Rezones property at 3901 – 3991 North Cook Street from E-SU-DX to U-RH-2.5 in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 3901 – 3991 North Cook Street from E-SU-DX to U-RH-2.5 in Council District 9. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM.  REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-20-16.
And you see the property highlighted in yellow, the northern portion fronts, 40th Avenue, where you have RTD, bus route service 44, which connects between downtown and the 40th and Airport Park. Right. You also see outlined the property of the market lead, which the city recently acquired from BNSF and that was just recently acquired in the month of January. The property is 1.72 acres and within a half mile walk of the fort of Colorado station platform. And this will be the second station along the University of Colorado Line, which opens in April 2016. Here's another view of the property and the you are h 2.5 zone district that's being requested requires a full block face as a minimum area requirement. So the applicant's primary interest is in the property that they hold towards the south or the left end of this block face. But the entire block face, with a 58% approval or signatures representing 58% of the property, is in support of this application. The owners are requesting zoning to allow for infill residential development. And specifically the general urban neighborhood. Context Rowhouse 2.5 Story Maximum Zone District is being requested. This district promotes safe, active, pedestrian, skilled residential uses. Building forms and reinforces desired residential patterns, including shallow front yards, tapered building heights on sides and the rear. 20% of the lot is limited to one story, consistent with development patterns in urban residential neighborhoods. The site and surrounding zoning is ESU d x or urban edge single unit d x, which allows for single family houses on a 6000 square foot minimum lot size. Existing land use is predominantly single family. But as you saw in previous images, across the street east of Cook Street is fairly intensive industrial use and outdoor storage to the north side of Colorado. Across from the site is so a variety of mixed uses, occasional small industrial site or religious quasi public use in the blue. There are also some vacant parcels nearby. Here. You can see the site in the center image. We're looking at the property from the corner of 39th and Cook to the north. You see one of the small religious assembly buildings on the north side of Colorado to the east. On the right, you see single family residential as well as the larger scale industrial and outdoor storage use. To the south, we see residential and also this abandoned rail track system that you see here is a sliver of that market lead property that city is now the owner of. And to the west, 39th and Adams. We're looking at single family residential. The applicant and city of Denver have reached out to the registered neighborhood organizations listed here and have met all of the written and required written and posted notice requirements for hearings and meetings leading up to the public hearing this evening and to present no public comments have been received. Let's move to the review criteria beginning with consistency with adopted plans. Comp Plan 2000 encourages conserving land by promoting infill development consistent with neighborhood character and encourages neighborhood investment for a range of housing types and prices. Concept Land Use in Blueprint. Denver is Single-Family duplex, which allows which encourages primarily residential uses of moderate density and allows for a mix of housing types, including single family duplex rowhouses, small apartments, and I would add garden court apartments or garden court bro homes. And this is an area of stability. The Street Classification and Blueprint Denver for 40th Avenue, which fronts the northern short side of the block, is a mixed use. Arterial arterial streets connect major destinations between neighborhoods, regional destinations, and in this case, it's an east west connector between 40th and Colorado and 30th and Blake Station area and on towards downtown. And as I mentioned earlier, RTD bus Route 44 runs along Fourth Avenue. Cook Street is local and designated street type provides access to individual homes and businesses. The O'Leary and Swanson Neighborhoods Plan adopted just a year ago 2015, actually captures this site around the 40th and Colorado stationary, which was the slightly expanded portion of the response to a neighborhood planning effort. And as such, we have very clear land use and building height guidance. You see here single family duplex similar to the concept land use and blueprint Denver. This kind of tennis yellow color and then the maximum building height shown as two and a half stories. And you see a progression from the site moving to the east or to the right, two, three stories and five stories. And that's really marks the transition at Cook Street from lower scale established or traditional residential areas to what's anticipated as transit oriented development getting closer to the rail station. So for traditional residential areas in the area in Swansea, a plan, there is encouragement to allow for some investment in these areas of stability, infill development, but allowing or providing