A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 50 South Kalamath Street, 39 South Kalamath Street, 10 South Lipan Street, and 101 South Santa Fe Drive in Baker. Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties located at South Kalamath Street, 39 South Kalamath Street, 10 South Lipan Street and 101 South Santa Fe Drive from I-A UO-2 to I-B UO-2 to I-MX-5, UO-2, DO-7 (industrial to industrial, mixed-use) with waivers in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-18-20.
Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. 13 IVs, 13 IES Council Bill 813 has passed. Our next rezoning is Council Bill 20 dash 0815 and it's changing the zoning classification for 50 South Kalama Street Street 39, South Kalama ten South Lappin Street and 101 South Santa Fe Drive in Baker. Councilmember Canete, will you please put Council Bill 815 on the floor for passage? Yes, I move that council bill 815 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon, the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0815 is open and we have the staff report, please. Yes, thank you. Good evening once again. And Bill Courtney Lovington with Community Planning and Development. This is a map amendment application for 55 kilometer 39, South Township 101 South Santa Fe Drive and 10,000 can request from IAU to and I being your two to I am a five to the seven with waivers. The rezoning request is in Council District seven. In the Baker statistical neighborhood. The request is comprised of four parcels for a total of 6.43 acres west of south Santa Fe, south of West Elmhurst Avenue, east of 25. And the railroad track, the only Park and La Familia Recreation Center, are both about a quarter mile to the east and the site is about a half mile north from the Alameda station. The request is to rezone to I.A. 5 to 7 with waivers to the billboard use overlay, which the site currently has and is proposing to retain with the request. The G7 is a design overlay which is applied for with two waivers requested to the design standards of that overlay. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to facilitate redevelopment, which has an associated voluntary affordable housing agreement. Majority of the site of the subject sites are zoned IAU two i.e. is the light industrial zone district allowing for office , business and industrial uses. The I zone district has no height maximum and instead regulates intensity through a maximum floor a ratio of 2.0. The southern portion of the site at 101 South Santa Fe is zoned IB due to I.B. as a general industrial zone district and allows many for many of the same primary uses that light industrial does with the inclusion of a few more intense industrial uses. The zoning really comprised of three main sites with the largest at 50 South Carolina Street, which was previously used as a warehouse for the former Sports Authority company. And that has been vacant for almost five years now. The parcel at 39 South Tomas is used for parking and 10,010 is undeveloped to the south, 1 to 1 south. Santa Fe is also a parking lot. The large area is a mix of commercial and industrial uses like workshops. There are some commercial retail uses, like a lighting showroom in a restaurant to the north existing. There are three single unit homes built in the early 1900s to the north of the 50 kilometer parcel. There's more residential to the east. And that's what recently over some photos the site this is the these are showing the vacant for the port authority warehouse at 50 kms. The showing of 39 South Palmas at ten South Lincoln beyond. This is the west side of the vacant warehouse, 50 South Kettleman. Finally, this shows the property at 101 South Santa Fe looking southwest. As the site is over five acres in size, the rezoning subject to the large development review process as an outcome of the process. A large development framework document was recorded for the site and is included as an attachment to the staff report as part of the process. A community information meeting was held in February and the notes from that meeting are also attached. The site is will be required to provide 10% open space and as an outcome of the LDA process, a mobility study was required which helps determine traffic impacts of any future development and needed infrastructure improvements. Additionally, the layout noted that the enhanced design is needed for the site to support walkability and livability and also outlined the need for an affordable housing commitment. The voluntary, affordable housing commitment is associated with the proposed rezoning includes at least 10% of all units constructed on the property would be higher use with a 60 year period of affordability and a range of unit sizes. The affordability level varies based on the product type under a build alternative plan. The project and the large parcel contemplated would be required to provide only seven income restricted units and under the Voluntary Affordable Housing Agreement. The 10% is approximately 47 income restricted units, about seven times what would be required normally be required. Be. I'm inspired. You have to do a seven month waiver. It's what is requested here. So this is a table that shows an increased design standard as a result of applying the design overlay with flavors. And then what we would get with just the I'm at five district alone and then the first column is the current design standards of the existing zone districts that are in place right now. So we'll talk about the waivers requested. I'll take each one as it is. The first waiver requested is to the D7 Nonresidential Street Level Active Use requirement, and that would be replacing the current provision that would require the large parcel have about 210 linear feet of nine residential street level active use and reduces it down to 185 linear linear feet. For the other two parcels included in the rezoning, the 121 South Santa Fe and then the La Pan 39 counties. The standard of the DE seven would apply normally, so it's just for that big site, the first one. The second waiver requested reduces the ideal seventh street level minimum height from 16 feet down to 14 feet. The applicant has requested for this additional flexibility in the design. Considering the large size of the block and the need for a parking structure to be feels at the the 14 foot height still accomplishes the intent of the ground floor standard to allow for future conversion, as well as creating an active pedestrian realm and gives them proportionality. And so the waiver request can be found on page 53 of the application attachment. The application was noticed according to the code requirements. In the applicants application. Notes of outreach conducted with the community prior to submitting the application. Specifically meeting with the Baker R.A. multiple times. There was also, as I mentioned before, a committee information meeting as part of the process. Baker R.A. wrote a letter of support, and there are six additional letters of support from committee members. Moving on to review criteria to prove a rezoning, it must be found that the MAP amendment is consistent, consistent with the five criteria found in the code. The first criteria is that it must be consistent with the adopted plans or five adopted plans that apply to this requested rezoning plan. 2040 Blueprint. Denver Alameda Stationary Plan. The Baker Neighborhood Plan and Housing and Inclusive Denver. First Continent 2040, adopted in 2019. There are multiple goals and strategies that the request is consistent with that said, in terms of the vision elements that pertain to equity. The proposed rezoning would enable the development of additional housing units and the mixed uses and proximity to the Alameda station. The proposed rezoning also has an