A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4400 North Fox Street in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4400 North Fox Street from I-B, UO-2 (industrial) to C-MX-12, UO-2, C-RX-12, UO-2, C-RX-8, UO-2 (urban center, residential mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-1-18.
All right. Ten eyes, two nays. Counsel Bill 365 has been approved for translations. All right. We are moving on to our second public hearing for this evening. Councilman Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 412 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. I move that council bill 18, dash 412 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for council bill 412 is open. We have the staff report. Kyle Dotson, welcome. Thank you, Mr. President, and good evening, members of council. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development here with this rezoning staff report. So Kat, in Council District nine, in the Globeville statistical neighborhood and it's a site of just over 30 acres, the request is from the property owners, Cendant Capital Partners, who are here tonight, as well as their representatives. It's currently zoned Iby you two, which is a general industrial district with the Billboard Use Overlay. They're proposing a number of different zone districts I'll go through in a minute. That's the site of the former Denver Post printing plant and surrounding lands around the former plant. And the property owners are requesting the rezoning in order to allow redevelopment of the site. Together with this rezoning application, the applicants also filed an application to repeal the 2570 General Development Plan. That application has been heard by the Denver Planning Board and has been approved by the Development Review Committee. The GDP is proposed to be replaced with an infrastructure master plan which will be implemented through a development agreement if approved by council following this rezoning bill. That's the next bill that you postponed to address topics that relate to transportation, open space, housing, and phasing in the number of staff from the departments involved in that. Here tonight, if you have questions about the development agreement or the third bill that accepts some money from the applicant to fund studies of transportation improvements in the area that are also a product of that development agreement. Okay. So regarding the actual the what I'm here for tonight, the rezoning bill, the applicant requested a series of three districts. The first is the CMCs 12 Zone District on the west and east sides of the property that stands for the Urban Center Neighborhood Context. That allows a wide variety of mix of uses up to 12 storeys in height in the north. Central part of the property is the S.R. 12 Zone District. Again, the urban center neighborhood context residential mixed use because it allows primarily only residential and lodging above the ground floor, although a variety of mixed uses on the ground floor. Again, up to 12 stories in height. And then in the southern central part of the property is the urban center, residential mixed use district, up to eight stories in height across all of the site. The applicant proposes to retain their current use overlay to which allows billboards subject to a number of different limitations and standards in the code. So here's a map of where those zone districts are located. Again, the C-Max 12 on the West, in the East, S.R. 12 in the North Central, and S.R. eight to the south. It's surrounded mostly by general industrial zoning, except for the portion to the south that the council rezone three years ago to CMCs 12, when this applicant brought that application for the land to the south. In terms of the current land use to set the stage for what's currently happening on the property. The assessor's office has a classified as commercial, of course. We know it's vacant, formerly industrial. It's surrounded mostly by industrial properties, other vacant land and right of way. Here's some pictures to illustrate the building form the scale of the site and the areas around it. So you see the this is the top photo is looking to the south towards downtown of the printing plant in the foreground and the vacant land around it . You see most of the areas around it are are currently older, industrial, one story or two story buildings with some new development that's occurred in the station area. And to the bottom right there, you see a photo of the pedestrian bridge and multi-modal bridge that was constructed over the railroad tracks in anticipation of the opening of the 41st and Fox Station, a couple a few blocks to the south of the site. Terms of the public process that leads us to tonight. The applicants first submitted this rezoning application in March of last year in 2017. At our recommendation, they voluntarily hosted a public meeting about both of this rezoning and the GDP repeal in the neighborhood and then revised their rezoning application in October last year. Planning Board held a public hearing on the application in November of last year, which they recommended approval of the application. This went to the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee, and all of the legal requirements for all the procedural requirements in the zoning code for a rezoning have been followed in terms of the posted notices and written notices of tonight's public hearing. That includes notice to the nine registered neighborhood organizations that are illustrated on the slide. One of them has submitted a letter of support from the President of the United Community Action Network, Inc., and Staff has received no other public comments on the rezoning application . There are five review criteria for a rezoning. A walk through our analysis of each of them. Briefly, there's further detail in your staff report. The first is the application must be consistent with adopted plans. The first, the citywide comprehensive plan 2000. Again, there's more detail in the staff report. We pulled out a few of the key strategies that we found that the application addresses and is consistent with including promoting infill development in Denver at sites where infrastructure and services are in place, where you can create mixed use communities near transit, and where we can encourage mixed use transit oriented development that makes best use of that transportation infrastructure. The second plan we analyzed as Blueprint Denver, which was adopted in 2000 to the citywide land use and transportation plan. The Blueprint Denver was amended and updated by the subsequent smaller plans I'll talk about in a minute. So it's essentially the same as the Globeville plan that was adopted a few years ago recommends the land use concept of urban residential, which calls for higher density, primarily residential, but with a mix of some complementary commercial uses high quality pedestrian scale facades and other pedestrian active elements of the building form. And we found that the proposed zoned districts do provide a range of housing options and commercial uses and implement the built form plan direction. So we found it consistent with those recommendations from Blueprint Denver. Blueprint Denver also designates the entire site as an area of change. These are areas in the city where the city wants to challenge or challenge channel growth and development opportunities. The plan calls for infill redevelopment of vacant underused properties in such a way that it remains compatible with new and existing development, takes advantage of transit service and addresses a number of different issues. We found that again, that this rezoning was consistent with encouraging growth in an area of change and is consistent with this element of blueprint. Denver Terms of street classifications. Blueprint Number did not identify most of the streets through this area because the streets have not been built and would be built as part of redevelopment to the South Fox Street as a mixed use collector. Mixed use streets are designated for areas that have anticipate a wide variety of high intensity, mixed use, commercial retail, residential uses along them. Other streets in the area are designated locals. Again, there aren't streets within the site designated in the plan, so we found it consistent with Blueprint Denver The third adopted plan here is the 41st and Fox station area plan. The general thrust of that plan is to develop the station area into an urban center through transitioning those industrial lands to a variety of light, industrial, commercial, residential or mixed uses with a variety of goals in the plan. The land use recommendations of this plan contemplated an unbuilt street network that included urban residential generally to the north and to the west of up to 12 stories a mix of open space in parks and plazas in the area, and urban residential 2 to 8 stories to the south. Now, the proposed rezoning does align with these in terms of allowing a mix of uses, including residential of up to 12 stories to the west, north and east, up to eight stories in the south. The open space parks and Plaza will be created through that development agreement, an infrastructure master plan that requires a portion of the site to be developed as open space or parks. So we found it consistent with the stationery plan. And then lastly is the Globeville Neighborhood Plan, which, as I mentioned, updated blueprint Denver it so it aligns with what I walked through earlier in terms of blueprint Denver's land use recommendations calls for a land use mix of an urban residential mix of up to 12 storeys for most of the site portion to the south of for up to eight stories where the applicant has proposed the crux eight zone district of up to eight stories. So looking at the application against that adopted plan, we found it consistent as well. So we found it consistent with the adopted plans. The zone districts as applied would be uniform in their application within the zone districts where they're mapped. So it's consistent with the second criterion. The third is that it further the public health, safety and general welfare, which we found the application would comply with, and furthering the consistency with adopted plans, enabling mixed use in a transit oriented area, and ensuring that the built form is better for pedestrians and more reflective of the vision for the area. The fourth review criterion is that there be justifying circumstances. In this case, there has been change or change conditions since the time of the adoption of this zoning that justify the rezoning. They include the introduction, the construction of the rail line and the soon introduction of service on that rail line, which have there has been service on the line, but service to the station expected later this year when RTD opens the D line. The multi-use path and pedestrian bridge have been built, which improve the multimodal connections to the site to the area. A number of rezonings have happened in the surrounding properties, a few of which have developed all pointing to changes in the area that serve to to justify the rezoning and consistent consistent with the adopted plans in the area . Finally, we evaluated it with consistency, with the neighborhood context description and the zone district purpose and intent statements as further detailed in your staff report I mentioned earlier. The plans call for this to be an urban center, and they've selected urban center neighborhood zone districts that the neighborhood, the zoned districts also enable a variety of mixed uses , residential uses that the zone districts call for. And in terms of their height allowances, they allow up to eight and 12 stories consistent with where the plans tell us that those heights are desired. So we found it consistent with the intent statements of the zone districts as well. And so having reviewed it against all five criteria, we we recommend approval of the rezoning application. All right. Thank you, Mr. Dalton. Okay. We have let's see here. We have five speakers. Is that right, Madam Secretary? Yes. Okay, great. I'm going to call you guys up to the front. Zachary Kessler, Kathleen Folger, Graham Bennis, Chairman Sekou, and Elizabeth Zachary Kessler, your first. You all can come to the front here, please. Thank you, Mr. President. Can I have a seat right there? I'm just here to answer questions on behalf of the applicant. All right, great. Thank you, Mr. Kessler. Kathleen