for some economic benefit, not just to the reinvestment areas of the station areas, but also for residents in the neighborhood, thus encouraging infill population to support desired services and providing economic opportunities such as what you see here in this image is a tandem house similar to an accessory dwelling unit, but in this case could be sold off or owned entirely as a separate, separately owned unit. And here's some of the text from the earlier in Swansea Neighborhoods Plan showing that a range of housing types is encouraged and allowed in single family duplex ranging from single family to row homes and small apartment buildings. The second review criteria is uniformity of district regulations and you RH 2.5 would result in uniform application of district use , building form and design regulations, and would further public health, safety and welfare by implementing recommendations from these adopted plans. The justifying circumstance or fourth criteria is that the change or changing condition of the land and its surroundings, specifically the station, platform, park and rider nearing completion, soon to open in April 2016. And the city's recent acquisition of the BNSF market property, which runs right along the south and the southern boundary of the site. And there are new sidewalks being designed and soon to be built along 40th Avenue. Fifth and final criteria is consistency with neighborhood context, own district purpose and intent in the you are each 2.5 district is consistent with the recommended urban neighborhood context as called out in the alerts. Once the neighborhoods plan, the existing community fabric matches the the description of that context and the you are each 2.5 is consistent with the purpose and intent of his own district. CPD finds that all review criteria have been met and we recommend approval of this. Application and Planning Board has also unanimously recommended approval. Thank you. Thank you. We have three speakers called up. We have three speakers for this bill. And I'll go ahead and call all three speakers, Michael Tumor, Ken Gilman and Mr. Sekou. If we can make your way up to the first Q Mr. two men, Mr. Gelman and Mr. Sekou and. Mr. Toomey, you can begin your remarks when you reach the podium. I am Michael Tara. I am here to answer any questions that you may have in regards to this project. And we'd like to just kind of let you know, our excitement in doing a project that's so close to all the new light rail development at the 40th station and to provide a project that's. Someone affordable. The way that the real estate market has kind of developed in Denver, we can do some pretty nice. Things with this piece of property. We'll do questions later on. Thank you, Ken Gilman. Ken Gilman. I'm the other owner, you know. So again, we just think the project will improve. The neighborhood fits into the neighborhood plan, especially around that transit oriented development. And we're here to answer questions. Thank you. Mr. Sekou. Let's just take a. She's. Yes. My name is Jeremy Sekou. Organize it. Founder Like Star Action Movement. Representing poor, working poor and homeless people. First of all, it's an honor to be here. To have this kind of conversation is a very serious one. And from my experience, from being down here previously for the last six years, there is a tendency to come and get the zoning approves. And are according to the plans of 2000. And here we are in 2016 with changing conditions. Everything that I'm seeing tonight is market value. No consideration for poor, working, poor homeless people. There was an article in the paper today, different weekly news that says. There are over 3000 homeless people in this town and only 1200 beds available. That leaves 1800 people every day subjected to a hostile environment with the weather. So as you gobble up the land during this. Open market stuff. There's nothing there for us. Including jobs so that we could even afford to buy one of these things. Especially in the black community, where we go to any site in the city that's being built now, and you will see black workers on that site like flies and buttermilk. You can't count the ones that are there because they're not there. And so now we're talking about historical black community that folks can't even work in and then get gentrified and pushed out. And we call ourselves civilized. And this is a city for everybody, except if you're poor, working poor and homeless, you've got to go. There's no place for you. And yet these are taxpaying people. And so most of the folks here well, not most folks, but folks who've been here for a while, they've heard this story before. And I've said it over and over and over again. And I still get a response. Of apology, rationalization, denial and impact. When they say they're working on it. Has the impact of a net by an elephant on the butt and you call that progress? You are treading very dangerous water when you have a sizable population of people who are not stakeholders in the development of the city . They have no reason not to rebuild. And so you have another Ferguson and you have New York and you have San Francisco housing riots, all of that. Because to say to people. Mr. Sekou, listen, Mr. Sekou, you're 3 minutes is up. Thank you very much. All right. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions of council councilmember. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Illustrative verse. Tim, quick question. I want to I wanted you to go back to the Olivia Swan, to your plan. You highlighted this. I didn't hear what you said, though. You highlighted this particular parcel. How does it relate to the plan? Yes. So I pulled up the graphic of the of land use in the Swansea neighborhoods plan and it is recommending single family duplex, which is defined in very similar terms as Blueprint Denver, which is anything from single family to duplex to row home and even small apartments. But specifically in this plan, it calls out. Rowe homes as appropriate building form within this. And the overall plan speaks to affordable housing, does it not? Yes. There are many recommendations related to affordable housing investments, particularly near rail transit, but also in established residential areas. And I pull this graphic up, these graphics are actually in the plan showing that there can be modest infill within. Stable residential, traditionally stable residential areas where a homeowner could actually even sell off a portion of the lot or bring some rental income. So stabilizing a stabilizing these established residential areas. So there are multiple strategies. Yeah. And In The Heights, you didn't really speak to that. Sorry if I went over that too quickly. And here are the highlights. On the same slide as the land use to the right, we see maximum building heights at two and a half. Got it. Okay. Thank you. And maybe one of the representatives. Yep. Did you guys. What neighborhood did you get a chance to talk to and talk about this project? We spoke with Clayton as well as. The Neighborhood Association, right? Yeah. Oh, man, I'm primarily Clayton. Clayton, so. Yeah. But I know Elyria. I know Leary and Swansea are, you know, kind of in a shuffle, but do Dutcher Candi CdeBaca, did you get a chance to talk to any of those folks? No. Okay. And who did you talk to from Clayton? And John Ricky. Okay. You know, one of the things I want to get to is, you know, when we talk about rezoning, we talk about some of the values in the neighborhoods. And I just wanted to know, you know, what do you hear from them and what are you looking to apply from those values into your project? I guess when we first kind. Of started talking about this project, I had actually spoke to you two and a half years ago, probably, and. Kind of one of your thoughts was, well, you know, maybe a little bit of mixed use would be great on that site. And from that point, we kind of started going through different discussions with the city of Denver with Tim, and kind of looking at Blueprint Denver. And so from all of what's already been kind of developed on that side, it was determined that because of the that particular street having the industrial use on the other side of that street, that to try to step the the neighborhood kind of down, like trying to step it from industrial to residential in one street, wasn't going to work and wasn't going to promote kind of the the. I guess kind of the development that needs to happen in that area with the being so close to the light rail station and creating the density and so that the commercial side kind of kind of dissipated where everybody has more. Did they speak to you about just attainable housing for affordable housing and trying to, you know, get some of that in the neighborhood, different army levels at all? No, they didn't. We did. We did go knocking on all the neighbors doors and on the block. Every one that we talked to seemed to be in favor of having more options for their properties as far as making the neighborhood, as far as making it a little more affordable instead of being single family, you know, by having multiple units, we can take the price down. You know, a lot of the prices in Denver have really gotten out of hand. We did talk to John with the Clayton Neighborhood Association and he said he only got positive feedback, no opposition and he posted it on their Facebook page a couple of times. I don't know. Okay, great. Just last question. Thank you, Mr. President. Would you guys be open to having a larger conversation with some, you know, should this go through with other neighborhood leaders? What kind of vision of the neighborhood, what the neighborhood is looking for? Mm hmm. That's kind of some of the the meat of why we asked folks to meet with the neighbors. And I think we sent some emails out. You know, I. I live in Whittier, so I get it. Like, I don't want to see the neighborhoods go away, you know, totally lose their character and culture and that sort of thing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. And I apologize, Mike. My option isn't there to chime in. So to the owners, are you familiar with the garden court for. Either. It is fine. I know. I know you are. I'm asking these guys, the developers. But we need you to come up to the podium. Not so mean. I can't describe it to you right now, but I know that there's different forms of building structures that are all part of this particular zoning. And how does the garden court form deviate from a row house form? And I apologize to my colleagues. I this was the one plan committee that I missed. And there's important information in these questions. So I just first. Are you saying like garden court as far as. The structure surrounding kind of a center area. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the site provides for the potential for that. Okay. So do you have any sense about how many units you can fit on this development? So like we've had some, we've had architects look at it and kind of depending on how it would lay out somewhere between 12 and 14. Interesting. Okay. So thank you for that, Tim. If they were to phase this project in such a way that they developed row houses on 41st and 40th avenues, would that then move the the the primary street set back so that any infill between those would now go to the five foot side setback. I'm going to pull up a map, councilman, if I may, and refer to that. So you referenced 40th and 41st, correct? So if they oriented low housing to those streets. Then their five foot side setback would be the north south street, which. I'm sorry. Let me bring it up. Oops. What is that? Cook Street. So the Cook Street has a primary street set in a block since street set back, which is considerably more than five feet. But if they were, since this is a RH three, I mean, RH two and a half, they could then redevelop a portion on the north side, in the south side of the assemblage, so that it was oriented both to the south and to the north in a five foot side setback would then be on Cook Street. And then a primary if they were to remove the houses in between a primary, I mean, a block since the setback at that point would be five feet. So my understanding is that in. Site plan review. They would be under rules of measurement. Section 13 adult. Primary would be. Primary to primary yes. Being Cook St and likely then for their particular holdings. 39th being a side street then yes, five street. And then Cook Street would be a context sensitive step back 20 feet, or they would look at the general set back of structures along Cook Street and take the average of those. So my hearing with 100% confidence that Cooke Street the front that mean the setback for any developed redevelopment of the site under this proposed zoning would be consistent with the street the front setback that we see today. That's the intent and the guidance in the code. I understand that. But you can develop. We had this conversation about some GMU three down in Curtis Park where that we were going to create new blocks since me, new C-Max on the corners, which would then allow zero set back. And as a result the new GM, the existing GM U three moves that set back up several feet closer to the curve. And so there is a development scheme here that would actually alter what is now considered block sensitive if they phased it in such a way. I'm just making sure that that can't happen. What happened in another place can't happen here. Okay. So what I can definitively respond with tonight is that for the Rowhouse building form. I get the real hospitals when I'm. Talking in garden court that yes, a block sensitive setback is required and where it does not apply, which will be determined by development services under site plan review be a 20 foot setback would apply. Okay. So what I want my colleagues to know is that in his in what Tim said specifically he mentioned in his presentation was, well, we talked a lot about the rowhouse form. He specifically mentioned garden court. And the garden court is not a row house form, but it is allowed in the RH 22.5. And so when I want to get back to is what is the specific language of the code here in section 5.2. Point to point to specific intent in. Row House 2.5 urh2 point 5urh 2.5 is a multi-unit district that allows up to two and a half storey rowhouse building, for it also allows the urban house, the detached accessory dwelling unit, the duplex and the tandem house building forms. There's no mention in the specific intent of a garden court, but it is allowed. And so why I'm telling you this is that. There are development schemes on here that are significantly more dense than a row house form and they mentioned the garden court. The developers familiar with the garden court. And this is a designated area of stability. You've seen the neighborhood plan images there, nothing at all like the density of a row house and certainly nothing at all like the density of the of the garden court, which would allow considerably more density if you start making those developments perpendicular to the street rather than horizontal. So I get that if they were to just blanket come in with a single block proposal today, that they would be restricted by the block since the setback. But there are development schemes here that could actually alter that and there are no protections. And so that is a loss of eight potentially affordable units with a development scheme that is far more dense, potentially, and with no commitment to affordability in an area of stability. So I just wanted to say that. Councilman, if I may, the primary building form standard section 5.3.3 does list the garden court as one of the allowable building for rent. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Okay. And thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Another questions, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to ask a question of the proposed developer. One of you two, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. So do you own the entire half block today? We have. All the property. From 39th on the corner of 39th and. Just to the first square here. Well, there's no there's. It's basically 28,000 square feet worth of a lot. So it's I would say it's probably the first third of the block. But what we're doing is we're being asked to rezone the entire half block. That was the requirement. To rezone the whole front facing of the block. So we yes, we own the in the yellow from 39th. If you go all the way up to there's like a little white beach. Yeah. Right where that garage and then the yellow line cuts off there. So I guess maybe just a little more than a third of it. Okay. And in are you are you all trying to purchase the other properties to do this development or your intention is only to do within that four square in the yellow? Yeah, our intentions are to work within that square. Okay. So I don't understand why the city made you. Three zone, the whole half block. That makes no sense to me. And you want to speak to that. Yes. So there are minimum area requirements for certain zone districts. And in this particular case, you RH 2.5 requires. Either a certain minimum acreage, which is either two or four acres or a block phase. I think the intent is to apply the zone district in context of a block and not necessarily a smaller site by site basis . And so the other property owners were completely on board with having their properties zoned. The applicant acquired signatures representing 58% of the ownership of that block face. And does that include them? As the property owner? Yes, the 58% includes property owners plus additional property owners. And you can speak to your conversations with the residents that you saw, their property owners that you saw signatures from. Of all the property owners we talked to, we're in favor of it. We went door knocking a few different times. Sometimes you would get a husband who wasn't on the deed or a wife or was or. So everyone that we talked to, we got a signature from. And you know, once we. How many properties is that of the total? Probably us plus I think maybe for three or four. Okay. So there's three or four of the seven properties that are on here that do not include yours. Yeah. Okay. Now there's three. Yeah, there's several properties. Now they have more options. Okay, so. Tim, I want to get back to asking you a question about a statement you made that they can sell off a portion of the lot. Now, is that only allowed in this particular zone district? And just help me just understand that. So that's related to the tandem house building form, which is very similar to accessory dwelling unit. The difference being that you could sell a tandem home, but you cannot sell an accessory dwelling unit, you must rent out the accessory dwelling unit. So that's an A. So under you RH 2.5 zoning, you could build an accessory dwelling unit and rent it out, or you could build a tandem house behind your existing house and rent it out or sell it. So those are additional options available to these existing homeowners should this. So so when it's zoned, does it have to be split up into two separate zone lots on each parcel? I don't know the zone lot requirements. I would have to get back to you on the. I'm asking this because I worked with a woman in the Highland neighborhood who had a carriage lot in her back yard that was used for a commercial purpose. And she was told she could sell it. And when she tried to sell it, she was told that she had to rezone it as a separate zone lot. I said, you know, district that applied to that property. I do not. I'd have to go back to getting. An understanding. That it's in the lower highlands neighborhood. So that helps you. With if it was a two unit zoning or row house, then it would seem that that option should be available. If it was single family, then no would not necessarily be an option. Okay. I was just trying to understand how that would work for somebody that wanted to buy a unit and might then find out later that they need to rezone it to to have separate legal, you know, definition for for the property they're purchasing if they're buying one of those tandem units. Okay. So. Do you know whether they would be required to do that? I do know the tandem house building form is allowed under you RH 2.5 zoning and it allows for multiple ownership of two structures on one's own. Got it. So exactly what I would be purchasing if I was purchasing a rear front unit, whether I'm purchasing the building only with. The right to reside on his own on buying a piece of property. I don't know the mechanics of that. But I'd be happy to get back with you. That would be helpful. I have no further questions, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman. I take it. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Ortega got at what I was going to ask would if I could explore that a little further. I'm somewhat uncomfortable changing the zoning on someone else's property where they might not know about it. The the applicants have indicated that they have 58% of the of the frontage I imagine ownership representing that they've approved or they they approve of this change. That leaves 42%, if my math is correct. I know I got a head cold here. I'm having trouble with math. But as 42% of the owners are seven other properties on that block, some of which are houses that were just built three years ago that are being impacted by this change. So I'm a little uncomfortable being asked to consider changing their zoning if they might not be aware of it. Is there anything in our code or our procedures that requires when we rezone, when we require a full block face to be resolved, such as this rowhouse zoning that we have to obtain registered mail, or we have to make sure that the owners of those properties I literally know that we're changing our zoning. So the requirement is that at least 51 signatures representing at least 51% of the area to be resolved are on the application, in which case they exceeded that by 7%. Right. And then the door knocking that and of course, the signage which was posted on Cooke Street, 40th Avenue and 39th Avenue for 15 days prior to the planning board hearing and 21 days prior to this hearing. Okay. And the owners indicated that of those they spoke to, they all approve. Can I ask one of you to tell me whether you spoke to all of the owners or because you said all the owners we spoke to approved of it? That begs the question. Some we ended up speaking to via phone because we were over the 51%. We didn't bother you didn't need their signature. But yeah, we didn't get their signature. But every single one we had spoke to, either the husband or the wife or one person, the head of household gave our numbers out, asked for any further questions that they may have about it. But every we did speak to every single person on that. Okay. Whether it be, you know, by phone or by by face to face meeting. That's good to know. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, for the developers wondering if I realize where rezoning a piece of land and not a particular project. But I'm wondering if you can envision at this point how large these units might be and what kind of price point you're envisioning. From what we've looked at. We've looked at units that would be two and a half stories. That would be somewhere around 13 to 1450 square feet each, kind of. Basically. Then as far as they'd all have backyards, they'd all have garages, and they would have a price point of somewhere around 350. 300, depending on where they are in the block, 300 to 350. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman and Councilman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. I guess this would be for the property owners. So you answered part of my question, I about the units having garages. Are they one. Or two car garages? We haven't totally. Yeah, we haven't gotten that far yet. I think some would be two and some would be one, but it's just going to be a space layout on the how they're going to be. So yeah, I think it'll pretty much be some two in someone. Okay. And that leads me to my next question, where the property owners. That that you spoke with. Even if you didn't need their signature, were there concerns about. Street parking. Or added traffic? I mean, ideally we'd have folks, you know, taking transit, but that doesn't always happen. And so were there concerns from. The other property. Owners? No, there wasn't. You can see from that picture how few cars are on either of the two sides of those streets. So I don't think that has ever been much of a concern on that particular block anyway. But no, that was never a a concern from any of them. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. You know the questions. 0001. Mm hmm. CNN public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. I you know, I said I want the you know, first of all, this is in the Clayton neighborhood. This isn't in Elyria, Swansea. And one of the reasons it was in response to a plan is because Clayton does not have a small area plan. And so to simply be here's another neighborhood that is looking for a small area plan because there's a lot of stuff going on in Clayton. I've heard it from their neighborhood president and also their community. So I appreciate the I didn't want to give off as if they didn't meet with the correct president because you did. And John Rickey, although he has stepped down, they have a new president. But. I would love number one for those other neighbors to be contacted about what's going on. And also for you to understand a little bit about what the neighborhood is envisioning in their values so that we can see what we can do with the property . So some site design, all that kind of stuff. I'd love to do that with the community just for a little, just to orient people to this part of the city. This is at 40th and Colorado, the type of developments that are going in there. We just we just did a 100 and 120 0 to 30% am-I homeless housing right there on the corner. One of the best units, best developments that I've seen in a long time from Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. Catty corner behind the retail is 160 workforce housing units. Beautiful, just gone up behind that is some more workforce housing units, too. So this corner is is seeing a diverse level of investment in affordable housing. So I'm happy about that. I would love for the property owner to look at ways to making this affordable. I think $300,000 in this neighborhood, new construction is going for $500,000. So it's attainable, you know, when you look at the whole neighborhood. But to start looking at affordable, subsidized housing in that sense, I would love to have a conversation with