A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1974 and 1990 South Huron Street in Overland. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-TU-C to E-SU-A (two-unit to single-unit), located at 1974 and 1990 South Huron Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-4-22.
Herndon. Ah. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Council Bill 20 2-0003 has passed. Thank you, friend. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0016 on the floor for final passage? Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2-0016 be ordered to be placed on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-0016 is open. May we have a staff report, please? I just want to make a quick clarification. I believe the case number is 2020 100574, 1974, 1990, South Huron Street, if that's what was stated. Sorry. Um. The. Yes. So our bill. The bill number is 20 2-0016. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay, sir. Okay, planner. Very good to present the case number 2020 100574, 1974, 1990, South Huron Street. And this request is to go from E2 City Subway. So this is in Council District seven in Clarke's district. More specifically, it's in the Overland neighborhood. And this request again, is from if you see it. Yes. This property is 18, just over 18,000 square feet, and there are actually two properties. So each property is just around 9000 square feet and there are one storey single family homes on each zone lot. And the request as a reason to allow up to three single family homes on each zone lot. So the existing zoning is it you see on the subject sites as well as within the surrounding area. There's also zoning of OSA to the west and to the north and there is um, x three to the south. I'd like to point out a couple of differences between the existing zone district and the proposed district. So the existing zone district of E2 C allows the Urban House detached accessory dwelling unit duplex in tandem house building forms, and those are allowed on a minimum zone lot size of 5500 square feet. The proposed zone district of East A allows the Urban House building form and is allowed on a minimum zone. Lot size of 3000 square feet. So just to break it down, each property has just over 9000 square feet. So if there was potentially a zone law amendment, there could be three single family homes on each zone, not allowing up to six units total for both properties. One thing I'd like to point out between the existing and proposed zone district is to propose a scenario of what would be allowed if you had two units. So with the proposed zone district, if there were two urban houses, that would be allowed on a minimum size of 6000 square feet. So one house on a 3000 square foot lot with the existing zoned district, there is one duplex that can be allowed, which is also two units, and that's allowed on 3500 square feet. So what I want to call out is that this proposed district would allow a similar density that was already allowed today, but just in a slightly different way. So the existing land use on the subject site is single unit residential and there is predominantly small unit residential in the surrounding area as well as to unit and multi-unit residential with the park and open space against the north and west as well as industrial to the south. These are some images of the building forms on the properties today. So it is a one storey single family home on each zone lot and these are some images of the surrounding properties. So again, one story homes, single family homes on each side that's kind of surrounding the area. So we're at the city council public hearing tonight. And I just want to point out that a planning board, public hearing, the planning board voted 8 to 1 to recommend that city council approve the application. I'd like to call out some of the public comment those received. The public comment was received in the staff report, and that includes everything. So I'm just going to give a very quick summary of what was compiled within the public comment letters. So the Overland Park Neighborhood Association submitted a letter of support, claiming that they would like to see three single family detached homes on the sites. And the neighbors of Overland North submitted a letter of opposition. In addition to that, there were 45 letters of opposition. A decent amount of them could be considered form letters and maybe a template. And then a lot of these, in summary, stated a concern of increased density, a concern of potential traffic and parking, and a concern of affordability of maybe the subject sites as well as potential increase in property taxes. There were ten letters of support received and they stated a desire for single family homes and that those single family homes would keep in character with the existing neighborhood. In addition to that, they stated the desire for the moderate increase in density and felt that that was appropriate for the neighborhood. And lastly, there was one letter not necessarily opposing the rezoning, but opposing the development of three units on each side. So I'll move on to the review criteria and how this rezoning case is consistent with it. So starting with the consistency with adopted plans, there are four plans that apply to the subject site. All of that is detailed in the staff report. So I'm going to skip over the comprehensive plan and start with the consistency with the blueprint. Denver Blueprint. Denver identifies future contexts, and the future context for these sites is urban edge, urban as is described as residential areas that are generally single and to users with some low scale and multi unit embedded throughout. So this rezoning request is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context blueprint. Denver also identifies the future place types, and the place type for here is residential low and it's also described as predominately single and two unit uses on small or medium lots. So this rezoning request is consistent with this plan. Recommendation again blueprint. Denver identifies the growth area strategy and these sites have all other areas of the city applied to it, which essentially means that it's anticipated to see about 20% of new housing growth, as well as 10% of new employment employment growth by 2040. I want to talk a little bit about some of this additional guidance that's outlined in Blueprint Denver. So it has additional guidance for the residential low place type. So this guidance is for if a rezoning request comes in to allow smaller zone lot sizes. And if that comes in, the appropriateness of the rezoning request depends upon the existing character and neighborhood plan guidance. So this request is consistent with that. However, there is additional language that applies to the site, and it states that if there is an applicant driven rezoning request that is an individual site or an assemblage of sites, that and if this request is potentially a departure from the established zone lot pattern, then the request may be appropriate if the intent is to set a new pattern for the area as expressed by an adopted smarter plan. So I'll talk a little bit more about the evaluation of the second bullet points. I'll point you to the map that's on the left and talk you through about how we evaluate kind of the patterns for zone lots. So the subject properties are outlined in the lime green and they have the red color applied to it. So anything in red means that it is a size of 7000 square feet or larger. So the zone lot size is seven square feet larger. When we look to see if there's a pattern for the requested zones, the pattern would be to look to see if there's the darker blue zone lots. Those zone lots are 4500 square feet or less. So again, the requested zone district allows a minimum zone that size of 3000 square feet. So we look to see if there's a pattern of the blue and if the blue has the same use. So everything shown on the map has the same use of the proposed zone district, which is a single unit. As you can see, there's not necessarily a pattern of those so lot sizes. So then the evaluation looks to kind of the second half of the language saying is there additional guidance from adopted small area plans that support this and support the recommendation from Blueprint Denver? And there is additional guidance that do make this recommendation consistent with this plan, which I'll talk about next. So there's a seven station area plan. It identifies these subject sites as the land use of single family duplex. And there's a detailed description of what that means. It's on the PowerPoint right now. I'm not going to read all of it, but I'll summarize it on this slide. So for this land use, it recommends to allow a mixture of housing types to encourage new development consistent with existing conditions. And the plan describes the existing conditions as small, single family lots around 4500 square feet with moderate lot coverage and shallow to moderate setbacks. In addition to that, the plan recommends densities that should be between ten and 20 housing units per acre area wide. So looking at this plan, I'll talk through how this rezoning request is consistent with these recommendations. So the request is consistent with the predominant single unit character of the neighborhood. And it also allows additional units. It allows for a density of housing units that is consistent with the typical density that's outlined, which is 10 to 20 units per acre, and falls about halfway in between that recommended density. It also encourages the potential reinvestment in the neighborhood and provides an additional mixture of housing types of urban houses on smaller lots. And then lastly, the smaller lot size of the requested zone district would allow for a similar number of units as a two unit district. But again, in just a different way, the Overland Neighborhood Plan also applies to the site. It's a little bit older plan, but even still the request is consistent with its guidance. This plan identifies these properties as being in the residential subgroup A and it describes this subgroup as being considered a single family enclave. And it also has an additional recommendation to develop the remaining land in a manner that is compatible with the land use character and density of surrounding land use and the existing zoning. So the request of single unit would be with would be consistent with the neighborhood character that's there today as well as the land use. So that is a review of the consistency with the plans. The proposed zoning will also result in uniform application of zone, district building form use and the design regulations. So it meets criteria number two and it also furthers the public health, safety and welfare because it's consistent with Blueprint Denver's policies. And it also encourages compatible compatible infill as well as potential for new housing. For the fourth criteria justifying circumstances there. There is a change to such a degree that the proposed reasoning is in the public interest. So first, looking at city adopted plans as a justifying circumstance, there are plans that provide clear guidance and strategies and they also identify the need for a variety of housing types that are consistent with the existing neighborhood character. In addition to that, there are teams are changing conditions found in the neighborhood that can be used as a justifying circumstance. Blueprint Denver identifies the West Evans Avenue as a future place type of community corridor and the area adjacent to the Evans station as community center. And those areas along the corridor as well as near the station have seen some change over time and some growth over time as well. In addition to that, there has been city investments, city investments to a nearby park, and there is also a planned pedestrian bridge just northeast of this neighborhood. It's called the Jewel Evans Station Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge. And it was part of the 2017 Elevate Denver Bond. So it's received initial funding and it's also had an RFQ out for initial design services. So the rezoning request was also found consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. So finally, based on the criteria for review and the Denver Zoning Code staff recommends approval for application 2020 1i00057. Thank you. I'll be here for questions. All right. Thank you, Sarah, for the staff report. We have 20 individuals signed up to speak this evening. Our first speaker is in person, Neil Shay. Please introduce yourself for the public record. Neil Shay 1625 South Lincoln Street. Like to thank council for having me tonight. Thank you, sir, for your presentation. So really what we're looking at here with this rezoning is a down zoning to a more attainable building form and one that's more in line with the character of the neighborhood. What could be built here under the current zoning is a massive duplex, one that's two and a half stories tall wedding cake style, 55 feet wide and up to 35, finished square feet above grade and would sell well into the $900,000. What we're proposing under this new zoning is actually three smaller single family homes that would be built on 3000 square foot lots. We can build them three beds, two