Fogler. Yes. I'm here on behalf of the applicant to answer questions. All right. Thank you, Ms.. Fogler Grant. Beneath. Thank you, Mr. President. Is Graham Dennis with the Center Capital Partners and I reside in the city of Denver. It's been ten years that we've run this property and been in front of you several times and met with you several times. And my wife prefers this as our third child. And throughout that time we've been working with the city and staff and you all in the community trying to find the right vision for this property. There was a, you know, as Councilman Flynn, well, where's that Denver Post printing facility? And it's almost become a historic use. But, you know, we always had a vision for for something much grander than heavy industrial, which it's currently zoned. We you know, we we've had some our ups and downs with the economic cycles and as well as, you know, coming under the auspices of RTD and eminent domain and, you know , ending up giving up four acres of land so that the vast tracts property tax project could go on through our through our project. And about three years ago, the city council voted to support a rezoning of our southernmost ten acres, as well as approving through a planning board, approved the general development plan for the site. Subject to that time and based on feedback we received at that meeting from council and staff, we agreed that more visioning was needed for this site in order to create the right outcome for the city and the neighborhood. Especially the current zoning on the 31 acres does not allow for, you know, full implementation of the station area plan and specifically does not allow for the density that that plan contemplates. It's also the current GDP also does not allow for the the retained edge of the at the current site the existing building past two weeks has two years, I should say. We've we've been having weekly work sessions with the city and it's gone to a a weekly meeting for the past 18 months. And we appreciate the city staff for taking that time to meet with us, to work with to work towards a increased density and to maximize the public improvements at the site . The development agreement specifically provides a path to making this project more accessible, and the details, the transportation network and build out will be identified. A next step study that will be funding 50% of. We feel that accessibility lays the groundwork for implementing the City Station Area Plan, and the vision for the site is a mix of office and residential served by transit, with an emphasis on limiting single occupancy vehicles and includes a required transportation management plan for the site. We want this place to be a true neighborhood with lower land prices. Community services can afford to locate here daycare, fresh food and grocery store restaurants. Yes. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. We are available for questions. Also great terms. They call. You have 6 minutes. Terms they could bless no action movement for self-defense. Long term resident sitting count in Denver is five points to Parkview. Sitting here thinking. I. Had a thought. And. Cancer folks who have understand the history here. You know, I was one. If I want to. Davis was in this body right now and sitting in that chair. Which way you think he'd go with this? And this was his district knowing that it's massively being gentrified, knowing that there is little or no participation of black workers on any of these sites, whether it's on the east side or the West Side or the North Side or the south side. And then, as he would sit wondering how he could form allies among this Mississippi cycle. Please talk about the bill for 12. If you give me an opportunity, I will do that and you constantly interrupt me. I wish you wouldn't do that as you allow other people to do that. I guess on film is being reviewed, so don't do that. I got to keep it focused. Good taking up my time and don't do that. Kind of keep focus. Don't do it. Kind of keep yourself disrespected. And I'm asking for additional time because you continue to do that. I want additional 2 minutes to finish my comments. I ask for a suspension of the rules so the Council can do some justice here with your own representative who's misrepresenting the pluses to supposed to happen. This is public hearing for the public. Your job is to listen, not interrupt a conversation. So as I will continue. What do we do now? What we do now. We continue on the same old same. Mention the names of predecessors that we have no courage to do the work that they did and occupy these chairs. I work with Hiawatha Davis. He's the godfather of my daughter. And I'm telling you right now, he's rolling over in his grave. Yeah. Because the terms have been flipped instead of enhancement. This whole mess has turned into an ethnic cleansing of the people he represented. Can you talk about the bill for 12? So when we get to this bill. Which is no more than the continuation of the ethnic cleansing of our neighborhood. And talking about creating residential housing for whom at what cost and under what percentage of a man who is this poor and who needs it the most? The middle class or the poor? And as we combat poverty, we need ownership of our property, not result. And so we stay poor systematically because of the rules and regulations that people enhance in here. And then you walk through here with your heads up with any kind of integrity, taking the money from developer to run to real , like to continue to do this. Ah. You know what to do. Know what to do and you do it anyway. So what are we supposed to do? Why do we even come? What? What's the purpose say? What's the purpose? And that's the way most revolutions develop, because the people in power don't listen to the oppressed. And then when the whole situation blows up, all of a sudden we get some attention. Yeah. So what we got to do? We got to blow up. We got to do. We got to tear down. We got to burn it down. Cause we got nowhere to go. So why should you have anywhere to go? Oh, like we suffer. Washington's with us. Just we're equal in this for 12. So when we talk about 412, let's talk about 1812 and the Revolutionary War that happened when the British was overthrown and they threw the tea off the boat. Because of this exact same thing. No response to the taxpayers. Taxation without representation and no hope in the process. And then everything is supposed to be okay because we're going to only get this thing done in one unit at a time. So we'll get 20 poor people in. But it's 20,000 outside. And consider that progress for real. That's the best you can do. But real. Truth and justice requires more and more success. Because I'm exasperated, too. But after 12 years of coming down here with the same message. I do. You all get paid. I get my attendance records better. Something I didn't take coming down. Not even having enough to do a. For real. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Such mediocre efforts deserved. Absolutely no God, no respect. And I close with this. It's time to get it all ready for the revolution. All right. And Elizabeth, last speaker. Thank you. Council President Brooks. And the city council for having this public hearing. I mean, Elizabeth, I have a studio at 888 East 50th Avenue in the Global Riverfront Art Center. And I've been in Globeville. For approximately ten. Years. I had the opportunity to city to participate in some of the first conversations regarding this project when the some of the folks connected to it were invited into the homes of some folks that have lived in Globeville for a couple of generations. There are very serious concerns about being vigilant on a project of this scope, nature, and that changes the landscape of that particular area, specifically through the height increases. I know of one couple in Elyria that owns a business about two blocks away, and it's definitely going to help them thrive. I'd like to really ask the City Council to recognize this project in the context, in the context of all the urgent needs and attentions that still need to materialize in the global learning Swansea area. Regarding somehow working a synergistic prosperity with the existing businesses that are family owned, that aren't getting the attention to possibly prosper, with mechanisms that are typically more available to the more experienced and fluid and flexible and larger developers. I hope that this the design considerations that some of which look really exciting in terms of keeping it as an urban friendly neighborhood asset can be can be spotlighted more and brought forward. I think there's a lot of conversations that I think would be great to have continuing with the developer. There are there's terminology being used behind the scenes, sort of as the subconscious of the of the city. That concerns me when I hear officials using terms like there's we're working on this island development in Fox Point or Fox Street. These are our neighbors. These are Globeville neighbors. These are folks that we within the neighborhood that are involved in in the conversations for us all feel like we're in it together. We want to have that cultural, personal, economic relationship. If we're going to put height up, it needs to be attractive. This conversations about who can afford to live there is critical. It's also the case that we need to really strengthen the first and last mile access to folks within the neighborhoods, being able to access the full advantages of the economic opportunities for work around the cities . How do we do this seamlessly? How do we recognize that this is an asset? How do we make this an asset both esthetically, economically and culturally for the historic statistic? To Statistical Globeville neighborhood. I want to end this by saying the historic statistical Globeville neighborhood. I wish that the Planning Department would always add historic and not just statistical. There are 78 statistical neighborhoods in Denver and many more historical neighborhoods, and I hope this project will help reflect that. Thank you, Ms.. And Elizabeth. All right. This concludes our speakers questions by members of Council Councilwoman Kenney. Thank you, Mr. President. I think my first question is probably for someone from the ascendant team. I wanted to ask about the total acreage of the your proposed development, broader than just this stationary plan and the total potential number of units. There's a couple of references to the potential in the developer agreement, but if one of you could just summarize that for me, please. Acreage and total potential number of residential units that are being discussed. There's a reference in a document. If someone wants to just read it, that's okay to. Hi. So the total property is 41.5. Acres and. The. Current developed developable acreage totals about. 30 acres. We're looking per the IAP at. 2800 residential units in. Total for the site. Great. And can you just. Do you know what percentage of the total area is represented in this rezoning? We've re zoned several other portions. So I just wanted to have you what is it, about 50% initial rezoning. There's 12 acres of the 41 that have been resound. So I think we're. 30% as kind of represented. That's a rough estimate here on the on the stand by, about 30%, 30% has been risen. 