meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0805
|
Speaker 0: Excellent. Councilman Herndon, will you please read Proclamation 805?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President, I am excited to read Proclamation 805 congratulating our Denver Outlaws for winning the 2016 Major League MLB, the cross shaped championship. Whereas The Denver Outlaws kicked off their inaugural season on May 22, 2006, and are an organization committed to not only winning Major League lacrosse championships, but to growing new lacrosse fans and to making a positive impact on Denver communities. And. Whereas, since their inaugural season, no team has appeared in more Major League lacrosse championship games than our Outlaws. And. WHEREAS, on August 21st, 2016, the Denver Outlaws rallied to defeat the Ohio Machine 1918 after trailing by seven goals at halftime to earn the franchise's second Major League lacrosse championship and return the Steinfeld trophy to Denver. And. WHEREAS, Denver, Denver native Eric Law was named MVP of the championship game after scoring the game winning goal with just 13 seconds left. And. WHEREAS, Head coach BJ O'Hara acknowledges that fan support has had a meaningful impact on the team, helping carry them through a challenging season and ultimately to the team's second championship in three years. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council congratulates. Mr. Pat Bowlen, owner of the Denver Outlaws. Head Coach B.J. O'Hara, President Mac Freeman, Director of Sales and Marketing, Ted Sing and the entire Denver Outlaws team and staff for winning the 2016 Major League Lacrosse Championship and bringing the Stanford Cup back to Denver. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver will attest and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and then a copy be transmitted to the Denver Outlaws franchise.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 6: I move that proclamation 805 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second to comments by members of council councilman herndon.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And I said this a couple of council meetings ago. Name the last team to win a major championship in Denver and everybody scream Broncos. I was like, You're wrong. And I'm so excited about our Denver Outlaws because if you're familiar with Major League, the Cross, every team, with the exception of our outlaws, are on the East Coast because there is this perception mentality that lacrosse is an East Coast sport. Since 2006, when the Denver Outlaws joined the Major League Lacrosse League. Only one year had we not had the highest attendance for a single season game more championships appearances than any other team. This is a team that is committed to winning. We have a fan base that still supports their teams and is exciting to know that they are back bringing the Steinfeld trophy back to the mountain west to the mountain time zone. And I was we have the photo of their pitcher, which is just remarkable after they won. And so it's great to have our MVP, a Denver native here as well. So kudos to the team. Congratulations, Iowa. We did this two years ago. I got to hold the Steinfeld trophy. It is heavy and I'm excited about taking a photo after this proclamation holding and again can kudos to our team. Kudos to the franchise and really excited and I look forward to doing this proclamation every time. I wish I could give you a parade, but the very least I could bring for the proclamation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 6: Herndon, I.
Speaker 7: Oh, sorry, Mr. Herndon.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 7: Can. I can eat. I knew Ortega Sussman, Black Eye Clark Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting, announce results.
Speaker 7: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Proclamation 805 has been adopted. Councilman Herndon, is there someone that you would like to call up?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President, I'd like to invite Ted Singh, director in sales and marketing for the Denver Outlaws, as well as our championship game MVP, Erick La.
Speaker 4: Thank you guys for having us.
Speaker 0: Wow. That is a big trophy.
Speaker 2: Just want to say thank you, Councilman, for all the kind words. It's pretty cool to be a Denver homegrown boy and being able to stand up here and be named Most Valuable Player, the championship game, something that you never would've thought ever happen in your life. And to bring another championship back home to Denver that thrives on championships and winning. And and I think any of this would be done without our owner, Pat Boone, and and all the things that he's done, not only for us as the Denver outlaws, but he was a major contributor and helping Major League lacrosse grow and kind of helping our vision of bringing across the main stage and and like you said, bringing the cross that's been conceived to such an East Coast sport and bring it out west and be one of the local guys that that can say that that we're the champions and we're the best team in the world is nothing but an honor.
Speaker 0: So thank you all. Thank you.
Speaker 12: I just wanted to add a few things kind of for those who kind of haven't followed our season this year. This team started like, like every year we, we start with.
Speaker 10: The aspirations to win a championship. Two years ago, we certainly were excited to win our first championship this year. Started off not so well for us. We.
Speaker 12: We got off to a two and six start and there were no thoughts of, you know.
Speaker 10: This trophy coming back to Denver at that point.
Speaker 12: But it's the.
Speaker 2: Testament of.
Speaker 12: The team, the coaches and the players. They believed in.
Speaker 0: Themselves and they kept.
Speaker 4: Fighting and they kept winning game after game.
Speaker 12: After game until it became a reality of us winning eight.
Speaker 10: Straight.
Speaker 12: Games and then certainly winning another championship and bringing it back to Denver. So we're extremely excited for.
Speaker 10: Where we're at with them with another championship and hopefully.
Speaker 12: More to come and being back here next.
Speaker 10: Year again for another proclamation. So thank you guys so much for having us.
Speaker 0: Congratulations. Ten trophies is impressive, I'm telling you. Okay. Last proclamation of the evening council. Martell, will you please read Proclamation 806?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation congratulating the Denver Outlaws for winning the 2016 Major League Lacrosse (MLL) Championship.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0570
|
Speaker 0: Okay. Great. We have each for a vote for 626 and new for question in 759. All right. Madam Secretary, I think we will start with Ortega's bills in a block that we'll deal with. And Councilman Ortega. I will let you start to. Talk about what you want to do with this.
Speaker 8: Thank you. These are on call contracts. We have 12 of them. Each of them are $2.5 million. They total $30 million. And we have gotten into a practice in the city of using on call contracts, some of which may never even be utilized. So I think one of the things that is important for this body to see is how many of them are being utilized, how frequently are they utilized? What's the total amount that each of them have spent and to know annually how much money are we going to spend on these various contracts? My first year that I came back to counsel, we had 15 $4 million in contracts, and I learned that in a given year we were only going to be spending $2 million in IT contracts. We spend more way more than that now. But I think to ensure that we're getting the information that we need, it's important to. You know, use this platform to be able to ask for the information. And so yeah, and I routinely do that when we have these put forth on consent calendars as all of these are tonight. But it's not routine information that we get. I have asked that we include that on these on call contracts on a regular basis, but we don't always receive that. So I'm calling these out to vote no as a just using the bully pulpit as a way to start insisting that this kind of information be made available on a regular and consistent basis. Each of these contracts tonight are for traffic, transportation, bicycle and pedestrian, multimodal parking, civil water resources survey, geotechnical material testing, construction management, environmental and various mobility related services. You know, it's not clear if any of these are directly related to our Denver Wright process, which is going on, which is looking at a variety of planning efforts. We've got four different plans going on. We do have contracts with companies that are working with the city as consultants. And I, if I remember correctly, that equaled somewhere in the ballpark of $9 million. So I'm not sure how this interfaces with that. So I'm just calling them all out to vote no tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. You know, we need to put this on the floor. So, Councilman Gilmore, will you please put these 12 bills on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President. I move in a block that resolutions 575, 71, five, 72, five, 73, five, 74, five, 75, five, 76, five, 77, five, 78, five, 79, five, 80 and 581 be adopted.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Flynn. Councilman Flynn, do you ever.
Speaker 4: Can I just a point of order or procedure? With the new system, we were told that we can only do one block vote per meeting, so we might have to do all 12 of these separately.
Speaker 7: We're going to go ahead and do this as a bloc. We can do a consent, vote for other items. It will work.
Speaker 4: Out. It will. Okay. I just wanted to raise Resa.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Always a stickler for procedure. I like it. We got that. We got that taken care of. And I wanted to give Angela Casey us the opportunity to respond as well.
Speaker 5: Yeah, hi. Angela Casey is from Denver Public Works. And I want to just to confirm with Councilwoman Ortega that we have heard the council loud and clear on this issue. We have created a report and will be rolling that out and that will it will provide the information that you're looking for. All of the information that you mentioned this evening is.
Speaker 13: Is included in that.
Speaker 5: Report.
Speaker 8: And will we get that beforehand or that will always come after?
Speaker 5: This is something that will that we are we can give out monthly. We can give out quarterly. We can give it out at any time. Great.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thanks for the clarification, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just I wanted to thank Councilwoman Ortega for bringing up those concerns. And as Angela had mentioned, several have these sort of similar concerns from time to time. And so I will be abstaining because there's technically nothing wrong with the contracts. So it's not worth me voting no. But it is sort of it did strike me and it struck me as odd several times in from this day as to get, you know, it's a situation where you got, you know, 15 or 12 Swiss Army knives. And now rather than use the process to sort of find the right contractor for anything, it just seems like we just throw out this massive saying exactly. Worded contracts and then suddenly now you're picking and choosing it through a different means. And so I just would like to have better resolution on that.
Speaker 5: Just just for the record, I would like to just let you know that we do do a mini bid process for almost all of these contracts. So, I mean, this isn't something that we just arbitrarily throw out against the wall. Like we do have a process for each one of these bids.
Speaker 2: No, and I'm comfortable with that process. But the thing is, is when you do a specific task order or whatever the work order is for that, you then subsequently pay to each individual contractor. What is the criteria that you use to sort of allocate which contract goes to which of these several different providers doing the same thing
Speaker 5: . They each bid.
Speaker 13: On each.
Speaker 5: Project?
Speaker 2: Okay. So it's it's a seven bid process. This is like a pre-approval. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Angela. So we are going to vote now on this. Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 7: Ortega. Nope. Sussman.
Speaker 5: My black eye.
Speaker 7: Clark. All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Staying.
Speaker 7: Flynn. I. Gillmor, I. Herndon. Cashman. I can. I knew. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: Ten eyes, one nay, one abstention.
Speaker 0: These 12 bills are adopted. Councilwoman Sussman, I'm sorry I missed you on.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 0: Did you want to add anything to this or.
Speaker 5: Well, let's a little out of order, but I will. When you're running a huge organization like the city, very often you have to get your. Yeah. You have to be prepared to be able to use contractors. And so the process for vetting possible vendors is an absolute, absolute necessity to be timely in your responses to what you need and then to have the when you do need their services to have it bid again, I think is a very good example of good stewardship of the city budget and I understand the interest in seeing what is spent. I am happy to see that they're going to send that back. That's all I want.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Council on Assessment and council members. If I if I don't see you up on this new system, please just wave your hands in the air with them like you just don't care. Okay. Now we're going to pull up Resolution 547, Councilwoman Black for a comment.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for on-call engineering services.
Approves a three-year $2.5 million contract with AECOM for on-call professional services including traffic, transportation, bicycle and pedestrian, multimodal, parking, civil, water resources, survey, geotechnical, material testing, construction management, environmental, and various mobility-related services (201629353). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-26-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 8-11-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0759
|
Speaker 5: It's a much needed sidewalk they're partnering with See Dot, who's picking up most of the tab. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Okay. Great. All right. Now we are going to go to the bills for introduction.
Speaker 7: 759 was that one of them?
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. 759 Resolution. Councilman Flynn, what would you like to do with that thing?
Speaker 4: Mr. President, I'd just like to put this up for a vote.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put Resolution 759 on the floor to be adopted?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolution 759 be adopted.
Speaker 0: Great. It is moved in second to Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. We have such a lengthy agenda tonight, and this is a topic that we've debated quite thoroughly. And I've had the benefit, and I want to thank the traffic and the police staff who met with me to talk about this issue. And we're at the point now where I just wanted to vote. No, I don't oppose. I'm sorry. This is the photo red light and the photo speeding radar van contract because they're packaged together unlike previously. I just want to make it clear I do not oppose the photo speeding van. In fact, I wish we had more of them. I wish we had them all in my district. As a matter of fact. But at the risk of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, I don't want to go on and on and debate this again tonight. I just want to make note that I believe that having advocated with the staff unsuccessfully, that we follow a new guidance from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. And I do understand their reasons after meeting with them this afternoon. I just want to register my no vote in in in protest of that and and continue to advocate that we adopt a practice that in some other locations, particularly in California, where this new guideline has been has been codified in their state law that has reduced red light running, reduced accidents and enhanced safety without having to while reducing punitive fines. In other words, we can get compliance, we can reduce accidents without without fining people over it. So with that, Mr. President, I will forego talking about all the material that I've emailed folks over over time and just continue to urge the the traffic engineering staff to work on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn. I really appreciate that. Thank you.
Speaker 4: I knew you would.
Speaker 0: We also have. Oh, councilman new. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Well, question is Steve Hershey come up. Steve, if you could, could you address the national standards for especially the yellow light situation and the length of time and how we manage the length of time of those red lights and of the young lives in particular, and any national standards that you have. Sure, Councilman. Currently, the city and county of Denver has adopted the Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. That is a federal manual that comes out of Washington. It's adopted by sea dogs, also adopted by the city and county of Denver. In the manual, it advises that cities or counties or states use an adopted practice to calculate yellow and all red times. We've adopted the city standard, and the city standard is a formula which uses speed, grades and other factors to determine how long yellow times should be in California. They have their own mutes. The federal government allows the state to adopt their own multi-city in California has done that. Colorado has not. So we felt it was in our best interest to keep our practices consistent throughout all the intersections in the city and to follow the guidance in the manual of uniform traffic control devices from the federal government. So that's the process that we are currently using. You'll be continuing to evaluate this. Yes. Currently, we have a study going on that's looking at violations at a myriad of other intersections around the city. We are following what's happening when we adjust yellow times. What happens to compliance initially and then also what happens to compliance over time so we can get an understanding of is it an immediate reaction? Are we immediately seeing compliance? But then drivers are drifting back to old bad habits or is this a sustainable thing? And currently we have some data to support that. It does seem to bounce back and the drivers do seem to violate. But we're continuing to study that and we've made that commitment to Councilman Flynn that we would not only continue the study, but that we would be upfront and share all of that data with him. Yeah. Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Steve. You may want to sit up here just in case. Steve, I think you might want to come to the front desk. We got some more questions. Council Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: No questions. I just wanted to segment support. I mean, explain again. Did he call now for a vote? Yes. Yeah. Why? Once again, I'll be abstaining because there's technically nothing wrong with the contract. However, Councilman Flynn did bring this up last year, and I'm not quite satisfied with the fact that we don't have a we didn't have a better answer at committee on on on why we haven't further pursued these real. What he has is really hard data on the benefits of extending these these yellow light times. So in support of the fact that the research that you guys are doing and the transparency you've you've offered, I won't be voting no, but I will be abstaining from this vote. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to lend my support to Councilman Flynn for the hard work he's done in bringing up this issue, as I understand it. Councilman, the issue has to do with where? You'd like to see the yellow lights timed pretty much in conjunction with the speeds that people are actually driving, whereas our traffic engineers want the yellow lights timed according to the speeds as as our speed limits are signed. And for me and I'm taking the time to talk about it, because traffic in the city and county is the most frequently mentioned issue to me by my constituents. And I think we need to address this issue in a two pronged manner. The if people are driving too quickly, then we need to employ whatever traffic calming measures that we can, whether it's electronic signs telling you how fast you're driving, whether it's striping, narrowing lanes or whatever. But we need to address it to control the speeds. For me, the red light cameras are to control safe passage and safe stopping at intersections. So I think I think he's right on the money. And I hope you will continue to to look at this. In addition, I just wanted to bring up I know a number of us were surprised in committee to find out that in the entire city and county of Denver. I don't know what people listening and watching on TV I think we're doing, but we've we don't have dozens or hundreds of these cameras. We have four we are monitoring four intersections in the city and county of Denver with our 685,000 residents and millions of visitors every year. We have, I believe, five photo radar vans that we kind of shift around the city. We have I don't know how many trailers, speed trailers with the signs that tell you how fast you're going and urge you to slow down. So I think we really need to if we've decided that this is an effective program, I think we need to look at a substantial expansion of this program. People are driving like lunatics in the city. We have too many people. We can't our roadways aren't handling it. People are cutting through our neighborhoods at speeds far exceeding what they should be driving. So I just wanted to give that a little bit more time so people understand the scope of what we're doing here and maybe will let us know what our constituents think we ought to be doing with this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Steve. You can have a seat. Thank you for being up here. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 7: Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Kennedy. I knew Ortega. Sussman.
Speaker 5: I. Black. All right. Clark.
Speaker 7: All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 2: I'm staying.
Speaker 7: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 7: Ten eyes, one knee, one abstention.
Speaker 0: Ten eyes, one day, one abstention. Resolution 79 has been adopted. We're going to the bills for introduction now and we're going to start off with Council Bill 760 with Council.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Automated Photo Red Light - Photo Radar Traffic System Management Program Agreement by and between the City and County of Denver and Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc.
Approves an agreement with Xerox State & Local Solutions Inc. in the amount of $6,417,923 with a contract term through 9-3-21 for the provision of services for both the Photo Red Light and Photo Radar programs (201627552-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-3-16. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-31-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0626
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. That is duly noted. And we will have a courtesy public hearing on that. Thank you. All right. We we're going to go to Council Bill seven. I'm sorry. 626 Bill for introduction. And I'm going to call on Councilman Herndon to kick off, make a comment on this bill.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I would like to say that was not in the script. Should 626 go on to second reading? I would like to request a one hour courtesy public hearing on that. And then, Mr. President, I'd like to offer a comment and then overview. And Councilman Ortega has an amendment to offer as well.
Speaker 0: Go read it.
Speaker 6: I just read you and I. Do you want to have it ordered, published, and then comments? Which would you prefer, Mr. President?
Speaker 0: You know, no one has. You know, let's it let's put it this order. It published, but no one has asked to vote for this yet.
Speaker 13: But yes, I.
Speaker 6: Did I.
Speaker 8: And we had a request for a vote on the other one as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. So Councilwoman Gilmore. Yes, Mr. Parker, will you please put 626 in order? Publish?
Speaker 9: Yes, I move that council bill 626 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been.
Speaker 5: Oh, wait.
Speaker 7: 1/2. Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's been moved in second to comments.
Speaker 7: Something happened.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 7: Because she made the motion. It's moving only.
Speaker 0: There you go. There you go. Okay. Sort of publishing this on the floor. Councilman, do you want to make your comment?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President, I am. I'm excited. I'm making progress. I got a second this time is you've got to add some levity to this, because what we're both doing, both bills are moving forward to creating funds for affordable housing. Typically, when there's disagreement among council, one bill goes one way and another one goes and it goes the opposite. So I think it's important to recognize whichever Bill gets the majority of council on second reading is going to create funds for affordable housing, and that is a good thing. We all recognize the dire straits we have for those trying to find all different types of housing stock. And I appreciate all the work that my other colleagues, Councilwoman Kennedy, Councilman Brooks and all the stakeholders have been a part of this for so long. They're doing because I wouldn't have the bill if it wasn't for the work that you all done. And so that's why I always try to start off conversations by saying this. But as I would start this conversation, I would hear I would hear comments like it does. It's a great start, but it's not enough. We should do more. Can we do more? I believe that we can. I believe that we should do it immediately. And that is the genesis for this alternative bill. And I think not getting the second was actually a blessing in disguise because I had the opportunity to continue to have conversations with my other colleagues. And I appreciate Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Ortega having conversations with me about how we could create a bill that I believe does even more to allow that. My original bill that didn't get a second, just ask for a contribution from the general fund and then have a conversation later on 90 to 120 days when I was asking the bill before you, what it actually does is creates the linkage fee, creates the mil, but it's delayed. It is delayed a year and that's intentional. It's intentional because I believe that as a body we can come together and say, how can we create more funds sooner than the 150 approximately million over ten years who most people will say that doesn't do enough. So I would like to take the time as a committee of the whole to evaluate and fully vet all of the other funding possibilities to do more money faster. And so people will ask me, Well then where do you expect to do January one, 2017? Because neither one of these bills appropriates funds. We can't. David Roswell did a great job explaining that and committee. The mayor released his budget today, putting 5 million towards the Affordable Fund and a proposal you're going to hear about later on . Additional revenue will come in, the amount of 50 million total for year one in the form of a mil and in a linkage fee. What I am proposing is that as a council, as we go through the budget process, we go back to the administration and say we would like to see 20 million come from our general fund coffers in year one. So I would love to start year one with a significant amount, $20 million. And then as a body, we take this time to fully vet other options that we can have more money, quicker for affordable housing. And should everything option we vet, nothing come to fruition, which I don't believe that will happen. But should that happen, then we have the mill and the linkage fee that will kick in the following year. But as my time on council, I know what a creative financing city this is and how we have found ways and found money for the priorities that we care about. And I do believe as well, that is funding affordable housing is an absolute priority. Everybody says that. It does give me pause that we were only allocating 5 million out of our general funds for 2017. I believe 20 million would be a great statement. I believe we have the fiscal ability to do it as well. And that, Mr. President, is an overview. This is on first reading. I would love for this bill. I would love for both bills to go so we can hear from the public. So there are options to speak on. I suppose we could certainly do the committee work right now and kill one bill versus the other. But I do believe we have two viable alternatives to ensure that we move forward with funds for affordable housing starting on day one. And I would certainly ask that my colleagues would support and moving this to second reading and for one hour our public hearing. I can certainly say more, but I am sure there will be other comments. And so thank you, Mr. President, for that overview. And Councilwoman Ortega is going to make a amendment as well for our advisory committee that we call. And I appreciate some of the committee members who caught that. So it's coming from you. And I look forward to that, to the dialog. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. So point of order. We have several folks in the queue to make comments. I think it's appropriate that we do the amendment first. And if the amendment passes, we order published as amended, and then we can make comments over the overall bill. Okay, everyone. Mr. Mayor. Okay, great. Councilman Ortega, you're a member.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I move that council bill 1666 be amended in the following particulars on page 17, strike the line for and substitute the following language. Four in five nonprofit affordable housing developer.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. And the second. All right. Comes by members of council. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment would change the composition of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. The change would remove one of the mayor's appointments to the advisory committee from an at large appointment to a requirement that the appointment be a nonprofit, affordable housing developer, thus resulting in two slots on the Committee for Nonprofit Developers in order to equal the number of for profit housing developers on the committee.
Speaker 0: All right. Any other members of council want to make a comment on this council?
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment takes the body of 11 that is dramatically changed from the original bill. And I do want to thank Councilman Herndon for his kind and professional introduction, as well as for the committee work. But this is an area of the bill that is 626 is dramatically different than the stakeholder requests we had throughout the process. Our original proposal to the community stakeholders was a 15 member body and we spent the better part of two different meetings a couple of months apart, hearing lots of feedback from those stakeholders about the membership of this body. And repeatedly, both industry representatives, as well as kind of nonprofit advocates, said they cared more about representation than they did the small size of the body. And so, for example, some of the seats that got struck from this body include the Housing Authority, the Urban Renewal Authority, and there is no expert on homelessness on the body in this bill that we are discussing right now. Bill 626, sponsored by Councilman Herndon, Ortega and Espinoza. I'm going to keep referring to the bills because I'm afraid it will get confusing if we don't. So I am going to support this amendment because it adds affordable housing expertize back in. But I want to make clear that it in no way is sufficient to meet the expectations we heard from the stakeholders. This body still lacks homeless expertize. It lacks expertize from the Housing Authority and the Urban Renewal Authority who have significant responsibilities in this area. And it is not enough to cure the insufficiencies in the governing body. So although I'll be supporting the amendment, I just want to make clear that it in no way endorses the governing body that's in this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm looking across to see if there are any other comments on this particular amendment, not the bill as published. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Elvis. Yes, I would like to respond to that, actually.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, you know. Yeah. What we've done is we've created a smaller, more nimble and responsible group to actually hammer out some very hard questions that supposedly had been raised over the course of the last year, just with stakeholder groups, not with actual council members, aside from those who voluntarily showed up at those meetings. And so the thing is, is that there's a large body of work with a huge amount of input, including homeless advocates and other sources that have been specifically written out in this amendment. But what I do want to say is Denver's road home is not going away with these bills. And the advocates that that exist out there, the resources that the city has already has still maintain. And I firmly believe that the appointments that council will subsequently approve on the body, Wolf, will add to adequately represent and address the breadth, the entire breadth that this fund is meant to address. So it's just it's sort of shameless to sort of sort of, you know, pander to certain groups and say that we didn't include what we need is actual a Denver solution. We need real, real results driven body. And what we can't have is an all inclusive body. We need adequate representation, just like you elected 13 of us to represent 600,000 of you. We have 11 to represent a body. I mean, a group of special specialists that need to address this issue citywide. And so trying to capture it all and have a good working group and with adequate mean, you know, with adequate attendance, a body of 23 just gets unmanageable. The intent to sort of capture everybody, I mean, this is what while we not getting rid of Denver's road home, what we are getting rid of with the subsequent bill as amended in in both cases is the air show which attempted to sort of be this catchall and address everybody's needs. And we didn't do it right the first time. And we do need the actual working group that is something that is manageable and that we can we can actually get the work product that is necessary. So I think we have good representation from both the funders, the banking industry and the nonprofits and the developers, both for profit and nonprofit. And that's the ideal sort of mix. If there's if there's amendments that you want to put forward to address that, I'm happy to entertain it. Thanks.
Speaker 8: President.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 8: I don't know how to weigh in on this, are you Brooks?
Speaker 0: But. You can weigh in right now, Ortega.
Speaker 8: All right. So I think it's important to note that the mayor will still make this appointment so it doesn't take his authority away. It just changes it to being one of the nonprofits. And, you know, my expectation is we would have one nonprofit that probably works with the homeless community and one that works with the broader community . The other thing is DACA, the Denver Housing Authority, and the Denver Urban Renewal Authority already have automatic input into the city because they're part of ongoing conversations. I mean, Dora doesn't bring anything before this body that isn't already run through the administration. So they're already sort of embedded in in decision making processes and giving input. So I think this request to lower the numbers so that it is an effective body that can get the work done, that needs to happen in that time frame is really important. The other thing that I want to mention about this bill is it also calls for a comprehensive plan to be created that looks at all of the funding sources. So, for example, we have $600,000 that's going to be in the 2017 budget for the Office of Hope. It's still not clear to me exactly what the Office of Hope is going to be doing. That's different from the Office of Economic Development that will be doing housing. And the Office of Hope is housing opportunities. So housing is an inherent piece of what that office is going to be doing. So the comprehensive plan is asking that the city present to city council a plan that looks at how all of the various funding sources that go into housing are going to be allocated. And I think that's very critical so that it ensures that the decisions that are being made on which projects get funded is based on criteria and not simply political decisions. So that's why I am supporting this bill tonight in the amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, a roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 7: Ortega.
Speaker 5: Ortega Sussman I Black Eye Clark.
Speaker 7: Espinosa. Flinn Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. I knew. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please count the voting us or close the voting unless the results.
Speaker 7: 11 eyes. Zero nays.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. Zero nays. But on the amendment passes the statute.
Speaker 5: 12.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: Ms.. Mr. President, I just got some of the vote that was 11 was 12. And so I can I can hold that vote for later on if I can.
Speaker 7: You didn't you didn't vote. Council President.
Speaker 0: I have it on here as voting.
Speaker 7: You do? Yeah. I'm going to add it.
Speaker 0: Okay. You want to add me as voting? Okay, great. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put Council Bill 626 as amended on the floor for publication?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 626 as amended, be ordered published.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved in second to comments by members of council. Councilwoman Kinney.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. If I may, I would like to start with a couple of questions. First of all, for David Broadwell. Councilman Espinosa just mentioned that both bills, regardless of whether which one passes, would eliminate the I. Can you please clarify if the bill in front of us 626 indeed eliminates the H0.
Speaker 4: The first david broadwell, assistant city attorney, the original bill 625 which we'll be discussing in a moment, does switch off the the iho make it no longer applicable after January one. This one, 625 does not touch the inclusionary housing ordinance at this time. It eliminates that language in this version of the bill such that you have the delayed implementation of the of the linkage fee until next year, the delayed implementation of the bill until next year. But in the meantime, the inclusionary housing ordinance remains in place. Now, there may be an effort to come back next year and do something with that ordinance in conjunction with with further discussions of the entire matter from this year to next year. But the bill in front of you right now doesn't touch the inclusionary housing ordinance 626 and leaves it in place for the time being.
Speaker 13: Thank you. My next question was for the Department of Finance. If the CFO may come forward, please.
Speaker 0: And while you're asking that question, I want to to direct all of city council members to the comparison of the alternative housing fund bills, this document that was created by David Broadwell, so that folks can go back and forth and not get confused by council bill 626 and 625.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Please introduce yourself.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Brendan Hanlon, the city's chief financial officer.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Brendan. Can you please explain a little bit? One of the things that the sponsor mentioned is that both of these bills create funds. And so I have two questions for you. First of all, does the bill create any funds that will be generated in 2017 as written?
Speaker 3: I don't believe so. Over and above the 5 million, it has already been identified in the proposed 2017 budget.
Speaker 13: So the bill itself doesn't create any new funds in 2017.
Speaker 3: Not in 2017.
Speaker 13: Okay. My second question, so and I just want to clarify, it does turn the linkage fee on in October of 2017, but that doesn't result in funds right away. Is that right?
Speaker 3: It wouldn't be immediate. We're expecting some amount of delay for implementation at this point in time. So my guess is that those funds would not be delivered until you might get some in in December of 2017. But probability suggests that maybe it's January or February.
Speaker 13: Awesome. Okay. Thank you for explaining that. Can you also talk a little bit about the property tax? So on the surface, it may look like both bills turn the property tax on in the exact same way. But can you please clarify whether that's the case and in particular what the impact to other city services is in this bill?
Speaker 3: Sure, I'll I'll explain. Bill 625 first, the original proposal for affordable housing. So that proposed activating leveraging a half mil starting on January 1st, 2017. That would generate about $6.64 million in 2017, which would be dedicated towards affordable housing. The new proposal, 626 proposes activating a mil half mil in 2018. This this is based on the premise, though, that we would have sufficient capacity within our revenue growth constraints to program those funds. Otherwise you would be essentially using funds from either the general fund or human services in programing that programing those for affordable housing. The reason I'm bringing up the the revenue cap is because to the extent that we see reassessment value of about 6%, which is the maximum amount that we can retain underneath that underneath that revenue provision, you would have those available funds. But I should note that in reassessment years, we have used those funds to program services for the General Fund for Human Services and for other purposes that are already identified in the formulas that currently exist.
Speaker 13: So can I say that back to you and council?
Speaker 3: Sure. Yeah, that was a lot of mechanics.
Speaker 13: That was very thorough. I just want to make sure I'm understanding so. The original proposal. We know that we have capacity to use new mills. The original proposal uses new mills. It does not compete with any existing service. Correct. If property values continue to rise in Denver and are reassessed at that increased value, then it's unlikely that we will have new mills in 2018, in which case this proposal would be using existing mills that are currently funding other programs.
Speaker 3: That's that's a good way of saying it would use the value of existing mills to to carve out this dedication in 2018.
Speaker 13: And can you just say very in plain English what that means?
Speaker 3: So so so that would mean we would have a choice or this this bill would preemptively make that choice for us to say we're not going to use the funds from those mills for other city services. It shall be used for affordable housing.
Speaker 13: So it could result in cuts to base service levels or to other, you know, programs increases due to inflation.
Speaker 3: We wouldn't be able to leverage those funds for other city services.
Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you. And then I have one other question for another department. Is the Office of Economic Development able to come forward, please? I want to ask you about the language in this document that relates to the plan. So I have a lot of admiration for Councilwoman Ortega's raising of this housing plan topic because it's one that's near and dear to my heart. Councilman Brooks and I spent a lot of time talking with the administration, and so I wanted to ask whether or not you all have had some discussion about going about doing housing planning differently in the future in general. And then what I want to ask you is whether or not you feel comfortable with the exact language we have before us today. So if you want to just address whether or not you've heard some of Councilwoman Ortega's concerns and whether you've had some conversation about that.
Speaker 4: No, absolutely. My name is Rick Padilla. I'm the director of housing for the OED. Yes, we have had we have heard Councilwoman Ortega's concerns, and we have done a lot of preliminary planning in terms of how we would look at implementing, whether it's whatever the amount may be in 2017, including preparing for whether it's an 11 or 23 member body, preparing a business plan, preparing a product term sheet. So we have really looked at how do we address those issues.
Speaker 13: And I mean, maybe I'll ask Andrea to come forward. So there is some existing plans that this bill and that the Office of Economic Development have committed to for the 2017. And for that for these funds, the request from Councilman Ortega has been for a broader approach. And so can you just share what the mayor's position is on that conversation as of tonight?
Speaker 4: Evan Dreier, Mayor Hancock's deputy chief of staff, to want to make sure I understand the question, broader approach toward a comprehensive housing plan. The mayor is committed to taking a serious look at a comprehensive housing plan, not just a serious look, but how would we do that together? I think we're going to ask you all, though, if we could delay action on an amendment or a proposal that speaks to a compassionate, comprehensive housing plan tonight so that we have a little bit of time between now and second reading to develop that thinking.
Speaker 6: A little bit more.
Speaker 13: Thank you very much. I'll withhold my comments for now, but thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. The bad news is that we have a serious housing crisis and we have imperfect solutions. The good news is that everyone up here is in support of a fund. And as Councilman Herndon said, one way or another, we're going to come out with something. Again, I also want to thank Councilwoman Kenney. Councilman Brooks Dreier, the mayor's office and all the stakeholders for all their hard work. I do support a fund, and I think we all also agree that we would like to have more money in the fund. I'm going to support both bills tonight moving forward to Second Reading next week and I look forward to the public comment next week. But I am in favor of more time for the Council to delve more deeply. I would personally like to hear from objective experts. We've heard from housing advocates and we've heard from developers, and our job on the council is sort of to weigh them all. And I would like to hear from some objective experts, like some economists, because I'm concerned about some unintended consequences of adding costs to market rate housing. And if we cause market rate housing to become more expensive around the city, we're actually exacerbating the problem. I'm also concerned about deterring development in parts of our city that actually need more development. We know that Montebello needs a grocery store and for developers to develop in certain parts of the cities, it's less attractive financially for them to do so, and I want to make sure that we're not deterring that. And I also am very interested in exploring more carrots and less stick. I'd like to look at some incentives. And lastly, I know we talk about marijuana. Money is certainly not unlimited, but. Hearing from my own constituents, they aren't satisfied that marijuana money goes into the general fund. They would like to know that it's going to some common good. And I'd really like to have a bigger conversation about where marijuana money is going in 2015. The city collected $29 million in marijuana revenue. 9 million of it went to enforcement, regulation and education, and 20 million went into the general fund. I think it would be a great common good for that marijuana money to go find affordable housing. And I think that's something that we could really sell to our taxpayers. I know we'd have to make up the general fund. We'd have to make that money up elsewhere. But that's the conversation I'd like to have. I just think be a really great thing to tell our constituents that we're using that money for something for our community. So thank you to everyone. Look forward to hearing more next week. And I know one way or another we're going to come out with a new affordable housing fund.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Herndon, you were on there.
Speaker 6: I wasn't surprised, but I'm happy to wait. If other people had questions in the queue. Okay, great. Either way.
Speaker 0: Yep. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, Mr. President. One of the things that was new to me just today was this this question about whether we would be able to attach the mill levy next year as we are today. And I'd like to. Brenda, could you come back up so I could make sure I understand this? We have a cap on how much of a mill levy we can do. Correct.
Speaker 3: There is a revenue limitation on our property taxes as it was contained in ballot measure two way 6%. So to the extent that we exceed that, we have to credit mills to stay underneath that cap, much like how Tabor worked in the past. There is a limit.
Speaker 5: Yes. Okay. So right now we know that we would be able to attach this mill and not surpass the limit. Right.
Speaker 3: In 2017.
Speaker 5: 2017. But in 2018, as if values go up on on our on what we take in, we may not be able to attach the mill levy. So to find the money, we would have to dip into our general fund that had already been is being spent on other needs, right.
Speaker 3: It depends on that reassessment value in 2018 that really drives the conversation. And we don't have numbers as to what that looks like at this point in time. So that's the big uncertainty at this point is to the extent it from my calculations, if we were to grow by that 6% revenue limit, we would have sufficient capacity to fund that half mill. But that value has typically been programed to other city services in those reassessment years. But to your point, if we are under that 6% amount, then you would be carving from the base budget, that base property tax revenue in order to program it.
Speaker 5: Right. So right now we know that we could assess this mill levy in 2017, but next year, we're not sure we'd be able to. We'd have to sort of rob Peter to pay Paul to ensure the the money that the mill levy could bring this year.
Speaker 3: Right. It could happen. It just depends on those reassess.
Speaker 5: It's not a sure thing next year as it is this year.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Right. Councilwoman Kennedy, I'm going to go pop on to Gilmore. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 9: Thank you, President Brooks. You know, I have had a lot of careful consideration, and I've heard passionately from stakeholders, development, community and families and service providers for District 11. And I, unfortunately, will be voting against 626 tonight. And the reason is because we have an overwhelming need in our communities in specifically Montebello and Green Valley Ranch. We have to act now. Families are struggling in our city, and when families are struggling, our children are at a far greater risk for many adverse circumstances. That, especially for African-American young men, can change the trajectory of their entire lives. And housing is a foundation for our families. And this past months, my council office, we've been helping families who are on survival mode. They can't find places to live. They're Section eight vouchers. There's no place for them to go. And we're just trying to keep them where they're at. And there's one woman who really put it home for me. She has five children. She was in a housing situation with her husband and her five children that they were going to be evicted. And she came into my office and she has her little kids with her. And she's telling me this story and she's sobbing and for, you know, a child to see their mom in that sort of situation, that's an environmental stress that that child will never forget that experience with their mom. And we have to do something now. We cannot wait another year. Montebello, where I live, is one of the most diverse communities in Denver, combined with Green Valley Ranch. The community that I'm part of, I'm very, very proud to say, is over 76% people of color, 76% people of color, African-American and Latino. And the statistics show that people of color have been disproportionately affected by housing and how it affects their families. And the median income in Montebello is a little bit more than $44,000. In my opinion, we need to give the Office of Economic Development the opportunity to set up right, to do this right, and to start out slow and be strategic and make sure that we're setting up a great foundation for us to build this fund even bigger. But at the end of the day, I have to be able to go back to my constituents and say that we are hearing them, we're hearing their cries, we're hearing their pleas, and we're making sure that we're doing this for our families in our community. And that reason I will be voting against 626 because we need to do something now. Thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. I'm going to skip down from her neck in each and go to Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. This evening I'll be supporting the original Bill 625 to expand the inventory and the opportunities for affordable housing in Denver. I want the pot of money to be larger, and we'll continue to work for that outcome. We'll hear about the length of time that locks in the development impact fee in Bill 625. And I want that to be shorter. And we'll continue to work for that outcome, no matter how large a piece of the pie we carve out this evening. We're not going to solve this problem on the short term. But by starting this program now, we can begin to bring a new funding stream into reality and begin the process of a more aggressive approach to affordable housing now. I recognize that the development community is not happy with the new impact fee and feels already overburdened by the Gallagher amendment, which slants the majority of property tax toward the commercial sector. I take no issue with that concern and I think it's valid. I also recognize that homeowners are not pleased to take an additional hit on their property taxes because they already feel overburdened by continued cost of living increases that are outpacing increases to their income. We are simply in a situation where our needs as a city are exceeding our current level of funding capacity, and we're asking everybody to take a bigger bite. It's an important issue and we're asking everybody to take a bigger bite. While I appreciate the mayor's willingness to carve $5 million out of our general fund revenues to give this program a quicker leg up, I would ask my colleagues to temper their enthusiasm to dig into our city's budget reserves. I understand we're currently comparatively flush in excess of our statutory requirement for budget reserves. But I also remember that during our recent downturn, we were forced to reduce funding for critical services and when some five years without hiring a police officer. I don't want that to happen to us again. It put us in a bad position that I'd like to protect against. I'd also urge my colleagues to be patient in their call to use, quote, that marijuana money. While 20 million did go into our general fund and I share the desire of many of my colleagues to see that that money are used in a more transparent manner. My preference would be if we're going to single that particular stream of money out and to pinpoint it, I'd like to see it earmarked for critically needed mental health and drug treatment services. Finally, I want to sincerely thank Councilman Herndon and Espinosa and Councilwoman Ortega for their hard work on this issue, because I think the fact of their I've seen it happening, that the fact that they're proposing this alternative ordinance and raising a number of very important issues is is going to make the original bill far stronger. And I look forward to the discussion in the next couple of weeks to making it even stronger yet. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman, I. I see all sponsors on here except for the bottom. Councilman knew someone to go to him, and then we'll take it from Councilman Neal. Okay.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Like all the major issues this year, I've always enjoyed serving my constituents to find out how they feel about issues. And I did that with this bill. And I've had over 500 responses so far. The survey is still going on, and it's very interesting results. There's no question all the residents who are responding agree with us that there is a crying need, a significant need to have for affordable housing, not only in terms of funding, but also in the number of units that we need to produce. You know, much more than probably what the mayor's proposing. Also there, there's a real confusion about the sources of revenue. There's a there's so much confusion. And what troubles me the most about my survey is that 20% of the residents say we need more information. We need to know more about what this program's all about. And I looked and I as I listened to that and thought about it and. Last Friday morning, we had a very good little discussion with Jonathan Rose, who is a real developer of affordable housing, is very smart, intelligent man. And everyone was discussing there how much we need to educate the public, understand how to communicate to the public using social media videos or whatever. And I'm not sure we've done that. I went back and looked at our website and looked at the OED website. I could barely find affordable housing on the website I found I saw a permanent fund. There it was. And we're still talking about the same number of units, 600 units a year and not anything more than what's being projected. So I really I'm going to support I really want to support both bills tonight because we really need another more discussion and especially about what we're going to be doing and the amount of money we need to to make a real difference in affordable housing. I'm not sure the food we've been talking about $15 million for a whole year. I don't see how we've done anything better than they're still talking about 600 units rather than more than that. So I think we really need to have a much more in-depth discussion over this next week, two and two from both bills. So I'll be supporting both bills tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Noon. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Brendan, because you want to ask a couple of follow up questions. I want to make sure a person may ask this question. So when it seems as if people will say, well, 628 I'm sorry, 626 will cut services in a future budget cycle which you said it depends and that and but but you were making that conversation off of some assumptions. So I was hoping if you could talk about some of those assumptions so I can make sure I understand it.
Speaker 3: So so what I was representing before is that if we maximize that, that, that revenue cap so that 6%, if we have 6% or more reassessment growth in 2018, there would be sufficient revenue available to dedicate a half mil as part of that conversation. That said, before I even go to an alternative from that, we have typically used that reassessment value to be programed for other city services in the general fund in our Human Services funds. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear, like, like we did last year. We use those funds for city services. So that would be a tradeoff if we were to use the that that capacity in 2018 for affordable housing. What I was representing is my second part though is let's say that it came in something underneath 6%. Well, then that revenue cap wouldn't be maximized and there would be you would have to convert some mills that were based on reevaluation, but some that were based off of just the existing mills that we've already have on our books at this point in time. So it really depends on what that reassessment level is. I was not trying to suggest that we would be cutting services due to that tradeoff, but it is a is a competitive environment in the 2018 budget to either program, those revenues for city for city services that are not affordable housing or for dedicating it to affordable housing solely.
Speaker 6: Correct. Well, whether you allocate a mill next year or you allocate a mill this year, you're taking away money that could go to something else that will now go towards affordable housing.
Speaker 3: So the plan from 625 is a half mil this year. There is we have not proposed in the 2017 budget process that you see in the book an alternative that we'd say, well, it's either a half mil for affordable housing or you could have done this. You're right, there is not an option or an alternative there that is not contained in the budget process. That is more likely a situation in the 2018 budget in terms of the funding for affordable housing in and of itself. You're right that the value of a mill in 17 and what we would probably see in 18 is around the same value. There could be a few hundred thousand dollars worth of difference. So in terms of the value created that would be dedicated to affordable housing for a value of half of mil, it would be about the same.
Speaker 6: Correct. So and this is what I would make sure that I'm understanding whether you allocate a mill, a half a mill this year or next year. That's a half a mill that you no longer have to go toward something else. Correct.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 6: Okay. And there are a total of essentially, I understand that question, how much money did we get? And this past year from marijuana revenue, the 3.5%.
Speaker 3: The 2016 number from this past year? Oh, I believe that was the that was the number that Councilman Black stated in 2015. I don't remember it off the top of my head, but I'll I'll say that she's done her research. And I believe she had stated it was a total of 22 million. I'm sorry, 29. I don't I didn't have that with me.
Speaker 6: Sorry. And so that was just from the 3.5%.
Speaker 3: That is not just from the 3.5% annual rate.
Speaker 6: That's from the special rates. What I'm getting at the 3.5.
Speaker 3: The 3.5% special rate, I believe, was about seven, $8 million.
Speaker 6: Seven, $8 million. And so we have a latitude as a council to increase that all the way up to 15. Not that I'm suggesting that we do that, but with that is the flexibility that the Council has.
Speaker 3: I believe when the special rate was passed, it allowed a ceiling of 15%.
Speaker 6: Okay. Quick questions about our general reserves. So the mayor's proposed budget, I believe he brings down the general fund revenue to 15.2%.
Speaker 3: The general fund, the proposal would be proposed to stand at 15.2% effect.
Speaker 6: If this bill moves forward and has the conversation about taking an additional money out of the reserves, assuming the administration doesn't want to take from anywhere else the additional 15 million, what would that take our reserves to?
Speaker 3: So I believe that the the proposal that's in front of us funds $20 million total. If you assume that the 5 million that is already contained in the 2017 budget counts, against that, you would be looking to fund $15 million. We would move from 15.2% to 14.1% and.
Speaker 6: Reserves 15.2 to 14.1. And I do want to correct one of my counsel. There's not statutory requirements for budgets, a policy in 10% in recessionary times, 15% in good times.
Speaker 3: It is not statutory. It's financial policy. And it's something that the bond ratings look at when we review our credit rating. Absolutely.
Speaker 6: So to go 15, an additional 15 million would take us to 14.1. We program the budget every year to bring us down to 15%. Correct.
Speaker 3: That is typically our target. It's hovered around 15.1. 15.2, I think last year was 15.3.
Speaker 6: So last year, 2016, our budget revenues, our reserves ended up even though we programed it to 15%, we ended at what percent.
Speaker 3: We ended last year, I believe it is at 24.2%.
Speaker 6: 24.2. So and this year was 19%.
Speaker 3: Right now, our year end forecast for our reserves for 2016 is 19.3%. Okay?
Speaker 6: So we're consistently doing better than we have. And not to imply that that is would ever remotely continue on to that type of level. But we have we're you know, we're making a couple of assumptions of doom. So I like to make some assumptions of, hey, we're doing really well. And I guess my last part. Thank you, Brian. And Mr. President, comment, you know, the the the mill linkage fee a year from now is if as this body cannot come up with more money quicker and I certainly can't guarantee that that is something that we will do. But we had this conversation about marijuana that we weren't comfortable with the legislation and we took 120 days and this body came up with Maryland marijuana legislation. So I believe I am I am confident and comfortable that this will not even be an issue. But it's certainly a realization and a possibility. That's why I just wanted to point out, where do you allocate a mill next year or a half mill next year or half mill this year? There is less money in the pot and that's a policy choice that we make because affordable housing is important. But I'm willing to make that to know that we can do more sooner. Figures present.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Brendan, the how many available mills do we have this year? If we wanted to capture.
Speaker 3: For the the general fund and human services. His funds, I believe it's 11.400. They're available this year. I'm sorry. I was talking about the total.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Johnson. Yeah, 1.3 million. That would be underneath that that 6% cap.
Speaker 2: And about how much money would that generate?
Speaker 3: That's approximately 17.3 million.
Speaker 2: So we could put a bill for infrastructure, for arterial paving, additional police. Actually, we have those both in there. Do you know what those numbers are? And I apologize. I just got back at 3:00 to.
Speaker 3: Sure. I believe the arterial paving. So that's the 37 position. Street crew and capital funds is about $7.78 million in total. The police officers that we've added in terms of authorized strength, I think are about four and a half, $5 million. But that's without.
Speaker 2: Equipment. Yeah. So we could add we could pay for those with an additional 1.3 and now we liberated $17 million into that. We've added $17 million into our general fund.
Speaker 3: That's the prerogative of counsel to to respond to the mayor's proposed budget.
Speaker 2: And that would be more we wouldn't get into that. So how much while you answered this, said the 8 million. I mean, last year we we allocated $8 million out of our budget where we're allocating $5 million this year. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. Question for Evan. So at the last council presentation on this, you stated that the mayor was going to allocate $9 million to this and now it's five in the budget. What happened?
Speaker 4: I don't recall the $9 million figure.
Speaker 2: Oh, was I? What was the $9 million? How is that? My wrong. No. All right. I stand corrected then. No problem. The. The question for I regarding the Nexus study, when was that finalized?
Speaker 5: Sure. So this is I'm Laura Fortensky with the Office of Economic Development. We have the final Nexis study uploaded as part of your documents for tonight. It was submitted to the city on September 8th last week in conjunction with the bill.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I just that's that's going to be crucial information in my final comments. But yeah, literally last Thursday is when we finalized the next US study, even though the bill was submitted. Well well, essentially the same time.
Speaker 5: But will note that there were almost no changes between the final draft and the public review draft that was submitted to council as part of a committee meeting in July. So there were some final touches put together in the final draft that was submitted to council for your review. But it did not have substantive changes since the last public review draft that was submitted earlier this summer.
Speaker 2: But so, I mean, that's what the part is. The narrative that I'll go into subsequently later and thank you for whoever produced this fine timeline is is that really literally if we hadn't delayed, we are spending eight weeks hammering out this affordable housing bill as a body with the draft version of the Nexus study. When we actually delayed it, when we were actually going to fast track it even faster. One of the things the key points in in the bill that we're doing, that Councilman Herndon and Councilwoman Ortega and I are sponsoring, is to buy the time for council to be involved in that discussion, not just as reported by John Murray in the in the Denver Post Council President Mina Council President Brooks, Robin Kennedy and the mayor. I mean, that is we're the body of council. We're the ones that are going to be passing this legislation. And I believe that there are better tools that we can actually come up with at this time, because the need is very clearly stated in the declaration portion of this ordinance. Yet even you can actually. Here's a question I can't ask you. Did you not state at that last meeting that this was a modest and balanced approach and that's what you attempted to do, even though the declaration makes it very clear that there's a pressing need for affordability that we have lagged behind on? That is correct. Yeah. And so we have the political will on this body and that actually I'm going to stay off the comments until the questions have been answered. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Guess when. Espinosa Councilwoman Ortega, thank you.
Speaker 8: I have a couple of questions for Brandon. So the first one is just asking for clarification on whether or not we have. Utilized. Or I should say, expended the obligation to the. So under Denver Road Home, we built new units we and the mill levee, the DHS mill levee was utilized to I don't remember if it was for the service side or it was actually for the Hart cost side. But we obligated those dollars for 20 years. So has that been exhausted? Have we read? What have we done? Anything different with the those particular meals that were obligated for that housing that was done by Denver at home?
Speaker 3: I don't have that information with me tonight, but I can follow up with my staff on that.
Speaker 8: Okay. That would that would be good to know because it lets us know kind of where we're at and what's still available. So you indicated that we're 1.3 meals under the 6% cap. And initially these housing conversations started at the possibility of utilizing a full meal. Right. I'm not sure why we didn't stick with that full meal and ended up just being a half meal. But my question to you is whether or not the administration intends to utilize the remainder of that 1.3 mil if we're using half of it for housing.
Speaker 3: So that 8/10 of a mil is not programed in the 2017 budget.
Speaker 8: Okay. All right. Let me go on to my next question. How? How far? So every year the administration draws down on the reserve fund. What is the expectation of how far that's going to be taken down to by the end of 2016? I mean, I heard the conversation earlier, but.
Speaker 4: Our current.
Speaker 8: Is asking directly would we anticipate to draw that down to.
Speaker 3: Our current year end forecast for the reserve balance for 2016 is 19.3%.
Speaker 8: Okay. Okay. You've answered all my questions. Thank you. Sure.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Can someone can reach us? I see that you're up.
Speaker 13: Yup. Thank you. Brendan, one more question. So I want to do some different math. Councilman Herndon asked the question about if you took the entire 15 million and you know, what would the reserves go down to? And your answer was 14.1%. If members of this body wanted to honor our adopted policy to maintain reserves of 15%. Can you walk me through the math of what would have to happen for this body to fund $20 million of affordable housing in 2017? Sure. I want to really keep emphasizing this bill does not fund $1 in 2017. It will require a different action and that different action will occur in the context of a budget that has already been proposed. So I want to just clarify how or whether we could stay at 15% reserves and what that would look like.
Speaker 3: So I would assume that the Council would then propose to draw down and move from 15.2% reserves to 15 even that would draw it make $2.6 million available.
Speaker 13: So we've got five plus 2.6, right. Okay.
Speaker 3: So that would mean another $12.4 million would have to be identified out of the existing proposed budget.
Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I see we have others chiming in. And so I'm just going to go ahead and just make a few of my comments now, which is that I also appreciate that there is a desire to continue the conversation for more sources, and there is no reason why those conversations can't continue with the two sources that we have in front of us. Dedicated. This city has a five year housing plan. We did not adopt it as a council, but it is a city plan. It has been guiding the department. We got briefed on it. We all had one on ones. And that plan number one goal is a dedicated revenue stream, not a one time, not a scraped from the reserves, not a, you know, out of the couch cushions in a good year. It's a dedicated fund. The mayor held a housing task force. Every letter we've received talks about permanent revenue. Permanent revenue. This bill puts that at risk. It puts it at risk by putting it in competition. So we don't we will have certain certain competition for 2017. We will either be competing with our reserves or we will be competing with other services, period. That's what we have. We have $7.6 million. We do not have 15. We don't have 20. So you'll either be competing with our own reserve policy and our bond ratings or you'll be competing with other services. So be very clear. 2017, not more money, not free money. Not easy money. Competing money 2018 and beyond. We risk not certain, but we risk competing with other services. We also will lose money on the linkage fee side. Even if you adopt the same linkage fees in 2018, there will probably be less development occurring because of natural rhythms of cycles. So you will capture less of that of that development due to the natural downturn that comes right. We all hope it's not deep. We all hope it's not long lasting. But I think we've all been around long enough to know that it comes. You also will lose one year of CPI index on the linkage fee rate. So every year the the the the original bill 625 has the has the index on the linkage fee index to CPI, which means that if you start the base a year later, you lose the CPI for an entire year. Those are real dollars. So in reality in reality, this bill competes with 2017 with other uses in policy. And in 2018 it will be less money, it will be less money because it will miss an entire year of CPI. So those are the realities. We can continue to debate all the other potential sources. There is a timeline in front of folks and maybe we can wait and talk more about that on the other bill. Happy, too, to defend the public process and acknowledge that no process is perfect. But this council, this council has been briefed on this concept since early last year. Since July of last year. So this council was not the last one to hear about these two sources. They were not the last ones to give input. They have been briefed for over a year. And I realize that these things are hard and we need to keep debating them. And I'm happy to keep doing that. We'll keep doing it probably for a couple more hours. But I would ask that we make a prudent decision tonight and vote down this bill in favor of the later bill so that we can both responsibly fund 2017 and so that we can put in a permanent ground game, not just a first quarter Hail Mary, but a permanent, slow growing, permanent ground game for decades to come . Mr. Leader. Bill, thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Appreciate the football analogies. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Brendan, can you come back up? First of all, I just want to commend you. I was sitting here watching you answer all of these budget questions, pulling numbers out of thin air. My favorite moment is when you got the question about 1.3 mills and you're like, Oh, that would be approximately $17.3 million in my brain. Approximate would have rounded to a round million. So it's just very impressive. And taking all the questions and I apologize because you answering my questions must feel a little bit like talking to a kindergartner about this. So I apologize in advance. Walk me through total revenue. Let's not talk about Mills and let's assume that we can capture the mill in either year. So making some general assumptions that may or may not be true, total revenue coming into the city if we capture the mill in 17 versus capturing it in 18 at that point in 18, are we capturing the same amount of money? Total revenue.
Speaker 3: So it depends. I'm sorry to start with that explanation. I don't like doing it, but I have to. It depends on the reassessment values in 2018. So let's just let's just imagine a situation, though, where there are there's no reassessment growth at all. It's just flat. There's no growth. If you just held the mills constant, the $6.5 million that we're estimating that the mills are worth in 2017 would be the same value that would be collected in 2018.
Speaker 4: But but if assuming we still have the ability to capture that half mill rate, there is some lost revenue by capturing it in 18 versus 17, even if the mills total mill rate is the same at that point.
Speaker 3: It would be it would be small in terms of the overall value of a half mill at that point in time.
Speaker 4: And. Okay.
Speaker 3: I'm a man. Am I answering your question?
Speaker 4: I hope so. Yeah, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it. And then my other question is in terms of, you know, lost capacity. Right. So if we capture if we were to capture the full 1.3 this year, is that then 6% growth based on that new floor or is that still an 18 still based I mean, do we permanently move that up when we capture them at the point at which we.
Speaker 3: Get it is a new base that that 6% is calculated off of.
Speaker 4: So that the total potential revenue to the city if you capture in 17 is 6% above what's captured versus not capturing at all. We go to 18 and our even even if we were to still have the opportunity to take 1.3. You're working from a lower floor. Hmm.
Speaker 3: I'm doing the math, and I'm trying to. To to make sure I'm following. Maybe one more. Say one more time for me.
Speaker 4: I'm just in search of the 6%, which is the anti spiking provision rate. So that 6% is set every year based on what we actually capture. So if we capture it.
Speaker 14: From the half year or.
Speaker 4: Whatever we capture this year, that moves the floor and 6% goes up from there. Correct. In terms of the other mills that were already authorized by voters and whether we capture them or not. Right. Moving to 18 and we haven't captured those, that's 6%. So our ceiling is based on lower floors.
Speaker 3: Based on a lower base.
Speaker 4: Absent the mills different, total revenue is slightly lower at some level because.
Speaker 3: If you want to take into consideration the difference in the base, it would be incrementally different. Yes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all. When we're not in public hearing, we don't have question period and then comment period, do it. We can do both of those at the same time. Right. We don't separate them out. Yeah, I just want to make that clear. Also, I wanted to say that one of the things that it's pleasurable for me up here is that we all want the same thing. We want to find as much affordable housing as we can in the best way we at West Best Way We Can and in the work that Councilman Cornelius done and Councilman Brooks has happened over several years, and it wasn't done just by Councilman Brooks and Councilwoman CORNISH and the mayor. It was done by lots of people, and there were lots of opportunities for council to engage in those meetings and talk about it. It's very difficult tonight to have a very complex bill come at this time. It would be nice to have more time to consider a bill. And again, you know, I find us doing a lot of committee work on the on the dais, and that's uncomfortable. I really appreciate what Brendan has done and trying to explain to us about what the differences are. I need to put it all in a pencil and a pencil myself. It's unfortunate that I probably have only one week to do that to see what the differences between 626 and 625 and wish that the the ideas had come a little sooner in the in the process. But I will be putting this forward for next week to give myself a little bit of time, although I am still very much in favor of the original 625 Bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman. Assessment. Councilwoman. Councilman. New.
Speaker 4: Question, say, on the property tax assessment. You know what? We've I guess we estimate, what, about $360 million in property tax this year for the city? Right.
Speaker 3: I believe that's a across all sources.
Speaker 4: Across all sources. And so for an assessment, what what percent would it have to be to get the, say, ten or $15 million in additional tax?
Speaker 3: Just raw from the assessment in and of itself, you needed to.
Speaker 4: Say we're going to say we're going to that we're going to generate additional tax because of the assessments are going to.
Speaker 3: Go up. I'm not texting on my phone. I'm like calculator really quickly because I do not want to state the wrong number.
Speaker 1: I'm guessing three or 4%.
Speaker 3: So. Well, that's a cross that's all across all funding sources. So probably which wouldn't all be available in order to fund this proposal.
Speaker 4: If we don't run into 6%, then we would have.
Speaker 3: All right. Well, let's just let's just say that we use the value of our general fund at this point in time. So that's $180 million that is currently being proposed in the 2017 budget. At this point in time. Again, remember, the half mil is not in that general fund estimate. You would need 12.7% growth. In order to collect $15 million more in the next year. So that would be well in excess of the the anti spiking provision. That was the easiest math for me to do right now.
Speaker 4: All right. So it's not a proportion of the increase in property tax only. So the assessments go up 4%. We're not going to generate 4% more in property tax.
Speaker 3: We would because that is under the anti or the revenue limit and to to pay only for the affected funds. And I'm sorry, I'm getting into like a big time property tax inside baseball here because.
Speaker 4: If we don't run into the cap, then we could we have that money available to, you know, 4%. It's like 12 to $15 million.
Speaker 3: With if you had growth rate of 4%, that would be within the cap.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Brandon.
Speaker 3: I think I'm just going to stay up here.
Speaker 4: As much as you want to rest on those hard pews out there. Couple of questions now. The mayor's budget came out today and I know this isn't a budget hearing, but just just to clarify segments, the next question, you would probably know that the first two pages I would look at would be the police academy class. Thank you very much. 100 new officers, the way I read it and in academy next year. Thank you. And but the second one thing I would look at would be schedule 100. Right. And in last year's budget, we thought that we would end this year with an unassigned fund balance of $191 million, give or take. And I see that we actually are now projecting about $60 million more than that. Is that am I reading.
Speaker 3: That correctly for the revised 2016 budget?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: So I think that was the 196 that you mentioned. 191 191. You could compare that against to 51. So that's.
Speaker 4: Exactly right.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 4: Okay. So in 2012, I just want to make sure I understood that correctly. In 2012, the voters passed to a which allows us to increase up to our maximum lawful mill levy, which is what it's 20, 22 point something. Right. And where are we now?
Speaker 3: We are at I believe it is 80, 17, 18.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm. Okay. And just a devil's advocate question. You said that we have under the the growth that 6% in the growth and the cap for the cap on growth, we could go up 1.3 mills. Correct. But this budget only recommends point five. Because the voters.
Speaker 3: Contained the point five yet. But yes, it would if the 625 was correct.
Speaker 4: Okay. Because the voters told us in 2012 that we we may go up to our lawful maximum. Why are we not taking advantage of that from year to year?
Speaker 3: So I think we've tried have been be been sensitive to the fact that we've seen such large valuation increases in previous years. Last year the average was 26%. Having gone to community meetings, I've I've met folks who have had 50 to 100% valuation increases and that's just on residential property. So we've been trying to be sensitive to that.
Speaker 4: Okay. Very good. So that will preserve our cap, our capacity for down into the future years where we can use and those inactive mills for other purposes down the line as opposed to once we hit our maximum, then we're done with to a correct.
Speaker 3: Correct. We have that ability to manage those.
Speaker 4: Okay. I appreciate that you said that because 26% was exactly how much my own property tax was. Thank you. Sure.
Speaker 0: Councilman Espinosa. Okay.
Speaker 2: I think I have a question. I don't know who it's for, but again. I thought I saw a commitment to 9 million and maybe it's maybe my my years are wrong or what have you. But it was reported in the Denver Post that the this is a quote the plan did called for devoting about $10 million to the new program next year, but has been increased to $15 million by drawing on reserves, including 1.5 million in proceeds from the city's special 3.5 sales tax on recreational marijuana sales, which was mentioned in the committee. What but does anyone want to address that? I mean, tell me how that how that got reported to the public and what that means.
Speaker 4: Councilman. I think that originally we were not proposing the $5 million in the 2017 budget, but in response to, I think, input and feedback from City Council, we went ahead and proposed our proposing $5 million from a couple of different sources in the 2017 budget. It is our hope that City Council would pass 625, which would essentially provide another $10 million also in 2017 for a total of $15 million.
Speaker 2: Okay. So it's the the $10 million is the blend of the linkage fee and the 6.73 million and property tax. Correct. So 3.7. So about a third is from the developer fee and a in three quarters is from mean two thirds is from the property tax on property.
Speaker 4: For what would be year one of the program contemplated in.
Speaker 2: 625. Yes. And that's based on sort of record levels of development right now. Okay. So we do we expect that ratio to maintain at one or two thirds or actually decrease on the development side.
Speaker 4: Over time, over ten years, over the first ten years of this program. It's pretty close to even. Property tax.
Speaker 2: Three. Linkage fee. So on a.
Speaker 0: Jump in real quick council can each.
Speaker 13: Can can I help answer your question Councilman Espinosa the reason the figure is so low for year one is because projects that are already in the pipeline, that have already passed site review and building permit, even if they haven't broken ground yet, won't be required to pay the fee. So a whole bunch of the projects, even though the ordinance goes into effect January 1st. But if you think about it, the first six months of the year, the construction that you see around town, we'll have gotten site review and permits six months prior. So we are only applying the fee to folks who have not yet gone through that gate. And we do have CPD here if you have any questions about that. But this is this number is a one time delay due to the start up of when new projects are are brought into the system. But due future years it will be based on the total development cycle. But but this year's delay is this year's amount is lower not because of the development cycle. It's it's because of the start up delay that most of the construction you see got its permit earlier.
Speaker 2: Do we have to maintain these sort of astronomical records of developed square footage to maintain that 5050 ratio? Or what what what is the sort of amount of development relative to what we're producing today? To maintain that ratio.
Speaker 13: We may want to ask Justin to come up. The the answer is that the department did a 15 year look back and they chose not the most conservative estimate and not the most aggressive estimate. They chose what they called the average estimate of of development activity to to achieve the development revenue that we have projected.
Speaker 4: Justin Sykes The Budget Management Office. Yes, we worked with the assessor's office to pull data historically on how much new development has there been in Denver. And then we use that 15 year lookback period average. And so the linkage fees that are in the proposals are based on the average amount of new development over the past 15 years, which includes two economic up cycles as well as two economic down cycles. And so working with CPD, working with the assessor's office, that seemed to be a good balance on which to base the revenue estimates.
Speaker 2: And that's great because again, what I had heard overwhelmingly was that it wouldn't be that from the from the from the people, at least in my district. And I think similar numbers are represented in councilman news is that the expectation was is that the public meeting that the development community actually bear a greater burden in this in this fund? Not a they weren't looking at a balanced approach. I understand why, but it just seems like that has been. Well, actually, I'll just go into my comments because that's where I that's where I started in the development committee is not going to I hear this, but who do I credit for this public and council process ? Timeline developed for CB 625 that was presented here on our dais.
Speaker 13: I'm not taking any credit, so I know what shots I'm taking.
Speaker 2: Okay. No, this is this is wonderful. This is great because you did my work for me. But if you look at this, the thing that I started with, the very, very first item and it's dated July 2015 and it states one on one conversations with returning council members and newly elected members on the concept of exploring the property tax and linkage fee as a permanent funding source for affordable housing. That's where we were in July of 2015, actually, before I was sworn in and I in that meeting because I did have that one on one, I clearly stated why only 15 million knowing full well that we had greater need than 15 million. And I also asked for it to. I don't care whether that blend is as long as it's weighted towards the development community. That was not a public meeting, it was one on one, but it is documented here. And I thought it was important to to because one of the things that hasn't happened, the only thing that was decided since that moment in July of 2015 is what the blend was. We've always been talking about up to one mill and a linkage fee, but it was all remaining TBD. The Nexus study was in its formative stages. It hadn't been contracted yet at that point in time. But yet also in this document is the mayor's State of the City speech on 720 when we were all sworn in. Which states? Denver's Hancock says $15 million goal for new affordable housing fund. And so anybody who's been paying attention knows that that's all we've been talking about is $15 million and 600 units per year. 6000. Anybody else who knows this need knows that that is woefully deficient and doesn't come close to addressing the need that we have as a city. And so my issue is with how this proposal just maintains the status quo. And that is what 626 is intended to do, is actually have that discussion that I don't feel council has been proactively involved in, despite the constant briefings over the last year because we've been updated on the status of that thing. In general, generalizations are made about the comments from the stakeholders, but we don't have a robust solution. We just are going to generate money and we're going to spend money the way we always have. Another thing in this timeline is July 13th, as as Laura mentioned, which is when the draft nexus study came out, we were actually promised that in in late spring, July is is a healthy part of the summer. I was expecting it in May and this is a full two months later. And then on July 17th was this draft ordinance. And so, you know, a lot of us, you know, yeah, I'm a affordable housing former practicing architect in affordable housing. My the company I used to work for Northeast Denver housing is an advocate proponent of this, a 6 to 5 and probably not in favor of 6 to 6 because of the political process that has lined up all the usual suspects in generating support for this on the assumption that more money fixes more problems. But the problem is our solutions and how woefully they've been able to address the problem thus far. So more money doesn't in this case fix more problems. What we need is more creative solutions to actually get units into into a covenant, either short term, long term or permanent. But we we don't even talk about that because that's all deferred to some other board to have a discussion at some point in time. And why aren't we having that discussion about how do we actually do legislation and guide this process so that we're actually generating ample amounts of resources to actually creatively incentivize the industry to generate units or convert existing units into affordable. Those are all things that were discussed at the stakeholder meetings but aren't part of this ordinance. And so that's one of those aims of this 11 member panel is to finally vet those solutions and hopefully find something that would offset the need for a linkage fee. But if not, we'll go right back to this linkage fee. I mean, it's in the bill exactly the way it is right now. In 6 to 5, it's in six, two, six. And I happy with that. No, I'm sorry. Development community. I wish it were all higher across the board, especially in multifamily rental and yes, sorry of apartment lobby, but I would rather have that discussion and let the industry know that I stand firmly with the idea that we should put more money and more resources into this thing, but let the industry come out with systems and approaches and bring those to the city council modeled on the last five years of data. And I want that because the city generated that gentrification report. I represent Northwest Denver. No area has been greatly impacted by gentrification in Northwest Denver and losing affordable units. And they're getting displaced. It's displacing families. And so let's look at it. Let's see what's being proposed. Let's model it based on the last five years and see if we would have gotten different outcomes in northwest Denver. That's that should be fairly simple for a group of professionals. And the amount of money that we can put towards this, especially given the data is there the so it's it's and it's frustrating you hear me talk about the I show in my frustrations there and yes my bill our bill doesn't kill it right now because I don't want to create this sort of 12 month of 13 month open window where we don't have a linkage fee. We have delayed property taxes and we don't have an IATO. Well, it would be good in a lot of ways. I actually think we would get a lot of. Permit requests for a bunch of projects that would then try to circumvent a linkage fee, which is three times the amount of this mean an h o fee, which is three times the amount of the proposed linkage fee. So what this represents right now is a very significant discount to what somebody would have to pay if they were doing multifamily for sale product. And it's distributing that among every square foot that's being built in the city, whether it's single family, duplex, multifamily, commercial and and and not. And so it's a good idea. It's but it's it's it's not strong enough. It is a modest and balanced approach. I mean, but we could have had that conversation back in July. Let's go half a mill and get the other half of the $15 million from the public. And it seems like all we did was spend a year vetting that. I mean, you know, writing the legislation and getting the proof to get that outcome when in fact, we have a Nexis study that says we could slap a very, very substantial fee on the development industry, you know, in the $7 range that we keep saying about Seattle, and then you generate millions, tens of millions of dollars more, which is actually what you need for this. So we have Brendan explaining that we could we could actually generate $17 Million, putting 1.3 in a bill for 1.3 mills and capturing it for arterial paving and sidewalks, extra police and some community planning staff to actually address the needs that I keep hearing about. You know, why is 38 not paid? Why is Colfax in crummy condition, you know, nor federal I mean grants there see that stuff and we don't go in there but oh so it's just it's just it it is a it is a sort of very calculated political process. And, yes, that's what I'm here for as an elected official now. But I still don't I still buy it. You know, we don't we shouldn't be in this business to sort of score points. We should be in this business to really aggressively handle the outcomes, especially when this day, as members of this dais, all sort of almost the majority, I think, feel that this is not going far enough because the tools aren't there. It's just more money. And I'm sorry, but everybody right now pays in the federal who pays an income tax is already paying for the affordable housing programs that we have in the city through federal grants, through the state, and through this through through HUD, into the state. And so now we're going to charge property taxpayers a portion of this amount while they're still going to have their federal income tax going to something else. I mean, that's what we're doing is we're offsetting losses in federal revenue. There's been losses in federal sources that we've relied on in years past that are going away. But so rather than and we're filling it up a little bit more than we were, and so that's what I'm saying, is the status quo has created an issue, I mean, has created an issue, but has not been able to adequately address the situation. And this solution is just a slightly higher amount. And we're going to continue addressing the situation as we have been and we don't really have tools. And so we need a year in a very focused effort, just like we did having having talks, but not to justify a 5050 modest and balanced solution. We can fund that through our existing general fund or through an extra mil. And then capturing that saving. I mean, that that net increase I mean, what Brandon just said is we had a we have 9 million in net, we're at 19, 19% and change. So even if we were to draw down a 1.1 and maybe I'm screwing up my, my, your my CFO skills, we would still not we would be at at 18 and change and and we would still be well in excess of our 15. Now you can't budget that way, but that's that's relative to our actual spending. So let's look at I mean, that's his job. Look at your actual spending and say, well, is there actual savings here that can in fact pay for this without a tax increase? But even if we do, let's do a tax increase for the things that people paid. I mean, that we were sold when we did to a. Because I was sold on improved paving through streets and a whole bunch of other needs that were being neglected during a recession that still seem to some, to some degree beginning neglected and capture that money for those resources, mean for those needs and then use that surplus or not surplus, but additional revenue to then fund this to the degree that we're talking about, which isn't $15 million or $10 million, it's 2020 plus. And that's right now. So I'm rambling.
Speaker 0: So, gentlemen, you got Joe and Clark still waiting and just wanted to make sure we still got another bill on the floor that you can get comments to as well.
Speaker 2: All right. I did have a messy sketch.
Speaker 6: Here of what I.
Speaker 2: Want to say, so I'll go through it real quick. People of color were mentioned, and that's what I'm saying. They have been disproportionately it was stated that they have been disproportionately affected, but they've been disproportionately affected by the status quo. Again, I've said it before, this just perpetuates the status quo and a lack strength, credit, creativity and guidance to do the much more. Much more than satisfied the political narrative of 150,006,000 units, which falls woefully short of the need. In the future. The political right now these days has the political will to do more and actually existing. On this day, I said, I've got a nice scratch, this girl. So yet the sponsors of this moderate and balanced proposal are trying to kill the debate by kill it by putting this measure on the floor and trying to kill it right now. I just asked that my colleagues move both for the benefit of Denver and its citizens. We need to be talking about real, real digging deep and finding solutions. And that's all that's all I'm looking for and doing because I can I'm happy to put this on tape right now, just like I would have done on the show had I been sitting at the dais here. It's not sufficient. And this we're going to be having this thing and there's a lot of talk about this is just a baby stepping. It's a foot in the door. And and now you got the justification. Now you've got the need. Now it's stated in the legislation on both of them, unprecedented level of property, population growth in the housing of the city has not kept pace with demand. So I don't know. I just urge my colleagues to move both and let us continue to have a discussion about how we actually can address true affordable housing needs, get the funding to the people that are doing the work and figuring out incentives to capture our are proposed upcoming legislation and and mobilize our industry to actually find ways to deliver units faster than we can because the units that we fund right now aren't going to go on market next year. There's a design process, a permitting process and a construction process, but yet there are units out there that we could capture, but we don't have the mechanism right now. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Councilman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. CFO, can I ask one more question? You had mentioned the bond rating. Our bond rating. And one of the things that they look at is that percentage of reserves. So is that is there a magic number in there? I know we've set a policy at 15. Is there a magic number on that side at 15 or is higher always better than lower as a general rule?
Speaker 3: They've affirmed our policy as strong financial management practices as well as the level itself. Back in 2007, when we established the Department of Finance, we did a blue ribbon task force that reviewed our fund balance policy because we got into conversations like this often about it, can we go below a certain level? And they established that policy to maintain a strong financial position that the credit rating agencies to look at for some sort of certainty. So that way they know that we're properly managing our reserves. So there isn't an absolute number. Believe me, I've asked about that in passing conversation because if the number, you know, 15 needed to be higher than that as we grew as a city, I would certainly be advocating for that as well. But they have continued to affirm that 15% is a strong financial position.
Speaker 4: So they've affirmed that 15 is strong, but they haven't told us that 14 would not be there.
Speaker 3: There's not there's not an equation that they would they would advocate for.
Speaker 4: Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clarke. And I'll just make a closing comment on on the bill that's on the floor as amended. You know, I have said this before. I said this over and over again, and I'll say it again, having been a part of a more open, inclusive, thorough process, both folks who are for against and everybody in the middle. And I'm so glad that councilwoman can each took time to put this thorough outreach process down. You know, Councilman Councilman Herndon said, you know, let's let the council get the opportunity to do this. Councilman Espinosa said, we haven't had the opportunity to get in. How we do business on this council is when we will deal with large issues. A couple council folks lead them. So for Sidewalks Councilman Clark, Councilman Cashman or Lena for short term rentals, you only have one partner and we didn't have a partner council assessment led that process. That's how we do things because we can't be experts or or passionate about everything. We let other council folks take the lead and we never get upset about that. That's just how we do business. And so I think it's important for the public to know that and clear for the folks up here. There was a comment that kind of irked me. It was called someone said usual suspects. These weren't usual suspects. These are called experts, both on the development side, on the on the affordable housing side. And so these are people that we go to to get advice. We are not experts in here, but there are people in our community that we trust. And we've had many public meetings where where community folks have gotten the opportunity to to share their opinion and most of the public meetings. The theme was, you're not doing enough. And gosh, I, you know, as a leader, really believe that. But there's this deal called fiduciary responsibility up here. And we have to know with the money that we have that we can actually build the units that we can actually deliver. No one in here can build 20,000 units. No one. But I know that if we can ramp up on a moderate and responsible plan, we can do that. I won't be supporting 626 because I've been a part of this thorough process, because I have been at the table when others who have been invited did not come and didn't show up. And I really believe that 626 is just another effort to go another year. We're going to come back to the table. No one's going to agree because someone at the end of the day is going to be unhappy. And we're going to be right here where we were on marijuana at a six, seven vote. We're in the exact same place and someone will not agree. So I will not be supporting this. I'll be supporting the bill next time. 625. I will say this. This bill and this discussion in this conversation has helped us all think about a bigger, bolder vision in the future. But the question is, what are we going to do today? That's the question. What are we going to do today? And so we all agree that we need to be bigger. We need to be bolder. And everyone out here is going to get that opportunity because you're all on record. So what are we going to do today? Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Herndon, I.
Speaker 4: CASHMAN No.
Speaker 7: Kennedy No. Knew Ortega.
Speaker 5: Sussman All right, black eye.
Speaker 7: CLARK All right. Espinosa, I. FLYNN Hey. GILMORE No, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. And that's the voting. I close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 7: Seven eyes, five knees.
Speaker 0: Seven eyes, five knees. Counsel Bill 626 has been ordered published counseling can each. Will you? You've caught out 625. What would you like to do with this bill?
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to request a combined public hearing of one hour combined with Council Bill 626 on September 19th, 2016.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 27 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning housing, establishing permanent funds to support city affordable housing programs, adopting an affordable housing linkage fee applicable to new construction to be effective October 1, 2017, and dedicating a portion of the city’s existing property tax revenue capacity to the funding of affordable housing programs beginning with 2017 property taxes to be collected in 2018.
Approves creating a permanent fund for affordable housing programs, adopting an affordable housing linkage fee, and dedicating a portion of the city’s existing property tax revenue capacity to funding affordable housing programs. This bill was approved for filing by Councilmember Herndon. Amended 9-12-16 to change the composition of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. The change would remove one of the mayor’s appointments to the advisory committee from an “at large” appointment to a requirement that the appointment be a non-profit affordable housing developer; thus, resulting in two slots on the committee
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0585
|
Speaker 0: Ten? Okay, ten, 10 minutes. So we'll be back here at 940. Thank you. We have three public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names, their cities of residence, and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you're here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium, say your name, and let the council know that you are available for questions. Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which would result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation monitor on the wall . When the yellow light comes on, you will have 30 seconds to conclude your remarks. And when the red light appears, your time is up. Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Speakers are prohibited from using profanity, profanity and making personal attacks to council members. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 585 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 585 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in session. It the public hearing from council bill 585 is open. May we have the staff report. Academia and John Carter, Department of Finance.
Speaker 2: I'm going to do a staff report for the Council Bill.
Speaker 0: 0585 for.
Speaker 2: The approval of the service plan for Denver.
Speaker 0: Connection. What Metropolitan.
Speaker 3: District? A couple of slides to give an overview of the District's purpose.
Speaker 0: In the related development quickly. The first site here, the proposed district and development is located in the northeast part of Denver. The boundaries are roughly east of Chambers Road, west of Kenya, and south of Green Valley Ranch Boulevard, or 48th Avenue. The site is about 115 acres.
Speaker 2: It's planned for 700, roughly.
Speaker 3: 700.
Speaker 0: Residential units and about 40 acres of open space. This is a rendering here you have east of chambers and south in Green Valley Ranch.
Speaker 6: The residential properties. Excuse me?
Speaker 0: The development is also proposing to gain 700 units of residential properties. This is a break out of the mix of those properties and units and the starting price points. Those ranges from 236,000 to about 312,000. And you can see the breakout of the units here on the slide. Couple examples of what the renderings of those units would look like. Both the single families and then some.
Speaker 2: Of the townhouses.
Speaker 0: And connected units. And then a little bit of a break out of the open space that the district would be funding and some of the amenities there and the development. This is a rendering of that. Couple of highlights. Again, about 40 acres of 115 acres will be roughly it will be dedicated open space. You have a ten acre park on the southeast side here. And then a highlight what they're calling the hub center, which is at a community center slash recreation center with a pool and community space. So it'll be.
Speaker 4: Kind of a drawing center.
Speaker 0: For the developments. All these amenities will be funded by the district and maintained by the district as well going forward. And then finally, just to wrap up kind of the purpose of the district and the financing, the district will coordinate a standard with most metropolitan districts in Denver, will coordinate the manage of financing, acquisition, construction and maintenance of the public infrastructure and services for the developments. And these include a couple items as listed below. The total cost of those improvements are about $55 million, although the district will only be funding 20 million of that and will be taking out debt for about 20 million of those 55. The mill levies will be 40 mills proposed for debt and ten mills, throwing them with a cap of 50 mills. I'm here to answer questions and you also have members from the development team here and answer questions as well. Thank you. We have two individuals to speak tonight. I'm going to have them come to the front row. Maryann McGrady and Russell Johnson. Go ahead. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, members of the council. My name is Robert Johnson. I'm with Village Homes. I'm here to answer any questions that.
Speaker 14: You might have.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Good evening. It's Marianne McGinty with Maggie Becker. I'm the attorney for the applicant here to answer questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? And I want to give a little bit of time to get our screens caught up. Any questions for members of council? Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I just want to ask what what the proposed height is for. The. Is there a height limitation? And if so, what is the maximum height?
Speaker 4: There is a high limitations, 35 feet. I don't think we're proposing.
Speaker 14: We get that high.
Speaker 4: Most of our units are typically two story homes. So under 25. Great.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe the gentleman could answer. Looking through this went through it so quickly. I want to make sure I didn't miss anything. Is there any commercial use within the district or is it all residential and open space? There is no commercial use to the existing PD that's in place that we're following.
Speaker 14: Did not allow for any commercial.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. The the mill the proposed mill levy that will apply since it applies to residential property, it will be at the lower ratio of assessment. Correct. Okay. Right there, nodding behind you. That's it. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 14: Did you get it? Did you get your answer? Even though I didn't say anything. Okay.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Any other questions from members of council? This concludes our core questions in the public hearing from counsel. 585 is now closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, this has been a plot of land that has never been developed in the the Gateway Green Valley Ranch neighborhood. And so it is east of chambers and on a great corner. And we're really excited to have Village Homes as a partner in the community. There's no way that the city would at this point in time, be able to put something like this together and, you know, the developer pays their way. And so one of the great amenities that's going to come out of this development is the widening of Green Valley Ranch Boulevard from two lanes to four lanes. And then there'll be a Signalized intersection at Memphis. And so that's something that a lot of community members, for as long as I've lived in Monticello over 20 years, have always wanted to know when that was going to happen. And it just took the right, you know, economic climate and I think the right set of partners to make sure that this happened. Village homes never gave up. I think that there were a couple hiccups along the way. You know, to to see this site and really develop it in a way that in modern day terms, you would have walkability to retail, to Councilman Flynn's question around that retail component. But it just didn't make sense right at that point in time to have that element included in. And so we're going to have the residential and the parks and and the amenity piece of it. And so I would ask that all of my colleagues can just consider voting for this piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to sort of add, in my past life, as in the affordable housing business, we did a lot of NSP work. Neighborhood Stabilization Project. I don't even remember. In the end, it's interesting because we did a lot of the units just north of Green Valley Ranch on Memphis in the Parkview area. And what it was what was sort of difficult in that recession and post-recession time was that we were there were units that had been in foreclosure, and and they were being sold back on the market for a fraction of what it would cost to build them. And it looked like it was going to be a long time coming before you would have the sort of economy where that area south and that sort of all that acreage could get developed. And so now it's it's it's it's it's good for those, those people that could withstand that that that hit because that area got really devastated during the housing crisis. I mean, the the recession and I mean, where people lost half of the value of their homes. So it's telling me that this this area has come back. It's also speaks to the affordable housing issue. Right. Because those units were incredibly affordable during that recession. And now we're these are still modest homes but and attainable. But they're they're starting to creep.
Speaker 0: But it is generally.
Speaker 2: A good thing for all those neighbors that had survived and sustain themselves through that recession. So I just I'm just glad to see having been familiar with it and just glad to see it happening. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to echo the comments before before I took over on District eight, I represented District 11. And so I am very familiar with this property and the movement moving forward. So I'm glad to see this come to fruition. And I wholeheartedly support this, encourage my colleagues to do so. And I think it'll be a great addition to far northeast. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That concludes our our comments from members of council. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: But.
Speaker 7: Gilmore. I'm sorry. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Katherine Can each new Ortega.
Speaker 5: SUSSMAN Black tie. Clark All.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 7: ESPINOSA Hi.
Speaker 4: FLYNN Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Please close voting. Announce the results. I'm here to advise council bill 585 has passed.
Speaker 7: Ortega was that I also was a candidate for vice.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a Service Plan for the creation of Denver Connection West Metropolitan District.
Approves the service plan for the Denver Connection West metropolitan district in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-9-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0430
|
Speaker 7: Ortega was that I also was a candidate for vice.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Congratulations. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 430 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 430 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in a second. Councilman Herndon, we need a motion to postpone.
Speaker 7: Wait. We need 1/2.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 7: All right. So do I. See.
Speaker 6: Let me know when you get ma'am sector.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 6: Good. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 430 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, October 3rd, 2016.
Speaker 0: Comments by Members of Council Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. At the request of community planning and development, they need to postpone this public hearing in order to meet the notice requirements. They do apologize, but all parties were notified. So I ask that my colleagues support this postponement.
Speaker 0: All right. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Herndon i.
Speaker 7: Cashman can eat new Ortega I. SUSSMAN My black.
Speaker 5: Eye.
Speaker 4: CLARK All.
Speaker 7: Right. ESPINOSA Hi, Flynn. GILMORE Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. For Final Consideration Council Bill 430 and this public hearing will be postponed to Monday, October 3rd. Councilwoman Gilmore. Will you please put Council Bill 519 on floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for Geneva Court and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
Rezones property at Geneva Court and Martin Luther King Boulevard from R-MU-20 (Former Code: residential, mixed use) with waivers to M-MX-5 (master planned, commercial mixed use, 5 stories) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-3-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0509
|
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. For Final Consideration Council Bill 430 and this public hearing will be postponed to Monday, October 3rd. Councilwoman Gilmore. Will you please put Council Bill 519 on floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 509 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has. Let's see here. It has been moved and second it. Public hearing for council bill 509 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 1: Hey, good.
Speaker 3: Evening. Cortland Pizer with Community Planning Development here to present the proposed rezoning for 3705 Shoshone Street in 1945 West 37th. So this rezoning proposal is in Council District one in the Highland neighborhood. And specifically at the northwest corner of 37th AV and Shoshone Street as shown on the slide here. There are actually two properties here, one single family home fronting Shoshone streets and the other, which appears to be the backyard of that house but is actually a separate parcel with a greenhouse and a carriage house on it. Fronting 37th. The applicant is requesting rezoning to remove the existing old code.
Speaker 1: PUD.
Speaker 3: And is requesting to rezone from that pad to YouTube with the DOH for overlay. So YouTube stands for Urban Neighborhood to unit. The B indicates a 4500 square foot minimum lot size. The deal for is the side interior setback design overlay. This is an overlay that's commonly mapped throughout this neighborhood and allows for some flexibility inside yard setbacks when certain conditions are met regarding lot with. The existing zoning for the site. PD 181. Surrounding zoning on three sides matches the district that the applicant is requesting. YouTube with the deal for overlay and there's also another PD across Shoshone Street to the east. So a few words about the existing old code. It was adopted in 1985. Like a lot of PDAs that were created in this era, it was written very narrowly to a specific development proposal. In this case, the development proposal at the time was to maintain use of the single family home fronting Shoshone or allow for it to be converted to a duplex. And then the carriage.
Speaker 1: House was allowed to have a commercial use.
Speaker 3: Established, which was a neighborhood bakeshop and that was the reason for the establishment of the pad at the time. The existing land use we already mentioned for the site itself being single, family, residential and then with the green house and now Carriage House, which no longer has the bakeshop located in it. So it's not being used to. The north is the Potenza lodge and it's a rather large parking lot that's directly adjacent to the site and runs up to the lodge that fronts 38th AV to the south and to the west is single family residential into the east is the corporate offices for the Trino Foods. So here's some images to accompany the land use map. So the top two are of the site itself, the one on the left being of the home. And then you can see in the the one at the top right showing what would be.
Speaker 6: The backyard of the home. But is that separate parcel.
Speaker 1: That contains the.
Speaker 3: Carriage house? And what you see in the foreground is a rather large greenhouse. It's also located on the property. To the north is the Potenza Lodge. This is a photo taken from the Lott line looking towards the lodge so you can see the parking lot that serves the lodge dominating that photo. Here's the LA Perino Foods corporate headquarters, the portion of which that's directly adjacent or excuse me, across Shoshone street from the site and then a couple of single family residential uses. So here's one to the south and then one to the west across the alley. In terms of information on notice, we followed our standard procedures for notification notification throughout for each step of the planning process. The Planning Board public hearing was held back in July and planning board recommended approval by a vote of 10 to 0. The registered neighborhood organizations listed at the bottom of the slide were notified throughout the process at all required points and we have received no public comment on this particular application. The five standard review criteria for rezonings apply and we'll go through each of these briefly, starting with plan consistency. The three relevant plans for this application are Comp Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and the Highland Neighborhood Plan. Can't plan 2000 has three strategies listed here on the slide, more detail provided in the staff report, but the finding was consistency with the strategies that are listed here. Blueprint. Denver Street Classification Recommendations for Shoshone and 37th is undesignated local for both of those streets. And Blueprint. Denver identifies this as an area of stability and the land use recommendation is single-family and part of the definition of single family and blueprint. Listed here in the slide is that single family homes are the predominant residential type. So the predominant type, not the only.
Speaker 1: Type. The proposed.
Speaker 4: YouTube.
Speaker 3: Zoning would allow single family urban.
Speaker 1: Houses, but it would.
Speaker 3: Also allow to use duplexes and tandem.
Speaker 1: Houses. So a little bit.
Speaker 3: Broader than just the strict interpretation of single family, but that is allowed for in Blueprint Denver. The 2010 comprehensive rezoning is relevant here because a two unit district rather than a single unit district was chosen for this general area. That's because of the historically the zoning was are to throughout this particular neighborhood.
Speaker 4: And YouTube.
Speaker 3: Was chosen as an equivalent district. You do find a mix of low to moderate density residential types throughout the area, although single family is the predominant residential.
Speaker 1: Type.
Speaker 3: And the Highland Neighborhood Plan does have some recommendations that are a little bit broader than just single family. And those are listed here on this slide. So the site itself shown in the little red box there within sub area 13 of the Highland Neighborhood Plan and the goal stated for sub area 13 by that plan is to improve and stabilize residential areas by preserving existing housing stock and encouraging homeownership. And the land use recommendation is low density residential, which is single family and low to moderate density residential, of which the YouTube district is a good fit. So the finding is that there is consistency with our adopted plans and that the first criteria is met. The slide summarizes the remaining criteria. The uniformity of district regulations is met by virtue.
Speaker 1: Of the fact that this.
Speaker 3: Particular proposal would rezone out of an old Code PD and into the Denver zoning code. And furthermore, the requested zoning matches the surrounding neighborhood parcels. It advances the public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans. The justifying circumstances are a changed or changing condition, the most relevant of which being that the bakery has been closed for several years. The PD doesn't allow for it to be the carriage house to be used as anything other than a bakery. And so it no longer serves its purpose. The consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent is also met and more details are in the staff report on that. So CPD recommendation is approval based on finding that all.
Speaker 1: Of the review criteria were met.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We have one speaker this evening. Zach Slover can come up to the front. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 4: Hi. I'm Zach Sloan with generator real estate and owner representative.
Speaker 0: And it answer any questions. All right. This concludes our speakers call on questions for members of council. Give some time to. All right. Here we go. Public hearing for council five or nine is closed. Councilman Espinosa comments.
Speaker 2: No, it's just this was this could have been a contentious little bit of property. But it's the right zoned district, isn't it? It's it's endorsed by a endorsement from the community. So I'm happy to support this rezoning.
Speaker 0: Nice. Councilman, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to share with my colleagues that the property owner came and met with me. Gosh, I want to say about 6 to 8 months ago, because they had an interest in wanting to separate these out. And under the PD, they have always been two separate properties. They have two different addresses and they paid taxes on them separately. But for the purpose of being able to, you know, sell part of the property so that it could be used as income for this elderly couple, they couldn't do they couldn't do that. They had to go through this process to be able to sell it as a separate parcel, even though it's functioned in that way since the PD was adopted. And so I had referred her over to CPD staff, and that's what began this process. So I just wanted to share that background. And I think this is inappropriate. It's unfortunate there was a different way to solve this without having to go through the rezoning, given the background that I just shared with you. But I was around when it was originally proposed as a PD, and for a long period of time the NEUMANNS actually operated that bakery. It was some of the best food in town and people would line up to go sit in that backyard, which was a beautiful backyard with flowers and whatnot, but they just couldn't keep keep the business going. And so I just want to encourage my colleagues to support this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman, with no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Espinosa. Hi. Flynn I Gilmore by Herndon I Cashman can each new or new Ortega I Susman.
Speaker 5: Black I Clark.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 7: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Please closer the voting and announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3705 Shoshone St. & 1945 W. 37th Ave.
Rezones property at 3705 Shoshone Street &1945 West 37th Avenue from PUD #181 to U-TU-B, DO-4 (urban, two unit, 4500 sq. ft. minimum lot size, Design Overlay-Side Interior Setback) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-3-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0563
|
Speaker 0: I Please closer the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Counsel Bill 509 has passed. Thank you. Regulations for the final bill tonight. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 563 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President. Council Bill. 563 should be placed upon final consideration and due pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. And second, you have the second. There it is. It has been moved. And second, it up and up. Then can you please bring in the staff report?
Speaker 14: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of Council Curt Upton, Community Planning and Development tonight. This rezoning is a legislative proposal from Councilman Paul Lopez to rezone some property in the Sun Valley neighborhood. So obviously, we're in Council District three in the Sun Valley neighborhood and just southeast of the Decatur Federal Light Rail Station, almost about a quarter mile at 13th Avenue in Decatur Street. So the existing zoning is a mixture of industrial zone districts and a former Chapter 59 or old code mixed use District two north of 13th Avenue. There's two overlays in place in this rezoning area. South of 13th Avenue is the U. Oh two overlay, which is a billboard use overlay. North of 13th Avenue. There's a yellow one overlay, which is an adult use overlay, and that's those both of those overlays are in place today. So the proposal is a little over eight acres. Again, this is a legislative rezoning initiated by Councilman Lopez to implement the recently, recently adopted Sun Valley neighborhood slash Decatur Federal Stationary, a plan to move away from the existing industrial zone districts. There's a variety of barriers with the industrial zone districts for establishing the vision of the neighborhood. And the billboard overlay, again, that's located south of 13th Avenue, is proposed to be removed. The Adult Use Overlay, which is currently in place today north of 13th Avenue, is proposed to be retained. Initially it was proposed to be removed, but there are some legal issues with removing it which we could get into later in the presentation if you have any questions on that. So I'll get into the existing land use context. There's a variety of land uses in the district today. There's some residential vacant land surface parking and some industrial land uses as well as office or nonprofit uses as well surrounding as is quasi public, obviously with a public park and some utility infrastructure directly to the northeast in terms of an Excel substation. This gives you an idea of the scale and the character of the existing buildings. Low scale, primarily one and two storey buildings. And again, sort of the transitioning residential mixed in with industrial warehouse character today. So in terms of process, we did do this a little differently from our standard process, although we did notice it as we do all map amendments. But we did meet with the Sun Valley Community Coalition, hosted us for a variety of meetings on six different occasions out in the neighborhood, and that was attended by myself, the councilmen and the council and staff, as well as a variety of stakeholders to discuss and answer questions on this proposed rezoning. The Planning Board did recommend unanimous approval of this. However, there is some opposition out in the community. Sun Valley Community Coalition is in support of this. They did vote to support this rezoning. However, there is a nonprofit organization in the in the proposed rezoning area called Earth Links that provides a variety of important services for the neighborhood . And they are concerned that the increase in height could negatively impact their urban agriculture slash community garden facility. This was a topic that was discussed a few times in our meetings out in the community, and there are some some additional letters in the packet from small from a small business owner that is very much in support of the increased height. And the Sun Valley Community Coalition is in support of this increased height as well. There's also some additional letters that have been submitted from organizations outside of the rezoning area and outside of the neighborhood that are also in opposition to this because of the potential negative impact on the Earth links, property and operations. So with that, I will get into consistency with adopted plans for a blueprint in Denver. This is an area of change and is classified as transit oriented development. As you all know, both of those are areas of change. Our areas where we're trying to direct growth in the city transit or in development is also an area we're trying to direct growth in terms of mixed use development, higher intensity development, multi storeys and pedestrian friendly design. The street classifications for 13th Avenue and Decatur Street are both mixed use collectors. Mixed use collectors also recommend mixed mix of uses, higher intensity, multistory developments and pedestrian friendly street frontages. We also have the Sun Valley neighborhood and Decatur Federal Station area plan. These were recently adopted in 2013. They align also with Blueprint Denver in designating this area, which is the red polygon is the rezoning area. But all of the pink area on this map is designated as Transit Warrior Development, with the same recommendations as Blueprint Denver. Again, higher intensity uses to take advantage of the light rail station, multi stories, multistory development and mixed use development with pedestrian friendly design features. The Sun Valley Neighborhood Plan also has recommended heights map and this location. All of it falls within the eight storey maximum height recommendation for the plan. There are other designations throughout the area that range from three stories and up to 12 stories in the station area. This image is of 13 Avenue and gives you a sense of what the proposed vision is at build out of the station area. Again, this is more of the pedestrian friendly streets and multistory mixed use development. This is another shot looking west from the river and again, gives you a sense of the transit oriented development, character and scale that's articulated in the Sun Valley Neighborhood Plan and that the proposed zone district of CMCs eight is intended to help facilitate. So with that, we do find that the proposal of mixed use development CMCs eight of up to eight storeys is consistent with all of our plans. It's consistent with Blueprint Denver. It's specifically consistent with the recently adopted Sun Valley Neighborhood Plan Indicator, federal stationary plan that calls for mixed use development of up to eight storeys with a pedestrian friendly design features. It does further the uniformity of district regulations for the public health, safety and welfare and meets our justified circumstances criteria. Obviously, the Carter Federal Light Rail Station is in place. There's changing conditions and there's multiple plans calling for a redevelopment of this area. Denver Housing Authority has also completed an extensive visioning effort and master planning effort for their Choice Neighborhoods application with the Sun Valley Eco District. And so for those reasons, we do feel it meets our changing circumstances criteria. It's also consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. The district, again, is intended to encourage pedestrian friendly, mixed use development of up to eight storeys, and that's the character that's articulated in the adopted plans. And so with that, I'll be happy to take any questions on this case. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. I'll be I'll call the first five speakers. You can come on this front row and we'll start with Caitlin Cronin. Caitlin Cronin, Phil Cassar, Gaia Summers. Sorry if we have some of the spelt wrong read Silberman. And Carol McLean. You guys can all come to the front in that order. So we'll start first with Kathleen Cronin.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks and members of the council. Yeah, my name is Kathleen Cronin. I'm the executive director of Earthlings. And while I actually physically live in Aurora, Colorado, all my waking hours are spent at 2746 West 13th Avenue in Denver, where Earthlings is in the packet. I think that you were looking at in the and the overview that Mr. Upton was doing. We're located basically right at the corner of Current 13th Avenue in Decatur. The plan that's under consideration or possibly going to be put into effect actually moves 13th to a block to our south. But at the present time, we're at the corner of 13th and Decatur. Our concern basically has to do with the potential shading of our garden. We have occupied this space now for about two years. We've owned it for three years and we've put approximately $1.1 million into this property. And one of the major things that we do in our program is working with homeless adults in and gardening and workshop program. We're a micro employer of folks and we have a 70% or better success rate at getting folks into housing if they've been working with us for a year or more. So we we we know that what we do is significant and we know that what we do works. There's plenty of studies that talk about the benefits of working in Earth and in fact, various organizations from other justice communities or social services communities come to talk to us about how to establish similar programs in other locations. The worry is if we go to eight stories around us from our south and our east, we will basically close off about two thirds of our potential gardening space. That will leave us with about 2000 square feet to garden, as opposed to the 8000 square feet that we have available to us. We are a central piece of the Food Access Coalition for Sun Valley. We moved there with the intention of being able to provide locally grown food, which was part of the plan that's being referred to here. And we feel that we're trying to help in that. And that means and that this change to eight stories right in our area would well possibly affect us negatively. I would like to point out that as the city, we have kind of a suggestion or a plank, if you will, we wish to be a sustainable city. And I've been told over and over again by Mr. Upton and others that there is no protection for sun access in the city under the zoning code. And I would just ask that this council consider at this time that this is an opportunity to perhaps provide some access for discussion.
Speaker 0: Your time is.
Speaker 5: Up. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it. Thank you. Next up, Phil Kasper.
Speaker 6: My name is Phil Kasper. I've been a resident of Sun Valley for virtually 30 years. I guess you might call me the face of gentrification, but. 90% of the property owners in the rezoning parcel signed to have their properties zoned before Councilman Lopez chose to go ahead and bring this as a legislative action. And we appreciate the fact that it did so. It's taken a longer process. The planning for this community to increase its residential use goes back to the Fairview Community Land Trust that was established in 2000. One was supported by Mayor Webb, but because of zoning, we couldn't do anything in the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: This is appropriate.
Speaker 6: To be considered tonight because of the problem with the inability to house the working class. I would highly recommend. That you pass this tonight. And I highly recommend that when you consider affordable housing, you consider making it permanently affordable, whether it is rental or ownership. Make it make it so that someone that buys a subsidized, built house does not get to capture as much of the appreciation as someone that buys it just straight off the market. And again, I, I appreciate your support on making this change in Sun Valley. We can be part of the solution.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Casper. Guy Summers.
Speaker 14: But they are the.
Speaker 5: Hi towns. I was homeless and I walked by.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. I'm sorry.
Speaker 8: And so.
Speaker 0: Can you say it's.
Speaker 5: Beautiful?
Speaker 0: Can you say your name for the record, please? Stating guy.
Speaker 5: Guy Summers. Thank you. Sorry. Stating love, hope, courage and community in many languages. And I went into this amazing place. Earthquakes is in a food desert and also serves many homeless angry people. Sorry, some of the plants grown there are sold. We need sun to grow them. With the funds going. How's the homeless population? The bee hives. We have eight of them. The bees will leave these hives, which without the flowers we could grow, which will also result in a financial loss. If the eight story buildings are built to the east or the south of 27, 46, West 13th Avenue, which is Earthlings property, our garden will be cut in by more than half. I have spoken to senators and mayors about financial help to aid us, the disabled, the seniors and the homeless. There is no funding for us, but earthlings and its garden towers. Please use your hearts, not people's wallets. When you vote tonight, please do not pass this change. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Summers. Reed Silverman.
Speaker 6: Good evening, council members. My name is Reed Silberman. I'm the owner of Ink Monster Graphic Design and Printing.
Speaker 2: Also the.
Speaker 0: Proud.
Speaker 2: 2016 SBA, Colorado Small Business Person of the Year.
Speaker 4: I do mention.
Speaker 2: This because Sun.
Speaker 4: Valley was a very big part of the reason I was even nominated for this award. So thank you for allowing me to express my opinion on the matter of the Sun Valley CMC Zoning. I feel very strongly about this point considering my property.
Speaker 0: 2721 West Holden Place.
Speaker 4: Is one of the properties Earthlings would like to prevent from.
Speaker 0: Being rezoned in line with the development.
Speaker 4: Plan. Since I purchased the building, I have put a tremendous amount of sacrifice.
Speaker 0: Time, money, commitment into.
Speaker 4: This building and into this neighborhood.
Speaker 0: I am formally requesting that my property.
Speaker 2: Be zoned to see a max eight as it calls out.
Speaker 0: In the approved development.
Speaker 4: Plan. I would like to point out that everyone who purchased property in Sun Valley area in the past five years already knew these properties were intended to be rezone to CMCs eight, as it was clearly stated in the station area plan, which is now and has final approval. A large.
Speaker 0: Motivating factor for purchasing my property.
Speaker 4: In 2012, one year.
Speaker 0: Before Earthlings was knowing and in favor of.
Speaker 4: The new.
Speaker 0: Development plan and the rezoning to see a max eight. It is hard for me to understand how somebody could purchase property in and invest in renovation, knowing they'll have to dispute new zoning down the road. Think Monster took.
Speaker 4: Loans, not.
Speaker 0: Grant from the Fed and SBA to move Ink Monster to this enterprise zone.
Speaker 4: For job creation.
Speaker 0: And economic development in Sun.
Speaker 4: Valley. All in. I have just about $1,000,000.
Speaker 0: Invested into this particular.
Speaker 4: Property. You can see the cost breakdown in your packets.
Speaker 0: That I provided also.
Speaker 2: Before and after.
Speaker 4: Pictures of what I have done to renovate and.
Speaker 0: Make this property what it is. Since we moved to Sun Valley, we have more than doubled in size from 6 to 18 full time paid employees ink masters, creating.
Speaker 4: More jobs, bringing tax revenue.
Speaker 0: To the city, educating youth.
Speaker 4: And is growing very.
Speaker 2: Quickly.
Speaker 0: We are heavily involved in the community by producing community events including the Sun Valley, Denver Days, Neighborhood BLOCK Party. For the second year in a row, we work with.
Speaker 4: Fresh Start in the Rudy Rec Center during.
Speaker 0: Thanksgiving and Christmas, as well as.
Speaker 4: I provide internships.
Speaker 0: Through his YMCA program and always its workforce program. I also give Sun Valley Youth motivational tours of our facility and encourage them to follow their passions and dreams. I understand Earthlings opposition of the rezoning, and I can deeply appreciate it. However, it is my understanding that almost every residential and commercial property owner is aware of and in support of the new CMHC zoning and has been aware of the possible change for many years, especially considering most of us are on the Pillar committees for the Sun for the Valley Development Plan. Mr. Silver, you are out of time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Col McLennan.
Speaker 5: Could in a council members. My name is Carol McLennan. I live at 2 to 4 to Ivanhoe Street, but I'm the president of the board of directors of Earthlings, and I'm speaking tonight in that capacity. I just wanted to make three points briefly. We've submitted probably more information than you'd like from us talking about our own investments, etc. But I wanted to clarify that when we bought the property, we did that with full knowledge of the Decatur Federal Station area plan. We met with CPD specifically because we had this kind of strange IMX five zoning at the time and wondered if that was something that was going to be a problem in the future. We knew there might be some consideration for rezoning, particularly with the I.A. properties, but maybe ours, maybe not. We did a fine analysis of the Decatur Federal Station area plan, and that's included in your packets. And yes, we knew that the maximum building heights could be eight stories, but throughout the plan it talked about 2 to 8. And as you've seen, there are many, many policies that made us feel as though we could be part of this tiered, we could contribute to the community, and that we could provide a service not only to our participants but to the Sun Valley community. And we have done that. Our packets indicate we put another $550,000 into the property since we moved in two years ago, 130,000 of which is with a CDBG grant from the Office of Economic Development. We knew that we had a gym when we bought this property, and we were thrilled and surprised that speculators hadn't jumped in and bought it before we did. What we didn't know was how much that property was going to help us fulfill our mission even more than we anticipated. We are close to services that our participants need bus stops, the bike and pad trail, the medical center and the Health and Human Services less than a block away. Our participants who come to us are low income people who have been homeless. They come and stay with us week after week for an average of two years. And when they come to us, they work, they make products, they are creative, they are productive, and they are adding to the community. And we've made incredible connections in that community. Our board voted to stay and to get a permanent home so that we wouldn't be gentrified out of yet another community in a few years. We want to be there. We are good friends with our neighbors. We support Reid and all and all the other properties around us. I know we disagree on this issue, but we're asking you to look at the full array of policies that are in that plan, diversity being one of them, and ask you to consider rezoning just a couple of these properties other than eight stories, maybe five stories , so that we can do what we do, provide services for those who need the services the most, where they are available, and make this an example of what you can do to be inclusive and diverse and every tod across the city. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our last speaker is Jean Ann Granville. Janine Granville. I'll get it right.
Speaker 5: Hi, I'm Jean Granville. I'm representing the Sun Valley Community Coalition, the registered neighborhood organization. I'm also the executive director of Fresh Start, a nonprofit that is located in and owns property at 2715 West Holden Place, which is also included in the application for rezoning. I just want to reiterate that we did have numerous meetings and are very grateful for Councilman Lopez, his staff, and for Curt Upton with the Planning Department for keeping us part of this process throughout its tenure. And I really appreciate to above that we did review the application and voted on it in our June 7th general monthly meeting, and it was by a majority vote in favor. It was noted at the time, prior to the vote, that the zoning application was consistent with the Decatur Federal Station area plan that had been passed in 2013, and many of the impacted property owners had participated in that planning process and wanted to see it move forward. It was also noted that this was an excellent opportunity for the affordable housing that we've all been really concerned about. Concerns that were expressed by Earthlings, I think, have been met with a tremendous amount of sympathy and empathy. They are a vital part of our community since they have moved in. They have provided leadership and services beyond just their own mission, but to contribute to the development of the neighborhood. While it's not an easy solution, and frankly, we have no easy idea of what that solution might be. We really do hope that Earthlings can get whatever assistance it needs as the plans start to unfold, that they can continue to be part of our neighborhood and to thrive as we all hope. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you so much. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions about the. The role that our food policy and food coordinator in the city plays. We've had a series of public meetings that took place around the city that asked for input on the role of food sustainability in this city and the importance of it. You know, we all know that California doesn't get the water they used to. And so a lot of our produce no longer comes from California. And a lot of these conversations were about how we need to be taking some initiative to create food sustainability right here in our own community. So when we have organizations and entities that are doing that, I think we need to do everything possible to try to protect those important elements within our neighborhood, particularly when they are providing service to the very neighborhoods that they are within. So that's one issue in terms of understanding the interface between the plan that has been put together by Blake Angelo and the zoning applications that we have coming forward across the city, not just in this neighborhood, because some of the input that came out of some of those meetings was we need to be seeing developments very similar to our own park across the street where we have flower gardens, but we're growing food in between the flowers. And I'm not sure where exactly that food goes, but looking at those kinds of opportunities all across the city. So I'm asking our city staff if that issue even came up in terms of the interface between our food policy plan, if you will, and in this particular development, because of the impact to a particular business in the neighborhood that plays that very role.
Speaker 14: Yeah. Yes. I mean, the the Sun Valley, Decatur Federal Stationary Plant I'll speak to that was very much support of of the idea of, you know, healthy foods, growing foods, you know, supermarket access, eliminating food deserts and all those sorts of things. And so that's why there was this discussion in the community that the issue is for this location. It's very close to the light rail station. And so we also have recommendations in multiple documents throughout the city to take advantage of these prime locations that are very close, you know, within the quarter mile of a light rail station to target it with additional redevelopment and density and mixed use development. And so there's a very clear map in the plan that shows this area as eight stories. And so for those reasons, while, you know, there was a lot of sympathy and there was a lot of value of the community garden idea and the Earth Links idea , the plan was very clear. It should also be noted that the the existing zoning today on the surrounding properties from Earthlings would allow up to 70 feet in height. So this change would would bump that up to 110 feet, which is eight stories. So there would be some additional height, but there is a would be potentially impacts today with the current zoning with heights that are not built out as as high as they could go today.
Speaker 8: So the basically what you're saying is the stationary plan basically trumps the food policy plan.
Speaker 14: I guess I wouldn't say that. I guess for for this zoning case, we have to look at adopted plans blueprint, Denver and the and the station area plan. And while there is some recommendations that are consistent with the food plan that you're talking about for this particular location and this particular proposal, we feel that this zone district is appropriate.
Speaker 8: So let me change the focus now on proximity to Fairmont School. So is that directly across the street? We're looking at a map. Is it half a block away or across the street from the boundaries of where this new zoning is proposed? I was looking at the map and I couldn't tell if it was across the street from the edge of the school property or if it's half a block away.
Speaker 14: But it's right across directly. It's just north.
Speaker 8: So we're talking about eight stories that would be directly across the street from.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 8: The. Because it seems they were rezoning, too, right?
Speaker 0: I've seen several folks say no. Anybody want to clarify?
Speaker 14: I'll pull up the map here.
Speaker 0: The way you have to. You have to you have to you have to come to the mic, actually.
Speaker 13: Point of order, Mr. Chair. I don't know that our staff realizes we don't. We don't any more see the presentation that you're giving. Yeah, we can open the same PowerPoint, but we have no idea what side you're on, and there's no slide numbers. So please try to describe the slide you're on when you reference it so that we can follow.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that. Councilwoman Kurt, can you give 2 seconds for us?
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: So 12th Avenue North Side is a full row of homes with short, mostly short lots. And then on the corner of Decatur and 12th and there's a community garden. And then opposite that on the alley is a church that's all residential for about eight lots. And there's vacant I a property that has been hasn't been developed. It's been demolished for 20 years. Okay. And then the rest of the properties that are all signed on to be resolved.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Uh, Curt, did you want to show something to the council or.
Speaker 14: Well, I guess I just. I moved back to the. The location slide in the presentation, which is an aerial photo.
Speaker 0: What is what?
Speaker 14: What slide is that on. It's the blue.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 14: Think.
Speaker 1: It's what.
Speaker 0: Page do you have a page or the.
Speaker 14: Numbers on here.
Speaker 0: Like what? Slide for everyone, for city council.
Speaker 14: For this location at the top of the slide and 2014 aerial photo at the bottom left. So if you can see hold in place there it's actually the school property is to the south of of that it's you can't it's kind of off of off of the screen. So while it's not directly adjacent, it is in proximity to the school property.
Speaker 8: So the school property, just to be clear, the school property is across the street from the edge of what this new boundary will be.
Speaker 14: Well, there's not. So if you look at the aerial photo, if you see hold in place on the aerial photo, right. If you look down, there's an alley there and there's another block of properties there. And then to the south of that is the school. So it's probably about a block or two from the rezoning area.
Speaker 0: Councilman, Councilman Lopez, you want to get in?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Ortega, if you look at the slide, this is proposal. I don't see the numbers on the slides proposal. And you see the blue was that CMC's proposed that that southern edge is buffered by homes, it's buffered by structures. When you go south, the 12th, 12th is the property line at the school. Okay, so you have that buffer between the CMC in the school that's probably you're looking at probably. 200 feet max, probably maybe 250. I don't know. It it goes from it's almost like a. Isosceles triangle. All right, it just. Narrows out to the east, but it's thicker on longer on the west side. It's if you look.
Speaker 8: There, you could see looking at.
Speaker 1: It. 12th Avenue, south of 12th Avenue is a fair amount, is it doesn't? So to answer your question, it doesn't. But Fairmont is just a half a block north of it in some places, and it's like probably maybe 100 feet.
Speaker 8: Just one other further clarifying question. Okay. Does the rezoning in any way, shape or form propose maintaining the grid system of the current roads? Or. You know, the area is a little restricted to get in and out of. And so if we're proposing higher density, but we're not doing anything to improve the infrastructure. Are we are we creating more problems down the road that this neighborhood's going to have to deal with? I mean, I, I think we're looking at a similar situation where we've re zoned the whole Foch Street corridor with very, very high densities , and we've got one road into that site. And so are we going to be dealing with some of those kinds of challenges? And did those issues come up in the conversation about this rezoning?
Speaker 14: Yeah. So there is a plan as part of the the adopted stationary plan to reconfigure some of these streets and reintroduce more of a grid system in this area. And I believe Public Works is looking at 13 Avenue as an early project of realigning 13th Avenue to improve the connectivity in the area. So yeah, there is a plan to improve the street infrastructure and add more connectivity than there is today.
Speaker 8: But those will be separate conversations about how that happens and when that happens. Correct. Or was that part of this process?
Speaker 14: It's not part of the rezoning, but the rezoning is consistent. I guess I would say the rezoning doesn't prevent that from happening in the future. It's consistent with the circulation plan that's in the adopted plan. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. If you stay up there and just so I can address one of these questions, if I may, that we are talking about the 13th Avenue realignment realignment, some of those streets. I mean, here's the thing. You really got to look from a further height, from a higher standpoint to look at the whole neighborhood. There's going to be a lot of questions of how we realign, because it's not just this site that I mean, it's also the DHEA properties in the Casitas and stuff that are you know, we're going to look at increasing density as we go in the future, creating more opportunities for affordable housing. My my question is, there's a couple of properties trying to figure this out here. There's there's a property just south of 13th Avenue that is west of the Garden and I'm sorry, east of the things properties. And then just north of Pink Monster. That is not part of the plan. Can you speak to as to why they are not part of the rezoning?
Speaker 14: Yeah. So they came in earlier on a different schedule than this rezoning and they were already approved for Max eight. So that's why on the proposal slide that you're mentioning, there's that little sort of notch that's missing.
Speaker 1: Can you speak also to a little bit more the community process I want and, you know, intended future use? And this is something that perhaps I don't know, somebody from the neighborhood association can speak to as well, too. So if you can kind of talk a little bit more about the community process, what that was like, what the how we addressed some of these questions. And if you want to come out to the to the podium to talk about, you know, the intended use and what the plan will be, what's envisioned there, I think that kind of clears up this. Description of it as being, quote unquote.
Speaker 5: You're asking for the intended use for the already zoned for property.
Speaker 1: The vision for the future.
Speaker 5: Use for the already zoned property for the.
Speaker 1: Post.
Speaker 5: O for our our larger proposal.
Speaker 1: Zoned and then proposal.
Speaker 5: Well, I think that is part of the whole the Carter Stationery, a federal stationery, a plan. The whole idea of it is is to try to really activate as much as we can around the light rail station. And as has happened in other parts of the city and counties, we are seeing much more density around those areas . And we are very committed in Sun Valley to be a neighborhood that really is affordable, that continues to be family oriented as it is now, and to be one that is affordable and to be more of a mixed income. I think that the ACM x eight zoning that was allowed, I think back almost a year ago that was passed by council, it was one step to try to provide a parcel that could be a future theater, as well as also house arts and other kinds of of activities or amenities. So we have really ambitious plans, but we think that with the leadership of the Denver Housing Authority who is steward stewarded much of the choice neighborhood planning that those plans can actually come to fruition.
Speaker 1: If I. If I may. Thank you. If I may. Mr. President. Chris. I'm sorry. Chris are. Go, Casper, if you want to come up as well to. Come on. Who are you calling up? Phil? Phil? Yeah. Do you want to come up to the podium, please? On the Cater Federal Stationery Up plan and the Sun Valley Neighborhood Plan. Simple question. When's the first time that you all sat down to talk about plans for these areas?
Speaker 4: The response?
Speaker 6: The Sun Valley neighborhood hasn't had a neighborhood plan for 40 years until recently. And the. Attempted to get a neighborhood plan to increase housing going all the way back to 2001. But the city wasn't ready because the transportation infrastructure was in the planning works and it was delayed and delayed at the expense of generations of kids in a very bad neighborhood for a very, very long time. And I don't think that most of these council people could be considered to be part of the reason for that. There are I know Debbie has always gone to bat for this community, and I've said it before in this in this council room, that there were a lot of council people that were complicit to a crime against all those kids for all those years. It's time to make.
Speaker 0: This a healthy.
Speaker 6: Family neighborhood. And this is the zoning that's going to do it. So. I think that it should be supported. Now, are there any questions I'd be glad to answer? Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay. You, Councilman Espinosa. Hey, Phil. Phil Kobach.
Speaker 2: So it's good to see you again. It's been a long time. There's a slide in the deck that shows the Sun Valley neighborhood planning a vision for 13th Avenue. Were you part of that planning process that developed that?
Speaker 6: Yes. I'm going all the way. Yes.
Speaker 2: So does this.
Speaker 6: Property owner for 25 years.
Speaker 2: Does this rezoning alone do what's necessary to get that vision implemented?
Speaker 6: Could you repeat that?
Speaker 2: Will this rezoning alone do what's needed to make that vision for 13th Avenue come to fruition?
Speaker 6: Well, it will need. It'll need the support from council. It will also need a lot of resources that that will come from federal sources and and hopefully state and city and local and and developers. It needs to be a mixed community with ownership and rental, but it does not need to be a party place.
Speaker 2: You know, when there was a discussion with the community and and Kurt might be able to answer this as well. Was there discussion about this vision and how infrastructure rezoning could and should perpetuate that vision? And what that because there's a specific character that's rendered here that isn't just inherent in the reasoning. And so all.
Speaker 6: Discussions and our discussions were complete with infrastructure changes, the character of the of the streets, the different types of housing placement of different types of housing, including grocery services. Access across the river, actually pedestrian bridge and possibly expansion on and on, stuff like that. And. I'm talking about a community that had to fight 15 years to get a laundry facility.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, the reason why I'm asking is that if you says you have this vision, so you know this neighborhood, you've been there really long time. This 13th Avenue, this zone is is considerably wider than the existing 13th Avenue. And while there's a street, a tree lawn on both sides of 13th Avenue, as depicted here, there's also this sort of healthy sort of cafe breakout space that is certainly doable. A cmcs eight is a use by right but you would have to voluntarily not build to. And the other thing is is we first have to widen the ride away to to capture both to vehicle travel lanes, to bike lanes into on street parking lanes. And so to implement this vision. One of my frustrations is we have this great vision that we worked a long time with Sun Valley residents and a lot of the people that just testified on both sides of this thing and in how the problem is, is that should we be using when we get in the legislative process, should we have codified ways to implement this vision? As part of that rezoning piece? I don't sense that it's in there. So was there any discussion about doing that?
Speaker 6: Not directly. I will say with that depiction there, what we have is an old 13th Avenue and a new 13th Avenue and the old 13th Avenue will see much less traffic and the bicycle lanes in the parking that is depicted there may not all be exactly the same. However, what will be the property is being consolidated into one ownership. So the entire property on the north and south side of what is holding today and. 60% of the property on what is 13th today has been accumulated by by one controlling entity so that they can it's being planned for cut through to realign it, which has been the city's design for 15 years, while 13 years they brought it to us 13 years ago. This community didn't like it. Well, the community that was there has gone for the most part.
Speaker 2: Is that a private party or is that a public entity that it's.
Speaker 6: A partner in the neighborhoods? The development group that's working with the FHA.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Okay. So they are working with the. Yes. Okay. So thank you. Thanks, though. Thanks. Question for anything else? No, thanks. Okay. Thanks. Appreciate that. It's for somebody from earth Linx that mentioned the 80% shadow coverage of the late. And thanks for mentioning the heights, because that's one of the things that struck me about Cinemax. Five I mean, IMAX five is, is very healthy. So when you did the study that came up with the 80%, what height was used in that analysis?
Speaker 5: That was the eight stories.
Speaker 2: So 110 feet or. Yes. Okay. And then what was the percentage of coverage at 70 feet?
Speaker 5: It's much less we we only lose about 25, 25 by 100. Square feet of our garden, so we lose much less when we had done that study before we moved in.
Speaker 2: That's 2500 square feet.
Speaker 5: You said so it's right by the back alley of our I don't know if you're familiar with our spot, but we have a lot of gardens over there. So we would lose some. But we we were willing to take that risk when we moved in.
Speaker 2: Okay. And so how many square feet did you say you would lose in the eight cm x eight scenario?
Speaker 5: We lose all of our two lots on our east side and we would lose half of our current south north garden. So we would have one north garden left. I'm estimating right now we would have about 50 feet by 50 feet left. That's currently gardened.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So.
Speaker 2: Okay. Do you have you ever talked about partnerships? I mean, I know it's dedicated parkland, but we do have gardens of sorts. Have you ever talked with using about with with Denver parks or any other city agency about that space between you and Rudy? That's great. Solar access and not exactly a ballfield.
Speaker 5: We have not talked to Rudy. No. You know, our history, we have done gardening offsite from our location. We're very anxious to be able to be owners and continue to live where we are and not be subject to the whims of other landlords. Yeah, but we have not had an opportunity to speak with Rudy directly about that.
Speaker 2: And did you ever have any conversations about potential 70 foot, 75 foot height limits on the CM eight zoned district, at least for a portion to sort of protect the existing development?
Speaker 5: We had talked to Councilman Lopez and Mr. Upton from planning, and at one time it looked that that was maybe a possibility, but that that has changed.
Speaker 2: Any reason why you maybe, Curt?
Speaker 5: Well, I'm sure they could speak for themselves. I can't really speak for them.
Speaker 2: Great. Thanks.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Kirk.
Speaker 14: Yes, Councilman. So we did discuss that as part of the community dialog, an option to restrict heights. And part of the challenge is that it's not Earthlings property that where they're requesting necessarily the height reduction, the real impact is the surrounding properties that they don't own. Right.
Speaker 2: And so but it's not a taking if you're capping a portion at 70, which is their current.
Speaker 14: Yeah. Yeah. Essentially agreed it's not a taking but there there were some voices that felt that that was limiting their rights or their potential rights in the future and therefore that you know that. We were sort of picking winners and losers where the plan was very clear. So so for those for those reasons, because there are property owners surrounding the Earthlings facility who want the eight stories. And the plan is very clear that says eight stories, one of the issues. So that being one issue, another issue is as if it was taken off or adjusted in the legislative city initiated rezoning. There could be a scenario where those private property owners move forward with their own rezoning and CPD internally as a team, we thought about that and because the plan was so clear for eight stories, we would recommend probably recommend approval for those as well. And so for those reasons, plus, again, a lot of stakeholders discussion around this issue. Again, we met out there about six times. We landed on implementing the plan as it was written.
Speaker 2: So the struggle that I have is that the pride growing season are really when the solar angles are pretty high. So you don't need that much of a step back in order to sort of move in a story off of a seven story and or a six story and still maintain a good I mean, maintain the solar access that you're providing. So. I mean, you're still you could still do eight stories in 110 feet. It's just it's just, you know, it's step back for a distance to sort of maintain that access. I didn't I don't think that's a huge ask. But so back to what I was showing with Phil Kasper, though.
Speaker 0: This is so I think, Councilman Lopez, do you want to speak to this as well? Because you said you had to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do. So so two points in the discussion because, you know, of course, you know, with a legislator resigning my office myself and, you know, particularly were very, very instrumental and right at point zero with these discussions in the talks with are things early on and looking at those properties to the south and potentially looked at an idea of having a smaller.
Speaker 4: Height, a.
Speaker 1: Lower height, but the property owners immediately to the south that were adjacent to those two earthlings, once they realized that everybody else was eight except for theirs, were absolutely opposed to it. It was they felt there was a property rights issue and therefore not knocked down with that either. One of the companies, I think, feel that that's Margie that there's not one of those houses isn't it. Yeah. You and that. So they were opposed to it, number one. It's not it's not everything's property. And second, just as a point of order, we already determined that, you know, solar access is not a viable or a legal . Factor in a zoning such as this. So yeah, that's where the conundrum exists. And so we can chase down that rabbit hole all we want. But at the end of the day, the community in our community process is very thorough, had discussions with folks all over the neighborhood, particularly with earthlings, particularly with the property owners to the south who are opposed to that. And these are folks who have been these are some of the only property owners, only residential property owners in Sun Valley.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now, my issue, I mean, my concern is, is, is multi-layered in that and I'm sorry we didn't bring this up in committee, but the when we do, I did mention that when we're doing a legislative rezone, we should be doing that. We should sort of try to leverage our position such that we actually are sort of pushing for the outcomes that are are being that had already been shared and negotiated and and and adopted. In some cases. There's a GDP here and a smaller rate plan and others in other investments. And so, you know, how do we how do we sculpt? When the city's doing legislative rezoning something to get the outcomes that have been shared. So back to that graphic, though, because this is to my colleagues, I'm going to bust this out again. I've done it. Haven't done this in a long time. This is the existing 13th Avenue that's been depicted here. It's two lanes in a parking width, you know, stall space wide. You know, is there. I know this is sort of public works, but how do you compel future development here to sort of render get to this rendering when that's the right of way? And if we grant this new zone district, you can build CMCs aid as you use to go right to the property line tomorrow, I mean, the day after it's adopted.
Speaker 14: Yeah. So you're correct. Public Works is studying this street specifically in 13 day Avenue. I think that there is some additional right of way beyond what's shown in the pavement there. So while this this concept drawing is not engineering exact, there is, as you mentioned, an approved general development plan that does specify the lanes and the rights of way widths for 13 avenue and all that the circulation system in place. And so when, when projects come in to development services, they will be checked against that general development plan that's in place that will provide some protection of that system as it develops.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but we don't have any design guidelines or standards for this area. That's correct. Okay. All right. Thanks. Further questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Cashman. Thank you.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. So, Curt, were zoning to a maximum of eight storeys, is what the proposal is, right? Yes, but we're not. We don't know that it's going to be eight storeys. They can build anything outside storeys. It's the usual deal. We have no development plan. We don't know what building is going where at this point. Correct. Okay. So. Is it? Going to cripple the neighborhood plan. If we were to zone as earthlings, who's asking, you know, some five stories around that plot? Is that creating some sort of a problem to realizing the goals of that neighborhood?
Speaker 14: So. So in the scenario that the proposal came in for less than eight stories, you're saying would it be inconsistent with the neighborhood plan?
Speaker 12: No. I mean, I understand the neighborhood plan says it wants eight there. Yeah. So it would be inconsistent. But I'm wondering to what degree you think it would. Really affect the goals of the neighborhood because we don't know what they're getting anyway. They may get three stories in these eight story districts, or they may get eight. But I guess. Where I'm coming from is. And I don't know the neighborhood as as well as Phil or as my friend Councilman Lopez. But we keep talking about how important affordable housing is in Denver. And then we zone 100 acres of Arapahoe Square with no affordable housing. And we talk about food deserts and the need for local food plan. And I'm just wondering if. Maybe it doesn't make sense to try to accommodate something like this. It may not. I'm just asking. Mm hmm.
Speaker 14: Well, I think I mean, I think it's a it's a good point. We did discuss this issue in our neighborhood conversations of if eight stores was even feasible on these parcels. And so that was something that we discussed. And we did find an example of a similar block size that could fit eight storeys, as in this proposed rezoning area. But I think the larger issue is that this is a very recently adopted plan. This rezoning area is very close to a light rail station. And we only again, we only have so many of those available throughout the city. And because there are property owners involved and as the councilman mentioned, owner occupants of some of these residential properties who would like to take advantage of the plan that was recently adopted. And if we were to go in a different direction and recommend a different height and those private property owners came in at a later date and asked for the zoning, consistent with the plan, we would have probably our hands tied to recommend approval because the plan is so clear in this area. So again, I think for those reasons, that's why we came to any story recommendation for this.
Speaker 12: Some neighborhood plans now. Governance, zoning. Because that's not my experience. I mean, their neighborhood plans are recommendations. We hear that over and over and over again. And then we see situations where the neighborhood wants one thing and their plan says one thing and CPD recommends something else. So.
Speaker 14: So certainly. I mean, they're not. Not all neighborhood plans are regulatory, and this one isn't regulatory. So I kind of agree with that. But one of our criteria for recommending approval or denial, as you know, for rezoning cases is consistency with adopted plans. And so that was the point I was making. Just to clarify.
Speaker 12: Sure. No, I understand that. And it it it is a conundrum. I have respect for for the neighborhoods self-will. Without question, but operations like earthlings are just going to be subject to getting pushed farther and farther and farther away as we gentrify every square inch of land in the city until they don't exist. So what's in the best interests of the city, you know, is what I'm trying to figure out. So that's all my questions. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Curt.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. It was mentioned earlier that somewhere in the plan calls for 2 to 8 stories from what I've seen. It looks like it's just identified as eight. Can you speak to that?
Speaker 14: Yeah. So whenever we have height recommendations and this goes for all of our plans, including this plan, it's a maximum, right, a maximum height. But we put in a range meaning that we don't want to be unclear, that if that if there was an eight stories recommendation in place and someone for whatever reason wanted to come in with five stories or three stories or some other height recommendation that we wouldn't necessarily not support that because the market could be at the time that that height just wasn't feasible. And so we usually recommend ranges of heights up to a maximum for those reasons.
Speaker 4: But there's nowhere in the plan that calls out the what the zoning should allow as anything less than eight.
Speaker 14: There's nothing specifically in the plan that says we should not support something less than eight, if that's what you're just.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Any more speakers here? And I see none. A public hearing for counsel. Bill 563 is now closed. Comments by members of council. Hmm. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I, I wanted to start by thanking everybody who came out tonight to testify for the bill. You know, it's a good day. When we got Sun Valley on the agenda in the city council, especially this neighborhood. And it is one of the poorest neighborhoods, the poorest neighborhood in Denver and one of the poorest in the state. And it has always had that stigma and it's always been the stigma of not. Mile High Station, mile High Stadium or a light rail or, you know, the Platte River and the amenity of the Platte River. But as this industrial area or as as a small island of poverty and projects surrounded by industry, surrounded by a barrier of I-25, surrounded by the river as a barrier, not as an amenity, sort of, you know, kept a far from Mile High Stadium. Any opportunities up north? No one ever thought of 13th Avenue as an opportunity to create economic development and jobs for the neighborhood. Nobody ever looked at real lining the streets in the neighborhood to make them safer until we started. And I say we should say until the community in Sun Valley really started pushing the idea of the neighborhood plan. The idea and its advocates. And that goes for folks who don't live in the district and the neighborhood as well. I think EarthLink is a very important partner. And, you know, I've sat down with the members of earthlings to look at those ideas very early on, that we look at the idea of possibly taking it down a notch on that south side, given with the caveat that given that the property owners are okay with it, and I resent the fact that this is labeled as some kind of gentrification. The folks who have lived south in those lives, those properties in question. Are not a gentrifying force. These are the only property owners. And they're not McMansions. They're not high scale owners. These are neighborhood folks who have lived here, and you could shake your head all you want. These are neighborhood folks who have lived here since before I was even born, before my mom was even born, when it was not popular to live in this side of town. They dealt with the violence. They dealt with the poverty. They dealt with the stigma. And if we really want to go after affordable homelessness, we build units, folks. That's what this area is intending to do. That's what this rezoning is intending to do. And not to build duplexes, but to build units, enough units, so that we can tackle this issue of affordable housing without being pointed at and saying those are the projects that kids from the projects. That's the worst thing that we've done in this city as we've clumped all the projects together. East Village. Westwood Homes. Columbine. The Casitas. The worst thing that we could have done is say, but Mala, we have units for poor folks because that stigma lives on. And Sun Valley has probably there's no other neighborhood than Sun Valley that's been hit with that stick more. We want to fix that. We want to create that opportunity. The answer is mixed income, mixed use, industrial. Does this create this creative new the zone districts out there that allow you to live up top, work on the bottom. Right. And we want to hold that accountable. And for me, when we when I look at this rezoning, it. Absolutely. Look, this is something that I have said, especially when we had the Westwood plan up in front of us, that these are not these plans are not, and nor should they ever be intended to sit on a shelf and say, look at this architect. Look at the architects we paid a bunch for and the planners who we paid a bunch for. Look at their work. It's going to sit on this dusty shelf in the city. We don't want that. These plans are intended to be implemented. Right. And that is one of those that's the intent here. We don't want that. Finally, finally, after 40 years, this neighborhood has a neighborhood plan and a path forward, and it's going to sit on some dusty shelf. It's meant to be implemented. And we want to create this opportunity. We want to create this density. We want to create affordable and affordability here right at the light rail station. It is an alignment of a lot of our values. The Anti-Poverty, Safe Streets, access to transit, Sun Valley is where it's at. And when you when you zoom back and you look at all the property south, you look at the Casitas, you look at what's in store and what the vision is for legacy. This is a neighborhood that's going to be transformed without requiring poor people to leave. Which is what gentrification does. Gentrification and community development are two separate conversations, two separate things. Gentrification requires an aristocracy to push out people that are poor. You replace people who are poor with this aristocracy, this gentry. That's the. That's where gentrification comes from. That word. The gentry. There's a displacement. There's no displacement. What we want to create is this implementation of plan. So, ma'am, I absolutely feel you when you when you tell me, look, we this is our home. This is our home. This is our hope here. We want to be able to establish that. We want we want to give her things. I when I look at this, I want to give earthlings the same bargaining chip that every other property owner does get with this rezoning. Without that, I think it's an injustice. I think you could do a heck of a lot more than the opportunity is there. Now. Is this solve the whole problem of Sun Valley? Absolutely not. This is solve the problem of food deserts. Absolutely not. Right. But it does put a step in the right direction. And I don't want us to have to be put in this weird position where we have to choose. Do we choose closing a, you know, you know, hindering an opportunity to lift us out of a food desert or creating more affordable units for folks that really, truly need it? You want both? It's the matter of figuring out how we do that. And we can't do that by limiting somebody's property rights. She? Legally. We can't do that. So when we look at this reasoning, it is illegal for me to be able to say, Well, I'm opposed to this because it creates more shade . That is not a legal reason for us to do it. We can't. So in you know, in closing my closing remarks, I just I'm I want to implement what the residents of Sun Valley have worked so hard decades for to do. It's a start implementing that plan. And as a councilman, that's why this is a legislative rezoning. So it's not for developers, it's for the residents. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. And we're glad you're you're here. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to briefly address the criteria, which is what we're required to judge zoning on. And I think that the criteria is fairly clear in this case, that there is a strong case for the rezoning. But it does not mean that I'm not very empathetic. I want to thank Earthlings for having me out and touring me and some of the neighboring properties as well, for showing me some of the important opportunities. And also just should have said this. First, thank you to all of you for staying on. What's the late and long night? So I appreciate all of your presence. So I guess the thing I want to say is that based on the plan, based on the criteria, I just don't have a basis to vote against this rezoning. But I you know, here are a few problem solving suggestions and hopes because I think that we have some time these projects take a little while to go from concept to construction. So I don't know what that is for each of the neighboring properties. But you know, hopefully you have at least three years until that shade arrives, perhaps more depending on the economy and financing and all the things that have to come together to make a tall building come to fruition. So, you know, one idea is that, you know, I don't you know, I don't know if you've had a chance to go to see a place like, oh, my gosh, it's late. It just escaped me. The grow house, the mind meld of the at large seats grow house, you know, an indoor space aquaponics. There's a whole bunch of ways to grow inside structures, but and there's a cost involved. So you have me committing right now to say that would be the kind of ideas invested in your current space already may need to invest more to be able to keep, you know, the next generation of food growth. You know, we have a marijuana industry that tells us all the time that they would like to be better neighbors. And we know that some of them are in this vicinity. And so they know a lot about indoor growing and structures. And so maybe there is an opportunity there to connect an industry that wants to and should be doing better as neighbors, to think about how you might be able to use space, you know, with artificial light or other things. There is the opportunity for rooftop gardens. So if your neighbors I understand that that for your neighbors to use their rooftops, that puts you at the mercy of the landlords in the same way that you have not wanted to be. But there's also we have a homeless, you know, housing toolkit that helps to pair folks who are service provider experts with housing experts. And so maybe you have your own three, five or even eight storey housing with rooftop gardens, and you can pair through this toolkit process that the city has to really bring expertize together. These are all really long term ideas and they're all really expensive, and I don't offer any of them lightly as solutions, but I do believe that the service you provide is essential. I think it's as essential as the rest of the neighborhood plan. And I want you to know that I'm committed if I can make introductions. You know, Susan Powers is a person who's always talking about podium growth. You know, how could you build over parking lots and things like that? So we have some creative folks. And so if we can help introduce you to them and make those partnerships so that we can make this time matter, I don't want you to feel like the testimony has fallen on deaf ears. So. So my obligation is to vote with the criteria. But the education you've provided, the perspective you've brought is important. And I'm here and dedicated to helping to make whatever's possible. You know, explore that with you. So thanks for thanks for your time tonight. And to the neighbors, congratulations on, you know, the long process of moving a plan towards fruition and lots lots more work to do we know and the infrastructure we're we'll probably be here next on that but we're aware of that as well. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. You've always had a tough row to hoe are earthlings because the as my colleague Robin Can said, Councilwoman Canete, sorry, the justification is there. You know, obviously we're not compelled to the justification for IMAX is also thought of there as a use by right but you know it's my frustration and why my line of questioning is there is a lot of public investment that has gone on for decades in Sun Valley and then more recently on this revisioning and in the future on implementing those plans for the river and for Sun Valley and. And in the stadium. And when council's involved, I would have liked. I'm just sorry, Paul. I would like to see more sort of agreements sort of hammered out either through the administration or whatnot, on how this vision can be brought forward. You know, my frustration is we create these neighborhood plans in any one of these individual property owners could have come to the council and initiated their own rezoning application on their individual process parcels and gotten them through on the same criteria. I mean, you could have rubber stamp this thing and just on your plot and your plot and your plot, and it would have been the same justification, the same things for each individual. So when the council's leading that as a legislative move, I my my expectation from us and is that we're we're actually doing we're going the extra step to move towards that that long term vision because I'm you don't have to look any further than my neighborhood of Jefferson Park to go. We have got zero. Zero new mixed use development that wasn't fought for by the neighborhood. So everything that's happened since 2010 has been residential, pure residential. That's not true. There's now a new building at 25th and Elliot going up, but that's a main street zone district and they can't actually know they could do you. Right.
Speaker 3: 100% residential.
Speaker 2: The that's it. Very minimal square footage in all the redevelopment of that community. And so when when we create this zone district and we don't have other regulating tools in place, we're sort of at the whim of the of the market in the industry. And hopefully those agreements are being hammered out with the FHA and that whatever vision is going to that's out there is going to come to fruition. But that's just my just general disposition is that, you know, we have spent a lot of public money getting these neighborhood plans to this point and all this documentation. We actually had all the formative legwork to go the next step, which is to sort of more compelling regulations. And instead we went the rezoning, which, like I said, any property owner could have done and made this exact CPD would have made the exact same case. So, I mean, there's no again, there's no compelling reason why the I mean, the criteria is met, but it's just I just it's so I feel for you earthlings know, like I said, you would have been facing it in a different format as well. Thanks.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I actually had the opportunity to work on the Federal Decatur stationary plan before I was on council as a stakeholder. And it's one of those plans that I always think back to now whenever we're embarking on any kind of plan in the communities that I serve today, because the community outreach and engagement was so robust and so creative and there was just so, so many community members involved and their voices being heard and engaged in that process, like maybe no other plan I've ever seen. And, you know, I think that the the plan is pretty clear on this. And unfortunately, you know, I mean, and I've also had the opportunity to go and visit with earthlings and just phenomenal work being done over there. So it is one of those rock and a hard place kind of things. But at the end of the day, the the volume of community input that went into that plan and the engagement and the buy in of that community. And then, you know, as Earthlings mentioned, coming in and knowing that that plan was there, being able to look at that plan and take a calculated risk. And to be honest with you, it may still pan out just fine because as you've heard somebody, just because they have eight story zoning doesn't mean that they build eight storeys. But as my colleagues have pointed out, the criteria that we are tasked with looking at with this is clear. And this is is well within that criteria. And also, you know, I think on top of that, I think why we have the criteria that does this lineup with neighborhood plan, especially neighborhood plans that are as new as they are, is to respect the fact that this is what the community decided was the vision for this area . And that is is is bigger than individual land uses. And so, again, my my heart goes out. I hope that we can find some creative solutions. And some of this may, you know, resolve itself as buildings get built. But this is the vision. And a clear roadmap was laid out. And it clearly meets the criteria that we're faced with as this community continues to grow into a plan that had so much engagement and buy in. So I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, President Pro Tem Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. A lot of my comments have have been shared by my colleagues. You know, Earthlings could have chosen to not want to be included within the boundaries. But that wouldn't have solved the problem. The the the height would have. Been there from adjacent properties and that would have still had the same impact on Earthlings had you chosen to go that route. This Saturday, I had the opportunity to go over to the Delta Center at 34th and Eudora and they have an incredible facility which is much larger than the grow house, which is in the O'Leary neighborhood . And they're doing hydroponics and aquaponics. And I really believe this is the direction that food sustainability needs to move towards because, you know, otherwise we're reliant on just so many days of sunlight to to grow our food in in this city. And so I, too, am committed to working with you all to find a more long term solution. I think it's incumbent on us as a city to be looking at supporting more of these types of projects. And, you know, I firmly believe that we need to be incorporating food sustainability into all of our developments, that we should be having more solar gardens, we should be having, you know, more green space that requires gardening as opposed to grass or, you know, other types of of vegetation. But. The other thing I want to mention is that once this up zoning passes, the pressures will be incredible for developers to want to purchase and assemble enough land to be able to do more development. And as much as you all want to retain affordability and retain that neighborhood feel of the Sun Valley community. I think those pressures are going to be real. Just like we've seen at all the other TOD sites where land is being assembled and resold. So those of you who are property owners, I would just strongly encourage you to, you know, to drive that train and not let it be driven by somebody else. If if that's the destiny that you all want for the neighborhood is to really dictate what that development is going to look like, what it's going to feel like , how it interfaces with the properties to the south and the school. And, you know, I think the school is going to be an even more important asset in that neighborhood as you have more bodies that would would move to the neighborhood, whether it's, you know, some of the Todd land that's that's closer to the rail stop that will be developed or whether it will be any of these parcels. So I think the the challenges will come with as the city works with you to widen that street. Obviously, if this zoning goes through tonight, it more likely will those of you who are property owners, the city will have to be paying more for that land to widen that street because of the change in the zoning. So those are just some inherent issues that are real that we'll be dealing with down the road. Like many of my colleagues have shared. I think because this has been part of the overall plans for this area. And, you know, Sun Valley is one of those communities that, as Phil Kasper said earlier. There's been lots of requests to have attention paid to this neighborhood. I can remember when we had many of the single family homes on 13th Avenue who couldn't get a loan to do fix up work on those homes because of the industrial zoning that they had. And so people were kind of stuck, you know, at the mercy of of trying to find some other way to get their homes improved because banks wouldn't lend to them. And so this neighborhood has dealt with many challenges over the years. And I think the changes that are yet to come will will absolutely benefit the neighborhood, the opportunities to get a nearby grocery store. The fact that you currently have such great access to the light rail station at Federal Boulevard and in. What is that, 14th avenue? Yeah, um, just. Just add to the opportunities for the people who live in the neighborhood and, you know, I know you need to create that synergy and have more, more bodies in the neighborhood. But I think it's important for this to move forward. And I'm going to be voting for it tonight. But I am absolutely committed to working with earthlings in trying to find another way to still keep that food sustainability available. And I just want to commend you for your work that you do with the homeless population as well, because that is such an important element of us as a city trying to find tools and solutions to helping get people back to work. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I wish I had an answer to all these a rock and a hard place deals that come before us. And I think I could as far as meeting the criteria that were charged with addressing, I think I could make a dying swan grasp at impacting an agricultural use in a negative manner. May not be me meeting the health and welfare of our community. For me. Feel like Simon Legree Earthlings knew what the possibility of what they were getting into. The main thing is, I would like to. Strengthen our cities attention to small area plans. Rather than Chip added Because I've had small area plans in my district, Chip Dad and development take place that the neighborhood majority voice spoke against. So that is a major element in it as far as gentrification or not gentrification.
Speaker 4: If it.
Speaker 12: I could get a written contract that whatever is going to happen on this plot of land is going to benefit the current residents and their families for generations. I'd be saluting this in a New York minute. But my what I've been seeing unfolding in our city. Is. That's not the case. I have the same worries for Globeville, Elyria, Swansea, you know, and the changes that are coming to those neighborhoods. If this is going to benefit them, absolutely. Without question. I hope that be the case. For me, the guiding factor is a clear neighborhood process, a clear neighborhood plan. But this is not a yes vote I'm going to be happy about, not 100%. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa, you back up?
Speaker 2: Yeah, just this is just dovetailing on what Councilman Cashman said and specifically, actually what Councilman Clark said. He said that this is a community vision. When he was recounting his experience with the Decatur station. And and so I want. What? Also I wanted to comment to my colleagues is that yeah, those, those plans are just what you said in the way you said it about that vision and it's implemented in the plan. But somehow we end up just looking at that map. There's a there's all those pictures and there's a lot of words in there that talk about a lot of things. But we end up just looking at the map and and if it says eight and the purple is shaded the right shade, the justification is largely there, and then the rest is sort of boilerplate stuff. So to what I mean, sorry, Councilman Catherine, you know, I'm starting to think that we need to figure out what the tools are to actually capture the rest of that plan. Yeah. More robustly in these decision making processes. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, you're back.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Just really quickly, I think it bothers me to hear folks on this say that they have questions about the community process. I think it won. We've had it. I think we've been working on this for, what, eight months per. Close to eight months. Started out with community. Countless community meetings read. We had meetings in your shop. Had meetings in your facility. To her the site. Fact that we started this the the actual vision for this community plan. Federal to Cater Station plan since, what, 2001? They say that there's a lack of community process as such a misnomer is so incorrect. It's community that brought this to my desk. And so I assure you that that is the case. And secondly, you know, got to go back to the dictionary and look at gentrification. So it is that this placement. Is the fact that so many people in this city, if they look like my skin color, they walk into a bank. Chances are they're going to get the night alone. Discrimination is rampant, especially for folks in this neighborhood. The fact that somebody has an industrial use and simply wants to put in a windows in their house or, you know, try to find financing so they can stay in their house. That's a big deal. And yet, you know, we're going to say, well, we want to limit their property rights because we want to grow for five months out of the year to help homelessness. Which is a good and very noble cause. But we got to step back and look at the big picture. Is the fight in the homeless? Is it going to be right here in that parcel at this particular rezoning? The fight to close the food desert in Sun Valley, is it going to be on this particular rezoning? There's so much more that's going to take place in. And you know, if you really want to implement the plan and have this customized zoning that Rafael Espinosa love so much about. Right. Then that means your property is going to get taken and you got to give it up. That's just a matter of fact. In the streets in Sun Valley. That's the question that we have. If we're going to widen some of these streets, if we're going to align them, that means that some property is going to get taken. I would love to see you there being the first one to say I'm in. Because I tell you what, it's going to sting when you see the price and what that's going to cost you. So for me, you got to step back. You got to look at the bigger picture. You got to look at the neighborhood plan. You got to look at what's there and what's being implemented. And yes, there was a community process and all poor people are getting pushed out for the sake of. Hipsters are gentrification. This is. Taking it from an industrial use to something that's a little bit better, especially for those residents on that side. Thank you, Mr. President. I support this, obviously.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. There are no more comments. I have some thoughts on this, but I will save them all because I'm so grateful that you're sitting in those hard seats at midnight and you all have worked really hard on this whole neighborhood. And sometimes the decisions go like you want them to, sometimes they don't. And I would just ask that you would stay in it. The fact that you showed up and we got to hear your perspective. You may not feel it, but it has helped this conversation and helped our future success on small area plans, amending plans, working on station area plans. And so I appreciate all of your involvement with that. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 7: Raquel Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Sussman. Black eye, Clark. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmore, i. Herndon.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 7: Cashman.
Speaker 4: Yup.
Speaker 7: Can each.
Speaker 5: By.
Speaker 7: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close the voting, announce results?
Speaker 7: Lebanese love.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No, no, no. It's a Lebanese because a settlement is not here.
Speaker 5: To be true.
Speaker 0: But, yeah.
Speaker 1: It didn't work.
Speaker 0: LOPEZ It's good. That's why we have you here.
Speaker 1: Just for the record, it didn't show up. Okay. Computers.