and a half baths and aim to deliver these in the mid six hundreds to low seven hundreds. Each home would still be two and a half stories tall, but just under 19 feet wide. And all four two car garage. I do want to highlight the fact. Pull your mike down a little bit. We. You better. Thank you. I do want to highlight the fact that starting in the fall of 2019, we started our community outreach. We met with both neighborhood organizations, and we also met with individual residents one on one. During those meetings, we gained a lot of feedback. The feedback, as Sarah mentioned earlier, had to do with everything from affordability, higher property taxes, traffic. Neighborhood character. And the assurance that we would actually build what we said we're going to build. And we're aiming to address all those issues in this rezoning. We continue to meet with residents in the Oberlin neighborhood, and at our sixth meeting with the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, we did get that letter of support from that R.A.. Post resume. We continue to plan on meeting with these Hornets and individuals to get their feedback on what the actual design of these units will look like. Finally in closing, I just want to mention that most everybody knows that development in this neighborhood is inevitable. It's already happening. But we can do it in a more responsible manner. Our proposed rezoning is aligned with the city's planning documents, which call for greater diversity of residential dwelling units in an area in and around neighborhoods with greater access to transit. This proposal also seeks to minimize displacement by providing more attainable units that are significantly more in line with the existing neighborhood character. And finally, I'd just like to say, as was mentioned earlier, we are in a housing crisis. I'm also a licensed realtor. Before I came down here today, I checked the MLS to see how many available units were active online. There were 314 in all the county of Denver. All we're asking for is one additional unit that would currently be allowed by the current zoning, as Councilman Hines mentioned earlier. A gentle density might be appropriate. I think that word speaks well here. Thanks. Would also be more taking. The time we have allotted speaker. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move on line. And our first speaker joining us via Zoom is Weston Snyder. Go ahead, please. Weston. You're going to have to unmute yourself. It looks like you're unmuted. We have westerns, audio. Listen, we have you unmuted. Okay. Well, China is Western speaking or. Okay. We'll go ahead and try to come back to Weston if there's some problem. We'll go next to Beverly Bravo. Hi. My name is Beverly Bravo, and I live in Denver, Colorado. I own a property in Overland Park and. I support the application because I think that it is going to be a good, soft manner of providing more density in a transportation corridor and. It will be nicer than those duplexes that are going up. Sorry, I can't seem to get my video right. They're going to be smaller. You know, single family. And hopefully they'll be more affordable for and support home ownership. And like Neil said, the. The. Development seems to be inevitable. And it but it could be done it could be done in a nicer fashion than those huge kind of somewhat ugly duplexes that have been populating the whole area. So, again, I own a house in Overland and I do support the application for this zoning. And that's all. All right. Thank you. We're going to try to go back to Weston Snyder. Was going to ask me about. Western it showing that you're unmuted. Okay. Is that better? Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Perfect. My name is Weston Snyder and I own 1904 South Huron Street with my wife, Cleo Castelluccio. And we oppose the zoning change. I lived in a neighborhood prior that had some of the units that Neil Sheehan was using in one of his presentations. I was at 1240 South Pennsylvania Street, and the units in question were 1291 through 1295, and that neighborhood specifically was already shotgun lots. And that kind of fit with the esthetic of the neighborhood. In this situation, it's larger single family homes and duplexes, not three shotgun lots with single family homes on them. And. In my experience, we had a lot of parking issues in that neighborhood, and I think that had a lot to do with just the density of the housing, and that's going to become an issue here. We actually had to move to street permits for parking in that area. And another thing I've noticed is that our current zoning, we haven't even begin to touch what's available there as far as growth. So I don't see the need to move to a further dense plan than what we're already using. That's all I have. Our next speaker this evening is Mara SHAPIRO. Can you hear me? Yes. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. My name is. My name is Mary Schapiro. I live at 1977, South Huron, and they lived at this address for more than 40 years. So I'm very vested in the neighborhood. I would like to speak against the proposal to rezone the property in 1974, in 1990, South Huron. This proposal was originally presented in 2019, but with was but was withdrawn shortly afterwards because at that time the city's community planning office indicated they probably would not be able to support it, since it was inconsistent with Blueprint Denver plans. The idea behind Blueprint Denver is that if changes are to be made to the zoning, it should not be for just one or two specific addresses, but only if there is an established pattern in the surrounding blocks. There is not an established pattern for smaller lots in Oberlin North. The character and pattern of lot sizes in Oberlin North is larger lots. I would like to present a fact based reason not to accept the zoning change. We live in a floodplain. I was on the Colorado Demat team for over ten years. Demat is the Disaster Medical Assistance Team. I was deployed to Texas for Hurricane Harvey in 2017. It was determined that a major reason for the flooding and damage that happened in Houston from Hurricane Harvey was because Houston has been so built up with buildings and cement. There is no place for the water to go. Overland Park hasn't flooded since 1965 and that is why Chatfield Dam was built. But we still are in the flood plain from Harvard Gulch. We continue to pay for flood insurance only once since I have lived here. Has the river swelled. And when that happened, the water almost reached the bike path and passed Grinnell's landing. Why do we want to repeat the same mistake made in Houston in our neighborhood by increasing the buildings and cement and Mother Nature to cause flooding here. The comment could be made, but we're only changing the lot. Size of two lots. That won't really affect anything. The problem with that comment is that once the zoning is changed at one address, it will set a precedent. And when the next developer wants to change the zoning and another address, that developer would be able to say, You've already changed it once. Why can't we do it again? It won't have much of an impact. The Denver Post analysis in 2018 found that green space in Denver is disappearing faster than in most other cities, with paved over coverage increasing from 19% of the city in 1974 to 48% in 2018. This deviates greatly from Denver's heritage of over a century ago of being a city within a park. We've all heard the old fable about the boiling frog in the story. A frog is placed in a large pot filled with cold water, is very content with not a care were a care in the world. Then someone comes by and fires up the burner. The water in the pot slowly begins to get warmer and warmer. But the frog is not concerned. As he finds the warmth refreshing, the heat keeps gradually rising until the frog has become so high that. A lot of groups don't go ahead and move on to our next speaker. Mara Owen. I was cut off. Hello. My name is my own. Can you hear me? Mara, we've got to get you unmuted in chambers. Go ahead, please. Hello. You can hear me now? Yes. Wonderful. Hello. My name is Mara Owen. I live in Denver on the 2200 block of South Acoma. And I'm the current president of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association. I'd like to give some additional context around the open letter of support for this rezoning. Neil Shay with Vision Acquisitions first attending our monthly meeting in July of 2019. We requested at that time that he return to another meeting to allow neighbors advance notice for the talk. But the topic would be discussed and for us to send out notes for his presentation so anyone interested could attend. As we do with all of our meetings, we emailed out a detailed met list for anyone who missed the meeting who could find out what would happen. Neal presented again at the September 2019 monthly meeting and requested a letter of support. All 20 members of our organization present at that meeting voted unanimously in support of the rezoning, which at that time was proposed from Etsy to YouTube, with the caveat that we required a good neighbor agreement to ensure the plans presented for three smaller square footage homes would be followed through on knowing that the designation still allowed for the duplex building form at this September 2019 meeting. We also informed Neil that he should reach out to Nunes, since he had not yet done so, which he did thereafter. Shortly in October of 2019, Neil presented to open a another three times monthly meetings in August of 2020, October 2020, and most recently in January 2022 at the October 2020 monthly meeting. Neil informed us of the rezoning had changed from requesting to be to ESU, which would remove the need for a good neighbor agreement to enforce the building form that would actually be constructed as three smaller square footage homes versus duplex. Another discussion was and a vote was taken for the new request and again passed unanimously with 15 members in attendance. As a side note, our organization does not submit letters of support or opposition if there's no consensus at the meetings. At all meetings. Healthy conversation around the proposal occurred prior to any vote, and the following main points were discussed multiple times when deciding to vote in favor. Smaller lots allow for more units overall and support smaller footprint homes which, even if they have the same price per square foot as a larger home, can be more affordable simply because of the reduced square footage, regardless of the eventual architecture. This is especially important since affordability is relative and even prices for existing homes in our neighborhood are well above what most current owners would consider accessible. It fit in to neighbors ideas of our community as a more inclusive and accessible place to live. It also reflected the need to provide more housing in general, and the trend of smaller, new dealer families, instead of providing larger square footage is simply a different way to provide the same number of bedrooms. But more housing options equals more flexibility in the idea of the electric nature of our neighborhood comes from diversity in both people and housing stock, and we are proud to have Victorian style homes situated right next to mid-century modern homes, row homes and duplexes all in the same neighborhood. And this would further added diversity of housing options. If anyone would like more information on the Overland Park Neighborhood Association to read our meeting minutes or we'd like to sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date, please visit. Denver Got word? Anyone and everyone are welcome to attend meetings. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sean Mulcahy. Right. Do we have Shaun moved into the queue? This is Sean. Go ahead, please. Yes, sir. My name is Sean Mulcahy. I live at 1993, South Huron, and I've owned this. I've lived at this property for 16 years. I love the neighborhood. I. I oppose. I oppose the proposition. I believe that there's enough density here. I'm worried about. Traffic. And that's pretty much what I have. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Sean. Our next speaker joining us online is Terry Pasqua. Okay. Terry, we have you in the queue. You're going to have to unmute. Okay. Go ahead, please. Hi. Thank you, Madam President, and members of City Council. My name is Terry Pascale, and I'm here with my husband, Paul. The Door. We live at six or six Westall Avenue, three blocks from the subject property. And this is our joint statement. Homeowners in the hood for 14 years and active members of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association. Not for ten years. We are for the rezoning in order to promote more discussion of affordable single family homes, four wells with no shared walls, which allows for windows and light on all sides. We would also like to state the obvious process for voting in support of this stunning change was fair, equitable and consistent with its well established and communicated practices. As its former. Secretary, I can. Attest office meeting agendas are mailed out in advance to several hundred neighbors and detailed minutes from each monthly meeting are also sent out to the same list. Notices are posted on Facebook and the minutes are also posted on our website at the Denver dot org. Those of us who are actively involved with Ana wish that a lot more neighbors would pay attention to such zoning requests, participate in our meetings, become voting members, and to share their opinions when it's most timely and most effective. One comment we've heard from neighbors is their concern of increased density. As far as we know, every new development that has taken place during the past few years has already added to an increase in density. But where we're located next to South Platte River and with the largest open green space in Denver right outside our doors, a little added density in the hood does not affect the overall living experience. And regarding affordability, this rezoning, by the time these small single family homes are built, we can assume a price around 600,000 based on the recent shared will townhomes on the same block, Zillow estimates around 800,000. Still, we expect the new homes to be offered about 200, 250,000 or more below the large duplexes. That would not require any rezoning. As such, affordability is relative and it's not in our control. By not approving this change, the developer will be able to move forward and build a duplex up to 55 feet wide. And if our neighbors are okay with building bigger and more expansive duplexes as tradeoffs for less density than we can understand, but we respectfully disagree by approving this change, it would it would allow for detached single family homes on smaller lots, which would add more variety of choices and more affordability. In fact, we feel that this and also the YouTube rezoning of our some of our large lots would best serve our greater Denver community needs and is in accordance with Blueprint Denver. If you want to support smaller, more affordable and available single family homes, we strongly request that you support this proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views and this joint statement. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sheryl Peterson. Going, General, good eating mothers, president and city council members. I am a homeowner homeowner on South U.S. Street, which is the same block where the developer wants to rezone the too much to increase the density. They are strongly against the city council voting tonight to allow. I see a dangerous precedent set in a neighborhood where city planners previously determined that the large flats in our small 20 block enclave of Overland Park could take up to two dwelling units for side. I have three areas conserved in our neighborhood. The increase of density allows for more cars. More parking concerns. Currently, the zoning allows for the existing single family. Large blocks be redeveloped into two dwelling units. The proposal in front of me tonight is to build three dwelling units, which would increase the density for those two blocks from the existing to the proposed by 300% and increase from the existing two. The current zoning in place by 150%. That's a lot. We live right up against the Platte River. This area is in the floodplain and residents are required to carry flood insurance. More density beyond what is allowed would increase the extreme stress on flooding issues. The precedent would it would set would create others to try to rezone the remaining large swaths 45 feet of water, which would attack the systems in the neighborhood even more. If rezoning is a consideration with the planning department, why are they doing a study to determine if this is appropriate and come up with a plan to present it to the complete neighborhood, including our small area of Overland Park? I've always thought that the city planners have made sound decisions to protect the fabric of the neighborhoods and not make decisions that favor one person over the homeowners. I'm a bit surprised that it has gone through our current system this far. I'm confused by the rezoning. Of the Planning Commission. To support this and to put it in front of the City Council. Please vote against the rezoning proposal and direct the developer to work within the current zoning. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jack Ron. Am I on, as we say? Yes. Okay. Madam President. And members of. Council, this is a regular sort of question for council. With tremendous demand for housing at generally unaffordable prices and supply side interest in this market opportunity. You're going to find neighbors for and against, depending on what they think the impact will be for them, since the knowledgeable members of the Zoning Commission overwhelmingly recommended in favor of the change. Before you hear, I assume that the general new urban view of how the proposal and the neighborhood match from a planning perspective was behind their informed decision. The quasi judicial responsibility. Before you again is, I hope, uncomplicated on its merits. I speak for the zoning change because the proposed use agrees with the historic building. Forms in the neighborhood I've lived. In for the past 40 plus years. Single family homes on single lots. It was the need for greater density, which this zoning recommendation would accomplish to accommodate demand and limit sprawl. That. Caused the longstanding R one zoning, which this, until the recent zoned form based zoning, came on line to be changed to two units per lot at these addresses, and also supportive of the two independent developers who partnered to develop these properties they currently own and opted to build six homes that by definition more closely matched the immediately surrounding properties rather than the two duplexes addressable under the current zoning. They have reached out to all applicable R.A. and have received the endorsement of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, largely by appealing to new urban design practices and making American Dream home and property ownership as affordable as possible. With modest. Dwellings on discrete properties. Six Home owning families are a positive addition. To our neighborhood in terms of the. Architectural similarity. The zoning would now require the the powerful stabilizing stakes that these neighbors would have in the health of their area, as expressed by the large participation of people testifying this evening and entry price. Points that. Mitigate the alienation of gentrification. Please support the request to change our neighborhood associations will certainly invite them to become activists in one. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Frank Peterson. And Frank, we have you joining via phone, I believe so. You'll have to. Ask us. To unmute. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you, Madam President and Council. Appreciate the opportunity to to at least share my voice. My name is Frank Peterson. I reside at 1900 South Shore on. And I'm vehemently opposed to changing the rezoning to allow three individual homes on one lot in our neighborhood. This would. Create six homes where there are currently. Two. That's a you know, if I do the math, it's a 200% increase in the number of buildings and the number of people that will be residing in those buildings. This is not good for our community in overland and in our direct area. It is only good for the developer. No one knows what's going to be built and what it's going to look like. So that's kind of hard to to say that and be realistic. Creating this additional density to our block would create over the top parking issues a crowded. Street where there are currently. Drive thru traffic issues as it is scheduled to run here on is a cut through for many. This sets a very bad precedent to flood our neighborhood with additional buildings. These are not affordable housing. As the developer said, they're going to be 600 to $750000. So that's really not, in my mind an argument. And the floodplain issue is huge. Thank you very much. That's all I've got. Thank you. Our next speaker is Pete Helfer. Okay. Pete, you're going to have to mute, please. There we go. Yeah. I would like to speak in support of the rezoning application. I own a property a few blocks south on Gallup. They go up and down there. I and I sent a letter to you all down there in that block, in particular, those couple of blocks south of Evans. We've really seen a lot of these scrapes and rebuilds of these of these big duplexes. And, you know, I think that would probably be the standard development tactic for for these larger lots, you know, if they aren't allowed to be, as Mr. Shays sat down, zoned into smaller parcels for some smaller homes and increased for them, you know, to live in units to three, you know, was not that great. And, you know, the city is facing affordable housing crisis. As I said in my letter, I don't think anything new construction is going to be, you know, truly affordable without some kind of subsidy. But this is going to be at the lower end of the market. And my experience with Mr. Dickson is that he's going to make them zero net energy to and, you know, infill density is is kind of on a par with energy efficiency in the structure itself. It's sort of they go together. Otherwise, you know, the option becomes sprawl. You know, one more household has to go out to Douglas County or up to Morrisville or something. Sorry, you know, Erie. So, so I'm in support of this. It's not that great of an increase. And the proposal I saw did have garages planned so they'd be, you know, at least provided some of their own parking. And, you know, and I also like to point out the you know, the city has ambitious climate action goals that are getting adopted and the new green building code that's being adopted, plus all the discussion about looking at Adus citywide. You know, all of these are are you know, you're not going to go buy a 7000 foot house bill or ward and build, you know, one little house on that. The only way to do it is to have, you know, rezoning slightly smaller land to make it where the math even seems close to working out. So that's all. And thank you for letting me call him from my warm living room. Thank you. Our next speaker is Helene or. Go ahead, please. Okay. Hello. Thank you. Members of city council are coming out, being here on this bitter cold night. My name is Helene or I live at Fox and Jewel in the Oberlin North neighborhood. I've lived here for 40 years and loved every minute of it. I oppose the zoning change, and on behalf of the neighbors of Overland North as their president, I would like to mention that we also voted to oppose the change. I have yet to hear a truly compelling argument for the zoning change. Our existing zoning need to see permits two units, either a large duplex or two single family homes currently. That is, in our view, plenty of density that we are absorbing right now in the neighborhood without raising it by a third to three houses and. Increasing density people talk about quite a bit as though it's intrinsically a good thing. I don't agree with that. I think increasing density without true affordability and forgive me. 600,000. 700,000. 800,000. 900,000. Or not in any way affordable. And I'm thinking of all the people who cannot afford to buy a home or even afford the rent in a home on a bitter night like tonight. So this is not really helping the housing crisis, in my view. In Denver. And there are no provisions for affordability in this zoning rezoning and there is no plan. So to me, from where I stand at the heart of my neighborhood that I love, what I see is an attempt to just do zoning by patchwork and haphazard. Here. They're here. They're here. They're and at best, that's what it is. And at worst, I feel like it's trying to change the entire zoning for our neighborhood and sneaking it through the back door. Blueprint Denver is very clear and I'm going to read from the same passage to Sara read from earlier. It's a departure from the established pattern may be appropriate if the request includes a larger area, generally greater than one block, and the intent is to set a new pattern for the area as expressed by an adopted small area plan or significant. If neighborhood input neither of which we have and also. The original planner who looked at this application said it was not consistent with adopted plans or blueprint for Denver, and so that there would need to include almost the entire area, have community meetings where neighbors are in agreement. About changing the zone. We have no agreement. Okay. No. As for the zoning, noone is against the zoning. We have no agreement. We have no plan. This is not how to do zoning. We need a plan and we would be happy to work with anyone to provide a plan for you. That's the time we have allotted for each speaker. Our next speaker is Robert Lovell. Robert Greenwood, go ahead, please. Robert Lavelle. Hi. And hello. And thank you to all the members of City Council. My name is Robert Lavelle, and I'm in favor of this proposal. My wife and I have lived in our home at 46 West Jill Avenue since 2012. We've benefited from the investments that the city developers and individuals have made in our surrounding community. We love the variety and unique character that our neighborhood contains. In addition to a diverse