60% were were asking for a rezoning. And can you clarify, this is the last rezoning for this this proposed area. Yes, for this for this full 41 A.C.P.O. And then if someone from the city staff could answer the next questions, please. There is a pending bill footing the bill for 43. I believe it is the developer agreement. And I wanted to ask about the legal relationship between this zoning and the pending bill. Where is staff? Sorry. Hello, Councilman. Jill Jennings goal at Community Planning and Development. I just want to make sure I understood the question. Are you asking about the legal sort of tie between the rezoning and the development agreement? Yes. So I have Brad back with me. The city attorney's office who may be better able to answer. I'm Brad, back with the city attorney's office. And I'm I'm not quite sure what you're asking. So if this rezoning is approved, is it contingent in any way, shape or form on the developer agreement that is pending and not before us tonight? I think we're presenting all of these at the same time for that particular reason. Number 443 is not. We don't have a pair. So. So the order in which. No, no, no. So the question is, is if 422 fails, is it contingent on the others for 43 in the other things that are in a block here, are they are. Could could this developer redevelop this if this zoning is approved? Could they redevelop under this zoning even if they had developer agreement fails? No. I think if the if the. If the rezoning is not approved, we would withdraw opposite question. Sorry, I'll start over. Yeah. If anyone else wants to jump in. So this zoning, let's imagine it's approved tonight. Okay. And let's imagine that the developer agreement is not approved. Can they build? It's my understanding, as it was presented to me, that there are certain land use rights in the developer agreement that are not unlocked. And so those those other terms are met. So what I want to understand is what is the relationship between the two, between the zoning and the developer agreement? We have a presentation that focused on just one thing, but there is a much bigger package that we're in. And so you're going to find, I think, in the question, answer that to the extent that we have shared this with the world as to linked pieces of legislation, we need to talk about them as two linked pieces of legislation. So I'm looking for someone who can help describe that, particularly for our community. I, I feel like I understand it, but I want to make sure that I'm hearing and you guys are putting it in your words, how the two the two pieces relate to each other. The approval of the second. Rezoning is a condition precedent to sentence obligation under the development agreement. So if you don't if you don't approve it, then the development agreement doesn't spring. But. Sorry. This is Jill again. But I do believe if you were to approve the rezoning and not approve the development agreement, yes. That you would have changed their zoning and they would not be bound to the terms under the development agreement. There would still be an infrastructure master plan in place for the property guiding the overall infrastructure and guiding that element of the property. Okay. I think that gets to the answer. Thank you very much. Can you please can someone please describe to me what the terms of the development agreement state with regard to affordable housing? Mr. President, Councilwoman Connie Chung, Doug Salbi, housing manager with the Office of Economic Development. The development agreement currently extracts from the developer in any affordable housing build as chosen as a build alternative plan in alignment with the ordinance on the linkage fee that 25% more of the units will be extracted on any vertical development for units on the site. If there is a choice of paying the linkage fee instead, then 25% more of the linkage fee will be paid. And does anything in the agreement require the building of a single unit of affordable housing? Or could they fulfill the agreement solely by paying money? They could. To answer your first question, there is no requirement to actually build affordable housing or build any type of hotels or any of the commercial developments that may be proposed on the site. And there is there is the choice that they could pay the fee. And then in history. Can you recall, have there been other large redevelopment agreements where the department has negotiated agreements that required the building of affordable housing as part of those developments? Such an agreement is is legally possible, is the question I'm asking. Under the previous ordinance, which called for units under the IATO ordinance, there were the allowance of affordable housing plans for large scale developments as part of that ordinance, in which case there was specific affordable housing requirements put in. Currently, we operate under the linkage fee ordinance, which calls to be paid by the developer, or they can choose a build alternative plan for whatever build is going on industrial, commercial or residential. Does that answer your question? Well, it does, but I don't think it's complete. The linkage fee ordinance also includes an option for otherwise negotiated plans. Correct? Correct. If you are exempt from the ordinance, if you are under an otherwise negotiated, affordable housing plan. Yes. If you're under an otherwise negotiated affordable housing plan, you are exempt from the linkage fee. So I just want to close the loop. It would have been legally possible to require the construction of affordable housing on this site as a term of an agreement. If there was a negotiated agreement where both parties signed it, that that would have satisfied they could have legally satisfied the ordinance. I just want to clarify. It could in past plans that has been negotiated with a subsidy of funding from the OED. Thank you. My last question is for the planning department. You've mentioned several adopted plans, the Globeville plan. In the 41st and Fox plan, there's approximately 13 mentions of affordable housing in the first, 41st and FOX Plan. There's also a number of them in the Globeville plan. In your analysis of the conformance of this zoning with adopted plans, did the Planning Department specifically analyze the language in these plans related to affordable housing as it relates to the development agreement that was negotiated? So was the analyst. Did you all do a point by point analysis of the language in the plan and the development agreement that was negotiated with regard to affordable housing? Jill Jennings. Gorelick We acknowledge that the plan discussed the importance of affordable housing and felt that that was an incredibly important need, which is why we had the developer engage with the Office of Economic Development to have conversations around affordable housing for this site. Is it your recollection, I guess, that any of those plan references related the payment of fees? Did you guys is that your recollection? I don't believe that was the case because both of the plans were adopted prior to the change in practice related to the linkage fee. So what would you describe the gist of the language plan about the importance of affordable housing? What were what was the plan talking about when it when it brought up affordable housing? What what did it value? And what was it pointing to? So generally speaking, obviously, this is next to a transit corridor and we want to ensure that there is a mix of housing for different incomes and different populations at our transit stations. And did you do any analysis about how the payment of fees that would not result in units might impact that that goal language terms of conformance with the plan. I believe that already looked a bit at some of the fee numbers on their site and what that might generate. So I might. Turn it over. But the plan doesn't relate to money. The plan relates to right there. The plan talks generally about the provision for affordable housing, but does not put a requirement for a certain number of units. I just want to clarify that the plan we agree at least that the plan does not talk about funding. It talks about mixed income housing. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Kenny. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. My first question is for Graham. Then if you can come to the microphone. So my my first question is about. Whether you're looking at master planning the site or are you looking to develop any of the actual structures yourself, or are you just looking at building the infrastructure that then attracts other developers to come to the site to build on it? Yes, Councilman Ortega, this is what really is the next step that really lays out the infrastructure for this site, the roads it has streets section. So it's much more detailed than what we had gone through before with the GDP. This ownership groups desire is not is not going to be to develop vertically. So this group is mainly laying the foundation for others to come and either master plan the site in terms of going vertical, the plans that we have in place pretty much lay the foundation so they there's not too much they can bury in terms of street grids. So that is the plan is to have somebody come in and do the master development and vertical development. And in doing so, then you would sell the land to those developers that would build on. Correct. And are you looking for one master builder or are you looking at multiple selling off multiple sites? One one developer, one purchase here would obviously be the the most, most the best path forward versus multiple developers. Okay. Let me see if we have another question for you. Yes. One of my questions about the the acreage, let me go to Chris Nevitt. Chris, if you can come forward, I want to ask some questions about the infrastructure master plan, which I'm not clear. Is that the same as the next step study or are those completely different? Hi. Chris Nevitt, the city's top manager. Councilwoman, I'm not the expert in the infrastructure masterplan. I may call on my colleagues from CPD on that, but then the next step study is focused on figuring out how we can get to a more precise configuration of the particularly the transportation infrastructure that's necessary to serve the area, get to some concept level pricing, and also figure out a plan of finance so that we can actually construct all those components. So the infrastructure master plan lays out a lot of stuff with respect to the street grid inside the area, particularly with respect to the the parks in the area. There's a big contribution to regional parks. It's specific to the site that we're rezoning tonight. The infrastructure master plan. And does that include the other 12 acres? Yes. Okay. So the next step study is outside the boundaries. So let me ask a couple questions about that. You keep talking about transportation, although we know there is a serious drainage problem in this area. So number one is this within the Utah Junction Outfall area? Boy, you are stumping me if you're asking me for the name of it. But there is a a a drainage master planning process that is focusing on all of the basins that drain into the Platte River there, and particularly go through Globeville. Because as you know better than anybody, there are serious flooding and inundation issues in the Globeville area. And so this master planning study, the the drainage study for Globeville is focusing on all the sources of water that that that converge there. Okay. So we know that there is one road into the site, which is Foch Street. Oh, that's not true. There's two roads from downtown. We're not counting that. We do not want to see traffic go through Globeville to get to this site. That community is going to be inundated with traffic for the next five years, dealing with the construction of I-70 and National, Western and Washington Street and a ton of other private development. So to say that we're going to put traffic on 45th Avenue and put that traffic through, we're trying to keep truck traffic out of the neighborhood right now because right now trucks are routing through that street. Yes, ma'am. Let me answer when we correct. Yeah, let's get to it. Let's get to the question because we've got a long list behind. So. So. Is there expectation that Fox Street becomes a four lane roadway? No, ma'am. Because it's a white street. But it's it's one street into this site that 2800 units is a part of many other developments that have already been approved by this council. Two, to funnel into this what you refer to as Fox Island because of the limited access to this area. And so how do we expect to move traffic in there? And until we fix the first mile, last mile that and Elizabeth talked about, people are still going to drive their cars in this city. And we know there's a RTD corridor there. But so you're saying. The plan talks about or the rezoning talks about addressing the bike and pedestrian connections. But we're going to bring all that traffic in on two lanes, one in and one out to the site unless we see the next step. Study out a new road. Right. Which has been talked about. So can you just speak to that? Yes, ma'am. So just to go backwards for a moment, with respect to the 45th Avenue connection, we've made it very clear all the way along that we have no anticipation of 45th Avenue and the connection through the main street of Globeville being any different. Well, better, nicer than it is today, but not carrying more traffic. We're not going to reconstruct that road to carry more traffic. That road will be reconstructed