Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to amend the provisions of the Airport Influence Overlay (AIO) District to allow multi-unit residential uses between 62nd & 64th Avenues in the AIO District and to make related conforming amendments. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to amend the provisions of the Airport Influence Overlay (AIO) District to allow multi-unit residential uses between 62nd & 64th Avenues in the AIO District and to make related conforming amendments. 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 3-16-16.
The proposal maintains the navigation easement requirement. The text amendment also cross-references some requirements that lie outside of zoning, and those are listed here. They include an amendment to Chapter five of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding noise disclosure at the time of sale and building code amendments to require the use of noise mitigation construction techniques which were just approved in the block vote prior to recess. Our review criteria requires consistency with adopted plans, which I'll talk about now, beginning with comprehensive plan 2000. The plan guides us to conserve land by reducing sprawl and creating more density at transit nodes, encouraging mixed use, transit oriented development and encouraging land use policies, or excuse me, ensuring that land use policies and decisions support a variety of mobility choices. The proposed tax amendment is consistent with this guidance from comp plan 2000. Moving on to Blueprint Denver. The map here is zoomed into the area between 56th and 64th avenues. The area where the A0 text amendment would add multifamily is shown between the two dash lines. Blueprint. Denver was updated for consistency with the 61st and pinion stationary plan and calls for a combination of mixed use open space, commercial corridor and transit oriented development in this area north of 64th, where the amended overlay would continue to prohibit all residential. The land use is employment and south of 56 where the overlay does not apply. The land use of single family, residential and mixed use. Blueprint. Denver identifies the entire AOE area as an area of change and provides some guidance on how overlay districts should be used, stating that overlays can apply to areas where there are similar objectives, but where the base zoning varies, which is consistent with the situation that we have here. And the finding is consistency with Blueprint Denver. Moving on to the 61st and Pioneer Station area plan. That plan has recommendations to support transit use by generally allowing for a mixture of uses as well as higher density housing. At the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee. The question was raised regarding whether the text amendment is consistent with the 61st and Panya stationary plan, given that it would continue to prohibit single family dwellings. The plan does have some language that accommodates single family units. But the plan stops short of specifically recommending a single unit residential as a land use. The plan allows for single unit residential only in the area identified as mixed use residential, which is highlighted in the circle here and is outside of the area that would be substantively affected by the amendment, which is highlighted by the dashed area here. But the intent of the mixed use residential category can be met with or without, including single unit residential uses. Since that land use category calls simply for a variety and mix of residential types. So wrapping up the guidance here from the 61st in Kenya stationery plan, the plan further states that strong transit ridership is tied to minimum residential densities of 30 units per acre or more and encourages a diversity of housing sizes, types, unit sizes and configurations. And the finding is that the proposed amendment is consistent with this plan. Finally the Gateway Concept Plan from 1919. The in the interest of ensuring that the Gateway area would be a quiet place to live. The 1990 plan calls for no residential development north of 65th Ave, stating that that area should be reserved for business and commercial uses. The Gateway Plan notes the serious problems in the past that were caused by the noise at the old Stapleton Airport and uses this as further justification for prohibiting residential north of 65th. The text amendment is consistent with this guidance because it would allow residential users only up to 64th. So that covers the plan consistency criteria in number one, moving on to criteria and number two, uniformity. The text amendment will result in uniform regulations that apply to all new development within the airport influence overlay area. And on the third criteria, health, safety and welfare. The proposal implements adopted plans by enabling multi-unit residential while maintaining reasonable limitations that protect current and future airport operations. And so the finding is consistency with numbers two and three as well. Planning Board held its hearing on this matter on March 2nd and recommended approval. And so wrapping up the staff recommendation is that the Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment number seven be approved finding that the applicable criteria have been met. Thank you, Mr. Houser. We have one speaker tonight, Mr. Ferd Belz. Good evening for Dallas, 1125 17th Street in Denver and come with LC and writer ink and we own about 150 of the 384 acres in the Penn Station area. I'm here asking for your support this evening. It's really consistent with the station area plan and the vision to make this a true mixed use development. It was actually kind of an oddity that residential is only allowed up to 62nd because the vision is for the whole 384 acres all the way up to 64th to be mixed use. And that's our plan. And we're moving forward with that. And with the approval of this this evening, we will be also coming to rezone our site in the not too distant future to the new zoning code so we can take full advantage of it. So again, just ask for your support and I'm here to answer any questions if you have any later. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Valens. That concludes our speakers. Time for questions from members of council. Councilwoman Ortega. First, will you come back to the microphone? I have a couple of questions. So the first one is how many additional acres does this put into the site for, including more residential? It put approximately 40 acres on a gross basis and probably about 32 on a net when you take out roads and some of the other public areas. Okay. And why do we need 40 more acres when we already have 300 plus that can be developed? It's an interesting development in terms of what's envisioned. Really what's envisioned is a complete mix of uses. So as you get farther away from the station, we felt it was important to continue to have residential so that we can provide a variety of housing, whether higher density close to the station and probably less dense away from the station. So it can be a mix of those types of housing. So earlier reference was made of the 1990 noise plan that would you know, in all of the negotiations, I think I'm the only one around that was. That was here when we actually approved the annexation of Adams County land to be used for DIA. I think Councilman Flynn, maybe. I don't know what that was from. So in his role as a reporter, I think he may be familiar with some of this as well. But clearly, 56th Avenue was that dividing line. And we were asked some time ago to approve extending that to 62nd to allow for, you know, the inclusion of more acres, to allow the development of more residential. So that's I'm struggling with why we need an additional 40 acres when we've already added and penetrated into the noise contour because it's my recollection that it originally was 75 was the noise contour. And this is the second time we will have encroached into that area where we drew that line saying we're not going to be putting people in a situation where they're going to have to deal with the noise from planes. And, you know, I mean, the big difference is if you're a single family, you get to sue the city. But I guess if you're multifamily, it's it's a little bit different. And so help me understand why why the need is there to do that. I'm struggling with that. So I can't speak to the noise contours. My understanding is that the defining noise contours actually 60 and were actually it is north of this 64th I think the gateway plan spoke to a 65th Street or avenue divider that I think was driven by the noise contours. I think there are people are from the airport that could speak more directly to the specificity of the noise contour. However, I think the other distinction is. We have a real stop. And so there has been change conditions since 1990. And I think some of the vision for the city and their policies about putting housing and density and mixed use around real stops is really what drove our station area plan. And I think we're really driving this to make residential an opportunity to be mixed use throughout the entire development. So other than Stapleton, this is probably the only one that has this amount of acres. I don't remember how many acres there are. Stapleton. Maybe, councilman. And how much? Tens of thousands. Okay. So so it's even more than stable in totality. And that's a pretty massive development that we've been able to see built out over a course of time. So I guess just understanding the history and having been here and knowing how. I mean, part of why we moved the airport was because we were getting sued by Adams County and Parkview because of noise issues. And, you know, we were trying to address the noise problem. And, you know, we went to a site that was so far away that we weren't going to be building any housing within, you know , a certain area. And we've already encroached into that once before. So we're doing that again. And I'm just struggling with that. So I'm just trying to, you know, bring some history to the table here. So thank you for sure. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. George, I hate to put you on the hot seat again, but I don't see anyone else here from the airport who can handle this. Or maybe Cortland could answer this. But during the development of this overlay, did the planning office or the airport take into account where the current noise contours are and where the future ones will be? I'm looking at two maps. The current noise contours from the 2013 noise report. But that, of course, only includes the runway 25 departure. And there's going to be a second runway there south of Pioneer Boulevard. So we need to take into account that one. So did we look at those 60 and 65 LDN contours? Yes. So and forgive me, I'm going to speak zoning, which is always dangerous for me. But the current conditions on this property are were were with the multifamily to 62nd and single family to 56 were were came about after a 99 1999 noise study that was done. And then in 2000, this area was was zoned when the city went through the zoning code update that we this this area was sort of set aside as an as the airport overlay. And so the the that those conditions still existed. But you have to rezone in to to if you want to build. So the those current conditions were based on a 1999 NOI study that we did. There was a second noise study that the airport did in 2004 that showed had some different assumptions in the study and showed the noise contours further north and that there were some zoning done in the city around High Point and other places that were based on that noise study that if you if you look on our website, that's the current noise study that I think you're looking at. I would say to, you know, to specifically answer your question to Councilwoman Ortega's point, we get nervous any time we start to get housing moving towards the airport. That's what we worked closely with, with this applicant and and with planning and and pushed for this mitigation effort on building codes to to strengthen that. And this is only multifamily with an eye towards you know we as