Speaker 0: Okay, let me get through this. 1212 I's council. 563 has passed. There is some pre adjournment announcements. The first one is Councilwoman Black, Councilman Lopez, myself. We need to get a hat for the CSU ram.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2541-2731 W. Holden Pl., 2602-2660 W. Holden Pl., 2516-2610 W. 13th Ave., 2646-2746 W. 13th Ave., 1260-1280 N. Decatur St. and 2775 W. 13th Ave.
Rezones properties at 2541-2731 West Holden Place; 2516-2746, 2775 West 13th Avenue; and 1260-1280 North Decatur Street from I-MX-5, UO-2, I-A, UO-2 (industrial and light industrial, mixed use, 5 stories, use overlay allowing billboards) and C-MU-30 with waivers and conditions, UO-1 (urban center, multi-unit, 30 stories, use overlay allowing adult businesses) to C-MX-8, UO-1 (urban center, mixed use, 8 stories, use overlay allowing adult businesses) in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-3-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08292016_16-0766
|
Speaker 2: All right. We're going to move on to our second proclamation. Councilwoman Black, will you please read proclamation seven, six, six.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation number 60766. Whereas, following the mayhem of World War Two in 1948, Denver Sister Cities International was founded with a relationship with breast France. Denver now has ten sister cities, each of which has a public park named in its honor as a tribute to the importance of these relationships. And. Whereas, Denver Sister Cities International hosted the fourth Annual Worldwide Festival, a free daylong celebration of the cultures of Denver's global sister cities. And. Whereas, memorable delegations from each of Denver sister cities were formally invited to participate in Denver's World Wide Festival and in meetings with municipal officials, area businesses, educational and cultural entities and tourism offices to further strengthen the many impacts of these powerful relationships. And. Whereas, 2016 marks major anniversaries of two of Denver's ten sister cities. Denver and Kunming. A relationship established in 1986, is celebrating 30 years as sister cities and the Denver Ulaanbaatar Sisterhood, established in 2001, celebrates 15 years. And. Whereas, Denver Sister Cities International has been named the 2016 best overall program for a city with a population greater than 500,000 by Sister Cities, International proudly expanding Denver's list of honors and awards. This award is based on the high level of activity and impact proven by Denver Sister Cities and our global sisters. And. Whereas, the city and county of Denver and Denver Sister Cities International have a strong and mutually supportive and cooperative relationship. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council heartily welcomes our esteemed guest colleagues and friends from our sister cities to night and always, and offers congratulations and gratitude for their part in winning this prestigious award to our Fair City. Section two that the Council congratulates the many volunteers of Denver Sister Cities International who worked tirelessly to bring this honor home and to keep Denver's global connections vibrant and innovative. Section three that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit a copy thereof to Denver Sister Cities International.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Mr. President, I move that proclamation. Seven, six, six. Be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. First up.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Mr. President, I'm really excited to sponsor this proclamation tonight. There are ten sister cities, and I am going to read them all because it's an interesting geography lesson. Acxiom I don't know if I'm saying it right. Ethiopia. Chennai. India. Cuernavaca. Mexico. Karmiel. Israel. Kunming. China. Nairobi. Kenya. Potenza. Italy. Takayama, Japan. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia and Brest, France. And as the proclamation said, there is a park in Denver for each of those cities. BREST France is the most special sister city to me. Many of you may have been to the park. It's on the Cherry Creek Drive and Colorado Boulevard. It was our first sister city, and it was founded in 1948 by a teacher from East High School who, together with students, raised $32,000 to help build the Brest after World War Two. $32,000 was a lot of money for a teacher and students to raise. In 1948, breast is the westernmost point of Western Europe. It's where the Atlantic meets the English Channel, and it was devastated by World War Two. There were huge battles fought there between the allies and the Germans, and unfortunately, the beautiful medieval city was mostly destroyed . And so it has had to be rebuilt over these many years. I have a personal long history with breast. I said this last year when we had this proclamation, but my dad was on the board of Sister Cities in the seventies and in 1980 we had a young man named Frank Bellion who lived at my house and he worked for my dad. And since 1980 we have had a long relationship with that family. I've been to Brest numerous times. Members of the Bellion family have visited Denver. Frank Ens Kids have all lived at my house for a summer. His nieces and nephews have been to visit and we're going on 40 years of relationships with the Belgians. It's a very, very special relationship. Last month, I had the pleasure of giving visiting students from Brest a tour of the city and county building. And we did a little history lesson and a Denver civic lesson, which was really fun. And I'm really proud that I've been living the sister city's mission of cultural and economic exchange. Today, I had the greatest pleasure because it's a very, very small world. So we have our guests here from Brest, France, and they know Frank Bellion. Frank is the president of the Chamber of Commerce of Brest. He's actually going to be in Houston next week, and I'm going to have them all come up in a moment. But we have the deputy mayor of Brest, France, Raisa Salome, director of International and Economic Development. Julie Newitz, Director of Brest Twin Cities. Armel Geismar. And the chair her breast sister city's Lorette have Pepple who is going to refresh my French, which I did take for many years. And and Beth Hendricks is the director of Denver Sister Cities International. Really excited to learn from them that next year they're going to be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the the liberation of breast from the Germans. And so everyone will be invited to go there and attend that celebration. I plan to attend. My dad, as I've said before, was a pilot in the Army Air Corps and participated in the liberation of France. So I really look forward to that. And that's all I have to say.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Carlson. Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to thank Councilwoman Black for sponsoring this proclamation. You know, in November, Councilman Clark and I were honored to be part of a mayoral delegation to Takayama. And we visited the Red Cross hospital on what seemed like an endless day of viewing different areas and hearing about what they did at the Red Cross Hospital and all of the great work. And earlier this month, I was honored to host in my family home in Montebello, a surgeon who was coming to the and shoots medical campus to receive extended education from the Red Cross hospital in Takayama. And so it was great to be able to share with her the pictures that we took. She knew exactly where the Denver sister city park was in the in the town. And just building those cultural relationships I know go a long way. And it makes Takayama Japan not seem quite so far away from Denver, Colorado, and I'm sure that she's going to come visit us again. And so I just wanted to share that. Mr. President, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. As Councilwoman mentioned, I had the honor to visit our sister city of Tokyo, Japan, last year, and I was pleasantly surprised to learn that.
Speaker 3: They.
Speaker 2: Like we have a city of Tokyo, a park. They have a city of Denver park, complete with one of our signature green Denver Park signs and even a couple of.
Speaker 9: Rocks.
Speaker 2: Shipped over from Red Rocks Park. And, you know, well, that was fun. It was really very moving when we arrived at their city hall and were greeted by hundreds of people and then went, you know, our entire delegation went and rang a peace bell right outside their city hall before entering to celebrate the peace between the United States and Japan and the relationship between Denver and Tokyo. And it was really opened my eyes to the power of the Sister Cities program. It's something that is so fantastic for our city. It does make the world a smaller place. And whenever it's a smaller place, it's a more peaceful place. And so I'm so happy to be listed as a sponsor of this proclamation. And just want to thank you, Councilwoman Black, for bring it forward. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. And I'll make a couple of comments. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, for for sponsoring this. You know, I didn't even hear the proclamation, but anytime I see Sister City involved in something, I am incredibly supportive. And one of the reasons is I call it my freshman year on city council. I found out that we had a sister city in Nairobi that was pretty much dormant at the time, and we took a delegation over there of your high school students and some nonprofits and a couple of business leaders and got the opportunity to help start or revise this partnerships, this 35 year relationship with Nairobi, which spun into a trice, a tri sister city relationship with Kunming, China. And and, you know, it is great that it's, you know, it's goodwill, it's connections and things like this. But I think there's something deeper there. I think there is a lot when when cities begin to connect, because we don't get into the global crisis issues that sometimes countries get into when they are building relationships with one another. We find common ground quickly and with all of these exchanges that my colleagues were talking about. But there's also economic opportunities which we've been seeing. And who would have thought that cities trade with each other, that we do import export opportunities and things like that? And we just got done with the deputy mayor from Kunming and she was in town. Yes. She by the way, they had an all female. Our delegation and they were dynamite just saying. Haven't seen that in a while, but she was incredible. And she talked about all these import export opportunities that we hadn't thought of before. And she talked a lot about microbrews, which was awesome. So this is an incredible opportunity and it's something that we as a city don't invest much into the Sister Cities program, yet it thrives. And I couldn't be more supportive and I hope my colleagues would get the opportunity in other Denver city residents get the opportunity to see what we do understand why we have a main park. Right. All of the history, the rich history with sister city. So thank you, Councilwoman Black. It has been moved in second to Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 5: Black Eye. Brooks Clark I by Vanessa Flynn, I Gilmore, I. Herndon I can I can eat. Lopez I knew Ortega. I Susman by Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I am a madam. Madam Secretary, clothes a resounding renounce results.
Speaker 5: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Proclamation 766 has been adopted. Councilwoman Black, is there anyone you would like to bring up?
Speaker 7: Yes, I would like the entire delegates up. Beth Hendricks is the executive director of Denver Sister Cities International. Come Up. Deputy Mayors. Salome. Julie. New Eats. Armel Guimard. Laurette Hempel.
Speaker 3: Their President there. Conrad Black, honorary councilor, ladies and gentlemen. 60. Eight years ago, our parents decided. For these trainings. 60 years ago. It was a very big event because. These trainings had a very important message. Other parents said No more Ras. War that. So it's very important when we see our world now, everywhere we see we are human. Kill. Human. Human.
Speaker 2: Hate, human.
Speaker 3: We can. We can accept it. Our message must. Be the same off message that other parents. Six years ago already. And. Other trainings doesn't even have. One word. Clean wrinkle. Yeah. Thank you. I think we have the honorary councilor. We have a very, very important opportunity, a big, great opportunity today to solidify this partnership. These trainings. And surely this message of peace. Because the friendship. Is like a flower which need care and attention day by day to keep it fresh and healthy. Therefore, all of us have a duty to protect this beautiful and precious flower, to nurture and nourish it. We are really very happy to see you. Everyone here. And it's the first trip for us, for Julie and me in in Denver. It's not surely the last the trip in Denver. It will be very fun for us to see you again in breast in your city of breast. And thank you for your lot today. Thank you very much for this invitation. Thank you, President CU.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you for being here. All right, resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing and celebrating Denver’s Sister City relationships and the success of Denver Sister Cities International.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08292016_16-0607
|
Speaker 1: 12 eyes, one abstention. 602 and six three passes. All right. I am going to bring up 607 Councilwoman Black. What would you like to do with that?
Speaker 7: I have a question.
Speaker 1: Go right ahead. Oh, you already know. Okay.
Speaker 3: Hi. Hi. Aaron President. Denver International Airport.
Speaker 7: I just have a question. Who owns these?
Speaker 3: The city in county of Denver.
Speaker 7: And do they make money?
Speaker 2: We do generate a revenue. We do. We made 2.2 million in 2014.
Speaker 1: I want to just talk about what it is so that the public knows.
Speaker 7: So this is a resolution approving an agreement between the city and county of Denver and petro pro engineering concerning the management and operation of 75 oil and gas wells on the property of Denver International Airport. So thank you. The city and county of Denver owns them and Petro Pro operates them and Denver makes money off of them. That's correct. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Great. Is that it, Councilwoman Black?
Speaker 7: Yep.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilwoman Gilmore, I'm going to pull up six away. You want to take this off for a separate vote, correct?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: And the same. Four, six, ten.
Speaker 10: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. We're going to hold on 16. We'll do this for six or eight. Councilman Herndon. Yes, Mr..
Speaker 3: President. I move that resolution 608 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second to it. Madam Secretary, roll call comment.
Speaker 8: Gilmore abstain.
Speaker 5: Herndon R.
Speaker 3: Cashman High.
Speaker 5: Cannick I. Lopez. New Ortega. By Susman by Black Eye Clark by Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Flynn, i.
Speaker 5: Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Abstain.
Speaker 5: Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I close voting, announce the results.
Speaker 5: 12 Eyes, one abstention.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes, one abstention. Council Bill 608 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please pull up Council Bill 610. And I assume this is going to be called out for vote. I'm going to. All right. We'll just go into commentary.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and PetroPro Engineering, Inc. concerning the management and operation of seventy-five (75) oil and gas wells on the property of Denver International Airport.
Approves a contract with PetroPro Engineering, Inc. for $3.6 million through 10-31-21 for the management and operation of seventy-five (75) oil and gas wells on airport property. The scope of services include optimization of production, monitoring revenue, cost control, well maintenance, oversight of third-party contract services, environmental compliance, regulatory reporting, and the provision of advisory support for economic evaluations, forecasting, operating, and capital budgets (201524898). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-19-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 8-17-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08292016_16-0610
|
Speaker 1: 12 eyes, one abstention. Council Bill 608 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please pull up Council Bill 610. And I assume this is going to be called out for vote. I'm going to. All right. We'll just go into commentary. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call out. Well, I called out 608, but then also 610. And I'm abstaining on both of these because my brother in law has an interest in this project.
Speaker 1: That's okay. Thank you. Councilman Herndon, will you just put this on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolution 610 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Okay. It has been moved in seconds. It will go into comments by members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I have some questions. If I if I might, and I don't know if they're going to tag team through this or not, but. One of the it seems to me one of the ways that you get most advantage from this full P3. Procurement is to keep multiple proposers as far along in the process as you can in order to keep the competitive tension going and get the best pricing as possible. And and here it seems to me that we have made a selection of our preferred concessionaire a little farther upstream than normal. So I'm wondering, Kim, what does the airport have in its processes that will keep sort of a competitive nature going as we negotiate with only one party for the final agreement?
Speaker 10: Hi, I'm Kim Dan, the CEO of Denver International Airport. Well, first off, let me just say, Councilman Flynn, our process has been 18 months so far. So we have spent some time looking at this competitively. You should know that all of the proposals that were submitted to us are still active for the next six months. So if we were to have an issue and wanted to go to one of the other proposers, we could do that.
Speaker 3: Oh, that's that's good to know. Thank you. And how was the six month term of this pre-development agreement determined? Because that seems like it's a very compressed time frame, especially when you have to coordinate with TSA and outside agencies who really don't care about our calendar as much as we do.
Speaker 10: Yeah, there's no question when you get the federal government involved, it seems to take longer. This was really a thoughtful balance of the fact that we want to get this done as quickly as possible and relocate TSA. And yet we wanted to have enough time to truly do due diligence with this partner. So if we had not had the pressure on the other end, I think we would have extended this a bit. But we have a great work planned for the next six months and I think we're all confident that we can achieve what we need to do.
Speaker 3: And Kim you can do have already some and my view with with the TSA memorandum of understanding.
Speaker 10: We're in the process of actually we're in the process of executing that.
Speaker 3: Okay. I did watch the committee meeting where this went through. I was on vacation in California. That's how I spent part of my vacation. And one of the things that I found interesting was one of the submittals is what I thought would be what I would think would be one of the most crucial ones. And that's the submission of the fixed construction. I know an m price and it's a type A submittal, which means you have to respond in the next business day. And that's the middle is due the day before Christmas Eve. And I'm wondering, maybe I've missed something, but that would seem the fixed price for construction and for own end would seem to be the very core of the agreement. How can you do that in one day or what am I not understanding here?
Speaker 10: So we're still finalizing what all that submittal schedule looks like. We just reviewed it this morning actually with Ferrovial and I we've actually, I think, moved that day up to December 21st as I have, as I recall. So we're making that a little more generous. The reality is this is a very aggressive six month schedule. I don't think we have many turnovers. That would be 24 hours. Most of them are about five days or seven working days. But we're all committed. My entire staff is committed to work with Ferrovial to make sure that we comply with all of those requirements.
Speaker 3: Did you tell them they're going to work over Christmas?
Speaker 10: I haven't told them that yet. You just did.
Speaker 3: It's a gift. What can I say? And have you determined and affordability limit, you know, annually through this construction process of your cash flow and how much you'll be able to carry from year to year.
Speaker 10: And ask Gisela to come up and talk to you that.
Speaker 11: Good evening. Shanahan Chief Financial Officer, Denver International Airport. Councilman Flynn, could you clarify just a bit on.
Speaker 5: What cash flow you're.
Speaker 3: Well, I know from the terms of the term sheet there, there's there's still a lot to be negotiated. But I'm wondering if you have examined going into the not the full 30 years, of course, but because that's going to be negotiated. Well, let me let me rephrase it. If the term is the full 30 years or even less, will we know and in six months exactly how much cash we might have to pay to the concessionaire and in what years, we'll have to pay that. And looking ahead, will we be able to meet those obligations? I'm just concerned about cost overrun.
Speaker 11: Absolutely, yes. During the next six months, we will get to the details of the financial deal, which will include all of the payments either way, whether from the concessionaire to the airport or vice versa. We will run those through our airport financial plan and make sure that that keeps us exactly where we want to be from a financial planning perspective. But yes, we will make sure that we are very comfortable with the cash flows involved.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 11: You're welcome.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a couple of questions. I have had several meetings with Kim and her staff asking a number of questions about this particular contract. The first question is on the $9 million. Is that in the 2016 budget? I don't remember when we adopted the budget that that money was built into the 2016 budget.
Speaker 11: The project is in our capital program. So the 9 million would come out of the airports capital fund and not its Operation and Maintenance Fund, which comes due annually for budget approval.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's my understanding that the this project sort of is a result of a couple of things. Number one, we know we need to address some security issues. But number two, there was a concession master plan that was done that kind of looks at overall the needs of the airport and where we might be able to generate more non airline revenues. And so part of my question is wondering where that at in terms of dialog with both the public at large as well as the other concessionaires. Because this involved, as I understood, having input from lots of different people. And I saw something that came across like last week about a meeting coming up to talk about the master plan. So help me understand how that fits into the big picture if we're just doing some of those meetings now. But part of this is based on the master plan.
Speaker 10: So let's separate that into a couple of different pots, if I may. The concessions master plan has begun socialization. We have had conversations with our concessions association. We have had conversations with our airlines, but it's not a complete study. So they have just been briefed on the the processes that's taking place in terms of the Great Hall. While yes, I think the concessions master plan validates the need for for more concessions. In fact, I think the number in there is 200,000 square feet. The Great Hall is a little separate from that. It is addressing a specific need. We, in fact have had the concessions in the terminal on month to month holdovers for a few years, knowing that we intended to revitalize that space.
Speaker 0: Okay. Kim, as you know, I've shared some concerns about what the impact might be to the folks on A, B and C who have made significant investment to go into the space. And if. This is as successful as it's anticipated to be by capturing people once they go through the TSA lines and stay on the the main concourse before they go over to Terminal AB or C. What impact this would have. And then on the flip side, if people go straight to their gates, as many do today, then there is a chance that this is not successful. And I'm concerned about the overall fiscal health of the airport. And so help me understand the thinking of kind of how you all anticipate that this is a win win for everybody and not just for the people who will be in the main terminal.
Speaker 10: So first off, the first part of your question, we know there are passengers that fly our airport today that do not buy anything because the lines are too long and they cannot get what they want by the time their flight takes off. We do not have enough concessions to satisfy all of today's passengers. The study that you referred to, the concessions master plan, tells us that just where we are today, we need to add concessions. Add to that, we are an airport that is growing very rapidly. And so over the next few years, we will be adding lots of concessions. That doesn't take away from the concessions on the concourses. In fact, I would say to you that gives them more opportunities to have even more concessions. So it's a for the concourse concessions. Adding the concessions does not take away from them. Your other question was the risk of will passengers stay in the Great Hall or will they get on the train and go to the concourse? And I think this is really one reason we have chosen Ferrovial, because they have shown in the way they developed their property in Heathrow that they know how to make a compelling concession that will keep people there. Plus, they know how to use technology to give the passengers the power to know how long to stay in the Great Hall and when their their flight will leave, whether it is giant flight information displays or information that we push to you on your smartphone, we are going to let you take control of your journey. And we think that will, in fact, encourage people to stay and spend time in what will be a fabulous Colorado experience there in the Great Hall.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, I'm only going to ask one more question, if I might. Other questions don't get asked through the folks that are waiting in the queue. Then I'll, I'll chime back in to be at the end. But my last question for now is to ask Kim. I'm not sure that you want to address this or you want somebody from Ferrovial to address it. But I think the issue of the reputation of the company is one that has been brought to the attention of all of us. And I think it's important to not gloss that over and have it addressed upfront in terms of how I guess initially I'd like to know how thoroughly that was vetted by our DIA team in terms of looking at some of the allegations of. Bankruptcies that have existed in some of the other cities. I know this is a very large company, but, you know, that's a reality that has existed in some of the cities where they have operated around the world. And then the allegations of improprieties that were shared with many of us as well, where apparently there is a pending court case. And so if you can just speak to the the thorough the thoroughness of of vetting them, I think that's important. And then maybe somebody from Ferrovial would want to speak to that as well.
Speaker 10: I think, yes, we will do that. Just in terms of our site in tort, in addition to the normal process we go through to vet any contractor who is proposing at the airport, we actually hired an independent third party, KPMG, who and we also had an outside counsel, Mulvaney, O'Melveny Myers, who really looked at all of the proposers and gave us a great report back on Ferrovial. So I would ask Chris Butler of Ferrovial to come up and address specifically your issues.
Speaker 12: My name, Chris Butler and I'm from Ferrovial. There have been a number of comments I know that have been raised with council folk about the reputation of approval. And I can say absolutely that from Vale's approach is it's it's an ethical management is the topmost quality. We are absolute we have no tolerance at all for bribery and corruption. Let's look at the scale of the company that that is ferrovial. Its market capitalization is something like $16.6 billion. It has an EBITDA of over $1 billion. It has an employee workforce of something like 100,000 staff. This is a large company. It operates with the highest of ethical approaches in its policies and its processes. Now, there are two particular cases that I'm conscious that have been raised with councilors. Let me address them one at a time. The first one relates, I think you refer to bankruptcy, and that was associated with a project that had been run by Cintra. And before I talk about a specific project, let me just again set the context of Cintra as an organization. It's invested some $21.7 billion. In its overall investments. It runs something like 27 toll roads in nine different countries. These toll roads cover something like 1166 miles. This is a large company. There has been one particular toll road where forecasts were made of passenger or sorry transport movements. Before the financial crash. The consequence of that is that the forecast number of movements did not materialize. But what I should say about that is that the less was in Texas, the the state of Texas received this, I think by now something like $142 million worth of revenue from that. It was Cintra as an organization. That was out of pocket as a consequence of that, not the state. So there was a loss. That loss has needed to be absorbed by the investor syndrome. So that that's that particular case that I think you were referring to. The second case relates to. Ay. Ay. Ay. Ay. Position in Catalonia where there is a cultural center where Ferrovial had made contributions to that cultural center running something between 1992, I think 2009. And the allegation and I should stress it is just an allegation. Is that the in making those contributions as a consequence of that, there were some favorable allocations of contracts. As a result, there are two members of Froebel staff who at the time afraid of staff who have now, it has been alleged, were involved in this wrongdoing rather than the company. But the company is very clear, ferrovial is very clear that the we firmly believe that those two individuals will not be found guilty when this goes to court. It has not been to court at all at this stage. So nobody has been found liable. And at this stage the details are private. So the information that people are reading is kind of based on secondhand reports. So that's the that's the backdrop to that. So, you know, we're in a position here and it's difficult for those individuals. They can't make their defense public. That's not part of the process at the moment. So we're in a position to try to defend something which is which is only half the story has been made public, which I think you'll recognize the difficulties. So just to repeat, we were very, very clear about zero tolerance for bribery. Corruption is a large organization, and we take our reputation extremely seriously.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Gentlemen. I appreciate you addressing these important issues because I think at the end of the day, none of us want to find the city in a situation where, you know, we might be in the middle of one of these situations. And that's why I asked how thoroughly did we that this to make sure that we are protecting this asset. It is a city facility and it's our responsibility to make sure we're doing our due diligence.
Speaker 12: And I fully understand credit.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I just wanted to speak a little bit about this. Pre-development agreement. And I. I think the last speaker said something very interesting to me. I just believe that public private partnerships are a very judicious way for us to manage and leverage the dollars that we have, and particularly in investments in infrastructure, not the least of which reason is that it sort of transfers risk. And just as in his description of how the private company had to had taken on more of the risk than the state of Texas, I think that's an excellent example of what a public private partnership can do for a government entity. But you can also get with the expertize that you have. With organizations like this that have such experience, you can get a shorter time to delivery and. And probably at a lower cost. And. It just makes a lot of sense. I know that a lot of governments are doing public private partnerships to make their money go farther. This, of course, is just a pre-development agreement. It's agreement to talk about how things are going to go forward from here. But what I also like about this project is that we are going to own all the assets that may come out of this pre-development agreement, even if the agreement doesn't go ahead.
Speaker 10: Although I believe.
Speaker 7: That it will. So I just wanted to comment that on so many fronts, an agreement like this makes a lot of sense for a city. And I'm really excited about the all the planning and the thoughts that have gone into the Great Hall and to kind of restore that beautiful architecture that we have there. And so I just wanted to commend you all for entering into what might be a wonderful private public partnership.
Speaker 10: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: All right, you, Mike, please.
Speaker 2: I wanted to make sure I ask a few questions. I was really intrigued if somebody can talk about the process now. You mentioned the RFP process and. It seemed really competitive. What did that RFP process look like? Who was there? Who were the other bidders? And how did Ferrovial and I do respect who has not. But in the U.S. market. But what made the difference there? Sure.
Speaker 11: The RFP process was quite robust. You've heard a bit about the interactive process that occurred before the RFP was issued that allowed us to make sure that we had a project that was well-suited for a public private partnership. Once the RFP was issued and we did receive the three proposals, we had an extremely well-qualified.
Speaker 5: Panel to review the proposals.
Speaker 11: And conduct the interviews. We had Westfield and Manchester Airport Group. Were the other two teams that you just asked about, along with Ferrovial. Of those three, generally, Ferrovial scored highest and at the outcome of the review.
Speaker 5: When you look at the RFP, which.
Speaker 11: Is now public and the particular areas that were reviewed by the panel, FERROVIAL being first and foremost an organization that has conducted itself in a in an operating airport, one of the largest in the world, the largest in Europe, and has taken that airport from a hub that was at one time considered the worst hub in Europe to now being an award winning installation that gave the panel and the airport a great deal of confidence that we were working with a team moving forward that did have a proven track record in an operational airport environment.
Speaker 5: That is key.
Speaker 11: Along with that, their understanding of what it takes to invest in and then maintain a facility long term that involves concessions as well as the airport core function was also very well received. And in addition, the customer experience, which is another key component of this project, the proven track record as well, that they have been able to elevate the customer experience portion of an airport to a new level. And that is exactly one of the goals of our project as well. So we wanted to make sure we could safely move security, elevate the customer experience, and move forward with a partner that had proven not just that wanted to be in an airport operating environment , but that had proven that they can do that very well.
Speaker 2: In the in the RFP. As you look at what was cost in terms of how much it would cost us as the city of the airport to implement this weighed versus projected profit. Right. What did that picture look like in the RFP process? I'm curious.
Speaker 11: Sure. So there were a number of ways that teams could propose. Kim mentioned earlier we had KPMG as the financial advisor with expertize in pieces. Each of the proposals was compared from an apples to apples comparison basis. So in other words, all of their proposals were brought together in a way where the panel could very.
Speaker 5: Efficiently.
Speaker 11: And clearly understand what the long term impact to the airport was from the financial proposal. So the revenues that were projected were reviewed. The costs of operating and maintaining and reinvesting in the facilities over the term of the lease were reviewed and then as well as how the airport and the team could potentially split not only the ongoing maintenance but also the revenues in the long term. So all of that was evaluated and compared among the three teams.
Speaker 2: Bid for overall score the highest when it came to revenue and. Cost.
Speaker 11: Can we? And it's your specific I'm just making sure that within our procurement process, I'm staying within the parameters of of what I. Yes, as a matter of fact, in the financial category, that is my understanding, was the highest ranking of the three teams.
Speaker 2: The other the other question I have. Well, I just wanted to understand what made the difference between the three. Right. I mean, I know I've heard of Westfield. I mean, in committee, we were told that the operate lacks we I wasn't too familiar with with.
Speaker 11: Manchester Airport.
Speaker 3: Group.
Speaker 2: They operated in the US.
Speaker 11: No, not at this point in time, not in airport. They do have several airports in the UK.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: I figured that part if I can, Mr. President. I mean, do committee work on the fly? Just want to make sure when we're looking at this, this is the opportunity to negotiate and negotiate. Look at what the proposal for any further proposal will be. And I do understand I mean, the airport will I mean, on the intellectual property that we gain from that, we are actually entitled to that if, you know, if things go south or not. My other question would be, you know, we've had a lot of change at the airport. We have a lot of growth at the airport. We have a lot of new things happening at the airport. The one thing I want to remain constant is that we have great labor at the airport, right? That the men and women that are maintaining our airport here, you know, we get this all the time. We get bragging rights for having the cleanest, coolest airport in the country. And I appreciate the saying, but what are we doing to make sure that in this process that those men and women that are maintaining our airport and providing the services that our airport are are at the table. And what I'd like to see us to continue the work with the folks that we have a commitment, do we have to that to avoid any kind of labor dispute or any any issues that arise from that?
Speaker 10: So I'm not as trivial to talk about that as the commitment. But let me just begin by saying the wonderful thing about this program is it means jobs, it means construction jobs, and it means new jobs at the airport, which is a great thing for all of us as we grow. That's a way to share the economic benefit we are. We are very lucky that we have this growth happening at the airport and we constantly are out there recruiting, trying to bring new people in to fill these jobs. We're also looking at ways that we can make it easier for people to understand the jobs that exist at the airport. So we're talking about some sort of a technological bulletin board, essentially that will show the jobs that are there. We are doing countless outreach events. In fact, we've gone to a couple of your districts in the recent months to do outreach for concession workers. I think the key here, and you mentioned it, we won't we don't want just we don't want to leave workers behind. And so Ferrovial is planning a thing called they they've done in Heathrow called Heathrow University, which I will let Chris talk to. I think the the one thing you need to know is what they want to do here is give amazing customer service. And in order to do that, they need amazing workers. And so they are going to provide some training and some ability for us actually to let the the concession workers benefit in ways more than just a salary. So do you want to talk about that?
Speaker 12: Thanks, Ken. Just a brief resumé that the of the Heathrow Academy. It's something which we've been undertaking now for some considerable time. And what it provides is, is one of these situations that is a win win. So we work with local providers and with colleges and with employers to provide an opportunity to give people an entry into work. So through this academy that we've created, we have had some 5000 people go through that academy. It has put over 3000 people into work, which has got a multiple benefit. It's clearly the people themselves have jobs. It has a benefit to the employers because those people, they work ready. So there's lower recruitment costs. It also has a benefit to the state in the sense that they're not paying unemployment benefit. Rather than that, they're actually receiving tax income. So everybody wins from that scenario and it provides some of the recruitment training, but also then some development developmental training as well. So we have over, I think it's 1500 apprentices that have gone on to get jobs as a consequence of this particular scheme as well. And we are very keen to work closely with the airport and develop a scheme of this nature for Denver, because we think it's a fantastic opportunity and it's particularly important. Whereas as Kym says, one of the things we're trying to do is we want to create a an airport which is second to none. We want Denver to be the benchmark and we will create that subject to the council approval and clearly the airport approval. So we have a great facility, will have a great concessions program in that, but we've got to staff it with great staff and we want to help develop staff as part of that as part of that process.
Speaker 2: So are there any. Sorry. Sorry. Have there been any kind of commitments or any anything anything that you've used at Heathrow or anything else that that really speaks as you move into and as you moved into Heathrow Airport, as you've seen the issue that was at hand, you went and you say your company turned it around. Did that happen using the workers that you had that happen using the talent that you had? Here's the thing with Diane. Right? And I wanted to I want to hear what your strategy is and what your vision is with that here in the council chambers, in DIA. And Dan, as as the airport is evolved. Right. What it's done is, is build. On and just in build that success. With those with the talent of the folks that were there with the talent. And it doesn't require that those folks leave right to become successful. Otherwise, the jazz model hasn't been over the last years to to create success on the backs of workers, but with them. Right. And really rewarding those workers and moving that forward and really rewarding that model. I want to know if you guys are committed to that philosophy.
Speaker 12: So if I may give you some examples that leads us to answer your question. And there are a number of examples. And so Kim was talking earlier on about the way in which since we either purchased Heathrow back in 2007, there have been some transformational performance, and indeed there has. So if we start off looking at things like baggage performance, where when Ferrovial purchased the company, there was something like 40 bags per thousand that were missed. They're now around 17 and that's a significant international connection. So the banks have to come in, be rescreened and then back out again to slightly significantly different from a local or domestically based airport. So they're the same. The same teams is just better organized and better processed with new investment in new equipment. So that's an example. Another example would be on security in the U.K., the airport is responsible for the resourcing, the provision of equipment, the the maintenance and the delivery of security performance. And we moved the number of people who were waiting less than 5 minutes moved from something in the order of 84% of passengers to the end of 2015 that have reached something in the order of 97.4%. So these are these are transformational percentage changes. We've also improved things like punctuality that's been significantly improved under the under current ownership. So almost every one of the metrics that you look at, it seems a significant improvement. And the level of retention at some of our major airports is very high. So you see a lot of the same people who want to deliver. That is the way in which it's organized, the way in which it's planned, the way in which it's been delivered, and the way in which the staff are then trained, which is important. I hope I've answered your question.
Speaker 1: Yes, Councilman Lopez, I have five other folks in here. Can I give them a shot?
Speaker 2: Absolute. I just wanted to. Make just one more statement. And that's I mean, it's a question I really appreciate the the questions you had. I just want to make sure that we are making sure that those workers in the area that have made it great, that we are rewarding them to stay, that it's benefit the benefits outweigh the risk of having this new contract. I mean, potentially this new change and making sure that the folks who are at the airport who have built their careers on the airport since they've been there, can continue to securely be able to say, I my job is still there. Right.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Chris, question for you. If you could come up here just for anyone. So if you're not familiar with Skytrax, Skytrax is the organization that ranks airlines. So if you get a SKYTRAX rating, good or bad, then they know what they're doing. And I bring this up just so that people can have some context around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, SKYTRAX rated terminal five and Heathrow, the best place to fly in Europe for the past five years. Is that correct? That information?
Speaker 12: Yes, it's got it is. It's got the best place to shop for many, many years. And it won the best airport in in Europe in the last year as well.
Speaker 3: And you all have been running that, I beg of you, Ferrovial has been running that during the fight.
Speaker 12: We're partners at Heathrow. We've been we bought the entire company, including six other airports, I think it was, and some international interests back in 2007 eight.
Speaker 3: Perfect. That's all I you know. Thank you. So I want to put some context. It's a good question to ask. You know, why are we these not familiar? You know, this is a global organization. We are a global airline. I'm from Kansas City and I love Kansas City. We're not competing with Kansas City. We're competing with these airports all over the world. So for us to to create this experience, a global experience, we need somebody that has the history and the experience of being successful. So I appreciate just you acknowledging that I have all the faith in the world of the airport team as they go through this RFP process. They hired independent consultant consultant to look at the financials. That is I am comfortable with. Councilwoman Sussman talked about the P three. I'm not going to go there. Let's talk about the concessions real quick, because I think that's an important avenue to talk about. 2015, our concessions made $340 million. 2015 Acdp is made 140 million. 54 million passengers went through DIA. About 60% of that is owned, originate and ending here in Denver. We can't create enough concessions for people to eat and have a great experience at DIA because I think that's a valid question. But we can't have enough. And of the conversation when we're talking about concessions, it's just the Jefferson terminal. And I say just from the whole big experience, the A, B and C terminal are not even impacted by what's going on. This conversation that we're having, so concessions will continue to thrive. And my vision of this project, we're going to have more concessions at the main terminal, so more job opportunities for people. So I am comfortable and confident that this pre-development agreement where it is right now should go forward. There are several questions that we as a council should have as we get a little closer. But as we get into the weeds right now, I think we're putting the cart before the horse. I am comfortable with all the work that the airport team has done moving forward. And my last point, which I honestly think is the most important, you know, our airport was not designed for a post-9-11 environment. Our airport is vulnerable. And we need to move forward to. We create a space where the people that come through and fly are safer. That cannot be understated. And for us to not move this agreement forward, I think would be wrong from just a safety perspective for all the work that the airport has done moving forward. So I am in full support of this and I certainly hope our colleagues will move this forward because I think once we get to the final answers down the road, everyone will be happy. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Councilman Espinosa, you're up.
Speaker 3: I the. I'll get into the weeds. I have an actual problem with one of the particular articles in your agreement, and it is what it is. We're not going to ask you to change it, but 4.08 A on the ad services. That's the developer initiated services. It doesn't require actually any approval by then. You know, it reads if the developer desires to perform services in addition to the pre-development work, under this agreement, developer may advise the city of any such changes by written notification to the city. And then and it goes on into how that is now part of the agreement. I. I. I. I'm going to say I trust that you'll manage that. But that is that's letting ferrovial I mean, the state of Delaware. So. Right. This and maybe this maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing. But this is the great Hope P3 agreement that's on my screen. That said, the other important thing is, is that we keep talking about this is a pre-development agreement, but this is very much a developer agreement as well because that is one of the work products of this agreement. Correct. Yes. In addition or as part of all that. Sorry. Good evening. Dan Ramer, the city attorney's office, in addition, or as part of the submittals required under the pre-development agreement, will be the negotiation of the development agreement. And the intention is that that development agreement will be presented to the Council at the end of the six month period. Great. So the important thing there is that that is an agreement with the city, which is all of us. So what I'm getting at is that one of the nice one of my one of the as I've been developing a comfort level with this process, with this agreement. I mean, I having been in the airport as a young architect before, it was anybody was moving through there. I've seen that. I mean, I want to commend us having 20 years into this thing. We've actually done a pretty damn good job taking on the changes that came with 911 and whatnot. But I've been struggling with physically how we were going to improve this, given the the constraints that the building has, but maintain the sort of quality of that environment. I am getting more and more comfortable the more and more I learn about the approach that potentially the technology that's out there on how we might actually be able to adapt and move forward for the next 20 plus or 30 years. Is this case may be, but in and in one of the things that gets me excited about this is that I think we could be as innovative and ahead of the curve as we were, as when Pioneer first proposed this, that the concept of moving out there in the middle of nowhere seemed so forth, but it ended up being an incredible asset. So how do we take ourselves to the next level and be this international destination mid midway through this continent is by providing a level of service that we couldn't even predict back 20 years ago. And I think the potential is there if we get in the right partnership. But well, and I've made this very clear, and that's why I'm telling my colleagues that this is our agreement, is that while we're setting a new precedent and a new paradigm for airports in America or worldwide, we should be. I believe that you have the capability in your partnership to actually do that on the labor front, to bring something new to the air. And so that's what I'm asking as a member of the agreement, the developer agreement, because we're the city, the developer agreement that will be a work product of this process provided that it goes through and we're happy with the work product, is that we have something on par or, you know, to the Heathrow Academy that we're actually because this is a stable this is a this is this is a stable revenue generator for the city and for this state, really. I mean, for the city in general and for for the enterprise, I should say. And so these are it's got the potential to be a real stable job and a real for anybody that gets lucky enough to get employed out there. And I would like this culture to sort of permeate the sort of stability of the place, the beauty of the place and how it performs permanent permeate all the workers that go out there. And so that's going to be my expectation is while we're doing all this stuff on on security and concessions, we're doing it for the people, too. And I think we're going to benefit from having a potential partner that's actually sort of more familiar with sort of more pro-labor governments and things like that than than our own what we've got going on here. So I just I just want to say that that's when you guys come back. That's what I'm going to be looking at.
Speaker 10: So if I could just make one comment, I think we have heard loud and clear in our meetings with many of you that this is a clear priority for you. And in the next six months, we will develop a very specific and robust program with regard to workers and education and recruitment and all of those elements that will be part of our work during this pre-development agreement.
Speaker 3: So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Kim Yeah, so thank you. Kim Because I do think the things that I'm seen thus far, I've questioned at multiple, multiple levels. And I'm, I'm comfortable with this pre-development agreement. I'm comfortable with the terms both if we continue or choose not to, but if we choose to go forward as a city, I think that we all have that expectation that we're actually going to deliver the next 30 years comfortably and quality out at DIA.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions. Then you can decide whether you want me to give my comments. Sir. Put me back in the queue to do those. So I first wanted to say thank you both. The team, as well as the contractor team have spent a number of hours with me and trying to do my due diligence. So I appreciate that. But I do still have a few questions because the most recent large project at the airport was the Hotel Transit Center. I have to ask a few questions about that just for comparison purposes. So my first question is, is the hotel performing well? Yes, far above our expectations. And it's my understanding that there's an agreement related to how the workers and the hotel interacted at the at the DIA Hotel. Is that correct? Yet there is a legal agreement that determines the relationship between how workers in the airport and in the hotel will interact with each other. Is that correct? That that was a piece of it is not an agreement with the airport, but Starwood has an agreement with their workers. There was a there was a piece of the RFP when the airport was initially committing to build this hotel that the city had in its policies. Correct. I don't know if any of us know the exact words. I think there was something about neutrality. Yeah, that. That's the agreement, too. So have you had any issues with labor disputes at the hotel? Not that I'm aware of. And has that agreement impaired the performance of the hotel at all? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. That's helpful to know. And then we had a change in teams on the hotel design project at one point. We had. And was it when that change took place? It was my recollection that the following team could not just pick up exactly where the prior team left off, that there was a certain bit of reworking they had to do of the product they got from the prior architect that that it took some time to then get back up to speed. Is that correct? I would not clarify that way. We actually did indeed pay the the original architect and we owned all of the work that had been done to date. And we started from that point and went forward. Was it the same exact design carried forward or were there changes and adjustments made? It was early enough in the process that there were normal changes that would happen as just as design evolves. Okay. Thank you. My next question is, what is the status of the current concession contracts in the Great Hall that are operating today? They are on a month to month holdover. And what will happen at the point at which this contract and in the construction down the road takes place to those existing concessionaires? So just like any concession contract, when they expire, the concessionaire has an opportunity to bid on another location. But the current concessionaires will be closed. Correct. Any lease there? There actually. I mean, I will just say that their leases expired some time ago. We have actually extended them on month to month to get us to the point of this construction. Right. But at a certain point, they will terminate and this new P-3 will operate their spaces moving forward. No, this P3 does not operate any concessions. This P3 will this partner will go out and put together proposals to bring in concessionaires. And we hope that some of the existing concessionaires in the airport will apply and win spaces in the terminal. They also have the opportunity to apply for spaces in the concourses. But in the interim, the construction, all of these locations will be redesigned. There will be I mean, maybe Ferrovial wants to answer. Are any of the concession spaces that are there now going to continue to operate in perpetuity, or will you be rebidding each of the spaces? No, obviously what they're going to do is a massive construction. So all concessions in in the terminal will be closed while we renovate. Yeah. And I'm just trying to clarify because we've had a lot of questions about the workers. And so I just want to be really clear that every worker in that terminal will lose their job at some point during this process. I would say that, yes, in their current job, but they all have opportunities at the other concessions. Right. But they have no guarantee to those other jobs. That's correct. Okay. Thanks so much. That's really helpful. So I just want to move into my comments, Mr. President, or would you like me to go back into the queue? Go ahead. Okay. So I appreciate some of my colleagues mentioning that they're willing to kind of take this conversation about some of the pieces of this contract that are unknown and, you know, hold them over and see where things happen in six months. My recollection of the costs and some of the changes that occurred in the scope was not that if things didn't work out with the first team, it was really easy to switch to a new team. It was quite controversial and challenging to make that transition. I do believe there was additional costs that we incurred when we changed architectural firms. And, you know, we can, I guess, debate that a little bit. But having been at the table and having to approve some of those contracts for the new teams, it did not feel seamless to me as a city, and it certainly did not seem seamless to our auditor in terms of the costs that were incurred. So I don't think that it's the case that you should choose lightly the first time around. Right. And just say, well, if it doesn't work out, it's only $9 million and we can switch teams. I just that's a lot of money and I think it's important for us to treat it very seriously. I've been very impressed with the general concepts that the Ferrovial team has brought forward, and I agree with Councilman Espinosa that, you know, the potential for the hall to be reworked. But I see a very real chance for labor disruption in this in this situation. We have an entire terminal of people who will lose their jobs. And we've had a lot of emphasis on the fact that there are hundreds of jobs open at the airport, and it's really easy to get a different job. We have really low unemployment right now. This contract, if it goes to the final development agreement, could last for 30 years. We all know that unemployment rates change and it's not always the case that there's a ton of extra jobs. And I think that to the extent that this team has has has not been clear in committing to what their policy commitments are. It's great to do training and it is great to have a conversation about the kind of interaction you want to have with your employees overall or your concern. Engineers, employees. But I'm in the government business and in the government business contracts include policies or they include very clear terms that indicate what relationships might look like. And in this case, I often approve things from this dais that aren't all the way done, that are in the works. But I have not had one conversation to indicate to me that any of those policies are in the works. They've been open ended conversations. And there is I've asked several times, is there a conversation scheduled to work on a policy related to the things Councilman Lopez was asking about? And I have been told there is not a meeting scheduled which does not give me comfort to say, trust us, we'll work it out in the next six months. I think it's really important that intentions are clear up front, even if the work isn't all completed. So for me, I also have similar questions about the construction contracting. I really appreciate, you know, Sadr's team has been, you know, very responsive and trying to get me information about how much of this work will be competitively bid. But I don't have a clear answer on that. And again, this is a public private partnership, which means that I expect high standards for competitive contracting to keep costs down, to make sure there's fairness. You know, I can't speak to allegations in other countries from many years ago, but public competitive contracting is the best way to avoid those kinds of allegations. And so I just don't see the clear path of commitments that I would need to see to approve a relationship that has the potential to go this long. I don't believe the first six months. I don't take $9 million lightly as an early relationship. I want us to get this right. So I'm going to be a no vote tonight. I this very well may pass, in which case I hope that these conversations that are not scheduled today, these intentions that haven't been made clear in terms of how to avoid the economic risks both to workers and to our airports, operations from all of the we already have labor disputes occurring around this issue. And my fear for their economic impact on our airport and on passengers is real. So I will not be able to support it. But if you are successful tonight, I do hope that you will come back with a clear set of written policies about these relationships rather than just, you know, broad statements about training colleges. So with that, I will be voting no tonight. Mr. President, thank you.
Speaker 1: If you can hold your applause so we can get through this. Councilman. Mayor.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I think, you know, I think you and your staff are going to do a great job. I think it's a wonderful project. And I'm sort of surprised that this safety issue had come up before now. I mean, you know, yes, the recent incidents that we've had around the world, you know, just emphasize how important the safety of that Great Hall are. The lack of safety in that Great Hall really is. So I think the project's going to be good. Yes. I got a couple of questions. You know, financial monitoring of performance is going to be critical. Can you describe the process going to go through how you're going to monitor that, the financial performance of this country council?
Speaker 11: And who are you referring to post the development agreement or as measures.
Speaker 4: As you're building, going through the building and you're putting your financial monitoring process in place, what are the key things that you're going to be looking? Are you be concerned about and how is it going to work?
Speaker 11: Sure. We are going to have some very specific requirements will be negotiating over the next six months. That will be similar to what we've put in place with the hotel, for example. There will be monthly reports required on both revenues and the costs. We will monitor those very closely. We will have terms in the agreement that will spell out a range within which Ferrovial and its team would need to remain in order to meet the terms of the agreement. Along with that, we will have a cross-functional team within the airport that will monitor all of the facets of the operations , not just financially, but as you know, that does impact the financial bottom line as well. We do that currently. We have a cross-functional team that monitors all of our projects to make sure that they're staying within delivery, time, scope and of course, budget. And that will be something that we will also implement the minute that this project goes live, and that will also be reviewed within the context of our larger financial plan because as Councilman Hearn mentioned earlier, this is just one component of a very large operational airport.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I would you I have great confidence in your ability to manage the finances. And will there be a member of the city finance department to be a part of the creative development process? Will that be somebody there to help you out?
Speaker 11: Absolutely. So I work very closely, almost on a daily basis with the city's chief financial officer. And we will have a member of his team, whoever he appoints, that will be part of that process.
Speaker 4: Will it be a role for the city auditor in this process down the road? Maybe not in the pre-development, but somewhere down the road. Are you thinking about using the city auditor as another safety check to help you? Yeah.
Speaker 11: Yes. Those conversations have actually begun.
Speaker 4: Great. Wow. And then the risk sharing part, that'll be part of this agreement. This pre-development is so. So we'll end up with a great deal like the state of Texas did. And so. So will we. But there will be a main issue that you'll be discussing, I'm sure.
Speaker 10: Absolutely.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then at the end of this pre-development phase, will you be sharing information with the city council about how this how it ended up?
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. Move forward to.
Speaker 3: Right. Yes.
Speaker 11: So when the development agreement comes forth, at that point, there'll be quite a detailed discussion, as you can imagine.
Speaker 4: All right. Well, thank you very much. I wish you best of luck. I think you'll do well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman new Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I couldn't be more excited about this project. The the Great Hall, as it exists today, has proven itself not nearly as timeless as the great roof above it. And so I think it's going to be a wonderful opportunity to really move DIA into a 21st and 22nd century product. But I as with a lot of my colleagues, I share concerns about labor retention. And I really I appreciate Councilwoman Canete so clearly stating the the problem of the potential for lost jobs in the Great Hall businesses themselves. And so I'll be looking at that closely. I share concerns about the the effect of the Great Hall concessions on the concessions in the terminals. But I also believe the opportunity exists that the existing concessionaires can share in what we hope will be bounty from this new project. I'm really concerned about security at DIA, and I think this is something that that we need to address now. And so I'm going to be supporting this tonight. I think I want to move forward now. However, there's going to be a whole different ballgame. And next time we meet about this project, I don't think anyone up here. I expect this will. My guess is this will move forward. But I don't think any of the votes tonight that may be moving this forward should be interpreted as in the bag. Six months down the road, when the when the real deal comes forward now, I expect there's going to be labor peace. I'm expecting that. I'm expecting the questions about all the city policies that we all hold dear, about how we deal with minority contractors and so on and so forth, will be part of what comes up to us down the road. But we will be reading it carefully. So cross the T's and dot the I's, please. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Councilman Cashman. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, back up. Yes.
Speaker 0: Two quick questions and then I'll make some comments. So, Chris, would you mind answering whether or not for a will is in in looking long term, would be providing transportation vouchers for the workers? You know, one of the challenges we have is that it is so far away and the cost to either park or to take the train or even the bus is is a little pricey. And with most people making minimum wage, it's. Frankly, a little more affordable for people to work elsewhere than the airport. And if we're going to have more concessions, we know that we still have jobs at the hotel that still need to be filled. So that is just one small tool, if you will, that could could help defray the costs for workers. So can you address that?
Speaker 12: Yes. I mean, I think I would put that in the context of wider work, which we are going to be doing to attract the employees that we will need for the airport. So making sure that there is affordable travel will be will be important. Quite the level of commitments and who that will be given by will it be by the individual concessionaires and by the work that we're going to be doing in conjunction with the airport as well on things like recruitment fairs as well, to make sure that we take all the opportunities that we can do to publicize the jobs and they will be good jobs that are available at the airports. When we multiply the number of concessions in the Great Hall, you know, potentially by some like 300%. So this is a great opportunity and I absolutely recognize that the cost of travel is an important factor in people's considerations.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then my next question is probably for Kim. And this is about just looking at how we keep the cost per employment down. So if. The Great Hall is so successful and it's capturing the majority of the spend. You know, people will come through TSA. Once it's reworked, they'll be able to spend there. Once they spend there, they're not going to go spend on A, B, or C. And one of my concerns is if. You know, this is capturing people coming in. And, you know, for for folks traveling through the airport, whether they're, you know, changing gates or just, you know, arriving. I think we have a greater opportunity to capture the spend of people who are, you know, changing. We're Denver's just a. The transfer facility for them. So so part of my question is how do we. How do we get it? Making sure that we keep that cost per employment down so that we continue to be a competitive airport? I mean, because at the end of the day, we're first and foremost an airport. Yes. It's important to have the kind of concessions that people want when they travel through our airport, whether they're international or local travelers. We also need to make sure that we keep the cost of the the goods and the serve the the the food and the goods affordable. So, you know, we may have a lot of people flying through that can afford some of the pricey things. But we still have a lot of families that travel through our airport. We have, you know, people that that travel for work, not all of whom have all their costs being covered. So a lot of them are doing it out of pocket. So having different price points, I guess, is is what's really important. But at the end of the day, how do we make sure that the money that's going to be generated in the main hall is not all captured by Ferrovial? We know that. You know, we need to figure out how to pay them back for the investment that they're going to make to do the improvements. But. I know you don't know what the share back cost is just yet, but knowing that we need to keep our airport competitive and keep that cost per employment down, I'm just asking you to look into that crystal ball and and tell me what that thinking has been about how we ensure that we don't compromise, again, the fiscal health of the airport by keeping that cost for employment down.
Speaker 10: So that was a very complex question. Let me just say this. I'll try and have a simple answer. In the next six months, we will be working out the specifics of the cost sharing with FERROVIAL. Every cent we make from this great hall we the airport make from this great hall agreement. Every cent we make off of the hotel, every cent we make off of our parking and anything bought in the terminal, we put into our overall model that allows us to reinvest that money to keep the cost to our partners down. And that is one of our primary goals. Every decision we make at the airport, we evaluate what is this going to do to the cost of our carriers. Because, as you know, Councilwoman Ortega, if we can keep their costs competitive, they add flights and that helps us to grow our airport. So this this initiative is just one more piece in that overall goal.
Speaker 0: And my hope is that we continue to have spend in both places so that we don't have the impact to A, B and C, which is where we're going to rely on really 100% of what's generated on A, B and C, whereas in the main terminal, it's going to be a percentage of what's generated there.
Speaker 10: And just remember that on the concourses, you have a lot of passengers who never take the train to the terminal. They are just connecting, as you mentioned. And so the entire spend by those passengers will be out on those concourses even after this program.
Speaker 0: That's right. Okay. So let me just make my comment that we don't need to do that. And so, first of all, I want to thank Kim and all of the folks who have met with me to answer my many, many questions. Apologize that I wasn't able to be at the committee meeting when this was brought forward. I was out of town, but I did send questions over to my colleagues in hopes that we would get to some of those.
Speaker 1: You missed magic.
Speaker 2: Pardon me? You missed.
Speaker 1: Magic. I was just saying.
Speaker 0: Anyway. I think it is important that we keep our airport fresh, compatible, competitive and affordable with the concessions that we have. And I think this new concept will will help do that on the main terminal. And I think how we put the language in the contract for the next phase becomes really important in terms of what that share back looks like. That absolutely ensures that we maintain control over the contract, but also that we keep it competitive in terms of the cost per employment. And yes, we are a worldwide airport, but at the same time, we still serve families and others that travel, you know, within the U.S.. And so I don't want us to just focus on being that international airport and lose sight of the, you know, the main focus of of serving local travelers as well. And. Yes. It's important to to attract what we have heard from the folks through the various surveys that have been done in terms of the kinds of goods , the kinds of meals, etc., etc., that they would like to see at the airport. But again, we need to keep those prices competitive. The fact that we do not have a worker retention policy built into our executive order, I think this is something city council needs to look at just adopting as an ordinance for contracts that come through this city where we know worker retention is a critically important issue. We've had to deal with this contract after contract after contract. We had one with the janitorial that does work in many of our city buildings where, you know, we had to address that very issue. And I think it's an important one. And particularly at DIA, where cost to get out there is so expensive. I think it's important to have routine updates to City Council. We still have not yet had close out information and I've requested this and brought this up several times. We have not had close out information on the hotel and transit center. And if we keep pushing these things down the road where we never get to them on our agenda and we're doing that with the main hall, that's going to be a problem. And I think we need to look at how we stay engaged in this conversation because the air is part of the city. We're all, you know, part of this decision making process and. DARPA is not autonomous from the rest of of the city. And so the process of keeping this body informed is vitally important to going to the next phase of of where this is all anticipated to move. I just have to say that I am not comfortable moving this forward. I have serious heartburn with a long term contract that has been talked about for this. I know that's still something that would be negotiated as part of the discussions in the next phase. But I think basically privatizing the operations of who selects the concessions that will be at DIA and ensuring that we have a level playing field with the folks that operate on A, B and C. As you guys know, there is a used to be a 20% limitation on ownership that was changed to 25%. And it's not absolutely clear that that same percentage of ownership will apply to any of the concessions that will be in the main the main concourse, the main terminal . So some of these details. Yes, the devil is always in the details and knowing that. This is the first step that really kind of knocks down the door to ensuring that the next piece, you know, just kind of moves forward. I'm not I haven't reached that comfort level and I have shared some of those concerns with with Kim and her staff. And again, I appreciate the time that you all have shared with me and trying to get me to that comfort level. But, you know, maybe at the end of the six months, when you all bring that package back and show us how we've addressed these issues, maybe I'll be there on that next phase. But right now I am not there. And so I'm going to be a no vote tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I first of all, thank you, everybody who has been working on this. And this is a big deal, right? I mean, this is worth the conversation that we have that we're having right now. It's a big deal because there's there's a lot of things that we have pride in in Denver. Right. There's a lot of things that there's some things we don't have pride in. I mean, we can. The food over at Kasarani does not a good thing about this. You know, Denver pretended it's not even Denver. We'll just say that. But there's a lot of things, right? We have championship football. We have great downtown, we have great neighborhoods. But we have this amazing airport that in the last 20 or 25 years of this airport, it is went from it has evolved from old Stapleton Airport to this world class facility. Right. And there are folks in this room that have made that possible. I look at Abby or from Councilwoman Stanton, manager of Parks and Rec, Debbie Ortega, who's who served before. There's a lot of things that have happened to make this airport great and. That's also in the same breath. That's also the workforce, because a lot of the folks that begin working at this airport are still there. And they have made this airport, the world class city, a world class airport and a world class city that it is right. They continue to do that every single day. So the reward for their work shouldn't be sorry your job is gone. Got to reapply for another low wage job somewhere else. The reward for their work. Should be. Thank you for making this airport. Great. Let us take you. Let us take you to the next level. Let us advance your opportunity. Let's create new jobs for the airport. Absolutely. Things change. Nobody's going to get in front of the jumbo jet and say, okay, sorry, you can't take off. Right. It's taking off. This airport's growing leaps and bounds. Change is happening. We can't get in the way and over to petty things. We just want to make sure that we have the insurance assurance that the people who are making this airport great reap that return on investment. Right. Yes. We expect this this this this agreement moving forward. Right. We expect this to have the the reflect the the the value of the world class airport. We want to see great businesses, new business come in. Right. We want to continue to reflect the flavor that Denver has to offer in this airport. Right. We want local businesses to thrive. We want new businesses to enter the airport and thrive. But at the end of the day, we want to make sure that the team that is at the table. Right. And, you know, I don't want you to take this as a as a sign of not being welcome to Denver. You are absolutely welcome to Denver. We have great football is a different football, but is good. The other the other football's not so great, sir. But here's the other thing. We we expect those values that we have in Denver to be reflected at your table. As you were negotiating. It is not a separate country with different values. It's not a separate state or a political entity with different values. We have those values. You know why? Because we are pressured. To find affordable housing. That's really not necessarily about housing. It's about the lack of quality jobs and well-paying jobs. And this is where that rubber meets the road. This is one of those ways that we can help. Address other issues in this city and continue to make the city great. Ross No one's going to want to visit. I. And here's the thing. As we move forward, I do have faith. You know, I know some people at the table. That are talented individuals and that understand these values. I, I have faith in that. I know we have a good team and I know they have the same values we do. And I think it's it's it's up to us in the diocese and in the city and the leadership to be able to say, you know what, here's the values that we back. Here is what we expect from our airport. That way, there's no question. What our values are as a city. Right. So as you go negotiate, as you go flesh this out. Please remember those values. Now we want to reward the people that make this city great. From mop to plate to service to greeting to the people that are designing the logo of our airport. Every single body, we want to make sure that they are rewarded in championship teams. Especially from the Broncos all the way to the Rockies. Right. Everybody gets a ring. Because everybody took part in that championship. Everybody gets a ring. And we want to make sure this airport, everybody knows we don't necessarily to pass out championship rings, but we want to make sure that that respect is there. That commitment is there. Right. Those are our Denver values. And that's what we're trying to really express at this table. So if that, you know, I am going to support this moving forward, I was teeter tottering about this for weeks. Everybody's not been getting phone calls from me because I'm just completely indecisive about it. Right. So but I do have faith. I have faith that that at this table is going to be broad. It's going to include the people that work in it. It's going to be amazing. So I want to see this move forward reflecting our values. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. I'm calling you, Mr. Commander. Councilman Lopez. Been a long night already. Okay. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I am happy to let my colleagues know that October will be at the busy committee, the close out for the hotel and transit project. So pay attention to your calendars and we hope you can join us in October for that close out report. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: You know what? I'm glad you mentioned that. Thank you so much. Seeing no other comments. I'll say this. I have a picture, a new picture in my office. It is of Pena looking over a huge field. And it's the groundbreaking of the airport. And you know, I have so much respect for that man and that visionary leader today because of where we're going and what we're building on. And I'm so excited to make this a global airport. Now we know we're global. We know we're competing with Zurich and in and all these other global cities. But I say global because it has it has a intertwining with the local fabric. And so I think I share the values of my council folks here. However, we've been I've been on I've been at this for about five or six years. And we've we've had some issues that were resolved. And I have faith and I have to, because guess where I'm at? I wasn't hired by the airport, so I don't get to work out the negotiation. And I just voted up or down. I have faith that the airport is going to come back with a a deal that is good for all of us that we can support. And so that's why I will be supporting this. The presentation, if you didn't get a chance to see the committee, was excellent because we spent a large part of the time talking about neighborhoods. We spent time talking about neighborhoods in the community. No one's talked about that tonight. And that's the thing that I'm most excited about, that we had a commitment from an investor, which I have never seen before in the city of Denver, say. We're we're going to be about these neighborhoods. And so that's what I'm about and that's what I'm support. So I will be supporting this. Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 5: Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Abstain.
Speaker 5: Herndon. Cashman.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Black. Clark. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 5: Ten eyes, two nays, one abstention.
Speaker 1: Ten eyes, two nays. One two abstention. Council Bill 610 is adopted. OC Counsel Madam Secretary, can you pull up Resolution 591? Great. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like to do with this?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Great Hall LLC concerning the predevelopment phase that will include project planning and redesign concerning the Great Hall for Denver International Airport.
Approves a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Great Hall LLC concerning the predevelopment phase that will include project planning and redesign concerning the Great Hall for Denver International Airport. (201418237). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-19-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 8-17-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08292016_16-0591
|
Speaker 1: Ten eyes, two nays. One two abstention. Council Bill 610 is adopted. OC Counsel Madam Secretary, can you pull up Resolution 591? Great. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like to do with this?
Speaker 3: I just have a question. Okay, go ahead. What is it? Everybody that can speak to what this ad services for.
Speaker 1: Okay. Oh, there we go. Brett.
Speaker 9: Brett Huntington from the project manager at Public Works Guy.
Speaker 3: Just yeah what is it for and is the money for this just coming out of the already approved funds or are we gearing up for additional funds coming down the road?
Speaker 9: So the the funding for this is out of project contingencies.
Speaker 3: So we're not seeking additional money. This is just increasing the contracts value.
Speaker 9: For the design agreement because of the the alternates and the retail site and some of the late moving parts that we've been working through recently to get them properly.
Speaker 3: Designed and into the project. So does that mean that we've found a buyer for the retail side and we have accepted some of the alternates that we've found the money for those.
Speaker 9: So I'll I'll address the alternate piece first. So we've we have accepted the entire build out of the rooftop. The other alternates are still unaccepted unfunded. But Parks and Rec is actively seeking outside donations and other funding sources for those. So they're still very much on the table.
Speaker 3: So by a rooftop, we're talking about that sort of that sort of open space, that sort of quasi leasable or rentable. Yeah, it's it's intended to be an event space.
Speaker 9: So it added for about $4,000 of interior square.
Speaker 3: Feet, plus an exterior terrace all on that rooftop level.
Speaker 9: And it is intended to be a rentable event space which will be managed by the Parks and Rec Group and department as a as a rentable space.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 1: Councilman. And they will be doing some yoga out there as well. Right. So I just want to make sure, because there's folks in District ten and District nine who want to make sure it won't the entire time it won't be leased out like there will be classes going on out there and things like that.
Speaker 9: I believe that's the intent, but I might be behind out a bit more.
Speaker 1: The Honorable.
Speaker 13: Thank you, President Bush and members of the council. Happy Haines, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. I'll be out there with you on the yoga classes on the rooftop? Yes. As with many of our event spaces, we try to strike the right balance between allowing those spaces to generate revenues for the department and making them available to others. But we definitely intend to operate classes in that in that outdoor space. And as you know, I have a very deep commitment to getting people outdoors. And so with such a constrained site and so much building, we're looking very much forward to having a space on the roof outdoors to conduct many of our classes.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Thank you. Okay, let's get onto the bill for introduction. 609. Can you pull that up? I have Ortega. What would you like to do with this?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture, P.C. for professional design services.
Adds $75,000 to the contract with Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture, PC for a new total contract of $1,859,032.50 for additional design services for the Carla Madison Recreation Center (201417595). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-9-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 8-18-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08292016_16-0609
|
Speaker 1: Perfect. Thank you. Okay, let's get onto the bill for introduction. 609. Can you pull that up? I have Ortega. What would you like to do with this?
Speaker 0: Just a question.
Speaker 3: Go ahead.
Speaker 0: So first of all, the proceeds from the sale of this property, does that stay within the Airport Enterprise Fund?
Speaker 3: It does.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then the second question is. So can you tell us what what's going to happen with this property and whether or not Denver explored any uses for that site? I mean, all too often we. You know, we have property that we either sell or we're purchasing. And so I'm trying to figure out how that fit into the big picture of our real estate needs in the city.
Speaker 2: So this particular sale and but I said Denver International Airport, this particular sale was a direct.
Speaker 3: Negotiation with F.C..
Speaker 9: Stapleton. They're in the process of purchasing the land adjacent to this to the den property.
Speaker 3: And they need to acquire this parcel.
Speaker 2: To complete the planned improvements stated in their approved general development plan for North.
Speaker 3: Stapleton.
Speaker 2: So really they're the only logical person purchaser due to the parcel location.
Speaker 3: And that's that's why this makes sense for.
Speaker 0: Them to purchase this industrial commercial. Can you give me an idea of what kind of development?
Speaker 3: It's an old Arsenal railroad easement.
Speaker 0: But the type of development that might be going on this site.
Speaker 3: I don't know exactly what they're going to be developing next to this site that I can get back to you with.
Speaker 0: Okay. That would be appreciated. Sure. Absolutely. Thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. Questions. Last comment. I mean, it did it did I do my math, right? That comes out to about 35, $36,000 per acre.
Speaker 2: 11.845 acres.
Speaker 3: Can you provide me sort of the appraisals that helped set this price for this property? So this was actually sold at the master lease and disposition agreement price. So that's a special price. And then that was set back when for city was was this identified as a parcel that was subject and available for that agreement? I mean, that price this specific one is actually located outside the master lease and disposition agreement. But because it is a railroad easement land, we decided that the.
Speaker 2: Land price was determined by the MLG price versus the fair market value.
Speaker 3: Price. So I'm sure the answer is yes, but please confirm if the affordable housing fund bill, you know, ordinance gets passed that this price, this property in it's developable at some point down the road would be subject to that affordable housing and not roll into their current housing agreements. Might be a little this will be on second reading next week, so I can absolutely get that to you before then. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Cancer kills 100. Okay. All right. So 609. How about 605? Madam Secretary can get that up. Is a five. Councilman Flynn, what would you like to do it?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and FC Stapleton II, LLC relating to the land sale of a parcel of former Stapleton land located in Denver and known as Section 10 Arsenal Railroad Parcel.
Approves a land sale agreement with FC Stapleton II, LLC for a parcel of former Stapleton land located in Denver and is known as Section 10 Arsenal Railroad Parcel that is approximately 515,956 square feet or 11.845 acres in size for $431,452.44, minus closing costs. The land is outside the Master Lease and Disposition Agreement and is a strip of land underlying the old Arsenal Railroad bounded on the south by East 56th Avenue and between Dallas Street and Havana Street in Council District 8. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is 9-19-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 8-18-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08292016_16-0508
|
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. I move the count to a five away, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second in the public hearing for council bill 507 is open. May we have the staff report? Mr. Tim walk into the House.
Speaker 9: Evening Council Members. Tim Watkins. Community Planning Development. Presenting application 2015 AI 151 And this is property located in Northeast Denver in Council District 11, taking you back a little closer to the airport again in the Gateway Green Valley Ranch neighborhood. And you note that the property is just at the southern boundary of Denver, at the southeastern extent of the city, sharing the boundary with Aurora and Adams County. Now, the reason I'm turning your world around 180 degrees in this image is to provide some land use context. So north is down, south is up, and you see the emergence and the development of industrial development in Aurora. And then you see the predominantly single family residential development in Denver. 38th Avenue is planned in both the city of Denver and Aurora transportation master plans. Uh, in case Denver moves or the the Denver plan to extend further east to Picadilly. So somebody that arterial street will continue and so the property is four acres and the owners requesting mixed use mixed use district that would allow for zoning that would allow for residential tenures on the site. The current zoning for just in context is B2 or Neighborhood Business District. This district provides for goods and services intended for surrounding neighborhoods, and it also allows for residential development, including single family and multifamily. However, in this case, there are waivers that restrict both drive thru services for commercial as well as multi-family residential. But still allows for single family residential. And then there is a condition for a 30 foot landscaping buffer along 38th Avenue. You know, the surrounding zoning is are to with various waivers conditions as well as an R to A and what's particular interest is the ah to a and one of the other ah to with waiver sites is actually zoning that would allow for multifamily. However it was built out as single family. The requested zone district is s or suburban mixed use three story and this is a zone district appropriate along corridors for larger sites and a major intersections. It's intended to provide for pedestrian skill development of 1 to 3 stories and to positively contribute to established residential neighborhoods intended to improve the transition between commercial and adjacent residential development and allows for flexibility of mixed use development in the suburban context. Existing land use is predominantly single family residential to the north, east and west of the site. But you saw in the earlier image that south in Aurora and Adams County you see developing industrial development. And that is seen here in the lowest image. And in the center, you see the site, the vacant property and the surrounding single family residential that backs primarily back to the the streets. The rezoning process has included public outreach by CPD and the applicant to the R.A. is listed here and all of the written and posted notice requirements have been met leading up to the council hearing this evening. The applicant has conducted several outreach meetings and attempted to engage as many residents as would participate in reviewing the proposed development and rezoning proposal. And this has resulted in three letters of support. These letters expressed support for the proposed residential townhomes and that some also some opposition has been generated to group emails, one in April, one in July expressing concern about increased density and possible traffic increases, a concern of negative impact on property values and parking. And some prefer the current B2 zoning hoping for neighborhood services and also citing the landscape of open space along 38th as a desired element. At the planning board hearing on July six, there was a comment of support. A resident that lives adjacent to the site suggested that residential townhomes were preferred over commercial development, that this would likely be a less intensive development than commercial uses. And then two opposing comments suggested that single family homes are preferred or neighborhood serving commercial or other types of services. Let's go on to the review criteria and the consistency with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning is consistent with infill development strategies recommended in comp plan 2000 as detailed in the staff report. The Gateway Concept Plan in 1990, which was also amended in 1993. Provides a recommended land use of office research, but doesn't provide any particular detail or further description. But it is somewhat of a obviously a commercial type of land use that was originally envisioned there. And then the Montebello Green Valley Ranch Neighborhood Plan from 1991 does not provide a future land use designation, but shows a map of the existing neighborhood zoning. And at the time it was before a general business district. And then some of the surrounding zoning, you see the are two which would allow for single family as well as multi-unit dwellings at 14 and a half to use per acre and then also an R two way allowing between 22 and 29 to use per acre. But that that was the vision at the time expressed through the current zoning at the time. Blueprint Denver concept land use a single family residential, which is defined as being the predominant development type, but still allowing for a variety of housing types as well as complementary land uses such as stores, parks and schools with a significantly smaller employment base than the population base. It's also an area of stability which is intended to maintain area character while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. The street classifications in Blueprint Denver include a residential collector classification for 40th Avenue. And for Himalaya Road north of 40th Avenue, it's shown as a residential arterial intended to provide more intra neighborhood and regional connections to employment and commercial centers. And then Blueprint Denver is somewhat silent on the classification south of 40th and along 38th Avenue, showing them as on designated. However, the Public Works Department has a street classification of arterial that I've outlined here in the darker color the bottom line and these are intended to connect neighborhood to commercial centers and other major transportation facilities. Here's an image of 38th Avenue looking west from 38th and Himalaya. And here we are at 30th and Himalaya looking north. And you see these are three or four lanes and accommodate a fair amount of trips, trip capacity. Here's 40th Avenue and we've received some questions throughout the the application process why this was classified or might be considered by Blueprint Denver To be a collector street and a residential collector street, it measures about 43 feet in width and then does widen to accommodate turning movements at Himalaya Road and back to this vicinity. Graphic Showing the land use context. The St 40th is highlighting. You note that it's quite continuous and I think that's what the. From whence it to rise the. The collector designation is that it's provides. Connection and continuous travel through the neighborhood where other local streets connect to it or run for much shorter segments. So CBC finds that the proposed Zone District has some x three is consistent with the adopted neighborhood plans. The second criteria would be met is CMC's three would result in uniform application of the district building form, use and design regulations and third criteria would be met as. The zone to further public health, safety and welfare by implementing recommendations from the adopted plans, the justifying circumstances, a change or changing condition of the property and its surroundings. Specifically single family residents of development around the site between 1999 2002 has taken place. And yet the site that was intended for commercial development for single family homes has remained vacant. And really there hasn't been sufficient population base to support some of the anticipated commercial services at the location. And meanwhile, we have new emerging commercial industrial uses developing south of 38th Avenue in Aurora. The proposed x three zone district is consistent with the suburban neighborhood context and provides the purpose and intent of providing pedestrian scale development of 1 to 3 stories to positively contribute to established residential neighborhoods and to improve the transition between commercial and adjacent residential. CPD's finding is that all review criteria have been met. Our recommendation is approval and planning board recommendation is approval with the 822 vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tim. We have one speaker tonight and that is the results. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 11: Hi there. I'm Lila Rose. Alice Terracing, a design in Denver, and I'm just here to answer questions as the applicant.
Speaker 1: Perfect. That concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Okay. Oh, here we go. Not, of course. Uh oh. Okay. Here we go. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Uh, Tim, there's a letter from this week for last week talking about. A prior attempt to use use the site for storage. My understanding, just looking at the code here that the storage would be a permitted use and the smx3. Is that correct? Indoor storage? Yes. And let me read through this and I might have further questions.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Lila, I have a couple of questions. The first question is, could you talk a little bit about the outreach that you conducted with the surrounding neighbors and what were some of their concerns and some of the things that you did to adjust or accommodate some of their concerns?
Speaker 11: Absolutely. I'd be happy to. We actually had three different neighborhood meetings that we held over January through April and to discuss the proposal of the multifamily. And the reason we actually ended up with letters of support from the two neighbors that are directly adjacent to our site and most impacted. Some of the concerns that came from other neighbors were multi multifold. I'll say a few of the neighbors wanted commercial on the site. That's what it's zoned for now. And so they were thinking that they would be able to get some neighborhood services or something at the site. The owner of the properties owned it for 18 years, I believe something along those lines. Unfortunately, no no ability to bring in a commercial user into the site. It's if you look at the region, it is it's just very remote. Yes, there's a lot of houses around it, but there's also a lot of other commercial centers that are much more appropriate for commercial uses. And it's just a very isolated four acre parcel that we just couldn't find another user for. So the Townhomes was a great use for this particular piece of property being that is a small four acre site. So there were some concerns around that. There were some concerns around traffic. And again, with the property being zoned commercial today, we really feel like the existing zoning would generate a lot more traffic than the townhomes or the multifamily proposal that we have in front of you today. So that was another concern. I'm trying to think. I think those are the two big ones that kind of came out from the conversations. And like I did mention, I spent a lot of time talking to a lot of the folks and a lot of the letters of opposition came in, you know, February, March timeframe. And since then, we've spent a lot of time kind of working through some some issues with them. And that's why they're not here tonight. I think I think we've kind of made everybody happy.
Speaker 8: So one one additional question. Yeah, there was there was some conversation about, I guess, the fence or sharing a fence or something. Could you talk a little bit about what the resolution was to that issue that was brought up?
Speaker 11: I'd be happy to. We've got two neighbors that are directly adjacent to our site, so we share our fence. And those are the two neighbors that showed letters of support or who came to the planning board. But what we said we would do for them as we would, we were going to go in and we're going to rebuild the portion of the fence that we share. And, you know, it's an older fence. It was built in 2003, maybe. So it's kind of starting to fall down a little bit. And so we're going to go in and rebuild that. And then also that will be maintained by the town townhomes or that development. So they won't be responsible for maintaining it either. So we're going to work with them on what kind of fence they want and kind of get that particular form.
Speaker 8: Okay. One final question. And so you kind of led into that. So the townhomes that will be built there. Could you tell a little bit about how many bedrooms there's going to be? Is there going to be some sort of HRA or covenant or kind of how will the management look like of these townhomes?
Speaker 11: Absolutely. We are proposing a 48 townhomes on the site. They will be loaded front, loaded onto the surrounding perimeter streets. They are two and three bedroom. I believe.
Speaker 7: The square footage is between 1013 hundred.
Speaker 11: Range on those. And they will be there will be some sort of archway or covenants or I'm guessing it's an away because there is a metro district out there. So I'm thinking that'll be nature way. That will do the exterior maintenance as well as the landscaping and snow removal and all those types of things that are required for a townhome project.
Speaker 8: Okay, great. Thank you. Sure.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa, your backup.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So. Sounds like you. You gave the community some assurances. What formed those take? So that they're sort of enforceable and that, you know, that compel you to follow through on those commitments.
Speaker 11: On the fence as an.
Speaker 10: Example. Yes.
Speaker 11: Yes. Good faith. We're good. Good neighbor that's been developing out in Green Valley Ranch for 20 years. So good faith and our promise to get that done. And we told you in front of everybody.
Speaker 3: I know about the fence. You made it sound like there was more there were more agreements than just the fence, though. I mean, there's eight houses impacted directly across the street of 40th. Did you make any commitments to those residents as well?
Speaker 11: I did agree to do two story units.
Speaker 7: On those particular.
Speaker 11: Plants and the plans that are actually going to be submitted to a CPD tomorrow after hopefully, assuming we get approval, do demonstrate that we've got two story architectural elevations on those.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 11: And again, I'm posing in front of all of you. No.
Speaker 3: No. You know. Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Any other questions? Seeing none. Public hearing for Council Bill 508 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. So clearly we have a housing shortage in Denver. And to look at this area, this corner that I have driven by numerous times, and it's sort of a troublesome corner, just the way that the traffic flows goes. You know, it's the property's been zoned B to B two since the early 2000s. If we have not been able to attract commercial development on this site in our current economic, you know, status of the city, with this boom, we're not going to ever get it. And so really looking at the small side, I would be more concerned if there was a rezoning in front of us today to do some sort of commercial 7-Eleven, that there would be lights on 24 seven, there would be activity, right, in a single family residential neighborhood. And this will not be the case. This is housing that is so needed in our city and at the planning board. It was specified that the site was really supposed to be a buffer, a buffer site between the housing and the industrial that was across the street. And so to have a little bit higher density, when you look at 48 units of townhomes on four acres, it comes out to 12 dwelling units per acre. And it's well within the recommended blueprint Denver recommendations, which are 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre area wide. And a lot of residents have brought up the concerns of traffic at 30th and Himalaya. Actually, I was able to drive some folks from public works around the area and they did agree that there needs to be better traffic calming measures at this intersection. And actually, the conversation evolved that when there is a little bit higher density with these 48 units of townhomes, that would actually help get more infrastructure at that corner because there would be more of a push because of the little bit higher density on this corner. And so definitely I'll be keeping public works apprized of this project and, and see what we can do knowing that the 48 units, the residents are not all going to leave nor come back to the community at the same time. So, you know, these these 48 units, that's assuming that every single one has a car. And the last piece I just can't reiterated enough, we have families who are looking to rent products. And, you know, in downtown we have micro units and they pose their own set of unique issues and challenges. But to my colleague, Councilwoman Ortega's comments that we need 2 to 3 bedroom units for our families and for families to have an entry level product to come into the Green Valley Ranch neighborhood. It's a beautiful area, a vibrant community, and we need to provide housing stock. That's a great entry level unit for our families. And maybe they will be able to become single family homeowners at some point in time. But this is a great entry level for them. So I will be supporting this rezoning tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: And thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: I just am, you know, the same forces that are probably going to make this make you guys show up tomorrow with your concept. Ready to go are the sort of same forces that took modest developments and made them pretty egregious in my neighborhood. So I just caution people that are watching that when you get into these agreements with developers, get them in writing, you know, because, you know, I believe that you're going to follow through on all these things. But markets change, economies change, and things projects then evolve. And so just as a general caution to to constituents get these things in writing.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Okay. Let's see what we have here. Any more comments from members of council seeing? None. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Gilmore, I. Herndon. I can. I can eat. Lopez New Ortega. Sussman Black. Clark. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I close voter USA Results.
Speaker 11: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 508 Passes. Congratulations. Before I make the closing announcements, I want to make one announcement about a person here on city council is going to have a birthday tomorrow. So happy early birthday, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Pre German Announcement on Monday, September 26, 2016. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 549. Change the zoning classification for 3030 201 Walnut Street. Require a public hearing on Council Bill 551 changes on a classification of 4402 Umatilla Street and require a public hearing on Council Bill five nine to change the zoning
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3801 Himalaya Road.
Rezones property at 3801 Himalaya Road from B-2 with waivers and conditions to S-MX-3x (suburban, mixed use, 3 stories, less intense use) in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-20-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08222016_16-0498
|
Speaker 0: It has moved in second to the public hearing for council bill 498 is open. May we have the staff report? And that's going to come from our very own councilman, Casimir.
Speaker 5: All right. Well, thank you, Mr. President. The parking exemption for small developments officially known as the small zone, light vehicle parking exemption for parcels of 6250 square feet or less was was initiated in the Main Street Zone districts, primarily Mass one in 2006. The goal was to promote re-use of existing buildings and to stimulate small scale development on these smaller parcels that had access and parking challenges rather than encourage assemblages of multiple lots for large scale development. When the new zoning code was passed in 2010, the small parking exemption was extended to all mixed use zone districts, hoping again to stimulate small scale commercial or residential developments. In nine years, we've had one building built using that exemption. It's a three storey project comprised of ground floor commercial with nine dwelling units. There are currently ten projects in the pipeline in various stages of review. There are about 5300 small parcels in mixed use districts across the city. Some are already combined and have buildings on them. Several hundred are city or state owned. Denver's affordable housing crisis has changed the residential landscape. A new element has come into the inventory called micro housing. As a result, the small parking exemption now, as now written, leaves the door open for a development on small parcels that far exceeds the original intent to head off further damage to the community council president Brooks. At the prompting of a dedicated group of concerned neighbors, has proposed a seven month moratorium to give time to craft a more protective ordinance. During his absence from council, I was pleased to help move this through the process. If the moratorium passes, it is our intention to form a broad based stakeholders group to excuse me to exist in the work of crafting that more protective ordinance. I would like to pay tribute for a whole lot of advance work done by former District ten Councilwoman Jeannie Robb, who worked with a similar group of stakeholders and came up with a proposal that may or may not be the final outcome of a new group, but will definitely help get things rolling in the right direction. The councilwoman simply ran out of time before she was term limited out of office. So with that, Mr. President, let's hear from our speakers.
Speaker 0: Yeah, excellent job. And I'll just add to Councilman Cashman and just thank him. I was out for a month and Councilman Cashman picked up the ball on this important issue. So thank you so much. And now we're excited to hear from you, all the public. So we have 11 speakers for council. Well, for 98, I'm going to call the first five speakers and I'm actually going to use this area for the speakers to sit. They may be able to squeeze on there, but if they can't, if you can find out, see, that'd be great. All right. We'll call Bob Hickman. Margie Valdez, Doug. Greg Craig. Vander Lynn. And David Engel can come on up. And Bob Hickman, you're up first and you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 5: Thank you. My name is Bob Hickman. I live at 1091 South Gilman Street in Denver. Good evening, council members. And good evening, Council President Brooks. It's very nice to see you. You. Allow me to read from our current zoning ordinance. Not to be too repetitious here, but section ten .4.5.1 A which deals with preexisting small zone lots. It says in all mixed use, commercial zone districts, buildings on zone lots which are equal to or smaller than 6250 square feet. An area on June 25th, 2010, shall be exempt from providing parking otherwise required by this division.
Speaker 0: One sentence.
Speaker 5: How could one sentence in the ordinance be of such concern? How could one sentence, with the simple goal of encouraging development of small lots while limiting negative impacts, become such a big deal? What has brought this moratorium to your attention tonight? It came to our attention when we became aware of four projects being developed, or two, depending on your point of view. 1570 and 1578 Humboldt two side by side, 50 foot wide zone lots across the street from the Humboldt Street Landmark District. 54 units in each building, a total of 108 with the restaurant five stories over 60 feet in height, and are a projection of 60% of the tenants owning an automobile. Zero parking spaces provided. 31st in stout two zone lots separated by an alley, three and a half stories 54 total units zero parking spaces provided. Located in a landmark district, neither neighborhood can absorb this kind of added on street parking demand. The street parking potato sack is full. There is no more room for more potatoes. And there are similar development efforts underway in Cherry Creek in South Pearl. We discovered there are over 4200 parcels in Denver of this size, and although the exact number of zone lots has not been identified, the vast majority are eligible for this parking exemption and are found in nearly all council districts creating a citywide problem. When the Humble Street Neighborhood Association and Curtis Park neighborhood neighbors directly impacted by this exemption realized the scale of the problem and the potential for excessive development of these lots. We undertook efforts for the moratorium being considered. Tonight, our group met with Council nine, Councilmember Albert Brooks. He listened and took action sponsoring this moratorium bill. Thank you all for your understanding of the impact of these kind of projects in your district. Councilman Cashman, thank you for assisting in Albert's absence. I always enjoy communicating with you. And ditto for this time. And I know Albert is grateful for what you did. Now we are likely to hear opinion this evening about how affordable housing may benefit from this prison exemption. You are likely to hear opinion about how this parking exemption furthers the cause to take Denver to a city with less and less car ownership . However, this moratorium is not about either of these very important issues Denver is facing. To me, these discussions are more suited to Denver's blueprint to efforts, and that is where a long term vision and solution can be created. The problem of affordable housing and getting people to use car cars less will certainly not be solved by continuing this exemption, nor will they not be solved by passing this moratorium bill. This moratorium is simply a brief time out, time to allow a diverse citizen and professional group to explore with community planning and development, text amendment language preventing what community planning and development has described as the unintended consequences and excessive development resulting from the present parking exemption. I strongly urge you to pass this moratorium bill so the task force can be established and get on with its work. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Hickman. Margie Valdez.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Council President Brooks, I'm very glad to see you back. My name is Margie Valdez. I live at 2000 East 12th Avenue, Denver, Colorado, and I'm here in support of the moratorium. I am the chair of the Agency Zoning and Planning Committee, and the IMC, Zoning and Planning Planning Committee urges the Denver Community Planning and Development Department and the City Council to support a moratorium on applying Section ten .4.5.1 per in a the Denver Zoning Code to the issuance of zoning building permits for development of apartments on small lots 60 to 50 square feet or less unless adequate parking is provided. Such developments can put extreme parking pressures on surrounding neighbors and businesses. This is a motion that was passed by both the Sapp committee. The Zoning and Planning Committee went to our delegates and it was enthusiastically supported by the ANC delegates. I'm very proud to be presenting the motion tonight and thank both President Bush, Brooks and Councilman Cashman for their support in furthering this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Valdez. Doug Gregg.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Wish Council President a best to health. I just want to make three quick statements.
Speaker 0: Introduce yourself. First.
Speaker 10: Oh, Doug. Greg, Greg. I live at 1901, East 13th Avenue, apartment one H at the corner of 13th and High. Thank you. I'm proud. 40 year old resident of Capitol Hill. South Capitol Hill. And that's very point. We already are so overwhelmed with cars. We should be sitting here tonight talking about building parking spots. To take care of the crisis and to build a building with no parking spots is pure insanity. This is a theoretical question, and I don't expect any of you up there to answer your raise your hands. But some of you have children and one of you and two of you might even have grandchildren. And the American dream is still to have a car. And you go ask your children or grandchild if they don't want to have a car. And they are going to say, sure, sure they do. We might have a few enlightened, educated people that dream of the future of a car society. We're not we're not going to see it in our lifetimes. So we have to plan accordingly. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen of Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Yeah. If I had.
Speaker 10: Any time left, I'll give it yield like they do in Congress to.
Speaker 5: One of these.
Speaker 10: Fine people.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 0: You can't do that. But I appreciate that thought. Craig Vandalia. Good evening. My name is Craig Vander and 1621 Humboldt Street. President Brooks, Councilman Cashman and the rest of the City Council. We thank you very much for taking up this moratorium Bill. And I speak in favor of it. Many of you probably watched the Olympics recently, and you know that in a lot of team sports, they're able to call a timeout at a very critical moment. You know, could be in the Super Bowl with 2 minutes left or in a volleyball match. I think it's very prudent and strategically wise on the part of the city council to take this moratorium bill, to take a time out and study this really important issue that has a significant impact on the entire city. So we applaud your efforts on this matter and appreciate your consideration of the moratorium. Thank you again. Thank you. Davydenko can. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, and thanks to all of you again. We've gone through this drill maybe four times in the last, whatever, 13 years of our.
Speaker 10: Neighborhood association and always are grateful to live in a city where we have a city council that's so accessible and so open to really hear the full and objective.
Speaker 0: Story of what we're experiencing.
Speaker 10: At the neighborhood level. My job.
Speaker 0: Here is to just give you a.
Speaker 3: Super quick review of the progress.
Speaker 0: We made in the course of not only meeting with each of you, but also meeting and winning support from a number.
Speaker 10: Of neighborhood organizations citywide.
Speaker 0: Curtis Park neighbors helped initiate the moratorium.
Speaker 10: On.
Speaker 0: The 2nd of May. They voted 10 to 1 to endorse the moratorium bill Humboldt Street Neighborhood Association working with them. By April 29th, we had had a vote of our executive committee and unanimously in support. Uptown Urban Design Forum. Dr. Branigan's.
Speaker 3: Outfit had a vote that was unanimous.
Speaker 0: In support, and they.
Speaker 10: Represented.
Speaker 0: At that meeting six neighborhood organizations in the hospital zone area, particularly surrounding it.
Speaker 10: And also the reps of the four largest institutions in the hospital zone.
Speaker 0: Kaiser St Joseph's, Presbyterian, St Luke's and Children's.
Speaker 3: Important was Al.
Speaker 0: Davis. The representative from Saint Joseph's noted how important the renewal of the 17th Avenue business strip has become to the hospitals. It's seen as an amenity for their patients, families and friends and clients coming in there, and it's already overloaded. Parking is already difficult to find and it's our blocks. We're in the next block south, not our block. Franklin Street, Lafayette is to come and Gilpin and East are already serving as the overflow for those areas. So there's simply no room for around the clock. Addition of dozens.
Speaker 10: Of new cars.
Speaker 0: The Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association at their main meeting voted the board voted unanimously in support of the moratorium. We'd like to thank Councilman Brooks, who helped us.
Speaker 3: Initiate the vote at the Inter Neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Cooperation that Ms.. Valdes just told you about. Capitol Hill. United Neighborhoods voted 9 to 5 at their June 1st meeting and support West Washington Park Neighborhood Association on their own brought this to their board without us even asking them and got a 13 to 0 support for the moratorium bill.
Speaker 10: As of.
Speaker 3: June 22nd, 11.
Speaker 0: Of the 13 of you indicated you would support.
Speaker 10: A well drafted.
Speaker 3: Moratorium ordinance from.
Speaker 0: Our individual meetings with you. Thank you so much for taking the time and the consideration for those. And we have we've gathered.
Speaker 3: Over.
Speaker 0: 225.
Speaker 3: Neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Signatures on a petition in support.
Speaker 10: Of the moratorium bill.
Speaker 3: Particularly the particular thanks goes to Mick Barnhart.
Speaker 0: Of Curtis Park. Neighbors to organize a beautiful groundswell of.
Speaker 10: Support that way.
Speaker 0: We have three houses in the immediate Humboldt Street area, Mr. York and the Denver.
Speaker 10: Post, July 26th.
Speaker 0: A lot of support there. All right. All right. I'm going to call the last four speakers up Kim Heights, Hillary Waters, Frank lack entry. And John Barajas, just this front row here, if you all could come up, Kim Heights will be first. John, if I. If I said your last name wrong, I apologize. Go ahead, Kim.
Speaker 2: Kim nighters and I'm at 1013 East 26th Avenue and I want to say thank you to you for supporting this and.
Speaker 7: Sponsoring the bill and also to Cashman for definitely, you know, being.
Speaker 2: Your right hand person on this and making it happen. So I want to also say thank you to all the council members. I had an opportunity to speak to the majority of you and received really positive feedback with regards to the moratorium. I also went out and spoke to a bunch of.
Speaker 7: The RINO's and also.
Speaker 2: Within the neighborhood. The are.
Speaker 7: As Dave said with regards to the RINO's was.
Speaker 2: A very positive feedback.
Speaker 7: And overwhelming support with regards to that. And then also with regards to our petition, we had many signatures with regards to people in the neighborhood supporting this right here. So anyways, Curtis Park has two properties that are less.
Speaker 2: Than 60 to 50 divided by.
Speaker 7: An alley, 54 units requesting no parking and a.
Speaker 2: Middle of a residential neighborhood that already has. It's a neighborhood that's over a hundred years old.
Speaker 7: Nobody has any.
Speaker 6: Garages.
Speaker 2: To park their cars.
Speaker 7: So it's definitely.
Speaker 2: An opportunity for the city to change the zoning.
Speaker 7: Code and to build right and to build smart when new construction is being proposed.
Speaker 2: Again, I hope you will support the moratorium.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Hillary Waters.
Speaker 4: As I said, I'm Hilary Waters and I live at 1630 Humboldt Street and I'm in support of the moratorium. And thank you for your support.
Speaker 7: Councilman Brooks and Councilman Cashman, fellow publisher. If as co-publisher of Life on Capitol Hill and Neighborhood Life for 21 years I observed in our papers covered.
Speaker 4: A lot of the changes, the ebb and flow of development that came into the neighborhoods of central Denver. What is currently happening, I believe, is a perfect storm that most of the general public and many in government failed to see coming. The adoption of a form based zoning code.
Speaker 7: The surge of popularity.
Speaker 4: Of Denver as the place to live. The trend of worshiping at the altar of density and the trend of micro-housing. All four of these items.
Speaker 7: The result.
Speaker 4: I believe, is neighborhoods that can instantly double in population density, neighbors that have no influence on what is constructed in their.
Speaker 7: Midst and the decrease of the quality of life. Developers are smart.
Speaker 4: They are exploiting the unintended consequence of small art development with the use of micro-housing and the city's worship of density. This trend will kill the goose that laid the golden egg, which is the charm and beauty of Denver neighborhoods. Housing that is close, but not too close. Tree lawns. Tree canopies. A variety of architectural styles. Buildings that are in proportion with landscaping setbacks. Pleasing relationships to their neighboring buildings. What are we getting today? I believe is massive high density development in a monotonous.
Speaker 7: Prison like architectural style.
Speaker 4: Driven by developers exploiting every possible inch of their.
Speaker 7: Property, whether a row of townhomes, full city block.
Speaker 4: Apartments or migrant unit cram and jam projects. The designs are efficient. Boring, repetitive and ugly. It maximizes profit, minimizes expense, and is devoid of elegance and charm and style. I'm not anti-development, though. I really am not. But I am anti.
Speaker 7: Poor quality.
Speaker 4: Development and I believe this is the legacy of what's happening. In the current development trends. We are a city of Fisher and.
Speaker 0: Fisher and William.
Speaker 4: Lang and the bishops and many other talented.
Speaker 7: Architects of the last century.
Speaker 4: They produced elegant apartment buildings. Grand homes, small, charming bungalows, medium sized apartment buildings from the twenties and the thirties and forties. A city at that time encourage the building of something worthy, substantial, elegant and in proportion. And now I feel the city encourages development. Period. The build, build, build, get as much in as can cram as possible. If it fits the form, it gets approved, even if it overwhelms its neighbors and hurts the eyes. Looking for more visionary development encouragement. Thank you, gentlemen.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Waters. Please. Please call your pa so we can get through the last two. Frank like to.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Good to see you. My name is Frank Logan. Tory. I am a resident of City Park West. I live at the corner of 16th Avenue and Gaylord. And I'll. I'll make a left turn here, and I'm opposing this idea. How to say this is that, for example, I live in City Park. I chose to live in City Park West because of exactly the things that McWhorter said. Couldn't have said it better. It's a beautiful area. It Denver is beautiful. I am so lucky to live in Denver. I'm so lucky to live in City Park West in these neighborhoods. I would like it if other people were as lucky as I was as I am to be able to live in this neighborhood because I can walk to pretty much everything that I want or need except for perhaps the mountains. And so I can access things because of the way that the community was developed. Now. The community was developed quite a long time ago. I live in a house that was built over 100 years ago. And if if I want more people to be as lucky as I am, there needs to be more housing. The crisis that I feel that we're facing isn't one of parking. The crisis that I feel that we're facing is one of a lack of housing. We we've the council has talked about that a long time. Neighborhood associations have been talking about that for a long time. We need more affordable housing. And one of the ways that we can have affordable housing is by building more units. And while I do sympathize with the ugliness of some development projects, I also feel that that's also in the eye. One, it's in the eye of the beholder. And too, it's a luxury that I don't know we can afford right now. We need if if the stats are correct. In an article that I read today, 20 people are moving into Denver every day. So multiply that by 30 days in a month. That's 600 people that are moving into the city. Are we building 600 housing units in Denver each month? If we're not, then the prices continue to go up. And it makes it more difficult for people to live in the awesome neighborhood that I live in right now. And if we're making it more difficult for people to live in the neighborhood that I live in right now, that means they're going to be living further from the city core. They're going to be driving. They're going to need cars. They don't need cars. They can be car light and live in the city, work in the hospital district. You know, without the cars we get what we build for. If we build parking spaces, we get cars and we force people to be able to drive places or force them to purchase cars that they don't want, don't need or they can't afford. So I want you to sit when you're asking the question about do we have adequate parking? I want you to ask me to do we have adequate housing?
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we we got a better spelling on your name now. Is it Joann? Burritos. Plus. Okay.
Speaker 7: I'll help you with that. Okay. Hi. Good evening, City Council. And good evening, fellow residents. My name is John Barrios. I didn't expect you to know that, but it's okay. You can call me Joe. That's fine.
Speaker 0: Sorry about that.
Speaker 7: No, no, no. No worries. So I'm a parker. I live in a two car household. I also live in Uptown on 19th and Logan and I work in Centennial and my partner works in Idaho Springs. So we don't really have a choice. We need our cards really badly. So you would think that I'm here to support the moratorium, but I'm not because. We have to make a tough choice in my household, similar to the choice that you guys have to make. Right. You're trying to represent the interests of everyone. And I'll tell you a little bit about what's going on in my house. We work really far away, but we're also expecting our first baby. And so seven months doesn't seem like a long time. But in six months, two big things are happening in our house. We're having a baby and our lease is up. And we really love our town. We were both elected members of the board. We've gotten really familiar with our neighbors. We love it there and we want to raise our baby there. But in six months, when our leases up, we're going to be priced out of a unit that we moved into two years ago. So now we have to choose. Do we support parking or we do we support the ability to live in our neighborhood in six months. And I can tell you that choice is really clear for us. I am unfortunately having one of those pregnancies where I'm like nauseous all day long. And when I come home from work at like 6 p.m. and I have to drive around the block four times just to get a spot. I hate the world. It makes me crazy. It drives me nuts. I hate it. But I need a place to live in six months. And I love my neighborhood. So seven months. Oh, it's no big deal. It's just a short time out and parking. Yes, we have a parking problem. Yes, we have a parking problem. But we have a housing problem. So think of the families that live in these neighborhoods. Think of, you know, my partner's wildland firefighter. I'm a civil servant. We don't have a lot of flexible income. The baby's going to eat up all of that extra housing income we were counting on when the lease was up. So just a different perspective. We hope we get to stay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And thank you to all our speakers. This concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Seeing no questions. I'm actually going to ask a question of Kyle Dalton. He's with community planning and development. Kyle, do you do you have the pending? 6250. Square lot. Parking exemption list. I do, yes. Great. I just wanted to I wanted you to just make sure you read that, because obviously in this bill, the pending applications who have gone through concept review are permitted to go through. But I just wanted you to read those in their locations. Sure. To the record. For the record, I'm Kyle Dalton, principal city planner at the Department of Community Planning and Development. So our records show, to the best of our knowledge, we have 11 projects that would meet the test in the bill as drafted in terms of having submitted a complete application for concept review. They are the two that have been mentioned a couple of times here at 16th and Humboldt. There are two located at 3148 Stout and 3121 Downing. Sure there's one at 1411 South Pearl, one at 1193, South Pennsylvania, there's one at 38, 15 Jason Street, there's one at 135. Adams Street, 2420 Welton Street. 3022 Zuni Street. And 660 Logan Street. Thank you. Councilwoman each.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And this question may be for you or for the staff, but can you we just I think it's always helpful to clarify expectations. So there's going to be a process. You're going to have diverse opinions. Is it your expectation that this group will work on consensus model to make recommendation or that they will debate things and may or may not all agree, but they will make their best, you know, input to you and to the city staff as and that the decision making will kind of lie after or outside the process. I just thought it'd be good to clarify, you know, whether and what the expectations are, because I think that this is an important time out. But I wanted to get a sense of, you know, what the input level is.
Speaker 0: So Kyle, I think from a process perspective, I think you should talk about it. But, but I want to mention this as far as the people who are going to the stakeholders who are going to be on their council, Councilman Cashman and myself will be looking at a diverse set of stakeholders from folks who are in the community, folks who are actually affected by this. We're going to be looking at architects. We're going to be looking at actual developers. We're gonna look at an affordable housing expert. We're going to be looking at a TOD manager. We're going to look at a lot of different experts at the table along with these community representatives. And then we're going to I think you said it best. We will look at a consensus model. But the way that CPD has outlined this process, I think we're going to start to form some contextual agreements around some of these different zone districts and what this kind of looks like. But Kyle wanted you to speak because you've you have run many of these and have suggested some an area for us to go in on this. So go ahead. Sure. Thanks. Given that so much work was done by Councilwoman Mara before she departed off the office last year, we have a lot of background work that's already been done in terms of looking at other cities, acquiring the data here in Denver, understanding the history. And Councilman Cashman did a good job of explaining a lot of what happened so we can hit the ground running. As soon as if this bill were to pass and sign into law, we could start right away with the sponsors to form that stakeholder committee and work over the next couple of months or so to hopefully, you know, help those folks get to consensus about a recommended change to the code, which we would then propose be included within the bundle, the text amendments that the department does about once a year, cleaning up and clarifying the code so that we might bring it through with you on that same adoption process and and get it done in the time afforded by the moratorium. Yeah, but I think that's a good expectation because I have heard from some folks saying, you know, will there be 20, 30 folks on the committee? And we probably wouldn't get a lot done with that many folks. And so we're looking at about 12 to 15 would a significant amount of folks from the community and making sure we have those experts as well who are coming in and more of a neutral position saying, hey, here is here's the expertize from the field. And so I think that's important for folks to realize. Thank you. I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: Real quick follow up, Mr. President. What happens if the group does not reach consensus? What's the what's the.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, a council can meet in these questions. I'd tell you. I believe we will reach consensus. I think I'm in three or four of these issues right now currently and very tough issues that have reached consensus. But if we don't, we will have to come back here and extend the moratorium. Yeah. Councilman Espinosa. Mr.. Looking like a question for you. Right, Frank. So for the last six years, this exemption has been in place and in the area of your bid. It's been in place even longer. Why do you why do you think it hasn't solved the housing problem during this building boom? And shouldn't it be reconsidered to possibly better address the needs that you just identified?
Speaker 3: Can you repeat? I'm afraid that you're asking a question that's way out of my pay grade. But can you repeat it again?
Speaker 0: Right. So this this this exemption actually started on Colfax in the Main Street Zone District. So it's been in place even longer for your area that you represent is a bit longer than it's been citywide in the unintended consequences really extend citywide. But so during this extreme building boom that we've had over the last five years, we still have a dearth of affordable housing. So your statements were that this is somehow going to solve that problem when it hasn't over the last five years.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 0: So what do you think? Why do you think that? And don't you think we should actually spend the time to try and figure out how we might address the needs on these small lots with some with moratorium and some reconsideration?
Speaker 3: Thank you. Yeah. First of all, clarify that, you know, I am speaking on behalf of me as a person and not as the Business Improvement District on Colfax. Second, I don't think that there is a real simple solution to the affordable housing issue. Otherwise it would have been solved. And you know, you all are going through that. And, you know, there's impact fees and those property fees that, you know, may be assessed to folks. And I think that's a piece of it. The perspective that I was bringing to it was more that just kind of like the simple supply and demand. And again, I don't mean that this isn't that this is the solution, but when and and I also don't mean to infer that the the one the development that's closest to me is at 16th and Humboldt, that's market rate. You know, there are some could say they're kind of expensive for the amount of square feet that you get, but it's adding 108 units into the supply. And so if parking is being required for that, then there's a cost to a parking spot. And that parking the cost of that parking spot is going to erase some level of housing, some some place where somebody can sleep. The more that the more that the number of parking spots are required, the more places that somebody can sleep are going to be diminished. So from for my perspective, the more that we are prioritizing parking over people, the more that we get into the situation where we have a shortage of housing and we should be doing what we can to increase housing supply within reason. Because if that was to go live at 16th and Humboldt, then that means that perhaps some of the old, you know, Victorian homes that have been converted into five units, five apartment units now that are commanding a thousand bucks a month that really aren't worth a thousand bucks a month. Maybe, though, the prices of those are going to go down by a couple of hundred bucks of months, and then that starts making it a little bit more affordable. So this is these are all the moving parts where I don't think that there is a silver bullet, clearly.
Speaker 0: Okay. Just out of curiosity, I in one of my ongoing frustrations is in areas of 2D. And this is relative to what you're just seeing. We have considerably massive zone districts, but there's no development requirement that you build the number of units to address the housing need can actually underbid. Do you feel that we should actually have a minimum requirement in certain residential zoned districts around at0d or mixed use? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. The first one is for those of you on council who have these units being proposed within your district. Is there an average square footage size for the micro units that are part of the applications that are moving through the process?
Speaker 0: You know, I don't have. Maybe one of the community advocates has the actual size for the d d line.
Speaker 4: Whoever has that information, I we can.
Speaker 0: We can.
Speaker 4: The need to put.
Speaker 0: Some sort of make up.
Speaker 5: Nick Barnhart, 3117 South Street, the ones that are proposed in Curtis Park, or approximately 320 square feet.
Speaker 4: And are they just one bedroom?
Speaker 5: I think they're more like studio studios.
Speaker 4: Obviously. Okay. So that sort of gets it kind of a concern that we're not talking about family housing. When we are talking about these micro units, it's barely enough for one person, let alone a family, to live there. My next question is to Kyle, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. Is KPD planning to handle this internally or is this something that is going to be contracted out where we will have a contract having to come before council for a different entity that will administer the process that was just talked about earlier to kind of move this forward.
Speaker 0: Sure. So so first of your previous question, I'll just note some of these projects don't even have a residential component or are five, six, seven units, so they're not all micro-housing projects, although some are. To your question to me, we will not be contracting this out. We'll be managing this together with like with the council sponsorship.
Speaker 4: So in some of these developments that were talked about earlier, whether it's the one on Humboldt or on Stout Street, you mentioned some of the addresses. So you're saying some of these will have commercial that will not have any parking requirements as well. So they're not all just residential, they're mixed use developments, correct?
Speaker 0: Some are only residential. Well, one is only commercial. It's an office building and the rest are mixed.
Speaker 4: Okay. So the fact that any of the buildings will have commercial uses, I think could further exacerbate some of the parking problems in the neighborhoods. Thank you for the questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, are there any more questions? Seeing none. Public hearing of Council Bill 498 is now close. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: I'll repeat that. Thank you, Mr. President. A very interesting discussion. You know, we're on we're on this cusp of a world with no parking. I think that cusp is a lot wider than some people do. You know, we were at the. A number of us were at the National League of Cities Conference in Nashville a couple of years ago. And there are folks they tend to be younger that they believe were were with driverless cars in widespread use in five years. And why do you need parking spaces? Because you don't need to own cars. I don't think we're there yet. I think we still need to make reasonable accommodation for automobiles. I think this moratorium is essential because this is a complex discussion and I don't want to encourage auto ownership, but I certainly don't want to encourage over 100 units on one block with no parking. That's what I'm trying to stop here. That's my personal view of things. You know, we can talk about reasonable, reasonable reductions and reasonable numbers to try to reach a middle ground. But to do nothing makes no sense to me. And can we get serious here? 320 square feet. For a residence now that's going on today and widespread use. But there's a lot of things that go on today that aren't going to be going on in five years. When when, when trends change and housing desires change and the economy changes. And I couldn't agree more with Councilwoman Ortega. And I know Brother Lopez talks about this all the time. We need housing for families in this city. There is a dire need not just for for many housing, but a dire need for two, three and four bedroom affordable units. And we need to solve that as well. So while we're talking about these this parking exemption, do we require since people there's no evidence that I've seen that people in Denver are giving up their cars ? I just haven't seen that. So do we. Somehow I don't even know if it's legal or possible. Require if you're going to take a parking exemption that you can only rent or sell to people who somehow prove they have no motor vehicles. I mean, there's got to be some sort of logic to what we're doing. I also want to commend my my good friend Hillary Waters for her comments on the architecture. As Hillary said, she published life on Capitol Hill for a couple of decades while publish the Washington Park paper. And Hillary has been a warrior for her community for a lot of years. And that that whole idea about what are we doing, what do we want Denver to look like? Do we really want it to look like these mini boxes that are going up? I just spent six days in Connecticut last week and I'm looking at architecture from the 1600s and 1700s. Now there's newer buildings and they don't look exactly like the older buildings, but they sure aren't building square boxes. They're making a real effort to establish character of their community. And I think we better get back to that real soon, or I think we're going to be making a whole lot of mistakes along the way. And I want to end my comments with a philosophical question that I keep answering, and I haven't heard a real discussion of it yet. And that is what do we want Denver to be do right now? Last I heard, we were at 700 or 682,000. We'll be at 700,000 people soon. We were like at 500,000, one decade, 500,000, another decade, 500,000, another decade. All of a sudden, we're at 682,000. So what's Denver's ultimate population? Is it 900,000 or is it 4 million? I mean, I know it takes a crystal ball, but I think that discussion is critical to discussions like we're having now, because if we decide it's 4 million, we better start mowing down our Victorians and build more of these boxes because we're not going to have enough room. But if we decide that character and architecture is important, and if we decide that there is limits to density, then I think it's a different discussion. And one last thing. I was involved in an Urban Land Institute process recently at the University of Denver, and it was around this new strategic plan. There was a gal from Indianapolis there, and I said to her, I said, Well, how's things going in Indianapolis? And she said, You know, as a very bright woman, she said, there's something very appealing about being a second tier city. You know, now that's a community discussion. Do we want to become. The zenith of all modern cities and cutting edge? Or is there a middle ground? Because if if we want to keep building, I hate to tell you, but there's counties all around us that have far more ground and they're going to build bigger than we are now. There are cities within an hour's drive. There's counties within an hour, an hour and a half that can start now with endless land, build a first rate, modern day transportation system to move their people around with subways and bridges and whatever else they decide they need. So we need to really understand or discuss as a city what it is we want to be. So that's getting a little bit off track, Mr. President. So I'll end there.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. Thank you for those off track comments. Councilman Cashman. We couldn't agree with the majority of them more. The. The the only clarification that I wanted to make was for my constituents in northwest Denver. When this bill first came, the draft ordinance came to my desk. It actually didn't include the lion's share of these parcels in northwest Denver because it was geared not towards the urban context, even though it was intended for all mixed use zoned districts. It did not mean not that urban. Yeah, the Yukon context. So I did make my comments to the groups that were supporting this in order to make sure that those parcels that are subject to this sort of overdevelopment in traditionally lower density neighborhoods did not get impacted and without sort of a better process. This is sort of a direct reflection of the fact that while this was originally drafted towards the Colfax corridor 32nd and Lowell, not the Colfax corridor, as much as some people may want it. So I just wanted to make it very clear to my constituents in District one that I did, in fact, do what I could to advocate that this get extended and meet the true intent that I believe was always part of the original drafting. And so I'm happy to support it because it does include the lion's share of these all these parcels in District one things. Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, sir. We've had this discussion quite a bit about the small apartments. And even in Cherry Creek, we had a really strong discussion with a developer about one of the applications to be approved tonight. That apartment went up from 320 to 375 square feet, a huge jump. So. So it's pretty small. And parking was an issue and there was a good discussion about a compromise that could actually help parking as well as help the developer. So I think it's very important that we take this time out. And also all the discussion we've had, whether it's in any type of residential, a commercial zoning or even this small light zoning, it's all about transit. Where is transit? We got to people don't need cars if we have a good transit system. And I hear from from public works is still going to be five or six years away before we have our first transit implementation. So. So we we got a lot of time and there's nothing wrong with taking a time out to study this and think further and actually have a better feel for our transportation system as that planning goes forward. So I'll support this moratorium and I recommend my colleagues support it also. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to speak in support of this moratorium as well. Several years ago, the National League of Cities hosted a meeting in Seattle, and we had some some folks who went. We also had a follow up meeting later with the Denver Partnership and several members of city council, some of whom are no longer on this body. They've been term limited, but we had an opportunity to go see some of the micro units in Seattle that were being built by more than one developer. And. What they said to us before we went to tour the sites was that the people who lived there didn't have cars. But we actually got a chance to meet the residents that lived in a couple of the developments that we saw. One building was a five story building, had, I think, 36 units. They were on single family residential blocks and they didn't have any parking, very similar to what we're dealing with here today. And we learned that they do have cars. They were challenged to find a place to park. The neighbors who lived on the block really didn't want them parking on their block. And so it created a problem. And their city council was supposed to be dealing with that very topic during the time that we were there. And I understand they delayed it and still haven't found the right solution to addressing that problem. But they're struggling with the same issues that have begun to come up here with some of the projects that are having a large number of units on single family residential blocks. We worked really hard on the Blueprint Denver plan that identified where the city wanted to see growth happen, and it was on the commercial corridors and at the TOD sites and we're seeing that happen all over the city. And in fact, this body has been involved in many rezonings that has encouraged development and, you know, approved the high density that will be going in at a number of transit stops across the city. So that's where it was designed in Blueprint Denver to direct that development. But what we're seeing happen is. Neighborhoods that have been traditional single family neighborhoods where Blueprint said protect the stable neighborhoods and target the growth to these other areas to the edges of neighborhoods. But we're seeing the internal fabric of many of our neighborhoods changing drastically. And, you know, you may have one or two developers that in some areas like. Around the Tennyson Street corridor, for example, where some blocks have been completely changed and replaced with duplexes that take up the entire lot. And the older, you know, some in some cases, historic buildings are gone. So in that neighborhood, I've been to a number of meetings of the Berkeley Neighborhood Association. The biggest topic that comes up over and over is the issue of parking. I've had many calls from the Curtis Park neighborhood about this same very topic way before we even proposed this moratorium. So this is an issue that I think is important for us to take this time out, figure out what are the right solutions so that we can be able to create that balance. Micro units are not the answer for family housing. We know that. And what we learned when we did the trip to Seattle was. Some of those units were 200 square feet. And they were renting them for $700 a month. Now, I've heard that some of the units that we're talking about here are in the ballpark of $1,000 a month. So, you know, are they are they truly affordable? It they're at a price point that's not available in our market today. Right. Because our prices of housing have gone up drastically. But, you know, I think they are one part of the solution of housing needs in this city. They're not the answer to all of our housing needs. And I think there is a place for them to go. But we also have to create that balance, because we know the people in Denver still drive their cars. Even with the build out of our transit system, many people still drive their cars. And so we have to create that balance. And I think having this timeout to allow us to do that is going to be an important measure that will allow us to find those right solutions. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to start by saying that I'm very supportive of this amendment, and I hope that we will move this forward tonight. And I want to thank my colleagues and the members of the public who worked to bring this forward and push on this these projects. What is being proposed to be built was never the intent of this ordinance. This is a loophole. This is a workaround in my mind, a way of cheating and finding a place to build something. That was not our intent. And many of us asserted that maybe this is a good thing for Denver and a way for us to deal with affordable housing and create more housing stock. Well, if this is good for Denver, then we should go in. Eyes wide open. We should go in intentionally saying we're going to carve out a parking moratorium for this. And that's not what we did. We didn't put this in place for this use and people found a way to use it in that manner. And on that alone, we should put a moratorium on and stop this until the point at which we decide that this is what we want for our city. Tonight, I drove my car here to city council for the first time. It's the first time in three weeks that my parking spot had a car in it, not a bike, or I didn't drive by the train. And with the growth that we are experiencing as a city, we cannot build enough parking or enough new lanes for everyone to be. And so we a single occupancy vehicle in their car. We need to create real options for mobility. We need to create infrastructure that gives all of our residents the freedom of choice when it comes to mobility so that they can choose to get around however they want. The only way that we will ever be able to accommodate this kind of growth. This is not the answer to that. Letting these projects go through on these lots to give you.
Speaker 5: A.
Speaker 3: Picture of this for people who might be watching or here for one of the other hearings and wondering what's going on here. I grew up on a 50 foot lot and we really packed it in as a family of seven, one of five kids, and we never had seven drivers in our household at the same time. And yet we were a parking menace on our block and right next door to us on the next lot over that wasn't even 50 feet was a single gentleman with a two car garage and a carport. So he didn't even need the parking in front of his house. And we were still all over that block. Seven people on a 50 foot lot. Some of the projects that we have talked about tonight, 54. And that's not members of the same family with some people who are little kids being carted around. That's 54 individual households. And right next door to it, another 54. Pearl Street is in the district that I represent, and it is one of those magical places that represents everything that whether we planned on it or it just happened, really went right in our city and created communities where people want to live in the city. People want to live in our urban core because it is walkable and it is bikeable. And you can get to the train and you have all these great small local businesses. What this parking exemption was created to promote and now it's all at risk. One of these projects is on that strip of Pearl Street, 17 units. 17 people on a place where we already are stretched for parking, where these small local businesses run the risk of being choked out, where residents can't find a place to park when they're getting home from wherever they're going or have any guests over at night who can park anywhere close to their house. And in a place where. Urban living is embrace. And we have huge urban infill opportunities at the former Gates site and the Broadway marketplace, where we have residents saying, yes, bring density on. Here's a place where we can build that missing housing stock. Here's a place by transit where that makes sense. And instead, what we're getting is 17 units. On Pearl Street with no requirement to build parking. Even if for a second I can see that the people living there are able to use the train or a bike or bicycle or car to go, to get to work, to get to the grocery store, to get to all of the troops that they make every day. 17 people, and none of them are going to keep a car so that they can go skiing because we don't have an option to get from the city to skiing. 17 people who are all new to Denver, 40 new people a day in metro Denver. None of them want a car so that they can go home for Thanksgiving dinner to spend it with their family. And they only hang out with other people who also don't have a car and don't ski and don't want to go home for Thanksgiving dinner because there will be no place for their guests to park either. I don't believe it. I don't buy it. And I think that what's at risk here, because this is one project on Pearl Street when there are entire blocks, the entirety of Pearl Street, that could be one after another. What's at risk? What we could lose here is far too great to even take a chance on. And I frankly think that it is irresponsible for those who are building these kind of projects when that exemption was never intended for this and is something that that puts so much at risk for so many to even be considering these projects. So I personally wish we could have tightened up the pipeline more aggressively and said, no, this is not what we intended here. And so you don't get to do it until we take a timeout. And I really hope that we will come out of this moratorium period with something that respects the fabric, fabric of our communities and gets this type of development under control. You know, if we're going to really look at this and there are really developers who say, yeah, I know these people aren't going to hit cars and they don't have friends who need cars and they don't want to go skiing. Then why don't they come to the table with when you rent here, you get an eco pass, you get a bicycle membership, you get a car to go membership. Oh, and by the way, we'll do residential parking permits on this street and ten blocks in any direction that my people won't be able to get. Because if you really believe in it, then that's the kind of proposal that we should see, a proposal that makes sure not promises what could be with this thing that we've never done but says no, you know what? It will not make any sense for someone. Someone will be unable to advocate my development and I'm still willing to put my capital on the line because I think I can rent it out. What's happening is we are all paying for that. That's been being sold to us. And I don't I don't buy it. I don't believe it. I hope that we'll pass this unanimously tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman Greenwich.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to start by saying that I, too, plan to vote for this piece of legislation tonight and to thank the sponsors for their work on it and the department. But I think that, you know, we speak from the dais not just to explain our vote, but also to, I think, enhance and take dialogs to the next level. So I think it's important just to share some cautions or some counterpoints to some of the dialog that we've had up here tonight. I think that my colleague, Councilman Cashman in particular, is right in saying that our infrastructure and our our our land use might be a little bit ahead of our transportation choices and our mobility. Right. So that is a real observation. And it is true we don't have as much high frequency bus service as we need. For example, rail is great, but it's very expensive and difficult to implement. So our next generation is going to be higher frequency bus, more affordable fares, whatever the different options need to be. So. So that is a significant point and I think one that this council has recognized. And it's why we are not just debating these land use pieces, but talking a lot about the infrastructure spending to fund and expand the choices that Councilman Clark mentioned. But I do just want to, you know, clarify, I think what I think are a few misnomers. Though there are choices today. It's not that there are no choices. The busting is see that service to the mountains? It's running today. It's ahead of projection. You can actually take a bus to the mountains. So let's make sure that everyone knows that, right? Let's talk about it more. They're in the process of expanding the frequency of it. So there's more trips right up to the mountains and back. But you actually can take a bus to ski in Colorado. And we've had that service for less than a year. So it's not everyone knows about it yet. But but but I think we have a responsibility to educate that these choices are coming. And it's not that our land use discussions shouldn't be contemplating them and or even responding to them. I want to talk a little bit about this idea that, you know, that we can somehow, you know, kind of limit our share of the growth in that our neighbors, you know, around us will be able to absorb it all. You know, we have an urban growth boundary in the entire metro region. So there is a voluntary agreement that all of the counties in the metro area have made and said, you know what, we can't sprawl in every square inch of green space. Why can't we? Well, first of all, because just like folks talked about the golden goose, our golden goose is really open space and mountain views and all of that. And if we build in every available space in this region outside of Denver, then the thing that made many of us love living here is diminished, too. So we as a region have actually said no. The other reason we don't want to sprawl into every piece of open space is because it's expensive. We do modeling. I'm our representative on the Denver Regional Council of Governments and we model different development scenarios and the infrastructure cost to build those new roads that some folks were describing and to build the water. Water is a huge issue in this region. It's not there. And so our neighbors are having the same conversation we are now. They may not have a downtown Denver or a tech center with 20 storey high rises, but they're debating townhomes where they used to only have single family homes or they're debating three and five story where they only had one story commercial. They are having the same conversation about growing up and growing smarter that we are. So so I think that the idea that we can just kind of, you know, continue our trend of planning for the single car and that, you know, some of this growth will go elsewhere. I don't think that's a realistic scenario. There is a desire people have to live in this city and with the amenities that we have. And that's a credit to both the character as well as some of the investments. Right. It's both of those things. So so here's my my fear. Here's my caution, I guess, about this moratorium, which is that I will disclose I'm a returning member of council. So I had a chance to talk with Councilwoman Robb when she thought about writing an amendment, and she did have a very good compromise. The compromise included some projects not having any parking and then it included other projects with more units or different kinds of units having some parking, but maybe not the same amount that they would have in some other zone districts. It was a true compromise. It didn't have always parking 17 units next to a transit station might not need parking. There are other options. Travel, demand, management. I agree with Councilman Clark. This is the concept where you say to someone, if you want the privilege of building this way, then do a written plan on how you are going to get these alternative modes. I hope this group discusses that. But but I think that, you know, I wanted to just ask the questions I did of of the sponsor, because I think it's really important to say that this council reserves the right to broker a compromise if the community can't come, if someone joins this group with the perspective that we should never, ever build a building without parking. That to me is not paving a way towards compromise and might not be the right solution. I would not support that solution. So I am both asking the community who wants to be engaged in this dialog to be sincere about compromise and to ask my colleagues on this council to say, if that compromise can't come from the community, then it's important that we broker it here. Because I'm not okay saying, you know what, we should never build another building again in Denver without parking. That's not the right answer. We have places, we have strategies and we have opportunities where we can do this. They're not all in place in all the neighborhoods where the zone district exists. We haven't done a great in advertising them, making them of, you know, accessible and affordable. So we have more work to do. And that is why I'm strongly in favor of this tonight, but with some caution and some thoughtfulness about the fact that we will continue heading in this direction as our partners in the region, as are other regions like ours, it is an urbanizing nation. And so this is hard work and it requires an investment that we are going to have to be willing to make into that transportation infrastructure. So with that, I want to just say that I'm hopeful that the folks who enter into this really, truly are open to compromise in both directions, that there may be places and conditions where this is possible and there may be some. As we've heard, not every project we've talked only about residents tonight, but our planner told us many of these buildings are commercial or other uses. We need to be much broader in our thinking. We've gotten very stuck on one story here tonight, and it's important to hear the other stories when we go through this process. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. The beauty of going last is you really don't have much to ask because your colleagues are always so thoughtful and what they say. So I will certainly be brief. You know, the thing you always hear as an elected official is unintended consequences. And I, I, I understand how some colleagues are in support of this feel that. But I also share Councilwoman Kennedy is the unintended consequences of passing this bill, because I do think it's a little concerned because we do not want to say that we always want to have parking built with parking. I'm sorry. No parking bill. I always have parking bill. Excuse me. So I think it's important that we say that. And what gives me comfort in this is that this is seven months. But I will certainly question if seven months from now another extension comes forward, because then I will certainly ask that question, what are we really trying to do here? So I'm comfortable moving this forward. But we we need to be cautious about the message that we're sending. And I encourage those in this group and I have all the faith in the world, in the leadership team that's moving forward, is that we do come to a better a better agreement than what we currently have. Because I do think Councilman Clark was quite on point when he says that so too that I'm comfortable comfortable with and Mr. Drag, I want.
Speaker 0: To say I have a 15 month.
Speaker 3: Old son. I do not believe he will ever have a driver's license. I don't I do not believe that. And I think technology is moving so fast, the world that he will live in will be ridiculously different from the one that I grew up in. And so that's why I talk about being cautious, because I'm excited about the future and I think it will look very drastically different from what we have right now. But I am comfortable supporting this. So. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon, we will be following your son's career. Okay, Councilman. Just to that to that point real quick, it's really interesting. This week was released that Uber next year will be in some cities releasing and testing driverless cars. So that is that's an interesting comment. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman heard him now. And your son's about 16 years old. He's going to know your ear off so bad that you're going to want him just to go get a driver's license. Haven't even raised my sisters telling them that they can't have a license. It's almost like denying them water air. That's going to be very hard, but it is something that we have to consider and listening to everybody tonight and I do support the moratorium moving forward. I do think we need to look at this not just in terms of regional and how we're growing as a region, but in different parts of the city where it's appropriate that you'd be able to place units without having to build parking until the redistricting. Now, now that I think about it. I don't have one parking meter in my district. It's different. Some areas are different. There's a lot of areas in my neck of the woods that I was born and raised in. There's plenty of parking. But there's not as much housing as we need. And so it is a balance. The West Line cuts right through Council District three. The light rail moving south goes through District three. It is something that we are constantly looking at and the more we add units, the more it becomes an issue. Here's the thing, though. We have to strike a balance with both of those features coexisting. I agree. It's never going to be a time where you're not going to see a vehicle in the street, not in our lifetime. And you said that eloquently. But I disagree with what Mario said. Because all is fine and dandy on a bike until you have a kid that's sick in the winter. Right. And if you're working class or or you're poor in this city, you're not going to call an Uber. You're going to jump in your car, beat up car, and. Cruise over to the hospital. Or to the pharmacy. That's just the reality of it. I think sometimes we become enamored with ourselves to the point that we forget that it's not just the creative class in the city, but it's also the maintainers of this city. It's the people who are building the buildings. Right. Picking your plate up. Serving you. Building your roads. That's what Denver's for as well to. Denver is their home as well, too. It's not just it's all it's an end situation and we have to build for that end situation. You don't build just for what's popular and trendy now. Bicycles have always been part of them.
Speaker 0: And I would challenge folks especially to think.
Speaker 3: When you look at connectivity, when you look at transportation in Denver, there are so many people who bike before it was popular because the only thing that they can afford, there are people who can't get licenses because of.
Speaker 0: Their status as status issues.
Speaker 3: Until you have immigration reform, until the clear up this backlog, they can't get behind a wheel. But they're on a bike and they're on it long before it's popular. You have day laborers cruising around central Denver on bikes. You have homeless individuals trying to get to work on bikes. But when we're looking at building affordability and there has to be some kind of compromise. So that's why I do support the moratorium. As we are building those two and three bedroom units that we need so badly and desperately in the city, I be considering at least one spot. I mean, we shouldn't always do it and push all the density in areas where we don't have power or we don't have enough spaces. Right. So I do look at it as a two way street. I think it's a future for for everybody. And Denver as a city for everybody. Especially for those who maintain it. We don't want them to leave because Denver dies when that happens. So I support this. I look forward to hearing the discussions, participating in it and and coming into these chambers to actually lift the moratorium. So thank you for your work. Thank you all for for being here tonight and your leadership. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, are there any other. Any other comments for members of council? I. I will close this out and make some some comments. One and I think this needs to be easily said more. The neighbors champion this. And in a time where I'm hearing that neighbors aren't being heard at a time that I'm hearing that there's so much division in our city. The humble and courteous park neighbors came, sat down and met with me and had language that they put together for a moratorium and that needs to be celebrated. And so a way to organize in a way to show that public engagement in this city works and it matters. So I really appreciate you all. Secondly, I think there's a lot of nervous folks around. You know, what is moratorium mean and and all of this language? I think I was very clear at the beginning, and I think Councilman Cashman and I talked about this as well, is that, you know, we had this marijuana conversation about pending applications. And one of the reasons that we did not want to touch the pending is people had made sizable investments already. Whether we agree with those investments or not to change the rules midstream, we felt like was unfair. So that was one of the reasons we did not include all of the pending. However, we believe going forward that this moratorium and this this time to bring in neighbors, to bring in experts and have thoughtful consideration about what we want the future of the city to look like is going to be incredibly impactful. And so we're excited to take this on. And I appreciate all of the folks who showed up here, even the people who did not talk. But you put money in a meter and sat in those hard wooden benches. Thank you for being here. And I hope that this gives you some encouragement that this is your government and this is about inclusivity in this city. I think this moratorium makes perfect sense. We're talking about a lot of things, but this is what it's saying. We're going to need someone to take a timeout. You know, I'm a sports guy taking a time out and bring in some of the best thinkers in the city to the table and saying, how do we do this ? Well. Hey, I want to also give it up to Councilwoman Robb. This is you know, it's fun to she she really was working on this on her last months of being on city council and this kind of left. But if you're watching this as part of your legacy and councilman cat councilman Catherine has just been great picking up the picking up this moratorium and working with neighbors. And so I really appreciate it. I want to say I am a when I first got elected city council, I actually sold my car for one year to really experience what it's like to be an urbanist in the city. And it was hard. It was very hard. I do have a car again, but I think this is a larger conversation about choices that we make in the city. And I do not want that to be lost on any of us. My neighbor is in we live two miles from downtown, 2.3 miles from downtown. And my neighbor has three cars. There's two people living in the house. That's not really an urbanist perspective of how to live. That's not really sustainable. And so there are some real choices that we as neighbors, as people, as constituents and people in this city have to think about how we are impacting the environment that we're living in. And so I'm excited to have that conversation as well. So obviously I will be supporting this and I'm excited to move forward and talk about the strides that we've made in seven months. So, Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 5: Cashman I.
Speaker 2: Can eat. Lopez All right. New ORTEGA Black Eye. CLARK Hi. ESPINOSA Hi. Flynn Hi. Gilmore, I. Herndon Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary calls results and closed voting and as the results 12 eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill. 498 passes. Councilman new, will you please put council bill 541 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 541 be as amended on July 25th, 2016, be placed for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second at the public hearing for 541 is open. May we have the overview accounts? A new share.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance providing for a moratorium prohibiting the use of the Denver Zoning Code’s pre-existing small zone lot parking exemption for certain projects for a period of approximately seven months.
Approves a moratorium prohibiting the use of the Denver Zoning Code's pre-existing small zone lot parking exemption for certain projects for a period of seven months. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-20-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08222016_16-0541
|
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second at the public hearing for 541 is open. May we have the overview accounts? A new share.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: If you could please be silent while you are exiting. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Okay. This also is a second moratorium about an unintended consequences, about a garden caught building for form. And it's misuse right now. So let's look at why do we need this moratorium, just like we talked about the small court. And I believe I've always say this, you know, because the use of this form. But here's a garden court building form. A garden court building for them with no garden and no court. Just like a joke. And so I keep thinking that there's something wrong here. And I think we all recognize that. That we need to do something about this in the zoning code. There's a lot of language in there is very confusion, confusing. We see specific intent, but doesn't allow garden code form, but then we do allow it. So we've got to straighten out the language. It really conflicts with neighborhood character. You know, we're talking about increasing density and I think we all know density is coming. But but when you look at the zoning code, again, it says there's no maximum of the number of units on a parcel. I think we may be going a little too far. I think we need to have a little discussion about what what density means and and be able to make sure it doesn't affect existing neighborhood character and or quality of life. And I was glad to see that the community planning development, they recognized the unintended consequences of this and we need to review this. I don't think they intended to do this. The Zone didn't. It's one of those things. Too small. Too small. I know. We need to really take a time out and reevaluate. Okay. Go back to the next picture. This shows. You know, like the next back to the Garden Court. The other way. There. Go. One more. Here we go. This is the picture of this in the zoning code. You know, you think, well, this is you know, it's an old town, but looks like five units. But the main thing it shows it shows a central area that's a garden court. And these can be very beautiful kind of arrangements. You've got instances of of units on to the guard court and some on the street, but you don't have a garage. But the main thing is you have a very defined garden court area that can have wonderful, beautiful landscaping and be a very beautiful, designed building for challenges we see with it in the existing zoning code. He says, you know, a minimum width of the garden court is 15 feet. It's like a large sidewalk. And so we'll show you some pictures in a minute of how it's been implemented. It was really just a lack of sufficient space for any kind of landscaping. It has very insufficient solar access and and permeable surfaces. And also, he talks about having three sides of a building facade and just sort of like that diagram, we had three different buildings around a garden court. We don't see that being implemented as well. Also in some districts where the row house is is the zoning district is being used just as part of the garden court. We see there's a vertical overlap which is prohibited in the in the zoning code. You can't put a row house above a row house, there's no stacking allowed. And so it's not like some other building type, but and so you can't increase density but by doing stacking. And again, it's all about density affecting design. Okay. Here's here's an example. In D.C. District nine, Councilman Brooks District shows a picture of a nice beach house intended as an older area. We see. But you see on the picture on the right, you see the garden caught in the middle and the units all around on three sides. Now, here's one. Here's an example. It was being implemented. You can see where is the garden court? Where is the where is that area? Where are the three sides? All you see is is is apartments coming off of of a concrete sidewalk. Nothing really attractive. No garden, no court. Here's another example of this was an incongruous park in my district as another example of the yield of a garden court project you see around a beautiful garden. Court is a nice oval, beautiful design and you know, not very high density, but you can easily see where it could be more dense. But the main thing, the design of the garden court is really beautiful and attractive and a real asset to that community. In the next one. Next one. Here's one in my district. When I first saw it, I thought it was a prison. I looked at it and I said, Well, you know, the Department of Corrections is moving in. And so but this is a garden court for them. This is a 15 foot sidewalk down. It's not even 54 sidewalks, 15 feet from building the building and the sidewalk there. No, no landscaping. You see a paper and you can see the interest. On the third side is really an entrance to the parking garage below. So we're just not implementing as it was intended. So the real confusion in the zoning code, we just need to be real clear about what the what the language should be. We need to make sure that the language matches what we want to implement and encourage better development, better design. We know we'll have some greater density, but we've got to make sure that our language matches what what we want to be implemented. Neighborhood character. You know, the mayor's talked in the city. This dress talked about beautiful neighborhoods. We have we do. We have gorgeous neighbors. I know I have one of those in District ten and we want to make sure they stay beautiful. And so we need to match character with density. Density is coming, but there has to be a balance. And balance is a key word. We've got to have smart development, recognizing the unique areas and the building forms we've got. And, and we really want a very attractive quality of life area in a courtyard. If we're going to have a car garden court building for let's do it right. Let's make it beautiful and attractive like it can be. Let's do surfaces that attract good landscaping unless we have real clarity in the zoning code. Shouldn't be any confusion when you read the zoning code is should tell you what to do. You should be real clear about what it's doing. And so residents will have great predictability of what's going to happen in their neighborhoods. And also most important and really it needs to have a still a real greater community's sense of community with residents and developers. This garden court should be a real asset to the community. Right now. We've got we get we restarted the moratorium a couple of weeks ago. We had six applications in process in the first reading. Right now, three of them didn't proceed. You know, one of them was on Colorado Boulevard and our city council did not approve the zoning for it. It was going to be a garden court and it was going to be like a, you know, the density. There was going to be twice as twice as much as what was allowed. And so our city council wisely rejected that. And two other applications on, say, Paul and Lawrence to decide they decided not to move forward. So right now, we just have we have three applications using the garden court to a marine concept review, which means the design review, and then one is in final review. Just to show you some pictures. These are the ones that were withdrawn, just three different areas. Let's go to the ones that are in the. And then was Dover proposing an exemption? These are going through concert reviews or I remember tonight we were talking about allowing anything is accepted into its concept review to be to be moved forward. And so that's what these three are. Boulevard One is a special good example where it has a 50 to 60 foot garden chord. It's very beautiful, all rowhouses houses. So that's a very good example. So I'm looking forward to this moratorium. We have this discussion. So the big areas of our mortuary we're talking about with, you know, Castle Espinosa that are sponsoring this, and Councilman Espinosa, being an architect is really being so critical to helping develop some of this. And and the with his suggestion is the height of the building the tallest proposed building is the width of the garden quarry could be, you know, 30 to 35 feet stacking in the building in the zoning code. No. If it's a real house form, no stack is allowed the bounding buildings. We need to really make sure if we gonna have three sided garden core designs. Let's make sure there are three sides in there, have buildings in dwelling units, and unless truly create something that should be a garden court buildings around dwelling units around a garden port. So again, we have three applications to be exempt and denied just because they are accepted into the concept review. And this is a 12 month moratorium, we want to make sure that this is get done. We want to bring a lot of participation. All residents, architects and our city council. Just like with this small lot, we want a lot of good cross-section of people to talk about this. And and we're we're lucky that Kyle Dalton and his team are going to lead this, and they're excited about tackling this evaluation. So we're looking forward to hopefully gaining support for this moratorium tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Newt, I understand you are making an amendment tonight. And so I want you to read that amendment into the record so that the folks who are commenting tonight can comment on the the amended bill, the amendment that you're about to make. Okay. And proceed.
Speaker 8: Okay. Most of the amendments tonight are just technical corrections. My speed is. And so the most important section is the section that allows those applications that are scheduled for concept review to be exempt from moratorium. So let me read the the changes to the the bill. I'd like to move to amend Council Bill 541 as amended on July 25th as follows. Number one on page two, lines 17. Strike the word courtyard and replace it with garden court. On page two, line 18, strike the word courtyard and replace it with garden court. Oh, number three, page two, line 18, insert the word tallest before the word proposed. On page two, lines 18 and 19, strike the words buildings abutting the garden court. Oh, he said.
Speaker 0: Yeah, just. I'm sorry. Just the overview. It's fine. Yeah.
Speaker 8: Well, gave you a preview. Anyway, they're just general changes, and that's what they mean. It's all about the main thing is this the section that allows the those three applications to be exempt.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We have 19 speakers tonight. And I'm going to call the first five speakers up to this first bench. So Robbie Hoban, George Mayo, Nathan Adams, Margie Valdez and Angela Steiner. Ravi. You'll be first. If you could make your way up, that'd be great. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Oh, well, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen of the Denver City Denver City Council, for this opportunity to speak to you about garden variety.
Speaker 0: If you can, introduce yourself to you.
Speaker 7: Sorry. My name is Robbie Hoban.
Speaker 4: And I live at 24th and Glenarm and one of the cute six that were built in 1885. And I'm kind of an unintentional resident of that area. I used to live at 14th and high in a high rise and loved it. But when I broke my collarbone, I moved in with my then boyfriend, now husband, and thought, I never want to live here, but I ended up staying and I love it. We're so close to the library, the light rail. We walked for a not so safe way. I absolutely love living there. And some friends and I had been talking about a year and a half ago as we were starting to get concerned about the container buildings that were going in that didn't fit with the spirit of Curtis Park being over 100 years old. I've loved our neighborhood mostly, and I think mostly the thing that concerns me is it doesn't feel like so much of a residential neighborhood in some areas. We're in kind of an odd corner that got sliced by the Walton corridor, which we're happy to see go in. There are a few garden court forms in our area that feel like a hug, just like you described. I didn't realize how much work you all had already done with this. So, you know, the garden court feels like this, but some of the ones that are going in now feel more like this, or maybe if I can do this this way or maybe this way or this way. So as you're walking along, Maggie and I call it we love our walkable and Taco Bell neighborhood, we feel. But with these kind of apartments, we can't even get the delivery of the Curtis Park newsletter into some of these new places, much less knock on the door and ask, Have you seen my cat, Dinah? Which is like Shannon, who lived across the street or my cat recently, who escaped. So we really do in Curtis Park in Five Points Need Eyes on the street, which make for a more safe neighborhood. If you've been to our neighborhood at 24th and Glenarm, there's all kinds of folks who live in houses and not in houses. And many times we look out and see folks who need our help. And if you can't see the street. Oh, you don't want to see the street, then you can't see people who need help. And that's what I love so much about our neighborhood, is that we can look out for each other right now, or at least we have been able to. So I know that people can choose to live in high rise apartments. I chose to live in a high rise apartment and there's lots of places where you can do that all along. Welton and all over Denver. Really, honestly. But I'm here to speak to you, to ask you for the time to reconsider what this actually looks like, what we intended in 2011 with the neighborhood plan. I figured it fits northeast or Northwest Denver plan. But this spirit that we intended with, Gordon, Kurt, and what's actually being kind of corrupted, the negative effects that have on our streets. So please consider all of us who love living in a walkable, talk, able neighborhood, feel kind of neighborhood in the spirit that our neighborhood plan called for. And we are here to speak in favor of that moratorium. Thank you so.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. All right. Nathan Adams.
Speaker 10: Good evening, council members and President Brooks. My name is Nathan Adams from 2899 North Sphere Boulevard. I've been an active real estate broker and developer for the past 12 years. I've built several hundred homes, renovated hundreds of homes, and I've done all of this work by borrowing money. I work with investors, work with banks, and I say this as it's relevant. Developers are not an unlimited supply of money. I congratulate you on amending the bill so that the moratorium will include the people that are already in planning. It's pretty catastrophic to be in planning to own your land, have hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line, and to excuse me to simply not be able to go forward or to have the rules completely changed on you. That would be extremely difficult. I don't have a project that's at stake, so I'm speaking on behalf of those that. That's project. That's project maybe at issue. Also speaking towards the precedent that's set, I think it's a very dangerous precedent to change the rules and not allow the people that are already in planning to continue forward. I would even go so far as to encourage a 90 day period of time where those that have already purchased their land have the ability to still submit plans, still be able to come in under the existing rules. That the change that's being made via an immediate moratorium sets a very dangerous precedent anti-business, anti-growth message. I ask that you please consider my suggestion for a delayed, effective date. As a small business owner that knows firsthand how devastating it can be to making changes to development projects with little or no notice. It is imperative that the City Council be considerate of small business owners and developers when considering changes to government regulation like the one proposed tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Margie Valdez.
Speaker 7: Good evening, counsel, again. My name is Margie Valdez. I live at 2000 East 12th Avenue, Denver, and the inner neighborhood cooperation passed a motion directly from the floor supporting the moratorium. Unfortunately, the amendment language was not presented at that time, but in concept we do support the moratorium. I do think it's important for people's mental health to be able to have enough space to. Rehabilitate themselves at the end of the day, know their neighbors, know what's going on around them. It it I and C's mission is not to destroy developers by any means. We want to work with developers. We want to work with neighborhoods. That's what we're all about, is to make Denver the best city in the United States of America. And we appreciate everything that you're doing tonight. I think pause buttons are good. Sometimes you go too fast and you need to back up a little bit and think that we really intend to do that. So I support your efforts. Appreciate all you're doing. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Angela Steiner.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Angela Steiner. I live in Castle Rock while I work in Denver five and six days a week. I've also been a real estate broker for 16 years. Over the last several years, I've represented many developers and I can confirm that each and every one of these developers have been small business owners rather than faceless large corporations. Those developers livelihoods often depend on the success of every project, as they are not huge companies that can take losses or simply lower profits beyond a certain point. They have families and employees that depend on them. I do applaud the city council tonight to allow the projects that are already in the system exempt from the moratorium. I do feel that that is right, rather than to adopt a blanket moratorium that would be effective immediately and devastate some of these families and developers.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay. Okay. Robert Vogel. I'm going to call up I'm going to call up five others. I just we had a little malfunction here. Robert Vogel, Byron Beckman, John Albers and Cindy Piggott. Rob Pegg You might as well come to Rob Pegg. Come on. Come on to. All right, Robert Vogel, you're up first.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. City Council Members. My name is Robert Vogel. I live at four, four.
Speaker 5: Six Cook Street in Cherry Creek North.
Speaker 10: I am president of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association. And for starters, I want to.
Speaker 5: Thank our Councilperson Councilman New.
Speaker 10: And Councilman Espinosa for introducing this bill. Let me give you a little history. About two months ago, we learned that the nursery on Garfield Street was destined to become a 30 unit apartment house. And. Our thoughts.
Speaker 5: At that time, we called up our city council person and spoke with a very experienced aide.
Speaker 10: Who said.
Speaker 5: They can't do that.
Speaker 10: Because the city code is so ambiguous that it is not included in the intent of Rowe House buildings. We then called up city planning and they said, Oh yes, we know about that.
Speaker 5: And we've given temporary approval. And I said, Can you send us the form?
Speaker 10: And the form was as councilman who said, not a garden cart form. It had a 15 foot.
Speaker 5: Wide concrete pathway.
Speaker 10: Therefore no garden, no court.
Speaker 5: Within a couple of weeks, a speaker who will speak in a few minutes, Andy Piggott, collected 500.
Speaker 3: Names on a petition against the development in this form.
Speaker 5: And because of this, we started a dialog with the.
Speaker 10: Arnold family, and I want to thank them for their willingness to consider.
Speaker 3: Changes.
Speaker 5: In the form.
Speaker 10: Of their.
Speaker 5: Development, to make it compatible.
Speaker 10: With the neighborhood.
Speaker 5: And to enhance the neighborhood. We believe that the moratorium should go in place so that people don't have to call up their councilman to find out whether something is approved or not approved. The law should be clear.
Speaker 10: On this case. We believe.
Speaker 5: That 15 foot wide car doors are not.
Speaker 10: Gardens and cars. This is.
Speaker 5: Not the intended.
Speaker 10: Intention of the form.
Speaker 5: Through our dialogs. We have done away.
Speaker 10: With the stacking.
Speaker 5: That is not part of the row house form and we have decreased the density.
Speaker 10: And we have, I.
Speaker 3: Believe, a much more.
Speaker 10: Attractive form which includes gardens and courts. The intent is now made. We have an.
Speaker 5: Executed contract with the family developing developing this. We strongly support the moratorium.
Speaker 3: As you have heard, as a.
Speaker 5: Time out to.
Speaker 3: Reexamine.
Speaker 5: What is become a contrivance.
Speaker 3: Within the city of Denver.
Speaker 5: We want the moratorium is time to look.
Speaker 10: At compatibility with.
Speaker 0: Your.
Speaker 3: Surrounding circumstance. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Bye. Let's see. Byron Beckman. As Byron Beckman. Okay. John Albers.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. My name is John Albers. I live at 45 Steel Street. I'm on the board of directors of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association, and I serve that organization as the chair of its zoning committee. As has been said, we found ourselves in a situation where we had one project under construction in Cherry Creek North and another that was moving its way through the developer to the approval process under the garden form being considered and approved under the garden court form of construction. It was a surprise to us when we dug into the code to find that there was a great deal of ambiguity and in fact some conflict in the code as to whether or not the Garden Court was in fact allowed in a g r h 13 zone, which is the primary residential zoning for Cherry Creek North. And if it was allowed, there was not clarity in terms of what exactly constituted the appropriate design and construction of the garden court form. And as counsel menu has pointed out, neither of these projects had either a court nor garden. So from our perspective, while we were very happy to work with the developer on the project at 201 Garfield and, and that is excluded from this. While we were very happy to work with them going forward, we really need clarity. The residents of Cherry Creek North need to understand whether or not a garden court form is an approved form for the RH 13 zoning. And if it is under what what exact design forms, as Councilman News showed with the picture from the zoning code, what's in the zoning code relative to a diagram is much different than what was being approved. So we heartily and heartily and support the moratorium. We appreciate Councilman Espinosa and councilman's new support for this. We urge the City Council to support the moratorium and give us clarity or give the planning department time to get some clarity around these issues so that in the future we will know what's permitted and what's expected in this zoning area. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Cindy Pickett.
Speaker 6: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I appreciate it. My name is Cindy Pickett. I live at 214 Garfield directly across the street from the proposed development that was under question. Webster defines specific as clearly in exactly presented or stated, precise or exact, free from ambiguity. We purchased our home four years ago. We inquired about the possible development on Garfield, as did our neighbors, with their investments in the surrounding area. We did the due diligence. The realtors and all potential homeowners check the zoning code. It stated The regulations provide certainty to property owners, developers and neighborhoods about the limits for what is allowed in a residentially zoned area. The specific intent of grh3 states, a multi-unit district allowing urban house, duplex and row rowhouse building forms not taller than three stories specific, precise and exact. In early June, we were blindsided by a Newbury employee telling us that this development would be three, three story apartment buildings and we should put the sign up now. We immediately contacted CPD. Chris Glacier's response was, As for the intent, the description is not meant as an exhaustive list of anything that can be achieved in his own district, but rather a brief summary of the. Development potential. Clearly, specific content should have been titled Possible Intent because it was most definitely not specific and the regulations did not provide certainty. Every other zone state specifically where garden courts are allowed in the intent definition not je rh three two words admitted. We still await an explanation. While we appreciate Councilman News and Espinosa's superior efforts in addressing this issue, we face more than double the amount of units that should have been allowed on this property and the potential of 50 vehicles in the span of less than one block. And quoting the CPD text amendment far greater density than intended by the adaptive plans and zoned district for the area. I'm sorry. I really have a dry mouth. This form is morphed into something unrecognizable. It is dwarfing existing homes, taking the light and leaving behind scars that affect the integrity and fabric of neighborhoods across the city, not just in Cherry Creek. It leaves no certainty to individuals that have invested and now must question what could happen next to them, in front of them, behind them, or even worse, on all sides, because that is the possibility. CPD knew this was an issue. The egregious development proposed on Garfield was possibly the straw that broke the camel's back and brought it to the forefront. Visualized two thirds of one residential block with three three story apartment buildings, three exterior doors and 215 foot cement gangways. Shame on them for allowing it to go this far. It should have been stopped. They knew it was wrong. Not clearly defined in the attempt and beyond any resemblance to a garden court. We encourage you to support the moratorium, gives CPD time to clarify the issue so it's not continue to affect neighborhoods throughout the city. Many have already paid the price into developers.
Speaker 7: That say this is what.
Speaker 6: The public wants. I challenge you to take a look at these neighborhoods, respect them the existing fabric, and create something that contributes.
Speaker 0: Your time is up. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 6: I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Yeah, no problem. Thank you. Try to hold your applause as we get through all these. Speaker Wrap it. Thank you.