to be a nicer roadway for that community. With respect to Foch Street, the anticipation is not that Foch Street will become, you know, a four lane superhighway, as it was. Through the major collector. That's why I'm asking the question. Correct. But but that's not our anticipation reconstructing. And these are all subjects that the next step study will address, reconstructing the very suboptimal interchange of Park Avenue, 38th Avenue, Foch Street, and the on and off ramps for I-25. That's a key important move. And another key important move that the next step study will address, as you pointed out, is creating a third connection to the area on the northwest, and that is memorialized in the infrastructure master plan currently and will be explored in more detail in the next step study. But I think I just want to add a gloss. If we do everything business as usual in this area, we will not be able to accommodate the traffic that might ordinarily be associated with this kind of development. It's a mess. Today. We will not. Daily basis. Do business as usual. Yeah. Understood. Okay. I have one more question. And this is I'm not sure who can probably someone from the planning department. Kyle, do you know if there are any court setbacks that address shading because 12 storeys is going to be allowed on the north end and you've got I-70. So if we have 12 story buildings, you're going to have a lot of shading. And so when it snows, you're going to have more ice on the highway. So can you just address that issue? Yeah. I don't believe there are serious setbacks for buildings. Okay. And do we have setbacks at all from the edges, from our 12 story buildings? Just nonexistent. I'll let him answer. Jeff Brazel With any plan in development, the ANP envisions a road that parallels the interstate. Okay, so the road is, I believe, is about 65 to 67 feet of total right away. And then there's a buffer on top of that. Right up against the right up against the seatbelt right away. So while the underlying zoning would allow zero LA line development, there's an actual wide roadway right there. So that would address that concern for. Okay. Just one last one. And this is for. I'm sorry. I thought I had. This is for Mr. Dennis. Do you have any intention of requesting tax increment financing for the site? At this time, we do not have any plans to request tax increment financing for this. But it's not totally. No, I mean it just yeah. That's that's that's a next step that, you know, a developer could could definitely take that path. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman. Mr. Venizelos. Come back. You might not stay in that for a while. I just want to follow up on him. Councilwoman Cain answers questions about the development agreement. Does the development agreement require you to build affordable housing? I want to just clarify that in my own mind. It does not require us to build affordable housing on the site. You plan on building affordable housing in this project? We're not the vertical developer. But what we've said all along is we are very committed to seeing that affordable housing comes to the site. When we when we undertook our last rezoning, you know, we were under the dijo. And since that time, you all passed linkage fees. So we want to go above and beyond linkage fees. We went to OSD and said, we see we don't want to be an unaffordable city. That's bad for business. So we went to OPD and said, we want to do more. They said, Well, you can pay more in. Money's great. So we've agreed to pay more. And the bigger picture is economics. We've talked to every single affordable housing developer in town and. We have such a better opportunity to have affordable housing at our site in this neighborhood than any other place in the city. So we're not looking to cap it by saying we're going to build 80 units of affordable housing. We look at this as this is the the basement. And we have. Unlimited opportunity for workforce housing at this site based upon the economics of our land value, nobody else in the city is going to have the land value that we have had the opportunity to create as much affordable, attainable, diverse housing businesses, fresh food markets, businesses, so other neighborhoods don't have that opportunity. Well. It sounds like it'd be easy to commit to affordable housing. With that kind of description. You're easily I don't know, one of the developer agreement didn't address this. And why? Why there's. Not a commitment more of a commitment to affordable. Housing. We don't want to tie up the future developers. We're not the experts on vertical affordable housing. So we didn't want to restrict another developer coming in and said they're going to do X times more than what's required. Well, okay. Okay. Doug, what about you? I mean, as Doug said, always. Thank you. Doug, what about any requirement at all for affordable housing about this project other than buying out of it? What's the question? I'm sorry. Is there going to be any requirement for affordable housing to be built with this project? Or is it just going to be a fee, additional fee that's going. To be bought out for the development agreement? There can be the additional fee paid in the linkage fee that goes directly to support affordable housing, you know, through our investments. Or if there is a build alternative plan chosen, then there will be 25% more units extracted from the actual build alternative that's proposed. And this does not preclude any future investment. If only affordable housing development is proposed on the site. The OED would be looking at that as we do our projects to invest in those directly and extract the units directly, contractually. Maybe outside of this project. But. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. You know. You know, let me just follow up just because you've mentioned percentages. What is the actual payout? So don't mention and don't mention a percentage. Tell me, what per square foot will they be paying out? So it's very clear. To the public. It depends on what's built on the site in. Okay. So there's 2800 units can be realized here. What if there's just. 13 to 1500 to 20, 300? I would say if it was a full build out under the. Let's go with the 1500 number. What per square foot are we looking at? Probably about under that. Maybe I was looking at the numbers more in the improved mobility plan of an. Adventure for folks who are listening, folks who are even here in. If they were doing it under the affordable housing link it free plan would be a buck 50 a foot. So what would they be paying for? Regular residential? Well for the improved mobility plan. Should those go through, it would be $6.9 million. Okay. Of the total development of the site was projected. Okay. 6.9 million for transportation and then for affordable. So the linkage fee today, the fee does go up. It's adjusted annually starting July one. But currently, any multifamily residential development that's built under the international building code pays a dollar 60 per square foot. Okay, so we're paying 25% more. They would be paying $2 per square foot. Okay. That's what that's what I wanted to say. So everybody gets that. So two bucks a square foot for residential. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Kyle, could you tell us what was the reason for the single dissenting vote at the planning board? It's not meant. It's mentioned in the staff report, but not the reason. Sure. Thanks, Councilman. So there was one dissenting vote and it was the same vote that dissented on the the rezoning three years ago on the southern part of the site. That person, that planning board member disagreed with the retention of the you oh two billboard use overlay and thought there wasn't a justifying circumstance to retain the allowance for future billboards. That was it. Okay, that's not at all what I expected, but thank you, Graham. Can I ask you a question I think I've asked you before. You're probably wishing that RTD had bought you out by this point, right? You wouldn't. You wouldn't do that. Right. And I think I brought this up before with your team. This was part of this site. The northern part of the site was part of the Argo smelter site. And I'm just wondering if there has been any analysis of the soil. The heart of the Argo smelter is right where I-70 goes through. But there were buildings on the Denver Post site and there are buildings north of I-70 that were part of the smelter operation. I'm just wondering if there's been any analysis of what might have been left behind. Yeah, we've done extensive analysis because you accounted for the brought this up since we bought the site. You know, we're fortunately not affected by the Argo smelter. Our biggest environmental issues were from the railroad track that used to run through the southern part of the site for the old Denver brick and pipe. Right. You know, arsenic containing railroad ties. So all those areas we've you know, we've come across through the various construction of fast tracks. We've come across, you know, unmarked underground storage tanks that we've remediated. So we have a little bit of everything on site, but nothing that requires stopping. I mean, clean up. Yep. So it's all fine for residential. And but we have had an extensive study, as you know, based upon your comments and and others. I'm glad I could cost you the money. Did the Denver Post leave anything dirty behind? Never mind. You know, as you know, ink is water soluble, so there is nothing dirty. There you go. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. I've always said this to everybody. Don't entertain them. He'll keep going. Councilman Espinosa. Kyle got a question for you. And it might be like Councilman Flynn was a little bit surprised. We have three recent plans, all within the last six years that say urban, residential, urban, residential, urban residential, nearly 100%. The only exception being open space. So help me out again with that, the sort of introduction of commercial and why that is consistent with adopted plans and why we haven't considered an OSA or SB sort of zoning in in is part of this entire package because to my counsel, my colleague, Councilwoman CNOOC's point is once this is free zone, they have entitlement. And and so we will have gone against not just the urban residential components of these plans, but also the open space component of these plans. Sure. So let me take this one at a time. So first, regarding the urban residents of land use designation, we took a close look at the language of the plans as well as the language in the neighborhood or in sorry, in the zone district intent statements for the various districts that the applicant applied for. And in each of them, it indicated to us that while residential was the primary character of the area, they all called for as well some complimentary serving commercial uses that would serve those future residences and act as a transition between an entirely commercial or industrial area and an entirely residential area. And so what when we took a look at those plans and the language behind what urban residential means, we found that those land uses and the mix of uses and the building forms that would be allowed in the districts that are proposed by the applicant, we found that it could be found consistent with those plan recommendations. So that's where we were. And Planning Board concurred with that analysis. Regarding the open space zoning, when you take those one at a time. So first with the OSA zoning that can only be applied to lands owned or operated by Denver Park. So in the future, as this area develops and if parts of the park go to Denver parks, I think you will maybe see Denver Parks bring you an OSA application or something like that. But this is a private owned, so OSA isn't even an option for them. You have a fair point, though, about what? About open space? Generally, what we find is that applicants who are at this stage of development don't zone to open space because they're, you know, still to the boundaries of what ultimately become the parcel lines will change a little bit over time as phases develop. This is a large site will develop in phases. And so what we find is that typically folks are going to ask for zone districts that allow open space but don't only allow open space so that that open space can be provided for, but with the flexibility over time for the definition of those boundaries. So in order to compel the open space you've heard about the infrastructure master plan and the development agreement will ensure that we get the open space that is new, that is will be enabled through the zoning in the rezoning bill. Yeah. I'm going to have to follow up with you to sort of better understand how we sort of articulate zone lots and things like that because they seem very specific in the developer agreement down to the hundreds of Yeah. Down to the hundredths of a of an acre on what, how much open space will be provided. So it seems like they have a pretty developed idea about where that is and what that is that I almost wish we were capturing it, you know, other than through a private party agreement. That is not part of this council's consideration, although it sort of weirdly is. But yeah, sure. I do want to just note the development agreement to Kyle's point about OCA that it can't be applied until it's actually sitting on land. The development agreement does call for the largest parcel to be called right now anyway, Fox Park of 2.52 acres that once it's developed and through the warranty period and then transfer to the city , we would designated as OSA at that point. But again that's. Through private. Party action. The. How big is this going to come? More questions. Yes, for more. These are all quick. How many square feet is the printing facility? The Denver Post. And since we're. I think the existing funding facility is about. 