affordable housing agreement that requires a minimum of 10% of the units be income restricted at various levels, depending on product type. Next to environmentally resilient element of compliance. So this would allow for mixed use infill growth with access to transit via the Alameda station. Additionally, with the industrial mixed use, redevelopment and proximity to transit helps improve air quality through decreasing the reliance on single occupancy vehicle. And let's move on to how the two classes consistent with Blueprint Denver versus object state status shown within the district context and the industrial mixed use zone within that district context. Blueprint shows the properties as part of the Innovation Innovation Flex Place type blueprint describes innovation flex places and makes you places for businesses, offices, manufacturing, logistics pieces, and says that multi-unit residential is compatible here. So the request to district allows for a variety of industrial and commercial uses, and the D7 with waivers provides enhanced design standards like increased transparency, minimum street level height and three level active use requirements, all meeting the the vision for those innovation flex places. The proposed zone district is intended for industrial dominated area areas served by these collector streets. So what works right here? That's a collector street. And considering that the other three types are industrial arterials, the request of zone district is appropriate here. Moving on to the growth strategy. That map that shows the vision on how we distribute future growth across the city. The proposed MAP amendment will allow mixed use growth and helps to support the future employment and housing growth anticipated by the plan. Additionally blueprint have policies related to uses and design outcomes in the innovation district. So the application of the Geo seven in this location implements the recommendation for urban pedestrian friendly building forms for variety, for vibrant mixed use district by repurposing a tool that we already have in the code. And so Blueprint recommends that using custom zoning tools like waivers that we're using here are most effective when a standard zoning district doesn't exist. So in this instance, we have the 50 South comment parcel, which is extremely large, will likely have three primary street frontages and will be applied in the in Baker with the nonresidential active use and street level minimum standards of seven were initially calibrated. Currently, the design overlay that enables enhanced design standards for the industrial mixed use phone district does not exist. So applying the D7 in this location necessitates customization with those waivers to respond to unique circumstance and enables the implementation of the plans recommendation. Additionally, the five acre site was was subject to the order process, which isn't typical for a standard rezoning. So that customization with the waivers is is appropriate here. Next. The blueprint is also consistent with policies and strategies related to creating exceptional design outcomes in a particular location. Desired higher quality design can't be achieved through just the Impact Zone District alone. So applying that design overlay with waivers here is how is appropriate, because it's how we ensure new development. New residential development will introduce residential uses that are better design and more pedestrian friendly than would otherwise be realized by simply just applying that identified zone district. So the site also is over five acres in size, as I've mentioned. So there was an equity evaluation and the equity concepts were considered in context of the application first with access to opportunity. So this equity concept helps us to consider if the city is making progress towards achieving the vision for complete neighborhoods across the city. The site has a higher access to opportunity score in the contemplated development in connection with the proposed MAP Amendment will provide a little over a half acre of open space and that will further strengthen that equity metric. Not the the subject property is in an area that has lower vulnerability to displacement in these areas, important to maintain affordable housing options so all residents can continue to live in the neighborhoods. So there is an affordable housing commitment in connection with the proposed rezoning. Therefore, we think it shouldn't have a negative impact on this measurement specifically. Next to the subject. Property is an area that has moderate housing diversity. Affordable housing agreement provides additional income, restricted units, and with a diversity of bedroom counts per unit and a range of affordability levels, we don't think that will have a negative impact on this housing diversity metric. So also when we're looking at the expanding job diversity equity concept in terms of the job mix, the area has more emphasis on retail and manufacturing type jobs and the citywide average. The zone district allows for very commercial office manufacturing and retail jobs, and having a mix in many different types of jobs enables people of different incomes and education levels to find employment here. And the application mentions adding some level of offices to that parcel at 39 South Kalama. So this could help expand the mix of jobs and increase jobs in this area, since currently these parcels have no jobs at all because they're vacant. So this rezoning application may actually have a positive impact on the area of job diversity. So next, we'll move on to the Baker Neighborhood Plan from 2003. The plan identifies the properties as part of the industrial sub area of this plan and describes these areas actually as fundamentally nonresidential. And while there is some strong language in the plan against introducing residential in this area, we think that the guidance should be taken in context. And a lot has changed in 17 years in this area, like many of the industrial businesses leaving the area. We have guidance from new guidance that's different from Blueprint Denver and the support of the Baker, R.A. and the community for transitioning this area and introducing residential here. So let's move on to the Alameda Stationery Plan from 2009. You can see that the southern little tip portion there, the parcel 101 South Santa Fe Drive is within this plan area boundary. So that's a half mile from the Almeida Station. On the plans land use concept map. One of the subject parcels is designated as industrial and there's not a lot of language in the plan about industrial , but the plan recommends that industrial areas should have manufacturing offices and other employment uses with special attention to design. So the Annex five zone district that they're requesting does allow for those uses. And we can consider that consistent with the plan recommendations. The plan also calls out the West that avenue as an enhanced sidewalk route, bike route. The rezoning enables the development that will implement the plan's recommendation because the development will be required to install sidewalks in this area. And those have street trees and those will create enhanced pedestrian friendly street. That's how the inclusive Denver adopted in 2018. As we all know, the plan talks about promoting the development of new, affordable, mixed income housing. And there's a voluntary, affordable housing agreement associated with this application. And that we find that the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. It'll result in uniformity of district regulations as the IMX 50207 with waivers is considered in itself the unique zoned district. And it will further the public health, safety and welfare not only through its implementation of adopted plans like the