single family housing tend to be outside more it's a little more subject to noise issues. And so they were more sensitive then. But certainly we're cognizant of those issues. We push for the building code mitigation to mitigate some of that noise, those noise issues as well. All right, thank you, Cortland. You have anything to add to that? No, I think that was a. Pretty accurate summary as to the situation. Did you have remaining questions. Only to observe that the that the land I'm looking at the the recommended noise contours and the 65 LDN contour actually ends significantly east of Tower Road and is north is about 70th Avenue. The 60 LDN doesn't extend farther south than about 69th Avenue. And I would note that north of 64th there already is excuse me, substantial commercial development already in place. So it's so if you are south of 64th Avenue, it does look like you are out of the both of the 60 and the 65 LDN contour. And that's how it appears that the map that I'm looking at as well. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I wish I sort of understood how you get in a situation where you sue the city for living next to an airport. Must have been. We expanded Stapleton an odd ways or something, but here you are, very eyes wide open in this case where there's an airport there. And I don't know what we can do fundamentally to change the fact that people don't realize that they're moving here. That said, back when the airport was conceived and discussed and brought to life, I think there was some sort of notion that the future of travel would be sort of subsonic. I mean, supersonic and suborbital, you know, flights around halfway around the world, which I think sort of implied jet I rocket propelled travel and some of these like runways were deliberately long to sort of capture heavier planes with with burdened with these sort of equipment. Is there some some jettisoned idea about the future of DIA that would maybe would maybe result in a louder aircraft than what we are accustomed to and do will if we get there in the future? Are we opening ourselves up to the Stapleton scenario again? So let me take a couple of points on that. There there's a couple of distinctions I want to make about noise in airports. So it's at 65. That's actually the point where the FAA that's sort of the cliff that where the FAA, if there's a noise recorded above, above that the federal government actually comes in and will do mitigation on houses and actually start spending money. So we obviously want to stay very far away from that. And so we traditionally we've zoned at 60. Which is supersonic there. So there's a separate issue. To your point about the future, it's not so much louder aircraft. I think aircraft engines are getting quieter. But what we worry about is where from a runway standpoint, we are half built. We have six runways we want to go to for full buildout. And certainly we want to protect the asset that this community invested in less than a generation ago. And so we're certainly have have a mind to that. As we as we look toward encroachment right now, it is more about, you know, the risk of what what do you do as we go to do a study and a survey to build out our our runways? And we do that. Forgive me, environmental assessment. We have to go and knock on residences door at some point and say, you know, how do you feel about having a runway coming near you? And the the obvious answer to that is probably not that great. So we're we're very wary of encroachment. But again, on this particular issue, as you know, because this applicant has been cognizant of of of our concerns and worked with us, done some noise mitigation in the building, worked very hard. And we've worked very hard with Councilwoman Gilmore throughout this process. You know, they they are doing their best to recognize that. Is there some sort of covenant that we can have, you know, these buyers and future renters sort of to acknowledge that the D.R. is not at its full buildout. And that that's actually in there. So we've pushed for that as well. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Gilmore. Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Jill, could we have you join us up here from community planning and Development to talk a little bit about the building code and what will be required of anyone who builds within this area. And then maybe a little bit about the noise mitigation and the navigation agreements as well. Certainly. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Jill Jennings, Garlic Deputy Director, Community Planning and Development. So earlier tonight, you passed an amendment to our 2016 Denver Building and Fire Code to put a new section in called Aircraft Noise Reduction. And this requires, regardless of which, zoning code you're in, a new residential multi-unit dwelling or school educational use to be subject to these restrictions. If you're located within the airport influence overlay. And there are essentially two different methods which you can use to show compliance. The first being a prescriptive method, essentially a cookbook approach that says, here are the things you need to do in order to document compliance with this section. And we anticipate multi-unit dwellings will likely take that path. The second option is a method to which requires an acoustical professional to come on during the design process and provide various calculations and methods to document compliance with certain standards. We believe schools will take advantage of this, but some multi-unit dwellings may as well. We based these methods off what's in place in the city of Aurora. They've had construction noise mitigation requirements for well over ten years, and so we worked closely with Aurora, as well as with the airport and the property owners to develop these requirements. And I will note that with the passage of our 2015 Energy Code, some of the requirements may seem like they're a little low because with that new code, insulation requirements have gone up. But you can do trade offs within that energy code. So this guarantees a minimum level of requirements for insulation and windows to ensure that they're protecting against noise. And so that review will happen as projects come in for building permits. They'll have a customer will have to submit required plans and specifications to show compliance. And then in terms of the easement, I'll actually turn that over to airport staff. So we have evacuation easements built into this code provision that will essentially ask owners to waive claims for noise. At the airport, we also have a noise disclosure requirement. So any owners have to sign that. They acknowledge that they're next to an airport and there will be noise. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Gilmore. And the questions. 183. Seen none. Public hearings, not closed comments. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I've lived in District 11 for about 20 years, and we have been waiting very, very patiently to see what was going to happen out around 61st and Pena and with the TOD and with the developments. And, you know, it's an exciting time in District 11 and currently we in Montebello in Green Valley Ranch, High Point in Parkfield do not have retail. I could not go buy a pair of shoes in my district. I could not buy a purse. I could not buy a jacket in District 11. And so really realizing the opportunity with a TOD Station, a transit oriented development station. Right in our neighborhood is transformational for the community. And we are literally right now talking about two blocks that would allow us to fully realize the TOD Station and have the density that would encourage the mix of retail that we need, the mix of entertainment opportunities, possibly a movie theater, sit down, restaurants, places where people could truly live, work and play close to home. And, you know, it's great right now living in Monticello, we go to Stapleton. Northfield. I love Stapleton Northfield. It's great. But we would also like that in District 11. We deserve the residents and my community that I represent. We deserve places that we can go right in our community and having it along a TOD station, a stop is even better. And you know, noise technology on aircraft are improving every day, folks that are going to move out to the area. It's no secret that DIA is the biggest economic engine of, you know, the state. And so, you know, folks are excited, actually, to be able to come a little bit closer to the airport. They're going to be at that Tod station. And when you really look at it, I was out there at the station party on Saturday and you can see those two blocks. I mean, we are talking about two blocks here. They would encourage multifamily development for us to truly realize this dream. And so I asked my colleagues to join myself in supporting this and really building a TOD station that we can be proud of. And that will be a model for not only this area, but the rest of the city. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I want to thank Councilwoman Gilmore for bringing this to us because, you know, having worked out there in Green Valley Ranch for for the last four years, prior to being on council, one of the things that frustrated me is, is, is that urbanist is that there was a ton of single family development that was still going on. And that's our most resource intensive development pattern that we can have. And, you know, sprawl, sprawl, sprawl. I mean, we've we've seen it happen. And in this in Denver, where every place where we build a highway, there's a ton of infill at that low density. And this is an area where we just invested in this commuter rail. We have the purple pipe system going down chambers and other areas out there. And we have to build new road networks in this process. So we could be doing multi-modal ways that mean pathways and those work better when we have a significant uptick in density . You know, the Stapleton redevelopment that's going on out there has some of the most the whitest streets, and it's the most car friendly area in Denver. And if we're really going to try and capture affordable but vital living, it's it isn't continuing with urban and suburban sprawl. It is trying to capture a healthier density so that we can get a mix of uses and a mix of housing types and and whatnot. So this is I'm glad to see a dense redevelopment opportunity. I mean, development opportunity come right around one of our new TOD stations that has a direct link with downtown in our in a huge employer out at the airport. So and I'm glad to see that boundary expanding because it's a chance to get a mixed community, mixed mixed scale, mixed everything right in the city and county. Denver So thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, for taking that vision and expanding it and taking that opportunity, because it's vital if we're going to capture, you know, a diverse population in Denver to have these opportunities in very affordable parcels, too. These are great opportunities for the city. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Greenwich. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I think that this is an important piece of good transit oriented development. But where we expand the potential for housing, it raises the question of how that housing is going to contribute to the need for affordability. And while I agree with Councilman Espinosa that these parcels begin today at an affordable level, what we know is that the rate of change in Denver means that some neighborhoods that used to just be market affordable can quickly change over time as they become hot, as our population pressures increase. And so the best way to ensure long term affordability is through restrictions that keep that property affordable, you know, for 20, 30, 40 years into the future. I raised this because I've been asked it from constituents what we are doing as a city to help ensure more affordability in this site. And what I, I just want to share publicly what I've shared with those constituents and with the developer of who owns some of the land in the area of this station. But all of it, I