227,000 square feet. Okay. The linkage fee is 25% more. The examples are residential. But I think Doug alluded to this. If if if it's commercially developed square footage, it will be subject to the commercial linkage fee. Is that correct? Okay. But it has to be new construction. So the 227,000 square feet of the printing facility would not be eligible for a linkage fee. Is that correct? It doesn't have to be new construction. So per Jill Jennings calling again, per the linkage fee ordinance, it does not apply to existing buildings. So I'm asking that because because Doug made it sound well. In his response. Does that mean that that that sort of square footage and the potential for that to be the commercial. Property. Which would be subject to the highest linkage fee sort of. You could surround that by urban residential and be consistent with the plans and really not get a 20 net 25% linkage fee for the totality of the site because that's a huge amount of money that is wrapped up in the considerable footage that would not be eligible . And so I just one is, you know, without knowing what the total development potential is. Yeah, I mean, yes, that's true. But it applies citywide today. Right. Okay. And then Chris Nevitt. Where is the next step? Studies. Can you give me an update on that? Sure. The next step study. The scope was approved after going through the mill with various agencies. It's now on the street and so we expect to get proposals from consultant teams in a couple of weeks and then we'll be assessing who has the best proposal and moving forward. And what is council's involvement going to be with that. Will be letting the contract. Just the contract. But when they go out and start doing public outreach, are we having a dedicated. Oh, yeah, sure. Yeah. Well, we'll be consulting with you guys with respect to all of the the public communication and participation from the community. But the the the contract, actually, it's a pretty small contract. It's $380,000, I think. So it may not come here, but. If you make us, we will. Okay. Yeah, that's why I just wrote down. Asked for a briefing. Okay. Then the last question is. Yeah. You know, this is. This is a heavy lift for council, but it's an easy lift for a member of the administration. In your past life, you were a very strong labor advocate. One thing that I was always looking for is, you know, could we introduce project labor agreements? Did that ever? You know, when you're negotiating all these sorts of things in terms about about affordable housing, about transit. Did you were you able to have that conversation about the delivery of these construction projects? Because that, too, is one way we could address affordability. Wow. You put me on the spot there, councilman. I'm that's that's not really in my current job description, so I haven't beaten that drum very hard. But I will say that constructing things is a job creator. And the I-70 project, the National Western Project, these are all projects that have a big apprenticeship and training component to them . And my hope would be that that would bleed over into other big construction projects in this area as well. It's all part of the same neighborhood. Understand that we're not at a construction project yet. We have to do the next step study to figure out what we're going to build. And then we have to figure out how to raise the money to pay for it. And then we're going to get to construction. But I think there's plenty of room for conversations between now and then. Don't stick your neck out too far. But but you're on that side. We're on this side. You still have advocates and support on this side of this. Yes. So by all means, feel free to approach that. Thanks. Okay, Councilman, I take you back up. Thank you. Do you want Councilman Cashman to go first? He said he was right. His question is answered. Okay. We talked to two quick questions. The first is. And I'm looking at you, Mr. Harrigan. If. Tax increment finance is requested. Typically, that gives us a second bite at the apple, if you will, to look at extracting more affordability in the housing. Can you speak to whether or not the housing plan set some guidance for because those get negotiated by Durham, not necessarily by OSD, unless they check in and weigh in with you on that, which I'm not sure what that practice is. But did the housing plan set some guidelines for Durham on how that gets done so that we have a floor to work from, if you will? Yes, that's a very good question. So we do engage with Dora, with Tracey Huggins and have regular meetings. If there is tax increment, finance. And public dollars are being utilized. It is. A. Different discussion. It's individually negotiated and we are going through that right now. And some discussions in this case as we had discussed this potentially being tiff and then not being TIFF and had other discussions. As I understand, we have an opportunity to reopen discussions and address this topic again. And it's a really good question because as we evaluated this and there's a lot of discussion over one times the linkage fee, which are developments and the city is required to pay versus 1.25 you have here today. And then as we look at the 30th and Blake overlay district and the four times fee, we see that as having public subsidy in the form of that density bonus. So you have different. Different types of negotiating depending on the circumstance in the case so that the tax increment finance, should it be one times linkage, three or four times the linkage fee? I think that's a negotiation and discussion in this case with the Metro District being on the table here and not taking city taxpayer dollars. You know, I think this is a very fair deal to get 25% above and beyond. We really, as Department Office of Economic Development, we really want to provide a sense of market stability. And right now, there is not a policy to say for metro districts it should be 2x3x4x. And I think that's something our department needs to really look into going forward, especially as we reopen or reassess the linkage fee next year. Okay. I'll save the other part for my comments. But my next question. Did Chris know through your. Chris, I just wanted to to sort of push a little further on the next step study because I keep hearing that it's focus is on transportation. And I want to know how drainage plays into the next step study because we know that the the global storm drainage study is underway. How much does that shape what falls into the next step study in addressing both drainage? Because if we only address transportation and we don't do anything with drainage and we have flooding, 38th Avenue is going to create further gridlock at that intersection of 38th box I-25. And. What's the other one? Park. Park Avenue. Park Avenue. So we won't be doing any justice to the collective work we're trying to do if we don't truly address that intersection problem and the drainage there. So just help me understand, is it just transportation or is it transportation? And drainage is part of what that next step study is addressing. And then the next piece of that is how do we anticipate that all of the property owners in this area, not just this particular site, because we've got a number of that have been rezone, but they haven't built yet and we've got some high densities that have been approved in this area. So how will they all then contribute towards addressing the infrastructure challenges that we have in this area? Got it. Yeah, that's a great question. So the next step study is primarily focused on transportation, but I think this is a good example of all the pieces and parts in the city working closely together and working in harmony. So the Globeville stormwater study that's been sort of up and moving forward for about a year, and the group that's working on the next step study for this project met with the project manager and principals in that project and tried to figure out exactly because we didn't want to waste money by doing redundant work. I agree with that. We wanted our work to be complementary and so we've worked very closely with them. What's the work that they're doing? How can the their drainage work inform the transportation infrastructure that we will be focusing on? And also, how will the transportation infrastructure that we're working on inform their drainage work? And I'll give you in fact, the 38th Avenue Canal is a great example. If one of the big moves is the reconstruction of that 38th Park Fox 25 interchange and how it interacts with the 38th Avenue underpass. If the drainage study is talking about moving or building new drainage infrastructure there, the transportation project would be the perfect opportunity to execute on that. So that's how we're going to be working closely together so that they they complement each other. Your question about the funding is, is right on the money, if you'll excuse the pun, and we don't have the answer to that yet. And this next step study is going to be very different than a next step study, the next step studies that we've done in the past in that it will focus explicitly. One of the scope elements is to focus explicitly on all the different ways in which money can be raised to meet the the the need that's identified in the study. Usually the study identifies the projects and comes up with a concept price and then kind of leaves it at that. This study will also begin to answer the question How can that be paid for? Who pays and how much? So in that, is there an expectation that the developers in this area will contribute towards that so that it's not expected that we just build it to max capacity? Yes, ma'am. And the taxpayers end up dealing with trying to solve the problem. Yes, indeed. So in the development agreement, that is the companion to this rezoning and that also gives legal teeth to the infrastructure master plan in the development agreement is a limited to a couple of things. There's a limit to the amount of development that this project that these developers or the vertical developers that that that follow. There's a limit to the amount that they can develop based on the capacity for traffic in the neighborhood. So they cannot you know, you refer to while there's this entitlement and they could build to their full entitlement and that's going to blow up the infrastructure. We won't let that happen. They can't build beyond that capacity, number one. And number two. The development agreement actually anticipates it. We don't have the answer yet, so we couldn't really memorialize it. But the development agreement anticipates a more comprehensive mobility solution to which this property owner and other property owners in the neighborhood will contribute. So that just raises one quick question for the city attorney, and I just want to make sure that by. Approving the rezone with the density allowable on the site, that we're not putting the city in a situation where we're going to be in a legal entanglement because there's a perception that they could build to the approved height limits, but yet we're putting this cap on. I get the question you're asking. And Brad Beck's coming up here. You're asking if we say here's your entitlement and then they try to execute on that and we say, no, no, wait a minute, how do we deal with that? Yeah, and I understand you've put some language in in the agreement, but there's some. Brad Becker, the city attorney's office. There's a chip count mechanism built into the development agreement so that we can meter that out. And the city always has its health and safety hammer if it needed to if it needed to exercise it. Okay. Thank you very much. Who counts on us. When I was you, you became a city attorney. Needs to stick around. I just wanted to know what established the capacity of the neighborhood. That's. That's a new one. You know, I get why you're saying that. But what sort of documented or scientific evidence do we have that there is a capacity to a neighborhood. From an infrastructure. Infrastructure perspective. However, your. Staff might have to. It's probably a better answer by. Chris, now that or perhaps. Because we're talking. The traffic studies that have been. Because we're talking trip count. Are you just talking peak hour because you've got a 24 seven day and you're essentially saying that only transit would only occur? Or are you saying that that this new capacity of a neighborhood is an F intersection on both routes? 