not understanding how you get those numbers. Yes. So if you add those numbers up, they equal 27,000 square feet. That is the actual area to be zoned, more of which is being down zoned to CMC's eight. 500 square feet. Oh, my God. I thought you were talking about, like, way more. No, you're talking about 500 square feet. So you're taking one apple to another apple and it's 500 square feet different. Just so we're clear, right? That's correct, yes. Okay. So in your packet, I only see two letters of support from the for the ballpark collective R.A. and then the Reno art district and Meg in reference to other letters. There's something missing from the staff report. I believe so. I was only sent two letters. Maybe it was if there might be half an hour, including the other two, but we can figure that out. Okay. So, Megan, can we get Megan or. I can't remember his name. Sorry. No, his last name. So Chase will either get Megan Turner or Chase Hell back in. Hi there. I'm back on here now. And yes, that is correct. We did receive four letters of support. So I can pull up those names and we can be sure that those are in the staff report records. Did you send those to Denver City Council and the planner? We did, but those did come in late, so we realized that it might not have made it into the stack or in time. When did you get them? I will follow up on the. Exact dates those groups, though, were right now ESG, the ballpark collective. And you can so we'll make sure that you have all of those. So that's 3%. So you have the RINO art district. You do the Rhino West, the rhino. Our district is a ballpark collective and you can wear the four letters of support that we have received. Okay. And as ever again electronically. Right now, you do have dates on those. 1/2, I can get those dates. And while you're looking at those dates, I have a couple more questions. You talked a lot about community and you talked a lot about community feedback. Do you have a website that's collecting community feedback? Do you have confirmation of said community feedback that they wanted a pickleball court? We do not have a website for this particular project. We did reach out to all the registered neighborhood organizations. There were ten groups that we had reached out to. We scheduled several meetings, several of which we didn't have follow up with, which did orchestrate those letters of support for the project. We tried to make sure to incorporate that feedback into the design as best as we could. You can have like hard documentation from communities saying that they want a pickleball court. Like we're going in reasoning processes when you say you have community feedback. I would hope that you have documentation that backs up that says specifically from this community that they would like a pickleball court. Do you have that? So what we can. Do is we can chat. About the pickleball court specifically that was referenced as amenity that could be used by others during different times of the day. It could be used as an educational facility in chief. And then you can maybe speak to that a little bit better and have the dates for the letters of support. Yes, Ballpark Collective was August 3rd, right now was December 2019. Eastbay was August 21st and you can was today 831. Okay. And for the pickleball court, how is it decided that that's a community benefit? I'd really I'd like to understand that a little bit more for sure. So that was an amenity that is in place. And what we had. Decided originally in the design concept, it was a resident amenity. However, through the discussions, we realized that there was a need within the neighborhood and that need could be shared and that facility made public and have the opportunity to share that facility with the folks within the community. Okay. And then when in one last question, you talked about active street use as being community benefit, but how is it a community benefit when it's required? It's a requirement. You have a design overlay that actually designing overlay seven. Actually, within that design overlay, it's required to have a certain amount of active street use. Explain how that's a community benefit when it's actually in a requirement. Yeah. Thank you for the question. So we do go above and beyond the actual requirement. And a couple other parts of this, too, is that we do know that both the retail and the restaurant facilities. Would be used. By the community. And there's a couple of things I think that Chase might be able to touch on as well with some of that input. But just for just for clarity, for the record, for the requirement, correct? You're not you don't have to go above and beyond. You can choose to. But it's a requirement just to be clear. Correct. It is a requirement that we have chosen to go above and beyond. Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. My first question is for Mr. Hill. If you can send yourself. So how many times did you meet with the various neighborhood groups? Yes. Thank you for the question. Councilman Ortega with the River North, our district on three occasions and we met with the ECB twice and the other ones once. The other ones meaning. The other ones you can we had a call with GSA. We talked about that within the ballpark once. Obviously, it's tough. It's challenging environment to sit down and meet the people. So as more calls and emails and so a lot of a lot of immunity to provider above and beyond what's required based on direct conversations with primarily for our district who's the primary target of that scenario. But other well, our our our plans have changed. We have done we've you know, we included local art, a mural in a garage, things like that. Most conversations Councilman Ortega that we had related to DeMarco six 3225 an hour ago, which you'll be seeing come across your counter soon, that's more substantial. Upsell. The most conversation we had there focused on that one because we're going from one square industrial to 12 storey mixed use, whereas this was obviously, you know, a net reduction in 62,000 square feet. Technically, two separate projects. So I think not not fair to bring that one into this conversation, given that it's a separate project. Correct. But in an effort to be efficient with these various organizations times, we know it's time to discuss both at the same time because they're going through the reason at the same time. So so let me just ask, in your conversations with any of the groups, did the issue of a community benefit agreement come up? And what were some of those suggestions that were recommended to include in the project? Yes, great question. So we have to date signed two agreements with Harris, three agreeing with Harris, the one down the road a block away would be the fourth agreement, if you're referring specifically to a formal housing agreement. That conversation certainly did come up not just with other organizations. So, you know, we tried to be on the leading edge of what a private, non subsidized developer or project can do in a city. So we signed three voluntary agreements, two on evidence in Kendrick, LAX, District one down the road. And we're working on a fourth one, which is agreements that we will sign. So help me understand, are those