Speaker 5: I'll try and follow up on what my wife had to say. My name is Rob Piggott. I also live at 214 Garfield, and I appreciate what Councilman Nu and Councilman Espino Espinosa have brought forward in regard to the moratorium. I do have to say, though, that I feel that as a Cherry Creek resident that we we are a victim of a hit and run by city planning. Going back to early June of this year, city planning rebuffed our zoning inquiries regarding grades three. In response to the Newberry apartment and city planning, the MISS dismissed our argument that the current zoning of Grace three was under specific and ten calls for multi-unit district, allowing for urban house duplex and row house building forms. Nowhere in grace three specific intent does it call for a garden court or apartment forms after repeated inquiries. City planning did come around in late June, and foremost off the record, of course, that there is confusion and ambiguity in the George three definition that was followed up. Much to our dismay and surprise was see city planning advocating a 14 to 16 month moratorium at a city council planning meeting in early August. It is ironic that city planning suddenly got religion in regard to specific intent definition for Grace three, but only after allowing the Newbury Apartments to get in the so-called zoning pipeline. Is worth noting that some five families have moved the 200 Garfield block in the past four and a half years with Newbury Nursery and Retail, the elephant on the block. It was natural for us in the others to inquire about zoning relative to new areas. These families and individuals to the person were referred to their realtor, referred by their realtor and the seller sellers realtor to series three specific intent, which allows for urban house duplex and row house building forms. So my question to city planning why was gardening caught in apartment form, admitted in specific intent? She or age three and I would welcome their comment and I would also ask does city planning know the meaning of specific intent? With that said, I support the moratorium. But is present support. The moratorium is presented. Although I feel city planning has treated many of us adjacent to the Newbury Apartments very unfairly. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. I'm going to call up the next five speakers and Cox, Peter Wall, Paula Arnold, Frank Locke and Toure and John Frey's. And Cox, you are first.
Speaker 7: Thank you for this opportunity. I'm an Cox. And I do support the moratorium because of the agreement worked out between S.C. Nay and the Newbury's. But I do so with my arm twisted behind my back and resigned to the fact that we can do no better. This moratorium emerged as a short term solution to an absurd and unintended interpretation of the garden court building form. Something is seriously wrong when the specific intent of the code can be so easily circumvented by developers. Neighbors had no real notice that 30 apartments could be built there, where zoning led us to believe that there would be 10 to 12 row homes. And no meaningful recourse. Density is not the problem. The problem is that the code does not address the consequences of density. Number one among them is parking. As we've just finished hearing and in great detail, parking is grossly inadequate in the five Denver neighborhoods affected by the Garden Court problem. The Newbury Project will have 26 apartments, 36 parking spaces and just one parking space per unit. The ten extra spaces could be visitor parking. Instead, those spaces we rented to the highest bidders, the tenants and their guests will park bumper to bumper on Garfield Street. Second, developers should have setbacks that conform to the character of the neighborhood. The Newbury slipped through a loophole that requires only a 20 foot setback from the street and a ridiculous five foot setback along Second Avenue. Eight other homes on their side of Garfield have forefoot setbacks. The code calls for setback, conformity. If there are three lots that have a bigger setback. In this case, there are eight homes on two lots. So that doesn't apply. Third, the code nominally requires development in harmony with the character of the existing neighborhood. Textual amendments to the code will, I hope, close the loopholes that allowed this awful garden court slot. Home Development. Development should also reflect harmony with other city plans. Here, Garfield is designated as a bikeway. It is dangerous to bike on a street that has bumper to bumper parking and a travel lane too narrow for two cars to pass at the same time. In closing, please make future developers provide adequate resident and visitor parking. Conform to the by setbacks on the block. Build in harmony with what already exists in the neighborhood and protect city bikeways. And I also ask that developers exempted from the moratorium be held accountable for adhering to the letter and spirit of the agreements that exempted.
Speaker 0: Them this time as a thank you.
Speaker 3: You all. Good evening, council members. Peter Wall, 1660 Lincoln Street here on behalf of the Newberry family and just wanted to make myself available for questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Paula Arnaud.
Speaker 7: I'm Paul Arnold, and I live at 201 Monroe. And I've lived in Cherry Creek my entire life. I was born there. I was raised there. I work there and I'll die there, I'm sure. Same spot I When we started into this, we were doing what was allowed by this zoning. And I want to first of all, I want to thank all the council members for listening and meeting with us. And also I want to thank Councilman who for working with us and also the Cherry Creek Neighborhood Association to come to an approved project that better incorporates what the neighborhood would would like. And I'm here if there's any further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Frank. I can talk.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Frank Victoria. I live a 2145 East 16th Avenue and I am I was I against the moratorium. But I mean I think that the what you've proposed councilman to you know makes a whole lot of sense. And and my only concern here is that I feel like and maybe this is just because of tonight's agenda, it seems like moratorium is the go to and I guess I'm a little bit concerned about a continual, you know, slowdown of things when I feel like the the items that you put on up there were completely reasonable . And so I, I feel like there is somewhat of a simple solution of that, the ratio that there's a ratio of height to the width of the courtyard. And you know, I know that it's not that simple, but I do have to wonder about, you know, if moratorium is is the right the right process, you know, for this, you know, particular issue, you know, thanks. And I'll take my answer off the air.
Speaker 0: Thank you. John Frase.
Speaker 10: Yes. Good evening and thank you, Councilman Nu, and thank you to the Council for listening to us. I've been a 15 year resident of Cherry Creek. I have 15 other family members who live in Denver. So we're all very concerned about preserving the quality of neighborhoods. And I would just reiterate what my predecessors before me have have said about being in favor of this moratorium. I mean, it doesn't take a lot of common sense to look at the pictures that the councilman knew I was looking at and seeing a before and after view of something. And, you know, to think that it could have evolved, there must be a pretty big loophole for that to have happened. So I would appreciate any anything that can be done in this moratorium. I think it's very, very, very much needed. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to call up the last four speakers. Peter Benson, Justin. Archuleta, Julian. Joanne But I don't ever. Linda Herman How could they do that?
Speaker 10: Daniel puts electrodes.
Speaker 0: Peter. You're first.
Speaker 5: Then when I assume anything. Peter Benson with Coble and Company. I reside in Castle Pines and work in the city of Denver. I manage urban homes. We focus on walkable neighborhoods in Denver doing urban infill sites. I do want to state that I think the garden court form is an important form. I agree there's loopholes to it and there's challenges there. And I agree the states should be looking at that, but it's an important form. We've been working on a project in one of the last pieces in Lowry on First Avenue, inside a court that is an awkwardly shaped property. We struggle with the site plan, and we ended up with what I think is a great site plan. The amendment calls for it to be exempt tonight. And I've heard from staff and the sponsors of the bill that what they're looking for are opening on the street for the garden quarters over 50 feet at the entrance. It gets wider beyond that. It's actual gardens and courts. So there's there's no loopholes here. But I do want to stress that we've worked on it for over a year, spent a lot of money on it. And I would encourage you to support the amendment if you do the moratorium, because even if you approve tonight, we still think we're exempt from the language I have in the draft. Staff has told us that it would still take some time for them to review the moratorium, the language for exemptions and to for us to resubmit RSVP for the next round before we would know. So I appreciate the amendment proposed and I hope that gets approved as part of the moratorium. And I have a question you can certainly answer later before we're done tonight, but I didn't quite catch all the changes for the amendment and the draft I have in section one, on page two, around lines 19 and 20 and 21 , it exempts things where the courtyard is wider than the tallest buildings. So my question is, even beyond this tonight, as someone comes in in three or six months during the moratorium, can they submit, if they meet that requirement, that language still be in there? Well, I also have a request not to get into the weeds, but that's where we spend a lot of our time. And your staff spends a lot of their time, by necessity, in section two on lines 24 and 25. It talks about the drawings have to be side by side and not stacked and says no part of any dwelling shall be vertically above the other ones. And I'd like some clarification so that we can have appurtenances like eaves and gutters from other units overhanging others, because we have some units that are one and two and three story next to each other. So I think it'd be helpful for staff to have the guidance that we can have. Appurtenances overlapping them but not livable space. You know, all in all, I do want to reiterate that I think it's an important forum going forward. I agree it should be looked at in more detail. I think the opportunity was offered before that and the task force to people like us to be a part of the task force. We'd like to be a part of that. We think there's some good ideas we would have because it's always tough. And I don't envy staff trying to write the new language because it's tough to create great design with formulas and numbers. And there has to be some quantitative things that are for quality of space performance materials.
Speaker 0: Your time is up.
Speaker 5: Thanks for your time. I appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Justin Archuleta. Good evening. My name is Justin Archer Letta. I'm a homeowner. Homeowner at 1599 West Berkeley Place in District one. And I care greatly about how our city is governed. I'm here today in support of the moratorium as amended that would exempt applications that have already been submitted. I'd like to kind of reiterate what Council Member Brook said about development companies having the potential to have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into planning. But I would also like to echo the sentiment that. Development companies, some that are small businesses could have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars if not seven figures on land and be a week, two weeks, a month away from submission into the city. So this does leave. Many small businesses potentially hanging. And it's not necessarily just about this proposal, this moratorium. You are setting a precedent that this can be done. So I would echo councilperson ken each and that caution is required. There is a balance. I understand that intent and outcome aren't always the same. I Denver zoning code is long. It's complex. As someone who has worked with architects and developers, a lot of times it is manipulating the code to see what works. It's back and forth with community planning and development. But the fact of the matter is that there have been other Garden Corps apartment forms that have been approved, that have been built, that have set precedent for other developers. Councilperson Espinosa actually ran on a platform that he said what convinced him to run was one such development. But that was over a year ago. So developers have had a year. Looking to successful built projects. Having the implied approval from city councilor, from community planning and development. That those types of projects are okay. Now I understand that. I like like Councilperson Espinosa said, you don't leave the water running when you're trying to fix the pipe. But at the same time, you don't leave a broken pipe for a year and get mad at everybody else for taking advantage of the water. I'd also like to kind of echo councilperson ken each in that I think the rhetoric is somewhat fearful when we get into these discussions of development and density. I am someone that is moving into what is some people over term a slot home. I'm under contract to purchase. I'm extremely excited about it. My neighbors are excited. I volunteer in the neighborhood. I am a valuable member of the community. And just because my choices for the type of house that I would like to live in don't match what maybe previous generations. I mean, look at the generational gap and speakers here. There needs to be some openness, some understanding. Absolutely. I'll be doing my best to get other people from my generation and a chance to let your time's up. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 7: Jahan Durrani. So John Barrios is. Yeah, we're working on it. Okay. So thank you all for your patience. I'm a lot less nervous this time around. So you've already heard my story. You know why this is important to me? I really want to advocate the importance of housing stock because I think contrary to some of the points that all of you express, I think one unit that gets added to the market, it doesn't matter if it's a family unit, if it's a single unit, it impacts the market as a whole. And I think we're really missing that bigger picture. So maybe you wouldn't like to live in a prison and maybe you wouldn't like to live in a 300 unit square home. But the developers don't invest things they won't sell. Those units are going to fill up and we're adding housing stock to the market by constructing those units. And so my concern is very similar to what Frank mentioned before, as now the moratorium is just becoming the way, right? So if I have a problem with something, I want a moratorium because I don't like something that looks like a prison. I want to make sure I have sufficient housing. And I think we're setting a really bad precedent because I think if we all think that in seven months, the other moratorium is going to go away and this one is just going to go away in 12 months, I don't think we're being realistic as to how this public advocacy process works. Right. It's the people who are most passionate, who have the loudest voices, who show up to the meetings. And so as a council, I think you have to be the voices for the bigger picture. And you have to think about housing stock. You have to think about the market and you have to think about all of these other things. That is really hard when you're an individual and you're kind of locked into your view. So just remember housing stock, it's really important. Don't forget, I absolutely understand that we need to make changes to the code, but you don't need a moratorium to do that, right? I mean, you can do that. You can make changes to the code, you can make adjustments. You don't have to stop development and an increase to housing stock to do that. So just something to consider. Thank you. It's a late night. Thank you guys for being here.
Speaker 0: Joann Barrios. Thank you. All right, Eva, Linda Herman.
Speaker 7: Good evening, everyone, and thank you so much for your time. It's been a long night. I do want to say something that was brought up tonight about how much money the developers are spending. We, the citizens, have also spend a lot of money and time. And I see everyone in our neighborhood which had beautiful trees. I see them all at Home Depot buying their flowers. We take great pride. So we have spent equally as much, probably much more so than all developers combined as individual people. So please keep that in mind.
Speaker 4: Before purchasing.
Speaker 7: In Cherry Creek North. I checked the zoning.
Speaker 4: Which states that we are zoned for single family dwellings, duplexes and row.
Speaker 7: Homes that the setback of any new development would have to meet the excess existing homes. But we are now facing an apartment complex claiming to be a garden court.
Speaker 4: With a deviation to the setback due to yet.
Speaker 7: Another.
Speaker 4: Loophole. We discovered all.
Speaker 7: These problems by accident and begin the process by contacting our city councilman and circulating a petition to bring awareness about this development. We acquired more than 500 signatures. What we.
Speaker 4: Didn't do.
Speaker 7: Was hire an attorney.
Speaker 4: Then, ten days before tonight's.
Speaker 7: Hearing, another Denver neighborhood advice is to.
Speaker 4: Hire a lobbyist and an attorney because the developer had both. Interesting. We had reached out to new that buried developers to no avail.
Speaker 7: But within hours.
Speaker 4: Of the developer.
Speaker 7: Hearing we had a lobbyist. They sent us a horrible plan 2026 stack units on 8/10 of an.
Speaker 4: Acre, doubling the.
Speaker 7: Housing on a block. By the way, we only had the.
Speaker 4: Lobbyist for a few hours because Councilman.
Speaker 7: You and Councilman Espinosa were helping us reach a compromise. We thank them for their work and because of their work. The stacking has been removed, but we are still stuck with setbacks that do not match the block.
Speaker 4: We are being forced to accept high density apartments.
Speaker 7: Why can't.
Speaker 4: The developer be forced to accept setbacks to.
Speaker 7: Match the block? That to me is a compromise. When both of us were a little bit unhappy, we understand that if the.
Speaker 4: Garfield.
Speaker 7: Apartments are not allowed to continue, in spite.
Speaker 4: Of all the problems recognized by the citizens.
Speaker 7: And CPD, then City Council will not pass the moratorium. In other words, the Garfield apartments are allowed.
Speaker 4: To live and we are the sacrificial lamb to save other Denver neighborhoods. But the developers are not budging.
Speaker 7: From 26 units on a 10th of an acre with insufficient parking and a non-conforming setback. So again, we are begging.
Speaker 4: You for relief. I have the dream that you city.
Speaker 7: Council will give.
Speaker 4: Us a Hollywood ending.
Speaker 7: That you will stand up tonight and at least give us the setbacks. That you will stand up and protect your citizens. That you will remember that on August 3rd you sat and.
Speaker 4: Heard CPD give a.
Speaker 7: Presentation stating that there is something wrong with the zoning code. Please stand up tonight and give us the setbacks for the integrity of the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: You have the power.
Speaker 7: Please give us that Hollywood ending. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr.. Ceremony. So you guys clapped and I couldn't. Ms.. Herman, can you please come back up here? You didn't state your name. I just want to make sure it's on the record. Thank you.
Speaker 7: I'm Evo. Linda Herman. I live at 215 Monroe Street.
Speaker 0: Nice Hollywood ending there. Okay. This concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Okay. I will start with my question. Oh, I can't see. Okay. Madam Secretary, I cannot see. Yeah. I can't see this because. Yeah. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I had a couple of question, but I already.
Speaker 7: Forgot one of them. But, Kyle, this question is for you. So earlier we were looking at the small zone lot parking moratorium, which I know was a long process, as you stated. But can you tell us the difference between these two processes? I, I know this one is being rushed, and I know there were some concerns about that from CPD. So if you could just sort of explain the difference of how these two got to us tonight.
Speaker 0: Regarding the moratorium bill specifically, sir. So again, for the record, I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. Yeah, I mean, with the first one, the councilmembers approached us, I think about a month before the bill was filed, and we helped them draft the bill in concert with the city attorney's office. The other bill, we we weren't approached that far in advance. So we have as much time to, you know, help us include the language at least so we could better administer the bill. Now, since that time, the sponsor we we reviewed the bill after you published it on first reading and provided some technical comments which the sponsors have agreed to put forth in an amendment tonight that would address so that we at least we can administer the intent of the the ordinance.
Speaker 7: And a couple more questions. So it does say in the bill that. Garden plants can be processed as long as they comply with all applicable requirements with certain conditions. So it's not that all garden courts are going to be stop. It's just ones that have this very.
Speaker 6: Narrow courtyard and a few other.
Speaker 7: Things. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: That's correct. Anything that's got a concept review now moves forward regardless, and then future ones would have to meet the conditions in the moratorium.
Speaker 6: Okay. And then I know the answer to this, but.
Speaker 7: This does not address slot homes that have a driveway between the two. The buildings. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: That's correct. The garden court building form is just one building form in which folks build sideways facing row homes, slate homes, or whatever you call them. And it's not a very commonly used form.
Speaker 6: Okay. And and.
Speaker 7: In what zone district are those permitted in the slide homes?
Speaker 0: Oh, goodness. Dozens. I mean, they're they're allowed in more than five different building forms in dozens of zone districts across the city. Which is why CPD earlier this month initiated a text amendment that would look more holistically at the issue of slot homes and the design of sideways facing row homes. Because it is. It's bigger than this one building form where we're going to need to look at it. And all zone districts throughout the city where where these things are getting built, even the ones that that this moratorium has nothing to do with.
Speaker 6: Okay. But the garden court is just one aspect of that.
Speaker 0: That's right. And it's an important aspect, you know, but it's just one part of it.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, Councilman Black, for those questions because it sort of it gets to the specificity of this moratorium and it's actually one of the few easily captures or situations. Mike. My question is regarding Mr. Benson's questions about the actual ordinance and probably best for either you, Kyle, or the city attorney. He specifically mentioned a concern about section two on page, page two about the the whether ease and the like would be considered part of the unit. And do you have any sort of my sense is that the intent of the the the way it would be interpreted would be that we're talking about dwelling unit overlap and not actual eaves. I mean, generally ees are accepted by, you know, they're allowed to extend over, over, over setback lines and other things. So do you do we have a reading on that?
Speaker 3: Adam Hernandez, assistant city attorney. Just to clarify, Councilman, you're asking about. So maximum height in feet?
Speaker 0: No. So it is the following. So the line reads in section two and it's the first sentence after the colon. It says, in no part of any dwelling in is constructed vertically above any other part of any part of another dwelling unit and each built building bounding the courtyard shell. Well, it's really that the way this written is written and no part of any dwelling unit is constructed. We're talking about when when the concern about stacked spaces. It's not the wall with or projections or eaves and sills and things like that. It's actually the habitable space of the unit. That's the dwelling unit.
Speaker 3: Correct. It talks about a. No part of any dwelling unit constructed vertically above the one below.
Speaker 0: Did you want to? I'll just I'll just add. So when it comes to interpretation of language, I think it's a good question that our staff are going to have to look at in the context of a specific development plan. Normally in the code, we address the term dwelling unit by specifying whether we're referring to the use or the structure. The language here doesn't provide us that clarity, but we'll we'll use our typical process of bringing interpretations to the various zoning managers who are responsible for the interpretation. And then, of course, if the applicant thinks that we've interpreted wrong, they can appeal that decision to the Board of adjustment. Right. I think generally based on the comments I've heard from council and the public, they would be more they would be more in favor of details being able to project rather than clear flat facades with no with no detail. The other question also relates to Peter Vincent's about I want to make it clear he was concerned and actually other developers and members of the audience that spoke to concerns about moratoria. Mr. Hernandez This moratorium does allow the use of the garden court during the next 12 months, provided that it meets those exceptions, correct ? Correct? Yeah. So, I mean, the garden court is alive and well. It's just the the slot home version. And this goes back to the conversation we're having citywide about the use. I mean, this the slot home form that you won't find anywhere in the building code, meaning the zoning code. But it it does it is something you can create using general building form. And so while the community is going to have a larger conversation, this will at least address the use of this form in in certain zoned districts. And I'll save the rest for my comments later. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Kyle, can I ask you just a quick question to clarify? I understand that a townhome or a row home is all vertical and there's no stacking of units. But why is it why is it that garden court cannot have any stacking of units? What's the purpose of that? What's the reason for that?
Speaker 0: I should be clear as as we interpret and administer the Denver zoning code as it's currently written, you can stack your address on both.
Speaker 10: Okay. Yep. Thank you. The way I was reading this was that we didn't allow that at all.
Speaker 0: Well, it wouldn't be allowed in. The moratorium passes. Okay. That's a distinction between the code we administer today and what the moratorium would do.
Speaker 10: Okay. So then to clarify the garden court form during the moratorium, if they meet these other conditions can continue to be processed and accept accepted and processed, but only if they're not stacked.
Speaker 0: Among other conditions. That's correct. They will not be able to be stopped. Okay.
Speaker 10: Can I ask maybe Councilman Nur Espinosa why? Why that is. Mr. President, can I can I ask him?
Speaker 0: Yes, please. I thought they should respond right away. Councilman. So the real reason is if we. So the purpose of the moratorium and the reason to move this forward the way we did is to stop the egregious use of the form. And so the form was intended to be mapped to our former R2 zone districts, which were single-family duplex areas in the rowhouse was conceived as an idea in the specific intent, as a way of sort of increasing density, but still orienting these developments towards the street and managing mean having a healthy set back and whatnot. So it's the the, the, the issue. But so what, what the Garfield project in particular represents is actually what's specifically permitted and prevented in those rowhouses and districts is the apartment form, which would be a multi-unit stacked configuration. But by placing essentially two apartment forms 15 feet apart and calling a court between those buildings, the garden court, and then orienting the doors towards that thing, you're now effectively building two apartment buildings in a row house alone district. And so by getting rid of the mean life defining dwelling units as being non vertically stacked, we're at least getting to what even those egregious uses are already, which are sort of simple developments. You can still rent them, but it only gets at least one unit per door facing the street. Thank you. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 3: Thank you. I just want to.
Speaker 5: Make sure that.
Speaker 10: When the moratorium is over, then. A garden court forms applications can still be accepted. Can then be accepted when they include stacked units.
Speaker 0: No, that would be specifically. I think it's yes, but. Oh, I didn't understand the question. Yes. When the moratorium expires, it's no longer in effect unless the council changes that.
Speaker 10: Unless we change the definition. Okay. Thank you. That's a great clarification. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Councilman Flint Kent. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Mr. Dalton, you almost got to sit down there. That was close. You were dreaming of the bench, weren't you? I'm just wondering if you could address the set back issue that was brought up as to why the proposed Garfield development apparently does not have setbacks. That reference, what's existing on the rest of the block?
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm I'm only prepared tonight to speak to the to the bill and not to a specific project. I don't have those details in front of me.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. I have a question for you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. So I'm going to go back to Councilman Black's questioning around the what forms are allowed in the slot house fro homes is what folks call it in my district, fake row homes. You know, there was a there was a news article released saying that this moratorium takes care of all slaughterhouses. And so I just want to that is not true just for the public. What percentage would you say of this moratorium in front of us deals with the kind of fake row home in the slot home issue. So. So the best we can do is do an estimate, right? Because slot home isn't a defined term. What looks like one to somebody else may not to another. Our best guess of what we have in the pipeline today is approximately 8 to 10 times more projects being built that are sideways facing row homes in other forms than in garden court form. Okay, 8 to 10. So what percentage? So that would be, you know, 80% are not are not guarded. So 90%. So what what's in front of us today is about 10 to 20%. I think the councilman was correct. We have three in the pipeline right now. So it's it's a very small portion of what we have under review. Can you can you share specifically what other forms that I mean, I think you guys are looking at this at a macro level. And, you know, we're excited to hear what solutions you come up with, but what other forms are in this kind of sideways home, you know, slot home? Sure. So the most common ones we see are in the apartment building form or the general building form. Now, those forms aren't allowed in the zone district where that one project is that a lot of folks have talked about today. And I think Councilman Espinosa did a good job of explaining in the Rowhouse District, you can't do an apartment or you can't do in a general. But in our multi-unit and our mixed use commercial zone districts where those forms are allowed, that's where we're seeing the more often. Yeah. And so this is just a question to Councilman knew and and Councilman Espinosa, I know this was a I was out, so I'm just now getting this but this was an knows fast process. But was there any consideration for having a larger conversation around some of these other forms? To be honest, Councilman Brooks, that would be a very, very, very heavy lift for this council. That is, there are so many zone districts we couldn't even I we could we could quantify that. But it is a very large number and it would be very hard to I mean, you would basically be laying a moratorium on both the apartment form and the.
Speaker 10: General building form, which.
Speaker 0: Would be disastrous for the city. To be honest now, it just seems like this is a big issue citywide. And if 10%, 20% is what we're after, that it seems like I just want to make sure that we're looking at this whole thing. I mean, we are the legislative body of the city, right? The macro view of this. And so I am concerned about that. Other now Carl didn't speak with specificity over what we're looking at as CPD, you know, in the future and I know there's some others, but that's just my concern. That's just come up. Councilman, do.
Speaker 8: They, sir? Sure know. Walter said she would like to get into SWAT homes in the garden court evaluation. So? So they're thinking about similar kinds of forms where they really need greater definitions of. So I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't get into some of that. But the focus will be on Gordon. Gordon.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Actually, CPD is is part in parallel with this garden court moratorium. They're spending the next 14 months specifically trying to address this at home in a task force community outreach manner. That said, and this is going to strike fear in every developer in the city. You know, the exemptions that we have written in here could actually be put forward in a general building form, basically requiring that, you know, because right now we have an unlimited number of buildings that can occur on certain zoned lots. And the building code only requires a six or ten foot minimum distance. So you could actually say, well, we're going to make it mean that any two buildings that are residentially occupied 100% really need to be separated by a certain you could address it. But yeah, so I think it's just an important, just important for our folks at home and the audience to to know that, you know, what's before us today handles a slice of some of the maybe the issues that we see in CPD, but not the full kind of breadth of it. Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. DALTON. Let's let's talk more theoretically on setbacks, if we can. Is it. Accurate or even close to. We have a general policy of trying to keep uniform setbacks in zone districts.
Speaker 0: So it depends on the zone district. But many most of our residential districts include what we call a block sensitive setback. Right. So that requires that. On that, what people refer to as the front setback, be sensitive to the setbacks of other buildings along the block. Different rules apply depending on where you are in the block. And I think part of what's going on here is it's a corner lot where where there's a different analysis and the rule of measurement about which lots you look at in terms of what you have to be sensitive to. It's a it's a complicated part of the code. And that's that's part of why I can't answer on the fly. But yes, in general, we have a block sensitive set back and it would apply in the grades three zone district.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Would you mind doing that analysis when you have a minute and get that and give me that information for sure. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: So I want to ask a process question. And, Kyle, you're probably the best person to answer this. So in terms of next steps, assuming this passes here tonight, what what are the next steps for how CPD will handle this? Will they be selecting who the people are that will serve as representatives similar to what we just talked about regarding the previous moratorium that we passed. So help me understand that as well as the timing of it in terms of how quickly that will ramp up and will that be done internally?
Speaker 0: Sure. Great question. Thanks for giving me the opportunity. So with regards to the garden court moratorium specifically, we will begin enforcing it as soon as it goes into effect, which would be later this week. The mayor signs the bill and so on. So that would that would start for all consent reviews. Typically, that happens after Thursday of this week. So so that's the garden court issue. But the bigger picture about the lot home text amendment that were that we announced earlier this month that we would initiate. We've spent the past couple of weeks assembling our staff team, assigning project managers, getting folks involved. You know, we've had to put other work on hold in order to prioritize this in our work program. So we've we've built a good internal team. And what we're doing over the next month and a half or so is as that initial work of ramping up a project problem identification and the rest, we announced that we would do a public kick off, we expect in October where we identify the stakeholder groups and we do think it's important to have a cross-section of the community and a cross-section of diverse perspectives on that stakeholder group, the task force, whatever it has called. So design professionals, architects, neighborhoods that are affected by this, you know, folks involved in finance. We think there's a broad perspective that needs to be brought to the table. The idea of a first task force meeting sometime later this year, maybe November, from kick off the best schedule we've been able to come up with so far would be 14 to 16 months. So we think we would have a package before this council at the end of next year. But but that process will will involve a lot of problem identification, upfront testing of solutions, using real life examples so we can find loopholes before we create them, write a new draft and do the drafting process. And then, of course, there's a series of public hearings and a public adoption process that would happen over the end of 2017. As with any of these large text amendments, like like a proposed square, like Cherry Creek, where we're tackling multiple diverse issues that that need that stakeholder perspective. We do expect to bring on board third party folks, particularly with the facilitation of those stakeholder meetings. But we may also draw on other third party resources we know will draw on outside design professionals to supplement our internal design staff. And there may be more resources to be brought to the table on this.
Speaker 4: So can you tell me how the work that's going on with Blueprint Denver, with the multiple consultants that we've brought on board to help us, you know, look at revising Blueprint Denver, how any of that correlates to the two conversations we're having here tonight or how these fit into that? Vice versa.
Speaker 7: I mean, the really.
Speaker 0: Different questions, right? So Denver, right. And Blueprint, Denver Update and the other plans that are part of the Denver right effort are citywide planning their vision, their future policy.
Speaker 4: So are these.
Speaker 0: What we're talking about here is a change to the regulation. So it's taking the code in and changing it. There's there's certain amounts that we think you can do with what you already have adopted in your plans that are calling for regulations that respect neighborhood character, that advance areas of change in areas of stability. There probably are issues that folks would like to address through this text amendment that instead need blueprint Denver guidance first. And so those would have to be in a future phase of regulatory implementation. I think of things like design review, like whole different bodies of staff, like things that aren't already embedded in the city's broad policy visions , that that's the kind of thing where Blueprint Denver in the Denver process will help inform future regulatory implementation.
Speaker 4: Well, and again, just getting back to the staffing issue. So did we factor in any. Leeway in those contracts to be able to utilize some of those folks that we're already, you know, that are already under contract with the city. These would be blueprint and some of the other planning efforts that we're doing.
Speaker 0: Well, not the Denver right contracts. What we'll use are the regulatory contracts that we have. Again, they're separate skill sets and they're different folks that we would need. So instead of the the the kinds of professionals we would use, like we use on Arapaho Square that we like, we use on Cherry Creek or that we would have used on Golden Triangle if we hadn't delayed that project to make room for this one. You know, we'll use those kinds of folks rather than the Denver right contracts.
Speaker 4: We're going to do that because we don't have that staff expertize or we just don't have enough staff. No.
Speaker 0: I think a third party perspective really adds an additional lens to, you know, can bring the kind of this is what other cities are doing. This is, you know, best practices around the world. Also, having a third party facilitator helps build trust among the stakeholder committee where the city is one of the parties at the table, but isn't the party steering. And so we found that to be an effective way that's really brought forth those previous amendments I've mentioned that have, you know, really come forward with folks in alignment on the outcome and the consensus building. That's where we find that third party voice is really helpful.
Speaker 4: Thank you. That was helpful.
Speaker 0: So I'll just touch on that because we just went through the Arapahoe Square text amendment and we had a third party come and walk us through that. And as neighbors and, you know, city council folks and developers, it was an amazing process that brought us to a I think a pretty good conclusion. So thank you for that. All right. Are seeing no other comments. Our our public hearing is closed for council. Bill 541 councilman new. Would you like to offer your new amendment to the council? Bill 541 Please read the particulars.
Speaker 8: All right, we will start again. Here again. I move that amendment council bill 541, as amended on July 21st, 2016, as follows. Number one on page two, line 70, strike the word courtyard and replace it with going forward. Number two, on page two, line eight, strike the word courtyard and replace with garden court. Number three on line two, lines 18. Insert the word tallest before the word proposed and before. On page two, lines 18 and 19 strike the words buildings abutting the garden courtyard, buildings abutting the courtyard, and replace with buildings whose facade bounds the garden court. Number five on page two, line 20, insert the words building form after the words garden court. Number six on our page two, line 21, insert the word R before the word units. Number seven on page two, line 23, strike the word court already replace with Gordon Court. Now read our page to line 24. Strike the word courtyard replaced with Gordon Corn on number nine on page two. Line 31. Add a new section which reads as follows Section five This moratorium shall not apply to complete applications for a mandatory review concept review pursuant to section 12 .3.2.2 of the Denver Zoning Code, which are which are submitted in advance of a required site development plan per section 12 .4.3.3 of the Denver Zoning Code and accepted by the Planning, Community Planning and Development Owner before the effective date of this ordinance.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second to comments by members of council and the council. I'm going to go right to you, but I want to remind members of council this is on the specific amendment. Will then give you comments for the whole bill later. So, Councilman. No.
Speaker 8: Yeah. I think this is the most important part about this amendment is is allowing the pending applications, those three pending applications to go through. We appreciate the number Arnolds, as they've really negotiated and worked with the neighborhood to develop the project and refine the project. So and so I think this this section will address those issues, those three applications that we've mentioned to go through. So I encourage my colleagues to support this.
Speaker 0: Great Councilman Flint.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Putting on my old editor's cap again, can I bring out a correction that needs to be made to the amendment? The one line that's number six. Insert the word R before the word units. It should actually be after the word units.
Speaker 0: Let's let's look at Adam Hernandez. Is that would you concur?
Speaker 3: That is correct. Okay. So I believe at this point, Councilman Flynn would have to offer an additional amendment. Okay. And have that seconded and. Then down the ladder.
Speaker 10: Sorry, Councilman Cashman. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: May I offer then a motion?
Speaker 2: Just if the two are in secondary, agree to the change they can.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: So that would be okay.
Speaker 0: Does the mover in second agree to the change?
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So can Secretary. Do we need to go to that whole. Oh, okay. Okay. You can just do the change on the fly here. Or do we need to read it back into the.
Speaker 2: No. It'll be corrected.
Speaker 0: It's corrected.
Speaker 10: The only other comment I would make on is that we continue to have the issue with the pagination from word into PDF so that the amendments when it refers to line page in line has no relationship to what we're actually looking at. So it took me a little bit of time to find that mistake. Will that be corrected? Do we know in our new system?
Speaker 0: We'll get an answer to you. Later on. But thank you for catching that. That was good. Councilman Espinosa. I just want to thank my colleague, Councilman Nu, and his staff, Melissa Horne, for the work in getting getting to this amendment and getting to today. Thanks. Great. I'll offer a comment. This is this was probably one of the most important pieces for me supporting this piece. And I appreciate you included in as I had residents. Small business owners, developers who were concerned about this piece. So thank you so much. Okay. We have a first in a second. Madam Secretary, roll call on the new amendment.
Speaker 2: New Ortega.
Speaker 4: By.
Speaker 2: Black Eye. Clark. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I heard in. Cashman. I can eat.
Speaker 3: LOPEZ All right.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I, Madam Secretary, announce the close of voting in US results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 I's Council Council Bill 541 has been amended. Counsel No. We need a motion to place upon final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 8: Okay. A move to Council Bill 541 to be placed upon final consideration, do pass as amended August 22nd, 2016.
Speaker 0: It has been moved seconded comments by members of Council. This is on the entire bill now. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I'm talking so much tonight. I have a few comments. One, I want to say that the developers who have built this garden court farm with the 15 foot wide court on whether we consider it a garden or not. We're actually following the rules and I think it's unfair to accuse them of doing something wrong or unethical, but they were following the rules that the city had. And so in this example of on Garfield Street with the Newbury family, they were also following the rules. I don't think they were trying to put one over on anyone. They were following the rules and doing what was permitted under our code.
Speaker 6: But I do commend their willingness.
Speaker 7: To meet with the neighbors. And thank you to Councilman Nu for bringing everyone together and and coming up with a great compromise. I am going to be supporting this, but I would not have supported it without that amendment.
Speaker 6: Protecting those that were.
Speaker 7: In the pipeline. My third point is.
Speaker 6: That I have faith in our community planning and development.
Speaker 7: Office. They are professionals and none of us sitting up here are urban planners. So you have a lot of work before you. So thank you for your expertize at that. I think it's dangerous, as several people have said, that we might set a precedent of all of us sitting up.
Speaker 6: Here rewriting the zoning code.
Speaker 7: And I don't think that's what we.
Speaker 6: Want to do when we've got.
Speaker 7: Experts who know what they're doing. And lastly, just I was.
Speaker 6: Remembering a council meeting.
Speaker 7: Before I was a council person. And Councilman Clark's predecessor, Chris Nevitt, used the word cognitive dissonance to describe the fact that here in Denver we have a severe housing shortage, which several people referenced. And with our low supply and our high demand, our rents are high. It's a common law of economics.
Speaker 6: But we still.
Speaker 7: Have resistance to more housing projects.
Speaker 6: I'm not judging anyone or anything. I just think there's a lot to be said for that. We all.
Speaker 7: Acknowledge that we have a shortage, but none of us really.
Speaker 6: Can agree upon where we should build new housing. So just a little shout out to Chris Nevitt.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Nu.
Speaker 8: I just want to come in and I really appreciate the collaborative process we've had. We've had a lot of discussions. I couldn't think of a more passionate group of residents and we haven't agreed. North They're just phenomenal to work with and and really explained issues to me so clearly that it helped me very much. And I really appreciate all the help that you gave me on this. We have a wonderful neighborhood association led by Bob Vogel and and John Albers. And and their leadership has been really appreciated in this and especially the Arnold Palmer and Paul Arnold coming to the table to negotiate this. And we understand that the code was the code, but but you're willing to to make the project even better and and being willing to share the design with residents too. And so the it should be an attractive asset for the for the neighborhood. So I really appreciate this effort and especially appreciate Councilman Espinoza and his architectural skills to help us with this. It's great to have that kind of qualification on city council to help us with these difficult zoning matters, you know. So thank you, everyone. Tonight, I look forward to and encourage all our our councilmen to pass this moratorium.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman new Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to commend Councilman Nolan, Councilman Espinosa, for the real hard work that they put through on this. I as well was very pleased to see the amendment come forth. But if I'm understanding correctly, it wasn't simply, okay, we'll just let this slide through. I'm aware that Councilman Espinosa has been spending a lot of time working with with applicants, trying to create projects that that meet what they're trying to create out of the garden court form. And I very much appreciate that and I very much appreciate the Arnolds and the others who were willing to compromise along the way. You know, as far as. People were just playing by the rules. I'm going to take a little bit of issue with that in that the people that are interpreting our zoning code are very bright people. And you look at the book, you're an architect or a designer or an experienced developer, and you see the picture. Of what we're looking for out of a garden court and to look at that picture, if you have if your interest is in creating a community in Denver for the long haul, you're going to look at that picture of garden court and see that 15 foot minimum and go, huh? Something's something's wrong here, not you. We can we can squeeze something in here. So I want to again commend the Arnolds and their willingness to compromise and take to task the people out there who are looking for those loopholes because there's going to be loopholes existing. I remember when they first started talking about the zoning code update, I don't know, 2007, eight, six, whenever it was. And it was going to be simplified because we have this big zoning book, Chapter 59 zoning code was this big, monstrous thing. And we were promised this going to be simple. You're not envisioning like a copy of Mad magazine. You flip through it and you know what you're doing. Well, our current zoning code is bigger than the last one, so there's going to be problems along the way. So I think we need to hold ourselves and our development community to a higher standard of conscience to build the city that we want. So thank you. That's all I got.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Then again, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa, first thing, I want to thank Kyle for that that explanation and answer to the question about what's next and how that overlaps with Denver. Right. I just the whole time you were talking, I just thought that was the greatest answer you could have come up with. And that's it just tells me that we got the right person in the right place at the right time to help us get and negotiate this next iteration of Blueprint. Denver. So thank you for that, for that response. And then if I want to make it very clear that if you're looking for places to develop housing, including high density development housing, don't be afraid to call me. There are places really developable parcels in northwest Denver that could capture increased increased dwelling units on those properties and good projects. So if you're a good developer and you got creative solutions, feel free to call me and I will happily steer you to where we've got ample development opportunity. So as much pressure as we are feeling from development, there are still ample places that could use your creativity and I would be happy to sort of work with you on those. But specific to this moratorium, this moratorium is vital to give, are capable, truly capable, but overburdened community planning and development staff the opportunity to come up with appropriate standards to capture the intent of this form. The moratorium with with the exceptions, is to ensure that we aren't continuing to create a problem over and over in neighborhood after neighborhood. While changes are made to the garden court form standards and application for the sake of for sake of comparison, as was already mentioned, you do not leave the water running when you're trying to fix a pipe. The moratorium is a temporary shut off to fix the problem, and once corrected, improvements to the form and its applicability will allow for improved outcomes when the garden court form is used. So I am convinced this is not an easy task, but there are there is a need for this form and appropriate uses of this form and it's going to take a public process to hammer out how that should be. But as it is today, it shouldn't. I like to thank CPD staff, CPD and the staff for all their hard work on this moratorium. And I look forward to working together with CPD and constituents and stakeholders, including developers, over the next 12 months. Finding new solutions. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, I just wanted to make sure that anybody who might be watching this meeting isn't assuming that these two moratoriums are going to stop all development in this city. And, you know, we know that there are other sites available across the city, many of which, as I indicated earlier, we've already re zoned where we have the ability for high density housing. In fact, I was looking at some data and. What what's happening is we're seeing lots of apartment buildings being built because of the impact that state legislation on construction defects had for for sale housing. Now in my neighborhood, we've continued to have for sale housing being built, but it's at the top of the AMIS scale and we've seen somewhere in the ballpark of 20,000 units that have been built, apartment units throughout the metro area over the last year. And so it's not like the development isn't happening. The issue is that we have 100,000 people a year moving here from other cities, and that has created the demand and the pressures that we're seeing happen. And so I think being able to take this time out, we all know that part of what makes Denver such a great city is our great neighborhoods and and people. You know, as we've heard, a number of folks testify, they live where they are because they love the neighborhoods. And when we began to completely change the fabric of some of the neighborhoods, it's why we've seen residents across the city come out. I remember when the Sloan's like neighborhood was starting to see single family homes and being replaced with duplexes. We all know it started in Cherry Creek, but that, you know, has sort of begun to happen in in neighborhoods across the city. But these two efforts tonight do not in themselves prevent other development from happening across the city that will continue to occur. So I just didn't want people to walk away thinking, you know, this just stops all development across the city and that is not the case. So I will be supporting this tonight. I think, again, taking this time out to be able to ensure that the the information that people look at when they come to our planning department is is clear. And it gives clear direction to both neighborhoods and to the developers who are trying to do development in this city, particularly around this garden. And I just want to thank everybody who's been involved in moving this forward, particularly councilman new Councilman Espinosa, but really came from neighborhoods saying this is something we want to see addressed. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Madam Secretary, call.
Speaker 2: New Ortega Black Eye Clark Eye Espinosa. Eye Flynn. Eye Gilmore. Eye Cashman. High Carnage Lopez.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Mental Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. Council Bill 541 has passed as amended. August 22nd. Before we go to the next public hearing, I'm going to give Councilman Ortega a little bit of privilege and make that announcement. Since you missed the.
Speaker 4: Okay. If you could.
Speaker 0: If you could stay quiet as you're exiting. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 4: So I wanted to state that the city's local emergency planning committee, which I.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman, 2 seconds. If you're leaving right now, the stairs are closed and you have to take the elevator. Yeah, just letting you know. Okay. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate you giving me just a moment to do this. I forgot about this when we had comments at the beginning of the meeting. So tomorrow night. I was just trying to wait for. Can we ask you all to leave quietly so we can continue conducting our meeting? Thank you. So the announcement that I want to make is that our local emergency planning committee, which is an arm of the Office of Emergency Management for the City of Denver, will be hosting meetings in every council district. The first meeting is tomorrow evening at 615 at the La Alma Rec Center in Councilman Lopez's district. And part of what they will be doing is talking to neighborhoods about the emergency preparedness plan that we have for the city, which we are required to update at a minimum of every five years. And so this is part of that process where we're soliciting public input for the emergency preparedness plan that we have for the city of Denver. So I just wanted to encourage people to come out. The address of the LA Alma Rec Center is 1325 West 11th Avenue, right next to the Lincoln Park in the Lincoln Park neighborhood . Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, moving on, Kels. Menu. Will you please put Council Bill 566 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the council bill 566 be placed on final version and do pass.
Speaker 3: It has been moved. Can we get a second? Yes, it has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for council bill 566 is open. Kels Menu. Are you giving us an overview or do we have a staff report?
Speaker 8: Carers.
Speaker 3: Okay. Can we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Kara Hahn. I'm a senior city planner with Landmark Preservation at Community Planning and Development. This is a landmark designation for 1400 Lafayette Street, the First Unitarian Society of Denver, and this is an owner supported designation.
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance providing for a moratorium prohibiting the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of buildings using the Garden Court building form in the Denver Zoning Code for a period of approximately twelve months.
Approves a moratorium prohibiting the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of buildings using the Garden Court building form in the Denver Zoning Code for a period of approximately twelve months. This bill was approved for filing by Councilmember New. Amended 7-25-16 to allow current projects already in the pipeline to move forward as long as the projects comply with the added conditions.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08222016_16-0566
|
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Kara Hahn. I'm a senior city planner with Landmark Preservation at Community Planning and Development. This is a landmark designation for 1400 Lafayette Street, the First Unitarian Society of Denver, and this is an owner supported designation. There are approximately 6600 properties that have been designated since the ordinance passed in 1967. The owners of the property are aware that it would that if it is designated, it would go through a design review. It would be designated as is, and there would be no required changes. But that it would have to go through design review and there would be a demolition would be discouraged of the property. Additionally, though, they know there are benefits to the property. If it is landmarked, they would be eligible for a variety of grants, including a state historical fund grant, which is a 7520 5% match. They would also be eligible for historic preservation, rehabilitation, tax credits. And so even though they are a nonprofit, if there's any part of their entity that is income producing, they would be eligible for the state commercial tax credits, which for projects under $2 million would be 25% and capped at $1,000,000. The applicant submitted an application in May. City staff reviewed it and found that it met all the requirements. It went before the Landmark Preservation Commission as well as Council Committee and is currently here at the Second Reading Community Planning and Development posted all of the notifications, toured the property and has been in contact with the applicants throughout the process. So what we're looking at is that at the corner of 14th and Lafayette, the applicant is the First Unitarian Society of Denver. And within Blueprint Denver, it is an area of stability. The Church was initially constructed by the Plymouth Congregational Church in 1893 and then completed in 1899 after they had recovered from the silver crisis . The First Unitarian Society was established in the early 1870s and they occupied many buildings before they found another building of their own. They were oftentimes considered too progressive or too liberal, and they couldn't find housing of their own. They finally built a building in 1873, and this property, which they moved to in 1958, is their third building. The only primary change that has occurred since then is there was a major fire in 1985 that did some significant damage to the interior of the building. In order for something to be designated a landmark, it has to retain integrity. Meet one criteria out of the following three categories History of architecture and geography and the relate to a historic context or theme in Denver history. This property has excellent integrity. There are a few minor changes that have occurred an enclosure in the 1920s, a response to the 1985 fire with some changes to the interior and exterior, as well as the changes to the addition of an ADA ramp. And then in the early 2000, in the mid 2000, they added an elevator. Overall, the property has excellent integrity. The property has direct association with the history and development of the city and county of Denver. Typically, they provided space for historically marginal, marginalized groups that couldn't find a space for themselves. They were very active in the civil rights movement and became a home for the local Congress of Racial Equality. They were very involved in the fair housing movement. They had a free pulpit that allowed other groups to come in and speak when they couldn't find access to something. And then they were heavily involved in the gay rights movement and marriage equality. They held events for other churches. The NCC Church often met here, and then they were heavily involved in the gay coalition of Denver, which started in the mid 19, early 1970s, and they provided space for this group. It then morphed into the Gay and Lesbian Community Center and now is just currently what is the center. They also hosted a variety of weddings in 1975, which was one of the first gay weddings that was held within the within the nation. So this would be the first LGBT site within the state of Colorado that would be designated as historic on either the local, state or national level. So community planning in development is very excited to be able to put something forward that isn't just the history of the wealthy doctor on the corner or the fancy, you know, the fancy Victorian house, but really speaks to all members of our community. The property is also associated with a persons of importance or influence on society, including Governor Lam, as well as his wife, Lady Dottie, Liam and also Helen Walcott, who is significant in the civil rights movement and was very involved with the Congress of Racial Equality and specifically with unfair housing practices and working it for that. Additionally, it is significant under architecture for its Richard Sony in Romanesque style. Its seen in the Ashland Masonry, which is basically the square masonry, the rounded arches, the cross gables and the parapets. It is also significant for the work of a master architect or a master builder or a recognized architect. And in this case, it's for both of those. For Ernest Varian and Frederick Sterner, who are well-known local architects, as well as for a master builder. In this case, it's the Walk in stained glass studio. This the stained glass was created in 1893 by Clarence Watkins, and then the 1985 fire severely damaged it. So Clarence's great grandson recreated the stained glass window from the original drawings. And finally, it's significant for its geography. It has a prominent location on the corner of 14th and Lafayette, and it's a very highly recognizable building. Members of the congregation often speak that when they're giving directions to someone and they're like, Oh, it's that castle building on on 14th. So it's really very community. The community's familiar with it and it's a wayfinding us building. So the property relates to late 19th century architecture, the development and growth of Denver, specifically the Capitol Hill area, and for its role in the social justice movements within the city and county of Denver. At the Landmark Preservation Public Hearing, we had received a letter from the original congregation that was signed a petition as well as three emails of support, and then the application included a letter from the current owners. All were in support of this application. The Landmark Preservation Commission evaluated the building and felt that it maintained integrity, that it met all three of the criteria under history, architecture and geography, and that related to the historic context or themes of Denver history. The LPC voted unanimously six zero to recommend designation of the property.
Speaker 0: Great. All right. We have three speakers. I'm going to call them all up right now, Karen, Derrick Davis, Susan Robertson and John Olson. Susan Roberts in here. Oh, yeah. Great. Yeah. All right. And then Jonathan. So, Karen, you can go first.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. I know that Kara just told you just about everything about our church, but I am here as a congregant of the church. And one of the reasons I am so proud to be a member of that church is because of our social justice activities. It's we have extensive history of social action. And for decades we've been at the forefront of local and national issues. We have many firsts. Kara mentioned a few. One that we're really proud of is we were integrally involved in one of the first well, the first charitable organization in Colorado, Pioneer Ladies Aid Society, which was led by a member of our church, Augusta Tabor. And there's a landmark downtown for her and the location of our congregation at the time of that. Women's suffrage also was a thing that she was involved in while she was a member of our church, which at that time was called Unity Church. We were, as Karen mentioned, one of the first churches, the first church in Colorado to conduct gay weddings and one of the first in the nation, first home of many organizations that currently we now take for granted, like the center. And we actually are the first church in Colorado to achieve Energy Star rating. So we really try very hard to walk our talk and live our values. We're really excited about being the first landmark that's recognized for LGBTQ activism. That's something that we've been very involved with the civil unions. And I was remembering with Susan when we first started doing the standing on the side of love services on the Capitol steps. It started out with about ten, 15 people and wondering what was going to happen with it. And then civil unions passed and we have hundreds of people that come and now we actually are changing to standing on the side of love is now our focus is on other issues like Black Lives Matter and immigration. Our congregation explicitly decided to remain on Capitol Hill rather than moving. And we want to improve our building and take care of it and make it restore it back to its beauty, shining beauty in Capitol Hill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Soaps. Karen, can you come back up here and just state your full name for the record?
Speaker 7: Karen, Derek Davis. Perfect. And Councilman Brooks as my councilman.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Good to see you. All right. Susan Robertson.
Speaker 7: Thank you for having us here. And I want to thank you on behalf of our entire congregation for considering this proposal. This effort to secure landmark designation for our church was really a long process for our church. We went through a lot of sort of community meeting process and so forth. We ended up with a near unanimous vote. Only one person in our entire congregation voted against it. So I come tonight representing all those people and also representing the first Plymouth Church, which is now located over at Hampton and Carter Boulevard. And they have we have the strong support of their congregation as well. They occupied the building from 1893 until 1958, and it was very fun to go see their archives. And we actually learned a lot about the early history of our building from them. So it's very interesting. The educational process that we went through in exploring our history was really, I think, something that empowered us as a congregation. And I think some people knew some of the history, but I think it's become much more a central focus to really try to bring that history alive. And so, for example, nowadays when we're working on Black Lives Matter, we can do that sort of rooted in the history that our congregation was actively leading efforts during the 1960s and Denver to make sure that that African-Americans could be hired at places like Safeway and King Soopers in the Denver Dry Goods. And so it's really empowering for the the work that we're doing today to understand, you know, where we've all come from and the importance of all that. We also in the 1970s, we hosted a variety of organizations in our basement and in buildings adjoining us. And there were organizations such as the National Organization of Women, the American Civil Liberties Union metric, Metropolitan Community, Church of the Rockies. Even organizations like Community College of Denver that first started out in the basement of our church. And so we really are very proud of all the organizations that were incubated in our space, the historic well, the current uses of our building. I think a couple of things too that are really important is that our building is currently used for many social justice issues, such as housing homeless populations. We host House to Populations of People Women, Women's Homeless Initiative every other Friday night and family promise for 7 to 10 nights every quarter. So there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people who have been housed in our building, fed in our building and volunteer hours that support those people. The historic landmark application. Our process well designation will certainly help us to access the state historic funds, which we feel are really important because we are working to preserve our building and we need to make some repairs that are really important to a beautiful stonework on the outside and so forth, which is failing at this point. And so we are planning to access the historic grants, but we also feel that it's important at this point to help raise awareness of some of the social justice issues that we're so proud of. We're excited to have the recognition for LGBT, and we feel like this is a great public venue to really bring that history alive . So all that said, we are very grateful for your support and it's been a wonderful opportunity to go through this process and work with your staff. And we thank you for it all.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Can you state your name for the record?
Speaker 7: Susan Bridges Robertson.
Speaker 0: Thank you. John Olsen. Last but not least.
Speaker 3: Last but not least. My name is John Olsen. I'm director of preservation programs at Historic Denver. I'm here to fully support this designation of the First Unitarian Church at 14th and Lafayette. I'm very proud to be working with this group. I think this is a group that is completely invested in their property, in their neighborhood and the state they've been around dealing with the many social issues that we've talked about women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, immigration reform, all different kinds of things, including bless you, including the the many social activities that are happening right now. And they have made just a concentrated effort to really make this their home. And because this is their home, they're very proud of their home. And they have talked through their full congregation about how they could reinvest in their property yet again. And one of the first steps was to recognize the history that this property had for the city, for the state of Colorado, as well as for them as a congregation, and for all of the many people that need this building to continue the social services that are in there. I just want to, you know, commend them on all of their amazing effort, the effort that they've done with the LPC to get this done. And I hope that you will vote for the designation of this property. One of the great benefits of the designation, if this were to pass, which I very much hope that it does , is the grants that are out there for buildings like this so that they can have the improvements to make all of these social programs happen. And we're very hopeful that this is a grant that's going to be approved by the state historical fund so that they can continue their work there and do all of the things that really make this neighborhood in this city special. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, John. Questions. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Seeing none comments councilman do.
Speaker 8: Well, districting has the largest percentage of historic structures and districts and we're so proud of of what what you're all doing to help preserve. And this this building is a perfect example of what's going on in district ten and how the need to preserve that. So it's a beautiful building. I love those stained glass windows and it's just gorgeous. And I'm looking forward to the improvement and the expansion of service programs. So thank you so much for working so hard to do this. And and John, thanks for your leadership and appreciate all that you're doing for historic preservation in District ten. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. You and I'm going to close that public hearing because I should have done that before you spoke council counsel that that's the public hearing for council. Well. 566 Councilman Espinosa. Sorry. So the architecture of the building is impressive and undeniable. But what's more impressive is the history. And there's no way of. For me anyway. As an architect. No. To know that history. Just by looking at the building. And so. But it makes me very proud to know what sort of things were. Were originated there and had go on there. Because those are important important things to be ahead of and be part of. For this society to move forward progressively. And so the only thing I just wanted to throw out in my commentary was this this idea that something you should consider is partnering with a nonprofit and looking at the Denver Arts and venues piece You Are Here grant program because I think it's a real opportunity to bring awareness to that history, that legacy and that the work continues and to sort of that passers by just not only recognize it and it's great architecture, but actually there's a prominent, important piece of Denver history socially that has gone on here so that programs out there, that grant deadline is the end of September. Something to think about is you've got a lot of right away there. Maybe there's something creative that can be a temporary installation. So look into that program. I think it's a great opportunity to sort of bring what we was just presented to us and which is summarized in beautifully in the write up to bring some notion of that so that people who are driving by or passing by or walking by or biking by can actually go, whoa, this is this happened here, and the work still continues. So it's totally an aside, but I just know that I'm greater for having heard it and maybe others would be too. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I really look forward to supporting this designation. I've been in the building any number of times over the years, but I've driven down 14th Avenue thousands and thousands of times since 1971 and never failed to look over at that building. That's a beautiful structure. I mean, it is this is one of those designations that in any number of ways is pretty easy. I would designate the building if it your congregation didn't exist and I would designate your congregation if the building didn't exist. It truly is. It's special to to have the opportunity to recognize what goes on within the building. And yeah, I could talk on for hours, so I'll just say thank you for what you do. And I will support this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I just, you know, couldn't resist chiming in affordable housing and LGBT rights. I always knew those two things went together. But seriously, recently, we had a very tragic incident in Orlando. And right around that time, I had the privilege of being at the Stonewall Inn, which was the first major LGBT national landmark that was designated. And I think this is a really important bookend to that in some ways. I mean, the LGBT community for many years. Bars were a place where, you know, they could we could commune and find fellow travelers and, you know, sometimes be safe, sometimes not so safe. But I think that, you know, those stereotypes, too, about, you know, the beer community. And I think that having a faith community also being designated and I think not just because of perhaps LGBT folks who may have been attending, but because I would imagine then and maybe still now because of the straight allies who took up the fight. And it's funny what I always notice when I drive by because I drive by, you know, almost every day on my way to and from Park Hill is that the Black Lives Matter sign? It's one of the few Black Lives Matter signs that I see outside of northeast Denver. And it's always noticeable to me and it almost feels more significant. And so that that that theme of being an ally. Right. So again, you know, it is you know, the architecture is amazing, but I want to just thank you for for being that voice as as whether it's with members of those communities or as allies. So with that, I will happily support this designation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Canady, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I still remember the very first time I ever saw this building, and it stuck with me because it was so striking. And, you know, I think my colleagues have said everything so well that I wish I could just say. And that, too, I think that the significance of the building, the significance of the history, there are so many things that we do in this job and a year and still getting used to the whole gamut that that runs. But to have the opportunity to have a vote in this is really something that's very special for me to be a part of that. So thank you for all the work. I know it wasn't easy to bring it. It's one of those stories and structures, as Councilman Cashman, I think, captured when he said it, that you kind of look at it, you're like, wait, that's not already protected. That's not already designated. But, you know, there are structures like that in our city, and it takes the hard work and dedication of the people who are there to bring this forward and to provide that. And so we are all in your debt, and I'm just so excited and honored to be a part of it tonight. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Councilman Clarke. I'll just I'll just add this, that all of our city, we have a huge problem in CPD because there are congregations that are dying and we're going to, you know, folks want to come in and redevelop and redevelop the property. And as a person of faith, it's a little sad to see. But this congregation here is so alive and so passionate about what's going on in the city and it's so encouraging to see. So just thank you guys for sharing that. And hopefully you can be an encouragement to some other communities of faith to to get involved and be socially active. I know we're talking about a building here, but what makes this building beautiful is the people inside it and who are alive and have a historical way of doing that. So thank you so much. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: New Ortega Black Eye Clark Espinosa. Flynn Hi. Gilmore, I. Catherine Hi. Carnage. Lopez. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 11 Eyes 11 eyes council bill 566 has passed. There is no pre adjournment announcement I think for the first time ever. So seeing no other business before today. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 4: Are you on the bus?
Speaker 0: Folks in a greatly appreciate it. Say your last name. I'm sorry if I mispronounce it.
Speaker 2: Amy. From a.
Speaker 0: Performer.
Speaker 2: I live here in Denver. I'm also an organizer with the Denver Justice Project.
Speaker 7: And I just want to follow up Paul.
Speaker 2: Lopez's words that if any council members here tonight are on the fence about passing this measure that you consider. Letting letting it go to.
Speaker 7: The ballot and letting the.
Speaker 2: People vote on this. Also, I want to. Again, kind of reiterate what I might have spoken in the Charter and Governance Committee meeting, which is that I really appreciate the current OEMs offers. Not only are they extremely knowledgeable, they're forward thinking, they're progressive. And I think their recommendations and policy recommendations reflect this. I also think they do something.
Speaker 7: That we don't acknowledge.
Speaker 2: Often is how proactive.
Speaker 7: They are in terms of addressing.
Speaker 4: Police.
Speaker 2: Practices and patterns. And like you said in the committee.
Speaker 7: That that is.
Speaker 2: An office when they are so forward thinking and part of the solution that should be institutionalized, respected.
Speaker 7: And.
Speaker 4: Given more.
Speaker 2: Authority. They're also setting a precedent for being proactive. You know, of course, they're dealing.
Speaker 7: With abuse complaints and dealing with.
Speaker 2: The different investigations.
Speaker 4: And things like that that are in line with I think their approach is in line.
Speaker 7: With.
Speaker 2: What is going on nationally in terms of reform.
Speaker 7: But like I said.
Speaker 2: I really want to emphasize the fact of.
Speaker 7: How proactive they are being in terms of.
Speaker 2: Whether it is adopting technology that helps improve or improve police practices, whether it is community outreach or bridging the gap.
Speaker 4: All of those things should be valued, and.
Speaker 7: I think it's.
Speaker 2: Definitely something that needs to be have that respect and authority by being put in.
Speaker 7: The charter. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Farmer. We have. I'm going to call out your applause, please. I'm going to call five other folks up to the front. Michael Raich, James seven, Dale McDonald, David Larsen and Alex Lando. Michael Raich, you will be first. R e y i k is what I have, but maybe that's Hugh. Come on up. Maybe we got entered in wrong. Michael Barisic. Yes. Your first year.
Speaker 5: On Park Avenue. I've never spoke before acceptance speech class in high school and I wasn't prepared for this anyway. What's coming up? I'll make it quick. I went and talked to the state representative, Joe Salazar, not long ago in his office for a half hour. He immediately I told him the little story. He says, may I see the documentation? I.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating 1400 Lafayette Street, the First Unitarian Society of Denver Church, as a structure for preservation.
Designates 1400 Lafayette Street as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 10. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-3-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08082016_16-0590
|
Speaker 12: to solve a problem. I know we've been at many, many community meetings. I can remember one Saturday morning we were at a Wieden seed meeting in the Baker neighborhood. The city was successful in securing a HUD building. It was a home on on the block that we had one of the key gang members that lived on. And we were having a meeting, a weeding seed meeting in this house and down the street where this gang member lived. We heard these gunshots and the officers ran down the street. They ran out, told everybody to duck and cover. And I don't even remember if you guys caught the bad guys. But, you know, these are the kinds of responses and incidents that I think all of our officers deal with on a day in and day out basis. And yes, we have been challenged with police community relations. But I got to tell you that we didn't see a program. Made all the difference in the world, in our police community relations. And I think these are the kinds of programs that, you know, if we could get back to having some resources to be able to to have the kind of programs that allow us to have that direct interface very similar to what the Weed and Seed program did. That was the first steps of community policing in the city of Denver under the leadership of Jerry Whitman. And Jerry did that program so well with all of the officers who who worked with a number of neighborhoods across the city where we had some serious gang warfare in the in the early nineties, so much so that they called it the summer of violence. It's when we created the. The curfew program that still exists today to make sure that young people, when they're out past curfew, there's a place for them to go to make sure that they're safe and that we don't have, you know, the kind of activity that occurred back then. And these are all programs that Commander Lopez has been involved in, in one way or another. And I just I just can't thank you enough for the work you have done. And I just have to say to Commander Sutter, you have some big shoes to fill. I know you have been around the city a long time and you have done an outstanding job as well. But everybody in this district knew Commander Lopez, and I know that you will get to know them as well. I know we have a meeting in downtown in a couple of weeks with some of the neighborhood groups concerned about some of the violence on the 16th Street Mall. But I know you two have been friends for a long time and Tony's probably filled you in and all the details of what's going on. But I wish you luck in your new position. And Tony, same with you as you go out to dinner. Thank you for your service. And I want to thank your family for the sacrifices that you all have made for him to be able to serve our community as well as he has done. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for bringing this proclamation forward. Commander Lopez, we have a good history together.
Speaker 11: And you have served this district very well, but.
Speaker 9: You've served this city very well. You know, you've. And this time we see you as a commander. For the longest time, I've always known you as Lieutenant Lopez. Right. And out in District one. And the first time. So for those of you who don't know, I well, I talk about this all the time of being a native . But I grew up I was born and raised in Denver, born and raised in the West Side. I was born in a in an era where you couldn't wear a color like this tie or a shirt like this blue. And if you did, you you'd nearly get killed. You had threats on you just for doing it. I couldn't even wear a Broncos shirt walking around Westwood because it was blue and you couldn't be walking around Westwood wearing blue. I learned my lesson the hard way on that one. I got beat up pretty badly and there was that. That was pretty rampant in the early nineties. There was a lot of fear. So the Weed and Seed program was a very effective program. It was one of those programs that you really invested in to really try to figure out how we would be able to create this this community right where where there's less violence affecting our young people. But the one thing it relied heavily on was police involvement and a trust between community and police. And during that time that was pretty rough as well to. And I've made it well-known that I was growing up as a kid. I didn't trust anybody in a uniform, especially a police uniform, for a lot of different reasons. There was a lot of discourtesy back in the day. There was, you know, you just growing up in the West Side, you didn't have that good relationship. Right. But then along comes a person like Tony Lopez and Commander Quinonez. Who get it. And. I first met Commander Lopez when I was organizing with the Janitors Union. And we would go and shut down a street. You know, get arrested. And, you know, first thing I thought there, all these guys are going to drag us. They're going to, you know. No, no, no, no. I'm just going to give you an order, plain and simple. And there it was. But he we always were in communication. Any time we had a protest or an action. And some of you in this room remember this. You know, we the first person to say, hey, we just want to make sure everything goes well. I want to make sure that the folks are peaceful and I make sure you guys don't get hit by cars. We'll help you. Really? Yeah. But what if it's.
Speaker 2: Critical of you all? We'll still help you. Right.
Speaker 9: It's your freedom of expression. It's your free speech. And we're here to protect those rights. Right. And in 2006, I had the task of organizing, along with a couple of other people, the largest march in this state's history. 100,000 people we had. The first one was about 75,000. The second one was about 100,000 and 2006. And my first. And that was a huge amount of people that we could not really fathom or to think about. I mean, how do we keep a violent act from happening? How do we protect the protesters? Are not protesters, but the folks that were rallying for immigration reform. How do we do this in a safe way in the first two people to come to the table? Or Lieutenant Lopez and Commander Quinonez. And they say we will do everything possible to make sure that this goes peacefully to help you, help you know, help you get your point across in a peaceful way and without having to because we had threats of the Minuteman coming and, you know, they antagonized people. They spat at people they, you know, did all kinds of stuff to really antagonize and really try to. Not one incident took place that whole day. And you know what? In a community, when there was an issue, you would call your district one officer, your commander, your lieutenant. And there is front and center was Commander Lopez. That's community policing. Always treated.
Speaker 11: You and always treats you.
Speaker 9: With a level of courtesy. It's really high disrespect and dignity, no matter if you're a council person or if you're a person on the street or somebody in the back of a squad car. Always treated you with respect. And he emulates a lot of what our officers are today. And that's the exact training they go through and to have that kind of a leader to look up to. That's your standard is a is a is a Tony Lopez. That's a heck of a standard. That's a very high bar to strive to be. And I could say that, you know, you know, having developed into those days from a young man to doing the activist stuff that even now, nine years into it as a city councilman, working with you, working with the department has has been a great pleasure. And I, I know this is not you. This is not a bye bye. You're just continuing to a different assignment. And here's the thing. You have the respect of the city and the community behind you and so many. This man is in District six, I think Robert Chief Robert White gave you a very good assignment, a very tough one, one of the hardest ones in the city. And you've done it well. But may I say this in Spanish, we have a saying not quite as bad or not, but a sad look and not quite as bad. You can't be, which you can't see. And just a moment ago, my nine year old daughter was here. She has this cute little name badge that you made for her as a last name on it. Her name is Lopez. My name's Lopez, right? She walks up to Commander Lopez and went right for his name badge. Your name's Lopez, too. And the look on his face. Yeah. My name's Lopez, too. Well, there's a lot of little Lopez's out there. Not mine, but just one that I.
Speaker 7: That Tony's other Lopez.
Speaker 9: But there's a lot of them. And you know what they see? They see you. And they see what they can be. Right. And that is super important. And now I'm proud, too. I'm proud of our department because they have a Lieutenant Lopez, they have a Chief Quinonez, and they have Chief Robert White, who's the first African-American chief of this department. And if there is no other time where you can't be what you can't see, this is it. These kids, these young people, this community can now see you in a lot of salutations around the world. It's not just hello or hi. It's. I see you. And they see you. So thank you for being something that they can see.
Speaker 8: I appreciate it. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Very brief your remarks. Thank you for your service. Congratulations. Wish you good luck. But I also want to thank all the officers who are here. Thank you for your service. And thank all of you who spent ten days attending neighborhood picnics all around the city. All of us went to a lot of picnics and many of you were there. And the people and the community appreciated it so, so much as did all of us. So thank you for coming, and thank you for your service.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman Gummer.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President. Commander Lopez. I have not had the pleasure of working with you very closely, but I look forward to that changing with your new assignment at Denver International Airport. But I have to convey a much thanks to you. You know, your house, your name is spoken with reverence in my house. If there is a phone call or something happening downtown and Commander Lopez was on the phone. Somebody was going out the front door to have a conversation that I knew was very serious. And so, you know, you're very respected as far as your work. And I just look forward to building a relationship with you and a DIA before you go and play on your retirement. So thank you for your service. Thank you, President.
Speaker 8: Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hurd.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. Commander, I just want to say, you know, the adage rings true. Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care. And there's never been a question how much you have cared for the community that you serve and the officers that have served with you and that has served you well over your illustrious career. The airport is in good hands, well done. And as someone that has worn a uniform, I know it is not just the individual that wears the uniform the family does as well. And so that's figuratively and actually literally in your case, too, with your son. And so to the family, I want to say thank you, because he could not be the successful man that he is without your support. So thank you as well for for being a part of this journey with him, because he would not be the excellent man that he is without you as well. So thank you. And congratulations to you, too. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Yeah, thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. Good. I'm glad Chief White is here. Did you hear that whole track record? Why you're not allowed to make this decision? Come on. I'm just. Just. I wanted to take my opportunity from the constituents of District one to thank you for your years of service and commitment to this community. I really appreciate it. And I'm glad we get to continue seeing you out there at the airport. Thanks. Thanks, Councilman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I can't say it any better than my colleagues have, but I just wanted to make sure to add my thank you for your service and your sacrifice to you and to your family for everything that you've done for our great city.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 10: Mr. President. I.
Speaker 13: Black I.
Speaker 1: Clerk i.
Speaker 10: Espinosa, i. Flynn, i. Gilmore. I. Herndon.
Speaker 1: Cashman I.
Speaker 10: Can. Lopez I. Ortega.
Speaker 12: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: Assessment I.
Speaker 8: Police Kosovo to announce the results.
Speaker 10: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 8: 12 Eyes. Proclamation 590 has been adopted. All right. I'd like to invite Chief White to dance now in. Just over.
Speaker 1: I want to see that, please.
Speaker 8: And then Commander Lopez, please come.
Speaker 11: First, let me say this. Let's keep that dance little thing between you and I. And congratulations, Mr. President. And I'm so glad to see you. And I know that you have a good appreciation about the miracle of prayer. Yeah. Thanks, Tony. And I, too, will be brief, because I know it's important to get about the business of the council I have made. I first want to acknowledge what the president I'm sorry, former President Herndon has stated. None of this would be possible for Tony. And I don't think I have to speak for him, but I'm going to if it hadn't been for the support of his family. So I would ask that all the members of the Lopez family please stand so we can acknowledge you. And I'm going to actually pass to Mike to Tony. But I will say this. I mean, obviously, I think everyone knows that doing my short time here, I've made a lot of changes. Some of them are certainly been questionable in the minds of some. Some have been really good, some of it very good, and very few have been great. And one of the few great changes that I did not make was retaining Tony Lopez and keeping him in District six. Tony, on behalf of all the members who wear this uniform and maybe more importantly, the members of this community, I cannot thank you enough for the dedication and the tireless effort that you have made in the six years that you've been the commander of District six. And Tony is not retiring yet, but Tony is close to retirement, and it was critical that we transition someone in to replace him. I'm going to be honest with you, that was not an easy task, but I think we found the right man in Ron Sonya. So Tony's going to spend his last. According to Tony, he's counting his last one year, 11 month and three.
Speaker 0: Days at the airport.
Speaker 11: But doing I think Maggie's wife is probably counting more than Tony, but during that time, he's going to continue to transition. I'll command you, Sonya, to make sure he can pick up the ball or where Tony left off. So with that, I give you Tony Lopez.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know where to begin. I just want to thank the council for recognize me. This is an amazing honor. When I began my career in 1983, I would never have realized or imagined that 33 years later, I'd be standing in front of city council and I'd be getting recognized for being allowed to wear this uniform , being allowed to wear this badge and to serve the city and county of Denver, because that's actually what it boils down to. I came to this country as a political refugee from the island of Cuba, received my citizenship in 1977, a product of Denver public schools. And I gave I had the opportunity to give back to the community and to serve the community that I grew up in. I can't tell you what an honor it is. My son has followed in my footsteps and I can't tell you how proud I am. My chest swells when I talk and I think about Tony. And as you all know, we had a we had a bump in the road in December. But he's strong, he's good, and he's looking forward to coming back and serving our community. I celebrated my 59th birthday on Saturday and I think I got my birthday present back in December when the good Lord gave us our son back. So on behalf of my family, my wife and and my good friends and my my good friends, Chief Quinonez, and everything that he's done to support me through the years, through thick and thin, we've been together and and I think we've done an amazing job together in in the community in northwest Denver, working side by side. And my mom is working directly for for the chief. I've got a wear I've got a very special place in my heart for him are almost like brothers. It was a tough transition, but mom and I talked and in the last couple years, I've got to start slowing down just a little bit or or I won't get a chance to enjoy my retirement. But I'm just honored. I'm just absolutely honored. So on behalf of my family and myself, thank you. Thank you very much. I'm very humbled.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Commander Lopez. All right. Resolutions. Madam Secretary, we read the resolutions.
Speaker 10: From business development 530 resolution approving a post contract city and county of Denver in Swanton and Boulders concerning construction services at Denver International Airport 531 A resolution approving a post contract between City and county of Denver, Hazleton Construction, LLC, concerning on call construction services at Denver International Airport 532 a resolution approving of his contract between city and town. Denver Hensel Phelps Construction Company concerning Uncle Construction Services at Denver International Airport 533 A resolution of a new post contract between City, County and Emery MCI Constructors Inc. Concerned Uncle Construction Services at Denver International Airport. 534 A resolution approving post agreement between city and county different Ludwick Electric Company Concerned Uncle Miscellaneous VHS Mill Write Services for Denver International Air Services 535 A resolution approving post agreement between City Encounter and Precision Industrial Contractors, Inc. concerning alcohol Miscellaneous B B Millwright Services for Denver International Airport 536 A Resolution for Universal Agreement three In City and Town Different Western Industrial Contractors, Inc. Concerning Alcohol VHS Miscellaneous Mill Rite Services for Denver International Airport 537 E Resolution Improvement was agreed to in city in Town Denver in Cactus Communications Inc. Concert Communications for Denver International Airport from Governance and Charter Review Fy23e resolution approving the mayor's reappointment, says Stapleton Development Corporation Board of Directors by 26, a resolution approving the mayor's appointment to the Denver American Indian Commission. Infrastructure and Culture FY 20 Resolution Revenue based Contract 2018 City and County Denver and Goodland Construction, Inc. for workplace culvert rehabilitation at Third and Hooker. If I do anyone a resolution I step in improving the platters tables and filing number 49 Fy22 resolution establishing improving the platters tables and filing number 51 FY 29 A resolution is improving the planning of Denver Connection West filing number one safety will be to 60 resolution proven Evos lease in agreement between City County Denver Waste Waste Management, Colorado and Asphalt Specialties Company, Inc. for operation of a concrete asphalt recycling facility and batch plant at the Denver Rapid Disposal site. 441 A resolution approving a proposed agreement between city and town Denver and work options for women to provide cafeteria and catering services for 90 and 490. A resolution approving a proposed agreement between City County Denver and Arche Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Independent Sales Inc. are to provided community correction services.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for introduction.
Speaker 10: For Finance and Services by 24 April for an audience of any serious plan for the creation of Midtown Metropolitan District by 25, a bill for an ordinance approve any service plan for the creation of the first Greek Village Metropolitan District 527 Bill for an ordinance to appropriate funds from the Reno General Improvement District for the streetscape enhancements along Brighton Boulevard by 28 before an audience to appropriate funds from the amended funding agreement for the Levitt Pavilion Amphitheater 542 A bill for an ordinance to provide funds to the revenue base, Winter Park, Parks and Recreation, Capital Fund, Governance and Charter Review VI 67 and bill for an ordinance many to a vote of qualified register electors of the city and county of Denver, and a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the State General Election. November eight, 2016. A proposed amendment to the Charter, the City and County of Denver concerning Office of the Independent Monitor 569 A bill for an ordinance many Section 2-3 of Chapter two of the Denver Business Code regarding electronic signatures. Infrastructure and culture. And I know a bill for Norton speaking a portion of right away bounded by Julien Street was 25th Avenue, Irving Street and West 26th Avenue without reservations. Five of four bill for an audience for any of those intergovernmental agreement your hills village in County of Rapa regarding Coasteering on the High Line Canal Underpasses Project at Hampton Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, FY17 bill for an ordinance relinquishing five easements established by the board, one filing number four subdivision plat recorder with the Denver Clerk and recorder of reception number 201515370 to locate along the rear line lot lines of lot 15 through 20 block one and bounded by South Quebec Street, East Archer Drive and Oneida Court 518 A bill for an ordinance relinquishing the easements the easement established by the easement for right away record with Denver click and recorder at reception number 2011051715 and located at 155 Steele Street 519 A bill for an ordinance relinquishing the easement assessed by the permanent nonexclusive easement record with a Denver click and recorder at reception. Number 2012129620, located at 27 nine Uinta Street, 530 before an ordinance featuring a portion of the alley bounded by Steel Street, Second Avenue and St Paul Street without reservations and 503 bill for an ordinance approving and providing execution prose intergovernmental agreement between City and County. Denver, Colorado Department of Transportation concerning the Highline Canal, Hampton and Colorado Project and the funding there for OC Councilmembers.
Speaker 8: This is your last chance to call out an item. So I'll give you a little bit time to do that. Look down the road, make sure everybody is good. So we'll start with resolutions. See here for resolutions. ORTEGA All right. We have 530, 531, 32 and 33. ORTEGA Is that correct? Correct. Come from. Okay. For Bill for introductions we had of Ortega for 542. We have Lopez for 567. We have Ortega for 569. And we have Espinosa for 908. So. All right, everybody. Okay. We'll look on our bills for final consideration. We have no bills called out for pending. We have no bills caught out. So, Madam Secretary, will you pull up? Council Bill 530. And first, let me ask Councilman Ortega, these three these three bills, would you like to deal with all of them?
Speaker 12: Surely there should be four. And yes, we can deal with all of them.
Speaker 8: Okay, let's deal. And what would you like to do with these bills?
Speaker 12: I'd like to call them up for a vote.
Speaker 8: Okay. Councilman Flynn, will you make the calls tonight?
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. President, I will.
Speaker 8: Okay, great. Madam Secretary, can we put these?
Speaker 10: Yes. On a block.
Speaker 8: On a block. Thank you. All right. And we have a move in a second when you do comments here, uh. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I've been raising questions about our use of on call contracts. And tonight we have four bills. These are all for Delia that equal $100 million. And, you know, I know we need to get work done in the city, but I think uncalled contracts have been used as a way of just. I don't know. Trying trying to move things forward. But in in each of these are $25 million. And I think all of these move forward on a consent calendar. But my concern is that we don't know the details of the work that will be done on any of these. And typically for a contract the size of each of these, we receive pretty, pretty grave detail about what the project might be. And I know in in the case of each of these there to have these contracts available to do work as may be needed at DIA. But I think for $100 million in contracts, it should require them to come back and tell us exactly what we're being asked to approve in each of them. They're basically for. You know what? What it says is they're for a wide range of construction projects from general remodel and exterior construction to both airside and landside. That's pretty broad. And I know the administration has has talked about kind of, you know, giving us an update of of how they're going to continue using on call contracts. But in some cases, it's a backdoor way of circumventing compliance with our minority in business minority and women business contracting to ensure that goals are being met and that we are not left out of the process. Normally it's a half a million dollars that this body has to approve contracts for and to do each one for 25 million. I'm just not comfortable with allowing them to go forward without knowing the detail of what we're being asked to approve. So I'm going to be voting no tonight.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Hernan, do you mind? We have not put this on the floor. Oh.
Speaker 11: I was actually gonna say, Mr. President, and then I was going to make the comment. Okay.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Yeah, I know.
Speaker 8: It's a rookie mistake. Okay. Councilman Flynn, please put this the four resolutions on the floor to be adopted in a block.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block. 535, 31, 532 and 533. All series of 2016.
Speaker 8: All right. Spin moves in a second. It kills my.
Speaker 11: Hernia. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to give someone from the airport. I see. Aaron, if he wanted to come up to the podium. And as you are coming up, Aaron, if you could just briefly talk about any calls. We've we've done this before. This is certainly not new. Our mayor represented the airport and to, uh, to imply that he doesn't care about AC, DC and MWD eagles, I think that that's something he does. So I want to give you the opportunity to come up and just talk about this is something I do support, but I just wanted to give the airport the opportunity to come and speak to it. If you if you so chose. And also to it's up to is no guarantee that you spend the 25 million to I think that's important to note as well.
Speaker 9: That's correct, Aaron. But as a Denver International Airport, so I actually have one of my colleagues here. He's the senior vice president of Airport Infrastructure Management, and he can speak to those to that in detail.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, thank you, Mr. President, and council members. It's an honor and a privilege to stand in chamber and defend the work that we do at airport on behalf of the city and county of Denver. We like to think that we're good stewards of the resources you provide us, and we welcome the opportunity to explain kind of what we use those resources for and how they're accounted for on the contracts. To Councilman Herndon's point, this is a cap. This provides us coverage against for contractors that allow us to resource them as a service at the airport when we experience a mechanical or construction type of breakdowns or failures that require immediate access, where a 24 seven 365 operation, we are Denver's gateway to the world. We are the access point through which international and national travel occurs in and through our region. And so we take great pride in being able to respond when incidents occur and be able to reach out to these contractors to provide that service by seeking to put four contracts in place. It gives us the opportunity to kind of spread the wealth among a variety of local construction companies who have greater resources and greater reach into the than maybe we be the ability there's 30%, I think, on this contract that we cover through minority and small business operations to ensure we can provide that service and opportunity out at the airport. And none of these actions whenever something occurs and I'll give you an example this past winter season, when we experienced the blizzard that kind of shut the airport down for a couple of hours, we had catastrophic failure of the canopies, the ability to kind of call out resources to respond to that , to clear that, to keep commerce moving and the traveling public safe is a valuable resource to us. So I give you assurances that we think long and hard when we exercise these contracts that we have for to kind of spread the wealth. And we watch very closely to ensure that they're executed in the best interests of the city.
Speaker 11: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Why don't you guys stay on this? Councilman Flynn, did you have any questions? Do you want to make comments? Okay. Councilman thing. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I didn't catch your name. Could you give us your name?
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I'm Mark Baker and currently the acting senior vice president at the airport for airport infrastructure management.
Speaker 0: And I do understand and sympathize with Councilwoman Ortega's position, because we don't normally send $100 million out the door over the next three years and not know what we're getting for it. But I understand also the need for long haul contracting for the type of services that you're that you just described. Is there a way to report back and maybe this is better for Aaron? Is there a way to report back to us? Maybe through the the the business committee that oversees airport. Yes. When maybe on a quarterly basis, when you do issue contracts under this long call?
Speaker 2: Yes. We would certainly welcome the opportunity to do that.
Speaker 0: Mr. President, could I suggest that that.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 0: Warm allies that.
Speaker 8: I am going to invite Councilwoman Gilmore, who the chair of the committee, in on this conversation.
Speaker 0: So thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. That is a wonderful suggestion, Councilman Flynn, and I think Councilman Herndon as well for his questions. You know, over my year in office, I have to say, you know, the folks at DIA, they are top notch and they are not doing anything that is going to impede or affect the effectiveness of Denver International Airport. It brings in $27 billion to the region and that is going to keep moving. And it is a three 6524 hour operation. And so I'm fully in support of this. And your suggestion, Councilman Flynn, is very well taken and we can go ahead and do a quarterly update at committee. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Craig Councilwoman.
Speaker 8: Yep. Thank you. Just one more. Just a second. Councilman Ortega, do you have a question or comment? Just a quick comment. Okay, you guys get set.
Speaker 12: Did you were you going to ask a question?
Speaker 8: No, go ahead. Okay, sir.
Speaker 12: I just want to say I appreciate the conversation and the commitment to do quarterly updates. I know we've been waiting. I've been asking for an update on the final closeout on the hotel and transit center, and I haven't seen that that's been scheduled yet. So I think it's important that this body that has to approve the contracts is better informed on the big projects that are happening out at DIA. I mean, we know you guys are going to be bringing forward a $300 million contract eventually on the build out of the Great Hall. At some point I've been told that it's imminent that we're going to be moving forward with runway number seven. You know, so when we start talking about the fiscal health of DIA, I think we need to understand the big picture and not just the piecemeal projects that keep being brought before us that don't give us the opportunity to understand the impact to the fiscal health of our airport. So anyway, I thought it was important to make that statement. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. And thank you all. You guys can have a seat if there are no other comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 10: ORTEGA. No. Sussman.
Speaker 4: Black eye.
Speaker 10: Clark.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 10: Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 10: Gillmor. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 10: Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I closed voting as the results.
Speaker 10: 11 eyes, one knee.
Speaker 8: 11 eyes, one day, one day. Council Bill five 3531, 532 and 533 pass. Councilman Lopez on a bill for introduction. You have called out council bill 567 regarding the Office of the Independent Monitor. What would you like for us to do with that?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to request a one hour courtesy public hearing on Monday, August 15th. That's next Monday.
Speaker 8: Great. Would you like to make? That is thank you for for making that comment and we'll make sure that we put that in the record so that we have a when our public here. Would you like to make any comment?
Speaker 9: No. This is just the the. I proposed about an amendment that I am moving forward concerning the Office of Independent Monitor. This would move a couple of provisions which would, you know, make more permanent the Office of the Independent monitor itself and the Citizen Oversight Board. This doesn't, you know, expand his powers.
Speaker 11: Or the powers of the board.
Speaker 9: This just simply would like to ask the voters. Well, hopefully more voters in November the whether they would like to see whether we would like to see.
Speaker 1: This office and this board be more permanent.
Speaker 9: In the charter rather than just in code.
Speaker 8: All right. I just want to remind everyone that this is on first reading and we will have a courtesy public hearing August 15th. Thank you. Thank you. I almost got you, Commander. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Four bills for introduction. We have Ortega with 542. COUNSEL Marcelo, what would you like to do with this?
Speaker 12: I just have a question. Actually, it's not a question. It's a comment. Okay, so this is approving half a million dollars from winter park funds. It's to go into the Confluence Park Project, which I support. I think it's really important that that work take place. I am on the Winter Park Advisory Board and this project should have gone before the advisory board before this body takes formal final action. And it's just to raise question about procedure in terms of making sure that, you know, we don't always do things after the fact. I know that it's it's something that will be coming up. And Laura, I don't know if you want to come forward and just clarify that. I mean, to a expressed a concern about the procedure when this came to committee. But the advisory board looks at the. Recommendations on expenditure of the dollars that come out of the Winter Park Fund for capital projects as the recommended to the manager of Parks and Recreation. And again, I support the need for this. It's work that has to happen. But I'm just raising a procedural question.
Speaker 13: Sure. Good evening, Councilor Perry.
Speaker 6: Capital program manager in the Budget Management Office. So the advisory board that council and.
Speaker 13: Ortega is referring.
Speaker 6: To is the Winter Park Board of Trust Trustees, and they are.
Speaker 13: Tasked with three, three, three things.
Speaker 6: Annually, essentially to verify that the dollars are received from Winter Park to support.
Speaker 4: The capital program. Two To confirm that the projects recommended via the annual budget process do meet the ordinance.
Speaker 13: Requirements set.
Speaker 6: Forth for use of winter park funds, which are the.
Speaker 13: Rehabilitation and rehab of existing parks.
Speaker 4: Capital assets.
Speaker 6: They do meet once meet once a year during.
Speaker 13: The annual budget process, and we doing so within.
Speaker 6: The next month. The third item that they verify is the maintenance of effort calculation for Parks to ensure that Parks is receiving a base amount of capital funding annually to maintain their assets. The Winter Park Board of Trustees has previously reviewed the Confluence Park project. There are several preparations that have been made over the last couple of years out of Winter Park for this project and have verified.
Speaker 13: That this project does meet all the.
Speaker 6: Requirements. The Board of Trustees currently does not review any contingency requests, which is this.
Speaker 4: Bill in front of you today.
Speaker 12: Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Councilwoman Caswell, we have 569 called out as well. I do. Would you like to do with that?
Speaker 12: This one? I just wanted to ask that. I'm not sure who the appropriate person would be, but I would like to learn a little bit more about what the security measures are that ensure that as we move to electronic signatures, that the various city agencies have the protections in place to ensure that there is no abuse of this. This new policy that we're moving to. So I'm not sure I'm looking to Gabby. Who?
Speaker 8: Gabby, do we have a representative in here for? Uh, 569.
Speaker 13: Gabby Carrick The mayor's office, as I understand this, is a council initiated bill.
Speaker 6: Regarding.
Speaker 5: Compliance with the upcoming.
Speaker 3: Granicus transition.
Speaker 12: Oh, but it is not for all the city agencies as well. Can you clarify that for me, please?
Speaker 8: David Brower, city assistant city attorney.
Speaker 1: And I'll come in as D.A. coming to the mic. A number of years ago, we adopted a provision in the Denver Revised Missile Code authorizing the use of electronic signatures. Shortly after the state law was changed to recognize the legality of electronic signatures, we adopted an ordinance for modifying it slightly in this bill to recognize the fact that the alleged star system is coming online, which will allow for electronic signatures to be affixed to bills for ordinances and resolutions, so as to tweak the longstanding language a little bit to make sure that we reflect legal authority and our own ordinance similar to the state authority. Now, whether a particular software system or a particular computer system has adequate security measures built into it relates to that system. And I and Diana, I ask you to come in as well. This was brought forward to help implement the legislature proposal, which is coming forward to help further automate the processing of bills and ordinances. And I don't believe we have anybody from tech services here. Right. Pardon? Would you like to comment? In addition to what I said.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. Diane Durfee, City Attorney's Office.
Speaker 13: As David Broadwell.
Speaker 4: Already.
Speaker 6: Explained, we.
Speaker 12: Already had.
Speaker 13: This particular ordinance on.
Speaker 5: The books here for the city of Denver. What this.
Speaker 13: Does as a.
Speaker 4: Result of the implementation of the Granicus.
Speaker 13: System.
Speaker 6: Is it also.
Speaker 5: Adds a piece of the electronic seal. So as it is right.
Speaker 6: Now, although electronic signatures have been allowed and we've been doing electronic signatures for quite some time, this allows also.
Speaker 5: For the court clerk recorder to affix her seal to all of the city documents electronically so that we don't.
Speaker 6: Have to hand stamp those.
Speaker 8: Great. Very helpful.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Is that okay? Yes. Great. Councilman Espinosa, you called out Bill 908. What would you like to do with that? I'd like to call out the bill and order it published. Okay. Call it out for a vote. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 908 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 908 series of 2015 be ordered published.
Speaker 8: Correct. It's been moved. And second. Councilman Espinoza. Yeah, I. I sort of apologize to everybody. I thought this was this I mean, this was normally going to be this is on first reading, and I was waiting for it to come up on second before I commented on it. But I realized that I'm going to be gone next week for my last youngest cousin's wedding in California. So I'm sort of advancing this. And it just this is an early vacation that that I commented on in mayor council. This is an early vacation in my district. And when the city previously granted a vacation request, half of an existing alley serving the bordering property was lost. And so within the last couple of years, the vacation requester built a fence on part of that well on that property that encroaches into an access easement intended to allow cars to access that garage, the existing garage. And while the requester has resisted, I mean, refused him to remove the fence, that property owner took the time to ask the city to grant him additional land through vacation free of charge. So while the city may not need to retain this land at this time, I'm not comfortable vacating this land when such an egregious concern remains unresolved. So by voting this down, and I hope my colleagues will vote against this vacation, the alley configuration will just remain as it always has, and allows the vacation request for an indefinite amount of time to either fulfill obligations or otherwise address this community concern in good faith. Okay. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Like Councilman Espinosa, my. My information on this particular vacation is that by vacating the the right of way that that is in this council bill, we will actually be making it that much more difficult for the adjoining property owner to access his garage. And until unless and until that dispute is is recognized, I don't believe that we should pass this. I believe that we should wait until there's a resolution. And I would ask other members to consider doing the same. So I will be voting no also. Thank you.
Speaker 8: It's a good question. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I just first wanted to thank Public Works and Angela and everybody who worked on this. You know, I think that this is a great example of there is a formula of how we work through these processes. And I just want to start by saying that I think the public works did a great job of working through the process and the steps to get it here to council. I don't think that because every one of these comes before council means that we have to approve them. We reflect and look at this each one. But I didn't want to get lost in the mix that I think the public works did a great job getting this to us and going through this. So with that being said, I you know, I am always hesitant when we relinquish land, whether it's selling it or vacating it, and especially land that is serving the public. And part of that consideration for me is looking at will disposing of the land, vacating the land, can, you know, will it adversely affect our citizens? And it's serving a public function. I do think that at this time this land is continuing to serve a public function. I think that there are issues there are issues with getting in and out and access for a citizen. I'm not convinced that that problem was created by this vacation request, if not by a previous one. And I don't think anything was necessarily done process wise wrong there either. But it has led to an interesting predicament where I believe that this vacation, as brought forward, will create significant negative consequences for this owner. And so for that reason, I think that right now I do think we should retain this property for the public good until we can resolve those issues further. Or if we can't, then, you know, that's the the, I guess the point of having public lands so that they can serve all of these needs. So I also will be voting no today based on that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you, Ms.. Clarke. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 12: I'd like to ask David Broadwell a question. David, can you clarify if our process and if you're not the right person, then I'm not sure who else should answer that. But my recollection is that when we vacate, only half goes to the property owner on one side and the other half goes to the property owner and the other side. And understanding what Councilman Espinoza said, that a particular property owner went and put their fence in part of the alley. And I don't know if this is in North Denver where we have these strange carriage lots, but that I'm not sure if they're claiming they had adverse possession of the the the alleyway. But can you just clarify if that's the process that.
Speaker 1: Again, David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney I'll come in. Generally, I'm not really the best versed on this particular request and I would refer many more specific questions to public works. But in general, we follow state law with right of way vacation, whether it's an alley or a street. If the entirety of the width of the right of way is being vacated, advanced 50, 50 and the adjacent owners. But there are situations where when less than being the entirety of the right of way is being vacated, it will vest in the property to which it's the closest. Right. So the answer to your question is it depends if the whole thing's being vacated is 5050, but you do get into these other scenarios and that's all per state law, per case law, which we adopt and follow in terms of our procedures. But any more specific questions about this one? I think public works would be better able to answer.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Bravo.
Speaker 1: Can I make one more comment? But fortunately, people cannot adversely possess against the city if if every single fence built out and our right of way was adverse possession, we'd be in trouble. Right. So. So there's very strong.
Speaker 12: That's a good clarifying point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you have to. Absolutely. I know that was part of the point of your question, but someone just building out into our right of way doesn't create squatter's rights. It's the public's property, and we can require encroachments to be removed.
Speaker 12: Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you. In this case, the fence. This was built on their property. Okay. That's just a clarification. Okay. Councilwoman Ortega, do you want to further.
Speaker 12: Have anything further to add to what David just shared with us, Angela?
Speaker 13: Just that this was the case for this particular Ali vacation. The Valley vacation that we're talking about is the one that was that happened in 2008 when they vacated that alley in question 50%. Half of it went to 25, 24. Julian The other the other piece went to 25, 26. Julian Then an easement, a permanent easement.
Speaker 4: Was filed.
Speaker 13: With with the city in order for them to have access to their garage. 2524 Julian They have an easement there, a 12 foot alley way to access their garage.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 8: All right, Councilman Espinosa, I see you've already talked and Herndon's in the mix. I want to pop over to him.
Speaker 11: Councilman Herndon thing is the president and and and you just kind of get into it. But I wanted to afford you the opportunity to speak to why public works feels that this is a valid. And so I think.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 13: All we want to say is we.
Speaker 6: Just want this.
Speaker 13: Alley, this particular application to have its process. We've been holding it for about ten months now with no real technical issues associated with it, with the application. And so what Councilman Espinosa is is talking about is an issue between two private property holders, which public works cannot speak to, that it has to be worked out between the two private property owners. If their if someone is, in fact, encroaching on a permanent easement in the alley, that's between the property owners and public works. Can't can't address that with this application.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Okay, Councilwoman.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I am having a very difficult time following because we had some debate at mayor council about this, and we had an email exchange where public works said there is no letter of protest from any neighbor. And Councilman Espinosa disagreed. So can you first clarify, do we have a letter of protest from an actual.
Speaker 13: There is. So there is no letter of protest that has technical merit. So what that means is once you put that letter up against our criteria, if there's nothing that public works can do to address that, that protest within our rules and within any sort of ordinance or anything, it doesn't it doesn't have to be technically addressed by us.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I just that's a very lawyerly answer. So, you know, there is a person who is unhappy. Yes. Okay. So what we do.
Speaker 13: Within public works purview, what we did is we.
Speaker 4: Required.
Speaker 13: The applicant to provide a 12 foot or a.
Speaker 6: Permanent easement.
Speaker 4: On this on.
Speaker 13: This particular alleyway. So they would have they currently have access to a 12 foot alley to access their garage. That's a permanent easement.
Speaker 6: That can't be revoked. Me May I, may I, I guess I have this is very difficult without a picture or a map. First of all, because I can't follow these 12 foot descriptions that you're describing without a visual. Second of all, sent.
Speaker 13: Out visuals to all of the.
Speaker 6: Council members. Is that in our entire system here? Um. Let's pull it up. All right, so that'll help me if we. I don't know if we can walk through the visual on the screen up there. But the other question I have is, is it your opinion that we have to folks who are unhappy with each other and the one party is trying to use this vacation to get leverage over a dispute over private property? Is the dispute on private property and they're just protesting the vacation because they want leverage in this dispute over private property, it seems it appears that way. So there is no dispute over the land in question in this precise vacation? No. Okay. That's a really important distinction. And so I'm going to look some more. I still Councilman Flynn has this visual that I'm trying to get there. Yes.
Speaker 8: Councilman, can can that can you keep looking for that? I'm going to go to Espinosa and I see a couple other folks who have, um, have the diagram pulled up as well. Councilman. Councilman Espinosa Yeah. Said to help you a councilwoman can each if you go to 11 page 11. I mean ten of 11 on the signed packet. That's the area of the of the easement on a few pages prior though on page five of 11. Is the is the requested vacation. So you'll notice that the two actually only touch corners. But what's key on this is the area that says Ali vacated by ordinance in 286 and Series 2008. So the you see the big 2524. That parcel has a garage across the entirety of the back of that of that property that faced the former Ali. And when the vacation request was originally made in 2008, we probably should have I don't know if this is a question for public works. If if if a concern had been raised, would that have been would that have met technically? Would that have been would that still would we still have would that I don't know if that seems weird that we would have granted that vacation back then. Basically allocating half of that, Ali, to another property owner that might have had technical merit back in 2008. I don't know if it does.
Speaker 13: Well, I can't speak. Basically, what I know is that there was a gentleman's agreement between two property owners when this when they vacated the Ali and they did not put the permanent even in place at that time.
Speaker 8: So what happened is so half of that 12 foot Ali went to 25, 24. The other half went to 25, 26. But in the in a split. So a six foot section and a six foot section. So now that that that property owner then only had six feet of alleyway to access his garage without going over the adjacent property owner. And unfortunately, the property 2524 changed hands and the adjacent property owner then built a fence partly on that. I mean, to shorten that, to truncate that 12 foot access with Ali with. And so there isn't a there is an easement. And so we are borderline into private party. I mean, if we were to sort of try and compel them to to move that fence as a city, we would certainly be entering the private party agreement. All I'm saying is there was massive opposition. There was I think we had eight letters that don't meet technical merit. But the original request was actually for part of both the North and the South. Ali's on that each lot. The applicant did revise his request to just that southern portion and did truncate chamfer the edge but still maintains the fence inside of the inside of the property that was formally granted. And so that's been going on as stated for ten months. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I'm going to go back to Councilman Kennedy and see if you got the information that you're looking for. Okay. That face did it. So let me let me ask a couple questions here, because it looks like some folks have kind of made up their mind that they're against this to me. Let me ask you a question. Have we ever entered into I know that we deal with this time and time again on other issues, whether it be zoning, but have we entered into some kind of, you know, negotiation or a mediation that we go into with with neighbors on an issue like this? Do you guys ever move forward on that or is this ever been done?
Speaker 13: My understanding is that if public works has any purview over offering some sort of solution, we will negotiate that. We cannot negotiate to private property owners issues.
Speaker 8: Okay. So that's I mean. And I deal with this all the time in District nine, and that's where we come in because we represent the folks, both of those neighbors. And so we typically bring in a mediator on a situation like that. And so I understand public works viewpoint, but this is coming before the council. And so, you know, if there is an issue, we would love to kind of talk it out. So you have not done it before.
Speaker 6: Let me just speak.
Speaker 13: To speak one point. We spoke with Councilman Espinoza today and we did agree to hear Brant izing did agree to speak to the attorney of the private property owner who the applicant in.
Speaker 6: Order to help kind of.
Speaker 13: Get that conversation started.
Speaker 8: Okay. Let me we have some more people in the queue here. Let me. Councilman Ortega, did you already chime in?
Speaker 12: I have another question. Yeah.
Speaker 8: Let me two others. First, let me get out of this real quick. Let me get Councilman Cashman and then Blake Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Angela, is there any problem that would be created for the Department of Public Works if we were to vote this down and give the property owners time to resolve this? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Okay, great. Councilman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Angela, what is the purpose of the proposed vacation? Why does the applicant want it?
Speaker 13: I do not know that answer. I mean, basically the any property owner can request a vacation for any reason. We don't know of any development or anything happening on that property right now.
Speaker 8: Let me let me just chime in here real quick. Is the is the representative or the property owner in the room right now?
Speaker 13: We did request that the property owner come this evening here. My understanding is that he is a monolingual Spanish speaker. He chose not to attend.
Speaker 8: Okay. All right. Council. Council. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: I had one more question. So if this doesn't pass, will the applicant have an opportunity to come back and re apply for it?
Speaker 13: You know, I don't I don't really know the answer to that question. I could use some.
Speaker 6: Help on that one.
Speaker 8: The roll.
Speaker 1: There is no black out. There's no no nothing to restrict or reapplication when something like this is voted down, which I don't recall occurring in the past. But. But Council has the prerogative to vote no. But nothing would stop the applicant from coming back.
Speaker 8: Okay. You know, typically, if it's a rezoning, they can't apply for a year or something like that. Is there some sort of time?
Speaker 1: Right. That's my point, is that some laws do have a blackout period following a denial, like a rezoning denial. But there's nothing like that related to a request for a street vacation.
Speaker 8: Great. Okay. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. If we were to vote this down, would we be inadvertently giving an advantage to one of the two parties in a negotiation that is a completely private negotiation.
Speaker 13: I couldn't answer that. I'm not. I don't think so. But I'm not really sure I'd have to talk to either the surveyor or our technical team about that.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 8: Okay. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. The real the original reason I chimed in second is Councilman Clark reminded me and I'm sorry. I did want to thank public works for the work and for caring and holding on to this for as long as they did. Trying to hopefully, you know, see that these two parties made it out. And and so I'm I'm glad actually that we actually are at this point and hopefully we do vote it down, because I do think that it will actually help address this issue. I think we you know, by granting half of this, Ali, previously in 2008, we sort of created this situation. And and so I think I think the time to properly addressed it was back then. But now I think we I don't think we should. I think I think well, I just really wanted to just think I'm rambling and I just really wanted to think public works because this is not this is a difficult situation. And I did want to acknowledge that, yes, the the property owner does speak Spanish and they're actually two property owners. And and the wife has sort of not been a participant, but that's just getting really, really muddy. I think they they do, in fact, need time. I think everything's there with the city attorney being willing to convey what his reading of the situation to proper counsel is appropriate. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 12: I think. Councilman. Espinosa just made part of my statement that we created the situation by approving this, knowing that, well, maybe not knowing at the time that we were creating some access issues for some of these folks to be able to get into their garage. And I think, you know, this will make a bad situation worse. So I'm going to be voting no tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. All right. Seeing as we have no other members city council with a comment, we are going to vote on this. So, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 10: Rocco Espinosa No.
Speaker 0: Flynn Much as I hate to vote against a vacation, I vote no.
Speaker 10: Gilmore No.
Speaker 11: Herndon, no.
Speaker 10: Cashman no. Kennedy. Lopez No. New Ortega.
Speaker 12: No.
Speaker 10: Susman No.
Speaker 4: Black No.
Speaker 10: Clark. No, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: No. Councilman Clark. Oh, nice. Okay. All right, Madam Secretary, please. ANNOUNCER Results.
Speaker 10: Zero 12 Nays.
Speaker 8: 12 Nays Council Bill 98 fails. All right, Councilman Flynn, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption? We are ready for the block votes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yes, Mr. President. Okay. Once they are.
Speaker 8: Yes, we are putting them on right now. And I want to include I want to also say all other bills for introductions are ordered, publish. And and now we're going to give our secretary a little bit time to put all the block votes. There you go.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Secretary. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block. All series of 2016. 534, five, 35, five, 36, 537, 523, five, 26, five, 25, 21 522 520 9268 441 and 490.
Speaker 8: Great. It has been moved in second to it. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 10: Raquel Herndon. I Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Sussman. Black eye Clark. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I close the and announce results.
Speaker 10: 12 ice.
Speaker 8: 12 eyes resolutions have been adopted. Councilman Flynn, will you please put the bill and final considerations. The bills for front of consideration on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. President, I will. I move that council bill 511 series of 2016 be placed upon final consideration and do pass without a block.
Speaker 8: That's right. The bill. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 10: Sussman Black.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 10: Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 10: Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I. Close vote announced the results. 12 Eyes 12 Eyes Council Bill 511 has passed and final consideration pre recess announcement tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 415, changing the zoning classification from 16161 East 40th Avenue and require public hearing on four for two. Changing the zoning classification for 351535253535 and 3545. South Tamarack Drive. Anyone wishing to speak to either of these must see the council secretary and receive a speaker cart to fill out and return during the council. If there are no other objections, we'll probably take 10 minutes. Good luck. 10 minutes. Members. City Council, please be back by 715.
Speaker 2: Coverage of this week's council meeting will continue once the public signs up to speak on scheduled agenda items. We'll take this time to look at what's still ahead, as well as preview additional meetings for the week and share some other items of interest. We'll be back with more meeting coverage in a few moments. There are two public hearings on this agenda. Council Bill 415 free zones property at 16,000, 161 East 40th Avenue and Council bill for 42 reasons. Property on South Tamarack Drive. Action on this agenda is just ahead. In the meantime, let's take a look at items in other meetings. Denver will also cover this week. Every Tuesday morning, the mayor presents agency proposals and invites council to discuss policy. Join Denver eight as we bring you this meeting live at 9:30 a.m.. The schedule replays that evening at nine. And again Friday at 8 a.m.. Tuesday morning's coverage continues with the 10:30 a.m. meeting of the Finance and Services Committee. Watch live at that time or catch replays Tuesday evening at 8:30 p.m. or Friday at 9 a.m. and Sunday afternoon at 1230. Wednesday morning begins with a session of the Infrastructure and Culture Committee at 10:30 a.m. This meeting will play again Wednesday evening at 630, then Friday afternoon at 130 and once more on Sunday afternoon at 3:30 p.m.. Wednesday afternoon brings a special session of city council members meeting as the Sidewalk Working Group, where they'll discuss Denver's sidewalk challenges . This meeting is at 130 watch or replays Friday at 10:30 a.m. and Sunday at 2 p.m. each week. Watch for replays of the legislative session of Denver City Council each Monday at 830, following the live coverage or Thursday afternoons at 1230 and Saturday also at 12:30 p.m.. You may view the City Council agenda meeting minutes and committee summaries at Denver gov dawgs city council council committee meetings may be canceled or agenda items added or dropped to confirm a meeting time. Call the council office at 720337 2000. Now stay tuned for the rest of tonight's Denver City Council. Get outside with a thrilling bike ride you and your calves won't forget for a long time. The 64 mile ride weaves through Colorado's front range, including Morrison, Red Rocks, Park and Dinosaur Ridge. All proceeds from the race go to the Tennyson Center for Children so you can test your biking mettle under the warm glow of philanthropy as well as some serious climbs. Learn a traditional method of plant dyeing that, unlike onion skins or so many other naturalist methods, results in a rich and satisfying shade that even writ day would be proud of. In this, for our class, you'll learn harvesting and preparation techniques of locally grown indigo, and you'll go home with dyed samples and a detailed road map for your future color journeys. Join the Denver Astronomical Society for this week's biggest show. The Pleiades meteor shower. The Space Society's open house this month happens to coincide with the annual light show. Peak nights are predicted to have up to 200 meteors an hour, and there's no better company for astronomical events than a group of people who have their own telescopes for best viewing. Face northeast look about halfway up the sky and wait for shooting stars to streak by. Warm cookies of the revolution continue their neighborhood tours with this Saturday's Choose Your Own Adventure in Whittier and five points select from themed quest rapids scavenger hunts seeking stories more than any objects or a walkabout tour to learn the backstory of these historic neighborhoods. Like any warm cookies event, there are bound to be lots of good times. Community and of course, cookies. A magical musical mashup of alternative country and nostalgic strings. Don't miss Brandi Carlile with Old Crow Medicine Show in the perfect venue for their brand of collaborative Americana. In addition to separate sets, Carlile's achingly sweet melodies will intertwine with the six piece band as they perform together. Hit up your wagon wheels and head down to Red Rocks to keep the eye on this pairing. And in the spirit of Imagine 2020, that's a quick look at some of the events in Denver this week.
Speaker 6: Next time on downtown, an insider's guide to DIA will show you free public events at the new plaza. Great ways to shop, dine and relax selfie stations. And we'll take you on an awesome behind the scenes tour of operations and the airfield, the ramp tower and those secret tunnels downtown only on Denver TV.
Speaker 2: This week on our season will feature youth. One book one Denver found art with Mark Friday Women of Abstract Expressionism, My Performance, Poetry, and much more.
Speaker 7: By Fifth. To stop.
Speaker 14: This. I think.
Speaker 2: Scientific studies prove that binge watching TV can result in spontaneous, eye curdling, restless couch syndrome and phantom remote hand. To protect your health, take a break from a binge, but watch a rama. Put loads of on all your favorite Denver shows. All your favorite episodes all month long. Reduce your risk for channel surfing along with Denver rates. Watch a rama palooza for four out of five announcers agree it's better for you then the binge democrats watch a rama palooza fun. Ground rules.
Speaker 8: Each speaker will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which results a total of 6 minutes on the presentation. Monitor on the wall. When the yellow light comes on. We don't have Councilman Flynn here either. Okay. Uh, Councilman Herndon, please make the calls. Okay. Speakers must stay on the topic of hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Speakers should refrain from using any profanity and making any personal attacks during their comments. Councilman Flynn, how are you? Will you please put Council Bill 415 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, I will. Mr. President, thank you. I move that council bill 415 be placed on the floor and do pass.
Speaker 8: Thank you. It has been moved. And second to it, the public hearing. Council Bill 415 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 13: Good evening, council president. Welcome back. Members of the city council ryan winterberg with community planning and development here to present a rezoning at 16161 East 40th Avenue from Gateway with waivers and conditions to S-Max eight, we can see that our subject site is in Council District 11. Zooming in a bit. It is in the Gateway Green Valley Ranch statistical neighborhood near the interchange of I-70 and Pioneer Boulevard. And zooming in a little bit further, we can see that it's near the intersection of East 40th Avenue and North Kittredge Street. We can see Adams County located just to the south, and our site is about 1000 feet. That's walking distance from the Gateway Park Station on the East Quarter. Now the A-line. The request. We are looking at one parcel today. It's about four acres. It is a vacant site. However, it has been permitted for the construction of a hotel. That site development plan was approved in 2009, a six story hotel. And the rezoning request before you is rather unique. So the property owner and that's WP Hospitality LLC is requesting a rezoning to bring the approved site development plan into conformance with Denver's zoning code zoning standards. You will notice today as we'll go on that the site development plan that was approved in 2009, unfortunately, does not conform with the existing gateway with waivers and condition zoning. And as you'll see, the waivers and conditions are highly customized. So in districts that have unfortunately led to unintentional errors in development review and permitting, and these zoning issues were actually discovered in context of the site next door. So which will look very familiar to you? The site located just to the west that you see called out as SCC five X and the site. The zoning issues at this particular site were identified in a comprehensive analysis of the entire area to identify additional zoning errors and bring them into compliance. So you see that the request before you is to rezone from Gateway with views and conditions to Smc's eight. So we're looking at any suburban neighborhood context, any mixed use zoned district permitting buildings of eight storeys and height. It's about 110 feet. And the proposed X eight zone district acknowledges both the existing entitlement as well as the hotel that has been permitted through that approved site development plan. And it will fully conform with the zoning standards proposed in Smc's eight. And now on to existing context, we can see that our site is currently zoned gateway with waivers and conditions, which is a former Chapter 59 zone district that was applied to areas generally in Denver's Gateway. And the subject site was rezone to the zoned district in 1999 as part of a 96 acre rezoning. So that broader area that you see on the map and the gateway with waivers and conditions there, it includes use areas so we can see that our subject site is called out in the mixed use to AMU to use area which is a general mixed mixed use general purpose zone district. And that zone district includes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.6 with bonuses up to 1.2. And the maximum height is 75 feet in height. And interestingly, that is not measured in stories. That is just a maximum building height. And you can see as articulated in your staff report that maximum heights in this gateway with waivers and conditions area generally increase in height and intensity moving to the east towards Pennant Boulevard. So I want to dove into just the issues with the current zoning a bit. There are more details in your staff report. But there are three major issues that we are attempting to solve for today by the proposed rezoning. The first is that our subject site called Out in Red, has approved a site development plan for the construction of a hotel, unfortunately, where hotels are not permitted in the waivers and condition zoning. So the hatched area that we can see is that area where hotels and restaurants were not permitted by the waivers and conditions which generally aligned with the anticipated future construction of a road. So that's that blue dashed line that you see. But the road in its actual construction and existing context today was shifted up where that solid line is. So for essentially 76 feet of the northern portion of our subject site, hotels and restaurants are not permitted. The hotel that has been permitted by the site development plan also does not comply with certain setbacks as well as site orientation standards, including the location of surface parking. And these are the very same issues that occurred to the site that we see to the West that was resolved by this body in May of this year. So we can see to existing contact zoning in the surrounding area that gateway with waivers and conditions that was applied as part of the same ordinance in 1999 exists in a much broader area. We can see the SCC five X approved by City Council just to the West Adams County located to the south. And interestingly, only about 5% of the original gateway zoning that was applied in the 90 still exist today. The majority has been resound into the Denver zoning code or also other former Chapter 59 zone districts. Our subject site is also located within a general development plan, the Gateway Park for West Kittredge East. GDP again applied to that same 96 acre site as our rezoning for 1999. And it includes topics that you're fairly familiar with now in general development plans, including use areas, vehicular access, pedestrian circulation, location of roads and residential densities. But it's important to note that the majority of the infrastructure that was contemplated by this general development plan, including the alignment of roads as well as water detention, has already been constructed in conformance with the GDP. So it no longer serves a planning or development purpose for our subject site. So should the B rezoning be approved tonight? The subject site will be pulled out of the general development plans applicability and be allowed to proceed with construction within the Denver zone no longer within this GDP boundary. Looking to existing land use to consider see subject site is vacant and in area we have a large office structures located to the north as well as a mixture of commercial development and looking to the surrounding context. We can see that the site that was rezoning by this body in May of this year in the upper right hand corner. Our subject site in the middle that is currently vacant and the photo to at the bottom is is just to the south and Adams County pretty typical of some of the mixed use and commercial development that we've seen occur within the gateway. In terms of process, we did notify the following of five registered neighborhood organizations throughout the rezoning, and we have not received any public comment or any letters of support from registered neighborhood organizations. We did notify registered neighborhood organizations and City Council of Receipt of application on March 17th. I notice that the Planning Board public hearing was sent for the May 3rd public hearing excuse me, the May 18th public hearing and the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee move the bill forward on June 22nd. And of course, here we are tonight at the city council public hearing on August 8th. In terms of the review criteria. The following five will be discussed tonight, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. We have three adopted plans that apply to our subject site. The first of which is comprehensive plan 2000. And we did find that the rezoning was consistent with comprehensive plan 2000 looking to strategies as seen here, and specifically a comprehensive plan 2000 calls out the gateway as an opportunity for mixed use infill development. Now moving on to Blueprint Denver, we can see that our subject site is called out in that purple category indicating that is intended for mixed use. So areas that include a sizable employment base as well as housing land uses that are mixed in buildings, areas as well as blocks. And our site is also called out within an area of change. So areas that blueprint, Denver recommends channeling the most growth where it will be beneficial to the city as a whole. And we do find that the requested x eight zone district is consistent with these land use category land use concept categories. Now in terms of street classifications. North Kittredge Street is called out as a residential collectors. That's the north south street that we see just to the west of our subject site. And East 40th Avenue is actually called out as an undesignated local. Given that it is the boundary with Adams County, it was likely excluded from a street classification, but in its built condition it is a four lane divided arterial, according to the public works classification. So these are higher intensity roads that balance a mix of both mobility and access. So we do find that it is appropriate to apply the same x eight zone district given this higher intensity street in its built condition. Next, moving on to the Gateway Concept Plan. It was adopted in 1990 and applies to our subject site. And the Gateway Concept Plan calls out the need for highly flexible planning areas needed to adapt to changing market conditions. Given that the planning horizon for the gateway areas 40 to 50 years, so a much longer horizon than we're typically used to in our small area plans. However, the existing waivers and conditions zoning that applies to the subject site does not implement the need for highly flexible and adaptable market conditions, knowing that these waivers and conditions have become outdated. Unfortunately, very quickly and we're tied to a very specific development concept. The Gateway Concept Plan also recommends the creation of activity centers with large scale hotel and office clustered at major, major interchanges like the interchange of I-70, as well as Peyton Boulevard, where a subject site is located, excuse me. And in 1999, the rezoning to gateway with waivers and conditions muta updated the land use and Building Heights map that was originally included in the plan. So you'll see that in your staff report recommending maximum building heights of 75 feet as well, a mix of uses. But again, seeing that building heights increase as we move farther to the east to the Pinion Boulevard corridor, and we do find that it is appropriate to apply the same x eight zone district at our subject site, recognizing that increase and tearing of heights, getting in intensity and height towards major, intense roads. So based upon our review of the three adopted plans, we do find the rezoning is consistent. Now looking to uniformity of district regulations, we find that the application of Max eight will result in the uniform application of zone district standards, as well as bring the approved site development plan into consistency with the Denver zoning code and allow it to proceed with construction. We also find that the rezoning will further the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans. Now moving to justifying circumstances that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing. We can see an evolution in this gateway area consistent with adopted plans, both recognizing the mixed use development that is intended to occur and one that we have indeed seen to occur at this major interchange. So we've seen a mixed use node that has evolved over time. And additionally, the Denver zoning code has introduced new tools to us to implement the recommendations of our adopted plan, specifically looking to the Gateway concept plan that is recommending a flexible and adaptable zone districts over time to implement these plans. Moving on to consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. We find that it is appropriate to apply zoning within the suburban neighborhood context, both in terms of recommendations from adopted plans as well as existing context. And we find that the rezoning is consistent with the intent statement for the zone district and specifically for the specific intent statement for the eight zone district, recommending the application of zoning districts served by primarily arterial streets where a building height of 1 to 8 storeys is recommended. Based upon our review of the five criteria, we do find that the rezoning meets all five and therefore recommend approval of the rezoning and are happy to answer any questions you may have as well as the applicant's representative is here this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. All right. We have one individual signed up to speak here, so I'm going to call them up right now. Will Rogers. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 0: My name is Will.
Speaker 11: Rogers and I'm the architect for the project.
Speaker 0: And we have offices in. Post Office Box 332034. Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 1: 80233.
Speaker 8: Great.
Speaker 0: I'm here to answer any questions.
Speaker 11: You might have.
Speaker 8: Great. Thank you. Appreciate you can. You can have a seat. And if if any members of council have questions, they'll call you up. All right. This concludes our speakers. Questions for members of council. Wow. We have no questions for members of council. So this concludes the public hearing for Council Bill 415 Comments by members of Council. I knew you couldn't resist, Councilman Espinosa. I just. I didn't say it earlier, but I just really am grateful. And thank you and welcome back. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right, Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Brooks. You know, this Councilman Espinosa had leaned over and said, didn't we talk about this one? And so, you know, I said it's right next to it. So this is really just a clean up in the zoning code to allow these folks to do what they need to do on this property. And so I just appreciate, Mr. Rogers, your patience working through the city with with this process, because I know it's taken a little bit just to get this corrected. But I will be supporting this tonight. And thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Gilmore. All right, Madam Secretary, Rocco Gilmore.
Speaker 10: I Herndon. I Cashman. I can eat Lopez.
Speaker 12: Ortega I.
Speaker 10: SUSSMAN Black Eye. Clark by Espinosa, I.
Speaker 0: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 10: Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I please close the vote and announce the results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. Council Bill 415 passes. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill four 4442 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, Mr. Risen. Thank you. I move the council bill for 22 series of 2016 be placed upon final consideration and do pass for 42. So I say for 22. I did. I meant for 42.
Speaker 8: Thank you for the record. All right. It's first and second in. Great. Public here in four, four, four, two, two is open. May we have staff report?
Speaker 9: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council Curt Upton with Community Planning and Development. Tonight we have a rezoning case in Council District four in southeast Denver, in the Hampton South neighborhood, right on the border between Hampton and the Hampton South neighborhoods. It's located at the southwest corner of Hampton Avenue and Tamarack Drive, adjacent to the Tiffany Plaza Shopping Center. So the request is about 1.72 acres. The property is requesting to rezone out of the former Chapter 59 zoning code into the new Denver Zoning Code to facilitate redevelopment. The proposed zone district is like the previous case that was just presented in the suburban context of mixed use and up to three stories in height. The current zoning is a mix of, again, former Chapter 59, District B one and B three, only a small portion. And as you can see in this map, in the northwest corner is B three, both commercial zoned districts, b one as a as a lower intensity category of commercial zoning than B three. And it's surrounded generally by suburban context of mixed use, multi-unit and single unit. So the current land use on the property is, is office building directly to the west and to the northwest are retail centers. There's multifamily to the northeast and directly across Hampton Avenue is also an office building. And as you can see to the east is single family residential gives you an idea of the existing character and context and the scale. The top left corner is the subject site. As you can see, it's a separate suburban office building today across the street. And the top right is the single family residential neighborhood. And as you can see, the character of the street going north and south is suburban, low scale in character. So the process we followed, our standard process, the planning board recommended approval. We have received no public comments on this case. So with that, I will get into our review criteria. There are two adopted plans for this site Plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver. We do find that it meets a variety of recommendations in the comprehensive plan and blueprint. Denver This is an area of change town center. The description of a town center. According to Blueprint, Denver is a a destination for multiple surrounding neighborhoods that has pedestrian friendly design features. And as you all know, an area of change is where we are encouraging redevelopment and growth. The Future Street Classifications in Blueprint Denver of Hampton Avenue is a commercial arterial. Tamarack Drive is a residential collector. Commercial arterials and Blueprint Denver are pretty self-explanatory. The recommendations for commercial development on a heavily trafficked street resident residential collector is a little lower traffic street and primarily a residential in nature. Significant for this location is both streets in this area are identified as enhanced transit corridors. So we do find that the proposed mixed use zoning of up to three stories is consistent with a blueprint. Denver's recommendations for a town center and for their street classifications of commercial and residential collector and commercial arterial and residential collector. Rather, because the yes and three zone district encourages mixed use development at a moderate scale of three stories with pedestrian friendly design features, we also find that it furthers the uniformity of district regulations, public health, safety and welfare. Through the implementation of adopted plans, it meets our justifying circumstances. Criteria the surrounding environment have in the surrounding environs have changed. Several adjacent properties have recently redeveloped in the past 5 to 10 years. There are two light rail stations in proximity to this location that provide connections again on the enhanced transit corridors to those stations. And the availability of a new zoning code is a changing circumstance. And as stated previously, the property owner would like to take advantage of the new zoning code. It also meets our consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. The surrounding character for this location is suburban in context, and the proposed zone district is in the suburban context and is the mixed use designation also meets the district purpose and intent. So with that, we do recommend approval and be happy to take any questions on this case. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Curt. All right. We have three individuals all in favor signed up, and I'm going to ask them to start making their way. AJ barbaro, Carolyn White and John Haber. AJ Is AJ his first? You have. You have 3 minutes. You guys can have a seat right there. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Mr. President.
Speaker 11: We just checked that.
Speaker 8: I'm going to have you introduce yourself, A.J. Barbato.
Speaker 11: Live at 3162 Vallejo.
Speaker 9: Street and the developer of the property. Great. And we're just here to answer any questions.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Carolyn White.
Speaker 6: Mr. President, members of Council, Carolyn White, land use counsel for the applicant and I too am available to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 8: Thank you. John Hubbard.
Speaker 9: Mr. President. Council, thanks for having us. I'm John Hamburger. I'm with Kimberly Horner Associates, the engineer on the project available to answer any questions.
Speaker 8: Great. This concludes our speakers. You guys can stay in the front row and the members of council will have any questions. They're direct. You. Questions for members of council.
Speaker 12: It's not letting me click on it.
Speaker 8: Okay. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 12: I just have a quick question and I'm not sure maybe, Adam, if you can answer this, hadn't noticed until tonight that on the zoning applications that the boundary of the map goes to the center line of the street. It's very evident in this in these drawings. But I hadn't noticed that on some of the others. Is that typical?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Nate Russo, Assistant City Attorney. Good afternoon, members of Council. It is typical that we re zoned to the center line of adjacent right of way. And so you will see that on many rezonings that come through.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 12: Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Espinosa. And just a couple of questions. It is existing B-3 adjacent to that. And why is that? Why didn't it get rezone?
Speaker 9: So the adjacent zoning is a different property, a different a different commerce. That's a retail center. And this is an office an office building.
Speaker 8: Right. But is there a reason why we didn't move from 59 to 1 of the current zoning districts in this on both of these all these B parcels down here?
Speaker 9: So the if I'm following the proposal on this map is just the B one and then just a small segment of the B three, just because it's following the property boundary.
Speaker 8: Curve, I think I think he's talking about when we rezoning to ten this blueprint down here both under the legislative under blueprint Denver how come this was not zoned into.
Speaker 9: Oh gosh, you guys are.
Speaker 8: Still in chapter 59.
Speaker 9: Right? So when the when the when the city was resolved in 2010, this was left out because it was a there's a plan building group on this site and on the adjacent site. And so for those reasons, it was retained in form chapter 39. And then thanks for that clarification.
Speaker 8: Actually, now recognizing who the applicant is, I understand why I see me. That smacks three. Do we have any sort of plan, support for greater densities here or then mix three or. I mean, we probably just went this way because that was the applicant's request. But is there is this really what was the desired density for this area?
Speaker 9: I mean, there is some you can see on this map, there is some higher density zone districts to the north. The current site, the office buildings on site are about our three stories today. There is a there's a single storey building and three, three storey building. So it's consistent with the existing context and it is a suburban location. And so for those reasons, we do think that it's appropriate. It's an appropriate district.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I know. Just so you know. Yeah, I it's an appropriate district. And just given the sort of heights that were there and some of the other structures historically in this area, there's some of these things already exceed mx3. And so I was just curious philosophically as other other parcels in this PBGC sort of get investigated. I mean, what are what is our vision for the the entirety of the corner, but. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. The public hearing and council Bill 442 is close comments for members of Council Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Espinosa, we don't have a vision for Hampton. Remember, you went on the tour.
Speaker 8: That's right.
Speaker 4: Anyway, thank you. Wow. This is, like, the best zoning night we've ever had. I have met with these nice people. They met with me when I was just elected about a year ago. The property they're rezoning is a commercial corner. It has a Whole Foods in a Petco. And Kevin Flynn's favorite restaurant, the fast first company, Chipotle. Hey.
Speaker 7: Hmm. Asia.
Speaker 4: Yes. And some office buildings. It's a very appropriate corner for this kind of development. But the thing that I'm really happy about is when they met with me, we talked about the fact that the Goldsmith Gulch trail mysteriously ends right behind these properties. And I asked them if they would be willing to build a path that would continue the trail to Hampton. And not only did they agree to that, but they agreed to put in some sort of bike facility with a bench and water and air or something. So we really appreciate that. And with that, I will be supporting it.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. All right. So, you know, for the comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black eye.
Speaker 10: Clark.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 10: Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon Cashin. I can eat Lopez.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 10: Ortega. Sussman. Mr. President. Ortega.
Speaker 12: Sorry. For some reason. My screen is okay.
Speaker 10: Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I closed voting as a result.
Speaker 10: 12 eyes.
Speaker 8: 12 Eyes. Counsel will for 42 has passed on Monday, August 15, 2016, there will be a required public hearing for Council Bill 524 approving a service plan for the creation of the Midtown Metropolitan District and a commission and the required public hearing for Council Bill 525 approving a service plan for the creation of the First Creek Village Metropolitan District. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: You know, the lunchroom. And this was open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, because back in those days, that's the way the train traveled.
Speaker 2: Both going and coming was a grand experience, and people today would have a hard time believing that people actually used to go to Union Station for the sole purpose of having dinner or having cocktails. It was a lively place.
Speaker 0: Despite growing competition from commercial airlines and busses, the railroads maintained their reputation as the most glamorous way.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Antonio (Tony) Lopez for his service to the Denver Police Department and contributions in District 6.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07252016_16-0541
|
Speaker 2: We have given our council members a copy of one of the their six pending applications, and it is a copy of one of the designs of one of the six. And his garden court is 50 to 60 feet wide rather than the minimum of 15 feet. So it can be a beautiful design and we're looking forward to seeing it reevaluated and implemented in the future. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: And I just wanted to add that thank you for for bringing these amendments forward. And and I just want to make it very clear that this moratorium should have happened years ago, because the problems related to this garden court form have been in the code since 2010 when it was adopted. But wherever this this pause had taken would have taken place, projects would have been impacted. So I just you know, there may be concerns. There are a few in the queue right now, but that would have been the case at any point in time, really, unless we found some sort of law. And so I just wanted to share that. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I am going to support this, but I'm not promising. I'm going to support it when it comes up for a final vote until we all learn more about it. We just learned about this a week ago. I totally agree that there are issues with the garden court form and they need to be addressed. But I just want to understand better the impacts on current projects. I don't want to. Abuse anyone's property rights who may have plans already done and that their property was already zoned for this. Just as when we looked at the marijuana laws, we decided to honor those pending applications. So I just want to be very clear that I want to learn more about this before I'm going to vote for it in in about a few weeks or more. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I am going to support this because I do believe that this is something that needs to be looked at. There are a lot of things within our zoning code. Ever since we adopted a new foreign based zoning code in 2010, that this is going to create garden. This garden build is one of them. And if you look close enough and a lot of it, a lot of our code that there's going to be a lot of things that don't match or you need to have a little bit more emphasis and guidance. And that's that's what we do as a council. That's one of our primary powers and roles per charter. So looking at this in the further detail is something I look forward to seeing and participating in. However, I do feel that there are some folks that if they are in the queue, that as a council that we be mindful of this date on the 25th and time this date for folks who are already in the queue and have been operating and and using funds and having their plans reviewed, adopting their plans, getting looking and in process. And, you know, I think it would. It would. And the spirit of the previous action of this council on marijuana. I think it's it's important that we mind the folks that are already in there, since we have already set a precedent in doing that. So but I do look forward to it. It's going to be interesting. Garden court is a rare but very, very if done right, it can be very beautiful. It's protected. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Councilman Nu, there you have. You gave us a schematic of one of the six applications that are in the pipeline where your amendment would allow this to proceed. What's the status of the other five? Because I. I don't want to prevent folks who have abided by the process and are in the pipeline. I don't want to cut them off cold as we did not with the the marijuana moratorium. And as also tonight, we're not doing with the small lot parking exemptions.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. Of the six pending applications, three of them are just in constant review right now. Okay. One the one that you had the diagram on Boulevard. One is inside site. Build a plan and it meets all the criteria as well as the exception so it can move forward nicely. And it's a wonderful picture of what I think we want in the future. The other two are also in site of urban planning, so none have been approved, have gotten zoning permits or or close to building permits yet. So they're in that stage where I think there's really some discussion and redesign. I think they could apply easily with the exceptions.
Speaker 7: So none of the other five applications. Three in all five right now in their current state would not go forward under this moratorium.
Speaker 2: I'll see if they redesign. If they meet the the exceptions, then they all can move forward. No question about them.
Speaker 7: But we don't know. If they do meet the exception.
Speaker 2: Not yet. Only example we've got is the one boulevard one. Okay.
Speaker 7: Before I vote, I would like to know if the other five would be able to go forward. Because I want to honor I want to honor the fact that people followed our rules.
Speaker 2: Well, Councilman Espinosa, talk about that.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I just wanted to let you know that I. I made the request from CPD for all six concepts that have been submitted so that they can all be reviewed the same way this one has. So we really don't know what what would or wouldn't conform as is.
Speaker 7: Okay. So I'm uncomfortable voting yes unless I know that.
Speaker 0: But so sometime in the very near future, we'll have that. As soon as I have that, I'll share that with my colleagues. We have four weeks.
Speaker 7: But you won't have that before roll call. This is my point. No. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilman Flynn, if it's okay with you. Councilwoman Sussman also has a little bit to say about your question.
Speaker 7: That was all I had.
Speaker 2: Okay. But she's speaking, I think, to your question.
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you very much. And I believe that is a really good question. And I know that coming up is a full referral of this bill to committee in the next two weeks so that we can have those sorts of discussions. Because I would just echo what Councilwoman Black Councilman Lopez said, that we want to be careful about those in the Q know where they are in the Q, what the process is and abide by our sets that we had with the marijuana bill that those who are acting in good faith can depend upon our rules to some extent. So it is going to committee. I think you'll be referring it right, councilman, to in just the next few minutes so that we can have further discussions. This is just to publish it. It's not to agree to it.
Speaker 7: Okay. Mr. President, could I.
Speaker 2: Yep. Go ahead, gentlemen.
Speaker 7: Okay. Just a follow up question. If if we're going to refer to committee, should we bother amending it now or should we leave that to the committee to to actually formulate the final draft of the bill?
Speaker 2: We'd like to ask that you be amended now then we can we discuss it a little bit? Committee. No, not thoroughly as we want to discuss it afterwards, but we'd like to publish it as amended today. Anything else, Councilman?
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Sussman, did you have anything in addition to the answer?
Speaker 5: Oh, thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: All right. And Councilman Espinosa, if I'd never mind. Councilman condition.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I had two questions. The first was, does the amendment only allow folks who've already submitted applications to amend or adjust their applications to meet these criteria? Or in theory, does the amendment make it such that any applicant who comes forward during the entire moratorium period could continue to have their application processed under these standards?
Speaker 2: It's my understanding that any application can come forward.
Speaker 11: Is that okay? Great. And then I recognize this may be more applicable to the next motion, but just so I understand, if we if we vote yes on the amendment and then we we would be doing the vote to refer it to committee, would that in terms of the 30 day clock and all of that? I just want to understand what the implications of voting on the amendment tonight and having the bill as amended. Do you in terms of timeline as it relates to going back to committee? So someone can explain that to me.
Speaker 2: If we can vote on the amended bill tonight, then the second reading in the public hearing will be on August the 22nd to be 30 days. If we do not amend that tonight and then the there will be a different time period will be a later time period when it goes to committee.
Speaker 8: So.
Speaker 11: Okay. So can I just clarify then. So if there is a motion to refer to committee, it does not slow down the clock between first and second reading yesterday. Okay. For explaining that it just these votes are related. So understanding the full picture is important. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Kels. Is that. Is that all comfortable? All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Also have a question for Councilman Nu. Can you just explain what the conversations have been with the planning department that assure that they will be involved in helping to clean up this language and make sure that we don't have, you know, what has appeared to be conflicting sections of the zoning code around this particular issue?
Speaker 2: Yes, we've had several conversations with CPD and with the planners and and and the supervisor of CPD and everybody's in agreement. And this was actually this the garden code form was actually on the list that needed to be addressed and changes to the zoning code. So it's not a new issue and I think is something they will recognize just because it's been not being implemented as they really are, I guess anyone desires. So there's been extensive conversations and discussions with them and they they recommended the 12 month period to review and we will restructure the work load to make sure it happens within that 12 months.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 4: No further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So those discrepancies that you and Councilwoman Ortega was mentioning, those have existed. And that's one of the things if you've been paying attention, I hope you haven't. I've been harping on for the better part of a year. Well, for exactly one year since I've been on council. Time and time again, because we've allowed zoned districts that allow this form and the density that's associated with it. But it's clearly not part of the intent of those zone districts. And so there's this this real confusion. And so one of the things is, is that the moratorium, as proposed without the amendments, was actually very clean. It just said, look, we're going to stop using this this this form until we take the time that we should have to address it. And I had already been working with CPD to do just that some time before the end of the year. But because of our workload, we just simply don't have enough time to get that done. And so rather than keep allowing sort of egregious projects, take advantage of this, yeah, it needs to be addressed. But that said, the purpose of the amendment is actually to allow it to sort of continue to persist, something akin to what was intended in the existing code that is commensurate with rowhouse sort of forms where it's allowed but not. And so we won't go into that because that's a wholly different. Litigation. And I'm sorry if I'm confusing anybody, but there are problems with this form as defined and has recorded in documented in the zoning code. And a moratorium is the right tool. When you have a problem in your zoning code and you need to address it and you want to sort of take a breather to take the time to do that. The these simple provisions would allow development, fairly dense development, to move forward on those parcels while sort of preserving the. Defi means the demonstrated or illustrated intent of this form district. So I could illustrate with these boxes, but I'll spare you all. But I just wanted to make that very clear that I have been talking about this. I have addressed it in numerous planning committees and from this day as previously. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And Councilman Espinosa, you're actually you're very right. You do bring this up. And I thank you for sort of giving us a sense of where we might be able to make improvements in the garden court. And I do believe that we perhaps need to discuss this. My only concern, and I hope that we will be able to work on this in committee, is that the hurry up nature of the direct filing of this bill seems to be pointed to a or several particular projects. And while this is a citywide issue, I wasn't sure about the speed with which we needed to do this. So looking forward to the discussion in committee.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank Mr. President pro tem. And thank you, Councilman Nu and Espinosa. And I think I understand where you're going, but I am uncomfortable voting to move this forward. Even with this amendment, if it would mean that the other five applications and the work that went into them in good faith would not be allowed to go forward. In other words, the moratorium should apply only to any future applications. This would be a precedent that would be set here where we did not do this with pending marijuana applications, marijuana applications, and we're not doing it tonight on the other ordinance that has a moratorium on it. So I'm uncomfortable going forward with it, as is and ordering it published. Even though I support the direction you're going, I don't think that it's I think we need to be fair to people who follow the process, even though I support where you're going with the overall bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I just want to make clear that the vote for the amendment does not make that the case. Only a subsequent vote for the moratorium in four weeks time. So this is simply to amend with this this provision to allow these these these development proposals with the that meet these exceptions to proceed going forward in the moratorium . Once it is if it is adopted.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Back to Councilman for just a.
Speaker 7: But we're voting right afterward and ought to order it published. Correct. And I'm uncomfortable with that. I think the bill should follow the normal procedure and go to committee and before we order it published so that we have a committee recommendation. And we have them. We have all this language worked out. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem, I. I guess I want to fully understand and this might be a question for Mr. Broadwell. So if we vote on this tonight to have it published and then it's referred back to committee and through the conversations in committee, if there are further amendments or what we're talking about right here around honoring folks who are already in the process, would there be the opportunity to further amend it or. I just have that question.
Speaker 8: David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. The answer is it depends. Most likely changes in committee would require republication and would kick out the hearing date further. If you order if if if the bill tonight, if the amendment passes and then the bill garners enough votes to order it published, then we're going to proceed to post public notice of a hearing four weeks hence about the bill as it came out tonight. See, so if the substance of the bill were to change later, you would probably have to do a new publication several weeks out of another hearing date. And so it could potentially change things at that point. Is that clear enough?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you. And so with with that knowledge, you know, I we did set precedent with the marijuana process and that we honored folks that were in the process in the Q and I, you know, think that that's an important precedent that was set. And I am, you know, citing, I think, with Councilman Flynn, that it does make me uncomfortable voting on something and having it published and not having the opportunity to have further conversations, especially when people have made investments and have I have no idea the amount of money that folks have maybe invested in moving forward with their projects . Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: I want to make something very clear to everybody here that this is actually normal process. This is fully within our powers as members of council to bring forward a bill such as this at any point in time. It does not need to go through some sort of set of set of hoops. This is this is one of the things that we can do as members of council to work to preserve or move forward or benefit our communities. So this is normal process. By putting it back in committee to have a discussion, we can actually have this discussion about the merits of these amendments and maybe there needs to be additional amendments and then go back into this other process and all that stuff. So we have the tools to to modify even with a vote for approval with the, you know, publishing right now. I mean, there's nothing about publishing that make this a foregone conclusion. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, you just you just want to let Councilwoman Gilmore and Councilman Flynn know that we tried to get it to the committee last week, too, and the agenda was so fortunate. Councilwoman Sussman, this committee is just jammed with all kind of activities. And what was interesting about it is we ended up expediting and doing a lot of great work last week and then ended up having a lot of time at the end. You know, we had a just sort of a general discussion. It wasn't a thorough discussion like we we want to have at the next committee meeting. But but we were intended to bring it through the committee structure first and we just couldn't get it on the agenda because how busy they are. But we want to have a real thorough discussion about all pending applications and this bill next time. Thank you, Councilman new Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. I'm sharing the concerns on both sides of this. I'm concerned that we honor the people who are legitimately in the pipeline, have been following the rules that we set up. I also share Councilman Newark Councilman Espinosa's concerns that some of the I don't think horrendous is too tough a term horrendous abuses of the garden court form that once built will live on forever. So I'm going to vote to move this forward. But with the confidence that with it going to committee and if it makes it out of committee to the floor for a second reading that we'll have adequate time to vet and amend if it's the council conscience that amendments are needed. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: I just have to say, you know, one comment and 98, which is a moratorium with the exact same provisions which would stymie or stifle any projects that aren't to a certain point in time. So I just don't it doesn't comport that we're willing to do a moratorium on small lots. But without any concern about those projects that might be in the queue. But suddenly now we're concerned about projects that are in the queue. You know, we if we vote. If we don't vote to publish this, we shouldn't vote to publish for 98. And I'm by no means advocating that because both of these are bills that we should be moving forward and discussing and having to vote on in four weeks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem, I guess, for both of my colleagues. Councilman Nu and Councilman Espinosa, I appreciate where you're wanting to take this and where you want to go with it. You know, the the the small lot moratorium that's been a conversation of a little bit over a month or so. With that project, I just was able to get my briefing from you, Councilman Espinosa, at 430 this afternoon. I know we were going to try to do two, but, you know, it's the day of. And just to really understand what this is entailing. I want to make sure I'm understanding and I don't know if it's appropriate for Councilman Nu or Councilman Espinosa to answer this question, but where? Under the new language that you're inserting into the ordinance. Could you just explain one more time what that exactly means for the projects that are in the queue? What would be the additional items that they would have to then comply with if they aren't currently in compliance with it?
Speaker 2: Yes, on the first provision exemption we're talking about is really is redefining the width of the garden court to equal to or greater than the height of the building. Most of these are zoned three stories and I think it's about like 35 feet. So we've actually done some in which will talk about and show at the committee who does review of existing garden courts and they're about 30, 35 feet. So it seems to have seems about equal to what the building height is. We thought that was a good good way to talk about that minimum with the others is rowhouse development.
Speaker 0: Where.
Speaker 2: The they're not being stacked on top of each other. Then the example that the diagram I gave you shows those Rowhouse shows a row house development on the boulevard, one that is very nicely done with a 50 to 60 foot courtyard as well as each individual row houses together without any kind of snacking on top of each other, which is probably the intent. And this is something where.
Speaker 0: This is going to be a tiny bit esoteric. But what it boils down to is right now in the Westword that I believe came out today electronically, they talked about slot houses and these townhouses that have this narrow gap. So right now, the garden court, the minimum garden court with is 15 feet. So you can have a 35 foot high structure with a 15 foot garden court with no real requirement that you can plant anything in there. But that's not the intent. And so, yes, what we're saying is that this now gap this gap now has to be as wide as you are tall. So if you're going to do a 34 foot, 35 foot high building, you have to have a 30 foot five foot wide garden court so you can have a fighting chance at getting some sun down there and planting some things and having an actual garden. So that's one of the exceptions because the slot houses were not intended in this. And therein lies the problem is in the row house, they own districts. And this is going to be part of the subsequent rezoning tonight in the row house zone districts, a row house, everyone has a very clear definition. Even the zoning code has a clear definition about a row houses. These are buildings in units that face the street. The row House districts clearly defined that you're allowed to have a urban house floor, a duplex house, four in a row, house floor. It makes no mention of the garden court for yet the garden court is allowed. And so now you can have these slot houses that are perpendicular when all the other forms in the intent orient themselves to the street. So this garden, this this exception is still allowing that garden court form to exist, which shouldn't be allowed in a row house in district, provided that it has a healthy, viable garden court. Associated with it. And then it further compels that that a-road mean that the units be not stacked so that they're each like townhouses, that the units that comprise the garden court all orient themselves to the court or to the street individual units, because right now it's just a form. And so if you do a 15 foot slot and you put the doors facing that way, you can then put that door attached to any number of condo units behind that door. And that's that was never again intended for the Rogerstone district, at least as defined in the building code and in the zoning code, Denver's zoning code . So these two amendments actually address that concern going forward for the next 12 months and say no, even though we know that we have that conflict, you can now use this form with these exceptions rather than live in a series of of of of confusion, the land of confusion, where people are using this form, where it isn't in the intent statement, but it is in a use in a form table. And we haven't vetted out which one of those where it is has more gravitas. But I'm pretty sure that if we keep going down this road, we're probably going to get a legal challenge to find out. And so the moratorium is critical to actually finally addressing this concern.
Speaker 4: So my last question, Mr. President, pro tem, is if this is equivalent to the small lot moratorium, why aren't we utilizing the exact same language as far as the the the bills and creating new language to be interpreted?
Speaker 2: Councilman, new councilman. I'm not sure I know the answer to that question. I. Maybe Mr. Broadwell, he might. Of the.
Speaker 8: Well, probably not, but but I. It does give me a chance to comment on something I heard earlier. I don't have the small lot parking exemption language in front of me, but my understanding and recollection of it is that that bill does, in fact, grandfather applications in the pipeline entirely. Right. And then it says when the moratorium is in place, some some small light exemptions will still be granted when the moratorium is in place. Many will not be allowed anymore. But the issue that's been focused on by Councilman Flynn and and one or two others about how it treats applications in the pipeline is different from this bill and different from this bill even as amended. The bill as amended tonight, if the amendment goes on, will allow some of the pending applications to continue through, but will presumably cut off others of the pending applications. But I believe the small light parking exemption bill does have the kind of language we use when all pending applications are allowed to continue. The moratorium would only have prospective effects to and applicability to future applications. That's that's the shape it was in last time I saw it. And I see some heads nodding.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Pro Tem. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Kinney.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem President. That was my main question. I guess my second question is, I don't do we have someone here from development services? So my question is, if someone can please explain to me the difference between the cutoff point here, which is, I believe concepts, approval and building permits. Exactly. Can you just distinguish between those two gaits for me?
Speaker 0: Sure. Thanks. So I'm Kyle Dalton. I'm principal city planner with Community Planning and Development, and I've been authorized to speak for development services tonight too, so that CPD has been provided the text of the amendment. So I don't I mean, I'll try to write it as fast as councilman new read it. But you know, we got a draft about an hour ago that was different than what was read tonight. So the amendment speaks to this. I can't speak to that. But the Bills has drafted and has filed. There was a difference between the two bills that I think Mr. Broadwell accurately reflected. So the the small parking exception. Thank you. The small light parking exception, Bill. Um, grand grandfathers, if you will. Anyone who's applied for a concept review, which is kind of the first step in a site development plan review. So if you're in with concept, if you're informal, you can continue all the way to receive your approval and receive your permits, irrespective of the exclusions. Then there are exclusions that apply to new applications. So for new applications, if you met the two, one of the two criteria that are in that bill, you could continue. Everything else is stopped under the Garden Court bill that you're considering tonight. It actually stops all approvals. So anyone who has a concept review or a site development plan review, if they're ready to get their permit the day after you you pass the bill, we would deny it until the moratorium lapses.
Speaker 11: Okay. That was a very good description of the bill. I guess I actually want to understand better what is the difference between the plans that someone has when they have a site review approved versus when they get their building permit? So can you give me a degree of if you're in site review, you're at 20%, 80% design. And if you're at building permit, you're at 100% design. Help me understand functionally where a project is at when it's at the site. Concept, concept, use the term again, please. Concept review.
Speaker 0: Concept review.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So when someone's applied for concept review, they're required to submit a site plan that meets a number of things on our submittal checklist. And sort of the first idea of the massing, the use, the number of units, if it's a residential project, they're required to demonstrate a few things for fire. It's kind of it's it's the first idea that requires more than a napkin sketch, but it's a free review that requires a plan to be submitted. So that's that's the concept review. Now, your question about the difference between site plan and building permit.
Speaker 11: No, I think you've adequately answered it. Thank you. Just wanted to get a sense that it's not a full architectural it's not a full, complete architectural plan.
Speaker 0: The concept is not.
Speaker 11: That's correct. Thank you. So that that's actually really helpful for me. Really quickly, I'm just going to comment before I vote then, which is to say that I think that if this if without this amendment, there would be no chance of me supporting this bill because it would literally stop projects that are already in a pipeline. But this I would distinguish from the marijuana, the amended language. I would distinguish from the marijuana moratorium in that the mayor, when we were discussing marijuana licensing, the idea would have been or the proposal was to literally not allow businesses to open who had already spent money on construction design, bought land, bought stores, and to literally say you cannot operate. And that is unconscionable. This provision in this amendment, although I'm not you know, I need to see the committee discussion and understand it better, allows a path for someone to revise and continue to proceed. So to me, I'm not sure yet where my vote will be on final reading after I, but I would like to hear testimony from folks. I think about the concept review phase and understand that more from the perspective of those who testify. But I will be supporting the amendment tonight because I believe it is a path to giving folks options. So that is by no means you know, I want to hear all the testimony. I want to hear the committee discussion. But but I will be supporting the amendment because it allows an option for someone to revise but continue to be in business, which in my mind is very different. Very different than saying you are out of business, period. So. So I will be supporting the amendment tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, my my comments are just straight out of regarding process. We've been debating this on the floor for 45 minutes. This should be talked about and discussed in committee, not on the floor. We need the proper community notification, public participation. I want to refer it to committee. I don't mind it being published. I'm glad the amendments there. But we have a lot of folks here who had signed up to speak on numerous things tonight and not expecting to sit through another hour of committee work. So I would. I would. Respectfully suggest you call the question on this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I just want to make that distinction between the the small moratorium and this one, though, is that that was a case of unintended consequences. And it's a it is a clear cut. We were doing something that we had envisioned unintended consequences where we're shutting that down while we figure it out. This is a situation where we have conflicting language in our code and it makes us vulnerable to getting it right. It's not actually conflicting language in the multi-unit zone districts. It's only conflicting language in the rowhouse zone districts. The problem with us making an amendment and we'll talk about this in committee, the problem is this making exceptions for the multi-unit is then we proceed to continue to have the conflicting language in the house. And so the exceptions for oddly written are to. To address that to basically allow this to. To proceed. Now that's that's now getting into I won't get into the specifics. They're happy to do that in in committee. But this is clarifying language to sort of allow for the next 12 months to proceed healthily in this form while we figure out what the way how to correct all of the numerous zoning districts where the conflict does or doesn't exist, and then to add it where it should have been by code.
