A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place bounded by West 29th Avenue and Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations. Vacates a portion of the right of way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place, bounded by West 29th Avenue, Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.
12 hours. Council Bill 914 has passed. Councilwoman CdeBaca, will you please put Council Bill 776 on the floor? I move that council bill seven seven, six be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It's. Same for technology to catch up. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for Council seven seven, six is open. Do we have a staff report for this one this evening? I think we have. Jason coming up, going to give us a quick, quick overview before we jump into our speakers. I think this is the most talked about vacation in the history of city council, so I'm sure you're all aware. Jason Clare of Denver Public Works. I just give you a little rundown that it's 6000 square feet at 2099 chestnut that an applicant requested that the property be vacated. It did not meet a utility need or a mobility need for the city in county of Denver. So the application was granted and we are here today to hear from those the applicant and those who live in the neighborhood and happy to answer any questions, if you have any. Thank you, sir. I think at 9:00 at night, nobody's going to complain about that. That length of staff report here. All right. So we do have seven people who are signed up to speak. I'm going to call the first five if you'll come up to this front bench, Steve Ferris, Jim Johnson, George Pazienza, Taber Sweet and Margaret Combs. If you can come up to the front seat and Steve Ferris, you're up first. Good evening. I'm Steve Farris and I'm representing the applicant. As we get into what's happened since we talked to you last week. I just wanted to give a quick overview that we as the applicant, the landowner next to the site are very proud of the work Mortenson has put into this project. They've really reached out and addressed the neighborhood concerns, and they did that because of your input and your concerns. And I think you'll like kind of what they're presenting and what's been done to date. I think this could be a model for future right away vacations, since there has been some serious concerns raised with all vacations. But because we're here only to talk about a vacation of land and not a project. I want to make a few observation. Many of you have questioned the state law around vacations, and there's a few observations that I wanted to make about that. One, you know, one thing we have to think about is that if this was just a vacation and there was no project and a few neighbors hadn't come up to object to the project, would you be treating this vacation the same way? And it's just I know some people think saying yes and some people know, but it's it's a question to think about because most vacations do come in completely separate from a project. Second, I want to note that, you know, right away, vacation requests do get refused by public works. I worked on one in Councilwoman Sandoval's district about a year ago that got shot down. I'm still perplexed why public works wouldn't allow it to proceed, but that does happen and you do not see this those situations. So I think in that context, it's good to remember public works does apply some evaluation and measures of these things . Finally, I wanted to note that we requested some information from public works about the total amount of vacations and dedications in the last few years. We found this data since 20 and this was provided by Public Works since 2014. 15.9 acres have been vacated, of which 9.5 acres were subject to a reservation or 6% of the total. The average size of that vacation was 6000 square feet. By the way, this vacation is actually 5074 square feet. For what it's worth now and the dedication side, the land that's been given free of charge from development. This is since 2015, so one year less. The city has acquired 26.1 acres at no charge. So my point here is to bring up that right away is always fluctuating in the city based on demand and needs in certain situations, and this is just another one in that whole scheme. So in some I just want, you know, that these circumstances do exist and this is simultaneously a typical right away vacation and yet it's a unique one. And I think because of your input, it's become a success story, which I'll let Mortensen and others. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you very much. Next up, Jim Johnson. Good evening, Mr. President and council members. My name is Jim Johnson. I am here on behalf of the developer, Mortensen. To talk a little bit about what's happened since first reading and the our efforts to reach an agreement with the community. So since first reading, we put together a draft agreement excuse me, and we circulated that to the camp, to the community members, and we met with them on this past Wednesday to discuss the agreement and what they wanted to see in it. We had some serious concerns and we heard those concerns and we incorporated, I think, all of their requests into a revised document. But what we're dealing with now is actually an issue that that Councilwoman Sandoval raised at the first reading, and that is enforceability. And the issue she raised, I think, is that the city doesn't have the ability to enforce these. So I approached the city attorney's office and asked if the city would be willing to be a signatory to the agreement so that they can enforce that. And that was rejected soundly. The second thing that that I've done is I put in the agreement third party beneficiary status so that the city actually could enforce the obligations of the developer without being a party to the agreement. So since the city is not a party to or won't be a party to the agreement, I expect we intend to leave those provisions in there. But more importantly, actually is an enforceability on the other side. We're dealing with a registered neighborhood organization which actually has not been set up and established by the Colorado secretary of state's office. So it's not actually an entity like, for instance, the Cherry Creek Neighborhood North Association is a is a nonprofit corporation and can sign a document and bind the entity itself. And we don't have an entity on the other side. So I think one of the things you'll hear from actually a representative from Mortenson here in my client later this evening is that we'd like a little bit more time to actually assist the community in forming that entity and finalizing this agreement. So thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jorge Pazienza. Hello. My name's George Pazienza. I'm the. You're in two roles. One is the Union Station. Ah, no president. One as the inker 29 brownstones h0 a president. So I'll split my comments as the ah no president. The neighborhood's sediment is obviously divided. Residents are supporting the vacation request. They're willing to give up the open space for a nice development. The residents that are opposing the vacation request are willing to risk what will happen to the dirt lot if we don't approve it. And they but they really don't want to give up the open space. The