A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 8504 East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard in Stapleton. Rezones property located at 8504 East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard from C-MU-20 to M-RX-5A (commercial, mixed-use to master planned, residential, mixed-use) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-23-17.
And please refrain from obscene or and direct your comments to members of Council Hall and refrain from individual and personal attacks. Councilman New, will you now put Council Bill 565 on the floor. And move the Council Belfast three to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in second it. Public hearing for council 565 is now open. We have staff report. Scott Robinson thank you, Mr. President. And Council. Scott Robinson with community planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 8504 East Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard from CMU. 22 rx5a property is located in Council District eight in the Stapleton neighborhood at the corner of MLK Boulevard and Central Park Boulevard, also bounded by Willow Street and 29th place. It's across an Oak Boulevard from Central Park. The property is about three acres and is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to develop the property. The requested rezoning is from C 20, which is an old code. Former Chapter 59 Zoning of commercial mixed use to mrx5a which is the master plan. Neighborhood Context residential mixed use five storey maximum height. The next master plan in context is a bit unusual. We don't see a lot of it, but it's allowed in areas that have a general development plan of at least 50 acres and on sites that are more than a quarter mile away from a transit station. As mentioned, it's a residential mixed use, which Will has up to five stories with a wide range of building forms and uses. As mentioned, the property is governed by a general development plan, the Stapleton Redevelopment South General Development Plan, which calls for mixed use development neighborhoods which incorporate multiple uses. And includes urban design standards and guidelines. As mentioned, the site is currently zoned c 20 as is the property to the west. Properties to the south and east are zoned r m 30 with waivers that residential mixed use and to the north is again Central Park, which is zoned open space. The reason this property was not resumed in 2010 was because at the time it looked like it was part of a plan. Building group and properties that were part of planned building groups were not resound in 2010 to the new code. However, upon closer examination, while this property was going through this current rezoning, we realized it was not actually included in that building group. So it's not part of the plan building group. But that's why it was not resolved in 2010. As mentioned, the site is currently vacant and to the north is the park. On the other three sides are residential mix of single-family, duplex and townhomes. You can see in the pictures here, the currently vacant property there in the center, the park above that, and then a variety of residential around it. This application went to the planning board on May 3rd, where it was recommended for approval by a 5 to 4 vote. There are also four members of the public there that spoke about it went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 23rd and has received 18 letters of public comment as of. Thursday morning, which you have included in your packet. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria are met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property. The first being comprehensive plan 2000, as described in the staff report. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning complies with the four strategies listed here, mostly having to do with promoting mixed use development. The next plan is Blueprint Denver from 2000 to the proposed future concept plan to use and for this property in Blueprint. Denver is single family residential, which calls for predominantly single family homes and density less than ten units per acre, but does allow for some employment and some variety in housing types. So we're looking at just this individual. BLOCK The proposed zoning does not match up with the the proposed future land use, but we're looking at the much larger single family residential area within Stapleton and accounting for that allowed variety and variability within that staff with the proposed zoning could be consistent with that land use designation. This is also an area of change. Blueprint. Denver also includes street classifications. Both Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard and Central Park Boulevard are designated mixed use arterials, which call for higher intensity and mix of uses along them. Both 29th Place and Willow Street are designated locales which are intended to serve as access connecting individual properties to larger streets. Blueprint. Denver also includes specific recommendations for the Stapleton area that calls for a network of urban villages within Stapleton and mixed use development to reduce the number of trips and life of trips taken. So considering the land use concept calling for single family, but the streets calling for mixed use development and the recommendations for the Stapleton area , Steph believes that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Blueprint Denver recommendations. The third plan is the Stapleton Development Plan from 1995. This property is in District two of that plan, which calls for predominantly employment with some residential areas adjacent to parks similar to the site. It also calls for higher densities, more intense development at intersections such as this one, and call specifically for higher density housing at Yosemite, which as it was developed, ended up being Central Park Boulevard and what's now Central Park. So the site we're talking about right now. So we're looking at the overall plan direction from Blueprint and from the Stapleton development. Seems to be some inconsistency, some calling for single family residential, some calling for higher intensity and employment. And Steph believes that the M or s5a is an adequate compromise of those different plan directions. And so finds that. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted plans. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Steph has found that the proposed rezoning will result in the uniform application of the Matrix five zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning will do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and allow and facilitating the development of a currently vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning is justified by the current development of Stapleton. Stapleton has not significantly since this property was initially zoned in the nineties and given the nature of the development steps from the proposed rezoning from CMU to 20, a commercial mixed use to AMR X5, a residential mixed use is justified. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed marks five eight zone districts will allow development consistent with the description of the master plan, neighborhood context and the metrics for the purpose and intent as described in the zoning code so that staff finds that all five criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Scott. All right. This evening, we have 20 speakers and I'm going to call the first five speakers and I'm going to ask the folks in the front row if you could find a seat back here, because we're going to use this front row for the speakers to sit. And it's got that and that includes you. Okay. Call the first five speakers up. Bruce O'Donnell. Jim Christman. John Van Hoff. Sekou and Suzanne. Shuttle Challenger. Sorry about that. Bruce O'Donnell, you are first. Actually. Do you mind if I. I'm Jim Christian of Forest City. And we talked about maybe maybe going first. That's okay. Um, we have an order in which we can do things, if that's okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Bruce O'Donnell, and I'm at 770 Sherman Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm a representative for Forest City Stapleton on this rezoning, this site, which is currently zoned CMU 20, which is left over from the old Chapter 59 code, has always been zoned for mixed density MIT pardon me, mid density, mixed use development. Ever since the former Stapleton Airport closed in the first zoning was put on it in 1999. It's been zoned CMU 20. The current CMU 20 zoning does not limit building heights, and it is for air or floor area ratio driven zoned district as opposed to a form base district like is in our current code and like will be in the mrx5a as such today it's a use by right that 132,000 square feet of building could be developed on this site, including a wide range of commercial uses. And in fact, as you can see in the packet that was provided to you, there's been a sign on the property you might notice for ten years now that this is a future high density, mixed use site, development site. Pardon me. The rezoning request before you this evening will allow similar type development as is allowed today to occur on the property with the following important differences. One Unlike the current zoning building heights are limited to five storeys with the more x5a. As I mentioned, the CMU 20 does not have a building height limitation. Unlike the current zoning, commercial uses are limited to only be allowed on the ground floor in the new zoning and in the CMU 20 commercial could be on every floor . And then in addition, and importantly, far fewer commercial uses are allowed in the Mar x five, which is predominantly a residential mixed use district. In addition to all of that, in in response to neighborhood input, the applicant for City Stapleton has voluntarily offered and agreed to limit building heights to three stories along the east and south. Portions of the property adjacent to where there is existing development today in that offer is in response to input heard from nearby residents. Four City is firmly committed to continuing its partnership with the city and the community to responsibly develop all of Stapleton and to implement the Stapleton Development Plan in May. X5, combined with this voluntary height limitation, is the right zoning in the best zoning to foster the quality development for a city envisions finishing out the development of Stapleton with for these reasons and also for consistency with the staff report recommending approval and planning board recommending approval. I formally request the planning or excuse me the City Council vote to approve map amending application 2016 i0011 to rezoning 8504 East MLK Boulevard and 2962 Boulevard from See Me 25. Thank you. You on time and sorry we did not have your time up there. Mr. Jim Christman. Yes. Thank you. My name is Jim Christman. I'm a senior vice president with four city Stapleton, just 7351 East 29th Avenue and Denver 80238. I'd just like to reiterate a couple of the things you've already heard. I think there are important points. The first is this is consistent with the master plan for state plan that was adopted over 20 years ago as an amendment to the comprehensive plan. There's very specific language in that plan that calls out for higher density housing into two places one adjacent arterials and two adjacent to large scale amenities. Parks like Central Park. So knowing that that was always the plan when the infrastructure for Stapleton was designed, it was designed with the. Understanding that the trip count on this corner could be what it would be with the zoning. So the Central Park Boulevard and MLK have the capacity to handle any trips that are generated from this this project. The Bruce mentioned some of the uses under the current zoning that wouldn't be allowable under the new zoning. And I'll give you a few examples of that. Any type of manufacturing facility is allowable under CMU 20th building could have a single storey 135,000 foot manufacturing facility. Would we do that now but in the future? You know, you never know what might happen. Gas stations are also allowable as well as recycling collection facilities. Just to give another example and then again, we heard, you know, we did we did have some interface with the neighborhoods. We did hear their concerns. And we're trying to address their concern by offering a step by step back the building height immediately to the single family homes from three stories to five to manage the transition and to move across the street to three. And then when you get further into the project and up against the major arterials, it would go to five. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Christmann. John Van. I asked Scott if I could. Good evening. My name is John Van Hoff. I reside at 8542 East 29th place, just south of the area. In consideration this time, I would like to ask those in the audience and opposition to this matter to raise their hands for a few seconds. Within 200 feet of this site, there are 40 to 45 homes. I would appreciate if you could focus on the pictures of our homes, on your monitor as we speak. Since mid April, the biggest problem with the application has been that Forest City does not have a developer or a site plan. In light thereof. We have to assume the worst under the proposed zoning. That being a five story apartment condo building, first floor commercial, and the associated traffic, parking and safety concerns. Forest City originally told the neighbors that the site would contain 130 to 150 units. By June that had increased to 225 units. And to make things worse, it appears that the neighbors have little or no say in the permitting process. A massive five storey structure consuming the entire three acre site does not fit into the surrounding neighborhood of some 40 single family homes, paired homes and townhomes. I should also note that from All-Star Street to Havana, some 24 blocks, there are only one, two and three storey residences. I should also note that from Ulster East Bridge, some 20 blocks, there is no commercial except for Punchbowl. While appreciating Scott helping me to understand the very complicated zoning process. Thanks, Scott. I cannot agree with him and CPD that the proposed zoning meets all five review criteria. Specifically, we feel that the proposed zoned district does not further the public health, safety and welfare, and secondly, that it is not consistent with the neighborhood context. In brief, putting a five storey building on this site is totally incompatible with the neighborhood. There is already excessive traffic on MLK and CPB, plus extreme congestion at the intersection due to that congestion, entrances and exits to the complex problem. We will probably be on our side streets that would be unsafe for the neighbors. In conclusion, I would ask that you consider the information I and my neighbors are presenting and reject the proposed zoning for not furthering the public health, safety and welfare and not being consistent with the neighborhood context. If additional traffic safety data is needed, I suggest a postponement until a traffic study can be done. However, if you disagree with a neighbor's position and desire to approve the request, then we ask that you approved with conditions, and those conditions should address those concerns expressed by the neighbors this evening. I thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Must have enough scoop. Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. I'm the founder organizer for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. We come before council today to support this zoning change. And we come to support the zoning zoning change but certain. Conditions. Which have been outlined by the previous speakers who were opposed to this zoning change. Now. We already know how this thing is going to go down. Council was going to approve this zoning change. You're going to do it. It wouldn't get to the floor if you didn't have the votes. So consider a president. Seriously. The opposition. Conditions because we have a serious problem with these developers in our neighborhood, particularly when it pertains to black people. See there's going to be a lot of jobs available with all this construction done in Stapleton, but there's an abysmal record of black participation on these sites. You go by them sites, you don't see no black folks working. None. Not one even holding a stop sign. And then you come before council with these glorious plans, systematically excluding black people from participating in the benefits that are happening in the city. So the question becomes political courage. Now these sites have to be overseen by city council as this developed. Otherwise, we have a systematic participation of city council and excluding black participation and employment within the city. And so we're faced with the challenge of not looking the other way. Now, Dr. King once said that there comes a time when things have to be done that aren't necessarily. Comfortable. And they're not necessarily politically expedient and they're the right thing to do. And so he said in 1957, you show me a man and woman who has nothing they're willing to fight for. They are not fit to live. Go out to City Park and read his statue. So where do we go from here? Can we go from chaos or do we go to community? So I'm supporting this measure with these conditions. So folks are real clear. We have some serious, serious work to do. And I salute city council for being present here with the existing members and also those that have been here for a while this cycle. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Suzanne Chandler. I have to break this down. Thank you very much. Good evening, everybody. And I do want to just preface everything I say. The plan for Stapleton was made 20 years ago. Things have changed in Denver, so. I am in favor of developing the parcel MLK Boulevard and Central Park boulevards, but development to be useful and successful should be intelligent, appropriate and compassionate, and should be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. The tio d plan only a half a mile from this site is everything it ought to be to enhance the neighborhood, a vibrant, urban style enclave anchored around a transit hub providing for retail. Housing and office. Space. This parcel under consideration here has none of those qualifications positioned at a notoriously congested, fast moving and hazardous intersection site of numerous accidents. The proposed project is a behemoth of 225 one and two bedroom units with ground floor retail. This will add hundreds of new residents, visitors and their cars to the residential area. Additionally, the heavy traffic on the boulevards will force all this added traffic from the proposed complex, as well as delivery trucks serving the retail spaces onto Willow Street and 29th place. Changing the nature of the residential neighborhood and creating a formidable safety risk to the citizens, children, parents and grandparents who bike, walk, jog and stroll. I urge you implore you to be good neighbors and reject any proposed zoning that allows for development not compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood currently and solidly made up of townhomes, paired and single family homes. Please, all council women and men be good neighbors and preserve the integrity of our neighborhood and the safety of all its residents by voting against misguided and reckless zoning choices. I thank you. Ma'am. Can you state your name for the record, please? Excuse me. You didn't state your name at the beginning and you stated for the record. State my name. Yes. I'm sorry. Suzanne Challinor. I live at 85, 61 East 29th Avenue. Thank you, Miss Gellar. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, now I'm going to call the next five. No, Lawrence. Judy Bolen. Robin. I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name. Krakowski. Jane Warner. Let's see. One, two, three. And one more, Laura, Twitter. No. Lawrence, your first. Hi. I'm Noel Lawrence and I live in Denver and my address is 8462 East 29th Place. I reside to the south of the property in question. And it's a. Suburban courtyards and. Beyond the fact that it doesn't really make sense for. The location in terms of having a huge apartment complex by the hour, suburban homes. It really is a traffic and safety issue because as it appears as though what would happen is the curb cuts or entrances and exits would go in on Willow and on 29th place, which are side streets and very small side streets, actually. And. My children and other people's children play on the garden courtyard and. This really would decrease the safety of our children and of us having these be the cut ins where they're they would probably end up paying. And the Son community organization in Stapleton has voiced their concerns, too, about regarding the safety. In a letter that they sent to council. And again, it's not appropriate for the setting. There's this huge Todd development that's going to go on down the street at the where the light rail is. And so. That's really where these kind of buildings belong. And for city has plenty of space to make piles of money and. You have their commercial development. But again, it doesn't make sense at this intersection. Thank you for considering the negative impact that this will have on our community. And. Please. Please vote no. Thank you. LAWRENCE Thank you. All right. Judy Berlin. Oh, that's me. I'm Judy Bulow. I'm at 8461 East 29th Avenue. Sorry about that. Which is, again, south of the lot we're talking about. We brought our home 11 years ago, and we're promised a certain measure of light, openness and livability. We're kind of like the tumbleweeds that were coming down the sidewalk in the streets, but the tumbleweeds are gone. But I'm afraid with this apartment complex that our way of life is threatened. And the people who live across from the apartment that they're talking about, their way of life is threatened to. I have two main concerns. One is the more traffic, more accidents. The traffic is unbearable right now. There's people speeding. There are people going through red lights. I can't even imagine what it would be like with an apartment complex. And also, the punchbowl is going to be open soon. And that's where the tower, the repurposing of the tower, the tower that's still there. And that is like an amusement center. It's a bar. It's a bowling alley. It's going to have a lot of people in there. And that's going to increase the traffic, too, because they want families during the day. They want drinkers at night till one or two in the morning. Um. Let's see. Okay. I also have noticed school kids, walkers, couples, bikers, joggers, families, runners, cats and dogs and other varieties of animals using Central Park and Martin Luther King for their routes. I can't even imagine what an apartment complex would do to all of us who live close to their apartment. Complexes, by their nature, are busy and transitional at best, with dwellers coming and going, visiting, moving in, moving out on 20 place, 29th place and Willow, both of which are very narrow streets. Homes are a little different. We already have a boatload of apartments on Martin Luther King. We have apartments coming in, as the other man suggested. Down by the train center. Is Stapleton going to be an apartment complexes? The whole thing going to be apartments? I feel like it is. Well, let's see. What why do we need more apartments? Why here in this little place, this vacant lot? Why now? I also wonder, is this building complex? We're doing this duty for our homes, not to mention the quality of this man. Excuse me. You're out of time. I know. Yeah, I know. You're out of time. My question is to finish. Why don't we know you really. You really have to. You have to sit down because we have to honor everybody else. People. Thank you. We have to honor everybody else's time. Thank you. Good points. Okay, Robin. Crack down, ski. I'm sorry. Oh, did I? Good job. Come on. Thank you. Members of the council president. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. My name is Robin Krakowski, and I've lived in Colorado in Stapleton for five and a half years. Although I currently live in Bluff Lake, I lived in the neighborhood adjacent to the lot in question for a couple of years. Coming from the East Coast. What I love most about Stapleton is the thoughtful and deliberate attention that's been given to the development of each neighborhood. And each little neighborhood within each few blocks clearly have a different feel and atmosphere. So it is beyond any understanding why this parcel of land would be treated differently and not be developed to match the surrounding neighborhood of residents as. A large five five story complex apartment does not fit. I am in and by this neighborhood on a daily basis. This intersection is one of, if not the busiest in Stapleton. Adding additional high density and high traffic. Activity to this. Location seems reckless. Punchbowl Social across the street, a men's development at the transit center and the expansion of MLK in the Central Park Bridge. All will increase activity dramatically to this location. And that's not to mention what already occurs with the park right there. Retail options already exist for this neighborhood. The 29th Avenue Town Center, Stanley Market Place and East Bridge are less than a mile with much more to come at the transit center. We don't need more restaurants, liquor stores, dry cleaners, or work out places, especially right here. I encourage the Council to only entertain a zoning that would allow for one, two and three level homes, townhomes and condos. I don't believe that any other decision is reasonable or appropriate. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. Thank you, Mr. Krakowski. All right, Jane Warner. Members of council. Good evening. My name is Jane Warner and I reside at 2962 Willow Street in Denver, just east of the lot proposed for rezoning. I have lived at this address for 11 years. As I stated in my letter to council, we always knew that that lot would be developed, but we expected that it would be something that would fit in with the neighborhood, homes and surroundings, because that's what we were told. There are issues I am concerned about with the rezoning of this lot to more of a changing the character of the neighborhood parking, etc.. But the main concern I want to address tonight is this the corner of MLK and Central Park Boulevard is already an extremely busy intersection. Or as Tom Gleason from Forest City says, main arterial, main street to Main Street. The traffic has increased greatly in the last 11 years and is only going to get worse. Things like the extension of MLK, the expansion of the Bridge, the Punchbowl Social, of which Mr. Thompson described the development as part art, part science and the sciences. The great demographics of the Stapleton area, including its proximity of Interstate 70, which could make it not only a neighborhood draw, but a potential regional destination. I understand it's his business, but for that corner, more traffic. Because Central Park Boulevard and MLK is a main arterial with a lot of traffic, cars, people, pets, lots of accidents and a lot of near misses. And the city's usual requirement that prevents traffic entrance from the main arteries. Chances are that the entrances to this lot and the exits would be on Willow and 29th place. This would really increase the traffic on Willow, which is an already busy street, especially when there are events at the park. Holidays like Halloween and then add to the potential of 200 plus apartments and their tenants. With this increase in people in traffic, safety becomes the most utmost priority. There are times when our milk is like a raceway. Then cars turn onto willow and drive in the same manner. And we don't want to have another injury fatality like the one years ago on Central Park and 29th. In closing, I know that Mr. Gleason has said that Denver has said that putting the high density structures at major arterials is the way to go, but it's not necessarily the right thing in the end. Once for a city sells the remaining lots and Stapleton, they will be gone to develop other areas and our neighborhoods will be here 24 seven and we need to protect them and especially the people who live here. Therefore, I am asking you to consider opposing this rezoning and encourage Barr City to resubmit for MH three zoning. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Miss Warner. All right. Laura Tweedle. Good evening, President and members of council. My name is Laura Tuttle. I reside at eight, six, six three East 29th place. When I bought my home in July of 2007, I was told that that lot would be filled with single family homes, period homes and townhouses, which was taken under consideration when we made the decision to move to Stapleton. Now, ten years later, I'm being told that it's just been three rezone and filled with an apartment building that could be up to five stories tall. I've been living in this area for ten years. When I moved to Stapleton. Ten years ago, there were 6500 people that lived there. Now there's 74,000. You can imagine the traffic and Central Park and MLK. I've said it that way at 5:00 through at least three lights trying to get through that intersection. That's without any additional housing right now. It's bad enough as it is with the additional with all the people that live there. Then when the punchbowl is finished, I can discern about what the traffic will be like. In addition to the safety factors, as Jane mentioned, there was a death a few years ago at 29th and Central Park. There could be another one, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was because of the way people raced through there and then they turn off of MLK onto Willow and continue to race. I've seen people fly through there at 40, 45 miles an hour. I'm sure there's other things to be done about that, but I am very concerned about what would be built there. I'm opposed to the bill and I would like to see more residential, more single family homes, paired homes and townhouses. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wade. Donna Davis. Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Donna Davis. I live at 8600 East 29th Avenue. Denver 80238. I moved into this address in 2003. There was nothing to the north of us. It was vacant fields all the way to Dick's Sports Arena. I live right on the southeast corner of Willow and 29th Avenue. Over the past 14 years, my husband and I have witnessed the growth in our neighborhood, and we have supported every ballot issue to build schools, improve infrastructure. We support the growth of Stapleton. However, we do not support the high density growth in this area. We are opposed to rezoning of this high density area for three reasons. Parking. The increased traffic to the neighborhood and safety and security concerns. Currently overflow parking from events that occur at Central Park. They park on Willow Street and Willow is a narrow residential street. So you add more cars from the apartment complex to that and it will increase the congestion in that area even more. The traffic. We've already talked to a lot of folks have talked about the traffic in the area, but they haven't really talked about the Willow Street traffic that's currently occurring. We have a lot of busses that travel from north to south on Willow, because they go to the Westerly Creek. We have parents drive down Willow Street to drop their kids off at Westerly Creek. And we also have a lot of kids on bikes and walking to school. Adding 300 cars or are associated with this apartment building would impact that walkability bike ability neighborhood that we all bought into. I have safety concerns about the crime and theft that's happening in our area and with the transit community that lives in these high density apartments. I am concerned for the safety of our homes. So I ask you to oppose this bill. Thank you, Ms.. Davis. All right. I'm going to call the next five. Evan Melman. Leonard Spaghetti. David Robbins. Let's see. Leslie Lockhart. One more. Kara Kuzma. All right, Evan Melman, your first. Good evening, city council members. My name is Evan Millman and I live in Stapleton one block from the parcel in question. I'm an 8560 East 29th Avenue. First, I want to thank all of you for the work you do on our behalf. And I really want to thank Chris Herndon for being extremely responsive when I reached out to him to inquire about this process. I also reached out to Jim Christman and city planner Scott Robinson, also both very responsive. So I appreciate that. But I strongly oppose the rezoning application because although it seems like it might offer more residential options than the current zoning, the intended use that Jim Christman shared with me that we've been talking about tonight just doesn't fit the character of the community. And, you know, very simply, I don't know if I have anything new to add from what you've already heard, but it just to add 300 or more additional people on a three acre parcel in what is an entirely residential single family townhome community just will change the what it means to live there for the worse. And I think that the negative effects outweigh whatever positive benefits might be there for putting this amount of people in that space out of character of the neighborhood. There are five storey condo buildings in Stapleton. There's one being completed at 29th and Rosslyn, but that's the other end of Stapleton. There's existing buildings that match it that are already there. So people that live there are already on notice. The market's adjusted for it. And so in keeping with the immediate surrounding neighborhood, you know that real estate's local and it's very local within a couple of streets is what determines what it's like to live in your neighborhood. So if you go east down 29th to where this is, this parcel, it's a much different residential character. It's reasonable to develop the parcel. It's just unreasonable to develop it in a way that single handedly increases the population density, traffic, parking, congestion, so much so that it negatively impacts what it's like to live near it. Let me be clear. My objection is to the sheer number of additional people the development would add to the immediate surrounding neighborhood, regardless of the income, ethnicity, age, or any other characteristic of those people. I welcome responsible urban development in keeping with the immediate surrounding community, such as townhomes, income, qualified homes, single homes, even condos and apartments . Just fewer of them. I went and counted how many townhouses you could fit on this parcel, and by my estimate, you could put 46 townhomes that match townhomes across the street. If you did that, instead of 275 additional bedrooms, which is just one way to talk about this, you'd be adding 138 additional bedrooms. So there's still room to increase the residential character of that parcel. Much more in keeping with the neighborhood in a way that allows more people to move in without it changing the nature of living a block away. So I urge you to consider this application as though you lived a block away and ask yourself if you want to wake up the next day with 300 new neighbors. I respectfully request that you deny the zoning application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mellman. Leonard a. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Leonard Segreto. I live at 1994, Martin Luther King Boulevard. I'm not here to oppose the rezoning. I would hate to see this property continue as a commercial property. It could be much worse. Then the zoning. That exists or the proposed. Plan for this property. I am opposed, however, for the many reasons that you've already heard. For the development of this property and the proposed development of this property. The. The area is very, very congested already. We don't need more multi-family homes in this area. Thanks. I yield my time. Thank you, Mr. Spaghetti, for yielding time. David Robbins. Really mean. President Brooks, members of the council, thank you very much for listening to us tonight. We appreciate your service to the city and understand sometimes you have to make hard decisions. I'm speaking on behalf of my wife and myself alone, a period home at 2958 Willow Street. We've owned that home for ten years. That's across from the subject property on Willow. We would ask you to oppose the proposed action that is before you tonight. We we really oppose a five story structure, five storeys at any location on this lot. When you look at the pictures that were. Provided by your. Staff, you can see that on four sides of this proposed structure, there is a city park and there are a whole group of single family duplex, parent home structures as well as townhome structures. A five story building, five stories at any point is both inconsistent and inappropriate at this location for a city has done a good job of developing the Stapleton community. There's no question about it. But as development winds to a close, I hate to see them seeking to maximize their financial returns on the backs of this neighborhood. A five story building with commercial. Where will the tenants and the employees park? They certainly are not going to park in parking constructed below ground, but for a city that they have to pay for. They can't afford to pay rent in a building as well as parking fees. So they'll park in the neighborhood, changing the character of the community for several blocks around. And where will access occur. You've heard from. Several of the speakers. Tonight that both Martin Luther King Boulevard and Central Park. Boulevard are major. Arterials in this part of the city. Traffic moves quickly. Traffic has high volumes at the intersection of those two streets. We have lanes that are. Designed to allow traffic. To accelerate or decelerate before making turns. It's unlikely that your traffic department is going to allow significant access into this parcel off of those sorts of streets. It just will create enormous confusion and congestion. So they will have to get into this space off of Willow and 29th to streets that are absolutely not designed, set up to manage that kind of commercial traffic. Therefore, we ask each of you to vote no. On this proposed agenda. Item and to support this community. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Robins. Lesley Lockhart. Hello. My name is Leslie Lou Card, and I am here tonight seeking to be educated about the development that has been in The Buzz. I live at 9074 MLK, which is just down from this proposed area. And I would like to speak in solidarity with the people who live on Willow and 29th and are objecting to a development of this size and scope at that location. For the same reasons, I feel there will be a significant change to the character of what's currently a wonderful neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Carol Kuzma. Hi. I'm Cara Katzmaier. I live at eight, six, five, four. Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, about six doors east of Willow. And the lot in question. I'd rather be at home in my pajamas right now after a long workday, but I thought that this was important to come and talk about. I've lived on MLK for three and a half years, and in that time I've observed a glut of traffic both on MLK and Central Park. You guys are probably noticing a theme, seeing as they are the only real arteries through Stapleton. That should come as no surprise. For a city built a suburban neighborhood of quiet, single family homes bordered by higher density townhomes, primarily on these two main thoroughfares, with some commercial mixed in around the edges of the neighborhoods. By insulating the rest of the neighborhood from through, traffic planners have created a problematic high traffic zone, including high speeds, driving past residences and the park where our children play. I'm often nearly rear ended in the right turn lane so only right turn off of MLK onto Willow. When and often when pulling into the frontage road that the go in front of the townhomes on MLK. In my view, to add the potential of up to four stories of residential and a story of commercial at the intersection of these two arteries will tip the balance from a neighborhood community feel to a congested blight. Simply put, it's not why I chose to live in Stapleton while finalizing plans for developing this rezoning, presumably being a part of that. You must also view it within the context of the offer of the other nearby projects, of which there are a number. And while I hope they augment the neighborhood, they will undoubtedly add a lot of people in cars. Well, I purchased my home knowing it was on a busy corridor. I'm stunned to see the advancement of large scale development that doesn't quite fit the neighborhood. When it's placed on the edges of the neighborhood, it makes some sense and seems to have community acceptance. But I'm having trouble accepting the idea of it being in the virtual center of our community, surrounded primarily by homeowners. The scale of whatever development is built on that lot needs to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kuzma. I'm going to bring up Mr. Mr. Robbins one more time. You just need to state your name for the record. You didn't get a chance to state your name. Mr. Kelly. Council President. I apologize. No, that's okay. Mr. David Robb It's great. And it's a fine, fine mustache you got there. All right, the next four individuals, uh, Eric Stanley, this is the last for Barry McDermott, Kim KENYON and John. Sure. Sure. Sure. Okay. Sorry about that, sir. Please correct me when you come up here. Eric Stanley, you're first. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. And Counsel. My concerns have been expressed by a lot of neighbors here. My name is Eric Stanley. I live at 8452 East 29th place, just south of the proposed lot. My concerns have been expressed by a lot of the neighbors here, and I thank them all for taking the time to do this. I just want to add a personal story. My wife and I bought the bought our house seven months ago when she. Nine months ago when she was seven months pregnant. And the reason that we chose this house over a lot of others is the wonderful courtyard that I believe nine of us neighbors share. We saw kids playing in there the moment that we looked in there. We look forward to my son Nate playing in there with me, whatever he's into. And my main worry is that a development of this size will increase the traffic like you guys have heard from many neighbors along 29th place and along Willow. That's my concern. I know that Denver is growing. I'm a transplant myself. I support growth in Stapleton. It's a wonderful community. We want to have new neighbors. We want to meet a lot more people for our son to play with. But I feel like the proposed development is just too massive in scale for it to remain safe on the streets that are right adjacent to a courtyard in front of our house. Thank you. Thank you. Stanley Berry McDermott. Thank you. Barry McDermott I live at 8604 Martin Luther King Boulevard. My wife and I live right on the corner of Willow and Martin Luther King Boulevard, and we have lived there for about three and a half years, and we certainly know the experience of listening to the traffic rush by our Martin Luther King Boulevard. We also know the difficulties of turning right onto Willow. We have heard the accidents in our living room some evenings. We are not strangers to urban living. We've been in Denver for over 35 years. We lived in Capitol Hill for ten years. We live about ten blocks away from here on Bannock for another 20 years. And when we moved to Stapleton, we moved to Stapleton because of how crowded this part of Denver had gotten for us. And that's that seems to be the big concern is how much more crowded Stapleton will become if this particular unit housing unit is allowed to be developed there. As far as the zoning board goes, many people in here tonight do not agree with the rezoning of it. But I think those same people do not agree with the present zoning of it. And so we feel that that will have to be addressed at some point. Also. But just as a personal note, for three and a half years while I've lived here almost every day of the year, I go for a walk through this neighborhood and I either begin it or ended on the hill across the street from my house in the park. And when I stand on that hill and I look at this lot that we are talking about, for as long as I can see, there is nothing over three stories. And on Sundays I can see pretty far south from that vantage point. And so it is obvious to me, just by standing at that spot every day, that a five storey 200 unit complex on this three acre lot would be totally inappropriate. I also do not buy arguments that this was in the original plan because things have changed and those people who set out in the original plan not to their fault, they do not know what it is like to be in Stapleton right now, what it has become. And so we are asking that you vote no on this request because what is being proposed to be put in this place is not in character with what the neighborhood has become. As far as the president's zoning. It is not a good argument to me to say that a lot worse could be built there, because when that present zoning was given to that piece of land. It also was the wrong and inappropriate thing to zoning it for. So I ask you tonight, as all these people have spoken before me, I ask you to oppose this. And I thank you for listening to all of us. Thank you, Mr. McDermott. Kim KENYON. My name is Kim KENYON and I live at 8704 East MLK Boulevard, which is just a little bit east of the. The the. Open lot. I do want to say that I have really loved what Four City has done. As many other speakers have mentioned before in Stapleton and some of the decisions that that that they have made have been wonderful. But this one, with the potential of this being a five storey building, as everybody else has mentioned, is something that is of great concern. When the building that I live in, based upon the argument that the 1995 plan stated that this should be a specific use. I live in MLK. 8704 MLK, which was never designed to be this because what happened, as all of you know, is that the economy plummeted and there were lots that could not be that nobody would would purchase as developers. And so lots stayed empty and vacant for years until the economy came back up. So actually many different changes have happened based upon need, not directly related to the original plan. For instance, a school was built and it wasn't supposed to be built in that area, but it was built based upon need because there were more children. So basing this on something from 1995 is not a valid argument. The arguments that everybody have made about it shouldn't really be taller than a three storey building. Any of you could drive there and you would agree in the meeting on May 3rd, many of the members of the committee that we that we spoke at in the May 3rd meeting where this was originally proposed, there was a very lengthy conversation and people knew that lot, lot plot of land. And it was that's where this compromise came about of, well, maybe we do three stories on on Will on 29th, and then we do five stories closer to Central Park in MLK . But that's not a zoning you want. Why don't you zone it and you say, yes, it's okay to do this. Then the developers get to do what they want. It's not like you get to say, Well, we're going to go ahead and put in this little agreement. A zoning is a zoning. And so I had asked a member for City why wasn't a request for zoning made for a three storey building? And my understanding is there isn't a zoning specifically for that height, so I don't know if that's accurate or not, but I did want to just mention that the other members that other people that that mentioned all this about retail, there is a lot of retail going in and I don't want us to overbuild Stapleton because we also have a lot of vacancy still in Northfield. We have open spaces in Quebec Square and I'm very we've got some open spaces in the Stanley and I'm very concerned that we're overbuilding retail and then we can't keep those those businesses alive. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss KENYON. All right. John Swire. Swire Schreyer, Scheuer. Thank you. All right. Thank you. My name is John Scheuer. I live at 8502 East 29th Place. Thank you for giving. Us the opportunity to speak council. We appreciate it. You know, these days you hear a lot about the lack of citizen involvement in our democratic process. Well, I think everybody here tonight has put that their arrest. To me, this rezoning issue boils down to two main points safety and quality of life. If you allow a five storey monstrosity to be built on this site, it will destroy. The fabric of our neighborhood and jeopardize the safety not only, not only of our current residents, but also the residents that we live in that building. Just like. You, we have seen no site. Plan from the applicants. This leaves them wide open. To do as they please. The cutouts to enter and exit. This site will almost. Certainly be on Willow and 29th place. 29th place is a three lane street. Look at the negative impact the Overture. Building has had only a few blocks away. I walk there almost daily. The increased traffic and. Increased parking have made it much less safe. To navigate that area. I have contacted the. Denver Police Department about. The number of accidents at the. CPB. And. MLK intersection. They were gracious enough to tell me that through June 1st there were 17 accidents in 17 months at that intersection. I also think that adding any commercial operations at this site is inappropriate because of the added traffic. On Willow and 29th place. The town center is only 6/10. Of a mile away from this site. East Bridge is 1.2 miles away and the new TOD is 7/10 of a mile away and punchbowl social's diagonal to it. The traffic is only going to get worse when the 399 unit main apartments open soon as also will Punchbowl Social. Add in the million square. Feet of office space. Thousand apartments, 400 condos, 120 room hotel. And 100,000 square feet of. Retail from Todd. Can you imagine what the traffic's going to be like at that intersection then? I've heard proponents of this zoning request. Well, it's a tradition in Denver to build apartment buildings at major arterial intersections and across from parks. That may be the case, but it's time to start a new tradition by listening to the residents still have to live with whatever you allow to be built on that site. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Schreyer. All right. This concludes our speakers. Those who are sitting in the front row can return back to your seat. Mr. Robinson, won't you come up to the front here and questions by members of council. Councilman Herndon. Thing. Mr. President. You can turn on your mike there, Counselor. Thank you, Mr. President. Scott, can you come up? And I'm having John Bear come up to. I don't want to say I don't like the word ringleader, but John and I have had numerous conversations and I just want to talk to him just to ask a couple of questions. Scott, first with you. The neighborhood organization. And John, this is going to be a question for you as well. I love to get your thoughts. So Sun Stable in the United Neighbors is a registered R.A. took a position of neutral and actually you know what I'm going to ask John for this. John, if you would come up. Ken, did you have any conversations with Sun and why they took a position of neutral on this? Because you did go to them and ask them to weigh in on this. It's my understanding when when I met with him in some conversations afterwards is that they heard the concern of the neighbors, and especially as they wrote to the letter today, the concern about the curb cuts not being allowed on Martin Luther King or Central Park, that they really understood the concerns of the neighbors. But it was my understanding that their biggest fear was that the current zoning would allow commercial and they didn't think the commercial was appropriate. Well, of course we agree we agree that commercial is not appropriate on that site. And once again, I don't want to speak for Sony Shame. They're not here to speak for themselves, but that's what I heard. Okay. And so with now, just for you, the industrial uses that could currently happen on the property. So the zoning right now allowing the industrial uses, you are you are comfortable with this rezoning potentially being denied. But the possibility of the industrial uses or other uses currently moving forward or what would be your approach if this rezoning is denied, what would be the next steps? Well, we definitely don't agree that it should be developed under the current zoning. Basically commercial and we have suggested numerous times to include in letters to council that we feel the appropriate zoning and we wish for city since they own it. They're the only ones that can request a rezoning that they go with the mrh3 row home, three storey maximum, which would completely be compatible with the neighborhood, completely compatible with the neighborhood. So but, you know, some can't do it. We can't do it. It's up to four city and and God forbid, we would hope that they would never consider putting the commercial on that site that is permissible under this current zoning which is I don't know how old maybe Scott can administer the current zoning. Thank you, Jonathan. Appreciate that. Scott, could you come up a couple of things I wanted to I heard in the comments, one, I believe it was Kim made the comment about the covenant that the applicant has said they would put on three stories to the south and the east was not solid. So could you just speak to that? If this does pass, would that covenant be mandated? Um. Not necessarily. I don't. I mean, I don't know the state of the Covenant, whether it's has been signed in agreeing to that. But they have can perhaps you can ask the African. That's not a factor in our analysis of the rezoning and it's not something that we know. No. And that I understand. And actually. How about Bruce? Bruce, you can come on Dec since you said that. I'll answer that and that's fine. I understand you're basing it off of just your criteria. Maybe this might be a legal question. We'll get to somebody else, but we'll go to your. Well, let's go to planning board because it was a54 vote. And I think that that's something that should be asked. Question to one. And I don't expect you to speak for the voting members who voted in against and I actually did and I'll talk about that in my comments. But could you give me those sentiments during the planning board, what they what they were saying? Yeah, I think there were only two areas of concern and one was the height. And there was some discussion of some way of getting this step down or step back that's been proposed. So it'd be three stories against the existing neighborhood. And then the other was the the use and the consistency with the adopted plans that the potential for commercial uses may not be consistent with the adopted plans as opposed to a purely residential use. And so in the minutes that I read for the planning board, there was a motion to do a step down. And could you talk to that briefly? Yeah, it was proposed. There was, I think, two areas again, two areas of concern with the proposed condition. One was whether it was appropriate and then the other was enforcement, how planning board could enforce this proposed condition. So it ended up not passing. And so the the vote was based on the application. But I want to make sure my colleagues hear the the the amendment that was voted down was to do a step back of four stories on the south and to the east. Correct. Because that's how when I read the minutes, I want to make sure I am and Bruce, correct me if that's wrong, that that was voted down, but I believe that was the motion that was made, correct? Yeah, that sounds right. I don't have it in front of you. But yes, it was something to that effect. And so. Okay, thank you, Scott, if you want to come up. Is that is that correct? In the minutes that the planning board did a motion to do for story setback to the south and to the east? Yes, I think that's correct. Okay. And then your proposal, you are suggesting even going lower. Three stories to the south. Three stories to the east, correct? Correct. Now. I'm assuming obviously you were you're the applicant for fourth city. I would I would I hate to use the word hope, but if you're going to stand in front of this body and say we're going to do a three story for the south to the east, whether for city chooses to sell a develop the land themselves or sell it to another developer. Will that three story stay in effect? Yes, it will. Okay. Talked about that. Talked on some board. Thank you, Mr. President. Those are my questions. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Um, screen just were in Black Oak. Councilman. You are Bruce recently. As, of course. I've heard the proposal go to three stories and did the number of units change? I've heard different stories about how many units? 