Speaker 9: Point of order. Mr. President, when we have a vote to call the question, that means we are voting to cut off discussion.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. It was not my understanding that Councilman Lopez called the question that he was encouraging me to call the question. Did I misunderstand?
Speaker 3: Councilman Lopez respectfully asked that we call the question so we can discuss this in committee.
Speaker 9: You didn't move that.
Speaker 3: Oh, I can move it if you like.
Speaker 2: Well, so point of order, Madam Secretary. If my understanding is that Councilman Lopez is calling the question, well, how do we proceed?
Speaker 6: It'll be.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. QUESTION Mr. President, I didn't call the question.
Speaker 2: That's what I thought. So I thought.
Speaker 3: I hope we do.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Well, I just wanted to I wanted to support Councilman Lopez. I think this is a perfect example of why bringing a bill directly to council is is very difficult, because the council wants to discuss it, needs to discuss it, needs to think things through. It needs to have the kind of time that our process allows. And I also sort of apologize to our audience out there because as these are things that should happen at committee, and that's why we have a process like this.
Speaker 2: Amen. Councilman Cashman. I just.
Speaker 0: Want to.
Speaker 8: Just wanted to see. Was that a moratorium on calling the question? Just.
Speaker 2: All right. Let's vote on the amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 6: New Ortega I. Susman, my black eye. Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 6: Gilmore. No question. I can teach Lopez I. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 6: Nine eyes. Two nays.
Speaker 2: Nine eyes. Two days. Council Bill 541 has been amended. Councilman Cashman, we now need a motion to order published as amended.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 541 be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded by comments by members of Council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Just very briefly, Mr. President, pro time. I support exactly where Councilman Nu and Espinoza are going with this, but I can't support going forward by picking winners and losers already in the pipeline. So I have to vote no on it. But I support the bill in concept. That's my conundrum. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, any other comments? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: New Ortega I assessment black eye. Espinosa. Flynn. No Gilmore. No Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: Nine Eyes.
Speaker 2: Tunis, nine eyes. Two Days. Council Bill 541 has been ordered published as amended. Councilman Moo Nu, do you have emotion to offer? Yes, Mr. Perez, I move that council be off for one day as amended. We refer you refer to the committee on Monday. Well, through the next neighborhood and planning committee, there will be August the third.
Speaker 6: And then I'll come back to council on August 22nd.
Speaker 2: Yes. All right, we get everything we need in that motion. Okay. All right. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman, did you have anything to add to the conversation at this point? No, I don't. I apologize again that we didn't have the opportunity to get it to committee and look forward to a thorough discussion and and really appreciate all our colleagues comments. This is a very, very important issue. And and I really want us to see how we can really value way to redevelop this garden forward and have it implemented as intended. So I appreciate all the discussion and I look forward to the discussion in committee. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: New Ortega assessment. Black Eye Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 6: FLYNN Hi. Gilmore. I can I can eat. LOPEZ All.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and know the results. 1111 I as Council Bill 541 as amended, has been referred to committee. Uh, to committee on August 3rd and will come back to council on Monday, August 22nd. Moving on, Councilwoman Sussman, under bills for final consideration, you have called out Council Bill to.
Speaker 6: Probably do the resolution next.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry. All right. Go back to our resolutions that have been called out. Can you pull the next one up and put it on our screens for us? All right. We have Resolution 388 called out by Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman, what would you like us to do with that one?
Speaker 9: I have a question.
Speaker 2: Go ahead with your question.
Speaker 9: So we have $32 million in eight bills that are for engineering contracts for wastewater and. What I'd like to do is get information that talks about how many of these have been utilized. Oftentimes we have these on call contracts that we do, and it costs money to go through this whole publication process to negotiate with the attorneys
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance providing for a moratorium prohibiting the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of buildings using the Garden Court building form in the Denver Zoning Code for a period of approximately twelve months. Approves a moratorium prohibiting the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of buildings using the Garden Court building form in the Denver Zoning Code for a period of approximately twelve months. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. This bill was approved for filing by Councilmember New.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07252016_16-0388
|
Speaker 9: So we have $32 million in eight bills that are for engineering contracts for wastewater and. What I'd like to do is get information that talks about how many of these have been utilized. Oftentimes we have these on call contracts that we do, and it costs money to go through this whole publication process to negotiate with the attorneys on both sides. And some of these go unused. And, you know, people think they got a contract with the city and then they're never utilized. So I'd like to know, you know, how many of them have we utilize? I and I haven't looked to see if they're all meeting the goals where we normally. So I'd like to get that information as well. I'm not going to hold these up, but I can't imagine that we have $32 million worth of work that we're going to be spending. So can you just speak to that a little bit?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. First, just good evening. Members of council, Mr. President, pro tem Jim Potter with Public Works. So, too. Good question.
Speaker 0: The overall kind of limits that we'll set when we do on call contracts.
Speaker 3: Like this and the professional engineering side, we try and be mindful.
Speaker 0: Of what the community has already with the city as well as the kind of needs.
Speaker 3: We may have upcoming.
Speaker 0: And we try and take a look at where we're going to be.
Speaker 3: Needing those specific pieces. So typically where we're doing about that 75% expenditure on most of our on calls, I can give you some specifics on some of the ones that are similar to this, if you'd like that.
Speaker 0: Following the meeting, we can look that up for you.
Speaker 9: That would be very helpful. I also want to know if any of this work can be done by our own wastewater staff. I know historically much of this work was done internally and it wasn't contracted out. So I'd like to know why we're not utilizing our wastewater staff to do some of this work and why it's all being contracted out.
Speaker 8: Okay. Well, the.
Speaker 0: Contracts that are before council tonight are there's eight total contracts.
Speaker 3: Those are only a maximum capacity contract.
Speaker 0: There is no promise to utilize. Those are internal forces within wastewater capital specifically do perform levels of all the design, the planning, the feasibility. We do the construction management services in-house as well. But with the recent rate increase passing for wastewater, there is an increase to the capital program, the $223 million wastewater capital program. We have come around and talked to most council members so far. We have a few left to do the private meetings where to discuss that program, but it will primarily support the needs that our internal staff cannot perform in-house, as well as getting a large jump on some of these bigger projects.
Speaker 9: Okay. The information that you've committed to provide, i would greatly appreciate that. I do know that on the large plat to Park Hill project, for example, a lot of that design was done not internally but by some of the contracts that we've had underway. And so, you know, understanding the distinction between which ones we are doing internally versus which ones we're contracting out is is really important for me to understand and to be able in the future to support additional. On call contracts to be, you know, adopted. So I appreciate the information you've offered to provide.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: And so to clarify, are these contracts for the Hill? Is this contract related to the plant to Park Hill project?
Speaker 8: No, sir, not specifically. The these on calls can be used citywide.
Speaker 3: The primary intention was for our capital program, which is the $223.
Speaker 0: Million piece of the program for storm and sanitary sewer that is separate from plat to Park Hill. Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Angela, did you want to say something, too? Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to add that we've gotten several questions from a few of you about on call contracts and how we report those. Now we are in the process of developing a more formal report to give a more thorough overview of what we're doing with our annual on call contracts. So you'll you'll see that coming probably this fall. It'll be a very comprehensive report for counsel. And we have a meeting set with Councilman New in August, I believe, to discuss the report and how we how we plan on presenting it, rolling out to council.
Speaker 9: That will be much appreciated. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. All right. I think that's it on that one. So moving on. We have for 45. Councilman Espinosa, what did you want us to do with that one?
Speaker 0: I just wanted to comment.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: So in the explanation, it once again says District nine, Council District nine. And so I don't either. I'm going to be frustrated that we continue to put money in contracts for Council District nine. Well, the Council District one at Confluence Park wallows in a in a pit of unrealized construction. So is this are we doing that or are we going to actually acknowledge that this is both council district one and Council District nine so that we can actually address I mean, what's going on over there at Confluence Park?
Speaker 5: This is an administrative error. We I did ask that it be corrected for the record. And I mean, it just. His administrative.
Speaker 0: Thing. Okay. So it is money going towards trying to resolve what's going on in District one side of Confluence Park.
Speaker 5: I do not have that information. I can get it to you.
Speaker 0: All right. Great. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. Moving on. All right now councilman suspend under bills for final. You've called out council bill 249. What would you like for us to do with this bill?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to reopen the public hearing to allow for limited additional testimony on Council Bill 249, changing the zoning classification for 3250 South Colorado Boulevard. To update Council on the following, an update on public comment received since the May 23rd. Public hearing from Teresa Lucero of Community Planning. Second, an update from Doug macKinnon, an applicant representative and three and an update from Jay McCormick, a neighborhood representative.
|
Resolution
|
Approves a three-year $4 million on-call contract with Muller Engineering Company, Inc. for comprehensive engineering services to support various Wastewater capital program or infrastructure needs and general engineering services (201627885). (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a three-year $4 million on-call contract with Muller Engineering Company, Inc. for comprehensive engineering services to support various Wastewater capital program or infrastructure needs and general engineering services (201627885). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-?-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 7-7-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07252016_16-0473
|
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 473 be placed on the floor and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and.
Speaker 6: We'll try again. Let's.
Speaker 3: The pick on the bush patching up.
Speaker 2: We have moved. Can we get a second? Got it. It has been moved and seconded. So what our courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 473 is open council members. We've had a request from the Department of Parks and Recreation to deliver the staff reports on both park renaming Council Bill 473 the ruthless the old Drilling Park and Council Bill 474 The MLA, Sam Sandals Park one right after the other. Then we will hear separate testimony on each bill and finally vote separately on each bill. If you have questions from Parks and Recreation staff regarding either bill, please ask those questions during this public hearing. And with that, may we have the staff report? Councilor.
Speaker 4: Good evening, Mr. President. Pro Tem Members of council. My name is Happy Haines, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. And Mr. President, if I could prevail upon you to give us a few moments, the folks who are here for these hearings have been waiting patiently outside and would like to file in for this, if we may
Speaker 2: . Sure thing. How long do you think we just need filing? They're heading in. All right. This is just one more. Looks like that, everybody. We've got.
Speaker 4: Everybody.
Speaker 2: All right. Welcome.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you so much. It is my distinct pleasure to be here this evening to recommend. And I'm going to speak, Mr. President pro tem, if it's all right on both at the same time and in recognition of the time this evening and trying to remain brief. Yes. So I will speak to both hearings, even though I know they will be separate. And so it is my distinct pleasure to recommend that the parcel of Wear Gulch at West Alameda and South where drive be named in honor of Ruth Lucille drilling. It is also my pleasure to recommend that Barnum Park North between Sixth Avenue, Knox Court and Federal Boulevard be renamed in honor of M l Sam Sandoz. These processes started last fall. The families and community members in and this is all one community in the Barnum Park neighborhood began the process of renaming these parcels, distributing and circulating the petitions. And we were fortunate enough to witness the results of those. Let me say a word or two and a you've received the memos that I sent for both individuals, but I would like to take a moment to say something about each one of these individuals. Let me start with Ruth. Better known as Lucille Drilling, who is a long time resident of Barnham West neighborhood. I think she came there in the 1960s, and it was her efforts that really led to the creation of Weird Gulch Park. And, you know, Ruth was one of those people that when you called, people answered, whether you were a neighborhood person, a Boy Scout or a council member or ahead of a department in city hall, she she was truly a force of nature. And it was her single mindedness about transforming what really was just a ditch where people thought they should ditch their trash, in fact, into something better. She had a vision for that area. That is what we it is transformed today and what we hope will continue to happen into a beautiful, natural area in park that serves the community that she so loved. And so in 1972, where Gulch Park became a reality and it really was thanks to her tenacious efforts to get that done. And she remained an advocate, so she never stopped it. It was named a park. And that wasn't good enough. She wanted to make sure it was the best park and that it was well maintained and that people used it and so on. So she remained a real champion and advocate for this park until her passing in 2008. Let me move on for a moment to someone who really was a mentor for me. Emil Sam Sandoz. Councilman Sanders was serving on this council when I was just a pup, along with my former colleague, Councilwoman Ortega. And we we were serving as aides along with our friend Ramona martinez, who served with Sam. And he taught us an awful lot about not about city government. We learned a lot about city government, but what he taught us.
Speaker 8: Was.
Speaker 4: About community. What he taught us was how to respond and how to use the energy and the commitment from people in a neighborhood to make changes in the community that they wanted to see happen. And so he was a lifelong resident of the Villa Park neighborhood and served on this council in Council District three from 1975 to 1987. He started so many programs to serve the community that there are too numerous to mention. I know that many of you and many folks in the city have participated in in the annual holiday.
Speaker 0: Drive.
Speaker 4: That that continues to this day. And it's something that Sam started the Hispanic annual salute. Again, another extraordinary event that helps support our young students and their dreams for college. And that continues today. Thanks to the efforts of his family, which have carried it out. So. Over over 700 signatures were obtained on both of the petitions for the renaming of these.
Speaker 8: Parks.
Speaker 4: And letters of support poured in, including from Councilman Lopez, who really was a champion and continuing on in the tradition of Admiral Sam Sanders responding to the needs of his community and helping them to bring this forward. This evening, I'm going to.
Speaker 0: Let you hear the.
Speaker 4: Details from the people who will speak this evening. But after a public hearing on Thursday, April 4th, between the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, where we heard some of the passionate stories you're going to hear a little bit tonight, the the Parks and Rec Advisory Board voted unanimously to recommend that.
Speaker 8: Barnum North.
Speaker 4: Park be renamed M.L. Sam Sanders Park and that the Weir Gulch be renamed for Ruth Lucille Drilling. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have seven individuals sign up to speak this evening on Council Bill 473. I'm going to call the first five speakers and I do apologize if I say your name incorrectly when I call your name. If you could make your way up to the front bench, that will help speed up our proceedings. So the first five are Bill drilling, Paul Santos, April Crumley, Ethel Santos and Tim Santos and Mr. Darling. Bill Darling, you're up first.
Speaker 8: Thank you. My name is Bill Rowling, and I'm here. I'm going to wing this because I didn't write anything up. When my parents moved to that gulch. In late 1959, I was just a youngster. And I remember that ditch being full of weeds, ten foot deep marsh machines in their cars, garbage cans, tires, everything you could think of. And my mom pursued and she had us boys over there working, cutting weeds after we cleaned up our own yard, which the home had been repossessed. And we picked it up. But. We worked and worked on that park for many years, and she just was totally avidly after the city. Constantly, every mayor, every councilman she could get her hands on, she would take them a cake or whatever she could do to even talk to them, you know. But in a way, I loved my mother and I think she really deserves this. And I hope you all can see it our way. And I want to thank everyone from the drilling family and the Santos family for being here tonight. This is just a great honor for all of us and for her. I know she'll be up there smiling if it passes. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Paul Santos? Yes.
Speaker 8: Hi, I'm Paul Sanders. And a wonderful find Duluth roots drilling. In 1972, I was a sophomore down the street at Denver West High School. I just learning to drive. And my father had us involved in any kind of political campaign you could imagine. Roots, of course, was quite a bit older than I, and I was just a young kid. And she turned to me after everybody got picked for all of the coal jobs and said, You know what, we have to flip pancakes for over 400 people. That's like a thousand pancakes. Are you up to the task? And she immediately told me how she was not a show horse, she was a workhorse and that I was, too. I took a love to Ruth and told her that I had just been jilted by my girlfriend at high school. And so she made me the very first pancake I'd ever seen with a mickey Mouse sign. And she put little you got it right, the blueberries for the eyes and the whole body. And she cheered me up every campaign from Senator Wirth, Pat Schroeder. I was always picked to work with, really. So we became very close when she started to work on the on going. Of course, I had my new car, which is an old car for a kid on. I love that car. But she convinced me I needed to put this old mattress in the back of that trunk and take things over. Ruth drilling. She was an amazing lady. I always wanted to marry her. I'll be honest with you. I was a young cow. I got as close as I could to Ruth driving. And my wife Crystal is here to attest to that. Thank you to Ruth has worked tirelessly for for Denver and for our website for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you, April Crumley.
Speaker 5: Hello.
Speaker 4: April Crumley, 215 South King Street in Barnum. Lucille was a big driving force in Barnum. And this is such a great honor that we're doing two individuals, Lucille and Sam, together. She used to tell me how they would pull things out of the garbage, shopping carts and tires and bicycles. And towards the later years, she'd sit there on the porch and applaud, you know, work more, work more. But she never as happy said she never stopped with her political affiliations. And I think she stopped in front of your office with her big car, my house, and laid on the horn.
Speaker 3: My house.
Speaker 4: Was.
Speaker 3: My house.
Speaker 4: I had your.
Speaker 5: House, too.
Speaker 4: Well, I was in your office and she had something to report and something to drop off. And I go, What is this, curb service? And she was she had porch meetings, current events. She started the transplant program season, the transplant program through Denver Urban Gardens. She started planting marigolds along the gold and Weir Gulch is this strange thing that runs through our neighborhood. And I've often said it's one letter away from weird.
Speaker 5: But.
Speaker 4: You know, when you find kids playing in it, I go, you find something alive and you can play in it. It's that simple, you know? So she was always an advocate for getting politicians involved. At her funeral, she had a pickle recipe. The family had done a pickle recipe with the notice, and someone was saying that they needed help in heaven making dill pickles. But there were so many politicians there and speaking that you wondered how the government survived that day because they were all at her funeral. Weird Gulch is an open drainage ditch and it's now beautiful Green Parkway, thanks to Lucille Drilling and others. And thank you for considering both these good people.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ethel Santos.
Speaker 4: Now I'm going to tell you how it all came about, because it was my husband, Sam Santos, that we went. He was just barely elected and we didn't know diddly about city works or anything else. He had gotten into this job because he thought he could help more people if he did it well. We went to the Concerned Citizens for Barnum meeting. Well, who did we meet there? But Lucille Drilling and her neighbor and little German lady that spoke very poor English. And the two of them tore into Sam like, you know, on an ape. But they wanted that gulch cleaned up right now. And I mean, they demanded. And so Sam thought he had to do it himself. He didn't know that, you know, you can call city services and they would do this sort of thing. But anyway, he got his friend Joe Lucero with a great big truck and all of our many sons. And every Saturday they cleaned the girls. And so they finally, when they would get down to the end, which is where the Sandoz part started in, we were in the gully, and by then we had it all together and the kids would all have hot dogs and they didn't mind working and helping. So anyway, that's how the girls finally started getting cleaned up. But then Sam started to get a little bit wise too, and knew that he could ask for help and get it. So now, like the lady just said, it's a beautiful park. There is the the playground for the children and Lucille drilling. See, I love her to death. And so she would sit on her porch and she would admire all that stuff. And if anybody was hanging around the kids playground, she ran them off. I mean, it was just the way it was. And she took care of it. And if anybody never came to mow the lawn or tram or whatever, she was on the phone to City Hall and she would walk into to Hickenlooper's office with a red velvet cake. And when she came out, she was getting done what she wanted to get done. So at her funeral. Hickenlooper was there. He was mayor at the time. And he and I both promised her that we would see that that park was named after her and Vine, that it's being done. And God bless you, Lucy. And just to enjoy what you got that you did for us. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next up, Tim Sandoz. And while Mr. Sandoz is working his way up, I'll call the last two speakers. You can work your way to the front bench. Erica Pollen and Debbie trailing.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Tim Sandoz, and I live in Centennial, Colorado. Looking forward to moving back in Denver when we get the affordable housing done so I can afford to live here again. I really want to pick up where my mother left off about Mrs. Driving because to us when we were younger, she was Mrs. Dry Lang. We were raised that way. But one of the things that we learned about Mrs. Driving is the drive that she had and Poppa learned how to work within city government. And all of us did, in fact, as a result of a lot of Lucille's drive and say Mama said, Papa didn't know that you could find resources to do the cleaning, so we did it ourselves. But then he was able to learn how to develop the summer youth employment programs, to bring young people to be able to do that work and to better the community. Help them to learn about the legacy of creating a better community that you live in. Now I'm going to ask you to keep that word, legacy in mind as we go through the evening. Ruth's legacy was We Are Gulch, and it started out just looking at how we changed the appearance. It was used as a trash dump. So how do we clean it up? How do we make it more palatable for the people in the neighborhood? Once that was completed, she was kind of like the movie Lilies of the Field, you know? And he got one job done. Then she would, okay, but now we have to do this. And so was Ruth trailing Drive. The next thing that happened was one of the least sexy projects that any council member will ever have to deal with. And each and every one of you, I'm certain, will deal with it at some point. And that was the urban drainage portion. You see, the culverts were so small and everything was backing up and all the neighbors homes and it was just a mess every time you had a heavy snow or a heavy rain. So once the gulch was cleaned up, the next step had to be, how do we address the flooding in people's homes? Thus we are goals project was created. It was my father's first major project as a member of the Denver City Council and he would not have gotten the support that he had from his colleagues without the drive of Lucille Drilling. Now, I don't suggest anybody just take up red velvet cakes as a way to negotiate getting things done. That was one of her many ways, but she was very convincing, made sure everybody participated and then protected and nurtured that park to become a park later on. We'll talk a little bit later about the funding of these things, because that was created in 72. But much of the funding did not come for generations later until 1989. So Ruth was a mentor to all of us. She helped me, my father and others understand what city government should be doing for its people, and the naming of this park is extremely well deserved. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Erika Pilon.
Speaker 5: Hi. Forgive me if my voice shakes. Some Erika pile on from Firestone, Colorado. I am one of the grandchildren of Lucille Driving or Granny D, as we called her.
Speaker 4: And as a.
Speaker 5: Child I.
Speaker 4: Remember going to her house.
Speaker 5: And playing at that park and playground. I don't ever remember there being anything there other than a playground that we were able to play in because she created it. I remember catching crawdads with my brother and being able to be safe in that area because of her. We cleaned up trash.
Speaker 4: And she taught us to clean up trash because that's the right thing to.
Speaker 5: Do. And that's what you do. When there's a mess, you clean it up. And the biggest thing that we learned is what it means to speak up for your community. And so now that I live in Firestone, we speak up for our community all the time and we're on our way boards and things because it's important to speak up for your community and to have a part in your community. I can take my own children. My own children played over there. My Uncle Irv still lives in her house. And so to be able to go over there and visit and have my children have play on the same playground I was able to play on and be safe is a really lasting legacy. And I speak for all her grandchildren that I can't tell you how many times we heard you better get this park named for me. Like, don't forget to get this park named for me.
Speaker 4: And so I don't know what will happen if this doesn't happen.
Speaker 5: So I just urge you on behalf of her whole family that you would name this park in her honor and.
Speaker 4: Such a lasting.
Speaker 5: Legacy that she's left in all of us her first great, great, great, great grandsons in the room as well.
Speaker 4: And just such a legacy that she's left.
Speaker 5: In all of us to teach us what it means to be a part of your community. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And last up, Debbie dryly.
Speaker 4: Yeah, my name's Debbie. Debbie dribbling. And Ruth was my mother in law for over 40 years. So I came into the family in 1967. They had moved in there in late 59, early 60. So much of it was cleaned up by the time I became part of the family. But every weekend that was part of our duties was to come over and help clean up. And I don't know if you ever heard the word bigot. When's the last time you heard the word bigot? We heard it every weekend. Trash begets trash. Let's get it cleaned up, because if we don't get it cleaned up, there will be more next week. Trash begets trash. And it was true. You know, if we were busy for a week and we came back the next time, there'd be more trash. There were shopping carts and tires and washing machines. I mean, it was unbelievable. Rats. I mean, it was it was disgusting. There was no place for children to play. So by the time my children were born, they were able to play there. And it gives me great happiness to see my grandchildren play on those playgrounds that she worked so hard to put together. We've been friends with the Sanders family all those years. You know, she met Sam when he was the councilman and she, you know, browbeat him into helping her with the park. But, you know, we've been lasting family, friends. We've always worked on the Christmas baskets with them, you know, wonderful projects to do with them, you know, great for family friendships. I would like and I know, you know, you guys are here really late tonight. I don't want to keep this too long. We can go on and on and on about it. But I would like to ask everybody in favor of Lucille Drilling Park. Please stand up. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions? Questions from members of council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Where is my red velvet cake?
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, any other questions? At the public hearing for council bill 473 is closed. Comments by members of Council. First up, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I am very proud to sit here on this dais in front of my community and see this come up in front of us, on our screen, on our desk, and to be able to vote on it. I. We were ready to do this when she was still alive. Unfortunately, the rules in our city force us to wait seven years. And every single year we made sure this was on our radar screen. And when that year came up, when that September came up, we were ready to go clipboards. Pens. Everybody ready? And knocked on those doors. It is unfortunate that well, I guess the only thing that I that I resent is that she is not here to see her flowers while she is still alive. She really clean that not just the the the the gulch shop, but our neighborhood. It's that kind of civic participation, that insight and that inspires everybody else to do it. When you when I say legendary district three, you know, we play around as the front door to Denver and somebody else has the highest point in Denver, the heart of Denver or whatever we say, legendary district three. And we say that because of people like with driving and because of people like Councilman Sanders. But Ruth was amazing. Come into the office. And she always had a presence to her. She knew she owned that office. She knew when she would walk in there. Red velvet care. Cake or not that. She'd get what she needed done. Not out of fear, not out of some ego trip, but out of love. It was infectious. It was. You'd catch it right away. She'd look at you with her eyes and. And sometimes I think maybe it was just me, but she looked at me like she would look at you and you couldn't avoid staring at her eyes. You have them and I could see them right now. And they made you feel like you did something wrong or you were an idiot. And I felt like I did something wrong. But no, no. She just was serious. And she had this sense of integrity. She had this sense of courage. She was true grit. But just surrounded with love. Everybody in the neighborhood respected her. And not not for something that was born out of ego, but for just straight an aura of respect for this woman. She would have these neighborhood meetings in her driveway. Everybody would be there. The governor would be there, the mayor would be there. The mounted patrol, which I had no idea we had until it was at her meeting. You had the Jimi Hendrix of accordion players who lived in our council district, right? They'd come and I'd say Jimi Hendrix, because they would play an accordion and they'd get on the floor and do this. The only thing that needed to be done was the light, the accordion on fire when they were playing it. But that was Ruth trailing. And it was the donuts, it was the coffee, it was the music. It was the fact that you join that neighborhood association to be part of something great and positive, not to be something negative. Not to say, well, not in my backyard, but to say yes, let's do it. Starting with this. Got you first. And she would hand you that rake that broom. Well, this gulch had been it currently no name except for the Weird Gulch. And only because the guy who owned the plot of land. Right. This park because it's always been a park. And when even before, when the city wouldn't consider it a park, it is a park and is a park. Because of where? Because of Lucille driving. And her work and what she stood for. And so today with her family here, you could, you know, dedicate that in her memory and in her honor. And every single kid, every single family, every single pet that's on a leash or walks through that park will be walking through Lucille Ruth Training Park. From here on out and let there be a heck of a lot more of that. So it's with great pride and honor that I ask my colleagues to support this renaming, long overdue renaming for this park in her honor. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Guzman-Lopez Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. I think, Councilman Lopez, if anybody is intending on voting no, we should subject them to accordion music. There's a I think there's nothing would get me to give you what you want faster than to get that recording and music to stop.
Speaker 3: But.
Speaker 7: But I just want to honor Lucille for reawakening the. The knowledge of our cultures that they are not garbage pits that the South Platte River once was. They are not places to dump things. They are assets in the community. And we on the West Side, we we love our water courses all the way from Bear Creek, West Harbor Gulch, Sanderson Weir, even Lakewood and Dry Gulch as they kind of define the West Side. And to see them change over the years, from garbage dumps to assets to playgrounds to places where you can actually go and enjoy your community is just it's remarkable. And it's it's much more than fitting that that we that we all vote yes on this. Mr. President, I will proudly vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Kinney.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say that that is one of the sweetest public hearings I have been a privilege to hear in my time in office. I am so thankful for all of you for coming out. And what an amazing way to bring government and people and public spaces and history all together. Thank you so much. And I will be very happy to support this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. I'll just add before we vote here that our waterways in Denver have been so neglected and abused and forgotten, whether it's the South Platte River, the Bear Creek or the Cherry Creek or Weird Gulch and really. What has happened to reclaim them is this story. And it's what inspired me in a different version to do the work that I've done my whole life and to be sitting here tonight. And so I'm so excited and thrilled to be able to vote, to put this name on this park so that every single one of us will always be reminded that really one person can completely change their community. One person can turn something that's a trash dump into something that's a treasure. One person can create a space for kids to catch crawdads. Memories that they will take with them for the rest of their life and challenge all of us every time we are in this space to say, what is that space that still has trash? And how do we how do we take that next step and and live up to this legacy from legendary District three? So I'm very excited to be able to support this site. And with that. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 4: Absolutely no.
Speaker 6: Black eye. Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight, accountability for 37 has passed. Councilman Cashman, will you please vote council bill 474 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill 474 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. The one hour courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 474 is open. We have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening on Council Bill 474. Just like before I called the first five speakers. When I call your name, if you can make your way up to the bench. First up, we have Joanne Phillips, Debbie Drilling, Bill Drilling, Paul Santos and Tim Santos. And Joanne Phillips, you're up first.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Joanne Philips. I live at 936 Mead. I want to talk to you about Sam Sanders. I first met Councilman Sanders when I was when I had my second child in 1982. I had been working, but then with my second child, I decided to stay home. And so we had a Franjo Lucero. He said, Joanne, you got to come down and you have to work on this program. I says, What is this that's just come down and let's see what's going on? I says, okay. So it was the Sam Sanders District three Christmas basket program. And so I started in 1982. It's been a long it's still going this now, but I don't remember when it really started. But anyway, so I started with that, started working with Councilwoman Martinez. Now this is 1982. This is when you had typewriters, you had you didn't have all these fancy computers. So we we had cards because we worked with Social Security, social services to make sure that everybody got a basket and they didn't get populated with because everybody called for basket. Every they called everybody for a basket. So we would have to write they had to write these cards out. We had to have people in the community actually took phone calls, said, hey, I need a basket. This is where I live. This is, you know, whatever, my fellow. This is how much I make. This is how many kids that we had that we have in the household, how to feed. And then once we got that all cleared up, then we had the day that the baskets were going to be put together. Everybody helped. The Sanders boys went and got all the food, which I was Sarah And then they then they packaged them together. And then on a Saturday morning, we got up quite early and we distributed all this. And then we also at that time, if there was some people that couldn't come to deliver it or come to pick it up, we had people that would deliver it. So that was, you know, we had a lot of people, we had the firemen, we had the police, we had public works because we had to have some of the dumpsters to throw some of the the boxes out from that we had used to put all the produce in. So this was quite an event. And it was, you know, it's one of those things where that the way it started, because Sam had such a big heart and people would come to him and they didn't have any money for food they didn't have, especially in the holidays. And so that's how I believe he started doing this. And one of the things is that he was always he said, Joann, don't you know? I says, you know, other people always talk about their program, says Joann. That's all right. He says, I'm doing this for the community. That's who Sam Sanders is. He does what he has done is done for the community. So after that, I sort of stayed with him. We did. We did things together in the community. He would call me. We come over, we talk about stuff that was going on. And Sam works almost 24 hours a day, 24, seven. There would be nights I would get a call, maybe about nine or 930, and Sam would call me and he'd just start talking about something that was going on. And I go, Sam, do you know what time it is? It's like, Oh, okay, but let me finish this. And I go, Okay. So that's how hardworking he is. Man had courage. He loved he loved his community. He'll have God, his community, his family and his community. He was a member in presentation church. He sang. He was always involved with that. And then when he'd be so this is how I know Sam. And I just want I'm so proud that something is is going to be named after him, especially the Barn and Park North, which is in Villa Park, even though it says Barn and Park, it is in the Villa Park area. So it all used to be Villa Park between sixth Avenue came along Sixth Avenue divide at that. So we have Villa Park on one side and Barnum on the other side, but Barnum North, it's always been called Barnum North, so it's really great to have this name after Sam . Sam Sanders, who actually lives in Villa Park. So he you know, he's he he's such a he was such a good man. And you always you always he always gave you his best. He always told you the truth. And he always worked with both sides. Even if you didn't even if he was on opposing. He always would go to the opposition and shake their hands and would talk to them. So that was Sam. He was he I just can't tell you how much I appreciate and love Sam.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance renaming a portion of Weir Gulch Park located north of West Alameda Avenue, south of West Bayaud Avenue, north and west of South Weir Drive, and south and east of South Windsor Drive, as “Ruth ‘Lucille’ Dreiling Park”.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Re-names a parcel of Weir Gulch at West Alameda Avenue and South Weir Drive to “Ruth Lucille Dreiling Park” in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-29-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07252016_16-0474
|
Speaker 4: And he always worked with both sides. Even if you didn't even if he was on opposing. He always would go to the opposition and shake their hands and would talk to them. So that was Sam. He was he I just can't tell you how much I appreciate and love Sam. And so thank you for naming.
Speaker 8: The park.
Speaker 4: After Sam. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Debbie dryly.
Speaker 4: You know, as I said a minute ago, the drilling family met Sam because he became the councilman and she was browbeating him to work on the park. And Saturdays were spent with their family and our family cleaning up trash with that park. And Sam was a lifelong friend of Lucille's. Ethel has just been a wonderful, wonderful neighbor and helper with my brother in law that still lives there. You know, the parks and so forth wouldn't be there. Sam has a huge legacy. We participated in the Christmas basket, and if any of you have never participated in the Christmas basket, you need to do that one year. It is absolutely, completely amazing. We put together boxes. We were part of the group. She talked about that. We're delivering to people that couldn't. Lucille always had a list of neighbors that were a little bit less fortunate, and we would take the boxes over to them because most of them were elderly and couldn't drive. So again, we've been friends with them for all of these years and I am.
Speaker 5: Proud to support.
Speaker 4: The renaming of that.
Speaker 5: Ballpark.
Speaker 4: For Sam. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Bill dryly.
Speaker 8: Yes. Thank you. Sam Santos and Ethel Santos were great friends of my mother, Lucille, and they worked together to help the community. Every day. Every day they could. My mom would have a problem. She would call Sam. He'd be over there running, and Ethel would be with him most of the time. They're just the greatest people. And I'm so proud to stand here and say that. I hope you named this park after Sam. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Paul Santos.
Speaker 8: I'm gonna start with that. Of course I'm the work force, so I got to come up there first for the family. Thanks, Mom. This is part of the project that you have. I am of the proud principal of Lester Arnold High School and a lifelong educator serving children, much like my father and mother. For most of my adult life in Denver, public schools as well. Who is my Sam Sanders and why is he deserving of this park naming? Manually Sam Sanders was born in Denver, Colorado on June 16th, 1927, the son of a Greek coal miner and a Hispanic mother. He was a lifelong resident and community leader in Denver's West Side. In 1941, you do the math. Now we know that in World War two, the age for induction was dropped to 16, but Sam was 14. In 1941, he lied about his age and joined the Army's 82nd Airborne as a paratrooper. He sustained crippling injuries at the Battle of the Bulge, resulting in several decorations for valor, including the Purple Heart and Silver Star. While recuperating, he met and married Ethel Mae McCants, and they raised nine children in the Villa Park and Barnum Park neighborhoods. They built a home in Villa Park where they raised their children and sheltered 14 foster children over the course of 40 years. Sam served on a plethora of boards and committees. His love of the Airborne Rangers and the military led him to be part of the American GI Forum. He worked tirelessly for the Veterans of Foreign Wars and for the American Legion. He loved effortless countless efforts for projects, especially want to admit scholarships for children. Westwood Community Center, who worked tirelessly for a lot of boys clubs and girls clubs of Denver. Sam was an amazing my dad. I never called him Sam in my life. What a problem I got. And Manuel was an amazing speaker on how to interpersonal skills. He brought a lot of money into Denver from state and federal coffers, including the National Summer Youth Sports Program. We knew growing up that our father's work was very important because of the people he worked with. We understood Martin Luther King. My father had worked with them. We knew Hubert Humphrey. He brought him home to have tacos. The best in Denver made by his Irish wife, of course. Tim Wirth. Schroeder often visited us and we played catch. Many people don't realize, but the Baltimore Colts used to have their training center at the Colorado School of Mines. He brought Johnny Unitas home and we got to play catch. But it wasn't those folks that turned his clock. It was his constituents. And I know how to count some of my family. What kind of hours you guys keep? And those incessant calls that come at all the wrong time and the doorbell being rang all at the wrong time. We shared our father with his constituents. Thank you for considering him for this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Tim Sanders.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. I'm going to go to the next page, which is actually a very telling page. It was my father walking with young people, leading a march back when they were much more militant. Young people were getting their voice, and it was the first time that they felt that they had an opportunity to talk about their culture, their people, where they're at. So you see the picture there of my father looking like the gruff man he used to be at times with a cigaret in his mouth. At that time. What he was doing is helping young people understand how they could be a part of their community. They could express their voice. Unfortunately, during these times, he had to be there because many times people were attacked and he was there to protect the young people to ensure that there was safety. So I'm here to talk about the community activists and commitment to children and families that this picture portrays, but as it's specific to what was part of their culture, what we used to call the goalie at the time. Why did they decide to work on the Gulf to change the environment? Well, my brother mentioned that I've got seven brothers, two sisters, 14 foster brothers and sisters. Quite frankly, we needed some place to play. And so I also want to recognize, because we're speaking about my father in such eloquent terms, that it was really my mother who drove my dad to do the things that he did. So it was my mother who would say, Well, then, Sam, you need to do something about it. And there's that their filled over there that nobody's using, they dump trash. Why don't we talk about going and cleaning this up now? This was prior to being on the Denver City Council. So, again, you know, 14 Sanders kids in the back of the van go in, clean up the gully and wear a gulch and use it for baseball fields and four soccer fields. It was really creating a quality of life for the kids in the neighborhood and giving us an opportunity, some place not only to play, but to be proud of. So we combine that with the Mayor's Commission on Youth to create summer employment, and it used to talk to us all about, okay, we're going to work hard, we're going to clean this up, but then we're going to play hard too. So we got to have the balance in life and understand that if you give, you get back as well. Those were the key lessons that were being taught to each and every one of us in the family and in the community. Then he decided at one point that he could do so much more if he was elected to the city council. And as my brother mentioned, he was elected in 1975 and served 12 years on the Denver City Council. Channel nine News did a story talking about Barnum, and they said Barnum features a heavy Hispanic influence both in business and presidency. Denver's first Hispanic City Council representative Sam Santos, elected in 1975, represents District three, which includes Barnum and Barnum West. He served for three terms, and this is really the most important points of nine news story. He was a preeminent leader in building relations between the white and Hispanic communities. If you remember the early seventies, it was a time of turmoil. There was not a lot of people who are willing to step into that void to create commonality among people. My father was one of the first. So we come to the legacy and the legacy of the things not only that he did then what he taught his children and what was touch of the rest of the community . So these things wouldn't stop when he passed away, but his work would continue on. And so I'm looking forward to hearing from my brother Dan, who will share a little bit more about those things. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And with that Segway, Dan Santos.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for entertaining us tonight and considering our presentation. I want to.
Speaker 3: Thank the Honorable Paul Lopez.
Speaker 0: As well as Adriano and his suits for everything that you guys have done. You guys are incredible. I'd like to thank Happy Haine.
Speaker 3: She's been a family friend of ours forever, and I appreciate you carrying the ball happy.
Speaker 0: I'd like to offer my congratulations to Ruth.
Speaker 2: Darling and her.
Speaker 0: Family. She was incredible. And you guys.
Speaker 2: Are deserving of what.
Speaker 0: You've done. I want to talk about just a couple of things, the SAM Sandals website, Health Health Center. I know all of you guys know about that. I don't have to tell you about how great it is and what a tremendous community asset it is. What I do want to say is thank you, because I know you guys work your butts off and I know that after a tough day, after a tough week, after a tough month, you're sitting here wondering, man, what am I doing here? Am I doing any good, guys? The West, South, the west side, the Sam Sanders West Side health centers is is testament to what great.
Speaker 3: Work you guys do. So thank you.
Speaker 0: I'm going to tell you about two nonprofit 501 seat threes that our family runs. One is the Hispanic annual salute. I am the president of the Hispanic and Salute. We are in our 37th year of providing scholarships that reward that recognize and reward volunteerism for high school seniors. It's important for us to do this because as Tim talked about, there's a few things that our father left for us in terms of legacy and the legacy and volunteerism is one of them. He believed and so do we, that if we find our community's brightest and best volunteers, if we hold them up and say, look at what these tremendous human beings are doing, it will inspire others to do more community service work. If all of us in this room today did one more thing for our community, how great would that be? I want to tell you that that.
Speaker 3: Process works, that that.
Speaker 0: Organization does a great job of doing just that. We recognize high school seniors that perform hundreds of hours of volunteer work throughout the year. We believe that those high school seniors are leaders today. We believe that they're going to be leaders in college. And we believe that they're going to be leaders after they finish their education and transition into their professional lives. Guys, we want to give those kids a little help up. So we give them a couple of years of scholarships and a computer. We do everything we can. We're an all, all volunteer organization. All of.
Speaker 8: Our profits fund, our.
Speaker 0: Scholarships. The second 501c3 that I want to tell you about is the Sam Sanders Christmas Basket program. Many of you know about this. The pictures that you'll see here represent a lot of the people that do the work. What you'll see there is Ruth driving spirit. You'll also see some of Ruth Grayling's children because they've been coming forever. In addition, you'll see some leaders from from our community the governor, the mayor, the honorable councilman Paul. We've seen Mr. Flynn the past couple of years. I want to thank Mr. Espinosa and Debbie, because these people have supported us forever. So when you look at that picture, guys, I want you to see what I want you to look at, what you're really seeing. What you really see is Denver. Tim talked about legacy, our legacy as a family, as volunteerism, but our legacy as a community is this organization and what it has done. We provide 2500 families with baskets per year on an average. Out of those baskets, the family can get ten meals. That's 25,000 meals multiplied over 40 plus years. It's a tremendous effort.
Speaker 8: And we're very proud of it. And we know that this.
Speaker 0: Is our legacy. But what I want to tell you all, you are all owners. This is really Denver's.
Speaker 3: Legacy.
Speaker 0: With the amount of work that we're doing and the amount of good that we're doing is really this community's legacy that we get to operate every year. So with that, I want to thank you.
Speaker 8: And I look.
Speaker 0: Forward to seeing you all again at our Christmas Basket program last Saturday before Christmas every year.
Speaker 2: We'll be there. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker is Ethel Sanders.
Speaker 4: Here I am again. I'm so glad to see all of you here. Some of you I know. Some of you I don't know. Some of you are too young to have known Sam Sanders. And so I'm going to tell you just a little bit about him. I mean, my kids have already said just about everything. What else can you say? But Sam Sanders was in the military at age 14, like the kids said. And they didn't say that when he was in the military and was a paratrooper, he jumped into the back of enemy lines and was frozen from the hips down. And he spent over a year in Fort Carson Hospital recovering from those injuries. So anyway, the funny thing was he finally was able to get a bus and come to Denver to see his mom and one of the neighbors seen him out there and decided that he must be a draft dodger because he had to be at least 18 by then. And so he must be a draft dodger. So they called the Department of the Army. And so here they came in their big car. And how surprised they were to see Sam Sanders standing there in uniform and on crutches, they were a little embarrassed because people, you know, are really eager to say bad things. Now. Sam was. He wasn't a saint, but I kind of think he was. I go to Mass every morning at 630, and the other morning there was a little old lady, a little older than me. Nobody's older than me. But anyway, her and her daughter were coming across a lot, going into the church. And so she came and started hugging me and talking in Spanish. And I heard her say something about Santos. Well, I knew I wasn't a saint, so she must be talking about Sam. Well, her daughter came and said, You have to forgive my mom, but she thinks that your husband is a saint as well. I kind of do, too. But anyway, he had saved her house at one time. And all of the things the many things that he did. He did so much for so many people, such as I don't know. He was I think he was a great city councilman. And I think that he probably was a saint. But over our years, we we were very poor. I mean, he made 21,000 a year. You guys make a lot more than that. But he made 21,000 a year and paid his own aid. He was the first one to do that. But we didn't have a whole lot of money, so everybody had to participate. And I am so thankful for my children. You can see what great people they are. Pat isn't here tonight, but he took over the Christmas basket program when Sam died and and Dan took over the Hispanic annual salute where we give scholarships to many young children. And you should hear the things that they say. They're so appreciative of help. So and then a lot of things happened over the years. And a priest we know and I thought he was a friend. I'm not sure now, but he came by my store one day and he said, Ethel, I just dropped off two Mexican boys aged 17 at your house, and they don't speak a word of English. I said, Father, I may have to kill you. I said, Sam's in Washington, and I don't speak a word of English. He says, you'll you'll think of something. Well, of course we did. We always thought of something because we were survivors. And I can't thank my children enough. You know, little kids, they. They took these guys aside and explained what we were having for dinner and and all of that. And so it was just just a wonderful thing. And then after Sam and I were married, I don't know, a couple of years and still poor, I had my my diamond ring for a down payment on a house, and I went and done all the paperwork on the house. And on Saturday, we were to do the closing. So we went for the closing. And of course, Sam worked construction then, and he worked without a shirt and he was brown is a very and so when we went in the office, this great big guy stood up and he said, We can't sell you that house. And I said, Why not? I gave you the money for my ring. He said, Well, because it's a restricted area and we don't sell to Mexicans. I said, Well, but he's half Greek and I'm Irish. And he said, I don't care. He still have Mexican. That was the first time I'd seen my husband cry. We both sat down on the curb and cried our hearts out. But we finally got to know their house, so it was even better. So it all worked out all right. We went through lots of lots of trials. Sam was well, he was a volunteer from the heart. And like Joanne told you that he'd call you any time of the day or night because he needed help with this. And he worked on both sides of the aisle with the different city council. And then we got to be friends with all of them. After 12 years, of course. So anyway, I appreciate you listening to us and to our stories and thank Paul for following her by harassing him. And of course, Debbie. We loved Debbie. And I know that Happy Haines is part of my family. Has always been. She just so wonderful. And then we adopted Kevin Flynn because he is my new councilman and we're happy and pleased. And I want to thank all my children for doing what they've done to support me. Sam died way too young. He was 60 years old, and so he died way too young. And he hadn't finished all the projects that he had started. I guess that's why you have children to finish the projects that you never had time to finish. Thank you so much for your concern. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of the Council? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: I sort of just having to ask, can Dan and Tim or whoever come up and just say where you can find out more information about both charities if you want to donate or support in any other way?
Speaker 8: You're very kind. And one thing we'd like to point out, thank you for the request, Councilman Espinoza. Both of these organizations are 100% volunteer, and we raise all the money for those ourselves or with our volunteers. So there's not a penny of contribution coming from any other nonprofit or other organization or source that set down one.
Speaker 0: And we depend on volunteers, 700 plus volunteers for the basket program alone. So it's a tremendous outreach. We. WW W Sam Sanders Christmas Basket program dot org and WW W Hispanic Annual Salute. Georgie And both those websites are operational all the time and we take contributions forever year round.
Speaker 8: So if you know anybody right now and I would add one other thing, we participate in Cinco de Mayo, September 16th, selling sodas and beverages to generate revenue for our scholarships and our Christmas basket program. We do that every year.
Speaker 0: So thank you for more volunteers. Please volunteer. Yeah. The if you want to be humbled. Look at the kids that received these scholarships. They really all make you feel like you're not doing enough. But so thank you for both organizations. And I'm glad that the Sam Sanders Christmas baskets are are based in district one and continue to be and and looking forward to being there this last Saturday before Christmas. I'll see you guys there.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. The public hearing for Council Bill 474 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, it is an honor to be here and to see this come up in front of us. You know, when when I think of, you know, I made my comments to Councilman Santos and his family and in the park, but I'll wrap both up and the excellent time that we have here that you're seeing in front of you. You can't be what you can't see. And for Sam Sanders for a lot of us in the community. Sam Sanders, Carpio Rubin Well, there's a lot of those folks in our community. Were that which we could see. But it doesn't surprise me. To hear the story and it messes with my heart every single time. And tears rushed to my face. To think of the fact that Councilman Santos was turned down. Because of him being Mexican. And it hurts because I know that that's still happens. I know that it's still happens. I know what that feels like. And it happened to me as a councilman. It. Is happening to people all over our city. And you look at the national politics and when you happen to catch the convention or some of the comments that that Mr. Trump is saying, you would think that a mexican is a very horrible thing to be. And they're doing a very good job of scaring the heck out of everybody of us. But what is there to really be afraid of? Mm hmm. The fact that you want to improve the neighborhoods we live in or represent them and represent them with integrity, represent them with. With courage. And yes, with great because these are the politicians. These are the leaders that had grit. They weren't afraid to roll up their sleeves and make it happen. But most of all, with love. And you know, this this March, Debbie and I kind of looked at each other, and I did this with one of the Sanders, uh, men, the one where the counselor was leading this march. Apparently, Che Guevara was in there and talking with him. There's a guy in a beret, had long hair look like Che Guevara. And very rarely do I ever I will quote because I think it's a very important quote in saying that a true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. At the at the risk of seeming ridiculous. The true revolution revolutionaries guided by great feelings of love. And that is what the Santos family is about. That's what Councilman Santos was about. There are some people in our community, in our world that draw these circles around themselves. And there are some that draw their circles around themselves, in their family. And then there are others who draw a huge circle. And in that is their entire people. Their entire world. And that's the kind of person that Councilman Santos was. And, you know, I. Councilman Santos was born in the same time my grandfather was. They both served in the Army together and probably maybe ran into each other. But my grandfather was from old northern Colorado. And, you know, there are some of us who. For whatever reason, the father role was played by somebody other than the father. And for a lot of these kids and a lot of the folks and to know that 14 foster children in and out of 40 years. The dedication and the love. You have to have to be able to do that to raise them. To shape them. You're basically raising a community. And what a better what a more better opportunity than this park, which he helped create. And like Ruth dryly, I like Ruthie. We had nothing. There was nothing. There wasn't a park to be played in. And they made it. They turn a goal, a turn, a gulch filled with tires and shopping carts and muskrats and crawdads. To this day, I cannot eat crawdads. You know the crayfish? I can. They just look the same. And I've named all of them. And you're not supposed to name them, but. They made it happen and we are continuing to do that. And yes, it's sad that that Councilman Santos could not see that some of his project projects complete are completed. But guess what? They are being completed this last week here on this dais, we implemented the Westwood Neighborhood Plan, the first one since Councilman Martinez and Sam Santos, and they worked on it. The first one since the now 30 years. For the first time in 30 years, we've had three new parks open up in the district. The first time in 30 years was Ali's councilman Santos, with a scourge of his own. He wanted them paved simply not with diamonds or concrete, but with asphalt. There paved those streets for the first time. Every single street and that district is paved right and one right in front. That's right. Every single one of them. And it's those things that build communities. These are community builders that we are honoring. These are city builders that we are honoring. And, you know, it's not when people say they're proud of Denver, it's not with a sense of nativism that it's mine and not yours, because that's very dangerous. That line of thinking is very dangerous. But it is. It's this neighborhood for everybody. Right. And it's a sense of of of selflessness and to to say, you know, there's this protection of Denver and the what makes us this is it's our roots. It's these stories. It's it's these these legacies. And that's the reason for these two naming. And the reason that we're renaming and Barnum North to Sam Sanders Park. Right, because these kids who are playing on this ball field, these adults who are playing on these ball fields, these teams that are playing on these ball fields. Owe it to folks like Senator Sanders and the fact that you have so many kids now benefit benefiting from scholarships. You have one kid who remembers a Christmas basket coming to his door because they were too poor to afford it. That was me. We were in that program, we were on that list. And then to be able to give back, I played on that playground. As a matter of fact, the first time I chipped a tooth was on this playground. And that's when when playgrounds were fun because they were a little bit dangerous. All right. And it was actually the street where I chipped it right in front of it. But that's where we would play. That's where my daughter played. And the reason why we are working the way we do, we never forgot. We never forgot the ask of of a Lucille drilling when she came and said, can you please name this park? Can you can you do that in my honor, I ask you very humbly, she said. There's no other flowers that would make me happier in this world. And when Ethel Sanders script on when we sat down says, you know, we have to do something about that, golly, you you have to remember this. You cannot let this. Fall by the wayside. We've wanted it for so many years. We wanted to honor him in so many different ways and to see all these kids playing here, we have to do something and it's being done. And tonight we will have two new names was shiny signs on those parks will not tonight, but we will install them . I wanted to thank those family members. Thank you to the Santos's for your work, for your dedication, for your volunteerism, for your grandchildren, your kids, everything that you do for our community. And thank you to the drilling families. Thank you both families for for lending your matriarch and your patriarch to not only just father, your families and mother, your families, but also to do that for our communities. It is a heck of a sacrifice. And families don't understand when a lot of people don't understand that, it really impacts the family. And it's hard. It's very hard. But at the end of the day, those circles are drawn around so many people and we have to understand that. So on on our behalf and on behalf of the City Council, District three, thank you. Thank you for that time away from you and with us. We appreciate it. And thank you to Parks and Rec. Right. Yolanda Quesada, who all of a sudden who had this huge workload. And we just came to her with a bunch of, hey, we want to rename a couple of parks or what? Yeah. Tell us how many signatures all about a lot of them or we're going to bring twice that many right and happy hands. Right. And we came to Happy Hands and Scott Gilmore, he's not here, but Scott really understood. And he said, okay, if you do the work, great. And you know, right away the Dukes go up, protection goes up because the last few park renaming have been highly controversial. Right. In the fact that we don't have any single islands, a country, we couldn't find one person who was and against against this. Right. And thank you to my staff, Adriana and his suits. You worked your souls to the to the ground to make this happen for our community. And, you know, on my behalf, right when we were out here organizing, pulling companies, clipboards out, it doesn't happen automatically. It happens with grit and it happens with that with those souls on your feet. So thank you. Thank you, everybody. And thank you to my colleagues. I am asking you humbly, on behalf of my district to pass this so we can. Give something for kids to see. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This is this is really a West Side kind of nightlight, isn't it? The West Side. This is great. This is great because at one time it wasn't so easy to get to and from the west side over to town limit. I remember when I when I first came to Denver, the Colfax Viaduct was still one way you could get out of the west side, but you couldn't get back. Right. They closed off Third Avenue. You couldn't get across Third Avenue anymore. When the Valley Highway went in Sixth Avenue ended. Kind of kind of came around the rim of the of the of the hillside there. And you had to come into town on eight on the old eighth Avenue Viaduct. Right on the old. And that's before the freeway went in. And so it's much easier to get to and from the West Side anymore. And so it's great to see to remarkable people from the west side being recognized. I thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing that forward, Ethel. I first met Sam sitting over at that table when I was covering city council meetings as a reporter for the News, Rocky Mountain News. And Sam was sitting, I think, at the site at the time he was sitting on that side. But so he had a sit with Paul Swan and John Silkier and people like that. And that's where I first heard, where I first learned about the culture of this body, about the customs, about the processes, about the practices and the issues, and seeing men like Sam and women like Cathy Reynolds and Cathy Donahue and others who came on board around that same era. In 1975, in fact, the two Cathy's were elected in the same election as Sam, weren't they? I learned so much about how this body functions from seeing that that group of people and and to have you, Ethel, come to me a little over two years ago and suggested that I run for office. What were you thinking? But I just want to tell you that it's. It was an honor to know Sam and to learn something about the about this body from watching him, watching him reach out to people like my predecessor, Ted Hackworth, and how even though as different as night and day in their politics, they could find ways to work together to accomplish what was right for Southwest Denver and to do good things together. And and I learned a lot of lessons from that. So I just want to say I feel that Harriet and I very much value your friendship and your support. And we love you. And it's a pleasure on behalf of the the residents of District two, of which you are now one that moved down to Brentwood. It's a pleasure for me to honor your husband this way and to Tim and Dan and the rest of the family. Thank you very much for. For lending your your husband and your father to this city's betterment of its civic life. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to thank Councilman Lopez and his staff for the work they did in bringing this forward and all of you who participated in helping to circulate the petitions. I did not know Ruth driving, but I want to congratulate the family in having the park named after her.
Speaker 4: Clearly.
Speaker 9: She left her mark in this city and touched the lives of a lot of people. I had the benefit of knowing Sam and working for Sal Carpio, who was the councilman that got elected at the same time that Sam did. And the two of them tag teamed on so many things, along with Bill Roberts, who have you Haines worked with. And I think we all learn from the best. You know, we learned what it was to truly be a grassroots leader, to mobilize your community, to get things done. And folks here don't know this, but our community development funds the block grant dollars. We get used to be administered by a group called the Mayor's Advisory Committee, and each council person had an appointee and Sam and Cell and Bill Roberts tag team to make sure that all the projects in their districts always got taken care of . Because, you know, the HUD criteria was you had to address slum and blight and you had to serve low income communities. And that was these districts, right? So they were notorious for tying up all of those dollars to take care of so many projects in these neighborhoods, whether it was trying to get, you know, alleys paved or , you know, sidewalks in some neighborhoods or in some cases it was a rec center or parks. But they really did an outstanding job in representing our community and. I just love Sam. I mean, he was just an incredible human being. That. And you're right. I thought he he did die way too young because. I can remember when he was in the hospital one time. He was actually took his paperwork with them and he was working from his hospital bed trying to take care of constituent complaints. Right. That's the dedication that Sam Sanders had in really trying to just always go the extra mile in representing the people that elected him. I had the benefit of serving with Tim, who then later stepped into his dad shoes and continued that legacy and the contributions that your entire family has made to this city. And I know there are so many people that are so grateful. And if you have never been to volunteer at the Christmas Basket program, it is such an organized machine that really has you show up as a volunteer and there's a role for you. And everything runs like clockwork. And it's it's amazing whether you're there to package the baskets or go deliver the baskets to the families. It's all very nailed down in terms of providing efficiency to the people who are there to volunteer and to get the product out to the families who who are in need. And I know that that program started out serving the West Side, but it serves the entire city and county of Denver now. And so, you know, I know people all across this city are grateful not only for that program, but also for the scholarship program that has been in place for for all these years. I can remember Sal and Sam also working very, very closely with our state legislators, Ruben Valdez, George Sandoval, Don Sandoval, Rich Castro. They would strategize on how to tie up both state and city dollars to address needs in the community, whether it was, you know, work on Eighth Avenue or I-25. They were working very closely together to make sure that, you know, the projects coming in were going to benefit the neighborhoods. And I just am. Honored to be a supporter of this park naming tonight because Sam really gave his life to this city. And I am grateful to the family for knowing the time it took away from you all. For him to be able to serve not only the constituents of District three, but the city as a whole, because when we sit up here on this dais, we vote on issues that deal with neighborhoods all across the city. And Sam was always very thoughtful. He was a good listener to the people who came here that were asking for support of whether it was a rezoning or something else. But he was just an incredible individual, and I'm just very blessed to have known him. So I will be absolutely supporting this tonight. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. You know, certain folks in the city, when somebody says their name, it's with great reverence and you know that they were a great person and they did amazing things. And, you know, you try to try to figure out and learn a little bit more about them. But I have to say, it was amazing when, you know, kind of looking through the information and that he was the son of a Greek coal miner and a Hispanic mother. My grandfather was born of a Greek goat farmer and a Hispanic mother. And so just immediately having that connection and understanding and you talking about your family and about your dad and your husband and how I can only imagine that your home was very, very loud and full of great food and fun and people, and that when you're doing your life's work, it just becomes part of your life. And you really showed that tonight in sharing that information. And I just wanted to congratulate you on the naming of this park and and the other family as well, because what two great, great, amazing people. I'm honored to support this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. This has been a bit difficult for me. It's been an extremely emotional presentations, and it started early on. Mr. President, when you read the bill title and when you got to the part of naming Emil Sam Sandoz Park, I saw Tim's eyes get big and kind of choked up a minute. And and I get that. And because, you know, I grew up with the drillings and with the Santos family, except I grew up in New Jersey, and it wasn't the drillings in the sand, it was Mr. and Mrs. Briggs, and it was the ED Acts. And we didn't have a vice president or star football player at the House. But, you know, the cops were always there and the fire department guys, firefighters and you know, the mayor was my next door neighbor and it was all about community. And I loved when Happy started things off by saying that, you know, what you learned from Mr. Santos was not necessarily the most important thing being how to run a city government, but how to create community. And, you know, I'm thinking of our fire chief, Charlie Schilling, you know, who has a fire station in my home town named after him. And, you know, the Mr. Briggs has a Little League baseball field. And so when it's it matters to be a Santos or drilling because the stuff that your father and your mother and grandmother brought to the table, you carry with you, you know. So when I got out of college, I spent a few years doing what I thought I was supposed to do in the world of of business, you know, worked for for a couple of corporations. And then I got out on my own and the places I ended up. I ended up because of how I was raised and who was around me and hearing the things your family is doing and hearing the effect of your relatives on all of you. There will probably be a long, long time before, if ever before, there's no one walking the earth who hasn't been affected by Ruth drilling or Sam Sanders. So, Councilman, thank you very much for bringing this forward. And as my colleague said earlier, this is why this is worth the price of admission. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry. I wanted to ask. I didn't get to it. And you intended to do Councilman Santos, but I want to. I'll do this for you. Came up to me, and I wanted to ask those who are in favor to name that didn't speak or spoke. If you're in favor of the park renaming for Sam Sanders to please stand. Thank you. And so I wanted to do that on his behalf, and I forgot to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: I'm going to be totally off the subject. But since we're talking about history and she might be watching. Um, Susan Barnes guilt. I found your portfolio here. There's a letter in here to Debbie Ortega in Happy Haynes, among other council members. District nine, District 11. So Susan is here. I could pick it up at District one office from 1996 as a 20 year old piece of case that's been hiding between novels in my desk.
Speaker 3: You're not making any fans in that room with that.
Speaker 2: All right, Councilman Espinosa, thank you. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: I just wanted to make one last comment, and it's it's. Why does this matter? Why does this matter that we named Parks after people in this city who have, you know, made significant contributions yet so that future generations who go to these parks, who see these names, can learn about who these people were and what they did for this city. And you know, how I think in both cases, both Mr. filing as well as as Councilman Santos really helped build future leaders for this city in the work that they both did. You know, they were grooming young people to get involved, to be active, and to make a difference for their own communities. And that's why it matters. And I think it was just important to say that. And again, I just think being able to honor both of these individuals is an important way of doing that and continuing the legacy of the contributions they made in this city. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: So a serious comment, actually. I didn't know Sam, but I have had the privilege of reading you all. And just based on that, he obviously must have been a terrific leader because you guys also are truly, truly committed to your community and leaders in your own right. So the legacy to me is alive and well, just through you guys. And so I'm happy to see this park naming. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. What an amazing evening to amazing people. And I just wanted to say thank you to all of you for coming out and sharing your stories and sharing these individuals with us as the city. And it's been a privilege to be a part of it, and I'll happily support this naming. With that, Madam Secretary, Raquel Lopez.
Speaker 6: I knew Ortega Black. I Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I Gillmor. I Cashman. But can each. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight as accountable for 74 has passed. On Monday, August 22nd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 498, providing a moratorium prohibiting the use of the Denver zoning code preexisting small zone light parking exemption for certain projects for a period of approximately seven months , and a required public hearing on Council Bill 541, providing for a moratorium prohibiting the approval of site development plans in the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of buildings using the garden court building form in the Denver zoning code for a period of approximately 12 months.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance renaming Barnum North Park located north of 6th Avenue/U.S. 6, west of Federal Boulevard and east of Knox Court as “M.L. ‘Sam’ Sandos Park”. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Re-names Barnum North Park (between West 6th Avenue, Knox Court and Federal Boulevard) to “M.L. "Sam" Sandos Park” in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-29-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07182016_16-0443
|
Speaker 4: process. Any testimony in Spanish tonight will also be said in English to ensure those present and watching at home will be able to understand the comments. Speakers requesting language interpretation will have 6 minutes to complete their testimony to allow time for the interpretation. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Steven Chester, senior city planner and project manager for the Westwood Neighborhood Plan. Also with me are two All-Star members of the planning team, Elise Hoke and Sara White. Here to help us answer any questions as well. So yeah, so I'm really thrilled to present the staff report for the West to the neighborhood plan. I want to start off with probably the most famous quote a planner has ever said, make no little plans. Daniel Burnham, who is the the master planner for Chicago and many other great cities, kind of the founder of the city, beautiful moment movement, said this quote, You know, and that's definitely something that resonated with the planning team with the community as we went through the planning process. You know, the need to think big, to think visionary. You know, this is our opportunity to really look into the future and and think about what's going to really help transform Westwood into one of the greatest neighborhoods in Denver. But at the same time adopted another phrase make many great little plans. Sometimes those really big ideas, those visionary things take a long time to implement. And so this plan kind of balances both those visionary items, along with lots of smaller, more tactical moves that we can start implementing right away. So, you know, all this hard work by the community can you know, they can start to see the fruits of their their work come to fruition. You know, once this plan is adopted. So just so we all know what we're talking about here. We're in Westwood Council District three. Westwood. It's boarding. The eastern boundary is federal. Northern boundary is Alameda. Western boundary Sheridan. And southern boundary is Mississippi. So we kicked off the planning process back in early 2015 on a really cold winter night, but we still had a phenomenal turnout by the community. So that's when I knew that this was going to be a really great planning process. We worked through the summer with the community, coming up with the vision, moving on to the recommendations, you know, what are the policy recommendations that can help see that vision? And we spent into the winter and into the spring with the plan draft, reviewing and collecting revisions from the community, getting to the plan draft in front of you today. And so the planning process was really led by the community. Our role as city planners is just really to be the facilitators of the planning process. But really all of the ideas, all the recommendations started with the community and everything. Every almost every word you read in that document is grounded in something that was brought up at a community meeting or an interview with a community stakeholder. We also had a planning team who introduced you to earlier. We said a larger technical team is made up of representatives from many different city departments. You know, they were the ones who are meeting regularly with us to make sure that some of these big ideas are able to actually be implemented by the city. You know, the experts, traffic engineers, water quality managers, all sorts of different members from the larger city staff. We had a tremendous steering committee made up of appointed members from the community, representatives of different neighborhood organizations, nonprofit organizations, community organizations. They were extremely dedicated to help guide the planning process, and they also are kind of eyes and ears into this tree. You know, whenever we had a meeting or some ideas, we want to go out into the community. They were the ones we really relied upon to spread the word throughout the community. Just to sum up some of that community outreach we had over, we had five actually actually six steering committee meetings. We received a number of online surveys. We also did hardcopy surveys in the neighborhood as well. We engaged the youth. A lot of them are here today. West was actually one of the youngest neighborhoods in all of Denver, so we felt like engaging youth was extremely important. We had we attended other people's meetings. You know, we had our own kind of planning specific meetings, but it was much easier to go to meetings already happening in the community. We attended a bunch of those over the the planning process. We had some focus groups along the commercial corridors in the neighborhood on Federal and Morrison Road, along with for just kind of larger community workshops. And we collected a lot of great feedback throughout the throughout the process. You know, just starting off from our first meeting, just asking the community, what is Westword to you? Just to kind of help set the set the stage for the planning process. And we heard a lot of great things like our home, our community, Westerners, opportunity Western is my mundo or my world. We tried a lot of different methods of community engagement, knowing that different people like to participate in different ways. You know, from your traditional town hall style meeting to a more, you know, engaging, interactive meeting or actually had the community come up with their ideal neighborhood using kind of like a game board. The kids particularly really loved this activity. We also want to mention that in concert with the neighborhood plan, the Department of Environmental Health and Gretchen Ami in the audience today led a health impact assessment which takes a look at the health impacts of the built environment and how the neighborhood plan could help improve the health outcomes of of the residents and the environment of the neighborhood. And so along the way, we, you know, really worked together to make sure those processes were in sync and, you know, collected feedback about, you know, for example, why is it hard to be healthy in Westwood? A lot of the things that we heard was is hard to to safely walk and bike throughout the neighborhood, to, you know, to get healthy food, for example. So all that community outreach led to this neighborhood plan in front of you today. I'm going to walk through some of the major recommendations. Don't have time to go into everything as much as I want to, but hopefully touch on all the high points and definitely be willing to answer any questions you may have about some of the details. So here we have Westwood. As I mentioned, those key corridors surrounding the neighborhood along with Morrison Road, kind of cutting diagonally through the neighborhood. And we want to make sure as we started with the, you know, the assets in the neighborhood, Westwood is already a fantastic neighborhood. And what we want to do is build off those existing assets. So we worked with the community, identify what are those destinations, those existing assets in the neighborhood. Which are oftentimes, you know, schools or cultural resources, but also open spaces. Westwood has a fair amount of open space, some more loved and more utilized than others. It also has these key commercial corridors surrounding the neighborhood. What we heard it pretty early in the process is that those corridors actually act as barriers rather than as kind of connectors to the neighborhood. Beyond looking at streets, something that community really wanted to focus on was alleys and taking a look at how we can use alleys in the neighborhood for more than what we kind of typically think of as more service oriented spaces. But opportunities for recreation and placemaking. We also push the envelope on it with green streets. So this is the combination of pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle infrastructure and stormwater infrastructure to really connect some of these neighborhood destinations in open spaces. Through this process, this idea of a neighborhood greenway started to kind of rise to the top as a transformative project for the neighborhood. The communities really embraced this, even come up with a new name for it, the Villa Verde, and we can go into little more details about that later. And lastly, making sure that all these, you know, the transportation network, the open space network really works well with the land use in the neighborhood. And so the plan really focuses on creating really stable residential neighborhoods within the greater Westwood neighborhood, but along with, you know, bolstering up some of these commercial and mixed use corridors. So the vision for Westwood really comes down to a connected Westwood, a celebrated Westwood and resilient Westwood. And underneath underneath each one of those vision elements are a number of different strategies, which I'll quickly walk through with you today. I do want to mention, though, that underneath each of these vision elements are health recommendations. Really, the the recommendations transcend all these different elements of the plan because it's through implementing all of these different strategies, we could start to see a truly healthy Westwood. What we do with all of our plans is also identify a number of transformative projects. And these are the projects are going to be kind of those big ideas, as we talked about before, these projects are going to, you know, probably take some time, take a lot of coordination through different stakeholders, but can really start to see transformative change for the neighborhood. So starting with the connected West, where there's three key strategies ensure safe, multi-modal mobility, creating green connections and enhancing key streets. Starting with that first recommendation, we took a deep dove look at the pedestrian network in the neighborhood, recognizing that, you know, funding for the pressure network is, you know, still working through some of those, you know, different funding mechanisms. But if funding were to come available, what we want to do is with the community, identify those sidewalks that are highest need for the neighborhood in terms of enhancement. Take a look at, you know, again, building off those open space assets and cultural assets. We also identified key intersections and provide some recommendations for those intersections, along with identifying key transit stops in the neighborhood and identified some potential improvements for those enhanced bus stops as well. Moving on to the Bicycle Network. This is the existing bicycle network today in Westwood, just bicycling along Morrison Road and into the future, building off of a lot of great work done with Denver moves, bicycles with public works, some slight modifications to that citywide plan given some new developments and new parks and open spaces in the neighborhood. What you see a lot on here is these neighborhood bikeways. Those are a new tool kind of in the bicycle toolbox for Denver. It's essentially a street that is still open to automobiles. However, it's designed in a way that prioritizes bicycle travel through a number of different design treatments, like different signage, different kind of traffic calming measures, public works as a whole guide kind of design guidelines for these bike bikeways. Actually, one is being built next court, I believe, later this year. Oop. And lastly, transit, you know, transit is also a really important transportation mode in the neighborhood. And so we're not only focused on identifying where enhanced transit corridors should exist, but also looking at the transit infrastructure. So the actual bus stops looking at those bus stops as opportunities for placemaking and kind of representing the unique culture of Westwood, along with embracing emerging forms of transit, we felt like that was something that was really important to highlight in the plan, not only relying on RTD, but there's some new kind of transit providers coming to the market that we feel like Westwood would be a great pilot neighborhood to test out some of those new providers. Moving on to creating green connections, this is the idea of creating a connected system of parks and open space. So this is utilizing those green streets as these connectors between the existing open spaces and also taking a look at how we can enhance the existing open space in the neighborhood. It has, as I said before, it has a fair amount of open space, but it's not really used well because it's not really designed well for the neighborhood. There are some spaces that are just kind of drainage ways, like we are Gulch or Excel utility easements. So we provide some recommendations from the community about how these spaces can be enhanced. It's really become well-used by the neighborhood here. We also have our alley priority map as well. So identifying which of the alleys are kind of the most prime for becoming enhanced alleys, given that their location in the neighborhood, maybe connecting schools or open spaces and providing a typology of different types of alleys and which alleys are kind of, you know, most primed for that type of enhancement, whether it's active transportation, placemaking, green infrastructure, recreation. And so Key Streets is where we take a look at some of those key corridors in the neighborhood and provide some recommendations about how these streets can really become true assets for the neighborhood. And so just too, for example, Morrison Road and Federal Boulevard, you see their current condition today and what the community came up with, a series of goals and what some design treatments would look like to help implement some of those goals, whether they are enhanced bicycle infrastructure along Morrison Road or enhance transit infrastructure on Federal Boulevard. These are just to show, you know, what a potential future would be for some of these goals that we, the community came up with for these key streets. Moving on to a celebrated Westwood Three Strategies Enhancing Neighborhood Culture, celebrating public space and promoting unity in diversity. Westwood is one of the most culturally rich neighborhoods, I think, in the entire city. And when you know it instantly, when you're in the neighborhood, you actually hear it. When you're in the neighborhood, you hear the pushcart peddlers with their, you know, ice cream or different food items. You hear that bell ringing and, you know, you're kind of in a different place. Something that's really unique to us do it. And so in this section of the plan is where we look at it, you know, what are those unique aspects of the culture in Westwood and what what can we do in a neighborhood plan to help to make sure that those elements are preserved and enhanced and celebrated moving into the future. So the kind of the first thing we do that, you know, being planners is, okay, let's let's map it. And so here's a map where we have all of the existing and potential future opportunities sites of cultural resources in the neighborhood . Strategy second strategy is celebrating public space. Something that became very evident early on in the planning process is the need for more plazas, space, more spaces where the community and neighbors and family can come together to celebrate together. And so we have a number of different recommendations that speak to potentially where these plazas can go. And also what are the design elements of these plazas that would ensure a really successful plaza space. And also, the idea about cultivating opportunities for public life, something that's very unique in Westwood, is really celebration of the front yard in a lot of the homes in Westwood. And they have these really great kind of entry features. And so we're actually already working with development services to come up with some clear guidelines for these are really architecturally unique entryways with additional recommendations about street life and alley life and becoming places to really celebrate this unique culture in Westwood . Here's an example of that. Those kind of design guidelines that we came up with for Plaza's in Westwood, this was a one along Morrison Road just to show how some of the angular parcels can be used as opportunities to create some of these really signature plazas for the neighborhood. The last recommendations in this section is promoting unity and diversity. So kind of sounds like an oxymoron, but it's actually the motto of the European Union. I found out. But so encouraging diversity. So we're not only talking about diversity when it comes to the residents in Westwood, but also diversity of different housing types, diversity of businesses, diversity of building forms. We want to ensure that Westwood is a place welcome to welcome to all along with creating a unified voice. Westwood does have a number of different, really fantastic neighborhood organizations, community organizations that are all kind of working on similar but different missions. And we feel it's important to come together, you know, enough to form one organization, but have a forum where you can come together and speak as one neighborhood to the city or to the federal government in order to help attract investment or attract grants to the neighborhood. Lastly, a resilient Western three strategies within the resilient US to promoting responsible development, enhancing the local economy and community ownership. This is where we have the bulk of our land use recommendations. Here we have the future blueprint. Denver Land Conceptual Land Use Map. Some things I do want to point out here that I think are really innovative for this neighborhood. First of all, is all of the single family zone districts in the neighborhood we're recommending move towards single family with accessory dwelling units. So that would allow for the granny flats or mother law apartments, essentially a second unit maybe in your basement or above your garage that can really kind of push the needle at a neighborhood scale for housing affordability. And also recognizing that what sort of some of the highest percentage of multi-generational families living together. So we feel as though this is, you know, a neighborhood primed to see a real growth of the accessory dwelling units. Also, a change from the the prior blueprint Denver map is an expansion of the pedestrian shopping corridor along Morrison Road. Morrison Road realize the opportunity to become a true main street for the neighborhood. But we feel as though that the existing kind of land use guidance was a little bit too restrictive to help see that kind of transformational change of Morrison Road into this true main street for the neighborhood. And so we've kind of, I guess, taken off the handcuffs a little bit in terms of potential parcel assemblages that can happen moving into the future. But recognizing that, you know, that's that's not quite enough. We also added Morrison road influence area it's this kind of red dashed area see along Morrison road. And so every you know, this Morrison road influence area has additional guidance about, you know, where commercial uses should go. What should the height transitions be from from Morrison Road down to the more stable residential neighborhoods. We worked with the community to come up to come up with the goals for Morrison Road in this influence area, recognizing that there probably will need to be a different regulatory tool moving into the future that would help implement this influence area that we can talk more in detail if you have questions about that. Another change here also is this slight expansion of the single family. So single family or such duplex land use along some of the more heavily trafficked corridors in the neighborhood and specifically in the south eastern part of the neighborhood. So moving on to maximum building heights. It's a pretty clear map when you see, you know, these really great stable residential neighborhoods at two and a half storeys, but allowing for increased density along Morrison Road. You know, again, working with the community, recognizing that this has the opportunity to become that real, true kind of heart beat Main Street for the neighborhood, you know, allowing for five storeys, you can have that vertical mix of uses with commercial on the ground story and some units of residential units above that. The five stories along Morrison Hotel is kind of most consistent with that, with that future vision. So moving on, cooking out to the transformative projects, starting with Transform Morrison Road. Here's this. The picture at Morrison Road looks today and with the community coming up with some goals for Morrison Road and what that could potentially look like moving into the future, those goals being improving mobility of all users, promoting neighborhoods, serving redevelopment and creating unique neighborhood, commercial and cultural district or a linear mercato along Morrison Road. The next transformer project reimagined where it gulch. This is primarily a flood control infrastructure in the northwestern part of the neighborhood actually reaches all the way to the South River. There's a longer, longer term study going on currently by the Army Corps of Engineers looking at the future enhancements to this corridor. So what we want to do is make sure that we captured the voice of the neighborhood in terms of what did they want to see as we goal is potentially that becomes enhanced moving into the future. And so those those three goals were creating an intuitive and safe, multi-use trail, providing additional open space amenities and being sure to create a thriving natural ecosystem that reduces flood risk. Because at the end of the day, that's the primary kind of role of this infrastructure in the neighborhood. Next creating a neighborhood greenway. As I mentioned before, on this map, we have the opportunity to link together Weird Gulch with Westwood Park, with Morrison Road, with this existing Excel utility easement all the way to this kind of node of cultural and educational resources in the southeastern part of the neighborhood. Here's a picture of that existing Excel easement. As you can see, it's not incredibly well utilized by the neighborhood. It's you know, it does have this trail that doesn't really link to anything, you know, a broader network. And so some recommendations and goals from the neighborhood create intuitive and memorable network. You know, enhance this Excel easement, encourage community use agreements with DPS because this could link together some existing open spaces with at parks or sorry, at schools in the neighborhood and also utilizing this idea of green streets to help create this via verde through the neighborhood. Another transformer, a project focusing on strengthening community resources. This was something that we heard loud and clear from day one in the neighborhood as the desire for a West Denver recreation center ideally placed in Westwood. And so, you know, that is front and center in this transformative project, along with recommendations that speak to some of the existing resources in the neighborhood and what are some steps and some recommendations that those existing resources could do to help kind of kind of fill the gaps in terms in terms of some of the existing services in the neighborhood. Improve healthy food access, another transformative project that's critical in the neighborhood. We have a great partner in the neighborhood where Vision is doing just absolutely fantastic work in terms of increasing opportunities for healthy food access and economic development in the neighborhood. So this there will be tremendous partners in helping us implement some of these recommendations that speak towards expanding opportunities for food production, providing opportunities for food processing, increasing accessibility for food access and distribution, diversifying the retail options of healthy food in the neighborhood, and developing potentially neighborhood scale pilot projects. You know, some ideas have already been discussed around composting and some other pilot projects. So that was the plan in a nutshell. I want to really quickly, so now I want to talk about some of the opportunities for feedback since we've had this plan kind of out for review. We held our last steering committee and also had a community workshop focused on the actual plan and collecting comments from the community. The plan was posted for a month. We had executive summaries translated into Spanish as well that were dispersed throughout the entire neighborhood. We had online survey along with hard surveys available, I think six or seven different community destinations sprinkled throughout the Westwood neighborhood. And we had a public hearing at planning board not too long ago. Some comments that we heard from the community that 100% have been addressed in the new and in the plan that you see today. This idea about the priority intersections and priority bus stops that I talked about that came out of the the community, some adding some additional transit recommendations, additional focus on plazas, some work with the community about where we could expand some of that single family duplex area, as I talked about earlier. The community really wanted some stronger language about the need for a rec center in the neighborhood. So we're happy that we were able to get that into the plan as well, along with just some, you know, continuing editing for clarity and correctness. So we had a hearing planning board on June 15th. The planning board voted unanimously to approve the plan. We had public comments and testimony from a number of really great community partners who spoke at the hearing or provided letters of support. I think some of them are here today as well. And so with that, I want to give this fantastic birthday present to Councilman Lopez and recommend adoption of the West of the neighborhood plan as a supplement of the Denver Comprehensive Plan. I think we have a number of speakers signed up, but I'll be here to answer questions as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. We have 15 individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five speakers. I'll do my best to correctly pronounce your names. If you could make your way up to the front bench by the microphone, that will help speed up our proceedings when I call your name. So the first five speakers will be Monique Lovato, Gabriela medina, Michael Juarez, David Lopez, and Luis Martinez and Monique Lovato. You can come right up to the microphone and begin.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Monique Lovato. 187 East 28th Place in Denver, Colorado. Also, I'm the CEO of Newcastle Resource Center. And on behalf of the Board of Directors in the staff of Newcastle Resource Center, we are here to support the Westwood Neighborhood Plan and its resident led process. We feel honored and privileged that this time next year our new home will be in Westwood at Alameda in federal. This new headquarters being completed during the 40th anniversary of Newcastle Resource Center, represents our future and sets us up for success for Newcastle second 40 years. We are looking forward to serving westward in all of southwest Denver and bringing resources that we hope will contribute to a vibrant and strong Westwood, including the Small Business Administration. We host the Women's Business Center of Colorado and the only SBA center providing all of our programing in English and Spanish. We bring the City of Denver's new workforce system with us as one of its key community partners. We bring the US Patent and Trademark Office hosting pro-bono pat that pairs low income inventors with pro-bono patent attorneys to help people through the process of establishing patents. We bring evidence based programing for youth and family development, career training, business start up and expansion support for underserved families without access to traditional resources. In 2015, along with our partners, we serve 6500 families. We helped 82 new businesses get started. We ensure that 95% of our career participants were still employees six months after they completed our training and secured a job. And more than 50% of the young people who attend who attended our after school enrichment increased their GPAs. Westwood has so many natural resources that you heard about today. They inspire our staff and our partners, including the youth of the neighborhood. Its entrepreneurial spirit. Its diversity. And its strong family foundations that we can build on. And support westward to become a prosperous and thriving part of Denver to attract the rest of the metro area for the culture and the vibrancy of the neighborhood. Finally, Latinos are the predominant culture in Westwood, and Latinos are the largest segment of the U.S. population that still really, really believes in the American dream. According to a 2015 study by the Aspen Institute, 80% of Latinos believe in the American dream of working hard to get ahead building today for our children tomorrow versus 50% of other communities. This belief in that spirit of entrepreneurial ism gives us that Makassar Research Center the hope and the inspiration to continue to do this work. It makes us excited and anxious to get to Westwood and begin our work shoulder to shoulder with you, our neighbors in Westwood. Thank you for being so welcoming to everyone from Newcastle Research Center. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Gabriela medina.
Speaker 9: When I started this. Gabriela marina. You'll be one, and I will see those with much more strength. Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 3: Hello. Good evening. My name is Gabriela medina. My addresses 972 South Quitman, Denver, Colorado 80219.
Speaker 9: Gracias. Por el planned investing that in this presentation is my emotion and.
Speaker 3: I want to thank you for the neighborhood plan that was presented. It is very exciting.
Speaker 9: But at the minute to keep up with the on center the recreation paradise travel scenario establishing that is I say one Thomas Hoban yet Vietnam which NSC.
Speaker 3: That but I'm also here to ask for a recreation center for our neighborhood. We are the second youngest neighborhood and one that is that has a lot of needs.
Speaker 9: Just a reminder that those ninos one and then they are alone always see that union much sympathy that the system is more important than getting an activity that fisica is impressed with scandalous programs, better treatment for other members in that you know.
Speaker 3: I am a mother, I have two children. One of them is leaning towards obesity and another son that is very hyperactive. And I'm always looking for activities for them. And sadly, there is an activities and programing in our neighborhood, and I'm having to look elsewhere for them.
Speaker 9: And I've not been transported by that rajawadi I shouldn't be that good. Just continue unconscious activity that is to support us process important. Okay. So then the support in the city tomorrow center the recreation parent service in that.
Speaker 3: So sometimes transportation can be an issue. So that becomes hard for me to take them elsewhere. But that is why I'm here asking for you to support a recreation.
Speaker 9: Center as a moment in the city that is existent or transit that person that cannot in an opportunity that is that friend of status and mental care trailblazer just priorities as well as more important concerning your sustained activity as bandage as the LASCARIS of among some of the most kind of star scenario denim which has as the the drug addiction the vandalism.
Speaker 3: I'm here to speak on behalf of other mothers that aren't able to speak here today. And I'm just requesting this because our community has a lot of needs. We have to continue programing in our community. We have drug addiction problems, gang problems in our neighborhood. So this is why this is such a big need.
Speaker 9: So I must get the needless act. The evil sister is just concerned isn't the same important as incentive care programs. But I guess I'm just gonna play this Tyra's. I've been one which by the central pharmacy in which I need to get on Salas and Casa.
Speaker 3: So this is why programing is so important. To make sure that they. They stay active and they have activities on a regular basis. We know that there are a lot of parents that work and cannot be with their kids.
Speaker 9: But it's just an important thing that is the center of the recreation circle. But I can just put on Instructables, Amy.
Speaker 3: And that is why it's so important to have a recreation center close to that neighborhood so they can be active where they're at. When I say sports attention. Yes, better support. I hope. I hope for I hope to have your support.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Michael Chavez.
Speaker 11: Hi. And good afternoon. My name is Michael Kors, and I'm here to talk about why we need a recreation center in Westwood. I've been living in Westwood my whole life and it's been pretty hard to find extracurricular activities because school ends very late and in the weekends, there's not much. And. We have to spend a lot of time just driving to like the pools or a park that has a like pool. Sorry to hear this. We need it because there's not many resources around Westwood to help us, like, be active, be outside and invest. I just recently joined a group to help improve our community, to get kids to go outside and be part of nature. And I think it's going very well. But we are we've been striving to find a recreation center for our neighborhood on, but we just cannot find the funding or the place because not a lot of people know we need one because everyone thinks it's all right. But really, it's not because there's kids everywhere getting in trouble just because they want to have fun and they don't have fun the proper way because they don't have a place where they can have fun and they just go out on the streets, you know, and they join gangs, do drugs. But that's just reality because. People just they just leave them how they are because they don't want to go that extra footstep to find them a better place to be. And our community just. Not there yet. And I think the recreation center will help us be better and as a group and. I think it's going to help us. Come closer to each other and have our diversities. And yeah, that's all I had to say.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, David Lopez.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is David Lopez. 973 Clearway Denver, Colorado. 80204. I come here as a youth organizer in Westwood. So I live in the Sun Valley neighborhood, but just working in Westwood made me more passionate to be a youth organizer and give more back to the community. And being a Latino myself, seeing that in this community, I want to do that as well. So I'm lucky enough, enough to have a board of 12 students from the Westwood neighborhood. And what we do is we're focusing right now on the Goku inspired grant, and we're working on bettering the community overall parks, you know, areas that they need, playgrounds and rec centers is really much needed not only for the recreation part of it, but the programing part of it. We're trying to focus on leadership skills, development skills for the youth civic engagement and just preparing them for the future. As my partner just mentioned, Latinos are very high here in Colorado and Westwood is an image of that. My students are great and I've never really seen a leadership type of program in Westwood. It's mostly development, so this is a brand new thing that we have in Westwood and it's been going great. They have a lot of input. They finally have a voice for their own community and that's what we need more of. And I believe a rec center can bring that. We can meet there. We have a meeting space. We would have more activities for them. So they're not in the streets and just getting out in nature and get them away, you know, from all that bad stuff. But just being a youth organizer in there has taught me a lot and I just want to show them that youth organizing and the rec centers and.
Speaker 1: These good programs.
Speaker 8: Are beneficial to youth in general. So I hope you support the rec center. They deserve it. They need it and hope we can get it there for Westwood. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Luis Martinez and I'm going to call it the next five, if you can make your way to the front bench. So you're ready to reveal Kristine House, Norma Brambilla, Brandon L and Rachel Cleaves. And you can begin.
Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Luis Martinez. I'm 14 years old and I've been a resident in Westwood for 14 years old since I was born. And, well, I'm here to talk about the recreation center that I want in Westwood that we all want in Westwood, because it's very important for us, like the kids, to have a recreation center, to like get off our phones, go to nature, and like also because mainly, mostly all the teenagers are now involving in gangs and drugs and everything. And with the recreation center, it would make us like go out to have fun and socialize with other people and also be like more creative and not be like stuck in our home watching TV, being on our phones and technology also because in my, in my, in my, in my, like, in my experience, like, I haven't had a vacation around me and I always have to go, like, to Barnham, which is very far from my house also to to at the MA, which is in federal and Colorado . And it's very far from my house, too. And mostly I just don't get out of my house because it's my mom says it's dangerous because there's a lot of like teenagers and that are like in gangs and everything. And she thinks that they could get me involved in gangs, too. So pretty much want a recreation center around like my neighborhood in Westwood because I want like my teenagers to socialize and be more like likes to focus on school and not like on drugs because mostly every teenager is dropping out. Dropping out because they don't want they don't have like socializing with other people and. Yeah, that's all. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Siri, Toribio.
Speaker 9: Oh, hi. My name's Say, you need to review 14 years old. I'm in Westwood, resident for seven years. I really like to be involved in my community. Um, I've seen the necessity of places or kids and teenagers like. They need a place to have fun and and be involved in activities. Uh, they don't really have a safe environment because they, there's a lot of kids just like outside on the streets, like, um, until late at night and like, they don't have anything educational when they could and. I know a lot of families that both parents work and like the kids don't have, like the full attention they need. And sometimes they can seek that in the recreation center because there is like there could be a friend that's close to them and like they have something that they need. They're like. Almost all of the kids stay inside to. To play on their phones or video games. Like, from my personal experience, I know I know a person who has depression and like, I think that caused it because he's he's always inside. Like, he doesn't really go out and he doesn't mean you people and like if they had a recreation center, maybe that could help him talk to more people and become more social. Mhm. Oh. Like Lou said, we don't really have recreations in our clothes, so we have to walk to, um, Barnum. And, like, sometimes it's really packed, and we have to wait when we're like, the ones in our community always helping, like, cleaning alleys and like we do, we just serve fun because we've really helped our community get cleaner and safer. And with the. A. Oh. Make our community really safe. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Christine House.
Speaker 3: The evening. Christine has 4444 Morrison Road. And I'm going to look at a different aspect of this Westwood neighborhood plan. And it's for businesses. We've got a warehouse space in 4444 Morrison Road. We've got seven very active, very vibrant businesses in that building. And now in this new plan, it's suddenly off the map. It's not there. It's replaced by one of these plazas. I'm not sure how or why. All of a sudden our building is gone and you've decided to put some different things in there. But I guess I kind of resent that. We've been there for over 40 years and with having all these different little businesses that supposedly were embracing cultural diversity, I mean, we're actually a very go to shop for a lot of the needle workers and different stitching people in the city and county of Denver as well as the whole USA. So there's a lot of other little businesses. We've got a marble and granite tile company. We've actually got a gentleman that is working on composting that is trying to get a variance. Right now he's working with revision, but for some reason they're having difficulties getting the code change to help him get his business going. We've actually got another contracting business back there and a bicycle repair shop, so I'm just not sure. And I guess that's more of my question. I don't feel like the businesses along Morrison Road were very, really included in a lot of this planning, and I'm very disappointed with that. And it's only because of my digging that I happened to come across this Westwood neighborhood plan by accident. So we get a couple of notices, but it's like it's very sporadic and it was not really we did not feel inclusive. I mean, we probably have one of the nicer locations on Morrison Road that's not going to take a lot of money to revitalize. But I guess I just don't understand because down the road, if we look to try and sell our businesses and our building there, this new quote unquote neighborhood plan is going to put a lot of limitations on who we can sell to. But with it looking on the maps like there's nothing there for a building, we're very concerned about that. So I hope you kind of take a look at the plan and tell us what are we supposed to do? Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Norma Brambilla.
Speaker 3: Well, when I started. Norma Brambilla. Hello. Good evening. My name is not be left. So in a resident for 29 years I've been a resident at in Westwood for 20 years in San Jose now says cuatro cuatro on the street at 15 years and 644 South Newton Street. And the dome, which I said this skittle that perched on my wrist that the Emperor of London was in, that he was, look at this, put it and thought, well. And I want to before anything, I want to thank you for looking at this Westwood neighborhood plan that after so, so many years and so much time that we've been able to accomplish this. Well, look, is this trivial? I'm going to read this because I wanted to write it, but I'm also totally Graham is, you know, the grand ayatollah is the plan that instead uses DNA and as the momentum for us it's a great help this document this plan that you have in your hands right now. I use an established recommendation, this process by me not on all to divide on economy. I don't partizan on this issue that is consistent in the service industry. Those experts at walk through our neighborhood and we're able to see some of the needs that we're that we have in our neighborhood know unite anthocyanins espresso is companero from receiving this and so many concerns and so many needs that my friends and partners have also expressed at my solicitor's as well as one central regulation will not get carried symbols apart. This is Brussels. Where does one get the sanctions? When? When is Saddam? And one of the the greatest recommendations is a rec center. For our community because we are missing green spaces, we're missing a wider sidewalks or things that are sidewalks are not in good shape. And we're missing safety. We're like in safety. But I can assure you that most people support the do not give you that physical necessity almost as much as possible for us to be able to let our kids outside, let them go outside and play. We need these spaces. That is what is on the board. Almost establishing Masa to be that fisica e programmers or areas that we can establish a more physical activity or programs is over at looking at all the signals string socialization is now neon and a service that in most of our to be able to establish those relationships between neighbors but also trusts when necessary that one central direction for us this is a need. The rec center is a need for the important familia because we have to leave our neighborhood to be able to spend some time with their family. Yep. Southern Super LA Basket System. No grandmas. Even though we have these barriers, we're still able to do it. It's just another way that the transportation mediums, the empl, we have barriers of transit of of time, of of language that the input para nosotros is that law. But I familia the time that we have is a great value for us to be with families. But I said almost no slogan as obvious as I'll say this, but I thought it also showed us, like our youth express, sometimes we have to wait 2 hours yells we not as in through the regulations as yet, and poor quality, incidental. And at the end of the day, at the end, the rec center closes down for any reason. I must win the title cancel. Yet love is so we end up being frustrated and tired at the end of the day. Yeah. Love is another thing. It will not even for me. And at the same time, we're still lacking. We're still missing out that time that we could have spent with families. Esperamos. Esperamos. Approvazione. But I step blunderbuss in the latter. We wait for your approval for our neighborhood plan. You can see the Amber List rebellion in a society of necessity and at the next Bon for Denver that you would distribute the this in the areas that are most needed in Denver. But most of us in the area is not necessary. That's essential for our community, for our neighborhood. This is a need to have a recreation center. And it's almost the little kids that look at us for the saddest of. And I said, that is another of my small business elements of equal Amazon, things I do that gets you say our neighborhood is one of the youngest one of the ones with the highest rate of obesity and one with highest is lack of safety or insecurity. In looking at his demos as well as my recollection, my super programmer Sparano through scoring is what we need is more recreation, more programs for our youth because we're not here for Talisman talent. That their energy and their mental strength, love and wisdom that they can show this and in their schools and stuff. Los Ninos Catalan Masorti with their fisica. Some of those memories and that it is shown that those that have more physical activity, those students that have more physical activity, perform better academically as those go and see those are not what you have. Almost always in the middle Muslim people might say, these are Your Holiness, these youth. These students have helped our neighborhood by cleaning and volunteering and making all these changes and helping Representan go into them. Representing one of the youngest communities in Denver, young kids, and I've got a similar this past year as well as Hipparchus, even though we are lacking of green spaces in parks that most residents, although most candles are not for yellow Jamaicans but Marco wears well. We thank everyone who has supported us through grants to improve our Westwood Park. Yep. And out of this one, the one thing I don't see the perennial Washington park it even that even then we won't have a city park or a Washington park, get a muslim park, Masada, as well as by dinosaurs. We just want more green areas for our kids established. There must be that physical activity in that and to establish more physical activity and water in a safe space in Central Park, that would that would be a rec center for them. Westwood deserves this grass. And thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Brandon ELL.
Speaker 9: Hi, my name is Brandon Loya and I've been a resident of Westwood for all my life. And I would like to talk about the recreation center idea.
Speaker 3: And how I like it because it.
Speaker 9: Can motivate like children to like, be doing like physical stuff and not be just in the house.
Speaker 3: Because if they stay like in the house, playing video games and eating.
Speaker 9: It could cause like obesity and health problems, which would be bad for the community. Also, I think that this is bad because our neighborhood is the youngest, which means that this shouldn't be happening and that like how the West, the former in Special Park has helped a lot because.
Speaker 3: It's like it's always park.
Speaker 9: There, which means that there's a lot of kids like doing physical stuff and which means that they're.
Speaker 3: Getting healthier and they're using like nature.
Speaker 9: And one of the problems is that, like, there's not, there's like, no, no, like, fun stuff to do for kids, which means that we have to, like, drive a long way to other pools. But that's a problem also because it's like super far away and we don't have nursing care. And also because like once we go to other pools and stuff like that and other recreation centers, it means that it's far away. And when there's a lot of when there's nothing and like there was one area which means that like when everybody goes to other recreation centers, it means that it's always packed, which means it doesn't give us space. And that's a bad thing. And. And I would like to talk also.
Speaker 3: About safety issues, which means that, like.
Speaker 9: If you want to take a walk in the night, like when it's like usually.
Speaker 3: Like.
Speaker 9: More colder.
Speaker 3: You can't because there's always like.
Speaker 9: Gangs walking around. There's always like something dangerous that you're scared of. And that's all I would like to talk about.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Rachel Cleveland also has the last five speakers to come up to the front. John Gomez and Claudia Marsala, Philip Hawes, Rachel Prestwich and Naomi Enriquez.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Rachel Cleaves and I am the executive director of West Virginia. Those and my address is 1243 Osceola Street. So I want to say a little bit about West Leonidas. We've been organizing in Southwest Denver for the last nine years in Westwood, and when we first started, Westwood was the neglected neighborhood. It was the neighborhood that felt like it had been forgotten by the city. And I want to be here today to thank all of you and the planners and Councilman Lopez for turning your attention to the Westwood neighborhood. And I think this plan took years to happen. A lot of advocacy from our city councilman. And it was that leadership that led us here today where we've been presented with a plan that I think reflects the the needs of this community. I think the plan is based on a very robust public process. Something I very much appreciate is that there was significant effort put into translation at all meetings and all of the presentations and even here today. And also that the planners didn't just ask the community to come to them, but rather that they went out into the community. They went and attended community meetings and they made sure that they were available and they worked with nonprofits and residents to get the word out about the process. Something else that was fantastic was that the neighborhood plan partnered with the Department of Environmental Health to do a health impact assessment. The data that was come out of that health impact assessment showed that Westwood is the most has the highest obesity rate among children in the city of Denver and really was able to link those high rates of obesity to the lack of access to recreation, walking and biking and healthy food. And we thank our city planners for putting so much effort into seeing how they could change the street's streetscape and make this neighborhood a place where people can truly be healthy. However, unfortunately, we haven't started the work yet, so what we are here to do today is to ask you to move forward with these recommendations, to access the resources of the 2017 bond in order to make sure that this most young neighborhood, most obese neighborhood in the city and most underserved for recreation receives those centers where kids can be positive and be active. We also want to encourage the city council to pilot many of the walking and biking projects that you hope to achieve in the city, in this neighborhood where there is so much need. And I think that's. Oh, no, how could I forget? No one thinks the community yet. The only reason that this this neighborhood plan is a success is because we had fantastic planners and because we had residents that were at the meetings and who were working in partnership with the government. And these are lives.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry about your time.
Speaker 3: That's okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. John Gomez.
Speaker 1: You're going to be that guy.
Speaker 9: Hello. My name is John Gomez, and I'm 15 years old. I live in Westwood. My whole.
Speaker 11: Life.
Speaker 9: And I think we should have a rec center and more. Yeah, I think we should have recorded because. I'm sorry. Because there's younger kids and some older kids that need more resources so they can stay in school and they could get help with their activities, activities at school. And so they don't have to be always on the streets. And like I have my two older brothers, they one just dropped out of school and one just had a baby and. I wouldn't want my son to grow up in the streets, too. I would want them to have more resources so that they. So that they can do better in life and that. They can stay in school and that they're yeah, there's the Boys and Girls Club and there's Garfield Park. But that's not really like a rec center. They only have a swimming pool and that's about it. And the boys in those club, it's mainly focused on little kids. What about older kids like myself and other youth that I work with? And I think it's best if we have opportunities to. Yeah, I know. Don't.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Ana Claudia Marsala. They get that kind of rate.
Speaker 9: Good evening. Not cloudy magallanes. I live in 1200 Vine Street, apartment four F in Denver, Colorado 2006 Bucharest has been part of the neighborhood planning process since the beginning, but has been heavily involved with the Morrison Road Streetscape mission and 14 of this plan. On behalf of Quest Board of Directors and Staff. I would like to express our support to most of the recommendation with a couple asks. We are very supportive of the mcaleny our vision of bring forth from the community to farmers who corridor their streets their streets streetscape plans is speaks to the implement of this vision. It is the miracle. The line now is pedestrian friendly. It's safe, it's welcoming. It is culturally sensitive to us with residents. Is it your community? Commercial core is the heart and soul of Westwood. We ask the the future of Morrison road depends always be straight with reclassification because who likes to ask morrison would reclassification from mixed use arterial to a mixed use collector. This is consistent with the current discussion is of the reclassification of Morrison Road to a collector base of CBD and public works. Functional functional classifications without a road reclassification. The record of lineal vision. Where prioritizes possession is cannot be implemented on page 24 and 25 of this plane recommends Morrison Road as an enhanced bikeways. Unfortunately because is not supportive of this recommendation because it conflicts direct with the direction from District three to bequest and the design team of this tree skate master plan. We are moving forward with a Mercado Linea vision that requires a complete street reconstruction of curb relocation. This will not allow bike lanes because there is not enough room for on street dedicated bike lanes. Why was it important to provide more multimodal alternatives that connect the neighborhood? Public facilities is also to provide priorities that commuters and stakeholders have prioritized. Pedestrians. Pedestrians should be prioritized more some road public right away all the time. But we know bike access along Morrison Road is important. WESTWOOD The streetscape masterplan, has identified alternative routes in the neighborhood that connect to existing proposed bike. Amenities and also the possessions and also prioritizes the possessions. The streetscape masterplans also provides an alternative if Berkshire or Morrison Road. We are very supportive of their recommendation. I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but your time is up.
Speaker 9: Thank you for your time.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Philip has.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. City council members. My name is Philip Hawes. I own a business and I own the property on the Mawson Road. We've owned it since 1963. Just didn't move into the neighborhood. I've grown up there all my life. I'm and I'm wholeheartedly inclined to support a community rec district, but it doesn't say anything of how this is going to be paid for. How is this going to impact all of the business owners along Morrison Road? All the property owners along Morrison Road? This was just brought to our attention within the last month. It might have been going on since 15, but we feel that the business owners, the property owners are getting sold a build a good. I'd like to know more about it before you vote on it. I'd encourage the city council to table this to find out where the funding is going to come from. How are they going to treat the property owners and the businesses? Long Mawson Road to do this great community favor of a rec center is about all that I've heard. I haven't heard of any other property owners for this. It seems like it's just the people without. I hope that you table it and do a little more research on this before you shut it down the business owners throats. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Rachel Prestwich.
Speaker 3: My name is Rachel Prestwich, and I'm here today to read a statement from Livewell, Colorado. Members of Denver City Council.
Speaker 9: On behalf of Livewell, Colorado.
Speaker 3: We are voicing our strong support for the Westwood Neighborhood Plan. We want to thank Councilman Lopez. Community Planning and Development and Denver Parks and Recreation for pushing inclusion of healthy living language in the plan, particularly the language regarding a future Denver rec center in the Westwood neighborhood. At Live well, colorado, our aim is to provide every Coloradan with access to healthy food and opportunities for physical activity. The Westwood neighborhood of Denver is desperately lacking in adequate access to physical activity, and as such, we are happy to see that the neighborhood plan reflects the need for a recreation center. Westwood is consistently ranked as one of the most obese neighborhoods in Colorado because of its lack of access to healthy food, preventative care and recreation. In order to combat obesity in Colorado, Live Well has set four strategic goals to be achieved by 2020. One such goal is for all children in Colorado to have access to safe and affordable recreational spaces for physical activity outside of the school day. With nearly half of the population of Westwood under the age of 18, this community is a priority for live well in removing barriers to healthy living opportunities, as well as in creating venues for physical activity. In order for Colorado to be a sustainably healthy state. All neighborhoods need systems in place through which each community member is able to afford and achieve healthy living. Walkable sidewalks, bikeable streets, access to healthy food and access to opportunities for recreation are all vital infrastructure for a healthy, happy and successful community. Live Well Colorado appreciates the inclusion of healthy living language in the Westwood Neighborhood Plan, asks council to vote in support of the plan and further urges the city to leverage dollars from the next Denver bond package towards a future Denver Westwood Recreation Center. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, Naomi Enriquez.
Speaker 9: Hi. My name is Naomi. And because I'm 16 years old, I've been living in Westwood for seven years. My ages is 3465. West Walsh Place, Denver, Colorado, 80219. And I've been noticing in my community that there is not my name. David is close to where I live, and I would like having a recreation center in Westwood. I have three little brothers in during the summer. They're always at home with nothing to do. And I'm sure that there are other that there are other kids in the community that are also bored during the summer and after school as well. I would love having a recreation center in the community to have kids socialize and to meet new people. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Ask a couple of individuals to please approach the the podium. Steven, if you want to come up with an answer, Gloria from Boku, if you want to. Couple of questions. We have folks that. Say the businesses were not involved. And Claudia, you represent the business improvement or the local maintenance district, which is all property owners on Morrison Road. And Stephen, you led the effort for the the plan. Can you talk to me about outreach to businesses and participation, particularly the businesses and property owners on Long Morris and Road?
Speaker 9: Absolutely. Paula was in collaboration with Stephen Chester here, which has approached the Morrison Road Business Association early on in the process. We partner to do the community outreach for property owners and business owners. We have sent letters, we had gather volunteers to personally flier the businesses. We have distributed the meetings, notifications through a newsletter. We have sent information to social media and this is all just on book questions. CBD has done outstanding work, also letting the community and business owners and property owners know about the process. Thank you.
Speaker 8: How many, if you don't mind? And Claudia, how many businesses painted the district? How many properties make up the local maintenance district and how many businesses?
Speaker 9: The properties. I don't have the number on top of my head, but active businesses, we have 82 at the moment. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Stephen, do you want to address the same questions?
Speaker 12: Sure. Well, in my experience, do neighborhood planning, oftentimes the business community is sometimes the hardest to engage with in terms of, you know, they they're busy. They were there other working during the day and then they oftentimes don't live in the neighborhood. And so we tried some innovative things with this planning effort to specifically outreach to the business owners in was sort of specific on Morrison Road we actually held a focus group with the help of Booker West. I believe they did a flier or a mailer to all the property owners along Morrison Road, also myself and planning team . We walked the corridor and met a lot of business owners and put fliers up and kind of community meeting places, advertising this focus group. And we had pretty good attendance for that focus group. We got a nice core group of really engaged business owners that we then kind of leaned on to help us spread the word about the planning process.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Appreciate it. Sure. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Anything else, Councilman?
Speaker 8: I'll get to it in a bit, but other questions come.
Speaker 4: Okay. Guzman. Espinosa.
Speaker 1: These are all for CPD. So we just went through the Arapahoe Square design guidelines and standards and a whole bunch of other things. And one of the things that that was crucial to me and they did consider was the diagonal of Broadway is the Broadway and how that would influence design going forward. Was there any. There wasn't. There's the Emerson Road influence area sort of maybe alludes to this sort of notion that maybe the diagonals important, but there's really no any real strong language about how that should be capital that actually should be. But what is a liability can actually be converted into an asset to redevelopment. Do you have language or designs or towards design style guidelines and standards an emphasis on that or not? Did I miss it?
Speaker 9: So yes.
Speaker 3: The Morrison road overlay in this neighborhood.
Speaker 9: Plan is really a start. Obviously there's a lot of things. The scope of a neighborhood plan is very broad and design guidelines are much narrower focus. So the goal of the Morrison road overlay area was to identify that. We acknowledge that something needs to happen here and to acknowledge that we don't know the specific tools yet and that we know that further study needs to be done on what specific regulatory tools can go there.
Speaker 3: And to really put the.
Speaker 9: Framework in place of what the goals of that study would be. So acknowledging the commercial front along Morrison and the the transition into the neighborhood surrounding. So the language is there to start that. Obviously it would be a much heavier lift than just the neighborhood plan. So we're really teeing up that conversation with the plan.
Speaker 1: Perfect. Two things from that. You emphasize the broad nature of this plan. So for those members of the audience that are concerned about how prescriptive and what this really means to their plan, I mean, their property going forward, what I see here is actually a net increase in development potential along Morrison Road that would be supported by this plan that isn't there today. Is that correct? And is there anything binding about this? I mean, it's purely advisory, correct?
Speaker 9: Correct. This is a vision document. So for any of these things to be implemented, there would need to be regulatory changes, such as zone changes or for example, with the Morrison road overlay. When we get to that study, perhaps it's design overlay, perhaps it's a new zone. We don't.
Speaker 1: Know. And that also would then be a subsequent public process, correct? So then to that, the next steps, do we have we already short staff on neighborhood plans and whatnot? Do we already have a plan in place for how we're going to staff and pursue a more granular analysis of the study of these areas?
Speaker 12: Yeah. So this is definitely going to directly feed into our work plan for tax amendments. You know, we have the framework in place and the goals for the kind of next part of the study. So yeah, more staff would definitely help us speed it along. And I can really speak to where, you know, what the timing is going to be, but it's definitely something that we're committed to.
Speaker 1: Thank you for being the first person to really go on record right there. Hopefully you don't get in trouble language. So you had so you had shown a slide that talked about the cultural assets and you mentioned that it had future cultural assets, but I didn't see that. Is there is it in that plan? I mean, in that map where all those schools and things were the future ones or.
Speaker 12: Yeah, so it's a pretty broad definition that map just kind of opportunity sites. So it's called.
Speaker 1: So how do you distinguish one from the what an existing from an opportunity.
Speaker 12: Primarily you know potential redevelopment sites in the neighborhood along with some projects that we know are in the pipeline that are happening along Morrison Road and in other places in the neighborhood and along with some of the planned enhancements to some of the parks and open spaces, kind of opportunities to include, you know, public art into those open spaces.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then the last thing you mentioned correctness in in the last thing about the community outreach. And so I wanted to know that's sort of an ambiguous term for me. Was that demand for more prescriptive language in the code than the recommendations or what what do you mean by correctness.
Speaker 12: That was just purely fixing typos and.
Speaker 1: Okay, so they were calling you out for for grammar and spelling. Great. No, no further questions. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Councilman new. Yes. Stephen, on the the the food services section, they are looking at the challenge as you talk about a grocery store, lack of a grocery store. Did you do an inventory of that? I don't see that as being a major initiative for the future. Could you talk a little bit more about the grocery store situation?
Speaker 12: Be able to have on the lease who's on the Sustainable Food Policy Council? So yeah, it's best to answer that question.
Speaker 3: As an active member. So right now, there currently isn't a full service grocery store in the area. And what we know about the market is the neighborhood at this time probably wouldn't demand a.
Speaker 9: Full service grocery store in the area.
Speaker 3: What we do have is a vision which they're working.
Speaker 9: To.
Speaker 3: Open their first community.
Speaker 9: Operated grocery store.
Speaker 3: And it's really about taking a holistic.
Speaker 9: Systematic approach of improving food access within the area and then also improving regional access to where those larger stores are.
Speaker 4: In. And how far away are these regional stores?
Speaker 9: I believe the closest ones, about a half mile down off of Sheridan.
Speaker 3: But once again, those safe access points to access it any way other.
Speaker 9: Than vehicular doesn't exist currently.
Speaker 4: Okay. So it's a workable situation.
Speaker 9: Absolutely.
Speaker 4: Okay. Let me Stephen, on the one big issue, if I'm concerned about is our sidewalk situation, the infrastructure on the pedestrian way there. Can you talk a little bit about their condition of sidewalks as you evaluate that? And you do you invite the evaluate the pedestrian environment. The drawings about on Morrison Road look beautiful, but you talk more about that.
Speaker 12: Sure. So the neighborhood, you know, having been developed in the 1940 and 1950s, has a lot of those Hollywood kind of roll up curbs, sidewalks. That's kind of the most typical sidewalk conditions you see in the neighborhood. And that's not kind of. What we're talking about is a safe pedestrian environment, you know. Someone on a wheelchair, people walking next to each other won't be able to technically even fit on one of those sidewalks. And so with the community, what we did is, you know, recognizing that the you know, the opportunity to go in and replace every single sidewalk in the neighborhood is, you know, much of a long term vision. So that's why we worked with the community to come up with that kind of sidewalk priority map that looked at, you know, see, for us, the school is a major driver for that, where the kids walk, walk to school currently and making sure that those sidewalks are kind of first in line to be improved. Also looking at some of the the major commercial nodes and commercial corridors in the neighborhood like Morrison Road and Kentucky. And, you know, that's something that, you know, along with the rec center, just, you know, that safe pedestrian environment is something that is kind of the number one concern that we hear from the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: So there are priorities set up for those?
Speaker 12: Definitely.
Speaker 4: What about affordable housing? That's always another issue with that discussion.
Speaker 12: So, you know, as the council knows more than anyone. Affordable housing is definitely a citywide issue, you know, a regional issue, really. But what we what we did with the neighborhood plan is what could we do at a neighborhood scale to get at housing affordability? And so there's a couple of things that I want to make sure we highlighted in the plan. First off, being that idea of accessory dwelling units, I think that's a really great kind of neighborhood scale tool to help address affordable housing, not only providing affordable units in neighborhood, but also opportunities for, you know, additional income by some of the households in the neighborhood. Additionally, you know, what we could do to kind of attack affordability at the neighborhood scale was, you know, recognizing the stable nature of some of the single family neighborhoods. We were really conscious and pretty substantially increasing some of the density in the neighborhood, specifically along Morrison Road and some of those kind of, you know, heavier traffic corridors. Just providing more units would help us kind of address the affordability issue. And I would.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you very much, Rose. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Question for someone from CPD. So just to address the concerns that the houses have. Can you please explain what a neighborhood plan is, that it's aspirational. It's not an actual construction plan and it's not going to take away anyone's property. Right. So can you just sort of. Sure. Put it in context?
Speaker 12: Yeah. So a neighborhood plan is, you know, serves as that 20 year vision for the neighborhood that serves as a policy guidance document. So it's really the document that the city, a city council and city departments go to to help with specific policy decisions, specifically like rezonings. You know, that's the number one criteria that CPD and stuff uses when you're looking at a potential rezoning is what is the plan support for this rezoning, what are the adopted plans? And, you know, as I mentioned, this will become a supplement to the city's comprehensive plan. So this would be the kind of the guiding document for some of those policy decisions. Similarly with Parks and, you know, the Parks Department, they would then use this document. Okay. What are the priorities for the neighborhood? You know, if we have money to invest in some parks and open spaces, you know, this is the number one resource they'd go to to, you know, what are the resources, what are the different amenities that the parks need and Westwood. So it's really serves as a kind of advisory document for the neighborhood.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: I think, Mr. President. Steve, you're getting a lot of exercise tonight.
Speaker 4: You come back up here.
Speaker 5: One thing that I don't see addressed in here, maybe it's because of the lack of of resources. But was there an attempt made to survey any historical landmarks or any structures that are worthy of of of holding out for preservation as this plan moves along? Westwood is a very historic area, but not in a way we traditionally think of history in Denver. Right. It's it's a work, you know, grew up in the Depression. It was part of Arapahoe County. Most of it was already developed when Denver annexed it in 47.
Speaker 12: Exactly.
Speaker 5: And so I can't believe that there's nothing there that's worthy of of holding on to from from that standpoint. Can you tell us whether a historical survey was done?
Speaker 12: Yes, we actually have a separate process at CPD run by our kind of landmark division called Discover Denver. I'm sure you're very familiar with it, where they have a really scientific process outlined to go out into communities and kind of survey those historical landmarks and all the existing structures to see their historic significance. And so through the planning process, we did kind of identify some kind of unique buildings and kind of fed that to our landmark folks and with the hope that West would be soon on the cue to kind of have that really comprehensive historical survey.
Speaker 5: Okay. Are we going to go ahead and do that, do you think?
Speaker 12: I hope so. I can't speak to when exactly that would happen.
Speaker 5: Okay. I'd sure like to see that done. Thank you. That's. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: All right. Are there any other questions from members of council. Seeing none. The public hearing for comfortable for for three is closed comments by members of council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I am very happy to get to this moment. And I have, I think, a million different words to say, but I'm kind of choked up now. I'm kind of a mess up here. The first thing I have to say is a great big thank you and ungracious that I mean, the lack of money , the a lack of money either West where I was in 90 other west were en masse in that area. Sonya's not resident. This so is. And Pueblo. Ah, I see. And I said thank you to the community. First and foremost, the community is its people. When we talk about neighborhood, it is people, right? It's all the people in it. Business owners, residents, people who work in the community. It's everybody. The last time that we ever set foot out here with a neighborhood plan was 30 years ago, in 1986. And before that, this was the little guy that started it in 1975. It is kind of like it's just a few pages, talks about where to park your car or to drive to. Didn't really set the vision. And we had now, you know, Westwood is very unique in this city. It's it's diagonal is very unique. The parcels are unique. The fact that it wasn't Denver until 19 actually in the 1950s, because there's one holdout that try to sue the city because they didn't want to be part of Denver. So it's planted when it was planned and built. It wasn't Denver wasn't our code. So we ran, stumbled across different zoning. That was inadequate. Parcels are inadequate now with the zoning that we had before and serious, I think it was like a a B to b four zoned district, which meant you could put junkyards down and you could do pretty much anything with your property. And it really did not add to the community. All it did was create a pastoral. In Morrison Road for the longest time was a way for folks to get home. And as a shortcut to get to Southwest Denver instead of going to Sixth Avenue to Sheridan, take six to knock it off and you got a diagonal all the way into Southwest Denver via Morrison Road. What's more than just a diagonal? It's not the 1950s anymore. It's a neighborhood. It's a dense neighborhood. It's a rich neighborhood. This neighborhood needs a sense of identity and you know it. The zone districts that we even have in 2010 really constrict the site. And Councilman Espinoza, you're right on. Save that one. You're going to use that one later. Cherish the moment, brother. It is definitely in need of an overlay because you even give it the best known district that we have now. And in mix three that we looked at or or Main Street Zone District and so constrictive because you got to cover about 60% of the frontage it requires on a main street that you have glass frontage and these buildings are all concrete masonry. So anybody that wants to open up shops got to take out the whole front, right? So they're very challenging. What this plan does is set a vision and know it doesn't guarantee property rights. It doesn't take away your right to do anything with your property. Except. Creates a vision. And my God, if I'm not a business owner, but if I was a business owner on this strip, I was a property owner. And. You had a vision like this, you best bet I would take advantage of it. When you look at the culture of the neighborhood, look at the identity. The neighborhood is the neighborhood that buys salsa and tortillas. When I'd be selling white bread or I'd be selling SUVs and tortillas as a business owner. I get with it. This particular site. You look at Westwood and it just has so much potential there. The fact that we hadn't had this collective vision for such a long time and we didn't we didn't never formalize. The fact that we've had this Vietnamese population and businesses who had been land breaking with each other, building this community in South Federal Boulevard. The fact that we've never went in there and said, hey, let's create this sense of place. Let's build off of this vision. Now we have Little Saigon Business District. You know, the last time Denver had a business district like this, the proprietor was hung from a lamp post. And that was that seamy side of Denver. And that's the book I'm referring to. We didn't celebrate culture in neighborhoods, and when we did, the residents paid for it. Well, we are in 2016. The beauty of West with the beauty of Southwest Denver is in those bells from the pilot that it's a Liberty Bell of our body. It is the mom and pop shops of Federal Boulevard. It is the fact that someone like Grandpa Burger Haven just north on Byrd on on in Barnum can make burgers under the can put McDonald's under the table. They don't compete. And you go to Columbine Steak House. When you go to the businesses along federal Federal Boulevard, where do you go for Vietnamese food? You go to Federal Boulevard, where do you go for the best and you go to Federal Boulevard. Right. Where do you go for a mom and pop? Real original Denver. It's Denver. It's westward. It's west Denver. It's this corridor. And the fact that we've never had a collective vision or a plan that speaks directly to that. This is the first time it has done, let me think my predecessors, because they struggled to get this done. The honorable Ramona martinez, who worked on that plan, Sam Sanders, Ivan Rosenberg, who was the councilman for this one. CPD came in and did a tremendous job. My hat's off to you three. Sara On. Stephen They came in and did exactly what was needed to be done. Was the take in what they see taken, what they hear, apply their expertize to this city, to this cause. Right. My staff, Adriano and his suits were very hard on dates and meetings and organizing, getting people together. This is community and we can't third party staff from our neighborhood, from our city. It is ridiculous for us, the third party ourselves. And in this country and in. In this part of the world. It's ridiculous when we third party the citizenry from the government, because in this country the citizens are the government. And not just people who are U.S. citizens, but everybody who lives in it. And that's a reflection of what's in here. So, unfortunately, you know, we have had challenges. We've had resentment and contempt towards the community and, you know, the changing of the community. We've had, you know, folks that just don't want to move forward because of that and can accept the fact that the community has changed and changed in a way that is great and can change in a way that has protected a lot of its businesses. Now. I was born and raised in this neck of the woods. I lived a block off Morrison Road, 834 South Range Street. My entire life practically between there and barn. So being able to see this come to fruition is a personal for me. It was always hard crossing that street. You know, the first time we've had a stoplight, a morrison road in decades was on Perry and Morrison. You know why? Because these folks in the community applied for a grant to get that stoplight, and they had to pony up over $100,000 to do it just to get the city say, okay, we'll put it on the fast track when there are stoplights put in through this city left and right without having some grant. When we saw blighted land, we created pathways, when we saw living in substandard housing and nobody doing anything about it. Slumlords not even caring what's happening on the property come in, threatens to shut it down because of the the blight that exists and the fact that we cannot allow substandard housing like this in the community. We've had folks like Saint Charles Town commit community work together to move, not to replace it with some high end housing, but to create affordable units. Mi casa partner came in, said, we'd like to come and make a difference in this community. Not only they headquartered here, but have affordable housing up top commercial zones. Frontages. The fact that we need a grocery store in this community is paramount. The fact that we need a rec center, as you heard tonight, is paramount. And that is set in this plan. This plan calls for that. And in the meantime, we have folks that are making do that are doing some pretty innovative stuff. But that doesn't replace the need for closing food deserts in this in this community. So the linear mercado on Morrison Road, why not? You can look at cities like Chicago or New York and Los Angeles and yeah, I'm saying some pretty grown up cities, but that's who we are. In Denver, we had a very critical moment. We hate to be called cowtown. We hate to be called a county. But we also don't want to be called New York City. We're kind of like in the middle school stage of New York. We kind of want to hang out with little kids, but we're not cool enough to hang out the big kids. But we are at that stage and we have to determine how do we connect our neighborhoods to that central core. We can't look at Westworld or any one of our neighborhoods in our city and look at it as some island unto itself. Westwood is vital to the city. So the fact that we need to be able to move residents, not just cars, more people, connectivity, the light rail is just off about two miles away from Westwood. Right. Perry and Knox are arterials. The fact that we could bike from Morrison Road all the way to Knox Court and take that lightly. One day you're going to see kids from Westwood be able to. Go all the way to see Border, do you or Metro or heck, even N.Y.U. if they wanted to, or USC or Stanford and not even have to set foot in a villa in a car. That's the kind of connectivity we're talking about, the fact that people can walk up and down the streets. That calls for sidewalks. All right. So what's reflected here in this in this vision and in this plan is almost a microcosm of what we've been pushing for in the city in addition to the plan. I want to refer to this. We also have this health impact assessment that was made for the neighborhood. It's also released in this this does address those issues when it comes to health of a neighborhood in fighting obesity rates. The case for the rec center, which is about a 25 year old case for the rec center. It's not new. We've been asking for this for a very long time. And last but not least, you know, I think. With this plan. You know, we. In the city. We have to look at plans and not just something that are blueprints that get rolled up or put in a binder and sit on some shelf. This plan speaks to the soul of our neighborhood. It has a soul. It is a living. It is a breathing document. It is something that is intended to guide our decisions as a city. This vision sets, addresses so many different things. It is not intended to collect dust on a shelf in a city or to be found in a used book sale. Right. It's supposed to be implemented. And as we start moving it forward and yes, taxpayers, we all will pay for the implementation. Just like people in Lakewood pay for their own implementation or other municipalities that surround it. This is our city. It's a collective thing. And when neighborhoods improve, businesses improve. When cities improve, the economy improves. And what we are trying to do is build and start our local. And add to that. So without further ado, at the end of the day. Aside from, you know, the call for bricks and mortar and. Zoning overlays. The one thing that this really creates. And it changes the game and it changes this scenario. 20 years ago. If I were to walk around and say, I am from Westwood. I would have hung my head. It was typical for us to hang our heads. People sneered at us and they say, You are from Westwood. It makes funny. They point fingers. Well, that game is changed. Tina Grego, who wrote a great series she wrote for The Rocky. Called and highlighted a street, a random street in Westwood and called it Border Street. Because it looked like it was on the border. It was underserved. The streets hadn't been paved in a very long time. Yards were unmaintained and it just looked like it didn't even belong in the country. Well, she followed up with that article. With that series a few years later when we started this process in 2009 and 2008, and she wrote The West Side to write its own story. And we've had these headlines that our community leaders have created out the way. And what better of a headline to say new chapter for a neighborhood? Because indeed, a new chapter for this neighborhood. And that lives in every single one of our residents. And it is up to us to implement that new chapter. It is that new day where you no longer walk around. And I'm addressing the young people in the room. Right. Young man. Young lady, we don't walk around a westwood with our heads held low. From now on, you walk around Westwood with your heads held high and say, I'm from Westwood. That's right. I'm from Westwood. And that's the kind of spirit that we want to see. That's what this plan does and that's what makes it living. So I am happy to support and encourage my colleagues to pass this plan and adopt it into ordinance. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. I want to lend my support to the neighborhood plan as well. The need for a grocery store and a rec center goes back to when I grew up in this neighborhood as a teenager. When I went to middle school and after school, we'd go over to Taylor Drugstore on Federal Boulevard and hang out because there wasn't a real place for for young people to go. So, you know, the voice of the youth who were here tonight speaking out for the need for a rec center. It's it's it just stuns me that it's been this long that we have not addressed that need in this neighborhood. Westwood has some really unique characteristics. Not many neighborhoods in the city can say they have Quonset hut. I think that's what they still call them, right?
Speaker 10: We have a couple.
Speaker 7: Do you all know what a Quonset hut is? This is this is where the home is kind of built into the ground. And that that's very unique to this neighborhood. I know there are a few of them still there. The trailer park that existed on Mawson in Kentucky. When I first get reelected back to the council, Councilman Lopez took me to walk through that trailer park. And when I saw that there were literally garden hoses connecting people's units to propane tanks that were exposed and kids were playing outside, you know, it was a safety hazard with a real bad accident waiting to happen. And I know Councilman Lopez has taken some real lumps for, you know, moving that project forward, but those residents are going to be much better off. They're going to be relocated. But the project will address a real safety hazard that existed, you know, in that immediate location. And, you know, I think the the work that he did in working with our Office of Economic Development to make sure that there was relocation funding to assist those families was a really important part of that project. The work that revision has done in the neighborhood, working with what is it like 400 households that now have neighborhood gardens. When I went and visited with them a couple of years ago and learned what they were doing with the drip system in everybody's backyard for their gardens, I immediately got jealous and said, I need one of those for my garden because I don't have one. And I know what a difference it makes in terms of, you know, your your produce being able to grow the way that it should and in the work they're going to be doing with the residents, with the new facility that was purchased, with the assistance of some city funding to be able to do some classes for how you can preserve that food product throughout the year and be able to sell your food out of that location. I mean, the opportunities I think are unlimited in terms of what that means for the neighborhood. And it's a small piece of creating some healthy food for the neighborhood. You know, the need for a grocery store still exists, but that is a really big deal that doesn't exist in other neighborhoods across the city. So that's very unique to the Westwood neighborhood, the Excel corridor that was talked about that we saw in one of the maps. That was the route I used to walk along to go to school. When I went to Kepner, I lived off of Kentucky and Peyton Court and would walk throughout this neighborhood to, you know, go visit with friends or we'd go to a movie and things like that. And the work that you all have done in laying out the priorities for this neighborhood, in putting together this neighborhood plan. Is a really big deal because by having an adopted neighborhood plan, it means now that it it positions your neighborhood to be able to access some of the city resources to address those priorities in your community . And so the work that everyone from Steven and Gretchen and Sarah, Annie and Elise and all of the residents from the neighborhood Councilman Lopez and Adriana and HSUS, you know, it takes a lot of work to bring these to fruition, but in the end, it really pays off having a neighborhood plan because it means now that some of the things that have never been looked at or addressed by the city. Are now a priority for your community. And I just want to say thank you to all of the residents because having to show up to meetings on a regular basis, making sure that your voice is being heard, because that's what this document reflects. It's your voice. It's your priorities for your community that will take your neighborhood to that next level. To the businesses on Morrison Road. You know, by having that corridor and Alameda and Federal Boulevard identified as continuing to bring in more neighborhoods, serving businesses and opportunities that look into the future. And again, this is not the document that rezoning your property or any of that stuff, that's a whole separate process that has to take place later. But just knowing that the opportunities allow for more to happen in the neighborhood is is exciting. So I again, I just want to say thank you to everyone who is involved in bringing this forward and making it happen. And I'm a yes vote to make.
Speaker 4: Councilman Espinosa. All right, gentlemen, it's been.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I have three brief points, but I get the chair on my inner Kevin Flynn since we we talked about architecture a little bit. So while I have no doubt there are Quonset huts in Westwood. What you were describing was what's called a basement home, which Kevin might know better about. But that's the sort of postwar creation where we built basements only too, so that GIs and stuff could come back and eventually build houses on top of them. But so they're just basements. They're below grade, mostly below grade with a roof. So actually, if you want to get into the preservation may be a really odd form, but it does have historic context and they are there over in Garland Park. It's good to know that they have them in Westwood, too. So that's not the density you're looking for. But I did want to say that this is sort of a note to CPD and you guys. You three get it? You know what I'm talking about. But it's also a note to my colleagues that with this adoption, our work is not done here on this dais until all those other plans are, you know, other other standards and guidelines and rezonings take place. We will then adopt plan support for higher density. And what I don't want is, is for that inner city increase to just come in here and cite that plan support. Right. Because we have to be cognizant that there is much more in this plan. So in the interim, we must recognize that zoning, zoning are de facto blanket zone. Districts do not captured the entirety of this vision and that we need to CPD needs to support in the interim rezonings that that do support the community and this plan CPD has the the vision document. Now if we adopt this you'll have the vision document to support customized zoning in the interim, meaning that if you're talking in this zoning, in this adopted plan, some very, very specific notions about how we should be not there broad base sorry, very notion concepts about how we approach redevelopment along Mississippi, a blanket zoned as we're already cognizant that a blanket zone district doesn't necessarily do that. And so if we have a developer and a community coming together saying, okay, here's a redevelopment proposal that requires the uptick in density, but deviations in order to capture these ideas that really move forward. That is to me, you've got the plan document here that if it's supported by this plan, this vision, you have the justification you need to do customized zoning there. So I want you guys to support community and develop developers when they're coming together in the future. On Westword Until we have other design guidelines and standards in place that we need to as a as as a, as a department and as an agency, get into that, get into that gray area and support customized zoning so that the neighborhood is protected and the developer can, can, can has sort of valid metrics that they can move forward with that are above and beyond what our current zoning code and form based zoning allows. So there's also a note here to OED, just because you mentioned what the affordability component to as we're doing this affordable housing linkage, fees and creativity, negative percent loans for use with covenants. So if we're going to encourage to but we want them to capture affordability, maybe the city is a partner. You know, we're just paying a 1% back on interest or covering a down payment or something like that so that we capture that. But that's a whole different policy discussion. But it is an idea that I want to put out there just because it came to me here. And lastly, another idea that goes off the rails, but it's all you. Councilman Lopez, you won't see any resistance from me. If you want to use the Parker Sanchez money to start this rec center somewhere in Westwood because it's an asset that is clearly needed. We have a park, we have a good park. We do need some programing up there. But what I think we need we need the facilities where there where there aren't any. So you have it for me here right now. Things I'll be supporting the rezoning thing. I mean, the adoption. Sorry.
Speaker 4: Councilman. Do Thank you, Mr. President. In congratulations to the residents and CBD and special counsel Lopez on developing this fine plan. Your children are our future and imagine healthy. I know the need for healthy kids to be great leaders in our future and for health and the welfare welfare of our kids. We've got to have exercise. We've got to do so. A rec center just is so critical to me for them to help develop healthy kids, an environment in any kind of neighborhood and community, but also, you know, healthy foods. I still you know, I sure echo all the comments about the grocery store we've seen so many of our areas are see not having an active grocery store to provide affordable food, which is something that really, truly needs to be to be addressed. And yeah, I think well, the other thing is, is working with our business owners, I was I was touched by the the the long term business owners. We have an on Morrison Road and I think, you know, that we shouldn't just rest on this plan. You know, we need to support this plan, but we need to go ahead with the economic development of that area and trying to to say, how are you going to develop businesses along this whole community to provide even greater benefit to the community? So so I'm going to support this plan and it's asked us to look at the bond issue list if, if, if Councilman Espinosa's money didn't come through when he was on the capital improvement list. But, but for the rec center and what rec center plan we have for the city. So I support this and I congratulate everyone on this wildfire plan. Thank you. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm really excited about this plan. Congratulations to the neighbors who spend so much time, the CPD to my brother, Councilman Lopez. I'm really excited about this because there's a growing awareness on this council that the West Side needs some love in this city. It needs grocery stores. It needs connectivity to the rest of the city. It needs recreation centers. And this plan is part of the path we need to go to make those things happen. And this this is not charity. This is an awareness that the city the city is strongest when all corners are healthy. And so we need to make this happen. And this is certainly a great start. But as has been said by several of my colleagues, this is only a guidebook. And I believe that stripped down along the diagonal along Morrison Road has a rather large area. I think that indicates five stories of development as recommended. That's all that is. There will very possibly in the future be developers come in that want to do eight stories or ten stories, and you're going to have to continue to come to the table when you'd rather be at home with your family, or you're going to find that those plans can change. So you need to keep your eye on this plan. You need to hold it dear and to fight for the things that you really think are important. I also want to say to the houses, you know, in my experience for the years before council that before I was on council, that I would watch these proceedings and look at community process around the city. Sometimes some how people do not get their voices heard in the conversation the way they want. The good news is you will have endless opportunity to have your voices heard. This is, like I say, this is a guideline for development. If anything comes up where uses are going to change, there will be a robust public process involved. There doesn't mean you're going to get your way, so you're going to have plenty of opportunity to be heard. So another reason I'm very excited is because there is now about somewhere around 25% of the city that has these small area plans. It's not most of the city. And my neighborhood, Virginia Village, has the oldest neighborhood plan in the city. Now, I think it's 1973. And our our little world has changed a great deal since 1973. So this the fact that you guys got yours means my neighborhood is just one step closer to getting ours. So it is a huge deal. It really is adds a great deal of legitimacy to to being from Westwood. And and I quote Councilman Lopez a lot. Your zip code should not determine the quality of your life experience. And we all, regardless of where we're from, need to be able to hold our head up and say, you know, I'm from Westwood, so thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 8: Guzman-Lopez Thank you. As always, I forget to say something sorry very fast though, you know, and I want to address Councilman Espinoza, you know. Can't rob Peter to pay Paul. The first of all, we looked into the cost of a roads rec center. It would be roughly to the tune of about $30 million. The price of what the grants and you know the different grants and stuff that was we're were helping fund create because Sanchez is right now is probably about two you would need 15 Paco Sanchez. To pay for one rec center. And here's the thing. Great idea. A great start. But Villa Park is also in a pretty bad spot with access to open space and play area and things like that. So we looked at that spot over in West Colfax and Villa Park right by the projects. There was no place for those kids to go. This is it was a rundown ball field that only would get permitted once. And so my point is, it is not an either or is an end. And with this recommendation, it's not just sidewalks in Westwood. It's sidewalks in Westwood. And. Sidewalks on the east side. In Overland. It is grocery store in Westwood, in the grocery store on 20th and Chestnut. It is the park in Villa Park and the Westwood Rec Center. And in, if I may say so, this plan and this is the biggest point I wanted to make, Mr. President, and colleagues, is that. Although it is very meaningful and it, yes, has taken 30 years. It should not be the only plan in this city that has seen light. There are neighborhoods throughout our city like Westwood and some without even a neighborhood plan. And that means we got to get to work because those plans are those guides for every single neighborhood that makes up our city. And the last thing is, you know, I know. Well, there's I'm looking right at you. Our neighborhood inspection folks are the folks that are probably some of the folks that are the unsung heroes that go around making sure that these that these plans and these codes are enforced. And thank you and all of our city employees from Public Works, the planning to everybody else. They're the ones responsible for implementing it as well, too. So with that said, thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to clarify those most pieces.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you. And I'll just quickly add that, you know, my district shares a border with this community, with this neighborhood, and we need more plans like this on the west side. I want to thank all the community members who got involved in this and spent all of the time working on this. I want to thank all of our staff for all of their time and hard work on this. Thank Councilman Lopez for bringing just an amazing plan for us. And I really want to give a shout out to all the young people. And I know a lot of them have headed home, but it's so refreshing to see young people come and be passionate about being involved in their community. I hope that this is not the it may be the first time that we hear from them, but I sincerely hope that it is not the last. I'm also thrilled to see a focus on accessory dwelling units as a way to preserve affordability. It's a conversation that many of my neighborhoods on the West Side are having and exploring right now. And here it is in the flesh. We need to find ways to implement this plan and implement it quickly. So I'm so happy to add my support to this plan tonight, and thank you all for your hard work. So seeing no hope. Councilman Goodman Ortega.
Speaker 7: So last very quick thing. I just want to thank our translator also for translating for the residents tonight and for us.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. All right. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Sesan I Black.
Speaker 3: Eye.
|
Bill
|
Adopts the Westwood Neighborhood Plan as a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in Council District 3. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Adopts the Westwood Neighborhood Plan as a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in Council District 3. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-22-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06272016_16-0428
|
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you know the results. Ten tonight, final consideration of 437 has been postponed to the end of the public hearings tonight. All right. Our last one, 428. Councilman Espinosa, would you like for us to do with that?
Speaker 8: I just have some questions.
Speaker 1: Go right ahead.
Speaker 8: I don't know who if it's Lisa, somebody or somebody else. And I apologize again to my colleagues for not asking this as intended at the council, but where are these tenants currently located? Does anyone know?
Speaker 1: And you.
Speaker 8: And how many are there?
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm in front of Denver Arts Venues Project Manager.
Speaker 9: Currently these are different. Divisions within our.
Speaker 1: Office are in three.
Speaker 9: Different locations. Some of us temporary.
Speaker 4: Temporarily relocated during the McNichols renovation, and this will consolidate all of our shared business services into a single office space. So it'll be a lot more efficient. Just as a side note, we're also rearranging this is current storage space, so we're rearranging that storage to make it more efficient as well. It's UN built out core.
Speaker 9: Space value engineering during the original renovation of the Lake.
Speaker 8: Hawkins. So, you know, it's.
Speaker 4: Haphazard right now, storage. And so we're making that much.
Speaker 8: More efficient as well. Where's the storage? Because it looks like the renovation is happening on the third floor. Where was the storage?
Speaker 4: It's the other half of the third.
Speaker 9: Floor, back of back of house.
Speaker 1: Space. I mean, it's.
Speaker 8: Looked at the plans and looks.
Speaker 4: Going up 12,000 square feet total in that storage area, the back of house area. And the office space that we're renovating is about.
Speaker 8: 5400 square feet.
Speaker 4: So the storage will take up the remaining square footage.
Speaker 8: Okay. And there are four directors offices there in an open office space? That's correct. What directors are they.
Speaker 4: Are executive director or deputy director or director of finance.
Speaker 9: And our director of marketing. And there is.
Speaker 8: A fifth office for our new hire.
Speaker 9: Newly hired chief operations.
Speaker 8: Officer. Okay. And is this a temporary or is this a permanent location? So no going back to mechanical. Correct. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: You got them? Yeah, I think I remember. Any other questions for 28 CNN? All right. Those are all the bills and resolutions that were called out. So all of the bills for introduction our order published were ready for the black vote. Councilman Brooks, we make the motion for us tonight.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and B & M Construction, Inc., for construction of tenant space at Ellie Caulkins Opera House.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) pproves a four-month $591,201.04 contract with B & M Construction, Inc. for construction of approximately 5,400 square feet of new tenant space on the third floor of the Ellie Caulkins Opera House (201627352). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-18-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 6-16-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06272016_16-0437
|
Speaker 5: I did. And so I think, Councilman, until you would like me to read the current members of the board. Yes, please. Okay. So there are eight. And they are Charlie Brown, Ronald Younger, Sheryl Crow Invader, Andrew Johnson, Barbara Pols, Peter Berlin, Steve Garcia and Sally Vander Loop.
Speaker 1: Councilman, I take it you have come?
Speaker 6: Yes, I do. So I understand that the three that are up tonight are for renewal because they expire in a couple of weeks. There are a number that are scheduled to expire in 2017. And I would like to forward the conversation with the administration that because city council has always had a representative on this board that we should advocate to continue to do that. Councilman Flynn's predecessor, predecessor, served on that board for gosh, I can't even remember how many years he was the council representative for many years on this board. And then we had Charlie Brown serving representing city council. And it was a way to make sure that city council knew what was going on. It's not to say the administration doesn't always share things with us, but by having a representative, I think it's it's just another way to ensure that's part of the discussion when we have retreats and, you know, just general discussions about the current conditions of the city. So I am okay voting for these to move forward. But I think it's important that we have the conversation with the administration to advocate for a city council member, seated city council member on this board.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman. I'll tell you, Councilman Lopez. Oh. Saying those comments. Okay. Think you can come up with any of the comments for three seven? Seen none. Madam Secretary, welcome to Ortega.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Black eye. Brooks.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 3: Espinosa.
Speaker 8: I'm going to ask for a repeat of what the motion is again.
Speaker 1: The councilmen. It's the resolution that's on the floor.
Speaker 8: Pass.
Speaker 3: Flynn I. Gillmor I. Cashman Canete, Lopez, I. Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close Winehouse's results tonight. Ten Eyes for 37 has been adopted due to the Independence Day holiday Council will not meet next week. Our next meeting will be Monday, July 11th. We wish everyone a safe and happy 4th of July weekend. See, you know the business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Resolution
|
Approves the Mayoral reappointments of Charlie Brown, Cheryl Cohen-Vader, and Ronald Younger to the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Board of Directors for terms immediately and expiring on 6-30-18, or until successors are duly appointed. (GOVERNANCE & CHARTER REVIEW) Approves the Mayoral reappointments of Charlie Brown, Cheryl Cohen-Vader, and Ronald Younger to the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Board of Directors for terms immediately and expiring on 6-30-18, or until successors are duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 6-16-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06272016_16-0320
|
Speaker 8: allowances for short term rentals as accessory to primary residential uses where residential uses are currently allowed assets. The new legislation allowing short term rentals was not included into the Text Amendment language for the new proposal proposed. Square Zone districts recently adopted Council Bill 261 applies to the new Arapaho Square Zone districts. The amendment represents the filing of tax amendment language with the Denver city clerk and adds a role to the use table that's important. So the used table has now been added on page 8.10 ten to match the row added in the tax amendment for short term rentals. To clarify that short term rentals would be permitted use with limitations in the proposed new Arapaho Square Zone districts. If the amendment passes, it will not require a delay in the hearing or vote that is scheduled for tonight.
Speaker 1: So the combined public hearing for council bills 320 and 321 is now open. Speakers may address either or both bills, including the amendment. Councilor Brooks. Councilman Brooks will offer later this evening at the conclusion of the public hearing, council will vote separately on each bill and on the amendment. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 9: Thank you. Council President Herndon and members of council. Good evening. I'm a barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development. I'm joined by Elise Hoke, who is a key staff member on the project that led to the proposed text and map amendments that are before you tonight. I will mention that during question and answer, if you have detailed questions about the reasoning for the little amendment that Councilman Brooks just read into the record regarding short term rentals, I'd be I'd be happy to go into the detail. And before I tell you about the proposals for a proposed square in in greater detail, I'd like to ask Councilman Brooks to be kick us off and tell us a little bit about how we got here.
Speaker 8: Yep. Thank you. A this has been an incredible 18 month process and the package in front of you all for council today in the public is a process that involved a lot of hard work and dedication by a technical task force from the community. And so you will see neighborhood presidents on board. You will see developers, you'll see architects. And in my mind, will go down as one of the most informed, well-informed and credible group that I've had the pleasure to working on. You know, in dealing with zoning, the new zoning for a proposed square will implement the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, recommendations for active high density mixed use district that will be downtown Denver's next great neighborhood. As stated in the Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, northeast downtown areas plan. In addition to accommodating a high level of development capacity, the zoning also promotes quality design and an active pedestrian realm. Examples include requirements for upper storey setbacks to reduce visual mass and scale while increasing sky exposure. A variety of permitted building forms to allow flexibility and encourage diverse range of designs in the area. Building forms that incentivize active facades by allowing greater height requirements for windows and pedestrian entrances to activate the street. Prohibitions on non-active uses. We want active uses in Rebel Square, so please, if you want to come down there, please activate your users for the majority of the building's frontage. And so with that, those kind of high level. I also want to say one thing and I'm really excited for this. Zoning does allow for point towers, which formerly were not allowed in the city of Denver. But to get more micro, we will have our staff and a lead us off. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much, Councilman Brooks. And on at and I will go into a little bit more detail, but as you can probably tell that there's a lot of detail here. And so we'll save really diving too deep in until we get into the questions if there are particular things you'd like to know about. And I think you'll hear in the public testimony from some of our task force members that Councilman Brooks Spokes spoke about. He was also on the task force who we owe a lot of gratitude for to to for guiding this process through. So the the purpose of the text and map amendments is to implement plan recommendations for a context and form based regulatory system in Arapahoe Square that includes creating two new form base zone districts. The text amendment also would enable a new design advisory board. I'll just note that that Design Advisory Board will use design standards and guidelines that are separately adopted from a text amendment using a different process that I'll talk about more in a minute. And the MAP amendment would create the zone district mapping that provides the height transitions that the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan, particularly talks about in the Arapahoe Square area, and map those two new zone districts. So the process has been extensive and has been going on for over a year and a half now. The task force met more than ten times during the development of of these proposals. These were three hour long meetings that were. Open to the public. So we really dove deep and worked through the design issues that you'll see in the proposals and looked at alternatives and then arrived at the task force recommendations. We also hosted a public open house in March that was well attended. We've had office hours for the public to drop by and speak with us 1 to 1. We've taken this for the official planning board hearings to the planning board a number of times for informational items and to neighborhood organizations, both in the Arabo Square area and also ANC Zoning and Planning Committee as well. I will note that if the text and map amendments are adopted tonight, the ordinance makes the effective date of both August 23rd, and there's a reason for that. Throughout the process, we've told stakeholders and participants, property owners and developers, we're most interested in knowing exactly when they would have to comply with any new regulations. And what we told them is we won't make it any sooner than six months after we've published a public review draft of everything that's proposed. And so to keep that promise. That's why we would delay the effective date until until late August. So in terms of what we've heard from the public, I'll just tell you a few things. First off, there's a lot of excitement regarding the future of Arapahoe Square. You hear that word potential a lot when Arapahoe Square comes up. You know, it's a it's the next great place potentially if we do things right in terms of promoting a pedestrian oriented neighborhood and promoting quality human scale design, that's context sensitive. We also heard that part of that is being flexible, that this is a place where a lot of different kinds of design could be appropriate as long as it's pedestrian oriented and human scaled. And so we've heard from two neighboring Arnaud's, Curtis Park neighbors and Enterprise Hill that they support the project. They've provided letters of support. We've also heard, though, a diversity of opinions on building height in the area and in particularly the height of the Pointe Towers that Councilman Brooks mentioned and on always. We'll tell you more about what a point tower is in a moment, as well as how heights transition to surrounding neighborhoods, which, of course, is a topic for tonight and in particular, height transitions. In Curtis Park, just outside of Arapahoe Square. And I'll tell you more about this when when we put a map on the screen. But just to note that the task force and the bill sponsor both recommended that we take a portion that we were originally planning to include in the MAP Amendment out, you know, a little area of Curtis Park pending a request for further study of appropriate heights there. We've also heard a diversity of opinion on view opinions on vehicle parking requirements. The proposal includes no vehicular parking requirement for those two new downtown Arapahoe Square Zone districts that the text amendment creates. That's consistent with the approach for the downtown Core Zone District, which starts right across the street here. And that's been in place for for quite a few years. And in that time, the market has really provided parking where where the markets are fit. And so looking at the very rich transit resources in Arapahoe Square and the fact that it's becoming more and more a part of downtown Denver, there is no minimum vehicular parking proposed in the zone districts. I will turn it over to on a list to tell you about the text amendment portion of the proposals and walk you through the criteria. Before I do that, I just wanted to mention the separate design standards and guidelines. And as I said earlier, those are not adopted by city council. This is a document that. So Arapahoe Square is one of the few places in Denver outside of a historic district that has these separate design standards and guidelines that that inform a more case by case review of designs that that come in. And we are proposing to update that existing system. We've written completely new and updated designs, terms and guidelines that work integrally with the zoning enabled by the text amendment. And those design centers and guidelines will inform the work that this new Design Advisory Board will do, looking at projects on a case by case basis in Arapahoe Square. So you all know what zoning does. You talk about it every day. The prescriptive rules that that shape development. Just to tell you a little bit more about design standards and guidelines, they work with zoning. It's a it's a process that goes on alongside zoning that's more performance oriented, oriented and more qualitative. So they can address a higher level of detail, but tend to make less definitive statements than zoning. So zoning has lots of numbers in it. It's very quantitative. If the height limit is 200 feet, a 205 foot building is too tall. Design sessions and guidelines first start with design principles and then down to intent statements and then specific standards and guidelines that talk about the results that we're looking for and some strategies that would be appropriate to get those results but aren't as prescriptive the design advisory board. It's their job to interpret them because some interpretation is necessary. Did this project meet those standards and guidelines? So that's how that works. And I'll turn it over to him. At least now we're going back to the zoning now, so she'll tell you about the proposed text amendment.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you, Abe, and good evening, members of council. So as Abe mentioned, we are developing two different zone districts and the primary difference between these two zone districts is the difference in height, as called for by the Northeast Downtowns Neighborhood Plan to create a transition with greater heights closer to downtown and lower heights closer to the surrounding neighborhoods of Curtis Park within both of these zone districts. Three different building forms are permitted. We have the general, the general with height incentive and the point tower. All of these building forms have standards that address the building siting, such as build to requirements, pedestrian entries, as well as transparency requirements. Ground floor active uses and so forth. Once we move beyond the general, which is kind of that baseline, what you must do, we move along to the general with height incentive. And as the name would indicate, when you use this building form, you get an increase in height of approximately four or eight storeys. And what you're doing here is you're creating an enhanced facade design by minimizing the visibility of structured parking. And so with the intent to create a very pedestrian oriented neighborhood, we do not want parking to dominate that public realm. And so that's what the general with height incentive aims to do. Additionally, we have the Point Tower with which Albert Brooks made mention that this is a new building form that we have yet to see in Denver. And really what this aims to do is reduce the building floor play above a height of five stories or less to 10,000 square feet. So what you're producing is a tall and slender building that retains sky exposure, minimizes impacts of shadows of the surrounding area, and also can be a contributing feature to the Denver skyline that we've grown to love. As you'll know, all of these building forms do have an upper story setback, which was a direct recommendation of the Northeast Downtowns neighborhood plan. And then they also have nuances that call out different key streets, such as Walton or Curtis, with differentiation of build to standards, to acknowledge the the place of that. In addition, I do just want to point out that we did have local design firms that have developed with in Denver and Arapahoe Square specifically to test the viability of all of these building forms. So while we've done a lot of internal modeling, we've also wanted to go out to the private sector and ensure that this proposal is buildable. Move on. Moving along, I will step through the consist the review criteria for a text amendment. And so with that we have consistency of adopted plans furthering the public health, safety and general welfare and informing that we have a uniform application of district regulations. I'll first start with comp plan 2000, which really calls for zoning that provides flexibility for future needs. In that we're creating three different building forms that provide flexibility within each of them, as well as providing opportunities for quality, infill development and ensuring that we have vibrant urban centers. So with Arapahoe Square being at the edge of the downtown core, enabling for those great opportunities to happen. We also want to focus our design standards and put our efforts towards those new and evolving districts, as Arapahoe Square certainly is, and targeting specific design concerns to structured parking and those negative impacts with appropriate controls and incentives. Moving forward into Blueprint Denver, we want to ensure zoning changes to implement design requirements and ensure that quality design is not only provided to the neighborhood within but the surrounding areas, and also to ensure that we facilitate appropriate uses and densities for the areas that are appropriate, especially within areas of change. Moving along to the downtown area plan. That's where we really started acknowledging Arapahoe Square as this neighborhood and this opportunity to become this cutting edge, densely populated, mixed use area for Arapahoe Square that provides not only a range of housing types, but also can become the Center for Innovative Business and Office uses. And therefore, there was a call to revise the land use regulations to ensure that this vision was realized. Most recently, we have the Northeast Downtowns Neighborhood Plan, which was adopted in 2011. And as you can see here on the right, we have a series of diagrams that are clipped out from that plan. And this is where the concept of the five story datum, as well as the points are highlighted in this. The plan calls for enhanced urban design to occur through a mix of building forms. And as a result, we have those three different building forms for property owners to choose from. We also want to have variations in building height. So depending on what type of building you are choosing to use, you'll have a different height allowances for that exchange. We also have this concept of point towers emerging through the 2011 Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Plan. We also want to ensure that the buildings are in visual interest and ensure that pedestrian scale for the public realm. So while we might have higher buildings, they still need to be pedestrian friendly and intended to promote that human scale design that's so important. It also specifically calls out the implementation of the stadium or this upper storey setback is called out in the text amendment at a maximum of five storeys. However, this can occur at a lower height and minimizing the visual impacts of parking. So that's where these different concepts of general with heightened sense of endpoint tower really minimize the visibility and impacts of structured parking. And as a result, we find that the proposed tax amendment is consistent with all of these plans. Moving along, I'm going to hand it back over to Abe to talk about the mapping of these districts.