Blueprint Denver, but also through enabling a higher design quality through the application of the design overlay. And that requires active uses and pedestrian oriented street frontages. Those design features make the area more walkable, and that has been shown to be linked with increased physical activity and decreased obesity. And then next, the criteria requires just five circumstances to exist for the rezoning. There's been a lot of change in the area since 2010, such as multiple new developments to the southwest of the site. Additionally, the application also identifies the adoption of Blueprint Denver last year. With that innovation flex place type that change and that justifies the rezoning fact concurred. The new future land use guidance for the site provided by Blueprint Denver is a change from the previous guidance and consistent with that criteria. And then finally, the final review criteria for math amendments is consistency with neighborhood context. Purpose statements. Purpose and intent statements as a code. The requested district is characterized by providing a transition in between industrial and accommodating residential, which aligns the area net with the D7. There's a list about 12 purpose statements in this application. And what purpose statements in this application is consistent with the promotion of promote promoting vibrant pedestrian street frontages with active uses street fronting buildings. So when we take all of that, on balance, the application is consistent with this neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statement criteria inclusion CBD finds that all zoning Denver Zoning Code criteria has a met and recommends approval. We still have Andrew from host available to answer questions about the Affordable Housing Agreement and Development Services. Also hear available available to answer any questions that you may have as well as the applicant. Thank you very much. Oh, well, thank you, Courtney. We appreciate it. Tonight, council has received two written comments on Council Bill 815. There are no submitted comments in favor of the application and two submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have been sent these comments and have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do members need any additional time to read the written testimony that was submitted? CNN council secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 815 have been read by each member of Council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing . Tonight, we have seven individuals signed up to speak. Our first speaker is Patrick Smith. Good evening, members of Council and thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Madam President. My name is Patrick Schmitz. I am here on behalf of the Applicants Asset Investment Partners Relocation of 4100 East Mississippi Avenue in Glendale, Colorado, 0246. And Courtney, thank you for such a great presentation. I myself, along with Kenneth, all are here really just to answer any questions you guys may have. So thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Kenneth Ho. Good evening, Madam President and City Council. Thank you for your time this evening. Again, just available for respond to any questions. I also want to thank all the city staff in particular CPD and host for going through the LDR process and in negotiating the development agreement and affordable housing agreement as well. With that, I look forward to any questions that you may have. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Bruce Peterson. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead, Bruce. Mm hmm. Good evening. I am Bruce Peterson, a fourth generation owner of Rio Grande Company. And I've worked there over 44 years. And a lifelong resident of Denver residing in 1928 South High Street. Currently, our company was founded in 1893 and has operated in Denver since and is the owner with me of the ten acre of a ten acre active industrial site just southeast of the property. The Southern property, the business, the businesses that operate on our side are industrial with fabrication, manufacturing and and trucking. This use generates industrial traffic. Our concern is the close proximity of industrial and residential uses from the added traffic of the proposed 450 unit apartment complex just northwest from us. We communicated via letter and spoke briefly at the planning board meeting. We also submitted a letter to the latest meeting detailing concerns and submitted a letter to council prior to this meeting. We have spoken to the developer several times. One of our main concerns is the impact of the proposed signal at Santa Fe and Bayard on our and others existing movements. We hired transportation consultant Matt Brown Postoffice and Associates to review the Transportation Mobility Study provided by Kimberly Horne and West Side Development. We reported our findings in our letter to council. Matt Brown is also going to be highlighting traffic concerns today. The area has been industrial for a long time. Business businesses built up around the railway and grew in this area as the city did. Not all the industrial industries moved out. With the growth, there are a large number of industrial businesses in the Baker neighborhood. These businesses rely on maneuvering successfully in the area area as they currently do. Traffic around 50 south. Kalama is bordered by two major three lane one way streets, Kalama on the west and Santa Fe on the East Bay areas on the south. And just further south is the main line track for the Bean and U.P. Railroad. This creates a complicated set of conditions. Our businesses need good access as currently configured so that we can facilitate 252 and front trip, 250 to and from trips daily. We understand much of the project design is not final at this point, and if this project is approved, the site development plan process will begin and finish the detailed plan. We want to have a voice and play a role with the developer and the city concerning how the site development plan and the building design affect the important functions of our businesses. Thank you for your time and keepers. Next up, we have Adam Astor. And you might need to. There you go, Adam. Yep. Hello? Hi. I'm out of Mr. Apartment 361. A lady. I live a couple of blocks from the site and I'm definitely excited to welcome new neighbors to our neighborhood. I think we are well placed to add additional residents. We are at a lower risk of displacement than some other surrounding communities. We have good access to public transit as well as just being simply a mile and a half from downtown. I just walk to work, you know? I think that this is a great site to add both jobs and housing. So I hope you guys will vote to approve. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, we have Matt Brown. Evening. My name is Matt Brown. I'm a senior transportation engineer with Stauffer and Associates located in Greenwood Village. I've been practicing traffic engineer for over 25 years, and I'm a registered engineer in state of Colorado. On behalf of the Rio Grande companies, I was asked to review the transportation mobility study that was prepared for the 50 South on our site. Based on that review, there are two topics that I'd like to highlight tonight. The first is in regards to the proposed traffic signal at the Bayside and Santa Fe intersection. And the second is just more generally regarding the industrial nature of traffic in the area. But I know I'm probably speaking to the choir here, but traffic signals do have consequences. They tend to increase average vehicle delays for motorists, fuel consumption and even potential for rear end crashes. So we really need to be judicious in their application and particularly along our two roadways like Santa Fe. Traffic signals are a precious commodity. Typically, we would not consider locating a traffic signal at a site driveway or even at an intersection with a local road, which they are. Avenue is in this case. There are also three active rail crossings and other traffic signals near this intersection. It's really a pretty complicated scenario, putting another traffic signal in the midst of all of what's going on there. Lots of engineering constraints and regulatory hurdles that need to be overcome not only with the city and county of Denver traffic, but also with the the railroad and the Public Utilities Commission. And those topics aren't really addressed in the study this point. We also have some concerns with vehicle queuing. You know, not only will it potentially encroach on the track, but they also have the potential to block access points. For example, today, traffic, a lot of traffic from Bayard Avenue from the east has pretty much a free right turn movement when there are gaps in traffic to turn north on to Santa Fe. If the intersection is signalized and bad to the west is converted to a those right turn, movements now have to wait behind vehicle stop to cross light and as a result vehicles will end up winding up along that and potentially blocking driveways. And the study doesn't really address whether there four lanes or other improvements that are needed at the intersection to address those concerns. Like distance. Also, as you're traveling northbound at Santa Fe, it's not ideal in advance of the signal. There's a curve in the road. There's lots of visual clutter going on with overhead utilities. You've got the railroad crossing there. And so the visibility of the traffic signal or a traffic signal at that location would not be ideal. So we think during the STP process it makes sense to look at other site access or circulation concepts that avoid the need for a traffic signal at this location. Finally, I think it's important to acknowledge the industrial nature of the area and the need to accommodate large vehicles at intersections and access points. There clearly be a need for intersection improvements as well as offsite improvements of the rail crossings and along area roadways to accommodate multimodal travel. These haven't been identified, but it's worth noting that land uses in the area generate many trucks and their ability to move freely needs to be maintained regardless of how the site near to. You, Mr. Brown. Thank you for your time. Up next, our next speaker is Jesse Paris. Good evening, members of Council. Good evening, Council President Gilmore My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver Homeless our low life star action movement for self-defense, positive action, commitment to social change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High and those I'll be your next mayor in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning because we need more affordable housing throughout the whole metro area. I just have a few questions. The first question is, is it true that only 10% of 450 units will be affordable between 60% and 80% and my level. So is there a traffic study done for this rezoning story? Was there a trade study done for this rezoning or how long is this affordability agreement going to last before it's due for 60 plus year? Or what is the time frame for that? So someone could please answer those questions. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. Our last speaker this evening is Brian Lomax. Mr. Loma, you might need to add me. AMY Mm hmm. Yep. Go ahead. Hey, thanks. You know, as I'm sitting outside of Melanie and Mike. Mike night instead of in a vacant city council chambers, I'm reminded that as we continue to develop areas, we're not effectively looking at the long term impacts. I read through all the documentation, so I know there was a traffic study and I see the train traffic. I see the trains travel there a lot. It's a congested area, one of the few industrial areas left in the city and county of Denver. And I'm really like I'm concerned that we need. Affordable housing. But when we're looking at placing people next to trains and next to industry, that's not necessarily the best places for it. And for anybody to be living. And I'm just kind of really concerned about the idea that definitely looking at bike traffic, looking at the industrial traffic mixes that are going to be ending up in this initial in this zone as you as currently mapped out, it's concerning to me. While we recognize that we have to have places where people live, not necessarily against this, not necessarily for this. I'm really concerned that as I read zoning regulations and we look at the park plans and stuff like that, we're not budgeting for the infrastructure of sustainability. And so definitely housing near bike pathways is something near the the main train lines, something that we need and we need to consider more. So this one's a little bit of a mix for me, but I know nothing is easy, but I'm really, really concerned. There's a lot of heavy, heavy traffic there. It's not the right place to put people. You're going to drive that industry out of town by by if you don't do it right. That's all I got. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Loma. That concludes our speakers tonight. Questions from members of council. Councilman Clark, I was wondering if you're going to chime in since this is in your district or. We've got I don't have any questions at this time. I would love to get in comments, but I see some other folks getting in raise their hand for questions. Thank you, Madam President. Very good. First up, we have Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I would like to ask. It. It's that Matt Brown that talked about the traffic study. If you wouldn't mind coming back on. Go ahead with your question, Councilman. We've got the map back up. Okay, great. So, Mr. Brown, first of all, were were you able to complete your comments because you you ran out of time? And I just wanted to make sure if there were some other key points that you were able to get those across. You know, I was very close to the last thing that I really wanted to emphasize was just the importance of being able to accommodate industrial traffic in this area. So as improvements are made for this site and offsite to accommodate the multi-modal connections and so forth, I just wanted to make sure that the industrial traffic was a part of the consideration. So the study that you did was independent. It was not. And it was done for Rio Grande. Was there already a study that was done by the applicant of the redevelopment that you looked at and compared yourself? You. Yes. So. Excuse me. The applicant retained a traffic engineer that prepared the transportation and mobility study for for their project. And that's the information that I reviewed on behalf of the Rio Grande. Okay. Okay. So I just find it fascinating that that's done prior to this application yet again. This is an example for my colleagues of the level of detail that we don't get as part of these applications. And it's why some of us have advocated that we should go back to some of the things that used to be part of the rezoning, so that we are, in fact getting more details and making a better informed decision on the request that we're being asked to approve. Let me just ask you a further question about whether or not that traffic study, either that you did or that you reviewed, done by the applicant, look at pedestrian access to the east, to the Baker neighborhood, and to some degree to the to the north, because if the site is going to have a lot of commercial on there, that will draw more pedestrian traffic across. What is what is that, three or four lanes on Santa Fe? Ensuring that we've got safe pad