you all and consider that I'm going to I'm going to go ahead and support this redevelopment. And I hope that we can continue working together with the community. And this is this is going to be a really interesting location because the market lead is going to be a part of the drainage process project in the in the two basin that we're going through. And so I think there are a lot of neighbors concerned. I probably got a lot of support because there's a lot of neighbors concern that people are going to want to live in that area. And so it's going to be a really interesting area. But I'll be supporting this. It obviously is in line with our adaptive plans and in context. And so I'm in support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I, I well, I don't believe that you're necessarily intend to develop the half a block as needed to achieve maximum density. However, in an area in an area of stability that that has a smaller you plan that specifically speaks to rowhouse and single family and duplex and then has a vision graph that shows something that is far less dense with the tandem house forms. That means that I can't support this rezoning. And you can't have another Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Just as a matter of general policy, as I understand it is 51% of the landowners need to sign on. And I think you said you have 58 and I'm unclear. And I did listen as to exactly how many people you spoke to and how many responded, if there were questions. I just wanted to say that if for me, when we're rezoning, I think it's important to get as as much of a buy in as you possibly can and at least be sure you make that extra effort to talk to all the neighborhoods that are affected by a development. And I'm not interested in, you know, 58, 42 range wars, you know, and so I'm just not confident that there was a full outreach on this project. So I just wanted to say that. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Kathryn Lopez. Thank you. You know. You know, listening to the back and forth and some of these questions on the council. I mean, I. You know, I'm very familiar with this neighborhood. I know it's pretty active. I know a lot of people feel a lot of pressure regarding gentrification or development, at least some of these areas, especially at the price point. What we're looking at, looking to rebuild, I think, you know, as a general practice, I think it's super important that you have that outreach to folks no matter what community. But I was a little surprised that, you know, they didn't really have very lasting or meaningful conversation with some of the neighborhood associations that are there . And I think that that is a big deal. I know in our area, if we reason, at least we look at rezoning a parcel. I have a whole neighborhood of folks that are coming to the table and thinking about it. And here's the thing. I there's nothing to fear with it. I think it's something to be straight forward. Now, I do agree that that I mean yes, that you are requires that 51%, but it also requires that that minimum area coverage. Right. And I do believe that that's been met right across the street. I was trying to figure out what that what the what the uses were, but it didn't look residential. This could be a good buffer that you are h is definitely a zone district that can provide that buffer between some of those urban or some of those residential ESU type single home properties. And so here's the thing. I I'll see a reluctant support for it because most of the folks that come here in these chambers and that want to see a rezoning, especially at this magnitude, in a neighborhood like this, they've done their due diligence in making sure that people in the neighborhood have been outreach to. And it's much more than just knocking on doors and getting signatures and saying, hey, look, we got a lot of these folks on this block to support it, but you really want to get there and engage that community, whether they're for or against it, whether they support or oppose it. The matter, the fact is you just at least get to them an outreach to I don't know who the neighborhood association is there, but it was kind of surprising that there had been no conversation with some of those folks. So. Anyway. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. In other comments, Council Bill one. Seen none. Madam Secretary, welcome. Brooks Clark. All right. Espinoza. Yeah. FLYNN Hi. Gilmore. Catherine Carnage. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman Black. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Now for the results. Ten eyes, two names. 11 Lebanese, two nays Council Bill 0001 has passed. All right. We're on two counts, Bill. 39. Councilman, do you please for the council? Bill 39 on the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 39 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. We will wait for technology. It has been moved. He's been moved and seconded. Public hearing on Capitol 39 is now open. May we have a staff report. As soon as I can get to my PowerPoint? Okay. So seriously. Sarah representing community planning and development. This is a rezoning of property located approximately 6756 Archer drive from oh one to general excuse me urban context multi-unit five stories and this is in the Lowry Field neighborhood in Council District five.