Arnaud's approach to this was to ask the highways to provide input on the objections and support from the community. This was somewhat successful. The Orono board did vote yesterday and by a 3 to 2 majority voted to support the vacation request. The hard data. In the spirit of transparency, the hard data that that was collected during this process did not outweigh the board's summary decision. The data showed that there were, as of this morning, 52 responses objecting from people that were hard data and six are supporting the vacation. Now, they were. Councilman CdeBaca His office provided some numbers this afternoon. She got another 24 objecting and seven supporting. So there's still a large number of the community that does not support this vacation request as a and I can answer questions about that later. The Inca 29 brownstones is is the president of that organization. There's 29 homes there. Our board officially objects to this. Then 79% of our owners object. The main issue there is access in the open space. The reason that we're bringing this up here and what our point is, is that those in CA 29 brownstone. Owners are 17 of the. Of the 20 adjacent landowners that the city defined as part of the process to create objections. So we have almost all of the adjacent landowners as defined by the city. And I want to bring up that there are guidelines. The only guidelines that are posted or available for evaluating this are state a number of issues in addition to it being available from a transportation viewpoint. Those issues are one of them is the adjacent landowners must agree those words and they don't they're limited or no impacts to the communities access services and enjoyment that has been that is we we don't agree with that this is not this is not an alley. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up is Taber Sweatt. Thank you, Councilman. So my name is TAVR, unlike the tobacco. Ah, that Councilman. Flynn was. Referring to earlier. So we're clear. I want to give everyone a little bit of background. So I started out my career as a land planner, landscape. Architect and urban designer. And when I look for opportunity and I look for sites to build on, I look for gaps in the urban fabric. And so that's what drew us to the site originally. I have trained, studied in Italy, studied in Denmark, Copenhagen. And you fill the urban fabric. And we feel like we have done just that here. I think some of you know, but I'd like to bring it up that this this site actually is is heavily encumbered by a stormwater line right down the middle of it. And so we have reached agreement. The public works. Public works has determined that none of the objections had technical merit that they received and that this storm line. I bring it up because not. Only does it greatly impact whatever a market value assessment might be for this property, but anything that you put on this property is subject to be removed and not replaced. So if public. Works has to come in and replace the storm line or service it, they restore the ground to level condition and they pay for it, period. And so there's a lot of risk that we were taking on to to do this, these enhancements that we're proposing. Another thing that I want to touch base on is that in our. In our discussions with the neighborhood, there's been a lot of concern and I've heard it here in council last week about future transportation, future transportation modes. And, you know, part of our proposal here is that we would actually create an easement for some of that right of way that would be vacated and donate it and grant it back to the city. So bicycle scooter racks, bicycles, scooter racks, parking, whatever need be. But we're more than happy to to accommodate that. As Steve said, it's a 5000 square foot 5074. Square foot, right of way. Our plan is to heavily. Enhance 3700 square feet of that with the remaining sorry, 37 square feet of heavily enhanced pedestrian improvements that could be selected and designed by the neighborhood. In total, we're proposing. To improve 7100. Square feet of right away. I want to bring it up because I think it's relevant. The hotel rooms that would go over this right of way. There's about 62 keys that we would be able to fit. Over the right of way. And I know this is a discussion about right away, but the taxable value on those 62 keys. Is roughly $1,000,000 a year. If the hotel is stabilized, so a $3 million overall project tax availability, and if we reduce the available land, we would we would reduce the. Taxes available are coming to the. City by about $1,000,000. So. More importantly, though, I want to ask everyone to do the right thing. You've asked us to come to an agreement with the city. We've worked very hard with two of the three main. Active board members. I feel like that we have made tremendous grounds in getting an agreement in place and I want to see this get built with community input and I want to see this happen with neighborhood support and feedback. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Margaret de Combs. Hi. My name is Margaret Dickens. I am here on behalf of ordinary people who take transit. I'm a multi-modal transit advocate. I specifically look at transit as it relates to human rights issues, disability and systemic racism, sexism, etc., etc.. I'm encouraging. You to vote. No on the vacation based on its technical merits because the parcel adjacent to 2099 Chestnut is already serving as a multi-modal transit hub, and it's necessary for current and. Future transit. There are no other. Areas in the neighborhood currently where transit needs can be met. For anyone who hasn't been in the neighborhood. It is packed and most of the. Streets do not go through to anywhere. So there are lots of trips that are under 1.2 miles, which it turns out is when people will forego car trips. Right. So this is why we've seen this rise in popularity among scooters. Bikes, ride sharing, all these sorts of activities. And right now, that plot adjacent to. Chestnut Place caters to those activities, and market based transit modes will use the space according to function. Right now in that neighborhood, bars and shops are at the intersection of 29th and Chestnut. That's where that plot of land is. And so that serves as the place for wagon walkers, joggers, people walking, other animals, anything that's wide. The sidewalks in that neighborhood. Are fairly narrow. There's sort of a standard. If you block them, they're blocked. I mean, access is done. And, you know, we've talked a little bit about future use. I know in the Land Use Transportation Committee, you talked about, well, where we're going to need it for the future or not. And the reality is probably right now that neighborhood is brand new and. There's a ton. Of people who are needing to get into town, into downtown. So things like expanding the 17th, 18th commuter bus line, that's the only place in that neighborhood you could turn a bus around or put a bus station that doesn't have to. Go all the way through. And I'd like to point out that although technically this neighborhood meets ADA requirements from a functional standpoint, anything that is removed from that corner quadrant ends up blocking sidewalks, other places. And like I've said, the sidewalks are not wide. They're tree