Speaker 9: Thanks, Don. I'm almost done. We just have the map amendment to get through. First, I want to illustrate the geographic scope of the of the study. You know, where were we looking? And so we looked at anywhere that is within the Arabo Square neighborhood, as defined by the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. That's the purple boundary on the map here. Then there is also Arabo Square already has its own special zone district, and this predates the 2010 code update. It was B8 A and now it's called DHS. And that's the kind of pink color that you see on the map. So interestingly, that special zoning doesn't cover the whole Arapahoe Square neighborhood, but does reach outside the neighborhood some. So anywhere that either was within the neighborhood or had that zoned as that existing zoning we looked at. And then I mentioned that Curtis Park height transition discussion earlier that regards the area that's in the dashed line there, which is a portion of that existing DHS zoning that's outside of Arapahoe Square, where we originally proposed to map existing zone districts there. That would create the height transition recommended in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan. And in that particular area, there was just a lot of discussion about how that might not be appropriate. And there, you know, folks felt fairly strongly on both sides. In the end, the task force unanimously told us, told staff that they would like to leave that area outside of the proposed map amendment pending further discussion of of what was appropriate there. So when we go to the map showing the proposed map amendment that that area is is missing. And so what we're proposing is to take those two new DHS 12 plus and 20 plus zone districts that with those three building forms that on a list described and map those across the area. That is the Arapahoe Square neighborhood proper, excepting just a couple of little areas. One is an existing planned unit development that may opt in later. The other is a historic building with open space zoning right now. And then outside of the Arapahoe Square neighborhood, if I just go back to the previous slide, the areas that are outside of that purple boundary we are in consultation with the task force, have proposed to map existing zone districts that are that are on the books now to accomplish the height transitions recommended by the neighborhood plan. And these these match exactly the height map that we'll see in the plan in just a moment. So it's an eight story district eight in the ballpark area just outside of Arapahoe Square and five and three story district stepping down into the portions of Curtis Park that that remain in the in the proposed map amendment. So looking at the review criteria for the MAP amendment, the first being consistency with adopted plans. The same plans apply here as to the plans that on at least describe for the text amendment and many of the same objectives and statements apply as well. But I'll just add from comprehensive plan 2000 that it seeks to conserve land by promoting infill development at sites where services and infrastructure are already in place. Places like Arabo Square. And Blueprint Denver then also has the the land use maps that we can look to for appropriate future land uses in the area. And it maps the whole area considered for the map amendment as an area of change. And the concept land uses are mixed use and transit oriented development. So most of the area is designated as mixed use. And then a smaller area near the light rail on Welton Street is designated as transit oriented development. When you look at the descriptions of those two land forces, they sound somewhat similar. It's about a variety of things happening that are pedestrian friendly with relatively high densities. And then there's the street classifications set forth by Blueprint. Denver are also consistent with this idea that those those kinds of streets serve a relatively high and mixed high intensity and mixed land uses surrounding the streets. Most of the streets on the downtown core side of Broadway are designated as downtown Access Streets, and there are also mixed use arterials and main dash collector streets in the in the area the northeast downtown neighborhoods plan land use map carries forward the blueprint land use map and so it it looks the same here mixed use and transit oriented development it describes them in the same way the neighborhood plan goes goes a step further though and maps appropriate heights in in Arapahoe Square and the vicinity with the objective of creating a transition from the downtown core towards the neighborhoods. And so in Arapahoe Square proper the within the purple boundary on that first map we looked at it maps 20 stories with an additional ten stories allowed for tall slender point tower. So it specifically calls out point towers and says how much taller they could potentially be in that area closer to downtown. Then at a point, somewhere between 21st and 22nd Street, it it says that the height should transition downward within Arapahoe Square and provide for a maximum of 12 storeys, with an additional eight storeys given as an allowance and a tall, slender point tower building form. And then outside of Arapahoe Square, it recommends building heights ranging from 3 to 8 stories stepping down towards the neighborhoods. And so that's exactly consistent with what you'll see in the mixed use zone districts that we're proposing outside of Arapahoe Square, the same heights. So clearly, the Department of Community Planning and Development finds that the review criteria for both the text and the map amendment have been met, including consistency with adopted plans that they further the health, safety and general welfare that they result in regulations that are uniform across the district. On April 20th, Planning Board considered both the text and map amendments, and they unanimously recommended approval of both. And so Community Planning and development staff recommend City Council approval of Text Amendment Number nine, finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. Community Planning and Development Staff also recommend City Council approval of Map Amendment Number 2016 EIS 00035 finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you both. All right. We have seven speakers and I'm just going to go ahead and call seven and you can make your way up. They are Keith Pryor, Joel Noble, Craig Sutley, Richard Farley, Amy Harman, Bryce McCarty and John Desmond. So you seven can come on up to your the front pew and Mr. Pryor, you can begin your remarks when you are ready. And 3 minutes for each of those speakers.
Speaker 7: Good evening, counsel. Thank you, Mr. President. This has been Keith Prior, 2418 Champ. I live in Curtis Park and I'm adjacent to literally a block away. Not even that.
Speaker 8: From.
Speaker 7: Some of this zoning change. I was not on the task force. I am a neighbor. Abe and staff did a phenomenal job with the task force and including neighbors like myself in the Open House process, in the discussions, taking our feedback, taking our concerns, working with the design review committee and process, and really making this process work . I thought the neighbors were heard. Part of that was removing the piece that is controversial for Curtis Park, which we are going to be having a discussion further. I am on the side that I would like higher heights directly across the street from me, other neighbors, that it would be more appropriate for lower heights. So. Well, we'll have that discussion and bring that back to you in the future. But moving this forward is critical because Arapahoe Square, as you know, is a city of parking lots. It has had the existing zoning that is of downtown, which really has not brought the the sense of what could be built. And that's why this area has remained undeveloped, because the actual value of what people think their land's worth and what you can actually build on that land has always been at odds. And so by now, having this process, bringing the planning process and working with the landowners and really getting our heads around what is actually buildable in this area and making that more contextual, more sustainable, more actually in line with predictability that allows people to then match the develop or the development potential for this area with that of the land values that the owners currently have. So I think with this process and having it so inclusive, you will see after this amendment hopefully a lot more development coming in on this given now knowing what people can actually put on these lots. And I think with the point tower option, it really does give us that density that is so desperately needed in the lack of housing options that we have in the city. And so it also allows for a really nice mix of allowing businesses which activates during the day, residents activating during the night. And it just really brings hopefully some opportunities for everyday services as well as like dry cleaners, not only restaurants but just, you know, like I said, the dry cleaners and other things, Kinkos that Curtis Park neighbors desperately need. So I really highly encourage you to support this as the neighbors as myself went in support. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Joe Noble.
Speaker 8: Good evening, counsel. My name is Joel Noble.
Speaker 9: I live at 2705 Stout Street.
Speaker 8: And I'm here tonight representing Curtis Park neighbors. I was the immediate past president of Curtis Park Neighbors and now serve on the board of directors from Curtis Park Neighbors. I was the designee to the task force. And Curtis Park neighbors, as you see in your packet, has sent a letter of support for this process. This is a very good, inclusive process.
Speaker 9: To take.
Speaker 8: What was recommended in the Northeast downtown neighborhoods, plan and apply it in zoning and then to apply it in zoning. Required Writing New Zone Districts. As you'll read in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. The zoning that was called for was very different than one that we have on the books. It called for this datum line. It called for point towers. It called for shaping the mass and hiding the parking. So all that was our guide in doing this zoning that you see tonight.
Speaker 4: I'd like to.
Speaker 8: Speak a little more generally. How is it that we're rezoning such a large area without controversy and increasing density? How are we doing this? And the answer is, we did a small area plan. We did a neighborhood plan. We took all the time that it took to find that community consensus. And once that community consensus was built and documented in the plan and adopted by city council, we didn't waste a lot of time in then pursuing changing the zoning. We struck while the iron is hot. Choose your metaphor. We built on the consensus that was already there, and we know a good thing when we see it. We're copying the process that was followed in Cherry Creek, in Cherry Creek. They did a small area plan. They got the consensus and then they followed up with a legislative rezoning. In that case, that also involved writing new zoned districts and was also facilitated by Mike Hughes. And that was also a fantastic process. So we stole him as well. So I would I would encourage you not only to support this, but also to strongly consider when you do neighborhood plans, when you do stationary plans or any sort of small area plan in the future, and you find that community consensus, take that opportunity to then follow it up with the zoning process like this. There's nothing like having that community consensus built in. People will appreciate it when the zoning happens and people will appreciate it when the development happens enabled by that zoning. I'll be happy to be here for any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Craig. Simply.
Speaker 4: Hello Cancer Council.
Speaker 0: I'm here representing Enterprise Hill.
Speaker 4: Which is also centered around Clemens historic district, which is just to the. I guess you'd call it the southeast of Mirabeau Square, including probably the farthest three blocks of Arapahoe Square. This process was, as Elvis was saying, approximately 18 months. You're going to 16 was 18 ago that we started. And Mr. Hughes did do a fantastic facilitating job with a very diverse group of people, having a developer or landowner across the table from a a neighborhood person who cares about his historic district more than anything else was a unique situation that I wish it would have been happening maybe six months or a year earlier so we wouldn't have a couple of buildings that wouldn't even come close to this design guideline. They're getting ready to break ground, but I think everything's great. This is awesome. I think the more places that the city can do things like this and involve the neighborhoods along with the the landowners and the developers, the better off our city will be. And hopefully not only Cherry Creek North, but this Arapahoe Square can be a an example of how to do this going forward. So thanks a lot. And I hope you guys supported it possibly.
Speaker 1: Could you say your name for the record?
Speaker 4: Craig Simply and I'm at 2120 Glenarm place is my address.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Bridget Farley.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, members of council, I'm Richard Farley. I live at 2500 Walnut Street, just on the edge of Arapahoe Square. And, you know, in speaking in favor of both the ordinance and the Design Advisory Board, I was a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee that crafted this the ordinance and the design standards and guidelines. And, you know, I'm amazed at what a thorough process it was. The staff did a terrific job. We met for ten times or it seemed like we met about 100. And there was a lot of good dialog, a lot of of give and take. There was comments from the the the audience of folks who knew about the the the effort and through the public involvement process. And it resulted in really a well researched, well-considered ordinance with design standards and guidelines. It creatively deals with street level activity, scale and variation of large buildings, unique areas in the neighborhood like 21st Street and end Broadway and parking requirements and parking design. Design being is embedded in the ordinance since. If you want to receive some of the high the height that is allowed in the in the ordinance, you have to line the parking levels or parking structure with other uses so that, you know, if you go from 12 storeys to 20 storeys, if you want that extra extra eight storeys, it's it's not given to you. You have to earn it by making the parking levels behind other uses, preferably residential, but it could be office. I think that that's a a pretty major incentive. It's not easy to get incentives into the form based code. And I think that the transitions to adjoining neighborhoods were well addressed, not only with Curtis Park but with the Ball Park neighborhood in Clemons Park. You know, I think that the the parking is also creatively addressed by eliminating the parking requirement of the larger structures. And larger developments are going to require parking through through both market and by the lenders. So they're not going to be it's not going to be on under part. But the smaller projects could very well be forced to provide more parking than they need. We had several you know, had two developers tell us that that the that the real small ones could be forced to provide.
Speaker 1: Mr. Farley.
Speaker 4: You're doing your thing. That's what I'm saying. I thoroughly support this. The ordinance and the design standards guidelines and the Design Advisory Board.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Amy Harmon.
Speaker 5: Good evening. I actually am delighted about the experience we had with this task force. I am a real estate developer. I'm representing myself as a landowner, as a founder of the Community Coordinating District, which happens to be a metropolitan district for which it was the last time I was here. The last time Mary Hancock served on the council. And so fun to be back. But at that time, I think but the most exciting thing about this proposed square task force has been for me is just that it really embraced the history of all of these planning efforts that have happened for many decades, frankly, and included many people, both, you know, the example of Dick Farley, who's just a wonderful professional that we all really appreciated his perspective. And then very new planners, new owners, new council people, and in general, just the strong commitment to process, but then the participants desire to really maintain that opening for flexibility. So I was struck earlier by some of the topics earlier this evening where people were wishing for aspects of the old zoning code. And now here we are with a new form based learning code. I think we got it right in Arapaho Square. I think that we have a lot more to do in this area because it really is a large area. I think we need to start focusing on the heartbeat aspect of it, which is not about the planning in the building. It's about what the people are going to do moving forward. And it was just a real delight to be a part of such a diverse and smart and committed group of people that really through the years have had their differences but have come to be friends and I think respected peers in the neighborhood. So thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Ms.. Herman, can you could you say your name for the record?
Speaker 5: Amy Harman.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the contact.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the time to speak tonight. I am Bryce, the account, the founder of our unit. We are a real estate development technology company focusing on two things sustainability and affordability. As I'm sure you guys are aware, the built environment consumes 70% of the electricity on the grid. And so we feel like it's the responsibility of ours to build our buildings as sustainable as possible. Obviously, looking out for low hanging fruit first having a sustainable envelope, sustainable mechanical. So solar production, obviously battery storage. So our buildings are not peaker buildings on the grid. And then user engagement, engaging our users in our buildings to be more energy efficient. And the only affordability side, we start every project asking ourselves, what is the price point that we think is market rate affordable for this location? And we design backwards from that. And there's really no magic trick, right? The only as as a private entity, the only tools that we have to to fix to try to fix affordability is density, right? Density and size. So obviously our use are smaller, which is great because when you make them smaller, they're inherently more energy efficient because they take less energy to heat and cool and then density or be able to be more dense on the site. And what always drives density these urban locations is parking, right? Parking is is expensive. Expensive to build. You know, either we have to buy the land and put it on the land or we have to build underground structure or.
Speaker 7: Or stack.
Speaker 4: Structure. So it's expensive. And for us to get it under the thousand dollars per month on the rental side, parking is the one is the one that that that we have to be willing to give up for.
Speaker 1: That unit, not.
Speaker 4: That all our units will be zero part, but we would like to be able to provide units in the nines by break under $1,000, and those will not have a parking spot. So with this new proposal, we have those weapons available to be able to to fix some of these issues. So obviously, we're in favor of this proposal. And I appreciate. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 1: John Desmond.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Members of council. I'm John Desmond. I'm executive vice president of the Downtown Denver Partnership. And my address is 511.
Speaker 8: 16th Street.
Speaker 4: Denver. And I'm speaking on behalf of the Downtown Denver Partnership this evening, which strongly supports the zoning map and text amendments, as well as the design standards and guidelines. And I also was the partnership representative on the Technical Task Force, and I'll try not to repeat to many of my other colleagues comments, but I'm very supportive of what they've all said. The partnership's been heavily involved in advocating for the improvement of Arapahoe Square for many years. Together with community planning and development, the partnership co-manage the 27 downtown area plan, which is adopted by council and which featured Arapahoe Square prominently as one of its seven transformative projects and even on a lease talked about that earlier. We were also partners with the city in developing the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, which again previous speakers talked about and went into much greater detail on Arapahoe Square. And then in the last year the partnership has been very involved with and helped fund plans to redefine 21st Street, which one runs through the heart of Arapahoe Square as a signature pedestrian and bicycle oriented street.
Speaker 8: That will serve as its.
Speaker 4: Future spine. So we're very.
Speaker 8: Emotionally invested in this plan.
Speaker 4: And we we believe, as outlined in the various plans, that this the amendments and the standards and.
Speaker 8: Guidelines are consistent with the goals and.
Speaker 4: Strategies from these plans and will greatly help foster a proper and appropriate and unique mix of high quality, well-designed developments and uses that complement both downtown and the adjacent neighborhoods and in particular in building on Councilman Brooks's comments earlier, we want to commend the plan for the thoughtful design review provisions. The encouragement of active ground floor uses.
Speaker 8: The height, transition and massing requirements, the special considerations for developments adjacent to historic districts.
Speaker 4: And the flexibility in developing building forms and parking options, all of which will make this a vital, memorable and welcoming district that will set standards for quality, sustainability and pedestrian oriented design for the entire city. And based on that, we strongly urge that you support the package of amendments this evening.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions. Any questions of members of council? Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Hello. Hello. Thank you. Hey, if you don't mind. Abby. You remember our chat a couple of weeks ago by the elevator? Yes. I'm guessing this will be more productive. Let's see. So you talked in your presentation about open space and pedestrian oriented and doing things right. How will those elements unfold in this zoning?
Speaker 9: So, you know, a lot of the project, of course, looked at, you know, what's it going to make to make this a great place for pedestrians? A start with the open space question because it's a little more specific and there was a lot of discussion early on at the task force level. You know, how important is open space like courtyards and plazas and that sort of thing for the future of Arapahoe Square? And I think that, you know, the task force discussion was a little bit mixed on that with some task force members having concerned that, excuse me, hopefully that's not me. There was some concern that the existing character of the neighborhood, you know, and the local social services providers would make it somewhat counterproductive to provide like those privately owned open spaces, at least in the near term. And so the discussion went to, okay, we're not going to literally require those places as part of the zoning. And we looked at potentially incentivizing them. Ultimately, the main incentive we had to work with was height. And there was so much discussion regarding the need to do something about the visibility of parking in the neighborhood, particularly structured parking and of looming over the street and reducing that human scale that the task force wanted to concentrate the incentives there. So you get more height by limiting the visibility of structured parking as opposed to providing open space or doing other things. So where we landed is that open space is enabled. You know, you're you're allowed to provide it. There's a greater build to range provided on certain streets, including 21st Street, which is especially appropriate place for open space. And then in the separate design sessions and guidelines, which you're not adopting tonight, there's a lot of discussion about the quality of open space. So when you do provide space, when when the building is not built to the sidewalk edge, which is one way of activating the pedestrian space, then you are providing something that is that is highly activated, whether it's like what we've called an enhanced set back in the design terms and guidelines, that would be you're maybe providing a few extra feet along the sidewalk and either using it to expand the literal pedestrian through use area or for cafe seating or other really active things. Or if you're providing courtyards that they be highly activated. High level of transparency that real usable entrances to the buildings are located on those courtyards, that they're well-lit so that they're they're not leftover spaces. They're they're spaces that contribute to the to the pedestrian realm. So that was a lengthy answer. So I'll be quick on just the other things that we discussed with regard to pedestrian orientation. So we're moving forward. The many of the pedestrian oriented requirements that apply in urban center mixed use districts now, including the street level transparency requirements, the new street level active use requirements, which were introduced into the code last summer. And then on top of that, there's a lot of discussion in the design standards and guidelines about where entrances are located, how parking is accessed when you provide it, that it's ideally provided from the alley. In some cases, that's not possible because of the uses and the and the building configuration, but if so, that it's provided from sort of the long end of the block instead of the short end of the block, which is already very broken up by the alley being there so that those curb cuts don't have such an adverse effect on the pedestrian experience and the design terms and guidelines also talk about streetscape. And since we don't have a streetscape plan for the area that would say, you know, there should it should all be blue light fixtures or anything like that. What we talk about is that the streetscape just providing, you know, regular street trees that are sited in a way that helps them thrive and doesn't get in the way of pedestrian movement between parallel parking, say, and the sidewalk. And so there really are a lot of details of the pedestrian experience that are addressed by the proposals.
Speaker 4: So we're not requiring any open space. We are incentivizing it. Do we have any similar developments to look at that might give us a clue how other projects have played out, what we might look forward to?
Speaker 9: So you're asking how much open space do you think we'll get considering that we're not requiring it? Sure. I think interestingly, we probably will get some and there is not a specific open space requirement in Arapahoe Square now. And there aren't in most of Denver some districts. There are several projects that have been working their way through the development review process and are approved or near approval right now. One of them I know actually is pulling back from a corner along 21st Street in order to provide a very sort of obvious entry into the multifamily project there. And so is providing a kind of open space and in front of the building as part of their program.
Speaker 4: And how many acres are we rezoning here to get.
Speaker 9: The exact acreage? I don't know. Unless on a lease knows, you know, this would be the entire area on the other side of 20th from here to Park Avenue and then between essentially Welton and the alley between Larimer and Lawrence and mixed.
Speaker 4: Uses thousands of new residents probably downtown.
Speaker 9: There could be, I would guess, that the neighborhood could be built out into thousands of residential units in the future.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Mr. Farley, if you don't mind. And I'd like to just recognize Mr. Farley for his lengthy contributions to our city, both as an employee and on the other side. You've started talking about parking. And I wonder if you could talk about parking and no parking and reduce parking and how it makes sense or not in this case? Well, we discussed that a lot. And it seems that where we came down on that was that the the market in the lenders are going to require, you know, a lot of parking in the larger projects. They're going to require at least, you know, one space per unit, maybe more. Some of them require to we did not want to encourage over parking. We did not want to somehow force developers to build a lots of parking levels that in 20 years it may not be needed, or that the kind of cars we drive in 20 years are tiny cars instead of F-150s. So it seems to me that we just did not want to force parking into the equation, and we don't think that that's going to impact adjoining neighborhoods. Mm hmm. The like I say, the smaller developers often find that only a half of their of their residents require parking because so many of them, millennials and others are, you know, now using Uber, they're using they're bicycling, they're doing all sorts of stuff and they're trying to avoid buying cars and the you know, the costs related to that. And how are you defining smaller projects, approximately? I'm sorry. How are you defining? What would a smaller project look like to you as far as numbers? Oh, I would say under 50 units. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr.. Good evening. Can you talk to me? You are going to provide rentals for under $1,000 a month. That's our goal with with the proper density. And those units will have alternative modes of transportation. So we we provide, obviously, bike sharing. We're working on doing our own electric car sharing program or our projects that the tenants will be able to reserve the car through the through the app. How how large would a $999 a month? Yes. So these would be studios ranging about about around 300 square feet. Okay. So micro units, was that a fair? So technically, we don't use that that term because technically a migraine is 300 square feet and below. That's the technical definition. And because we're in a green technology in our yes, we actually call them smart units because we can show people who can live just as well and in a well laid out unit. And how do how does what you're talking about compare to what the market is offering now in that size range? So so right now for comparable, you know, traditional class-A apartment building, they're building a few studios. And the ones that they're building are about 650 square feet, at least 505 or 600 square feet. And those are renting up to 14 $50,000 a month. And so your yours will be aimed at what am I? So we 80% and below. I'd like to be obviously as I can go under, that'd be great. But 80% of I am I. And last. You're not out of the ground yet. No. So I forgot to mention.
Speaker 9: Sorry, I was.
Speaker 4: Trying to put in 3 minutes. That's okay. I'm just. I assume you're saying that's your aim? Yeah, we bought a we bought a property last year at 20 to 50 shampoo, right. Sort of middle block. So we own a parcel. And do you think it's realistic by the time you would be out of the ground and open that you'll be able to offer something under a thousand a month? Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 6: I have a question for the same speaker that just walked away.
Speaker 1: This is look, you're still in.
Speaker 6: Over here.
Speaker 4: Oh, excuse me.
Speaker 6: So, Councilman Castro, next part of my question. But what I wanted to know is if for your particular development and I was really excited to hear that somebody is looking at bringing something in at a more affordable price point, although they are small units. Yes. Do you anticipate going after any type of subsidies, incentive dollars, housing, tax credits, any of that kind of stuff to target a lower income population?
Speaker 4: No, that's a good question. The one tool that we found is with with Freddie, Fannie and Freddie. So they actually are promoting workforce housing and we fit that criteria there. Their workforce affordable price for that location is about $1,044 a month. So we we fit that criteria. And because of that, we get better terms on our debt for permanent financing. So I think that's a that's one tool that we're you.
Speaker 6: Know, you're not having a problem financing a unit of that size.
Speaker 4: No, because, again, the nice thing is when you take three or four square foot off the unit per square foot, it's comparable to to a 650 square foot studio. You just made it smaller. So the overall prices lower.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. My next question is either for Abe or Dick Farley. So given the work that you did with the neighborhood, I want to hear a little bit about the discussions as it related to any of the shelters in the area. Looking at the boundaries, I'm not sure how many or which ones of the large shelters are actually in this area and were they part of the process and do they know their property was resumed if they're in there and I can't tell from the map which ones are actually in.
Speaker 9: There are several that are in. I think probably most of the ones you you'd think of are within the within the boundary for the map amendments.
Speaker 6: So how far north does it go? Does it include lumber?
Speaker 9: It goes. So on the north side, it goes halfway between Lawrence and Larimer. So to that alley. Okay. So the ballpark historic district is not in, but everything just just on this side is is in. And we did have a member of the task force from the Colorado Coalition of the Homeless who represented their interests on the task force. We didn't have a lot of active participation from the other social service providers. You know, we certainly heard, not surprisingly, that, you know, some residents, both of Arapahoe Square and of of surrounding neighborhoods, are concerned with the concentration of social services there, which is, you know, relatively near its maximum in terms of what could realistically be there with zoning requirements regarding separation and and the exact location of those services in terms of, you know, whether or not those uses were appropriate or what the future holds for them. The task force, I think, felt that that really was part of a bigger city wide conversation, that it didn't really make sense to just look at it from the perspective of that one neighborhood. And I know Councilman Brooks, as you know, had a lot of discussions regarding elevating that conversation more to a citywide level.
Speaker 6: So their properties are included. And the ones that I can think of, given the boundaries that you described, are the Denver Rescue Mission. Salvation Army has, I know at least one, possibly two locations down there. Clearly, Koch has a number of them. Samaritan House is included. I think the only one that's not is step 13, which is on the river street. So the vast majority of them would be and I don't know that CCH had direct dialog with, with all the others. And so I would just say that I think of a reach out to them would be really important for them to know that their property has been resolved. I don't know that it makes any difference in terms of what their core operations are, but I think it would be really important for them to know that they've been included in this. You know.
Speaker 9: Sure. Yeah, that's that's a really good point. I'll mention that, you know, we also did twice do mailings to all the property owners that we have on record in the area, both at the outset of the project to get them involved and then more recently to say, look, there's a proposal on the table at this point, you know.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman. Yeah, Councilmember. It's funny you ring in. You indicated.
Speaker 8: I just wanted to respond. I just wanted to respond to that because, you know, we worked on this for a little bit. The first thing I'd say is that the existing zoning under DHS allows we're just mapping. And so there's a there's certain allowable uses there and there's nothing that we switched. The other thing I'd say is there are a number of providers who came to the meetings and attended the meetings and every provider was notified. So if there's a learning conversation that we can have, I mean, we are certainly welcome to that. We certainly had a lot of different viewpoints come through that meeting. And we, you know, we weren't addressing uses, we were doing zoning. And so but I appreciate I appreciate the question, but I think this zone district encompasses every provider, you know, homeless provider in that area.
Speaker 6: Thanks.
Speaker 7: But Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 8: I don't even know if we can do this, but is since there are height incentives, are there any affordability incentives?
Speaker 4: Christian.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. And I just calculated the acreage for Councilman Cashman. So it's about 100 acres. And in terms of your affordability question, there are not specific incentives for provision of affordable housing. It certainly was very much a part of the discussion in terms of, you know, again, kind of like the open space. Should there be requirements? Should there be incentives? And ultimately, the task force, I think, really deferred to the to the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, which says that design incentives, which were really the ones that we had to work with, like giving additional height, were best used to incentivize design features. So that's what we're doing better. Quality design gets you better height, not affordable. Housing gets you gets you more height. And also just a feeling that, you know, you know, we know that there's this bigger citywide conversation regarding affordable housing that's really gathered a lot of steam. And, you know, we're on the verge of some major proposals that will apply citywide. And so the task force really deferred to that effort with regard to specific requirements for affordable housing.
Speaker 8: Did you? Yeah. Let me let me respond to it, because there is another effort afoot, obviously, at 30th and Blake, where we're looking at affordable housing. You know, what we learned nationwide when we're looking at incentives is that depending on where your base is and where the entitlement is, is really what incentivize. So, for instance, you know in at 30th and Blake the base is really low in that the height of the entitlement that we're asking for is at 16. So there are folks going from 3 to 16 and that would incentivize them. The base in this district is already at 150 feet in some areas. And so the, you know, incentivizing that was not the greatest. And so we we had a conversation around that and it just didn't make sense. And I didn't feel like we had a low enough base to to do that. But I mean, obviously it was a part of the conversation. It was something that we had as a as a task force.
Speaker 7: Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: I know. And actually.
Speaker 7: Councilman Spence, I'm sorry. Go ahead and finish our question.
Speaker 8: So can you guys go to the slide that shows the upper story setbacks? And I actually.
Speaker 9: Have a slide that we didn't show, which will show a little bit more detail about how that works. There are there are a series of slides here.
Speaker 8: So. This is good. The thing is, is that this depiction shows a real, real simple you know, it's very simple imagery to sort of explain the upper the concept of upper story setbacks. But the the depictions in the in the other graphics really convey the character, a character about the nature of these setbacks. And I want to sort of because I'm I mean, the next question is going to be to explain to me how the design standard, once again, how the design standards, the and the zoning are sort of how they relate. Okay. So the other depiction sort of shows more architectural sort of sense of meaning, character. Again, that's that's real simple. Like, you can't obviously you can't build well, so you can't build anything, anything that even vaguely looks like that. Right? Because there's no openings. There's no vertical, horizontal or articulation of the facade. There's no transparency on the ground level. So go back to the other renderings that we're showing and sharing with the public. So now the runway shows the little orange landing.
Speaker 9: Let me see. Okay. Do you want to use this? Yes.
Speaker 8: Because this sort of shows and conveys some sort of notion about what this place could be and how those setbacks impact the design of the structures. And so I would like to know how true to the zoning these models are are, because this is sort of the the concern about the existing zoned districts is we've conveyed a real, real architectural power, I mean, tangible architectural examples. And that then the people, the layperson sort of feels that that adequately reflects the development potential. But in reality, there's a lot of relief shown here that actually isn't in the zone requirement. And the cause. And then I want to speak to that. But a first need to understand how this how this sort of both depicts the zoning and relates to this design standards, because there's some very healthy cornices on the buildings and at those each one of the setbacks, that is not a requirement, if I understand what I've read. Correct.
Speaker 9: So yeah, that's a good question. These graphics are very similar to graphics that are used in the building form tables and the proposed zoning for the for these three building forms. And all three of the building firms, of course, meet the zoning standards. And you will see that, you know, like this building right here, you can see where I'm pointing. Mm hmm. And this building here that those those orange areas are the required setback areas. And those two buildings. That's they're showing the bare minimum of setbacks. Like that's the minimum that could meet the setback requirement. This one here, you'll see that the orange is the bare minimum needed to meet the setback requirement. But there's a there's more design there. There's a more creative thing going on. It's not this area that's not marked in orange is not specifically required as a setback. And then you said mentioned on those those other graphics that just sort of showed sort of the block buildings that didn't have any windows or things like that. Those were just to illustrate different creative approaches for using the setback standard and not any of the other requirements. But so on these graphics, there is the build to requirement in the zoning regarding the position of the buildings, the transparency requirement in the zoning, regarding the transparency. The zoning requires that there be street facing entrance on each building, and the design signs and guidelines then, you know, are really are a unique thing here, which is taking something that that you're right. You know, you could if you if you try to go for the bare minimum and you just provide the transparency and you only do what you'd absolutely have to do for the upper storey setback, perhaps we're not getting where we need to go for a district like Arapahoe Square. But the design serums and guidelines are an opportunity to have a more detailed discussion. Okay. How are you working within the zoning to meet the objectives that we've set forth for Arapahoe Square? And so, for example, there's a whole section on the the street level and the street level definition. And while it doesn't necessarily say that the only way you can provide the pedestrian, comfortable street level is to put a cornice right above the first level for for that sense of enclosure, it talks about a whole range of strategies and says, oh, you have to do something. So so these buildings, you do have to do this higher level of design quality in Arapahoe Square through that process. There's a lot of different ways you could do it, though. So I couldn't tell you that this is exactly how it would play out with any existing building.
Speaker 8: But it would it is it's it is in Cbd's belief because of the wind, the opening stack, the way they're sort of talked about in the design guidelines and standards. And there are horizontal projections and there are some pilasters and things like that. General sense is, is that this does convey something that would meet that.
Speaker 9: Yes. Well, I'm not a member member of the design advisory board, so it's not for me to for me to decide. But yeah, as staff, we wanted to show buildings that we thought met the full package. You know, these are graphics that are in the zoning, but, but the buildings are going to have to go through the separate design review. And we wanted to show things that were consistent with the intent.
Speaker 8: So then can legally what is the so you have a section 13.1 .6. 2a5c, which is. Wall design elements. Mm hmm. How does that section relate to the design guidelines, the standards, and which one takes precedent legally when there is conflict?
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's a really good question. So what Councilman Espinosa is referring to is that so there's the base transparency requirement. And then in this zone district, like other mixed use zone districts, there are transparency alternatives to provide some flexibility. We've listed a pretty limited range of them here in this district. And actually the the only two that we've listed are the art and like display cases. So while design is one that's a transparency alternative that's available in other mixed use districts, but not this one. But I would say, you know, it would be a good example that that if it were one of the alternatives, the zoning sort of attempts to kind of set forth a very bare minimum of what you're going to have to do with this wall that would otherwise be blank in terms of design to qualify as an alternative . And I think design review really can it is very appropriate to add an extra layer on to that. Okay. We you definitely have to meet the bare minimum. That's what zoning says. Now, how does this respond to this particular situation? Is it actually meeting the intent? You know, is it is it really substituting for transparency or not? And that's that's appropriate.
Speaker 8: So we don't get to that section through the Das zone districts. Is that correct?
Speaker 9: Right. Yeah. So that it's probably in there because it just happens to be on the same page as something that we that we did adjust. But it's not one of the available alternatives.
Speaker 8: Good. Because there's obviously some control. I was looking at some conflict between the the design and I was going to ask you, how do we rectify those those conflicts with that? So I would. Well, no, we can't even do that. So then that's it. Thank you for those answers. I would actually then like to talk to Dick Farley and Joel Noble on a couple of items. I want both of your guys his opinion on this. So, Joel, first, I want to thank you for mentioning the effort that it took to get here in the number of steps , just as a point of privilege, I guess I'm going to say that is why I advocated for a 15 FTE, one and a half million dollars for CPD staff specifically to do this process in those areas that are sort of most quickly being impacted by this level of development. And then also then having that resource to get other areas this level of scrutiny, because we have valuable places that need to be considered. There's a lot of really great ideas here, but you only get there through all those steps that you just talked about. So thank you for mentioning that. And because that's important and crucial. So on the design standards, I know we're not talking about that, but there are. Can't even read my own chicken scratch. Enhanced setback language would. What about those enhanced setbacks and this is to both to you would not wear how would those not comport to existing zone zero setback zone districts would those all I mean would those those notions those those those strategies, would they be how closely are they able to be carried over to other existing zero setback zone districts? I think Mr. Farley might be better equipped as an architect to speak to that.
Speaker 4: Well, you do have a bill of his own. That's part of this district. 0 to 10 feet. And within that, you're, you know, 70% of your building facade that faces, you know, a primary street. Actually, before.
Speaker 8: You do that, can you explain to the to the people what the concept is on these enhanced setbacks, actually, that are part of that that are now going to be incorporated into the Stone District.
Speaker 7: Council? Why don't you make sure that your questions are.
Speaker 8: Answered before we. Okay. Because I don't know, just to do my colleagues all understand what an enhanced setback is and everyone. Okay. Never mind. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm not sure I do. The enhanced setback, as far as I know, is part of the build. Whose own? 0 to 10 feet there are in the design standards and guidelines. There are, you know, sort of a lot of standards and guidelines that encourage you to set back further the setback an additional three or five feet from the build to zone in order to get a larger sidewalk. Those are encouragements in the in the design standards and guidelines, in fact. Well, actually, they're more than that. There are some standards in there. I don't think you I don't know if you have a copy of the design standards and guidelines to go along with it . But if that's what you mean by enhanced setbacks, then we're trying to encourage the development to push back a little bit and make that useful space for the public, rather than trying to create two courtyards that are largely private.
Speaker 8: Do you guys believe that the incentive is there, that this will get captured and to the degree that is desired?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Repeat that, please.
Speaker 8: Is the incentive there to do that, that you that the task force believes that this that this enhanced set back will get rid of? I said it better the first time. So there's there's there's a I believe there are features here that are generally desired at the pedestrian level. Do you feel that there is a sufficient enough incentive that this will this will be utilized to the degree that is desired for this zone district?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think so. I think within the dialog, the design standards and guidelines within the Design Advisory Board, I think that we can achieve more of a ground level open space and step back. That means something.
Speaker 8: Okay. The reason. So now back to that original question, because there's there there's a lot there's there's just enough in here that I think would speak. And it speaks to the pedestrian environment regardless. I mean, any sort of urban or Main Street ish zone district, I think it has direct applicability. But I don't I didn't work on hammering those out. You guys did. Do you feel like they do actually have portability to others zoned districts that have zero mean similar setback requirements?
Speaker 4: Well, if you redo those districts, I suppose they have portability.
Speaker 8: But and that's why I'm asking, because the next thing is, you know, in a later meeting, I'll probably ask CPD, hey, what about a text amendment that actually captures this sort of language citywide because we have these own districts throughout. Yeah. So I think.
Speaker 9: Can I just just add a little bit of technical detail? Things stick so the the enhanced setbacks, the anticipation that word enhance setbacks doesn't exist in the text amendment. It's a concept in the in the separate design standards and guidelines. It's really like, what do you do when the building is not right at the sidewalk edge and the the build to range is 0 to 10 on on a lot of streets in Arapahoe Square, which is consistent with urban centers, own districts. But there are some specific streets that are identified in the plan and that we talked about at the task force level, especially 21st Street, which has this whole separate plan going on for it. That'll be like the the district's linear park is the way it's shaping up that those are places where we could say, oh, actually the build to is 0 to 20. So that's what the zoning says. So now there's some real space that you have to work with there. And what the design standards are talking about, design parents and guidelines are talking about is what do you do when you use that space? And I think what's what's different here, I mean, this is this is potentially portable. But there's a key difference is that we have a higher comfort level in increasing the build to range because we've got the design review process to look case by case at what's happening in that space and and ensure that it's meeting the intent of engaging the street, which is what the build two standard is is supposed to be doing.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I mean, that that answer just speaks to everything that we were just talking about. And thank you for that announcement on further questions.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman. Go to Flynn and then Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Abe And maybe since Kara is here, maybe she could weigh in on this also. But in looking at the the map amendment, I noticed a couple of carve outs and one of them is the 20th Street Gym, which is a Denver historic landmark building. But there's another Denver landmark building, the savage candy company that is included in the map amendment and also the Paris Hotel, which I'm surprised to learn is not a Denver landmark but is a national register property.
Speaker 9: Karen may be able to save me here. I believe the Paris Hotel is actually in the ballpark. Historic district for me. May call up on this map.
Speaker 4: Okay. I don't think that it is, but.
Speaker 9: And sorry.
Speaker 4: In any case, I was wondering what is the impact of the map amendment and the text amendment together on those? Well, obviously nothing on the 20th Street, Jim, but on the Sandwich Candy Company and on other perhaps eligible buildings within the Map amendment, how will this impact those?
Speaker 9: Sure. So the savage candy company, as you said, is a locally designated historic landmark. That means that the landmark design guidelines also apply to that building. Now, right now, the that existing Arapahoe Square design review actually spills over outside of Arapahoe Square into areas that are also designated historic districts. That's a little bit awkward because when there's like vacant ground or when there's buildings that are able to be torn down because they're not contributing, there might be some question about how the two guidelines interact to guide review of a new building, but we're fixing that by making sure there's no overlap between historic districts and the robust square design review. There will still be overlap with the The Savage Candy Company and anything else that's designated in the future. It's a little different, though, because those buildings are, you know, the they obviously are essentially contributing buildings. They can't be torn down. So we're not talking about new construction there. We're only talking about additions and other things that might happen on those buildings, in which case we would defer completely to the landmark review process, which is really what has a lot to say about the treatment of an existing important building.
Speaker 4: Okay. And you just kind of touched on or opened up the door for my other question, which was I noticed that we're giving a floor area premium for. For rehabilitation of landmarked buildings. But is there also an opportunity to give floor area a premium for rehabilitation of eligible buildings? It doesn't seem that that's that's addressed here. But might that encourage the preservation of some eligible buildings that aren't landmarked currently? Right. To get to give that floor area premium for that?
Speaker 9: Sure. One thing I'll note is that where you're looking at that floor area premium that's in the existing DEA zoning, not one of the new zone districts, and that actually that zone district only exists in there now in order to apply to the area that isn't proposed for the MAP amendment. Like if we had included that area, that zone district would have been struck from existence. Essentially, it's it's, you know, one of the districts that predates the 2010 form based zoning approach. That's why it has a floor, a ratio standard in it. And those premiums so that district doesn't will only apply essentially in this area that was continued to apply in this area here that was left out. Now, could we be doing that sort of thing in the new zone districts? Yes, potentially it is kind of goes back to the questions about affordable housing. And, you know, what we're trying to incentivize and and the the task force discussion that really ended up emphasizing the the streetscape and the visibility of structured parking as being what was most important to use the limited incentive power that we had available on . There are some challenges with regard to giving premiums for eligible buildings and that sort of thing. It's primarily because until something is designated as a historic landmark, it can be torn down. And so you can see the difficulty with giving a big premium for preservation of a building that could be torn down three years later. Right. And so typically, most cities say, no, the premium is available only if it's designated.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Catherine, back up.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Nice to see you again, pal. Affordability. So we're building 100 acres with no affordable housing. So how large is the Gates property? Uh, I. I'm remembering about 40 acres or so. Is that true? 40 acres? Yeah.
Speaker 9: You know, so much. About half the size. Little less than half the size.
Speaker 4: So last time we discussed this affordable housing. Maybe not last time, but a few months ago, we were told that the city has like 100,000 income burdened families right now. And every time we talk, we're we're talking about affordable housing being our great challenge. And I love everything I'm hearing about this project. But that and since that's what I personally believe is our city's greatest challenge to give up 100 acres. I'm looking around the city trying to find where we're going to put anything approaching the number, the amount of affordable housing we need to solve the problem. Can you help me with that?
Speaker 9: Well, you know, in Councilman Brooks may have something to add, but, you know, just to know that fairly soon, ideally, you know, as the citywide approach to affordable housing moves forward, there actually will be have requirements that apply in Arapahoe Square along with, you know, everywhere else where new development is occurring. And what exactly that looks like. Councilman Brooks could probably tell you more about that. We did talk about, you know, affordability a lot as part of the discussion. And it really came down to, you know, once we kind of passed the point where it was clear that the task force didn't want to go in the direction of like literally saying you have to provide 10% of the units or whatever it's going to be that the discussion was really, let's make sure that we don't make it too expensive to develop. Let's make sure that we allow for the variety of projects like the projects that Mr. Lockhart was talking about, that might be more likely to provide some relatively market rate, affordable housing. And then if, you know, of course, the IHS, which may not be doing much now because so much rental is being built but does apply there now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, I understand. And I think you're alluding to your council's begun consideration of linkage fees. You know, developer impact fees. So if we don't get any affordable housing on these hundred acres. Perhaps as time goes on, we're able to arrive at that some sort of fee of that nature. That still permits development, but brings us some dough in to incentivize elsewhere.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 4: But I'm looking for the ground where that's going to be built with the number of units that we need in the city. And I'm just having a hard time finding out where that is. So, yeah, that's that's just where I'm at right now. Thank you for your answer.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman and Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Well, I just want to add that I think by creating a higher density area and in creating a higher in best use opportunity, it. You know, I can remember way back when, you know, the city took a trip with a whole bunch of people with the I can't remember if is the chamber or the partnership. This was like 15 years ago. Everybody went to Vancouver and came back and, you know, everybody was kind of raising their hand saying, yeah, we need density in Denver and this is where we're going to have affordability. But guess what? That's not how it happened. Where we have seen density, we have not seen affordability. And unless we have the conversation and make it a priority, in my experience, in the absence of public policy, you you get nothing. You don't get the affordable housing unless there's public financing that goes along with it. It's why when we did the inclusionary housing ordinance, we set a policy for ensuring that affordability was a value that this city wanted to see with anybody building more than 30 units. And we're going to see the density in this area comparable to what's in our downtown. You know, the central business district. But we're placing no value and we'll see all these other pieces come through piecemeal. But we're being asked to make this commitment right now. Without that key element, knowing how critical affordable housing is for this city. And I think it's it's a missed opportunity. I think we have really missed the boat by not ensuring that it was, in fact, a part of what was brought forward for this council to be able to incorporate into the changes that were being asked to do now, because it's the thing that always gets left out or left off. And it's why we have people that are on the outside of the looking glass, you know, wishing that they could be part of all the great things that are happening in the city of Denver. But they're the families having to move away because they can't afford to live in the city. So I just I'm concerned that we haven't done that yet. And I hear that that's still part of the conversation. But, you know, I equate this to what we did with I-70. We gave away all the land underneath I-70 as part of an IGA, which was our only leveraging point. And now if there are things that we need and want for those neighborhoods, it's a hell of a lot harder to make damn sure we're taking care of those needs. And so I'm just struggling a little bit with this. I mean, I think the need to expand our downtown is critical. Having some big box retail is is vital to our city. Every major city you go to has, you know, some of that as part of the element. You know, they're incorporated into the housing developments, their incredible mixed use opportunities all across the country. But I'm just concerned we're missing the boat on that piece.
Speaker 4: Thanks to.
Speaker 1: You. Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman. Okay, we're still on questions. Councilman Espinosa, I'm happy with you. Councilman Lopez, you got a question?
Speaker 7: Yes, I have a question on on particular in regards to affordability. Not maybe the city attorney's office. I could chime in on it. Can we? I think those are valid points. But can we negotiate terms of affordable housing availability units, any kind of mandates in this particular ordinance?
Speaker 6: But not.
Speaker 4: David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. I don't know if this is responsive, but you have no authority to impose rental restriction requirements as part of your regulatory authority under state law. So nothing could have been embedded in this ordinance that would have limited the rentals on any rental properties. They're going to be built in the area being resold tonight, currently under the Cho, which may be about to change in the near future. But currently any for sale housing would be fully subject to the Cho if something were to happen rapidly before before anything else happens to that ordinance. So you you have and you all know this you have extreme limitations on what you can do in terms of controlling with your police power rentals and apartment complexes. And as Councilwoman Ortega just alluded to years ago, we adopted a policy for requiring inclusionary units in for sale projects. Right. So those are the general public policies that guide development in any reason the property, including this free zone property, those are the limitations, those are the considerations and it's already been mentioned and it's for another night because of the limitations we face under state law. We're trying some new things that will be coming to this council very soon that will apply to this property when construction occurs in this property and will apply to properties all over the city that will address the issue of affordability on a global basis. But, you know, not to be any more redundant than that and others on council may want to comment. I know Councilman Brooks and both are heavily involved with what's coming, which will have applicability to this territory as well as other properties around the city.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Broadway Council President. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. All right. So I think you had an answer for comments or did I want to get the comments or did you have a question you have questions or you want to answer? Or do you want to?
Speaker 2: If there is a question about how a future linkage fee might work in this area, I'm happy to answer that now or in the comment period, I felt like there was an implied question, so I'm happy to shed some light on that, if that's helpful.
Speaker 8: I have a question regarding that and not necessarily the linkage fee, but. I know at some point we talked about the possibility for a buildout option. Do you do we have any notion about what that would what that would be? Because then it would be directly applicable to development, new development in this area if there were such an option.
Speaker 2: So, Mr. President, with your. Thank you, Mr. President. So the way that a typical linkage fee in the one that we're anticipating would work is it's charged per square foot of development. And generally speaking, every city that we've modeled in our anticipation is that we would replicate is would have a build alternative. So it would basically be a conversion probably again by square foot. So for every thousand square feet, you're responsible 4.1 units perhaps. So it's it's some kind of a formula that actually creates responsibility. And so the way that it works is it's an option. So your default requirement is to pay, but there is an option to build. I think the way that we've discussed this with the Office of Economic Development is that if you were to build units in a situation like this, you're getting credit for those units instead of paying the fee. There's no subsidy from the city, but it's also probably a very small number of units. It's not near the 10% that you might get in an inclusionary project. So why is it better for the city? It's better for the city because every single development is contributing, but they're contributing a much smaller amount. So it's spread more evenly across the real estate market. And so in a case like this, what may happen is you may have some properties that pay the fee, you may have some properties that choose to build the units and they have no subsidy. And it's maybe just a small number of units. You may have other projects, however, where they actually seek to maybe they're having a hard time making their performance work. And Councilman Brooks has had several of these projects in the Wellston corridor where they may actually choose to seek out some subsidy. Maybe they were required to build three or four units, but if they build 20 units, they're able to get a loan from the Office of Economic Development. So there is an opportunity for us to come in later. So you may be we're obligated to build three or four units, but with a loan from OSD, you're able to get to ten or 20 units. And ultimately what we have the opportunity to do is not just receive linkage fees, but we actually have the opportunity to spend them. So that's one opportunity that may happen is the layering. That's only if you go above what the base requirement is. So the other thing I would state is that this this whole regime would then replace the inclusionary housing ordinance. So that would no longer apply on the for sale side to new projects going forward. But it would have similar length of affordability and contracts and things like that. So the only other thing I might add is just that when we think about this site as compared to a gate site or other sites, one of the challenges I have as a policymaker is this is not one landowner, right? So most of those other really big sites involve a single landowner. I think one of the most important opportunities for affordability in this area will probably be either through that layered subsidy approach with buildings that need maybe some assistance getting over the finish line and are willing to entertain affordability to help do that or for acquisition of actual properties, you know, for for affordable workforce housing perhaps or affordable for sale housing even. So those are those are all possibilities, but they become much more about layering the alternatives within the policy than they can be about the upfront. Set aside that some of our bigger projects have done when they have a single landowner, and that single landowner has decided to enter into an area wide plan, we don't have a single landowner here, so it makes it harder to do the same outcome.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman King. All right. So, colleagues, I want to bring us back to this and see if there any more questions. And I want to get to comments which I know won't be brief. And then the reminder, there's another public hearing. So being respectful of people's time, I hope we continue to move forward. So see, no other questions, no club hearings, not closed comments. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to take a little bit of time and thank some of the people in this audience who are still still sitting in these chairs and paid for parking, hopefully. So, you know, I have a ticket, a thank you for your leadership on this. You've been great. And Sarah Showalter, wherever you are taking care of your baby. I hope you. Thank you. You've been great as well. And Elise, you've been awesome. Thank you for your leadership. Very sharp. Really cut your teeth on Arapahoe Square is really fun to watch you make use. Left. But he has been an incredible facilitator. He did a great job. This is not an easy bunch. I remember one meeting in particular where, you know, John Noble, you know, Dick Farley was Chris's last name from planning board. Smith. Chris Smith. Incredible. We're just into this crazy zoning matter where it was and it was incredible debate and we actually had that several times. And so but developers and, you know, property owners, this was this was incredible, I will say, is probably one the one of the times I just walked into the room and said, I'm I am learning so much each time I come here because people just brought their expertize. And so thank you for everyone who was on the task force. I really appreciate it. And I also want to thank a person who did not who's not here with us and who did not see this through, but was very instrumental on the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan in 2010 and 11. And that's Carl Madison. This was something that was super important to her, cause I read her notes as I got in her office, and I am more connected to her than everyone else. I just want to give Carlene Madison a shout out. Wherever you are. Let's just talk about affordable housing just for 1/2, because I think one thing I think those are good points made by councilwoman can teach, especially one of the reasons we have not seen our appeals court take off is this many different landowners who are not really connected and there's not a real vision and brand for Arapahoe Square. But the current situation, the current housing situation in Arapahoe Square, no one is really talking about that. Well, let me talk about it real quick. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, 200 plus units right across the street right off of park have Saint Francis these are these are these are permanent affordable housing units. Housing first program Saint Francis 200 plus units. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless will have another 150 units offer. Broadway Brant Snyder is building 223 units from 30 to 60% i and those are just the larger projects. The Denver Housing Authority has over 4 to 600 units of affordability. And so there's a current base in this area that I think is very important for us to consider when we're talking about affordability in the city. And so, you know, I want my colleagues to know it wasn't by lack of effort trying to figure out how do we think about mixed income housing, which is called for in the downtown northeast downtown neighborhoods plan? We don't have a lot of market rate units in this area currently. We don't have a lot of mixed income units, workforce housing units currently in this area. And that's what we do want. But, you know, until you're in the lab, in the lab to me means 16 months with this group of individuals trying to think of creative ways to make this happen. It's really not that easy. And at 30th and Blake, we're trying to make this happen and it is hard and it's a lot of hard work. We think we can come to a conclusion. The other thing I want to say is there are current entitlements under under the current DHS zoning under FHA that are pretty similar to what we just mapped. And that's important for folks to realize. What we did was we added incentives. What we did is, is we added design standards and guidelines, which I feel like is going to help this area and going to help the issues that we're seeing citywide of people throwing up anything they want to in in certain districts. And the other piece that I just want to give a lot of credit to the staff and to the task force is we had it wasn't just like we came up with these ideas and said, okay, I hope somebody builds it. We brought architects in and we brought developers in and we had them test everything that we put forward. And so I feel confident in this plan. I feel like there's going to be some real opportunities for all types of housing in this district. And I think we're going to get some beautiful developments in this district. So I'll be supporting this. And not only because I feel like it's the future of what we need to be doing in these small area plans and and mapping districts and put in design standards and guidelines. But because of the experts you see in the audience from our community who actually did the hard work. To make this a reality. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Yeah. Just because we talked about it, I wanted to throw out what I was thinking. This is going to be gross oversimplification on the math, but it speaks to something that it's too late for this, but it's something that we should be thinking because we're working on these things. And so we shouldn't be. We should be more holistic when we when we approach it, because we have been throughout the 14 month process, we have had an affordable housing issue and we've been looking for solutions and we've been talking about things. And so this gross oversimplification actually uses the graphic that's on your screens and up on the wall. As you can see, the majority of the you know, the largest chunk is that 20 story plus. And so if I were Jesus and this is not again, this is gross oversimplification, but if it's 100 acres and it's been uniformly 12 developable stories, that's 1200 acres of potential development. Again, gross oversimplification. I know. And if you just made a 1% requirement, you would have 500,000 and you took that 12, 12, 1200 acres. You'd have 500,000 square feet of affordability if you just had a 1% on that. And then if that's roughly equivalent or close to where we end up with a developer fee, suddenly it starts to go, well, wait a sec, maybe we should do our build too, because the delta between getting money to do that versus what our requirement is compels us. And rather than have concentrated developments with those people in the 380 square foot units or those people in the Saint Francis Center, we could actually have these things mixed into this Arapahoe Square development just more organically. I mean, it's not organic because it's we're compelling it by zoning, but we're making it really one of those things that is very difficult to not choose because there is economy of scale. One of the reasons why you go in, you take that incentive to go to 12 and go into a point tower and stuff like that is because once you've hit certain thresholds, it just makes its starts to get cheaper to keep repeating yourself. Floor after floor after floor, your vertical transportation systems are already and your smoke exhaust systems are already and pressurized air pressurization system, all this stuff that goes into these buildings to make them tall, you know, doesn't it starts to pay off. It starts to reduce costs as you go up. And so there was certain that's unfortunate. We're not talking about till now. And so that's not going to. But but it is something that I wish we were thinking about. We didn't just that that was one of those maybe it was one of those models that you guys tested and go, well, wait a sec. If a developer in fact fee is at $2 a square foot, which on a $300 square foot construction project is is is, you know, is still a little one and a half percent and do that right. But you get it. That's actually far less than 1%. Never mind. But, you know, I don't know where we're going to end up being, but I know we modeled 7% and we modeled 1%. I mean, one mill, you know, all these different things we could maybe have said, is there a sweet spot where we compel development in this area to at least consider capturing affordability in their incentive to go up? And so it's just a missed opportunity, but it's not one we thought about really until now. And it's in this discussion about linkage fee and Mills is is is something that we weren't really was a notion up until recently. So it's too late. But I just wanted everyone to sort of recognize that this is a long, big area with a lot of potential. And there there might be a way going forward for us to think about when we do zone districts, how we might actually make that close, that gap so that we're actually getting more mixed use developments akin to the Verde in New York City rather than single one offs here, there and everywhere even. But there's things there, too. Anyway, I do want to thank everyone that was involved, because this is this is as you probably figured out, my time on council is sort of my ideal. I wish I had 14 months in in an army of CPD. And because I do have an army of community and people that would want to get involved with this so that we could do this in District one. But this is a great thing, and I thank you all for being a participant in that. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. So I recently were with a number of my colleagues and others and in the business community in the city, went on an urban exploration voyage to Brooklyn and saw how they're dealing with a lot of issues. And people ask me what my takeaway was from that when I got back, and what my take away from that trip was, is I came back very convinced that the need for in substantially increased density, inappropriate places. And at the same time I came back with a commitment to increased efforts of historic preservation, inappropriate places. This project meets for me all the requirements of increased density. I might even think that if there was anything I'd do different, it would be to go higher. And I appreciated Attorney Broadwell reminding us of the limits that we have on what we can do to affect affordability. You know, we can't force rental affordability. We can do it. Or our ordinances for affordability on purchased properties is limited. I get that. But my constituents and everybody I talk to around the city, they're not really interested in those details. They're they're interested in the fact that their parents can't downsize because there's nowhere for them to go locally. Their kids can't buy in Denver for. There's nowhere for them to go. Our teachers can't buy in Denver because they're not making enough. The crisis that I hear from everybody is affordable housing. And I have nothing but respect for the task force that created this plan because I believe that they did everything they could within the current realities to create this proposal. I just can't give up with if I was hearing anything. From people across the city, from people who want to move here about anything but affordable housing to to get zero is never a good number for me, you know. So to get as close to zero as we're getting in a hundred acres with literally within walking distance of of one of our largest employment zones in the city. Proximity to rail. I just can't do that. So unfortunately, while there's so much about this that I love, I'm not going to be able to support this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Captain Burke's my hop over and go to Councilman Lopez. Cosmo Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to support this moving forward. I share my same the same sentiments as my colleague, Councilman Cashman in a lot of places. Why not go higher? And especially where density is needed. You look at where we're at in this particular area and that, you know, that's that's a great opportunity. Yes. It's a lot of acreage. And, you know, here's the thing. We're going to need the units. You know, in order to affect a lot of different things economically, you need those units. And it is unfortunate and that we have are and are limited in terms of any kind of doing anything about affordable housing when it comes to rent control and and things like that. Right. I think when you look at and it's exactly what I asked our assistant city attorney, David Broadwell, that Telluride ruling looms over our head like a big dark cloud. And there's really nothing we can do on the city level about that. You know, except to try to build more units. And try to allow density in areas where it's appropriate. So, you know, A, is the status quo in this area acceptable? Absolutely. No, it is completely underdeveloped. And I just hope that we, as we are as as the plan has been fulfilled, as those sites are being built upon , and as we break ground and put cranes in the air. But that perhaps. It's not just for sale development, that it's also other uses particularly. Housing for folks who. Basically are on our street and call that neighborhood home as well, too. So having said that, I do support this moving forward. I think it's a step in the right direction. It's something that's been, as Councilman Brooks said, talked about since I remember Carter Madsen sitting in this chair and talking about Arapahoe Square and setting that vision. So let's move forward. I'm supportive, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks, back up.
Speaker 8: I just wanted to end on a note that was, you know, positive and make sure that all the folks who were involved in this project really know how groundbreaking it is and how it's it's us as a city in a direction where we're going to be able to repeat this in other small areas. So I want to say that. And then the last thing I want to say around affordability is, you know, in in the NHL, there's this there's this there's this loophole in downtown area and districts where you are incentivized to build higher. And we incentivize you to, you know, to get affordable housing. And that loophole was never taken advantage of in this district, which I find interesting. And we had this conversation in our. In our task force. And so, you know, I think it's once it gets to this stage now, now I feel like a staff person, you know , because we went through this with 18 months. But once it gets to this stage, I think it's easy to to criticize and to say what could have been. And but until you go through the process and you sit through the meetings, until you weigh all the evidence, until you show the data, it's it's a challenge. And I think this group did a tremendous job and came together and was very successful. And so I just want to thank everybody involved.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. I will just simply and then I'll go to Councilman Brooks for the offer. His amendment. I mean, you all sincerely should be applauded for this. This is remarkable. And I think, Joy, you hit on the head. No argument. You're going higher and denser and no complaints whatsoever. And I think it's a testament to all the work that you put together. So it's it's unfortunate we have Monday morning quarterbacking going because I think it's yeoman's work and it's easy for us to sit here at the end and say, wait and consider this. And I appreciate Councilman Kenny's kind of letting us know about the linkage fees. And I agree with her reasoning for why I think it's a challenge here. So I think this is a great thing to be celebrated, and I hope that we can move this forward. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I thank you. So this this area, a large part of it was part of my old district, District nine, back when I served. And many of those lots were vacant then. So, you know, it's been an underserved part of the city for a very, very long time. And I think it is important that the changes move forward. My hope is that we can get there with the kind of tools that are needed that will ensure that we have some affordability. I know to be able to build, you know, it takes some subsidy, whether it's creating a special district, looking at tax increment financing. I'm not sure all all the various tools that you all have discussed and looked at, but many of those are financing tools that require council's approval. And my hope is that as part of any of those discussions, it includes how affordable housing. And in my mind, when you look at what exists in in this neighborhood. We actually saw a significant amount of affordable housing disappear in this part of the city, while at the same time we've seen more higher density housing that has come in to the area. Yes, a number of the projects on Walton have included affordability. But if you look at how many units were in this neighborhood that the Denver Housing Authority had, a number of those were replaced with some of the redeveloped sites that DHB owned in that area. So the Curtis Park Homes that was redeveloped with more affordable units. Some of those residents were allowed to come back, but it really served a different income level of population. Yes, we have shelters or nonprofits that run homeless housing development in that area. But I think when we start addressing the affordable housing needs, in my mind it's looking at the teachers and the police officers and people who really want to live in this city that can't afford to do that. And so I think on the very low end, we've done a good job addressing those needs. But I think, you know, it's looking at the different areas of the image scale that many of us have been trying to figure out how we can incentivize and encourage development to include other income levels so that more people who want to live in this city can afford to do so. So I'm going to be supporting this tonight because I think it's really important that these changes happen in this area. I just hope that by creating a higher and better use that the land prices don't become so outrageously expensive. We cannot afford to do some affordable housing in this area. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Carson.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Look, I don't think that these are public hearings. We're supposed to hear a staff presentation. We're supposed to hear comments pro and con from the public comments and questions from city council. I don't believe questions. These are not coronations. I don't believe that bringing up objections are Monday morning quarterbacking. I think it's my job. I could sit here and just yell Yahoo! But the people I'm representing aren't sitting at home right now feeling Yahoo! They have the questions that I've presented, and so I'm going to retain the right to express my opinions pro or con. It shows no disrespect to the people working on this. I think they've done a wonderful job. The people that I represent are interested in change. They're interested in us figuring it out. We haven't figured it out yet. A lot of people have done yeoman's work to attempt to figure it out. But I'm not going to sit here and be insulted for representing my constituents. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. You know the comments on 320. All right, Councilman Brooks, we got you. Would you like to offer your amendment to counter Bill 3 to 0?
Speaker 8: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Move that council bill 320, be amended in the following particulars. On page one, line 27, strike two, numbers 0214 and replace. Replace it with 0214, dash 001 and on line 27. Strike the date of May 24, 2016 and replace it with the date June 27, 2016.
Speaker 1: Got it. It has been moved and seconded. So council members, we're now any comments on the motion to amend? CNN. All right. We're voting on the motion to amend. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 3: Brooks Espinosa. Flynn Gilmore. Cashman can each. LOPEZ All right. Ortega, I. Black eye, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All. Ma'am. Secretary, please close the voting and now the results.
Speaker 3: Nine eyes, one abstention, nine.
Speaker 1: Eyes, one abstention, 320 has been amended. So now, Councilman Brooks, we need a motion to place it on final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I placed council bill 324 sorry. 321 to be placed on final consideration and do pass through. Three 2324 and do pass as amended.
Speaker 1: Got it moved. Second. Any comments? Any more comments? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: I'm going to. You're going to hear me pass. And I'm going to wait to hear what my colleague Paul Cashman, is going to vote. And the reason be. And if. Sorry, Paul, but if he doesn't support it, I'm going to abstain. And it's not to do anything that you guys did or didn't do because the criteria is going to be there. But it is because this I do feel like this is something that can and should be captured if we can. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. That's another. Any other comments? 320 as amended. CNN. I'm Secretary Rocco.
Speaker 3: Brooks. I. Espinoza. Yes. Flynn I. Gillmor I. Question can each.
Speaker 9: Lopez, i.
Speaker 3: Ortega I. Black eye.
Speaker 8: Espinosa abstain.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. High.
Speaker 1: Now. Secretary, please close the building. And as a result.
Speaker 3: It is one nay, one abstention.
Speaker 1: Eight I's, one nay, one abstention. 320 has passed as amended. All right, so now we've got 321. Councilman Brooks, please be accountable. 321 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I put Council Bill 321. To be placed upon final consideration and due pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and second to any comments. 3 to 1. See none. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 3: BROOKS Hi, Espinosa.
Speaker 4: FLYNN Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore Hi, Catherine. Can each.
Speaker 7: LOPEZ Hi.
Speaker 3: ORTEGA By black.
Speaker 5: Eye.
Speaker 8: ESPINOSA Abstain.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi. Madam Secretary, please, for the vote. Now, the result?
Speaker 3: 881 nay, one abstention.
Speaker 1: Eight eyes when they want abstention. 321 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We got our last public hearing. 395. Councilman Brooks, will you please put out the bill? 394 395 on the floor for final passage.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I put Council Bill 394 doing 95 on the floor for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing is now open through 95. May we have the staff report?
|
Bill
|
Approves Text Amendment #9 to create the new D-AS-12+ and D-AS-20+ zone districts as well as a new Design Advisory Board for the Arapahoe Square neighborhood in Council District 9.
(NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves Text Amendment #9 to create the new D-AS-12+ (downtown, Arapahoe Square, 12 stories+) and D-AS-20+ (20 stories+) zone districts as well as a new Design Advisory Board for the Arapahoe Square neighborhood in Council District 9. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-11-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06272016_16-0395
|
Speaker 8: No. I mean.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Karen. I'm a landmark preservation planner with community planning and development. This is for 1899 York Street Ghost Rose House. It is named after the first owner, Allen and Ghost and after Ryan Rose, who saved this property from demolition. It is a owner supported designation. So the ordinance was passed in 1967 for the purpose of designating, preserving and protecting, fostering civic pride, stabilizing and improving the esthetic and economic viability, and promoting good urban design. There are currently 337 individual landmarks and 52 historic districts in the city and county of Denver. This application actually started as a certificate of non historic status about a year ago after there was concern from historic Denver and members of the public. The certificate of non historic status was withdrawn. There was a zone layout amendment and the lot was split and the current property was purchased by Ryan Rose for the purpose of preservation . And he is the one who submitted this landmark designation application. He understands that as a property is designated, it's designated as is. There's no need for improvements or any requirements that are that are required to be done. And he understands that any permits would require going through design review and that demolition is discouraged. Brian Rose is also really excited because this opportunity of being landmarked provides the opportunity for a historic preservation tax credits, which would allow for a 20% credit for any work that would be considered qualified or would meet the Secretary of the Interior standards. We are currently at the public hearing. It was the application was submitted in April. It went before the Landmark Preservation Commission in May. The Neighborhood and Planning Committee at the end of May. And the effective date would be the end of this week. All of the applicable posting and notices were put out by community planning and development, and all of the registered neighborhood organizations were notified. So this is 1899 York Street. It is on the corner of York and 20th. It's right across the street from City Park. It's currently zoned gr03. The applicant is Ryan Rose, and the period of significance for this particular property is 1906 to 1911, which is the time period in which Alan Ghost resided in the House. In order for a property to be designated, it has to maintain its historic and physical integrity and meet one criteria out of two of the following categories history, architecture and geography. And it has to relate to a historic context or theme in Denver history. For this particular property, it meets the physical and historic integrity. There have been minimal changes to the property. There was quite a bit of deferred maintenance from the previous property owner and is currently being worked on. The roof has just recently been replaced. There's been minimal other changes, which would really just be the garage door on the on the garage. Overall, it has really excellent integrity. The property also meets the criteria of history under C, having a direct and substantial association with a person or groups of persons who had influence on society. And this is primarily for Alan M Ghost. He was a very prominent developer. He had the AMA a m ghost company. He developed properties throughout Denver. This particular one is the Parkside Edition, which he purchased in the 1880s. He didn't really begin development on this particular property until the early 1890s in the 1800s due to the Silver Christ crash. This particular property was was built in 1906 as a way of selling the park site edition, which wasn't really selling. And so he intentionally built this as a showcase property to help sell his development. The property also meets architecture as a mission revival style. It has the shaped parapet, stucco siding, broad overhanging, eaves exposed rafter tails and arched openings, which are all strong characteristics of the mission style architecture. It is also designed by noted architects Wagner and Manning. That's a noted architectural firm. Wagner died in 1910 and Manning continued designing for the next several decades. They are noted for a variety of works, including the Saint Thomas Episcopal Church, which is in Parkville, and it is already a Denver landmark, as well as the Grand Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church, which is part of a current landmark landmark district. And then the Moffitt Mansion, which has since been demolished. It also needs. It also meets geography as having a prominent location and being an established or familiar visual feature of the contemporary city. This house is located in a prominent corner on York Street and on the corner of 20th. It was intentionally sited to be across from City Park. It was built as a showcase. It was noted in a lot of Denver newspapers of the time that this is one of the finest buildings that was built and it was intended to be noticed by the community then and is noticed now when you drive down York Street directly across from City Park. It also needs to relate to a historic context or theme. So it relates to early 20th century architecture, development and growth of Denver and then specifically the park site addition. At the Landmark Preservation Public Hearing. Prior to the public hearing, we received six letters of support and then we received two additional letters after the public hearing was held at the public hearing. The owner spoke for his allotted 10 minutes and then there were three speakers who are all in favor of the designation. The Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed it and they found that it met its historic and physical integrity, that it also met the criteria of history architecture as an embodying a architectural style and as the work of a recognized architect. And three having a prominent location are being an established visual feature of the city, as well as relating to historic context and theme. The Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to recommend this forwarding on to City Council.
Speaker 1: All right. We've got two speakers. Ryan, Rose, Becca. Dear. Ciao. Sorry if I got that wrong. Mr. Rosen can go ahead and begin your.
Speaker 4: Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 9: I'd like to thank historic Denver and everybody involved in saving this property from demolition. I would also.
Speaker 8: Like to thank Kara.
Speaker 9: For all her support and help with getting this property designated. I'm Ryan Rose, the owner occupant of 1899 York Street. I am not a house flipper. This is my primary residence and I intend on staying there and doing all this work to bring this home back to its original glory. Ironically enough, this is the third home I've purchased from this decade. This house is very special. It was truly built by artisans and designed by an architect. I'm very thankful that this is saved from demolition. I would also like to comment on the historic tax credit and how essential.
Speaker 8: It is for.
Speaker 9: Historic homes and how grateful I am for it. As an example, restoring the tile roof cost $30,000 in that roof the last 100 years. I could have replaced it with an asphalt roof, which would have cost about $12,000 and will only last 10 to 15 years. So it's a great incentive to kind of balance a little bit some of those cost effects. But also it's important to be a steward of historic properties and a steward to the historic context of Denver by making these choices and honoring these homes that will last hopefully 100, 200 years longer versus the current developments which are not showing age very well. So. Yeah, I, I sorry. I lost my momentum there. That that's all I have to say. Thank you for everybody's time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, dear. Ciao. Thank you. There. I'm sorry. I apologize.
Speaker 5: So good evening.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, and members of City Council. My name is Beckett Kershaw. I'm the preservation and research coordinator with Historic Denver, and.
Speaker 5: I live at 1515.
Speaker 2: Vine Street, so right around the corner from 1899.
Speaker 5: York. And for those of you who are maybe still listening at home.
Speaker 2: Historic Denver's a private nonprofit advocacy group dedicated to championing Denver's built environment. And tonight, we would like to offer support for this local historic designation of the Allen M Ghost House. In February 2015, Historic Denver received a notice that the previous owners of 1899 Dirk had submitted an application for a certificate of non historic status. This residence, which Kerry mentioned, sits across from City Park on a well-traveled thoroughfare, is an impressive structure and one which merits further conversation with the community and the owners. Further research indicated that the home was designed by the architect Harry Manning.
Speaker 5: And was built for one.
Speaker 2: Of Denver's most famous real estate developers, Alan Ghost. These details, combined with the home's prominent location across from City Park, made it clear candidate for local landmark designation. The City Park neighborhood was active and supportive, supporting the preservation of this building. And after several meetings with historic Denver, our board and other neighbors, the previous owners agreed to withdraw their application.
Speaker 5: Ultimately, they sold it to.
Speaker 2: The current owner who is demonstrating his commitment to preservation with this designation application.
Speaker 5: Excuse me.
Speaker 2: The successful preservation of the home along York Street serves as an important anchor for this entire block adjacent to City Park and the surrounding neighborhood. Together with the recent renovation of the former Loop restaurant, which no one saw coming, least of all me and the Parkside Manor, this block retained its historic Parkway character, which serves as the transition between the park and the residential neighborhood to the West. This designation also allows the owner to qualify for historic tax credits to rehabilitate this building and make it a stunning example of the mission revival style once more. Historic Denver would like to congratulate the new owner of his the ghost house on this step forward. And we encourage City Council to approve the landmark application to ensure the preservation of this most deserving historic building.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Time for questions of counsel. Counsel?
Speaker 8: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Just one question. Maybe, Carrie, you can answer it. And it has to do with the historic tax credits. I think I ask this question in committee, but I want to ask it again, because I think it's an important subject. Tell me the limits that we have in our state for the state. Historic tax credits.
Speaker 5: So the tax credits on a it's different for between residential and commercial. The commercial has been recently increased and it's not a program that's run through the city and county of Denver. We only administer the smaller commercial tax credits as well as the residential, and those are capped at 50,000.
Speaker 8: Okay. $50,000 in, I believe the commercial statewide is 275.
Speaker 5: It's from my understanding, it is higher than that. The problem is that there's a cap to how much is allowed per year. So it's sort of on a first come first service serve basis.
Speaker 8: Okay, great. So and that's all about resources at the state. If we wanted to increase our capacity, that'd be we had to find some place in the budget for that to happen. But just wanted to just want to highlight that. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Counsel Brook. You know the questions. 395. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Kara, maybe could you tell me what the effect of the zone lot splitting was? I see that. What is the status and what's the. The prospects for that the remainder of the lot, which is that the sliver on the south side.
Speaker 5: Right. So. So it is a small sliver on the south side. In fact, that owner was one of the people who came and spoke at the LPC hearing and he wanted to ensure that the designation of this particular property wouldn't affect his. And when he said no, he was very supportive of it. So it's my belief that they are my understanding that they are intending to build something there. I think it's going to end up being pretty narrow, but they.
Speaker 4: Can they build something there. Do we know that?
Speaker 5: I believe they can, yes. I haven't spoken to him directly.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Any other questions? 395. CNN Public Enemy is not closed. Time for comments, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. District nine is in the house tonight. This is exciting. And I'm glad that the. This is an owner supported designation. I'll just say this. I'm so supportive of this. This neighborhood is I think Facebook was going crazy around, you know, supporting this property and supporting properties like it. And so I for the City Park West neighborhood. But I do think there's a larger issue statewide. Some states don't have caps on their historic tax credits. And, you know, I think if there was enough support, I think statewide to start seeing commercial and and residential uses to have I'm not saying no caps, but a higher threshold . We may be able to save some of these historic buildings and have a lot more adaptive reuse. And it just would just encourage to keep the historicity in this city. And so I just you know, I just wanted to make those comments and encourage anybody at the state to take that on. I do know that it does require more of our budget and there's only so many resources. And we do have TABOR in this state which limits our resources, but is something that's really important in other states are taking full advantage of. Thank you. I'm supportive.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: I just wanted to thank you. It's actually the Ghost Rose House. And I'm glad that we're attaching your name and that I assume it's going to appear in the record as being the Ghost Rose House because, well, they you know, Allen and Ghost put it on the on the planet. You're going to keep it there. And so just thank you for having the wherewithal and the ability and desire to do that, because I know on behalf of thousands of preservationists in District one. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, councilman. That's knows it. Any other comments? 395 The Nonmembers secretary.
Speaker 3: Brooks.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 3: Espinosa Hi. Flynn Hi. GILMORE Hi. Catherine.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: Can each. Ortega I black eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Madam Secretary, please, because voting now the results nine eyes, nine eyes, 395 have been placed on Fox's iteration and do pass. All right, colleagues, we got 437 that resolution. So let's first get that on the floor. Councilman Brooks, could you please have resolution 437 order adopted?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I put resolution. I make Resolution 437 adopted.
Speaker 1: All right. We'll catch up with. Take that. I'll defer to Gabby. Did you have a response for us now?
Speaker 5: I did. And so I think, Councilman, until you would like me to read the current members of the board. Yes, please. Okay. So there are eight. And they are Charlie Brown, Ronald Younger, Sheryl Crow Invader, Andrew Johnson, Barbara Pols, Peter Berlin, Steve Garcia and Sally Vander Loop.
|
Bill
|
Approves the designation of 1899 York Street as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the designation of 1899 York Street as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 9. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-25-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202016_16-0455
|
Speaker 1: I think let's just move on before 55, if you don't mind, Councilman Clark, because now we we can tie it in. Councilman Espinosa counts a proclamation for 55.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, so this. I'm going to be reading the proclamation number 16 0455, honoring the dedication of the hour by the journey and the annual summer solstice. Whereas Grupo Tulloch, Danza Azteca is a traditional cultural dance group comprised of adults children dedicated to preserving the indigenous dance of their ancestors ancestors. The Mexicana mean America. And. Whereas, Grupo Tulloch is hosting the 2016 summer solstice in La Raza Columbus Park, where family members come to share oral traditions, pray and dance in honor of the rain that grows crops and nourishes our bodies. Because without rain, nothing survives. And. Whereas, Grupo Tulloch has been dedicated to the community for the past 36 years, providing direction and guidance with dances and ceremonies in Denver, Colorado, Iceland in the world and throughout the world. And. Whereas, the time to water the seeds that need growth and development to heal the sorrows of life, moving from inhumanity to humanity. And. Whereas, for 36 years, Grupo Tulloch has used Onza to educate La Comunidad and to summon our ancestors to walk with us on this historical journey. And. Whereas, other forms of art such as mural ism, poetry and La Palabra that emanate and belong to the hint, they are part of our cultural renaissance, produced and communicate communion with Nuestro spirit to have joined us this year to celebrate summer solstice. And whereas the mural Elvira The Journey was unveiled Sunday, June 19, telling the historical journey that La Raza has taken in and the ongoing sojourn that remains. And. Whereas, we take the time to honor our ancestors, self, homeland, spirituality and community from Mesoamerica, the Las Americas and throughout the world has arrived. And. Whereas, the summer solstice symbolizes the nurturing of our youth who need guidance and vision to create a better tomorrow. And. Whereas, Dunsborough reclaims our identity and spirituality through action and performance in new ways to our communities to pass down to the next seven generations. Whereas political, cultural and intellectual development is the basis of human progress, recognizing our past informs the course of history. That is the proclamation. And so I just wanted to. Well, that's the proclamation I won't add any more language at.
Speaker 1: But Councilman, you have to make that motion to adopt Council Regulation 455. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think that's. Mr. President, I move that proclamation. 455 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Do we have a second? You see, it has been moved and seconded. Councilman Espinoza. Let me see. Do we did you read the sections? Yes. Okay. All right. Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 2: So I would like to some know there is somebody I would like to invite to receive the proclamation. I need you to sing.
Speaker 1: This is just comments if you want to do comments. Okay, we do the comments. Then we do roll call and then we out of.
Speaker 2: Sorry. You're calling me on the comments? I'm sorry. No problem. So, yeah, I'm surprised. I'm thoroughly amazed because between the procession that preceded the dance and the hours of dancing that went on yesterday, to see that you guys all had the energy to continue to do it. Here is thoroughly impressive, but it shows the dedication to this artform and to the community that is inherent in their work and that resonates with David. So the real reason for the I mean, the solstice has and continues and will hopefully forever happen. But new to this year's install performance was the dedication of the artwork that was sponsored by Denver Arts and Culture, produced by Dave David here. And that was wonderful. So it was my honor to participate in that dedication of the mural. It was a mystical experience. The prayer, I mean, the blessing that you received was incredible and be part of that process. And I'd like to thank Ramon del Castillo, Maria Salazar and Rudy Cheri with Denver Arts and Culture for our arts and venues, for their hard work in coordinating the event. I'd also like to thank Carlos and Grupo De look for yesterday's ceremony and tonight's performance. So I've said it enough for David. Your artwork is beautiful and I'm going to be working hard to find out that we properly illuminate that project and that artwork so that it's able to be experienced day and night. And now I'd like to thank Ramon for your assistance in actually drafting this this proclamation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Pro-Tem. I would like to commend my colleague, Councilman Espinosa, for sponsoring this proclamation. And, Madam Secretary, I'd like to have my name added to the proclamation as well. And, you know, I'm just honored to be present here tonight. I had forgotten how powerful and centering the drums can be, and it brought me back to that place of center. And so I'm very honored to have been here and been so close and honored to be here and witness and and be part of it. So thank you, Councilman. And thank you, Mr. Pro-Tem.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. I want to ask that my name be added as well. And I want to thank Councilman Espinosa for bringing this forward. And I look for your continued work in our community. This is a group that has been around for many, many years, not only sharing the culture with the greater Denver community , but continuing to ensure that young people carry that tradition on. And if any of you have ever had the opportunity to go to the March powwow and see the different tribes that come from not only every state in the United States, but other countries, and to see the entire floor of the Coliseum filled with dancers that are carrying on that tradition, and to see elders and little tiny toddlers dancing on the floor of the Coliseum and sharing that culture with all of us, it's it's just very touching and just gratifying to know that that culture was never lost when you see so many of the atrocities that happened to the Native American community. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just would love to be a part of this and add my name as well. And I love this group, Grupo CRO Claro. We have had numerous events on the east side, the east side peace walk as well. And you guys have been incredible. And what I love is that you all come into a community that's mixed in, diverse with African-Americans as well. And the African the African Aztec Alliance is alive and well. And we appreciate you all for always being present.
Speaker 0: So thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too. I thought I'd added my name is a sponsor, but I don't see it. So if you can please add me, that would be great. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Right. Duly noted. Are there any other comments? Well, I was a little premature in my comments, but, you know, I can, you know, attest that the group of dialog has been around for quite a while, I think over 30 years. Oh 2636 I think I was two years old when they started to a teen as I was your age. Now I am very proud to hear those drums and to have you here in the chambers. It is definitely full circle. And, you know, it's a misnomer to not to. Think about Denver and or even to, you know, welcome folks with America and scientists to Denver because they were here. And this is just as a part as Denver culture, as our skyline or Mile High Stadium or five points or the west side or the east side it is and north Denver to I'm looking over how to manage to get mad at me if I don't mention north Denver and it's it's it's a very important tradition. And like I said, for me it's home because I have my, my, my brother from another mother over there and we went to school together. And if it wasn't for that and if it wasn't for that culture and that support throughout those years. It's establishing community. You don't you really don't have that that support network if you don't have that. So thank you very much for being in these chambers. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black eye.
Speaker 0: Brooks i. I.
Speaker 5: Espinoza, I.
Speaker 0: Flynn I.
Speaker 7: Gilmore I.
Speaker 5: The Cashman. Carnage. I knew. Ortega. I Sussman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: And if I might add, the murals are amazing throughout Denver. Madam Secretary, can you please announce the results?
Speaker 5: 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes. The proclamation has passed and been adopted.
Speaker 0: Congratulations, gentlemen, as we know that.
Speaker 1: Councilman Espinoza, is there anybody you would like to receive to the, uh, to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to invite David and Carlos to receive the proclamation. Carlos? I'd like to have you both up to receive the proclamation. Right? Actually. While that headdress is coming, I want everyone to know that David spent six months working on this mural, and it was amazing to see it. After I shortly after I was elected to see it in progress, just as sketches, pencil drawings on on pieces of paper, and then getting painted painstakingly, hour after hour, onto these giant pieces. And so to start the work that you see in that building out there today is original artwork. It's not a reproduction or anything. It is is the real deal. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to do the proclamation with you. Or did you?
Speaker 2: Actually, I'm looking for Amanda. Oh.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, David.
Speaker 0: I just want to say thank you.
Speaker 2: To all the.
Speaker 0: Council here. And I'm really.
Speaker 8: Honored to be here myself.
Speaker 0: With with you all and very honored to have been chosen to create this mural at this park. And I myself also identify with with dance, the culture, the colors, the the symbolism is very important, very powerful, very spiritual. That it is very the sounds are very centering for me as well. And there's a lot of respect there. There's a lot of positive energy for everyone, for the children. And that's what I that's what I was when I was the mural. That's that's that's what I had in mind, you know.
Speaker 2: It's for everyone.
Speaker 0: And so I hope you if you haven't been able to go out there, I invite you to to to take some time and stop by the park and just see see the painting. And. So thank you very much and honored to be here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, guys. All right. Thanks. Next up, we have. Proclamation. 454. Councilman Clark, this is your proclamation when you read a council proclamation for 54.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation CP 16 0454 designating the week of June 20th through June 24th as Bike Week, and Wednesday, June 22nd as Bike to Work Day in Denver. Whereas the city and County of Denver partners with the Regional Council, Denver Regional Council of Governments, local bicycling organizations and cycling enthusiasts each year to plan activities and events intended to promote awareness of the benefits of bicycling. And. Whereas, Bike to Work Day is an annual event designed to encourage people to ride their bicycles for transportation on a consistent basis to reduce congestion, improve air quality, and benefit public health. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works hosts the Civic Center Park Breakfast Station, one of the largest in the region where cyclists celebrate their commute to work with free snacks, raffle prizes, music and educational outreach offered by organizations in the region. And. Whereas, the Department of Public Works is a major contributor in the planning and implementation of Denver's bicycle infrastructure, implementing at least 15 miles of new bikeways annually, and this year installing two protected bikeways on Arapaho and Lawrence Streets in downtown, with vertical separation between bikes and cars, and whose plans to install more protected bike lanes are contributing to Denver's designation as a top bicycling city and its inclusion in the People for Bikes Green Lane Project, which provides technical assistance in the installation of bike lanes. And. Whereas, the city now has more than 140 miles of on street bike lanes and SROs and more than 100 miles of off street trails, offering recreational opportunities along scenic routes and is in the process of constructing the 35th 36th Street Bridge, an important pedestrian and bicycle connection from the new RTD East Line and will begin work on the Brighton Boulevard bicycle facility in the near future. And. Whereas, Denver is supporting bicycling in other new and creative ways, offering on street bike crawls and bike sharing stations near places where people gather with the goal of supporting local businesses and making bike riding an attractive way to get around for more of Denver residents. And. Whereas, bicycle and pedestrian safety and infrastructure continues to be a top priority for the Denver City Council and the city and county of Denver, which is supporting funding for additional and expedited multimodal improvements that will increase bicycling in our city now therefore be proclaimed by the City Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Council designates the week June 20th through June 24th, 2016 as Bike Week, and June 22nd as Bike to Work Day and encourages citizens to keep their heads up and watch out for one another and stay safe this summer, no matter what mode of travel Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affects the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy hereof be forwarded to the Manager of Public Works.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilman. Clerk, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the proclamation for 54 to be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Councilman, is would you like to make any comments to start us off?
Speaker 8: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't think it's any secret that I am an avid bike fan. And so it's very exciting for me to be able to put forth a proclamation about Bike Week and Bike to Work Day.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation Honoring the Dedication of “El Viaje (The Journey) and the Annual Summer Solstice.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202016_16-0454
|
Speaker 8: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't think it's any secret that I am an avid bike fan. And so it's very exciting for me to be able to put forth a proclamation about Bike Week and Bike to Work Day. I think every day should be Bike to Work Day, and I did ride my bike to work today. My bike is sitting down in the parking lot tied up to my parking post. I think that as our city continues to grow 18,000 new people in the last year, we have to continue to invest in our infrastructure that allows people choices. You know, I don't see a bike as or promoting bicycling as telling people that they shouldn't or can't get in their cars. It's about you have the option to ride your bike. And I'll tell you that when I really adopted riding my bike around town, not just to work but to the grocery store and everywhere that I possibly can, I started to realize just how frustrating it is to get around town in a car. And when you are outside and enjoying the breeze and the sun and you can hear the birds and the trees and you're cruisin down the street, it's a totally different experience when you get back in your car . And so I think this week is really about educating people and spreading the word that everybody can ride their bike somewhere during their day. And I really do think that it has significantly enhanced my quality of life. And so I'd encourage everybody to dust off that bike, rent a bicycle and get on the bike this week and give it a try. And hopefully it becomes something that is a regular part of your routine. I also have to say that when I first started bike commuting, I wasn't quite the spandex writer, but it was very much about how quickly can I get from point A to point B, which led to a lot of very sweaty and smelly meetings for me at work, which was unpleasant and wasn't helping me think that biking to work was better than sitting in my air conditioned car. But it was really through the Green Lanes project that I started to learn about different cities who really have embraced a bike culture where where a huge portion of people use the bicycle to get around town. And when I was touring around with this one gentleman, he was wearing his suit on on a bike. And I was like, This is crazy. I've never seen this before. What are you doing? And and I started asking him questions and I said, I said one of the things I said, don't you get hot and get sweaty wearing your suit on your bike? And he said, You know, if I start to sweat, I stop pedaling. It's not about getting there fast. It's about enjoying the ride and being ready to hop into a meeting, not sweaty when I get there. And so I've adopted that mantra, and many of my constituents in District seven have seen me riding around town in my modified mountain bike that I made, as you know, these great. It doesn't look cool, but it is awesome because it has great baskets on it that I can throw on my gear and I ride with my suit jacket on when it's cold and I folded up and put it in a basket when it's cool, roll up my sleeves and ride in my work clothes. So I encourage everybody to think outside the box. Throw away what you think you know about bike commuting dust off that bike. And let's let's do this Denver for bike week and Bike to Work Day. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Clarke, for for bringing this up. And I think Councilman Clarke hit most of my comments around the importance of taking this serious as back as, you know, back to work day for our community. I guess I want to elevate the conversation to the importance of us investing in a system that works and putting bikes in their place. I get a lot of I get a lot of constituents criticizing bike users because they're all over the place. And what I tell my constituents is try riding a bike for one day in this city and you will see why folks are all over the place. The system is not complete in our city. There's a lot of things in our city that it stops, right? You know, a lane will go three blocks in in a slap stop and throw you right on to Broadway. And they say, okay, good luck. And so.
Speaker 0: That's.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons we have to invest in this network, because we know that 60% of people who do not ride will ride when they get a protected bike lane, a consistent system that is safe all the way to their destination. And so it's important that we look at that. And I was a part of the Green Lanes project that Councilman Clark was talking about, and I saw myself as a supporter. I came back from the project and became an advocate. So you too will see a brother with a suit on in District nine every once in a while. It's a weird sight. But it's important that we model this. It's important that we use multi-modal city options in our city. We are growing fast, and we shouldn't always have to rely on one mode of transportation. And I just think that the last thing that I'll say is for those motorists who are upset at bikes and you you're frustrated at them, they actually help because the more folks who are riding a bike, the quicker you're going to get to your next destination. So next time you're riding your car, make sure you look out. Don't park in the bike lane. That's for them. Make sure you're looking in both of your mirrors to see oncoming traffic for bikes. And and let's support this and let's be a city that does as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. So historically, I've been more of a runner than a cyclist. At the encouragement of my friends by Denver. As of this past weekend, I have returned to the wheeled set and took my my new bike out for a spin this past weekend. And I'd like to report that the eight year old in me is alive and well. And besides it being a great way to keep in touch with our neighborhoods and get around town in a more relaxed fashion. I just found it. I found that same thrill that I found as a kid. And I also got more in touch with the temptation to not stop it. Stop stop signs, which is what cyclists are required to do. And as I did so, it just I empathized with that feeling of just wanting to fly around town. And I just closed by saying, I'm making a promise to all my constituents to limit the use of brightly covered spandex in our residential neighborhoods. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I'd say thank you, but I don't know about that. I'm just kidding. Thank you, Mr.. Mr.. Councilman. Councilwoman can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. May I please also be added as a co-sponsor for this one? And the only thing I will add to my colleague's great comments is just that I am. I dropped my son off every day for camp in the summer at the South Platte River. The organization that my colleague, Councilman Clark, used to run. And I have to drop him off by car because he's not a confident enough driver yet or rider yet to be in the streets. He probably would be able to bike to camp with me if he were in a protected lane. But we don't have one yet for my neighborhood, and so I drop him off. But it is a dangerous crossing to drop him off because the bike path along the Cherry Creek River is like a freeway. It is a freeway of cyclists commuting into this city. And I love that. I love that we sometimes have to wait 5 minutes while bikes zoom by us to get to the drop off, because it just shows that there are so many individuals commuting, especially to our downtown to work, and that our trail system is a really important piece of that of that infrastructure. So I think it's a trail system to be proud of. We talk a lot about protected bike lanes and we do have a lot, a long way to go. But we have an amazing trail system with more miles than many cities of our size where you can ride off, off, off road. So if that works and you can get to one of those trails, it's a really good way to warm up with this bike to work thing. Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman, are there any other comments on this particular proclamation? All right, Councilman Sussman?
Speaker 5: Oh, I just wanted to say thank you so much.
Speaker 4: For bringing the.
Speaker 5: Proclamation. I, too, am.
Speaker 4: A avid bike rider and just want to let you know that wearing a suit and a to a bike in, it's a very.
Speaker 5: Good accomplishment. But you should try it with a.
Speaker 4: Dress and heels. That's not easy to do, but.
Speaker 5: It can be done.
Speaker 1: Councilman. I think you just challenged him to wear a dress. Yes.
Speaker 6: Oh, yeah. Okay.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that.
Speaker 1: You can do it. I'll tell him. And thank you for it. Thank you, Councilman, for pulling this proclamation together. Any time we can talk about the need for bicycle infrastructure in these chambers. And on this day, as I think it's a very important thing, Denver's rapidly growing as you are, who are driving now that there are no more shortcuts to get anywhere in Denver. And unless.
Speaker 2: You.
Speaker 1: Want to bike. And it is important that having said that, yes, it's important that we get folks out to to use our bicycles, but we need that infrastructure in particular on the West Side. We need to be able to bike across Colfax. And that is the challenge. For us in this in this room is to connect that city, to connect our city from one end to the other, not just by vehicle, but also by foot and bicycle. So you try going back up on Colfax. I mean, you may get here, you may come here and not have so much sweat because you're coming down hill. But when you go back up, I tell you what, my dry cleaning bills would be very expensive. It's very hard to get back up. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Clerk by black.
Speaker 4: Tie.
Speaker 0: Brooks I.
Speaker 5: Espinosa, I.
Speaker 0: Flynn I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 5: Cashman Carnage. New. Ortega assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: High. Please announce the results.
Speaker 5: Of your books. Thank you, sir. 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes. The proclamation has been adopted. Adopted? Councilman Clark. Is there anybody you want to bring up to the podium?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to invite Dan Ryan up to receive the proclamation.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Please allow me to introduce my coworker, Rachel Bronson. We together work on the bi team public works and thank you all very much for supporting bicycling in Denver. While Public Works takes the lead on Bike to Work Day, you know, it's really about all our partners, whether it's Parks and Recreation, Department of the Civic Center or Arts and venue for providing all the tables or folks with them. Public Works, Denver Water, all the sponsors and vendors that come out to support bicycling and sustainability and transportation and all those good.
Speaker 2: Things that make Denver great.
Speaker 0: So while Wednesdays Bike to Work Day, it's not the only bike to work day, every day is Bike to work day. So we hope to see you on Wednesday and frankly, every other day. All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Resolutions. Time for resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions?
Speaker 5: From Business Development for 11, a resolution approving a proposed amendment assumption modification modification agreement between the city and county of Denver, Saint Charles Holding Company, LLC and 4331 Morrison Road LLP assigning the loan to 4331 Morrison Road LLP 412 A resolution approving a proposed amendment assumption and modification agreement between the city and county of Denver. Saint Charles Holding Company, LLC and 4331 Morrison Rohde LLP signing of the loan to 4331 Morrison Road LLP from Financing Services for 07a resolution approving a proposed amendment to a master purchase order between the city and county of Denver and O'Meara Ford Center, Inc. to increase the maximum amount for the purchase of light trucks. Truck parts please me before 16, a resolution approving a proposed purchase order between the city and County of Denver and Worldwide Technology Inc. to purchase and install servers and assorted equipment to upgrade the city's primary technology storage platform from Governance and Charter Review. 422 A resolution approving a proposed second a mandatory agreement by and between the City and County of Denver and School Soft Corp. for a learning content service from infrastructure and culture. 369 A resolution approving a proposed contract between the city and county of Denver and Sky Blue Builders, LLC for installation of protected bike lane and neighborhood bikeway facilities. 370 A resolution approving a proposed agreement between the City and county of Denver and Broadway Station Partners LLC concerning environmental standards, open space vested rights and horizontal infrastructure design and construction related to the development of a portion of the former gates rubber factory site I-25 and Broadway. 403a resolution approving two proposed purchase orders between the city and county of Denver and Trans West Truck Inc. and O.J. Watson Equip Co Inc. to manufacture and deliver seven quad axle Freightliner cabin choices with dump plow and spreader bodies fully installed for zero eight. A resolution approving a proposed amendment to the master purchase order between the City and County of Denver and EP Laser LLC, doing business as John Elway Chevrolet to increase the maximum amount for the purchase of light truck parts.
Speaker 1: Right. Madam Secretary, Bills for introduction. Will you please read the bill for introduction tonight.
Speaker 5: From Infrastructure and Culture for 24. A bill for an ordinance to vacate six inches of sidewalk adjacent to the building at 1601 way Water Street along Chestnut Place at 16th Street without reservations from neighborhoods in planning 395 a bill for an ordinance designating 1899 York Street, the ghost Rose House as a structure for preservation.
Speaker 1: All right. Now, let me to recap. But before I do that, this is your last opportunity to call out an item. Councilman Espinoza, will you be making the motions this evening?
Speaker 2: Yes, I will.
Speaker 1: All right. Let's do a recap. On page three, I'm going to make a comment on 412 416 Councilman Ortega. 316 Councilman Clark and Flynn have called that out and 370 Councilman Clark has filled that out. Councilman Clark, on the resolutions you called 370 what did you want to do with this particular resolution?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to postpone adoption of this companion resolution at the conclusion of the public hearing this evening, scheduled.
Speaker 0: After.
Speaker 8: The recess on Council Bill three one for changing the zoning classification for multiple addresses at 800 to 100 block South Broadway.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Resolution 370 on the floor?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the resolution 370 be adopted.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilman. Clerk. Emotional. Postpone.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that adoption of resolution 370 be postponed at the conclusion of the public hearing this evening, scheduled after the recess on council will 314 and that speakers be allowed to also address this companion resolution during the public hearing on Council Bill three one for changing the zoning classification for multiple addresses at 810 100 block South Broadway.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement.
Speaker 5: Black Eye.
Speaker 0: Brooks I.
Speaker 5: Clerk by Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Flynn I.
Speaker 5: Gilmore, i. Cashman. Carnage. New. Ortega I. SUSSMAN Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 1: Please close the voting and announce our vote. Results are actually counts. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 5: 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes. The resolution, the adoption of Resolution 370 will be postponed after the conclusion of the public hearing this evening, scheduled after the recess on Council Bill 314. Thank you, Councilman Clark on. Page three 416 Councilman Ortega, you called this resolution out.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating the week of June 20 through June 24 as “Bike Week” and Wednesday, June 22, as “Bike to Work Day” in Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202016_16-0412
|
Speaker 1: A while back, this what this does is this amends a current contract that's moving forward. It means a loan for us to be able to help with an amazing project on Morrison Road in my district. This is the former mobile park site, the Shady Nook and Belmont Homes on Morrison Road. If you do recall, a few years ago, they came under some serious violations, about 36 of them on the property which triggered the fire department to show up. They found a lot of conditions that were deplorable at this trailer park site. We took a lot of a lot of flack for it because this is what we do. We can't allow those kind of conditions to exist. A lot of folks who are living in these trailers are living in some substandard conditions, I would say third world style conditions. And I would walk over there to be smelling like liquid propane tanks. Well, like they were leaking and you could smell it. And that's why the firefighters had showed up. People's pipes are freezing. A lot of different crazy violations. The choice was at the time, either we do nothing and turn a blind eye and let something miserable happen to this. And a lot of the folks who were there or actually do something about it, which also triggered a termination notice. And under that that that termination notice and those violations, the the property owner was able to negotiate with the city. We were able to give them the right to care in that time. We had somebody come to the table at Saint Charles, which is what you see here, and offered to buy the parks and not only address the issues, but help relocate. He purposefully triggered the Federal Uniform Relocation Act, which creates a mandatory relocation of all residents and mandatory benefits that kick in. So here's the short of the story. By this moving forward, it allows it to happen. It continues alone. And what this does and just as an update. Almost every single one of those folks who were formerly living in a trailer are now in a better spot. Some of them with the relocation benefits and with the help from the city, were able to actually put a down payment on their first home. It's a remarkable project that's happening here and a great story because as those those trailers are being sold and recycled and scrapped and the property cleaned up, they're going to build 197 affordable units with its own football court garden spaces along Morrison Road. And all those folks who used to live at that site now have first right of refusal if they want to come back to a new, safe, sanitary and decent unit. So. Sometimes these things just move forward. But that's too amazing of a story for us to pass by. And I just wanted to call attention to that and just think that apart our Office of Economic Development, the men and women that work in that particular department, they did a tremendous amount of job working with every single resident, working with the neighborhood. It is an amazing project that's moving forward and I'm proud of and I've seen it happen on my watch and through these chambers. Councilman Ortega, you chimed in also important.
Speaker 6: Councilman Luis I just wanted to first state that it takes a catalyst to make something like this happen. And I can remember you inviting me out to tour the site and seeing garden hoses connecting the propane tanks to the trailers, and they were exposed. Kids are playing, sometimes tripping over them. I mean, talking about a serious hazard. That was an accident waiting to happen. So I just want to thank you for your efforts. I know you have received criticism from folks, you know, talking about displacing those poor people and where are they going to go. But it was through the work that you did with our Office of Economic Development in making sure that the families who lived in those trailers were relocated. And as you said, they'll have first refusal to move back there. But it was a deplorable situation. And I'm really grateful for your efforts because we didn't wait for something bad to happen before trying to take action. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. I appreciate that. All right. We are ready for the block votes. All bills on introduction are ordered published. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block. C.R. 16 041106 All series 16 actually 041204070416042203690403 and 0408.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black eye, Brooks. Clark.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Espinoza.
Speaker 2: I. Flynn.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Gilmore.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 5: Cashman. Carnage. New. Ortega. Hi. Sorry, Ortega. I said I'm sorry. SUSSMAN Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Because the voting announced the results.
Speaker 5: 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted. Councilman Espinoza, where you put the bills on final consideration on the floor.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. And with the following bills being placed on final consideration and do pass in a bloc. The Council Bill 16 0418 and Council Bill 16 0406 and Council Bill 16 0371.
|
Resolution
|
Amends a $2 million loan to St. Charles Holding Company, LLC to 1) assign the loan to a new borrower, Morrison Road, LLLP, 2) assign property to Morrison Road, LLLP, 3) authorize the Director of the Office of Economic Development to administer the loan, 4) extend the performance period of the loan for the property acquisition and future development of 197 affordable income-restricted units at 4325-4331 Morrison Road and 4404 Morrison Road, formerly known as the Belmont and Shady Nook trailer parks (2793-01).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06202016_16-0314
|
Speaker 9: At the confluence of the Baker and Ashmore Park neighborhoods. But we can see that it's it's really bringing together a lot of different neighborhoods in the hub of this transit oriented area of our city. Zooming in a bit to the location, we can see that the site is located at the I 25 and Broadway station area. And just to orient you a little bit, we can see that it's bound by I-25, the interstate at the north south Broadway at the East Mississippi Avenue at the South, and the Santa Fe Platte River Drive couplet generally at the West. And our site is split by a number of manmade, as well as natural barriers, including the consolidated mainline in the South Platte River. And we can see Vanderbilt Park East and Vanderbilt Park West just to the west of our subject site. There are both dedicated city parks and the subject site. The station itself is served by five light rail lines and multiple different high frequency bus lines as well. So to the request, the property is a 58.5 acres and it is largely vacant. Former Industrial. This is the area that we often think of as the former Gates redevelopment site at the Gates factory. It does include today one small auto service structure in the northeast corner of the site as well as the RTD station. So that includes the bus bays, the station platform itself, as well as surface parking. And the entirety of the site is currently owned by four property owners. So our Broadway station partners, which is a private development entity as well as the city and county of Denver and these four property owners are requesting a rezoning to facilitate redevelopment within the framework of the Denver Zoning Code to facilitate transit oriented development. So the request before you was to rezone from 10 to 30 waivers in conditions you are one to the forward zoned districts as seen here. And just to let you know, the current zoned district does include the yellow one adult use overlay and it is not proposed to retain that overlay coming into the Denver zoning code. And currently there are no adult uses on the subject site. And just a reminder tonight that the approval of a rezoning is not the approval of a specific development concept. So now on to existing context. First zoning so we can see that our site is HTML 30 waivers and conditions and tenure. 30 is a former Chapter 59 zone district generally mapped around station areas. It includes a maximum of 5 to 1 and height of 220 feet. And it's important to note that the waivers and conditions that apply to the site do not apply to the entirety of the site. They are concentrated within certain sub areas. So the waivers for parcel five, parcel five is that little portion outlined in yellow to the west of the river, waivers for that particular site way out, certain uses highly limited for that piece of property specifically. And then for Parcel six, which is the parcel located generally right around the I-25 and Broadway station area, that's the portion owned by RTD. There's a number of different waivers and conditions, all generally getting to the same intent that for private development to occur on that subject site, a waiver, the reduction of parking spaces essentially is waived out through a number of different mechanisms and a different process is specified for sharing parking across the GDP area. Additionally, conditions are attached to the subject site. An important one is that an infrastructure master plan is also required as part of the zoning, along with a general development plan . So something to see as we go forward. I now looking to the surrounding context to the north of I-25. We can see some see Amex 16 and see Amex eight zoning, and that's the IMX 16. Zoning was just approved by this body in March of this year. We can see a number of different old codes in districts as well as Denver zoning code zone districts generally mixed use in contexts surrounding the property. And to the south of Mississippi, we can see that the tme 30 waivers and conditions that was mapped on or subject site in 2003 also does extend to the south of Mississippi and CPD is exploring with the property owners throughout this entire TI and the 30 waivers and conditions area to bring all of that property into the Denver zoning code. And we can see OSA zoning located to the West where there's two dedicated city parks are located now in two existing contexts for the GDP and the Urban Design Standards and guidelines. The Cherokee redevelopment of the former Gates factory GDP was approved for the subject site in 2005. So again, a requirement of the TMU 30 with waivers in condition zoning and coterminous for the same boundary. We see urban design standards and guidelines that are intended to facilitate redevelopment over time. But we do understand today that the majority of the site was not developed under this general development plan or these urban design standards and guidelines. So as you'll see, moving into the 25 and Broadway stationary plan, we do see specific recommendations to review these various layers of regulations that exist on the site, streamline where possible, and ensure that they're implementing our adopted plans. So as such, we do anticipate that the general development plan will be repealed and the Urban Design Standards and guidelines have been substantially amended and restated. Recently recommended approval by our Denver Planning Board just last week. So we're not going to be talking about these two tools as we move forward tonight. It's now on to the view plane. We can see that the Washington excuse me, Washington Park view plane applies to the subject site. Originating, of course, in Washington. And estimating maximum building heights of 111 to 169 feet across the subject site, which, of course, these will fall below the maximum building heights requested for the zone districts. So ultimately, the Washington Park View plane will regulate building heights across the subject site. It's now looking to land use. We can see that our site is largely vacant. Its former industrial and the small outdoor service. The structure there, we can see in purple in the northeast corner of the site and we see a mixture of industrial and mixed use uses, specifically industrials concentrated to the southwest portion of the site as well as mixed use continuing on the Broadway corridor. Now on to building form and scale. We can see some images of the vacant property and the one remaining structure, as well as the station area itself, the platform, the light rail flyover and the surface parking lots. And then the photos in the lower right hand corner are the vacant properties to the west of the Consolidated Mainline and west of the South Platte River. Now looking to the foreman scale, we can see generally low to mid rise buildings located around the subject site and then moving into more auto oriented industrial and flex spaces to the south and the west. So now in terms of process, the following ten registered neighborhood organizations have been notified throughout the process. And we did actually receive 37 letters of support. This has not been updated and they are all included in your staff report packet. A notice of receipt of application was sent on February 17th, 2016 to register neighborhood organizations and City Council. Notice of the Planning Board public hearing was sent on March 21st, 2016 to Arnaud's, as well as notification signage posted on the Property Planning Board did vote unanimously to recommend approval on April six, 2016 and the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee move the bill forward on April 27th. And of course here we are tonight at City Council and Arnault's have been properly notified as well as signage posted on the property. So in terms of the review criteria, we will move on to consistency with adopted plans. And there are three adopted plans that apply to the subject site, the first of which is comprehensive plan 2000. And we did find that the rezoning is consistent with the strategy seen here and comprehensive plan 2000, which is of course adopted now six years ago, actually does call out the Gates site as a significant transit oriented development redevelopment opportunity. Next on to Blueprint Denver, our land use and transportation plan. We can see that the subject site is called out with two land use concepts. The first is that sort of bright pink fuchsia color, which is transit oriented development, which recommends compact mid to high density mix of uses, high pedestrian orientation and friendliness, as well as high multimodal access and a reduced emphasis on auto parking. And then to the west of the South Platte River, we can see that pink color, a lighter pink color, is called out as mixed use. And these are subject sites that are recommended for a mix of employment and residential uses next within buildings, but also within larger areas and the entirety of our subjects that is called out as an area change. So areas where the city of Denver recommends channeling the most growth and redevelopment to benefit the city as a whole. Next onto the I-25 and Broadway station area plan, which was recently adopted by this body in April. You will recall that the station area plan recommends encouraging a variety of uses to activate the station area. And again, seeing the reinforcement of the concept land use categories from Blueprint Denver. Next. The plan also recommends in terms of building heights, incorporating higher densities near the station with overall building heights ranging from 8 to 16 storeys across the subject site. Ultimately, though, being regulated by the Washington Park Viewpoint. We do find that the rezoning request will also result in the uniformity of district regulations. By bringing all these properties into the Denver zoning code, additionally facilitating redevelopment within the framework of the zoning code across properties owned by multiple entities over a long period of time . We also find that the rezoning will further the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans. And in terms of justifying circumstances, we can look to a number as articulated in your application and your staff report. So the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing, and we can look to specific change circumstances. The first being that adopted plans over for now almost the last 20 years have recommended redevelopment of this particular area and recognize the evolving character all the way back to comprehensive plan 2000 reinforced through the adoption of the Strategic Plan in 1216, 2014, and now the 25 and Broadway stationary plan. And of course, we're given this a finer grain analysis through the 25 and Broadway stationary plan that sets much more specific guidance than we have been given before in the past. We also see that redevelopment in the area is signaling an evolution in the environs. So redevelopment occurring at the Denver Design District to the north along with the south Broadway corridor. Additionally, the sale of the former Gates factory to a private entity opens up new redevelopment opportunities for this particular site. And the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code has introduced new tools to implement adopted plans that we would not have had available to us at the time of the TMU 30 with waivers and conditions rezoning in 2003. Specifically, the design recommendations that are coming forth from the 25 and Broadway stationary plan are not implemented by the existing zoning on the site as articulated in your staff report. Now looking to excuse me. Consistency of neighborhood. Context to a district purpose and intent. As articulated in your staff report, we do see that it is appropriate to resume the site within the urban center and neighborhood context as well as the zone district purpose statements that are stated for the Max AMS and our zone districts, as well as the specific intent statements where we see specific guidance both in terms of building heights from the stationary plan as well as the transportation context. So based upon our review of the five criteria, we find that the rezoning meets all five and recommend approval. And property owners are here this evening from RTD as well as Broadway station partners. Should you have any questions for them? Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Right. So first up, we have Kate Iverson. 3 minutes. Welcome.
Speaker 4: Kate Everson, artist Todd, manager in the Archduke's Planning Department. I'm here to answer any questions. No comments.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our final speakers. Lisa Angel. I'm pronouncing that right.
Speaker 4: Hello. Good evening. My name is Lisa Ingle. Address of use is 1821 Blake Street 3c80202i represent Broadway Station Partners as the development project manager and local owners representative. We want to thank you for your time tonight. Of course, we're excited to bring forward the rezoning of this important underutilized and contaminated land. We recognize the significance of the property to the city and its citizens and look forward to bringing it back into productive use. We are already cleaning the site, as I think we've mentioned to a few of you and see quality development that the city and its neighbors will be proud of moving forward. Over the past year, we have worked closely with the city and county of Denver, the I-25 and Broadway Station Area Plan, which was adopted through council back in April. We also convened back in November of 2015 a steering committee made up of neighborhood representatives. We called that the B stack. We met four times over the past several months, along with two additional public meetings, and the team was on hand to answer questions as well as get input into the vision of the of the project itself. As a result, tonight, we have letters of support from each of the participating neighborhood organizations. You have a summary of the public outreach on your desk, along with each of those letters of support. And we're here tonight to seek your approval on the rezoning application. And the rest of the team is here as well to answer questions, if you have any.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Singh.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Questions for members of Council. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. I have a couple of questions. Let me start first with Lisa. If you wouldn't mind coming to the front.
Speaker 1: And it might be helpful to have all our speakers that were just here for questions in French just in case they have.
Speaker 4: Come on down.
Speaker 6: So. I would like to ask what kind of discussions have taken place with the city related to proximity to rail? As you know, we have cargo shipments that travel through this corridor and we have had a working committee that has been meeting to talk about rail safety and also as it relates to new development. And just curious to know what those discussions have entailed that would ensure that item number three, which says we're addressing health, safety and welfare, that we're in fact, doing that and. Okay. I understand. You mean you're clearly probably not at that level of detail, but, I mean, I want to know, has the conversation come up? What you know, what has that consisted of?
Speaker 4: Sure. I think it was really brought to our attention by you when we met to to have these initial discussions on the zoning. There has been some some minor discussions with the city staff around this, but we haven't really gotten to that level of detail since we are still really in the visioning phase and not the implementation phase. But it's obviously good to keep on the on the radar.
Speaker 6: So as the representative of the development team, can you tell me if they will be looking at creating a special district, if they will be requesting tax increment financing, what are the additional approvals that will need to be coming back before this body for this project to to develop as it's envisioned?
Speaker 4: Sure. There currently is a special district. We have a metro district on the actually there's three districts. One is an operating district. There will, in fact, be a public finance component of this that we are seeking. We are in current negotiations with Dura and we will, of course, be back in front of each and every one of you for briefings and discussions on that package as well. We're hoping that that will be finalized towards the end of this year.
Speaker 6: And part of that discussion will include affordable housing, I'm assuming that is correct. Part of the TIFF conversation. I know you've been engaged in some conversations with on that topic as well.
Speaker 4: We have.
Speaker 6: When will we know what that package entails?
Speaker 4: Sure. Right now, the the current affordable housing requirement remains with the land. As you noted, we are in negotiations with OED at this time. We are closing in on an agreement. We hope to have something finalized by the end of potentially this week, at which point in time we will look to make rounds back through city council and give some additional briefings and information as well.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I have no further questions at this time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Ryan, could you talk to me a little bit about the the parking waivers and how that works? Sure. The sites that were actually rezonings. I remember if you read I don't know if you were here when we adopted the. The stationary plan. Mm hmm. Okay. I had a lot of concern about the references to locating transit parking far near, but not necessarily at the station, which is the words that are used in your staff report. So there are currently 1200 and 1250 parking spaces for RTD I 25 Broadway. Under this zoning, where do we expect the transit parking will go?
Speaker 9: That's a great question. So there's actually very little change in the way that parking is treated for transit operations between the current zoning and the proposed zoning. So the site that's up right now, I don't know if you can see it, but the waivers for Parcel six, that's the area that's owned by RTD, generally around the I-25 and Broadway station. Those waivers relate specifically to private development that would occur on the parking related seating and the property related to parking. So in former Chapter 59, just like the Denver zoning code, transit users themselves don't have minimum parking requirements. Understanding that these stations can occur throughout the city of Denver depending on the context. And so the zoning today that is proposed is really a framework to facilitate redevelopment over the time, but doesn't require that parking is removed, just like the current zoning does not compel that parking stay. So then what does that mean, though, from kind of the plan perspective in the policy guidance that we see? So we've seen policy guidance now for the past 20 years that recommend balancing the importance of multimodal access to the station as well as placemaking with continued operations as a larger and having a larger aspect, I guess, of park and ride function is of course the station was constructed as the former end of the line in 1994 and we've definitely seen transit facilities expand since then. So the context has shifted and we're seeing the realization of that planned direction come to light. RTD has expressed an interest in maintaining the parking that they currently control. Definitely over the long term, as well as the station area plan does reinforce that. However, recommending that given the urban center context that's contemplated for this site, that surface parking is not the appropriate context moving forward and structured parking would be more appropriate.
Speaker 3: I agree with that. Kate, can I ask you a few questions? Of course I can. You care, Kate. Kate and I used to work together at RTD. It's nice to see you again.
Speaker 4: Good to see you, too.
Speaker 3: Tell me, since our TED reconfigured the Alameda station and has the there's now housing there and and we don't actually have parking there anymore to speak of. Do you do you know and if you don't, that's okay, because no reason you would expect this question. But what how has that affected the boardings and the lightings on light rail? And has it changed the mix of them, if you know?
Speaker 4: So boardings decreased when we closed the parking at that station. Of course, that station was also under construction and jerky was a gigantic mess for a period of time. What we've seen is, you know, we do run boards every three months or we check boardings and lightings every three months. So the residential project at that station has been fully that it was fully leased this winter. We don't have those numbers yet. We have seen, as it has leased up, that boardings at that station have continued to rise. It's one of the few stations in the system where they are continuing to rise. They are, however, below the level that they were when we initially closed it. So I don't think I think the verdict is out in terms of what that what kinds of conclusions we can draw from that.
Speaker 3: Okay. Do you know if any of the folks who used to park at Alameda, which is just is too hop, skip and a jump from I-25 Broadway. Do you know if they've has that increase the pressure on I-25 and Broadway parking? Because I know that's pretty heavily utilized.
Speaker 4: You know, I 25 and Broadway has always been heavily utilized. And we don't track individual usage in a way that we could tell you that when somebody stops parking at one station, they go to a different. But you don't.
Speaker 3: Know. When you closed Alameda did did I 25 Broadway become even more crowded or you don't know.
Speaker 4: You know it is it's risen steadily. We haven't seen it. It went, you know, down here and up here. We haven't seen a direct correlation like that.
Speaker 3: Okay. And finally, from what Ryan said, can you confirm that it's Artie's intent that the parking there remain at the at the level it is now, whether it's configured in structure or whether it's dispersed over different locations? My my interest is in seeing that that the station platform, the train platform is is conveniently walkable by regional commuters who choose to park there, remembering that this is a this is a regional commuting station, not a neighborhood station.
Speaker 4: Understood. Yes. I mean, at this time, that is the intent. We recognize it's an important station. It's one that we have a high commuter usage. That parking in general is a very difficult is a is a complex issue. It's something that will actually be going to our board in a study session in the end of July. I believe so.
Speaker 3: Okay. Very good. Thank you. That's all. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem for the owners. Representative, couple of questions. Can you can you talk to me about what the current brownfields situation is on on the property? And is there any anticipation of any need to limit users because of that? Or will will it be wide open?
Speaker 4: Sure. When we bought the property, we only had 13 acres clean at this point in time. Santa Fe has been fully cleaned as well as our so the triangle parcel. I don't know if you guys have an exhibit on your screen that you can see sort of the triangle parcel against Vanderbilt Park West. We also have no action, determination letters on a portion of Broadway running north, south and sort of to the center line of the Broadway parcel. But the remainder of Broadway is is still contaminated. The needs call for requirements to clean two commercial standards, not residential. So there will be some limiting uses. But based on the way parking and retail will be placed on the site, we'll be able to do residential above. There will be ongoing cleanup and portions of this property, you know, for for a certain period of time and then throughout the end of this year and ongoing. So we saw a little bit of a road ahead of us, but we're well underway.
Speaker 0: Sure. Thank you. As far as how substantial is the site grade from Broadway down to Santa Fe?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, could you repeat that again?
Speaker 0: How substantial is substantial is the grading of the site. I know it's lower down towards the river, but how substantial is that a story? Two stories, three story difference, do you know?
Speaker 4: We haven't done full topography studies, but it's about a story and a half, as you hear from the rail. And the way to really look at this is sort of from the rail to the Santa Fe to to the Platte River Drive and Santa Fe Road. As that grade sort of falls away, you know, will be changing the grade of the site as we improve. However, you know, it's around a half a story story somewhere in there. I don't have the exact I could sure defer to a team. Remember who's here. If you'd like an exact answer.
Speaker 0: No, that's fine. Thank you. Yes. Yes, that's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Brooks. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Ryan, I have a question for you and Steve now. Please be listening. This is this is more this is more of a oh, they just took my screen off. This is more of a question on the relation of the 16 story buildings to the single family homes. Sure. So I had I had the. Maybe you can pull it up. The the correlation between that 16 stories and the single family. And I just want to talk real quick. That's a a dramatic drop from the 16 to the five. Do you see that?
Speaker 9: The five, the tan area to the south of Tennessee?
Speaker 2: Yeah, right on Broadway. Mm hmm. And does that go right into single family homes?
Speaker 9: I might not be looking at the exact same area that we're looking. So we're talking to the east of east. So you can see that the building heights recommended for the area between the castle and Broadway. That's 12 stories. Yeah. And again, calibrated by the Washington Park View plane. So an actual building heights, as you're closer to Broadway, will be around 110 feet. So more on the eight stories. But to answer your other question, we do not see any single family homes located between the intervening alley between Lincoln and Broadway. We see single family homes located on Lincoln. So we have a good block separation for single family ones as well as the Broadway corridor, which is two blocks.
Speaker 2: Yes. I mean, you're two blocks away. Okay. And this was a community process that you all work with neighborhoods for support. Do you have any complaints from any of the single family neighbors?
Speaker 9: No. What we heard through the stationary planning process is that maintaining the Washington Park Plain was of utmost importance. So the building heights map that you see in the plan and then we are implementing today through the rezoning is roughly calibrated to that building heights. But overall, throughout the process, there was, I think, an expectation that this is the area, if anywhere in the city of Denver, that high density toddy blocks that mixed uses and an intensity that truly catalyzes the development of the station belongs here. So we didn't hear great concerns over building heights, those specifically to the west of Broadway.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. Yeah. And I'm specifically talking about exposition to East Center Avenue on on Broadway to Lincoln.
Speaker 9: Okay. So we're talking to the north of the interstate. Yeah. Okay. And those building heights there where we see it, right along the interstate and then five along the South Broadway corridor, we did reinforce Building Heights recommendations from the Alameda Station Area plan adopted in 2009. So those recommendations were carried forward. No change there.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: All right. Were Mr. Nowlin, myself, we're working on another part of the city.
Speaker 1: And there were some concerns.
Speaker 2: And they wanted to know where has this precedent been set in other locations. And so, obviously, Mr. Clark said in the precedent over here. So thank you. Appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 1: Right, Councilman Espinoza? Well, actually, Councilman Kinney did not ask a question earlier. Do you guys do you mind? You go ahead and then we'll go to Espinoza.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to do. I don't know if Councilman Espinoza got one on this round yet, so I'm happy to let him go ahead with my spot.
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. I apologize.
Speaker 4: No, it's.
Speaker 1: Dropping busy everywhere all over this field.
Speaker 4: No worries. It's a busy night, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 2: Oh, no, it's okay. My. My reputation is. Is. Yeah, I'm already chimed in, and.
Speaker 1: It's, like, burned into my screen right here to burn.
Speaker 2: Actually, I wasn't going to say anything until I heard comments, so I would have questions both to Ryan and to RTD. On to Councilman Brooks. QUESTION So what is the in maybe you had it in the presentation. I missed it. What is the what is the zoning on the north side of I-25 between Broadway and Lincoln?
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 9: So we really get back to that slide. Okay. If you're seeing the same image, I am. Great. So this map was actually produced just before the approval of the rezoning for the parcel that we have actually called the Sliver Parcel currently owned by our TD. You would have seen this back in March. So if you can see just to the north of that yellow boundary, which is our rezoning boundary, we can see some see max eight in that kind of pink translucent color and then the area.
Speaker 2: So I was really concerned with I was just asking about that you ams three in the YouTube so that half of this is UMass three and then we have a ride away which is, which does separate protected districts from non-protected districts, correct.
Speaker 9: Right. That is an intervening alley. And that's everything that you're seeing now is to the east of Broadway. And just to be clear, the only the boundary that is outlined in yellow is proposed for rezoning today.
Speaker 2: Okay. Um, interesting. Okay. And then now the question for RTD, since we were talking about boardings, do you have data? And it doesn't need to be presented here, but maybe you could shoot it to my office about the historical data, about the boardings at Broadway station. Do you have information about where those riders are coming from and where they're going? You know, how many are boarding there and going in the core versus going down to to to Greenwood Village or something like that.
Speaker 4: So what I could tell you, the way that we the way that we collect data, we do license plate utilization surveys, I think we do them on only an annual basis. I'm not positive I can check. So that will show us where people who are parking are originating. If somebody got there by foot, by bike, if they got dropped off, if they transferred from a bus. Typically throughout the system, we see that only about 20% of our ridership actually comes from park and rides. We don't have a way to track where those people are coming from and going to. So we have in one instance prior actually to Alameda Station done a person by person survey. So we have a single snapshot in time, but we don't have that system wide and we don't have that station.
Speaker 2: Well, actually, I'm only I'm glad you have that information on the cars, the vehicles, because that's actually the only part I'm concerned about. Right. Which is the huge amount of land area to accommodate those cars, to just sort of sit there, roast all day. So if you if you can put shoot in my office, whatever historical data you have about where those cars originate. And if you I guess you don't have any way of correlate correlating the driver or whoever's in that vehicle where they go. But it would be interesting on where they're coming, how they're where they're coming from to Broadway station.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. I can get you that.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. That was it. No further questions.
Speaker 1: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Do you want to go first? Okay. Okay. So I have a couple of questions about infrastructure. And first, I want to know if the three acre park, Vanderbilt Park East is going to remain on the east side of Santa Fe. And. Will it also be used as detention for storm storm drainage?
Speaker 4: Vanderbilt Park East is a designated park and we are not seeking to change that. So yes, it will stay effectively a park throughout the entirety of this development vision. As far as detention, we are seeking to use the northern end of the park for some small amount of detention, but the majority of the detention will be housed along Santa Fe on private property and we will be improving that park. As you know, it's sort of a vacant dirt lot right now.
Speaker 6: So were you all connecting pipe into drainage that would go into the South Platte River?
Speaker 4: That is correct. We have an outfall that is planned and if you'd like a little more detailed information, Laura Loretta is also here who did the engineering for that. But yeah, the intent is to have drainage coming from Broadway under the under the rails into our private property where it will be detained and then outfall into the river. Okay.
Speaker 6: So now I want to talk about the road that she has to approve that would allow access to the site from traffic going southbound on Santa Fe. Mm hmm. Where is that at in the discussions with CDOT? And are they going to require a traffic study that looks at the traffic flow and what that might do to backing up traffic on this already congested corridor?
Speaker 4: We have begun discussions with see that we have sort of a preliminary, if you want to call it, sort of a verbal preliminary approval. We have to go through the the process, of course. Yes, we are looking at a traffic impact study. We have some results back from that. And Laurel kind of deferred to you if we need to a little bit more in detail. But yes. Yes. So we are looking to put the bridge there and we'll have to do a traffic study for that.
Speaker 6: And that will be both pedestrian and car.
Speaker 4: That's correct. Multimodal. So bike, pedestrian, vehicular.
Speaker 6: I thought I read in one of the documents that there will be some credits available based on infrastructure improvements that are put onto the site. Was I making this up with something else that I was reading over the weekend on the for.
Speaker 4: What type of credits?
Speaker 6: I don't remember if it was infrastructure. I was looking through the documents, trying to see if that was part of this one.
Speaker 4: And we're going to consult I'm not familiar with with this have it so far. Okay.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Jill Jennings Gold at Community Planning and Development in the agreement that you'll be talking about next. We have agreed if there is detention that is put within Vanderbilt Park East, in order for them to do that and get credit for open space, we'll give them 50% credit and not the full credit for improving that park
Speaker 6: . Okay. That's what it was. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um.
Speaker 1: Looks like the trio. I mean, she disappeared.
Speaker 4: Every time I defer, I disappear.
Speaker 1: All right. Go for it. Councilman Cohen. Each.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank my colleague because she asked a couple of my questions about affordable housing. So it was great to hear. I do just have to comment really quickly that it's a little funny to be talking about the Gates project with Fred Bells having a little historical, historical moment. But anyway, he's not here for this project anymore. I want to pick up where Councilwoman Ortega left off with the open space question. So I think that I think I just got the answer, so. The GDP has a requirement for open space. How much of it is being satisfied with the park?
Speaker 9: Correct. So the existing general development plan, the Cherokee Gates redevelopment concept, had a 10% open space requirement. But of course, the concepts that we're looking at now going forward proposes a different open space configuration, as well as different tools to specifically secure that open space. So we're talking about Vanderbilt Park East specifically.
Speaker 5: Well, I've.
Speaker 4: Actually my follow up question was going to be that to the extent are there other open spaces planned within within the development areas? So that was so I'll just throw them out. So so that that was one question. The question that comes from that then is is this zoning appropriate for the whole site, even if it includes some of those open spaces? So pocket parks and things like that, even I understand they may not be dedicated because they may be maintained by the Met District or something, but do we not carve out zoning for those things? We just we just kind of plop them in the middle of this bigger zoned district, and that's okay and that's fine. So those that's the line of questions that I had.
Speaker 9: So. Okay. So first question. Are there other open spaces proposed on the site? So the tool that we are using going forward to secure open space across the site is an infrastructure master plan. And just to recall, there is one existing on the site today. So the general development plan that was approved in 2005 for the site. Thank you. This is a much larger version than my tiny copy recommended. The future location of aggregated open spaces as well as the location of smaller open spaces throughout the entirety of the site as redevelopment occurred. So not all of the open spaces were fully sort of locked in and articulated in the GDP at the time. And the infrastructure master plan then provided an additional layer of specificity and detail. And then secured by development agreement. So lots of lots of things trying to all achieve the same purpose. So what we're doing going forward is the infrastructure master plan is the method to secure the 10% open space. So there are open spaces that are fully credited. So they are given entirely out of private property owned by Broadway station partners. Open spaces that are partially credited. So that is the portion of, for example, Vanderbilt Park East where there will be stormwater. So the infrastructure master plan lays out an open space framework that is responsive to the I-25 and Broadway stationary plan and provides greater connections than what we would have seen in the general development plan that currently exists on the site. So then when it comes to. Yes. So the total open space credit that is provided is 3.72 acres, if you're interested, and the open space required by 10% of the net area. So the area minus the right of ways is 3.33 acres, so exceeding the 10%. And then to the question of how we would typically implement these things. So you're correct that certain open spaces will be managed by the Metro District, and there is an expectation that a portion will be given to the city when the specific site plans are developed and the exact boundaries are known, which is part of what we struggled with when considering rezoning options that did it make sense to rezone a portion of property to say the OCA or the OSP zoned district without knowing the specific boundaries to the point of a legal description to exactly where that would occur. So to answer your question, no. The OSA or OSP zoned districts are not proposed for the subject site, but the infrastructure master plan and then the development agreements that give specificity allow our development reviewers during the site development planning process to specifically allocate and review open spaces based upon these criteria.
Speaker 4: Okay. And then just to follow up questions, which is that so it's okay that there's open space within this dense zoning district for. Yes, it is. It's an allowed use. It is a.
Speaker 9: Permitted. Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay. I didn't want to have any situation whereby the zoning is for closing the open space. And then my my question probably for the the owner's representative is just having come back from New York City and, you know, 16 stories, you know, we're getting into some density that is you know, we're talking about when you're in some of the outer boroughs, they're dog park. Are you working on a dog park? Because, you know, I think it's it's really critical. So given that given this zoning, you need all kinds of infrastructure and that's one of them. So we heard very strongly from the community and council that Joel and really just of the dog park, I was not put up to this question, by the way, by Councilman Clark. So so as long as you don't mind calling it the Clark Park, I think we can accommodate a dog park on this on this site. Now, seriously, though, it is our intent to incorporate and build a dog park, and that is written into the parameters of the development agreement for open space. And I know we're all laughing about it, and it sounds like just an amenity, but the truth is that you end up with conflicts in the other open spaces if you don't plan for it. And this kind of dense. It just requires it. So thank you. I appreciate that. I think that's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Any other questions? Town Council Bill 4314 actually. Okay. Constable 314. Hearing is closed. It's time for comments, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. And I did not put my colleague up to the dog park question. I was grinning from ear to ear when it was asked to, but I did I did not put her up to that. This is, you know, a site that we've been talking a lot about in the just a year since the new class of us came on. An area that is exciting for all of Denver is also really exciting for the community that I represent and is really at the heart of the community that I represent. This has been a really long time coming. This community has sat and watched this site and dreamed of what it could be. As we you know, I was I was writing down during the staff report that six years ago a plan called about eagerly awaiting redevelopment of this site. And it's so exciting now through Broadway stationary plan and now to be taking the step to be continuing to take steps. And I just hope that we are able to do this and achieve this and actually start seeing dirt being moved around. Because I think that that's what the community is is waiting for and longing for, because we've been down this road before. And and and they're ready for things to start coming out of the ground. So I'm excited that we have this here tonight. I just wanted to say a couple of things. You know, my West Watch Park Neighborhood Association is one of the most active neighborhood associations on the planet, as my colleagues have seen, with their turnout at a lot of different issues, whether they are specific to my district recently or not. And and in your report, you can see and this is the neighborhood councilman Brooks was talking about, are they okay being this close to this kind of density? And they had a 12 to 0 vote and sent no one here tonight to to to even you know, I think when we had the stationary plan, they had a unanimous vote of support and then set five people to say, we support this unanimously, but here's here's what we're still worried about. So they're very active and they're very engaged. And so the fact that they have provided the support and strong support from all the neighborhood associations, but specifically from West VI to that conversation, is proof. I think that one, this community process has been successful, that everyone from our team with the city to the property owners has really engaged very deeply with these communities, with these neighborhood associations, and worked very closely with them on every little detail, from sound mitigation to light mitigation to dog parks, to fit in everyone's hopes and dreams , and to a piece of property that this community really feels like they own in a lot of ways. And so I'm thrilled to see this and to see this just, you know, pack it full of very strong support from all of the neighborhoods, saying, okay, let's let's go do this thing, let's start building something. I also think that, you know, when I was on the campaign trail and with the city that's growing as quickly as we are, density and growth is always this red hot issue. And across the board, when I talk to people at doors, when they said, you know, we have to protect our historic neighborhoods, Baker West, Rochford, Platte Park Overland, Ruby Hill, Ashmore Park and these traditional single family residents. When I would ask, okay, well, if eight or 10,000 or however many people are coming to Denver, where should we put them so that we can protect our neighborhoods? And everybody would turn and point to this piece of property and say, that's the perfect place. There are two train stations within a rock throw of each other between Alameda and Broadway, and there is a big brownfield, ugly site that is not bringing value to us and to our community. Let's build it there. This is the right place. This is, as I've said before, and I stole this from other people. But this is midtown for Denver. You know, it's not the DTC, it's not downtown. It's that happy place right in the middle that is urban but surrounded by single family. And I think that I'm really excited to see this. I really hope that my colleagues up here will support this tonight so that we can take one more step in a process that will continue to have a bunch more steps before we can actually see something come out of the ground. But this is an important next step to continue moving us towards that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask that in the final design of Clarke's Bark Park, that we might include a just a small separate area for hairless varieties. I think that's. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Susan.
Speaker 1: All right. We still have two public hearings to go. All right, Madam Secretary, let's roll call on the moment.
Speaker 0: Black eye. Brooks. I Clark.
Speaker 8: I mean, I.
Speaker 5: Espinosa.
Speaker 0: I. When I.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. I. Cashman. I can each. I knew Ortega I. Susman, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 1: Police closed the voting in a civil.
Speaker 5: War vise.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes council bill 314 has passed. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put resolution 370? Those postpone on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 370 be adopted.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. We have a motion in a second. Councilman Clark, did you want to. Comment on this one.
Speaker 8: I don't have any comments on this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Seeing that there's no other comments on this one, can we have a roll call, Madam Secretary, on Council Resolution 370 black.
Speaker 5: Hi, Brooks. CLARK. Hi. Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. Hi. Cashman.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 5: Can each. New. Ortega. My assessment, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Tonight's.
Speaker 1: Ten is resolution three. 70 has passed. Councilman Espinoza, will you please put Council Bill 319 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 319 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second is Flynn right? The public hearing for Accountable 319 is open and we have the staff report. Curt Upton, welcome.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. Good evening. Council Members. Curt Upton Committee Plans, Planning and Development. Tonight we have the first of three items relating to regulatory changes to implement the 61st in a stationary plan. This is a large private property owner initiated rezoning moving property from former chapter 59 mixed use CMU ten with waivers and conditions . CMU 20 with waivers and conditions and CB 30 with waivers and conditions. And the urban overlay one which is the adult use overlay to the new Denver zoning code with a variety of mixed use districts. So as we all know, this is Council District 11, near 61st and Pioneer Boulevard. This gives you a sense of the scale. This is just east of the 61st and penner light rail stop. It's a vacant land again just to the east of the 61st. And Penn Station is just south of 64th Avenue and west of Tower Road.
|
Bill
|
Rezones multiple addresses at the Broadway Station area (800-1000 blocks South Broadway, 301 West Mississippi Avenue, 700 South Santa Fe Drive, 925 South Santa Fe Drive, 711 South Cherokee Street, 501 West Ohio Avenue, 510 West Tennessee Avenue, and 99 West Kentucky Avenue) from T-MU-30 with waivers and conditions, UO-1 to C-MX-16, C-MX-12, C-MS-12, and C-RX-8 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones multiple addresses at the Broadway Station area (800-1000 blocks South Broadway, 301 West Mississippi Avenue, 700 South Santa Fe Drive, 925 South Santa Fe Drive, 711 South Cherokee Street, 501 West Ohio Avenue, 510 West Tennessee Avenue, and 99 West Kentucky Avenue) from T-MU-30 with waivers and conditions, UO-1 to C-MX-16, C-MX-12, C-MS-12, and C-RX-8 in Council District 7. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-27-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06132016_16-0262
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman knew. And the questions for 1839 will go to the last 1 to 62. Councilwoman Sussman, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to postpone final consideration of this companion bill to the concluded the conclusion of the public hearing this evening that's scheduled for the recess on counts about 261. I'll explain it after that.
Speaker 1: Got it. All right. Let's first get on the floor. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put 262 on the floor?
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 262 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Has been moved. Council need a second? Thank you. Moved in second. Councilwoman, suspend your motion to postpone.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Mr. President, I move that the final consideration of Council Bill 262 be postponed at the conclusion of the public hearing this evening, scheduled after the recess on Council 261. Council 261. There are two. There is this is a companion bill to that. There's a zoning bill and then there's an excise and license bill. So I want to postpone the excise and license bill until after the public hearing as well, so that the speakers will be allowed to speak both to the zoning bill and to the excise and license bill. That's why I'm asking for the postponement.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. It has been moved. And secondly, we got your comments and your other comments on the motion to postpone. CNN now, Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 4: SUSSMAN Hi.
Speaker 3: Black Hi.
Speaker 4: Brooks Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I gillmor. I. Cashman. Hi. Lopez.
Speaker 3: I knew.
Speaker 4: Mr. President. High Clerk.
Speaker 1: Got them. Madam Secretary, please cause a very nasty result.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes, 11 eyes.
Speaker 1: Final Consideration Accountability 62 has been postponed until after the public hearing on Council Bill 261. That was all the bills that are called out. So all of the bills for introduction are ordered published and we're ready for the block votes. Councilman Gilmore, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block?
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block.
Speaker 4: One moment after clear something.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 14: Okay. And they are 382 417 398 404 ten 390 3402404405 365 391 409 419 and that's it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Has been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Flynn I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. I Cashman.
Speaker 12: Hi.
Speaker 4: Lopez.
Speaker 15: Hi.
Speaker 3: New assessment.
Speaker 4: Black Brooks. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 12: Hi.
Speaker 1: Now, Secretary, please go to the voting. And as a result, 11.
Speaker 4: ICE.
Speaker 1: Alumni. The resolutions have been adopted in a block. Councilman Gilmore, you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage in the block.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following bills be placed upon final consideration and do pass. 359 360. Three. 62. 363. 364. 313. 336. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. And three. 18.
Speaker 13: Yeah.
Speaker 1: You got them all. Thank you. Has been moved and seconded, seeing no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black. Hi, Brooks. Hi, Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore, I Cashman. Hi, Lopez. Hi, new Susman.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I my secretary please clothes very nice results. Lebanese 11 eyes. The bills placed on final consideration do pass in a block. Tonight we have a required public hearing on Council Bill 261, allowing short term rentals in the city and county of Denver and a one hour cursory public hearing on Council Bill 306 regarding sanitary sewage and storm drainage services charges. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must be must see the Council Secretary to receive a speaker card to fill out and return to her during the recess of Council. I once again remind the people in the stands we were not allowed to have people on the wall. So I please ask that you find a seat. And I also want to say we're going to have this front right for you, my right, your left reserved for our speaker. So that has to stay open. When I call speakers up, they can come up and sit there as we try to expedite the proceedings. All right, counsel, let's see if we take a we can get everybody signed up in 15 minutes. Oh.
|
Bill
|
Amends Article II of Chapter 33 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding short term rental properties and adds sections providing the Department of Excise and Licenses authority to license and regulate short term rentals (rentals under 30 days) in the City & County of Denver.
Public Comment Period:
a) Introduction of the legislation. b) 15 minutes of public comment. c) Discussion. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Amends Article II of Chapter 33 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding short term rental properties and adds sections providing the Department of Excise and Licenses authority to license and regulate short term rentals (rentals under 30 days) in the City & County of Denver. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-13-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06132016_16-0261
|
Speaker 15: And both that committee and the task force met many times to discuss short term rentals. We also had a staff working group throughout this period composed of representatives from multiple departments, including the Mayor's Office, Community Planning and Development, Excise and Licenses, as well as the City Attorney's Office. And we spoke with registered neighbor neighborhood organizations throughout the process, including AMC and Capitol Hill, United Neighbors. Also this year, the Department of Excise and Licenses hosted four town hall meetings in different quadrants of the city that were very well attended. We had quite a few residents and other stakeholders come to talk to us about short term rentals during those town hall meetings. As you as you know this. Discussion resulted in the current proposals that are before you tonight, which come in in two pieces. There's the first piece is a proposed change to the zoning code to allow short term rentals as an accessory use. The second piece is a companion licensing ordinance that will create a business licensing system for short term rentals. The criteria for adoption of the two pieces is a little bit different, so I'll be talking primarily about the zoning code text amendment component, and then I'll turn it over to Nathan Batchelder to talk about the licensing component of the system. The Zoning Code Text Amendment component began the legislative process with the planning board hearing in March, and its purpose. The purpose of the text amendment is to recognize the growing popularity of short term rentals while still providing protections for neighborhoods, residents, short term rental guests and hosts, operators of traditional lodging accommodations that hotels and bed and breakfasts . It's also intended to support that companion licensing ordinance that I talked about. And the bill, the the tax amendment is sponsored by Councilmember Councilwoman Mary Beth Susman from District five. So just to bring us onto the same page about the status of short term rentals in the city, now they are not allowed in most residential districts. Well, they're not allowed in any districts that are that are purely residential. And that prohibition is enforced by a complaint by neighborhood inspection services at this time. Short term rentals may be allowed in mixed use commercial districts, not called short term rentals. That term doesn't appear anywhere in the zoning code, but as lodging accommodations. So if you're in a district where a hotel is permitted, there is technically the possibility of getting a zone use permit to change the use to lodging accommodations and then getting a business license for lodging accommodations subject to building code and parking requirements. The proposed text amendment allows short term rentals as accessory to a primary residential use, and short term rentals would be permitted as an accessory use with limitations where residential uses are currently allowed throughout the city. And I just want to acknowledge that clearly the demand for short term rentals varies across the city. If you go on any of the hosting platforms and look at the sites, the short term rentals on offer are concentrated towards the center of Denver. Not surprisingly, however, there are short term rentals all over the city, just fewer numbers away from the center. And, you know, as we've had this discussion about short term rentals, I think we haven't really seen why short term rentals, the potential benefits and impacts would be substantially different from one single family neighborhood to another single family neighborhood. Say, regardless of whether there are lots of short term rentals there now or very few short term rentals, they're now based on the market. So that's why we're proposing this citywide approach, which is quite consistent with what all of our peer cities have done. No zoning permit would be required to conduct short term rentals. That's because we've talked to quite a few other cities. Nathan has talked to a lot of cities about their experience with regulation of short term rentals, and it's very clear that they feel that the streamline approach is the way to get a higher level of compliance. And so in this proposed approach, we place more short term, more requirements, most requirements for short term rentals in the business licensing component of the approach. So you're required to get a business license, which is why we decided that a requirement to get a zoning permit would be duplicative. And so I will acknowledge that most other home based businesses that are permitted now, if you have a home beauty parlor or a or a home office, are classified as home occupations, which is a category of home based business, and those do require a zoning permit. However, they don't require a business license. And so we actually are are making a lot of the same requirements. We're just doing it on the business license side where we think we can have better enforcement. And so the proposed text amendment would permit short term rentals that are conducted by the person using the dwelling unit as their primary place of residence. And that could be the owner or the renter living there. And I just want to emphasize that rental of a whole house or dwelling unit is permitted. The resident could be offsite, fulfilling National Guard duty. They could be on vacation. And so this isn't necessarily sharing a room with the person that lives there. We would expect that there always will be a number of whole houses available to host short term rentals while the owners are are away. They would be permitted in a primary structure or an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit. However, they could not be you couldn't have multiple guests at one time on different contracts. Unlike a hotel which rents rooms out to different parties, this would be just one party at a time, whether they were staying in the detached accessory structure or the primary structure. But both of those would be permitted, but only one set of guests, and it also would not include rental for special events such as weddings or parties. And of course, the inverse of the primary resident requirement is that if you don't live there, you would not be able to conduct a short term rental in the dwelling unit. That requirement, the primary residence requirement, is intended to help preserve the fabric of residential neighborhoods. So in this framework, the primary use remains residential, long term residential living, with short term rentals permitted as accessory to that primary residential use. And that recognizes decades of experience that that we have in the city of Denver with home based businesses. And that indicates that there are fewer concerns when there's a primary resident present. Denver's current regulations allow those home occupations, home based businesses, as I mentioned before. And those are businesses that are conducted by the person that lives there. That beauty salon is a beauty salon that you, as the resident are running. You're not renting out your house to to be a beauty salon that somebody else is running. And this approach, this primary resident approach, also allows us to continue evaluation of potential impacts on housing stock. There are a lot of questions, you know, what does this mean for affordability and the change of. Units from long term rentals, say, to short term rental. And we don't know for sure. And some of the studies that have been done in other cities are not completely conclusive. But with this approach, we're taking a first step towards regulation of short term rentals. That leaves future options open. If we opened everything up now and then tried to go back, that would be more difficult, I think, than taking a cautious approach now and then. Revisiting through the advisory committee that Nathan will tell you about whether additional flexibility is appropriate in some areas. We've received a lot of public comment through letters and emails as well as at those town hall meetings. I'll just summarize a little bit of what we've heard through this through 3:00 today. So we've received 224 letters and emails. And of those 224 letters, about 32% specifically mentioned something about supporting that primary residence requirement. About 46% specifically mentioned opposition to that primary residence requirement. And then the nearly half of the emails and letters that we've received have expressed some sort of support for short term rentals in general as well, saying that they offer benefits to two residents and two neighborhoods potentially. However, about 20% have expressed opposition to short term rentals in general. And those numbers that have Asterix next to them, that's just indicating that in some cases we received a bunch of emails that were kind of on a forwarded email template in those categories. And the position statements that we've received from registered neighborhood organizations and other organizations were included in those numbers I showed you on the previous slide. But just to dial in a little bit more to what we've heard from them, nearly all of them have expressed support for the text amendment as drafted. And those letters that we've received from organizations that didn't specifically say we support the text amendment have drafted. As drafted, they said we support the primary residence requirement. Specifically, there is one letter which we received from an organization, the Vacation Rental Managers Association, that does express opposition to the primary resident requirement and support for short term rentals in general. And there were a few RINO's, the Pinehurst Nature Way, University Park and West Wash Park. They do say that they really have concerns about short term rentals and aren't sure whether they should be allowed, but indicate that if they are going to be allowed, it's very important that that primary resident component be left in the requirements.