access is really critical to that mobility. So is that something that you looked at or was that included at all in their study? My interesting I did look at that and my understanding is that the the improvements that are proposed by the applicant are limited to on site improvements. So and I they're here obviously and can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe they're proposing to make sidewalk improvements on the north side of Bayard. But my understanding is that that's between Kalamazoo and Santa Fe, not east. As you go east from Santa Fe towards the Baker neighborhood, obviously you have a lack of sidewalks and accessibility along that corridor and you also have the light rail crossing there that isn't an accessible crossing. And so that's what I'm referring to with respect to the need for additional on site improvements and that those being the industrial use of the area and traffic be considered in evaluating the appropriateness of those kinds of improvements, like being able to turn, you know, big vehicles at corners and at intersections is something that my my client in particular is interested in ensuring that that that isn't compromised as a result of any improvements that are made. So I want to ask a representative from the developer if they can address my same questions. So thank you, Mr. Brown. Appreciate you answering my questions. I'm not sure who the best person is that should address this, but I just wanted to ask about the the head connection where we may have you know, there's a lot of interest in the Baker neighborhood to support the project because it will add, you know, more, more people and more amenities. But at the same time, it could pose a greater risk for pedestrians. And so I just wanted to ask the applicant to address that as well. Right. Thank you, Councilman. We have Kenneth Ho. And he's ready to answer your questions. I. Kenneth, how are you? I thought you were in there for a minute. Now I don't see you. You hear me now? Yes. No reason. Okay, great. Thank you for the question. Oh, you just cut out on us. We just lost you. Can you hear me now? No, we can't. I'll hold the speaker out in front of me a little bit here. Sorry for the audio difficulties. The mobility study was actually part of the LDR process that we went through with the. So that's why this this was done specifically as part of it. And, and I believe it was scoped as part of whatever the city is now requiring for LV hours. In terms of the pedestrian connection says so of the study that was being reviewed actually has already been submitted to the city and I'm not sure whether it has been provided to council, but in any case, it is. The study recommended a light at Bayside in Santa Fe in order to not only accommodate automobile and truck traffic, but also, frankly, pedestrian crossings as well as as the previous gentleman spoke about. You know, traffic signals are complicated, but at the same time, they not only may create some inconveniences for automobiles and trucks, but they create important breaks in traffic for pedestrians and cyclists. And that improvement is a offsite improvement in order to enhance the pedestrian bicycle access, also along Bayside, which is identified as a key pedestrian bicycle route. Thank you for answering that question. I want to move on to whether or not the LDR process looked at your proximity to rail on the West Side and whether it discussed some buffering to protect the residents that would be living and working in the development, you know. Were there setbacks that were identified from the rail and some kind of buffering that you all would be looking at? And can you explain what what you guys are thinking? We were we were during the earlier process provided with the rail study and the report and we reviewed it, you know that you know, the additional buffering in order to address noise from the rail is going to be incorporated into the design. The vertical developer has already talked about that, but there weren't any specific recommendations regarding any spatial buffering from. So the buffering you're going to do is only for noise, not necessarily for impact of an incident that might occur of any of the products it travels along that corridor, knowing that we have high volumes of flammable liquids and other hazardous materials that will travel on that corridor. No councilwoman there. There isn't a specific distance related to that occurrence. So. Do I hear you to say that your development would? A but a close proximity to that trip to those tracks? Or are you looking at some kind of setback? And I guess I see Courtney trying to chime in here to see if the city is recommending any distancing from the tracks as well. Courtney. Was that addressed at all? The LDR process. So we did talk with the applicant. You know, we have as recommended by the task force, we created a proximity detection feature in Excel to identify project proposals within 200 feet of a rail corridor. And we did talk with development services and that the project during the site development plan phase would be reviewed by the Denver Fire and building reviews take into account any needs for life safety requirements and egress when adjacent to rail corridor. But currently there are no specific setbacks or agency specific regulations for development proximate pregnant railroads. But we did bring that up to the applicant. The proximity is close, but we didn't have any specific regulation to measure it against. So, Kenneth, where do you plan to place your parking? I'm assuming you're going to have a parking structure with that many units being built on site. What is the placement of the parking garage going to be? And that's what I was going to say during the site development plan. Right now, the the concept plan and we are not a vertical developer here, but we have submitted a concept plan that is that locates the above ground structure on the south part of the site. And so there will you know, again, as part of the step, we don't have a final step related to that or site design, but that is the desire and that was what was actually studied as part of the mobility study, having the the parking structure on the South Side, which would which is what was putting the traffic on to be on. Okay. And I would just encourage that you all look at placing it closer to the tracks. I think it would pull the traffic off of the the street for if you put it further back rather than closer to the street, which will create some of the traffic issues that I just heard Mr. Moore talk about a few minutes ago. And so that could also be part of your buffering for protecting the residents if there was an incident. And this is something that I think our city is being really lax in addressing in terms of ensuring that we as a city are protecting human life when we are approving these applications and encouraging people to live in these developments by sheer, you know, approvals through all of our processes. So let me just see if I have any other ones and I apologize. Madam President, let me just look at my notes here real quick. Yeah, I think we covered all of them. So thank you very much. And we'll let someone else sort of questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. Kind of along the lines of Councilwoman Ortega's questioning, you know, Rio Grande companies been in that area as my math tape doing math on the fly. But I get 127 years. And, you know, we've lost enough industry in Denver that I don't want to put roadblocks in front of a long time a neighbor . And so, you know, the letters that that they sent in, I thought, were actually quite reasonable. They expressed their concerns and just asked to be involved in crafting a solution that works for everybody along the way. And so I guess I would ask Kourtney