lined for anyone who has been down there. So if it's if a scooter or bike is parked adjacent to one of those trees, it blocks the sidewalk and it's not accessible. I know that I can't walk through that neighborhood with my dog frequently because then the areas during high. Peak. Hours are blocked. Luckily, during most of the day they aren't blocked right now. But you can be sure that these really high use periods are going to be, I'm sorry. Your time is up. Sure. Thank you very much. All right. Our last two are Oscar Hernandez and Bernard DeWitt. If you want to come on up. And Oscar Hernandez, you're. Hi. Good evening Council and thank you for taking your time to listen to us. So I live, I'm sorry to say, Oscar Hernandez I live on 29/16 Street. So just down the street from where this development will be done, I'm here to speak in favor of it. I think as has been said before, we really need more time to work with the developers. We've come a long way. They've had several meetings with us. We've come a long way from what they originally presented to where we are now. A lot of things that, for example, are no is actually not officially incorporated. So it's something that we also need to build as a community to just get that together and be able to actually work on the final agreement. There are a lot of points. I agree that that is one of the last open spaces that we have in the neighborhood. But at the same time, if we vacate this road to the hotel, they were actually going to incorporate that and make it a more valuable space for the community and the hotel guests in general. Right now, I think a lot of the opposition that we've we've felt from the neighborhood has been in the concept that a lot of people just feel like if we don't vacate, they're not going to build anything. And that is not really the case. We really know that that is a very valuable property. It's very close to Union Station, so we know that one way or the other something will get built there and at least with them we have the opportunity to work with them and really come together and find something that'll be valuable for both of us. I think the last point that I really like about the if we give them the row is that the. Entryway will actually face where the rest of the businesses are in. The current neighborhood. If we do it the other way around, least based on the designs that we've seen, the entryway to the hotel will actually face a parking lot and it won't really feel like it's part of that corner in the community there. Plus, the current traffic design system, if the vacated row is provided, actually makes the traffic flow a lot easier. Without that, all the traffic will have to come in and out of the same way as opposed to looping through with the vacant design. So thank you very much. Thank you. All right. So one last point. Thank you, Taber. We do have a neighborhood meeting set for October 16th to talk about the next steps to really incorporate our and get on the bylaws officially designate a board and move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Bernard to it. He's gone. Oh. All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Hines? Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have public works. Come forward, please. Jason Miller of Denver Public Works. Hi. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Mr. Hernandez, who just testified, he mentioned that something will if if we choose not to vacate, that something will be built on this property. Question for you. As I understand it, the vacation can only be granted to an adjacent property owner and there's only one adjacent property owner. Is that other than the city, is that correct? That is correct. And I guess I asked two questions. So there's only one adjacent property owner, correct? That is correct. And you can only vacate two adjacent property owners? That is correct. Okay. So if we say no to this vacation, then this property or this. Sorry, this. 5000 or 6000 square foot, roughly, would just stay there as it is. That is correct. Okay. Do you are you familiar with the ADA, the pedestrian access in that area? I mean, not entirely. I do know that for that is under consideration when we talk about mobility. When we look at a whether we're going to be able to vacate something or not. That's why it was it was part of the bigger picture of, you know, whether it was needed for ADA issues or was it needed for mobility issues like bikes or anything else. So that that was all taken into consideration when it went through the process at Denver Public Works. That's why they still came up with this, the understanding that it was okay to vacate the 29 nine chestnut because it didn't meet any of those concerns. Okay. I mean, that's obviously a very busy area of town. Absolutely. And it was developed. I mean, there would also probably be another way where we would have to have sidewalks around there again and everything else, which means a dedication would probably have to come in form one way or another to make that capable. Okay. Good information. And, you know, obviously, I. Care a bit about it? Absolutely. Let's see the. Apologize. I guess it's getting late, and I can't read my own handwriting. That's. That's it for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Kennedy. Q Mr. President, one quick legal question. I was trying to look up, trying to find the state statute, but I'm sure someone is faster than me. Thank you. This question that was raised by one of the speakers about adjacent landowners, I think some people think of the word adjacent, like nearby, but I'm guessing the law is more specific. So when it says in the law that it has to be with the agreement of adjacent landowners, what does that mean versus what our prior speaker thought it might mean? For the record, Burton played assistant city attorney. With municipal operations. Are you? Yeah, I guess I'm a little confused by the question because we heard about we had an agreement with. So Mr. Pazienza. And he said that you have to have the agreement of adjacent landowners, according to the to the statute. Yeah. And he counted all of the buildings that were in the, you know, across the street as adjacent buildings and said this cannot he implied or the question was that this can't be granted because it violates the statute. So I need you to walk through what the word adjacent means in the statute compared to how a layperson might use it, like you or I, if we're just chatting. Yeah. A little bit. A little background. Well, Mr. Pansy, Enzo's referring to is not state statute. Okay? Where he's referring to is a document that's on the public works website. And he's referring to a section that says important issues that must be considered before submitting an application. They're not criteria. They're not standards. They're just factors to be considered before an applicant submits an application for a vacation. Got it. State statute requires. State statutes has codified that when a road or a right of way is vacated, the right to the title to that right away vests in abutting property owners, i.e.. Touching, touching. Touching, touching the site in question. All right. Thank you. Correct. I think that probably clarifies it. So so the idea that someone else is touching the property, like where the hotel might be, the land that the hotel developer already owns or someone who's, you know, just across the street, the next property over doesn't count in the state statute. In state statute. That's correct. And then can you just clarify, is the language being quoted, as does the language in the public works sites say must agree? Is that a quote that's accurate? Uh. Yeah. That is a quote. The property owners are sorry. Yeah, property owners must agree. And then it goes on to say to all adjacent property owners, agree to vacate the right of way. If not, expect the process to be much longer, more expensive, and ultimately may not be approved. Okay. So the context is a little different. It doesn't say must agree or vacation will be denied. Exactly. Because it's the context of the quote matters. Okay. And it's not a criteria. Again, the. Big picture, I know what we're telling the public and what we're not telling. The sentence doesn't end Ms.. Degree or the vacation. I just want to clarify. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions, Jason from Public Works. So according to your the documentation online for an Ali vacation, it says it was updated in March of 2017. Can you tell me the last time the fee structure for Alli vacations or right away vacations was updated from public works? Offhand, I don't know the exact date, but I think it was 2012. And we only do the fee structure to cover the cost of processing the request. Okay. And then according to the Public Works website, when it talks about vacating right away, it says some things to think about before proceeding with the vacation request. On bullet point number four, it says there must be limited or no impacts on the surrounding community or public at large. Right of way in the city is generally part of a roadway, network or grid that provides benefits to the public at large, including not limited to efficient access to various destinations. Removing a piece of that grid from public use could have various negative impacts for the community's access, service and enjoyment. The city will consider these factors before approving any request to vacate the right of way. So that's on your website, huh? And my question for you is these negative impacts. So I'm just going to ask you a question since 2012, and I know you haven't been here for 22 since. So I'll get you slack and your fee structure with updated in 2003. Okay. That's a you know, it wasn't updated in 2012. There have been numerous negative impacts when it comes to vacating right of way in northwest Denver. I'll just speak for myself and I think this has a negative impact for this community. How come that is on your Web site and how come that is not part of your PDF documentation online when it when you somebody would go to vacate and out alley right away. I feel like that that sentence should also be part of that PDF. Understandably so. So Councilman Sandoval, Jason Glare of the Public Works our process at Denver Public Works. We try to keep it very in the utility aspect of it and the mobility aspect of that right away when it gets into the other stuff that we're we're giving this information to them that they need to consider because this has to come before city council. And city council will make a political question on this. This is not what Denver Public says when we actually want to vacate or two to allow a vacation to go forward. This is a question that will be asked you. And we are prepping them on the website, which it says important issues you must consider before submitting an application, including several things, because there are things that they're going to have to work through with the community and with city council. All right. Thank you. So can I have one of the property owners come up? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Hi. Can you tell me when this property was purchased? Actually, I cannot I understand it was part of a trade in the early 2000s, but I don't know the exact date. It involved negotiations with the predecessor of the Central Park Ballet Development. So you you're representing the owner and you have no idea when they purchased this real estate property? I don't. There's an engineer for the owner. We could ask him here. He might know. Jim Fitzmaurice with engineering representing the applicant. Our understanding is pretty much what Steve said, that it was involved in a trade for some property that somebody else near to Platte Valley wanted to buy, and this was a property that they traded as part of that transaction. I believe that she's owned it at least 15 or 20 years, but not exactly how long for sure. Okay. So the reason I'm asking is when this came to ludi, a lot of times what I'll do is I'll go to the the property record. Right. And there's no in Denver you can find the chain of title. This property has no chain in title. And so I brought that up during the Ludi committee and I asked act during the Ludi Committee if somebody could come back and ask that group, get that question to me about when this property was bought or when this LLC 2999 chestnut was formed. And I still don't have the answers. So I find that concerning that. I asked that months ago about ludi and here we are tonight. We've postponed this and I still don't have an answer. So just in the future, if we could have those questions answered, it's really helpful when we're up here making those decisions. Yeah, apologies. I wasn't at that meeting. We did do a survey on it and I think the LLC is 1917. Chestnut, I believe, is the ownership name. I can look at my ALTA survey in a moment. I've got it with me. I can take down the Denver Property Records. It's 29, 20, 2099 Chestnut. I believe that's the address of the property. I think the LLC is a different number. It says Owner Chestnut Place, LLC. Okay, let me. Look at my survey. We did I know we did a survey and had a title for it. I may be able to give you a little more information. I didn't know that was a question until just now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Either Jason or the city attorney. So I'm interested. Drove by the site again today. And there is a B cycle station on there. Were the mayors committed to 125 miles of bike lanes in the city in the next five years. To me, it's a clear form of transportation. I'm just wondering how we get to where that. Doesn't meet the definition of a transportation. Usage. When it comes to a bike or bike ramp that's movable and we can put it in the area to still fill the needs. And we don't consider that as the, you know, the stake that says this is used for transportation. So, for example, if we had a bike rack that was there that we could also put into another part of the neighborhood that would be useful for the surrounding neighborhood in the same effect. Then we don't require that as the the the reason why we would deny a vacation. Okay. Thank you. Sure you have one. Dad, son. I wanted to ask. If you'd step up to the microphone, please. Again? Taber Suite with Mortenson Development as part of our. Site development plan process as well. On this. The representative from B cycle also was involved on relocating the bicycle rack and it was part of. I would say, the requirement for a site development plan. So they were including that B cycle station to be there. In perpetuity, which we obviously agreed