Speaker 12: So I'll tell you about.
Speaker 15: The review criteria for the text amendment, and that is consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations. And we need to find that the text amendment furthers the public health, safety and welfare of the city. Looking at that first category, there are two citywide adopted plans that are applicable here. The first is Comprehensive Plan 2000. It talks about a city of neighborhoods, and that includes modifying land use regulations for flexibility to accommodate changing demographics and lifestyles. It's a comprehensive plan. 2000 does anticipate that we will need to look at the zoning code and make revisions to accommodate changing trends and lifestyles. It also talks about allowing or encouraging a diverse mix of things, including home based businesses. And it talks about promoting a zoning ordinance that's flexible and accommodating of current and future land use needs, such as home based businesses and accessory flats. And it talks about preserving and modernize Denver, modernizing Denver's existing housing stock and established neighborhoods, as well as making an economic objective that we should promote quality accommodations for visitors. So staff feels that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the objectives of comprehensive plan 2000. Blueprint Denver talks about maintaining the character of areas of stability while accommodating some level of redevelopment. And it talks about new and revitalized neighborhoods centers, which is something that's been part of the discussion how short term rental gas may contribute to the vitality of neighborhood centers by shopping and entertaining themselves locally. It makes recommendations that zoning concentrate more on building design than on use. And it specifically says that under unenforceable standards should not be included in zoning. And that's something that's really been on our minds throughout the process. Let's not include requirements that we really don't think we can enforce. So staff feels that the proposed text amendment is consistent with Blueprint Denver goals and recommendations. We also find that the proposed text amendment includes reasonable neighborhood protections that will further the public health, safety and welfare, and that it applies uniformly to all zone districts where residential uses are permitted, which promotes uniformity of district regulations. Planning Board on March 16, voted 7 to 2 to recommend approval of the Text Amendment before you tonight, finding that all applicable review criteria have been met. I'll note that the two no votes from Planning Board both express support for short term rentals and in general, one of the no votes sought more flexibility for non primary resident rentals. The other no vote. They expressed interest in having a more nuanced or geography based approach that treated some parts of the city differently than others. So consistent with planning boards. Recommendation staff recommends that Denver's zoning code text amendment number eight be approved, finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. So I'll now turn it over to Nathan Batchelder to tell you about the licensing component.
Speaker 16: Good evening, council president, members of Council Nathan Batchelder, a legislative analyst with Excise and Licenses. And I'm here tonight to walk you through the very basic proposals of the short term rental business license. So when we look at the general short term and all licensing requirements, first, the licensee has to be a legal resident of the United States that's applicable to all of our licenses. If the licensee is not a property owner, the licensee must have the permission from the landlord or the property owner to operate the short term rental. The short term rental unit must be the licensee's primary residence or what we're referring to an ordinance is that place of normal return, and that can be demonstrated by the proof of voters registration, driver's license, tax document, utility bills or any other relevant documentation that's determined sufficient by the director of excise and licenses. The short term rental has to be located in the zone district that allows residential use and the licensee must possess a valid Denver Lodgers tax and any other applicable tax account numbers, including occupational privilege tax. If you go to the additional licensing rules and regulations, the licensee has to provide the unit address and personal contact information to the department when they apply. Also, the licensee has to provide what we're calling a guest rental packet with all the applicable city rules and regulations that pertain to the safety information to the guest upon each booking. So that can include no rules and restrictions regarding on street parking. All the city applicable noise regulations, trash collection, schedule, etc.. It'll also include the unit safety information, including the egress and the ingress rounds, any fire evacuations or any other safety features. We'll also require the licensee to have a local emergency contact information in those cases of emergencies. Licensee has to maintain general liability insurance to protect against property damage and bodily injury. The licensee will have to maintain an operable smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector and fire extinguisher in the unit at all times. And importantly, the licensee has to list the units short term terminal license number on any online print or other advertisements. And what's exciting about this proposal is that as we watch and monitor other municipalities adopting regulations, we we actually see that Denver might be the first in the nation to offer an online short term rental license. And as Ed mentioned before, making sure we have that easy, streamlined application process is paramount to us so that we can gain as high rate of compliance as possible. Right here is just the basic steps where people will certify under penalty of perjury online that they meet the requirements. Once they do certify that they meet the requirements, put in their tax license ID number and pay the $25 application fee, their license, as well as their corresponding license number will be sent to them essentially where they can print that license out and then have their license number to start advertising their units. And when you talk about the sorts of moral enforcement, it's important to understand the current enforcement of short term rentals as it exists in the current zoning code. So the current zoning code is oftentimes been typically burdensome and onerous for neighborhood inspection services inspectors to actually demonstrate or adjust or prove that someone is offering a short term rental license with the corresponding tax amendment. We'll still have regulations and rules that nice inspectors will still be able to enforce. But we're adding an additional level of business licensing requirements, and these business licensing requirements will be enforced by the new short term rental division within Excise and Licenses, which is a dedicated team of inspectors within our department that will have both a complaint based enforcement operation and also be proactive with compliance monitoring among the licensees. So you can see here our various enforcement tools under the business licensing rule is something that we're used to any short term and all licensee or any responsible party can be subject to these various licensing tools for compliance and suspension and show cause hearings. For example, we could issue a simple notice to comply for operating without a license. We can issue a license suspension for not having a rental package or having insurance. We can have a general violation or essentially a fine for up to $999 per incidents of advertising without a license number. And we can also trigger, show cause hearings for that license revocation. If we determine that you violated that primary residency requirement. So we feel that the in addition to the zoning code regulations that are being adjusted and modified for short term rentals, we'll have this new layer of business in licensing standards that licensees will now have to live up to once their license with the department. And continue with the short term rental enforcement. We really envision the short term rental division partnering with our other city agencies to not only enforce the requirements of the ordinance, but make sure that the short term rental division is aware of any sort of common neighborhood complaints that might come from short term rentals. So for example, the short term rental division, which lives out of excise and licenses, we can receive the complaints and investigate about licensed and unlicensed short term rentals. We can monitor and track advertisements for licensed and unlicensed short term rentals and make sure that someone's license number is in their advertisement. We can inspect and investigate any other violations of the requirements, including insurance, rental packages, safety features, etc.. And then our department will be able to issue those general violations. Suspensions in show cause hearings on the actual license itself. And we envision partnering with our city agencies, including the APD, Neighborhood Inspection Services, 311 Environmental Health. So what we'll be able to do is track the what we're calling the common complaints that come in on not only just short term rental properties, but but but of all the licenses in our in our system as well. So we'll be able to know if there is a disturbing the peace call on a particular licensee. Any complaints about trash or violating really any sort of local ordinance? Excise and licenses will then be able to take action on that license. What's also great about our proposal here is that we have a we're proposing a six month soft enforcement window. And the reason behind this is that we want to make sure people are aware of our short term rental license and what it what it means to come in where they need to get licensed through which department. And this is really to encourage as high rate of compliance and educate the House as much as possible on what they need to do to become a responsible host. Some of our soft enforcement tools are really intended to educate hosts about our new tools, rules and requirements. We can send reminder notices to host and property owners throughout this six month period to make sure they're aware of our licensing requirements and where they can come in and get licensed. We're also anticipating what we're calling now the host with the most marketing and education campaign. We're a separate marketing and advertising launch will come from excise and licenses to encourage hosts to get licenses and show them where they can get their licenses. We'll also use the short term rental advisory committee and the short term rental, you know, distribution list and other resources we have available to make sure that we spread the word and make sure people get licensed after the December 31st. 26th date is when that strict enforcement of the short term rental ordinance would begin. And finally, we've talked a little bit about the proposed short term rental advisory committee. And the reason for this advisory committee is to know that we want to make sure this license continues to get honed and sharpened. And and it makes sure we have the appropriate tools going forward so we can actually work with the neighbors and with our community partners to research, study and do analysis of the local short term rental industry. We can have this dialog where we analyze our complaints and the violations and the enforcement efforts and the coordination between the two, between the separate departments and the short term rental advisory can also provide recommendations and reports to excise and licenses. And one of the things that we found during our town halls is that there was a lot of sentiment and concern about having a non primary residency option. And I think we understand that and we recognize those concerns. And what we'd like to do is use this short term rental advisory committee to really study the feasibility of what that non primary residency option would be and bring that recommendation back to the city council, have it go through the same community dialog, the same community process that this particular proposal went through. Finally, the short term rental advisory committee can recommend further rules, regulations and other procedures that can be promulgated by the department, including fines, schedules, enforcement procedures and those other administrative operations. Outside of the ordinance, the committee can meet as long as necessary and work in perpetuity as long as the license exists. And in terms of that composition of the short term advisory committee really have a more the merrier philosophy. We want to have a wide range of views and provide a really robust objective of policy discussions within that advisory committee. So potential members can include neighborhood and R.A. representatives, agency representatives, short term rental licensees and hosts, short term rental guests, short term rental industry representatives, hospitality representatives, partnering city agencies, excise and licenses, city council members and their staff. And then outside experts. Economists. Academics. Real estate experts and housing experts. So with that, we conclude our presentation.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Nathan. We have 64 speakers signed up for short term rentals. And for those of you that this is your first time to counsel. Get comfortable. The conversations, the comments are broken out. Pro four or neither. And staff chooses the order and we alternate pro for and neutral until one is exhausted. And I'm going to call up the first five speakers. I would ask that you sit in this front pew to expedite the processes and I'll call out each individual name. You can come out and begin your remarks. I will apologize in advance for any names that I mispronounce. First five have. We are Cheri and I, and I'm pleased if we could keep the applause to a minimum. It just simply extends the public hearing. So if we could keep that hold on that that would be really appreciate it. Sherry Wei, Mark Lance, Margie Valdez, Rhonda Beard and Shays Brady. Those are the first five speakers Sherry Wei, Mark Lance, Margaret Valdez, Rhonda Beard and Shays Brady. So Miss Way, you can begin your remarks when you are ready.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It looks like I'm.
Speaker 1: Up and you have 6 minutes. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 3: Very good counsel. President Herndon Council members thank you for having this hearing tonight and for asking us to speak and allowing us the permission to do so. Councilman, as Councilman Clarke knows, I have been involved in the short term rental issue for at least the last two years, starting with Mary Beth first meetings on this issue. But frankly, even longer than that, I was the ad hoc committee chairman for Denver, for West Washington Park, and in the process of adopting Blueprint Denver and considering that the implications of that planning initiative for our neighborhood, we considered issues like short term rentals and what would be an appropriate length of a rental for our neighborhood. At that time, we did extensive outreach for residents in West Washington Park, and Carluke concluded that 30 days was the minimum rental that would be appropriate for our neighborhood, and we did that for many reasons. First, we thought, Can you hear me? First, we thought that short term rentals and and short term guests in our neighborhoods was really more of a business use and not a residential use in a residential neighborhood. And as city as city planning has indicated tonight, short term rentals are already permitted inappropriate commercial districts and in this mixed use district. So we found, frankly, there was no need for this type of use in our residential districts. Secondly, we were very concerned about the nature of of the use. It undercuts, in our estimation, the fabric of the residential use of the neighborhood. Why does it do that? Well, short term rental guests, although they may not be troublesome, they may be very good people. They don't send their children to our schools. They don't support our schools that way. They don't take care of elderly neighbors. They don't shop for elderly neighbors. They don't shovel the works for someone. They don't pick up the mail for a vacationing neighbor. They don't walk the dog for a vacationing neighbor. So it's a little bit hard to conclude that a short term rental guest is really a residential occupant. When short term rentals were first proposed, we were induced to consider short term rentals on the basis of a living element alleviating financial distress. This came up initially, as I recall, in 2008, 2009, and the economics in Denver were quite different at that time. So we were induced to think about this to enable people who might be suffering hardships to remain in their homes. We heard that. We also heard the requirement that it might enable people who needed a caregiver to remain in their homes. We also understand that. So to the point of whether or not this promotes the health, safety and welfare of the community, perhaps for those limited basis, I could see that it would do that. However, that can very easily be done with a primary use requirement. We strongly encourage you to adopt this text amendment if you are going to approve short term rentals without eliminating the primary residence requirement. To Nathan Batchelder comment, you can also look at you can look at this as you go along. We have some experience under our belts. I don't think this will happen. But if it does go so swimmingly and everyone says, Gee, why do we have this primary residence requirement, we can always let that go later. We cannot tread back and impose it if we don't do it. Now, another point I'd like to make with my my 6 minutes and president. Or did I hope you'll let me know if I go over to the point of short term rentals being a problem because they're already here and we can't close the barn door after the cow. To that I say, sure we can. Being a business lawyer in the city for 25 years, I have to tell you, I would never recommend to my client that they engage in a business use without checking the code, and if they do, they do it at their own risk. That is the same exact thing that's happening here with people engaging in short term rental businesses without properly evaluating whether they're permitted or not. So in summary, I ask you to consider carefully whether you really believe that short term rentals are consistent with residential uses in residential zones. Many of us in West Washington Park, as you've heard, do not believe that they are. However, if you are inclined to adopt this, we strongly encourage you to do so and adopt the amendment, as Councilwoman Sussman has proposed it, and without eliminating the primary residence requirement. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Way. Next, we have Mark Lance.
Speaker 2: So, um, so I lived downtown.
Speaker 13: In a 23 storey high rise by 160 or so units, about half of it. It's all privately owned, but about half of them are rental units. And right now at our window, there's about 13 cranes building a brand new apartments, brand new construction, beautiful stuff. And, you know, some of us who have multiple units would like to be able to use short term rentals to combat the competition that's going on down there. So we could use that as a weapon to to fight against that. This is a major revenue stream for the city that comes almost entirely from out of state. And this new sharing technology empowers homeowners on an individual basis. You know, we're talking about empowering thousands of people overnight by allowing them to do this. So this helps us combat skyrocketing costs of health care, skyrocketing cost of tuition, helps us put money away for retirement and to help our families. So I'm just limiting it to primary residents, really puts a major cap on that. We understand that you can't have people taking over these neighborhoods, buying up all the homes and depleting the inventory. But we're hoping that whether it's tonight or some day down the road, that we can come to some sort of moderate solution where we can we can have, you know, two, three, four, whatever extra residences to to rent out on our own. It allows us to have dual uses for guest houses, for family and friends to come in from out of town. And then in the meantime, we can supplement our income with the short term rentals. It's it's really a wonderful thing. So. So that's our thanks for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Could you say your name for the record?
Speaker 13: Mark Le Varnish. I have terrible handwriting, so. Oh.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Margie Valdez.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of the City Council. My name is Margie Valdez. My address is 28 East 12th Avenue. I am the chair of the RNC Zoning.
Speaker 11: And Planning Committee, also known as AB. Approximately two years. A subcommittee of SAP was organized for the purpose of analyzing the potential impacts of short term rentals in Denver. The subcommittee held many meetings and a public forum for citizens of Denver. Over 100 residents attended the public forum. Councilwoman Sussman attended all the.
Speaker 3: Meetings and indeed organized and held town.
Speaker 11: Meetings as well. The ZAP committee.
Speaker 3: And ANC delegates voted overwhelmingly to support the proposed ordinance.
Speaker 11: Provided the primary residency requirement, whereas retained in the ordinance. Our position has not changed. The primary residence requirement is essential for our members. Indeed, this was a compromise.
Speaker 3: For our members. Residents value the intimate quality of the quiet local streets with single family homes.
Speaker 11: Denver's neighboring neighborhoods should not be for sale.
Speaker 3: Residents who purchased their property could not have anticipated that the house next door would turn into a motel and present issues which were not conducive to family oriented neighborhood environment. We thank Councilman Sussman, who worked hard during the past two years to model an ordinance which respects the property rights.
Speaker 11: Of the many thousand residents in.
Speaker 3: Denver. It achieves the goal of preserving our residential neighborhoods for families and ensures properties will not be converted to short term rentals based on financial considerations.
Speaker 11: But instead, those rentals will be available.
Speaker 3: For those who work in Denver. I urge council to pass this ordinance with a.
Speaker 11: Primary residency requirement. Thank you.
Speaker 1: AMOS That as Brenda Beard.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Thank you for having us. So I'm here tonight to talk a bit about tax revenue on vacation rentals, both primary resident and non primary residents. The tax revenue that it brings to our city and our state. Denver is known to be one of the top business meeting destinations, as well as one of the hottest vacation spots for many worldwide travelers. So in 2015, there was over 15 million visitors and nearly $5 billion came in and nearly 100 million in state and local revenues. So all that money went to the restaurants, attractions, transportation, businesses and supporting people. Over 51,000 people in their jobs. So Denver charges the 10.75% tax on the sale of lodging. And in the first eight months of 2014, I found that Denver raised over $51 million through the lodgers tax, and that was an increase of over 22% from the prior year. And I just think this number will continue to become much greater with all vacation rentals contributing to this tax. And I think if we limit this to only primary residence rentals, we're actually doing a disservice to all the people who would like to visit Denver. It's important that Denver provides lodging to accommodate all desires of our tourists. One of the top reasons people pick a vacation rental home is because they like the privacy and the space and the affordability. We strongly feel that all primary resident and non primary resident vacation rentals should be allowed in Denver and should be required to collect that lodgers tax. We need to encourage tourism in our city and if we outlaw vacation rentals where the landlords have to be there, I think it's detrimental. So please eliminate the primary residence requirement as all short term rentals are a benefit to our economy.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Amos Behar. Next, we have Shays Brady. And as Shays comes up, I'm gonna call the next speakers, Grant Swanson. Betsy chuckles Bill Marks and John Noble. You four can make your way up to the pew. You can begin your remarks.
Speaker 3: And I'm going to correct my name is Shane Brady.
Speaker 1: Jim Brady. I'm.
Speaker 3: And I must say, I'm going to date.
Speaker 11: Myself, but I haven't been before city council since Mayor Hancock was on city council. So that was a while back.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Shane Brady and I live in 9.4 St Paul's Street in Congress Park neighborhood and represented by councilman knew. I'm here on behalf of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods. We're a registered neighborhood organization here in Denver. We've been around for 45 years. We are a board of 37 residents made up of those that own home.
Speaker 11: And.
Speaker 3: Those that rent homes. Our age groups anywhere from late twenties on up, sitting on our board. So over the past two years, while Councilwoman Sussman had the meetings, we did follow them and listen to our delegates coming from in C over the past two years to learn more about the short term rentals, we also had city council representatives come to our zoning land use transportation license committee meeting and tell us more about this proposed ordinance. We did have a vote at our zoning committee and we did favor that. The city passed the short term rental with conditions. We also went before our board and our board voted to.
Speaker 11: In support of the ordinance to change the current zoning regulations to permit short term rentals.
Speaker 3: Provided that those are restricted to owner occupied properties. And that was a big discussion among our homeowners and renters. We also asked that.
Speaker 11: Our city also include the requirement of registration and licensing of short.
Speaker 3: Term rentals by the city.
Speaker 17: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Grant Swanson.
Speaker 15: Good evening. My name is Grant Swanson. I live in the Sunnyside neighborhood in North Denver and I own a short term rental property in the Berkeley neighborhood, also in North Denver. My short term rental is not my primary residence, so if the proposals before council pass in their current form, I will be shutting down my short term rental. I would prefer not to do that. One of the reasons that I would prefer not to do it is that I, as a citizen in North Denver, feel really good about the positive economic impact that my little rental house has on my neighborhood. I use a cleaning service to get the house ready. As guests come and go and the cleaning service is owned and run by a woman who has lived in my neighborhood her whole life. She employs several of her family members. They're an awesome team. They can sweep in and get my house ready in an hour. I when when I was closing my books on 2015, I did the math and I saw that I paid her $5,000 in calendar 2015 for her services. And I felt really good about that for two reasons. First of all, she does a great job. I mean, that's sort of the most important thing. But it also felt really good because those $5,000 stayed right in my neighborhood. My rental property is located two blocks from the intersection of 44th and law. If you spent time in North Denver, you know, that's a really busy intersection. At last count, there are five restaurants arrayed around that intersection. One of the restaurants I've been going in for years and also owned by a neighbor of mine, not a next door neighbor, but a north Denver neighbor of mine. And her restaurant is at the top of the list of the restaurants that I recommend my guests visit. Whether it's a cleaning service or it's a restaurant, having great local businesses in all of our neighborhoods is critical for the health and vitality of our neighborhoods. And my short term rental is a small way to help support my neighborhood's economy. I would encourage the Council to consider an amendment to allow non primary residences to be used as short term rentals so that we can continue to have the impact that we're having on our neighborhoods economies. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Bessie, Chaka and Mamie have 6 minutes.
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. My name is Bessie Charges and.
Speaker 11: I live in the Alma facility neighborhood in my family has owned investment properties for 51 years in Denver. We own Southeast Denver, Denver Country Club, Cherry Creek and in the Highlands also. As an investor whose family has been doing this for 51 years, I can tell you right now I'm really embarrassed about how investors are acting in the state of Colorado right now. They've really changed a lot of things that have been going on in Denver. They don't care about neighborhoods. All they care about is their bottom dollars. And that is not exactly the reason why my family's withstood the test of time over all these years for the good years and bad years. And now the reputation that we do around conserving also our properties that we own in Denver Country Club. But there is no way that any of those people in those neighborhoods would allow an Airbnb to go on in that neighborhood. Trust me, I look like this because I had to go most of my land in between the rain and stuff today. So excuse me, but even when I work on my own properties and the newbies that move into Denver Country Club, look at me like, what is she doing here? And I'm like, We actually on this for a long time. So it's really interesting to see how investors are handling the properties today in Colorado. They make more money than running. Right now, I went on to Airbnb and pulled up 1010 listings that were up there and 30% of them. So three out of the ten, of course, were investors that had their properties up. Right now, my family probably makes about a good $50,000 a month clear. If I did R&B, Airbnb right now, I'd probably make about a half a million a month. Doesn't. I don't care about the money. It's all about how we are and how we represent ourselves and neighborhoods. Money is not the object when you've been running as long as my family has. It's about who we are. And people know us. I grew up in country club, I was born there. And so riding up and down those streets, especially on Lafayette where I was born, I remember all the neighbors coming out and handing me cookies or whatever and making sure that I didn't, you know. Well, at least the sidewalks were in a lot better condition back then than they are now. But I know that families, these investors are not considering families. People that are coming in with young kids want to be able to know their neighbors and make sure that, you know, everyone watches out for their kids. Investors don't care about that. They just care about their bottom line. The number one thing that all these investors don't understand is that it actually does lower your property values. Nobody wants to live next door to a motel. I know that. I don't want to live next door to a motel. And a lot of these investors don't care about their properties. So they turn into like a motel six. I'm proud of the man that has made that has spent, you know, $5,000. And that's great. But nobody wants to live next door to a Motel six when you're trying to raise your family and you want to be part of your neighborhood. There's a lot of different things that happen in property values is the number one thing that's going to go down. And if your neighborhood gets known as an area that there's a lot of Airbnb going on there, you will see the difference and people will start noticing that kind of stuff. So I propose that you keep the way this amendment is that you guys have going on right now, do not allow investors to use their their properties as, as Airbnbs. And like I said, as somebody who's been an investor for decades and decades and decades in Denver, it just makes us look worse than we are today because we are definitely not shining through right now in the state of Colorado. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Bill Marks.
Speaker 2: Hi there.
Speaker 6: Good evening.
Speaker 13: My name is Bill Marx. I live over in the Five Points area and I've been a VR bio AR on VR bio for two years and since I've been able to have my home is a VR bio home, I've actually been able to help the neighborhood in regards the esthetics of the neighborhood, the way the neighborhood looks . My renters that come and rent from me are anyone from doctors, lawyers, people coming to visit sick people in hospitals, parents coming to visit children in school as well as grandparents also coming to visit other children that might be having babies. So my property has helped within that aspect of being able to bring or bringing that neighborhood feel. My renters also go down and use all the local businesses that are close to me. Coffee at the point is also one of them that's near my property. The owners love the fact that I have people come down and support local businesses, which has been very nice. The thing that concerns me a little bit is that the city council is basically infringing on my property rights as a property owner. I don't like the fact that someone can tell me what I can and can't do with my home. And it it I feel it's un-American, it's unconstitutional. And what's next? Are they going to be able to tell me that I can't have an American flag in front of my home? And I would hope that you don't do that to us because I don't want to lose my property rights as a taxpaying citizen.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Marks. Next, we have Joel Noble. And as Joel comes up on the call, the next four speakers George Maile, John Weekley, Clover Stein, Mary Lou thought that I got that wrong job. Rumors.
Speaker 6: Mr. Council President. Do I have 6 minutes and.
Speaker 1: You have 6 minutes? Yes, sir.
Speaker 6: Thank you so much. My name is Joel Noble. I live at 2705 Stout Street and I'm here tonight speaking only for myself. I've been watching this issue for the past couple of years, slightly from the outside. And it was fascinating how it began. It couldn't have been more fractious. The first meetings held with Councilman Sussman and see people who are doing short term rentals. People couldn't be further apart. Those who wanted anything to go, just let's make it legal to those who were saying this is going to be the end of things, that the Denver Post, you know, pretty rightfully summarized as page after page of unrelenting alarm. That's where we started. And with the leadership of Councilwoman Susman and a lot of hard work from I.N.S. and neighbors and people all over the city, it's come together to a pretty good compromise. It's not a compromise that everybody's happy with. But I am proud of Denver. When I see a topic that's given enough time that I can start off with so much animosity and find a pretty good compromise. Now, Denver had a leg up in this. Unlike recreational marijuana, we weren't the first. We didn't have to invent this from whole cloth and wonder what would happen. We could look at what other cities have done and what other cities have done is pretty much what we're doing here. We're just trying to do it a little bit better. We learned that in order to regulate short term rentals, you need to make it easy. You need to make it inexpensive. And we're going further by making it totally online. We learned from other cities that that registration number is vital to compliance. So we're doing that. We learned that you don't add a lot of costs for inspections. You inspect as needed. And the key thing that we learned is an emerging consensus across cities, and it's the primary residence requirement. Other cities have chosen this. Some cities have not chosen this and then reverse themselves and move towards it, including Austin, Texas, which is actually the home of HomeAway, the parent company of VR bio, as they learned that primary residence is a good idea. Why is it a good idea? Neighborhoods will tell you they're concerned about not knowing who lives there. So if there are issues, noise issues, trash issues, etc., they wouldn't know who to talk to. And that's a pretty good concern. But those who are lucky enough to own multiple properties say, Well, I'm concerned that I won't have another way to make money off my properties. I mean, that's a pretty good concern. But I think the key concern is for you to consider as to why the primary residence requirement is important. Came up in this meeting before you even went on break, and it came up more than once. It's the crisis of unaffordability, of housing. This is a crisis in Denver. Redfin just came out with another report today about price escalation in Denver being higher than San Francisco. We're number one. All right. And the primary residence requirement means that we're not creating an incentive for people to take long term rental units off the market in order to put them to use the short term rentals. If it wasn't for the primary residence requirement, we would be creating that incentive and understand that there were earlier alternate ideas and may even be presented later as amendments that people could say, Well, you could have a short term rental at your primary residence, or if you didn't, you could have one more somewhere else. Beware of that, please, because you'd be creating an incentive for those who have the means to have a secondary house to purchase one . Take it off the market and whether it was owner occupied previously or long term rent occupied and put it to use for short term rental and exacerbate the housing crisis by reducing the supply. So I looked around after this, came to the planning board because I did try to keep my distance on this topic and just watch it play out until Planning Board had had considered it. And I found this paper from the Sustainable Economies Law Center regulating short term rentals, a guidebook for Equitable Policy. I'm glad that a barge is very familiar with this paper as well, and it summarizes what's going on around the country in different policies. And there's a lot to this. But they said if affordable housing is a concern in your community, you want a primary residence requirement and then go further and say if affordable housing is a really big concern, you want a primary residence requirement and capped the number of days. It can be used. Because if you cap the number of days it can be used, you might change the economics. Someone might be willing to have a long term renter in their ADU or in their house, in their basement apartment. And if it makes sense for them to do so, they will have a long term renter. But if short term rents are so much more lucrative, they'll do that. So you might cap the days. Now, the city proposal doesn't include a cap on days. It is, as this paper discusses, hard to enforce. Who's going to account for those days? And understand why we didn't go that far. It paper's very fair, though. It does say there is a case where you might not want to consider primary residents. And that's where you want to encourage tourism. And housing is an abundant supply. Someday we should have that problem of abundant supply of housing and falling rents. But we don't have that now. Please honor all the work that's gone in the last couple of years from all the many parties and honor the compromise by accepting this as this in front of you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Noble. I may. I skipped over. Name the next is Brian Egan. Did I say Brian Higgins name? I apologize for that, Brian. And then we're going to go George, John Clover and Mary Lou. So, yes, Mr. Reagan, you.
Speaker 2: Can begin remarks. Thank you very much. My name is Brian Egan. I live at 606 Lafayette. Most of the co-founder and CEO of a company called Evolve Vacation Rental Network, we're headquartered here in Denver, proudly employ about 100 people. That's a number that's up about four X in the last 18 months. And the number that we anticipate will double within the next 18 months. Our company acts as a effectively a virtual property manager helping second homeowners around North America.
Speaker 6: To rent out their homes.
Speaker 2: So we have a lot of experience in this market operating in communities throughout North America, throughout the US. We have about 2000 owners who are in our network. We've conducted about 55,000 bookings across from them or on their behalf, rather for over 275,000 nights. So it's based on that experience that I'm here to address the primary residence restriction that's in this bill and to offer our strong opposition to it. Essentially, as we look at all of the markets that we've operated within and all those 55,000 bookings, there is a very clear pattern that emerges of what works on regulation. There are five drivers. There's owner behavior. There's traveler behavior. There's a community impact. There's revenue impact. And then ultimately, there's enforceability. Across. None of those five drivers is a primary residence restriction versus a non primary resident or a primary resident host versus a non primary resident. An effective or reliable proxy to separate good outcomes from bad outcomes or good actors from bad actors. If you look at each of those five drivers, owners who are a second home owner are no more likely to want their home to be used as a party den, or no more likely to want the erosion of equity value in their neighborhood where they own this home than a primary resident. Guests on the very few occasions, on a percentage basis where guests cause problems, they are completely indifferent as to whether they are causing problems for an owner of a primary residence or a non primary residence. When it comes to a community impact, yes, there are things we need to be mindful of as we approach this for the first time. But again, the permitting process is the best lever and the best mechanism to watch out for communities and nuisance nuisance issues. Enforceability of nuisance laws shouldn't be discriminated between primary non primary on a revenue basis. Primary owners will book more, make more money, will pay their taxes on time, and are far more likely to be compliant. That is true throughout every market in North America that we've studied. And then lastly, when it comes to enforceability, I would just say this. It is very difficult for us to understand how you would know the difference between me at 606 Lafayette renting my house three months a year and living in a nine months a year, and then the following year to vice versa, living in a three months a year and registering again.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry your 3 minutes are up.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Thank you. George Mayo.
Speaker 7: Good evening, council members. My name is George Male. I'm retired CWA three United States Army Officer, Master, Army Aviator, Combat Pilot. And I am a neighborhood advocate. So let's start real from the beginning. I've been involved with short term rentals since May, since 2010, when I took two bad players in Corey, Merrill and Stokes Place to Board of Adjustments hearing because for a year and a half it took about to shut them down from the wild parties the noise, the trash, the parking. This went on and it was a year and a half before we finally got this stopped. I know a bad player. I've been involved with this for six years. So let's just say it's kind of funny when people come up and talk about it. But, you know, in the book, in the codes, what part of tenancy is arranged on a month to month or longer basis?
Speaker 18: This is the law of Denver.
Speaker 7: And what part of.
Speaker 18: This law did none of these people understand? Did you not know this? That it's against the law and it is now.
Speaker 7: Not once in all of our meetings. Mary Beth, and thank you very much for what you're doing. Have any of these people stood up and said, I apologize for breaking the law. I apologize to my neighbors for being a bad player. I know that this has been illegal, but I still continue to do it. And I apologize. I've never heard one of them say.
Speaker 18: I think I'll.
Speaker 7: Cease and desist until the city council changes the rules. I've never heard that from anybody. I'm kind of ashamed about that. But anyway, that's my perception. You know, it's when I think about it, you have to go back 250 years. And I went back to the Federalist Papers of James Madison.
Speaker 18: And it probably holds true.
Speaker 7: Here, as it did.
Speaker 18: Then, when he stated how to guard.
Speaker 7: Against factions or groups of citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Think about that.
Speaker 18: That does apply with a lot of online.
Speaker 7: If whatever you call them now, short term rental people. So anyway, in conclusion, primary resident. Primary resident, I can't stress how important it is that you go back to your neighborhood and the peace and contentment that you have knowing who your neighbors are. Residential neighborhoods are not commercial enterprise zones. They were never meant to be. This is why we have ordinances against less than month to month at the present time. So with that in mind. I think the free passes are over with. It's time to end free passes.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Chief. Next, Jon Weekly.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council members. My name is John Weekley. I live in University Hills. These are the facts. Short term rentals are good for Denver. They empower individuals, encourage creativity. Add to the versatility of our progressive city. And they make our neighborhoods better, kept updated and more beautiful than our reactionary neighbors. They create jobs.
Speaker 1: Imagine Mr. Weekly. Mr.. Mr. Weekly. Jobs. Mr. Weekly, if you could please address the Council.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Simple jobs like lawn care, house cleaning being created by you and me. That's good for everyone. And to think some of you are still scared of something that does not exist in this industry. Corporations and big investors. This fear is not information to base our decisions on. This fear is not what we build public policy on. We don't make decisions based on what might happen. Let's be clear. If you support the primary residence restriction, you oppose short term rentals. You cannot say you are in support of short term rentals. And at the same time say, but I support a primary residence restriction that doesn't work to be operated correctly. Homeowners generally will need to have another residence. Why? It's pretty simple, actually. Where is the primary residence supposed to go when their primary residence is rented? Well, I'll state the obvious. They would go to their second home. Which would make their second home their first home. Or would it? Now, therein lies the confusion. For the sake of simple functional legislature, drop the primary residence restriction to support primary residents. You're not in favor of improving Denver. You're not in favor of saying to the rest of the state, the country in the world that we are progressive and that we're willing to accept and regulate change in technology. You are not saying I accept versatility and smart growth. You are saying I don't want stars. You are saying I don't want to improve anything. There is no in between. The primary residence restriction is not a compromise. It's a sabotage. To be clear, to support it means you are intentionally swayed by the fear, not the reality, of major operators taking over your neighborhood. The reality is this is not happening and won't happen because it is simply too laborious and time consuming to be profitable for a larger business. There are much easier ways to make a dime, and these rentals are labors of love, more so than profit machines that interest corporations. Please support stars as the majority in the know do by voting down the primary residence clause and moving forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Weekly. And audience member I would please ask that speakers address the council. And we, we admire the passion on both sides. We asked if we would be respectful of the speakers and keep our comments to ourselves. Please. Next we have Clovis time.
Speaker 3: Hi, I'm Clovis Stein. I live in Breckenridge, Colorado. I have two properties in the Sunnyside neighborhood. One of them is a short term rental apartment. I would just like to say that I agree with the last speaker in saying that. If you. Move forward with a primary residence requirement. It is like saying that you don't want short term rentals. I keep hearing a lot of people say that having short term rentals in our neighborhoods is like having a hotel in our neighborhoods. And I'd like to address that idea as I feel it's not in any way an accurate depiction of what short term rentals are. They are not hotels. Hotels are high density, mass occupancy, commercial buildings that do not look anything like the surrounding homes. Once a hotel is built, it will always be a hotel. It will accommodate many different groups of people at a time. The guests are welcome for as little as one night, as long as they have a credit card. There is zero discrimination. Short term rentals are duplexes or single family homes that look just like all of the surrounding homes. They accommodate one group at a time. The majority of these rental properties have at least a three night minimum stay. Guests are prescreened by owners who have a vested interest in keeping their properties in good condition and in keeping a strong standing within their community. Short term rentals are fluid. A hotel will always be a hotel, but a short term rental could one day be a long term rental or a primary residence as needs dictate. We are fortunate to live in a country where home ownership allows us the right to use our property as our needs fluctuate. Currently, our home is a second home for us. It is a short term rental. One day it will be a long term rental. One day it will be a primary residence. One of our recent guests wrote, We were a party of three small children, barely outnumbered by four adults a mom, a dad and grandparents. We're in Denver for the wedding of our son, our brother, our brother in law. And we could not imagine spending five days in a hotel. This home was the perfect solution. They went on to detail the amenities that they appreciated. Sitting on the front porch with the kids while the others slept in, cooking in the backyard with their family from within the neighborhood, using the grill and the patio, the backyard which was fenced in. Our guests are the sons and daughters the brothers, the sisters, the grandparents, the parents of people who lived in these neighborhoods. They are threads in the fabric of these neighborhoods. They are not random strangers. They spend their money here at all the neighborhood restaurants and businesses. They enhance the character of the neighborhood. They do not take away from it. If non primary residents, if non primary residency rentals are banned, visitors to the city will be forced to stay in expensive hotels far from their families, or rent out a spare room in the primary residence of a stranger, or stay in a home that is full of somebody else's primary residence sort of things which is uncomfortable for everyone.
Speaker 1: This time, your 3 minutes are up.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Next, we have Mary Lou Fanelli. And as I finally comes up, I'm going to call the next four speakers Craig Ellsworth, Michael C Becker, Aaron Streets, who has 6 minutes. And John. Mary Lou, you can begin on your mark.
Speaker 19: Good evening. I'm Mary Lou Fanelli. I support limiting short term rentals to primary residences only. I have lived in the 800 block of Steel Street in Congress Park for 29 years. This single family neighborhood facilitates connections, relationships, commitment, and stronger neighborhoods. We know each other, talk with each other, socialize with each other, help each other, care for each other. We are the village that participates in raising children, attending christenings, bar mitzvahs, graduations and weddings. Buying Girl Scout cookies and Boy Scout popcorn. We are baby child, pet and house sitters. Helping hands supporters through family crises. We are the kind of neighborhood that makes Denver a wonderful place for families of all kinds to live. My neighbors and I discovered this spring that the two story Craftsman bungalow at the end of the block was an star advertised on Airbnb as the Steele Street estate, although that listing has been reviewed and removed. 800 Steal Street appears on VR below same content no fancy title described as great for groups. Sleep 16. It is house groups of 1114 1516 800. Steele Street is not anyone's primary residence. Would you like this house on your block? 800 Steel Street was owned for 23 years by a couple who raised four children to adulthood. Their home hosted many neighborhood events. Very loud parties and music emanate from 800 Steel Street during the day and into the night. Numerous nonresident cars park on steel and Adams streets, diminishing parking for residents and their families and friends. Bags of garbage and overstuffed recycle bins are visible from our front porches. Residents occasionally have loud parties, but we know each other and must continue to live with each other. We can ask a neighbor to tone it down, take it inside, or cut it off at a particular time and have that request respected. Strangers have no such allegiance to those who live here. Commercial entities such as 800 steel st limit the property rights of the surrounding homeowners as we are being deprived of the privacy and quiet enjoyment of our primary residences and having our property values diminished. Today's Denver Post reports 2000 staffers in Denver, how those could help alleviate the city's shortage of housing stock. Investors who bought and renovated these properties knew that staffers were illegal. They chose to take this risk. Profit making, not community service, motivated them. The future sale of larger homes and single family neighborhoods.
Speaker 8: Your time is up. I'm sorry. Thank you. Mr. Craig. Craig Elsworth. 3 minutes.
Speaker 15: Good evening. My name is Craig Ellsworth. I'm a Denver resident and owner of a short term rental property. I'm also a member of the Capitol Hill United Neighborhood Association. When I applied for my. And it and obtained my business license and lodgers tax ID. I told the city exactly what I was doing operating a short term rental. I support the proposed ordinances with the exception of the primary residence requirement, which I believe will effectively hand Airbnb a monopoly in Denver short.
Speaker 2: Term middle market.
Speaker 15: And deprive Denver's visitors of the choice to rent a private home for their stay.
Speaker 2: These council bills.
Speaker 15: Proclaim to create, quote, a fair operating environment for all persons in the business of lodging, end quote. In reality, the primary residence requirement unfairly favors Airbnb over competing platforms such as HomeAway and VR Bio, which, by the way, was founded here in Colorado, unfairly favors hosts who rent a portion of their home over those who rent their entire home and unfairly forces hundreds of Denver property owners like myself out of the short term rental market. Over 900 people have signed an online petition calling on Denver City Council to enact regulations that do not limit short term rentals to primary residences. Here's what a few of them have to say. Pam. Arizona's governor clearly realizes that creating a monopoly for Airbnb and forcing visitors to stay in owner occupied homes is bad for the state. Anthony I prefer a short term rental because it connects me with neighborhoods and communities.
Speaker 2: It gives me an opportunity.
Speaker 15: To experience places in a way that I would not be able to do if I were forced to stay in a hotel. Brian My family travels to Denver every year and we stay at short term rentals. We have a daughter with special needs, and staying at a hotel is simply not a good fit for our family. When people visit Denver, their transportation choices are virtually unlimited. Visitors can get around by rail, bus, shuttle, bike.
Speaker 2: Taxi, rental car, cardigan.
Speaker 15: Zipcar, Uber, Lyft, and even by horse and carriage. Why then, would you restrict their choice of accommodations? I urge you to do the right thing. Please do not hand Airbnb a monopoly. Do not force us out of the short term rental market. And do not deprive visitors the choice of renting a private home for their stay in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 1: The industry elsewhere. Michael C Becker.
Speaker 13: Hi. I'm Michael Schumacher. I'm a law professor and a political science scientist at DU. And what I'm here to do is advocate that the council adopt the perhaps the most flexible rules governing short term rentals to preserve the very robust market. What I'm not going to do is lecture you about.
Speaker 6: The law unless you want to go to sleep really quickly. I can do that.
Speaker 13: But what I'd like to do is just share some anecdotal experiences that help you understand how families like mine find it absolutely essential to have a vibrant market for short term rentals. So the first reason is, but for our short term rentals, my family simply would not be able to travel. My husband and I have three small children. Two of them have special needs. We have tried the hotel route and it is simply impossible. There are very few hotels that have three adjoining rooms. They cannot be adequately supervised. They need to be in a home environment just like ours where routine is very important. And we have dinner together. The children make their beds. They cook with us and they clean. Something that is stable. And that is what many families prefer and need.
Speaker 1: Mrs. Teabagger, could you please speak in the microphone.
Speaker 13: Before and then me put it down a little bit? So, for instance.
Speaker 6: When there was a calamity at our house here in Denver, we had to move out for a month.
Speaker 13: We had to stay in two different short term rentals and could not find a hotel that would accommodate our family. But we did live in.
Speaker 6: Homes that were available to us. And there's not a huge market.
Speaker 13: Right now, actually, for homes that are accommodating of my family. I think we need a more robust market than less. And when we visit my mother, who's 85 in Wisconsin, we cannot visit her unless there is a home that we can live in for a short period of time. There are no hotels available where she lives. When we take my other in-laws with us.
Speaker 6: On vacation, which we just into San Diego. One of my in-laws is battling cancer. She cannot stay in a hotel.
Speaker 13: Adequately supervised by the rest of us. We have to stay in one family unit in a house together. So that's one reason we can't.
Speaker 6: Travel, but for this opportunity for short term housing. The second is it really allows us to live in a healthy community environment.
Speaker 13: We choose to live in areas where we can walk the streets, participate in the community. Go get ice cream at the neighborhood ice cream shop.
Speaker 6: We're not interested as a family and living next to the airport in a convention hotel. Finally, I think it actually promotes responsibility. We are not the partiers and I don't think there are many. There may be some, but I think the vast majority of folks who do this are interested and respecting the owners of the property.
Speaker 13: Just like you would respect your own home. One of the people from whom I rented right here is now one of my very good friends. People who had rented from me when I previously had a very low property.
Speaker 6: Have become my very good friends, stayed at my rental property for ten years in a row at Thanksgiving and actually became such good friends. She's out here visiting.
Speaker 13: Right now for my husband's retirement party, which I'm starting.
Speaker 1: To. I apologize. 3 minutes are up.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Aaron Street. Erin Streets. She left. Okay. Next, John Neiman.
Speaker 2: Let's look at Europe. Hello and good evening. My name is John Joseph Newman. Everyone calls me JJ. I live at 2786 South Wolfe Street. I come here as a resident, but I also come here as the president of the Denver in our neighborhood cooperation. Also a board member of the Harvey Park Improvement Association. We have done, as I am, see a lot of research and worked very closely with council to understand the different, finer points of this short term rental discussion and feel. Bear with me on an allegory. Another one of these floods happens and Denver right goes up into the mountains and is going along our rivers and seas. Thousands of rainbow trout have been washed up on the shores and he sees one person there on the shore picking up the rainbow trout one by one and throwing them back into the river. And he goes up to this young man and he says, Why are you doing this? There's thousands of fish along this riverbed. There's no way that you could save them all. And he grabs one fish and he looks at him. He says, Yeah, but at least I saved this one and threw it into the river. Now, I'm not saying we have all the answers to what and short term rentals are going to be. But I do know that our neighborhoods are vital. They don't need to be revitalized. We don't need an even more business investment in our neighborhoods. What we need is a way for these sharing economies to help build and protect neighborhoods. We have over 2600 or 266,000 households that fall within the registered neighborhood. Organizations that are members of Denver agency. And most of them have the opportunity to be able to participate in this in the process. And over the last two years, we've heard from so many of those residents. And what we are consistently hearing is that short term rentals are illegal for a reason and that a lot of the residents would like to see them stay illegal. But through our work and through that, we have seen that having this restriction is a compromise. It's a compromise that allows neighborhoods to take charge and be in charge of how their homes are relating to business use around around their homes. As Kevin Flynn talked about in my neighborhood, there was one property where someone lived there and then moved away and proceeded to rent it out to a bunch of short term rental people that did not respect that neighborhood. And it took more than a year even with an HRA covenant for that neighborhood to be able to stand up for the kind of community that they wanted. I think the rule that we're trying to pass today.
Speaker 1: Is a good one and it'll allow the neighborhoods to continue to have input into how their neighborhoods are organized. I look forward to working with Stacey Luke as we find more ways to.
Speaker 2: Regulate and without the primary restriction, I just I don't see how the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Could support this measure. Thank you. James Neiman. All right, I'm gonna call the next five speakers. Michael Guggenheim. Michael Guggenheim, Lance Musselman, John Ludvig, Cris S and Gina D'Ambrosio. So Mr. Guggenheim, you can begin your remarks and the other for you can go ahead and take a seat at the front pew.
Speaker 12: Thank you. I'm Michael Guggenheim and I live in the Bunny Brain neighborhood and have lived in Denver since 1981. I've been a long term property owner, a long term rental property owner, and a short term property rental owner. So I have covered the gamut. I have had in on the same block and I've had after I've had two short term rental properties at one time. Now we have one and we're soon to have zero by the end of the year. But I have a strong interest in in there not being a primary residence provision. There is also a member of the Denver short term rental alliance, which is there's a group of a group of us that have that we obviously oppose the primary residence provision. And and I'd like to speak to the issue of of enforcement and compliance as a builder in Denver as well, I'm very familiar with enforcement and compliance and the necessity of it. We are a group that is interested in regulation. We are interested in enforcement, we are interested in compliance. And and in all of those things can contribute, if done correctly, to short term rentals that that that contribute to the to the fabric of the neighborhood. I would invite Councilman Cashman, who's whose neighborhood I meant to come, take a look at the properties that they have. They are beautiful. We have had zero complaints from neighbors. My neighbors are aware of what I'm doing and they all have a way to get a hold of me if if there were to be any issues which there have not been. And and I think that's important for anybody who is doing short term rentals to have that communication with their neighbors, whether long term or short term. We have paid tens of thousands of dollars in and in in in lodging tax in Denver. And it is at this point, I think that if there were to be a primary residence provision, as has been mentioned by others previously here this evening, it would be a death sentence for for short term rentals. I would never go to a place where where somebody has all of their their their belongings at the home. It wouldn't feel comfortable there. We have had we've had families that have been in town for for a number of reasons. Professor C Becker, who spoke earlier, was a guest of ours. And we wonderful friends now and his family was was was fabulous. And we have many guys like that. And we promote and and support short term rentals without the short without the primary residence provision. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Lance Musselman.
Speaker 12: Good evening, council members. My name is Lance Muslim and I live in Washington, part of Washington Park East. I've been there for over 30 years, raised a family there. I've been involved in community affairs and I'm invested in the community. I'm here to support the amendment that restricts staffers to single to primary dwellings. I also support the companion bill, the excise and licensing on implementing that. I believe it's well thought out. I believe it can work. I do believe I have cautions about going beyond the primary residence. This legislation is going to introduce an endless stream of legal transients into every neighborhood. These people are not invested in our neighborhood. They don't know us. What stays in Vegas or what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas? Well, maybe what happens in Denver stays in Denver. This is a grand social experiment endorsed by public policy. I believe it's incumbent upon the the council to proceed cautiously. You have the time to do it right to make sure you take your problems, take care of problems as they come up. I urge you to do that and not rush into this precipitously and expand it to the point where we have thousands of these basically legalized neighborhood hotels everywhere in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, John Ludvig.
Speaker 2: Good evening, council members. My name is John Ludwig and I advocate for.
Speaker 7: Short term rentals. I was a teacher and.
Speaker 2: Principal in Denver.
Speaker 7: Public Schools and that honor of.
Speaker 2: Working with many children in the city. And the one thing I taught them, I hope I taught them that they took with them was to eradicate fear through knowledge. And when you know people and you meet people and you see different cultures walk in your world, it opens your eyes. And I'd like to speak primarily to that. I have some individuals I have being a teacher, I'm big on show and tell. So I brought my friends with me. But there's a gentleman here from France, from Bordeaux. France mowed my lawn today. I bet I'm the only one in the room who got that done. There's a gentleman over there that is Airbnb host for my wife, who travels extensively. I married a genius for the sake of the children. So off she goes. And she works in hospitals. And she was going from Hilton to this hotel. To that hotel. And no, sir, we don't know where she is because room three or two is an answering. Now, my friend Stephane calls me and says, Jan had a hard day at work. What can we do? I said, Try Scotch first and butter pecan ice cream secondly. And he went out and bought the ice cream for her. That's what because what we have in this Airbnb relationship, my next door neighbor went to the hospital with a bellyache, came back with stage four ovarian cancer. We're all devastated. Blew us out of the water. Every one of us. These gentlemen are French cooks. They went across the street and they shared recipes for 2 hours.
Speaker 7: For 2 hours, she was cancer free.
Speaker 2: I think that's important. I think that's what we've got to deal with. You've got to open your eyes and look at the rest of the world and they're coming to Denver. Boy howdy. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 15: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Chris. S.
Speaker 13: Good evening, counsel crisps and I'm relatively new to the Denver area. I just kind of want to point out that since 2015, the amount of complaints related to the short term rental market as investigated by the city of Denver. One, two. 345646. Total complaints in relationship to short term rentals in the city of Denver that were investigated for our last council meetings. Think it's a little overzealous and a little rushed to consider this kind of statistic against several thousands of these short term rentals that we've been stating and some of the debates we've had that, you know, we go to shut down something that is showing such great community, you know, building and also opportunities for someone like me to be in Denver and enjoy, you know, what you.
Speaker 8: Guys got here and then work up.
Speaker 13: To be a primary resident in this fine state so or city. And I'm also currently living in downtown and I'm in a very healthy community where there are short term rentals. And I want to say that the neighbors and the neighborhood is better off with it. And those people that I interact with daily tend to be some of the highlights and a really good part of my time here in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Gina and Ambrosia. Is Gina in the chambers? She left. Okay. I will call the next five speakers. They are John Beck, Chris Benton Lane Bates, James Slaughter and Jeff Macko. So you five can make your way up. And Mr. Beck. John Beck. You can begin your remarks.
Speaker 2: That's me. So my name is Mr. Beck. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Denver Show Terminal Alliance. I own a single family home located in the Lower Highland neighborhood of Denver. I've owned this property for about three years, during which time it's been operated entirely as a short term rental. I don't live on the property. I have some prepared remarks, but I think most everything has been spoken and I'd like to kind of go off my prepared remarks, make a few other comments. I think Mr. Eagan said it best that there is there is a disconnect between the issues that people think that we're solving with these proposed ordinances requiring primary residency and the the real issues that are out there and the evolve people. He's the CEO of that particular company. They've been able to really narrow in on the things that do impact bad performers and bad tenants and bad owners. And I don't believe it's necessarily a primary residency requirement. So I think we should be very careful because there's an opportunity here to legislate or two to create an ordinance that doesn't actually do what we want it to do, but it will kill an industry. We know that. I think it's been pretty I think it's been said that there's a lot of people that are going to go out of business. I would be one I was going to go through the statistics of how much money that I've made that has stayed here in the Denver area over the last three years that I've owned my property. It's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, housekeepers, restaurants, and that's a lot of people. And to say a little bit about the people that staying in these PRB O's and these these short term rentals, I have a family of five and I exclusively stay. Everywhere I go, we travel all around the country. It's always a home. It's always in a residential neighborhood. You know, we are impeccable and determining that we were going to keep that house as perfect as it was when we found it there. All impeccably maintained. The house that I have, I've spent $100,000 in maintaining it over the last three years. It's perfect. It's better than all of my neighbors houses. I have to do that in order to continue to attract people. It's a beautiful place. And so that will go away. And when you look at across the board, that's a lot of money going out of the local economy. And I don't believe you're going to get what you think you're going to get with this ordinance. You are going to lose it. You are going to lose the industry. And I think, you know, it's fighting against the trend that in its inevitable anyway those are just my comments. I you I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I urge you to consider removing this restriction.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Beck. Chris Benton. Chris Benton no longer in chambers. Okay, next we have Lane Bates.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. My name is Lane Bates. I live downtown. I do own another property in the Curtis Park neighborhood. Just a couple of blocks from Coffey on the point. A little bit about the demographics of people that come and stay at my property. Most of them are the tourists slash visitors are families that are traveling as a family. 700 square feet, the average visitors approximately 50 plus in age and is traveling with their children or grandchildren. They rent SD cards to attend graduations, weddings, baby births. A lot of a lot of the older couples rent it to come visit their grown children that live here in Denver. They ran stars so they can stay as a family and a home without incurring high costs associated with purchasing a suite at a hotel. It's not to say hotels aren't bad. I stay in hotels myself sometimes. SDR is used in this capacity must be pristinely maintained there reviewed after every stay the they must be maintained interior and exterior. As such lawns are maintained. Property owners continue to invest in home improvements to attract tourists to their homes. It's competitive, thus increasing the property value of the neighborhood. Two additional points. Number one, the effect of the regulation. We know how many because we can go on the website, how many Airbnbs and how many home away's are here in the city of Denver ? What we do not know, and if we pass this regulation, we do not know how many of those are primary occupancy. So we could, as a last speaker noted, completely wipe out this industry. We just don't know. And I don't think there's any data out there that I have seen that shows the number of listings, their primary occupancy. The other thing that has been noted is this. This does favor one platform over another platform. And finally, hotels have a place in this business in tourism. Stars have a place in in tourism. The one thing I'll note is that when you build a hotel, it's built. It will always be a hotel. When you have a residence that is an STR, it can go to a long term rental. It can become a residence. You can sell it on the open market, or it can go back to a short term rental. It's scalable. As the market expands, as it contracts with the number of tourists that come into town, it can go from long term. Short term. And then you can sell it. To somebody else. Once you build a hotel, it's built. I am strongly opposed to this primary residency requirement. Thank you for your time tonight.
Speaker 1: Vigorous debate. James Slaughter.
Speaker 10: I respectfully.
Speaker 2: Ask.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, sir. Jeff, make. Jeff Nichols, not in chambers. All right, then we are moving right along. The next speakers are Nick Magno, Janelle, Janelle Kenny, Andrea Phillips, Charles Charles Busch and Robert Cotton. So. Is Nick in the building? Nick Magno. But these are okay so does not seem Nick is in chambers next is Janelle Kinney.
Speaker 3: I'm Janelle Kenny. I live in the Overland's neighborhood. I want to highlight the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the primary versus non primary requirement. I'm actually a primary resident and am a constant advocate for allowing the nine non primary residents because the primary occupancy requirement is absolutely unshaded. There is no data that supports the claim that absentee owners are less responsive to neighbors needs and concerns, or that they generate any more or less complaints making non primary residency rentals illegal. But legalizing primary occupancy residents is discriminatory and is inconsistent with other Denver rental legislation. Long term rentals are not held to the same requirement. They do not have to have an owner living on the property to be in compliance with city zoning. To illustrate the ineffectiveness of this requirement in 2015, I quit my job and went on a six month round the world travel adventure. I continued to rent my house out on VRBO and hired a friend to arrange all bookings, manage the cleanings and act as the primary point of contact. I was far removed from.
Speaker 11: The daily operations.
Speaker 3: In contrast, I have friends who, upon the birth of a child, upgraded their home less than a mile away. They decided to keep their first home and rent it out on VRBO. They manage all bookings themselves, arrange for their cleanings and maintenance, and personally go and visit the house between guests. In both scenarios, the house is well-maintained, cared for and the consideration of the neighbors and neighborhood is high. The irony is that the first scenario mine is completely legal because I am the primary resident, even though I wasn't even on the same continent. In the second scenario, where the owners visit the house on a regular basis and are the direct contact with the guest. That is illegal because they are not the primary residence of their second home. There are hundreds of families in Denver, much like my friends, who treat their short term rental not only as their asset but as their home because it is their home. Please consider voting no to the legislation as it's written and instead work to pass regulate regulations that are fair, consistent and nondiscriminatory. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Andrea Phillips. Andrea Phillips. All right, next, Charlie Bush.
Speaker 14: Hi. My name is Charlie Bush and I live at 715 South Sherman, two blocks within the I-25 and Broadway light rail station. I have two staffers within a half a block of my home, one Airbnb and one VR bell. They both started out the same way. Somebody's bottom is flips. Then they tried to sell them for more than $200,000 over the market rate. Now they're both stars. Let me share with you what it's like living this close to two stars where Swatch Park has older homes. We have a very green way for air conditioning. We open our windows at night and turn on the fans. However, every Friday and Saturday and sometimes during the week.
Speaker 19: We have parties.
Speaker 14: The VR Beyond Lincoln seems to favor the Texas frat boys that invite 30 to 70 of their closest friends that they've never met for an all night party. The police are repeatedly called the. The renters don't care. They leave in the morning. Mothers of small children have called me at 3:00 in the morning in tears, begging me for help with the party next door. I have complied only to wake up to multiple broken beer bottles on my front lawn. I didn't call the cops because I knew these guys were already at the airport. We have lost two young families with children on our street in the last year alone because of the threat of stars. The stars have turn r friendly. Everybody else has everybody's back hamlet into an organizing bunch of vigilantes. Let me repeat that. Our nice little neighborhood is turning into vigilantes, and we despise it. But we're not going to stop because there's no laws and the police can't stop what's going on. I had to throw two gentlemen off my porch that were shaken up three cans and say, no, no, no. You know, property damage is not the answer. We do have a number of long term rentals, too. To be honest, you know, those owners do not contribute to the neighborhood, but their renters do. They have learned how to have good renters. And we as neighbors turn them into better renters. It can take some time to have them shovel their walks and mow their lawns. But they get there and they enthusiastically watch our backs and watch the street. And especially when we have our front porch parties, we are able to achieve this because somebody lives in the property for more than two days in a row. Primary residency. If you throw out the primary residency, then throw out the zoning code and throw out the money you're going to spend spend on. Blueprint Denver. Because the difference between residential and commercial will no longer exist. Our residential neighborhoods are for Denver residents, not for Denver tourists, and not for Denver commercial stock. Rent residential does not mean hotel on every block or every other house. Residential means long term community. If it's good enough for the other cities, it's good enough for Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Robert Cotton.
Speaker 12: Good evening. My name is Robert Cotton. I'm resident northwest Denver. I'm a software engineer by trade. And in my line of work, we build our business on data. We collect a lot of data and we make lots of decisions on data. And in the places that we don't have data, we have blind spots in our decision making process. And we work very hard to eliminate those blind spots because it impacts the type of decisions that we make, because we are not making those decisions based on data. By having the primary residence restriction in this in this provision, we will be eliminating half of the data that is available to us in studying and studying short term rentals as we go forward. By having only primary resident rentals, we will eliminate non primary resident rentals and will not be able to understand how it is that those rentals will behave. Those rentals are happening today. Short term rentals are happening in houses, they are happening in primary residents and non primary residents. So it is, as Nathan was pointing out, is this feasible today? It is feasible, but we don't have any data. I've been attending the town halls and it's not surprising because it is in fact illegal that there is a lack of data that provides information as to how it is to drive this this decision making process. By having a short term resident restriction, we will be eliminating that data. The the short term rental market is lucrative, and there will be bad actors that will happen and will operate outside the bounds of the law. We won't have any visibility into them, into that sort of into that activity. Compliance will be much higher if we have short term non primary resident short term rentals available as an option for for Denver residents to be able to do this. We will not know the number of resident of houses that are being used for this purpose. Today it's less than 1/10 of 1% or less than a 10th of a percent of of housing in Denver. We all know the behavior of those of those operators, both the tenants and the owners of those houses. We all understand the tax revenue of those of those houses. Most importantly, we all understand the compliance. The easier it will be to comply, the easier it will be to bring those people in to the fold and have compliance. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank Mr.. Can you call the next five speakers Tim O'Byrne, Nurse Abdurahman, Jill Bishop, Damien Hertz and Charlotte Wins and Berg. Those are the next five. First one is Tim. So you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 12: My name is Tim O'Byrne. I live at 508 South Clarkson. I've been living in Denver for about 59 years now. I grew up in Park Hill. We had the smallest family on the block. We only had six kids. People across the street at ten people two doors down had 13. So we had big families.
Speaker 2: And we were all very close.
Speaker 12: Everyone knew each other pretty well. And surprisingly, a lot of these people are still my friends. I'm very excited with what the changes I've seen in Denver over the past few years. It's a little scary with so much going on now for us old farts that have been here, but it's it's really exciting to see the change is going on. Transportation, different things like that. But I do feel one of the key ingredients to Denver to making it this great city to live in is the neighborhoods. And I sincerely believe that the short term rentals will not work. That will not help that. Just this past, about a month ago, I woke up early on a Friday morning and I could hear babies crying in our neighborhood. And the families are moving back into Denver now for so long people are moving to the suburbs. And I sincerely believe that with the short term rentals, if we are going to have on what it looks like we are, that we do need the primary resident as a concern. I was talking earlier about some of the things in Denver that excite me. There was something this week about the Denver prepares final smart city challenge pitched to win 50 million for transportation. That's pretty cool, but I don't think we can use the term smart city if we don't regulate these short term rentals. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Nessa Abdurrahman.
Speaker 10: Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 15: My name is Abdul Rahman.
Speaker 12: I live in downtown.
Speaker 2: Denver.
Speaker 10: And own a couple of properties there. I do not currently do short term rentals. However, I would like the opportunity to do that in the future. I can see that as council members, you have a very daunting task. There's impassioned pleas.
Speaker 2: From both sides of the argument here.
Speaker 10: And I'll keep my comments very, very short. I do understand the dilemma keeping affordable housing affordable, affordable, while at the same time respecting and encouraging the rights of contributing members of society to earn a living, either through supplementing or that.
Speaker 1: Might be their.
Speaker 10: Sole source of income. I do also understand we don't want corporate takeover of our rental market. By the same token, I do understand we don't want actors that are not part of the community that are going to cause a disturbance. My experience is solely from friends of mine that have done short term rentals, and my understanding is the vast majority of the people to stay in their units are very responsible professionals, lawyers, doctors, performing actors and so forth. So to keep it short, what I would like to say is I think a fair compromise.
Speaker 2: Would be.
Speaker 10: Not have carte blanche on private non primary residents, but at the same time not to restrict to primary residents, only to have a fair balance. Maybe just a couple of units that residents own could be allowed for short term rentals. I think that would be a fair compromise. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jill Bishop.
Speaker 11: Hi. Thank you for the snacks, Ralph, even though he's not here. My name is Jill Bishop, and I live in Park Hill at 25th and Monaco, and I'm a Denver native, and I have a lot of pride about Denver. I like to spend my tax money in Denver and so on. I've been an Airbnb host probably longer than anybody who has spoken. I signed up before the DNC in 2008. I've had well over a thousand guests, but it's in my home where I live too, and I'm single and I've never had one bit of fear or safety issue. Thanks in part to all the safety features built into Airbnb, I get to choose exactly who comes to stay in my house and even before they come they are not random strangers. There's absolutely nothing scary about any of this. The only thing that scares me is having to put my license number published for all to see in case anybody really wanted to find out who I was and where I lived. They could only, thanks to that regulation that you're going to impose that I support. I totally support Mary Beth's proposal and hope that you will vote for it. People come for every reason imaginable. And it's some people say it's not sharing, but I totally share my home and I share meals and I share experiences. And because of that, I was a host first. But that's the only way I like to travel. When I was in Paris last November and I was staying in an Airbnb apartment with with the hosts there, and the attacks happened. And we stayed up all night watching the TV and talking and stuff. And when I left, he said, Oh, I enjoyed having you so much. And I especially was glad you were here the night of the attacks. And I felt the same way that I was so glad I wasn't alone in a hotel room the night of the attacks in Paris. People are wonderful. The guests who come are absolutely wonderful. I've had well over a thousand and I can only say I've had two that I wouldn't want back, but there was nothing like really bad about them. I just, you know, didn't care for them that much. And, you know, everything about the economy. And if the Kirkland Museum gave out awards for people who send people there, I would be number one. I'm sure I've sent to their close now, but I'm sure I've sent 150 people to the Kirkland Museum. And one thing Airbnb has done for me is it's made me I think I retired from teaching about a year earlier because of my Airbnb income and my daughter lives in the Brooklyn neighborhood and does Airbnb. And I think she would be on welfare if she didn't have that income. And she and her boyfriend friend are artsy fartsy types. And even though he plays and wears the light for the time.
Speaker 1: It's actually right there and it just turned red. I'm sorry you had you had 3 minutes. Exactly. Mr..
Speaker 11: I'll then. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next we have Damien Hirst. Is Damien in chambers now? Charlotte Winsberg.
Speaker 11: Hello, everybody. My name is Charlotte Winston and I live at 590 South Sherman. And I come to speak in support. Support of the ordinance regulating short term rentals. For two years, I've served on the ad hoc committee of I and see that address has been addressing short term rentals and. I have three points that I really want to emphasize with you. Number one, the ordinance before you reflects the work of council staff and the citizens of Denver. Its most important element is the restriction allowing only primary occupants of homes to obtain licenses for short term rentals. Any relaxation of this requirement really voids the whole purpose of the ordinance. You might as well just forget it because. What we need is we're trying to do here is protect the nature of residential zoning. And I think it's unfortunate that many of these operators of this short term rentals don't really understand what zoning is for. And residential.
Speaker 3: Zoning is.
Speaker 11: Very important. There probably aren't a lot of people behind me who have looked at the use tables in ours. The articles of our zone that describe exactly what uses can be added if we add properties that are not primary resident, we are putting a pure commercial use into a residential zone and that in itself doesn't seem like such a big deal, but it weakens the whole nature of the code. And what's going to be next will be, oh, what it will be next. There'll be other commercial enterprises coming in are saying, well, you let, you let the motels come in down the block, why can't I do something else? Put my restaurant here or my body shop there?
Speaker 3: It's it's that first chink in.
Speaker 11: The in the dike. And it's really important to keep commerce commercial areas, commercial zoning and residential zoning definitely and separated. Secondly, we've got a severe housing shortage here. I don't know. And we need to preserve residential uses as much as we possibly can, rather allowing conversion to commercial use. Number three, that was number two. Some people contend that being a landlord of a long term rental is just fraught with terrible, nightmarish experiences, and they conclude that this experience is so bad, city council should let them just use those properties this short term rentals. Well, my husband and I have been landlords in Denver for 40 years. Long term. Got to go fast. Long term tenants. No big problems. Never had an eviction.
Speaker 1: And Williamsburg indictments are up.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Just thank you. Mary Beth.
Speaker 3: I didn't get a chance to say that.
Speaker 1: I'm going to call the next five speakers. We are over halfway done. Carolyn Shaw, Maureen Wood, Norman Wilson, Alex Dodd and Jacob Lill. So you five can make your way up. Carolyn Shaw. You can begin your remarks. Is Caroline Shaw in the building? No. Caroline Shaw. Okay. Next is Maureen Wood.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Maureen Wood and I live at 4392 Wenonah in the Berkeley neighborhood. First, I'd like to thank all of you for letting us all speak and listening. I know it's a long night. I have lived in the Berkeley neighborhood for two years, and when my husband and I bought our house, we were fortunate enough to be able to find a house with an accessory dwelling so that our parents could visit and our family members could visit and stay close to us. We don't have a hotel in our area that's that's close by where our family can spend time with us when they come to visit. Well, those are only, you know, a few weeks out of the year. And we've also been fortunate enough to be able to open up that accessory dwelling to our neighbors families when our families aren't staying in our accessory dwelling. I've really enjoyed meeting my neighbors families. I've met so many grandparents and aunts and uncles and as well as business travelers and people who are are trying to move to the area and work for Regis. I've really enjoyed the amount of socialization and meeting neighbors that our short term rental has brought to my life. And I really, you know this I don't see the downside from us. I think that if nothing else, it has brought something.
Speaker 17: Positive to our neighborhood. So I would ask for.
Speaker 3: You guys to vote for the ordinance today and support short term rentals. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Norman Wilson.
Speaker 12: Thank you. And I'm Norman Wilson. I'm a Denver resident. And I'd like to quantify just a little bit. I think what we're really talking about is about a problem that is 1% of a 1% of all residences in Denver. And so it reduces down to maybe 1001 out of a thousand. That is the problem.
Speaker 11: Very simply, I take.
Speaker 6: Issue with.
Speaker 12: The matter of this being this proposed legislation requiring primary residence. I don't think that's really addressing the issue. It's a rather blunt instrument.
Speaker 11: It's rather too simple for a nuanced, more nuanced problem. I think maybe the council and Flynn would understand this. And the.
Speaker 12: Sitting zoning, for instance.
Speaker 11: Offers many gradations. But the gradations are not entertained in this.
Speaker 12: Rather either or proposal.
Speaker 19: We're moving toward more density.
Speaker 2: And there's more mobility. Again, I'm not sure that this is really addressed.
Speaker 12: It's again, either or.
Speaker 11: And the stars sometimes the stars are rather small properties.
Speaker 19: Rather large.
Speaker 12: Lots.
Speaker 14: That would be another way of looking.
Speaker 12: At the.
Speaker 9: Problem.
Speaker 2: Some even.
Speaker 11: Not occupying 10%.
Speaker 12: Of the lot itself.
Speaker 0: And the issues brought up with problem with.
Speaker 19: Regard to problems typically.
Speaker 2: Could be covered by code issues, noise, excessive drinking.
Speaker 11: Whatnot. We have code.
Speaker 6: That covers this.
Speaker 12: And so it seems to.
Speaker 11: Me that is an issue.
Speaker 12: That could be put aside.
Speaker 19: Neighborhood groups are very.
Speaker 2: Useful and.
Speaker 11: It's hard to be representative. You probably understand that best of all.
Speaker 19: And the neighborhood groups sometimes are not terribly.
Speaker 12: Representative.
Speaker 11: And they sometimes have a rather near horizon and they don't take a long range view.
Speaker 19: With regard to primary residents. Travelers typically don't expect to have an.
Speaker 11: Owner or primary.
Speaker 2: Resident in the.
Speaker 11: Property. And so to go back to the Airbnb issue.
Speaker 2: That is a model which could be.
Speaker 11: Troubling because it creates a kind of a density that maybe we don't want a kind of.
Speaker 7: Short, very short term and.
Speaker 12: Very dividing up the properties.
Speaker 2: We really ought to keep the property whole so it can return back to a residence. Maybe makes better sense.
Speaker 11: That would eliminate.
Speaker 2: And that.
Speaker 11: Argues for eliminating the.
Speaker 12: Primary residence.
Speaker 11: And I would say.
Speaker 2: That what we.
Speaker 11: Might want to do.
Speaker 2: Is, unfortunately, despite all the staff.
Speaker 6: Work.
Speaker 11: Despite all the town hall meetings, maybe go back and take a.
Speaker 2: More nuanced approach to this legislation.
Speaker 1: Mr. Wilson, you're throwing everything mantra. Thank you, Alex Dodd.
Speaker 13: Good evening, city council. Men and women, thanks for taking the time to be here. Thanks, Concerned Citizens for being here too. It's great to see such an engaged community. I really appreciate the sharing economy. Task Force led by Councilwoman Susman is effort and pledges re legislating short term rentals in other aspects of the sharing economy. I feel it's a valiant and well-intended, although severely misguided legislation and its current verbiage. In particular, the primary residence restriction has numerous economic repercussions, consequences that I don't think has been addressed by city council or many citizens here. This housing shortage that many refer to. I don't understand that the fact that vacancies in Denver's rental market that's arguably very saturated have been increasing month over month. Since January of this year, many large apartment rental companies are turning to services such as stay off grid large out-of-state conglomerates that manage dozens of short term, if not more short term rental properties in Denver. To quell the increasing vacancies in Denver's rental market, short term rentals are an effective way to increase the vibrancy of our city, to increase tourism to our city, and allow our city not to be constrained by limited hotel and lodging inventory. Amidst some of the most insurmountable amount of tourist demand that we've seen across the city is up year over year, season over season, and it shows no sign of stopping. Similarly, the number of short term rental listings increase and they also show no sign of stopping. If the primary residency restriction were to continue to be in place, it effectively it would it would contribute greatly to the economic collapse of our rental market here and would have significant ramifications. Not to mention it would also prohibit hosts that have relied on this income stream to sustain themselves and contribute to our community to continue hosting and allow this commute and allow this income stream. I can speak personally for the over $100,000 of lodging tax that I could have personally collected remitted to the city last year but had no structure to do so. Only large operators that were given special treatment by the city have the opportunity to remit this lodging tax last year , and by eliminating the ability of hosts to have additional residences other than their primary to rent out on a short term basis, the city will be leaving millions of dollars of additional tax revenue on the table. Where am I getting these numbers from? Well, simply extending a macro out of what I know are is the current vacation rental economy. In fact, there's been no economic feasibility study or impact study that's been presented by by Excel nor D nor community planning and development. And I think it's incredibly shortsighted to be allowing the few vocal, xenophobic members of our community to guide this legislation. Those with the most time on their hands should be the ones that should be dictating this. It should be those that are contributing to the greatness in the city and contributing to the tourism market in our in our town, too, as a fifth generation native member of the resident of the ninth District for five years and Concerned City and concerned Denver future Denver resident, I implore the city to table the legislation as is, or at least consider amendment allowing for non primary residences to be read to be read it. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jacob Lew. And as Jacob comes up, I call the next four Keith Brian, Andrea, Andrea Phillips, Thad, Texar and George Burleson. Go ahead, Mr. Bell.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Jacob. Lill and I live in the Harvard Gulch neighborhood. So I want to share a little bit of my experience with Airbnb and short term rentals. So several years ago, I had never heard of Airbnb before. I had my aunt who was very sick with cancer in California, and I packed up my family. I packed up the dogs and we went out there not knowing how long we were going to have to stay. But she was on her deathbed. There wasn't a hotel near to where she was staying and receiving treatment. The closest hotel was over 45 minutes away. Excuse me. We were able to find an Airbnb less than 5 minutes away to where my family could stay, too, where our pets were allowed, where we could cook meals for our families. And, you know, it was a really hard time in my family's life. But without that Airbnb at that time, it would have been a lot worse. That's how I came to know of short term rentals in Airbnb's and VR boats. Years later, I was presented the opportunity to work for a company that manages short term rentals. I've been doing this for a little over a year now, and I've seen all types of guests. I've seen all types of property owners. I've seen all types of arrangements. I've seen rentals with primary residence, with non primary residence and everything in between. And I'll tell you, a few of the guests that I see the most in our line of work are traveling professionals coming to Denver for any number of reasons doctors, lawyers, nurses, businessmen and women. More than anything, I see families, though. I see families visiting their children, visiting their parents, visiting new grandchildren. We see all types. We've see roughly 2000 guests per month. And in our entire time of being in business, we've had maybe a handful of issues. Nothing ever too serious. The guests we see are great. Our property owners, they're great. One issue we've run into with our non primaries residents, property owners are all the things in their house and they're not able to manage a successful rental the way we like to do it and provide the best guest experience possible. I asked the city council to reconsider the primary residence restriction because I think it's cheating the guests. I think it's cheating the city. And I think it's cheating the short term rental industry from maturing into the industry that I know it could become. And I don't think it's right. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Think it, Lou. Keith Pryor.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mr. President. And thanks so much for hearing us and allowing us to have this opportunity to speak. A couple of things. One, I definitely applaud the process. Thank you, Mary Sussman, for leading this and the, you know, bringing together the people to work through this. And I definitely am in very much support of having a framework in which to work short term rentals, which is desperately needed to regulate this. I do not support that it be a primary resident. If you listen to a lot of the comments tonight, a lot of them really center around, well, it needs to be stable for our neighborhood. People need to send their children. This does not allow for neighborhood cohesiveness. These people would not allow a long term rental. Most long term rental leases, 30 days, 60 days or a year. Really do not send their kids to those schools. And we allow long term rentals throughout our city. And have most of the people that have spoke against this ordinance and having that short term rental be a primary residence would not really want to have long term residents, be long term rentals even be allowed in their neighborhoods. So I want you to kind of think about that, because even with long term rentals, you still have the same issues that a lot of people have brought up throughout this evening. In regards to those concerns from the neighborhoods. I would like to see something of an amendment brought forth when we did the rezoning for the entire neighborhood, for the entire city. We brought forth the 80 you again huge opposition from neighborhoods that would not allow a to use in their neighborhoods. Now that we've had that passed. Neighborhoods are coming forth and saying, wow, I really want that. I have an elderly parent. I have somebody that I need to bring in to my family situation. I would like to have an Adu. My neighborhood doesn't allow that. I want zoning to rewrite this, to allow an overlay district for my neighborhood to have an ADU. And so now that we've had them and now that you're seeing this come into place, you're really seeing people look to that as like, oh, I'd like to augment my income by having enough to you and having that additional income stream by having an additional rental property on my lot, which we do not allow in the city unless you're in certain districts. And it's also helped with our housing crisis as a way to look at our housing crisis is to allow ADU use to occur. So these same neighborhoods that did not want to allow 80 years did not want to allow for a three storey building in your neighborhood where there was an existing church on Colored Boulevard and Monaco. That was a great transit corridor and they are in a lawsuit about that. So these same neighbors who are complaining about 80 years about a housing crisis are also complaining about density in which to solve our actual housing crisis.
Speaker 1: Mr. Prior, you're three months or so. Could you say your name for the record to what you say your name for the record?
Speaker 8: Oh, sure. Keith Pryor. So thank you. I support this, but not the primary residence.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Pryor. Andrea Phillips. Andrea Phillips is not here. That Texan.
Speaker 2: Thad, Texas. Members of Council. Amazingly, some people actually think of me as disrespectful. But I'll tell you what real disrespect is. It's people who violate our laws, who don't care about their neighbors, who come in front of you and testify openly of that and then say, sanction my behavior. It would be one thing if these people said, I think short term rentals are a good idea. Let's talk about it. I'd engage in that discussion. They don't do that. Let me tell you, what you do tonight isn't going to make any difference to these people at all. I guarantee you they're going to keep doing what they're doing. They talk about how much they contribute to their neighborhood. Has one of them, as Councilman Flynn's amendment would have suggested, gone around to their neighbors and said, is it okay if I do this? And if one of them said, no, say, okay, I care about you as a no, they don't. They only care about their own profit and they're going to keep doing what they're doing. And you know what? As much as I disrespect them, I'm more disappointed in you because it's your job to uphold the law. But you turn a blind eye. You know the enforcement mechanisms that are in this new thing. I don't know whether they're a farce, a joke, or a fantasy. And you know it, too. Nothing's going to change. You people have no problem enforcing the law against the homeless. You people have no problem enforcing the law in fighting against poor minority group members who can't afford property. These people testify over and over to the break in the law and you hold up your hands and say it's unenforceable. We can't do it. You know what you ought to do? You ought to do what you do best. Do nothing. Leave things exactly the way they are. Let it continue to be illegal. They're going to continue doing exactly what they're doing. But at least the upstanding residents of this city, when there are bad actors, could call and file a complaint. The only thing you're doing is giving these selfish, self minded people a legal defense to do what they're going to be doing anyway.
Speaker 1: Next we have George Burrows and George Burleson. George Brosnan, be this person I hear. Okay. I will call the next five cab. I'm sorry. George Burrows. And I'm sorry about that. George Burleson. Thank you for that correction. Next, Kevin Dickson. Cindy says Stretch, Clare Kelly, Steve Ramsey and Sarah McCarthy. So Kevin, is Kevin Dickson in the building? We have. No, no. Kevin Dickson. Okay. Next is Cindy Sestak.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I would like to start out. Oh, I'm Cindy Sastry from the Cheesman Park West End neighborhood. And I would like to start out thanking Mary Beth Sussman. Councilwoman Sussman, she had a very long and proper public process. Everyone got to talk. And I think we all understand both sides of the issue. I think we understand the neighborhoods as well as the people who need to make profit for various reasons. I do appreciate that the amendments that were put forth before we got here tonight didn't go through the public process and they didn't come forth . I think there's time to do that at a later time. Um, my. My neighbors in Cheesman Park West realize that we live in a very popular neighborhood. Everybody wants to live there. And by talking to all of them, the thing that they wanted me to most pronounce is that they want to live near their work. They don't want the housing stock, separate apartments, separate houses to be used by people who don't work and live in Denver. If you want to be a primary resident and rent out a part of your house, you are able to do that. So we all support the primary resident, but we do not like it when full units are used and people are not committed to this city. Those units should be safe for people so that we can reduce the environmental impact and all the other issues that happen with people who have to live outside of the city or far from their jobs. The residential zoning is the other part. This ordinance does keep residential zoning as residential and commercial is commercial. I also, when I travel, use short term rental platforms, VR, bio I have used for the most part. And recently when I was in Toronto, they did not have a primary residence regulation and they saw the repercussions of that, that they have venture capitalists that have 16 plus units and it's taking away and creating a shortage of housing. They are in the process of changing that right now. So we're starting out at a very good point. We don't have to deal with deleting and then regulation in the licensing. I think this is good. I would like to see very effective enforcement and the money put forth towards that necessitates.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have Clare Kelly.
Speaker 3: Good evening, president and city council members. It's about nine 4845. I'm sure you all would much rather be at home. Thank you so much for staying late and listening to all of us. My name is Clare Kelly. I'm a Denver resident. I live at 1267 Josephine Street. And I am here to request that you consider a little bit of a fine tuning on this regulation. I support the bill that is in front of you all with the exception of the primary residency clause. I support short term rental of residential investment property within more densely populated neighborhood corridors that are currently zoned R three or greater or equivalent. And I believe that's the old zoning code. I absolutely believe that owners of a s t r business should be required to pay applicable hospitality, tax, meet or exceed safety requirements and hold applicable insurance. Short term rentals offer a unique product that differs from traditional hotels and motels. They offer a direct and closer connection to the community that people are visiting and to the cities, to the city's culture. They are a more affordable way to travel. And they they are a component of the sharing economy that is present world wide. As a third generation Denver native Verbio customer and residential, an investment property owner, I support a thoughtful rollout of the allowance of short term rentals beyond primary residences to encourage tourism. FOSTER The foster entrepreneurs on the entrepreneurs I've spoken to hear their businesspeople. They're entrepreneurs. They're not they're not evil. Am I evil? I don't think so. To place the primary residency clause with thoughtful restrictions that mirror the existing zoning regulations. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Steve Ramsay.
Speaker 12: Hello. I'll keep this short. I just wanted to bring a little personal perspective to this. I want to thank the City Council for taking the time and much effort to study these issues. I also particularly want to thank Mary Beth for getting the ball rolling. I'm Steve Ramsey, and I'm a Platt Park resident. I've been a Plat Park resident since 1987. I'm very pleased to be represented by John Clarke. Also grateful for both Mary Beth and Paul Cashman for taking time to discuss these issues with me over the time that this has.
Speaker 2: Been in play. So just very briefly, personally.
Speaker 12: I'm a small business man. I'm a self-employed commercial photographer. I have been for 30 years, and I strongly support the ordinance being proposed tonight. I've been an Airbnb host for about three years, and during that time, particularly being self-employed, the income that I received from that helped greatly in the last four or five years with the financial situation, which probably has affected just about everyone on some level.
Speaker 2: I can also tell you that income helps smooth out the financial ups and downs of being self-employed.
Speaker 12: And lastly, it's enabled me to spend some much needed time with my parents who are both in their late eighties. So it's been very much of a positive for me and the people that I have encountered being a host. And the whole process has been surprisingly enjoyable from top to bottom. So in closing, I just want to.
Speaker 2: Say the sharing economy is here to stay.
Speaker 12: Short term rentals are a part of that. And I believe common sense regulation makes that a positive part of any city, large and small worldwide, and particularly particularly in the amazing city of Denver, Colorado. I support the proposed legislation for licensing and regulating.
Speaker 2: Short term rentals. Thank you all very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Ramsey. Sarah McCarthy.
Speaker 3: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your time and attention, and thank you to all the people who are here, both on this issue and a later issue that you still have to get to. Councilwoman Sussman, I think one sign of a good piece of legislation is that nobody likes it. And I think that's what is here tonight. Nobody really likes this. And I am one of those. And I have two concerns in particular that have been mentioned briefly, but I want to focus a little bit. One, I really think is the question of public policy in terms of what really do we mean by a residential neighborhood . And I think that allowing even the primary resident to have an STR in an R one zone is opening Pandora's box. And it's it's duplicitous on our part as a group to say this is a residential neighborhood. I noticed an advertisement not long ago that said that a a house was for sale and that you could earn $25,000 as a short term rental. I sure hope that that property is not paying residential property taxes because to me that's a commercial enterprise and should not be allowed in a residential zone. Change the zone if that's what you want, but not to mix as we are proposing to do tonight. My second area of concern has to do with enforcement. The enforcement that's proposed here is what is called permissive. This is what they can do in excise and license or in neighborhood inspection services. But there is nothing in that ordinance that I saw that. A short term rental owner shall do or there's nothing there that says that the city shall enforce. And I think Denver has an enforcement issue. And when I brought it up in years past, it is mentioned as a budget issue. But we're now putting together an ordinance that has a $25 licensing fee that will bring with it enforcement issues. And Denver isn't enforcing the ordinances it already has on the books, including short term rentals. No cease and desist orders have been issued yet. There's 2000 advertisements saying I intend to violate the ordinance. And the city says, I can't do anything about it. I disagree. The city can. Lots of ordinance like the night sky. Off street parking. Many different ordinances are not enforced. And I'm fearful this won't be enforced either. And I wish you luck in moving this forward. Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Miss McCarthy. Call the next five. Enrique, your last name got cut off. Marquesa, Mike, Social, Maine. Benedict and Billy Martin. Stacy near. So you five can make your way up to the front. And Enrique, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 2: Hi. Good afternoon. Good evening. I think short term rentals are a great idea. Let's talk about it first. Neighborhoods are not owned by people.
Speaker 18: I hear a lot of people are getting up here and talking about.
Speaker 2: Their neighborhood and trying to protect their neighborhood. Their home is what they own. And if you own your home, you should be able to do what you want inside of that home. I don't use a home as a short term rental property, but I see the benefits of what it does to the community by people opening up their doors, sharing their environment. I do have businesses here, retail businesses. People on average spend $3 to every $1 when they travel. If you just have people staying in hotels in downtown Denver, then all you're doing is supporting national chains where everybody just goes outside of their hotel and goes to the Cheesecake Factory and the Olive Garden and all of those types of places. I want to try to spend my time developing business opportunities and businesses and employing, by the end of this year should be over 100 people in residential neighborhoods. And the guests that come from short term rentals in those residential neighborhoods are the people that are going to go to the businesses that I go and handcraft and make and take pride in. So everyone can have an opportunity to use them and to benefit from them. And I don't support the primary residence. I think it's too restrictive. And it also discourages people from coming in to Denver and bringing money in from other places. I do travel using Airbnb and VR bio and I think it enhances my experiences tremendously. And I would not go and rent a home for three or four days when the owner of the property was in the home. It just wouldn't make sense to me personally. Thank you very much for all of your time and I hope you make good decisions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And sir, can you say your name for the record?
Speaker 2: Enrique Margulies. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Next, we have Mike Social.
Speaker 2: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Council.
Speaker 11: My name is Mike Socha.
Speaker 13: I live in beautiful Green Valley Ranch, so I'm part of Stacey Gilmore's district.
Speaker 8: And I, my husband, Matthew and I have.
Speaker 13: Been hosts for Airbnb for over two years now. And I have to say that we're pretty much exactly what you guys are proposing. We have a primary residence and we rent out the basement.
Speaker 8: We have been.
Speaker 13: Very happy with what we've done. And I just want to say that we think that it's really brought a sense of community with the type of person that we've brought into our home. We do live kind of out in the suburbs, and we've had a lot of people that have been moving to the city of Denver and they wanted some advice and they wanted to talk to people that have lived here that know the neighborhoods, etc., and kind of bounce off us what they wanted and what they were looking for. And we were we've been there to be able to talk.
Speaker 8: To them, talk them through things.
Speaker 13: We've also hosted people that have come from another country, and they won the green card lottery, which I didn't.
Speaker 2: Even know was a thing, honestly. And they came and they moved from Spain into our home for a.
Speaker 13: Large amount of time, and we got to help them, to help Americanize them to things. We got to have them try root beer floats for the first time. We got to try to go on the light rail for the first time. So we were really able to help them to get acquainted. They took care of our house as though it was their own. They absolutely adored our dog. They helped us a little bit by letting the dog out, etc. We were working late, so I want to say that we are very pro this legislation.
Speaker 2: We would eventually maybe like to sit on.
Speaker 13: The board that's going to be looking at additional legislation maybe for second secondary homes. But I think we need to start somewhere. I think there's a good place to start, and I think that we can kind of see how it goes from there because again, like everybody else said, we're not sure what this is going to actually do to the inventory. So once we have make that assessment, I think that we should take another look at it and maybe make amendments and and hopefully.
Speaker 2: Go from there. Thank you, guys.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Main Benedict.
Speaker 3: Members of council. Thank you very much for.
Speaker 17: The opportunity to speak tonight.
Speaker 3: My name is Marie Benedict's and I.
Speaker 17: Live in Denver.
Speaker 3: City in Council County. Sorry. So I have some serious concerns with the bill that's in front of you. Primarily, I am concerned that it will creates an economic incentive to remove properties from the market that would otherwise have been available as residential homes. And I think we all agree that affordable housing and housing.
Speaker 17: In general is a problem.
Speaker 3: For Denver. So to reduce supply and drive up pricing for the supply that's there, I think should cause some great concern. Certainly the primary resident requirement would be a minimum, I feel, in terms of safeguarding that. That doesn't happen to a greater.
Speaker 17: Extent that we can live with.
Speaker 3: And I would I would challenge you to see if there aren't other things that can be done to further reduce the impact on the available housing for actual residents. Some other people have spoken powerfully to the economic incentives here tonight for converting residences to rentals. Bessey did so, Joel as well. My other concern relates to enforcement and regulation. I am not convinced that the bill before you tonight has sufficient protections for neighbors and property owners. And I would again ask you to look carefully about what can be done to make sure that problems can be sorted out, that there are sufficient resources and sufficient rules in place that can be enforced in order to deal with bad actors. We heard a couple of people speak here tonight, I believe. Mr. May, I didn't catch his first name, spoke about it taking a year and a half to get a bad actor close down. Is this what neighbors are going to have to go through? Secondly, Charlie also spoke to neighbors becoming vigilantes. That's certainly not the life we want to lead. I feel as if what's before you tonight is a pretty fundamental decision. And I think we've heard sort of voices for both sides. Should neighborhoods be used to maximize profits and also to fill the city's coffers? What an exciting, positive argument. Or should neighborhoods be available as housing for our many residents who need to live in Denver close to work, close to where their families are, and be available to folks of all income levels. So I urge you to think very carefully about that tonight and see what you can do to make the neighborhood protect protections even stronger. And I leave you with the words from the gentleman from CPD who quoted from Blueprint Denver and said, an enforceable standards should not be clear to be included in the zoning code. So thank you for your time and please be thoughtful tonight. And did I.
Speaker 17: Say that my name is Marie Benedict's? I did. Otherwise you would ask me.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Amberly Martin.
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm Emily Martin, and I live in the Sunnyside neighborhood of Denver. I actually just recently moved to this neighborhood and previously lived in central business district. Just a little bit about my background. Many of you have actually heard my husband's side of the story, and unfortunately he couldn't be here today because he is actually out for National Guard duty. So I'm here to tell you about my side of the story and why I think we should vote for this amendment. So a little bit about me. I'm also a veteran of the Colorado National Guard, and now I get to serve as a military spouse when he's gone. During this time, it's really hard for us to supplement our income when he's getting paid by the military. And so we've used Airbnb to do that for us. Like he has gone this week. I was able to have somebody come into my home and stay with me and get to enjoy their company and have somebody there that I can share dinner with and really get to know. It's been pretty wonderful having the guests that we do and having the opportunities that we've been given by doing Airbnb. I know there are some concerns brought up about short term rentals, even with primary residents, with our kids in our neighborhoods. And I want to tell you about what I do because of this supplemental income that I get. I get time to volunteer during the day in my local schools. So I get to go in and read to kids in my neighborhood. There's a school across the street from me that I get to go in and get to know my my neighborhood children. And I'm really excited about being able to, in the future, have my kids attend Denver public schools. I think they're it's a wonderful school district. And I want to be able to stay in the neighborhood where I am so that my family can grow there, too. And that wouldn't be possible without this supplemental income that we get from Airbnb. Another part of it is that we also do travel quite a bit and it's been wonderful that we can rent out our full home at this time while we travel. So we actually do have people that come whole, families that will come and stay at our home while we're gone and we all. And then we rent out our second bedroom when we are home. A few of our guests that we have had. Like I said, we have somebody that's staying with us right now. Also a military veteran, a West Point grad who is moving to Denver and he's checking out neighborhoods and trying them out. We've had a park ranger from England and we've had a wicked Elphaba. Stay with us. When Wicked was in town. So if anybody is a musical fan, she was with us, too. So I just want to tell you about all of our great guests that we've had and what it does for us as a military family in the Denver community.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Stacy Near. Stacey near and chambers. All right. We'll go to the next five. Sheila Hibbert, Michael Leventhal, Gary Mason, Ling McPhail and Alison Ott.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Shallow Habits and I founded the Denver Short Term Rental Alliance over a year ago to give non primary residency homeowners, local businesses and citizens a voice within the last year. We have provided the following evidence and facts to the City Council, a due study provided by three esteemed professors, which estimates $2 million in tax revenue and $21 million in ancillary spending from short term rental renters per year. These figures are based solely on non primary residency rentals. We attended all four community town halls where proponents of eliminating the primary residency requirement outnumbered opponents 3 to 1. We conducted a Denver specific poll which showed that 70% of residents support regulating both primary and nine non primary residency residency rentals. We provided a legal document outlining the potential property rights infringements. If the bill is approved as it stands. We have sent hundreds of letters to the city council. We have dispel the myth that non primary residency rentals impact affordable housing. Non primary residency rentals represent 0.1% of residential homes in Denver. They are not impacting affordable housing. And just today we delivered a petition with 894 signatures urging that the city council regulate all short term rentals. The Denver Short Term Rental Alliance is extremely disappointed that despite the facts and evidence, the proposed short term rental regulation remains unchanged. The current regulation is based on a vocal, fear based minority, most of whom have not been negatively impacted by short term rentals. The city will set a dangerous precedent if they ignore the facts in favor of appeasing an unknown the unsubstantiated fears of a few. We once again urge that the Denver City Council examine the facts and apply them to the regulations and offer a compromise amendment which fairly regulates all short term rentals in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And we thank you, Michael Leventhal. Michael Leventhal not in the building. Gary Mason.
Speaker 12: Hi. I'm Gary Mason. I live in the Highlands neighborhood at near the intersection of Perry and 29th Street.
Speaker 2: I'm up here just to really share why I think Airbnb is a boon to Denver and my neighborhood. I just wanted to point out that what makes Airbnb special? Many people have talked about the economic benefits, and they're certainly there, I think, not only for the city but also for the homeowner. I've since doing Airbnb for about a year. I've had the resources to make a number of considerable improvements to my home. But more importantly, what I really wanted to.
Speaker 9: Share about.
Speaker 12: Is the.
Speaker 15: Human experience, which actually surprised.
Speaker 12: Me. I'd had a long term tenant stay in my place.
Speaker 2: I was looking to get someone else and someone said, Well, try Airbnb. And I thought it was going to be strange having guests in my into my house. But what I discovered was just a.
Speaker 12: Dramatic shift.
Speaker 2: In the quality of human experience in relating to people and dealing with.
Speaker 12: People. First of all, the quality of people I have staying at my place are exceptionally quite varied.
Speaker 2: Not simply millennials, as some people seem to imply. I've had people from 20 up to 80 years of age. I've had biotech entrepreneurs, young married couples, professors, nurses, lots of parents visiting their sons or daughters who live nearby, often with grandkids, artists, a fire chief financial managers.
Speaker 15: State director for.
Speaker 2: Steinway Pianos, medevac military pilots, retired engineers.
Speaker 15: People moving to.
Speaker 2: Denver and needing a place as a base camp before they move. And but what is truly special about what it is that represents a.
Speaker 12: New.
Speaker 2: Way of socializing? I was surprised how many of these people have become personal friends of mine. I've been to their houses for meals. They've been to mine. I've had them over to parties. Cocktail parties were not only have they met each other, new people who are moving to town, but they've met friends of mine. Many of them have asked me to, you know, stay.
Speaker 12: I have a couple in Amsterdam. They want me to come stay with them.
Speaker 15: This is part of an.
Speaker 12: Emerging way of socializing.
Speaker 2: That I think is different.
Speaker 15: From what our neighborhoods have been in.
Speaker 12: The past.
Speaker 15: In other words, part of what.
Speaker 2: I'm getting at is when people come stay at these short term rentals, they are, but they are.
Speaker 12: Distinctly not hotel.
Speaker 2: Experiences, nothing like that at all. It's completely something very different. I think people have experienced that one to some extent. When they have Uber, drivers ride an Uber. It's a little bit of a different experience from being with a cab driver. It's even much more so that when you have somebody stay at your house, when you have them share with you about their experiences during the day, I might say that their experience in the neighborhood is not that of some somebody simply as a hotel guest.
Speaker 12: They're walking through the neighborhood relating to my neighbors. They say hello to them as as neighbors.
Speaker 2: And so, all in all, I think it's a human experience. It's not simply an option to make more money. It is part of the new way we'll be relating to people in the future. Mr.. You sound a lot of barriers, so.
Speaker 1: Your 3 minutes are up.
Speaker 12: I see. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Lane McPhail.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to everybody. I am my husband and my name is Ling MacPhail and my husband and I live at 1530 Locust Street. We're permanent residents there and we rent our basement out as an Airbnb. We have i. I, my son joined the Air Force in a couple of years back and we the same day I lost my job. So we ended up having to figure out what we were going to do with our economy. My husband is a forklift operator and I am an artist. So we we we decided to try Airbnb. It helped us save our our, you know, we were able to stay in our house and and we were also able to then rent that same house out or rent that same house out, which helped us pay our mortgage . But we also were able to keep my son lodgings when he came home on leave. We also did some. We also tried out Airbnb before we decided to do it. We thought, Well, let's just take a look. So we actually flew to San Antonio to watch him graduate from boot camp and we stayed in an Airbnb. And I want to just say that we take very much pride in our and our lodging, and we are not partiers and we don't enjoy people who like to party staying with us. And we put that in our lot in our listing. We're very. We've never had any guests that were disrespectful. I mean, there were always we have house rules. And we were very adamant about certain things, and nobody's ever argued with us about that. In fact, we've had people come from Paris and like this one lady came from Paris with her, her niece. She didn't speak any English. We use Google Translate to communicate. She was delightful. And we she ended up but after she left, we met her cousin, who is a neighbor who lives about five blocks away. I never would have met that man, but now we greet each other in the supermarket. And that same lady had sent us Christmas cards, a sweater, a coffee mug, you know, just really sweet thing. I would never in these broken English letters that we just adore. So those are the kinds of gifts that we have had that we've totally enjoyed. We've had lots of guests. I make apparently I make mean scones. People like my scones. They write about them on my reviews. And it's actually made me think about maybe I should start a cottage, cottage industry selling scones. It's not impossible. I have to look into it. But I mean, so there's not Steve wasn't the act, but I'm definitely starting to think about other ideas that are, you know, that are that could be important and helpful in any way. Our our lives are better because of Airbnb. It's opened our minds and it's open and we're really glad that we've opened our doors things.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Alison Alt.
Speaker 3: Hi. Thank you. My name is Allison Ault and I own in the low, high neighborhood. I moved out of my small 750 square foot, one bedroom, one bathroom home, because as a single woman at the time, I lost my job and I could not afford the mortgage. I rented the home to full time renters for two years. In between, renters spent thousands of dollars and weeks of my time to get the home back into pristine condition. Frustrated, I saw Airbnb as a solution. I took it alone to furnish the house with new furniture and made improvements like an exposed brick wall and landscaping. I'm not just a host. I'm a super host. And in six months, I have garnered over 65 star reviews. And my property has been featured in a New York magazine as one of the best Airbnbs in Denver. I'm passionate about operating my short term rental, and I'm personable with my guests as well as my neighbors. I live ten blocks away from the property and I'm and am available should there be an issue. In contrast, I have friends who are also my neighbors who own a new Bell townhome five blocks away. They have been living in California for a year and renting to gas through Airbnb. The six person property has hosted rappers, bachelor parties and hosted fun overnighters. My guests are nurses, doctors, families, visiting other family members, business people, and couples celebrating their anniversary. I don't understand how the primary residence rule protects my neighborhood by putting me a passionate and available host out of business. My local property is part of my retirement portfolio. I can rent it to full time renters and make a little bit of money to fix it up between tenants and pay the rising taxes. But with the opportunity I have with Airbnb, my cute little home, one of the best in Denver is my retirement. I support the bill being discussed today, but not the primary residence rule. Please consider the impact this blanket rule will actually have. I don't doubt that there are irresponsible hosts as six complaints and a few vocal people have presented. But please don't punish people like me who improve the street and add to the richness of my neighborhood and local businesses. The primary residence rule does not fit the perceived fears or does not fix the perceived fears of short term rentals. Also on another note, a few people have argued about the inventory and a couple of years ago the Denver Post published something on the construction defect law. And before that was passed, the condo market made up 25% of all housing in Denver and by 2014 dwindled down to 3.5%. Our primary non primary residents, short term rentals are less than 1% and so I feel like the council's efforts would make a bigger impact elsewhere.
Speaker 1: Thinking of salt, I am calling the last three speakers up and Elizabeth Gurley Grant and Kim Knight's. And I see Miss Elizabeth. Coming up. Is Gerty Grant, and you know she's okay. You could take her.
Speaker 19: Hi, I'm an Elizabeth Global and I appreciate the opportunity to address the council. I would like first of all to ask the council to suspend the statistical. Let's just agree that there's lots of people that have anecdotally documented the benefits, the shortcomings, the dangers, etc., and make this decision as comprehensive as understanding a city is an organism . And managing economic diversification is an important thing to do to help the net income of families increase, especially in neighborhoods where people need to hang on to their property as the cost of living goes up for some of the right reasons, some of the less caring reasons, I'd like us to be in a world class city where everyone matters. But I'd like to add the word equally to that. As a city, I would like for the people that, bless your hearts, have worked hard and do great Airbnbs too. I should tell you I'm supporting this, but with the home, with. With the principal residence. Just so you're clear where I'm coming from, folks who who have had the benefit of, you know, maybe doing a great job, I'm sorry, but enforcement is an important thing. And I think there are three classifications primary residence stars, absentee return on invest in return on investment centric investors, which are the danger and the neighborhood proximity entrepreneurs that have been in sort of a grace period. And I appreciate the this country was started because somebody broke some laws and that's sometimes how innovation comes. But we need to have some kind of regulation that honors the sovereign wealth of the property owner, but also doesn't open the gateway for people that are also owners that could come in before we understand what the full potential of the inventory of our diverse housing needs and and creative use of our spaces can be as we solve problems. I would like OED and human resources and social the humane social services to enter into this to offer subsidies to folks that have short term rentals to help with transitional housing and provide even even power up instead of an advisory committee. I'd love it to the short term rental advisory committee. Let's call it the Commission on Short Term Policy, Housing, Housing, Enterprise, Ethics and enhance its authority. Let's be holistic about this. I feel fine about giving folks an opportunity to use their property as they see fit. But civilization is not is a combination of private rights of all types, as well as a common good and a vision. An economic vision can be well served by using the gray areas in a way where you do it with equity. If we're going to tax, I believe in taxes when there's an infrastructure of a city that needs to be supported. But let's give tax breaks here relative to a constructive relationship between individual economy and helping mentor people out of dark economies into a diverse economy in their homes. These and one last thing. Don't call me xenophobe. Don't call me reactionary. I'm thoughtful president and we know how to do those labels. So that's all I have to say.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Gerty Grant.
Speaker 19: Good evening, counsel. My name is Gertrude Grant. I live at 242 South Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado. And I want to thank Mary Beth Susman for her diligent efforts in crafting this ordinance. With the help of a lot of involved people, I reluctantly support Council Bill 261 as it stands reluctant because the current situation is untenable and unenforceable . I would like to make two points. I am a landlady of four property and I'm not much of a lady, but I do on some property. Four properties, including an apartment in the house where I live. I hear people saying that because having long term rentals is fraught with bad experience, that they should be allowed to turn those properties into short term rentals. As the landlord of 35 years, I suggest that you need to develop skills in order to be a successful land owner. I offer well-maintained, good value homes that attract many applicants, allowing me to select responsible tenants who are likely to stay in place for multiple years and be good neighbors. My current five tenants have been with me for from 3 to 20 years and it is a pleasure to have them in my neighborhood. My second point is and concern is that short term rentals have already turned houses in my residential neighborhood in the weekend. Destination resorts. Why? Because of our beautiful city, our wonderful climate and increasingly robust entertainment district like South Broadway and the limitations on where marijuana can be smoked. I just want you to see what was on the cover of The New York Times Sunday Travel Magazine three weekends ago. It says Colorado, the promised land of pot, the mile high state.
Speaker 11: In our neighborhood. We had one property that was only one of.
Speaker 19: Four owned by a Florida investor who advertised it as cannabis friendly. The neighbors reported it as a disruptive, smelly, short term rental.
Speaker 11: That.
Speaker 19: Finally was shut down by the Board of Adjustment Zoning. There are other properties in our neighborhood that Charlie Bush has testified.
Speaker 11: To that have become weekend party.
Speaker 19: Houses. Well, any long term neighbor can be a weekend party person. One has a chance to work out respectful relationships over time, get law enforcement and zoning involved if.
Speaker 11: Necessary, but with different tenants every weekend.
Speaker 19: And nonresident dissident landowners solving their differences in lifestyles is not impossible. I urge you to pass the current ordinance with the primary residents intact. But I also would ask you to please.
Speaker 11: Please, when you're developing.
Speaker 19: The next budget, Mr..
Speaker 1: Miss Grant.
Speaker 19: Adequate personnel to enforce it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And. And. Our last speaker is Kim Knight.
Speaker 4: Hello, I'm Kim Titus and I live at 1013 East 26th Avenue and this is in the five points area and I'm brand.
Speaker 3: New to the Airbnb. I just have my first visitor right now this week. And so I'm surprised to hear that this has been a conversation for two years. And I guess what I'm hoping is, is that we can vote on this and pass the ordinance for primary residents. I also would like to, in the future be able to approve maybe a second home. But at the in the meantime, I think having the ability to make a decision today would be in the best interest for the city of Denver. I think that is going to improve the economy as far as local economy in the neighborhood, for the local coffee shops, the restaurants, the breweries. My tenant that's here for the week is here for a wedding. And next week my second tenant will be here for the Bob Dylan concert. So I'm going to have a variety of people here visiting. And I also am supporting the cleaning ladies or men, whoever, as far as local economy and helping pay individuals in the city. And last but not least, I think it allows for homeowners to be able to subsidize their income. And I hope you approve the audience. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. We will now go to questions of members of council and I will ring first. Joel Noble. Angel we had I think he had two or three points. You were ninth and I was writing down and you said not knowing who lives there. Housing crisis. Did you have a third point or was it just those two?
Speaker 6: Well, during during that part of my comments, I was contrasting the points that I expected to be made from neighbors who are motivated by not knowing who's there. So if there were noise concerns or trash concerns, they wouldn't know how to talk, who to talk to. And while those are valid, they're sort of limited, because if codes are being broken, there's ways to address that. On the other hand, people who own multiple houses have interests as well. And while you can understand those interests, in the end, I think the point that needs to be looked at most strongly in making this decision has to do with the affordability crisis.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. And so I wanted to allow you the opportunity for those who said that the .01 percent is such a minimal impact. I wanted and I know you brought up the affordable housing piece. I wanted to allow you the opportunity to just to speak to that briefly.
Speaker 6: Oh, certainly. I'm not aware of good analytic studies, and I've not presenting myself as an expert on this. What I've read is fairly persuasive about areas that have allowed short term rentals without any limitations. Those portions of those cities accelerating in rent prices far beyond other parts of the cities. And it's intuitive, although anecdotal. We've heard about places in Denver where our investors, whether they're local investors or outside investors, have taken formerly regular long term rentals and turned them into short term rentals. So from a from a supply perspective, reducing the supply of housing is the last thing we should be doing when we're in this housing crisis.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Shane Brady. Shane still here? Did she leave? She left. Margie. Margie mendez. And Margie, are you coming up? I'll go ahead and ask a question just for the sake of time. You know, you're on the zoning and planning and you were talking about how obviously you represent many voices and how there was a strong support of the primary resident peace. And I was wondering if you just could briefly expound on why you feel so many different neighborhoods feel that is so important. Like what is if you could if you could some. Like, what's what's the main reason for that?
Speaker 11: Yes. If you could just I couldn't hear you when I was walking up, but if.
Speaker 1: Sure. Yeah. If you can just once again, just you mentioned in your comments how the primary residence was like a huge sticking point for the people in support of this for Zapp. And I was just wanting if you could just kind of give expound a little bit why that primary residence piece you feel is so important in this audience?
Speaker 11: We felt that the primary residency requirement was without that, it turns the residential neighborhoods into commercialized areas. And we had a very many of our members. Tell us about the horror stories that you've heard, some of which tonight. And we felt that with the primary residency requirement, at least there would be someone in the property that a neighbor could go knock on the door and say, okay, you know, you're having a party over here, it's got to cease. And so the the issue was and another thing that we had I'm sorry. Another thing that we had is all of the complaints that the zoning and planning committee has heard has all been from out of the area owners, multiple properties or those kind of things. So we felt that with the primary residency requirement that would protect the neighborhoods and also allow a owner to have someone in their home.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. If I can just paraphrase the ability for neighbors to know who they can hold accountable. If there's an issue with the short term rent on, if they no need to know who they can go to, I go knock on the door. I need to go to talk to this individual about that. That's correct. Perfect. Thank you. Nate. Nathan, you want to come up? I just want to afford you the opportunity to talk about the enforcement piece. There was a I'll use a house of Cards reference that it's if you could just quickly speak to that, I want to give you just a time to talk about that enforcement approach.
Speaker 16: And I don't I don't know if it's possible to put up our slide here again, but I think we've heard a lot of concerns about the the existing framework of enforcement and a lot of short term rentals have taken years, months to be enforced through the existing zoning code. It's our hope and it's our intent that our business licensing enforcement framework will make that much more effective, efficient and robust. So these tools right here are all the tools that we have at our disposal from a business licensing perspective to gain compliance. It can be anywhere from just a simple notice to comply. We can do licensee audits of their information. We can do licenses, spot checks, which includes both web monitoring and in-person inspections and investigations. We can also suspend a short term roll license. We can issue general violations or fines of up to $990 per incident. And finally, we can do a show cause hearing to revoke that license. None of this exists in the current zoning code today. And by taking the licensees and putting them to a business licensing standard, we have all these tools at our disposal to enforce the network.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. And last question that I have, Nathan, for you. The the short term rental task force that you should this partial implement timeline wise. And certainly I'm not holding you this, but ballpark, if you all felt any type of amendments to this would be required after some. What's the time period you're looking at reviewing before taking another look at it and maybe we could change this? I mean, what's that time period? You know, I.
Speaker 16: Don't think I have a firm timeline at this point. I think that's really a discussion for that advisory committee to a timeline that makes sense to them. We're hoping that we can get this short term rental advisory committee up and running off the ground late this summer, early this fall. And really the work that's put into this advisory committee through community members, through neighbors, through licensees and host, that'll sort of dictate that that timeline, what that looks at. So I don't think I have a firm timeline for you right now, but we are committed to get that end of that advisory committee up and running as soon as possible.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Is Mike Socha still here?
Speaker 2: Sucka? No.
Speaker 7: And Ling McPhail. She's still here.
Speaker 1: Do you want her scones? That was. That was about.
Speaker 7: You. Okay. Both wing. Actually, I looked up her listing here on Airbnb while she was talking, and Mike Socha both talked about renting out their basements. And I was trying to find out. What I wanted to find out is whether these basements are in the way of an accessory dwelling unit, which is illegal in a single family zone, at least where they operate. And I brought this on first reading. I brought this up as well. So I wanted to know if they had a kitchen in there, which would but they do have locked entrances and I don't know if they have fire egress windows. So no. Does anyone else here who testified it ran out their basement. Sir. Okay. Can I ask you to come up? Is there a kitchen in there as well? Is there outside entrance and blocked entrance?
Speaker 2: No, it is simply a master bedroom suite. My guests use my kitchen.
Speaker 12: Okay. And the stairs can't get into my. Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you. That would be legal. Other than the fact. Other than the fact that short term running isn't currently legal. Thank you, Mr. Brown. As you know, I have a concern about hosts taking it upon themselves to do these renovations. Nathan.
Speaker 1: How?
Speaker 7: Let me see. Where do I have you? How do you how will you verify through an online application process? How do you plan to verify primary residency?
Speaker 16: Yeah, that's a really good question. I think that there was a comment that came up in terms of one scenario potentially being legal or another scenario not being legal in terms of their primary residence circumstance. So for example, in our ordinance, under our definitions section, we have a primary residence means a residence which is the usual place of return for housing, as documented by at least these several documents here, but that we're not limited by just those documents that are spelled in ordinance. The director has the authority to investigate further on whether there's evidence or testimony that that place is not the normal or usual place of return. We can still enforce that.
Speaker 7: Is she going to do that personally for every every.
Speaker 13: Applicant.
Speaker 7: Except when she's on maternity leave? I remember the difficult time that the city had enforcing the residency rule when we required city workers to live in the city. And it was it was a nightmare to try to look into that. So how I'm not asking how are they going to demonstrate that they're a primary residence, but how will we know that? How will we know that that's truthful.
Speaker 16: So just by going in and obtaining a license through our online licensing system, you will certify that the unit you're offering out is your primary residence. If we find that you falsified that information or it's not, your primary residence will then take it.
Speaker 7: But we're not going to check it.
Speaker 16: We're not going to check documents up front. And the reason for this is we want to make sure we have as high rate as a compliance. We want to have as much of the population in the pools per se.
Speaker 7: So I would I would point out that that's not compliant, though. If they're not a primary resident, how will we find out whether any of these short term rental units are accessory dwelling units that have been constructed outside of our building and fire codes?
Speaker 16: And I might call Ann Arbor's our planner to help us with that response there.
Speaker 15: Thank you, Councilman. So that would also be upon investigation. And so you will certify in the licensing process that you meet all applicable city regulations, which means you're certifying that your ADU is legal, if that's what.
Speaker 7: Your Honor system.
Speaker 15: You're using.
Speaker 7: The honor system kind of like kind of like fare checking on light rail.
Speaker 15: When when a complaint comes in, there's the follow up investigation.
Speaker 7: Nathan. For this new and robust enforcement division where the short term rental division, the unfortunately nicknamed EST heard how many additional staff people are we going to hire for for this new robust enforcement.
Speaker 16: Right. So the way we're thinking of this is that our access and licenses department has six inspectors, will dedicate 2 to 3 inspectors that will prioritize on short term rental enforcement. But at the same time, this agency can actually partner with all the resources that we have today with our partner agencies. And so that's why we're able to actually work and coordinate with the current amount of nice inspectors, environmental health inspectors, DPD 301 to really have that robust network of resources to enforce the not only our licensing ordinance, but as well as those common neighborhood complaints that people make.
Speaker 7: On being so nice. That's part of CPD. That's not part of exercises license.
Speaker 16: Correct. But we can work with them.
Speaker 7: So when I'm looking at the toolbox here in the Slide on Enforcement Partnership. Most of this seems reactive. We are not actually going to verify that any of this is accurate.
Speaker 16: But we can absolutely do proactive compliance monitoring. So our short term rental inspectors can monitor websites, monitor the ads, make sure you have that license number in your advertisements. We can also audit the information provided by the licensees. We can audit we can do spot checks in spot check. Right.
Speaker 7: Right. So so no actual enforcement at the or checking at the time of application.
Speaker 16: Again, the application process is that certification under penalty of perjury similar to how you renew your driver's license online today, you're certifying that you meet these particular legal requirements. If we find that you falsified that information, we'll take action on your license.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Abe. On slide three, one of the purpose of of the text amendment on slide three was it said, recognize the growing popularity of short term rentals while providing protections for neighborhoods. Can you tell me how this protects neighborhoods? Because I've been trying to amend this endlessly for a couple of months to protect neighborhoods and been turned down.
Speaker 15: Sure. Well, yeah. You've heard a lot tonight about the growing popularity of short term rentals and and why residents are choosing to conduct short term rentals. And so that's what we're we're trying to acknowledge. On the other hand, the providing protections. That is this whole framework that we're that we're talking about tonight, that we have a better tracking and enforcement system. And I think, you know, Nathan mentioned this briefly, but one thing I really want to emphasize is that you'll see in the licensing ordinance that provision regarding the fact that it shall be illegal to advertise a short term rental without a license. That's something we can't enforce on now. It's not illegal to advertise, only to do it. Which means we're investigating. Mm hmm. In the future, if this ordinance were enacted. We have the ability to sit at the computer and see which ones are not licensed, send them a warning. Ultimately begin to find them without even necessarily visiting the property.
Speaker 7: Will you check the numbers, the license number, the registration number to see if it's a valid number and that I haven't just made up a number that mimics an actual number. We will do.
Speaker 15: That. Yeah.
Speaker 7: Okay. So that's how we're protecting residents, big neighbor.
Speaker 15: And then, of course, you know, we want the streamlined process to get registered, as Nathan has described, that includes the self-certification, but that then brings that short term rental into the system. And then when the police receive noise complaints, other things happen. We can share that information. We've got that short term rental license number attached to a property. That information is now attached to that short term rental for purposes of license renewal or other sanctions against the short term rental.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 7: We we're not going require a zoning permit for this. We're going to have a business license. We have a host of home occupations in our zoning code, including rooming house, which this seems to be except for less than 30 days. If the streamlined approach promotes greater compliance. Why don't we drop the requirement for all home occupations and streamline it for them as well?
Speaker 15: Well, as I mentioned in my earlier presentation that other home occupations, with the exception of like a large childcare center.
Speaker 7: Or food preparation. Food preparation, also.
Speaker 15: Requiring a business license.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
Speaker 15: Right. So. But most do not. Like, if you're operating a home office, you don't have to go to Stacie to get a to get a business license. And we discuss this at council committee at the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee. And. There was a you know, there's a lot of discussion of like, why are we making you go to two different departments to get legal? That's just a recipe for low compliance. Let's focus on one part of the system. And in this case, it's the business licensing to encourage compliance. The requirements that apply to short term rentals include many similar limitations that exist for home occupations. Now, in terms of like not showing external evidence of the use and, you know, only having a very limited allowance for signage and that sort of thing.
Speaker 7: And finally, we have some some other home occupations in residential areas that are not uniform across all residential districts. Sometimes I find that we want uniformity when that's the outcome we want. But when we talk about the uniqueness of each neighborhood, when we want to emphasize the differences among our neighborhoods. So cottage food sales is not a permitted home occupation or use in some residential zones. Did we ever look at not making short term renting allowable in all residential districts? But maybe, for instance, I noticed that the map, the map that I want to show later where it shows all the listings as of January. Where they don't exist, for instance, in my district. Those are the zones that are suburban context. Did we ever look at the task force or the group ever look at having short term rentals in those residential districts that are urban edge or whatever and not in suburban yards where they don't seem to be very popular anyway?
Speaker 15: Right. So you mentioned zone districts where some home occupations are not permitted. There are a couple of specialized zone districts in the suburban context and exist in very few parts of the city. Primarily, it's right southwest Denver. And so we did think about that because there is a precedent for treating at least those limited areas a little bit differently. And we thought about the context system, which gives us the ability to say, treat all of the suburban neighborhood context zone districts differently. However, throughout the process, we didn't specifically hear people saying that the impacts of short term rentals would be greater in those contacts than in, say, the contexts where they're concentrated towards the center of the city.
Speaker 7: Maybe if there have been a town hall meeting closer than South High School, you might have heard that. Do you think?
Speaker 15: Well, yeah. Okay. I've heard we've spoken before that. That you feel that we didn't go as far afield as we should have with the outreach. Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 11: I have.
Speaker 3: A question. Is Marc still here? Who was spoke first about an apartment in a high rise downtown?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: He is not here.
Speaker 1: He's not here.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And Craig Ellsworth, um, uh, they began ask you this. Did did you say, Craig, that you had a place that had a business license and a tax license?
Speaker 15: Yes.
Speaker 3: As a short term rental.
Speaker 15: When I contacted the city about getting a business license. I said I was operating.
Speaker 2: A short term rental and I inquired about getting a lodgers tax I.D. and I indicated that it would also be a short term rental. Even asked.
Speaker 15: Tax and license if I needed to.
Speaker 12: Collect taxes on all.
Speaker 15: Of the amount or just the rental amount, the other amounts being cleaning and booking fees and all further out that my business name and email include, among other things, we are below.
Speaker 2: It's very clear what I'm doing.
Speaker 15: So even the city doesn't know that.
Speaker 10: This is illegal.
Speaker 3: Except that you could possibly be in a zone that is called a mixed use zone that does allow for short term rentals if you get a lodging license and a tax license. And in fact, that's why I wanted to call you up and wanted to call markup down downtown areas and some other mixed use zone areas. You can do this. You can already do a short term rental in certain mixed use zones if you get a lodgers license and a tax license. So it might very well be that you're doing it legally.
Speaker 15: I doubt.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 15: I get that very much based on where I live.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 15: I live I live on East 10th Avenue in Downey. It is a residential neighborhood. So I am sure that what I am doing now is illegal.
Speaker 3: Hmm. We'd have to take it. We'd have to take a look at that. But that's very interesting. Thank you very much. I just want to let people know that there were some zones in the city where it's legal. If you have someone had mentioned stay Alfred to and and what they they they get lodging license and things. The other question. Oh, the other no comment. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman.
Speaker 10: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Cashman and I, we had a good meeting with Natan. And who else? I think everybody on Friday. You talked about it, and and Councilman Cash and I were trying to propose amendment to specify an increased staffing for this programing. And Mr. Rodwell cautioned us that we were stepping on sacred executive ground and so we had to back off and we had a good discussion about rules and regs and that's where you convinced us that the rules and regs are going to be, what's going to really enforce this program, come up and talk about rules and regs and how you're going to strengthen this enforcement process with those rules and regs.
Speaker 16: Correct. So just like any other city department, access licenses has the ability to promulgate additional rules and regulations as it pertains to the ordinance. What we're really excited about is having a a more of a community based conversation with the short term rental advisory committee to look at our enforcement efforts, to look at our enforcement tools, to look at our fines, schedules in the cooperation with the city agencies, and potentially promulgate those additional rules through a similar public hearing process through our department, which is consistent with any other departments, with their promulgation of rules to continue to hone and sharpen and improve our enforcement network. So the ordinance before you today really gives us that barebones framework and we'll be able to move forward with community input on how we can continue to enforce the sharp in our framework as well.
Speaker 10: So we don't really give specifics like like we really want. Let's talk about two examples tonight. Is Mary Lou still here, merely described to your situation on enforcement, whether on Steel Street there and the difficulty we've had with that situation?
Speaker 3: I made a written.
Speaker 19: Complaint to Neighborhood Inspection Services about 800 Steel Street and specified that it was on Airbnb and then sends in a mandatory complaint to specify that it was also on fee or below. I was told an inspector would go out to the house. It's my understanding that an inspector did go out of the house and left some kind of a notice. I don't know anything more about that, but I have heard nothing since and they continue to have crowds going through that house.
Speaker 10: Let's take this example and let's talk about rules and regular houses going to hell, Mary Lou, and how is this going to address this problem?
Speaker 16: Absolutely. So I think the frustration that you may have witnessed now is because our existing zoning code doesn't have necessarily these business licensing tools. So take this example of this residential house in this area. One of the first things we would do to see is if they're licensed. So we would look up the location, see if I have a license for that. Look at the advertisement and see if there's a license number in that advertisement. Let's say there's not an advertisement in that license number where you could use a series of tracking the the advertisement in combination with Google Maps, in combination with the Denver Assessor's records to identify who that property owner is. And then go ahead and cite the property owner for not having a license or operating without a license. If they do have a license and they have that license number on their advertisement. We would then investigate whether or not it's their primary residence. We would ask for documentation or really investigate that that place of a usual return to make sure it really is their primary residence. And then we can also investigate further it to make sure that they have the the appropriate insurance, the appropriate rental package, the appropriate safety features, and do a really complete audit of that actual unit to make sure it's in compliance.
Speaker 10: What about what about the 16 people? Okay. Say it is primary residence and they get 16 people stay in there. How is the word is going to address that?
Speaker 16: Right. And I made a for a a little bit of fun on this. But essentially, if there's if there if a licensee or of a unit is in violation of any local building code or any local ordinances, we could still take action on the license. And I don't know if you wanted to talk a little more about.
Speaker 10: But the audit says you can only rent one room. Right.
Speaker 16: The ordinance states that you can rent just simply your primary residence. So it can be the primary structure, it can be the accessory dwelling unit. It could be both, but only limited to one contract or one party at a time.
Speaker 10: If you have five bedrooms, you can rent off bedrooms to a family.
Speaker 16: As long as it's under one rental.
Speaker 10: One contract. Okay, let's talk about Charlie and you and I had to. But let's talk about Charlie's example, about her situation over there on Lincoln Street where you got two properties like that. What's what how are you going to help with Ms..
Speaker 16: Bush's example there? The first thing we would do is look at the DVD logs. So we would look at the calls that are coming in and we would look at any disturbing the peace calls that came in with with DVD. And we could absolutely take action on the license if there was that egregious party calls that come in and disturbing the peace calls that come in, we can we can start taking action on the license. Additionally, we would make sure that they are licensed. We would make sure it's their primary residence and that they fulfilled all the requirements of the audience.
Speaker 10: And if they don't if they don't have a license and they're not primary residence, are you going to take immediate action to to take care of that situation?
Speaker 16: Yeah, I think a lot of it does depend on a case by case basis. So we have a lot of tools, whether not be just a notice to comply. But we have that flexibility. We have that authority for those really egregious hosts to start issuing those dual violation fines up to $909 per incident. So that includes just a day of advertising unit online.
Speaker 10: Well, I think everyone here is just encouraging you to be to enforce the law if we're going to pass a law and because the police don't decide which laws they're going to enforce and building department and decide which permits are going to give out. And, you know, we you know, we expect, you know, the excise in license to go ahead and manage this very well and make sure lawfully handled so.
Speaker 16: Absolutely. And like I said earlier, thankfully, the the business license tools that we have, these are tools that we've been employing for decades. And it's something that we're very used to and we'll apply these same standards to these licensees.
Speaker 10: So say district and I've probably got this many rental apartments and as anybody else and tell me how you're going to enforce the rental units there. That's the big issue that I'm concerned to correct.
Speaker 16: The the multifamily join units may be a challenge. And I think in these certain circumstances, each of these property management companies, neighbors, residents are really going to be our best allies to give us the information. And especially if it's complaint based, we can actually work with these property managers, work with these agencies and work with these residents in these multifamily buildings to enforce the same law. And so we really feel that neighbors and residents in these multifamily drawings are our best allies or best partners.
Speaker 10: So if neighborhoods are always gave you a list of the approved apartments that are eligible for rent, and that would help you out from.
Speaker 16: Any information that is. And property management companies can give us as it relates to licensed or unlicensed short term rentals will always be helpful to the department.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr..
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I need to take a little bit of issue with my brother down at the end. Councilman new in that I don't think either one of us were convinced by our discussion the other day. My memory of it is you asked very strongly for rules from specification on rules and regulations, and I'm not here in that. And I asked very specifically for a change in language on my concern about games being played with the primary residence, which as I read it says very specifically as documented by these particular listings. Now, Nathan, you told me earlier today that our city attorney says that the language in the ordinance gives us all the protection we need, so that if somebody comes to us, sends us a driver's license that says indicates its primary residence, but it's not that we can go further. So I'm going to ask Mr. City attorney, if you can give me clarification on this. Thank you, Matt. Madam City Attorney, please.
Speaker 17: Our definition of primary residence is broad enough to include miss loves the opportunity to go in further and delving further into what actually provides evidence for a primary residence. So it's not just the documents that we listed, but also your usual place of return. And so the director does have the opportunity to go in further and to figure out what a usual place of return is.
Speaker 9: What gives us that specifically? Because as I read the ordinance being proposed. And I am not an attorney and I'm not trying to be rude, but I think this is important. So as I read the bill, it says primary residents as documented by.
Speaker 17: And I think in our initial application, those documents support the primary residency, but it doesn't end the analysis there and the director does have the power.
Speaker 9: To go in. And where is the definition, the definition being regular place of return or.
Speaker 17: That's correct.
Speaker 9: So that's what a short term renter or property owner needs to prove.
Speaker 17: That their primary residence is their usual place of return.
Speaker 9: Okay, so. I'm not really sure why we're asking for documents.
Speaker 17: But I think that's an easy tool for us to look at at least two documents that provide proof of that. But if we need to go further, if we need to investigate, okay, we have the ability to do that.
Speaker 9: Okay. Could you thank you for that.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Could you say your name for the record, please?
Speaker 17: Collymore.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. So if Nathan compare for me a bit more, why the complexity in our current situation where these illegal businesses are difficult to put out of business? Because all we have going for us is the zoning code in. If we pass this ordinance, what makes it feasible for us to begin enforcement is that they're now licensed businesses. So go into a little bit more detail on why Mr. Maile, whom I think is maybe out for a snack or home to bed, had to wait 18 months.
Speaker 16: Correct. Because the reason why it may have taken so long in that particular instance is that in I guess, inspectors were purely enforcing the limitations with the zoning code as it relates to renting or leasing property for less than 30 days. There was there was nothing that spelled out that it shall be unlawful to advertise the short term rental. Without a license number, it shall be unlawful to operate the short term rental, not as a primary residence. Everything fall within the existing zoning code and then asked inspectors to simply had to enforce that leasing provision. So.
Speaker 9: And what is that process exactly?
Speaker 16: So a step backwards and my thought to CPD on this a little bit there is that typically when I asked inspectors would have to go in person to the unit, they'd have to knock on the door and hope someone answers. If someone answered, they would have to hope that person admitted that they were operating a short term rental. If they did not admit that they were operating a short term rental. They'd have to go into more investigatory procedures, such as staking out the property quite literally to determine if vehicles were going in and out or if there were out of state licenses. They had to provide some sort of justification other than just what was on line to justify that this person was leasing their property for less than 30 days. The the fines and the notice to comply I don't know those numbers right off the top of my head, but they're much less than are general violations scheduled, which can be up to $999 per incident. Additionally, they could just simply appeal and take that case to the Board of Adjustment and go through that board of adjustment process with our new business licensing tools. We can suspend licenses, we can find licenses and we can show cause licenses to take that business away. So our tools, we feel, are much more efficient and effective than the current zoning code tools that are employed.
Speaker 9: Okay. So if we pass this law and you take me through. Violations and how they would be handled. How could we shut a problem house down quickly?
Speaker 16: Right. So what's really important to this is the license number is being placed in the advertisement. So if we find a property owner or a responsible property that continually just advertises their their unit online, we could find them potentially up to $999 per incident of having their license mean.
Speaker 9: Without a license.
Speaker 16: Or a correct with advertising without a license.
Speaker 9: Okay. So they've got a license there. They're legal from that standpoint. So noise complaints, any variety of things. What's the process?
Speaker 16: Absolutely. So noise complaints that come in disturbing the peace calls come in. We have the authority to work with the director and our inspectors to determine if it really has reached a level where we can show cause that. So we don't necessarily want to say something to the effect of three disturbing the peace violations and you could lose your license. We want to have the flexibility to potentially take action on a license with one disturbing the peace call, quite frankly. So we want to have all of these tools available to us to take action on the licenses. It really is a case by case basis. We can be working with really egregious hosts who flaunt the rules, and we can also be working with hosts who want to comply and who want to be come into compliance. So this wide range of tools not only can help address those egregious hosts that will try to simply flaunt the rules, but it also gives an ability for those hosts to come in and be compliant.
Speaker 9: Ms.. Loucks, if you don't mind. So as director. Talk about that as far as. Shutting someone down quickly.
Speaker 11: In the ordinance against the structure of the Department of Excise licenses with some very wise city attorneys that included in the ordinance language the ability to immediately suspend a license. So what that does is I have the ability if there's something where one of these egregious situations happens, we have the ability to immediately suspend the license and basically suspend the due process while we investigate further. So that gives us a little bit of time and flexibility to go in and look at that license and the interim is suspended and then go through the due process if we so choose to pursue a full show course.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. So how about. People who don't get a license. It's. I'm still a little shaky on how it's more how we can more quickly shut them down.
Speaker 11: If you're operating without a license, probably the strongest enforcement tool is that general violation per incident. So if we go in every day and go to a web platform and see that this place is listed in five consecutive days, we can just continue to issue these general violations for operating without a license. And they have a maximum fine of up to $999 per incident. So we think that's probably the most immediate tool we can do for operating without a business license. You know, of course, we've talked about it before. We're doing this six month informational kind of soft enforcement by January 1st, because the idea is that's where the strong enforcement starts, where if you're operating without a license at that time, we can go to a general violation.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 9: So this is either for you or Nathan or anyone else who wants to answer it. You seem extremely reluctant to agree to commit to a substantial spot check program. I would suggest it would make huge sense to spot check on primary residence and do spot check on safety violations. What's the heartburn?
Speaker 11: I know heartburn on any of the safety infractions. I think that is part of our plan is to do this like basically kind of going back to some of the questions from Councilman Flynn is to audit and have a percentage, whether that percentage upfront is 100% of applications that are coming in that we verify primary residency. But we get to a point much like how we do much of our other enforcement, whether it's liquor enforcement, where we rely on an audit based system to get into compliance. And part of that, I think, honestly, we're just using our short term rental advisory committee to help advise us having the community give us that feedback or
Speaker 9: . Asking us to pass a bill. And telling us that the most important parts of enforcement will be decided down the road. And we don't know what it is.
Speaker 11: Yeah. And like I said, we're completely open. And like I said, I assume we'll be doing a pretty strong upfront primary residency check just to make sure we're getting into compliance.
Speaker 9: I don't know that you're going to get a positive vote tonight without more substantial guarantees of enforcement. I really don't. I'm needing that. I'm needing something here.
Speaker 11: But again, I don't want to I don't know for implying that we're going into not the soft enforcement pieces again, as the rollout, the education piece. But come January 1st, I think we have absolutely every intention for a strong enforcement strategy for combing through the scans. We've we're dedicating our resources and our inspectors. We're dedicating up to 2 to 3 primary inspectors every day to look at these ads, to go out and to respond to neighborhood complaints. I think it's a pretty actually unprecedented allocation of resources that will be going to the enforcement of as come January.
Speaker 1: If Councilman Cashman, any more questions?
Speaker 9: I may.
Speaker 16: And I think just one thing that we wanted to reiterate is that this is sort of a untraditional industry. This is an industry that lives online. It's it's had its success online. So, quite frankly, traditional enforcement tools we need to look at outside the box, enforcement tools we need to look at how we can also leverage that same technology, leverage some sort of digital tools to actually supplement and complement our existing resources. So just how this industry has sort of come online and sort of thrived online as regulators, we want to be able to leverage that same technology in addition to our existing resources that we have.
Speaker 9: I support that 1,000%, but I don't see why after the lengthy I've been begging for enforcement for months and you can't come to me and say, Well, we'll audit 20%. I don't see what would make that unwise or difficult or expensive. But you're giving me and maybe we're not sure. I'm not. That's all.
Speaker 16: I think we can put in a number on that like 20%. We can do less than that. We can do more than that. We have all the tools at our disposal to utilize whatever we need. So as this industry evolves, our enforcement, our auditing in our work with the tools that we have will also continue to evolve . But I think we're really on the same page in that we too want a high compliance rate. We too want to make sure that hosts are in compliance with all the regulations, and we're going to use every tool at our disposal and every resource available to accomplish that.
Speaker 9: I'm not feeling that. And one last question. So if we vote this down, what is the plans for enforcing our current ordinance?
Speaker 15: Well, just to switch things up A I'll return. I think it you know, it puts us back where we are now in that we only have the existing tools we have now is enforcement. And it's a real challenge. As you heard with the case on Steel Street, you know, there's a cease and desist order is is issued, but it keeps on happening. The new inspectors have to stake the place out to determine that it is still happening. They see the ads online, which is very frustrating to them, but that they can't take action based on the ads online. So, you know, as we said when when we spoke the other day, when we talked to them and I asked inspectors about that, a provision in the ordinance that says it shall be unlawful to advertise without the license number. They were so excited and just thought that was going to make all the difference in terms of enforcement.
Speaker 9: That's all I've got.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. We have audience members, please. I know it's getting late and I'm trying to, as president, move these procedures through laughing and stomping. That doesn't help. So and we have another public hearing that I want to get to as soon as possible for those people that have been respectively respectfully waiting. So, Councilwoman Gilmore, you're up.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. Nathan, I have a question I want to understand a little bit more about the the addus. So they're on someone's property. They're an accessory dwelling unit. They're essentially an entirely separate structure. But those are okay within the ordinance, the way that it's currently written.
Speaker 16: Correct. And they're actually identified in the text amendment. So I'll allow Abe to come talk about the text amendment.
Speaker 15: Sure. So as we discussed earlier. Accessory dwelling units are not allowed everywhere. They are allowed in some single unit zone districts, but but not all. And those are dwelling units that could be in the primary structure but have a separate kitchen. It's it really is a separate unit. Or they could be in a detached accessory structure, which is the more granny flat situation. So assuming you had a legal one, you could use it to host short term rentals if you were a licensed short term rental host.
Speaker 14: Okay. So thank you. So to that, so to that. How do you propose, if it is a separate structure, assuming that it's in someone's backyard, how will Niasse enforce if that's being utilized as a short term rental or something? I mean, they're basically going to have to ask the neighbor possibly to get into their backyard to look over the fence or get in somehow. So how how is that going to be enforced?
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 15: So in the in the new if we're talking about the new framework, the primary enforcement mechanism will actually be on licensing. So when calls come in, they go there first. If they mention short term rentals. And, you know, the first thing that will happen is looking at the online advertising. So we start with we can probably with a little bit of research figure out which online advertisement is for that unit, even if it's an accessory dwelling unit. And if it's licensed now, it may be licensed and in good standing, but we then have the ability to relate whatever complaint is coming in from wherever to to that unit. And so it creates again, the advertisement really creates a tool that makes it possible for us to do things without going out into the field and getting in someone's backyard to figure out what's going on back there, basically.
Speaker 14: So so my question to that, again, it's all online enforcement. We are already within, especially my district have, you know, enforcement issues. I mean, I can send as many photographs of weeds in someone's front yard. And it still takes weeks sometimes to have and I come out and, you know, find the property owner and or if they're renters, to then locate the owner, which a lot of times the owners are outside of the state. And so to track that down. And so how large is your team that's going to be checking these online licenses? I guess this would be to to Nathan. Okay. The problem isn't going to be.
Speaker 15: Just before turning it back to him and just mentioned that, you know, he's conducted research and talked to a lot of other cities. And that 2 to 3 number that he mentioned of inspectors that are are mostly dedicated to short term rentals is actually more dedicated inspectors than most of our peer cities have dedicated that have regulated short term rentals. San Francisco is a bit of a big exception. They have almost ten, but they've had very low compliance. And I think that just tells you something about streamlining because they have very complicated regulations. But let me let Nathan come up and elaborate more because there actually would be site enforcement as well as the online
Speaker 16: . Correct. And I think this is a classic example where we could actually partner with an IRS on this enforcement framework. So, you know, I ask you potentially receive those complaints and investigate in the field. We could also investigated in the field a lot of this this issue may be actually complaint driven as well, especially if there are complaints coming from the residence. So we would take the evidence that's given to the licensing department and from our interested inspectors and then utilize these existing tools we have. The way we're proposing this now is that about 2 to 3 excise license inspectors would be dedicated, prioritized towards short term rental enforcement. So these inspectors come in to work at 9 a.m. They go through the ads, they start looking at the complaints that came in to other agencies like nice like environmental health. It's disturbing that these calls, etc., and then our inspection team could then take action on the licenses and issue a suspension. A general violation, if it's egregious enough, will lead to that show cause replication the hearing.
Speaker 14: Okay, my last question and I'm not sure if this is for CPD or excise and licensing, but the the question that Councilwoman Sussman asked the gentleman about, if you're licensed and it's currently zoned, I mean, there there are gaps then that in certain areas of the city and county of Denver with zoning, someone could have an LLC and not have their primary residence. It would be actually a secondary or I mean, how many could they have?
Speaker 16: I think the missing piece of information within that conversation is that in order for us, in order for someone to obtain a lodging license from our department, they first need to obtain a zone use permit from community planning and development. So they would go through the zone use permit process, make sure that that the building codes, that the code, the parking requirements there, the ADA is there. You have a fire inspection of environmental health inspection. So there's a series of steps that you need to do to first get your zoning permit. Then you would be eligible to come in and get a lodging license, which is that lodging license is typically oriented towards motels, hotels. But at the same time, if you're able to get that zone use permit through CPD, if you're in a zone district, it allows lodging use. You are still eligible to come and apply for our lodging license, if that makes sense.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. So this is for Nathan or Stacey. I'm interested in a gentleman who said in his comments and he was talking about Our Lady. She was talking about. Toronto, where a company is actually owning units. And I'm wondering, this is this is my question. Series of questions anyway. Can a company or an LLC who owns a property have an Airbnb?
Speaker 16: The only way that a person can obtain a short term rental license is if that person is a primary residence and they can only have one primary residence. In theory, an LLC or a company could have a property, but a. A a. Essentially, a person would need to be there who can certify that it is their primary residence that they live there. So essentially a long term tenant that lives in a place that is owned by a property owner or or another entity of that nature could still be a licensee under this framework as long as they certify its their place of usual return and it's their primary residence.
Speaker 8: And the reason why I asked that and I think you know, where I'm getting to, I'm, I'm trying to figure out what defines an individual or a person. And if if these corporate entities are people too, like Citizens United. And so I just want to make sure that a person is a person, that a primary resident is a resident and can't be some kind of real estate company or I mean, a network of companies that's just trying to find a back door person.
Speaker 16: And in our licensing application, there will be a field where you input your name and your address, as well as your driver's license or your state ID card. So we actually do know you're a person.
Speaker 8: Okay. I think a lot of other questions have been answered. So that was my only and primary concern right at the moment. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilmember Sussman and Flanders. Okay. If I leapfrog you to get to Councilman Espinosa, he hasn't had a chance to ask questions.
Speaker 3: Related to that.
Speaker 1: Okay, Councilman Espinosa, you're all right.
Speaker 6: Thanks. I'm going to rattle off a bunch of names here for some brief questions, if any. I suspect that a lot of them have left, and then after that, I'll go right into new and need name while these guys are coming up. So if the following individuals are here. Sherri Way Betsy chuckles Chuck. Chuck Good. Joel Noble. George Mayo. Mary Lou Fanelli. Craig Ellsworth Waiting. No, never mind. Craig, your question has already been asked. J.J. Neiman, Alex, Dodd, and Sheila habits are shallow. Sorry. So in these questions for you, Nate and and Abe, so sorry these came up because of the line of questions here. So I might as well stay on them while we're talking about them. So how many calls a day are we getting on existing short term rentals?
Speaker 16: You know, we we went through the 311 data earlier this year. And what we tried to do is go through the 301 data since May of 2015. That's the data the 311 had since approximately May of last year. Up until March of this year, we had approximately 135 calls or inquiries in 2311 regarding short term rentals. So 311 was essentially able to code them as a short term rental call. But what we tried to do further was drill a drill down a little deeper and distill those numbers and really try and categorize them. Of those 135 calls, we found that nearly half or about 40% potentially came from one, maybe two individual sources that sort of comb the Internet sites and complained about the use of that short term rental. And that in their neighborhood, about 57 inquiries or about 52 or 42% were specific to the legality of the use. In other words, these were primarily calls that two, three, one one asking whether or not this was legal in their neighborhood. Eight inquiries were related to just the actual ordinance proposal.
Speaker 6: But my concern is that we're talking about 2 to 3 staff to handle 135 calls a year. So, I mean, with an estimated 2000 of these units, so we thought about how long it would take 2 to 3 individuals working full time, 2000 hours a year each. So 4000, 160 hours to actually go through the website in and look at every single one of these advertisements.
Speaker 16: In the way we are able to receive calls. One, we have three more one today, and we're able to closely coordinate with 3 to 1 about short term rental calls that come in. So we're able to utilize the existing three year on resources for those calls that come in. At the same time, we can also take complaints. We take complaints and concerns of all of our licenses and licenses that we issued today. So we do have that complaint process.
Speaker 6: Where these dedicated staff are not dedicated staff.
Speaker 16: These are these are dedicated staff where they're prioritized, they come in to work and they will do short term rental enforcement.
Speaker 6: Okay. What is the definition of egregious in enforcement terms?
Speaker 16: I think a lot of this is sort of the flexibility of the director.
Speaker 6: So that's what concerns me, is we keep talking about how are we going to find up to $99, $999 for this egregious actor and that we're really going to react to those, but we don't have any definition of what that is.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 16: I think a lot of this is it's important for the department to have that flexibility on a case by case basis. So we may simply be able to take a host who had violated a part of the requirement. They just simply didn't know it. We may not want to issue a $999 general violation to that. Host.
Speaker 6: So is there something about a primary resident that only a primary mean, only non primary resident owners are somehow have a tendency to be egregious owners and those that live there are not. I mean, how did we make this distinction? Wouldn't the that litmus test of egregious ness apply to any operator?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 16: So let's take an example of any of our licenses, right? So we have licenses today that have the run a gamut in terms of complaints or concerns that are levied on to them. You could have one particular license that really has only had two or three complaints, or you have another license in your neighborhood that a city council person may know about, the neighbors know about. They know about this one particular issue that's been causing them grief. We have the flexibility to not only take care of this, of the incidents that may have had just a few complaints, but we also have the flexibility to take care of that complaint that had a lot of complaints.
Speaker 6: So why not create the tool to deal with complaints and the enforcement component but divorce it of the from sort of the sort of semantics of ownership and whatnot, because this is not a new industry. This has been here for decades. Yet somehow there has been some sort of it's sensationalizing of of this as somehow being now every single operator is now an egregious operator when in fact that's what we need tools for and have always needed tools for is those egregious situations because we've heard about the situations that have been year long battles to deal with. But it doesn't have anything to do with ownership necessarily. But everything to do with egregious owners operating a business that is that is a detriment to a neighborhood.
Speaker 16: In our license tools, our business license tools have that ability to take care and give relief to those egregious situations that were presented here tonight.
Speaker 6: But now we're blanketly taking a whole class of owners and saying you're we're treating you even worse than egregious. We're not even giving you the right to even do what you've been doing historically.
Speaker 15: Yes, sir. Just came up just to just to talk about it. We're going from enforcement into does the primary resident requirement make sense? And I think, you know, others have said said it much more directly and elegantly than I can. But clearly not all non primary resident rentals are bad rentals. Sometimes the properties are very well fixed up. Maybe they're the nicest house on the block. The concerns that we've heard, though, from the residents in many neighborhoods is that that still has an impact on the residential fabric.
Speaker 6: The concern has always been the lack of enforcement, the lack of enforcement. And I think if we got better at enforcement in dealing with the egregious and even those that are borderline egregious, we would do would go a long way for our neighborhoods to actually maintain that quality of life. And it has nothing to do with who owns it and who doesn't own it. There is some sort of sense that there's pride in ownership. But I you're going to see in one of my questions about I'm going to question that. But you know what? If your your stakeholder group comes back and their very first recommendation is that we need to expand this to all in order to capture the maximum number of businesses and use it, utilize our streamlined process. We need to open this to all residents, I mean, all operators and owners in the city and county of Denver. Are we changing this council?
Speaker 15: That's certainly their prerogative. That's what the group is for. And if that's what they recommend, will pursue that. There's certainly a public process that needs to go into that.
Speaker 6: But that public process has gone ongoing in this process. We have not shifted from this four year.
Speaker 15: I just think in terms of public process, when you say that non primary resident rentals will be allowed, there's a lot of nuances to that potentially. Are they all allowed? Is it just one who gets to have it? Do they have to be a Denver resident? Can they live in Breckenridge? It's just working through all of that is what we would do if we got that recommendation.
Speaker 6: So to slide 20, and this is the last question and then I got two points on slide 28, you quote said, none of this exist. You know, we have the general violations today. And we have the ability to sort of do a cease and desist. So I think it's sort of false to imply that we're creating all these enforcement tools. When we actually have these enforcement tools, we just.
Speaker 16: We have these enforcement wars today. We do not have the authority to apply these enforcement tools without this ordinance.
Speaker 6: Don't have the authority to do a cease and desist for for doing operating a non-conforming and non permitted use.
Speaker 16: So in our in our licensing code, we don't write.
Speaker 6: In our licensing coban, our zoning code and our is not asking to do this or is or is excising license or both. Both.
Speaker 13: Exactly. Well, so.
Speaker 6: We could be doing this three.
Speaker 16: And is we so in I guess does not have authority to enforce what's in the lodging license, which is, you know, Morey, our city attorney, give us a little more details of where the language falls within the zoning code and who has authority.
Speaker 17: And you are right. We do have the general violation tools that we can use to enforce people who are violating the zoning code. But then we run into the same issues that A was discussing earlier about in in as not really having any tools to go out and verify without extensive investigation, staking out neighborhood houses, having neighbors turn on each other. And only then are we issuing general violations to go to those general session courtrooms and have up to.
Speaker 6: So again, my goal would be actually good, strong enforcement tools, which could actually have been in place. And in dealing with this thing historically, especially for the last two years, that people have been grappling with this rather than sort of now starting to carve this niche where we're not going to get full compliance. You know, I would rather have good, strong, a lot of a lot of latitude, a lot of streamlining to get maximum compliance throughout the entire spectrum of the industry. But with strong enforcement, clear enforcement. I mean, we keep talking about general violations up to 1999, but in in I yes, we have a very graduated system of warning , then 150 and then like 500 than a thousand. I mean, what are what are we doing here?