believe, in the expansion that we're talking about today is that this is a tricky area to do restricted affordable housing. There is not a great demand among the tax credit finance folks who tend to find affordable housing to put tax credit projects in this area right now because it's not hot yet. Right. This is this old trickle we get about not wanting to put more affordability where it's affordable, but knowing that if you don't do it today , it can be hard to get for tomorrow. We're also in a moment where we're in a transition between areas of policy and housing right today. If you build new affordable rent or if you build new rental housing, there is no policy in place to help capture any of that for affordability. But we have a very concrete proposal on its way to this council in the next six months to have a fee on new development to help to put those fees towards affordable housing. And so should we pass that package of policies then? In fact, most of the development that occurs in this area, residential or commercial development, could be paying a fee to help towards affordability. Now, that's not quite enough. It means that these projects in the future might be contributing to affordable housing. But what we really need is land to build that affordability. I've been asked about ideas such as land banking and things like that. That's tricky to do when you have one landowner. Typically, land banking involves buying a parcel and holding that parcel for future affordable development in the next five years or so. Here, we don't have small parcels for sale. We have large parcels owned by single landowners. So some of our traditional tools are not in place or not good fits for this site, but I think that it is critical that we continue to strive towards not just maybe generating funding for affordable housing from this development area, but from actually using the funds both those generated in that area, as well as potentially funds from other parts of the city to continue to work towards affordability. If I had a more concrete solution today, I would certainly have advocated for that before approving more residential. But because we're in a time of transition, because this area is one, that financing is a little harder to know what's going to happen in three or five years. I feel comfortable that we as a city can continue to work on this while many other phases of this project go forward. Right? There will be rezonings, there will be future development approvals and I think that the dialog will be there. In part, I want to just toot the horn of one of the developers that is already working to get a 4% tax credit project for the workforce out in this area. So in some ways they're already leading with that commitment. If we're able to, you know, figure out all the government pieces to make that work, that's a pretty good evidence of commitment, and that helps to kind of create a place for us to go in the future while we figure out whether or not the financing realm can evolve a little bit and whether or not we get a more settled housing policy adopted by this council. So all of that is a very long way of saying that I wouldn't be comfortable expanding more housing in this area without knowing that more affordability is possible and coming. I believe that it is, and that we are going to have to be working to be creative and figuring out how to do that. I'm committed. I hope the city is committed. I know the developer has expressed their commitment and with that I'm comfortable moving this forward for all the reasons described. And I want to thank Councilwoman Gilmore, who's been a very, you know, diligent sponsor in making sure that we were all educated and briefed on this. So thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. And each. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I think in the context of Denver International Airport compared with former Stapleton Airport. There's really no comparison to be made in saying I am near the airport. I recall visiting people in Park Hill and and maybe this was a little bit of a ginned up memory, but I can recall that you can actually wave to the passengers in the jets that were landing on runway one, runway eight. And you could wave. You could see them in the window and you could wave to them. So to say, I lived I'm close to DIA because you can see it in the distance. Is is everything is relative. The distance from the corner of the northeast corner of this 64th and tower that we're talking about from the nearest end of a runway is equivalent to being at Monaco and Alameda. It's a relative distance from the threshold of Stapleton's old runway 35 left, which is to say people at Monaco and Alameda probably wouldn't have said they're too close to Stapleton. So I don't I just want people to understand that because we're approving a two blocks additional of residential and multifamily at that, that it is still not near the airport in the sense that homes were near Stapleton, literally across the street, that you can actually wave to the passengers . So. Mr. President, I will be supporting this tonight. And I see this as a very good leap forward for my my diagonally distant district 11 from southwest Denver to northeast. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the conversation that we've had on this tonight. I thought it was important to just share some of the the history and why the then council felt that it was important to create those those buffer boundaries. I have friends that live both in Green Valley Ranch and in Marbella. And when they want to go shopping, typically they go to the retail that is on Tower Road, which is not in Denver County. And, you know, one of the things that I campaigned on when I ran for reelection to come back onto the council was that we need to be doing everything we can to try to keep retail in Denver and encourage people to shop in Denver. And I know this site will, in fact, do that. I was questioning why we need 40 more acres when we have 300 acres to do this development. But, you know, if there is one place where it does make sense to have density, it's it's, in fact, in this area. I know Councilwoman Gilmore worked very closely to ensure that the noise mitigation was very much a part of the work that move this project forward. And in really appreciate that because I think the people who will be living in the development will also appreciate that. Um, and I know technology is changing. We had a briefing, I think a year or two ago talking about some of the changes that will reduce the noise on some of the jets that fly in and out of DIA. So, you know, I think that will help significantly as well. So I will be supporting this tonight. I think the investment that the city has made in doing the transit stop, which was not included when RTD moved to build the DIA train out to the airport, the city made the investment to allow that to happen and that should have been enough to really kind of negotiate further on the affordability of housing. And that is an important issue that I hope we will make greater strides in addressing, because when you look at how much development will be there, to do it without any affordability within the development would be a shame. When we did Stapleton, because they asked for $300 million of tax increment financing, we were able to get a serious commitment of affordable housing to be built on that site. And knowing that this site alone is bigger than Stapleton really means that we should take greater strides in working with the developer to address that. And I'm committed to working with Councilwoman Kenney or anybody else that wants to further that agenda, because I think it is important. We don't want to have people who have to work at DIA or who will work at DIA to have to live further. Away. Like folks in the mountain community do, we want them to be able to live close to the airport where they work or be able to work on the site and live close by when all of the commercial development happens there. So with that, I'll be voting for this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. In other comments. One 8339 Madam Secretary, roll call. Gilmore I question can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega black Brooks I. Clark Espinosa. Flynn, I. Mr. President. I. And got it. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please for the very nice results. 1212 AIS 183 has passed. On Monday, May 23rd, Council will hold a required public hearing counter bill to 17 Changing the zoning classification. 5104 Dallas Street required people carrying Council Bill 219 Changing the zoning classification 4353 North Cherokee Street and a required Public Hearing Council Bill 249 Changing the Zoning Classification four 3250 South Colorado Boulevard. Any protest on county bills 217 to 19 or 249 must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on Monday, May 16. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned. In private sphere. And that means that interesting frontages ones that attract us, that are transparent, that allow for that flow of in and out, are incredibly important to the way that we experience our street. And a lot of there's actually a whole lot of active uses along the mall, about 11,000 feet of things like shops, retail, restaurants and bars that have really active and pleasant frontages. But we still have about 30% of them that, despite having active uses, don't have what we would characterize as being a high quality frontage. So there's a low hanging fruit there. There's opportunities to just increase that experience naturally and have it more congruent with the functions that are that are attached to them. We know actually that part of this also takes place in affecting inside and outdoor activities. Like I mentioned and during this meeting, the street test, we know that about 90% of the businesses we surveyed, you could see all the little dots here said that business was as good or better. During this meeting, the street test. So Principle five is about supporting a wider network of investment. This is about existing initiatives. Brad mentioned some of it. This is about inviting public institutions. The non typical set, the non typical players of that are still vital to the cultural and civic assets of the city. How do we invite them to say, Hey, the 16th Street Mall can be your playground, your canvas? The partnership's already been working with the Botanical Gardens to some extent on this on the garden block. But how do we do more to not only invite these cultural institutions, but also everyday civic society, people that are interested in contributing and that can catalyze with their input to create a better street and a better city. And we see there's a lot of potential all at all through downtown to invite actively invite these institutions much more actively to not only collaborate in concert with the things that are happening along the 16th Street Mall, but maybe again, also use it as a canvas or an outlet or a satellite of of their location. It's incredibly important to to think beyond the the physical boundaries of the street. It's not just about from building frontage to building frontage for us. It's also about policies. Right. How do we rethink maybe some of the limitations? Liquor licensing, like, for example, having to put big barricades around restaurants that serve alcohol. Can that be changed? Maybe in certain areas. Can we encourage more mixed use development and and program adjacent underused sites, at least some parts of the day. So, you know, I think that. Then go back. You know, it's nice to be able to. Denver has got fantastic weather. It's incredible to be outside as much as you can in many places. But again, does it have to be behind bars? Literally, when you're when you're drinking, I don't know. We'll think about that. I've been in Europe for too long. Maybe so. I'm a little optimistic about the potential of that and what that can provide. But again, it's just that more open, free flow life that can exist coexist with different interests and and really make sure that we can get that coexistence. That's a key word about lingering about.