24 seven. You know, what is this? So we worked Jill Jennings school like we worked very closely with our friends in public works and unfortunately Eric Osmonds and couldn't join us tonight. And looking at traffic studies done in this area, traffic studies prepared by the developer in this case, we were able and recent traffic counts to come up with a number related to how many trips are already out in this area. And then based on current roadway and intersection design today, how many trips that can handle before essentially there is failure and no one can move safely through the intersection. So that's how we came up with the. Number at peak hour or how many hours during actually actually, don't worry about it. If you could just get me that and have a look. I want to have a better understanding because there are other neighborhoods that basically feel like they're at capacity and we can't get that sort of scrutiny. And what we've learned is that the threshold for pain is very, very high. And in part of me thinks that if we develop this, if we plan this area and developed it in a way that was more holistic, where the services and everything were there, you could actually reduce trip counts and and and actually hitting capacity might actually spur that sort of growth within the boundaries rather than encouraging migration out. So, so there are a couple of things with this development in particular as the development agreement requires that with a site development plan, they submit a transportation demand management plan to look at sort of how are they dealing with trips and reducing trips overall? Because we know that is an issue here. That is something I think we're starting to have conversations about citywide. I think we've done it and a couple other developments through development agreement in the past. And then to just add on to what Chris was talking about, the framework in this development agreement, we are working and have already started drafting rules and regulations that would apply to this entire area, 184 acres, if memory serves, to set this trip capacity in place for all development coming forward. So we are going to be piggybacking on the parking maximum conversation that we have started with in community planning and development for this area. Again, aimed at how do we reduce trips and ensure that there is enough capacity for existing and new redevelopment. Have you considered to to my colleague's question related to that about this developer versus prior rezonings that we've already approved, have you considered that the potential for the TDM component in some of these transit components being an overlay so that it's not just applicable to this and everybody going forward, but that we could sort of retroactively apply it. So the rules and regulations will require any time someone within this development comes in with a site development plan, they would have to provide a transportation demand management plan, assuming the rules are adopted. But that's what we are diligently working to do. So whether it's been zoned or not. Oh, great. Thank you. All right. That closes the you make sure questions and also the people here before 12 are going into comments by members of council. Representing this district. I'll I'll go first. Couple of things that I'll start off with, number one. I think every rezoning in this area for the last. Three years. There's been one to maybe three people talking about a mobility and transportation plan for the zone. And this is the first rezoning where there's a plan and there's actually a dollar amount that is committed to it. So I just want to say, you know, we've been talking about this for a long time. You know, those of us who know this area, I just walked this area on Friday. I don't I don't think people understand the existing condition of this area. And if you haven't been there, you need to go. And so I appreciate the investment now that we've tied a dollar amount. And I appreciate my former colleague from president of City Council, Chris Nevitt, working so hard on this along with all the CPD and all the folks. So thank you for that. Speaking to the existing condition, we talk a lot about, you know, do it, do it yourself. Artists, nonprofits. Do you know where those people exist right now? They exist in this area, and not a lot of people know that. And so I want to thank you all from a for for helping folks at Taco Fest. There's going to be thousands of people there this weekend and there are a lot of artists I went and visited last week. And I know a lot of people think this area is going to get developed very quickly and it's going to be a while. And I hope that we don't displace those folks who are currently in all of these buildings that are in there. So so that as far as the zoning goes, I mean, as I look at their criteria, as I look at the consistency with the adopted plans that just got approved in 2014, uniform uniformity with district regulations will hold on. Number three to further the public health and safety and welfare, justifying circumstances, consistency with neighborhood context that the rezoning actually applies. And the public health and safety to me goes directly with the community benefit agreements. I should say the development agreement agreements that benefit the community and you know, totally on board what's going on with the transportation mobility plan. Loved the maximums parking maximums when you be doing that all over the city, especially near transit. You know, I feel like on the, you know, councilwoman and each and I have talked about this a lot and I feel like her questions were right on point at the beginning of this. And we've kind of debated this issue. I know. Which what didn't get shared during the comment the question period. I know that the developer came with a plot of land to dedicate as affordable housing. That plot of land was on the north. West, northeast side of the property. That particular location to OED and others didn't feel like that was the best location. And so they negotiated a one point, whatever you guys call it. We'll just say two bucks a square foot, 11.2 times the linkage fee. Now, the question here is, should OED have negotiated a better deal for the land? Because I agree with councilman Councilwoman Kenney. We do need to get land. But when? How long are we willing to wait to that land gets developed for affordable housing? Or do we take the cash and begin immediately to put it into a fund and begin getting getting affordable units now? So that is kind of the consideration around the affordable housing that I have been wrestling. Two things. One, if we could if we have the authority to negotiate, we probably would have pushed a development to see if we could get more of that Southern property, knowing that we would get that development much faster, knowing that you could get utilities there much faster. I feel like that northern property you will not get utilities to and you will not see those unit realized as fast as you as we could see them to. If we do get the cash, can OED direct those dollars to the first developer who steps there and buy down affordable units, much like we've done on Welton? And so those are some considerations that we need to begin to look at. I am, you know, mostly appreciative of the efforts going on. I feel like we could have done a little bit harder job on the development agreement regarding affordable housing. I'm going to support this. I'm going to be watching this. I'm going to be working with with Eric Harada and working with OED to make sure that those dollars get invested right back into the site. I do agree with my council members that in the plan, all it talked about was affordable housing around this station, and we have to make sure that we build those units. But the negotiation wasn't as easy, I think, as sometimes we talk about. Right. There's a lot of there is a lot of difficulty in this. And so this is part of the tough constraints of being the council, the legislative body, trying to step into the executive body that makes the agreements. And so I'm going to support this, and I'm excited to hear what my colleagues have to say. Councilman Espinosa. So this one, this one's frustrating for me. You know, traditionally, I you know, I spoke out on a few of these exile in Arizona, and they spoke out about the need for infrastructure and some of the things we were overlooking. And and then at some point, I just was like, well, I guess we'll will meet this problem when it finally manifests itself and and continued to support subsequent rezonings without speaking up. And then this comes through and it's like, oh, we expect this developer to sort of now start to finally address all of the concerns that some of us have been articulating from day one on Fox Island. And I get frustrated by this because to me this is not enough density. And I've said that privately and now I'm saying it publicly because the developer has made that move and made that proposal to retain the Denver Post building on an area that was mapped 12 storey. It's a huge cut in the amount of developable development potential there. And rather than sort of squeeze it back onto the available development footprint to increase density and help support this station area, we just said, nope, you're capped for some arbitrary thing that we're creating when all of those plans were developed around those existing roadways with a planned connection to alleviate this concern. And so rather than do all the infrastructure things that we need to do, which I've been articulating since day one on this council and asked for for funding in the Geo Bond to ask, we have said no, we're going to depress the scale here. Which when we do that, we depress the potential to do land value capture and work with developers to deliver affordable housing. And instead we're paying for it. But at. A. Trickle of the of the need and. And so. I continue to watch this area. Flounder through some sort of vision without a real vision. It will be successful eventually, but I wish next steps had occurred when I got elected. When this council was articulating this concern and that we had land value capture in a meaningful way. You know, and what I mean by meaningful way is the thing that I have been throwing down constantly for about two months now. And I want you to hear this, Erica Raga, because you're the one person that I need to talk to that I haven't walked through this area with this proposal. But I think there is a way to do revenue neutral development to the city and largely to the developer and deliver units with each project that gets constructed. Through this land value captured and incent this so that we're not just because we are not going to subsidize our way out of this problem, we have to construct. And provide I mean, have these housing units available. And I know it can be successful in a mixed income environment and it will be healthy to develop around our transit stations. And so if we thought about this and we did this, and I would I will sit down with you