directly tied to this project? No, they're not. What I'm trying to what I guess my point is, when we're when we're up zoning a property and we're asking for more than what the base and it's allowed for, we clearly want to want to give something in exchange. And usually that takes the form of a host agreement as well as a development agreement and an agreement which we sign the good neighbor agreement and a developer agreement and a host agreement that our rezoning efforts on this particular zone, because it is an administrative law line adjustment order to try to get the zone district boundaries to marry up on a net reduction of 60,000 buildable square feet. Those conversations have happened, led to a host agreement here, as they have on the other projects. But you could technically build whatever you wanted to build with the zoning that was already on the property. Correct. That's right. But going to the SDP press, even though he resumed the properties in 2017, just a few months ago, going through the building permit process of this phase four on the right hand side, on the east side, that's when the connect came up that your zone district boundaries don't line up with through zone lines and the building protocol. And so we thought we could handle that administratively. We couldn't. So one of these products is already built and topped out. The other one. Is that the just to be clear is that the difference between the 500 feet. Well, and it's actually just to clarify that earlier, it's a thousand men, not 500, but exactly 1000 square feet, not 500. And keep in mind that over half and it's in my presentation on the screen, over half of the land that we're up, zoning from 8 to 16 is covered by Denver water wastewater and Denver water easement area at all. So the difference, we're actually down zoning a couple square feet of 6 to 8 and all technically up zoning 6000 square feet from 8 to 16. So it's a more substantial down zone than we might have made clear. So I want to move on to Nola McGill for just a minute. Are you still around? If we can. You find yourself. We'll need to get her back and the panelists here. So just give us a moment up here. We've got her. Go ahead, Miguel. Go ahead, Councilman. No. Can you tell me if you can? Is part of the GDS coalition and were they part of the letter that was submitted to us that came in today? No, they weren't part of that letter. And you'd have to ask Armando Piana about that. I'm not sure. They were they weren't part of the call either. Okay. And as you can do, they have a large membership as well? Some of the other groups. I, I honestly, I haven't heard from them for a while. I'm not really sure how many people are in that group. The groups that were part of our letter were Global First, which is very active grouping Globeville right now, the Elyria, Swansea Neighborhood Association and the D.C. Coalition, EADS and Partners, and then the Community Building Network was also part of that. Okay. And so did you guys present anything specific as far as a specific CBA? To the development team when you guys met and talked to them. We really didn't get into those details. I think there was a lot of frustration that that came off at first. And by the time by the end of the call, we started talking about some of those things and hope, hoping that there would be follow up or next steps with some of our suggestions. Oh. How many. Letters? How many meetings did you all have with the developer? Just that one. It's just one call. Okay. Yeah. And we're still. We're still very much actively. I'm sorry, Mr.. Mr.. Here. I'll get back to you in just a minute. I'm specifically putting my questions to Ms.. Ms.. McGill. No, that was all I had for you. I do want to get back to you, Mr. Hill, with my final question. And I can't remember if it was you or Megan Turner who talked about that. You guys are going to look at best practices because you are within a close proximity to rail. And I just wanted to get an idea of what some of those ideas entail. But I can speak to that. To addressing the truly addressing the public health and safety of the community that's going to be placed to be sent to those rail lines. Yes, certainly, Councilwoman Ortega, some of those considerations that we have in mind is. We're citing of the building as the first part of that. Step. What we've done and what you can see with the demand. For site development plan approach is we are offset from our southern property line about 35 feet. So we've got horizontal separation there as well as the first five levels of the structure are not occupied. You'll see the structured parking and that's where we've got the local muralists work on the rear. Of the building. Some of those. Considerations as well as the architectural design and approach with that help with some of those best practices and the proximity to rail. Like some of the other things, we. Don't get to that level of detail. And given that when you check off the box that you're within a close proximity to rail, that's the first point that CPD is supposed to be having the conversation with people coming in asking for rezonings, and then obviously it's built into the design in the development review process. So I just wanted. To. Know, you know, as far as the thinking how, how much you all had had really been looking at that. So I appreciate that you're even that's even on your radar. Yes. Thank you. Those are all my questions for right now. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Brandon, maybe you can address this. As I looked over the staff report on presentation earlier before the meeting. It struck me that this appears to be a rezoning that is simply rearranging the entitlement areas to align them with the property line or there's actually the zone lot boundaries that. Correct. Yes, Councilman, that is correct. This is a rezoning to align the ownership parcels with the actual rezoning boundary. Is this mine? Yes. Okay. So we resolve this or council did in 2017 excuse me, in 2017. And the boundaries were sort of a zag the way I see it on the map. And but the zone lot boundary is straight. So what we're being asked to do is just flip them. And the result is it's a net loss of about that's somewhat a little loss in density allowable because the 16 storey area will move to a smaller footprint and the eight story area will move to a slightly larger footprint . Correct. But that's exactly correct. Okay. So I have a question that boggles my mind that because of an issue I had in my district about five years ago. Why don't we just change the zone lot boundary and not go through this brain damage? That's a great question. I'm not sure if the developer wants to speak to why they chose this path. It seems they chose it because during the site development plan review, somebody in an agency of the city said, Oh, this doesn't match the zone. Like you have to go through a rezoning. I'm wondering, did anybody and maybe the developer can answer. Didn't anybody say, Well, why don't we just rearranges our lot boundary to match the zoning? Yes. Councilman Flynn, great question. And you are correct. We will, through the step process on phase four, that there is no other process, administrative or otherwise, that we could go through to have these zone district boundaries map the zone lot line. So, yes, it's frustrating. It has been four months on it. Well, into design, we're in for a building permit and we were told this is our only recourse or only option. So. Okay. So you're following the agency's advice on how to how to fix this this zig zag and the boundary. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's all. Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President, I. I want to give Mr. Hill a whack at the old pickleball question, so to speak, there. There's a pickleball association in Denver. I don't know its exact name, but several the officers are in District ten and there's a lot of opposition to Pickleball because it's noisy. And I tried to do some Googling to figure out exactly what the excuse me, searching on the Internet, using some search engine, didn't want to drop the name necessarily. But, you know, to figure out what the exact decibel. Level is. For pickleball. But I know that that we have a lot of opposition in our neighborhoods because of the proximity of pickleball courts, existing pickleball courts to residences. And so I just want to make sure like. If if they're going to be co-located with, you know, 16 stories of residents that I. Did you ask the community? And they said, that's what we want and we don't care about the noise. Or I guess I'm I'm just trying to this is one way to help me understand the neighborhood engagement. And this this just doesn't add up to me so far, but please help me out it. Yeah. You think you can sometimes. So the pickleball court, first of all, it came up in meeting with with our district that they have some kind of activated greenspace, just landscaping. We try to do a tennis court with the basketball. We just don't have the size. So it's a pick up of a basketball goal. The good news is in your district where there's high density everywhere, the only neighbor we have is the rail lines we have known on the east as a dog park on the west just eastward project. But to the south is nothing but the airline to the airport. So we don't have any media neighbors other than our own. And our first residential level is 50 feet above the Super Bowl. We removed since it was going to be a kind of affinity for the residents. Obviously, it's open to the public. We've talked to you can about their ability to use it during school hours to take students to their reading. That's a fantastic idea it's the most you can and river north art district specifically voice support of a portable court and expressed interest in. So my next question is to Mr. Shaver. I am trying to recollect in my mind and you are way better at zoning than I am, at least I hope, because because I could use some, some additional studying the idea of moving and it fits from one plot to another. Is that like a benefits transfer or something like that? I know that we've we've considered that in some of the urban you know, the urban core, where if, say, there's a church and they're zoned for 12 storeys, they could take the that unused zoning and give that to another plot for them to to have additional height. Is that am I making any. Sense at all? I think so. To answer your question, that that is called a transfer of development rights. The issue at hand here is solely to align the ownership parcels with the zone, and that is some sort of a tricky Denver zoning thing that we use this thing called zoning laws and they don't align with the ownership for assessor parcels . So that is what. The. Rezoning is for. If that makes sense. I don't know if you have another question about the transfer of development rights, but that's another thing. But it's not applicable to this case. I say. Well, I know where I was going, but the question is, why hasn't that why wasn't that used here? But you're saying that's not applicable. So that's that's a pretty good reason why. And then the. I'd like to miss Miguel, you're still up in the analyst section. I have a question for you as well about. Arnaud's. Are you familiar with Eastbay? Do you interact with them in your or. No. Two The two Arnaud's interact. We occasionally get an email from them, but usually not. We don't necessarily like touch base about something like this. Because they're the and I use that same Internet search engine that will remain nameless and found who they are. They're a very responsive global business association. So it seems a little different, I guess, if there are nano. There are nano. But it seems a little interesting to reach out to a business association to to get guidance on residential housing. But but I figure maybe I mean, if there are nano, we have you know, maybe there's a good reason for that. So you don't interact with them much. I'm here and there. I mean, there are big business association. You know, they've they've had some of the big ones in the area. Like, you know, Pepsi and Coca-Cola. I'm not there. They're big business association. They reached out to us about our food program recently. Little things like that. Okay. I guess the last question that I have would just just be to open it up for any any one who might be in the audience, who is part of GBA, because it I believe it was mentioned that they submitted their letter of support on August 21st. So ten days ago. And I'm just curious as to because it didn't make it into our our packet, just wanted to chat with them. All right. I'm not seeing anyone raise their hands. And if you are on the phone, you can use Star nine to raise your hand. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Not seen anybody there. So we will move on to Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So I have a question. Is Navy service still on the line? We can. Get him back in here. Oh, there we go. Go ahead. Vinnie, how are you? I'm well, thank you. How are you? Good. So isn't it true that it's common and it's not like common? Common. But I have it in northwest Denver, where zone lock and zone lock boundaries and zone parcels don't match up. That does happen. Yes. And so when you amend the zone, like don't you have to get set to match the boundary of who the owner is that you usually get a sign off and the other people within the zone, that boundary. It's called a zone amendment. You know what I'm talking about? Yes. If you go through the zone amendment process in our ward, there is more than one owner or more than one or within one zone lot. And then all the owners within that zone lot have to sign off on the zone law amendment. However, if you have multiple zone laws within a single parcel, it may not work the same way. The city does try to get folks to to have their parcel boundaries align with their zone boundaries. I'm not sure. Is that answering your question or is there more? And so basically so I have like four right now that I'm working on in Council District one. So I have a zone my boundary and I have three property owners within that zone, my boundary. And when property owner wants to have entitlements, but he can't because the other properties have certain entitlement. So, so their, their houses are taking up some of his entitlements or trying to go through the zoning amendment process. It's I'm I'm seriously confused on why