152 to 52. What is the what is the configuration of the number of units if is reduced to three stories on this portion of the lot? So I should pardon me, I should reiterate that there there isn't a project, there is not a design, there is an attempt to get better zoning on the property than exist today. There's an estimate that under the current zoning, about 135 to 150 units could be built depending on unit mix in parking in the. The estimate on the rezoning would be about 200 to 225. So so there's no effect that you can tell from reducing the heist to three stories on a portion of their life. I would guess there would be less units in total. Yes, but that calculation hasn't been done. Okay. Did you consider condominiums on the side instead of apartments? So the that will be a market driven decision at the time that for city is ready to proceed, it could as easily go for sale as for rent, given that there is some improvement in the construction defense pardon me defects work. At the present time is considered just market rate apartments. There isn't a decision at this time. Okay, maybe the applicant should get out. Maybe that would be helpful. Thank you. Councilman, do you continue to ask the applicant different phenomena? Yep. Can you ask the question about the future where there's condominiums and market rate apartments? What was the plan for the development? It's either or. And, you know, until we actually decide that that property is ready to be developed. We won't be able to gauge excuse me whether we rent or for sale. I can't tell you if it's for if it's a rental product for city will execute it. If it's a condo for sale product, we won't execute it. We'd bring in a third party developer to do it. Okay. In the discussions with the neighborhoods, did you consider a development agreement about this property with the neighborhoods to reach agreements? And we've seen those to be very successful in other areas of the city, and it really brings in the community to have a voice in what you're doing. Well, I think we feel like we we did hear the community's voice. We we had meetings with them. We had several, you know, emails, phone calls, discussions, presentations, the state of the United Neighbors and so on. If we were able to reach an agreement, we would have no objection to putting that in the form of a development agreement. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Councilman, Councilman Espinosa, first questions for anybody. Did anyone do an analysis of the sort of amassing the bulk the bulk analysis of both the current zoning and the proposed zoning? Okay. So that's where I'm going to be struggling with this. But I have some questions along those lines. First for you, Scott. The step to the mention of the step back. Obviously CPD is of the mindset that the the rx5a is wholly appropriate. So do you would CPD oppose step back's being you know what's the opinion is that CPD is the appropriate is is a step back appropriate or not appropriate in this situation. I don't believe we have any objection to the estate tax, as you said. We've found that the m r x5 a is appropriate and meets the criteria. Okay. I just want to confirm if the applicant wants to voluntarily reduce that or stop that that that's fine. Okay. I just want to confirm that the army throw with waivers is not a protected zone district. Correct. Correct. Even though the waivers in for a city sort of conform the development essentially to the pattern that you now see today, which would be more consistent with a rowhouse in district or a townhouse, some district, you know, or possibly protected zone districts. It is not a protected zone district. Correct. Okay. To a question for the. You know, I do want to just confirm, because I'm a little bit confused by the graphics in the zoning code and you don't have to go to the page, but it is page nine seven, dash 9.7, there's 22. It shows a general building form. I can't see anything about a lot coverage restriction, but the graphic shows a mass, you know, that conforms to the site, you know, the setback and then it shows a surface lot. Is there anything that compels them to to to have a surface lot or could it be under I mean, below parking underneath the structure and and go full setback on each side? Yeah. I'm not 100% familiar with all the requirements, but my understanding is that they could do structured parking. There's nothing that compels them to do a surface parking lot. Okay. Okay. And then the question for the applicant. Or Bruce. It doesn't it doesn't matter. Somebody from the team. How deep is the STEP Act that you're proposing and at what heights do those setbacks occur? I can't. Well, the way that I envision it working. Excuse me. So you the street there be the appearance of a full three storey unit. And I don't know how far that sits back before the unit above it starts. I mean, it's a design question, but it's not it's not two or three or four feet, something inconsequential. It's, you know, it's as if a unit could have been built above that unit and isn't. So whatever the depth of that unit would be, would be that setback. It's too bad you don't have like a sort of definition. That sort of would have been the point where you had negotiated something in a term that you could have presented in a covenant. Because there is a if this were if there's if this had been a relationship of a protected zone district consistent with the current development pattern over there and this rezoning, there are this zone, this section, the zoning code does have step means set up or story setback requirements in the max five of five, 15, 15, 20 and 25 feet in. And I would be that's why I'm asking about the massing study as I would be even curious if that was sufficient or not. And so since Charles, we're talking about a stories, I have no idea what sort of bulk restrictions you're talking about. But what I do know is that this and it's as evidenced by what Bruce O'Donnell just well, actually, that's the first question are you know, Bruce mentioned that it was using the zone district today. It's between 135 and 150 units that you could capture. And then with the rezoning, it would increase to 202 to 25. Are those numbers that are consistent with your understanding of this redevelopment potential? Yes. To the the old zoning code with the 3 to 1 four are restricted in in your own presentation to 130 some odd thousand square feet. With this new zoning code, you increase the development potential by two full floors over the 3 to 1. So it's essentially a 5 to 1 favor, which is how you get that increased increased development potential. That old zoning code, which all of Stapleton was developed, also had an open area, open space requirement and the same exact parking requirement. So this is these are two very, very different things. When we're comparing the old zoning code and there's this discussion about, well, it's not the right, it's that this is somehow better than that. This is more comment. So I guess I am trying to figure out if there's a question f r councilwoman, let's get to some other folks and then we'll come back to you to develop that question. Well, this is one quick question, was, have you guys discussed any use. Restrictions as well. In the covenant or is it simply a setback, require, you know, step back possibility? Well, if we were to sell this to a third party, we'd have retail use restrictions. All the, you know, typical retail uses that people want to see in our neighborhoods. We did it on every deal that we that we do. Other than that, there wouldn't be any. When you were presented with a little bit of opposition from the neighborhood and you clearly heard it because you're responding to it, did you go back to CPD and asked them if there was any way to sort of codify a way to address these concerns? And what was their response, if you did. To address which specific concern do you mean. Height, setback. Parking, any of the sort of metrics of zoning? Well, I mean, I the concern is that they don't want five stories. There's really no way to address that other than, you know, what we what we propose is kind of a, you know, meet your halfway proposal. Okay? The parking the parking will be fully screened from view of all the neighborhoods. The only thing you'll see is the Access Points Center. It'll be a parking structure. The units of either be built on top of it or around it. And it's Europe product or podium product. You're probably familiar with those terms. Great. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I first of all, I first of all, want to thank all of you neighbors for being here so late and being so dedicated. So thank you for being here. Most of my questions have been answered. I just have a couple more for the applicant. So if if you develop the property, you're committed to housing, but if you sell it, what else could be developed under the Marques five? Under American life. Yeah. My understanding is it's limited to residential with some ground floor potential for ground floor retail. And if if someone wanted to build townhomes there, could they under that zoned district? I believe they can. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Councilman Flynn. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. President. Bruce O'Donnell. Under the current zoning. I'm trying to make the numbers work. The number of units that we were talking about under the existing zoning versus the number of units under the requested zone. You get more units under the new zone. Is that correct? Yes, that's potentially. Potentially. Well, I'm confused then, because you've been saying or you were telling us in the handout that the current zoning allows up 6 to 8 storeys. So can you make the numbers for me? So the the current zoning has in air of 1 to 1. Okay. Which means the site's approximately 130,000 square feet. That size building could be built there. They just have a smaller footprint right in. Okay. And so you that that practically you, it'd be hard to go beyond higher than eight storeys because the floors would be too small. Exactly. Okay. Jim Christman, can you describe the parking program? You'd start to get into it with a wrap. Can you tell us how you expect people to access it? Will it be off of Willow and 29th place potentially, or would it be off of the major streets? How do you envision that? Well. I mean, we would support trying to secure access off the major rights of way. But as you know, that's not always easy. So it really be a function of how public works looked at it. Yeah, I think there'll be a. My personal view, there might be opportunities for like a write in, write out off of MLK, sort of certainly no full movement because of the nature of that intersection. Correct? Okay. Is Noel Lawrence still here? Maybe Mr. Schweiker, maybe you could answer was somebody Noel Lawrence said that the son of the R.A. Stapleton United Neighbors had expressed concern and had had a letter. Had sent a letter. I don't have that. Is anybody did anybody up here receive it? I certainly didn't receive it. I would like to see it. It was it was emailed to us, the neighbors, at about 1230 this afternoon, so that maybe that's why you don't have it in your hands. I've got a copy. Okay. Councilman Flynn, I. I got the letter. Okay. Is it if it's digital, could you email? Yes. Thank you. That's almost prison. All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. Question for Jim first, please. I understand you're not sure whether it would be apartments or townhomes or I'm sorry, apartments or condos. But let's just go with the apartment scenario for a second. Can you refresh me what. The overall vision. Or estimated number of apartments was going to be for the Stapleton neighborhood in the original documents that you all. Oh, all of Stapleton. Right. The Green Book. Com for about 3000 multifamily rental units. And where are you at right now with that? So where are we where are you at with that overall number right now? Or about a thousand with another. 500, probably breaking ground within a year. And have you. Are you aware of requests or concerns from, you know, community advisory boards or other groups within Stapleton who've been asking for more apartments and more apartment development? Is that something that's gotten. Yes, there's there's a group that's been asking for more apartments for quite a while. Part of the Citizens Advisory Board. Okay. Thank you. And then I had a question for I don't know if Jane Warner or Laura Tweedle are here. Yeah. If you want to come forward, either one of you. I, too, want to thank the folks who came out tonight. You clearly care a lot about your neighborhood. Both Jane and Laura mentioned something that I want to just follow up on. You both mentioned that you had been told or you were informed that this would be townhomes or or single family homes. I'm wondering about the sign. I just I checked the Google map just to make sure. But the sign that says mixed and high density mixed use site and had you, you know in your ten years have you seen that sign? And more recently there's been a sign posted. But no, there wasn't until six months ago. There hasn't been anything on that lot talked about done with. It's just been a vacant lot for nine and a half years. Okay. Can I just ask follow up with Jim or or Bruce. Whether or not when when the sign was posted about the zoning of this site. I'm just because it's very common. You know, I'm in the neighborhood. Yeah. Yeah. We went through our records and, you know, we keep records of every sign goes and we show the sign being installed ten years ago. So I. I don't have the right answer now. Or like here, believe it. Or not, through the. This perspective. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. And then I guess my last question is just for the the CPD staffer. I know you got asked some questions about this earlier, but I just wanted to put a finer point on it. We have in numerous neighborhoods. Put overlays. On sites to do transitions like this. I think about the Sloan's Lake area in particular. Did you guys have a specific conversation about that or was it that the the interest in that came up so late in the process that it was too late? Yeah, that did not come up until after the planning board hearing. So, you know, we had evaluated the proposal was are either following the planning board hearing I was informed by the applicant that they were then proposing the covenant put in the city. So if if it had been raised earlier. Is there some reason why it wouldn't have been. Considered in the same way at Sloan's? There wasn't it wouldn't have been considered, you know, would have gone through the same evaluation process that any of these proposals would go through. Thank you. No more questions, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman you back up? Scott, I forgot to ask one question. You know, when the rezoning consideration was, was, was taken and this slide was held, you sort of gave started going to be a joint available or something else. This property. I'm sorry. When the rezoning of the latest rezoning code went through in 2010, you said that this property wasn't considered for the rezoning because it was going to be used for an jointly with another property or something like that. It was. We have what are called plan or plan building groups. So I was I had a tool used in the old code to look at larger sites that had multiple buildings on them, and they had generally had special rules applied to them and, you know, agreement among the property owners that those would be kept, too. So in the 2010 rezoning process, we didn't want to try to crack all of those open and and apply the appropriate zoning. So we among other things, we left all of the planned building groups alone in 2010. And the way this was mapped in our system, it looked like it was part of a planned building group. Again, as we were going through this rezoning process, we looked at the actual plan building group document, and it specifically excludes this block. So it includes the properties around it, but not this block. So it's not actually part of the planned building group. But that's why it was not resigned in 2010. All residential zoning around it. Now it included the same CMU 20 zoning that's along MLK to the West. Mm hmm. And it has not been developed. Has it been developed yet? Most of the other blocks to the west have been developed. With what? Immediately to the west is new development that is similar to the other residential areas. It's townhomes and duplexes and single family. And then further to the west is some commercial and some I think there's a senior housing development there and a fire station. West of three stories. Uh, I don't know. Off the top of my head at all. Yeah, that's somewhere in there. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. Scott, if you could. I'm going to buzz through some of these. And if some of those if you want to pass off the torch, let me know. But I'm just trying to understand the changes between what is the existing zoning that could be built on right now with no city council or neighborhood involvement and the proposed zoning. So current zoning 135, 150 units, new 200 to 225. That's what I've been told. We haven't done that calculation. So that comes from the applicant. Can you just confirm that one? Why don't I try to put some color on that? So a typical mix of one bedroom and two bedrooms. The average unit size, an apartment project will be about a thousand feet. So there's 135,000 feet of FDR that can be constructed under existing zoning. And therefore, that's where you get about 135 units. The five story building is going to either be a rap product or a podium product. And those those densities generally range from about 7 to 8 units per acre. So it's 210 to 240. But now then so estimate take maybe ten or 15% off of that for the the setback that we're that we're offering up. And that gets us to that, you know, 210 range. And then height, I think, versus a maximum realistic height on the current zoning is eight. Well, there's no there there is no there's no legal maximum height. There's a practical maximum height. You can build 135,000 feet. So for an office building, for example, they could have a 25,000 square foot, you know, floor plate. That's a five and a half. Five six storey office building, a condo building that may have a 10,000 square foot footprint, maybe only four units per floor that can go up to 13 stories. On the current zoning. It sounds like townhomes and single family are allowed because there's adjacent with the same. So it could be developed as townhomes and single family on the current zoning. Yes. And on the new zoning. Townhomes and single family both also a level. Yes. Development. And then one more time, we started talking about uses new zoning, limits it to residential. Maybe it could be fully residential or it could be residential with ground floor retail, but that's pretty much the use table on the current zoning. You'd mentioned gas stations or recycling collection. Walk me through some of the current allowable uses. Well, I mean, it's called commercial mixed use 20. So it's predominantly was intended to be commercial type of uses. And then a lot of those are, you know, would be acceptable on that site. But I just picked the three or four that, you know, I think people would have objections to. And there's some others as well. I can't remember off the top of my head, unfortunately. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you. Councilman Clarke, Councilman Espinosa, Skip, you can get to these other folks. Uh, Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Clark, you were going where I wanted to go to, but let me just sort of help make it even clearer. Scott, I'd like to ask you a question. So this old zoning, CMU 20, is used by. Right. If they sold this property to somebody who wanted to keep that zoning, they would not have to do anything like come to the city or come to the council, or they would just be able to build this 135,000 square foot building. Of industrial use, right? Yeah. They would just have to go through our standard site development plan and building permitting process, which is all administrative. So they would not have to come back before you were planning board or anyone. Right. I wasn't sure that the members of the community realized that that it would be used by. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Also. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to ask Bruce if you can come forward. So I'm trying to focus more on the macro level and the micro level in terms of the. Eight acres that were originally earmarked for Stapleton for affordable housing. Have all those sites been developed so far? And where does this fall into that scheme of the eight acres that were set aside for affordability? Can someone answer that question? Do you? If it's not you, Bruce. Sorry. Of course. And no, I don't believe the edict. I don't know what portion of the eight acres has been developed. I know that between what's been developed and what will be with that sites aside for that for those developments to. Have all those sites on top of it to. Different organizations that are going to build the affordable housing on the sites that they have not yet actually been built. And, Tom, if you're the point guy, will you please come to the microphone? I'm just trying to understand where this fits into the overall scheme of the lots that were set aside for affordability. Tom Gleason For a city 7351, East 29th Avenue, the councilwoman is referring to the agreement to set aside to sell it, provide at no cost, eight acres of land to nonprofits for affordable rental. And to date, we are just under eight acres with our most recent development, which is proposed for senior affordable. So but that really is just for the affordable rental. We have donated all of the land at Stapleton for both affordable rental and affordable for sale. So that is we've done much more than that eight acres. Okay. And so it sounds like we're on mark with the rental. Where are we on the Affordable for sale? That was part of the original agreement. We are in terms of the affordable rental, we are running ahead of what was projected to be a 20%. Commitment on. The Affordable for sale. That's been 10%. And we're running it probably at about. 5.8% in terms of that. But the agreement, the Stapleton Affordable Housing Plan, says at the end of the development, we have to be a 10%. And how many more developable acres are still available that have not been obligated or are still available for development? Well, for the Affordable for Sale, we have identified all the parcels and projected the number of affordable units that will be created on that so that we meet our formal goal. For instance, we are projected to build out at Stapleton to be in the range of. About 1880 900 homes. And so we have set aside. Land for 891. Affordable for sale on the affordable rental. We projected some. Somewhere in the range of probably about 800. And and. We're we're tracking that. Pretty closely as well. And we donate land for both affordable rental and affordable for sale, even though that wasn't part of the Stapleton affordable housing plan. So, Tom, was this anticipated to be one of those sites? No, this this site would be commercial. I mean, this would be market rate. It would not be affordable. Okay. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Scott. So would you. How close is the next five story building? Do this. This site, would you guess? It's found closer to Quebec. There's some new apartment buildings that have gone up. I think off the top of my head, I don't know every quite a while. I have quite a ways from this site. But yeah, it's it's a little ways to the west. Okay. And the finance and developer to step up for a second. So you said you've had discussions with people in the community wanting more apartments available, is that correct? There's a contingency, probably the wrong word. But there are there there are a group of folks that have been involved in our Citizens Advisory Board who for some time have asked us why we haven't built more multi-family rental than we have. And have they expressed or have you discussed with them their preferences for what style that might be? Be a five story building, be a townhomes, be it whatever. You know, they don't really express the building form. They express more the income levels that the property could serve and they'd like to see a diversity. Okay. Things for say on for rent. All right. Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Castro. Councilman Espinosa. My question for the city attorney when they were. Well, I assumed that this project, because it's still part of the master plan, doesn't even though. This is entirely to new floors of additional development. Right. Or actually more than that. Not eligible for the linkage fee. Is that correct? Dave, Missouri Assistant City Attorney. Councilman Espinoza, could I have you repeat the question? I just didn't quite hear you. This project wouldn't be eligible for a linkage fee because of the it. Falls under. The current affordable housing plan for Stapleton. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Tom, is there any sort of willingness for Stapleton and for City to sort of voluntarily commit a portion of these additional units to affordable considering that you guys took down the land some time ago and would be getting essentially additional development rights? We haven't had that discussion, as I mentioned earlier. We had the signed a an affordable housing plan with the city back in 2001. And that's what we're implementing at this time now. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, as one other thing, councilman herndon, I. Think it was Perez. I just want to my colleagues and now I emailed them the letter from son this neighborhood neighborhood organization reasonable organization. And Scott, this might have been asked when I had ran to run out quick there was an email that. I got wasn't mentioned today, but the person talked about the inability to park all the cars in this unit. And I've and I've heard parking within this conversation. Can you briefly just talk about any development that occurs has to have parking requirements. So could you just please talk about that? And I know we're we're we're generalities but just people to understand what the city does when it comes to that. Please. Yeah. That's all handled in the site review site development planning process. And our zoning code set standards for how many parking spaces must be required. And it depends on the type of use and the amount and the specific zoning. So, you know, whatever the zoning, whether it's the old zoning or the new zoning, proposed zoning. The zoning code would dictate how many parking spaces must be provided and that would all be required at the time of said development. Thank you. I just want to make sure that that was. No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Hearn. I got a couple of questions myself, and I'm going to ask our two city attorneys to volley this question. And we'll start with you, Nate. Nate, what is our criteria for for doing zoning? So what do we do? How do we make zoning decisions? A city council. So the city council bases their rezoning decision on the rezoning criteria, which was outlined in the staff report. And so we look at consistency with adopted plans. Health, safety and welfare. I'm having a little bit of remembering here. You know. That's okay, Scott. Can you put that? Put that. Yeah. Thank you. Slide up, because I put our city attorney on the spot there. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah, there there are the five criteria there. As I mentioned, consistency with city adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances is always a big one and of course, consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Great. Thank you, Nate. David Braswell, our assistant city attorney. Can you help us help me with this question? I think we get a lot of neighbors in here with with the concerns around, you know, what's being built and things like that. What is your legal advice to us when making a decision for rezonings? My legal advice to you for a rezoning. Okay. Well, some of it's just been covered again by Mr. Lucero, which is you have to apply the evidence to the criteria and make the decision. You do have significant latitude in terms of applying the criteria. We've got active litigation recently where decisions of this council have been upheld, where reasonable people can disagree, but courts tend to defer to whatever decision you ultimately come up with. So you've got you've got a lot of discretion, but you do need to link your findings to the criteria. And that's what we always advise. Okay. Thank you. And then they want one more question back to you. I think Councilwoman Kennedy brought this point up. I think it's a it's an interesting one. And I'm going to ask the applicant to to answer this. We do overlays all the time. Matter of fact, there's a lot of overlays, conservation overlays that we have in in Curtis Park. And matter of fact, I have a legislative rezoning coming up. That's an overlay actually down zoning, a part of this community where all the neighbors really wanted to down zoning, which I haven't seen in my seven years on council, but. Have we ever amended a rezoning for a conservation overlay on the floor? And do we have latitude to do that? I've not seen that. Typically what happens with conservation overlays is if they are brought before a council, then everything that is within that overlay district is subject to the conservation overlay. So long as they are zoned into the new Denver zoning code, then they're able to take advantage of the conservation overlay. So that's that's how those typically work. Yeah. Could we amend it? And, you know, the, the the applicant has already said that there's going to be some restrictions on the, the three, you