and other developers in this room. Tim Santos, you're a very savvy, housing savvy individual as well. Let's talk about this plan. So the question of where. I mean, will there be housing and where will affordable housing be in projects? Will should never come up anymore. We know in our Todd areas we will get them as a product, a byproduct of any development. And the only reason you wouldn't get it is because nobody's building. But as soon as somebody is building residential, there's going to be an affordable component. And yeah, we can't mandate it, but we can incentivize and we can do it in a way that is far more productive than anything we have approached thus far, because a four exit at 38th and Blake is really a2x, it's just doubling the linkage fee when you do all the math and massing of those projects. And here. 1.25. It's just it's a drop. It's a it's the word pathetic is going to come out of my mouth. And the response from a developer when they say we want to do more is should never be. You can pay more. Money is great because I say homes are better. I've already said it. We will not subsidize our way out of this. We must build inclusively and we can do it so that it is revenue neutral for the city. And will benefit the developer at the same time. So regardless, I will follow the the this is not the reason I have laid out a much bigger problem. It is not the function of this particular reasoning to capture and resolve these issues. These are city issues. These are matters for council and the administration to do a better job in addressing. And I'm just saying that what this is does not do a better job at addressing, but it is consistent and better than anything we have put forward on Fox Island to date. So with that, I will continue to to support these rezonings. But I ask, there are still tons of opportunity. I mentioned this last week on the Evans rezoning and another Todd area where we have massive industrial land and we have several others like that that are opportunities waiting to happen. But we have to lay down new provisions, new regulations to address these concerns in real time things. All right, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilman Espinosa for those remarks. I agree with him and I adopt them. And I'm going to support this rezoning because I believe it meets all of the criterion criteria that are required. And not only that, I think that this is a project that that is necessary up there. That's why we're building transit. I think we dodged a big bullet, Grandma, when RTD wanted to build a commuter rail maintenance facility there. Imagine if a massive part of this station area had been taken up with a rail yard and a maintenance facility that RTD ended up building on the north side of the highway instead. In fact, I remember Carl Marcello, the late Carl Marcella, when he told us that Mayor Hickenlooper called him into the office. Graham I don't know if you were there, but Mike Shanahan was in the room and Mayor Hickenlooper said that Carl Marcello, who was the head of RTD, you will not build your maintenance facility on this on this property. And I think that's a very fortunate thing that happened, because this is exactly where we want to build. We want to build this diversity of housing, this density of housing with its access to the regional rail network. And so I'm very happy to support and I think it's a legacy of Denver's old industrial areas, we reasoned, one last week as well. And we keep taking areas that used to be rail yard. We're talking about now the old rice yards last week where we where we approved the new downtown area plan amendment that will possibly convert that area into an urban neighborhood. And now we're looking again at the old Argo smelter and even the one we just approved earlier over in Park Hill and Harley Street is right next to the site of the original Lowry Field. And it just shows how the city continues to evolve and it continues to change. And these are necessary changes to accommodate a growing population with a diversity of housing options. So I'm very happy to support this, Mr. President. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. For almost 15 years now, I have been engaged in most of the conversations around big redevelopments in this city and have studied closely the ones that preceded my time. And I have been a defender of area planning, even though it takes an enormous amount of community resources and times. And Elizabeth knows this. It's a lot of meetings, it's a lot of input. And residents are always skeptical and they say, can we trust what you put in this plan? Can we believe you when you say the things in this plan? And I have defended the value of those plans because I have believed they set a guideline that I believe in most cases we strive to achieve. But today I can't say that that's true. So I have two things that we need to lay out for the record here. The one is, does the zoning conform to the plans of the city? The language of those plans. And then the second question, because I think it's important. Would it have been possible would it have been fair to have this project conform to those plans? I think you've got to answer both those questions. So let me just lay down some record. Transit oriented development strategic plan of 2014 include a range of housing types and affordability, with mixed use development at or near stations. Housing an inclusive Denver Action Plan. Prioritize the building of creative creation of affordable housing in vulnerable areas, including areas vulnerable to displacement and neighborhoods that have strong amenities such as transit. OED housing investment priorities already prioritizes development of affordable housing that includes services or is located near fixed rail transit and high frequency bus lines. Globeville neighborhood plan. It means having access to a vibrant system, including quality jobs, affordable and diverse housing options. Global development plan also states, and it specifically calls out that this site should be considered for use for a community land trust because there is a risk that the recommended development intensity creates exceeding existing conditions on the ground that could result in displacement. 41st and Fox Plan. I mentioned already 12 or 13 mentions, including a requirement to develop an affordable housing strategy from CPD and OED. Working together for this station area, including mixed income housing, requires this area to follow the recommendations in the TOD plan. So just for the lawyers in the room, the tiered strategic plan is probably not an adopted plan except the 41st and FOX Plan is adopted and it says that we are going to follow the recommendations of the two D strategic plan. It mentioned specifically on page 36. And I just want to read this because this is what we're talking about. While the home prices remain affordable to existing residents, the presence of the station may increase property values and overall desirability of the area. This will create a new develop. This will require a new need for new development to provide housing types for diverse income levels. We got it right as a city in these plans, we said we know that there's going to be an impact. We know we need to have a plan for it. And we need to build diverse, mixed income housing on this site. Not a single mention of paying for it to build somewhere else. So we clearly do not have a zoning paired with this agreement that conform to the language of our adopted plans. So the question is, could we have done it? Could we have come up with the zoning and or associated agreements that conformed? Well, first of all, I just want to be really clear. My exchange was with the Office of Economic Development. I helped write the bill for the linkage fee with my colleague in the administration. We clearly left a path for affordable housing negotiated plans in the ordinance. Why did we do that? The linkage fee was never designed to be an affordable housing planning tool. I agree with one of the speakers tonight. It was a floor where there's nothing else. This applies. Linkage fees are designed for buildings. There's nothing in that ordinance that states that it's intended to be a planning tool or that it's intended to determine what neighborhoods need for housing. That's just not what it was designed for. And we made sure there was a path so that where we had large, important redevelopments, we could continue to to make sure we had all the robust planning processes necessary. So has anyone else done it before? Has anyone else? In a big, complicated, multi-phased area committed to building affordable housing on site? Well, they have. And they haven't just done it in tive projects. The Central Valley did not get to if it was a metropolitan district and they committed to on site housing. And guess what? They had environmental contamination. They had railroads to deal with. They had many barriers, lack of infrastructure. They had no street grid. Now, they may not have been quite as isolated, but I don't think anyone can say that it was not a tough site and they committed ahead of time. As master developers to pass on the obligation to their verticals. And they figured it out. And by the way, we did not subsidize it. They built it without subsidy. So I want that record to be clear. Others have done it and they've done it in many different ways, which is important when we think about the question came up. Well, there's no policy. Well, there's no policy in part because every site's different. And I think that that has worked, right. So at ninth in Colorado, they built slightly off site one just on the other side of the street because it worked. And they actually built it early. They built it before the rest of the housing St Anthony's. They dedicated some land to DHS. They built some mixed use on site. Gates, had a totally different approach where they're going to sprinkle the units throughout every one of these projects got the benefit of thinking creatively and solving for housing. They committed ahead of time in some cases without knowing where it would go, in other cases, dedicating it. So the absence of a policy created a lot of flexibility for developers, and it created a lot of flexibility for the city to be creative. Sometimes we bring additional subsidies, sometimes we don't. But make no mistake, large, complicated redevelopment sites can absolutely commit to affordable housing and they can deliver it, and they have done it in the city's history. So should it be done? I think that answer I mean, we don't even need to debate that. We have a dire need and land is very scarce and it's needed. And this neighborhood at every turn has said to us, Where are you on preventing displacement? And we talked about this last time. Displacement isn't just when you're removing the houses on your site, it's the ripple effects that are going to happen from property values and change outside your site. So even though not a single housing unit is going to be lost on this site, it's going to have the potential to displace and our plans recognize that. So we have a situation where it was hard. The first land offered wasn't the right land. And I respect the decision that that wasn't the right approach. But we had every plan obligation to stay at the table, to figure it out, to be more creative and use the institutional history of this city. There are really well-intentioned folks here, but we don't have affordable housing planning as a as a as a as a job description. And we didn't use, I don't think, any of the history of these plans and the institute. We have newer staff, maybe some folks weren't around when we did Central Park Valley, I'm not sure, but we missed the opportunity. And so because it was in the plans and because it was possible and it is not in this final thing, this does not meet the criteria for any of adopted plans. So the question I just want to close with is what do we do from here? Right. I can't vote for this. I won't vote for this because of of it failing to meet these legal requirements and failing to meet my moral requirements for meeting all of these things that we've helped to create, all these expectations we've created for our community. So what do we do going forward? Well, one, we need to break down the silos. We can't have one department doing big planning and visioning and then do it without. And community dialog. I didn't even quote all the places where the community meetings from Globeville residents. I got a call today from a global resident asking about this. So so we can't have one department that's not at the public meetings negotiating the affordable housing plan separate from the department that wrote the plans. That can't happen. Anymore. We need to give the department the staff capacity and expertize. You need. Administering an ordinance and approving a funding agreement for affordable housing is very different than planning a 50 acre site. It's a different skill set. We need to give you the talent and the capacity you need to do that. And frankly, we as a council need to have a conversation now about policy, because I've had a lot of trust for a lot of years that these things would get figured out, that people would come check back with us as council. We had a conversation about this. I pulled the record as early as 2016 about this site. I think my first meeting with the developer was in Philly. So every piece of indication was there and all the systems failed. So it's time. Let's talk about policy. Let's talk about written policy. So we I going to bring this to the housing and homelessness workgroup. And, you know, maybe it's time to end the flexibility. It's time to say, here's what happens when you want a big catalytic site with a lot of these considerations. Let's create rules and there's no more no more negotiating. Or let's put the council as the approving party of affordable housing approaches so that there's no more disconnect where no one comes and talks to us about what's being negotiated until they have a signed agreement. Right. So there's a lot of paths. Let's do some research. Let's see how other cities are doing this. But the trust the trust method, it didn't it failed us. And 2800 housing units might be built without any affordability. 