A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place bounded by West 29th Avenue and Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations. Vacates a portion of the right of way adjacent to 2099 Chestnut Place, bounded by West 29th Avenue, Chestnut Place and Division Street, with reservations, in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19.
And Councilman Flynn has called out Council Bill 921. Did I miss anything? All right. Under final considerations are insiders when called out and pending no items called out. So, Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And Councilwoman Suarez, will you please put council bill seven, seven, six on the floor? I move that council bill 776 be ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. This is on first introduction today, but it was actually postponed back a month ago. And so I'm urging my colleagues to vote no on this vacation. A little bit of background. Is that the fee? There's a fee for 6000 square feet of land, which is 1600 dollars. The plan for this location is an eight story hotel. You all might have gotten notice of the issue in the media. I believe one of the news outlets reported that public works gets between two and three dozens of requests like this per year. Some are tiny, others are thousands of square feet. So according to state law, if the right of way is not being used for transportation or other factors, an adjacent property owner can request that the city vacates the area. The Department of Public Works oversees these requests, charging. 1600 dollars in fees. For review. Public Works pulled all 21 adjacent property owners asking if they objected to the vacation request. 71% objected and 42 total objects objections were submitted from the neighborhood. This will increase chestnut place the developers land by 50%, increasing buildable square footage from 12144 to 18094 square feet. While DPW states that none of the protests have technical merit, I believe that the protests, in fact, do have technical merit. It is currently being used for transportation as there is a bike docking station located there. I believe as we meet our modern transportation goals and get more people out of cars, transportation uses will be much different than they have been in the past, and they will have to accommodate our different uses of transportation, including walking, biking and scooters. That area specifically is the only public space where bikes and scooters can be parked without blocking access for people who are mobility impaired. As we grapple with the scooter issue, I don't think it would be responsible for us to relinquish an area that can become a docking area for modern transportation uses. And therefore I urge you all to vote no on this developer giveaway of 6000 square feet for less than it costs to live in 800 square feet apartments for a month. I urge you all to think of our climate and transportation goals and have the prudence and foresight to hold on. To land. For our current and future uses of transportation. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon. Hey. Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor of chairing the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where this right of way vacation came to committee about six weeks ago or maybe two months ago. And I was the one that requested the for the four week delay as the applicant approached me and said, hearing all the concerns about the right of way vacation, we wanted to reach out to the community. And so I actually would like to have the applicant come forward just to hear the progress or the applicant representative, excuse me, to speak to what has happened over the course of the four weeks, just so that council could be made aware of how the conversations have moved forward. And while he's coming forward, I would also like to invite my colleagues. We'll be having a conversation on the right of way in general. I believe that's going to come the last week in October so that council members can share their concerns and hear the reasons that we do move forward in the direction we do with right away. But if you want to come on forward, say introduce yourself. And if you could just speak to what has happened over the past four weeks during the course of this postponement we had earlier. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. My name is Steve Ferris, and since we you last consider this, we have met with the neighbors three times with with this input. We have developed a plan for this area that we sent you in a video earlier today. This takes a bear and patch of land with a bike docking and moves it to a location that works for the neighborhood and creates an attractive place in this with this right of way land. This will be locked up in a neighborhood agreement this Wednesday. In a meeting, we're meeting again with the neighbors. We believe we have support from the neighbors and the neighborhood VPP from their neighborhood organization. Mark, homework is here tonight. If to speak to that, if you want him to. So really, our ask is simple tonight. Don't kill this tonight. Give us time to make this neighborhood proud. We can and will improve the right of way with the neighborhood input. And just a little time from you. Thank you. And Steve, just so I make sure you've had you said over the course of the past four weeks, you've had three meetings with the neighbors and you have scheduled another meeting on a Wednesday. And what is this? What is the purpose of that meeting? We are presenting a good neighbor agreement that will commit to the plan that we have sent around and shared with them to date, which involves improving the right of way in the intersection of Chestnut and 29th to such an extent that it opens up public space and allows people to mingle and enjoy that area and keeps attractive and busy. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Colleague, I say that. Could you come forward with. You came and spoke during the public time, but I want to afford you the opportunity. If you could just introduce yourself and say your connection to this parcel right away. Sure. My name is Mark Hall. I'm a board member of Union Station North and a resident. I've been there six years. Okay. So you've been a part of these conversations over the past four weeks with the applicant? I have been involved. Okay. So would you say that the applicant is interested in hearing the concerns of the community and and whether we agree on the right away vacation or not? There have been over the past four weeks that you have there have been conversations and there's a meeting on Wednesday to discuss a possible good neighbor agreement. Yes, that's my understanding. There are two more meetings scheduled. Okay. And you said this during public comment, but I want to make it a part of the record. It's something that you would wish council would allow to happen. I think for the benefit of the residents in our neighborhood, I would recommend more time for them to figure out what it is that they truly think. We've had a lot of people flip and it's been impactful. Okay. Thank you. Sure. And I would just say this to my colleague, I'm not here to speak to the spirit of the ride away. Whether it's appropriate or not. However, four weeks ago, we agreed to allow more time to be done. And this is billed as on first reading. So the question tonight is, should we publish the bill, not do we vote on the merits of allowing the ride away to happen or not? So if we were to vote down the Bill of the day, what was the point of allowing the four week delay? Because next week, next Monday, it's going to come right back to this body. We can look to the applicant. We can look to the the board and say, do you have an agreement? And if there's an agreement, we can have a conversation about that. And if there's not, we can have a conversation about that as well. But to not allow this to move forward so that a scheduled meeting for Wednesday, to have a possible good neighbor agreement, which would tell me that the community is in support of it, I think would be unfortunate to not allow that to happen. So I'm not speaking on the merit of the ride away, but I want to speak to the spirit of allowing an applicant and the community to have a conversation. And I would hope we would allow the bill to be published so that can continue and then discuss the merits a week from today. Thank you, Ms.. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Is there anyone here tonight who is opposed to the 2999 chestnut vacation? So we do have at least one person. I don't necessarily want to hear from you right now. I do want to the applicant's representative, would you come back for a moment? Thank you. And I apologize. I didn't. I didn't get your name. I'm terrible with names. Steve Ferris. Of course. Which makes me even more embarrassed. But anyway. At any rate. So I'm assuming that in those meetings that you had with the neighbors, they were they weren't 100% in agreement or disagreement. That's correct. Is it would you say that you had a reasonable conversation, that there were people who were for and against and they were, you know, having a like a reasonable discussion in general sometimes. Yeah. I guess just answer that question. Yes. There was a lot of reasonable discussions. People felt strongly in some cases, other people volunteered right away to say, I'd like to retract my initial opposition. It was an ongoing back and forth. Is there more than one person who is opposed to the to the the vacation? Yes. I mean, we don't have exact counts, but we. You know, I guess. Yeah. And thank you. I guess the nature of my question or the line of question is if we allow this to continue, I think that there are some people who are expecting to come to speak, probably in favor, but also in opposition. And they were not expecting to come tonight to speak in opposition. They were expecting to come next week or, you know, the 30th. The 30th, which which is next week. So, at any rate, I think that I would agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca on her points. I would also say that I'm somewhat frustrated by state ordinance or state law excuse me, state statute. That kind of makes it more difficult, as I understand it, more difficult for us to make decisions. But I would be in favor of letting us hear this next week so that we can have more people opposed and, you know , voice their thoughts if they want to. So thank you for your time. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. Is there anyone here who can just explain a little bit about the state. Law and and what that does. To play into this just in a little bit more kind of clarification. On that if. We're looking for public works staff or legal staff. Congratulations, Jason, again. Thank you. Hello. Jason Gallardo, Denver Public Works. Yeah. So state law kind of controls how we deal with dedications and vacations because it's it's kind of tricky. You don't want to require when a permit comes through for us to be able to require them to dedicate a right away to us and then turn around and sell it back to them for, you know, whatever market value. Would be for that square footage of. Land. So vacations come. In and we. Vacate it if we don't have a utility use to it or a mobility use to it. So we try to balance it's kind of a system to watch vacations on their own, doesn't do the whole system. Servicers, dedications and vacations eventually vacation. I mean, a dedication could be required to be vacated. And we don't charge they don't charge us for the land they're dedicating, nor do we charge them if there's no utility use or mobility use to it for us to vacate it. So that's kind of the process that the state laws hovering over us to make sure that cities don't try to make profit off of these type of agreements back and forth. So is there any. Kind of policy. Discussion around. Not being in this situation again in the future. Happening right now, or is. There? I think there there is. We're having internally write down. And I think that, you know, as Councilman Herndon stated, that we're going to have a more broader with city council as well. But I also want to make it clear that the dedication and vacations are just always going to be a part of this. You know, when we we we lean on developers who are developing an area to be able to make a sidewalk. And that's a good thing for the city. It's an asset that we get to use going forward. So it is complicated. And this particular vacation is about 6000 square feet, as Councilwoman CdeBaca stated. But it's also we get, you know, dedications that are just as big as well. You know, we've had dedications that have come through that have been upwards to 20,000 square feet. So it's it's kind of a we win in some areas in as you feel you're losing in an area right here. But the reality is is is this is how the entire system works so that we can continue to dedicate in and vacate. And like you said, we only do about a few dozen dedications, I mean, vacations at hubs every year, so. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I find myself agreeing with Councilman Hines and with Councilwoman CdeBaca and and actually also with Jason in that I believe that we should give this due course and move it forward to publish it. But if there is no agreement next week, I will vote with Councilwoman CdeBaca to to kill it if there is an agreement that's acceptable to the neighborhood and it involves the transportation aspect, the in the video that was forwarded to us, we we saw the relocation of the cycle dock and in a public plaza in green space that I think we need to give it the chance to move forward. But just to expand on what Jason had to say, we require a subdivide ers when they plat land to convey to us for free the public rights of way. And so the principle in in a vacation is that we don't sell it back to them because we didn't buy it in the first place. And the 1600 dollars is basically the the the processing fee. I noticed that tonight we're also doing a dedication of a right of way on is it rain or Utica or. Xavier Xavier a down by a down by Lakewood Gulch. And and so I looked up the subdivision and that area has never been subdivided. So I have no idea how we had the right to pave it in the first place because it was never conveyed to us as right of way. But that that illustrates the give and take that Jason was talking about. But when this first came along and I saw that it was a 6000 foot vacation, my first thought was that's that's an awful big plot of land. And it reminded me of some of the Mid-Block Alley vacations that have occurred up in District one over the years that former Councilman Espinosa used to be so concerned about. We wanted to talk about it then and resolve it, and we did not. So now it's back on our plate and I'm glad we'll have the opportunity to do it again. But agreeing with Councilman Hines, I believe that we should move it forward to see if the neighbors and the property owner can agree. And if they do not, then I would agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca and kill it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman CdeBaca, you back up? Yeah. Just wanted to thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to really highlight some of the calls that have come to us about the persuasion tactics in trying to flip that 70% that was opposed. I think that dragging this process on puts. The neighborhood through the undue persuasion tactics. And I would I will work really hard to make sure that they come and expose what has been. Going on throughout. This process. But I think that right now, if we know that on principle, giving away 6000 square feet of land when it is being used for a transportation use and it falls into the technical merit, it has technical merit. I think dragging it on is not necessary. But I understand where my colleagues are at. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask one of our city attorneys if you could just clarify if state law totally prohibits us from being able to, you know, extract anything from these parcels. In terms of, you know, market value of the land. I understand, you know, we ask developers to dedicate land that oftentimes is used for additional, you know, curb cuts or for sidewalks or whatever that, you know, oftentimes that's land they give to the city, if you will. But when we have a parcel and, you know, we have various types of of ways that some of these parcels come into our coffers, it's not all from, you know, landowners dedicating the land to the city. And we've had this issue with some of our alleys, for example, where in throughout northwest Denver, we've got a lot of carriage lots. And we saw one in the Jefferson Park neighborhood where that land was actually given to a developer that furthered the ability to demolish a historic property and add a lot more density to the area. So there's there's again, different ways we acquire or they come into our city coffers. But on these types of parcels, are there restrictions from the city being able to sell the land? For the record, Martin Plate, Assistant City Attorney, Minneapolis. The answer is yes, there is. The state statute deals with vacation, and the statute states that when a local government no longer needs right of way, that there is a process for relinquishing, if you will, or vacating that right of way. And it does not include the ability to sell the land. Do we know the reasoning behind that? I don't. But I know the vacation statutes that are around since the early 1900s, possibly before that. Okay. I saw state senator two weekends. I was in the audience and wanted to acknowledge her. Maybe this is something some of your colleagues would be willing to help us take a look at, please. Thank you for answering that question. I want to request that I'm in agreement, that I want to see if there is actually an agreement that's been worked out and if it has not. I'm not sure I would be willing to support this moving forward, but I want to request a public hearing. And it is not unusual for this body to have had public hearings on vacations in the past. So I want to request that when the bill comes back to us next week. Thank you, because I. Will support it moving forward for publication. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And that is actually something I was going to point out. But should this move forward? No one has requested that and yet and it is not required. So thank you for getting that checked off because I know earlier there was some talk about work to come back, people coming to speak, and that does require someone to request it. So thank you. Councilman Hines, you back up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Oh, louder now. I also wanted to acknowledge Senator Gonzalez. She is my state senator. And and one other thing that I want to do. I mean, just because she came in after I started speaking. The other thing that I would say is I think this might be interesting for us to ask our state legislators to review before we continue to grant vacation requests. Should there not be a compelling story next week that that that includes a good neighbor agreement and and strong agreement from the neighbors. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Hines, Councilwoman Sandoval. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to speak up because in northwest Denver, we've had many Ali vacations come through and we've had many good neighbor agreements come through. And the good neighbor agreement puts it on the owners of the neighborhood. And I just want you to know that we were here. I was here in 2015 as a council aide working for Councilman Espinosa. We had a Ali vacation come through. We took it through. We took it through this process. We had a good neighbor agreement come up. And I got a phone call last week that that good neighbor agreement is null and void. Nobody is enforcing it on the city site because the city is not part of the good neighbor agreement. So I just want to bring that to everyone's attention that as good of intentioned as these are, they are not enforceable by the city and county of Denver. And so for years here I am as the councilperson dealing with a good neighbor agreement on alley vacation in Julian. And so if you need more information on any of these, I have been working on these alley vacations since June of 2012 when I started as a council aide. One of my first assignments as a council aide was to go to mediation, get a good neighbor agreement for an alley vacation around the corner from the house I grew up on. So. And I've talked to Senator Rodriguez about looking at this on the state side and actually part partnering with Senator Rodriguez, because this needs to stop and this needs to actually be fixed at the state level. So look forward to that coming up. This is something that I've had a conversation with him about a couple weeks ago. So thank you all. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. Councilman City barking back up now. That was earlier. One of those earlier on. All right. So seeing no one else. I'll just add that, you know, I've had some concerns about the technical merit of this. That from committee. I share a lot of what councilwoman said. Like I said earlier on that that being said, you know, I do I personally prefer when we take things through the process, order it published, give it time. And especially now with Councilman Ortega requesting a hearing to have a chance for us to to have democracy at work here and hear from people. So I would ten I think I'm going to lean towards supporting this to move forward. But I have serious concerns even if an agreement is reached on the technical merits of the future transportation use that I'm you know, I'm going to have to let sit, I think, well, we will this one carries over for a week for me personally. So with that, Madam Secretary, roll call. See tobacco. No black eye. Flynn. All right. Herndon, I. Hines All right. Cashman Can each. Ortega. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting in the results. You live in is one. Name. 11 Eyes one day Council Bill 19 0776 has passed. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilman BLOCK, go ahead with your comment on 914.