we're going through a rezoning process instead of sending them through the zone amendment process like all my constituents are sent through. Okay. And I'm not sure the details of the site development plan that was submitted, but it could be and maybe the applicant can answer this better. But it could be that they were trying to develop part of one of these parcels to the zone lot or the zone district standards for one zone district that they didn't have in town for. Yeah. Oh, it was, it was it made more sense to, to change. Just while zoning for those sections of the of the zone might. Go to swap the zoning for the for the zone lot because they're not necessarily they couldn't go to this amendment because they couldn't come in agreement with the other parcel owners. It's super confusing. Like there's no boundaries and then there's the parcels. But just to be clear, all the people, all the owners in the boundary who own parcels have to sign off on it. Correct. If you want to go through the zone amendment process, just so I'm clear. Yeah, that's correct. But here I think the same owner owns both parcels. Or both script. That's why I'm confused on why we're using rezoning to fix that. Like. I sure I share the confusion. Mr. Hill, we would really like you to hold up chiming in. We are in the middle of a legal hearing and we will call on you, sir. Go ahead, Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So, Brandon, do you have that? As you say, I'll quit using acronyms. Do you have the site development plan where it calls out for this process to be fixed through the rezoning process? In your experience, have you seen this before? This is the first time I've seen one of these come through, and I was not privy to any of the conversations that happened between planning services and development services to come to the conclusion to go through this process. Okay. Because I've seen I've been watching these earnings for a long time and I have been studying this one, and I can't find any other examples of something like this before. I know Zuma amendments, so I'm not part like boundary amendments to match the parcel. You know what I'm saying? I'm so sorry. Geeking out on zoning, but I've never in my time since 2010 have seen a rezoning to fix that. So thank you, Madam President. No further questions. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Can you hear me? Go ahead now. You can. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask a question of Mr. Hill about the Elyria. Swansea, a global business association. My former profit was is a member of their group. And if that letter was sent within the last ten days, I don't recall getting. Any information. Regarding a vote that took place on this development. Can you explain to me a little bit about how that letter of support was secured? Go ahead, Mr. Hill. Thank you. Yes, we had a meeting with them back in early July, and they they sent a letter of approval on August 21st. We did. You and Brandon, all four signed letters for. We sat down with them at their office. Used to be to create a plan. Now it's proximate to that. And we sat down with. There were four other four scba members in the room and there were another three or four on a zoom call. And we walked through our projects and I can't speak to how they're on another approval process. And it's a phone. Is it a board that decides? I'm not sure. But they did issue a letter of support. That's concerning. Thank you very much for that information. And for our colleagues in CPD and counsel, NOLA mentioned a letter that they sent that had five organizations on it. And Vanessa Quintana that spoke tonight represented a sixth organization. And so just to make sure it's on the record, I will dig. Through my emails and make. Sure that it was sent direct, that it gets sent directly to council members and CPD to get uploaded, so that it is reflected that it was six individual organizations that wrote letters of opposition to this project. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam President. I have a question. I'm not sure if it's for Brandon or maybe the property owner, but if this doesn't pass, can the development still move forward as planned? I would defer to Chase for that question if he's available. Yes, to that question. So again, we're we have basically asked if you prepare for building, the drawings are complete and cannoli. Councilman Black, we will be in a very tough spot. We've been working on this done for four years and only recently was a slot lighting issue raised by the city. This is an administrative cleanup and it's a significant reduction in built area. And we also have support of CPD in many of the major arteries in the area. So this would be very troublesome. And I can't tell you today what our next steps would be if this law is not approved. But we would be left in a very bad spot. To say the least. So were you misled by the city? That got you to the point you are today. I mean, it's really, you know, a net zero. Gain or loss for a you. Right. You're just it's just technical. And so now why is it here this very kind of heated political issue? Did. Did the city not give you good advice at some point along the line, or how did we get to this point? No, councilman asked. I don't want apply to be ever deceived or led astray by anyone at CPD or anybody else in the city. What happened was and shame on me to a certain extent, but I did not realize that when you give a lot one adjustment in your zone change. I had no idea that there's a zone district boundaries separate from the zone laws that don't move with them. So when we submitted for our building permit, it was a comet and it was the initial round of comments, but it was a comment that surfaced. Didn't come up on August three, but it came up a few months ago on August four. And that was the first in this whole conversation, this whole confusion surfaced. And I very much share Councilman Sandoval's confusion. And so I was unaware that these are two different things that married up. The city flagged it right away through the process, but it was after after the first zone, after fully permitting the tiling, the first phase. And then it was a second project where it surfaced. And and that was back in March, I want to say. And then we started the reasoning process and it was slowed down because that's where we are now. So without throwing anyone under the bus, it does sound like you. Weren't given as much information as you should have been given. Thus. Sarah, I wish we had been given this information when we submitted for permit on the first days and it never came up. But we did it. And, and then it came up on the second and I might have a different view or believe it was. And maybe it got past the first review in the second, but it was brought to our attention four months ago and we were flabbergasted, to be honest. We were not aware that we had this issue. And Councilwoman Nate Lucero also has his hand raised. I think he would like to chime in if you're okay. Hearing from Nate. I would be great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Councilwoman Black. So if looking at the staff report and what is what is occurring with the staff and it's clear that the zone law