2800. I can't live with that. And if that's a risk of ever happening again, we need a new approach. So I'd love to hear council feedback after this meeting about whether you're interested in that conversation, the Housing and Homelessness Workgroup. And I thank you for your time today. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Cannick Cashman. Well, we should be close to each other. I can understand the confusion. I'm tempted to say what she said. We can we can assume. Based on intent and promises. I don't know how long Mr. Bennis is going to be. Involved with that property. It reminds me of when I first heard about rezoning for liquor licenses that you need to be careful when you create a new license for this great guy who stands before you. Because the next guy, unless he's an out and out felon. May not have the same intent for your community. I agree with the councilwoman. I interpret the are plans to give emphasis to the creation of affordable housing, but for me even more strongly is the third criteria that talks about concern excuse me, concern for the public health and welfare, my office and hears on a daily basis. The two greatest concerns in the city are about traffic and about affordable housing. Now, I do believe we may be on an infrastructure path with this parcel that that takes a serious look at how to control trips. But for affordable housing, it's just another. Buyout. Opportunity. I mean, we zoned. I was the lone. No vote. On zoning, I believe 100 acres of Arapahoe Square because there was no affordable. Housing component. And here again. We're looking at something that approaches half of that size and again, with tremendous connectivity to to rail and mass transit options and again. With no. Affordable housing component and are. It is my personal belief that our linkage fee anyway is embarrassingly low. But there's only so much you can do with cash when we keep. Giving our land away. You know, we we are. Landlocked. And the number of units that we need to create, we can't keep giving these large parcels away. Again, based on intent and promises, it needs to be. It just needs to be a deeper part of our ethos. I mean, we spent so long. On. Our recent housing plan that talks over and over about the crisis we're in and the import of of of affordable housing. So. Yeah. I'm, um. I think we've got a great developer, but I'm going to have to vote against this plan tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So let me first start by saying I live in this area. I drive this route routinely and the infrastructure is not sufficient even for today's traffic, with all the new development that has already occurred in Sunnyside, in Highlands. You know, you've got a tremendous amount of traffic that comes off of Park Avenue trying to get into North Denver. And then, you know, as you add the development to this area. We're going to be challenged on how to get people in and out. And yes, some will take the train, but a lot of people will still drive their cars because not everybody is going straight downtown. Our train system doesn't get everybody where you're trying to go and our bus connections don't link to our train to get everybody to that first and last mile. So addressing the infrastructure issues, both transportation and drainage in this area are critical to anything that's going to happen there, because if we don't do that, guess what? We're already gridlocked at that intersection. So we have to address that. Now, is affordable housing important? Absolutely. I've been a huge advocate of affordable housing. Been on the board of a nonprofit housing group for over 30 years. It's a priority for us to address in this city. But. I just have to go back to the work we did on our housing plan. We gave up our inclusionary housing ordinance. If these guys proposed to build any for sale housing, they would have to include 10% of their units. But we gave that up. I argued we shouldn't do that because that was one more tool in our toolbox that gave us at least something to have our housing developers contribute towards our affordability of housing. Yeah, it's up for sale, but and we think we've overcome that with the changes that we brought forward a couple of years ago to address the construction defect issue. So we're starting to see, you know, some developers build for sale housing in the city, but we gave that up. I don't think we should have. Does that mean we shouldn't be seeing affordability on the rental side here? No, that's not what I'm saying. I mean, we'd love to see that. But I think, you know, a couple of things here. As we continue to rezone large parcels. When it comes time to try to get affordability on there, the the person rezoning it can now sell it for higher and better use. So that challenges us being able to get affordability in those developments. And I get, you know, trying to masterplan the site and address the infrastructure needs for the site. But we need to change our policy so that we as much as we have the legal authority and we were able to do this with construction defects, even though we were told the state legislature has control. We adopted our own legislation here on how to do that. So we should be able to figure out how we do that on the affordability side for rental and for sale housing in this city. And I'm committed to working with the housing group Housing and Homeless Group to figure out what are the policy changes that we need to make so that we have the tool, we have the hook to include affordability in all of our development. We should not be letting people buy out where we want to see units constructed. We keep letting that happen. And guess what? We're not getting the units. We're getting the money. And then we're saying, Oh, you can go build over there or you can go build over there. But in the areas where we want to see a mix of income levels, guess what? It's not happening. We need to figure out how to make that happen. But we got to do that with our policy changes because to say, you know, you followed the rules, but we want you to do this, it's not fair. We need to change the policy that gives us the right to extract what we need and want to see happen. In all the developments in this city and especially the large developments where we're seeing, boom, massive development coming in to our city and what does that do? It's going to have that continued push out effect to the adjacent neighborhoods because people like coming into the area because there's just fun stuff to do in these areas. But guess what? Now they're going to look at Globeville. They're going to look at houses in in the adjacent neighborhoods that haven't already been turned over. And we have tried to look at including density at our TOD sites where that's where we want that. That's where we want the height. We want all of that at. Todd. And not have that then, you know, take over our adjacent residential neighborhoods. You know, Jefferson Park is an example where boom, nothing, nothing even looks the same in that neighborhood. It's been completely redeveloped for the most part. So, you know, I. I appreciate the work that the city has done and that this developer has done in addressing the infrastructure issues, which, again, to see anything new and different happen in this area which has already been designated as a TOD area. The neighborhood wants to see the development there and not in the neighborhood. So I'm inclined to support this tonight, even though it doesn't have the strong commitment to affordable housing. And my hope is that this applicant sees and hears this message loud and clear and figures out a way to ensure that affordability is front and center in everything that is done helps. Ensure that those units are on the site and not just contribute the funding to it and see those units go elsewhere, because I think that's a critical part. I don't believe we're going to see 2800 units built on the site as long as the commitment is to keep that building on the site , which I think is an incredible building. And we've talked about, you know, a potential use for that site that I think would make that whole location even far more attractive than what you guys are looking at or thinking about at this point in time. But. I just think that. The fact that we have the development agreement that links back to the project and ensures that we're also looking at the trip count. And you know, that is also a cap, if you will, on the site. So it ensures that we do this next step, study and address all of that upfront as part of of all of this. Otherwise, then not just this developer, but the others who will then come in through their development agreements will be required to, you know, to try to ensure that they're there addressing that cap as well. So I think those safeguards are in place. I'm anxious to see the outcome of the next step study and would just respectfully ask that that be brought to the appropriate committee so that we can be updated on where that's at in the process. You know, once the contractor selected and they move through the process to at least give us an update of where that's moving. The last thing I'll say, and this is too, a comment made by SACU, is that. This whole process changed when the 2010 zoning was adopted. City Council used to see a lot more detail in terms of number of units, number of parking spaces, traffic studies. You know, it's a whole different way that this body looks at the applications from the body that I served with. And so, again, if we want to see some changes, we need to look at the policy changes that we have to make. And we are the legislative branch that can do that so that we address those upfront and be able to look at the things that we want to see happen. And obviously, we don't do that in a vacuum, just like when we created the original IATO. It was done in collaboration with the development partners in this city. So with that, I will be supporting this tonight and am committed to working with Councilwoman Kim Inches Committee to change our policy so that we have a way to ensure that with these large developments, we're getting affordability in these projects. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. This concludes the comment portion of city council. It's been moved in second. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Eye Clark by Espinosa Flynn I. Gilmore, i. Herndon High Fashion. No carnage. Lopez No new, huh? Ortega Mr. President. I. Please. I think we're missing somebody. Okay. Yeah. Explosive ordinance results. Nine eyes, three nays. 93 nays for 12 passes. Onto the third public hearing for tonight. Councilman Flynn, will you please put counsel before.