Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Denver Water in the amount of $4 million that addresses water usage at Wellshire Golf Course and Harvard Gulch Park and outlines agreements to the Central Control Master Plan and a funding mechanism for recycled water conversion over time. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a $4 million intergovernmental agreement with Denver Water that addresses water usage at Wellshire Golf Course and Harvard Gulch Park and outlines agreements to the Central Control Master Plan and a funding mechanism for recycled water conversion over time. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-17-15.
And a lot of this the next point is 5.2.2.6. And it talks about sustainable park systems. And, you know, a lot of these conversions are really to try to make sure our park system is at a sustainable level. We just cannot continue having parks at a green blue grass from curb to curb. So this is something we need to do. But we as a Parks Department also need to do a better job of educating the public why we're doing this. And we can't just go out and turn a park that was turf for years and years into a natural area without reaching out to the public. So I totally agree with you and we will definitely have a robust outreach program on this. Thank you very much. That's that's all I could ask, Mr. President. And plus, when you do those in my council district, I'd sure like to know when you have those meetings. We will do. That. Thank you. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. All right. Councilman. Thank you, Councilman. And thank you, Mr. Gilmore, on a 68 under final consideration, Councilwoman Gilmore. You've called that out. And so as a councilman, new. So why don't you. Well, councilman new. Why don't you? Go ahead and speak on this as you like to do with this. I know that. It's just a question about the historic designation of this program. I don't know who would answer that. Okay. Well, this is something that's going to be ended up on the floor. So why don't we just do that? And then we'll ask, are you as if I think you're in the process? Thank you. Councilwoman Gilmore, do you want to put Councilor 868 on the floor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be offering an amendment to correct the bill title. Okay. Why don't you go ahead? Councilman, to put the bill on the floor. Oh, that's right. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay. Thank you, sir. I move that House Bill 868 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. We have second. Hey. Catch a. Second. Okay. Comments. Members Council Councilman Gilmer. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to amend Council Bill 868 to read on page one, line seven, after the words for the sale of insert the words property adjacent to. All right. You have a second? All right. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman, you are Councilman Gilmore and then Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. The purpose of the amendment is to correct an error in the file. Bill Arias address is 1416 Platt Street, and the parcel being sold to REIT by the city is property adjacent to the business. Thank you. Councilman Nu. And then I have Councilman Flynn. Okay. Just out a question about a historic designation. I apologize. I was out of town for some of the discussion on this and. Just wanted to. I was told that this property the other question is designated historic. Is that correct? Good evening, Lisa Lumley, division of Real Estate. The RBI building is has a historic designation. The parking lot does not. The RBI building has a conservation easement that runs on it. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick clarification. The assessor calls this parcel 20/314 Street. Is there a reason why we don't just say 20/314 Street? Because we don't find any other records through the files of using that address. And so that's why everything in the file historically has been adjacent to. Okay. Thank you very much. And Councilman knew that historic designation was way back in 1972 for the art for the old Denver tramway power plant, in case anybody was wondering what that was. And there's been reference in this material that there is a limitation on the height of any vertical structure on the adjacent parcel. Is that is that the case? We've yet to see any instrument that actually states that. And by what authority do we say that there is a height limitation on anything on that parcel? Yes. Brant Eisen with the city attorney's office. And there are two documents that are currently of record. One being the conservation easement from the Colorado Historical Society, which requires a view corridor on the southern and the southern face of the southern facade of the property, whereby nothing can be constructed by the owner of RMI, but the owner of that building that would impede that view. The second document of record is a permit and covenant entered into by the city and RCA, which requires if the RTI building is sold, the parking lot must be sold as a single unit and so any subsequent owner would need to abide by that restriction. Furthermore, RCA has agreed their title work. The Historical Society parcel shows up in their title work for this parking lot, and they had always but contracted with us under the assumption that there was a no build covenant on that land, that it was a subsurface construction only. And they are willing to enter into a deed restriction for for the purchase which restricts any. Above ground.