Speaker 17: And again, I think the problem is, is that any and I can't enforce it as easily as excise and licensing can when we have businesses that would actually have licenses or not be license that we can check up on further. Any time you have a violation of state, federal or municipal ordinance that triggers the ability for excise and licensing to look into your license and look at what kind of actor y'all are, and then take enforcement action on that license. So it is additional enforcement tools that go beyond what NASA is currently not able to enforce. But the language that we have now.
Speaker 6: When in the next six months are we going to know what those general violation structure is?
Speaker 17: So when they go into a General Sessions courtroom, it's a criminal violation that would be subject to a plea agreement. So they would have the opportunity to talk to a city attorney, to hire a defense attorney.
Speaker 6: So there's no street check. I mean, a ticket that's issued for an amount that starts that process.
Speaker 17: The charge is what's on the ticket.
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 17: So whatever we're going to charge, the maximum penalties are $999 fine and potentially probation.
Speaker 6: Okay. So we keep throwing out that it's up to 999, but no one can tell me what it's going to be day one on January 1st.
Speaker 17: I think can we can work out plea agreements or plea guidelines, but you never want to restrict and not have that flexibility. If you got a ticket in this realm and were 100% great after all of the time, never had a violation. And then the one time you had a bad guest who got to disturbing the peace case or something similar, you would want the opportunity to go into court to show your merit, to show, look, this was a one off. This wasn't me as a bad actor and have the ability for someone in that situation to look at you, take you as a business owner and give you a penalty that fits what happened in that.
Speaker 6: Great. So that's what I really wanted my colleagues in public to know, and my colleagues probably already understand it better than I do that, you know, we keep talking about these maximums, but getting there is a process.
Speaker 17: Right. And I think Nathan's really spoke to the ability for excise and licensing to utilize all those tools to either do the order to comply, to give people the opportunity to get on board before throwing the hammer at them and say.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I want to point out one other sort of point of fact, which is there was an operator, Mr. Craig Ellsworth, who who we sort of implied that mixed use, if he had been in a mixed use zone district, that this would be sort of perfectly legal. That is not true after the text amendment is passed, because we are now creating this short term category in the mixed use zone districts with the exact same requirements as in any other zone district. Is that correct?
Speaker 15: So no, the the text amendment actually doesn't change anything about the legality or illegality of lodging accommodations. So if lodging accommodations is a permitted use in your own district and you've obtained a zoning permit and gone through the licensing process for that and you're conducting it legally, that won't change if you enact this ordinance.
Speaker 6: So but what I'm saying is that if you're a owner, you can go in to zoning, say, I want to do a short term rental and go through that process. But if you're a non owner, you have an out and you're in a mixed use district, you now have to go through that other licensee lodging accommodations process because that's the only way you can operate legally as a non primary resident owner. But a primary resident owner would have the exact same provision as a short term rental use.
Speaker 15: The right, if you're the non primary resident operator in the mixed use district, you have to go through the lodging accommodations process. If you're the primary resident operator, then you have this more streamlined short term rental process in the future, which right now say I.
Speaker 6: Don't want to. So it's sort of weird. I don't want the idea to be that somehow it's now okay and in mixed use the way we're talking about, because again, it's still because the text amendment, it is still only available in that capacity mean only available to primary residents as a short term rental.
Speaker 15: The text amendment doesn't make it any easier to operate a non primary resident car rental in a mixed use district, if that's where you're going. Yes.
Speaker 6: All right. Now, the three questions is Sherry way here? Was Betsy here?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 6: Joel.
Speaker 1: Her?
Speaker 6: Um. Do you want to read and want me to read verbatim what I wrote? You're going to get a laugh. I said, you're a stickler for rules. So does this zoning text amendment do anything to mitigate the current situation? The zoning text amendment is just zoning separated from licensing. Correct. Oh, I wouldn't I these have to be considered as a package. Okay, good. I want I wanted us to sort of make that clear that you can't the zoning, the change in zoning has to have the licensing component in order to be at all effective. So. Is it so the existing homes that would go. So how many existing homes would go on to the market as a result of this legislation? Speaking to the sort of concern about the lack of affordable housing. So we make this rule and now all non owner occupied non non primary residence. I mean units are now illegal. So how many? What sort of impact will that have on the housing market? Well, I think.
Speaker 3: You.
Speaker 6: It's not that if this passes, they've become illegal. They're illegal now. Right. Right. So I think it's terribly hard to estimate what people would do, given that you're talking about people that are willing to operate a short term rental today illegally. It's both hard to say what they would do if this passed and it remained illegal, but there was a brighter light about it being illegal because their listings would be lacking the required license number and it would be more obvious that they're operating illegally and the fines have gone up. But at the same time, if we went the other way and we, you know, you all amended the proposal such that you can do something more than just your primary residence. You could do another one instead of your primary residence. There's really not a good way in what we know has gone on in Denver to estimate how many normal rentals, regular long term rentals would come off the market because you can't look at how many people are doing it illegally and estimate how many people would do it should it become illegal or should have become legal. And that's really my concern. It's not some gift of new housing units that's going to appear. People who have enough resources to have more than one house today have a lot of options in what they do. They can rent it long term. They could you know, they could sell it off. They could keep it as something just for guests. You know, I don't want to estimate that. What I'm what I'm afraid of is if a council member tonight proposed and it passed, it became part of part of the final bill that it was more than just primary residency. I think there's ample evidence from other cities that we could rapidly lose housing units at a multiple of the rate of affordable housing units. We add to the market every year, and not that all of them that we lose would be affordable units. But we'd be adding tremendous pressure to, you know, housing market that's kind of already out of control. Yeah, I mean, and that's where it is. I'm having this conversation with you because this is a conversation that we can have here that I wish we sort of would have had in the run up to this, which is that that, you know, I look at the home as one of our greatest wealth building tools that we have as individuals. And this essentially would double that capacity if you sort of limited to one owner, one property, one STR sort of ascribe to a Social Security number, not a tax I.D. or something like that. So there was one definitive way of saying, okay, that's your limit. You get your one STR, whether you're living in it or not living in it. And that would give you the capacity to either supplement your income or increase your wealth through that mechanism. But we also need to couple that with not allowing renters to then sublet their they're non owned unit on the STR market. And this goes back to the last meeting where I was. I was leaning in heavily on the fact that we do not notify owners. This is a streamlined process where it's just click, click, click, click, click and you're, you're, you're in business with the license. So I just speak to that so too. So we're doing a couple of things that sort of both exacerbate the problem because now we've legalized it for all primary residents. So we could in fact take viable bedrooms out of the affordable housing market. And we are getting away from. Actually maximizing sort of compliance. And it's it's an interesting thought experiment. In housing markets, they're even tighter than ours in San Francisco. They were extremely worried about long term bedrooms coming off the market, not just entire housing units. So they tried a very complicated set of regulations that that had to do with primary residents versus not and and essentially limits to the number of days you could do. And they had some pretty bad unintended consequences because if you gamed it outright, you realized that people had all kinds of incentive. If they were already if they already had a tenant in their house, if it was just a bedroom, it was a border type arrangement. They had every incentive to evict that tenant and do and do short term rental instead. I think we're a different market than that. I think that while, yes, some people invite, you know, third parties that they're not in any other relationship with to be boarders. We don't have a tremendous amount of that in Denver. And so I'm not particularly worried myself about people evicting someone from a bedroom that they're sharing in order to long term in order to do. Short term, it could happen at the margins. What I'm really hopeful about, if we get the incentives right on this, you know, imagine all the people in the in the audience tonight who have multiple homes, maybe they have a second home and they're renting it out short term. And, you know, that's not legal now, but the lights become brighter and they become uncomfortable doing that. They stop doing that. And whatever they do with that second house is their business. It's a really good market to sell it into if they wanted to. But they say, you know, I really liked having that income. What else can I do? I can build an accessory dwelling unit so it meets the requirement for primary residence because it's on your site. It could be a finished basement and an attached accessory dwelling unit or a detached accessory dwelling unit in the backyard. And although their their immediate incentive might be to have that be short term rental. What they've done is create a housing unit. They created a housing unit that didn't exist before. I'm a big fan of accessory dwelling units. I wish we had them available everywhere in the city and a streamlined process for neighborhoods that don't have them now to get them. And I think if we do this right with a package that's in front of you now, people who have the means to build an accessory dwelling, you didn't start getting income from short term rentals , could really incentivize that to get built. And rather than decreasing the availability of housing, we actually increase it. So I'm going to have you take a stab at somebody else's question. That person talked about how they set this, what was right for their community at 30 days. What happens between day 28 and day 30? Like, what if you're renting for seven days or you have four different people renting for a week versus that 30th day? I couldn't possibly speculate. You might have to ask that person. Yeah, that person isn't here. That's that that's that's too bad. So. Thank you, Joe. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilman, you're at 23 minutes. I mean, you continue to ask questions, but I do hope we can get to a point where we can get to the comment periods or.
Speaker 6: What about? Let me see. 800 Steel Street.
Speaker 1: Coulson, we can come back to you. We have two other people in the queue if you want to. Get your thoughts together.
Speaker 6: Well, one question for JJ if he's still here. Oh, great, JJ. What? And then a real quick question for Shayla. So you entrenched in that year long process to sort of deal with a star. What is it about this legislation that would somehow make that process not? I mean, more what would expedite that?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So. JJ And even with the Denver, I can see some of the way I understood what happened in my neighborhood was that was an owner that wasn't present in the state of Colorado. So this legislation would do is it would make it would give us a chance to know the owners and it would only be legal . There would only be a it would only be legal if. If that owner actually resided in that residence. The biggest problem we have is the biggest problem in my neighborhood has is that there was no accountability. There was no person who had a stake in the neighborhood. And what this legislation that we're bringing forth, this text amendment, is going to require that short term rental owners have a stake in the neighborhood that they're involved in. And I think that stake is going to end. And the kind of enforcement that I have heard, I do believe that the enforcement that we have heard through and seeing the enforcement that we are promised will come in the future will will be sufficient for us to be able to hold these owners accountable. And what I hear tonight is that there are many owners that want to be accountable. And I think that this legislation brings that accountability and allows them to come within compliance.
Speaker 6: Okay. I my concern is, is that it isn't this is the first night we've been hearing about how swift this action will be. But everything that I've seen and heard thus far about our actual process is actually a long process of due process, you know, to sort of prove that all these problems are happening in order to sort of pull back and, you know, to affect the license. And so I just want you and others to understand that you got a you got a problem. You know, it might be cut and dry to you that it's it is a it is a an issue that should be rectified. It might not be as swift as one might hope. And I wish that's what I wish we were doing somehow, is legislating in such a way that a bad actor and somebody who's not operating under license is out of the system right now.
Speaker 2: If you don't mind me commenting on that. Yeah. What I would say is that's why we really appreciate Mary Beth bringing this up, because I think what we did is we started shining light on a very dark part of a business in our neighborhoods. And the process that we've gone through over the last two years has shown a lot of light. We've seen a lot, we've worked out a lot of these issues. And we do have confidence that we're going to continue to work out issues as we go forward. I do like hearing that there's going to be a committee and a so this is a deep process and a process that obviously has taken a long time. And I would say that continuing it today and having this this step be part of the conversation is is going to make all of the work we've put in valuable because there is a lot of light already being shown just by the process that we've gone through.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you, Sheila. The $21 million, is that an annual number or a. So we could fund our entire affordable housing permanent affordable housing fund just by taxing this one industry.
Speaker 1: Charlie, we're going to need you to come to the podium.
Speaker 3: The yeah, the 21 million is the ancillary spending per year. And so yes, the tax revenue would be substantial. And all along we've proposed, although we know that affordable housing is not impacted by non primary residency homes, all along we have proposed the idea of funding affordable housing through taxation.
Speaker 6: Any sense of how did that study look at what if the Denver Lodgers tax were directly applied to this industry? What it would generate?
Speaker 3: It looked at it in terms of just the non primary residency homes, which estimated $2 million in taxation.
Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Council members, eight of us have talked for just about half the amount of time as 56 speakers. So we're we're on round two. Council members. I just want to be recognized that if we could keep our comments questions a little bit shorter. Councilwoman Sussman, you're here.
Speaker 3: I'm in the spirit of getting along with us.
Speaker 11: Hold my questions.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Flint, you're up.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. I'll take your time, then. Actually, I only have three questions. And they came up because of the questions subsequent to my speaking. The city attorney. Oh, we we are making it illegal. And I read it in the ordinance. It would be an illegal act to post a short term rental, advertise it anywhere without a license number. Correct. How can we enforce that? Can we actually I mean, because we've not been able to enforce the ones that are advertising illegal. They're all illegal now in their advertising. Right. So they're advertising to do an illegal act. So how does can we actually fine someone because they don't have a number on their ad? Or do we not have to go in and prove that they are actually conducting the business that they advertised? Because that has been the problem with enforcement in my district. Yeah, I heard somebody say we only had six complaints citywide. I had six complaints just on this one house.
Speaker 17: Sure. And that's exactly right. I think the enforcement issues is proving that someone is actually using their house as opposed to just advertising them for an Airbnb. With the licensing number, we can look online, see that it's posted and it's listed, and if there's not a license number, we can issue a citation based on that violation alone
Speaker 7: . Would that hold up and how would that hold up? Don't we have to demonstrate that they're actually engaging in that in the activity of renting it?
Speaker 17: The unlawful act is licensing or advertising without a license?
Speaker 6: Not really.
Speaker 7: Can we do that for political ads?
Speaker 2: But. Okay. Got it.
Speaker 7: The three, Nathan, the three staff members, two or three staff members that we're going to shift over to work on stars. What are they doing now? And who will pick up their workload.
Speaker 16: With the third director on that one?
Speaker 7: I hate to make you get up. Stacey. Oh, my.
Speaker 11: God. Oh, thank you. This is kind of labor of love. The two or three staff members, we have an enforcement division, as Nathan talked about earlier, excise licenses for all of our licenses of six enforcement agents. We're moving with a solid to an online inspector application right now. Our inspectors come into our office in the morning, work on what they're going to get for the day, for this type of thing, and then in the afternoon, typically go out and do their inspections because of the technology. Enhancements are going to be made available to us in the next couple of weeks. They're going online. They're going to have iPads in the field, they have printers in the field. So they no longer have that required time that we've been doing using a page.
Speaker 7: So we're going to get more productivity out of the same number of people and that's how we're going to do this. Added Enforcement. Okay. Is there some is there someone here from Nice?
Speaker 15: There is no.
Speaker 7: There's there's not. Has there ever been someone here from Nice? And I seems to have a lot of scope of work here and enforcement. And from my information, they've been involved in very few meetings on this over the two years. Why is there no one here from Nice when this is one of our biggest concerns? How are they going to pick up the workload?
Speaker 15: So Nice has has been participating in the process and we have been meeting with them. And, you know, they're they're aware of this proposal. They they haven't been coming to most of the public events for this. As we've discussed, the current proposal takes enforcement and puts it into this new framework that will primarily be an exercise in licensing.
Speaker 7: Primarily. Well, that's a spot on, though. We're talking about the problems out in the neighborhoods that they're having, like with the the house in our district that J.J. was on, by the way, the owner of that was out of state. And my understanding is he's moved back and he's moving into that house and that will be his primary residence. But I don't know how often he'll actually live there. We'll see. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Any other questions to 61 C? None. Public hearing is now closed. Comments. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, thank you all for being sitting in those hard benches for such a long time and for coming out and talking to us. Just want to make a couple of comments. One, in the discussions about enforcement, don't forget that things like noise and loud parties is a police matter. And we can bring to bear all the enforcement that the police can do and that the police would be the people who would enforce that in its enforces things like weeds and fences and the way the property looks in a nice can and will and and will continue to do so with when they try to enforce the less than 30 day rental, that's when they have they they don't have as much ability to do it very quickly. The fact the fact that we are adding a whole department to the enforcement of this is is pretty large to me. It's pretty huge that we have a whole nother body in in addition to the police, in addition to Nice, we now have exercise and license to apply the enforcement. And I really liked what one of the gentleman said, that we don't have data we are going to use. What we learn in this process. We are lucky that we weren't the first to do this. Like we were with marijuana. And we do have some experience with other cities and we have the group that's going to watch and see how we're how we're doing. And I, I feel really confident that we're going to have a better get our arms around this thing better than we would have if we did not do it. If we did not do it, we'd be right where we are, right we are today. And have so many people doing this with it with with not enough enforcement opportunity. I want to thank all the people that helped us do this. You know, the neighbors were some the neighbors who were thanked. We thank. I want to thank you. I think in the two years that we did this and talked about it, we we we came up with a lot of different things. And some of the questions that you're hearing from the council tonight, they were a part of those discussions. Sometimes you realize what we've talked about that we went through that and we tried to figure that out. And I just want to thank you all for for the engagement and and not just the neighbors who aren't hosts, but the neighbors who our hosts who also engaged with us about what the industry was about. This just wasn't easy. And I want to thank, you know, Charlotte and starting the short term alliance during this process so that she could find some way to organize the group that had different points of view. And I think that was very helpful. Thank the hotel industry, the tourist industry and the departments. I'm sorry. I feel like it on like Oscar night or something. And I think all the people that we did this, the the CPD, we had the CPD with, we had regular meetings with CPD and Excise and License and the city attorney and communications and an AC. And I was there all the time too. And we talked through all of these things, but particularly I want to thank Abe and Nathan for just dogging this thing like crazy. And I feel like we have probably what will be considered a model for looking at primary rez, looking at short term rentals at at least at the beginning about how it happened and the fact that we're going to put it all online. And we're we're I feel like we're quite organized about it. I understand my councilman and my fellow council people ask a lot of questions. It's a very complex subject and this isn't going to be the last of it. The whole sharing economy is quite different and is sort of turning things on its head. And and we've got some old laws that don't even have the words short term rentals in them. And it was even difficult to find out that it was illegal. I mean, it wasn't it's that clear right away. It was it was you know, we had to have interpretive nets of words that because we didn't have words like this. Well, this is going to help us put some more modern language into the text to minimize modern language and to excise and license. And it's I feel like it's a it's a really good beginning. And it it didn't get here just all by itself. I would say there were hundreds of people who helped us think this one through. And I thank you for that. In addition to sitting in those hard seats all night, and I urge my fellow council people to vote I on this on both bills.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Neal.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank Councilwoman Sussman for all the work she did on this and and all the neighborhoods, how they worked closely with her to come up with a compromise that that's going to make this work. And the industry to understand we've got some issues. I think you heard it and I, I will be supporting this bill tonight, but I have a real bad taste in my mouth from all this enforcement discussion, you know, and I just want to encourage you to be proactive. I hate crisis management. You know, Lisa, Brad Buchanan, you saw what happened earlier tonight. They didn't have enough staff and they came in for a supplemental of $1.3 million because they didn't have enough staff to to do the building permits. Don't get into that situation. Use peak performance. We got a great peak performance. Help them let them help you quantify how much manpower you need and go into this budget process because, you know, we're all going to be looking at that budget process. You heard it tonight. We're going to be yelling and screaming about staffing. And so use them to help quantify what you need and start off. But don't get into crisis management. This is the worst situation to be in. So I just want to encourage you to do do well and thank everyone for promoting this. And thank you, Mr. Rose.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I speak as a rank hypocrite because I realize that when I lived 35, 40 years ago in New Jersey, in South Jersey, I used short term renting down the Jersey shore. So I understand the concept, but I also understand that when we rented a place on the beach in Sea Isle, that in the town of Wood. Behind just across the bay. They didn't have this and I checked Airbnb. There are no Airbnbs in Woodbine right now. They're all in Sea Isle. There are places where this is appropriate and there are places where it clearly isn't. And I've been asking for a long time for some kind of voice for the neighborhoods. And I think this is a compromise that not many people are happy with. The folks who spoke from West Wash Park and some of the other neighborhoods said they are only reluctantly supporting this because they see they've been convinced that we can't stop it anyway. So we might as well do what we can to build to build a wall. Sorry. And I'm not going to say what comes after that to prevent the secondary homes. Right. And the folks who want to operate the secondary homes are not happy at all because they're going to continue to be illegal and probably be crack down on it. Yet it is. I've come to I want to thank the industry, by the way, for educating me on this, because I've come to believe that it is those secondary units that actually are very, very useful, not just for my family down at the Jersey Shore back in the seventies, but for folks coming in with their families for weddings or their kids are having treatments at National Jewish, etc., etc.. I've come to see the utility of this and I could support that if neighborhoods had a say on whether they're in their neighborhood or not. Through what I had proposed earlier, the use overlay, which didn't get any traction or through some other mechanisms such as home occupation, zoning permit with informational notice where people could check in. But right now, the neighborhoods have no voice in this, no voice at all as to how commercialized they become. So I'm very disappointed about that. I think we've left out a crucial, crucial step in the process. I think this cried out for a more tailored approach that we have not been able to achieve. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be voting no, and I urge my colleagues to consider voting no until we get this right and not pick not pick a winner. I think right now, Airbnb's chairman is the only person entirely happy with this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I've saved my 25 minutes for now. So hold tight, everyone. No, just kidding. Thank you for being here for five and a half hours. Really, really great comments. And I appreciate the passion on all sides. The arguments both for and against a primary residence rule are very compelling. I am not opposed to VR, Bio and HomeAway. I've used them myself and I support private property rights. But now tonight I will be supporting the bill as is with the primary residency rule for four reasons. The first is, I think we need to honor the two year process that Councilwoman Sussman, her staff excise and license and CPD engaged in. And as Joel Noble eloquently, so eloquently said, the process began with animosity and has concluded with a compromise and a compromise that leaves unhappy parties on both sides. Lawmaking does require compromise, but I do think this engagement process needs to be respected. I've heard from my own constituents some of them oppose short term rentals altogether. Those who are supportive have overwhelmingly expressed support for the primary residence rule. The third thing is Denver is undergoing dramatic and sometimes traumatic changes. The new industry is just one of the dis they one of the things disrupting life as we know it here in Denver. So I think we need to ease into this and see how it goes. I'm really pleased that we're going to have an advisory group, and I think we should let them do their work and monitor the industry and we can adjust as we go along. My fourth point is that our experience with legislating marijuana has taught me that it's better to open the door slowly to a new industry because once the floodgates are open, it's nearly impossible to close them. So I am supporting the bill, but I strongly support the work of the advisory group and the possibility of adjusting the regulations in the future and the future future opening up of the industry. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you. I want to add my thanks to everyone who came out to speak tonight to make your voice heard and stuck with us for so long. During the public meeting, Lucky District seven almost had the first word with Cherry Way and the last word with Dirty Grant being one away from the final and so many in between, because this is such an important issue to the people that I represent. I think that the process is really important here, and this was a long process, a very involved process, as you as so many of you have heard and been a part of. I honestly never thought when I was running for office that I would ever see ANC and West Wash Park Neighborhood Association out largely to support any kind of legalization. Anything that brings Charlotte and Tim and Gerda and Cheri and Charlie to the table in any kind of support means that it was a significant compromise. And another one of my constituents there, McCarthy said. Sometimes a good piece of legislation looks that way because nobody is really happy with it. It means that all sides had to give something and were willing to give something to come to the table. So I believe that this is just the beginning, and I think for this to be successful, we absolutely must show that we can enforce and we can enforce well. And I hope that that is something that that that all staff is hearing and hearing loud and clear. I totally second Councilman Hughes statement that I will be looking in the during the budget process as to where it is that we as a council can throw our weight behind throwing more people to this and enforcement of this so that we can show that this can work in all the ways where it has not been working . So far, I think that this is a great first step. As Councilwoman Black said, opening the door slowly. I really look forward to the short term rental advisory group and really having that group really look at this and letting us know where we got it right and where we missed the mark. I will be supporting this and I hope that it passes so that we can start moving down that path. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I fortunately had some wise people in my life. Told me to not always say the things you feel like you want to say on the moment, but to think about them a little bit. I'm not going to burn this down because enforcement is critical to this situation. And I'm convinced that this ordinance has within it the enforcement teeth that we don't have by doing nothing as far as the. Discriminating by. Picking a winner when I'm picking any winners. The whole ball of wax is illegal right now where we're trying to craft a situation that makes sense for our community. I really hope. Somebody competes and competes well with Airbnb, because while I have great respect for a lot of the hosts I've talked to, I find that company extremely difficult to deal with. I don't think they care a whit about community. So I'd like to see the industry get a bit more of a social conscience. The. Yeah, I just. Oh. Conscience would be good. No, nobody else has been. There's been one person in the room that's been laughing at other people and one person only. So I'll leave that at that. I think it's important. My main motivation, I do. There's a gentleman here earlier and a couple of people have said they don't believe short term rentals affect affordable housing. Everything that I've read from all over the country disagrees with that. I think affordable housing is the most important issue we face as a city. I understand bringing tourists in and making it easier for them to visit. I think that's important. But our firefighters and our police officers are looking at other jurisdictions because they can't find housing. Our teachers are looking at other jurisdictions because they can't find housing. My daughter is moving out of the city because she and her husband can't find affordable housing. They want to raise a family and they can get twice the house per square foot than they can get in Denver. So with that. I believe it's clear that this council is adamant on an enforcement arm. I think there'll be a lot of eyes on it, and I believe that that staff is serious about it. Though I would have liked more detail early on. So I will be supporting this as too much good work has gone in. And the main thing is, like I said, I think if I thought by doing nothing we would get enforcement. Then I'd vote this down. But I don't believe that to be the case. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I. What to me, what makes sense when we do this and it is not unlike marijuana laws when we we take a first crack. Well, I agree with the notion that we open the door slowly. It's the how and what these laws should do is ensure maximum compliance, not be satisfied with 20, 30, 40, 50% of the industry, but do make create a law that's going to capture as close to 100% of that industry with strong, streamlined enforcement, not streamlined, just the compliant I mean, the licensing side for a fraction of the industry, they capture that entire industry but have strong, streamlined enforcement. And this law does neither while allowing limited use in every single zone district that nearly every single zone district in the new zoning code city wide. I agree with my colleague Councilman Flynn that this should be not a limited but is open so that it's a notification process at least 15 days so that people know that this is going to happen on any single parcel that adjoin adjoining them. So and it's really unfortunate because by not capturing the entire bandwidth of the industry, we are giving the large, largely silent operator that has been operating here essentially for the last 20 years. We're kicking them out of the process. And that's just seems really, really strange because we're reacting. We're shooting from the hip and reacting to an app that that is not doing what we're trying to do, which is actually get good compliance and enforcement. So we're creating this thing. Hopefully we can do it with that task force later on. But I think we should have come out of the gate with those rules, and I think we had time. What I didn't see over this two year, and I take real exception to that and I wasn't going to go there, but I will. Two years of so-called negotiating on this, I'm calling bulk. You know, what happened was a shared economy task force where they were looking at everything. We haven't seen any ordinance come across on vehicles, Lyft, Uber, anything else that was part of that original discussion. What we have is this, and that has not changed and has not moved one inch since. Well, maybe an inch, but not much since I showed up July 20th. And so for the better part of one of those two years, it has been essentially this way with language that I was not able to see until the filing deadline. That is just not how we operate in an open and transparent government. So we got what we got and good, good on those guys that made it happen. But I can't support that sort of behavior or or this sort of bill things.
Speaker 1: Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for everybody who's in here. You guys look so tired. And I want to thank you for paying for parking. Maybe it didn't. And sitting in these hard seats for so long and for the folks who had to go home. Appreciate you. I got a pretty different perspective on this. And I just tried to listen and stay open tonight, but I had a front row seat into this experience the last eight months because my neighbor two doors down went to Bali, Bali for eight months and just have, you know, been doing their short term rental the entire time. And me and my wife and three kids are next to this facility home and they have people going in and out. And there wasn't one complaint on my block and I even asked every.
Speaker 2: One on the block.
Speaker 6: And so, you know, it's interesting that there's a lot of focus on, you know, enforcement and things like that. And I appreciate that. I know it's different in different neighborhoods, but I just thought that was an interesting observation. I understand the two year conversation. I was with.
Speaker 8: Counsel and.
Speaker 6: Councilwoman Sussman on those two years, and I get it. But in two years as well, I think you learn information that will, you know, may give you another give you new information to to change your mind. And and my mind changed in that two years. There is not enough support on this council for what? How my mind has changed. My mind has changed to the point of saying you can either use your primary or another residence, but you only get one. Because I realize the affordable housing conversation, you don't get two, you get one. And you you get to choose. Not enough support on this council for that. I will be supporting this bill because I do feel like progressive cities have to deal with an onslaught of new ideas and innovation. And so I believe I want to honor this process. I believe it was I disagree with Councilman Flynn. I do believe there's a lot of neighborhood leaders in here at 11 p.m. that don't need to be here and they are here to testify in favor of this. And so this has been an inclusive community process. And I want to thank everybody at the table who came on board for that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to respect the two year process that Councilwoman Susman brought folks through, and knowing that not doing anything does not get us closer to a solution. And so by regulating an industry, it will help us protect the integrity of our neighborhoods. The primary residency, I understand both sides very well. I think I've been very honest that, you know, my husband and I own a house in Montebello. If we wanted to move into a ranch style house, because going up and down stairs, sometimes about 430 in the morning, I think, wow, I'm going to need a ranch style house someday. And I have children. I would like that house if they would like that, you know, to be gifted to them someday. But understanding, you know, Joel's comments as well around looking beyond this conversation and hopefully this conversation and voting on this ordinance will spur a much bigger conversation that we need to have around density in our neighborhoods. And 80 years, I mean, when we were in Brooklyn, you know, I stayed in the Red Hook suburb or the area of Brooklyn. I mean, you walked two streets over. It was one of the largest, you know, housing tenements in the city. And when we would tell our cabdriver we need to go to Red Hook, they would be like, What for? Why are you going there? And two blocks over, you saw density that you needed to have and and really encouraging that growth in a neighborhood where it was difficult, but understanding that, you know, 80 years are possibly our next step in the city and county of Denver. And, you know, I've got a big backyard in Montebello, and if my 19 year old, it's going to take him 15 years to save up money to buy a home. There's another answer and there's different ways to think about it. And so I do want to thank all the folks that are here, and I will be voting yes on this to protect the integrity of our neighborhoods. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President, I. I'm very, very supportive of this. This question in front of us today, this ordinance that regulates an industry that is unregulated. And even before there was Airbnb, there was folks renting their rooms. Since I can remember, it's always been in Denver, whether it's been legal or not. And now we have an opportunity to identify that universe, to regulate it, to permit it, and to put it on the radar. And that's going to be the case with a lot of new industries, especially in the sharing economy. And no neighborhood is immune from it. Not one is more important than the other or anything like that. In this city we do have a housing crisis and an affordable housing crisis, if that. And we need to find other alternatives to how to how do we address that now? I love the idea that, you know, we could possibly tax the industry to pay for affordable housing. I think it's a brilliant idea. I love to revisit that. Uh huh. I'm a tax happy Democrat. I like that. Oh, no laughing here, right. I really believe that in the future, ideas are the answer. Not just for a use like this, but for affordable housing. Um. It is in a very important. Now we look at those kind of alternatives and those kind of tools that exist or silent tools that are right there in plain view in our zoning code that we can utilize. And in 2010, when we did the citywide rezoning, I was a council member then and in District three, in Westwood, in Barnham and in Villa Park, some parts scattered throughout. In some of these other areas, you see adus areas that are eligible for aid to use where before we didn't have it. And that's what's going to help not just this industry and this sharing economy, but also our affordable housing crimes crisis. I would love one day, uh, knowing that neighbors are taking care of family members and their ideas, being able to have that independence. And I don't want to call it a grandma mother in law flat or a grandma flat because I know some I know some grandpa that could use that as well, too. So starting with this guy right here. But no, I'm super I'm very supportive of this. You know, I think we do need to revisit the conversation in terms of how this industry looks in the future. But with that, I, um, I am a yes vote for this. I do want to see this move forward. Yes, we need the appropriate enforcement, but we also need enforcement for regular, nice issues. It's very hard. And those folks are very overworked. We need inspectors all across the board in this city. And so I hope that's something that, you know, and I and here's the thing. I think we have as a city council, as the legislative branch of government, is the one that actually holds the wallet in the city. We have ourselves to look out for that, not budget cycles coming around. And that's something that we can program in the budget. So it's not necessarily ask looking at the department for the answer, it's also providing the apartment or the apartment, the department with the tools and funding necessary to be able to enforce this. So thank you, Mr. President. With that a yes, vote for it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Um, well, everyone has talked, so I will just briefly chime in. One, I appreciate all your comments. I you can't read this and if you zoomed in, you still can read it. But my, my notes for each one of you in what you were writing and I appreciate all the value added comments. It's disappointing when we have such a serious topic. We have individuals that choose to make lie and laugh and joke at individuals that only have a 3 minutes to speak. And I want to apologize for them for doing that because I believe that's extremely disrespectful because we offered them that opportunity when they speak, but they don't give you that same respect back. You know, it's interesting, even if we didn't pass this law, we had the conversation, we could not we don't have the the right enforcement mechanisms to stop short term rentals. That's why it takes as long as it does in this current process. So even if we just want to fix the problem, we need to pass some law so that we have better enforcement tools because we know right now that we don't even have those. And Elizabeth, I love your quote. I'm paraphrasing how you said sometimes you have to break the law for transformative things to happen. I thought that was absolutely brilliant when you said that, because I think that's very fitting. Governments always behind you. Think about Uber and Lyft, which is regulated at the state, by the way, not the city. But can you imagine if that wasn't around? I mean, that's something everybody uses now, and yet the state had to catch up on that one. So for Councilwoman Sussman and their team to have the vision two years ago to realize we need to catch up with that, I think that's remarkable. I asked the question about the primary residences, because this is what I think the issue is. And Mr. Ludwig has said, Ludvig, I was given my German accent, made the comment, eradicate fear through knowledge. And I think there's just this fear about what happens if we don't do this. And so when I ask the question, is it about knowing who to hold accountable? And I believe we could have gotten that with an with a non primary resident piece. I think about Ms. Ault who lives and who has a property and her property is five blocks away. Well, you know, she's we know who she is. So if her non. The primary resident had an issue. We could go directly to Ms.. Ault and say, We have an issue, let's fix that. And I feel as if that was kind of a middle ground we could have met without having a primary residence to make those neighborhoods have that need, like we know who to hold accountable. And my amendment would have been Denver resident one Short term rental, whether you live there or not. Denver Resident I think that would've been a great starting point. It wasn't a support. That's the way our that's the way that our democracy works. So but to to not have anything I think is the certainly wrong way to go. And I at some saving grace I have to know this the short term rental advisory group has the capability to look down the road and say, you know what is not as bad as we think it is, let's make these tweaks. So I, I would hope that we can move forward with this bill, get that group in place to see how we can better these regulations. Because I, I think we certainly are moving in the right direction. Certainly could be better. But in essence, do I want to kill the whole bill? Because I don't I think we could have gone further. I'm not sure how wise that is. So, you know, other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: SUSSMAN High Black Eye.
Speaker 4: Brooks Clark. Espinosa No.
Speaker 7: Flynn No.
Speaker 4: Gilmore I. Catherine Hi.
Speaker 2: Lopez I.
Speaker 4: Knew. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting after results. 92 days. 1961 to 61 has been placed on final consideration and do pass. All right. We've got to 62 that we delayed. So let's get that on the floor. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put Council Bill to 62 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 262 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Any comments on to 62? Scene nine. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 4: Assessment.
Speaker 3: By Black Brooks.
Speaker 4: Clark. Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 16: No.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. I can. I can. Each. New. Uh, Espinosa? No.
Speaker 1: Lopez.
Speaker 4: Lopez.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please, first of all, announce the results. 9829992 days. 262 is then placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are on to the next one. Council Bill 306, Councilwoman Gilmore. And for those of you choosing not to stick around, I could ask if you could just please keep quiet as well. Moving on to their second public hearing. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put Council Bill three on six, three or six on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 14: Happy to do so. Mr. President, I move that council bill 306 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. Council. I need a second on the screen. It has been moved and seconded. We're going to have to waive transition for those given the staff report to come on up to the front and if they could. Mr. DELANEY, I'm not sure who's giving the staff report, but.
Speaker 6: Here is.
Speaker 1: Tim.
Speaker 8: I heard a big announcement before that.
Speaker 1: And colleagues, remember, we have to have seven on the dais to move forward. So if I want to make sure we keep seven up here on the dais for this. All right. We're we're still getting that first. Okay. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill three, a one hour courtesy public hearing for accountability ethics is now open. May we have the staff report? And Mr. Delaney, are you starting to do that report? Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 18: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. We're here to proposing your bill 306, which is to raise the sanitary and storm sewer rates within the Wastewater Enterprise Fund here within the Department of Public Works. The Wastewater Enterprise Fund is a government owned utility. It's made up of storm sewers, sanitary sewers, storm handles the water that falls from the sky, the irrigation water runoff, that sort of thing. Sanitary handles the water that comes out of our homes from our dishwashers, our showers, etc. Storm billing is based on impervious surfaces within your property and is billed annually. Sanitary is based upon your water consumption and February. And it's billed monthly on the bottom of your Denver water bill. The storm system has about 750 linear miles of sewer and is about 40 years old. On average, the sanitary system is twice as large, nearly 1500 miles and is 60 years old. We do not treat our own sanitary sewage. We it's treated by the Metropolitan Reclamation District, which is a special district that treats the sewage for 60 municipalities and counties within the metropolitan area. Why do we need. Why are we asking for a rate increase, first of all, to protect people and property who are currently living in hazardous flooding areas. Second of all, to maintain and replace aging infrastructure. Third of all, to improve water quality in the water that we discharge into the Platte River. And fourth, to keep up with the service demands in a city that is growing by almost 1500 people a month, storm rates are driven primarily by two things construction where we want to go from an average annual investment of $20 million to $30 million a year under the next for the next five years. And water quality, which would be spending over $20 million on water quality over the next five years. The sanitary system is driven primarily by paying for the treatment of our sewage by the reclamation district, and that rate is going up at a rate of about 8% per year. The other driver of sanitary is the construction. We want to go from two and a half million a year investment in the infrastructure to 8 million. And that will do two things that will both replace and repair our current system. But it is also building additional adequacy or additional service adequacy into our system because we have many areas that are growing that don't have adequate sanitary sewer lines. The rate increases we're asking for for storm starting in July seven, 2016, is 11% and 11% and 17 11% and 18 10%, 19, 10% and 20. That's an average of 10.6% rate increase per year over the next five years. 6.4% of that will go to construction. 4.2% of that will go to operating costs. Sanitary. We're asking for 5% in 2016. 5% and 17. 4% in 18. 4% in 94% in 20. Which for a total average annual increase in sanitary of 4.4%. Half for construction. Half for treatment. This will be cost the average rate payer within the city and county. Denver $23 per year for both set increase for both sanitary and storm. A little less than $2 a month. The combined bill will go from $320 per year in 2015 to $426, an increase of $116 from 2016 to 2020 . In terms of the rate, we have a staff here tonight who are here to answer your questions. And we will be we'll wait till your get to that portion of the of the meeting tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Delaney. So we have 36 people signed up as this is a one hour courtesy public hearing. Only if each of the first 20 uses their entire 3 minutes, we will not have the opportunity to get to all speakers, which I would say if you can certainly make your points in less than 3 minutes, I'm sure the people behind you would be appreciative of that. We tend to alternate pros and cons in this instance. There are certainly more people against the fees than those that are in favor. So there is a slight. As I look at the order that the staff there might be some more we have to speak people speaking against versus four but all those speaking for will have the opportunity speak those against it. We'll just see how the conversation goes. The one hour goes from the beginning of the first speaker on my timer, and once the one hour is up, the courtesy public hearing ends. I will call the first five. And the quicker we make it up to the to the power to speak the transition, that would be great and certainly involved with the clapping. I would hope we can keep that to a. So we can get as many speakers as possible. First five speakers up are and Andy sent Trina Moya, Jeff Shoemaker, Theresa M now and Ben Shannon. So you five can make your way up and Andy since you can begin your remarks when you're ready and each speaker gets 3 minutes.
Speaker 2: Thank you, council members for the opportunity to weigh in. My name is Andy, since I currently serve as a co-chair of the City Park Neighborhood Advisory Committee. And while my comments here are my own, I'd like to say that my position in that capacity has given me a lot of a lot of contact with the city staff and engineers associated with that Park Hill, as well as the opportunity to attend several meetings that just focused on the concerns of specific people who oppose the project. So I feel that I have a good understanding of of what we're trying to do here. I support the stormwater fee increase. I know you've heard from many people who have been persuaded that the project is not a good idea by the very compelling videos and messaging produced by organizers of the opposition. While much of that feedback is predicated on legitimate concerns, I'm skeptical whether all the people you've heard from are basing their objections on accurate information. For example, my next door neighbor believed because of an article that she read in the Greater Park Hill News and other Facebook post, that this project would literally destroy the golf course and pave it over with some kind of concrete water basin. This is obviously not accurate, and she was frustrated to learn she'd been misinformed. Multiple postings on social media recently have indicated that stormwater fee increase will all, quote, all go towards the Platts Park Hill project. This is not accurate. Opponents have claimed that taxpayers are going to be on the hook for thousands of dollars in additional stormwater fees. This is not accurate. Last week on Mr. Evans Facebook page, somebody posted a picture of a concrete lined L.A. River as a representation of what the open channel and call will look like. This is not accurate. People claim that Platt's Park Hill puts Globeville in a floodplain. Since the weakness in the levee occurs upstream from where stormwater will enter the South Platte and was discovered as part of a completely separate project being conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers. This is not accurate. Opponents continue to refer to the golf course detention as a sump or a cesspool. This is not accurate. The newest video that featured a link to a petition claims that Platt's Park Hill will do nothing for flooding in the neighborhoods, according to the engineers who designed the system. This is simply not accurate. Opponents of this plan have been very good at painting a picture of a community unified in their opposition. But at no point did they ever reach out to the City Park Neighborhood Advisory Committee. People can say what they'd like to about our NAC, but we are composed of delegates from each of the RINO's adjacent to the park. R.A. selected their own delegates to our committee. We meet every month and our meetings have been attended by numerous leaders of the opposition to this project. But at no point did any of them ever engage us to get a sense of where our communities are. They certainly would have heard some support for their opposition. East neighbors and CP fan have been very strong and clear in their objections to the project, but opponents would not have heard a unified neighborhood voice. I also find it instructive that now that we're close to killing, platypus to kill, and literally nobody is afraid that that means the end of Scott's preferred alternative. Maybe the connection between these two projects is not as nefarious as it's been made out to be. It seems clear to me.
Speaker 1: Your 3 minutes are up, sir.
Speaker 15: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Trina moya.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Trina Moy. I'm a coal resident. I'm not opposed to an increase in fees per se. I realize they've not been increased for several years and we've had we have a need for improved infrastructure for our sewage and stormwater system. However, I am concerned about the nearly doubling in fees over five years. What is now a relatively affordable expense will no longer be so in a few years, and many of my neighbors who have a fixed or lower income will be hit the hardest. I am guessing that a less severe increase would be needed if the plat to Park Hill project were not considered. I'm a resident of coal and I first learned about the Platte Park Hill project from one of my neighbors who took it upon herself to go door to door to spread the word as much as possible. Project leaders have patting themselves on the back for holding so many public meetings, yet we wouldn't have even known about them if it weren't for her. This is just one example of the lack of transparency around this plan. I'm amazed that project management continued to deny deny that it is tied to I-70 and claim that they are implementing it because it's vital to our safety. The neighborhoods in the Montclair Park Hill Basin's have been flooding during heavy storms for many years. Yet nothing was done. There was no concern until it was time to start work on I-70. The plan will do little to nothing for those areas that see the greatest flooding. It will, however, provide flood mitigation for I-70, the national western complex and many new developments about to begin around the 30th, 38th and Blake Station. I do not believe the residents of Denver should be saddled with the financial burden for the drainage system needed for city and private development projects. I've read quotes from experienced engineers indicating that our current flooding issues could be resolved with much less drastic plans. We already have a sewage and stormwater drainage plan that was approved in 2014 and would relieve much of the current flooding issues. I ask you to continue with this plan and Dump Platte plant to Park Hill. I received a flier in the mail last week talking up the benefits of the PDP plan. I would like to know if this increase in fees and the PDP project have not yet been approved. Why are we already receiving this flier as though it's a done deal, a work in progress? Just how much of this has already been approved behind closed doors? We hear government officials talk about transparency all the time. But it's things like this that cause citizens to suspect underhanded methods and doubt that our representatives are speaking the truth or looking out for our best interests. This whole experience has left me feeling suspicious, marginalized and unheard.
|
Bill
|
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow short-term rentals as an accessory to a primary residential use, with limitations, where residential uses are currently allowed. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow short-term rentals as an accessory to a primary residential use, with limitations, where residential uses are currently allowed. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-13-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06132016_16-0306
|
Speaker 3: We hear government officials talk about transparency all the time. But it's things like this that cause citizens to suspect underhanded methods and doubt that our representatives are speaking the truth or looking out for our best interests. This whole experience has left me feeling suspicious, marginalized and unheard. I would like to end by thanking Councilman Rafael Espinoza for his ongoing questions regarding this project and for his attempts to make project management speak the truth and not talk around the issues or twist facts to their advantage. You are a true voice of the people and this person appreciates it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Mayor Jeff Shoemaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. President. My name is Jeff Shoemaker, and I'm here tonight in my role as executive director of the Greenway Foundation. Floods can happen in your neighborhood, Mr. President.
Speaker 15: Floods can happen in your neighborhood, Councilman. Floods can happen in your.
Speaker 8: Neighborhood.
Speaker 15: Councilwoman.
Speaker 6: But floods don't happen in my neighborhood.
Speaker 2: I don't need to worry about them. They're not going to happen. We don't have to plan for that. We don't have to worry about that.
Speaker 15: I don't because it's not going to happen to me. Well, take that belief system and share it with the folks in Jamestown.
Speaker 2: And Lyons and Boulder and Weld County and Estes Park and Longmont. Let us not forget.
Speaker 15: What happened on September.
Speaker 2: 12th, 2013. I stand before you tonight as the eldest son of Joe Shoemaker, the founder of the Greenway Foundation. And as I begin my 35th year as his executive director and yes.
Speaker 15: I am at old, I can assure you that Joe.
Speaker 2: Who is Denver's manager of public works.
Speaker 15: From 1959 to 1963, would fully endorse the need for.
Speaker 2: And related benefits regarding this measure. A measure that speaks to the need for increased.
Speaker 15: Protection and life safety issues.
Speaker 2: Involving our city's storm water infrastructure, thereby providing much needed benefit to the water quality and flood control safety.
Speaker 15: Of the South Platte River watershed and therefore our city. Significant issues such as these are never easy. They're always complicated, they're always challenging. And therein lies their importance.
Speaker 2: Please support this measure. Your support will speak towards the needed additional funding to provide ever increasing sufficient storm water protection.
Speaker 15: Within our city and therefore.
Speaker 2: Our urban waterways.
Speaker 15: And therefore our citizenry, both now as well.
Speaker 2: As for generations to come. Beyond ourselves.
Speaker 15: Beyond today. That's how leaders plan and that's how leaders act. Thank you again for the opportunity to stand before you tonight. And I personally thank each and every one of you for all you do and give to our city and its citizens every day. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Theresa and No. Is not here. Okay. Ben, Shannon. And as Ben comes up, I'm gonna call the next five. Joel Noble, Keith Pryor, Allison Tor, Vick, Lemon Knowles and Ryan Hunter. You can make your way up to the computer and just go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you. My name is Ben Schneider.
Speaker 15: I'm here tonight on behalf of the Whittier Neighborhood Association. I am the land use and zoning chair for that neighborhood association located in District nine.
Speaker 2: Your neighborhood association is Ridder's third neighborhood.
Speaker 15: Organization and one of Denver's oldest neighborhoods and urges city council to vote yes and the plaque to Park Hill Drainage Project.
Speaker 2: What are your neighborhood and our neighbors to the north currently experiencing street and home flooding.
Speaker 15: Due to the natural drainage way for the Montclair Basin having been developed over over decades.
Speaker 2: Ago. The Platt to Park Hill Drainage Project will lay the foundation for the flooding issues to be addressed by slowing the volume of stormwater.
Speaker 15: And high volume storm events as well as in the future, helping to address Denver's aging and adequate stormwater infrastructure.
Speaker 2: We frequently hear about how Denver's aging infrastructure is affecting quality of life and how pressing it is to address. We need to do something about this aging infrastructure, and this project is a way to start that. Members of the Whittier Neighborhood Association have attended dozens of meetings on the plot to Park Hill Drainage Project, as well as hosted our own neighborhood association meeting on this and feel that the project engineers have adequately shown why the project is needed and how.
Speaker 15: It will address the serious issues of home and street flooding in our area.
Speaker 2: We respectfully ask for you to vote yes on this project so we can move forward to address these issues. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. John Noble.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel. Joel Noble, 2705 Stout speaking here tonight. Only on my own behalf. I live in the Curtis Park neighborhood, which is part of the five point statistical neighborhood in Council District nine. And while I can't speak on behalf of the neighborhood, I can report that I haven't heard controversy about this in the Curtis Park neighborhood , and that's probably why they haven't taken a position. In my last testimony, I praised a public involvement process that took two years to find the compromise. Now it's a different kind of process that was a policy to do something new in Denver, and this is a fee increase. But the contrast is notable. There was a lot of outreach done on Platte to Park Hill in the neighborhoods that are there. But this fee increase is for the entire city and there hasn't really been much public discussion about it. Therefore, I think we're seeing an outpouring of, wait, what has this been discussed? I don't know what this is. And unfortunately that's gotten in the way of the ability to have dialog with the time that we've had. I'm grateful for public works and urban drainage, who came to the emergency meeting with less than two weeks notice last week. Unfortunately, I couldn't be there, but from all reports that I've received. Dialog was difficult because people had already decided they're for or against or they were afraid or they didn't trust. I wish this had been communicated better. That said, I'm more concerned about the possibility that we might not pass this. We have 1.5 billion in storm water needs, and we spend very little per year towards that. We spend much less than our neighboring communities. With this package, as I understand it, and the time I've taken to sit down with the engineers to say what's what's real, what's happening here? Yes. A big part of it goes towards one collection of basins, the Montclair Basin and the Plat to Park Hill projects. But that's because they're the ones that need it the most. It does what we've been putting off for a long time, making the infrastructure needed to do the stormwater system. From Global Landing Park back to City Park, golf course and beyond. That costs so much that we've been kicking that can down the road. And it wasn't until the $67 million that we could get by doing this at the same time that starts doing their I-70 project that we said, you know, if we don't do this now , we're leaving $67 million on the table. Now we don't have enough time to talk about what I learned about the other projects happening around the city. Thankfully, they're less expensive, but they're important, including the one going in front of my house, the 27th Street interceptor ones in nearly every council district. And a lot of those also attract other funds. If we don't raise the funds, we don't get the matching funds. If we don't get the projects. Please vote yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Keith Pryor.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Keith Pryor And this is critical just as our roads, it's not sexy. It's not fun to talk about. We don't think about it. This is not something that you see. You flush your toilet, you don't have to worry about it. It rains. Water goes away sometimes. I grew up in southeast Denver with Evans and I-25, and that flooded every single time. It still floods even after the tracks. This is significant investment that we need to make in our in our city. And it's not cheap and without continued investment in our infrastructure through fee increases, our parks.
Speaker 13: Suffer.
Speaker 8: Our infrastructure suffers, our streets suffers, our enforcement suffers. You guys deal with the budget and you know what you need to look at and you know that you have limited funds every year that come up and you have to prioritize where that money goes. This is an opportunity which you've kicked down the road. Like Joel said again and again and again, we only have limited revenue sources that are available to you. And to have this opportunity come before you and to take that opportunity and to look at leveraging opportunities which are really present at this moment. And unfortunately, the city has done a really poor job in communicating why that's there. And there's been a lot of mistrust around how this is all happened and would this occur if these other projects were not going on which to city staff. Unfortunately, discredit has not been able to really be forthright and honest and has created a lot of controversy around this, which shouldn't be because this is infrastructure. This is critical to the city. I live on 24th in Tampa right now. It's an old stream bed. It flooded again today. Luckily, I live on a little bit of a hill and I have a terrace in my tree line that it comes up three times. If I didn't, my house would flood. Will this help me? No, because unfortunately, this project and other projects still have not gotten down because we are such in a deficiency of our funding that that problem for me will not be solved. This will allow us long term wise to solve some of our biggest problems, which we've kicked down the road, but also then address other issues which are in the master plan of the 2014 Master Plan, which has been updated numerous times, which continues to be updated. It will increase our water quality with the plan, which also speaks to Jeff Shoemaker and basically rehabilitating what we can see as recreational opportunities through the Cherry Creek and also the Platte River. So there is so much good in this. Unfortunately, it's gotten bad timing and there's some really mis information out there. But I implore you, this needs to be passed. We need to invest in it.
Speaker 1: Mr. Prior Thank you. Thank you, Alison. Terrific.
Speaker 11: Good evening. My name's Allison Tawfik. I live in Council District nine. I've lived in and around City Park since 1990, when I was ten. And I'm on the City Park Neighborhood Advisory Council on behalf of Uptown on the Hill Neighborhood Association. I belong to the City Park West Neighborhood Association and like 66% of the electorate, most of whom are not here tonight. I voted for the the Western Stock Show redevelopment. I think now it's a chance to embrace that redevelopment and take advantage of some of the other moneys that we all the other silent majority voted for when we said we wanted the redevelopment. If we can take some of that city money and some of that RTD money and use those work together with Serrat and with RTD and with urban drainage and public works, then we can rather than having one person, you know, one group do it and then the other group coming in and tearing it up and redoing it. I think there's economies that can be built in there. Like I said, I lived all around city parks. I'm a big fan of the park. I know there's a concern about the trees and in the golf course when the golf course needs to be regraded. If assuming that the stormwater bill passes at the park, that the PDP project goes through that to put the low part of the of City Park on the west end of the park and of the golf course instead of the east end of the golf course. There's a concern about losing trees. My understanding is that the canopy, the tree canopy has to remain 1 to 1. So we're not going to lose any shade. And I also think there's an opportunity to build some diversity in the golf course with the trees that we don't have now because there's so many ash trees. I think we all know that the emerald ash borer is going to come through in the next probably five years. And so I think this is a great opportunity for us to increase the species diversity. My one big thing that made me want this project in the golf course was when I looked at Google Earth and I looked at where the engineer's overlay was and where the water came from by National Jewish through City Park and eventually to Globeville. There's a spot there that doesn't have any houses. They said, That's where you should put all the water. Right. Why should you flood up some people's basements? Hopefully they've got insurance. If they don't have insurance. What are we talking about? 60, $60,000 that someone's going to have to take on as their debt when you can just put all that water in the golf course. So I urge you to vote in favor of the stormwater increase.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Lemon Knowles.
Speaker 2: Good evening. My name's Lemon Knowles. I am the vice president of CP Fan, which is City Park. Friends and neighbors. I have some documentation here to be passed out to the councilors. Some of them include petition signers from petitions we ran over the weekend. Anyway, we thank you for allowing us to speak at this hearing tonight. We all want to get this flood protection and drainage issue done right. And we're requesting that a delay because of a number of unanswered questions. However, tonight, what I want to do is read our resolution regarding the drainage in City Park Golf CP Fan Resolution was adopted on May nine, 2016. And it goes like this. Whereas the flood protection and ensuring the safety of existing Denver residents is of paramount importance to all of us and CP fan and in the Denver's neighborhoods. And. Whereas, protection of existing historic Denver neighborhoods, existing areas of stability and existing designated parklands such as the City Park Golf Course, is also a crucial and must be Denver's priority. And. WHEREAS, that attention, base and proposal will forever alter the historically significant fairways of noted golf course architect Tom Bender, law and landscape architect Fred Law Olmstead, Jr . Designed to highlight scenic views, trees and topography and were as the value of C.P. the City Park Golf course to birds and wildlife. Green stormwater mitigation lowering ambient temperatures, the heat island effect inadvertent detention pollution control and the community has not been fully evaluated. And where as an industrial sump is contrary to the park and recreation purposes for which the golf course was designed. And. Whereas, detention basins pose health, safety and maintenance issues require significant buffer areas for maintenance and protection, are costly to construction, maintain and replace at the end of life, and are generally considered unattractive. And. Whereas, the use of City Park Golf course as a detention facility would weigh significant investments made by taxpayers in recent improvements such as the clubhouse irrigation system in trees and where, as the city has announced its intentions to close City Park golf course for two years, remove hundreds of trees and then excavate a huge stormwater detention plant 35 to 65 acres in size. And we're as CPP fan is absolutely opposed to the use of historic city park. Miss Knowles.
Speaker 1: I apologize you 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Ryan Hunter. And as Mr. Hunter comes up, I will call the next five Timothy McHugh, Seth Wylie and Elizabeth Frank Long Kantor and Walter Ghani's guard Guernsey. Mr. Henry, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Herndon. Good evening. Council members and neighbors, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. My name is Ryan Hunter and I've been a resident of Park Hill for more than a decade. I've served on the Greater Park Hill board of directors since 2010, and I was a co-founder of the Park Hill 4th of July Parade. Up until last year, I was a chairman of the board of directors for the Denver Language School, and since 2008, I've managed a Park Hill Facebook group that has over 4000 members. I support this storm water and wastewater fee increase due to global warming. We are seeing a continual increase in severe weather events. Five year storms now happen annually. Denver's population is surging and our roadways can't keep up. In 2010, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave Colorado roads a grade and our bridges a C-minus. I plan to live in Park Hill for decades to come, and I support your plans to invest in our infrastructure. The opponents of this issue talk about the damage to the golf course. I welcome the improvements. Where were the opponents ten years ago when the greens were like cardboard and the fairways looked like goat pastures? The city stepped up and invested in irrigation and improved the course. Where were the opponents five years ago when the order of the holes were rearranged to improve the flow of play? This is not a historic golf golf course that exists in some pristine state. The opponents complain about the coordination of the I-70 plans with this project as if it were some conspiracy theory rather than sensible coordination. You know what makes me mad when the city paves over my street and a few months later, Xcel is back in digging it up. Where is the harm in coordinating projects? If you're going to improve I-70, I would certainly hope you'd avoid having it flood. Lastly, the opponents this issue are pulling your leg if they're telling you that they have the votes to recall you from office. The opponent's constituency is minuscule. They're a very vocal minority. Speaking from a bully pulpit, endlessly spreading misinformation and lies. Remember that Facebook group that I mentioned? I've allowed the opponents of this project to post information about their cause over a dozen times. Do you want to know the response? It's crickets chirping. By and large, the Park Hill neighborhood is largely uninterested in this issue. Thank you for your time. I urge you to support the storm water and wastewater fee increase.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Timothy McHugh. Timothy Wong here. Okay. Next. Seth. Seth Wiley.
Speaker 6: Willie. Willie. Excuse me.
Speaker 8: Hi. My name is Seth Willie. I lived in City Park area since 2003. I own property in District nine and currently live in District eight. I'm here to speak in favor of the fee increase.
Speaker 6: This is a sorely needed project.
Speaker 15: Flooding is a serious issue in Denver and nowhere is that more serious than in the lower Montclair Basin.
Speaker 6: Residents of this.
Speaker 15: Area have routine flooding.
Speaker 8: And it's an issue that's only going to get worse with global warming.
Speaker 6: And climate change. Doing nothing is not an option. I know firsthand what flooding looks like.
Speaker 15: I've lived in New Orleans. I lived in New Orleans for seven years and have seen very serious flooding. I've lost cars to flooding and I've had neighbors and friends.
Speaker 6: That have lost much more consistently poor, lose the most to.
Speaker 15: Flooding. Everyone here knows what happened in.
Speaker 8: New Orleans in 2005. Doing nothing about this problem is not an option. I applaud the city for taking.
Speaker 6: This problem seriously. To their credit, the city is working on this issue for 15 years.
Speaker 8: They this won't do much for my neighborhood, for my immediate neighborhood. But but I believe it's important to start somewhere and you start downstream and you work from there. The only feasible option that was considered by the city, the best option. Among the feasible option are the golf is the golf course, eminent domain and loss of houses. The other option that was considered is not a very good option. Well, while this has been controversial, I applaud the city for their outreach efforts. They've done a remarkable job.
Speaker 6: Reaching out to numerous Arnaud's.
Speaker 15: Neighborhood organizations, dozens of meetings, etc..
Speaker 6: Again, the city recognized this is not an issue we can afford to.
Speaker 8: Do nothing about. We have to act. Doing something is going to cost money over. All the fees are modest and measured. Although, again, although actions won't help me in the near term, I believe it's important to start downstream, to start somewhere, start in those areas that need it most, and do this project, move it forward and move on from there. Poorer neighborhoods downstream deserve this and they deserve our help.
Speaker 13: I'd also add that the rhetoric on the issue.
Speaker 8: Around this issue has centered on misinformation. In some cases, dishonesty and intentionally misleading has disappointed me and disheartened me as a citizen of Denver citizens. The cities need to grow and evolve and adapt. Change is a part of the game. Denver. If Denver is going to continue to move forward, this project needs to move forward.
Speaker 15: It's critically important. Again, doing nothing.
Speaker 6: Is not.
Speaker 8: An option. So I plead, I ask.
Speaker 6: All of you to do the.
Speaker 15: Right thing for Denver, do the right.
Speaker 8: Thing for the citizens of the Montclair Basin.
Speaker 6: Area.
Speaker 8: Too, for those neighbors downstream and to approve this project. Thanks.
Speaker 1: You and Elizabeth.
Speaker 19: My man, Elizabeth Globeville. I'd made it a point to the best that I could to go to the three points along this with I was at one of the meetings up at the golf course and on the West Side. And I want to say that I, I am torn by this because when the intergovernmental agreement was first put in place and people from the Swansea neighborhoods came to testify, I think to a person they were we were supporting this flood issue needs to be dealt with. The intergovernmental agreement that set in motion the transaction with CDOT, it was of course complex and it it was within the controversy of what is the best thing to do with I-70. And I'm just want to say to the city council, I hope you get. The most comprehensive vetting of all of the engineering relative to the projects. And that, yes, misinformation is happening from different aspects, from different elements within the neighborhood. There's also a veil and long view of what is the development model and who are the who is obligated to the lac to to mitigate the lack the increasing lack of porosity porous where the water gets soaked up after the rain and prevents things like the Alameda Niagara Falls going over where b b the railroad is doing, who's truly responsible for the large picture and are we? Are there veils being dropped relative to what the vision and the forward looking economy and development? Are we just focusing on tourism development or are we talking about managed growth and the true preservations of neighborhoods? And I think communication is huge. I frankly, I hate to say this, I'd rather pay $5,000 a day to sit out under this idea for delays than do the wrong thing on this project. When I talk to engineers that are outside of the project, that are very honorable in the neighborhoods and professionals and what they say makes sense to me, and then I talk to engineers inside the city. What they say makes sense to me. There's some kind of discordance. I talk to people about the floodplain that are impacted by it financially over in the Globeville area, especially in what they say makes sense to me. Then I talked to people inside the city and the Army Corps of Engineers and what's going on with FEMA and the changing of models and what effects the definition of a flood plain. I keep coming back to we don't understand because there's something about the way and the pace and the volume of communication that hasn't brought us along in our own neighborhoods, in our own city to be confident that we're working toward a solution. All of us who remember the O-ring on the Challenger loved most of the engineers. Frankly, I hope the city council is comprehensively looking at what is going on from the from from the very basis of what is the true environmental problem that needs to be solved. And so the fee is an indicator of the acceptance that the solution has been defined appropriately and most constructively. And that's where most of.
Speaker 1: Our time it was off. And I apologize for that. But you have gone over to Dallas.
Speaker 19: Never happened to me in my life.
Speaker 1: So thank you. And our our apologies for that. Next, we have Frank Locke and.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, city council members. Happy Tuesday. My name is Frank Lucas, and I am. I live in the City Park West neighborhood at 16th and Gaylord. I am just. That's District nine, City Council District nine. But I'm one block away from District ten, so I'm kind of nine and a half in the glorious Colfax corridor and and right near where the new Carla Madison Recreation Center is going to be built, which I am really excited about. And I want to thank you and your predecessors for making that happen and helping me and my neighbors stay healthy. I really appreciate your work and the investment that you've made in our communities. I'd like to encourage you to continue to invest in our neighborhoods by voting for the stormwater fee increase. And while I have been and continue to be active in different neighborhood organizations, I'm here just representing myself. Last July, when that freak storm hit, I was working in my office on Colfax in a beautiful garden level office. When I just tapped my foot and thought I heard a splash and felt a splash. And I tapped it again. And I did. And. I you know, with all the freakish calm I could muster, I pulled up the cords of my computer and unplugged them really quickly and just ran out of there and went for shelter in the doorway and watched this wild river just roll right down COLFAX bringing debris and voodoo donut boxes and all kinds of other stuff right on down Colfax Avenue, past Lafayette, and then in in the weeks following and taking bike rides down the Platte River in just a five mile stretch, my wife and I saw no less than four cars that had been washed off of the roads and into the Platte River. I it's pretty clear that our storm water infrastructure isn't sufficient. And and and we and it's not sufficient for the population that we have, the population that's growing and the waterfall that we sometimes receive. So when I heard about these meetings that were being held about it, I started to attend them. And unfortunately too many of the meetings became shout fests and relatively uninformative. My understanding of the issue is that the stormwater infrastructure has not been sufficiently upgraded for fourscore and five years. Our population has increased dramatically since the thirties. Catastrophic climate weirding has made weather quite freaky and unpredictable, and in areas like Montclair or pipes are 30% the size that they need to be. We clearly need a better stormwater infrastructure system. Please vote to support the stormwater fee increase just like the investment you and your predecessors made for the recreation issomething central.
Speaker 1: So your 3 minutes are up. Thank you. Next we have Walter Garnet Guernsey, and I'll call the next five speakers Kimberly Morris, Justin Croft, Susan Payne, John Ben Skinner, Edward Armijo and Mr. Gardiner that you can begin your work.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. My name is Walter Guernsey. I've been a long park Parkville resident and I'm here in opposition to the wastewater fee increase. I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that the city needs to upgrade the stormwater system. Unfortunately, the proposal that's before the city council now, which incorporates the plant to Park Hill plan, is not the right plan. The as I understand it, there's $1.5 billion worth of stormwater plans that are in the the stormwater plan that was approved in 2014. Those that plan is what should be implemented. The money that is being allocated to plan to Park Hill is a huge mistake. It does not remedy the problems in any significant way south of I-70. We've been to several meetings and I have had no clear explanation as to how there's any significant benefit to anything south of I-70 . The benefit to this project is the area around the National Western Stock Show. It's the CDOT plan for I-70. It's the other real estate interests that are in the area that are north of I-70. Those those projects should provide for themselves whatever stormwater is needed. We should not have to do it at the incredible cost of re-allocating significant amounts of money that are not then available for all the other projects. The projects that need to be done to help my neighborhood involve with the prior speaker talked about, which is increasing the size of the pipes coming from Fairmont north west. That's not being done. Nothing is being done with this money that's now being that would be approved as part of the park. The plant to Park Hill plan. I. I want to make another point, which is that. The City Council should understand that there are serious legal deficiencies in this plan for the parochial plan as it applies to using the city for a golf course as a detention plan. First of all, the closure of that park that that dedicated parkland for a period of two years is not a deer. It is not a park use. The closure is for another use. That's not a legal park use. Secondly, the the entire program will eliminate significant trees, which will change the park nature of that in a way that is illegal under the common law of Colorado. And I think that if the city council and the city proceed on this basis, they're going to find that what they're doing as it applies to the City Park Golf course is going to be determined to be illegal. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Gonzales. Kimberly Morse. No. I think you.
Speaker 3: My name is Kimberly Morrison. I'm coal neighbor and I am strongly opposed to this project. I recognize that we need infrastructure investments in our city. I do not think this is the right project. We spend our money as citizens paying consultants and engineers for the city to come up with a stormwater master plan every few years. And we did so in 2014. And these are real projects that will help real citizens in the Denver area. In just a few short months after that project plan came out or that master plan came out without any prioritized projects, without any mention of this particular area. The letter of recommendation came out from the Met specifically saying that we should do a stormwater drainage project for seed at RTD and CC in that order. And the first order of business in the solutions for that drainage plan was cutting a ten foot deep channel. It didn't say how deep at the time, but a ten foot deep channel through my neighborhood, a ten foot deep channel, 100 feet wide. Isn't why enough to make that not so.
Speaker 4: Steep that people can't fall.
Speaker 3: In? It's not a park like amenity. I think we should be investing in infrastructure that helps the neighborhoods across the city, since all Denver residents are going to be paying for it and not funding the development in a valley that is prone to flooding and putting myself and my neighbors at risk. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Morse. Next, we have Justin Croft.
Speaker 15: Good evening, Members of Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of you tonight. My name is Justin Croft, and I'm here as the chair of the Rhino Business Improvement District, and I'm here tonight to urge you to delay this vote. I think based on what we've heard tonight and what we have heard in our community and others, there is a lack of information. There's a lack of understanding around this particular issue. And I think we've come to a conclusion in the Rhino bid. We took a vote on this last week that a measure of this magnitude in a fee increase of this level begets a responsibility to build consensus in the community. And if the community is confused about this and feels that there has not been enough outreach effort, again, with a fee increase of this size, I would urge you to delay at least 30 days to letter that we issued this morning in order to build consensus in the community, in order to bring the facts to light, in order to really communicate what work has been done to come up with this particular solution. The kind of vacuum I think of information that is present around this fee increase, at least insofar as people's understanding of it is the kind of thing that unfortunately sets community members against community members. And you've seen that tonight where folks are really they end up marginalizing each other and trying to push each other towards an extreme position. And again, I would urge you to delay this vote and really build consensus in the community. Embark on an outreach effort over the next 30 days to bring people into the facts surrounding this particular issue.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Craft. Next, we have Susan Payne. The pain's not here. John. John Barnes, give skipper. And we have 18 minutes left in their cursory public hearing.
Speaker 12: Thank you for having me. Allowing me to touch the bite. My name is John Van Schuyler. I am the the secretary of City Park.
Speaker 15: Friends and neighbors.
Speaker 12: I'm going to clean up a little thing.
Speaker 10: That that.
Speaker 12: Happened. Lemon Knowles was reading our our resolution, and she couldn't she didn't have time to finish up the now, therefore, which is probably pretty important, too, that.
Speaker 15: All those.
Speaker 12: Things about why we considered City Park important and why we were asking for more research on this now therefore we move as the city evaluate other options based not solely on utility for C dot RTD and revenues of the city, but on full study and meaningful neighborhood involvement. All right. That's something that we passed in that included was one of the issues one of the whereas is which talks about something called inadvertent attention. So if you don't know what inadvertent attention means, please keep your hand down right now. All right. Thank you. Nobody raised their hand. Inadvertent attention is. A hole in your front yard that fills up with water and never drains out. It could be a five gallon bucket in your backyard that fills up with water, that evaporates. It can be bigger things like they have in city park, like the ball fields. In City Park proper. I'm not talking about the golf course. It's in the northeast corner. The ball fields create a detention area that does is part of the drainage area. That does not that does not get down to the main stem and therefore, does not need to be detained again. And so why is that important? Why why am I talking about that? Because the more inadvertent attention you have in a drainage basin, the smaller your flow is going to be, the amount of rainfall is the same . But every time you catch water and you stop it in the upper bays and it doesn't get down to it beyond the beyond the golf course and down to the other neighborhoods.
Speaker 15: And it's not a problem for the ditch that Kim was just talking about. I'm oh, I.
Speaker 12: Have to stop for a second and say. An engineering joke because I'm an engineer and not an optimist, says. That the glass is half full and the pessimist says that the glass is half empty. And the engineer says, Why is a glass so big? And apply that to the size of the tension that is planned for City Park Golf now. If I go walking, if any of you go walking by the ball fields, which I suggest you do, there is an area there which is surrounded by roads or parking lots, raised ground on all sides, so that if water comes into it from 23rd Avenue, crosses Colorado, it flows into that basin and it stays there. We don't play what we don't play. You don't play. I'm running out of time here. This plan does not consider giving.
Speaker 1: You ran out of time. Sorry, sir. Thank you.
Speaker 12: I'll have to. You have to call me.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Edward Armijo. And as ever, come forward, I'll call the next five. Bridget Walsh, that techs, Adrian Brown, Steven Eppler and Dennis Royer. If you could make your way to the front end. Sorry.
Speaker 2: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name.
Speaker 9: Is.
Speaker 19: Edward Ami Ho, who? I've lived.
Speaker 2: In the neighborhood for 15 or.
Speaker 11: 16 years now.
Speaker 9: Because I just turned 65.
Speaker 19: I'm getting tired of hearing people coming in to Denver and saying, Well, I lived in Denver for 15 years and the streets are flooded. I've been here for 60 years. It only flooded once, 1965.
Speaker 2: The donor boxes. If the gentleman would have went.
Speaker 19: Outside and.
Speaker 2: Picked them up, the gutter wouldn't be back. And now, if you had pick up these water bottles, the gutters wouldn't be back and up.
Speaker 19: Another thing I am ashamed of, every one that sits on the Infrastructure Committee except you or Debbie, you guys didn't have the guts to contact me, get confined, space trained, and really inspect your so-called deteriorating storm sewer. You guys want me to respect you, but you can't even respect what I ask you. And I've been involved working with the city council for years to clean Denver up. Then you got somebody talking about New Orleans. We're a mile high. We're not below sea level. Come on. And another thing that I need to make U.S aware of this. Do you ever watch your own recording on TV when it's posted? You guys were running a circus.
Speaker 2: At your.
Speaker 19: Last meeting because you got all these people that are more intelligent than me, but they're playing the blame game. Well, what do you think? What do you think? Well, what about that? We had 90 meetings. That's funny, because I went to their last zoning meeting when it was at the Fort Lee Museum, and I personally asked Michael after he made the statement.
Speaker 2: Well, we talked to everybody.
Speaker 19: We had these private meetings. So I turned around and told Michael and this young lady, he's heard it before. Your demographics. Your study says the whole neighborhood and Swan, she and Larry are full of a bunch of low educated Mexican nationals. They don't speak Spanish. I don't speak Spanish. How can they have 60 meetings with a bunch of individuals.
Speaker 2: That they say are under educated? They don't speak.
Speaker 19: English. They wouldn't give me an answer. Almas Michael made a deal with me about Keep me in the loop. If they would have gave me the respect to let me pick an interpreter and set up a meeting with the minorities that do not speak English.
Speaker 2: And I do speak at my knees, by the way.
Speaker 19: But I don't speak Spanish. Each and every one of you would have.
Speaker 2: Got a better.
Speaker 19: A deal on who wants what. I even went to a meeting at state capital.
Speaker 2: The highway.
Speaker 19: Does not need our flooded stream.
Speaker 2: Because it does not flood in the coal neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Mr. Romeo.
Speaker 2: Guys, guys. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Your 3 minutes are up. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Bridget Walsh.
Speaker 3: Hi, I'm Bridget Walsh, and I'm here speaking on my own behalf.
Speaker 11: I am a board member, not a board member. I'm a member.
Speaker 4: Of City Park. Friends and neighbors.
Speaker 3: Has. Have any of you seen the video that was produced that expressed our position? Would you like to show that? The video that was produced by Phil Hanlon and that expressed our position and produced. In two days over 1100 signatures for people who are against it, sort of like educated them about what we saw, our vision of what this project was about. Would anyone like to see it?
Speaker 1: Was This is your opportunity to speak. The reason we're not responding. We want to give you your 3 minutes to speak.
Speaker 3: All right. So at any rate, I would like to point out that in the whole neighborhood, the trench you intend to dig there and call neighborhood is under asphalt. And as far as I've been told, it's an unmitigated Superfund site and will expose not only the residents of coal, but the residents of Denver generally to a lot of hazardous waste ply to Park Hill provides flood protection for I-70, RTD, new development and quarter of opportunity. We want to know why the the lion's share of the stormwater fees is going to be used to protect these projects to the detriment or to the loss of the other neighborhoods in Denver. Why should Deborah homeowners rather than the project developers pay for flood protection for I-70? RTD a new development in the corridor of opportunity. The engineers will tell you that this is not going to do anything to stop flooding really south of I-70. Yet all of this money is being focused on this tiny area of new development, and we are wondering why our projects are not being addressed. Why does the city keep telling us that the project is unrelated to I-70 when numerous public documents that we've all read and common sense tell us that it is there for I-70 a related development. Why is there no ice for affected neighborhoods in parks? That's a real sore point, and it really engendered a lot of distrust. How can the city claim to care about.
Speaker 11: Cost of housing? IT plan to double fees for.
Speaker 3: Denver homeowners to subsidize new development. Why did the city wait until November 2015 to begin talking about the coal open channel and digging up City Park golf course when they knew about it from at least January 2015. Why did the city rush the I-70 intergovernmental agreement, including the time out for this plan? Timeline for this plan through the Lame Duck Council on June 215. Why won't the city address the numerous questions raised about this plan by neighbors digging up unmitigated Superfund sites will endanger all residents of Denver. Almost done. Why didn't City Council go on a junket with over 100 parties with vested interest in their vote on this plan ? Did they buy your vote?
Speaker 11: So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you as well.
Speaker 3: And you should look at the video.
Speaker 1: Name is on that text.
Speaker 2: That texture. You know, lots of people ask me. What should I say when I go down there and I say, you know, it doesn't make any difference. Say what you want. You're not going to change anybody's mind. Everybody knows that. And that's okay. You know, you shouldn't probably change your mind. Everybody want you to study issues in advance and understand what's going on. And it should be hard to to change. But it's really disappointing for people when they work real hard and they try and make reasoned arguments and they think they're going to flip you. They're going to say the magic words, and they don't. And then what do they say? They see you traipsing off to Brooklyn with Brownstein and with CRL and they look at your contribution list. And they say, I can put two, two, two together. I go down there and I talk and it doesn't make any difference. And they go off to Brooklyn and guess who gets their way? And you know, Paul Krugman talks again about how few people participate in what low esteem government is held in. And somehow you don't make connections, you don't think about there any consequences for what you do, that people are stupid and people just don't think about it and it's all right. It's one of the perks of the job. It's just one of the perks of the job. We all know you're going to pass this. We all know you're going to pass the last one. It's a kabuki dance. And then you're going to stand up there and you're going to thank people for sitting in the hard benches and staying late and talking so eloquently. And people will trudge out of here and government will be in just a little bit less repute than it was at the beginning of the evening.
Speaker 1: Adrian Brown.
Speaker 12: Thank you, counsel, for sticking around so long. Thank you, Rafael, for providing the only meal that we got tonight, which is greatly appreciated. My name's Adrian Brown. I live at 123 West Fourth Avenue. I'm here on my own recognizance. I'm a 40 year professional engineer and I'm in the hydrology business. So I actually know something about this. I question the need for this huge fee increase for the purposes which have been stated? What will happen based on my research and discussions, extensive discussions with the city and others, is that most of the money that we are talking about tonight is going to convert the Montpellier Basin and the Park Hill to to Platte River area from a network of small hydraulic systems, stormwater systems to a major system. This requires increasing the service level that it requires from 2.5. 2 to 5 years storm frequency to a 100 year storm frequency because we move from small systems to a large system. This is by Denver ordinance, so it's not forced by anything other than that. So what we're going to do or we're proposing to do is to convert from the current system, which works fine, needs work, but works fine in this area to a major system which is a $300 million mega project. And as many other people have said it is, I concur that it will achieve essentially nothing for the people up south of the approximately 70 line. Do we have to do this? No, we don't. Consider the alternative. We got into this pickle by creating a whole bunch of impermeable land where there used to be permeable land. We need to turn back that impermeable land to permeable land. There have been wonderful work done to creating permeable structures out of parking lots, out of driveways, out of roads. Romans were pretty good at that. And all of the structures that we think of and which are today impermeable to turn them back into permeable stuff, even roofs and that sort of stuff. And we can do that by increasing local containment, by increasing local infiltration, by increasing local pipe systems to convert water to locations where it can infiltrate. $200 million buys you one hell of a lot of incentives to people to do that. Like the same sort of money provide you incentive for solar. So don't do the the redundant work that has been recommended for Mr. Brown.
Speaker 1: Mr. Brown.
Speaker 12: I vote yes on this, but for the right reasons.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Stephen Epler.
Speaker 15: But even in the.
Speaker 1: End, we have 2 minutes left. So you may be our last speaker. Mr..
Speaker 10: My name is Steven Eppler.
Speaker 12: I reside in Congress Park. I'm a member of CP.
Speaker 10: And I'm here on my own behalf. I don't think there's any question that.
Speaker 15: Denver needs to put money into infrastructure.
Speaker 10: Particularly into sanitary sewers and water quality. However, the wisdom of this particular project in terms of wastewater, I urge the Council to delay and reconsider this specifically. It's clear from neighborhood meetings and polling that we noted that over one third of the residents.
Speaker 2: Want.
Speaker 6: More information.
Speaker 10: About this. And the. City has been woefully inadequate in terms of providing accurate information. And what we're told seems to change frequently. The plant. The city's 2014 stormwater drainage program sets a goal of providing wastewater, a level of service to residential areas of sufficient capacity to sustain a two year comment and a.
Speaker 15: Five year event.
Speaker 6: Capacity for.
Speaker 10: Commercial areas.
Speaker 15: Whereas the.
Speaker 10: P2P project proposes to increase that to 100 year event protection. I want to read from the 2014 wastewater proposal. Cost effective implementation of a citywide 100 year drainage system is not.
Speaker 15: Radical.
Speaker 10: Because of the significant capital cost to retrofit construction and limited annualized flood hazard reduction. Consequently, a phased program is recommended that prioritizes improvements to address current hazards while improving minor the minor storm system. This does not really address those minor problems at all and actually provides disproportionate protection to an area of the city that slated for redevelopment and to which the government which we already have passed a bond issue for. I don't think the whole city and county of Denver should have.
Speaker 15: To pay for this limited improvement.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Eppler. And that is we just hit one hour. So that concludes our one hour courtesy public hearing. That concludes our speaker now time. And Madam Secretary, can you if you could take those speakers off the screens or actually council members names? Questions from members of council. Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. If I could have either George Delaney or somebody from Public Works in terms of cost. I know you've heard a lot of different numbers. I'm curious about the impact to the average Denver property owner taxpayer that this will affect. What does that look like if this were to move forward, this future increase, what does that look like for for those taxpayers? From here on to the. Okay. Next benchmark.
Speaker 18: Sure. Every year. Thank you, Councilman. Again, George Delaney. Department of Public Works. This fee increase on the sanitary side is proximately a dollar a month. This fee increase on the storm side is approximately a dollar a month. So that the total increase for the combined bill to individual home or the average homeowner is about $23 per year and it'll be $23 each year for five years until 2015. The Sanitary Bill is billed monthly. 22 over 20. Yeah, 2020, I'm sorry, not 2015. The sanitary bill is billed monthly, so you would see that dollar dollar increase in your water bill. The storm bills right now billed annually, but we have plans to bill to start billing it on a semiannual basis to spread it out. And we're working with Denver Water to even potentially do it on a monthly basis so that it would spread out that cost. So rather than getting one bill that's increased by 12 or $15, roughly, it would only be a dollar monthly cost to you.
Speaker 8: And just two more questions. Well, I have a bunch, but I'm not going to sit here and take up all the time. The. Just too just from. I've heard this a few times that I just want to make sure that on the record right here in council chambers impact on global areas once they call those neighborhoods does . What's the impact now and what's the impact in the future with the plant, the park? You know.
Speaker 18: Globeville has two sources of potential flooding. One is over the gap in the levee. That's down around 38th and Brighton and that area where if the river gets high enough, it could come in behind the levee into the town. And the other one is from flow from the north. And that's that, that basin is called Utah Junction. So those are the two things we're studying. We're studying the river, we're studying the outfall for Utah Junction to decide what's best to do for Globeville. The PDP project is on the east side of the river. It does not impact Globeville. The Globeville landing outfall is north of where the levee gap is, so that water will go in to the Platte River. It will flow north into Nebraska and it will not go backwards into the levee and flooded. So we do not believe P2P will have any impact on Globeville. There are other factors that have impacts on Globeville, and we're studying those and trying to come up with the best solution we can so that we can fix get those all fixed. But those studies are underway, but we don't have them finalized.
Speaker 8: Let me ask one more one more question on that, if I may, Mr. President, since we're in global response here, it just so happens to be a pretty defunct viaduct and a crappy highway that goes right through the neighborhoods. It's always split it. What impact if this does not pass, if this council were to reject this tonight? What impact does that have on I-78? As I do? Is the reroute resurrected suddenly? And what happens to our voice and Denver's position and seat us? How does that how does that affect that whole scenario? Because I think there's. Questions floating around about that and.
Speaker 18: Sure. Good question. First of all, Cedar is going, you know, depending upon whatever court cases they have to do and depending upon getting their record of decision from the Federal Highway Administration, all that. See, that's going to build their road. Now, if.
Speaker 2: We whether we.
Speaker 18: Whether we because P2P, we have to realize P2P is is not being built because of I-70, it will relate to I-70. We can't deny that it won't keep water away from I-70. It will it does relate, but it doesn't isn't being built because of it's being built because that's the worst basin in the city and the floods all the time. But what see that will do is they were going to give us $63 million towards P2P and what Cedar will do is say, fine, you don't want to do it. We'll take our $63 million. We'll do detention around our our our highway, you know, whatever that might look like, whether it's detention ponds or pits or whatever. And so they will they they have their money for their detention. They can either give it to us or we can do a broader project where they can keep it and do their role. But I do not believe personally and I don't know anyone who has a different opinion that that us not doing P2P will stop CDOT and say, Oh geez, now we have to move our road. No, that will not happen.
Speaker 8: Well, this will this have any kind of impact, Mr. Delaney, on this lowered alternative or I mean, continuing to build at above grade? I mean, what what would their next step be in terms of what it looks like?
Speaker 18: And do they.
Speaker 8: Still have options to do whatever they want?
Speaker 18: Sure. Yeah, they do. And they will. And, you know, I, I said that I probably misspoke in committee when I said, see, that doesn't care about the neighborhood, but CDOT cares about the road. That's their job, is to protect that road from flooding. This map that you've all seen shows the the purple area north of I-70 being flood, the flood risk being substantially reduced. The reason it's reduced is because we're putting in the channel, we're stopping the water back up, up, up the basin. If and remember now there's a viaduct there now. So the water runs under the viaduct and it floods these areas. When you put a road down into the into the in the surface, then that water's just going to go and it'll be stopped. So what we're trying to do is say, we can stop this down here and stop more of an area that floods by doing our project, whether c that worries about flooding in this area. And that's another issue because they're they're going to protect this line right here, you know, and they're not going to necessarily worry about the surrounding neighborhoods. And I don't mean to say that to be disrespectful to Cedar, but that's their purpose in life. Their purpose in life is to build roads and keep them dry. And so our purpose in life is to protect neighborhoods from flooding. And that's why we're our project has a little broader scope.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Delaney. Mr. Heineman from the Urban Drainage Flood Control District, if you can please come to the podium. By the way, this man is retiring sometime soon. And I think it's okay that we bring him to these late night. I just really think that you don't got it easy on the way out. I want to talk hydrology in that 100 year event we go back to. I think I think a good starting point is September 12th, 2013. What did the hydrology reports when we looked at that? What did the aftermath look like? And I know everybody saw images of Longmont and Boulder and some of these other areas. And then there was also Aurora in some of these areas and more closer to metro Denver. What was the difference? Is there any kind of difference between what we were doing out here? I can't say we because we're not Aurora, but what they were doing up there versus Boulder. I know that I read reports that there was actually more rainfall out here than there was in Boulder.
Speaker 12: Yes. Thank you. Paul Heineman, executive director of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Yeah, the flood that we had back in 2012. What happened is that there were two kind of major storms within our boundaries. Our boundaries are contained. 40 local governments kind of from the north side of Boulder down to the north side of Castle Rock. So there were two major rain clouds that came over our district. One was in the Westerly Creek Basin, which as you mentioned, was just east of the Montclair Basin and it was over in Aurora and the other one was up in Boulder. And I think everybody saw the news reports what happened in. Boulder. And that's because that infrastructure to pass that flood had not been in place to pass that water that that fell in that major storm that fell over Boulder. There was actually more rain that fell over the Aurora basin, but the infrastructure had been built because we had assisted Aurora over the many years to build the storm drainage infrastructure that went through the Westerly Creek Basin and down into Denver and it flows through the Stapleton area. There's actually five major drainage detention basins in that area, along with a lot of channel improvements or stream improvements along the way. And really the only damage that you saw is that there at Utah Park, it overflowed and and went down the street and pulled up some of the pavement and sidewalk that the city crews had to replace. But that was really it. There was no structural damage to homes if that storm would have happened over this basin, the Montclair City Park Basin, that infrastructure didn't exist. And it is my opinion that you would have seen much worse damage that you then you saw in Boulder, because Boulder, even though they hadn't installed there, the drainage infrastructure, there was still a natural stream that ran through that area and did carry some of that water. Did that answer your question?
Speaker 8: That was exactly what I was going to. Okay. My second question and just added just pure transparency. And I chaired the urban drainage and flood control district while Paul has was the executive director for two years. And this is something that we looked at diligently every single month in detail. And, you know, nothing against engineers, none take longer to be kind of stale when you're presenting. I'm just kidding. No, no, I'm just kidding. I mean, that's that's where I was actually going to go with this. And I know that would be kind of speculation, but you are and by those 40 local governments and the state entity , you are the executive, you are the engineer. When it comes to hydrology, you are the main man when it comes to this. So that's what I wanted to bring you up here and hear that from you. So I really appreciate the answer to that question. Thank you, Mr. Time. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Delaney, I have a question for you. So one of our speakers said that the lion's share of the money will go to the Black to Park Hill project. Can you please tell us of the $23 increase a year? How much of that will go to that project?
Speaker 18: Approximately $5 per year out of the 23.
Speaker 3: Five out of 20. Okay. Thank you. Also, there's been some people who have said that the Coal Channel is a Superfund site and it's going to spread hazardous waste throughout our city. Can you please address that question?
Speaker 18: Yeah, I'm want.
Speaker 1: To.
Speaker 18: Oh, sorry. Again, once again. Shelly Vandersloot from Environmental Health.
Speaker 11: So I'm Celia Van Vander Loop. I had been with Environmental Health for many years and I'm now with North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. The there are two operable units of the Superfund site that it's named Vasquez Boulevard, I-70. The first operable unit one is residential soils, and it covered all of the residential properties in global area Cole, Clayton , Swansea and a little bit of five points. EPA sampled approximately 4500 homes and cleaned all of those that were dirty. They did not sample under pavement. And so where there are streets and where there are sidewalks, they did not sample under those streets and sidewalks. When the city does environmental cleanup or I'm sorry, when the city does a construction project or we acquire land, we always do sampling. If we are going to be removing pavement and digging, we will do environment. We would do environmental sampling to determine if contamination was there. We would address that appropriately when we did that. Operable Unit two is at the Coliseum property and the global landing outfall structure will go across operable unit two that has some smelter contaminated soils and a former landfill. We have a plan in place which is available on our website to clean up that property or to address that contamination, to prevent stormwater from moving down through the waste and also prevent contaminated groundwater from the waste from moving up into the stormwater channel. To answer your question.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thanks. I have a couple more questions for whoever wants to answer. Several people have said that the project would not provide any protection south of I-70. Can you please address that?
Speaker 2: Can you talk? I asked Leslie.
Speaker 18: Thomas to come up and answer them.
Speaker 3: Good evening, mindlessly Thomas. I'm city engineer with Public Works. I think you've been provided this map that talks about the number of how the protection will be, and I'll just share it with the folks here. So in the purple area, which really there are three purple areas that are south of I did you I'm sorry, did you say south or north? South. South. Thank you. Okay. So south would be area four, five and six. In area four, you have 3326 residential properties that would be benefited in Area five, 114 and in Area seven 2470. Okay. Then I have one more question. Can you please address others comments about the 2014 master plan and how we got to this plan? How we get to this plan? That would be Mr. Bruce. Thank you.
Speaker 18: Well, while Bruce is coming up, I would point to the council. We provided this at the request of Councilwoman CORNISH and. And in the yellow area of the map, the south of the channel, in a five year storm, the flow of water would be reduced by 49% in a ten year storm by 52%, and in a 100 year storm, 19%. So there is a reduction, especially in the the more normal storms, the hundred year storms, not so much.
Speaker 13: Good evening. Good morning. Maybe versus your Harnik with Public Works. I did also hear about the master plan issue multiple times, so I figured we would want to address it here too. To me, the Stormwater Master Plan was adopted in 2014 and to me it's a planning level.
Speaker 15: Document by city charter. We have to redo it every five years. So we did it in oh nine.
Speaker 13: The 14 ones, the current one we use, and then we'll do it again in 19 because so much is changing.
Speaker 15: From when I think it from oh 9 to 14.
Speaker 13: What changed in oh nine. We didn't really even have the surface modeling.
Speaker 15: We, we, we knew where kind of pipes would we use these basic guidelines.
Speaker 13: We even use guidelines of two year in residential, five year in the street, but that works for the really small basins. When it rains a lot, there's a lot of excess runoff. And in the small.
Speaker 15: Basins, that runoff stays a foot or less. And then it can get to the open drainage way. But in.
Speaker 13: A big basin like.
Speaker 15: Montclair, there's an accumulative effect where the excess just starts to build, to build, to build. And before you know it, you don't have a foot in the street, you have two feet, you have three feet.
Speaker 2: And so that's.
Speaker 13: Why when our stormwater master plan is updated, because we're continually getting new information and I hope I touched on why it's kind of why our level of service.
Speaker 15: Is what it is that our level of service is for 100 year.
Speaker 13: Storm drain, 100 year rainfall. We want to put as much as we can under the street.
Speaker 15: And so that the street is only flowing in a foot deeper, less. We feel that that foot deep is a safe amount of.
Speaker 13: Water to flow in the street. Anything greater than that tends to flood cars.
Speaker 15: Crawl spaces.
Speaker 2: Basements and that sort of thing.
Speaker 15: That that answer your question.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black Councilman, New George.
Speaker 10: The I get a lot of questions from residents about the first I ask the question other than Park to park hill what are the other projects that are in this 383 and I look at and I say, hmm, I'm not sure. And it really talks about the lack of communication, understanding about what's going on. And there's 383 they look at the dollar figure and the other shocked, but then we start talking about flooding and they start to understand what infrastructure means. But can you explain more about what's in that $177 million relates to this sheet, this on our desk here, these projects.
Speaker 18: Sure. And I'll ask maybe Leslie or someone to get any provide detail for any of these projects. The three, there's $383 million in this plan for storm capital construction over the next five years, of which about 177 million will be paid in cash. Just a pay as you go sort of business. The other 206 million will be money that's borrowed to borrow to build the plant, the Park Hill project. And that money will be debt financed. The 177 million breaks into four categories. The first one is 53 million for what we are calling neighborhood needs, which are things like general storm, curbing gutter, that sort of project there for small projects spread throughout the city. The second category is what we call focus basins and those are bigger projects. And some of the projects, and I believe this was provided to you today at some point it's projects like the 27th Street Interceptor, $12.4 million, the liquid gold shared, and phase two construction 7.2 million. The Jackson Street System 9.6 million. The 16th Street System 14.3 million. The Oneida and Tennessee and Cherry Creek Phase one 4.4 million. So there's a list of these projects that are spread throughout the area, throughout, throughout the city, or at least in the areas where the basins are most critical. Then we have another category called focused waterways. That's where we have put to put the money for to match the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the work in the river related to Globeville. That's where we've put money to do other kinds for we're Gulch, for Sanderson Gulch, those those kinds of projects. And then the fourth category is water quality. And we've talked a bit about water quality. Our effort to try to reduce the E.coli coming out of five basins, coming out of the outfalls and five basins into the Platte River over the next five years. So we have this list of projects and if you have any specific questions on it, would be happy to answer them. We tried to show that on that map that we had with the little triangles and that and the problem we have with that is it's hard to put that into context of the size of some of these projects. I mean, some of these projects we're talking 12 and $14 million projects. These are not but it's shown by a little triangle. So it's kind of hard to get that message across. But we hope that this. This will help provide you and your constituents with a list of ideas of where those projects would be.
Speaker 10: About how many projects are on this list?
Speaker 18: 39, 39 projects. And something a lot of them are citywide, like curbing Gutter, General Storm and some of the water quality and other sanitary projects.
Speaker 10: You know, the plan to kill, it seemed like a huge project and distance wise as well as complexity. I mean, is it the largest project that you've ever undertaken?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 3: It is certainly one of the largest projects that we have undertaken.
Speaker 10: And as the water flows, I mean the flows south to north going toward I-70 and the relationship I-70 is as you bring 70 down, it blocks the water. So you got to channel it somewhere else. Is that correct? Is that the issue?
Speaker 3: Yes. The water typically flows from south to north, towards the river and towards San Creek.
Speaker 10: Okay. And the flooding, you know, other than councilwoman saucepans basement, the flooding that goes along prior to Park Yard. Can you give examples of flooding goes on. I was interested in the gentleman's comment about he never been flooded in cold after living there 60 years or so. Can we?
Speaker 3: Mike Anderson is here. He actually has a flash drive of all the pictures. I don't know that that's what you want to see tonight, but there is significant flooding along the especially the the Coke property. There are significant flooding that happens at 50th and Colorado. In fact, that is a place where we lost a first responder about ten years ago. It is difficult to get around in that area. Still, Vasquez is difficult to maneuver when it rains. In fact, many people when it rains, unfortunately, get off the elevated section of I-70 and drive down into the area at the end of the ramps, which can have multiple feet of water in them. So there are we have a lot of photos. If people would like to see that, we'd be happy to share those with you in.
Speaker 10: The 2014 master plan. Was this the highest rated project in that whole plan or was it the most severely drain storm flooded area in this basin?
Speaker 3: Yes, this Montclair Basin we have been keeping track of by the Red Stars that you will see in the master plan for I think it's the last five years of the plan. We showed them since 20. What? 14. Thank you. It's late since 2014. And so this season has had the most challenges that we've been made aware of. And so that was one of the criteria that we used in selecting projects.
Speaker 10: A lot of residents asked me to 383 million. What's going to control the costs there? Is that really going to be 400 million, 425 million, or is it going to be 383?
Speaker 3: That is a really good question and I have an answer for that, but I have to go back and get it. Just a second. Yeah. So we have while we can't really guarantee, okay, any price of any project, prices go up, prices go down. Scopes change. We do. Want to deliver this program. You know, within the dollars that we're talking about and we're committed to doing that. So we're committed to using the legacy systems that were developed with a better Denver bond program. Many of you may be aware of those. Those systems were based upon the best of industry program management practices, and they delivered a $500 million program within the time requested and returned $20 million back to us to be able to have additional investment in the city. So some of the key program management processes that we're expecting to deploy are some program controls, which is reporting scheduling costs, tracking that type of thing, and manage project managing project risk. And I think this is an important thing for all of us to think about. We do that by identifying risk early and mentioning that keeping a risk register, if you will, and also putting together a risk mitigation action plan to manage that risk. And lastly, we have a contingency that we've planned for in this program so that if that active management doesn't doesn't come to fruition, we do have a contingency to come back on to work on that to bring the projects into the budget. The last thing that we're really focusing on right now is careful procurement and contracting strategies so that we buy this out in the in the best way possible.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. The last question, going back to Councilman Lopez's after what is seems to be such a communication and understanding of that all this project with the public. What would happen if you had a delay to September 1st on this project on approval of this phase.
Speaker 3: Of these rates?
Speaker 10: Yeah. If you gave a couple extra to extra much to talk about.
Speaker 18: Or our financial projections are based upon a rate increase effective July 1st, 2016. Keep in mind that in our proposal we do intend to go out to the bond market yet this year for to borrow $121 million towards the Plan to Park Hill project. So if it were delayed, we'd have to look at the financial impact of delaying it and lay on top of that, the ability to go out to the marketplace and borrow that $120 million would would the bond with our bonds be more expensive? Less expensive? I don't know. We would have to look at that analysis. But that's one thing to keep in mind. One of the reasons why we had pushed for the rate increase July 1st rather than waiting till January is because we want to have the financial stability in the fund and the commitment to the fund so that when we go to the bond market and borrow $120 million, the investor say, oh, you have the you'll have the money now and you'll have the money in the future because of the rate increase. So that's one of the big driving factors.
Speaker 10: Will have any effect on AIG at all. No. Here comes the attorney.
Speaker 3: It's kind of a pop quiz here, but we have. Oh, here we go.
Speaker 4: Jessica Brody, Assistant City Attorney, Denver City Attorney's Office. In answer to your question about the IAEA, the IAEA does have certain timeframes that we have committed to meeting. If the rate increase were to be delayed.
Speaker 17: It is possible we'd have to evaluate whether we could still meet those timeframes. But presumably, if we are unable to meet our commitments to see that we could potentially be in breach and those are issues we would have to resolve to see that.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman there, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Okay. I have a quick question. You know.
Speaker 13: Since we're on.
Speaker 8: The DeLay conversation, there are a couple of folks.
Speaker 6: Who talked about DeLay, and I think Justin Croft was one of them. Justin, can you come up to the mic, please? The Rhino. Councilman Newt talked about kind of two months. You specifically said 30 days for further outreach. What do you envision that looking like?
Speaker 15: I would envision that that would look like a pretty concerted effort to actually a lot of the issues that have been discussed based on council's questions just in the last half hour. So I think a lot of what's been discussed is there seems to be this misunderstanding or there seems to be this question has come up multiple times. Can we address that? And we've got people in the room who are kind of working on this at the highest level. So I think assembling some of that information and disseminating that in a pretty orderly way and in a really meaningful way, such that it demonstrates that the city is really behind this and that they're willing to stand behind it by.
Speaker 6: Being.
Speaker 15: Forthright, transparent, and giving as much information as possible.
Speaker 6: For people to be able to sort of.
Speaker 15: Make a community decision as to their level of support with this.
Speaker 6: Issue. You're a civic leader. You have been involved in these outreach outreaches. Never 100%. Right. So you do the 30 days. You do the 60 days, but you don't reach consensus.
Speaker 15: I think there's there's. If you can demonstrate that you've worked towards consensus diligently and in an in good faith, then you've sort of created the opportunity to build trust with the community. Whether or not that consensus actually comes to bear and my point is not necessarily delayed as far as possible to build consensus would never get anything done if every issue was.
Speaker 6: Handled that way. Great. Thank you, Justin. Sure. And David brought an issue was brought up on common law, some legal issues regarding city park that when we if this goes forward city park golf course would be out of commission for six months or whenever and we would be under a legal issue. The question is, is there validity to that? How would you respond?
Speaker 12: David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. Thank you for that question. We've been aware for some time now that this theory is out there. Once it began to be talked about more publicly, that one element of the overall project would be detention and and redesign of the City Park Golf course. Incorporating stormwater feature into the course are a large feature that's not there now. So our legal team has had time to think about this in terms of whether there would be an a validity to a claim that there's something illegal about that. And the bottom line is, we're not aware of any case law, any statutory law in Colorado that would say that stormwater facilities, flood control facilities can't be co-located with park land, but that they're somehow rather incompatible. We're just not aware of any case law that stands for that proposition, nor do we read anything in our own home rule charter that would prevent this from occurring. So the city attorney's office stands ready to defend that particular feature of the overall plan. If someone were to attempt to bring a legal claim, declaratory judgment action, for example, to to and join us from being able to do that. We were very confident we'd be able to prevail if somebody brought just such a claim. Let me conclude by saying that if it were true that there were some incompatibility between stormwater facilities and parkland, it'd be a very significant revelation, not just for Denver, but a lot of other cities that have co-located stormwater facilities and flood control facilities with parkland throughout Colorado. It's really a fairly common thing, not only in Denver but in other cities as well. So if that were to be a litigated issue, there'd be keen interest around the state from other cities in any litigation of that nature. But we're prepared to defend that, and we believe that we defend it successfully.
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you. Last question, George Delaney.
Speaker 6: One of the key, you know, points, I think, coming from some of my neighbors is a valid one and one that I share. And it's it's around Globeville. So to.
Speaker 2: To two quick questions for.
Speaker 6: You. One, and I think folks are aware of the projects that are part of 39 projects that are going to affect all of us. So can you can you outline them real quick? And then I'm going to go to the larger 50, $50 million question.
Speaker 18: There are four items in our plan right now related to Globeville. None of these are the large solution, but these are smaller solutions for certain problem areas. So we have $6 million in the plan to match the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers money to begin the design of the work for that portion of the river related to the levee, related to the banks, related to the habitat along the river, which would help with the levee. At Globeville, that's $6 million. We in a general storm category, remember, we have 5 million every year will spend on general storm, which means projects all over the city. We have three such projects in Globeville. We have the 49th in Grant Detention Plan, which is at the Platte Open Space Area, where we plan to build a 3 to 4 acre detention plan to hold some of the water that runs in from Utah Junction Basin. There's a sump at 43rd and Sherman, and there's a storm pipe extension at 40th and Fox. Now, these are not big projects. They're more localized projects, but they are projects to address areas that we know historically and over the last several years have flooded on a regular basis. So they would solve those problems, but they're not that big. 60 $70 Million.
Speaker 2: Globeville Social Solution, 60.
Speaker 6: It's going to take $60 million. And I want to I want to be very clear about this, because I don't I don't know any area, especially in my district, that is 100% solved. So it's going to take $60 million to complete. At least solve Globeville.
Speaker 18: Our master plan has projects in it for Globeville that total $62 million. Now those are in 20 $13. So with a little inflation and other costs, it's probably going to be a push. 80 million. But that's what the master plan describes as a planning document for the needs to solve problems in that area.
Speaker 6: Do you know what the cost is, too, to take care of? Make sure it's not an inundation area.
Speaker 18: Not an. Is that the river? The ocean. That is the 81. Yeah, that is the 80 million.
Speaker 2: Okay? Sure. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Good news, Councilman Brooks. There are a couple of little spots over here that are 100% salt. So there are some areas there is no water flowing through. Correct. That's modeled in there bone dry at 100 years. Except for what obviously falls on it. I'm I apologize. You see me over here clicking through all these things. And that's because I was I received 1400 pages from CDOT earlier today, and I took that public testimony to time to sort of peruse it to see if anything there was something that I could use. I specifically was asking for several weeks for the more detailed information of what what the scope is that they're tasking their their concessionaires on this water quality side. Because, you know, like I said last time, there's some machinations about what I would do. And the fact of the matter is, there's no design. There's no design. There is some analysis in this stuff about parcels that would have to be acquired for the outfalls and things like that and and acquisition of streets and roadways for the low part of the ditch to drain that. And then there is what I'm going to show you, which is actually the most truthful maps I have seen. So speaking to if there is an extension in the two months, 30 days or 60 days, I need the city to get this right. I need you to be open and transparent in the way that they talked about. No more obfuscating with graphics. No more obfuscating with boundaries on on basins. No more distorting the timeline like we talked about last time, which is your design. Your idea predated your your design. Your design predated your prioritization, and none of them are reflected. There is no statement in the 2014 masterplan about these being the highest priority.
Speaker 8: Councilman, we we're still in question period. So if you want to frame that in the question.
Speaker 6: Then let me let me put these in the form of a question. I feel like I'm in jeopardy here. So let's go right to the pictures. So this is from C dot. I won't I'll I can get you the actual document because I downloaded them onto here. But this is the major basin map which is reflective of the actual basins, unlike this portrayal. This is the Montclair watershed in the park here, Hill Watershed. And I've done it larger so you can see it. The blue is the Montclair, the pink is the Park Hill. The red line is obviously I-70. And the concern here is that the 39th Avenue Channel is what connects the Park Hill watershed to the Globeville outfall. And so what we're doing is we're taking these flows, this pink flow that goes this way and diverting it into the blue area where it drains. And so what that does is that creates a problem for all this stuff that's coming down the blue area. And so to solve that now, you got to do this. You got to do City Park because you can't have both of those flows trying to go to Globeville. That's a problem. And so that's that's intrinsically sort of distorted about what's what's going on here. These purple areas are the soils map. I mean, these are the projected basins for I-70, for this corridor of opportunity. All of these basins are not so deep. Actually, the question is, are these the correct watersheds that see that is depicting or is it somehow these guys?
Speaker 3: Well, just real quickly, that is a basin boundary map. And the map that we showed you is a flood protection map. So they're two very different.
Speaker 6: So it's more like akin to these. But combining some of these areas. Correct or not.
Speaker 3: The map that you have in your right hand, the pink and blue map is a drainage basin boundary map.
Speaker 6: So let's get this much correct. That blue area drains into the Platte at that location. Is that correct? Naturally. I mean, that is the intent. And that the pink area drains into the Platte along that whole edge that touches the plan. Is that correct? That's okay. That's that needs to be understood. And that needs to be depicted time and time again, because that is part of the confusion for people, the layperson, to understand what is going on, especially when you get into that stormwater master plan, which starts to do this with all the different pages to make the formatting work. So are these the basins that the project basins for sit on?
Speaker 3: I, I can't tell you. I don't know that document that well.
Speaker 6: Okay. Then I should probably get the title.
Speaker 1: But what do you think?
Speaker 8: Councilman, do you want to continue with your other questions? Do you have any more questions?
Speaker 6: I have to put my I have to formulate it this way, because this is not easy for me to understand. And I think it's very difficult for the public to understand. But it boils down to this sort of what was presented by Leslie and I at I.N.S. this weekend and some of the comments that have gone thus far. So in order to get to that question, I have to go through this for everybody to understand and allowed to do that or not.
Speaker 8: I'd suggest you just ask your questions. Here's the here's the part. Here's the problem. It's hard to zoom in on your screen and it's hard for everybody to know.
Speaker 6: Well, I you know, if I had gotten these from sit out sometime other than right before this meeting, maybe we could have done that.
Speaker 8: Because why don't you go ahead and ask your questions?
Speaker 6: Be honest. This would have gone on this this would have been like I would have gotten this long since after this had been through city council. So anyway, what I want to point people to is this purple here, because that is the basin that we're talking about. So see, that's going to address all these other basins. Now, suddenly, we're in this partnership that is not related to I-70, but is directly related to I-70. So this goes back to this yellow line. That's the trench. And so this is a whole neighborhood right here with this orange is. The good news is, is like what the gentleman had said. There's a lot of streets that just get 3 to 6 inches of water, which is curbside level flooding in a 100 year event. But there is an area of coal that gets inundated. That yellow line is the channel. Everything knows that is bone dry. So that would be a part of your district in the future. That would be 100% salt. The key is, is that here's what it is today. So don't go and tell me that this is a coal solution when coal is still flooding. So that's part of that obfuscation that needs to be clear with the community that we are. We are fixing areas south of I-70, but it's between 39th and I-70, and it's to address this guy. Which is that basin. Here's 40th Avenue. Here's I-70. And that's what this is doing. And so when what had been asked.
Speaker 2: Of Leslie at.
Speaker 6: At I.N.S., and I just need you to confirm this. The question was posed. Somebody. One of the speakers said this is both related and unrelated to I-70. And you nodded in affirmation. So I just wanted to be very clear. I want to go on record as a member of council saying this, in fact, is related to I-70. And if we because and it's indicative of what the city attorney just said, which is if we do not approve this, we would be in breach with see. You know, see that has no control over 39th Avenue. None of this land is theirs. But it has everything to do with with that basin that I just showed you on those pictures, which I didn't. So, yeah, not much in comment, mean questions. But this needs to be. This needs to be seen. Those are my colleagues. That is the basin south of I-70, north of 40th Avenue that CDOT is addressing. This is in their scope of work that has been issued to those people that are building. This is something they have to solve for. We have not seen a solution, but the city has provided one and then done all this justification for this to satisfy this IGA requirement. So thank you.
Speaker 8: Councilman. Let me ask George Lane. Do you want to speak to that? I understand what you're doing. And now in pointing that out and asking.
Speaker 18: I just.
Speaker 8: Question it. But I want to make sure that you know the opportunity.
Speaker 18: Okay. And just briefly, Councilman, I understand the point you're making. When we show the purple in the yellow map, we are not portraying that this is solving the flooding, the areas south of the channel or north of the channel that is solving all the problems, but it is reducing the flow. So it's reducing, for instance, in the hundred year flood, it reduces the flow by about 20%. Now, 20% may not. Maybe instead of five feet of water, you get four feet of water. So but at least it's it's a reduction in the flow. Well, please keep in mind that this is the worst basin in the city, that our master plan, although this project, you're right, is not specifically spelled out in the master plan. This master plan for upper and lower Montclair Basin totals almost $600 million of identified investment needed. This is 200 million. This is the backbone of a system that the spill is still going to need three or $400 million. So you're right, this does not solve the problem. It does not make all the flooding go away. But it's a start in that direction. Spent investing money, 200 million in the basin that really we're saying needs as much as 600 million. So just as a clarifying, clarifying point, I mean, you're right, it doesn't do away with all the flooding. But actually, it's it's not sufficient to do that. So we know that.
Speaker 6: But that's Cedar Basin is on here. Oops. I'm touching too many parts of the screen, but this sea, that basin, which is south of I-70. Is is resolving. Yeah. According to.
Speaker 2: This graphic, all of that.
Speaker 6: Area north of I-70. And the only way it does that is if we're if we're bringing water through the Mont to the Montclair Globeville outfall.
Speaker 1: If we could, I. I didn't hear a question. So, George, I understand you want to rebut, but if there's not a question, council member has the ability to say that. Councilman Espinosa, any more questions?
Speaker 2: So let's ask the question now.
Speaker 6: Is this related to I-70 or not?
Speaker 3: So I guess what I would like to share with the council members is that the drainage in the area, as George has said, needs to be fixed, it needs to be fixed and it dealt with whether or not I-70 is at grade below grade somewhere else. It is a historic problem that the city has had in this area. So from that perspective, it is it isn't caused by I-70 in any way, shape or form. The solution, however, is an opportunity that even several of the folks who spoke tonight have recognized and that you all recognized when when the idea was passed, that we have an opportunity to work with the improvements that are happening. From that perspective, our TDS perspective, the development in the areas perspective, by doing this project now we can carve the outfall, the backbone system that we've all been talking about, and we have the opportunity to do that. Now, if we don't take the opportunity to do that now, some of those opportunities will will go away. There will be buildings built. There will be other infrastructure. There will be homes. There will be more things that are built that will cause it to be more expensive or not even feasible. So that's that's the way it is related to I-70 is because it is an opportunity. Did I-70 cause the problem? No, it didn't.
Speaker 6: So an area one that is an area that is largely going to be under the control of the city and county of Denver through the vote of the people in the 800 to $1000000000 in taxes that we're going to acquire through lodgers and renters. Car rental. Are there solutions that the NDC see or mean National Western Structure Complex could in fact do themselves to get that area mitigated without burdening the taxpayers, the entire city and county of Denver for an extra $206 million.
Speaker 3: There have been several alternatives looked at the the with all of the partnership in place, it seems like it was a good idea that everybody pooled their resources or cooperated together rather than and one of the speakers said it today, then everybody doing their own thing. So this is the proposal that we have for you today is a collaborative approach to solving this long term problem.
Speaker 6: So again, there are areas that are carved out here that don't have any. I mean, the the the flood modeling here clearly shows no inundation in those areas. I mean, do we actually have areas? It sure looks like there's an area below here that doesn't have any inundation as well. So it's, you know, a hundred year modeling. We actually still have areas that are not, in fact, not inundated north of this channel. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Without this, it appears that. That's correct, yeah. And if you look at the heat maps, I think you'll see the same thing.
Speaker 6: Okay. Because that's what concerns me, is we're doing this one, $206 million gesture for a very, very specific area that actually already has a lot of public money pumped into it. And so my concern is not that I don't support infrastructure, but when we're taxed, when we're charging people citywide this burden, we should be having citywide solutions . Maybe one more graphic. I don't. Did you guys produce this or is this the people of the film? This was in that film, and it's a pretty nice depiction of sort of the scale of the different expenditures that are in that in that listing that you have here.
Speaker 3: I don't believe we produced that.
Speaker 6: Okay. It's a good graphic. It's a good way to communicate sort of the scale of what we're doing with this money. If we if we fulfill the full scope that we try. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. George, I have a couple of questions for you. So if this is not approved, how many acres of detention would see DOT have to build adjacent to I-70 to protect their highway?
Speaker 18: Okay. Good question.
Speaker 1: Does anybody have an answer?
Speaker 13: And there's no answer for that.
Speaker 18: I'm sorry. I don't know. I don't know. But that map that Councilman Espinosa had, the pink that would all have to be protected from flooding. So how many acres that is? I can't tell you. I don't know for sure.
Speaker 3: I'm not certain that see, that actually has detention in their plans. They do have some depressed areas that are quite deep that are up next to the highway in their plan to capture the water. But I'm not certain that it's it's not as as we've. Talked about before it fully designed. So I'm not sure there's a full detention plan like we're proposing in the city wide proposal.
Speaker 14: So do you have an estimate of what acreage those would be?
Speaker 3: I don't we we would have to look at that and then see that plan and study that to get that for you.
Speaker 14: So can you answer how close would those detention or those depressed based basins, how close would those be to residential homes to them if this isn't.
Speaker 3: Right next to them?
Speaker 14: Like.
Speaker 3: Like across the street or right next to. If a lot was ended and there wasn't a street there, it could be right adjacent to them. It's it's basically right behind the wall of the highway is where they will put that capture basin, if you will.
Speaker 14: Okay. Yeah. If I if we could get if I could get to the acreage, that would be helpful. So how how did public works staff determine out of all of the different proposed sites for detention? How did the two projects, the City Park and Cold Channel, how did those two projects rise to the top around the final recommendations?
Speaker 3: I'm going to ask General House if she would come up, please.
Speaker 17: Hi. Good morning. Jennifer Hill Ellsworth Public works so good question. We did through a nine month process, all terms analysis process. We looked at a variety of alternatives. We try to be really creative with our right of way with any city asset that we had to minimize property impact. The two that rose to the top were the ones that were feasible. These are low points within the basin. One resides in coal and the other within City Park Golf course. And you can see that in the heat map where there's red and where Councilman Espinosa was pointing to the orange color. Those are the low points within the basin. It's very difficult to move water uphill. So we tried, though, we looked and we pushed to see if there's any alternatives that we could look at different locations. So those two locations were identified because there are low points where water naturally wants to collect within the basin.
Speaker 14: Okay. And then I'm not sure if Leslie it was would be you for my final question. But in looking first thank you for the wastewater capital projects management list and its from 2016 to 2021. And in looking at this list, District 11 has $55,000. We have over eight miles of cement channels. In District 11. So I would like to have somebody explain to me or, you know, best case scenario, there's moneys that are allocated for District 11 in, you know, lines one through five on page one where it's inclusive of all or on page two from 29 to 36, where it says all but for a 70% Latino community of Montebello. With the only cement stormwater drainage canals in the city. It's very hard for me to ask my constituents to support. This. Service increase. And cover all of these costs throughout the rest of the city. And so I would just like to have a little bit of clarification.
Speaker 18: Sure. We have we have three sources of money that's not specifically outlined for your the channels in Montana. But we have three sources of money that we could use depending on once we get the issues resolved, like should we remove plants or should we keep plants and that sort of thing. We have bridge money, bridge maintenance money and the handrails, the guardrails that go over the the on the roads that go over those channels. We will be looking at and evaluating and we could use that money to repair those handrails and the guardrails over the bridges as far as the channel itself. Public works and wastewater has operating budgets where we do a lot of maintenance of detention ponds, we do maintenance of outfalls, we do maintenance of inlets, and that's for bays for detention. We can use the operating dollars to maintain, manage and maintain the channels. And then the third source of money is this general storm. You're right. It's a general store money, which we typically use for inlets and that sort of thing. But we could look at that if there was some specific need we needed investment we needed to make in those channels. So once we've determined the course of action that we need to take, we believe we've got sources of money built into this plan that will take care of those sorts of problems. And I think that's one of the things to keep in mind. Remember I said 53 million of the 100 and 177 million is set aside for neighborhood needs. And it's needs like that that we can we can use those dollars and focus those dollars. They're not spelled out specifically, but that's the source of money we would turn to when you ask us to look into it and make those repairs. So.
Speaker 14: So. So my last question or I guess more of a request is that there is a more robust and inclusive process going forward because this will be a service charge for all residents of Denver. And when I see a document that has 55,000 for the district that I represent, be it that it's layered in in different line items for transparency sake, it would be much more helpful for me to actually have that spelled out a little bit more.
Speaker 18: Sure. And I think one of the things, the four that came up with our last meeting and I think Councilman Clark brought it up, remember, we will bring back to you council every year our capital projects request in the waste water fund will say these are the 17 projects we want to spend money on in 2018 or whatever year that is. We will also bring to you our wastewater operating budget, which shows you how we're going to spend our operating dollars, how many staff we're going to have, and that sort of thing. So what I would encourage council to do is look at those things. We will enter into those discussions with you, with your neighborhood, whoever you want to, to see what's the best investment of those dollars as we go forward. But we do have a shot at it every year to make those decisions. So.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of numbers questions. $23 a year. So we're going to raise about 383 million bucks. Right. And about 206 goes to fund applied to Park Hill. So I'm having trouble with the it's $23 a year and only $5 per year goes to plant the Park Hill. If you can explain that to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 18: Well, ask La Perry to come up from the Budget Office.
Speaker 9: You're not running a Ponzi scheme or something.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Members of Council LA Prairie Capital Improvement Program Manager in the Budget Management Office. The $5 of the $23 that we've estimated as the average rather annual basis for five years is based on the fact that we would be debt financing that particular project over a 30 year term. So that $5 constitutes the annual debt service payment that we would be paying as a city.
Speaker 9: So the $23 a year is a five year number. The $5 a year is a 30 year number.
Speaker 3: Let me clarify. The $23 a year is an annual number that the average resident.
Speaker 17: Five years for five years. Correct? Yes.
Speaker 3: And of that, the $5 attributed to the debt service for the project is an annual number as.
Speaker 17: Well.
Speaker 9: Just for five years. Correct. Okay. You probably did great. Didn't do me any good.
Speaker 18: The other thing I would point out and we're we've sort of lost some of this in in a lot of our discussion. But remember, so the $25 a year is for sanitary and storm. Remember, we're going to spend an extra from two and a half million to 8 million on sanitary. So what is that, five and a half million more per year for five years in center. That's 25 million we're going to spend. We're going to raise our metropolitan district rates. We anticipate we're going to go up 8% a year. 8% on 50 million is 4 billion. So 4 million times five years is 20 million. So and then the operating budget, which is about 80, $90 million, that's for all our people. And everything we're going to say is going up 4% a year. So when you take each one of those the 4% and operating the the of the money for the other items that I mentioned, the metro district and all that, and then the 177 million of the 383, that's how you get this pot of money that the 25 million generate. So the 177 is a piece of that. And then the $5 is a piece of that. $25.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Thanks. That was helpful. So the you said the on on reducing storm flow, the five year project would reduce the five year storm by 49%, the ten year storm by 52% in the 100 year storm by 19%. And is that across the entirety of the area, north and south?
Speaker 1: I believe.
Speaker 18: Is it just the south is still on the yellow line? Yeah. Okay. Just a second, sir.
Speaker 9: You could go over that math again. I really enjoyed that.
Speaker 17: Again, Jennifer Hillhouse of Public Works. So the the purple area depicted in the map represents a 100 year protection. The yellow is what you're referring to, that where we see the 50% reduction in those moderate events. So when it rains, you know, in the summertime, those moderate events are what we see every summer. Basically, the big events that, you know, Paul was talking about, that 1% chance of a hundred year coming. That's where you'll see the 19%. And it tells you that this is a backbone. More work to come for us to provide that level of service. This is is not intended. It's intended to take a big bite out of the apple. But we understand it's not going to solve bass and white issues, but it's a stepping stone to start to do more.
Speaker 9: Aiming for 100 years. Right. In this project.
Speaker 17: I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: We're aiming for 100 years.
Speaker 17: Yes. Yes. That's our industry standard to look at. 100 year protection in a basin this size and without a natural waterway.
Speaker 9: When we spend that additional 400 million or whatever the number was, that'll get us that hundred year protection so we won't have four feet in the street instead of five. So the understanding that to.
Speaker 17: The south that if you.
Speaker 9: Look to the south, yes.
Speaker 17: So that would be basin wide. And I mean, Bruce, you'd have to I wasn't part of the master plan so project. But is that a correct assumption. So the engineers are predicting, yes, if you invest that amount of money, you would start to build that level of service to 100 year protection.
Speaker 9: Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. And I just chimed in at the end here, and I'll be brief, even at the risk of ruining my chances in the pool as to when we'll end the meeting. The George, the annual increase that we're talking. Just to clarify for people who might still be watching if they have insomnia, $23 per year is actually $23 per year per year for five years. So it's actually like over $100 by year five. That also applies to the $5. So it's five, ten, 15, 20, so it's 25 by the end of the fifth year for 30 years.
Speaker 18: Because it is if you compound it, it keeps its relevant pressure.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's the word I was looking for.
Speaker 18: Compound portion. Yeah, it's compound.
Speaker 7: Okay. And just a quick response. When I chimed in, when Councilwoman Gilmore asked about where six ponds are, I'm sure either she's reading my mind or I'm reading hers. But at that very moment I was looking at the I-70 East, see that hydrology technical addendum, and I was looking right at the picture of where they have the ponds mostly there in in the industrial areas east of Colorado Boulevard, north and south of the highway. But when you get to the Steel Vasquez intersection, they're on the south side. So they're right across the street from the houses on the south side of 45th Avenue. And then the rest of them are around York and and Brighton Boulevard. But there are seven ponds in total for CDOT, so I just thought it'd be good to clarify that. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right, colleagues, we've we've spoken for longer than the public hearing and we still got some names in the queue. So I would just once again ask. We could. Keep them. Recognize that? Councilman Espinosa, you're up. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Just with respect to the ponds. It's not like they're ponds. I mean, they're ponds in a hundred year event for a few hours, you know? So it sounds scary. And I just wanted to give clarification. So the graphics I gave were from the draft master drainage report, I-70 East Corridor Project, dated September 29th, 2015. So that's this is the document that those were originated from. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, any other questions? 306. So, you know, and public hearing is now closed. Time for comment, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I. I guess I'm kind of alone over here because I don't. I like the idea and the scope of the project. The two base and drainage project that was agreed to is that and I wish that this that this package included only that $134 million worth of scope that SEEDAT is sharing 40% with us. I like the fact that we are collaborating with CDOT and doing a drainage project while they are in there. That makes total sense to me. This I like the I-70 project, so I'm not I'm not on that side either. But I think that in the ten months since the prior council approved the IGA, the scope of this, this work that we're doing has gone from $134 million to $298 million. And while I know that there's a need to do these projects, I don't like being asked to pay for them upfront until I understand the scope of this particular project. When I look at the 2014 master plan, the Montclair and the Parkhill Basins together had about $340 million worth of scope in 20 $13, which I suppose was constant dollars. So it worries me that that we're talking now about adding to 134 million, we're adding up to 298 million. And we're not even reaching the scope of what we estimated in 2014. Master Plan. I think this should be done more incrementally, like we've done most drainage projects, like we're doing the one in my own neighborhood in District two in Glenbrook, where we've done everything incrementally. I don't I don't go into King Soopers tomorrow morning and give them $100 bill and say, I'm going to come back next week and figure out what groceries I want for it. I want to know when you ask me for the fee. I want to know what we're buying right away. I don't really like voting no on on this because of this one big project, but it is the largest project we've ever done in wastewater by far. It's the largest bond issue by far by a factor of five that we're doing just for wastewater. And we're only entering according to the presentation that we got at committee, we're only now entering preliminary engineering to refine the scope of each project and assign budgets at the project and program level. I feel we're putting the cart before the horse. I would gladly support the seat of IGA scope, but I can't ask taxpayers who have just been hit with a huge property tax increase. I don't want to go to them and say, well, this increase is only $23 a year per year, per year, per year, per year for five years, because that's still a major hit to to some people in my district. I can't ask them to pay that much based on what I know about the project that we're funding to date. I don't also don't like indexing future increases to the increase in the Consumer Price Index. This is a fee, so it's exempt from TABOR. We don't have to go to an election. It's a fee for service. I don't see the relationship between the increase in my groceries and the cost of my clothing versus the cost of civil infrastructure. I don't see the relationship between that being fee based. And so and finally, I did ask several times that the administration, George or Brendon, who is I think is on vacation from finance to consider factoring in or at least to address even if we can't institute it right now, a credit for people who install rain barrels that were just recently signed into law. We can now install up to two rain barrels, 110 gallons of storm runoff that I'm not dumping in your gutter anymore. Once I get them and I'd like to see the stormwater fee incorporate that in order to promote the use of rain barrels and sustainability. So, Mr. President, I have for those reasons, I, I wish I could support the rest of the rest of the scope without this large project, but that's all in one package. So I have to vote. No, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. Actually, water is neither destroyed nor created, so you'd have to dump your rain barrel water into something sometime. Right? Then go away. Or just. Just was thinking about your last thought. I. I want to say that one of the best things that ever happened to me was being able to serve on the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Board for about four years. Never knew that I would know so much about drainage and I have some really I even know some really big words and can use them in big sentences. I really want to thank Councilman Lopez for the questions he asked Paul Heineman. They were spot on and certainly part of the history of this whole city that he and I learned from. I don't know if he was on all six years, but certainly was on for the four years I was on. Really good questions. We always and so to some extent, when this project came to me, I felt a little bit prepared. And I can I can hear the questions that everybody has and that the public has. It's it's very complicated. It's water engineering called hydrology and hydraulics, just to show off a little. And then I could tell you about drop structures. And so it's really it's very, very complicated. But I did feel good that I knew some things about this. And one of them was that the lower basin is our worst problem in in the city. And always we always knew that. We talked about it all the time. And so it's not surprising to me that we have a project that perhaps does have some leveraging dollars from Seedat, that we might be able to tackle this in a pretty serious way. We're going to be able to fix it completely, but we can. It looks like we can tackle it in a serious way. But what's more, near and dear to my heart. And I and I understood Councilman Gilmore's feeling about District 11 is the upper basin, the Upper Montclair Basin, which is right in my district, and which in the last few years has some really has flooding. I mean, people with three feet of water in their basement. And 2013, I was outside with the first responders helping people rescue them from the cars and having parked cars floating down the street at 14th. And Jasmine and I've seen this and we've had public works out several times to talk to us that thanks to Mike Anderson, who has been telling us very clearly and very truthfully that it's a 20, $25 million project and it's going to take 20 years. I mean, he doesn't he hasn't budged from it. And he he it's not good news. But we he says we're trying to work on it. They dredged Farrell Lake at City Park successfully, meaning that some of this runoff that comes down from the upper basin can be captured in City Park like now. You know, they always have to start at the beginning of where the water flows out and then move up. So instead of having to flow to put the pipes in for Mayfair at the plant, they could now do some of that pipe work from Park Hill. It's a much shorter distance. They have to do pipe work. We are lucky enough in Mayfair to find a place to do an open channel which whose benefits were described very well by Councilman Gilmore the last time. Wish we could have an open channel. We have a beautiful one in Westerly Creek through the common grounds, but we don't where you have to fix the pipes. So when when you hear about people that say that there's nothing in here for anything else, they're wrong. There's $30 million in here for my district in the upper basin. It'll get us at least to the border of where we are. The East 16th Avenue project is the one that's just going to go. It goes through South Park Hill and then eventually extend to that 14th in Jersey place. The Jackson system through Congress Park is going to extend to Hale Parkway and get up to seven and Jersey. And I think I can say this now, I've been kind of keep it a secret from the neighbors, but 40, 40, Bayard, which is hilltop, which has no pipes at all under it and no out of that, any of those outfalls. And we have always used just the streets for their drainage, and you just wouldn't believe what that looks like in heavy rains. This gentleman over here found a pipe and now has found the money that we can start putting and put put outfalls that were never built when Hilltop was built because of this money . Now it's only 30 million out of 283, but I can't tell you how grateful I am that it looks like we are going to be able to do something a little sooner than 20 years at least. We're going to get ready to get on this project faster than we were. And I know that my neighborhoods will be very, very grateful. And so I will be supporting this project tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody for being here tonight. I look in this this audience in the pews and. There's so many people who I respect and who I admire and that are friends of mine on both sides. And I could say for all these issues tonight in these chambers. So, you know, here's. Here's the importance of these public hearings. You really get to understand and hear people's input, but then you really get to get one final straw and one grasp at that straw that you couldn't in committee with a time limit and ask those questions. I am. Think about. The issues that were presented to us leading up tonight, like 700 emails. I got the same letter and I read it not 700 times. It's like buying a book, the same book, like ten times to read it. But regardless if it was something that was a form, letter is still meant something and I and read through every single one of those questions. I in 23 worked doing the community outreach for the Environmental Impact Statement for I-70. I led. You mean a couple who led the yellow shirt brigade and went door to door throughout every single neighborhood from Globeville, all the way out to Green Valley Ranch. Every single neighborhood in between. Every single block I remember. I still have a survey or two. I saw pictures from it. And in that there were two main things that were obvious when we were looking at the impact statement. And they said and these were right from the doors of the residence, he said. Two things. First. Take the highway out of my neighborhood. And I couldn't agree more. Is the worst thing that's ever happened to that part of Denver. It's to build a highway right through these neighborhoods. The second option, the second idea that came from the community we didn't present options is just getting input. Not just access, but, you know, having the light rail go through there and all this other stuff. And the grocery store came out and the Superfund site started coming out. This is when they were cleaning it. They said, if we can't move it out of here, can you bury it like Sixth Avenue? And at least give us an opportunity to see the other side and not be in the shadows of the bridge. Yeah, that's what they said. God. Honest truth. And I've stuck to my guns ever since. Now, when this came in front of us and I'll get to my brain in a second. When this came in front of us by way of proclamation, I made sure that people knew that I voted no. I. Did my best. And I cast my vote. It wasn't enough. That was a proclamation. It's in Syria's hands. There's not much we can do in Denver about that highway, about where it goes, what it's going to be. The fact that we have that lowered alternative is, one, it's better than having the double decker that they're proposing from the get go. Here's the issue. If I knew that this drainage issue was going to be the Achilles tendon and somehow magically revive the reroute, I'd be the first to vote for it. I support the reroute. I supported the reroute. When it was still an idea. Though I disagree with the direction we've gone in as a state and as a city. Absolutely. That's the highway. Let's talk about drainage. Let's talk about this fee. We have nationally a D-minus rating in this country when it comes to infrastructure. I love my champion Broncos, but we've so quickly approved tax hikes on stadiums and ballparks. But we get cheap when it comes to our streets and our infrastructure in this country. I spent two years as a chair of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. During September 12th of 2013, you really watched our policies make a difference. Take flight. And it is absolutely true. I knew what Paul was going to say. Because that is very important. And if you think that it's far fetched here in Denver, try in 2007 when a young toddler who lived in Sun Valley in one of our areas that we had very poor infrastructure, got swept away with his mother in a flash flood and was killed right here in Sun Valley. People's properties and lives are at stake when it comes to drainage and stormwater. When it comes to flooding, I don't think about it or vote it lightly. Does $23 make a difference? Absolutely. I could tell you. I could tell you how many times and I'm speaking from privilege here. A lot of us are speaking from personal privilege from say this, we've blown $23 from our budget pretty quickly. I. Well for that family. Couldn't. I bet you I would have traded $23 any day. You could do that every single day of my life to have my grandson back. And that area in Sun Valley. It's completely different because of those kind of efforts, because of fees like this, because of the the resources we pour into our infrastructure. That's the only reason why I'm voting for this. Yes. Can it be the fuzzy details? Can our understanding be kind of mediocre? I mean, I'm not an engineer. I didn't go to school for engineering. I hate math. Right. But I understand my neighborhoods. I was born and raised here. J.J. was a third baseman when I was a left fielder. Here's. Here's what I'll tell you tonight. I support this. For those reasons. You could shake your heads. But the very basic function of government is to protect your lives and your property and to do things together that individually we cannot do ourselves by ourselves. And preventing a loss of life and property in this city is by nature its core function. So in saying that. And I'm supportive of this. And I represent a district where we have a river, where we have Sixth Avenue, where we have interchanges all throughout our neighborhoods. It can be done in a way that is smart and moves water away. I would rather have the whole bunch of folks now that are in a floodplain than Lakewood Dry Gulch because of FEMA's new map. I bet you they would rather pay $23 a month than that play the flood insurance it cost. They stay in that floodplain. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Lopez, for that great speech. I'm not an engineer either, nor is anyone on this council. But I have met with our city engineers numerous times to have my questions answered. And I have confidence in our engineers, their professional, honest and honorable, and have the best interests of our entire city in mind. And when they tell me that the Montclair and Park Hill Basins are a priority, I trust them. I am always reluctant to raise taxes, but our engineers have convinced of the need. Urban drainage and Councilwoman Sussman confirm that also. I understand that many people have great concerns about the design of I-70, and I hope that you share your concerns with CDOT and our governor and your state representatives, because I-70 is a state project and is not under our purview. I have personally met with Shannon Bhatt, the director of CDOT, and I learned a lot from him. Hey, they are planning on protecting I-70 from flooding. Denver's plans are to protect our neighborhoods. And it's simply untrue to suggest that we will not be protecting the neighborhoods. It's a politically charged issue. There's a lot of misinformation and accusations of conspiracies that really aren't true. I hope that we will continue to educate the public about this and that people will take the time to learn the facts. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. The last 9 to 10 months has been no joke and really tough. I think you heard tonight from many members in my community on both sides of this issue who are charged up, very smart individuals who are making great points on both sides. My neighbor at Armijo has and I have argued with each other for the last ten months about this issue. You know, and and like I said, I think folks have just made some incredible points. But this is this is where I land in their five points and I'll make them quick because it's 2:00. And you guys are incredible for being here. One is 3700 households will have a different level of protection than they ever have before. In my district. 1300 of them are in Elyria, in Swansea and they were have 100 year protection in my neighborhood. 2400 of them are in the secondary protection. They're not a hundred year flood protection, but they are an increased 20 to 30% protection in my neighborhood. Number three. Number two, 2011. I can't believe this hasn't been brought up on our most controversial votes was the fee increase. This was the fees. It approved fees from 2011, 2013, 70% increase in sanitary and 22% increase in storm. It's a 92% increase. That's 20% more than what we're approving today. We did not have one public hearing. Courtesy, public hearing. Councilman Flynn, you're your predecessor voted against it because the fish thought the fee was too high. But it went towards basic infrastructure improvement. Today's fee that we're approving for 2016, 22, 2020 is 75% increase. Four. How do we keep three? Actually sa slate. How do we keep Denver competitive? How do we look among our 19 other cities and seven other counties right now? Today we ranked 12 with a fee increase. If nothing changed for the next four years and the other cities did not do an increase, which we know they will because they need to increase their infrastructure. We'll be ranked seven. We are still competitive as a city when you look at Senator sanitary and stormwater. Other than the plat to Park Hill. There's eight other projects that impact my district eight and I can go through them all. But Joe Noble pointed out some of them huge impacts. Well, I was. Why is your district getting this? Because it's been overlooked for a hundred years. Some of my neighborhoods, this is the oldest part of the city.
Speaker 2: We need to invest in it.
Speaker 6: That's why. Lastly and this is the this is the big one. And and I'll go on record to say I will not approve a contract. George and Leslie and Jose, unless we can figure out this global peace. I feel like it's not clear. I feel like it's 50 to $70 million. Let's figure out a plan and take care of global. I understand why it's on the other side of the South Plat. But we need to figure out a plan. And I want to sit down with you all and I want to put that on my back and make sure that we figure out a plan going forward for 2017. I was 18, 2019. This is this is I want to tell the folks who who fought this pretty really hard and even my colleague, councilman forgot your name. Espinosa I'm just telling you, you've made this project and this process and the people around it actually better. And I think we all I know I have have learned exponentially more than I ever knew about or ever wanted to know about all of these issues. But this is not the end of the story. There's 39 projects that need to get contracts to go through city council. We need to continue working through this, and I hope that we can keep working to find these solutions and provide protections in our neighborhood. You know, I thought some of the folks have been asking for delay and we actually did a 45 day. It was a 45, 50 day delay for the pilots of Park Hill because the outreach wasn't good. I'll just be honest with you, and I'll tell you what. Outreach never is 100% ever. I don't care what anybody says. I don't care what project it is. And we can always get better. But I don't think 30 days I don't think 60 days is going to do anything to improve a consensus around this issue. This is a tough issue and it's infrastructure.
Speaker 13: So I'll be supporting this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, we have 1.5 billion in infrastructure needs and. We need to have a more robust conversation and an inclusive conversation and include interactive education in it. I don't care how smart or how, you know, you think you know how it works until you actually see where water flows. You don't know. And it's all speculation. And so to really take that to our communities, to bring that modeling to Montebello and Green Valley Ranch and give residents the opportunity to learn about this, because it's going to be a fight every single time if you don't invest in the education part at the forefront. And, you know, to my colleagues comments, every every contract over 500,000 has to come before us. We're going to ask the same questions every single time. How is there equity based on this project and how, you know? The other question is how for seniors and families who are on fixed incomes and this is a hard hit for them, what are those other options for them? What are we going to look at to, you know, not make those people feel silenced, but to really give them the opportunity to fully get educated and understand why this is a good investment. Maybe the investment in District 11 is going to be less than we would want it to be. But understanding through education that there are neighborhoods that don't have that infrastructure. And at the end of the day, if you're doing this right and from. An authentic place of inclusion. You know, infrastructure save lives, saves lives. It saves property. It makes our quality of life and our neighborhoods better. But. It's going to be a real uphill battle. If we're not providing that front end education and engagement of our communities, because it's everybody's right to understand why certain infrastructure is in their community or isn't in their community to protect and save lives and property at the end of the day. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to say it again. This project is being built in this scope at this time to drain ice to protect I-70. The. Problem I have with this fact is that she can't afford to give us the 67 million. They should keep some of it and put adequate ventilation in the tunnel they're going to build. Lake City staff tells me they need to do and they're not doing they need to keep some more of that 67 million and do adequate mitigation on nearby homeowners. That city staff continues to tell me they need to do I can't support funding. She does project when they're putting the burden on everybody but themselves to mitigate the construction and the post-construction traffic impacts on nearby homeowners. If my colleagues choose to not address that in this context, I understand and will respect their opinions. But I hope they will look seriously at what needs to be done on that project. That is extremely important. Another thing that I'm concerned about is somebody at some point in the city and this is just what I believe decided to try to brand this, that it wasn't connected with I-70. And and I think that was a mistake. And I believe that they recognize that. And in recent weeks, maybe the past month or two have started. Well, yeah, it is with this. Look, I've spent as much time as anybody on council trying to understand this. I've gone on bus tours and called and sat on busses, talking to staff and met with, you know, with CEDA, with the city, with urban drainage. While not as skilled as a journalist, as my colleague, Councilman Flynn, I was a journalist for a long time and I ask questions. So I finally was told if well, it is kind of connected in that, you know, they can build their own project. But since we're going to build this, they're going to they're going to instead of building their own outfall, they're going to knock into our project and we'll got the same outfall. Okay. That made sense to me. But it wasn't until a few weeks ago that I heard. Oh, yeah. And if we don't build our project, then they need to do these detention basins on the south side of the highway. So, you know, it's. It's confusing. There's just too much confusion for me to be able to approve this. Now, having said that. I'm looking forward. As I said last time to an opportunity to support I'll support a drainage fee increase. I'm not afraid of that. We need to build this stuff. It's important. I'm not going to argue the engineering of this project. You know, I'm a golfer. I play a city park golf course. Little bit worried about taking some trees. Trees will grow. Other people have addressed that. I believe we'll end up being a better golf course. But I can't I can't approve this project, this bill at this time. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Just a little jab on the math. Still doing some education here. When you take 92% of a low number and that's nearly doubling it, taking 75% of that is a significantly higher hit than 93% of that original. That's actually the equivalent. If you take it back and I don't want to confuse people too much as 144% on that initial. So it's not fair to sort of say, hey, we're only doing 72% of today's number because this is so much higher than 2011. And so that's that I just wanted to throw that out there. That is, again, that sort of obfuscates the real the totality of this cost. I mean, the burden that people are going to, in fact, have to to to pay. And, you know, to Stacy's point, I did the math is less than 2/10 of a percent of the total projects are going into District 11. But yet her constituents are going to be paying the same amount as my constituents on their improvement in pervious area. So 72% of this money, District nine, on all these things that we're talking about but not talking about yet. We're not in that 72%. We're not addressing global, you know, which there are so many different ways you can have a 100 year event come down that Platte River and inundate Globeville to the 15 foot mark. You know, this is. That's easy. Fix the breach in the levee. Make that priority one. Start there. You got in. Then you said the $132 million left over to do the original project that you were agreed to a seat on the idea a year ago. I just. This is not. This is. I'm sorry. This is what people elected me for, is to not just take business as your status quo, but to actually question and challenge and understand why it is that we do what we do when there's us. There's plenty of other options. And we don't we don't get to see the full gamut of what is being considered. But we get told in these briefings, it's this way until you question it. And then you get a different answer and a different answer. This is not a hide and seek game. We're here to represent the one ninth of the city that we mean, 1/11 of the city that we represent. And I fortunately have a very, very difficult district, some of the most politically active constituents in the city. We had the highest voter turnout in District one. In that last election in an uncontested we got 30%. That's pretty that's pretty astounding. That's because people are engaged. And so if I'm not engaged, I'm not doing my job. And so I've gone off the rails. But that said, here's my problem. You know, it was stated that your management, you know, the key thing is managing risk, but you haven't even caught or sampled the area 39th Avenue. You don't know the degree of contamination you have. I don't want this to start out the way Confluence Park is today. I don't have Shoemaker Plaza there in District one. Actually, that's on the other side of the river. Never mind. I don't get to look at Shoemaker Plaza. All right. Actually, half and half. My side is an open pit. Why? Because we ran into contamination more than expected. Figure it out. Drill it a few times. Now that's cheap. You know, do an environmental assessment, all these things, and not surprised that we're circumventing the need for an EPA process on this. An environmental impact study on a $206 million $288 million total. Gouged through the neighborhood. We're putting in an amenity 13 blocks north of our best, most premier park in the city, an amenity 13 blocks north that the people in Leary and Swansea can't even get to because they're going to have a 20 some odd lane wide lane highway dividing them. Maybe they can take that lid that hasn't defined over there and enjoy it that way. So, yeah, there's some harebrained idea about rerouting. Yeah, you could. There's some right away there. And guess what? There's a proposal for a boulevard. What's in the middle of that boulevard? Big, huge green space. Their idea. There are people in this room. Before that, it talked about sort of more green solutions for stormwater, for water quality. You could turn that green space in that in that boulevard into your water quality and get it to the same spot on the Platte River. Actually, you could get it to a better spot where you weren't. You're not crossing into a different watershed. And there's creative solutions that actually would do everything that we talk about and then some for this city, but no gun deal. We don't have to think about this. We just have to deal with the thing at hand. So just now is our chance as council, we could actually say, you know what, there actually is a better future for Globeville. Elyria swans here. Not just, you know, the the overconcentration of marijuana grows, not just in the shadow of purina pollution. I mean, why are we dumping 72 million mean $270 million now? How long is Goodwill hilarious once you've been there? You know, so now we've got, you know, nearly $2 billion in investment from the city and another billion and a half from that. And now this is the great the most important priority in this city. It's not for the people that are there. That's for damn sure. So we do. We could. We could. I mean, I got elected to to sort of create real change. And I think if we want to get a world class city we started need to start having world class leadership and making world class decisions, hard decisions about what is the future, the next 50 years of Denver. It is a national Western stock show complex. It is a stellar festival park down there, and it is a thriving Globeville area, Swansea and the closest neighborhood to Denver, downtown core. And those are the amenities that have been overlooked for years. It is better improved health outcomes. It is improved access to food is improved transit options for that area than not and not a white highway. So I won't be supporting this for all the things, all the good reasons that we should not support this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Captain Espinosa, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. We have massive a massive infrastructure need much bigger than this fee increase alone can solve. It's not acceptable to me to have sanitary sewer lines that are so old that they're leaking raw sewage into our storm system, which then goes untreated into the South Platte River. And it's no longer acceptable to me to simply build pipes that will spew water into the south lot without any water treatment. We have to do better than we've done in the past. It was just two of two years ago before I was on this council that I was fighting from the nonprofit sector. Exactly that project, a project that was a pipe into the Cherry Creek with absolutely nothing other than here's a giant pipe delivering water and all of the trash and all of the pollutants directly into the river. And as Councilman Lopez reminded us, it's no longer acceptable that we have areas that were flooding puts life at risk. I'll never forget the morning after that child was swept away on Lakewood Gulch because I had a group of third graders on a field trip, a conference park. Well, there were men in dove gear looking for the body of a toddler because we had a flooding issue that hadn't been mitigated. And that's, to me, where we spend this money. Without this fee increase, we'll lose the $25 million in matching funds that we need to unlock over a million in federal funds to fix Harvard Gulch, including taking my constituents in Overland Park out of the floodplain and out of the flood insurance requirement to fix River Gulch and to fix the breach from Sixth Avenue north to the city limit, including Globeville, Swansea and Elyria. Without this fee increase, if I-70 is built as he has planned, I don't believe that they'll mitigate that floodwater. They'll they'll do it in a way that is much worse for the South Platte River, with much less of any done to clean the water before reaching the South Platte. And we can do better by partnering on that project. I think that Joel Noble hit the nail on the head when he said that there is a disconnect tonight, seeing these two issues that we have talked at length about and what, two years of public involvement on a policy issue looks like and outreach efforts here. And it's not that it was for lack of number of outreach efforts, but I think that from top to bottom, there's a lot to be learned about the quality of of that process and how inclusive it is. And I echo a lot of what my colleague, Councilman Espinosa, just said. I also think that it isn't just engagement with the public, but also with council. I believe that city council as the ones who vote legislatively on this fee increase, we should have been included earlier in this process. We should have been involved in crafting this fee increase and the projects that were involved, not just brought to the table once it was crafted. And so I will challenge the administration to say I don't think that this is good enough in terms of outreach to city council. There are a lot of advocates for drainage issues, for storm and industry projects. There are a lot of really smart people up here, and I believe that we could have made this process better, not just in the outreach to the public and our constituents, but also in the end result, had we been included. And I think that's evidenced in how how many questions, how much we tried to get through in committees that were too short and into very long conversations up here on Monday nights. I think that we can do better as government partnering together as the different branches. We also have incredibly smart people, some of whom are in the room tonight, just in Croft, Kyle's Upland. What they're doing a rhino. My constituent, Adrian Brown, who finally called it quits but spoke earlier. We can do so much for water treatment and managing flooding through green infrastructure and pervious services, rain barrels. We have to be on the cutting edge on these fronts because we have a lot of making up to do for how we've handled these things in the past. I'm voting yes tonight because of all of where I started, and I'm doing my best as Adrian, my constituents said, to vote yes for the right reasons. And I'll continue to push on every single project that comes through council that's funded out of this increase to maximize both the flood mitigation but also make. Much of the water quality benefits and look for creative ways to think differently about green infrastructure and impervious surfaces. This fee increase will not get us where we need to be, but I think it will take a big chunk and I'm looking forward to pushing hard on how we spend this money to the best benefit for all of our city, our citizens, and our river. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clarke. Councilman. New.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I really believe in infrastructure improvement. Every great city has to have infrastructure improvements and the it has to make sure we have the funds to do that. But I also believe so strongly in what Councilwoman Gilmore has said. You know that the education and communication with our public is so important and it's missing. That's what all my residents tell me. I survey them. Several hundreds say to me, I want to know more information. I don't understand what this is about. I don't understand 383 million. Councilman Clark is absolutely right. Communication with city council wasn't great. We seemed like we were just fighting, you know, just struggling to get more and more information week after week, trying to pose questions. So we understood it fully. So. So I really would like to propose a 60 day delay to September one from July one, and with us taking action on August the 29th at the city council meeting. I don't know if I can make that a formal proposal or not, but but I'd like to propose that.
Speaker 1: Okay. So are you making a motion councilman there?
Speaker 2: I am.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we are mostly on the floor to delay found consideration for consideration for 60 days.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 1: Okay. Madam Secretary, you want a date?
Speaker 3: Certain.
Speaker 1: He said September 1st. Do you say September 1st?
Speaker 6: August 29.
Speaker 1: What's what's your day, councilman?
Speaker 10: New fee increase beginning September one with the city council date of August 29th. Decision policy.
Speaker 1: Okay. So delaying final decision until.
