A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3201 Curtis Street in Five Points. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from PUD 379 to U-MX-2x (planned development to mixed-use) located at 3201 Curtis Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-25-20.
First up, we have a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3201 Curtis Street in five points. Councilmember Clark, would you please put Council Bill 161 on the floor for passage? Absolutely. Madam President, I move that council bill 161 be placed on final consideration and do pass again. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required. Public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0161 is open. May we have the staff report, please? Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. Council and the Chamber. With CPD presenting an official Map Amendment application for 32 A1 Curtis St rezoning from 5379 through umx2x. The subject property is located in Council District nine within the Five Points neighborhood. The subject. Property is on the corner of 32nd and Curtis Street. It contains almost 17,000 square feet of land area. And the structure on the site is a two story firehouse that was constructed in 1929. The applicant is requesting a rezoning TMX to X, which is urban context mixed use with the maximum height of two stories and limited uses. Facilitate reuse of the site. Current zoning on the subject site is former chapter 5950 379, which I will further detail in the next slide. But with the exception of Mestizo Curtis Park to the south, surrounding properties are zoned. You are age 2.5 with the storage structure use overlay and the Curtis Park Conservation Overlay. So getting the. Beauty through 79. This dates back to 1995 and it's highly customized for the existing building and the current user. Specifically, the beauty sets forth limits on maximum building coverage type setbacks and for area ratio for current buildings, maximum areas for imperfect impervious surfaces, including parking and drive aisles along with minimum landscaping requirements and a minimum number of off street parking spaces are prescribed allowed land uses are those in the R3 three zone district with specific square footage is allowed for additional nonresidential uses, including office food packaging and processing and the retail sale of specialty food products. Existing land use is classified as office of the small scale production, warehousing and retail uses also exist. Surrounding land uses include single to and multi-unit residential as well as park and open space. To give you. An idea. Of the building form and skill in the area. This aerial photo shows the subject property outlined in yellow looking north. And these Street View photos from Curtis Street show most of Curtis Park on the top right. Followed by the subject property and single unit residences in the north. The subject property also contains a contributing structure within the Curtis Park historic Landmark District, which was established in 2010. Any request for demolition would require a public hearing before the Landmark Preservation Commission, and approval of any such request is extremely rare. Any request for a significant modification of the exterior would also require a landmark Position Preservation Commission design review. At a minimum, any change to the history of the building is subject to the design guidelines for Denver landmarks, structures and districts. Informational notice of this application was sent in mid-November and Planning Board voted unanimously to move the application forward at the February 19th meeting of the City Council. Public hearing for this case was delayed twice due to COVID 19 and the George Floyd protests. Today, staff has received letters of support from both the Curtis Park R.A. and store in Denver. We have also received four letters of support and two letters of concern from members of the public. Concerns raised in these letters include not knowing who the future owner of the property will be and the rezoning that meeting the criteria set forth in the Denver zoning code. Moving to the criteria, CPD staff must find that the rezoning meets all five to recommend approval. There are three plans that impact the subject property. Beginning with Comprehensive Plan 2040. The proposed rezoning is consistent with Plan 2040, particularly with the strong and authentic neighborhoods, vision, element, policies and strategies, as it would better align city regulations to support historic preservation and support the reuse of existing buildings. Similarly, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the climate vision element policies, as it would prioritize the use of an existing building and promote mixed use development where services and infrastructure already exist. The staff report further details a number of other applicable planned policies and strategy. Moving to Blueprint Denver. The subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context, which contains mobile unit and mixed use areas embedded in one and two unit residential areas. As a proposed end district is intended to enhance the convenience, ease and enjoyment of transit, walking, shopping and other public gathering within the neighborhood. It is consistent with the Blueprint Denver campus. The subject property is mapped as low, medium residential and the future places map below. Medium residential classification includes areas where neighborhood serving retail may be found at key locations with limited mixed use along some arterial and collectors. With 32nd Street mapped as a local or a designated and Kurdish service, serving as a residential arterial, a mixed use district as appropriate. This location has and is consistent. Each place map. The subject property is located within all other areas of the city, which are anticipated to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new employment growth by 2040. The proposed MAP amendment to Upmc's two X is consistent with this map, as it will enable compatible adaptive reuse of the existing structure and support continued viability of the existing building. Additional applicable blueprint. Denver policies and strategies are further detailed in this report. This request is also consistent with several northeast downtown neighborhood plan goals which are listed here and speak to promoting the re-use of existing buildings while supporting complementary small scale commercial use. And this map. The subject property is shown as single family row house. These areas are described as moderately dense and primarily residential, but with some complementary small scale commercial uses. The maximum allowable building height in this plan is. Mapping the subject site is 2.5 storeys. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the neighborhood plan for the following reasons. The UN Mixed Zone District only allows neighborhood scale commercial uses that are appropriate for the predominant residential character of the surrounding area, and the maximum height allowed by the proposed district is less than the conceptual building heights identified in this plan. Lastly, through the name, a very specific beauty tailored to one specific user and enabling a broader range of land uses. This rezoning will encourage the reuse of the existing historic building that is part of the fabric of the neighborhood. Moving to criteria number two and three. The proposed rezoning to UM X to x will result in the uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations. It will also further public health, safety and general welfare of the city for implementation of adopted plans related to supporting both the re-use of existing buildings and neighborhoods. Serving commercial uses at appropriate locations. The justifying circumstance for this rezoning is that the property has retained former Chapter 59 zoning, while the city adopted the Denver Zoning Code in 2010. Lastly, the proposed zoning would facilitate re-use of the historic building and allow uses consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent statement. CPD staff recommends approval based on finding all five review criteria. Thank you. Thank you, Brandon. All right, we have. Tonight on the rezoning for 0161 Council has received 13 written comments on Council Bill 161. There were ten submitted comments in favor of the application and three submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments to any members of council. Need more time to read the testimony submitted. Seeing no hands raised. Council Secretary. Let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 161 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 15 individuals signed up to speak. We will start with our first speaker, Bruce O'Donnell. Can you hear. Me? Go ahead, Bruce. Okay. Thank you. Members of the council. I'm Bruce O'Donnell, and I'm the owners representative for this applicant rezoning. And I reside at 386 Emerson Street in Denver. We originally were scheduled to come before you at on April 6th, and this is our fourth attempt. So we're delighted to be in front of council this evening. A quick recap of the process. We've had extensive community engagement and public outreach. We did, councilman, see the boxes, request a mailing to all the neighbors within 200 feet. We held an open house in October. At that open house, we had 15 guests sign a petition of support for the rezoning. We also worked with the R.A. Curtis Park neighbors and got extensive input with them. They recommended the two X rezoning districts that we've applied for and we presented to a general meeting of CPS as well . As a result of that, the Reno has issued a letter of support for this rezoning, which was done back in October of last year. And in addition to that, they reaffirmed the reaffirm their support with a resolution last month reaffirming their support since so much time had gone by. The old Chapter 59 Pudi that the property is currently zoned is very prescriptive and it almost limits the use of the building entirely to that for manufacturing, wholesaling, dry seat mix. And so any new use would require rezoning. The fact that this is a contributing structure in the Curtis Park historic landmark district is a great bonus. It's a two story building or a planning for two storey zoning, and no matter what, any exterior modifications are going to have to go through. Landmark Review. I'm not going to repeat CPD's excellent presentation other than to say that this rezoning request meets the criteria in COB Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. And the justifying circumstances being that it's a former Chapter 59 zoning that we have an opportunity to get into the new code, the Denver zoning code now. Both CPB and the Denver Planning Board recommend approval. The Denver Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval. And with that, I ask that city council vote yes to approve Council Bill 20 dash 0161 Rezoning 3201 4232 um x2x and I'm available to answer any questions that members of Council desire that thank you. Thank you, Bruce. Next up, we have Tamara Ryan. Thank you, members of council. It's nice to see you again. In 1989 when Women's Being Project was founded, we started with an idea if we could give women an opportunity to learn through working how to move into mainstream employment. That would be the cure for poverty and that was the vision of Jesse Eyre, who recently passed away. Today we are a much larger organization and we serve many more women each year. As we followed up with with the women who graduated a year ago in May and June. We found that 100% of the women were still employed, which is a considerable achievement, given the fact that we hire women who have not had a job longer than a year in their lifetime, and the average age is 39. We teach them through working and through life skills training, how to not just get a job, but to keep the job and how to manage their lives and get their children back. And really, ultimately, what we hope is that that benefit extends beyond each woman to her family and the community as a whole. What we are hoping is that this change in zoning is the first step for us to not just sustain our organization, but to further our mission in Denver. As as presented by Brandon. We believe that our application meets the criteria for rezoning. So I respectfully ask that council members vote in favor of our rezoning application. Thank you. Thank you. Up next, we have Paul Ryan, us. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Paul Grannis and I'm a Denver resident. Support for citizens of Denver with the greatest needs is my passion. So when I first heard about the Women's Being project with a zoning application, I was really excited to learn more. Over the last couple of months, I bought products from their store, reviewed their financial statements and strategic plans, spoke with the applicant and their consultant, listened to the committee hearing on February 25th and heard from longtime neighbors of theirs. Based on this review, I do not support this rezoning application. I ask you to consider the following. First, the questionable nature of whether or not the application actually meets Denver's zoning code requirements. Legal criteria. And second, examine discrepancies that exist between the testimony given by the applicant, their strategic plan, and their financial statements. First, on the legal criteria, Denver's zoning code requires that a rezoning may only be approved by city council if it complies with all of the review criteria. The lens by which I evaluate these criteria is built upon the logic that a current zoning of 32 on KURTIS has enabled women's being project to provide a valuable service to women in need here in Denver. B If this rezoning were to be approved, it would set in motion a chain of events that would remove this service from this building and possibly from the entire city of Denver. C With market forces being what they are and without an operator identified, this rezoning would enable the use of this property in a manner that does not provide equal or greater social benefits to residents as required in the adopted plans. The details of the plan goals that are inconsistent with this application are in the briefing that I have submitted to Council. 3 minutes does not provide me enough time to read them out loud for, but for reference at a high level, their first comprehensive plan 2040 goals. 1.94.14.4. Secondly, Blueprint Denver Goals one, two and eight. And Third Northeast Downtown Denver Neighborhood Plan Goals CDOT two. Moving on to the legal requirement that the proposed official mapping amendment furthers the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. I haven't seen or heard any evidence that indicates that this rezoning will increase the general welfare of the city, and it appears that could actually decrease the general welfare of the city. Switching gears, I'm concerned about the purported discrepancies from the testimony of the February 25th zoning committee hearing, meaning the discrepancies include first, the applicant painted a picture of having outgrown the property due to overwhelming demand for their products. This conflicts with their financial statements showing a steady decrease in product sales from 1.2 million in 2012 to only 756 K in 2019. Second, the applicant testified that when he bought the building in 95, their build their budget was 500 K year and today there are two and a half million dollar operation. This conflicts with their fiscal year financial statements showing their total revenue of only 1.6 million, which is at two and a half million or 1.6. Third, the applicant testified that their goal with rezoning is to employ more women. However. Sorry the screen popped up. However, what they didn't mention is they're facing labor costs are too high, and as a result, they plan on using capital equipment to automate and replace the work of the women that they are employed and helping. Curtis Park. If replacing women with machines is a reason for cashing out of this property, why was that not disclosed to council members? When was during the committee meeting? City Council? Please help resolve these discrepancies. Thank you. I will remain available for questions if needed. Thank you. Up next, we have the honorable Albert Wedgeworth. Hello. Hello. You can go ahead. Thank you very much. Good evening, everyone. Madam President and members of City Council. My name is Albert Wedgeworth and I live in Northeast Denver and District nine in the Whittier neighborhood. I was very honored to serve on the Denver City Council from 1999 through 2007, representing then District eight, where the Women's Being project building is located and have supported this organization for many years. Because I also grew up in the Curtis Park neighborhood. I wish to urge city councilors to support the rezoning tonight because the organization has met the rezoning criteria. They have worked comprehensively with neighborhood organizations. And others throughout the neighborhood. To ensure that neighbors will be totally engaged with what will be proposed at the site. But most importantly, this will give the Women's Being project the opportunity to grow their mission to support women and their quality of life to return to the workplace. With the challenging times we are facing in our city, we need more programs like the Women's Being Project for people in our city. So again, I urge you to support the rezoning application this evening. And thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Rochelle Subfloor. Oh, I think you're on me still. Good evening, everybody. Thank you, city council. My name is Rachel Subfloor and I live at 3327 Arapahoe Street. And I am here to show my support for the rezoning for the 3201 Curtis Street. So I live about two blocks away from the women's game project. And I just want to say, first of all, I think that they are an excellent neighbor and they are a valuable member of our community, of our neighborhood. And I think Denver as a whole, I understand that they have outgrown their space. And in order for them to continue to serve more women, the rezoning plays a key role in in furthering their mission. And I think most importantly, aside from that, is that this rezoning. Criteria as previously sold in the it's. Supported by blueprint. Denver the comp plan as well as the local plan as shown. By the approval through the planning board, it has justified circumstances because it currently is a former Chapter 59. And a very restrictive one at that. Talking with my neighbors, I we have. Discussed that or have had casual. Conversations with my neighbors. The. Of that, we believe that. A limited mixing effect that's being proposed is. Very appropriate for the location. And not only that, that. Is something that we would like to see. As a redemptive use. For the structure. I mean, living. In this neighborhood, there's a lot of change going on. And I think it's