to. Right. Thank you. While you're while you're up, you're going to have to stand up again. I don't know how good. All right. Don't know how good it feels. Good. So as as your current design is set up. You want to put some pillars. On the. Area you would like vacated. And what, another 62 rooms would overhang that area? Correct. Okay. How moving past that out into open space, how much space would would that plan leave uncovered? I don't have the exact number on uncovered. What we show is kind of the overall heavily enhanced plan, if you will, is about 3700 square feet. I off the top of my head, I don't know what of that is covered. My guess is going to be it's about 800 square feet maybe. So. Whatever you do. On that parcel, all that would be left uncovered for the community is. 800 square feet. No, no. No, no. The part left uncovered is probably closer to 33,000 square feet. On the immediate corner. On the very. Hard corner itself. Part of our discussions with the neighborhood has also been the realignment of the curb on Chestnut and to push that curb out a bit, which I think there are some diagrams in the in the package we sent you. So all in all, it's a and I believe it's about 3100 square feet on the actual corner itself. Right. Yeah. And the the the. Roadway the elevated. Roadway there. The 20th Street. Right? Yep. That runs right by there. How far will your building be set. Back away from that roadway? We're going to be about 15 feet set off the face of that road. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Cashman asked my big question, but I do want to ask some more questions of Mr. Pazienza. I'm curious about. So I'm hearing for the first time about this new R.A. that's not officially an R.A. with less people than required by your typical R.A. process, and then hearing from multiple associates or representatives of the developer and the project, but not specifically from any of the residents who were of the 71% as close to as Jason as possible. Do you are you aware of any of those those surrounding 71% that flipped out? Who can you tell me a little bit about what's been going on? So the there is part of the process that the Department of Public Works goes through whenever they ask for objections is they have a category of they call them adjacent landowners within 200 feet. And you know, the difference between a budding and adjacent, what I've been told is abiding means that has to touch an adjacent means there can be a river or right away or something between that those two properties. But at any rate, they sent out special letters to 21 people. Now, one of them was a double and it's part of our organization. I'm also one of the adjacent landowners. I am also representing the board is part of one of the adjacent landowners. None of those, Jason. Well, to say. They haven't changed their mind is not correct. More of them object now than. Objected when this process started. All of the objections have increased. There have been more. We've gotten more. Letters in terms of support through our organization. We've asked to be copied and tell us what's going on. But we, you know. The adjacent landowners, I mean, we read that document. It's got a name and got a number. It's, you know, words have meaning. That's I don't I don't know. I guess in law, words are supposed to have meanings. They have all these libraries and books. And that's you know, you saw what the word said. And we objected. And we object because we think that it creates utility value, transportation, as we've talked about. And it also, you know, is part of that enjoyment. But, you know, if those words on that document that has a number by the city don't really mean anything, I don't you know, that's our fault. I guess we shouldn't have. Thank you. Quick question for Mr. Gallardo. So you you say that this bicycle does biking fits as part of our multimodal transportation and our transportation goals. It's currently being used for a bicycles station. I'm curious about how the city decides to make these accommodations with developers. We made the effort to figure out how to relocate of bicycles station for a developer. What what triggers that process? Um, let me see if I understand your question. Jason Miller of Denver Public Works. You're asking what triggers the. What process for us to remove something? What triggers our attempts to accommodate a developer? It feels like the immediate checkboxes that you would go through for technical merit would be is this currently used as a for transit purposes checkbox? Yes. You don't go further than that. What triggered CPD to go further to figure out how to relocate this bicycle station? So. So DPW in the. So what happens is there was an agreement that was done that I didn't speak to before with the developer and b cycle to continue to have it in the area it was going to be permitted through them on their I think it's on private property that it will be on. And so when that agreement was made, it's no longer an issue for that to be part of the process of saying they were going to lose that aspect. That aspect was going to stay after the development occurred. So they weren't going to actually lose the cycle there. And when it comes to bike ramps and stuff like that, those are movable. And we're able to see in different areas of how we can make it work for the entire community. So so in that. Area, in all vacations, just sorry to interrupt. All vacations are not developer's vacations. Vacations happen from private homeowners as well and everything else. We make those same accommodations across the board. So with all of the constraints that were mentioned tonight about that area of town, the smaller sidewalks, the limited walk space, the limited space for docking scooters and bikes, where are we thinking? Why would we give up space like that? So I think that there is a bigger question you're asking there that we do not ask that public works. And when it comes to a specific piece of land, that's something that I think that is the reason why it goes through this process so that you guys can have this conversation and discuss the whether we should vacate it or not. But for for us, the Denver public works. We look at a right away and say, does it have a utility need or a mobility need? And if it doesn't, if the adjacent or the budding property owner requests for a for us to vacate it so that they may develop it or do something else with it, then we we consider it under those guidelines only the rest of those questions are questions outside of our scope, because there's it's a hard question to answer. We've been here for three nights because it's a hard question to answer, and I get it. But that's not something that would be part of our process on that. That's, I think, more in the hands of city council and the neighborhood and whoever is asking for the vacation. Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate you passing the ball to us. But this could have simply been taken care of by checking off that first box because it is used as a current transportation access or use. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hernan. Hey, Mr. President. I was the one who asked for this first delay, and I might be regretting that decision. Now, I say that. And just so my question first, public works is, Jason, is there any expectation that public works that this vacation is denied, that public works will do any improvements on this parcel? At this time. We in our current system and our current guidelines that guide us for right away. No. Okay. But that. Many things have happened. But no, I. Understand you can be encouraged to do so. Okay. Oscar. You said this at the very end. What is happening on the 17th? So Oscar announces again on the 16th. We're going to have a general meeting for the neighborhood to incorporate the actual R.A. At the moment, the R.A. has been working unofficially. There is no actual incorporation. We have no bylaws. We don't have any terms for the board of directors or anything like that. So as part of this process, we found that out. Several members of the community found this out. And so that's why we were asking for more time, so that we can get to that. And whether we vacate or not, at least we get the opportunity to have that discussion as an official board internally for our community and which are now just so the Union Station north of the Union Station, Arno. So this so that I will use the word. Arno recognizing that you're not official yet. So you have been the ones that have been in conversations with the adjacent property owner from the very beginning of when the first delay was made, these conversations. So I believe Georges, as the has has started that process, I only got involved a little bit later, but then through that process is when we found out that it wasn't officially incorporated. Got it. So, George, a question for you. So you have you have been a part of these conversations so you can verify there is another meeting on the 16th or 17th that you incorporate as Nana. I was not aware personally of a meeting. On the 16th or 17th. I have been part of this process since Tabor. We met in January. So it's been going on for quite a long time. Okay. So, Steve, I'm just going to pull different people up. We we published this last Monday, and so there was a meeting on the following Wednesday last week. What happened at that meeting? Steve Erskine. Well, there was a presentation by Taber and his team to the neighbors again, and they talked about they gave him a draft agreement early on, I think it was Tuesday, and that was discussed in more detail on Wednesday. And there was essentially a understanding that their general idea of the agreement was, okay, I want to paraphrase here, but they wanted more details to be resolved on the Good Neighbor Agreement. I understand. And so there is we have two people say there is there is a meeting, again, that you were going to be a part of. I'm assuming that there's going to be another meeting in October because we're not in October yet. Yes. Okay. So in essence, the conversation is still continuing. That's a fair summary. I would ask Taber if he wants to embellish that further, because they're the actual people working with the neighbors on the agreement. And I represent the landowner and they're the developer working on the agreement. Okay. I'm good. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, gentlemen. I'm going to skip to some people who I don't think have been up yet. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two questions probably for Jason. Public Works. What was the conversation in public works that no future need for utility or transportation would be required in this neighborhood? And I'm just figuring that has seen pretty rapid growth and expansion that you wouldn't need that land. Was that part of the conversation? Or is it only are we currently using it for that use? No, it's a future. Need is is part of the conversation. We do look at the property that is in question and determine whether is currently being used for mobility or if it had a future need for mobility based off of our current understanding of which direction we're moving. Obviously, that can always change and these aren't perfect guidelines, but that is the guideline we use. Yes. And then if it does not get vacated, what can the city do on it? Right now, nothing. There's no pathway or process for us to do something different than leave it as right away. So I can only speak of to the what kind of process we have in place right now. It would stay right away. So how is a B cycle installation? It was only through the funds of B cycle itself that actually installed the station there. Yes, they were probably permitted in a process. I'm not totally sure on how that process ended up. There you. Okay. So it can't look any different than it currently looks right now. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to look at a couple of different areas as quickly and concise as possible, maybe for the attorney. And to follow up on Councilwoman Conchas question. Now, this the right of way is not technically city owned real estate. It's a dedication. Of all of a public passages that basically were dedicated right away as. Martin played the city attorney, city attorney's office. Yes, the right of way is not like your typical real estate. It's not like a city park. Exactly. When the city has titled two Right of Way, it has a limited interest. And that interest is that the city holds title to the right of way in trust for the benefit of the public for right away use. Right. So essentially George Hoyt and William Robinson in 1871 platted this area. And what they did was they laid out the streets and this is part of the intersection of what was Hertford. Now Chestnut Division Street and Stanton Avenue, which is now 29th Street. And that is how it came to be part of the street system of the city. And it was taken from the adjacent parcels. This gets the councilwoman each his line of questioning. He was parceled out half and half from the adjacent parcels. So if this corner is to be vacated, it can only be returned to the property from which it was parceled out in the first place. Yes. And that's what's codified in the vacation statute. And that is that is why we don't charge my market rate or anything like that. We were given this as a dedication. And if we don't use it anymore, our obligation is to give it back. But we charge a processing fee of $600. Yes. In Colorado, courts have held that the city doesn't hold the right of way for profit. Right. Okay. Okay. The let me ask one of the owner representatives. I don't know if it'll be Steve or Taber, but on what was shown to us includes what was shown to us today. And as part of this agreement that you're negotiating with the neighborhood is you would build over part of the existing right of way. You have to leave the big swath in the center because there's a six foot storm drain buried underneath it that you can't build over. And and part of the building would then be canceled, not cantilevered, but would be supported around the perimeter, but not all of it. About 3000 some odd feet would be delighted. And I'm just making sure I understand this correctly. And again, maybe one of you could stand at the microphone. So this looks like a question. And it is and it is a question. What I saw in that in that document was that you would then rededicate part of what is being vacated would be rededicated back as part of the public right of way. In other words, you would extend the curb to narrow and channel traffic more efficiently or effectively or