and Mr. Ho both if you could comment on what your commitment is to involving Rio Grande in that discussion as things move forward. Yeah. Councilwoman Katherine, thank you for that question. And we have had several meetings with Mr. Peterson and Rio Grande actually spent almost 2 hours with him a couple of days ago understanding what his concerns are. And we actually spoke with the vertical developer today and confirmed that we'll be introducing the two of them, assuming that this goes forward to to have direct conversations about the future site plan. I think you meant you didn't count some. I am here to thank you. Courtney, are you there that you can comment on that, please. As to what I guess what I'm asking is what is CPD's? How do you consider these conflicts moving forward where we've got a neighbor who's been doing business and supporting our taxpayers for 127 years and is concerned about their ability to continue doing that and making their contribution. Yeah. And I would defer I'm trying to see if there's someone from Deirdre from development services on. That could help. Can I have comment from the development services perspective because really gets handed over from, you know, redundant planning service to development services. For that, I'm looking to see if she. On here. And not. No, I'm not seeing. Okay. Oh, wait. You know, we've got her in the attendees. Her hand is raised, and so we'll go ahead and get her into the panelists. All right, Deirdre, you might have to unmute yourself to answer Councilman Cashman's question or if you need it. Repost. Hi. Yeah, I would like repost. Thank you. I heard my name and then I. Okay. Thank you. Every person. Go ahead, councilman. Oh, yeah. So what I was asking thank you for for being here. You know, we've got an industrial neighbor to this proposed project who's been in the neighborhood for over 125 years and has concerns about maintaining their ability to continue doing business with hundreds of truck trips and auto trips a day. And I'm just wondering, as you look at a traffic plan for this development, how much weight goes into something like that, an existing industrial client as well as, you know, residential tenants? Well, thanks for the question and not that I would want to pass this up on. Not sure if anyone. Dottie is also on the call by daddy because they review the mobility reports and they actually help with the stopping of those reports. The Mobility Report is designed to identify all of the traffic background traffic and then of course future traffic associated generated by that development. And so that those mobility reports would take into account what is occurring with current traffic is associated with a current user. So a neighboring industrial user, anyone in that area within whatever the scope was, whether it was a quarter mile or 500 feet, whatever they decided was appropriate for that study. And then they would determine based on that, you know, what Signalization was required and if there were improvements, that the project just could not accommodate because the traffic would become, you know, would overrun the amount of improvements that they could do. They couldn't get. Over that issue. Then that, of course, could pose a problem for a project. But in almost every case, in cases like this, you know, it's a smaller site. They've been asked to mitigate accordingly. And there would be a signal. And of course, they would be looking at where pedestrians are crossing and, you know, whether there are additional lanes or turn lanes associated with new traffic being added to the existing count. So that's kind of my CPD planner view of it. I'm sure that Dotty has even more information they can provide that's provided during the administrative process of the site development plan review, but it is definitely taken into account during during that process. The LDR, the framework specifically identified a mobility report as something that needed to be done prior to approval of any site development plan, just to understand the feasibility and make sure that we understood. If. There were any particular key issues that the applicants needed to be aware of going into it. And obviously for them to know if there were really big red flags when it came to traffic. Okay. Thank you very much. And I guess the last thing I would say is getting back to you, Mr. Ho, you said you met with Rio Grande for a couple of hours. You're introducing them to the vertical developer. I'd like I'd like a little stronger commitment on your part to continue to involve them in part of the dialog. I know it's in cases like this, it's really a, you know, a compromise situation. Two heads better than one. Three heads better than two type of thing. Absolutely. Councilman, Councilman, we've spoke with them on a number of a number of times. And right now, the vertical developer, Camden also is a long term holder. And so they know that they're not they're only going to be neighbors for for a long time here. So I think that that kind of dialog, as well as dialog with the rest of the community, there were some, you know, during the LDR process and during the community information meeting, the community had a very strong preference, not locate the to the entrance and exit of the parking structure on the Ellsworth side, which is part of why we located down on the South Side and obviously other folks have other interests. I think that there's also a pretty high likelihood that that this light will actually when when all is said and done, may actually facilitate some of the movements from Rio Grande site and make it easier for them to access Santa Fe going north from Bayard because of the traffic signal as well. But absolutely, we're happy to have further conversation since we aren't selling the entire site to Camden, we will be part of we will also be neighbors for some time as well. So we look forward to being part of that conversation. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have. All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And we looked in the attendees and we looked for somebody from Dotty, but unfortunately, we didn't have them in the meeting. So sorry about that, Councilman. Next up, we have Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Tennis. I just wanted to make sure. One of the questions that I had when this came to LUDI was about connection to the Santa Fe Arts District and just wanted to make sure that that connection was made and that there was some conversation there. You still. Can. You hear me now? Okay, great. Councilwoman Torres? Yes. Thank you very much for the question and for alerting us to the fact that we were part of the Santa Fe Arts District. I know that we're working on changing the R.A. boundaries on the on the city website. We did reach out to Ms.. Shayna Belton, the board chair, I believe, of Santa Fe. Our sister had both a meeting with her and then her presentation to the entire board. And based on that, you know, we followed up with her and she didn't have any specific concerns. But we also welcome continuing a dialog with her and introducing her to the Oracle developer as well. So thank you very much for that. Thank you for doing that. My only other question in this, we chatted about. This a little bit. At committee, but given Councilman Ortega's questions. About. Orienting parking toward the south where. The rail. Lines currently are, how would it impact your development or your plans for that property if in the future that moves those lines and they end up on kind of the northeast corner of that property? Yeah, based on my understanding of the seat change, it would actually remove the lines from the south and southwest of our property and actually move it beyond our northwestern boundary. So if that change happens, then we would not be under any influence of that other than potentially how they how they do a grade separated track at all of the intersections to the east of us. And the plans are far from certain as to how all that will work. So good question. But if they actually do that, make that change would actually reduce the significantly reduce the train, automobile, pedestrian and bicycle interactions around our site. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam President, to you. Thank you, Councilman. Next up, we have Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. So I just need a little bit of clarification around the vertical developer who's, I guess, coming in next. So the the agreements that you've got with hosts, Kenneth, are those do those run with the land then? Is that will those covenants be binding on the vertical developer as well? That's correct, Councilwoman, that the those commitments are actually part of the. ANDREWS Andrew can answer them as well, but they're part of the development agreement. And so it's it runs with title. But I know Mr.. Mr. Johnson wants to address that specifically. Andrew, do you want to jump in or. I feel like that was a good enough clarification. But if there's something else. Excuse me, I'm you know, it's true. Around the land, there will be a covenant against the land. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. And then just in terms of clarification around the zoning and the waivers, so there is no other in our in our zoning code. There is no other way to do what you want to do here than without waivers. It's just my understanding that it is our goal in our zoning code, Courtney, to not use waivers in general that the purpose is to of of our form based zoning code was. To do away. With waivers and it is often as we can. So why are we doing waivers in this instance? Yes, great. Great question. And it is a complicated rezoning with a lot of different moving parts. Through the LR process, it became clear that enhanced design was needed for this site based on community feedback. And so we we use the seven as, you know, something that we had an existing tool that we can use for these transitioning innovation flex districts. And that using this existing tool, we know that it might need to be customized a bit to fit in this specific location. And the applicant suggested to waivers. And those waivers we evaluated and we felt that the the policy was meant that, you know, a bridge to a future text amendment or, you know, in that thing that we we don't know if we're specifically going to do change the the seven. But we know that there is some issues with these two aspects. So it does meet the policy that we have for waivers in custom zoning. Okay. So I guess I understand that it means the policy that we have for custom zoning. But it. Doesn't that doesn't explain why we're using custom zoning in the first place. Really? So I guess can you flesh that out a little bit for me? Yeah. So the the innovation project setting blueprint in envisions including residential uses. You know, with the industry today doesn't have those standards in place to ensure a well-designed mixed use outcome. So by applying the design overlay, we're not going to get entirely residential outcome. And that, you know, we can get some commercial uses here by applying the DOT seven. Okay. Does that make sense? I think so. You seemed like you sort of like jumped in and you seemed like you wanted to say something else. I thought it does. It's totally fine. Sorry about that. Go ahead. No, no, no. It's like, uh, you know, this is a, I think that the G-7, it is applying an existing tool, but it's a way for us to get enhance design, get from a mix of commercial uses so we don't end up with a entirely residential product here. Okay. So this is going to give you the flexibility to put in the commercial that you need in the development as well. It's a kind of fill out that the bottom floor space. And activate that. Is that. Is that. Is that what you're saying? Yep. Yep. Got it. Okay. All right. Perfect. Thank you. I think that's that pretty much answers my question. Thanks, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Next up, we have Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So, Courtney or Kenneth, I have a question for you. So on the overlay and they did see oh seven, it talks about feet. Can you talk to me about that in percentages? So of the waiver that you're proposing, what percentage of the building would be active street use? I am going to need to do some quick math. Councilwoman. Maybe Courtney might be doing that as well. Yeah. Because I mean, I write the waiver and I'm working on one for Tennyson. But people think percentage is not these feet that you're talking about. I need to know the percentage that we're talking about here. Right. You know, I think it's interesting here because in this, you know, in this area is unique because both Santa Fe, Cal Math and Ellsworth, based on the the standards in the code would likely be designated primary streets. And so that's why the deal seven has so much of that nonresidential active street frontage that, you know, you'd see in Reno, you wouldn't see three primary streets. It does that that doesn't typically occur. It's typically it's like one, you know, maybe two. So it doesn't really account for the three primary streets of the waiver is helping us apply this existing tool in this location. You know under the standard I think they would have to have normally. About what does that 200 and. 15 linear feet of nonresidential active use. Is that correct, Kenneth? I think we did the math, so. Yeah. Yeah. And so it's going down to 185 feet. Yeah. So what's the average? So there has to be a formula there. You would have had to do a formula. I didn't. You can do a formula where like you're trying to meet a goal of how much of a building where how much active are you trying to get to? You're trying to get to 40%. Are you trying to get 50% or you trying to get to 70% trying to get in that sweet spot? 60%. That's that's what I'm trying to figure out with this waiver. Because what I'm doing and the reason I'm asking this is because I've never seen a designer really have a waiver before . I've just seen a design overlay be redesigned and implement a new iOS eight or nine. That's what we were told we're doing and we've been working on on Tennyson Street. I'm trying to figure out where you're trying to get to on this active street use. Like, is it going to be 50%? What's the goal? So I believe it's a 400 foot block and for the 185 feet would go to about 46%. Okay. And yeah, so that, you know, and again, specific designs are. Are going to be determined during the inspection process. So a little under 50% of their commission would be active street. Then is there a requirement, Courtney, in the design, the seven that talks about doors like how many feet a new door should be so that you don't have these big open spaces that don't get leased and don't get have rent and don't. So you keep them a little bit smaller, but then you can break them up as they go on. Go on. Do you understand what I mean? I think you probably and. Yes, yes, I talked to Christopher Johnson. You know, we've been in contact about the Berkeley Regis overlay. And I know that I think that the Berkeley Regis overlay that you've been working on and we'll have a standard talking about a frequency of entrances, is that what you're talking about? The deal seven doesn't have that standard. And I think that, you know, those smaller embedded neighborhood commercial areas that the the Berkeley Regis design overlay will address, you know, that rhythm and cadence of those entrances is important for those smaller embedded neighborhood commercial areas. But as I said, the Deal seven doesn't have a design standard existing currently to address that. Okay. And then. Was it Ken or Courtney? Was it through the LDR process that you did that you decided that this site needed the design overlay? Or was that something that you had thought about prior? That was through the LDR process. Okay. It was a recommendation through the processes that would I. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then. And then can when you breathe, how much of the how much of this site will you keep and will you redevelop as a vertical developer? Hard to predict the future, Councilwoman Sandoval. Right now, where we would we would hope to, you know, of the kind of three main parcels. If you talk about the rectangle and the triangles, we're looking probably at one of the triangles being something that we would hold on to and develop ourselves. It's hard to hard to predict what the different markets are. We really actually had considered this site as potentially moving our offices to. Unfortunately, right now, the office market is a little bit challenging, but we hope that that will improve in the future. So we're still hoping to do that in the future. So. You bet. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. We've got Councilman Ortega at your back up in the queue. Yes, I am. One last question. So, Kenneth, I'm not sure if you would be the better person or Courtney to answer this question, but given that Santa Fe is a state highway, I would suspect that they would have to weigh in on adding a signal at that location. I know when the folks were working on the Gates project and they were talking about putting a signal on on Santa Fe on the southbound traffic side that involved that will involve course final approval. So can you just speak to whether or not anybody has talked about that just yet? I know it's a little you know, it may be a little premature, but you at least want to know that going in. Right. Whether or not that will be approved. So has anybody done that? Kenneth. Here, you're muted. So here. Yeah. Thanks again, Counselor Ortega. So we have spoken with kids, not specifically about this. Like we were actually talking to them about some of their plans around. The realignment of. The realignment of the railroad tracks. That's correct. And and what at least my understanding and certainly, Courtney, please correct me if I'm wrong. Well, this is a state highway. I believe that Denver actually has in this section of it, because it's not part of that. It's I believe it's actually controlled by Dottie. Because they said that they are a referral agency, but they will not make that final. He suggested that it would not be their final decision here. But in any case, we have spoken with them, they're aware of it. And they've I think we included one of the letters that they had no opinion, but we had we hadn't gotten into that level of a site specific, but they. Would have to give final sign off, even though he has some you. Know, I think that's more of a city. But but yeah, like I said. Can you clarify that? I think that they are a referral agency and they will they'll get the application and they'll have an opportunity to review it. I'm not. In terms of who has the trump card or the ultimate authority. I am not I couldn't speak to 100% certainty. Okay. If I may, I could add clarification to that. The court jurisdiction actually ends at Alameda. So it's from Alameda. Okay. This section is fully and entirely under Denver City and county of Denver control. Got it. Thank you for that, Matt, and we appreciate this go round. Q Madam President, I have no further questions. All right. Thanks for jumping in there, Matt, to answer that question. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 0815 has closed comments by members of Council Councilman Clark. Thank you, Madam President. I think that there is certainly some things that warrant more discussion as we move through this. But there's a lot to be excited about here. You know, for the community, this has been a vacant building that takes up an entire block for some for over five years. And and what we have through this process and I love that this went through that LDR is, you know, a new affordable, affordable housing plan. This gets deeper into the arms than the last one that we had in front of us with 75% at 80% or less of AMI an additional 40 units beyond the seven that would have been required. And 25% of those will be two bedrooms and 25%, three bedrooms, which are really, really critical and really missing in Denver as a critical need for affordable housing for families. We also have 10% open space. And I think that the walkability, the activation of the main floors, that's something that we have to deal with. We have a plan that we didn't even talk about here because it's a seat off plan for Alameda where the community was promised a bike head bridge at Bayard to get across the Valley Highway and over to the South Platte River. That's going to land right there. We already have today. Stranahan Is the copper door coffee shop Crazy Brewery. There are, there's a barbecue place, there's a board game place and I was takeout food movement, climbing and fitness that's all over there on that side. And you have the entire community. People are already walking and biking across here. We have to plan for that and I think we can do that in a way that works for our industrial partners. But the truth of this area is it is not all industrial anymore. There are places, breweries, places where people are going to grab a drink, a coffee, where people are walking. And we have to look at how do we get them across, you know, a road that has really only been designed for cars and for cars to be going very fast if we're really committed Division Zero, this is an area where we have to be doing that with or without this project. And this project helps catalyze some of the work that we need to be doing that we probably should have already done. So I think it's an important piece of that that that adds in to that. You know, I really want to thank applicants for working repeatedly, not just checking the box and saying, hey, we reached out to the R.A., but being present, hosting meetings, being at our no meetings, really working with the neighborhood around this. And this is something that the neighborhood supports and is excited about. So I think, you know, so more conversations as we continue to grapple with our city and its evolution, not just in areas that are industrial, that are adding new uses and breweries that also have food trucks in front of them, that have traditionally been in more industrial areas. But also, as we evolved from a city that was built around the automobile to a city that is built around moving people, we're going to continue to grapple with some of these things. And I think that this is a great opportunity to do that and to start to make progress. So I will be supporting this tonight and then and I would ask my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. And I will go ahead and add my comments that this rezoning passes all the criteria and the guidelines. And it's really exciting to finally see something happening on this site. And so I will be supporting it as well. Madam Secretary. Roll call, please. After I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hunt. Cashman. I can eat i. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black Eye CdeBaca. Abstain. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One of abstention. 12 I's. 12 I's Council Bill 815 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, October 5th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 930. Approving and accepting the east area. The East Central Area Plan. Excuse me, which plan shall become part of the comprehensive plan?