amendment would not solve the problem and address the needs for these two parcels. A zone law amendment. You would still have you would still have two different zone districts on the same zone lot. So it wouldn't it wouldn't help solve the problem that that the developer is currently facing. Does that make sense? I mean, if you look at. Page five of the staff report. It kind of shows you the conundrum. And I think this may have been the page that Councilman Flynn was referring to earlier. Okay. But but, Nate, is it the city's fault that they are in this conundrum or is it their fault? I, I don't know that it's anyone's fault. I would say that it could have been an oversight, maybe on the part of the developer and the city that the zone district boundaries were a little funky for this for these two properties. But it's certainly an issue that I think the developer and the city are working to address so that the zone districts mountains match the zone lot boundaries. Okay. But the bottom line is that there is considerably less. Area that can be developed. According to something I'm reading right now, there's 62,000 square feet, a net reduction in buildable area. Is that your understanding to. Is that what's provided in the staff report? This is in the report from the director. But Brandon, you were talking about this earlier. And if you think about it that way, it's actually not an up zoning, right. If you look at the big picture of it. Yes. I'm not certain what the net buildable area reduction is, but as far as just land area, more of this land is going to be down, zoned, zoned. All right. Thank you. Right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Torres. Madam President. I just want to be clear what I'm hearing. Chase, a question for you. Have you already started building something on either of the lots? Yes. The Story project is top down and midway through construction. The 16 story. We were hoping to break ground around this time now, but it's been delayed for four or five months on account of rezoning. So we have not started building on the second phase, but the first. Phase has topped out. So were you not planning to build on. That triangular section that's. Being zoned from 8 to 16? So the majority of that time U.S. that we are up zoning is the Denver wastewater and Denver water easement area we cannot build over that never intended to. There's a small section of our garage that does encroach outside of that. So we do have some building on this side, which is why we couldn't move forward with the project. Not a reason. Okay. That was my other question. What did you built your plans for? And it sounds like it was. For the property lines as opposed to the zone. The zone lots? Yes, ma'am. So had you not. There are two separate buildings, right? Yes, ma'am. So had you not noticed. That your zoning was different? So again, we were looking at our zone lot lines, the green line and the. Representation we provided, but without our boundary, property, boundary or zone lots that the zoning carried with the zone lots. But there's actually this other line, this zone district boundary that separate entirely from the zone like and in many cities and there's a one that same in Denver, there's two different things. And so yes, we were designing our building and basing it on the zone lots, not the zone district boundary. Okay. Thank you, Chase. Nate. What fixes this for them if it's not fixing this zoning designation. I. We would have to perhaps evaluate that and speak with the folks in planning services and development services to see if there's some other solution. But but for me, at this point in time, what is what is being requested makes the most sense. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines and then Councilman Ortega. And we're starting our our second round of questions, so go ahead, Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. And these questions are based on quick responses from after I ask the first set of questions. So I think Mr. Rosario, I think you just said this already, but I want to make sure that I understand you. You've previously said the developer and the city are working to address this issue. You're saying. Are you are you saying the developer and city are working to address this issue? Using the process that we're discussing right now is that I just want to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding or making a logical conclusion or jump. That's incorrect. Yeah, that's correct. And the developer came in with the site plan. The city recognized that there would be complications with moving forward, with building permits. And so the city staff recommended this rezoning process. And so that's that's what I mean by the developer and the city are working together. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then, Mr. Hill, if you were zoned for 16 storeys and you built eight. Why if I if I might I mean, not a lot of developers are willing to. Top out at half of their allowable rates. What? Why did you build only eight stories with, in this part, your resume for 16? You're on mute. Yes. Yes. Again, it comes back to the the whole zone lot versus zone district boundary conversation. Not only we did not realize the stupid things and most cities and even most of the time in Denver, that was line up . We didn't really realize that we have 16 sort of zoning on part of the east side. And so that just came to our realization when we went through to the second phase building process. So yes, we could have built twice as tall as we did. No, we didn't because we were going off of the zone, lock zone, not to sound district boundaries. So you might have had you known you might have built 16 stories where you are currently top down at eight. We could have I'm not sure what we would have would have, but we could have. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I just have one last question, and this is for Mr. Hill. So it was 2017, right, when the the overlay zoning for this area went into place, that sort of uptown, the whole the whole area that included the. In an article market. Correct. Or was that a separate process that you all went to? That separate process. Council nor category. The original target market was be zoned before my time back in 2009 and as a master plan GDP. And then this land was purchased in results. Partizan partizan 16 results. Okay. So you make reference to a number of four and that's that's a project yet to come before us, correct. Sorry, it's confusing. I should clarify. So within these two projects, I keep saying there's one or two, but there's one with the one that's topped out. It's eight stories. That's phase three of the overall development. And then phase four is the six stories that we're in for permanent four. Okay. So you kept talking about you're going to come back to do an up zoning. Yes. That that's that is. Actually a particular parcel. That's actually a block away. We call that the inaugural phase six. So that's a whole different parcel. I didn't have. Our first planning board is October ludy November and it's city council in December. So that's the one we continue to actively dialog and hope to continue at that time. That's enough. I'm from one story industrial 