safely and slowly, we hope correct to come around and then enter through a portico, share sort of arrangement on at the hotel that would use part of this right of way. Correct. Okay. I just want to make sure I understand. And now let me ask either Oscar or George, because this is confusing to me. And that's the last the last thing is rather Union Station North is not registered with the secretary of State, but I don't I have RINO's and my council district that are registered to the Secretary of State and I see that you are registered. Union Station North is a registered neighborhood organization in Denver and Mr. Pazienza is listed as the contact here. So I'm kind of confused with why. Explain to me why this meeting is coming to involve a filing with the Secretary of State. Why that's necessary. Because you are in Reno right now. Oscar. And and this again. Thank you. Yeah. So what we came to find was that, yes, it is registered. We found it on the website as well. George is listed as the president. However, it is not officially incorporated. So when it comes to making the agreement with the developers on what we decide if it is vacated, we don't have any legal standing. Or you don't have legal standing to sign a document. Right. That's the crux of it. Okay, I get it. But what we have here is we have the makings of an agreement with the neighborhood. Correct? We are working with. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Gallardo, I chat with you again for a second. I think I heard someone say this earlier. I just wanted to make sure I heard it right. The hotel rooms. If this were to be approved and developed as is conceptually designed, there's an elevated roadway. Is that right? No elevated roadway. No elevated roadway that I know of. Next to it. Oh, you mean. Oh, yes. You mean the train? Oh, there's elevated train tracks. You guys can't speak to that more. Please. If you're in the audience. The councilman call on who he would like to answer. I could. I could definitely get somebody for you to answer that question better than. Okay. Yes, I apologize. Okay. Let me let me just. Is there a bus stop on this vacation? No. There's currently no. Yes, there's no bus stop there. Google Maps shows that there's a bus stop on that. No. No. Okay. No, Buster. And I think to your comment earlier, I think basically what you were saying is that public works is purview is more narrow than city council's purview in this situation. Okay. Let's see. Mr. Pazienza, may I? Ask a couple of questions about so. The Arno. How many? Approximately how many members are do you have in your Arno? Well, the no, we think there's about 3500 people in the neighborhood. Okay. And in one of your meetings you found, can you go back over the number of HANO members that voted for and against? It's like 130, 170, something like that. No, no, no. There were a total, if you include what was passed on to Councilwoman CdeBaca is 76, objected and 13 supported. And the R.A. board also took a vote. Is that correct this morning? Is it? Yes. The board made three members of the board voted. That I thought five members of the board voted in favor. Two against the two members did not. They were not available and abstained. So three members voted for the for the to support the vacation. So there are three members on board members and support and no one opposed and two abstained. Correct. Well two weren't. You know, that weren't there. Okay, that's fine. I don't want to dig too much into your business. I guess I'm a little confused as to why if you surveyed the members and it was overwhelmingly negative, why the board would then vote in support, I guess. Does the board have information that the that the members don't have? Not to my knowledge, no. Okay. Um. Thank you. From the developer. A developer representative. Would you answer the same question? It does. So there was a board vote today which seemed to be counter to the vast majority of the of the members. So does does the board have information? Did the board have the information this morning that the members did not have? I can't speak to this precise information that a board member may or may not have had. But I can tell you that the other members that Mr. Pazienza were referring to had been at all the meetings, and Mr. Pazienza has not. And those other board members have been fully engaged in trying to negotiate the developer agreement. And Mr. Pazienza has not. Okay. Um. So I don't know if that gave them more insight, I guess is my point, councilman. Okay. Fair. Fair enough. And. You're Mr. Sweet, correct? Correct. TAYLOR But the good tipper. Okay. The earlier in your when you came up before, you'd mentioned that you had come to an agreement with two of the three board members. I'm guessing that those two were voted yes today. Correct. This morning. Okay. And also I again, I think I caught this, but I wanted to make sure you mention that there is that you talked about how the developer is taking a lot of risk because you may have to return. The VA vacation back to its existing. You know, you might have to do because of this five foot storm drain you might have to. Rip it back out. Correct. And put it all back. Yep. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council Bill 776 is closed and we're going to move on to comments by members of council. Councilman said Abarca. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I would like to thank all of you who spoke tonight and encouraged my colleagues to vote no on this vacation. I stress last week some of the manipulation that was happening. And we have we have received a steady flow of people who continue to be opposed to this project and are refusing, as Mr. Pazienza said, to attend these meetings where they feel that they are being coerced to support it when they've already expressed their discontent and disapproval. We've heard tonight that this is very valuable land according to what square feet of land are going is going for here in Denver right now. This is worth over $2 million of land. We recognize that it is currently being used for a transportation use and could potentially be used for other different transportation uses and transportation uses that are in alignment with our mobility goals. And so I don't think that it makes sense when 71% of the surrounding neighbors oppose this to to approve it. There is technical merit. And I believe that it should remain a right of way. And we should vote no on vote no on it. So thank you all. Thank you, councilman. Councilman Herndon name is president. I am. I'm sitting here with a struggle because the initial reason for the delay was for the to the different parties to come together and have this conversation. I feel as if we're not there yet because there is a meeting that's going to happen in a few weeks so that the Register neighborhood organization can be official and sign a document that would take the two parties. It would be an agreement. So it seems that we though. Though I'm I'm past comments so I'm not going to comment. I don't know if that's going to be able to happen in one meeting. So I am I am torn on that. But I will just say, it seems as if you have an option of allowing the community to have a voice and a parcel of land and one option which the conversations that have moved forward. But it