know, on I forget what side it was, but three stores on the South Side or whatever. Could we restrict that in the zoning as an amend that in the zoning tonight on this bill? I think what you're asking me is whether or not you could plate place a condition on an approval and. The answer to that is. What's before council tonight is the ordinance that's been filed, which simply speaks to the May five A and there's nothing either in the zoning code or anything more memorialized in the application which would mandate such a condition at this time. So it would have to be something that would be agreed upon by the applicant. Which is the way our Denver zoning code works. So we could not amend on the floor. So what you're saying? No. Okay. Let me just ask the applicant real quick what either one of you are. Did you sign any agreement with the neighborhood on this three story? Is it written or is it just a kind of a. It's not formally read. And I mean, what I would envision and I'm not an attorney, but I would envision that we would agree to record a restrictive covenant that outlined the terms of that. And that would be a condition of your approval if you were if you were to. So right now, it's just a commitment excuse me? It's a verbal commitment to the neighborhood. It's a verbal commitment. It's an informal written commitment. Okay. We put in writing, but not in a legal format. Great. And then my last question. Excuse me, sir. I forgot your name. You're leading? Yeah. Yeah. Leading the neighborhood. Let me ask you a question. A lot of points were made tonight that I think were very important. And I'm I'm curious, the number of people who you've been working with and you yourself. Have you been a part of this citizens advisory group board that is with force? I did go speak before the Citizen Advisory Board. Prior to this development. Prior to this development, have you been a part of the Citizens Library Board? Okay. Have you been a part of the Stapleton United Neighbors prior to this? I think I've attended one or two meetings, but okay. I guess not actively involved. Okay. Thank you. Just want to know that. All right, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Just to be clear. I thought you said the planning board five four split was partially over confusion as to neighborhood plan consistency. It was, in my remembering correctly. No, there was. I believe you are remembering correctly. It was one of the issues that came up, and I believe one of the concerns that some of the members had that voted against it was that it may not be consistent with the city's adopted plans, particularly relating to commercial use versus residential use. Okay. Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman New. Yeah. You're up on the revised on the proposal of a three and five story compromise that you're proposing. What percent of the project would be? Three stories. In terms of a unit count, just the total development for part is going to be, first of all, retail, you know, three parts going to be three parts going to be five stories. Well, bringing it down to three, what portion of the lot would be three stores for the project? Maybe it'd be two of the four phases of the building. It would be three stories. Mr. McDermott 50% would be three stories and 50% five stories. Yes. So I'm pretty pretty much really close, maybe, you know, 50 to 48 or something like that at the corners. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore. Sorry. I'm sorry I didn't catch you before you went back and sat down. I have one additional question. So with with that estimate, two councilman knew then the three story outward facing would would it be along Willow and East 29th place? Yes. Okay. Have there been conversations with public works about MLK Jr Boulevard and kind of that intersection right there at MLK and Willow Street? Are there plans for any improvements at that intersection? Based upon the possible density on this lot. We haven't had those discussions. It's difficult to have that discussion in the abstract. They like to see a specific proposal in front of them. Okay. But we haven't had that discussion. The size some community members had commented that Willow Street seems narrow. And I can understand that if they're school busses going up and down Willow Street. But I have our I'm assuming that both Willow and East 29th Place are regular sized Denver residential streets. Correct. With on street parking. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Ortega. One last one. Last one. So, Jim, I think you were the one who mentioned that you all would be willing to consider a covenant on the land. Is that did I hear that correctly? You did. Okay. And so what that does is it it ensures that regardless of who owns the property, that covenant stays with the property. That's correct. Okay. And. But typically those issues are done on the front end before the applications come before us. And I guess I'm just wondering, is this is this something that for a city is committing to do regardless of this, the action taken by city council tonight. No. I think the commitment is only if the. If the actions approved at this. If the rezoning is approved, then we make the commitment to. To record the covenant. Otherwise we'll probably property would be developed in accordance with the existing zoning. Do you do you have interested developers right now that are looking at the site based on the new zoning? Now, we are not marketing the site right now. Okay. You're waiting to get the zoning done first. So I would just propose that. Councilman Herndon, I know this is your district, but I think the covenant would be an important safeguard, if you will, for lack of a better word, that the community has has raised, as is concerns that if maybe we postpone this for a short period of time to allow that to get done and to bring it back so that it's part of the application and it's contingent upon the zoning, you know, taking place, that that will go a long way, I believe, in building that. I don't know. Goodwill with the community. And I just wanted to ask if that's something that you all are open to. And Councilman Herndon, same with you. We'd be open to that. Okay. When her. If you know, I've been a part of this community since 2008 and I've worked with Forest City, obviously since I've been a council person in 2011. I believe that if they say that they're going to do that, it's not necessary to put a covenant on it. And by the all my interactions and their interactions with the community, I personally do not think it's necessary if they this isn't a developer that's coming into town and then is leaving. We have several different acres of land that still needs to be developed for city is not going anywhere. And had they choose to do something like that, rest assured there would be some serious repercussions from a city perspective, I would imagine. So I don't I personally do not think it's necessary if Jim and company have said they're going to do it, I believe it will be done. But I will certainly defer to if the majority of the council feels the need to do so then. Soviet. Well, I just want to say that I know ferocity has not developed every single parcel, a number of the parcels have been developed by other other developers who for city has sold some of that land to. And I know with some of the other applications that we've had come before us, the Covenant becomes a really critical piece of that assurance that the community is going to have those safeguards in place. I'm not saying I don't trust for city, but if the land is sold to somebody else and the covenant isn't filed, then that next party is not going to be obligated to adhere to what we're discussing here tonight as an assumed agreement. So, Councilwoman, I'm going to take this from questions and start the comment period so that you and Council Councilman Herndon can can debate this issue. The right. Okay. This hearing is closed. Council Bill 565 is now closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman herndon. And then we'll go to councilwoman ortega. Mr. President, one, I really appreciate you all coming out and have a conversation about this. You know, I, I and I sincerely appreciate the civility because we have seen several contentious rezonings and the respect towards both parties just dissipates immediately. So I really appreciate these conversations being cordial. And even though you share the passion of what's happening in your community, we still treat each other with respect. And I and I cannot say that enough because we're losing that. So thank you for that. And I appreciate the council president asking the question about what do we as a council base our decisions off of? And you see you see the five criteria in front of us because that's what we should be focusing on. And I know we always go into particular plans. And when you don't have a plan and this council has shared their frustrations with that, we we have a tendency to go to the worst of what can possibly happen. And it is our city policy to not base it off site specific plans. And people have expressed their frustration. But that is our policy. But I appreciate the dialog that we have had. I'm going to focus on the health, safety and welfare initially because as I wrote down the notes of what everybody was saying. Let me first talk about traffic. So no matter what happens at this site, traffic is going to increase. There is there's no getting around that. Central Park Boulevard and MLK are busy streets and they should be. That was the design of Stapleton so that we have traffic that's going through the community goes on our major arterials so that it doesn't go through the side streets. And we're not naive to say that it doesn't happen. People choose to do that. And I agree that MLK, CPB, our busy streets. But when I wrote down someone said Hazardous. I respectfully disagree that that is hazardous, inappropriate and I'm sorry that wasn't about the streets. So I believe traffic will increase. But I also believe we have a great traffic and engineering department that for those of you that have been in Stapleton for a while, has made several adjustments along MLK, Central Park Boulevard. So whatever development occurs because development will occur, whether it happens with our current zoning or the proposed zoning, traffic and engineering, I absolutely believe will address it and has done so in in several different ways. We talked about I asked the question about the parking because the question was, well, is the parking going to be enough? Is going to bleed it bleed over into the side streets. We have rules and regulations in place that should this potential zone go through, the parking and the parking requirements will be adhered to. Then came up the comment of safety and I, I you lost me on safety. I don't understand how simply adding apartments makes the community less safe. I rented until I was in my mid-twenties and I stayed in apartments and I don't believe that I cared less about a community simply because I rented versus owning. Um, so I, I disagree with that safety perspective that adding additional apartments makes the community less safe. That is, that's just my opinion. As I was, I was writing that down. I tilt to my head and said, I, I hear you. I'm not sure if that's something I agree with you. And there was a comment to people made about transitional tenants. And yes, renters do leave quicker than homeowners, but that doesn't mean they care less about their community. So I wanted to say that as we have these conversations, you know, I reached out to the planning board because I didn't watch the minutes. John said, watch the planning because I read the minutes and there were four members that were anti that. And so I called them and just as got talked about, there were concerns about consistency with adopted plans. I disagree. I do think the adopted plans are consistent, but there was a consensus about common questions about the the height, which is why the planning board did a recommendation to say we're going to move that. You can only do four stories to the south and to the end to the east. And even though that was voted down, the applicant came back and said, okay, we hear the concerns and we're going to go lower than that and go three stories. And I spoke to a couple of planning board members and said, were you aware that they that the applicant went from four stories to three stories and while it doesn't change their vote. A couple of those planning board members said, well, that seems like a good compromise. And I actually think in this conversation we've come to a point where the applicant has heard the community and said, okay, we're going to try to accommodate you as best that we can. And while we recognize that there are going to be some people of the position that no matter what happens, this is inappropriate, I think that that effort from the applicant is worth noting. I also want to talk to about. What's just to the west of this? Because we we focus solely at Central Park and Martin Luther King Day. So for those of you that are familiar with this, I am as well. You've got Central Park Boulevard runs north. South. If you head west, you've got Uinta is the next street that heads over and you go over one more block and you got holster my dry cleaners right there. Everyone knows I'm talking about the dry cleaners. So I go to that dry cleaning. When I come out of the dry cleaner and I look I look east, we have the overture. The overture is the senior housing. The overture is four stories. It's four stories. And so for the people on 29th place, right behind the overseer, they look out of their house and they're staring at a four story building. So to have a four storey building two blocks away from what could potentially be three stories that said back to five, I don't believe is out of context. And I have. And I remember when the overture was being built. It was being built after the houses were already there. And I literally I checked back with my staff. I said, remember when the overture was built? Did we get any complaints about traffic or any crime issues with the overture? And to the best of their memory, there weren't any. Because I wanted to say, Well, have we done this before? And what was the response from that? So I think that that's important to note when I were thinking about this potential rezoning. And then I want to I have a question about density. Where should we put density? Because as I have heard comments from the the residents, it said say density should only go in tod sites or along the Quebec square or along an East Bridge. And I think now in a place when we are trying to find space for the people that want to come here, I think thoughtful density should be along major arterials. So I agree with the notion that that's where it should go. I'm not sure a single family adding more single family and Central Park anymore makes the maximum use of our space. The overture that I talked about, it's 1.5 acres, it's 108 units. So we approximately double. It's about 200 units. And so I wrote down numbers of 300 cars. I think we're going a little bit higher than what is potential and not even talking about the setbacks in the design of that. So. Taking the criteria into account. I believe that the and lastly because I want to come back to Sun. Who was I was a son board member before I was on city council from 2000 and 2008 to right before getting elected. Sun has a very good point. So it's not just a matter of this rezoning. This the May five is what happens should this rezoning. Not be approved. What happens to that development? And I hear people saying, we're not interested in Merrick five. But I can assure you, you do not want the possibility of what could happen with the CMU 20. Because I don't believe industrial uses are appropriate at all on that site. But in the current zoning there are industrial uses that are applicable. Use by write in as a body. There would be nothing that we could do to prevent that. So I taking all that into account with. And this is this is a difficult decision. And I appreciate all everyone's comments. I believe that the criteria has been met. And I'm I appreciate the applicant hearing the community and saying, we hear you and this is how we believe we can come to a place where some might agree. Because my understanding is and I'm a look to John when the three story came back that we're going to go three stories, there were some people that were okay with it, not a lot, but there were some people that said, okay, that satisfies us for exactly I know not a lot, but I think that that's important to note. So this is something that I will be supporting. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Hurt and Councilman Espinosa, can we go to Councilman? Councilwoman Ortega. All right, Councilman Ortega. I'm going to pass. Okay. Right now. Okay. Um. Okay. Councilman Espinosa. Welcome to my last two years on this body. I represent Northwest Denver. A lot of that area got rezone like this in 2010. So we get really objectionable new construction using these existing the new zoning code and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Apologize for using a partial swear word. So I my constituents would probably definitely relate to you. And here's a situation where we actually can do something about it. We've had many of those situations since I've been on councils, particularly in my own district, and that what you just heard is the response that you get from the majority of council almost every single time. The only time a neighborhood has been successful in my district in stopping a rezoning. Uh, was when they they petitioned and forced a supermajority, meaning that you had to have ten members of council, not the usual seven. That one failed, but it still got eight votes. So it would have passed under all other situations. And it got real interesting, too, because this council even tried to delay that vote because because it we weren't going to have a full body. And they knew that they needed everybody here to get to the ten. Yeah, that's. That's the sausage making. And I'm not supposed to talk to you about it, but that's what happens here. So I appreciate you all coming out and expressing your concerns. I do also trust this for a city is a good master developer and will do the right thing. But. I'm I'm looking at it. And you're right. You're John, you're right to be concerned because when you change the zoning now, all this stuff becomes of use by right and you have no say. You're lucky that you're protected by a design review committee. Much of what you see and what you enjoy in that community is because it's been vetted by some really great professionals. That said, we do have an issue of here, you know, in my past life as an affordable housing developer, whether you like it or, you know, love him or hate him. My last one of my last projects were the ones those townhouses and multi row houses that line MLK and Central Park Boulevard right there on that corner. And we did that in the CMU 20 without waivers, the exact same zoned district that you have today. As a matter of fact, all of the development from Ulster to Willow has occurred with this zoned district without a rezoning. So that sort of gets you to the justifying circumstances component, like what has changed? Nothing has changed in this situation. You know, the roads have been built, but those roads have been always planned. It's a matter of fact. They've been narrowed. Right. They used to be three lanes in each direction. Now they're two with bike lanes. It's good. But, you know, it's so the the the change is towards a more residential pedestrian oriented environment, which would, um, you know, but it's not, that's not a radical change in condition. I think you all bond with the master plan developer. I think we've all recognize. You've heard allocated. Time and time and time again about Stapleton both in the city and in the nation and in the world, about the success of this development. And that all occurred under the old zoning code somehow. And now this has to happen, this change. You know. So I will say. One of the thing that really frustrates me and I try to avoid this in my own district, I actually hear a win win here being proposed, but it hasn't been formulated and hasn't been generated. What I do in my district when I have the opportunity and I don't always takes a developer coming forward early in the process , not putting in their application, but we have a sort of two step process, a memorandum of understanding in my view that says, okay, developer, you agree to, to, you know, build five or six or whatever stories you want on the corner but that you transition your project as you get to the residential neighborhood. And we will support that because by the time you get into this lower density area, you've, you've addressed the massing and certain conditions that the community feels would adequately address the impact of the development. You codify what you're agreeing to in the memo, you basically says, we support we the community support you, Mr. Developer, and your ambition in exchange that you will file a covenant restricting that property to that sort of massing or those sorts of agreements within X number of days after that rezoning occurs. So you have an agreement before you come in here. You have that agreement that takes you through this process. And then within a number of days you have security that that is memorialized now and for the future. I also recommend that you don't do that in perpetuity because then it creates a legal nightmare in the future. But ten, 15, 20 years sort of buys the people that live here negotiated that outcome some predictability. It's a great tool. I can tell you that there are developers that don't want to use that tool, so they sidestep that whole process by never coming to the community and never coming to council. That's their prerogative here. I think there was the ability to get there. I just know we have real, capable people. For a city, it sounds to me that not the real nuts and bolts that I would like to, you know, be considering is how do we shape and mold so that we address the other criteria. I wish could we pull up the justifying circumstances? I actually want to speak to two of them. I've already spoken to number four that the justifying circumstances and there's nothing that has changed here. They are the CMU 20 has been good enough for the entirety of Forest City redevelopment and it should be good enough now it meets all of that criteria, the currency and EU 20. So you know, what we do know is every piece of property to the east and every piece of property, well, not every piece of property in the west, but this property and everything to the east that has already been developed, save for you into an MLK. Is, you know, already uniform with the district regulations. And so this is now going outside of that. So we're now intentionally deviating from the plan. And I just don't agree that that is, in fact necessary or it benefits all of the other criteria. And then particularly in really what it boils down to is then you get to consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. You already have it there. You already have it. Everything's been developed in that zone district. And and so I don't see how this improves by increasing the development potential. I don't buy the industrial concern because there are other provisions in CMU. Zone District in chapter 59 specific to trying to do industrial in a commercial mixed use zone district. So there and that is that was codified. What are the reasons our old zoning code was left is because this moved to this greater flexibility. But this greater flexibility means less predictability, more uses and more density, same amount of parking spaces required in this district. But now you've got to fit a heck of a lot more cars. And then there's it's only one per unit people will visit. And all your concerns are legitimized, not opposed to density. But you got to make the case and I haven't heard one case that why this zone district is absolutely imperative to address the concerns and needs of this community to further the public health and safety and welfare of this community. This is a great community. Yet for a city did a bang up job. Probably too good of a job in this situation is because this neighborhood that close to the park ain't going away any time soon. And so, you know, 4 to 5 and four are clearly not met. And I could extrapolate on every element here. And it could you could address those in the zoning should, in my opinion, be amended and it should have waivers and conditions rather than you have to enter in a part private party agreement. But that is a battle that I've been fighting for two years. I will continue to fight for two years for the next two years. The attention District One needs the help of District eight constituents and the city needs to participate in the Denver right process. Let them know that our next vision of the city should address have a means to address these these situations, because we have ceded a lot of responsibility on on the sense that this zoning code is just great as it is off the shelf. And it needs tweaking. It needs to be addressed. And then this process of asking also needs better input and validity. I believe you've made the case. I know it to be. You know, I think the split vote on the planning board speaks to that as well. You don't know. You don't always see that. Very rarely do you see that. And I won't go. I've talked long enough. I won't go into plans. I won't go into master plans of I'm going to adopted plans. Blueprint Denver area. But so with that, I mean, this is I think you all picked up on it. This is the situation that I wish my committee was prepared to fight, had the resources to do this, because there are lots of, you know, questions to be asked, a lot of ask that could be made so that both sides would come prepared with a win win. That has not happened here. I believe it could have happened. But I do believe that the blanketed zone district based me in the existing zone district, based on all what I've said and evidence that the it's it has in fact, allowed this area to flourish already. And it could develop in a manner that is consistent with all of our review criteria under the existing zoning code. I will not be supporting this rezoning. All right, Councilman, you. I want to thank everybody for coming out here tonight. And last year, I went through a very contentious rezoning in one of my neighborhoods. And it was just the opposite of what you're going through, which was even worse. It was from good zoning to better to worse zoning, a much worse zoning. And it was a bad situation. Where I look at this is you're going from bad zoning to better zoning. It may not be perfect. It may not be the three stories that you want all, all the way. But it looks like you're coming up with a compromise. At least 50% of that development will be three stories. So it sounds like you're moving in the right direction to that meets better your context. I know that may not be what you want, but sometimes we have to make that compromise to make sure that the right thing is done, not the wrong things. It's done. So so I'll be supporting this tonight. And I just want you to know how much we understand what you're going through. And I really appreciate you're doing, but I think you're moving in the right direction. And I believe this this owner for our city will develop this condition to make sure this restricted and we're looking to make sure that happens. So thank you very much. All right, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to side with the minority on the planning board. I appreciate the developer's willingness to to compromise with the step back. But my experience in a project in my own district is that doesn't do much. And in blunting the effect of the building of this size in an area where there's no context for that. So, you know, in my district it's along University Boulevard. There are other five story buildings. The developer decided to do a step down facing the residential, the single family neighborhoods to the east. And it's it's it's a nice it's better than than a five storey wall, but but not much. So I and I have faith in Forest City that I don't see them doing anything other than looking for an alternative. Were this to fail, which I have no thought that it will. But from what I've seen of Forest City in the past, I would expect them to look for a better alternative than the worst case scenario that the current zoning would allow. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Or take a did you want to? No, no. She told me to go. Sorry. Herndon. I. Cashman. Kenny Lopez. Sorry. New Ortega? No. Sussman. I. Black. Clark. I don't know, sir. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Mr. President. I. Please close the voting. Announce results. So I just had to put in one absence. Nice. Nice. Three days. Nice. Nice three days. Council Bill 565 has passed. All right, councilman? No. Would you please put Council Bill 659 on the floor?