12 story mixed use. Okay. And was that part of parcel that was part of that overlay of zoning that took place? Or was this. So separate altogether? We don't even know. We're under contract on that site. We do not currently own it. Okay. Okay. What? I was kidding. I was just trying to understand if you were looking to make up the difference of what you're losing in zoning on this site by trying to up zone the other side, I mean, understanding there are two completely different separate projects. And I'm the one that asked you not to talk about the two projects, but you've brought that up a couple times, and I just wanted to clarify that point. Yeah. No, we're looking at them entirely independent from one another. We own this land that we're talking about today, both phases at a 33, 25 ton Argo, and that's what the coalition issued a letter against. So we have pulled out of there and we're going to do a lot of things to get community support there. And we we hope to get it, but that'll be a conversation for another day. And today we're just talking about the land that we owned. So I would just strongly encourage that when you get ready to begin that process that, you know, historically, this part of what's known as Rhino has always been part of the Globeville community boundaries. And oftentimes a lot of the development in that area did not necessarily include input from the geese communities. And so I would just ask that you do the same outreach with them as you've done with the other groups that you have met with and secure your support from that. You certainly will. Thank you, Councilwoman and Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. Just a quick clarification from Mr. Hill. So I'm looking at the slices and we're down zoning one slice from 16 down to eight, and we're zoning one slice from 8 to 16, and it basically cancels each other out. But you said that you weren't sure if you would if this didn't pass today, if you would be moving forward if there's no net loss or no net gain. What would what would prevent you from moving forward? Yes. Counsel, thank you for your question. So we have the building completely design submitted for building permanent. We're effectively through SDP in this zoning issue. The building that is designed goes over the zoning district boundary, within the zoning alignment over the zoning district boundary outside of respondent arteries. And and so we have to you know, we can we have to totally redesign our building, start all over, you know, page one rewrite. And and you have to design a different building that's eight and 16 storeys. And. That makes sense. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Are you good, Councilman? I thank you. All right. Great. Thank you. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 20, dash zero seven. Did we lose council president? No. Hello? Can you hear me? Hi. Hi. I don't know. Somebody was doing something with the host settings, and so it went down, so. Not sure where we cut off, but I had bang the gavel the public hearing for council bill 20 dash 0708 is closed. Comments by members of Council Council Woman Black. Thank you, Madam President. I am going to support this rezoning. I understand the desires of all of us and of the community members to increase our affordable housing. However, as we all know, having affordable housing is not one of the criteria for approving a rezoning. This does meet the criteria. The owner is complying with the law that the City Council passed a few years ago and they will be paying a linkage fee. Also of note is it's not a net gain in entitlements. It's actually a loss. And I feel very strongly that the reason the developer is in the position they are right now is because they. Didn't get the right kind of advice and the right kind of information that they should have gotten from the city. And they are working at the city's recommendation to try and fix it through a rezoning by bringing it to us, which, of course, is a very political way to resolve the issue, is really to correct an anomaly that we have in this city. So I do think in this situation, this is a rezoning. That the criteria. Does meet and. That we should be supporting. It. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. Just want to make sure that we understand that when we say something is in alignment with the criteria, we have five different criterion that are much more vague than we would like. In fact, number one is consistency with adopted plans. And we know that the two main plans that we use, Blueprint, Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040, are very explicit about equity goals. And when we when we have frustration with CPD is because CPD has not figured out how to measure how we achieve equity. But it doesn't mean that our interpretation of a project cannot be inconsistent with a adopted with an adopted plan if it does not meet our our interpretation of an equity goal. And so I believe that it is not consistent with comprehensive plan and blueprint. Denver. Equity Goals. I also believe that in numbers three of the criterion furthering public health, safety and welfare. That is another area where we have a lot of room for interpretation about what is public health, what is safety, what is welfare of a community. We recently declared racism a public health crisis. We understand public health in a very different way in 2020. We talk a lot about social determinants of health, and we know that the affordability overlay just blocks away at 38 simply do not work. And so whether or not this was a mistake on the city's behalf or the developer's behalf, I think it's coming in front of us in 2020 for a reason. And it might be a moment for for the developer to be able to rethink this plan. There are six organizations in this immediate area that are opposed to this change. And as the community representative for this community, I have to stand with our community and encourage my colleagues not to support this change in our district and really listen to what the people in our community are asking for. Whether that's a restart because of a technicality or for a better interpretation of the five criterion. They are asking us to do something, and I hope you all will listen. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I was ready to step in for you when we. Lost you for half a second. So just for I. Thank you. Thank you. Turns out I. Turns out I must have gotten demoted. So I. Got promoted. I didn't write about it. All right. Thank you. So my comments on this one, I recognize this is an awkward space and I have a hard time accepting that this is the path. Of least. Resistance for fixing this particular issue. Because what it asks me to do, not having been here when this was resolved last time, but it asks me to judge based on all the things that we typically judge a rezoning on. And I will continue to struggle with comp plan 2020. Vision element of equitable, affordable and inclusive when a plan doesn't demonstrate that. And for that reason. I'll be a no tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate Councilwoman Torres's point. I think she makes a really good point. And I have been reading this 119 page staff report all day in between meetings and all other things happening. And I think what is a little bit concerning to me is as I'm reading the staff report, you know. As it's going through the different criteria we're supposed to be looking at uniform uniformity of district regulations and restrictions. It's one sentence. The proposed rezoning will result in the uniform application of zoning district building form. Saying that something is going to do something that it's supposed to do is not a justifying circumstance for doing it. That's a circular argument. That's that is not actually filling out the staff report appropriately. The proposed official MAP Amendment furthering public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of the city's adopted land use plan, is not filling out the staff report and showing us how it is going to further the health, safety and welfare of our community . So I just as I'm as I'm sitting here and I'm going through this, I'm really seeing some pretty big gaps in the work that should have been done to really justify this rezoning. And I am concerned that that is because whether that is because. This was taken for granted. For whatever reason, because it was just a relatively whether they were told by the city that this was relatively straightforward swap kind of a situation or whether it was because there's a lack of understanding from the developer of what needed to be done here, I'm not sure, but I'm concerned either way. And so I think this clearly does not meet the criteria based on what I'm seeing here in the staff report. And so I'll be in tonight as well. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I. Man. This is this is a difficult one as far as we know, as we sit on council. We get all the difficult questions, all the easy ones are already solved before they come to us. And that's why we get paid the million bucks or whatever to try to make calls like this. This. This one's strange to me because it's it's a net downstream, yet there's still controversy. And I'm not sure that I really feel comfortable with the questions that I or the answers to the questions that are asked. It it's a little interesting that we're to this point in the process, which is a long process and is meant to have many steps forward before us. And we're just learning. Tonight or whatever that that the developer could theoretically have done up to 16 storeys in a development where they they're topping out at sea. And but that's not an inability to answer simple questions. That's not going to fly criteria. So and I'm not trying to. That sounds maybe a little more blunt than I should be. But but but the five criteria isn't predicated on the intimacy of wisdom or education, not wisdom. But if the knowledge of this particular plot and what we are considering before us and the ultimate decision that we have to make. I would certainly encourage our applicants to engage with the community surrounding it. I mean, engaging the community is a. Critical. Component of getting something that works for everyone and and ensure we have a symbiotic relationship with residents who live in the city and, um, and preparing for residents that are coming to our city tomorrow. And frankly, we've got hundreds of people living in tents in my district, and they would like homes, too. And and so but I would say sometimes a conversation with neighbors and more than just one attempt can get something that's good for developers and good for community. And and so I'm a little bit frustrated with that. Not sure exactly how that fits into the five criteria either. But but certainly I could be way more comfortable if, if we had more people in support and and fewer people coming to us testifying today saying that it's not not what they want it or that they're frustrated by the process. 300 units with zero affordable is also frustrating, but that, as Councilmember Black drove home, is not something that we can use to judge because of the Telluride decision. I think city attorney also mentioned Telluride. I would encourage all of us, everyone watching and listening and members of council and the media. I know all of us to reach out to our state legislator and to modify the Telluride decision. Until that changes is made, we can't use the housing affordability or lack thereof excuse me, affordable housing or lack thereof, as a as one of the ways that we vote no. So this is really difficult because 300 units is better than no units. And the people living in tents would say any home is better than no home. The people and homes that are they pick out their front window and they see people living in tents. They say the same thing. They would much rather have housing for for for people in the availability of housing than not. So I'm still trying to I'll listen. It looks like at least a couple more my colleagues are are going to make comments. That's how difficult our decisions are, is that I have not totally made up my mind even right now. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. Q Madam President. Tonight's discussion really reiterates why. We should be getting the level of detail that City Council used to get on rezoning applications, because with this form based zoning, all we're getting is information about the scale of what we're approving. We see no real details on the actual projects that that are going to be built on these sites. And, you know, that's a different conversation, but it comes up over and over and over again. And, you know, some of us have talked about what changes we would want to see made. Working with CPD, we've we've broached that subject with them, but we have made no headway in that in that arena. And I think it's it's time that we really roll up our sleeves and make that happen so that we know exactly what we're voting on. And it ensures that developers have to spend a little bit more money by putting more detail together. And most developers hire attorneys. They're hiring architects who pay attention to that level of detail that they have to bring before us so that when they are filing an application, all those T's have been crossed and the eyes have been dotted so that we're not seeing the kind of mistake that happened with this one tonight. And, you know, I'm not going to place blame or fault anywhere. It's a situation that has has warranted this particular application to land on our maps for us to make a final decision. I am a little disturbed that there was only one conversation with the GSA community whose boundaries this falls within. Clearly, you know, equity issues can be had and there are things that can be done that go that are different from affordable housing, which, again, we all know we can't mandate unless there's local government financing in the project . And I haven't heard that to be the case with this particular project. So I guess, you know. My my concern is that I would I would like to see a situation where, you know, we could we could see that happen in terms of some of the some of the benefits in a communication that I got today that just came through, it said part of the conversation was about allowing wi fi in the coffee shop available to people from the community. From the yes community. Well, that would be available to anybody that's that utilizing that public space. So that's not really considered a benefit per se. But these are conversations that get down to the issues of what blueprint Denver And you know, some of our other plans have spoken to more recently about equity and inclusion, about how we need to move forward as a city. Because if we keep building all market rate housing because we haven't fixed Telluride, all we're doing is continuing to exacerbate the housing challenges that we have in the city. And we need to find a way to get our developer partners in the city to roll up their sleeves and be part of the solution and not add to the challenges and the problems that we have with affordability, knowing that's not one of the issues that we're dealing with here tonight. You know, I'm I'm torn. But I think that in this particular situation. I'm going to support it moving forward. But I just want to say with the next one coming forward, I want to see more homework done and I want to see us really take that mantle and move forward with the changes that need to happen towards that goal. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So often times we talk about in city council, we talk about precedent and we talk about how the city council president and we can set new standards and we can set new ways. And I really enjoy learning about land use. This one, I am so confused. I have never had the time, I think, to innovate. And it's come to somebodies attention that as rezoning has to fix things. So my concern is about setting precedent. And to my other colleagues, concern is I have heard more about fixing the lot lines and the boundaries than I have any other conversation. And so when we talk about the health, safety and welfare and other adopted plans that are that were used in the presentation to bring forward this application, I didn't hear any of that in the presentation. I didn't talk I didn't ask any questions about affordable housing. I asked about flat line and boundaries and the precedent that this would set for other offers in the future to have come before our body to fix this instead of understanding what their boundaries are and looking extensively at them. So with that, I do understand how this meeting meets the criteria of the what we have set in front of us when we're talking about boundaries and lines. I have never seen one of the boundaries in one thing, one other criteria in the Denver zoning code, and that's what a lot of the letters of support talk about . And they talk about the values of the developer and the values that the developer had with the registered or neighborhood organizations. And to be honest, I have never seen that either. So with that, I'm going to abstain from this one because I just I don't understand it. I just think it's I don't understand it. I've never seen it, and I can't quite figure it out. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Were this to be a from scratch rezoning on a site that was asking where the owner was asking for entitlements from something much less dense to eight and 16 stories. A lot of this discussion would have been much more up to the point, but it seems to me that this rezoning application is more in the way of a correction of an error that occurred three years ago, and an error that, on balance from what I've heard, sounds like it's more on the city's side of the ledger. When we work with applicants to to map these applications out, you know, the applicants don't just come in and plop some application down and the staff says, okay, we'll run with us. They work together and they develop it and they come up with something that they can then bring to us as a coherent whole. It's this sort of reminds me of the movie Animal House after the road trip, when when Otter says to flounder, you messed up. You trusted us. And the the owner probably feels like he's the he's poor flounder sitting there having trusted the process. So this is in the way of correcting an error that's mostly on our side of the ledger. And for that reason, I do believe that it does meet the criteria, met the criteria three years ago. And for that reason, I'll be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Madam President. I won't reiterate. I think that what my colleagues have said before me better. I think Councilman Flynn took some of the words out of my mouth right here. And and Councilwoman Ortega. And I think that. We we need to. I think. This this whole process of getting to. This clerical fix in this spot is forcing other conversations. That are bubbling that. We need to tackle to come up into this. Conversation. But I think at the end of the day, when we strip down to what are we actually doing in this, it meets the criteria. As Councilman Flynn said, it's correcting an error. And for those reasons, I will be supporting it tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Clark. I will go ahead and chime in. You know, I've had the presentation the entire time and on slide three, it talks about that this is a fix for approximately 27,000 square feet or 0.62 acres. And it's the rezoning to align zone lots with ownership parcels. This is an administrative fix and this should have been fixed internally within CPD. I am. It's mind boggling that we have spent this much time talking about something that should have been fixed internally. But I think that this is very helpful, especially because the developer was here with us and there are huge lack, there's huge gaps in engagement of the community of of being authentic in that engagement and the intentionality around. Is the community really want to pickleball core or is this to sell units? And what is that community benefit? And so I will be a yes on this tonight because this is clearly an administrative fix. But the writing is on the wall for additional rezonings that are coming through. The bar is set much higher for what we want to see. And I know that we can't we can't mandate the affordable housing piece, but there's also those community benefit agreements and how you're working with the community and the neighbors in the area as well. And so I do hope that Mr. Hill and Mr. Turner heard that loud and clear tonight as well from the community, but then also from city council. Madam Secretary, roll call. CDEBACA No. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. Hi. Can each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval sent. Sawyer. No. Torres. No. Whack. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close of Iranian announce the results. One abstention, three nays. Eight eyes. Eight Eyes Council Bill 708 has passed. On Monday, September 28, the Council will hold the required public hearing on Council Bill 813, changing the zoning classification for 5560 5101 South Colorado Boulevard, 5197 101 Colorado Boulevard and 98 Harrison Street in Cherry Creek and a required public hearing on Council Bill 815 Changing the Zoning Classification for 50 South Kalama Street 39 South Kalama Street. Ten south of Pan Street and 101 South Santa Fe Drive in Baker. Any protests against council bills? 813 or 815 must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on Monday, September 21st. There being no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Oh.