really. Refreshing or it has been really refreshing. And we appreciate to have the community outreach that we had gotten from the Women's Game Project. I mean, I think that they've done a really great job in informing the community. And seeking input. And that's I can't really say that I've seen any of that from anyone. Else. In our area. So I definitely. I know that the rezoning is being supported by the SEP as well as. The local Arno. And by myself. And other other neighbors in. That community. So for those reasons, I ask for the Council to consider voting yes on this region. So thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Angelica and DeSilva. That is correct. Good evening. Thank you. Members of council. Most of you I've wanted to meet all my life. My name is on Hilly, so I reside at 1031 32nd Street. My family has lived here for four generations. I lived two houses away from the Women's Project. I have enjoyed the work and I've seen the transformation that they have provided to empower women. And however, I am concerned with the potential rezoning plan. I'm concerned about the outcome of this plan, for example, traffic or parking accessibility. Another concern that I have is because my hope is that the community members such as myself will have a voice and will be represented and the neighborhood will maintain its integrity and its cultural history. I often walk around my neighborhood, I see all of the changes. They have been positive, but I've also seen the changes. Where is it really reflective of me as a person of color? I see the new homes, the businesses, the establishments that are being built every day. But my hope is that the community once again will be reflective of all its community members. Please do not approve of this zoning plan or changes until we have full transparency. What type of business will be provided at the address that mentioned the Women's Project? That's my main concern. Thank you for having us. And thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Donald Damon. I think we still have you muted, Donald. There you go. Still married. Stuff that you needed. How out there. There you go. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. And good evening. Members of the City Council Committee. I as well, I, I, my entire family have always lived in and raised and grown up in this park. I heard earlier from someone that testified that that we've been contacted. My family and I have lived in the neighborhood for also three generations. 32 zero 432 zero 30 zero 632 ten 3212. Arapahoe Street, which is actually one lot away from the property in question. It's disappointing in many ways that. So when we speak, a lot of these individuals that are being that are speak live within blocks, we when I say we as a family and I, I live within a locked one legal lot away from the being project. Always been a supporter. Not only is order because of my interest in in the being project, but because of having family members gone through the projects at a success rate. I in being at the corner see the traffic has dramatically dropped. It's not what it was before. What's concerning about this is I've always been a supporter of the of the being project and we as a neighborhood when I say we the beam project and and as has the community we have endured quite a bit to get through where we are today. As I mentioned earlier, we're all within a block radius of my family and I. There are six of us and some of them are not here because of that, are not present because of the language barrier. What's concerning about this is that they the I see a lot of information that's put out by the Beam project, which is not true. I speak as an appraiser and a real estate broker, certified appraiser, commercial appraiser. And a lot of what is being said is not reflective of the everything that I've learned in the 33 years in commercial real estate practice. They're very. I read everything that's come my way. And what's bothering some of it all. Is that the. My still on. Hello. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. The inconsistency the inconsistency of the reports. The big thing is, why is it being project, not being transparent, consistent with the data being provided and being truthful with the true intentions of the reasoning? I can tell you why. As a certified Fraser broker, I could tell you why. They're looking to reason for a larger pool of buyers at a much higher price in the real estate market. Thank you, sir. That's your time. We appreciate it. Next up, we have Keith Pryor. Can you hear me? And I want to have. Hi. My name is Kate Pryor and I resided in Champ Street in Curtis Park. And this bill for 3/2 and Curtis, the Women's Being project was originally a firehouse. And so that's why it's part of the historic district, and that's why it's a designated historic structure. So what we're. Finding. Is it had a life as a firehouse and now has a life as and is being priced, has been a great tenant and it's been a great caregiver for the historic structure, and we've really enjoyed them as neighbors. This community is now they need to look to their future and we need to look to Curtis. And the future life of this building in its new form obviously not going to change the zoning movies. And what we're wanting to do is take it from the section of Chapter 59, which was updated and did take into account a pudi that no longer existing in today's zoning code. And so we really need to update this building into its new world of 22 and the current zoning code. Um oh, the um xaum2x is something that they did to the community and they were wanting to find what would be the best options that would actually bring the best mix of uses for the neighbors. Just as other people have said, they have been a great neighbor and they want to make sure that it continues to have that. There was a great use as a fire department, but obviously we've outgrown and just as the women's project has outgrown this space, we're looking for something that would really work well with the community and with this neighborhood and really bring a successful new life to that building. And the, um, x2x really does have zoning protection not only for the neighborhood, but it also opens it up to something that is way too prescriptive as the current PD, which would seem to be as that tenant. So I'm in very much support of this and we I am supportive. This rezoning it does meet all of the criteria and it will be new life to the building. And, you know, things change. It was no longer a firehouse. It will no longer be the home of the Women's Swing Project. Those are all losses that we definitely agree. But we also see new opportunity and we feel that this is the best and most appropriate zoning. So please do support this. Thank you. Next up, we have Jesse Paris. So get even the members of council cannot be hurt. Uh huh. Go ahead, Jesse. Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I'm representing for Denver. Homeless out loud. Black Star Action. War for Self-defense. Positive Magic. Commercial Commitment for Social Change as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, Universal Healthcare, People's Organization and Mile High News. And I will be your next mayor in 2023. I wasn't either for or against this hearing the testimony. I'm leaning more against it because it doesn't seem to be supporting the integrity of the neighborhood of the east side, of which I am a resident or a native of not current resident. I reside in District eight at the studios. But. Me personally, I would have to be I'm against this hearing, the testimony from so-called people of color that reside in the neighborhood, that have lived in the neighborhood for generations. I supported what the band project is doing, but I think they should find another site for this because this is not honoring the culture or the integrity of the Five Points Curtis Park area neighborhood. So I would have to be against this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Up next, we have Paul Davidson. Good evening. My name's Paul Davidson. I live at 3230 Arapahoe Street in Denver. I'm here to speak in support of the rezoning. And I just want to thank you all for hanging in there during a long session. I know the Women's Being project has waited a long time for this hearing. In addition to being a member of the Curtis Park Neighbors Board for the past four years and the neighborhood for the past 19 years, the corner of my property is exactly 24 steps from the corner of the Women's Project. So I hope to provide a unique perspective on both a personal and neighborhood y level. I'd like to highlight two points and then I'll turn it over to the next person. The first is that this application is consistent with all of the city and neighborhood plans, and it meets all the legal requirements for rezoning all of them . Our neighborhood has an urban context. It has numerous mixed use properties peppered throughout, and they're actually encouraged in our neighborhood plan. It is, of course, common practice and encouraged for properties with the old zoning to be moved to the new zoning. And then the second point I want to make is that Curtis Park neighbors, we did a ton of neighborhood outreach before our board is unanimous decision to support the rezoning last summer women's being reached out to our new president Jeff Baker and zoning committee chair Joel Noble requesting a recommendation from our R.A. on what would be the most appropriate zoning. And this is the first time in my time involved in the neighborhood that I can remember someone asking our opinion before applying. And it was sincerely appreciated. And it gave us time to do a significant outreach effort. We passed out over 100 fliers to homes within two blocks of the property. We highlighted the request, provided an F, a Q, provided pros and cons, and gave direct phone numbers and emails for feedback. We spoke to and received replies from about a dozen neighbors within a block of the property. All were in support that we spoke with of the rezoning provided that it had restrictions. And this current proposed zoning of two X is actually the most restrictive zoning available in the new zoning code. So it's it's pretty much guaranteed to fit with the neighborhood and to be and to be within the context of the residential area that surrounds it. So for the reasons above and especially the wide support of the neighbors in the neighborhood, I asked the members of the Council vote in support of this resolution, especially my representative. Councilwoman CdeBaca, thank you so much. Thank you. Jeff Baker is up next. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Hello? Geoff Baker. I am current president of Curtis Park. Neighbors and I reside at 2422 Chalmers Street. Paul, you did an excellent job of explaining kind of the detail that we did there, and there have been some other comments and support. So I will not reiterate the neighborhood plans that it is consistent with the city plan that it's consistent with. What I will mention is that we really appreciated how women's being came to us prior. They gave us the option to select the zone. The reason that we were going to. And. With a significant amount of outreach. The way we view many of our situations like this, like liquor licenses, we go directly to that specific area and do direct outreach to people that's going to directly affect. Yes, we'll take into consideration the entire neighborhood, obviously, through general meetings and other community input and outreach, but we do do a focused and this was very focused. It was very explicit on all of the code and the options and the opportunities and being that this is the most restrictive option available. We will be entering into good neighbor agreements and that will be the that will be the mechanism to ensure that it fits into the neighborhood and that they act appropriately in a residential neighborhood. It is true that we have commercial in many corners and it has been like that since the beginning of time for this neighborhood. Number two. We did the flier outreach that Paul discussed, which was heavily detailed and went out to the immediate neighbors. And the main opposition this evening, I believe, is out of the neighborhood and never reached out to the rhino. I believe that was the second speaker. This evening does not live anywhere near the neighborhood, as far as I understand. And we never heard anything from that person in this opposition. So that outreach would have been nice coming this way. We will miss the Women's Game Project. We ask for your support in the Zone Council. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, we have Julie Robson. Well, maybe first we're going to go to Ryan Cox. We'll get Ryan and muted here in a second. I can hear me now. Mm hmm. Go ahead, Ryan. Okay. Hi there. I'm Ryan Cox. I live here in Curtis Park on the 29th in Curtis. So about three blocks from the women's been. I'm speaking tonight in support of the red zone request. Paul Keith and others have spoken to different aspects of the rezoning, but I wanted to comment on a couple of things specifically. I'm on the board of Curtis Park Neighbors as well, and women's being involved the neighborhood early in the process and was very interested in seeking zoning that most aligned with the wishes of neighbors and as Paul mentioned and did extensive outreach to the neighborhood, particularly to those that were closest to women's being, which informed the rezoning request . And although Curtis Park had been involved in the process from the beginning and saw it and provided feedback on the rezoning, our councilwoman chose to gather feedback via Facebook survey that may be presented as community input. And although our councilwoman has had no difficulty in posting town halls and other marketing materials directly to the neighborhood Facebook page , she chose not to share the survey to the neighborhood the right up there, and she used the survey provided background information that was frankly misleading and opinionated. The survey questions were then crafted in a way to produce responses that the draft chapters had desired, so the survey could be cited as having gathered community feedback. Women's being has been a great asset and a neighbor. And we truly hate to see them leaving the neighborhood, but preventing them from continuing, expanding their mission of serving more women by attempting to block a straightforward rezoning request is shortsighted and detrimental to not only women's being, but the women they serve and the city as a whole . I ask the city, approve the request. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Our last speaker is Brian Conley. Hello? Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead, Brian. Thank you. Good evening. Council president and members of council. My name is Brian Connolly. Several of you know me as a land use planner, an attorney with the firm of Art and Johnson. However, I am here this evening as a citizen and neighbor of women's being project, and I am fully in support of the rezoning request. I think that, as you all know, this request is guided by the criteria in your code. And I think Brandon did an excellent job of analyzing the application, and I certainly agree with his conclusion that it meets all of your criteria, and certainly it's consistent with the adopted plans of the city. I submitted an email outlining the remainder of my comments so I won't dwell on them. I will just note that several of the opponents of the rezoning have noted that they will lament the loss of women's being project. That being said, as many of you know, as a matter of land use laws, zoning can't dictate who owns a given piece of property. And in fact, in most cases, it can't even dictate the exact design of any building that gets constructed on a given property. However, here we have a unique situation in that the concerns about community character are really mitigated by the protected landmark status of this property. So thank you very much for your time and your service to our city and please vote in favor of the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I guess, Brandon, this would be for you. The. The building is a contributing structure in the Curtis Park historic district, but it's not individually designated as a landmark, correct? Actually it is a contributing in the district. Okay. But it could be designated. It is designated if. There were an application. Were there any discussions? And maybe Mr. O'Donnell could address this also? But but, Brandon, you would know for certain. Were there any discussions during the negotiations over or over this rezoning as to whether that would become a landmark structure at the end of the process? It is already a landmark structure. It is a contributing structure within the system. Okay. I guess maybe I misunderstood that it's individually also a designated correct. Ah, the next question is about our criteria. And I was reading the material that Mr. Grannis sent us and talked about here. And one of the criteria is consistency with adopted plans. And I've noticed in all of our rezonings we always pick out two or three goals and strategies with which this application is found by staff to be a consistent. But what occurs to me, as Mr. Grannis has pointed out, several goals and strategies that he finds the application to be inconsistent with. So I'm wondering how does CPD staff deal with an application where you might clearly and I'm not asking you to admit that this is the case here, you understand, but just generally so I can understand. An inconsistency and inconsistency. How does CPD staff handle it when you clearly can see that? Well, this application fits ten criteria in between comp plan and blueprint. But we can also see how it's inconsistent with seven. Does that go forward with recommendation for approval or does it? How do we handle that? Good question. So you'll see that in the presentations where you typically highlight a couple of policies and strategies that are applicable, there's usually more detail in the staff report. And then it is a little bit like you alluded to when we look at the number that it is applicable with and consistent with, we have those on balance with what other ones might not be. And for this application, we think that generally speaking, it is. Marcus's work, mostly consistent with the planners, more consistent and implemented, is not okay. So it is possible, in fact likely that you could recommend you in the plural, could recommend approval of an application that is consistent with a large number of strategies, but might not be consistent with others. In other words, we don't require that an application has to be consistent with every strategy. In fact, that might not even be a possibility, right? Yes, that's correct. And usually that comes up a lot when we have like a newer plan like blueprint and then we have a really old neighborhood plan that, you know, is completely different than the blueprint. So it's it's all about a balancing. And on balance, it's finding that the application does consistency criteria. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. That's all. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn or I'm sorry, Councilman Cashman. Let me see. Councilman, I think you're muted. Not yet. What else? Oh, now we got. You got me. Now, huh? Go ahead. Okay. Yes. For someone from the Beam project. If someone can answer this. Mr. Grant has sent us a detailed, some detailed information. I was just very interested in looking at and seeing that since 2012, the overall sales seem to have declined from around a million to to about 700,000 in last year. And just want to understand that, since my understanding is the idea in selling is to get a larger facility that will have the ability to help more people generate more more bodies. Anyone can answer that. We had Tamara Ryan, who was representing the Women's Being project. Hopefully she still. President Gilmore, this bruising. I'm sure I'm around. And I'm still here. Yeah, that's right here. I'm still here. I was just in nether land, so I would be more than happy. And I've offered this a number of times to talk with anyone about, first of all, the difference between an operating budget and audited financials and also the intricacies of how a nonprofit financials are reported when you also have sales and how net sales are reported. And so all of those financials are are provided on our website. And but don't give you the color of things like we have grown in certain areas and we have also taken write offs for growth in grocery. And and what I will tell you is that it's not it is both about sales is about creating jobs and is about having enough space to employ enough women. So we have challenges with respect to purchasing materials are being supplier recently told us that our minimum order quantity now is doubled which means that 50 foot truck needs to come and offload £20,000 of beans to our site. We don't have space for that. And we are at the point where nearly every week we have some sort of a challenge relative to space that impacts both the business, the number of women we can employ and how we can deliver for our services. And that is that that's the whole story and really cannot be accurately reflected in financials on our website. Right. Well, but is it is it true that your your sales have decreased a bit further for the reasons you've just stated. For one year, 2019, they decreased in this past year, they increased 30%. So taking a snapshot of one year makes it difficult to look at what to surmise that there is a trend. And again, I'd be more than happy to sit with anyone and go into more detail. I, I guess. It's not really relevant to the criteria, so we don't need to spend too much time on it. Ms.. Ryan, I appreciate that answer, and we'll let you keep your energy for questions that are really related to your zone. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Councilman. Councilman Hines, you a president? That's actually what I was going to ask. Could be the business model is not related. That's not one of the criterias. And I mean, it's not even. Remotely. Any of the criteria is right. So we can't make any sort of judgment tonight based on the success or failure or lack of success of of any entity, including the women's project. Is that right? The party's analysis is strictly with legal criteria. Okay. And, well, we could. Well, I guess maybe. Looks like Mr. Griffin is still here. So from the city council attorneys perspective, I hear CBD saying that it's not within your legal criteria. It's not within our legal criteria either. Right. Is that is that just talking with the city council attorney? Yeah. Well, I think we've got Nate okay with us, so we'll let Nate weigh in. Come on down. Councilman Hines, what was the question again? I'm sorry. The question is that we're you know, we're obviously we're considering a rezoning at this point. And we have five legal criteria through which we should make our quality judicial decision. None of those criteria consider the success or failure of any business model, including, in this case, the Women's Bean Project. It's like we we must remain blind to whether the whether any entity has a good or bad business model. Is that is that correct? Yeah. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Thank you for repeating it. I was listening to your commentary and I agreed with it. And so when the question came up, I was like, was there a question there? But yes, thank. You, Councilman, that you're correct. Okay. Thank you. And this is of which I'm curious the the comment of the councilperson which district doesn't in. I believe it's. And we are we are in District nine. Okay. Well, I'd be curious to hear her comments. So. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask a question. I don't know if former Councilwoman Oprah Wedgeworth is still available. If you are ever. Would you mind? Coming back on for just a minute. I have a question of you. All right, we're going to. Can you ask her to raise her hand in the list of attendees? Do you see her still on? Mm. Okay. I don't. Maybe. Maybe, Brandon, you might be able to answer this or Nate. So when the city sold this property originally to the Women's Being project, I remember this being at a significantly discounted price. And I'm wanting to know if there were any reverted clauses in the sales price. I know. What is now our host office. It used to be dildo or OED before that routinely has reverted clauses in a number of their contracts when they sell property to different nonprofits. If they're. Operations, you know, go out of business or they're going to move or whatever that requires the property to revert back to the city . So I wanted to ask if that was looked into by your office or by the city attorney's office to to just confirm that you don't have that as an issue. And I believe we have Skye Stewart, who's available, too, to answer. Yep. Thank you very much. Sky Store Mayor's Office. I think there has been a little bit of a misconception about that. The city actually did not sell it for less than market value when the property was sold in 1995 for $185,000. The assessor's records for that year were an assessed value of 183,900. So the city actually made a little bit more than the assessed value on