housing stock, our neighborhood consists of local businesses along Evans and South Broadway amenities such as the Overland Park Golf Course, the South Platte River Trail, and the RTD Light Rail at Evans Station. My wife is the former president or co-president of Optum and myself are both in favor of this rezoning request. The developer has been thorough with the community outreach. He has the support of the Over the Park Neighborhood Association. He's met with us over six times, I think, over the past three years. I drive by the required rezoning request and just as every day he's been accessible by phone and email and willing to discuss the rezoning request with me. I feel that this is a thoughtful approach to development and one which respects the existing character of the neighborhood, which does have small homes, medium sized homes, does have large duplexes. It's a mixture. And it also would increase the density in this area, which is something that the city needs, but that this area can support with the bike path and the RTD nearby. It is a transit rich area. And I the new development will encourage smaller residential units which will be significantly more affordable than the larger slightly out of place boxes, the duplexes that have become prevalent in all new construction. I believe that we you know, this should be approved. I'm in favor of it because it will increase the diversity of the housing stock, which will also improve the architectural and socio economic diversity of the neighborhood, resulting in a stronger, more organic neighborhood fabric. As prices in Denver continue to rise. This is the type of thing that is needed. These are creative solutions to incentivize more attainable housing. And I believe that this rezoning request would result in that more single family homes in the neighborhood at a more affordable price. And for those reasons, I'm in favor of this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Simon Fellows. There we go. This is Simon, fellows. I'm a 1967 South Huron Street. I live opposite proposed rezoning. Um, we've had a great opportunity to listen and meet with both the neighborhood associations and the developer prior to the meeting. There's been a lot of healthy debate around it. There were two concerns that we have. One is firstly that we've been offered, but it seems to me by the developer as a stark choice between very ugly, giant duplexes or these very charming little tiny houses that are going to sit on 3000 square foot lots. Um, we don't have any say in what they're actually going to end up putting up there. But, um, you know, it does seem a little bit biased in the way that presenting. I very much doubt that the choice is between a big, ugly duplex and three beautiful detached homes. Either way, we know the development's going to happen, and we really hope that we can rely on the integrity of the developers in whichever solution is permitted. But we are opposed to three. We think that two is better, and the issue for that for us is really density on that street. Um, directly opposite, opposite us. In the last 12 to 18 months, we've seen six new dwellings go up. There's a further duplex, two dwellings under construction on the end. So in 1974 and 1990, what you're proposing is a further six new buildings on that same street. The net increase to that st in the period over the last few years basically means 8 to 10 new dwellings on the same side of one single street, practically doubling the number of dwellings there in the blink of an eye. We have we we actually think that that like this this gentle densification is not gentle at all. It's actually pretty abrupt. And the additional units that are going in there is further exacerbating that issue. We also understand and again, the the initial outline given by Sarah, I believe it was, was very technical in how it considered the blueprint for Denver. We don't really kind of understand how it fully fit with the blueprint for Denver and that all changes think the changes to the land use to include three three units per lot has been properly considered. Anyway, um we're very concerned about that would set the for the development of the whole area and that that may not have been considered fully enough. As such, we'd like to just register our opposition to the proposed rezoning and thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Laurie Paulson. Go ahead, please. Laurie, you're going to have to unmute. Okay. Laurie, you're going to have to unmute. Okay. You're unmuted, Laura. Go ahead, please. Okay. We're not able to hear Laurie. And so. Are you able to hear Laurie in the Zoom platform? Okay. All right. Or have you check your audio, Lori, and see if we can get you back in the queue. Next we have. Bryan Montoya. All right. And it looks like we don't have. Bryan Montoya as an attendee. And so we'll go ahead and move on. Then we have Estancia Montoya. And I know we've got a stent in because we had seen her. You'll have to. Hello? Can you hear me? All right. And actually, I do have three on my way here with me. She could speak after. She can have her time. Something must be going on with your side. But I'm opposed to this zoning change. I think that if this is something that we think needs to be done in that is needed to be more density and more planning for our neighborhoods, then it should go through the proper channels instead of going through a back door, as it's been said before. I know the opener said that they had like 15 to 20 members for this, but let's just look at like 15 to 20 members is about 1 to 2% of what our neighborhood is also nil. The developer said that him and his team, I believe, have been out and about the neighborhood. I've lived in this neighborhood for 40 years. It's a five block radius. We are surrounded by the Platte River, the oldest golf course west of the Mississippi and the Santa Fe Highway. And then. There's only two ways to get into this neighborhood and in or out of this neighborhood. The density that Simon just brought up, especially on Huron Street, is has doubled. And going from right now, Neil can build two houses. So I kind of feel that is he's saying, hey, I can either build these two big houses or let me have these three little ones. If he truly cares about the characteristic and the good of this neighborhood, then he can continue to build the characteristic houses that he wants and build two of them and still, you know, be true to the neighborhood. I've personally walked around this neighborhood recently in the last couple of weeks to speak to our neighborhood to see who's known about this. And it was a surprise to me that so many people did not know about this zone change or had a full good understanding of what was really going on. So I don't really feel that Neil's team has truly gone out and about, decides going to open and maybe noon to let them know. But nobody's come around to any of them. And I spoke to I believe you guys have a probably about I know I seen there was like over 45 letters against this. So I'm just asking that city council, you guys were voted in by the community and the community is reaching out to you, letting you know that this is not a good decision for our neighborhood and that if we want to go down this route, let's go through the proper channels. Let's not go through this backdoor of trying to get this changed for one or two lots. I live this neighborhood and going from, you know, 2 to 3 on one lot is going to just the density is going to be intense there. We already see the density from the new apartments that we've embraced in our neighborhood. In a five blocks neighborhood, we've embraced two apartment complexes. So I'm just asking that city council listen to the community and vote against this rezoning change and allow Neil to continue to build either two small homes or a duplex. All right. Thank you, Estancia, for your comments. And it sounded like Bryan Montoya was with you as well. Yeah. Can I give her the phone? Yes. And if she can, just make sure and introduce herself. For the public record. We appreciate that. Hi. My name is Brianne montoya. I have been a member of both O'Connor and Noone. I am currently a new member and I feel that it is more community based and O'Connor has been more of a high real estate agent, developer, member base. If you notice, the people that support this zone change are not individuals that actively live in the neighborhood but may own a property there. There are many homes that are being built currently. I, you know, I know in Reunion and in Brighton there's homes that are being built for $400 housing, which are more affordable than the ones he's proposing and that that are. It feels very privileged for Neal to not abide by the laws of the land and want special privileges to monopolize on the area which he won't be occupied. I grew up in this neighborhood and watched the traffic has increased, which near a park is a hazard for kids and people walking their dogs. But it's also just like a parking hazard and the fact that this neighborhood is developing. No matter what, we could still control how much it increases over time. And so I just I opposed and this was. I oppose and asked the city council to not support this privileged very. You know, back door type of monopoly. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go back and see if we can get Laurie Paulson into the queue before we move on to our next few speakers. And Laura, you're going to have to unmute yourself. Okay. Go ahead, Laurie, please. Okay. We're not hearing any audio. And so we've tried a couple of times there. Laurie, I'm sorry about that. We're going to go ahead and move on to Emily Granado. Okay. It doesn't look like we have Emily with us, Cathleen Dugan. Can you hear me okay? We have Kathleen with us. I am Kathleen do again. I live in 1947, so a lot of street and I have been here since 1998. I adamantly opposed the rezoning of this neighborhood of those particular two lots, 1974 and 1990, South Huron. Well, I would love to see affordable housing. I would love that the growth caused by Neil, the developer, is not affordable. And that is the proposed cost, the expected cost. Now, what it will be when the project is absolutely actually finished is a whole different story. In addition to the lack of affordability of housing, the density brings increased traffic. We already have significant traffic issues in this little neighborhood of ours. As Simon mentioned, we have people coming through. We also have golf course traffic. And I don't know about the rest of the neighbors, but there have been multiple times that I have felt like my life has been risk because of people speeding down the road. But the increased people comes the increased traffic turning into the neighborhood is already difficult with the new apartment buildings that we've had. There are so many reasons, in addition to everything else that everybody else has said in opposition to this, I am against it and I would encourage the City Council to vote against the rezoning. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. And our last speaker this evening is Laurel Guardado. Go ahead, Laurel. Okay. We're getting more moved over. Do we have? Laurel moved over. Go ahead, Laurel, please. Okay. For whatever reason, we're not able to hear the audio for Laurel. And so you're going to have to unmute. Laurel, please. Hi there. Good evening. Go ahead. Madam President, thank you for your time. I apologize. Okay. I didn't realize I was going to be speaking, and I had sent an email earlier. Yes, I born and raised in Overland North. And I you know, I have witnessed firsthand a. And you know, just how there are more and more people. And I'm just concerned with. The gentrification issues that we have. I know. People won't be able to afford these homes. And that is my main concern this evening. Okay. Thank you, Laurel. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 20 20016. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to all the speakers who spoke tonight. I have a few questions probably for Sarah and then also maybe for you, Nate. So this is. Technically a down zoning. And so how often do we have something like this? That's a great question. I think it's hard to say. I don't have a number in my head, but I'll just reiterate that we evaluate rezoning requests as they come in. And with evaluating this one, we look at lots of the small area plan guidance. And even though it may be considered a downsizing per say in terms of single family units, there's still the opportunity for additional units to happen or additional housing to occur in the area. If this is approved tonight and say then the owner changes his mind and wants to do something different or sells it to someone else, could they then reason it back to the original sound district, the ETU? Another great question is that so if someone came in with that proposed rezoning request, I think we would evaluate it as it is, considering that the surrounding zoning is predominantly it's you see that zoned district already? I would I would say that there would be a likelihood that it would meet the criteria. Okay. And so it seems like most of the neighbors who are opposed to it were concerned about the number of units. And when I look at your PowerPoint, you've got I don't know what I did with it. There it is. It the current zoning would allow for duplexes and ADU. Is that correct? Yes. So on each of the existing lots under the current zoned district, could they actually have three units, a duplex plus 182? Yes. So unfortunately with the duplex, adu use aren't allowed to be built. So the maximum amount of numbers that could happen today would be four units would either be a duplex on each side, so two units on each, or it could be a single family home and an Adu. So kind of any combination would still equal a maximum for for today. That would be a ladder. Or a tandem house. Yes. Or tandem house. Okay. And then a lot of the neighbors mentioned a lot of other new development in the neighborhood. The last speaker spoke about spoke about gentrification. Do do we know have any of those been rezonings or people just scraping houses and building larger houses? Do you imagine that? But I would like to say, at least in the neighborhood that we're considering now, pretty much all of that new development has been under existing entitlements, under the existing zone districts of E2. So I think people mentioned a lot of duplexes going up, which is already loud today. Mm hmm. All right. I think that's all I have for now. This is a very interesting proposal. And I will save my comments for later. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Black, Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I agree with Councilwoman Black. It's a very interesting rezoning application. So if this passes, is there any additional procedure or process or paperwork needed to divide into the three lots? Yes, there would be a process for that to do us a lot of amendment. But this zoning would require that to be done. Yes. That well, depending on what is planned for the property. So with this rezoning, it would be zoned to ESU a. But the property owner could still build a single family home on the entire lot if they wanted to. So it would allow the single family house. But on the minimums, a lot size. It doesn't have a necessarily like a maximums, a lot size. So they could just not do a lot amendment and do a thing like one single family home or potentially, I think two single family homes. Right. And then they'd be able to again build two homes and two way to use. So the idea is would not be allowed under this. Proposal because of the zoning laws. Yeah, it is the only the urban house building form. But you said they could build two houses. Single family houses. If so, that would involve the same idea of the Zomlot amendment. So I think when we looked at this evaluation that's looking at kind of the full potential of what could occur under the proposed zoning. So I know I talked a lot about, you know, the potential for three units, but that is just the potential of what could happen in terms of maybe the maximum number of units that could occur. So they're not required to divide the lot into three, 3000 square foot units. So they're allowed to. Be allowed to with the smaller lot. Size. Okay. Thank you for that. I hate to put you through this. Could you go to slide 18, please? Don't try this at home, kids. Hmm. This is just the right one. Yes, it is. So the future place says predominantly single in two unit uses on small or medium lots. And when you were talking about this slide, you said it. Gave plan support for three. And I'm just trying to understand that. So under the proposed zone district it still would be single unit uses. So it would still allow the single unit use, so it'd be the single unit use which would allow the single family homes, I guess. Gotcha. Thank you very much. I this is something I doubt you've figured out. I'm wondering, you know, there's a few people talked about concerns over the loss of green space. And I'm just trying to figure what the difference is if someone builds a big duplex on the site or, you know, it's divided into three smaller homes. I didn't personally do an analysis of that, but I know there is a requirement of kind of the zone lot coverage or a maximum coverage that can happen on that. So I would have to say, yeah, but we don't know the square feet of that. Okay. The on the homes that could be built and this may be for Mr. Shay. I'm not sure. I'm just wondering about the size of the homes. Would you be able to go on a 3000 square foot lot? Can you map Max out on the height? The allowable height is a 30 or 35 on on a. It believe, leave us 35 feet or two, two and a half stories for that area. I would have to double check. Do you know if that narrow width allows you to max out that height? Trying to figure out what what type of square foot gets built? That could be a great question. Mr.. Shaking You answer that question, sir. And I'll just reiterate that we don't necessarily evaluate the development itself, just the proposed standards. I understand. He might be able to answer questions. On. Thank you, sir. And sir, before you leave the podium, would you, if you wouldn't mind, introduce yourself for the public record before Mr. Shave, and then he can introduce himself. So I'm sick, of course. Senior city planner with community planning and development. Great. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, could you repeat your question? Yeah. So you talked about if you build the big duplex 55 feet wide, they'd be, I think you said 900,000 apiece, something like that. And I'm wondering what kind of size gets built on a 3000 square foot lot? How big a home you can build on that? Gotcha. Okay. Realistically, it could go 1600, a little over 1700 square feet. It's an interesting question because we've been tracking an initiative that I believe has been discussed recently in this council, and that is the Expanding Housing Affordability Initiative. One of the interesting points of that initiative is there is a linkage being that's going to be potentially charged to developers for these smaller projects. And the interesting thing about it is it specifically mentioned 1600 square feet as a differentiating factor if units that are 1600 square feet or below are built. The linkage fee is $4 per square foot, and that fee goes towards the building of affordable housing. However, if it's above 1600, it goes to $7. So this initiative is really kind of focusing on the intent of building smaller structures. So I think 1600 I can't say for sure if that's where we'll land, but I think it's an interesting target to try to meet, especially if this initiative passes. And is that two and a half stories? Yes, that could go up to two and a half. You would be okay. That's. That's fine. Let's see if I have anything else. Well, now, that's all my questions. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. And Mr. Chair, would you introduce yourself for the for the public record as well? Yes. Neil Shay, the applicant. 1625 South Lincoln. Great. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Sarah, is it is it really a down zoning if in fact, we're creating an entitlement for 50% more user units? It seems like an up zoning. So, yeah. I'm Sarah, of course, senior city planner. And I think this down zoning is a very interesting question. I think it could be depending on how you define that. But I'll just reiterate again that this the proposed district would allow only single family homes. Right. That could allow up to two additional units. I'm just not today. Okay. Can I ask you to as just speak a little maybe raise the mic? I'm having a little trouble. Everybody speaking softly tonight. Org's my tonight is I either take your pick. What's the you know the front footage of these lots I believe the lots in this subdivision are 25 feet and these are three lots. Each of these two addresses are three lots. Three lots on the subdivision. So they'll be 75 feet. Am I. Correct? Yes, I think the frontage is around 75 feet. So they would meet the minimum frontage requirement for a potential zone, not amendment for three units on each line. Right in askew, etc.. Yes. Right. And so I wanted to follow up on Councilman Cashman's line because I'm not quite sure I understood the answer. Maybe Neal can help also with the side setbacks and the bulk playing when you're putting the bulk plane in the side setbacks, etc.. Could you really go two and a half stories on a 25 foot frontage? That might be a question for Neil. I don't. Know, Mr. Ashby. Have you plotted that out within the building envelope for ESU? A. That seems awfully narrow. I say this as someone who grew up in a little stone house on a 25 foot front lot right now. That's an interesting question. And Kevin, my partner, and I were discussing this with a duplex. Mom, two and a half stories is probably a lot more attainable. Because you're right, because you have no side step back between the two. Rec and you can actually go up to 35 feet. I don't think we'll get to 35 feet. But you think you could do two and a half stories on a 25 foot line? I think you could potentially get there. But like I said, it's really more the actual height. Two stories. Absolutely. How much use that half stories we're going to have could be pretty marginal. Sounds like a two story shotgun shack. Well, the idea is to have these is attainable and accessible. Okay. Let me see a Sarah. I'm having some difficulty accepting that this is consistent with adopted plans. And so maybe you can talk a little bit more about that. The evidence station area plan recommends a minimum lot size of 4500 square feet. The current zoning doesn't even allow that. The current zoning is 5500 square feet, minimum lot size. So without a zoning change at all, we could not even build two single family units on a split 9000 square foot lot. Is that am I correct in that? Not to repeat yourself. Okay. The current zoning e t you c urban edge ten unit c the minimum lot size is 5500 square feet. So we have two 9000 square foot lots. It seems to me that without a zoning change, the owners could not even build, could not split the lots and build two because it would only be 4500 square feet. So I guess my question is, was the owner advised perhaps to look at E. S U b, which would allow a minimum loft size of 4500 rather than A, which is 3000? Yeah. So again, it's there, of course, your city planner all kind of go back to, I think, what Mira Owen had said earlier through her public comments, or they had mentioned that originally the property owner had came to I had come to a and was thinking about rezoning into a different zoned district. And I think that was the one that you just mentioned. So E2 B And they were going to acquire a good neighbor agreement with that. And the good neighbor agreement was to require single family homes and not two unit or duplexes. So that I know was the conversation was already brought up, but the rezoning request that came in was for ESU. So, you know, we're not out there recommending what people should apply and to all evaluate what request we actually get from the applicant. And then when referring back to the neighborhood plan guidance, I'll reiterate that this was not necessarily a straightforward case. There's not there's some applications that come in that don't have a very clear path. There's others that might have a very clear path. And so when evaluating this rezoning request, we looked at sort of the plan guidance in its entirety. So looking at what does Blueprint Denver say is a city wide plan as well as the seven station area plan? And how is this application consistent with it? So with the minimum 4500 square feet that you mentioned and even station area plan, it described that as the existing conditions. It didn't necessarily describe that as a requirement for proposed rezoning. So that kind of zone lot size was taken as a suggestion, in addition to looking at the densities that it recommended and the recommendation of allowing for a variety of housing types or a diversity of housing types. So looking at the combination of the plan, recommendations and strategies, that's what was found that the rezoning request could be supported by the plan guidance. Okay. That doesn't seem. That doesn't seem. Reasonable. From what I'm reading on Evans Station and Blueprint, it's in the recommendations that that small single family lots 4500 square foot minimum was even in the presentation and then in blueprint as I believe Helene or was saying let me go over the blueprint says a departure from the established lot pattern may be appropriate if the request includes a larger area generally greater than one block. This is only six. Subdivision lots within that entire block on two parcels. And then where the intent is to set a new pattern for the area as expressed by an adopted small area plan. The adopted small area plan says 4500 square feet or significant neighborhood input. So I'm having trouble accepting that, that this is consistent with that these adopted plans either blueprint, horse or even station. But I appreciate the explanation. If single family homes have been the historic pattern and many of the proponents, the supporters of the request say that taking away the entitlement for duplex because they're all turning out way too big way to gentrifying it. And this is the reason they support this rezoning or any idea, you probably weren't around in 2010, the citywide rezoning, but why was this zoned for duplexes in in their entirety at all, if that was the historic pattern? Do you have any view toward the the historic reasons for that? I can't honestly speak to the zoning today, but I can speak to the fact that Blueprint Denver, the citywide plan, had, you know, extensive outreach and coordination and came up with the recommendations it has today. But looking back to the zoning, how the zoned and I you know, you could speculate that potentially it's because it was within proximity to a light rail transit station and other public amenities. Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. That's all I have. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilor Pro Tem Torres, thank you so. Much. Two questions I have actually for Mr. Shay. Hi, Neal. Hi. So the resident who lives in between the two properties, I didn't see their name. In either the support or opposition lists. What was the engagement. With with that. Resident. Mr. Phelps? Actually, initially. Can you hear me? Yes. Initially, he was going to be part of the rezoning. He is in support of it. I think he's been out of town recently. An important distinction on his lot is it's a much smaller lot. It's 60 to 50. He could only do he couldn't do three of these single family homes. He could only do a duplex. If I remember correctly, it's smaller than a 60 to 50 lot, which is actually the predominant lot size that most of these duplexes have been built on. Currently, there are a number of these larger 9000 plus square foot lots like ours. I've yet to see one of those lots to be utilized yet, but the point I was trying to showcase is due to the sheer size of our lot in the 75 foot frontage, you could go 55 feet wide on a duplex, which allows for much larger from square footage. But to your point, Mr. Phelps is a supporter. I can say that because I talked to him. He was part of our rezoning, but he was never planning on redeveloping himself. So we decided to drop him out of the rezoning. Got it. So we received a not a lot of letters of support. Fielded by the town. Since it seems like maybe a property manager. Bianca recently. Are you familiar with that effort? Yes, Bianca. She actually works with my partner. Kevin helps him in property management. So she did a lot of outreach for us as well. Okay. I think I saw, uh, two, three, four, five, six. Eight letters come through there, and it looks like they were all renters. I got a little concerned, or at least a flag was raised. Were those folks. Compensated. For writing a letter of support? Absolutely not. Now, we were very transparent with what we were doing. And as foreigners, a lot of these folks would actually like to be homeowners someday. So I'm offering a more entry level product in a neighborhood where they're already live. They could potentially be buyers for us in the future. So we were very transparent with what we were doing. There was no coercion. They gave those letters of support on their own volition. So nobody was offered $100 off of their current month's rent? No. To support. Okay. Thank you. No more questions. Okay. Thank you, Counselor Torres. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I think most of my questions have been answered and asked already by my other colleagues, so thanks for that, guys. Curious what the no vote was from planning board. Hi, sir. Of course, again, senior city planner. So with planning board, the no vote was sort of a disagreement that we don't necessarily have a requirement for the zone law amendment. So they were considering the fact that I think the point that Councilman Cashman was bringing up, the fact that they could raise on the property and then still just build one single family home, they were a proponent of kind of CPD and others exploring other processes where if a rezoning case came in like this, that there could be potentially a requirement of a zone lot amendment or or something like that. So they were, I think, identifying maybe the issue that it's not necessarily guaranteed that there will be six units or increase in housing. And so that I think that was the premise around the No Vote Planning Board. Got it. Okay. Is there a good neighbor agreement in place for this? No, there is not. Okay. So I guess I understand how it would work logistically on the corner a lot, but. If this were to if there were three single family homes, if something were if this parcel on the mid-block were to be lot split and three single family homes were to go there. How would they be accessed without essentially being at home? So the houses would be able to be built on the minimums on the size of 3000 square feet, and they'd have to meet all the minimum requirements for the building form standards, so they'd have to meet everything for the urban house building form. There is alley access in that area, so they'd still have access to the front street as well as alley access from the. Back, I believe. Got it. Okay. I think I understand now access makes makes it a little more clear. Okay. Last question is about the established pattern of lots. So I think, you know, this is unfortunately one of those situations where we have a rezoning that's coming through where an updated area plan and the NPI process would be fantastic. Here to give guidance to what's happening, unfortunately, this neighborhood doesn't get it or hasn't yet been part of the process for an NPI. So the plan is kind of old, right? The Avon Station area plan from 2009 and I think the one before that was. 1993. Yes. Okay. So I guess the established pattern of lots, which is and you mentioned it before, but I just need a little bit of clarification. Are there other parcels in the area that are zoned like this? Yes. So are we looking. To zone to the light blue or the kind of medium blue? The darker blue would sort of be that idea like to look to the darker blue for a pattern of smaller than a lot. So the darker blue is 4500 square feet or less. And for this I'll just point out that all the single unit uses are the ones that are colored in. There are other lots that do have that smaller and a lot size, but they're a different use. So they're two you don't use. Got it. Okay. So everything that's not colored in is duplex, essentially. Probably duplex or not many families or single unit use. Got it. Okay. That's it for me. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilman Sawyer. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. I have one question for Sara and one for Mr. Lucero. Now you would. You're wondering why no one's asking you a question. So I got you on deck, sir. There was a statement about backdoor deals, and there was some sinister plot that this applicant did not go through the regular chain of processes planning that any other applicant have. So I just want to put that on the record. Was there any way that this application process was different than any other person that applied for a resounding no? Okay, I knew the answer. I just want to make sure. Thank you for that. And they this this was coming up in the comments as well. Precedent, if you vote, this precedent occurs. And let me just say this. This statement that I'm about to make is incorrect. I am in no way obligated to vote on a future rezoning based off a way that I voted on a path rezoning. We judge them on their own individual merit. Is that correct? Good evening. Members of Council. Nate Lucero, Assistant City Attorney. Councilman Hernan You're absolutely correct. Each rezoning is based on the merits of that particular case. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilman Clark. Thank you. Council President. I just wanted to I know we're in the questions section and wanted to respond to a couple questions that were asked, if that's okay. To Councilman Flynn, the question on the the history of the zoning, much of this area Plat Park Rosedale I believe Councilman Cashman can correct me on that was was Park Overland all stem from the the R to not the R one zoning prior to the zoning change. There were concerted efforts in Plat Park and West Fischbach to move away from that. You still see that on some of the corridors like Pearl Street where it's where you get some t you. But largely they were rezone because there is a pattern of embedded duplexes that have been there for years and years and years within that and in overland that was not change that the. Original proposal under. That was to keep everything to move everything that was R2 directly into t u. And there was a massive down zoning as part of that process in 2010 that took a lot of R to and made it askew. But this area did not. And then Councilmember Torres, I had the same concern when I saw that email this morning. So I did email that property manager specifically asking that, and she did forward me the rest of the conversation she had with that individual. They were having two conversations. That was one was, hey, this is the project in the letter that was very similar to what was seen in some of the other ones that was sent. And then there was a conversation about rents and late fees and all of that that got conflated into one because I had the same concern . So at least what I was told and shown through the email was that there was not a compensation attached to any of the letter writing, that those two things were the were both happening in that email and we didn't see any of that because it was more personal information about rents than there was taken out. Well, that part would not. So. Just wanted to make sure that since I had that information operation forwarded that around and even think of it as I was concerned as I immediately emailed. So thank you, customers. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So I just have a couple questions. Do we feel like it's blueprint for use or do we feel like it's the intention of Blueprint Denver to have a variety of zone districts? I can say it a different way. Since I've been here, I have always been told for the past ten years CPD does not support quote unquote spot rezonings and which creates a spot on the map that's very different than the current zone district. We've been we've been shot down in northwest Denver numerous times. How is this not a spot zoning? Hi Circus City senior city planner. So to get to your question. So when we're considering rezoning requests, we evaluate them as they come in and we evaluate them against the review criteria. And this case, again, I'll reiterate, was not necessarily straightforward and it was extremely vetted to discuss how it met all the different criteria. And in the end, it was found to be consistent with the criteria. Okay. So one other question. About six months ago with CPD looking at starting a process that would talk about getting rid of single units in the districts in Denver. I'm not sure if I can speak to that or what that conversation was or who was with. But if you have any questions about the rezoning itself, I can answer those. It was this small, it was a working group. Instead of doing the addus and the equity and rezoning we're supposed to have, it's called the residential infill project. And so I think that if you can't answer it can even answer that question because that's something that has been talked about at CPD for a very long time. Hello, Councilwoman Sandoval. And good evening, councilmembers. I'm a barge with community planning and development. Yes, you're right about the residential infill project. Being a broad look at blueprint, Denver's recommendations around expanding housing options in lower scale. Residential. Neighborhoods across the city, that it doesn't specifically say there should be no single unit zoning. It just talks about expanding housing options. And we do still want to look at how we might implement those recommendations in the future. We paused that project because we had so many things going on, group living and other things were happening. There was just the much of the community. Sorry, you'll be able to hear me better if I take this discussion. We were just hearing from the community that it was hard to participate in all the things that were happening and from council as well. So that was on pause. But those recommendations are still adopted in Blueprint Denver and we would like to look at it in the future. And if and when we do, if that. Means that there would be additional housing. Options available in whatever. Zoned district the property is. Zoned, including this one. Then that there would be in the future. But for now, we're just looking, as Sarah said, at this one zoning application that we have before us. Okay. Um, one last question for you or sir, in this particular zone district. In its current form. In the current zone district, could you build a single family house and an detached accessory dwelling unit? If the owner was the owner. Not the. You can't do that with the current developer. Or can you. Sir? Can correct me if I'm wrong, but the t use zoned district would allow a single unit detached house with an accessory dwelling unit. And the current rules about that say that the person that is operating the accessory dwelling unit has to live there. Even in the T's and zone district. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right that. You're very good with zoning. So that is a use limitation that doesn't apply in that zone district. Okay. So currently right now, these lights there could still be it'd be smaller because the zone might dictate the outcome of the accessory dwelling unit, but a bigger zone that actually allows for, I think, a maximum accessory dwelling unit for a thousand. So you could have a single family home and an accessory dwelling unit on the in the current entitlement. Is that correct? Right. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And thank you for those answers. See no other members in the queue for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0016. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Council President. First, I want to give a big thank you to Sarah. And I know as we heard, this was one that CPD looked a lot at. And as we've heard up here, it's an up zone. It's a down zone, it's single-family, but it's more density. And and I appreciate CPD is really digging into this proposal and taking a look at it and in all the work they put in leading up to here. I want to thank all the people who who showed up on Zoom and came down here to speak. There are a lot of people who spoke for and who spoke against people who I know, people who I respect. And we've got, you know, a builder who hasn't put down on the gas pipes in a very long time, which is also, I think, not voluntarily before the building code gets there. So we've got a lot of really amazing, awesome people with years and years of of life and commitment to this neighborhood on both sides of this. And I think that's part of what makes this so complicated. Right? It was creative. That's why CBD had to take a look at it from a lot of different angles, because it was a creative idea and possible solution to what a lot of folks have said to me in the neighborhood who are on both sides of this tonight and that they don't like at all the curve what's currently happening. Right. The current entitlement, what's what every single lot in this community could be tomorrow with no city council vote, no public process. These huge duplexes coming as something that is is very frustrating and is not in the context of what is currently on the ground in the neighborhood. I know when we talk about rezoning, we talk about the context of what could be there, what that entitlement is, what the zoning is. And we often have a big disconnect. A lot of people also see this on Speer Boulevard in my district where we've had zoning since the fifties and sixties. That allows eight and six and ten storeys, and yet it's been single story. And all of a sudden the economy is right, apparently. And they're all being torn down and going up, you know, six, eight stories. And they're saying, wait a second, what happened? The Old City Council didn't get a vote on that. That's their use by. Right. And so I think responsive to by the applicant to this feeling that this is not what the community wants. And then looking at that play of, okay, so what what's how do you solve for that, right? How do you take a t you district in an area with an adopted station area plan that is within the station area plan for light rail that calls for a level of density, but also try to see if there's a way to preserve that historic character that's called for in the 1993 plan when it comes to single family homes. And so I just want to say thank you to everybody who took time out of their day to be here, who's been a part of this conversation in the community, because I think it's a really important conversation and I think that it is shines an even brighter light on why we need to accelerate NPI whenever we can and why this area did get identified. Hopefully you will stay there as one of the next three areas that will have a neighborhood planning initiative because it desperately needs that. We need to have this conversation about what does this look like? Because development is not only coming, it is here. We heard from one of the speakers that there are six or eight new units on one half of a block there because of the underlying entitlements and because of what's currently there. I just want to before I dove a little deeper, I want to point out a couple of things that were said that I think, you know, often there's that push and pull between what's there right now and what I want versus what could be there and what might be there under this. And those aren't always the same conflicts. And so I think sometimes we were hearing things that were saying, Hey, I don't want that. So I'm no on this zoning. That would also be that way or maybe even worse under the current entitlements we heard in in the emails in today talking about green space and flooding now to you allows you zero space shared wall in between two units where single family well there would be more of them there is spacing in between so that doesn't as we heard not necessarily mean that there's any more green space there might be less green space under the current zoning than under what is being approved and what single family homes we heard are allowed in this to you. There aren't a big enough lot size that you couldn't realistically do that. And so what we are really looking at is something that will be developed like the rest of the neighborhood is right now that's under construction into duplexes. We're not seeing people build single family homes, even though all of those that's an allowable use or a change that would make it as you and would require it to be single family homes. You couldn't build the duplex anymore. And I think that that's why there's this tension. There is a group in the neighborhood who really feels like preservation of that feeling, of that context, of that character, of single family is what's really important to preserve as development comes even at the cost of a few more people on each block, certainly, than there is now. But even then, there would be under to you versus other people saying, hey, if everything in the neighborhood were to go down and you replace it with two units, that's a lot more density. And I'm not I'm not there to say I'd rather have single family and more of them. I'm I'm barely dealing with the fact that this is a dramatic change for a block I've been on for 40 years to to double the number of units that are on it. So. All of that. Having been said, I really have struggled with this because and I've been watching this now play out in neighborhood. Conversations for. I think, over two years. And I really I really felt in the beginning, like this was a creative solution and that the the community was behind it. You heard from Opie and who voted unanimously and was involved very early and came out, said, yes, here's a solution. We instead of these massive duplexes that are enormous in square footage and are even more expensive than everything's expensive, as Councilman Herndon pointed out in committee, the existing structures that are in that neighborhood are not affordable right now with no change, a new no new development, and not the added cost of all the building materials. And and so watching that and seeing that creative solution and seeing how does this actually fit into the criteria? Can this can this work or not, even if that's what the neighborhood wants? Well, do we have plans that would support it? And then in the later stages that has converted to CPD, taking a look at it from a lot of different angles and saying, Yeah, you know what, we think this could work and providing plan support and planning board supporting it. But at the same time, another group in the neighborhood saying, you know what? This isn't what we want. And I think that that ultimately is the crux for me, is this is even if we can shoehorn it in to plans, it's not what the plan drew out. Right. The plan didn't say, hey, this could should be either single family with a super small lots or duplexes. We didn't have that conversation. I mean, to have that conversation, certainly not in 1993. And we didn't have that conversation when the oven station area plan was there. And I think that had this been able to catalyze that community conversation and been brought forward with broad community consensus, never going to be unanimous and everyone agreeing. But but really, the community saying, yes, I understand the tradeoffs. And this is more in line with what that vision was. Even if that's not specifically how the plan envisioned it, then I think that argument that this meets those plans and is something that meets the criteria for us to vote on rezoning is there. But in the end it didn't. In the end we got, you know, a lot more people reaching out, saying that they were opposed to this than were supportive of it. And I think that that means that really I think that this could be a vision for the neighborhood. And again, I appreciate all the work that went into trying to look at something that a group in the neighborhood was saying, this is we want something different. But it's it's shown that we are ahead of that NPI process that is coming in the next 18 months that has that were that conversation has to be had and it has to be had, you know, with a bunch of people who don't agree on the vision right now for where their neighborhood is to arrive on, what is this going to be? Are we going to preserve single family and increase density, or are we giving up on that single family character? And we have the density from the duplexes. And so because of that and that failure to really coalesce the community around a creative solution and a creative vision, I don't think that there is enough plan support here to say that this is what the community wants and what the vision for this neighborhood was without that existing community support. And so I think this is really hard, really hard one for me. And I think in the end, unfortunately, I despite the fact I think a lot of people really do want this in the neighborhood, and I think that that vision could catch fire and could get there. When people really sit down and start grappling with what that's going to be, we're going to need a broader and deeper community conversation, I think, in order to get there. And and without that, I'm going to have to vote no today on this. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Clarke. Councilmember Flynn. Well, thank you, Madam President. A couple of things were said during the presentation that kind of reinforce how I'm going to vote on this. Sarah had said in response to one of the questions here that we don't evaluate the proposed project in a rezoning. We just look at the application and the plan, support for it, and the other criteria. But most of the support for this from those who testified in favor and from the owner, the support is all based basically on the project. And we've we've styled the zoning request around what we want to build rather than determining whether the zoning itself or whether it should be changed to reflect any adopted plans and whatnot. I agree with Councilman Clark. This you know, this this rezoning would result in an outcome that both sides at least would like in part. And that's kind of to put a damper to kind of put a stop to the construction of some of these outsized and very expensive duplex boxes that we're seeing that are driving up property values and driving out older owners who might be sitting on on smaller bungalows or wood frame, single family units that, you know, that are worth a lot more than than $450,000. And and and the dirt they're sitting on is worth more than that. But we have to evaluate not the project here, but the request and whether it's consistent with with current adopted plans. And it isn't. And I can't ignore that, even if I would prefer stopping overdevelopment under the present zoning of a twin unit that allows three quarter million dollar duplexes to go up and eventually drive out the, you know, the family for 40 years next door in a little bungalow. So I don't see it as consistent with adopted plans. You haven't station area plan says minimum lot size 4500 square feet. Blueprint says departing from the established lot pattern requires two things that we don't have here. The request should include a larger area of at least a one full block. There should be and there should be an expressed intent to change that pattern, either in an adopted small area plan, which we don't have. In fact, we have 4500 square foot as a minimum or significant neighbor neighborhood input, which we also don't have. The presentation tonight showed us that the established lot pattern in this neighborhood is that 96% of the lots in this neighborhood are 4500 square feet or larger. The 4% that are not are generally split lots sitting on alleys or tandem house sites, 85% of the lots or 5500 square feet or larger, which fits under the current zoning . The appropriate zoning for this neighborhood most likely is ESU or t, u b, which would allow development on 4500 square foot lots and would implement literally implement the the adopted plans. So with that, I will also not be supporting us tonight. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. And I would just like to thank Sarah for all your hard work. This is a tough one. I, I use this term. I find myself in a pickle often in city council where it's not just one way or the other. There's a lot of gray area sitting up here as a council member, and I have to wade in that gray area often. And so I say to my friends, I find myself in a pickle, which is where I find myself this evening. With that, I do not believe it is the intent of Blueprint Denver to have different zone districts splattered with among the others for almost ten years ten years. This June I have been working for this city and I continue to hear from CPD about the intent of spot zoning. And my neighborhood is obsessed with this term in certain areas where they won't even support an accessory dwelling unit because they feel like it is a spot zoning even within the existing zone law and the blocks establish a pattern of smaller zoned lots, and it's a conflict that I'm constantly living with in this term of quote unquote spot zoning, which I don't even like, but the public does use and my neighborhood does use. I feel like our residential zoned districts or residential low zone districts need some more flexibility, and I think that needs to have a discussion. And that's, I think, what the residential infill project will look at is this same exact process that we're talking about in this same exact issue. And I also believe to Councilman Clark's comment that we are bringing the cart before the horse. That this area is in desperate need of a neighborhood planning initiative. And I truly believe all neighborhoods need a planning initiative. And that's why I will continue to support having neighborhood planning initiatives in our neighborhoods and not always supporting them in our downtown area, because we end up pitting neighborhood neighbors against each other because there is no plan guidance except for a really, really high level plan such as Blueprint Denver. And with that, I will not support this rezoning tonight, but thank you all for coming out. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. As I said earlier, this one is. Unusual and it's still not black and white for me. I do really respect CPD in the work that you do and when you recommend something I listen. Recently in the past few months, you brought up the reasoning that you didn't recommend. That doesn't happen very often, but the fact that you all decided this, though challenging, met the requirements really means a lot to me. I understand what everyone else has said tonight. Interesting that Councilman Flynn said that he thought the support was based on this proposed project. I think that's probably true. I also. Think. That the people who are opposed to it are opposed because they don't want any development. I don't think anyone is in support of a giant duplex on both of those lots. And so we up here hear a lot of people come for public comment because they don't want any development whatsoever. And development is inevitable in our city. Some neighborhoods near where I live, University Hills in particular, they're tearing down similar kinds of houses and building 4000 square foot single family homes. So houses that were once affordable are now not affordable at all. And it has completely changed the character of the neighborhood. It's changed the character of the school. So I think this is a creative solution. And I am going to support it tonight. I again, I don't think it's a black and white. I do support more units. We need more units. And I appreciate that these are. Lower. Price point than what would be built in for units that were in duplexes. So I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Black. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. This is definitely be an interesting for for a Tuesday. And it's so I will be in support and I will get a little bit into it because I do believe that the criteria was met and hearing opposition from the speakers. Rarely did anyone talk criteria. They talked traffic. They thought density to is enough. And I appreciate my colleagues who who did get deeper with their questions. I did not hear as I was listening how that criteria was not met. And I will do something that I've rarely done and talk a little bit about the development, because that's what everybody else is talking about as well. I think Blueprint wants us to get it right. And I sympathize when there are neighborhoods that don't have neighborhood plans. I mean, Council President Gilmore, myself, our mom, Bella, that was one of the first ones, far northeast councilman sorry, East Colfax, 1990s. And I'm glad that that was first. But these neighborhoods are changing. And until we can get it, let's make decisions that will preserve the character of those neighborhoods, because we always hear that character of neighborhoods . And I remember the conversation, Councilman Clark, we talked about affordability and pricing. And I have Zillow on my computer right now. And I looked it up, you know, 1990, Huron is valued and I get it. It's Zillow, but it's value that 581 that parcel 1974 for 75. So that's over half a million dollars. And across the street on Huron, I'm looking at three homes that are valued at 689. 647. 624. And so how can we help with the character of those neighborhoods so we can not make a decision or vote no status quo? And we know there are going to be units that are going to be built at a much greater, higher price point. The neighborhood that that street is going to change. Or we can make a decision that has been discussed with the applicant and the neighborhood. At This is what I want to build at a 600 k price point. Which is aligned with what I'm looking at right now. Single family homes. I believe that's a decision. That the neighbors would get behind. We've heard it, but there are people are not. And as Councilman Clark says, you make a decision, you're going to you know, you're going to upset people. But I believe the criteria has been met. And as I look at what would come from this decision of supporting the criteria, I believe that helps in line with what neighbors want, maintaining character and trying to keep our neighborhoods as affordable as they can. So I, I get the tension back and forth, but I will be in support today. Thank you, my president. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President. I I don't want to repeat that. A lot of the stuff that my colleagues have said. I do want to talk about two things. Blueprint Blueprint talked about how our city is growing and how we should shape the growth of our city. We've gotten we've secret out Denver is now a destination. We've added 130,000 people to the city of Denver in the last ten years. Blueprint Denver talked to the state demographers office and assumed that we would get an additional 200,000 people by 2040. And this was passed in 2019. A week or two before we took office. And but the idea was that we would grow by another 30% in population in the city of Denver by 2040. So I, I agree that my colleagues have mentioned that, that a lot of people talked about parking in in opposition. And that's not want of one of the criteria, honestly. But but we have we have to have that discussion anyway about how we get around our city. And if we don't think of ways that, that we can add density, smart density, then then we'll have issues with with being able to get around our city. I mean, I hear a lot of complaints about parking and traffic in my district. I think ours is the densest district in the city. We certainly have the densest 3 to 4 densest neighborhoods in the city in my district. And a lot of people like to visit my district, too. So they live there. People visit there as well. And so we get a lot of issues with parking. I want to thank the applicants for for considering ways to add additional density so that we have density throughout the city because in District ten, we're getting. 630 story buildings in Golden Triangle, multiple. Multiple of them will break ground in the next few months, and that's that. Sandwiched between them is an 11 story building and a 17 story building, all in just a two block area. So while District ten is taking a lot of the density and it should, because it's in the city center, we have to think about making making sure that that the city grows in a smart way. And and so I'm really happy that that District ten is taking some of that a fair amount of that density, because it creates that 20 minute neighborhood where people don't have to use cars at all to get around to where they want to live, work and play. And I guess the only other thing that I wanted to say is District ten also has neighborhoods that have never had a neighborhood plan, a plus areas never had a neighborhood plan, country club has never had a neighborhood plan. And and so, you know, there are people who are very interested in neighborhood plans that have never had one. And we've had a lot of discussions about neighborhood plans because the central area plan was in four of my neighborhoods. So I see that. And then I also recognize that my colleague, Councilmember Clark, is very close to the conversations and has has really done a lot of the hard work to try to work with the neighbors, more so than I have. And and I also recognize the pain of neighborhood plans, first of all, going through the neighborhood plan, because the central area plan and also the pain of not going through neighborhood plans because of other areas, particularly in Alamo policy, where they're 12 storey apartment buildings going up. So I also recognize that we need to be smart and methodical and in our implementation of of of building our city. And so I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I won't repeat what my colleagues have said. I think the issue here is that we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. If we do vote yes, we maintain single family homes and affordability, which is the goal of our community. We hear that from our residents all the time. If we vote no, it will be a duplex, you know, that is large, that is overpriced. That is something that we hear regularly we don't want in our community. So I really wish that this was consistent with adopted plans because I want to vote yes. But it can't, legally speaking. This is not consistent with adopted plans, and that means I am required to vote no under our criteria. And that's a shame because this is an awesome project. It's a good idea. It's a creative solution. Thank you, Neal, for that. I want to vote yes, but I can't. It is not consistent with adopted plans, and there are five criteria that we have to vote on. And one of them is consistency with adopted plan. So I it's such a shame, but I have to be a no tonight. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Sawyer and I am not seeing anybody else in the queue. I will go ahead and round out the comments before we vote. I want to thank the community members who joined us tonight and testified during the public hearing and. Neighborhood plans are great, but neighborhood plans are just that. Their plan and they roll up into the other plans that we have with blueprint being that ultimate plan. And when you really talk about what we need in our city. We need density. We need gentle density. We need to allow more people to live in our neighborhoods. And it's not always going to be in the same single family home that was on that lot that you went by growing up. It's our city is changing and we need places for people to live in our city. And when folks talk about the character of neighborhoods, it's sometimes hard to tease out. If it's the character of our neighborhoods being code for we don't want anybody else in our neighborhood or we want to see the same brick. And the same look of a neighborhood. It's really hard to tease that out. But all hearken back to what Sarah said at the beginning of her presentation was that this is the same density that is allowed today in a slightly different way. And I also have to respect. Nate Lucero and our lawyers within CPD that they're not going to bring us something that could be legally challenged. Because I, I trust what they do. And I've known Nate for a long time, and he has never given us bad advice. And then again as well, the planning board, if this was so inconsistent or so egregious, I would have thought the planning board would vote it down. The planning board approved it 8 to 1. And so in good faith of all of the work that has gone in and with the Overland R.A. supporting this rezoning, I believe, although it's not exactly what folks would want to see, it does meet the criteria. And I am a yes on this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 0016, please. See tobacco. No. Park? No. Flynn. No. Herndon. I know. Cashman. Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval No. Sawyer? No. Torres No. Black eye. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Eight Nays. Five I's, eight nays. Council Bill 20 2-0016 has failed. It only has five eyes. And so we want to thank our planners who joined us here this evening and the community members who stayed with us. And we're going to go ahead and move on to our last hearing of the evening. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 20 2-0093 on the floor for final passage?