also seems as the vacation is denied, then they're the property owner. We'll just move forward with the development on their own parcel and the neighborhood won't have a voice in that conversation. And then the reason what was important to me, because I'm curious if DPW would develop this parcel in any capacity and the answer is no. And if the right away is going through, the community is going to get this integrated into the a part of their community. So I will be interested in seeing other colleagues speak up how they feel about a potential delay so that we can get past this October meeting that the Union Station, you are official. You have the capacity to sign a document and you can speak for the you can say, hey, we have a we have an ironclad agreement that if you have to move forward in this capacity, that to me seems as if that would be the end of a smart way to move forward. But I will certainly be interested in hearing how some of my other colleagues feel. Thank, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. I I'm in some ways the same situation as my colleague, Councilman Herndon. It's the Chris effect, maybe. But part of what factors into my confusion or my quandary, I suppose, is, you know, Councilman Sandoval asked for information in Luti and didn't get it. And I asked for it again tonight and and didn't get it. So that makes it a little tougher for me to say, Oh, we've got all our questions answered. Another quandary that I have is the Erno Ford says yes, but the Arno members say no. And that's confusing to me as well. And it's difficult for me to reconcile that to Mr. Sweet's comment about, well, we've come to an agreement with two of the three board members. We did what you want. Actually, I remember last week saying that I wanted a good neighbor agreement and I wanted there to be some document commemorating it, commemorating the relationship between, you know, what the neighbors wanted and. And I don't see that. And I recognize that there's also some work on a developer agreement which requires a legal entity. So I recognize that that's also a challenge. But that's, again, the quandary that we're in. Another quandary is we've already delayed this a month and. You know, whatever tonight is like today's the 30th and we delayed it until the 30th and and we deleted a month. And so I'd be okay with another extension. I'm a little frustrated that we're. Already delaying, and we're delaying more. I just don't want to. Yeah, it's it's just a little disheartening that we knew that we were going to meet today, and we're still not. I don't think we're quite there yet. Um, I also unfortunately had a meeting with one of my state contacts that had to get rescheduled when I was going to ask about the state statute. And that's totally my, that's, that's not anything that would happen here. But, but I wanted to learn a little bit more about the vacation process and the thought process as well. So I would likely be a no just because there are a lot of a lot of moving parts that just I can't reconcile right now. And and so I'm just sharing my thoughts. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn. Thank, Mr. President. In response to Councilman Herndon, I'd be willing to entertain another delay to allow this to occur, because it seems to me we had asked for not just a good neighbor agreement, which is unenforceable, but a development agreement which is enforceable. But that requires this meeting to take place. If that meeting takes place and the neighborhood organizers and they say no, then we can vote no. And if they organize and they sign the agreement and say yes, then we can say yes. And but I think to just outright kill it tonight before we get a chance for this to happen, which is what we wanted to happen, is is not what we want to do right now. So I would support another delay. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Herndon, you back up? Okay. Well, we can just see how this goes. I so my understanding is there's a meeting on the second week of October, the week of the 13th. If we delayed for three weeks, I would go until October 21st. But I think maybe the prudent thing would possibly give them an additional week. And so I before I say this, you have heard the questions that council has asked, and there really is no reason to not have council and council members ask this. But so I will I will make this and we will see how the will of the body goes. Mr. President, I move that final consideration of Council Bill 1977 six to be postponed to Monday, October 28th. A check in with our Madam Secretary and see if the councilman has followed the protocol needed to make that motion. Absolutely. And let's see it on our screens and we're going a little off script here. So if someone want to verbally second that or. I didn't show up. Oh, there we are. Thank you. So that motion has been moved and seconded. Are there comments on the motion to delay, Councilman CdeBaca? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I think that we've delayed once we've had this discussion last week, and we allowed it to move forward from last week to give them the time to go through the typical process anyone else would go through. I think we've heard community's voice and we're not listening to communities voice. There are several documents uploaded in your files of people who are protesting this. You're not talking to the same people. We're talking to an a three member faction of this group that has. Somehow. Commandeered this process. And we're waiting for these three people to establish, establish themselves, to sign for an entire neighborhood that has already spoken up that we are choosing to ignore. And so I don't think that this motion is appropriate. I think that this is a slap in the face to their participation. If this were a rezoning, this is beyond the 20% that would be required to protest a rezoning. And so we're we're really. Changing the rules and moving the target here with our threshold for community participation. And we're deciding which community. Members we want to listen to. And I don't think it's appropriate to listen to. We only saw one. Representative here who said he is making a decision for a group that the other representative who opposes. Is the president up. So it's. Very confusing. It is really. A testament to what I mentioned last week about the manipulation involved in this. Process. And I don't think it's appropriate. I think we've given enough time. It's run its course. It's followed the typical process. And I think we should be voting on this tonight, not delaying it any more. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Seeing no other comments, we are voting on the delay. Madam Secretary, roll call. See tobacco? No. Flint. I Gillmor. I heard it. I hate cashmere. I can eat. I. ORTEGA Hi. Sandoval No. Sawyer No. Torres No. Mr. President. No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and note the results. Six eyes, five knees. Are we missing somebody? That's only 11. Ortega. Okay, you. Just let me vote right now. I was looking. For a good design. Seven eyes. Five knees. Seven eyes. Five nays. Uh, council bill seven, seven, six has been delayed. So I think that anything else we need to do, do now and then. All right. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.