that. So it was not sold at a loss at all. And and because that was a market transaction, there was no revert or clause or any other conditions on the property. That's that's helpful clarification. And then I just wanted to ask Miss Ryan, there was a comment made by one of the speakers about and I know this is not part of the criteria, but, you know, it's part of the reason for the change is to create the opportunity to grow. But you're going to automate, which means you potentially would reduce the number of women. Is that is that accurate? And let me just do that first and then our last look. Sure. Thanks for that question that we had in our strategic plan. We talked about automation. And what we realized ultimately was that we were really headed more toward semi automation. And ultimately we have several stops along any production line that includes now filling machines and sealing machines that all have to be operated by individuals. And in fact, what we've learned in that is that not only do we need the same, if not more women based on volume, we actually are teaching skills that are much more relevant to the workplace when the women leave. There is no scenario in which a woman will graduate. Women's being project can go on to landfill, being to mixes. And so what we are teaching them is, is how to operate the equipment, how to troubleshoot with the computerized panels, how to clean the equipment, how to meet food safety standards that are more complex with with machinery . And so what the what we didn't even realize when we were talking about automating our processes is what great opportunity it would actually create for the women. And that really full automation is not going to be possible. That really it's much more a semi automation process. Okay. And part of the reason for looking to grow is or looking to make make this changes so that you can grow. And I'm assuming that means looking for a bigger building elsewhere, is that correct? Yes, that is correct, yes. Have you identified something else that's sort of contingent on this rezoning? And I don't know if you have an option contract on the if somebody has an auction contract on the property. But. Does that then? You know, afford the ability for you to stay in Denver or are you looking elsewhere? We absolutely always we're committed to staying in Denver. When we started this process, we did not have a new home. We now have identified a new location and on Alameda in Councilman Clark's district. And we will be we will be occupying this new location adjacent to Denver Housing Authority and some new housing that they will be building . Okay, great. All right. And I saw that. We have. This back on the line. But I don't know. Number one, if you heard my question, it sounded like that was answered. But I wanted to give you an opportunity to see if there was anything more that you wanted to add. No, I didn't hear your question. Can you repeat it, please? I was just double checking about whether or not there was a revert or clause in Skye. Stewart from the mayor's office clarified that the building was sold at market rate and therefore there were there were no provisions placed on the sale. Yeah, that's my understanding is. Okay. Great. I have no further questions. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman, and thank you to our speakers. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0161 is closed. Comments by members of Council. All right. I'm not seeing. Oh, here we go. My Internet said it was unstable for a second. We're back, Councilman Clark. Thank you, Madam President. You know, this is not in my district, although I was lady. But it was good to hear that women's region is looking to relocate into my district. It's a wonderful organization, which, of course, has nothing to do with our rezoning criteria. But I just didn't see the councilperson for this district. It must not be online anymore. And so I just wanted to make sure to say for the record that thank you to staff. I think that this has been demonstrated that it meets the legal criteria for rezoning, and I will be supporting it this evening before we voted . Thank you. Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. I just put my video down, so maybe my Internet's going to work a little bit better. Councilman Ortega. In Tibetan president. So at one point, a very, very long time ago, that used to be part of my council district, part of the Curtis Park neighborhood, used to be part of District nine. Back then, at times it was changed. It was not in the district. So I'm very familiar with the neighborhood and of the original sale of this property to the Women's Project. And they have been an amazing employer. I mean, they're the epitome of a a genuine social enterprise that is working with women coming out of our prison system that are gaining a skill set and as we heard, are gainfully employed as a result of coming through this program, which I think we need so much more of these kinds of projects that need to be tied to our shelter system and all of that that really helped people. Councilwoman So you and I have talked about the delay and see Street Project and how successful that model has been in San Francisco. And anyway, I digressing here, but this particular operation has has just been a magnet in this community for for so long since they purchased this property. And again, you know, they meet all the criteria. Glad to hear that they are staying and have found a place in Denver on a bus line that gives them the opportunity to grow and to provide even better skills with some of the automation and whatnot to the women that will be going through the program. And I'll be supporting this tonight. So I just wanted to chime in. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Seen no other comments by members of council? This proposal has has met all of the criteria and guidelines, and I'm happy to support this rezoning. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CdeBaca. Clark. I. When I. Herndon. I had. Hi. Cashman. All right. Kenny Ortega. All right. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 eyes. Counsel Bill 161 has passed. Up next, we have a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2755 Irving Street in Sloan's Lake. Councilmember Clark, would you please put Council Bill 546 on the floor for passage?