Speaker 10: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure we we get this correct so I'm quickly pull up my calendar so we're going to have future Monday councilman new and that future Monday that future Monday is what date.
Speaker 10: Good.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 10: Okay. Yeah. Monday, August the 29th. Postponed.
Speaker 1: Okay. Monday hours. Monday, August 20th. Councilman New has a motion on the floor ballot consideration postponed until Monday, August 29th. Madam Secretary, do you want to. You want to get that motion?
Speaker 4: I guess.
Speaker 1: They've been moved. Needs a second. Colleagues if we're going to if it has been second. All right. Any comments on the motion? Sure. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: I just want to thank you for putting offering that motion. I think it's actually a good, sensible thing considering the 1400 pages of information I got today. Thanks. That's all.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. All right. All right, so we have a motion to postpone. So you know the comments. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 4: New assessment.
Speaker 3: No Black.
Speaker 4: No Brooks. High Clerk.
Speaker 12: No.
Speaker 4: Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Flynn, I.
Speaker 14: Gilmore, no.
Speaker 4: Cashman.
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 4: Lopez. No. Mr. President?
Speaker 1: No. Councilman. Campaign manager.
Speaker 9: You know, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Mastectomy please those voting the results.
Speaker 4: For ice.
Speaker 1: Seven for I seven day. The motion to postpone has been defeated. All right, there or so we now have three or six up for vote. Any other comments on Council Bill 306c? None. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Flynn No.
Speaker 14: Gilmore I.
Speaker 9: Cashman No.
Speaker 2: Lopez I.
Speaker 4: Knew.
Speaker 3: SUSSMAN All right.
Speaker 4: Black Brooks. CLARK All.
Speaker 12: Right.
Speaker 4: This Wednesday? No, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Please, for the voting. Very nasty result.
Speaker 4: Eight eyes.
Speaker 1: Three days. A nice three days. Three or six has been placed on final consideration. Does pass one predetermined announcement. Monday, July 11th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill to 95 to change the zoning classification for city owned properties in the Villa Park neighborhood at various addresses. 1100 North Mead Street Unit Vacant. 11 nine North Main Street. Ten one 1001 North Main Street Unit Vacant. 10,000 North Newton Street. Unit Vacant. 1048 North Newton Street in a vacant. 1049 North Stewart Street. 1101 North Perry Street Unit Vacant. Have a quiet public hearing on counter Bill 392 Changing Classification. 446 North Sheridan Boulevard and a required public hearing on Council Bill 397 Changing the zoning classification for 2151 Eliot Street. Any protest against 295, three, 92 or 397 must be filed with the council offices no later than Tuesday, July 5th. See no other business. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
Approves an increase in sanitary sewer and storm water charges beginning 7-1-16. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) The Committee approved filing this bill by at its meeting on 5-4-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0420
|
Speaker 2: President. We do have one proclamation. Proclamation for 20. Really? For 20 oak anyway. Councilor has a.
Speaker 6: Woman.
Speaker 2: I just know. Does that councilwoman can age? Will you please read proclamation 420?
Speaker 11: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I proclamation 420 in celebration of Denver's 25 year history of nondiscrimination and equal rights for LGBTQ people. Whereas in 1973, Denver officially repealed ordinances used to criminalize homosexuality. And in the 1980s and nineties, society was beginning to see gay and lesbian individuals more visibly. But understanding was still limited and bias was still legally sanctioned, persistent. And many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people were still afraid to live openly for fear of violence, discrimination or other forms of non acceptance. And. Whereas, despite the antagonistic climate, Denver was a home and a regional destination for many LGBTQ persons with community institutions like the Center and Society providing support and advocacy and a number of accepting businesses serving the community. And. Whereas, local community leaders began appealing to the Denver City Council for Legal Protection from discrimination resulting in the Denver City Council adopting Ordinance 623 of 1990, a comprehensive civil rights urban ordinance that prohibited discrimination in employment, housing, education, health, welfare , public accommodations and commercial space on the basis of sexual orientation. And. Whereas, 25 years ago this month, opponents of LGBTQ equality responded with a ballot measure to repeal the protections for sexual orientation, which galvanized the LGBTQ community and allies to campaign to defeat the measure, resulting in 54.7% of Denver voters rejecting the backlash, affirming the legal right of their gay and lesbian family members, neighbors, friends and coworkers to live free of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Denver. And. Whereas, opponents of LGBTQ equality who lost Denver's municipal vote then took their fight to the voters of the state of Colorado in a high profile loss for LGBTQ Equality Amendment two, which would have prohibited cities like Denver and Boulder from including sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination ordinances. And. Whereas, once again, 20 years ago this month, justice prevailed in a Supreme Court decision striking down Colorado's amendment to Romer v Evans, which was also cited by the Supreme Court in striking down state bans on same sex marriage in 2015. Obergefell versus Hodges decision, therefore paving the way both for nondiscrimination and relationship protections for couples. Whereas the city and county of Denver and our elected officials have routinely served as national leaders in the advancement of LGBTQ equality, including the creation of the first Mayor's LGBT Advisory Committee, a zoning code amendment to ensure unmarried couples could legally live in single family zoned areas, and the creation of a registry for couples to document their committed relationships. And. WHEREAS, the city and county of Denver as an employer has also long provided equality for our employees by defining family to include intimate partners of the same gender for purposes of employee benefits like sick leave and health insurance. And. Whereas, legal protection from discrimination and equal access to benefits has freed many LGBTQ persons to more fully participate in Denver's community and economy, enriching the lives of not only those individuals and their families, but all of Denver. And. Whereas, the recognition and celebration of these historic civil rights milestones is especially important given the recent backlashes occurring in states like North Carolina and Mississippi, which have sought to sanction and institutionalized discrimination against LGBTQ people. And given the work we still have to do right here in Denver and Colorado, including overcoming lingering disparities in LGBTQ health , the struggles of youth who are coming out, and the barriers to full acceptance and economic opportunity for transgender and gender non-conforming residents. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, we honor our predecessors serving on the Denver City Council and in the office of Mayor in 1994. Their courage, courageous leadership in adopting civil rights protections for the gay and lesbian community and celebrate the voters of Denver. Upon the 20th anniversary of our rejection of hate in our great city, Section two, we honor all LGBTQ persons who came out from the margins to tell their stories and to be visible in ways that helped make these advancements possible. And we thank all the leaders, activists and allies who led these movements for justice. Section three We celebrate the 20th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's favorable decision in Romer v Evans to uphold Denver's place on the right side of history. And for all the advancements in progress that have taken place since that decision. Section four We denounce the proliferation of efforts to prevent or roll back progress for LGBTQ dignity or equal access to employment across this country. And we applaud the Department of Justice for its strong stance in opposition to these measures. And we stand in solidarity with those withholding travel and economic investments in states who have adopted anti equality measures in section five that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test, in effect, the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and then a copy be transmitted to Tina Scardina, the center and to the elected officials present today who played a role in this historic progress.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill six council proclamation 16 to ask for it to be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded, commented Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. It's very humbling to read this proclamation today from this dais. It's always humbling to serve the city and county of Denver as a transplant. To be accepted by your adopted city is always an honor, especially when you need to be intentional about learning the history that came before you. And it's especially humbling because I live so openly and freely with ease about who I am in a city that was built on the work of those who came before me. And so when I ran for office as an out lesbian, it was not difficult for me because of the work that happens before. My constituents rarely wanted to talk about it. It was not that noteworthy. And those who did were affirming. And that continues to be the case in my five years in service. These two things are related. The history of those who came before and the privilege of those who can live in our community, out, who can go to their jobs, who can contribute their talents in whatever department of the city it may be, from public works to parks to the contributions they make in every employment possible in this city, and to the places they can stay, restaurants they can go to, hotels they can stay at things that were not always possible, but did become so because of the work of those who came before. There are many folks here to be honored. I'm going to mention a few of them. Some of them will be coming up to acknowledge or to accept their proclamation. But please bear with me as I acknowledge council members who served in the 1990 City Council, my colleague Debbie Ortega , Councilwoman Happy Haines was also serving on that council at the time. I believe those are the only two we have from that year. If anyone's walked in. I missed you. I apologize. We have several council members who served afterwards during the litigation that followed during the policy changes for employment rates, and that includes Councilwoman Joyce Foster. And we also have Councilwoman Susan Casey here, who is writing a book actually about another woman. I'm about to acknowledge, Jean de Baffsky, who is the lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Romer v Evans case. So it was her litigation that allowed cities like Denver to keep the nondiscrimination clauses that we had long before the states were ready to do that kind of protection. We have Pat Stedman, who we know now is our state senator, but at that time was a new law school graduate and a leader organizing others against these measures. And if you council secretary could please put the the switch the screen. Oh, it's up there already. I'm sorry I missed it. What you see here is a poster that was used in the campaign to defeat this ordinance. And you can see the number of names of individuals. Many of those individuals were not gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender. They were straight allies who stood up and said, this is wrong. And they put their names there. And you can see on the top, I was kind of confused. It has the results of the vote. I had never seen a campaign poster with the results, the results of the vote on it, but that was added afterwards. So this was used to help to defeat this. We have here I mentioned that we have the center's president, Deb Pollock, is here. The center is celebrating 40 years this year of serving the LGBTQ community at a time when folks didn't even know how to come out of the closet and they needed that supportive environment and they hosted our pride parade. If you want to learn more about the history on June 13th, they're going to have a panel with some of the folks who were involved, even in the decriminalization that came in the 1970s. Right. So used to be arrested. For those you loved, if you got caught having a conversation about that, you could be arrested. And so we've come such a very long way. We have a new generation of folks with us today. The LGBTQ Commission of Denver has two representatives here, as well as derives from the Human Rights and Community Partnerships. He, for the past 12 years has been the one taking complaints which we still get. Sometimes we are work is our work is not done. And so it's important that we have these laws on the books because there are times when we still need to make sure that there is a legal process for folks who face discrimination. And so Darius does that for us. With that, I want to thank my many colleagues for your support on LGBT issues every day. Frankly, you're always there on these issues. This is not unique to this proclamation, but especially for co-sponsoring tonight. And I want to thank all of you for the work that you did to bring us to this day. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And thank you, Councilwoman Kennish. That was very, all very well said. So I'm not going to add anything except for to acknowledge a few other people who are here tonight. Darlene Ebert was a city attorney at the time and she helped to draft the ordinance. She is my friend and my constituent. So thank you, Darlene, for coming. And I also wanted to recognize, in addition to Joyce Foster, who is a former city council person, to city council people before me and my friend, she also was a state senator and her husband, Rabbi Stephen Foster, who have been long time advocates for this community and against discrimination. Rabbi Foster worked with Councilwoman Kathy Reynolds and Reverend Gil Horne on the ordinance, and Rabbi Foster also was a cochairman on the No on two campaign. So thank you both for all of your hard work.
Speaker 2: Thanks and thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm so excited and honored to be able to sit up here and support this today and to be able to say thank you from up here to all the people who have fought so hard to get us where we are. I don't usually quote musicians. I've really bad taste in music generally, but in this case there's a line that I take with me every single day in my life. It's from Nakamura's song, Same Love, where he says No Freedom Tower Equal. And I take that with me every day. It really spoke to me. I do believe that the chains that bind any one of us bind us all, and we are not truly free as a people until everyone enjoys the same freedoms and the same rights. We're not free until each and every person can be celebrated for who they are and live a life that is free from hate and discrimination. And as you see from this proclamation, we have come so far on on equal rights for our LGBTQ family members. And but that doesn't mean that we're done. And so I just wanted to take this opportunity to say thank you. Thank you. To celebrate for a second. But also just to say here that I stand ready. And I think it's pretty evident from this proclamation that this council stands ready to continue this fight and to continue to work until we are truly free, because we are truly equal in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of each other. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I am honored to be a co-sponsor tonight, as I was when Ordinance 623 was brought forward. Councilwoman, can you thank you for the 25 year reminder to the rest of the world all of what has transpired in in that time frame. I want to give a special shout out to Cathy Reynolds, who was the catalyst on city council that worked tirelessly with her aide, Judy Gold, who worked with the LGBT community to bring this legislation forward. They met for months and months to craft the language and then bring it forward. And it was passed by city council. And then to see what followed was a little challenging, but to see how the community really stuck together. And the night of the Supreme Court vote to see all the people celebrating in the streets of downtown, to realize that our United States Supreme Court saw that, you know, for local governments to be able to adopt their own legislation to deal with the rights of individuals and to treat everybody equally, was important to allow local governments to take the lead in doing that. And as several of my colleagues have said, the work is not done. I can remember just a few years ago working with one of the commissioners from the LGBT commission, making sure that our schools had a no bullying policy because there were LGBT students who were being harassed. And, you know, we worked with Denver Public Schools to make sure that they had an adopted policy that would be followed by all the schools to ensure that students could go to school and be able to learn freely without being intimidated or harassed by their, you know, by their their fellow students. So, you know, that's just one example of some of the challenges that we still deal with day in and day out. But just to be at this place in this city is a huge victory for all of my colleagues who were involved in this whole process to ensure that all individuals in this city are treated equally. So congratulations to everyone who was involved in the process. And again, you know, thanks for bringing this forward. I think this is one that is important to celebrate. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, councilman, new.
Speaker 9: Thank you and congratulations council acacia and really so proud to support this proclamation. And I'm so glad that we're here proclaiming equal rights for all of our citizens in our entire city and across this nation. And so I'm so glad we're getting past this stigma and having equal opportunities and rights for for everyone. During my campaign, I had some of the most fun. I did some political meeting, Senator blushing blue, one of the gay nightclubs on Colfax. And it was so incredible. I get the hardest questions about campaigning, both politics and and Denver at that meeting than any other setting I have. So I was so impressed with the quality of and the caring and the then the love that all our citizens have for our city. So especially having that night in black and blue and if you haven't been down to the gay rights gay pride parade, it was so much fun to do. Float there and see the thousands of citizen. Is it all along the streets just just celebrating and having fun and and it's quite an event. So I encourage you to go this year. And and thank you, councilwoman. Can you bring this up and proudly look forward to supporting it?
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman new Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Again, thank you for for bringing the proclamation forward. I just going to say that I one of the things that I relish about this position is the ability to sort of act on behalf of minority voices. That, to me, is a critical component to representative government. And so sometimes the majority is in the wrong and and they need somebody on this desk to be standing up on their behalf, you know, to see that there wasn't an initiated opposition. It's just I mean, it happened. It happened in California with Prop eight and where the majority was in the wrong. And I just it's never I mean, it's real easy to be on the right side of history when you know it's the right thing. I hope we don't have these things continue to come up, but they do. And I mean, we see it in national politics. And so and what's happening in North Carolina and time and time again, this is just going on and it's just awesome. It's just rambling. But I just want to say that I do relish this aspect in the representative form of government to actually act on behalf of the minority when they're in the right. And because a lot of times, more often than not, you would be surprised at how right the minority is in these things. So but thanks again for bringing this forward, Robin, and I hope I didn't deviate too far, but thank you to the community as well. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank my colleague, Councilwoman Canete, for bringing this forward and providing the opportunity to lend support. You know, I shared for the first time during the campaign a couple of years ago that I grew up at a time where it was not uncommon for adolescent males to make very bad and very cruel jokes about people who lived a different lifestyle. And I remain embarrassed and ashamed at my participation in that. And while my mind began to open during my college years, it was not until my children got into their junior high and high school years and began bringing home friends from the LGBTQ community. That I truly began to understand the breadth of the need for us to expand civil rights to all corners of our population. And I thank my children very much for that. You know, the old thing about the child being father to the man, and there's another personal note. As I was sitting at home yesterday enjoying my Memorial Day, I got a call from a friend who's whose son was in the ICU at a local hospital with a rather severe health challenge. And his son, who's 20 or 21 now, had been born and raised as a young girl and is identified as a male for about the last year. So in the midst of this young man's crisis, health crisis, I watched not just hospital staff, but friends and family struggle with him and her. His birth name is who's taken name. And it was just a poignant reminder about the complexity of these issues. And as has been said, I'm so proud of where we are as a city and just recognizing the long road yet ahead. And I just appreciate all of you who have worked so hard over the years in this area to make things a little bit easier for my young friend. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you.
Speaker 10: Councilwoman Kennish, for bringing this forward and.
Speaker 1: For your leadership and many things like this and for all of those.
Speaker 6: Here and out out of these.
Speaker 11: Chambers for fighting so strongly for these rights.
Speaker 6: And I am struck with.
Speaker 1: How connected we all are.
Speaker 6: In our history and our.
Speaker 4: Places, members of.
Speaker 1: Our family.
Speaker 4: Members of our.
Speaker 11: Friends.
Speaker 1: City leaders, city constituency. I am so proud to live in the Denver community, to live among the people who fight for things like this. Thank you all for all that you have done. And I hope that we can bring it. Keep bringing it forward.
Speaker 6: And follow your model. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, because I want to take I'm going to go to Flint and Brooks as they hadn't.
Speaker 4: Had a chance. I don't know why they're showing up. Okay. I did not.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very proud to support this. And I just wanted to bring out one other name that hasn't been mentioned yet. And having been around at the time that all this was occurring in the immediate aftermath of the vote, within a week in the Webb administration, Mayor Wellington Webb, City Attorney Dan Muse announced his intention to challenge this in court on several grounds, one of which was Denver's home rule status. And I think we joined with Aspen and a few other localities, Boulder, and I think there was one other in that action. And Dan Muse, with whom I had the newspaper and many other folks at the other newspaper, had many go rounds over the eight years, I believe he was in the city attorney for Mayor Webb on this matter. It was to see him stand for this and to pursue it and to file the briefs and to follow it through all the way to to the resolution. It was very inspiring. And I just wanted to bring bring up Dan Muse, his name as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilwoman Canete, for bringing this forward. And also just inspired by my colleagues words. And I just want to just end it with the obviously a little quote from our main man, MLK. You know, who who just said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And and that's why we're doing this. And we as allies, this is this is our duty and this is our responsibility. And as leaders, this is our responsibility in this city. So excited to stand up and be a co-sponsor to this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Any other comments on our commission for 20? I will I will simply add. Thank you, Councilman Kenneth, for bringing this forward. I say all the time, Denver is a remarkable city for for a number of reasons. But if you look at the diversity of this council body, it's probably, I believe, the most diverse in Colorado and other parts, because Denver is the city that really looks at people for what they bring to the table. And as Councilwoman Kinney's talked about, things that shouldn't matter don't in Denver. But the reality is, if some of us were running for office and other parts of this country, we would have no shot because prejudice is alive and well. Hatred is alive and well. And we must never forget that. We must continually fight that. I think about it wasn't that long ago in the time when I served in the military. You could openly love your country, but you couldn't openly love your partner. And I know several vets who had to get out of the military because of that law. And the absurdity of that, it's so obvious to us now, but it wasn't at that time where people had to hide who they were, if they wanted to, if they wanted to serve their country. So I'm thankful for Denver, for they continue to fight, but we must recognize there's still more work to be done. And thank you to all the people who came before us to blaze this path for us. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 4: Brooks.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: Clark. Hi. Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 8: Flynn, I.
Speaker 4: Gillmor, I. Cashman. Hi. Can each.
Speaker 11: I.
Speaker 4: Knew Ortega I. Susman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: All right. Madam Secretary, clean clothes are very nice results. 12 days to apply for 20 has been adopted. Councilman Canete. Is there someone you like or people to invite to the podium or see the proclamation?
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to invite four representatives. They'll be very brief, but Tina Scardina, who is a public works employee and one of the activists who really helped to spur this this movement and lead some of these efforts for the ordinance. Happy Haines and Darlene Ebert, who, as Councilwoman Black mentioned, helped to write the ordinance, and Jean Dabrowski, who led the effort to defeat Amendment two in the courts. So they'll they'll just going to speak in quick succession. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much for the acknowledgment tonight. Members of council, this is a humbling occasion. I just can't even believe my. I'm here. It's kind of like a dream. This is just absolutely wonderful. As you outlined in when you read it? Councilwoman Kennish There is a lot of things that happened and each one of those things that she mentioned has a story and has a timeline on it and had a lot of people that worked on it. And that's a lot of activism that happened in the city that made it better. I spent the good part of my twenties and thirties doing it, and it really did. It changed my life for the better. What I would like to do tonight is to acknowledge the straight allies that really made this work. As much as the activism, as much of the activism that we did, we didn't really know what we were doing. But Councilwoman Reynolds did. Councilwoman Donahue did, Wellington Webb did. Those were some of the leaders that we went to when we didn't know what the heck to do. A lot of the history that you talked about happened in this room or it happened in the mayor's office or it happened in one of the courtrooms in this building. This building in this city means that an awful lot to me. This is my hometown. I'm so proud to be here. And if it wasn't for Reynolds and Donahue and Mayor Webb, I probably wouldn't be here either. But my gratitude goes out to you, Councilwoman Kenney, and all members of city council to have a unanimous proclamation. As you said before, nothing was so obvious back in the eighties and nineties we had to count votes when we didn't really know how to do that, but we were successful. And there are a lot of folks here today in this room that did a lot of work and a lot of people who aren't here that did a heck of a lot of work. I'd like to thank them for everything that they did. And again, thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 12: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President, members of council, I'm honored and proud to stand here on behalf of my former colleagues on the city council. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennish, for reminding us of a history that we might be doomed to repeat if we don't take these moments to think about the history. I have to echo people's sentiments about the leadership of Councilwoman Cathy Reynolds and her aide, Judy Gold, who worked tirelessly with other members of the city council. And two mayors that started this process started with Mayor Federico Pena, and it was carried through and really completed under Mayor Wellington Webb and and my extraordinary friends and colleagues, Rabbi and the Honorable Joyce Foster, who have been on the front lines of every battle for justice and equality in this town for as long as I can remember. I just kudos to that extraordinary leadership and to those young activists who wouldn't say no and who stood in front of this whole community and and really displayed their leadership . One final thing. As you saw the the poster. We'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge the citizens of this wonderful city that we're all proud to serve and time and again stand on the right side of justice. And they did that in 1991. And so we would be remiss if we didn't say thank you to our voters and to the citizens of this city. Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Hello members of Council and thank you for this opportunity to recognize this ordinance.
Speaker 11: So my name is Darlene Egbert.
Speaker 6: And I was in the city attorney's office here in Denver for 17 years and was honored to be asked to work on drafting this anti-discrimination ordinance, which was one of the most significant ordinances that I was involved with.
Speaker 11: And there was a team that took over a.
Speaker 6: Year to carefully craft every provision of this ordinance. And it was such a.
Speaker 11: Dedicated and devoted team of people that really wanted to to make a.
Speaker 6: A very ironclad law which amendment to tried to strike down. But Denver was.
Speaker 11: And was a plaintiff in.
Speaker 6: That lawsuit, along with the cities of Boulder and Aspen and Telluride, whose ordinances were also would also have been struck down by Amendment two.
Speaker 11: And really through the yeoman efforts.
Speaker 6: Of Jean de Borowski.
Speaker 11: As lead attorney in that case, but so many other.
Speaker 6: Devoted attorneys and and members of the community who fought that fight.
Speaker 11: We had cases in Denver County excuse me, Denver District Court that we won. I think we were one of the first cases live on court.
Speaker 6: Television, which existed at the time. And then we went on to the Colorado Supreme Court, one there, and then ultimately in the United States Supreme Court, which was a tremendous victory for the city of Denver and its citizens.
Speaker 11: So I was very.
Speaker 6: Proud to have been part of that effort. Thank you. Thank you all for supporting all of the efforts.
Speaker 11: That have been made over the years and for the proclamation today.
Speaker 1: There were several plaintiffs in the Amendment two case who lived in Denver.
Speaker 6: Couple of them. Richard Evans, who was the lead.
Speaker 1: Plaintiff, was an.
Speaker 4: Employee of.
Speaker 11: The city and county of Denver.
Speaker 6: And Angela Romero was a police officer. And we felt that we had the individual plaintiffs.
Speaker 11: We needed to make our case.
Speaker 6: And it would help immensely if particularly the city.
Speaker 11: And county of Denver would be a plaintiff.
Speaker 6: The reason for that was because court precedent, an amendment to was passed, was against LGBT rights across the board. The U.S. Supreme Court's.
Speaker 11: Only precedent in the area.
Speaker 6: Was a case called Bowers versus Hardwick.
Speaker 11: Which upheld an anti-sodomy law in Georgia. And the language in that opinion.
Speaker 6: Was just horrific. So we thought it would be very, very useful.
Speaker 1: To have the.
Speaker 6: City and county of Denver as a.
Speaker 1: Plaintiff.
Speaker 6: Because it would make it easier for a district court judge sitting in this building to find that Amendment.
Speaker 11: Two was unconstitutional.
Speaker 6: And I can't tell you how much I.
Speaker 11: Think that was important.
Speaker 1: Because the prestige of the city and the elected officials of the city saying.
Speaker 6: We think this initiative is awful, was very helpful. Jeff Bayless was the trial court judge here.
Speaker 11: And as Darleen.
Speaker 6: Said, it was a royal.
Speaker 11: Event. Her words, four weeks.
Speaker 6: One week of.
Speaker 11: Preliminary hearing and.
Speaker 6: Forum and three more weeks of trial, first in.
Speaker 11: January 1993 for the preliminary injunction.
Speaker 6: And then again in October.
Speaker 11: 1993, when we.
Speaker 6: Came back from the Colorado Supreme Court for the full trial Court TV broadcast. The entire trial across the nation live. And the Colorado Supreme Court arguments were broadcast on a local television live. So it.
Speaker 11: Was an opportunity.
Speaker 6: To help educate and begin to educate people across the country about what this type of.
Speaker 11: Discrimination meant, what kinds of things we certainly did not want to do.
Speaker 6: And really began a road that has not been nearly as long as I thought it was going to be to get as much successfully obtained to protect LGBT rights. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete, and thank you all so much for speaking on this. All right. That was our only proclamation. So we're moving on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in celebration of Denver’s 25 Years of National Trajectory for Equal Rights and LGBTQ Protection.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0343
|
Speaker 4: I know with the previous one listed here, we did a lot of work for youth and I appreciate all the efforts that were done to ensure that local providers were being factored in to some of the work that they will be compensated for. You know, by having out-of-town people come in that don't know our community, it was going to be harder to be able to reach the clients. And I'm just curious how we're going to be able to do that with our disabled community. Sure. Thank you so much for the question and good evening, members of Council. I'm Denise Bryan. I'm the director of Workforce Development. And to answer your question, that is ongoing. But agencies like Bayard Enterprises and others and the Vocational Department, Rehabilitation Department with the state, we will continue those relationships to make sure that we're able to serve those constituents. Okay, great. I appreciate that. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'll take all the questions, comments, 343 scene and we'll go to the next one. Resolution 270. Councilwoman Ortega, would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 4: I have a question on this one as well. Go right.
Speaker 2: Ahead.
Speaker 4: And. So this is one of a series that I think we're going to be seeing, and I think it will be helpful for council as a whole to see the total amount of spend and what those deliverables are going to be for the entire planning process that we're going to be undertaking.
|
Resolution
|
Approves a contract with Arbor E&T, LLC doing business as ResCare Workforce Services for $6,719,694.00 through 6-30-2017 to provide comprehensive services including business development, employment and training services to jobseekers (including TANF recipients) throughout the City (OEDEV201627862_00).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0270
|
Speaker 4: And. So this is one of a series that I think we're going to be seeing, and I think it will be helpful for council as a whole to see the total amount of spend and what those deliverables are going to be for the entire planning process that we're going to be undertaking. I know that we're going to have consultants for each of the four plans that will be brought forward. And this is the first, I think, of of the others to follow. But having that information available to us will be extremely helpful to know. And I know that staff is doing their rounds with all of council and trying to walk us through and help us understand the broad breadth of of what these plans will entail, but really understanding the total amount of spend. So my question for you is. The 2016 budget. Was this money factored into the 2016 budget, or will we at some point have to do a supplemental to cover the costs of these contracts that will be brought forward for these poor planning efforts? Good evening.
Speaker 10: Thank you for the question. My name is Christina.
Speaker 4: ARONOFF and I'm the project manager for the Denver Mass Transit. It's one of the four plans that's under this famous Denver, right, that you'll start hearing about more.
Speaker 10: In regards to the budget. This, if I recall, is a 2015 CIP ask. It was a combination.
Speaker 4: Of blueprint, Denver Transit and some other planning.
Speaker 10: Efforts that was asked back in.
Speaker 4: 2015. So that's the money that we're using now. We are having discussions about other budget needs. It depends where these plans go because of implementation going forward. So okay, so the request to have the comprehensive budget, the expectation of what the city will spend for consultants to do this. Can that be provided to all of council so that we have a clearer understanding of what the total amount is that's expected to be spent?
Speaker 10: Yes, that's correct. Blueprint Denver has already come through council. They were at 700,000, I believe.
Speaker 4: Denver Transit is coming through. Council right now is 700,000. The budgets I think are around 350. I'll let the other project managers speak to for those budgets for Denver, most pedestrian.
Speaker 10: Trails and.
Speaker 6: The game plan update those are a little smaller budget so those didn't come directly to.
Speaker 4: Council for approval. Okay, so those are under 500,000, but I'm happy to provide.
Speaker 10: The totals.
Speaker 4: For you after. And is that expected to be the total amount or do we anticipate having additional dollars put into those budgets?
Speaker 10: Those are the total amounts that will get us through.
Speaker 4: The end of the planning process as.
Speaker 10: Scoped additional amounts to be determined as we get through the process, especially with transit. This is our first transit plan will be interesting where the implementation.
Speaker 4: Strategies take us beyond. Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Actually. Well, maybe this is a question for Gabby. I meant to ask this of the mayor, but I just haven't put myself in that position yet. So I've asked from the floor. It's not lost on me that I was at the Mayor's Housing Affordable Housing Summit with OED talking about Blueprint Denver at the exact time when there is a launch by CPD of Denver. Right. And Blueprint Denver. And to me that's a sort of coordination fiasco. Like we should not have two agencies competing and discussing the same thing at the exact same time. So who is responsible for all the coordination of all these plans simultaneously? Do we have some sort of czar or head that is bringing all this stuff together? I'll say, Kelly, lead it. And DCC. Is there somebody that's in charge of all these agencies that are sort of working on this sort of grand unified plan that is the person that is in charge of coordination, the Denver.
Speaker 4: Right. Specifically? Yeah. Yes.
Speaker 1: We have a combination that we have a big team.
Speaker 4: I think you heard about it a couple of times at committee presentations.
Speaker 6: We have a multi plan coordination team.
Speaker 4: We meet bi weekly and there are some directors from each of the departments to sit on that. We also have executive leadership team meetings such as Jose and Happy and others and Brad from CPD.
Speaker 6: That meet regularly to.
Speaker 10: Coordinate this effort.
Speaker 4: And because we're just now starting, we're now just starting to outline the other outreach activities of other major things such as DCC. So we make sure that we coordinate with their efforts because we see that there's a good chance of an overlap of duplication, of outreach that will be valuable. Actually, that may be Denver, right? Is that ED and DCC event or vice versa?
Speaker 10: So it's.
Speaker 4: Really important to coordinate not only with these four plans, but also with.
Speaker 3: The. So there's some pretty high dollar big cheese with lots of obligations. Is there somebody who's who basically. I know it's the mayor, but is there somebody with some real time that can focus on this that can actually make sure that all those guys are in in in congruent?
Speaker 4: We actually hired a consultant team of some budgets out of each of our planning budgets, some who's helped us brand the Denver right. And they are on task to help us coordinate some of these efforts of going out to the different areas and identifying and I know we're also talking about internal staff to help us organize and be dedicated to help us outline where we need to be, because this is a lot for the public to take in and to coordinate that.
Speaker 10: It's very.
Speaker 7: Important.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so it is it's already concerning to me that I don't know how I missed the fact that we were branding this Denver. Right. I do didn't know about the multi plan coordination and I mean attempt to coordinate all these in the 18 month effort. But I'm over at this other thing and all of a sudden Denver right. Gets launched and it seems like it's anything but Denver. Right. You know, when we're when we're already discombobulated on day one. So it's concerning to me how we're going to go do this forward. So I appreciate my colleague Debbie asking me Councilwoman Ortega, sorry, asking for that sort of full outline of all of the consulting fees, because we are paying a healthy amount for public outreach. And I don't want it to just be branding. I want engagement and I want it coordinated. So I think everybody else here expects that as well.
Speaker 4: And I'll gather up a summary and provide it for you on the budget and also the outreach going forward.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, the.
Speaker 9: Last question on this today, follow up on Councilman Ortega's and Rafael's comments about the budget, the sort of parks priorities for 2017, about $200,000 listed for outreach for the planning process, which they need. The outreach price for parks especially is so critical, and obviously I don't have any objection to that. But as you're accounting for the funds there, I'm sure there's going to be 2017 items in there related to the planning process, and I'm sure they'll be needed, but it would be nice to get a full accounting of that. So we are all excited about the planning processes that have begun and hope they'll get going very quickly and look forward to a final product on this. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, councilman. You and the questions and comments to seven zero. All right scene none will thank you will go to the next one bills for introduction 375 I believe. Madam Secretary. Councilman Black, would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 1: Just to comment, please.
Speaker 2: Go right ahead.
Speaker 1: Tonight, we are hopefully going to pass these six ordinances that are designating nearly six acres to our Denver parks. And I just wanted to thank Scott Gilmore and your staff for prioritizing this. Councilman Clark mentioned it in a committee meeting the other day.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Professional Services Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Nelson-Nygaard Consulting Associates for professional transit and city planning services.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a three-year $700,000 contract with Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates for transit and city planning services to development a City transit master plan (Denver Moves: Transit) (201627471). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-20-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 4-20-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0306
|
Speaker 2: So, Councilman, you can question Councilman Flint for a vote. Yes. All right. So I thought. All right, so, Councilman Clark, will you make the motions for us today?
Speaker 9: Happy to. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: First thing we need to do, we need to have 306 ordered published.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Four, move that council, bill. Three six we ordered published.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and second it. And Councilman Ortega, I know you have in the script for postponement, we first have to vote on the publication descriptor. Kind of wrong the way it's written. So should three or six pass on publication? Then I'll come to you for the postponement. But the Kersey public hearing. Feel free to offer that when you come to your comments. You. All right. First one in the queue. That's Councilman New.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry. I guess so many questions. We really didn't have much time in our in the committee for a lot of discussion. And so I do have a lot of questions, I think, for wastewater. Is it Bruce Burdick? You pronounce your last name correctly, I hope, which I probably did not.
Speaker 7: Hi. It's Bruce Janek, H.R. and Ike Wastewater.
Speaker 9: Right, my colleagues. There are three documents that I put on the. On your desk. Each one. There's. There's the consulting report that this is. I saw this for the first time over the weekend. It's not quite completed, but there's a map on page 12. There's three maps I'm going to ask my questions to you may help you as you look for. So page 12 and the concern report is the map of the 2014 master plan. And I apologize to the public. We'll post all these maps so you can have the available questions. And so says 2014 storm drainage masterplan. The the second is is is a water quality map you'll see this is they're laying it out says overall water quality study basin scoring. And the last is, is the map that George Delaney's been using for us in our briefing, which is the, the $383 million plan that we have going forward for these fires tonight. So you got those three and it'll help you figure those questions. I was when I was looking through the consultant report this weekend, I had no idea. I didn't get quite oriented to how complex this project is and this whole master plan is. Now, I learned that this plan is $1.5 billion, the entire plan for the master plan. So it's quite impressive and I'm not surprised. I've been in large cities where these infrastructure projects are are coming right to the forefront all the time. It's quite, very, very expensive. So one question I have is about the the map on this page. Well, that has the master plan priorities and the scoring that was developed by the consulting firm. And I was really impressed by the methodology and the way they scored things. Could you talk a little bit about this map and then also the map for the $383 million? How did it translate? How did the scoring and the consulting report, even though it's not quite finished, how did it translate to the 383 plan?
Speaker 7: Sure. Let me I'll try my best, councilman. Thank you. So the storm metrics map there, 67 based on citywide. And we we always ask ourselves, where is the highest priority, where should we spend this money? And so we thought if we do this in an objective way. And so we developed these criteria where we say, well, where's the flooding? Where is the storm the most undersized? And then we came up with other those were kind of the technical criteria. Then we came up with some more social criteria, like social justice. We prioritize residential versus commercial and industrial, and we kind of put that all together in a very metrics based system. And it scored these 67 basins and we created this heat map. And as you can see, the red is kind of the highest priority basins. And lo and behold, it's the oldest part of town, which in common sense, it makes it makes the most sense. And you see some of the lesser priority are those newer areas like Lowry Lake Stapleton, where we've seen big storms hit those areas recently. And we really don't have the complaints in those areas. If you do have if you do flood, please call us. We're happy to document these, but that's kind of how it came about to answer the second part of your question. So that's looking at the whole city at 40,000 feet. Now we have a bucket of money and we developed this six year plan and we say, well, where can we start to spend these this bucket of money? We just can't spend it all in one place. We separate in a different buckets, but we have these large projects which have a need. There you go. I'll go to that one. And so we said, well, we're going to we're going to kind of split this up and we're going to prioritize these major outfalls where there's the greatest need. And so you see, there's a correlation between the red basins, the highest priority basins that you saw on the previous map versus this is our six year plan with the proposed rate increase. So if that answers your question, I think they correlate nicely. One kind of objective and then this one is the actual plan. Implement implementable plan with the rate increase.
Speaker 9: In parts of the $383 million plan. There are areas outside this red area. There will be projects that will be needed. And I don't disagree with as a lot of stream storm drains, we've got to fix these problems and protect our citizens and our homes. So how did how did that translate to to the the 383? There are some areas that are really not included in the 383 that are in the red, but not most of it. So how how did you determine those areas that are outside of the red high priority area? Right.
Speaker 7: So, you know, there's there's these critical programs. There's these annual programs that we want to do that help people that help these localized flooding areas. And that's our that's our general storm. And so that's a citywide program, about $25 million over six years. There's a water quality program about the same amount. Then you see the red. Those are the focus basins. And that was the one you're talking about that has the kind of the most money, the biggest bucket. And then the blue lines you see on the map there, those are our focus waterways because our waterways, they have a need as well. A lot of them are undersized. Then they also have some water quality problems as well.
Speaker 9: So it's professional engineers and using sonar determine those is the high priority areas that need to be fixed for sure.
Speaker 7: We tried to divvy it up kind of fairly based upon this judgment, but it's also very objective with the metrics.
Speaker 9: There's 383 million. It's going to be it's about one fifth of the or maybe a little bit more, 30% of the 1.5 billion. Our plan and this is going to be six years. Is there a phase two that's going to happen in the six years after this one that we'll be able to use? Some of the the $383 million in fees will still continue, you know, in year seven. So unless they're revealed, that money will still be there. Is there is part of this consulting report that's going to be completed. Is it going to identify the phase two so that the public will know what areas are going to come next for for assistance?
Speaker 7: I think the metrics is a tool, right. It's it's going to identify those priority basins. And we feel good that those priority basins are kind of there pretty good. The second part of this metrics is going to identify specific projects within each basin, because there's a chance that there may be a high priority project in a low priority basin that makes sense or vice versa. There of high priority basin doesn't mean we should just go build every single project in that basin, the red basin, so to speak, and then we'll move on to the orange ones and then the yellow ones. There's a prioritization within that prioritization, if that makes sense. So, you know, so the 1.5 $383 million takes a big bite out of the apple. But there definitely there are still be needs after the six years.
Speaker 9: Okay. Going through the water quality map, then, how does that relate to the storm drainage map? Because there are some areas that are considered high priority to storm drainage, but really low priorities in the water quality. How does that fit together? Because 21 million of the 383 million is for water quality.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry. I was messing with the computer. I heard water quality and prioritization.
Speaker 9: How does that fit with the storm drainage? Some areas in the storm drainage your high priority and and really are lower priority for the water quality as well. I'm trying to figure out how that fits together.
Speaker 7: Right. So so water quality is kind of its own little entity. Water Quality Projects is a program that we want to really improve because there's mandates by the EPA, by the CDP to clean the water before it enters our waterways. Right now, there's pollutant levels that are, quote unquote, too high. And we want to we want to take care of that. So water quality ran its own metrics based upon their own criteria. And to me, when you look at the water quality map, you're looking at the kind of the dirtiest basins. And it's really that that for urban jewel, it's that first half inch of rain. It's those oils, it's the sand. It's everything that washes into the into the river. It's not necessarily the two or three feet of flooding that you would see in a major storm. So water quality has its own, quote unquote, bucket in our six year sip at that $25 million range or so. And the water quality program is it's a standalone program, but there's kind of a synergy between water quality and storm because you can build projects together. So it's separate, but yet it's it's very in line with Lake Montclair. That basin in the middle is a high priority basin, just like it is for storm. But they use different metrics, different criteria.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. The I'll get a lot of questions about the Park Hill and its relationship to the I-70 storm drainage project. So can you can you describe and explain whether apply it to parking areas related to I-70, drainage or not?
Speaker 7: And I'll probably ask my colleagues to answer that.
Speaker 10: Um, the. Since I'm here. I'm Leslie Thomas. I'm their city engineer in public works. Thank you for that offer. To clarify, the drainage project that we're doing here is solving a major drainage issue that we have within the city. It is not happening because of I-70. There are two separate things happen to be in the same place. Very confusing. But the drainage that we're doing here is to solve the drainage problems in the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 9: I understand that the budget total of 206 million for the project of Park Hill really contains 54 million for the A70 drainage. So it's really 152 million for a plant market, is that correct or. Is that.
Speaker 10: Right?
Speaker 9: Most spring in these numbers.
Speaker 10: You're springing these numbers on me here. If you really want to talk numbers, Jamie can come up and really clarify for us. I think one of the main things that I want to make council aware of is that with the AIGA, we see that they are providing us contributing to our project to leverage those dollars. We are there's no dollars going to see that.
Speaker 9: Would would you be doing these drainage projects, whether our services construct constructed or not?
Speaker 10: Yes, sir, we would be.
Speaker 9: Okay. So they're high priority, just like the maps?
Speaker 10: Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay. The other issue is the golf course, you know, and being a golfer is really torn between this, I hate to say a big retention pond, bill, but also I see an opportunity to improve that golf course which it needs. So I have my buddies. Magoffin Buddies, we, we don't play over there much, but we would love to see that golf course improved, especially the, the views of the city that are just spectacular from that golf course is a city considering an arrangement with a golf professional design firm like Nicklaus or any of them to to really try to if you're going to if you go to tear up the golf course with the drainage, are we going to put it back into a much more higher quality golf course?
Speaker 10: Yes, we will be doing a RFP reviews, that type of thing for a design builder that would include a golf course designer and a contractor that specializes in doing that type of work. So we're excited to be able to put it back in even a better condition than we have it now.
Speaker 9: Right now, I think it'd be a real asset for the city. We feel a little rushed on on these fees coming forward, you know, and I do, especially maybe my other colleagues know, but maybe I just didn't what is oriented to the whole project as much as I should have, and maybe it's part of my fault. But is there a sense of urgency about getting these fees increased tonight? Is it have a relationship to the idea with deadlines that are really urging us to come forward and do this tonight?
Speaker 10: Yes, we have an opportunity to leverage our dollars now with the seed dollars. And part of that idea, often when people make contributions to your project, they have things they would like to have in return. And so to have the the timing work out is a benefit to to their project as well as to our city. So the timeline is important to us to allow us to get going on our project and serve the citizens of Denver as well as leverage what's happening in our community.
Speaker 9: Was there a particular reason why these fees, at least for last year, any piece of the IJA not approved last year when the idea was approved.
Speaker 10: At that time we were working with budget and management and our rate consultant ref. Tell us still to really understand what the needs of the Enterprise Fund were, it's a utility and so that is a rate based enterprise. And so we needed to understand what was needed to do that business and we were still in that process. And the outcome of that study in that conversation is what we bring to you today.
Speaker 9: I just do a survey with my district in residence and we had about 500 responses and and we asked a couple of questions. Do they support the the plan? And and 43% said yes and 20% said no. But what was surprising to me is 33% said they don't know, they're not sure they need more information. So I'm sort of worried about whether the general public understands the complexity of this whole project, which and the need and we've got to do this restructure projects. There's no question in my mind about that. But understanding all the relationships and complexities of that, a sort of took that away. I also had a question about Globeville. I misstated and said that there is a hundred year plan with or not, but it could be a potential and they're going to do a study. And I think that everybody that the responses I had on March 11 and the various supportive mitigation plan, which I believe you said the city would help support if there is a problem with that area.
Speaker 10: Yes.
Speaker 9: Right. In the last I asked about voter approval on this, you know, this is 383 million. And I know I'm not going to talk about funding source was fees or taxes or whatever. It's all coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. So the ten year, you know, better bond issue is 550 million and the one that's coming up hopefully in 2018, me I hear it can be that high, maybe 350 million. So it's quite, you know, sort of surprising to a lot of my residents got a lot of comments about, wow, you know, the largest increase that wastewater has ever had was 50 million and now it's 383 million. And so they were just confused about how how how that came about was so suddenly. So I think it just goes along with that need for more information. So I really got that question about whether would. Problems with it, cause if we did defer this to for voter approval in November.
Speaker 10: I'm going to turn to the makers and the lawyers.
Speaker 5: I'm George Delaney, chief operating officer for Denver Public Works. As you know, the wastewater fund's an enterprise. It's really a utility. And as a utility, it is funded through fees and fees under TABOR, as an enterprise, recognized enterprise are not required for a vote of the people. We have to keep in mind and Leslie mentioned this is a utility. Utilities have to cover their costs. And you're we're asking you today to determine what those costs are going to be, because we're asking for a certain level of investment in capital and for the reasons we're giving you. But once you determine what that level of service is, then the utility has to raise the dollars that it needs to provide that service, whether it's Denver Water, CenturyLink, Comcast, Verizon, they're all utilities. And you don't vote on utility increases because you vote on the level of service you want from that utility, and then that utility does the cost accordingly. So because and I think that was recognized in the TABOR Amendment that you don't have to vote on fees because fees cover the cost. They're not for anything else other than the purpose for which they're intended.
Speaker 9: So there's probably this question wouldn't really would come up if I guess if the public knew more about the project in itself. That's what I'm taking away from my survey is this the general public needs to know a lot more about the about the project and how complex it is and in the future, too. To me, this is about the future of Denver. You know, this is enormous cost, 1.5 billion in the future. But we've got to do it from a from a quality infrastructure point of view where we're going to be a great city.
Speaker 5: One thing I would say to that point, and granted, this is a citywide impact fee, but for the Platt, the Park Hill project, Jen's just telling me we had over 90 public meetings over the course of the last several months to discuss this project to find that interesting funding.
Speaker 2: Mr. Delaney. Mr. Delaney, I would ask that you please address to the accounts and to the members in the audience, if we could please. We have a lot of council members in the queue that want to ask questions, so if we could please allow that to happen anyway.
Speaker 5: So but that those meetings were done in the area that's impacted by this. So perhaps, you know, maybe, you know, in your area or in the southwest Denver where they're not necessarily impacted, they may not have had the opportunity to go to those meetings. The meetings were held and public outreach in a good faith effort to at least advise the people who are going to directly be impacted by that project, that they be made aware of it.
Speaker 11: I was just going to mention the birds and mining meetings included a lot of different things. So we looked at different strategies, including house chats, where we would meet around dinner tables, your your main public meeting that you all are familiar with, with open houses we did where, you know, we had stakeholder meetings. So it's a vast kind of tactic of that. We took that trying to get to each and every individual. We also have media tools like our website. We have updates to the public on a weekly basis that sign up to the stickler. So it's not just your standard public meeting, but we really try to get out to the churches, to schools. We sent home information and packet.
Speaker 6: So we really did a.
Speaker 11: True effort to try to share as much information as we possibly could.
Speaker 6: With the.
Speaker 2: Could you just say your name for the record, please?
Speaker 11: I'm sorry. I'm Jennifer Hillhouse with Public Works.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Jeff. I don't doubt that at all, but I think we need to do more do a better job somehow, because just I just looked at that consulting report and I was so impressed. But then it didn't conclude, you know, here's a consult report that should have been a great instrument to tell the future of Denver in terms of infrastructure improvement. And it just didn't do the job. And so that makes you wonder, you know, how can we improve these tonight when we all of a sudden the recommendations are not quite there or there's questions about it, but there's no question we need to improve our infrastructure. And so I really appreciate Georgia's orientation. I appreciate all the work that Leslie has been done with me and to talk to me, to explain stuff. But but I hope we'll do a better job with educating the public. Thank you. Thank you, Mr..
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. George, not a question, just a comment inadvertently touched on something that I've been trying to put into words when he said in response to councilman knew that with regard to the fact that this is a utility and we set fees for service, that once we determine the level of service we wish to provide , then we set the fees. My concern about this is that we're going about it backwards cart before horse and that we're setting the fees before we know exactly the kind of service we're going to provide. I have a great deal of concern about what's been added to this post. Ortega and I do support doing the scope that is in the seed Ortega and I wish that the administration would give us a fee structure that would allow us to proceed with complying with the iwga and build those elements and give us the time to do some more preliminary engineering and some better cost estimating. On this, I have a feeling that we're opening up a box of unintended costs that can haunt us in the future. I know I spent years covering the CIA construction. I spent years covering our treaties fast tracks project. So I know what can happen when with cost overruns, even when you do a lot of preliminary planning. We have on on the slide that was presented at the last Infrastructure Committee. There's a paragraph that really struck struck fear in me right now. This is from the presentation. Right now we are moving into the preliminary design phase for the plans for Park Hill projects. Those are the ones beyond the site Ortega. And as we do, we will refine the scope of each project and assign budgets at a project and program level. I can't support the totality of these fees, which increases over five years by 66%. The annual bill that homeowners will get, that property owners will get for storm runoff, just for storm runoff, 66%. I can't support opening up the wallet and giving that 66% without knowing exactly what we're going to be building other than what was promised in the Senate. So, Mr. President, I would really I would like a vote on this because I can't vote yes for fees that I don't know what we'll be building with them. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. So it is it's on the floor. So we will see as we get through all council members. Councilman Ortega, you're up next.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Before I put the motion on the floor, I also have some questions. I first want to start by thanking city staff and folks from urban drainage who have met with me on multiple occasions to address many questions that I've had about this project. And for me, some of them go back to when we were asked to approve the idea for, you know, the the wastewater, the stormwater improvements that we're talking about doing that were going to be coupled with the I-70 project. My first question is, I would ask, I think, George, if you could come forward. What is the largest bond that we've ever done using wastewater feeds, and were they only storm fees or were they also sewer fees?
Speaker 5: We we've done two bond issues for the storm. The first one was a $30 million bond issue that was done back, I believe it was in 2006. We then in 2011 refinanced that 30 million and added another 20 million to it. So we've had a $30 million issue, a $20 million issue, all so total of $50 million. Our annual debt service is $4.3 million to pay off that $50 million. It was all four storm projects. But one of the uniqueness, unique things about the Wastewater Enterprise Fund is that even though we are keeping storm dollars separate from sanitary dollars, when you do a revenue bond for the Enterprise Fund, you can cross pledged revenues. So the purpose of the bond was for storm. The money was spent on storm projects. But if Storm did not have the resources for some reason to make that debt payment, which they have sanitary, could backfill that amount of money under the enterprise, under our statutes.
Speaker 4: Correct me if I'm wrong about the storm fees actually come from the impervious surface charges that go to each property that has either rooftops flat work that does not absorb water. And and so each property owner is paid in that based on that square footage. So help me understand how we can significantly increase the fees when their square footage does not change.
Speaker 5: Well, what we try to do on the end to balance some of that concern, and you're right, is Storm Bill comes to you annually and the storm bill is based upon your impervious surface on your lot, which means basically the concrete, the roof, the patio, everything that where the water cannot be absorbed. What we do is we look at the ratio of your impervious surface to your total surface, and then we charge you a rate based upon that ratio. So the, the lower your ratio is less. In other words, the less impervious surface you have compared to your total lot, the rate that you pay is reduced because it's a it's a ratio based rate. And that's our intent. The purpose for that is to say if there's something you can do differently, if you can if you want to put in a third driveway, you can do it, but you're going to pay for it. If you want to take out one of your driveways and put it in something else that the zoning might allow. You can do that to or reduce the size of your patio, etc.. So in other words, there is there is a recognition of your ability to adjust your bill by reducing your impervious surface.
Speaker 4: So the data that we've received on the rate increases that each property would receive looks like that was equalized. So can you clarify that?
Speaker 5: Sure. It was. What we did was we took the average lot size in the city of Denver's 7500 square feet, the average impervious surface in the city of Denver, based upon that average lot size is 25, I believe it's either 22, 50 or 2500 square feet. And so the average bill that you see that's going to go up a dollar a month for a storm bill 20, 20 $12 a year is based upon that ratio of about one third impervious surface to to tooth to the whole the host lot size. And that's an average across the city of Denver.
Speaker 4: Okay. Let me go into my next couple of questions. Jessica, you want to add something to this?
Speaker 11: Jessica Brody, Denver City Attorney's Office. I just wanted to clarify, in chapter 56, you see rate tables that break down for impervious surface area and different sized properties. What your actual charge is going to be and if you look at the ordinance that's before you, it updates those rate tables so that you can see exactly how that would play out for a different property sizes. Thank you.
Speaker 4: I want to go on and ask a question about the Army Corps study that is being done that ties into a look at the river corridor. And I'm not sure who wants to answer this question, but it's my understanding we're talking about $18 million for the entire study. Is that the entire corridor that goes from Chatfield all the way to Weld County?
Speaker 8: Peter Bart along with Denver Public Works. I'm the project director for the Army Corps Study. The Army Corps study is a $3 million feasibility study. Denver is paid for half of that study. The Army Corps of Engineers has paid for the rest, and Denver has several partners in our $1.5 million. So the study that we have going today is a one point or is a $3 million study of which the city has paid 1.5 million, along with sharing some of that cost with its partners.
Speaker 4: How much of that have we already provided?
Speaker 8: We've provided all of it in a contract.
Speaker 4: Okay. So where does the $10 million come from that we're going to put into it that sort of helps complete that study?
Speaker 8: The. Upon completion of the feasibility study. It's a planning level study. There will be, you know, at some point in the near future the need to do preliminary design on the projects that are selected as a result of the study. So the 10 million, 10.5 million that is in the current rate structure proposal is the seed money to begin that process.
Speaker 4: Okay. And why is it so expensive? Why are we talking about $18 million that needs to be spent if we're going from. Basically Littleton, all the way to Weld County. How come Denver's having to pay half of that? It's half of the river corridor, actually, in Denver County that stretches the respect.
Speaker 8: I don't know where $18 million came from. But the Army Corps study is like in the end, the projects are three major go to Major Gulch is Harvard Gulch and we're Gulch along with half of the South Platte River from Sixth Avenue to 58th Avenue. So several miles of that in Denver. I don't know how much those projects will cost. They will they'll be quite expensive in the end. And that's why we're doing it with the Army Corps. But the design costs on that will be a substantial amount of money.
Speaker 4: So is Littleton in Weld County and Adams County contributing to this entire study that's being done since it's from basically one end of almost the range to the other?
Speaker 8: I, I think there's a little bit of confusion. Let me let me ask Paul. With the urban drainage and flood control district to go ahead and talk about the fad study. So there's a flood study that's being done. The Army Corps study is a set of improvements to the river. So there are a couple of things. It causes things to get very confused. A time where it's fall here. What people. Yeah. And please note that our study is in Denver.
Speaker 4: Okay. So the amount in Denver is the $3 million is what you're talking about.
Speaker 8: Three. And I'm the project that we're doing with this.
Speaker 4: The study costs $3 million. Okay. You want to come up and add to this?
Speaker 9: Paul Heineman, executive director of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. The core study is just in Denver. The other study that was spoken of is a floodplain study that goes all the way from Chatfield up to Brighton and into Weld County. And that's one that urban drainage is administering. And the other communities do have money in that study. The Corps does not. It's too there's a lot of different flood models that have been done over the years, and that study just puts them all is putting them all together. But that there are two separate studies or.
Speaker 4: So let me make in Denver just correctly. Yes. So we've got the Army Corps study that's going forward and then urban drainage. So where is the coordination happening? So that, for example, as we have seen developers that are trying to develop in the Globeville neighborhood. Correct. They're being told they've got to build four foot foundations in the area that is on the west side of the river. And in one case, the Army Corps data was showing the water flows at a different rate than what the urban drainage flows are showing. And I'm not sure which of those are actually being used by our CPD agency to now mandate that people wanting to build in Globeville. And keep in mind, we've had a little investment in these neighborhoods. So when you have somebody that actually wants to invest in the neighborhood, not on the Brighton corridor, not in Reno, but in Globeville. Right. You know, we're making it cost prohibitive. And so I'm not sure which of those two studies and you can't speak to this because you're not from our public works department. But, you know, it's it's confusing because we've got two different things going on at the same time and the city's using one of those two. And I'm not sure which of those two studies and I know the Army Corps study won't be done for about another 18 months. So help me, Peter, if you're the one that would address this. Help me understand where we're at and don't go, because I have another question for you.
Speaker 9: Okay, Will.
Speaker 4: Peter, do you want to help address this?
Speaker 8: There were two issues that we're seeing in Globeville. One is a potential spill in the South Platte River. And as Paul indicated, the urban dredging flood control district is modeling the entire river to really lay the foundation for what's going on in the river. That's a separate effort than the Army Corps study. The Army Corps study is looking and specifically within the South Platte River, on what type of of habitat improvements can be done within the river to improve the the natural environment within the river. A side benefit of that project could be floodplain mitigation in case. So urban drainage is working very hard to to put the benchmark on what's really going on on the South Platte River. The Corps study is coming up with solutions for habitat, which may also include floodplain benefit. So two very different things. The same people, the same staffs are working on both of these within Globeville. There's been identified the potential of a spill out of the river, which is why it's being modeled and why it's being looked at to see exactly what's going on within the South Platte River. In addition, just like you see in Montclair and some of those neighborhoods, the original channel, the drainage systems, other things out there are not up to snuff and there need to be improvements done. So those that lack of major drainage work within the global area, the outfalls, those things that get the water all the way to the river are not in place. And that causes localized flooding within the Globeville area. And so when you when when you talk about is it this study or that study, there are 2 to 2 items, two conditions within the west side of the river area, where you can either have a spill for a potential spill out of the river or you can have inundation areas as a result of insufficient local drainage systems.
Speaker 4: So I was just looking for a copy of a press release that came out in 2008 announcing that Denver had spent $25 million to take Globeville out of the floodplain. Did we get it wrong? How is it now that Globeville is still being flooded?
Speaker 8: And let me bring Paul back up to talk about why we did what we did and why we have the issue that we have there. Before I start on that, I'll just.
Speaker 9: Add two more sense to the conversation on the two different studies. I kind of do a little bit of training for my board when because this, as you can see, all of this is very confusing, storm waters confusing. So I talk about hydrology and hydro and hydraulics and the study that urban drainage is doing is called hydrology. And that's how much water is at a certain point and how deep it is. And the core study is looking at the hydraulics and that means what to do with that water. Okay. So if that helps a little bit, I don't know if that does. The the project that you're referring to is. Yes. When we went into that project, we had a certain flow rate and the a certain model that we were using to design that project in Globeville. And that model actually started at 38th Avenue, which is kind of unfortunate at that area, because now as we're going through the entire model and and melding these two models together and looking at new technology, because over the past 40 years, obviously, we've gotten better at predicting what these floods might be, which is hydrology. Let's talk about so when the project was that you're speaking of was completed, it did show that it contained the water that was at the time accepted to be the flow rate at that area. With this new endeavor, it's showing that that was probably a little bit an error was an error. So yes. So now the flow rates are with the new models intermixed are are greater in and excuse me in showing a spill.
Speaker 8: At approximately 38th Avenue.
Speaker 4: So as part of the 2008 work, did that include the levee that was done on the west side of the river?
Speaker 9: I believe it was. Yes.
Speaker 4: And I recall that that was it was talked about extending that levee to the south side of 38th Avenue during the time that that study was going on. Do you know why that levy wasn't done south of 38th Avenue, which is where we know the water leaves the river bank and floods the west side of the river into the global neighborhood.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I don't know that answer. I wasn't intimately involved in that. I don't know. One of the Denver staff knows the answer.
Speaker 4: Paul, can you answer one last question? What is the normal size of a project, size or even scope that requires urban drainage to do an environmental impact statement on your projects?
Speaker 9: Normal is kind of an interesting word. What urban drainage does is we are in charge to assist local governments in projects that drain basins, which are larger than 130 acres. So that's pretty small, but yet we don't go all the way down to the storm sewer level.
Speaker 4: So where does this fit, this plot to Parkville fit into that scope?
Speaker 9: This is this is a big. This is one this is a big project. This will be a major project for us. One of the larger ones we've done.
Speaker 4: So is Urban Drainage, the lead agency doing the work, or is it actually the city.
Speaker 9: In the city right now is the lead agency.
Speaker 4: Okay. So is there a reason why we did not do an environmental impact statement on this project, given that it's much larger than the scope of what urban drainage normally does?
Speaker 9: I'm going to have to relay that to someone else that has that information.
Speaker 10: The. Environmental Impact statement is related to funding and is related to federal funding on projects. This project right now does not have federal funding in it, and so we have done public outreach. And Jen can speak to other things that we've done historic analysis, environmental analysis, things like that that are similar to that. But there is no federal agency involved, so no federal referral to go to. So it's just not.
Speaker 4: But doesn't the idea directly tie some of the seed dollars, which are most often federal dollars to this project? No, I mean, we've got an Egis that clearly speaks to the need for the drainage. And I understand the reason for wanting to leverage and be able to address, you know, what has been a drainage problem for this area for some time.
Speaker 10: But but we're not receiving federal dollars. Federal dollars are not being used on the project. So that's why. It's a funding requirement.
Speaker 4: Okay. I have one other question before I move the motion. These are not the end of my questions. Each time I have like I think three or four sets of questions that I have sent out. And when I get the answers, it raises additional questions. And I appreciate the patience of my colleagues in allowing me to just ask a couple of these. One of the concerns that I have is that although when you look at this map, it shows that the Globeville neighborhood is very much within the impacted area. And again, this is in the document that Councilman New referred to. This is the Storm Metrix analysis. But yet, when you look at the 2016 to 2021 map, it takes it's taken out. And so what that says to me is, if we're using the 2016 to 2021 storm capital program as the guide for how we're going to move forward and spend future dollars, Globeville is not going to be taken care of. This is an environmental justice community. They're going to be impacted with an I-70 project, with the National Western Project, yet they're going to still have serious flooding problem. We're not calling it. You were calling it an inundation area, not in the floodplain. But the fact is they'll still have flooding problems. And yet we were not addressing that in the 2016 to 2021 storm plan. I think that is a huge problem for me being able to support the storm fears. When I first started meeting with city staff and learned way later they Globeville was still going to be flooding even after spending $25 million to take them out of the floodplain. We're not addressing the problem for this low income neighborhood. And if if the inundation area shows throughout this process in the Army Corps and urban drainage projects are completed, that potentially puts them back in the floodplain. And for these neighborhoods, it'll be cheaper if they start getting flood insurance now, because once they're actually found to be back in the floodplain, it will cost them more money to to get floodplain insurance and to not address this, which, by the way, was studied. We've got copies of studies that were done, even going back to looking at the levee that should have been done south of 38th Avenue. But yet the plot to kill was not even one of the projects that was in the budget. And so we're spending a majority of these fees in an area where it's needed. I don't disagree. The need exists, but. We did this whole approval with this IGA on the front end and we've been doing the community process on the back end and it's why I think you have community people who have been very concerned that. Their voice had not been factored in throughout the steps of what is normally done in in this process. So I'm just making the editorial comment. I'm not looking for a response at this point in time.
Speaker 10: I guess if I could clarify, I would appreciate it.
Speaker 4: So what are you trying to clarify?
Speaker 10: I am. As far as Globeville, I just want to be clear that Globeville is not ignored in this plan. We have said that there is a study that was previously funded to the tune of $3 million. That's not in this plan because it's already been funded, and another 10.5 that will be used to do the work that we need to do that Peters, Peter and Paul Heyman and the urban drainage team with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We need to do our work. We need the time to do that so that we can understand what improvements do need to be made. And then as we go into another six year needs assessment, as Councilman New has brought up, those types of projects will come out and Wolf will figure out the next step that's appropriate at that time. So I apologize, but I just really wanted to make sure that people were clear on that.
Speaker 4: So, Leslie, let me just be clear about one thing, because I've been told that, you know, we're looking at a distance of the river from Sixth Avenue to the end of the city limits. Does the 10.5 include that entire corridor, or are you saying that the majority of that is going to be spent in the Globeville neighborhood
Speaker 10: ? The 10.5 that's identified in that urban waterways is to support that grant as Bruce Hornick, who's our head of Master Planning identified. There is neighborhood dollars in there, 25 million, I believe it's about 5 million a year that can spent be spent without this throughout the city. So as projects are identified, Globeville is certainly a high priority area and I would expect that we would see projects in there.
Speaker 4: And what is the total cost to fix the Globeville problem? I've had some. Estimates thrown out to me.
Speaker 8: The storm drainage master plan puts the the small infrastructure, excluding the river at about $80 million. Remember that a citywide citywide need of 1.5 billion. So we have 80 million in Globeville. I don't yet have an idea of what the South Platte River improvements will run. I mean, we're still in the middle of the study, and I just I don't have those figures yet.
Speaker 4: So it would be 80 million to fix the problem for Globeville, but we only have approximately 5 million a year that's spent citywide to address storm drainage problems. Is that correct?
Speaker 8: Well, the 80 million is correct in the 5 million per year is correct. How we go about doing this is something that we need a little more time to study. We're working on it and we're not ignoring it. And and the city has been at this for a long time and will continue to be at it until we get them all. I may not be here, but we're going to continue to work at it.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, may I put the motion on the floor at this point? Do you want to wait to call folks who are in the queue first?
Speaker 2: If it's regarding second reading, we have to first vote on the publication, so it has to first be valid publication. But Councilman, if you wanted to do your one hour courtesy, you could go ahead. And that's.
Speaker 4: That's what I.
Speaker 3: Meant.
Speaker 2: Oh, go right ahead if you want to do that.
Speaker 4: Okay. Mr. President, I would like to move that. I'll make sure I have this correct. Council Bill 306 be that that we have on second reading a public hearing on Monday, June the 13th, 2016. So I guess I need to formally postpone the bill so that we can have the public hearing on June 13th.
Speaker 2: So, Councilwoman, you're just requesting a one hour courtesy public hearing? That's yes. It doesn't require doesn't require a vote.
Speaker 4: Okay. So we've had a lot of back and forth going on all day long about this issue with our staff about whether we needed a motion. So you're saying we don't need to move.
Speaker 2: Any courtesy of this this. Okay. These don't don't require hearings or councilmembers requesting a courtesy public hearing. So right as as council president, I could say no and then we could vote on it. Or as council president, I could say yes. So.
Speaker 4: Well, I just want to be clear that I did make this request when it came to committee, but to formally make sure that we have this done, the request is to do it on June the 13th because we will not have a quorum next week, as you indicated earlier.
Speaker 2: So, yes, so we will pending publication don't want to get the cart before the horse. Of course there will be a one hour cursing public hearing. Council Bill 306.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Next in the queue, we have Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: I need to figure out how to get courtesy public hearing at first reading because I think it would be nice to be able to have additional questions before it's sort of just going to get motioned on the floor and moved that way. But they do have a series of questions here. Thank you. First to my colleagues, councilman and councilman Woman Ortega, for asking such thorough questions. I wish we again had dealt with this, continue to deal with this at the committee level rather than what had transpired there. But that's our our process. And I'm just going to say that. So my question is and I don't care if it's George or Jennifer, but when the 90 meetings that you cited with the community, when did those begin and when did they conclude?
Speaker 11: Thank you for your question. Jennifer Hill, House of Public Works. So we started in July and it was the end of July 1st public meeting though was in August when we went out to the public was just kind of the need. We had public meetings and process and again, you know, these included tours, R.A. meetings. We went where the people were. We had our own meetings, so we really did everything. And then we concluded, we extended it by three months. We heard from the public that it just wasn't enough time, very complex issue to news comment. And so we did extend by three months. We were hoping to be done in January and extended into the spring. So our last public meeting was in April.
Speaker 3: So again, for timeline purposes, this well, I want to get the exact quote. When did that you guys scored? Based on the heat map to generate the six year plan and so you generated a priority list but your your public meeting about $206 million worth of this 383 all predated this draft January of 2016. This is the draft that talks about priorities that didn't come in until essentially five months after the IGA in full and months after the meeting, which actually predated your meeting with the community. It's sort of back to Councilman Flynn's concerns or questions, which is that we should be approving projects, not putting the cart before the horse where we're actually approving money without having done this process. I mean, I have to ask time and again at committee personally, and now I finally got this is the first thing that indicates any sort of attempt at prioritization. If you go back to the. So I do have a question related to this, which is why don't we where is that list? So I have this map that has a bunch of stars on it. But if you look at that $1.5 billion stormwater master plan, there is page after page after page after page of project in there with dollar amounts assigned to it and ideas. Scope may be wrong. It's very brief obviously for the nature of that plan, but where's that for council that shows every single project that is part of the balance of the 383 that is not the 206 because I had a slide out committee that said we've got some neighborhood plans and I mean neighborhood projects , and I know that they're out there because we don't dream up 383 without assigning numbers.
Speaker 7: Hello again, Bruce Janek with Public Works Wastewater. So as as you pointed out, Councilman Espinosa, we did prioritize the basins first. That's kind of the 40,000 foot level of saying, what are these highest priority? Let me let me back up.
Speaker 3: But did that happen in draft mode in 2000?
Speaker 7: And I guess even before that, when before this study was even in a draft, we were building projects based upon where people flooded. Well, you know, where our models are showing the greatest street depth. And so we kind of we had an approach when it was a good approach, but then we really went to the next level of using these 12 criteria and prioritizing it as a whole. And we started the basin level because there are 67 of them and we're we're confident. We like the map. It's defendable. And now we're digging into the project level because like I was saying earlier, there could be there's a variance of priorities of the projects within the basins. Like you look at a red basin, I mean, as.
Speaker 3: I'm trying and trying to understand these two maps. So this map that was up on the screen shows four labeled areas. I won't call them basins because I'm confused by this map, which is I understood where the basins themselves. Which is it? Which one? Which one has the base.
Speaker 7: In your left hand. The one that citywide. That's the that's the metric study. Those are that's our those are 67 prioritized basins using that red, orange, yellow kind of heat map.
Speaker 3: Okay. Because I'm concerned about what has gone on and I don't know what went on in those public meetings, but I do know what happened in my 1 to 1 briefings and at committee. And what had happened was some obfuscation, which is the stormwater master plan deals with these basins labeled as they are on this map, which are the 68. And what clearly is happening is that we are diverting water from one basin and routing it through another basin to the global outfall. And it happens to be that that basin is actually actually already got pretty good water quality per your plan. But now on this map, we seem to have combined it. So it looks like we're we're just draining one big basin, right. When it what concerns me is that and now I get it. I get why Leslie insists that. And she's the only person that continues to insist that this has nothing to do with I-70. And it's probably because they're federal dollars link to I-70 and boom, now we're an environmental impact study. And so rather than do that, we're just going to bear this whole cost on the city and county of the taxpayers, of the city and county of Denver through a fee so that we can avoid actually studying the impact of this, which is significant. It is the largest project that urban drainage is undertaking, and we're just missing that. And so why this matters on these basins in your maps is that we are routing. I mean, there are there are eight there are eight basins on here that are red. Six of them are sort of captured in these four basin drawing that you've done here, sort of observe these getting how these basins are subdivided. Yet. We don't show those two basins that are on the other side of the river like they don't they're not a priority. Are are they?
Speaker 7: I think Leslie and Peter spoke to who they are already with that $3 million Army Corps study that we're that's undertaking.
Speaker 3: Ten years down the road. We can start thinking about that. But these have to happen.
Speaker 7: The study is underway right now. And that serve the difference in the basins where you're counting eight versus four is in the in the one in your left hand. Those are those are collection systems, basins, and the other ones are major basins. It's a very technical definition, but essentially the ones in your right hand, those are our priority focus basins that have a very undersized backbone drainage system. The Montclair Drainage System is served by a 120 inch line that was built in the 1930s.
Speaker 3: But what I want the public to know is that that let's see, on a highway crosses one, two, three, three basins, and then it's merged with another basin here, the Montclair the upper the lower Montclair Basin, which it doesn't actually touch. And that would be mitigating those 100 year flood waters as they impacted I-70, regardless of whether we put a new channel in or not. And so this level of the area that you have colored on different maps is the primary area that is impacted would actually already be that's already downstream of those primary areas are already downstream of I-70. So I-70 mitigation that would associate the I-70 widening would actually already benefit those communities with or without Denver investment. Is that correct?
Speaker 7: And we probably have to let's see. That doesn't have an obligation to collect the water and protect the neighborhoods to the north there.
Speaker 3: But right now, that water goes underneath I-70. This water would go into I-70.
Speaker 7: And they there's there's an opportunity for them to collect the water on the south side and just dump it on to the north side at the same levels that there exists today. So so.
Speaker 3: The problem is.
Speaker 7: Getting to the north would still be 2 to 3 feet of flooding to the north even after set up with their system. That's pure speculation on my part.
Speaker 3: Well, but one of the reasons I it's because I've been told time and time again about leveraging CDOT money. So it's sort of weird that that has nothing to do with this project if they're throwing money at it. So but when we're leveraging the CDOT money, the reason is, is I've been told in different by different people that there's a solution that CDOT has, but it involves 30 foot walls and it's just atrocious and all this stuff. But when I talk to see that they have a sketch about how they're going to route through a conduit through the lowest point and daylight out into the Platte River, all these flood waters down Clyde Street below grade. And somehow that has the natural fall. I'll have to believe them, because the real problem is, is no one's done that analysis, even them themselves haven't done that analysis. So where do these 30 foot walls come from, this sort of boogieman of of water quality ponds? Where did that come from? I mean, is there a design or is there not a design that see that has to capture their water requirement, 100 year flood requirements?
Speaker 7: I believe, yes. I can't speak for them, but they do have a design underway. I believe it's part of their year and you can get those documents. I would just say to your point earlier is that the water doesn't really care who the who owns the land. It falls and it collects and it drains into ponds. And so there's there's property damage and potential upstream of the basin in the entire basin. And so that's why that's why this objective analysis of where the highest priority need is shows Montclair as the highest priority. And and the number of red stars, if you see on there, are documented significant flooding locations, and there's the majority of them in Montclair. So it's really.
Speaker 3: Don't get me wrong, I am I am 100% for 100 $383 million investment into our Enterprise Fund for storm water and sewer infrastructure. But I question whether the majority of that money should be focused on these things. When your own stormwater master plan, which I don't have here, but it's in my office, has projects associated with that that are not of this scope that actually solve this problem. And then when you have the the gift of I-70, which is going to be below that grade or below grade, having to mitigate this water themselves and doing this as part of that that that we could actually leverage that as a solution to help us with basically everything north of of I-70 where this water would flow. But for some reason, we decided to take it upon ourselves to put in this 39th Avenue channel to to divert it to the Globeville outfall, which is in a different basin. Well, meanwhile, there are. How many basins here? One, I probably do the better part of 30 or 40 basins that flow into the Platte River north of Globeville. That in fact, there's a 100 year event in any one of those 40 basins. We now know through the study that urban drainage is done, will flood in, inundate all of Globeville. Seems like that should be a priority. When you have 40 chances in a 100 year event impacting the neighborhood versus the one. So when I. I still would love to see that priority list that you guys had before you had this, because you sound like you had one. So where that showed me how all those other basins and in that 2016, 2014 master plan laid out. But I am concerned about the fact that there is no design and we're putting money at this, because I've been told, too, that the solutions put forward for City Park in the Upper Montclair, I mean, the Lower Montclair Basin. There was a solution there to use the soccer fields, which I think meant the softball fields. But that won't work because it's it's uphill. I don't know how we don't how we propose solutions that are uphill, but it's not. It worries me about the fact that we don't have designs going forward. So I did have, let's see, three be I mean, questions of the base and maps. We talked about 1 billion versus 1.5 billion. So when this was presented at committee, it was talked about as a $1 billion master plan. Maybe that was 2014 numbers. How did it get from 1 billion to 1.5 billion? Is it because the scope at this basin is now increased from about a 60 some odd $80 million solution to a $206 million solution?
Speaker 7: Just to see if I can answer that, I guess we do our master plan updates every five years so that in 2009 there was adopted by City Council. And I believe the total value of all those projects was one point to $1.1 billion. And then we did it in 2014. New projects got added in like the Globeville study that Councilman Ortega talked about. So $80 million in needs there. And so between those kind of newer projects that we were identified using the latest tools and technology and more so the just construction cost inflation in general, that's why we're at 1.5 and we're chipping away slowly at it. But I would honestly expect that in 2019, when we do our new master plan, the cost would be 1.5, if not more.
Speaker 3: I bet it will. And that's a concern now, right. Which is we're going from $101 in average fee a few years ago to pushing 500 in about five years, an average fee to capture this project and some others rather than a whole bunch of others. And what we should expect by the time we do this again, that the cost of that $1.1 billion master plan is going to be much higher than $1.1 billion. So this is a game that we can't afford to waste money on when we have so many needs citywide. And so it concerns me that we're going to obligate ourselves and go from a a a low average cost to a better than average cost with the need to go much, much higher. Because, as you know, to put $383 million is just a fraction of 1.5 billion. And if that's where the need is, we should be prioritizing our projects accordingly, but not justifying it sort of after the fact.
Speaker 7: Just just one point of clarification is that I think, you know, with that $383 million, it's a it's a balance. There's there's big needs there. Small needs. There's there's just single intersections that flood. And then there's whole kind of streets and kind of multiple blocks that flood. So what we try to do with our program in those buckets I talked about is do focus on the big projects in those highest priority basins, but also save chunks and big chunks of money for water quality for our general store manual to address those local problems citywide.
Speaker 3: So it's but if you look at the inundation, usually I have those inundation maps, the areas that this 39th Avenue channel is protecting our largely surface parking lots and not neighborhoods. You know, and so where is that? I question the prioritization.
Speaker 7: I guess, in our preliminary analysis, looking at the whole Montclair Basin, there's over 2000 structures that are endangered. It's just rough estimate about $487 million in potential damages during a major flooding obfuscate.
Speaker 3: I'm talking specifically a 39th Avenue channel, because there's no doubt that capturing water at City Park one way or the other would have tremendous impact between City Park and 39th. It's what that 39th Avenue Channel is doing, the Platt to Park Hill Port portion there. That is the concern because it is really clearing out water from that would be dealt with at I-70 46th Avenue and doing it at 39th Avenue at our cost as opposed to see Dot's cost. And why should we do that when we're actually now diverting that money that could be better spent on a whole host of those small projects which you agree have impact for those intersections on a more regular basis. I mean, we have a lot of 505 year and 20 year floods before the probability is there more so than a 100 year event. And so we could do a lot for the city, the people of this city, on a more routine basis, because I think we all put in an all hands on deck when when a major event comes. It's just what we do as people. And so while we wouldn't want that to happen, we're prepared to deal with that. And if you even look at those inundation maps, it is not for a long period of time. That's just the way Denver is. You know, the accounts of floods and at least it's not the. I that you have down in in Houston so the four so that we talked about the 30 foot wall. So I just. It's just unfortunate because I still today I'm getting information that is somewhat contradictory and it doesn't it it it's sort of I it concerns me that we're supporting things with with language after the fact when I've consistently asked for things that show me that lead to this path going forward. I mean, there was an idea that was rushed through, you know, a prior council. It's not lost on me that there are only five sitting members of this council that voted to support that the rest or were either in opposition or knew. And I wish that if this doesn't go through, that you recognize that we all support stormwater and sewer improvements and infrastructure, but that we work on a program that makes sense for the city, the entire city, because the entire city bears the burden of this. That's more comment than anything else. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Herndon. Leslie, can I.
Speaker 4: Have you come up to the mike? I have a question.
Speaker 6: So looking at Google Maps where you see the Globeville Landing Park and, you know, I'm looking for another structure where it would be appropriate to have an outfall to provide drainage into the South Platte. And the closest that I can find to the Globeville Landing Park is Riverside Cemetery, where they're conversations about creating some new outfall or something that that would address. Clearly, the stormwater needs to move towards the river.
Speaker 10: And the the drainage to the north. And we've looked at it with the National Western Stock Show and all of that. The global landing outfall is really the natural place for this water to go. On the south side of I-70 to the north, there actually is a couple of outfalls laid out when I believe is along Rear Street and I guess I would have to look to my team. They would be identified in the stormwater master plan to facilitate the drainage in that area.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. President Herndon. I have a couple comments. I will be quick. So I actually serve on the board of directors for Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. And, you know, thank you, Paul, for your simple explanation of really what urban flood, urban drainage and flood control does. You know, you're dealing with the hydrology. How much water, how deep is it going to get it moving off of our streets and to ensure public safety? You know, the Army Corps of Engineers, they deal with hydraulics, what to do with the water. I highly respect the engineers and Paul and his team and the consultants with urban drainage and flood control district. They deal all throughout the state. They confer with, you know, folks on a national level of how best to address this. And as a fellow science professional, I respect that. And your team, you know, the 39th Avenue or Cole Channel has been brought up as a negative. And I just like to provide a little bit of context around a naturalized channel for my colleagues. And Paul is going to get a laugh out of this because even before I was elected as a montebello resident and addressed, you know, advocate for the community, I have always complained about the Montebello channels, and so I'll talk about those in just a little bit. But the whole channel is basically proposed to be a natural or naturalized stream corridor. It's going to be one mile long, approximately ten feet deep and 100 feet wide in the whole neighborhood, a naturalized stream corridor channel becomes in. Councilman Clark has got to love this because, you know, we taught environmental, education and science, both of us. And so this is what you talk about when you're teaching children and urban folks about how best to work with the natural environment and geography and and and, you know, wildlife and how we are only visitors a lot of times. And so, you know, this is going to be this one mile long cold channel or 39th Avenue Channel is going to be a source of wildlife habitat. It's going to become an outdoor recreation amenity for neighbors to get out into a natural setting, riding bikes, running along, seeing, you know, foxes, raccoons, nesting songbirds in an urban context neighborhood in Montebello, where my family lives, we have eight miles of channels. They are not naturalized, eight miles of cement channels. They're ugly, they collect trash. They have to be dredged because plants come up through the concrete. There is no opportunity for folks in my community to recreate along these channels and to use them. And, you know, my home was built in the early nineties in the Gateway Division of Montebello. We hated the detention ponds. We thought they were ugly. They were just a source of kind of collections for storm water. And when you really start to educate folks about that, this becomes a collection point for a wetlands within an urban corridor. So you were creating wildlife habitat, green habitat for the community in detention ponds. A half mile from my home, I have four huge detention ponds. Montebello never floods. We have not flooded in Belo. It all flows through the community into the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. And so looking at this as creating native open space in an urban core, aquatic vegetation filters out pollution pollutants. Oil, fertilizers, pesticides, anything that runs off of. You know, Non-Porous surfaces, a wetlands, a detention pond, an open channel. It filters out all of those toxins, cattails, aquatic vegetation. Nature at her best does it. And then that water flows in to the south, the South Platte, and it's cleaner. And so I just want to provide that context for a and that I have been caught in the flooding that happens in this basin with my two young children in the car. And you are trying to get around flooding the water and get anywhere you can to get to higher land. And at certain points you're like, okay, well, I'm going to take the baby out of the car. See, I'm going to walk with my toddler and abandon my car and try to get to higher ground. And so that personal, terrifying experience because coming from downtown, trying to get to Montebello and it taking 4 hours to get home , you know, we deserve better for our residents and we need to invest in infrastructure. I'm the first to say I've got two kids in college. I don't like a fee increase. But when we're talking about protecting our residents lives, if there was something catastrophic, you know, I think I think that we have to weigh where we're going to put our dollars and what we're going to do. And I don't want to sit up here and make a decision that in, you know, ten years, 15 years, 20 years, people die because of a decision that I had a part in or did or didn't do. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Now, are we questions? Comments combined? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: It's been an hour. Yes.
Speaker 13: Pardon me, sir.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. We're still there.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Okay, let's see. Leslie, if I can ask you a question, too. I just want to get clarity. Right now we're moving towards a 30 per the consultants are moving towards the 30% design of the plot, the Park Hill project, correct?
Speaker 10: Yes. They're beginning design.
Speaker 8: That's correct. Okay. Well, so we're early in the design. So the the budget increases that we've talked about have been more general about Labor's more expensive materials and more expensive. The scope has been broadened. So when, when we get designed, the price of the project is either going to go up or down. Right.
Speaker 10: Well, where is the the intent of the number that was placed in this rate structure? The intent was to cover the maximum we thought it could be. And you're right, it can go up and down. But we really are intending that this would be the cap.
Speaker 8: Okay. So if it goes up.
Speaker 10: I'm checking with my express. Yeah.
Speaker 8: So you what you're saying is you threw in a whole bunch of fudge factors to try to envision as high a number as possible. My concern being if the price is going to go up from there, you know, other projects are on my list of this 383 wouldn't get funded. So what you're saying is could happen, but you really don't think it's going up from here. So it may go down then. Yes, we could get more out of this. 383 is what you're saying?
Speaker 10: Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. Why? My understanding of the involvement of urban drainage in this project is their only involvement is in the Globeville landing outfall and that they're not involved in the design of the Coal Channel, and they're not involved in the design of the detention on City Park Golf Course or any of that. Is that correct?
Speaker 10: At this point, urban drainage holds the contract for the design for the Globeville landing outfall. We would expect, because they are our advisors and are the experts in that in the region on how drainage should work, that they will remain our partners and advisors on the rest of the project. But we would expect that the city would hold the contracts.
Speaker 8: That differs from what urban drainage staff tells me.
Speaker 10: Is that different, Paul? Do you want to come in?
Speaker 8: Thank you. Paul Heinemann, urban drainage.
Speaker 9: As it stands right now, denver is doing the contracts through the plat to park. However, Leslie is right. We are there sitting with Denver staff helping advise and go through those projects. Right now it's in the in the early planning stages, but as we get further along will definitely be a part of that process.
Speaker 8: Is there a contractual arrangement with the district for this?
Speaker 9: Right now we do not have one, but I'm sure in the future there's the definite possibility that there would.
Speaker 8: Be one whose staff was very clear with me that the only involvement at present was with the 33rd Street outfall in the Globeville Landing outfall.
Speaker 9: That is correct right now.
Speaker 8: Thank you. That is the only thing we have. Thank you, Paul. Okay. And my. Line of that question is I was one wondering why urban drainage in a project of this scope is not more involved. Along with Councilwoman Gilmore, I'm on the Urban Drainage Board and I'm very sold on their expertize on the model, the nonpolitical model with which they operate. And I'm concerned that there's not a greater contractual connection. I would hope that changes. And while he's walking up, I also want to acknowledge Mr. Heineman, Hyman's 31 years with the district that unfortunately for a great many people is about to come to an end. So he can go out and spend some time in the in the outdoors with his family and grandkids. So I'll recognize that right now. Yes.
Speaker 9: Well, thank you for those comments, Councilman Cashman and Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 3: I appreciate those very much.
Speaker 9: We we will see you had.
Speaker 8: Some comments now. I've lost. Well, I was just saying that I was concerned. Oh, when when when when the staff told me there was not a greater relationship to this project.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I can talk about that. Obviously we have limited staff on which we can work on projects with. And what we do is we each year send out a request to the local governments, city and county, Denver being one of them on what projects they would like us to partner with and what. And then we are able to partner with a certain number. And when we do partner, usually we have some amount of money in it with this project and going forward and Denver already being very well invested in it and has very capable staff in doing this portion of the project. The outfall project is what we were kind of already started with and got going with. But since this is moving at the pace it is, is right now, we do not have the staff to to fully help administer that entire project. But in the future, there's as the staff has said, there's many other projects that will be coming up as well as the future of the.
Speaker 8: Park, the Platte Project.
Speaker 9: So we will be involved in that as well. But it's really each year we reevaluate what our what our staff can handle and what the local government needs are at that point. And the needs of the staff for Denver right now at this point is to get this thing, you know, really under control right now. And we just don't have the staff to to help them right now.
Speaker 8: Great. Thanks for that clarification, Mr. Bartlett. And please. I heard something wrong either this afternoon when we spoke or this evening. I asked this afternoon about the Globeville situation as far as trying to get an idea on a timeline and so on. And what I heard you say, which I had no idea because I had no idea of scope and what would be done, etc.. And tonight I heard something about 80 million bucks that I thought was related to Globeville. Now, if you could clarify now there are two two concerns in Globeville. One is river spilling. Right. And that's what what urban drainage is studying to figure out how much water and the court is studying to figure out what do we do right. And then there's also the local inundation areas. Mm hmm. And that's more of a localized, localized issue where we don't have adequate storm drainage systems to get that water from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill right next to Tor Junction drainage. Exactly. And so the Utah Junction and Globeville, portions of the masterplan, identify $80 million worth of improvements that need to be done to handle that localized. And when we were speaking this afternoon, I thought maybe I was mistaken. I thought you were talking about what specifically we want to do on the South Platte. Okay. Well, we're still studying that. And toward the end of the year, we'll begin to have some really good ideas what that might look like. So great. So since this is a comment as well, I am. Absolutely. That's all I have. Thank you, Miss Bartley. Thank you very much. I share a lot of my colleagues comments. I mean, they have absolutely no doubt we need to raise an enormous amount of money to improve our stormwater infrastructure in the city, especially in the Montclair Basin. I mean, you have a very large basin with no drainage system, but by and large, I mean, I think there is some piping going on along the way. But basically we don't have a gulch like Harvard Culture where Gulch or any of the other areas. And I have no question we need to raise a ton of money. My discussions with the city, with the administration have been and this applies to drainage and it applies to our streets and applies to our sidewalks. We need to raise a lot of money. And the bad news for our residents is you're the only place we have to go to our residents and our businesses to find this money. And we need that. We're going to need it along the way. And as I said, I'm convinced we need to to build something in the Montclair Basin. I believe that the plant, the Park Hill Project specifically is conceived at this time in this scope to add storm water protection for I-70 along the way is an important spine for a greater system. I believe that to be true. I believe the scope of the I-70 project is extreme and I think the routing is ill conceived. That is a broader discussion that we're not going to go into right now. But what I have, what I can't ignore, and it is very much related, is that the. She Dot's reaction to the homeowners adjacent to the I-70 project is insufficient. The mitigation that they're proposing for homeowners along the I-70 corridor is insufficient. I'm aware that my colleague, Councilwoman Ortega, her office, is working diligently to try to fill a gap that she refuses to honor there. The tunnel, the part covering I-70, the tunnel that's being created is intentionally designed just short enough that they don't need to put a fan system in it to ventilate the the emissions. So Denver's going to need to spend additional money on air quality, monitoring the mitigation for the nearby homeowners. It should include vapor intrusion protection. It should include new doors, new windows, insulation, a much more extreme package. See, that's proposing to portable one or two portable air conditioning units and some interior storm windows. I had city staff tell me today we are working hard to make up that difference, to work with other groups, to make up that difference. I don't think we should be doing that. We as counsel are left with very few. Avenues for those of us who are unhappy with the way that project is unfolding to express that displeasure from me, this is one of those opportunities. I have spent a great deal of time becoming familiar with this project. For me, my complaints are not with the engineering of this project. I am not an engineer. I have done my best to understand this project, but my complaints are not with the engineering of this project there, with the connection to a related project. And my understanding is if we don't build a plot to Park Hill, I-70 will build its own system. They will need to do some additional work that they won't have to do. If we do build a plot to Park Hill. So with that in mind, I won't be. I'm not happy with this because I look forward to approving some sort of a fee increase to so we can move forward with this tremendous need that we have in the city. But I can't do it on this particular bill. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn, I'm going to hop over you and come to you, and I'll come back to you at the end. Councilman Brookshire up.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks, council count. Councilman Flynn around the bringing up the question on 30% design. I think that's an important question and I am actually see here, I'm going to bring you know, Leslie, why don't you come on up to answer this question. This has already been touched on the 30% design piece. But I just want to make it 100% clear. And since we're in the. Comment slash questions. I'll do the remakes myself and just say. Bar? None. Every neighborhood has always as come to us before you get to 30% design. That is, I can't find a neighbor who won't say that. So, you know, I think that's important for all of us up here, too. I know I pushed that in Q2 of this year, said, let's go to the neighbors before we get there. And so we're there with a lot of hiccups. So I just want to say that a disclaimer, but 30% design, we approve say we approve this rate, this stormwater increase. I want you to to answer with specificity your limits of what you can use of that increase. Meaning can you go above say say that, you know, the budget goes crazy? Can you go above what is allotted what we approve in front of council tonight?
Speaker 10: Well, George, I need your help on this one. He's asking if we can go above what we've approved tonight. As far as I understand. And George will come up and fix me when I'm wrong. But my understanding is, is that there will be rates that are generated by your approval of this proposal. Those rates will be money from those rates will be appropriated through the annual budget for capital projects. And so those will be set up through our annual program over the next three years or excuse me, six years as those rates come in. And then we will as our teams, design teams and construction teams, planning teams will design and construct to those budgets that are approved by council through the annual appropriation. If additional dollars are needed, it will go through those processes for council to appropriate on an annual basis. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: So in short, there is flexibility for you all to overshoot the budget. And if you do overshoot the budget, you have to come back to city council or anything above what? What amount? 500,000. I mean, what what are we talking.
Speaker 10: We will need to appropriate every year these rates that are that we are we're discussing now have not been appropriated yet. So that will be to you to appropriate those budgets. Any contract that is over $500,000 will come to you for approval. So there's a couple of different ways for council to interact with us on that. Yeah. Do you want to charge.
Speaker 13: It on it?
Speaker 5: George Delaney The other thing to keep in mind is this plan calls for debt financing of the P2 plant to Park Hill project. As your council staff or your council has advised you, you will have to approve that bond and that indebtedness through another ordinance that will come down the line whenever we're ready to do that. So that will at least sets the limit. And I guess if we needed to change the amount at that time, we would be changing the amount.
Speaker 3: Here's here's the concern. And I think it's a valid one that we don't want to give a blank check to a project that is already it's a large project. I live in the area. I know that it's needed and I have emails from last year. It was the second quarter of last year during the rain to prove it. But my question is, I think it's a valid question of how do we know that we're not? You know, what's what's the assurances this council has with the assurances the public have that we won't exceed the limit?
Speaker 5: Yeah. And as Leslie had said earlier this evening, we were instructed to look at a project and put in every cost that could be thought of. To be honest with you, and that's how we got to the upper range of $298 million. Our goal is to wait to bring in a project that would be less than that amount of money. So it's, you know, you build it to the highest level and then you have the value engineering. We value engineer projects every day to bring them back within budget as as possible as much as you possibly can. So that's our plan on this project. But we will be coming back to you. We come to you every year with an appropriation for projects. You appropriate dollars for us, allowing us to spend those those dollars. If we need more money, we have to come back to you for supplemental. We've done that in the past. In this case, we will need an appropriation for the project and approval to borrow the money. So there are some check points along the way. We'll we'll be bringing these numbers back to you. And hopefully, you know, our plan is to stay within that range.
Speaker 3: All right. So, you know, I think when we if this goes on to second reading or whatnot, you know, I'm going to come back to this just just to provide a little bit more hard line. If we if I'm hearing you say if we see 290 million, you know, we don't want to do that, but we'll have to come back to you. But a little bit more harder line just so we don't leave that door open. Rope. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Let me let me call Bruce up here real quick. Bruce, if you go to that map, this has been brought up time and time again about Globeville. And I don't think we are linking the two maps. So the map that shows the secondary protection under make that shown to the public secondary protection under 39th Street. Primary protection above 39th open channel.
Speaker 9: And you.
Speaker 3: We need you to pull we need to pull it up on that.
Speaker 7: I don't think I don't think we have that map. Is that the map you refer to that has the it's kind of the purple above the channel and the yellow.
Speaker 3: Primary protection, secondary protection.
Speaker 7: Right. And so I don't know if is it we can still speak to that not having the map. Just for clarification.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is the water quality one. Yeah, we we need the thousand 14.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Let's see if you have it here. No, that's not it. I have it on my computer. But, yeah, not everybody can see this. Yeah. Yep. So I hate I hate that the public can't see it. But this is this is an important map that shows the protection areas. Once the detention area is put in and City Park, the open channel is put in along along 39th Avenue and into the along 39th Avenue. And the yellow area is the secondary protection, which looks like it's it's mostly, you know, coal a little bit of. Clayton a little bit north city park Whittier and above that is what we now refer to as Rhino used to be referred to as five points, and above that is Globeville or Swansea. So here's what I can understand. We keep talking about Globeville not receiving any protection, and I think it's clear that south of I-70, along Global AMI Landing Park, along the South Platte, there is an area where I think Peter Bart line described it as leakage or whatever you want to say comes in to that area. Right. But above just below I-70 and just below I-70, all of Globeville is in that primary protection, all of Elyria and Swansea is in that primary protection. So am I reading that wrong?
Speaker 7: I think there's a clarification that's needed. You heard it again. Globeville is on the west side of the river. Yeah. And so it's actually not in this purple primary protection in Globeville. The confusion exists because Globeville neighborhood is on the west side of the river. But the major outfall for the Montclair Basin is called the Globeville Landing Outfall because it goes through Globeville Landing Park. Okay, so we're.
Speaker 3: Talking about we're talking about homes. So so let's talk about homes and statistical neighborhood neighborhoods. What is protected.
Speaker 7: So protected in my mind is Cole, Clayton, Skyland, Whittier, Elyria. Secondary protection in the purple area is in my am I missing it north it's kind of the two colors north of 39th is their primary flood protection where the channel is going to collect those significant offsite flows before they have a chance to go further north on at the railroad tracks and all that stuff.
Speaker 3: So you have Elyria in there. You have Swansea in there and you have a you don't have, you have a portion.
Speaker 6: Of Globeville in there.
Speaker 7: According to my statistical neighborhood map that I go off of, I don't I think Globeville needs.
Speaker 3: Is a break. Where does that break? What does that break. Is that the. That's the plat.
Speaker 7: At the plat. Right. That's.
Speaker 3: So. So homes just east of the Platte. Businesses just east of the Platte are all protected. Everything on the west is not protected.
Speaker 7: And on the west side, right this the flats of Park Hill, it's a it's a, you know, protects the businesses, residents, homes, whatever. On the east side of the Montclair Basin.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Um, the the last. The last deal. Leslie, let me. Let me bring you up over time. And Councilman Flynn touched on this. If we don't pass this tonight. What happens. And, you know, I just I just need a staff person to to clarify what he said. Does I-70 still build there? Storm drainage?
Speaker 10: I-70 will move forward at its own pace. It's not reliant upon this action for city council I seventies it's own project. So whether whether you all choose the folks that are impacted our our storm drain master plan if this doesn't move forward now I 72 switch or around.
Speaker 3: Okay and is there a penalty that we would have to pay for the idea.
Speaker 10: We would have to go back through and take a look at what if no action is taken on the rates? We would have to look at our existing. Fund of balance and take a look at what we could do or we would have to go back with them and let them know that we could what we could or couldn't perform based on the cash that we had and then make those arrangements with them, you know, as the chips would fall.
Speaker 3: And just lastly, what is the. I understand the way my math is, 45% of this storm water increase is, you know, this project that is getting the most attention, Platts of Park Hill. What happens and how many? What is the number of projects that are around the city that will not be funded?
Speaker 10: You know, I wish I could express that to you, but this plan is put together as we've all done all of this work. So we would basically have to go back to the drawing board and look at the amount of cash available and see what projects, if any, could be moved forward. It would be a complete redo of our plan. George, do you have another thought about that?
Speaker 5: No, that's right. I think the one thing to keep in mind again, George, Tony, you've heard a lot of testimony and discussion today. Keep in mind that the upper and lower Montclair Basins are the number one highest risk flooding basin in the entire metropolitan area. Whether you build where we build plant to Park Hill or not, you're going to build something in this basin. Our master plan. Maybe it doesn't have this specific project in it, but our master plan says we need to invest almost $600 million in these two basins to mitigate the flooding risk. And so whether you build this project, you build another project, whether I-70 gets built the way they plan, whether it doesn't get built the way they plan this project, something will be built in this basin to mitigate the flooding because you can't allow these, what, 2000 structures or something that somebody said, you know, you know, to flood . And the other thing to keep in mind about this, one of the reasons and somebody mentioned, well, if this is your priority basin, why aren't you spending all your money there? It's because we're asking every every property owner in Denver to pay into this fee. And we have other areas in the city that flood, and we know we have other areas in the city that flood. So we are trying to fund projects, and that's what this map shows. Well, you can't see it, but the map that we had handed out, we're trying to fund projects throughout the city because we're asking everybody in the city to pay for this, for this, for these these rate increases. And so, yes, this is our priority basin. Yes, we have to do projects in this area. It's our highest risk. But we have other risks, too. And so we're trying to be trying to be appropriate stewards of the cities and the rate payers money and spread the projects around the city because we have other areas that have problems as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you, George. Mr. President. Thank you. You know, I'm not going to make any conclusory remarks right now. I do I do believe that we need to move to the second reading and have a public courtesy, public hearing that Councilman Ortega has put forward. And so I will be supporting that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Kasich.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions and I'll do my comments. I think this is probably best answered by George, but you can defer if it's not the right person. So you're going to come up. Thanks. Can you share the general age of our sanitary sewer system? Sanitary? Sure.
Speaker 5: Sanitary system is approximately averages 60 years of age.
Speaker 11: Six zero.
Speaker 5: 66, zero years of age. We have 1475 miles of sanitary sewer in the system that we're responsible for maintaining.
Speaker 11: Thank you. And can you give us similar what's the general age of our storm infrastructure?
Speaker 5: Storm is newer. Storm average is about 40 years of age and we have about 750 linear miles of storm drainage pipes and channels.
Speaker 11: Got it. And even if none of our storm system were old, if none of it were inadequate, if it let's just imagine that it covered everything. We had a great number of concrete pipes and underground things. Would we still be facing legal or other demands to change or improve the way we did storm? Are we under any, you know, pressures that are influencing this package today?
Speaker 5: Right. Yeah, we would be. I think in terms of our development and what we require of our developers, how far they have to be out of points in an event inundation or in flood floodplain issues. The other thing is to keep in mind storm also takes care of our water quality. And regardless of what we do with our storm system itself, we have to in order to keep dumping. Water into the Platte River. We have to buy the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and they give us a permit every year and they're going to renew or hopefully they're going to consider renewing our permit this summer . There are certain kinds of levels of E.coli that have to be met with in the Platte River and other requirements. That's part of our storm system. So we would be modifying our storm system to, if nothing else, to to extend it throughout the city to take care of the areas that flood, but also to improve the storm system we now have, because it is not the quality of the water we're putting in the river needs to be improved.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you very much. That's helpful. So next question. And this is not scientific, but we have a number of neighboring cities around us Parker Castle, Rock, Westminster. How would you generally compare the size, the age, the complexity of our system in Denver to some of those surrounding cities?
Speaker 5: Our system is probably older because our city's been around longer. We've been developing longer. But what's interesting is our average sanitary and storm rate that our people pay is about $340 per year. The average in the metropolitan area is $426 per year. So even though our system is older and it needs probably more updating and more infrastructure improvement, we have been able to keep our rates below the metropolitan average by, what, nearly $80 a year. And even with this rate increase, which is basically for sanitary and storm, it's about $24. Then we'll go from 320 to 340 and the average is still for 26 and assuming they don't change. So we're trying to keep things. We're trying to do as much as we can without increasing costs, you know, to our to our ratepayers as much as possible.
Speaker 11: So we're investing less than a typical city that's newer and less complex in our system. Right. Next question is probably for Leslie. Again, you can defer if it's the wrong one. And I'm just going to ask you to not going to like these questions, but I'm gonna ask you to just try to be blunt and not political and not couch it. I would just. So there you go. So imagine that CDOT is coming to a community to build a big transportation project that's not controversial and they're going to spend a ton of money. Do they ask the local community for a contribution towards that project? Typically.
Speaker 4: You answer that? Go ahead. Yeah.
Speaker 11: Yeah. Okay. That's fine.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Since we do projects all over. The answer would be no, they don't.
Speaker 11: And for highway projects.
Speaker 9: For highway projects? No, they do not come to the LOC unless it's a you know, for. I'm speaking strictly from the dry from the drainage standpoint.
Speaker 11: Yeah. No, and I'm not talking about drainage, actually. This is really important. This is really important, actually. Okay. So thank you for jumping in, Paul, because I totally appreciate your effort. I, I was it was funny because your answer wasn't what I expected either, because I've done transportation for about ten years now. So when I see that it's building a big road and and it's going to, you know, improve traffic congestion, whatever it's going to do to see that, tend to ask the local community for some contribution to large projects. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. That's what I thought the answer was.
Speaker 5: Let me give you an example, Councilman, to ask us, what did we do with T Rex? Big project. Big highway project. Right. In T-Rex, we had an idea with RTD and let's see, we we the city contributed $15 million in hard cash match. We provided all the right of way we contributed donated to right of way to build the road and to build the railway and all that. We waived all permit fees just so no different really than a lot of what they're asking us to do with I-70. So and that was, what, 15 years ago? Ten or 15 years ago. So, yes, the answer is they always ask, in fact, if they build their own detention system and they build these holes and, you know, and the walls or whatever, they will come to the city of Denver and say, we built these detention ponds to protect our road. You have to maintain them because the law says the state builds them and the local municipality maintains them. So we'll have to maintain these drainage vaults that we don't want to have built, be honest with you, but would have to maintain them anyway. So yes, they asked us for a lot of money.
Speaker 11: Okay. And I just think that's really important because I think what my goal with these questions is to unravel some of the confusion about how we ended up here. So just, you know, my goal is not to, you know, put anyone on the spot. It's to unravel confusion. So so we can assume that Seedat asked Denver for a contribution to this project. So we could have, for example, contributed a significant amount of cash, or we could have contributed something like underpass or an overpass or an exit lane or something like that. Is that correct? So, Leslie, can you help me just in the bluntest clearest terms, simple terms, explain why we chose to offer this as our contribution.
Speaker 10: We we did it because we want we want to protect the city and have a say. I'm sorry, folks. She asked me for the blunt answer, and I'm giving it to you. We are public works. I am the city engineer. And the more that we can protect the city and create a city that we want to live in. You all just had a fabulous discussion about how Denver is and how we all love Denver. We love Denver, too. We live here. We live here, too. And we want this project to be built in a way that solves our problems, not creates problems, like George said, that we have to take care of.
Speaker 11: So I just want to say it back to you even more bluntly. So given the choice between $20 million of cash or an overpass or an exit lane that we saw no value in, we offered something that we needed anyway. Yes, that's. This. I mean, I'm just going to just start my comments with this observation, which is we have so many smart people in this city on this project and it's killing us because, you know, we don't have someone who can tell a very clear and simple story and that we we got to own this as a city. We have not done a very good job of telling this story clearly. And so so I want to thank the residents, I think, who have pushed us with the questions that you've asked to understand what we're doing and why. I want to thank all of my colleagues because I think you all have educated us so much on the details, but I just want us to actually slow down and help explain this in, again, simpler terms. If you put aside the controversy, we are I think there is so much technicality in this controversy, in this conversation because of the controversy, and it's not helping the residents. Councilman, you mentioned when he says his residents just don't understand, it's because who could possibly, you know. Yes, locals protected east of the river, but not left. It's it is. We are missing. We're missing the forest for the trees. So here's the forest. As I have come to understand it, half of this package, half of it is for sanitary sewer. It's for crumbling pipes. It's for keeping human waste. Yeah, it's true. There's $23 on the average bill, and more than $11. $11 of the 23 is for sanitary sewer. It's for poop people. I mean, I'm not I mean, let's this is the thing. We're getting so technical. We have a city with 700,000 people and we all go to the bathroom. And our sanitary sewer is the one difference between us and drinking water and as an illness. And the way you mean think about Denver's founding in 1880, right? The South Platte River was the bathroom. The one difference between now and then is the sanitary sewer system. So I just want to take that piece off. I've not gotten emails and I've not gotten calls telling me that people don't believe in our sanitary sewer. So half this package has not been controversial. And I just we got a name that we got a name. What have this package represents? So we got the other half, the package, the controversy, side storm sewer. We have been chronically underfunding this infrastructure. I you know, I have a lot of respect for our governor and our he was our former mayor, but he told a story to the residents of Denver during his time that you could just do it all with less. You didn't need people. You didn't need more budget. You could just cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. And a number of us took office with libraries closed three days a week without hiring an officer for five years and not having funded some of this infrastructure. It wasn't a it wasn't really a true story because the true story is when you start funding that stuff, you get behind and it hurts your city and it hurts your future. So we've chronically underfunded the infrastructure. We want to do it better. Councilwoman Gilmore was very eloquent in describing water quality, a concrete pipe that dumps a bunch of water that has runoff from parking lots and dogs and all those things directly into the river isn't safe. So we want to do it better. We want to slow it down, and we want to improve the quality before it goes in. I actually don't think that's that controversial. There are a lot of questions about the the coal portion of the channel, and those are really valid questions. But I haven't heard anyone say that it's best to just take the dirtiest water possible and dump it in the most concentrated form into the river. So. So quality is a portion of this package doing things better, replacing things that don't do a good job now. So that's not controversial. Then you've got the pieces that are about improvements and expansions. And Councilman Flynn, you asked a great question about approving a package without everything being known. So here's a piece of my experience on this council. When I was first elected, there was an approved stormwater plan and it had a set number of projects on it. And the staff came to me and said, Listen, we told you these are the projects we're going to do. They're really good projects, but guess what? Fast track is going in. And we have three or four stations that now we have an immediate need to change priorities because if we don't, we're going to miss an opportunity to do a grade separation and a train is going to go through a flooding area, or we're going to miss an opportunity to leverage $20 million of somebody else's construction with less of our money to get it out. And we changed the plan and we changed it for a really good, valid reason. And if we had promised and said in stone, Hey, these are the projects we're going to do and we can never deviate, we'd be in big trouble. I sit on the Denver Regional Council of Governments and again, it's an analogy, but hang with me, if you will. We have this, you know, fiscally constrained transportation plan where every city puts its top priorities on it. And it's it's a 20 year plan. And every single year we make changes to that plan because communities themselves acknowledge a change. Maybe a big employer left, maybe a transit project came online. Who knows? But that kind of evolution is really important. And if it were if there were no safeguard, I would share your same concern about having nope, no concrete list, but there is a safeguard and that's the annual budget process. That list gets refined each year, and if this council feels like the right priorities aren't getting on it, then we have that power. So. So as I peel through the pieces of this package, half of it non-controversial, it's sanitary sewer portion of it for quality, right. Not that controversial portion of it to catch up on, chronically underinvested still below the regional average. Even with this increase, we will still be below the regional average. So then what do we have left? We have the controversy of the Platt debacle, and so I cannot eliminate the controversy around I-70. I think the concerns that have been raised and the the desire to imagine a different course of action is is so I get it viscerally. I wish that $850 million of the funding for that was not tied to replacement of the deficient bridge. And we could imagine using it for a different purpose, but we can't. That's the project that's going through within a year and regardless of this project. See, I was going to ask for something from us. I would rather get credit for something we need anyway for that project than to simply give them cash to put into something else that we didn't need or didn't care about. So leveraging and getting a better outcome. Is this perfect? No. I think every question my colleagues have asked about the secondary protection, I think there's a ways to go yet on that project. But I also see other gates coming on how to get there. And so for me, I'm with Michael, my colleague, Councilman Brooks, in believing that this deserves a chance to go to the next reading, to continue to clarify the questions that have been asked. And I think, you know, I think we will hopefully learn as a city that if we can talk about this as what it really is , which is it's a package to do sanitary sewer, to catch up on chronically underfunded infrastructure and to get credit for something we wanted to do anyway for a big pain in the ass project that's really controversial and politically unpopular, and no one wants to say it, but that's what we're doing. I can I mean, I just want to be honest. And I think that the more direct and the more plainspoken we can be about this, I think the easier it will be for our residents to then give us valuable feedback. Do not want me doing sanitary sewer. Really? All right. Do you not want do you want me dumping dirty water into the river from concrete channels only? Really. Let's talk about all of those pieces and then we'll continue to advocate and work on the I-70 piece. It's not done. Councilman Cashman's point. Right. Looking for every chance to continue that conversation and I share that. So so I think we move this forward. We hear from residents and I hope we do a better job in the future of this project and in the future of telling the big picture without getting so lost in the weeds and avoiding controversy. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question that I would like one of the attorneys I don't know who best to answer, but I think Councilman Flynn and Councilman Brooks both brought up good points from different angles. And so I'm asking reading through the bill what we are actually passing here versus what we are talking about. So could one of the attorneys point me to and reading through the bill, I don't see anywhere in the bill what we are actually voting on, where this says a peep about what projects it will fund. Is that in there in a missing it?
Speaker 11: Jessica Brody, Denver City Attorney's Office. You're correct. There's no specified lists in the bill. The bill is about the rates. So the discussion that we're having about projects is to give everyone here, members of the public, a sense of where that money goes and how it's used. But what we're what we're approving through this action is, is the rates themselves.
Speaker 9: So at its very core, what we are voting on is the increase of rates that would allow us to leverage funding debt issuance, to enter into contracts for projects to do work. But it is not specific at all in anything that we are going to be voting on today or on second reading. What projects those are? Yes.
Speaker 11: That's correct. We're not in approval of specific projects.
Speaker 9: And and then and I don't know if you want to answer this question or if you want to kick this off now at a public workshop. But any any spending of that money on any project would have to either through a contract that's over $500,000, an appropriate appropriation of funds through the budget process, any debt issuance, all of that we would get to vote on when it happens.
Speaker 6: That's correct.
Speaker 9: So everything that is project related, if there's someone sitting up here who hates a certain piece or project of this, we will have a chance to vote no on that project. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: Yes. You'll have more bites of those apples.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 9: So I think that, you know, for me, we have a huge infrastructure need. I don't think I haven't heard anybody up here at least dispute that. And I've even heard people who I think are leaning towards or are going to vote no. So that is specifically acknowledged. And that's all my questions. You don't have to. You can. Thank you very much. Acknowledge that, in fact, that this amount of money, however we end up slicing it up, is never going to cover the entire need of what we have. And as councilwoman can each brought up, this is we're talking about poop water in old pipes that is dripping into our stormwater and leading to elevated levels of E.coli in the South Platte River. We are we're talking about all kinds of infrastructure needs that we can continue. And I think that it's good and it's it's it's a good part of the process that we continue to have a debate, that we continue to pressure staff on behalf of the people that we represent, that we as a body continue to have conversations about what the right projects are, what the priority of projects are, that staff continues to prioritize that. But at the end of the day, and I guess I'm just talking a little bit to my man, Councilman Cashman, who I think the world of that there are votes to say no in in opposition of things that I don't disagree with you on certain projects and what Scott is not doing and not bringing to the table. I guess where I diverge is that this is where we this is where we get the money to do all of the good things and all of the necessary things. And then we continue to fight the fight on what projects it funds. But I think we're getting caught up in every little detail of the project. And there are people up here who've said, and what I want, I don't want to write a blank check. I want to know exactly what this is going to fund. But that's not our process. That's not what we're voting on. There is no bill that would come forward that would say these are the exact projects that will be funded by this, because what we are voting on is changing the ordinance on the fee, the money that will be generated. That's what we're voting on here. And then any of those projects that require more than $500,000 or require any appropriation, any thing in the budget or any debt issuance, we then vote on that that bill for that project. And so for me, there is such a desperate need on so many fronts for this money. This is ambitious. This is a big bite towards getting that done. And I, I think it's what we need to do. I think that people can't think that this is the end, that we take this bite and all of our infrastructure needs go away. And all of a sudden we're not putting poop water into the South Platte River. That's still going to be happening after this. We're still going to have huge infrastructure needs. We're still going to have areas that are at threat when the last hundred year flood hit Denver. 1965 most devastating natural disaster in Denver history that led to the building of Chatfield Reservoir, Bear Creek Reservoir and Cherry Creek Reservoir. Massive infrastructure projects because people lived through what it's like to experience a 100 year event to protect our citizens and before they have to live through that devastation, it's going to take a massive investment. I think that we need to continue the conversation about what is strategically best and what if this is tied to other projects that we don't like and how do we best advocate for the best end in all of those projects? It doesn't change the fact that this is just the first bite at what we need to do. We have to do from an infrastructure standpoint on storm and sewer water in our city. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Clarke. All right. We got three left and all of these people have spoken before. So, Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Clarke.
Speaker 5: I can't disagree with anything you say about the need or anything that Councilwoman Kennish or any of the other members said about the need. I acknowledge the need, but before I raise people's fees to pay for those needs, I need to know what I'm buying. I don't oppose doing something about the flooding problems that I personally witnessed. I was I was working at the newspaper the day that firefighter Robert Crump was sucked into the drainage inlet on Colorado Boulevard and died saving a woman's life from a flood. So I know the need. I just need to know what we're building before I raise people's fees to pay for it, as opposed to raising fees now and just creating a pool of money. I know that Councilman Cashman and he's well known as the young idealist.
Speaker 8: On the council. So he he foresees a possibility that.
Speaker 5: You know, that maybe the cost could come in in less than than what we are estimating now. And among all the projects.
Speaker 8: I've covered and worked.
Speaker 7: On.
Speaker 5: There was only one that came in at less, and that was one that was in my dreams. So Brendan.
Speaker 8: Can I ask you a question?
Speaker 5: And this is only to get your face time on Channel eight because no one's called you up yet. But I had asked and this is real brief, I had asked at the committee meeting. Is there a way that we can work into the fee structure? A credit for any homeowner who takes advantage of the new rain barrel law and stops dumping from serious stops, dumping 110 gallons of water into our gutters. I would that would also promote the expansion of the rainwater program. Is that something that you've looked at yet? So I don't see it in the ordinance.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Brendan Hanlon, the city's chief financial officer. We don't have a plan for that at this point in time. I believe that the that the infrastructure is too new to be planning around that. In conversations with public works, we would have to figure out.
Speaker 3: Exactly how to calculate a.
Speaker 7: Credit based on how much is essentially retained on site and then where does it go. So I think that's going to be a little bit more work as that matures.
Speaker 5: It would go on my wife's vegetable garden most likely. Do you think it could come back on the 13th when there's a courtesy hearing and maybe take a high.
Speaker 7: Level view of how that might work? We could try to look into it. I don't know, but I will ask. I don't know that it's possible, to be honest with you. Okay. Well, that's my answer there. We're using. But this is by far like by a factor of five times.
Speaker 5: The largest bond issue that wastewater is considered. We've done a 30 and a 2450, and here we're talking about $236 million in bonds for this and for other projects. And remember, on the T reg project, when Governor Owens did the trans bonds, it ended up dedicating about half of the future annual federal gas tax revenue strictly to debt service. I'm a little concerned about going this deeply into debt and tying up annual revenues for debt service, which can't build anything other than what we've already built on Platte to Park Hill. What would be the impact on this rate structure? And I asked this question in committee if we took out the plat to Park Hills scope except for what was in the IGA.
Speaker 7: So Councilman, I believe you're just looking through my questions here. So remember when I was in council committee, I was describing a situation where the average increase over that five year period of time is 10.6%. That's the average if you total up the three elevens in the 2/10. So 4.3% of that increase over that five year period of time relates to the debt issuance for the whole $236 million. So that would have to be modified, reduced in some way, shape or form. We'd have to rerun cash balances to figure out exactly what would have to true up in that situation. But if you simply just do the math of if that debt issuance was not in the numbers, it would be 4.3% that would not be attributable to the rates.
Speaker 3: Now, you might come back and say.
Speaker 7: There might be more cash projects that you would want to do, but that would be a different calculation that would need to be.
Speaker 2: Adjusted now.
Speaker 5: Finally, in the Ciudad IGA they see that the state agreed to pay additional other than the 40% of 140 million for the two basin drainage project. But only up to a certain amount, which I think would have capped the whole thing at about about 151 million total city and state. She agreed to pay another 6.9 million on top of their. Do we have a is there a measure in the IGA that that has see that contributing any more? Then that to this project?
Speaker 7: I don't know that I have the answer to that question. No, I don't believe so. That is what the crowd is answering. Okay. I don't like that either. Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Perry.
Speaker 7: Actually, I'm Georgians.
Speaker 5: Just not the current IGA. I mean, it limits them. One of the things I want to point out to Brandon said, because you said something that pique speak my mind. The Storm and Sanitary Fund generates about $130 million a year. Now the payment on $250 million of bonded indebtedness, which would be the current 50 plus, the new 200 would be 232. Right. Would be around $20 million. So roughly 15% of the fund would be committed to debt payments. So it's not like we're mortgaging whether you can buy a house as long as it's only a third of your income. This would be about 15% of the system's income will be pledged in debt payments. Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. The only other thing I would say before we vote is that I don't like the notion of paying for something before I know what I'm buying.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Up.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think, Councilman Clark, I don't have to directly respond to that simply because to just take this on a literal face value is is completely ridiculous to me. It's what we do with our zoning, which is, oh, there's no project going here. You know, it's just a rezoning, but in fact, has real world impact. We know we're going to do something with this money. We, as council should, in fact, know what we're doing before we appropriate. I mean, this is a fee increase. It's not going to anybody but us. So to do our job on behalf of the public, we should have a very good idea about what our goals are, even if they change, because we have the latitude to do that. But we should know before we do that. Otherwise, why did we have any of this? Why didn't they just come up and say, we need $400 for stormwater and sewer? This is far less than the $1.5 billion that we need, but this is the most important. We're done. You know, we have to have this conversation. We have to know what we're buying. And we can't just default to the literal what we're actually what the bill is. I get that. But that also that latitude actually allows them to go well over 198, allows them to reduce the the stormwater, I mean, the sanitary projects . And that's actually what I want to get to with Councilwoman Kenney. You know, we we've I've heard you guys mentioned the age of this project. I mean, the age of our sanitary system. That is not unusual to have a very old sanitary system in a city. There are cities with older sanitary systems. The age itself does not mean that it is a failing system. And I just have to I don't have to go any further back than looking at the budget records for the prior years. You know, this breakdown cap last year was 17 million for stormwater, $1.8 million for sanitary. The year before was it was a banner year. $21 million for stormwater, $4 million for sanitary. But the year before that, $18 million for stormwater cap. $685,000 for sanitary. So it's the priority has been on stormwater and it will continue to be on the stormwater. And just because we have an aging sanitary system does not mean that it is a failing sanitary system. These are good systems put on by put in by good people a long time ago with forward thinking cities. So there are problems that need to be addressed. And we're going to do that. But it's it's it's too easy to use that argument that it's an old system and that it's half the money. It is not half the money. It is $8 million going forward versus $20 million going forward. And and it's only that portion that is not the 206 that is going to PDP. You know, it's the balance of the, what, 383 that we're then dividing that way. And so maybe I'm wrong with my math, but it's something like that. George, but there's nothing wrong with that. Before we clear the record about going forward and I want you to, because that's important, even though we don't need to know that for this bill, the past the past records on the CFP is right from Brandon. So go ahead and tell me how this money is going to be spent going forward.
Speaker 5: Two things with the sanitary system and we please keep these things in mind. Yes, it's an aging system that you're right. It doesn't mean that the system is falling apart. But we lined the pipe, 2 million linear feet of pipe, sewer pipe, sanitary sewer pipe every year to prevent that from happening. And we need to continue to do that. The years when it was less I can't speak to that. I don't know why that was the U.S. but that's one of the reasons, one of the things we want to do. The other thing to keep in mind for Sanitary and Council of Women can mention it is we have more people now and I have more we have more people flushing and showering and doing laundry and all that. We have our our effluent is treated by the Metropolitan Reclamation District. They, they, they treat the sewage. They then send us a bill. Depends on how much you send them. What's in the, in the water, that sort of thing. That rate is going up about 8% per year. So I don't want to lose sight of the fact that in part of the sanitary rate, in addition to the pipes which we could debate, you know, the condition of the pipes. But in addition to that, we also have the metropolitan rates, which are increasing on average about 8% a year.
Speaker 3: So so that system brings in a considerable amount of revenue precisely because it's designed to sort of take care of itself to some degree. So then to Georgia, actually, you should stay out there because I want to know how many congestion rate total toll lanes were put in T rex.
Speaker 5: Zero.
Speaker 3: Zero how many free public lanes were added with t rex.
Speaker 5: Drive at every day? I'd say two or four. Yes, I mean, yes. And then four.
Speaker 3: Was the light rail there prior to T Rex was that the light rail prior to T Rex? No. So that's again, I don't want to have to blur this reality, which is, yeah, we made similar concessions, but we were getting a lot as a city and as a public. We got free, free drivable lanes for everybody without having to pay tolls. This is a PDP, I mean a3p project that is going to be privatizing the two new lanes that are going in each direction. Meanwhile, we're only getting three new lanes, the same three lanes we already have today. So the congestion for everybody else is the same. And the light rail, sorry, the commuter rail is in it didn't need this. It doesn't need us. It's done. So, you know, it's just it is not apples and apples when we're talking if we start to extrapolate the, the the leveraging of I-70 and comparing it to t rex t rex completely different agreement and in an end result and impact.
Speaker 5: And I didn't mean to put or to to portray that it's the same thing. I was answering the question.
Speaker 3: This.
Speaker 5: T rex asked from a does see don't always ask locals for money and the answer is.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes. And and so that's why I was glad. But then when we were trying to simplify it for in terms of for the public to understand, we were trying to then sort of equate the two. And I want the public to understand that I said that the giveaways and concessions that were made for T Rex are in smiles different than these giveaways to to see that for I-70 we got more lanes, we got free lanes and we got a light rail in the process. So we got to move a lot of commuters in this thing, not just create two toll links in each direction while perpetuating a problem that has long existed in those communities. So. Let's see this little of others. So yeah. And I wanted to say to this. Yeah, this the 288 potential million dollars that this project is going to. We're not talking about stopping other projects. Well, there was some comment about stopping other projects or stopping projects. This this amount of money you heard me said, I don't mind making an investment in infrastructure, but this project diverted to this location will in fact, keep many of those other little stars that are known significant flooding locations from being addressed when we could probably capture a lot of those. And so the last thing Councilman Brooks had that map. And I want to speak to that. So I had held it up for you guys. I don't know if you could see it. And I don't know if I can bring it back up, but here it is. So this is the map, right? Which shows the yellow area and the purple area. And so that big that big gray line right here. Oh, I can't draw unless I'm using this thing. Apparently, this gray line is A 70 and so C that needs to address all the water that comes in this way. And so if we put this big channel right here, it does that. That's why that purple area is like that. But if we don't do that, CDOT will still stop all that water right there because it's going right into their ditch and they have a design for that and they have a plan for that. And so we're doing this huge investment to solve that problem, which really isn't you know, there are multiple solutions to that. Apparently I'm wrong. Leslie So explain to me what we're doing right? I mean, you reacted to me as I'm saying something false.
Speaker 10: I guess I answered that when I answered Councilwoman Nature's question. They do have a drainage plan in there. Yeah, it will give us. Holes in the ground that George will have to maintain. And it doesn't fit the land planning that we did with all the neighborhoods, Globeville area and Swansea. And so and there is, as Bruce said, no guarantee that they won't protect their investment by putting a street across and running the water across the street and back into Swansea. Elyria.
Speaker 3: So you did say that I-70 will create problems. So what are those problems? Because I asked you, Don, for their designs. They don't have any designs. They're relying that on their their contractor, their concessionaire to complete that work. That's a design build project.
Speaker 10: Well, what I'm referring to is what we've all reviewed in the office, the drainage alignment.
Speaker 3: And that's already in that's in the courts. I mean, there's there's there's contention over that. I mean, we still haven't had a letter of record, so we're relying on something that doesn't exist.
Speaker 10: So I guess what I'm reacting to is that by being able to invest this in this project, we are able to do the project we want to do to solve the problems that we have.
Speaker 3: So now let's talk about.
Speaker 10: Problems that will happen.
Speaker 3: We have. So this is this one right here is the 50 year study model. I have the 25 to 10 for this area. And so I'll stick with the 50. This is what that channel does. Okay. I don't know if you can see this. I'll I'll have to switch back and forth. But so right here, this is the this is the lower Montclair Basin and the other one. So these two. Virtual surface stream. These flows flow up to 39th Avenue and yeah, they flood some parking lots up there north of 39, south of I-70, to a fairly healthy level of inundation , a foot and a half to three feet in a 50 year event. But so after we do this channel. This area right here, you see all the color area. That's the inundation stops, stops cold. And this this is true in the ten year model. The 25 year model in the 50 and 100 year model stops cold. And that's the flow that that sea that needs to capture and divert. And that's what you know, that's what we're doing to benefit those these parking these surface lots. You know, when we have real inundation in wholesale neighborhoods, again, that's the before you saw what the after is. And so this is this was and so why I'm bringing that up is because go back to that purple map that I showed you with the line. Again, the difference is whether we start that protection here or we start that protection at I-70 and see that has that in there program that has it in I-70, it crosses one, two, three, three drainage basins that are either in the red or the orange and doesn't divert water into during this mission that already is in the red. And so this is a level of understanding that we don't get to it. COUNSEL Maybe my colleagues all understand it at this level, but going back to what Jennifer was saying when I got first approached with this and briefed, I got I got these maps and got told that this was going to benefit. That area, and I had to go back and point to the fact that there was no benefit there. So then I got that yellow and purple map that Alvis brought up, and it had a whole huge yellow area down here, including that area. And I had to point out that once again, that area is not being protected. And then we got that last version that we just presented, which starts to carve around that. And so I don't know what went on in those 90 group meetings, but if it went anything like what it got presented to council about that same time, I don't know how you would expect us to understand it at this level.
Speaker 5: Well, the one and I just to point out the one reason that yellow and one reason this project is more expensive than the original idea is because we changed the scope. And remember, one of the big changes of scope was the big detention area and the City Park Golf Course. The detention area in City Park Golf course creates that yellow area. Now, it doesn't it's not a primary, as you said. We agree with that. It's a secondary. But that that detention pond and City Park golf course holds the water and creates a secondary reduction. Now, what does that mean? So in a 25 year storm or 25 year storm, which is typically what we get around here, it cuts the flow of water by almost 50% through that neighborhood. Now, a 100 year flood. No, I mean 100 year flood to maybe it cuts it to 15 to 20%, but it does for a normal storm. And so I think that's the one that's the one addition. You know, so if if the old projects started, the channel went north. The new project starts at City Park Golf Course and goes north and those in between benefit from it.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And so that's the thing is I don't know. I mean, I'm sure there are hydraulic engineers and and and and civil engineers in those communities. But it's after 22 years of working in the field of architecture, this was hard for me to ascertain, especially once you compare these maps to those maps, to the tracks in the master plan and how they're oriented and they're all jacked up. It's difficult. And and then you hear the reports, you read the reports and the concerns about a whole host of other things. And then the read the yes. And there's a lot going on here. And I don't feel like my questions have gotten answered. I don't feel like I feel like tonight we're getting sort of the straight story with the exception of pretending this has nothing to do with I-70. So. So am I. You know, once again, I think that you guys wouldn't take that long to re reconsider. I mean, to come up with how this how this budget I mean, this fee increase could could change. And I think you have ample time, given the status of I-70, to actually postpone this portion, carve this portion out and come back to us while I'm still in council. Because if I don't if we don't if we kick this till the actual I-70 thing gets resolved and constructed, then my new colleague is going to be you know, there might be a new council here. And what I for I bet happens then is that it gets told that we had already approved that and that this was this was already agreed to because I had that happen to me here. And so I'm not I'm not I'm not buying it. I'm not buying at all. So things.
Speaker 2: Council angry Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Yep. Have two brief items. The first one is I'm not sure who from public works should come up and speak to the EPA study that talks about water quality. And in that report, it also has a recommendation. You heard councilman when asked a question about a credit for rain barrel, but there was a specific recommendation for development that are providing their own onsite detention. And I've asked this question and I just want to hear again how the issue of credits for development that are providing their own onsite detention and I'm not talking about 100% credit, but it's for credit of the water that is being kept off, you know, from running off the site. I mean, there will be runoff from the streets, from the curbs, the gutters, the rooftops. But the anticipation is some of that would be captured onsite. So help me understand how that is being addressed as a credit for those developments as it's as it was recommended in the EPA's study.
Speaker 5: Councilman George Delaney. Again, I'm not sure. We have not addressed it to be straightened out.
Speaker 4: I appreciate that.
Speaker 5: One of the concerns is, I guess, and I'll just give you my perspective on it are our needs in this area are so great that even though you, the developer, are retaining the training on your site or water quality treatment on your site, I still have bigger, bigger issues. So before I start giving you a discount for what you do, I need your rate. Be honest with you. To pay for the others, they're not doing that. And so right now, it's sort of like an all or a total citywide kind of effort. But but but but I do remember seeing your question about that, and we did not consider that as part of this rate adjustment.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 5: Go ahead.
Speaker 11: So just to clarify, the current requirement to detain and treat On-Site, which applies to.
Speaker 4: Areas.
Speaker 11: Of disturbance over a certain size, is to address the incremental impact of that new development. It doesn't address the many existing needs that are identified in our master plan. It's just to account for the new incremental impact of that development.
Speaker 4: Okay. My last question is for Brendan. BRENNAN One of my questions I will always ask when we're looking at large public finance projects is about our debt capacity. So, you know, I look at the big picture of the city, including some of our enterprise funds like DIA. So we've got outstanding debt on Idea Hotel. We're talking about roughly $300 million for the Great Hall National Western Center. We just did 800 million. I don't know what the DCP anticipation would be or if that's sought out to be something that's tied into a bond issue or a separate public private partnership. But I'm assuming there would be some expectation there's city funding into it. Are there other big projects? And then my last question is. If we have some major emergency, do we have the capacity to handle dealing with an emergency bond issue to take care of some major emergency, or are we getting close to our debt capacity?
Speaker 7: So again, Brendan Hanlin The CS Chief Financial Officer So just to clarify, I think you've hit a number of the big projects that we've been discussing. Off the top of my head, I don't know that I could rattle off a number of others, but I think the important part of the projects that you've listed off is that there are different funding sources that support the debt issuances that were allocated for those. So National Western was a revenue revenue bond transaction and we dedicated specific revenues towards that DIA Enterprise Fund for those projects supports that and the revenues from that Enterprise Fund support that project. The wastewater fund has its own revenue streams. Our debt profile for that fund is supported by its own revenues. I would say that in terms of a large emergency, you've probably heard me profess to this. That is why I argue for no no less than 15% fund balance for the city and county of Denver. Now, I think part of that, though, depends on the nature of the event that you're describing. If it was a large wastewater event, we would have to have that conversation around what is the wastewater fund's capacity for a large event. I don't know what large event that you're describing could be, but it would take a multitude of different funding sources for the city and county of Denver to respond to a variety of different events.
Speaker 4: And then just the last piece is about the impact to our bond rating. I mean, they look at the big picture of our our fiscal stability. Right. And so.
Speaker 7: So right now, the wastewater fund is rated by two agencies that is triple-A rated. So that is the highest level rating for those two agencies. We believe that this rate increase will support the debt issuance, which will maintain the coverage ratios required to maintain that triple-A bond rating.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Sure.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I also want to take any other questions or comments on three or six. The only thing that I will add is just one clarification. In the last council, we actually save money quite frequently on our bond projects. And I remember this council had a debate on what to do with allocation. So, Councilman Flynn, you were not dreaming. That was a reality. Madam Secretary, roll call on 306.
Speaker 4: Black eye, Brooks.
Speaker 9: Clark by.
Speaker 3: Espinosa No.
Speaker 4: Flynn No. Gilmore I. Cashman Can each new.
Speaker 9: I'm going to I'm going to vote. But I just want to know I reserve I want to hear the public hearing it. Public needs to be able to speak about this issue at that second reading. And there's no guarantee of vote. Yes, then. Oh.
Speaker 4: Ortega. I'm casting my vote in the same way because I think it is important that the public have the opportunity to be here and for their voice to be heard. At the public hearing on June 13th. I. Sussman, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Councilwoman Ortega. Still waiting. Got it. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the result. Nine-Nine's three days nine-nine's three days three of six has been ordered published, so second hearing would be on June six. However, council members are not going to be here because we won't have a quorum. But in the event that something happens that we have all council members here, let's tie a bow on this and we need Councilwoman Ortega, your motion to postpone second reading to the 13th.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, I move that second reading on Council Bill 306 be postponed until Monday, June 13, 2016.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Any comments?
Speaker 4: Just want to clarify that. That does include the one our courtesy public hearing is correct.
Speaker 2: And we went to the voting screen. So I just looked up to see if anyone has a comment. Nope. No imam's sector. You can go back for a roll call postponement. Second Reading to Monday, June 13th, 2006. Madam Secretary, as soon as we get a move, Councilwoman Ortega on the screen and then a second will move, then second. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black. Hi, Brooks.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore, I Cashman.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 4: Can I knew Ortega. I assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi. Magic trick. We thought voting our results.
Speaker 4: 1212.
Speaker 2: I'd find a consideration on three or six has been postponed to Monday, June 13, 2016. All right, we've got one more bill, one final Councilman Brooks. 323, 324, 325. What would you like for us to do with these?
Speaker 3: Let me gather myself. Mr. President, I would like to postpone final consideration of these three companion bills at the close of the public hearing this evening, scheduled after the recess. Council Bill 322 Regarding the addition of 2561 Street Project and the creation of 2561 Street Tax Increment Area.
|
Bill
|
Approves an increase in sanitary sewer and storm water charges beginning 7-1-16. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) The Committee approved filing this bill by at its meeting on 5-4-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0324
|
Speaker 3: Let me gather myself. Mr. President, I would like to postpone final consideration of these three companion bills at the close of the public hearing this evening, scheduled after the recess. Council Bill 322 Regarding the addition of 2561 Street Project and the creation of 2561 Street Tax Increment Area.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman. Clerk, could you please put 323 324, 325 on the floor in a block, please.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bills 323, 324 and 325 be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block.
Speaker 2: All right, Councilman Brooks, we now need your motion to postpone.
Speaker 3: Okay, Mr. President, I move that council bill 323, three, 24 and 325 be postponed.
Speaker 2: To the day just days after the include conclusion of the public hearings.
Speaker 3: To the conclusion of the problem here. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: We got it moved and seconded. Any other comments? Seen? None, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 4: Black eye. Brooks.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: Clerk All right. Espinosa Hi.
Speaker 7: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman Can each new Ortega I. SUSMAN Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi. Madam Secretary, please, first of all, announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 hours.
Speaker 2: 12 hours, three, 24, three, 23, three, 24, three, 25 will be postponed until the conclusion of the public hearing this evening. Accountability 322. All right. That was it. We are now ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction already published. Councilman, clerk. Let's please put those resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block.
Speaker 3: Adequate.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Denver Urban Renewal Authority and School District No. 1 for the 2560 Welton Street Project to establish parameters for tax increment financing.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the 2560 Welton Street Intergovernmental Agreement among Denver Urban Renewal Authority, the City and County of Denver and School District No. 1 for the 2560 Welton Street Project to establish, among other matters, the parameters for tax increment financing with incremental property taxes,in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-13-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by at its meeting on 5-3-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0341
|
Speaker 2: All right. So the first one we have up is Council Bill 341. Councilman Clark, will you please put 341 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 341 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: The public hearing for council. Bill 341 is now open. We have a staff report.
Speaker 7: Good evening. It's been quite an evening. We'll try to keep this moving along in an expeditious manner. And what I got for you is a two part staff report where we will I will tell you a little bit about why we're here with the creation ordinance for the Five Points Business Improvement District, as well as a quick PowerPoint presentation showing the location and some of the other things that are going on with the proposed district. The city has been petitioned by a commercial property, by the commercial property owners to create the Five Points Business Improvement District. The main purpose of the Five Points Business Improvement District is to improve the economic vitality and overall commercial appeal of property within the district. The district will extend 11 blocks along both sides of Welton Avenue from 20th Street to Downing, including parcels adjacent to Welton on the southeast corner of 26th and Washington and parcels and the southeast side of California. Between 26 and 27, the district will encompass 219 properties. The district will provide programing and benefits to business and commercial properties located within the proposed boundaries that will include economic development, physical improvements, safety and advocacy. The site consists of approximately 42 acres and is located entirely within the city and county of Denver. The district will be a Title 31, Article 25, Part 12 Business Improvement District, and will be utilized to assist in the acquisition, design, funding and construction of certain public improvements authorized by the Business Improvement District Act, including, but not limited to street lights, decorative structures, statuary fountains, identification signs and bicycle paths. And in and adjacent to the site. The district will also be utilized to provide services within its service area, including, but not limited to a consulting with respect to planning and managing development activities within the service area of the district. B Promotion and or marketing of district activities. C Organization promotion, marketing and management of public events. The activities and support of business, recruitment, management and development and e security for businesses and public areas located within the district as. Determined by the board of directors of the district. The aforementioned services are collectively referred to as district services. The services, facilities and improvements to be provided by the district are not intended to duplicate or supplant the services, facilities and improvements provided by the city and county of Denver within the proposed district boundaries. The district is being created to provide enhanced and otherwise unavailable services and improvements within its boundaries as part of the creation process. Office of Economic Development provided a grant approved in 2015 for the petitioners to begin a feasibility study in late 2015 and met with the and met with surveyed and met and surveyed people in the five points neighborhood of the required of the 50% required total assessed property represented approximately 62.3 of the petitioners were in support and 50% of the. And then there's another statutory requirement that 50% of the acreage must also be in favor of this. And they attained 56.7 of the petitioners support for these two thresholds. The district initial budget is expected to be $162,000 to fund district ongoing administration and provision of district services. The initial revenue will consist of property tax revenue on commercial real property and a transfer of the remaining funds from the Wellston Corridor Pedestrian Mall Local Maintenance District . The district will impose a levy of ten mills and only commercial real property in the district boundaries. The district will not assess any mills on any personal property. Residential property is not subject to the revenue raising powers of the district unless the property owner changes its use to be commercial. The district shall exist in an initial term of ten years at the end of the initial term. The district will dissolve unless the district board determines the district has been successful. The board will then request the City Council to renew the district by resolution at the conclusion of that initial term. Also before you today was the dissolution ordinance for the Welton Corridor Pedestrian Mall. This is a local maintenance district that is currently on the mall or on the corridor and is being dissolved. If this bid is created and moves forward, in addition, it is submitted that there is an operating plan for the Five Points Business Improvement District that meets the requirements of the Business Improvement District Act and further meets applicable requirements of the Colorado Constitution and other laws. It is further submitted that the types of services and improvements to be provided by the proposed district are those services and improvements which best satisfy satisfy the purposes of Part 12 of Article 25 of Title 31 , Colorado Revised Statutes, as required by Section 31, 25, 1277, subsection five of the statutes. It is further submitted that the formation of the Five Points Business Improvement District has a demonstrated all public purpose and that it will support the implementation of neighborhood and economic development goals. The Office of Economic Development is supportive of the district creation. Approval of this operating plan does not approve any specific development plan or change in zoning. City Council approval of the bid creation allows for a proposed district election, including the imposition of an assessment to go forward to the November 2016 ballot. The Board shall consist of five electors of the district appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council resolution. The initial members of the board are proposed as follows Dr. Renee Cousins, King Paul Books, John Patricof, Nathan, Bill and Carl Bert Burgess. Supporters of the bid are present today and available to speak on behalf of the district. City staff recommends approval of this ordinance.
Speaker 2: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 7: We have Tracy Winchester is going to finish with this report.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Andrew. My name is Tracy Winchester. I'm the executive director of the Five Points Business District, and I live at 217 South Jackson Street, Denver, Colorado. Thank you, Mr. President, and all the city council members for having me here today. When I was in front of the Business Development Committee, I had 21 slides and did it in 5 minutes. Today I only have 15 slides, so I'll do it in 3 minutes. So I just wanted to let you know that what happened here and there we go. We go this way. What happened here on the Walton Street corridor did not happen organically. What happened in 2009 was the community got together and decided they wanted to revitalize the area and they selected overarching goals through studies that they did with their strategic planning group. They had professional urban planners come and help them develop a vision for the area. Their overarching goals were a business development, historic preservation, tourism, land use, parking, transportation and sustainability for an urban green corridor. So the road map, this is just a laundry list here of what we did step by step with regards to working with the Office of Economic Development and helping to fund our office and helping us to go after the grants that we received from the federal government as well as the state of Colorado with regards to coming together and figuring out what the vision is for the neighborhood. And the future of Denver is bright, is shining, is a shining star. We have over $300 million worth of construction and development that's going to be happening over the next 24 months. And you'll be seeing those developments because we became a tough district in 2012 by the approval of city council. And again today, you'll have a project that you'll see later on after my presentation. But this is just an example of what's going on with regards to development with the rezoning and as the crown jewel. Now in our proposed business development area, our business improvement area, we're looking at 219 parcels, of which only 88 are commercial, 42 commercial property owners, over 700,000 square feet of commercial property, 42 acres with an assessed total value of over $15 million. Ha ha. Here is the map between basically 20th and, well, ten to 30th in Downey with just a little bit of jutting out on the sides there on Washington Street, which includes our historic district. All these parcels begin at the north side of 20th Street, going northeast along Welton Street, terminating at Downing Street and 30th Avenue. The parcel located adjacent to Welton Street on the southeast corner at Washington Street and 26th Avenue, is included as part of the district. What do we do for community outreach? Well, we did quite a bit. We started in November with our consultants PUMA, the Progressive Urban Management Associates. And before we even had the consultants, we had a steering committee. We have five community meetings, 21 one on one meetings for property owners and businesses just to do a feasibility study to determine whether or not this is something that is that can be achieved on the Welton corridor. And then we also did surveys as well to be more detailed. We started November 17th with the property owners meeting. We sent out letters in December trying to set up individual meetings. We had our January newsletter, which went out to the community that had over 1300 people on our database. We also again had meetings with property owners throughout January and February, again to determine the feasibility of this. We were featured twice in Neighborhood Life February issue as well as in the May issue with regards to talking about our quest for developing a business improvement district. We met in front of Curtis Park Neighborhood Group. We met again in front of our community meeting groups as well as we had a petition campaign drive kick off on March. It was originally March 31st, but because of March Madness and a snowstorm, we had to change it to April 12th . And then, of course, newsletters some more. And then again, we had a positive result because on May six we were able to send in to the city and county clerk the record of petitions that represented 56.68% of the land and 62.3% of the total assessed value. We had been very successful. We more than met the threshold for achieving and creating a business improvement district. As Andrew mentioned in his staff report, the wall to Street Maintenance District as it exists today, which is assessed roughly about $55,000 in 2016, is only two blocks. And so once this is actually passed and once they are voted upon, once this is voted upon in November, this wall to maintenance district will dissolve and become part of the Business Improvement District. All dollars that are associated with the maintenance district will come over to the bid. But it will only be used for that two block area. Thus, our budget that we talked about, although we're only going to raise about $157,000 on an annual year with a ten mill levy, about $5,000, we figure it's going to come over transfer over from the Walton Maintenance District. Initially, we have ten years is our term. We decided that we didn't want people to feel locked in, that even though we had the ability to be infinite, we did not. We wanted to have the group who was in charge ten years from now be able to go back to the community, to the property artists and decide if this is the right way to go. As Angie talked about, our five board members, some of you may know the name Carl Bourgeois, the owner of the rezoning, and he is also on the board of directors. Again, the operating plan is all about enhanced maintenance, physical improvements, economic development, safety and security, marketing, promotion, and still advocating for the five points area today in 2016. And hopefully it will be still there in 2026. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Tracy. Thank, Andrew. I believe we have nine speakers. I'm going to call up the first five. You can make your way up to the front pew. We have Rick KRON, Tracy Winchester, Catherine wallace, the sheila sayer and medalist stigler. Apologies for any mispronunciation. So if I can go ahead and make your way up to the front pew and Rick, you can go ahead and begin your remarks.
Speaker 8: Evening. My name's Rick Crone. I'm an attorney at Spencer Fein here in Denver. I'm working with the organizers in favor of the proposal. I'm just here to answer questions.
Speaker 2: Nick, thank you. Thank you. Speaker Tracey Winchester.
Speaker 6: And that was just a mistake. I've already spent my time thinking.
Speaker 2: Next. Catherine Wallace.
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Catherine Wallace. I'm a business owner on the Walton corridor. I've been in business for over 50 years. I my property is inherited through my parents. I am opposed to the b i d simply because of the structure of the corridor. There are more vacant properties on that business corridor as well as parking lots. I do not see a vision of businesses coming in from 20 years to 23rd. Also, there is a block of city buildings which will not contribute to the b i d. I am curt. I have been involved with the Walton Maintenance District for at least 25 years and have been paying those property assessments as well. And a 10% levy in addition to my regular property tax is unacceptable to me and I cannot see any improvements coming in because when the infrastructure was done or the feasibility was done for the Walton Street maintenance, we really didn't have what it takes to in order to really put that Walton Street maintenance district in. And I believe it's going to be the same as now. We're having problems right now with lighting and with the watering system. And there are a host of other problems initiated through this Walton Street corridor. And I have been I have seen this go through process after process, neighborhood revitalization. That was in the late seventies. Then came the Welton Street pedestrian mall that's been in exist for 25 years, supposed to have new improvements, only got trash cans and now the bad. And then I don't know what the real cost is going to be in the long run. Thank you for your consideration and thank you for listening to me.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Miss Wallace La Sheila Sayer.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm Lucida Sayer. Say I'm a business owner adjacent to the Welton Street Corridor. I'm in support of replacing the existing Walton maintenance tax and expanding the coverage area to the proposed 11 block segment there on Welton Street. And I'm in support of the Business Improvement District five points.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Next, Mandela Ziggler. And as she's coming up, I'm gonna call the last four Maude. Maude Brown, Lofton, Myron Melnick, Will Austin and Paul Brooks.
Speaker 6: Yes, my name is Mandela Steiger. We've been in business for over 50 years. Franklin Steiger broke down in Barbershop and I suppose to be the due to the fact that some of the things that Katharine was saying. What I don't understand is why should the respondents, you know, they be getting the same service as the business. So there's more residents in the 3000 blocks of wealth and 30th and down and on 20th, there is property properties. There is. She was saying we kind of had the same thing written down, belong to the city. So I suppose I'm not.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Maude Brown Lofton.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My address is 47 Tamora Drive.
Speaker 6: Littleton, Colorado, and I stand.
Speaker 10: To speak in support of the business.
Speaker 4: District. I think it is a fantastic way.
Speaker 10: For business owners to be invested and engaged.
Speaker 6: In supporting the.
Speaker 4: Development of.
Speaker 10: The.
Speaker 6: Entire measured.
Speaker 4: Section of the Belt and Street Corridor. I think it will also aid.
Speaker 6: Residents who live there by generating money for improvements.
Speaker 4: By which they will benefit from.
Speaker 6: I think it's a great way for a very historic area of the city to be on par with other areas in.
Speaker 10: Other districts in the city, and.
Speaker 6: I stand in support of it.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Myron Melnick.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, can you remind the speakers to, I guess, either say their address or their affiliation?
Speaker 2: She did say their name. And if you're comfortable doing so, your home address.
Speaker 8: My name is Myron Melnick, 3001 Welton Street. Mr. President, council members, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. I bought my building at 3001 Welton in 1996. It was three and a half walls and half a roof. And I spoke with economic development about the feasibility of getting this project off the ground. They told me to knock it down and build a metal building. I didn't listen to them. I wanted to preserve the 1895 building with the beautiful mural on the side. And I was able to do that. I installed sidewalks, gardens, sprinkler systems. I put a lot of money into that building. There have been I've seen five points. We've been waiting for the rationing for the last 20 years. We've been waiting we've we've heard all kinds of things about improvements to five points. The light rail at the time. They've closed the station across from my building. It just everything they've done. But now with the city booming, there's big large projects going in with hundreds of residents. On my particular block, the 3000 block, I am the only commercial building on that block. I don't want to be taxed to take care of the rest of the residents. I feel we all have to share in it if that's what we're going to do. I don't think this is a fair thing. I was not I was not given the petition or any information about this. I was not notified. I worked closely with the Five Points Business Association since I've been there. I donated chairs for their conference table years ago. I've donated art. I paid the money. I had a good relationship with them. When it comes to raising my taxes, they don't call me. I did not sign any petition. I knew nothing about it until about four weeks ago. So I am against this. I feel like there's too many rundown buildings. There's too much development that needs to be done. The free market will handle this. And when it's built up and we have a good a good business district, that'll be the time to add the improvements. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Manning will often.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, members of council. Good evening. My name is Will Alston. I reside in that great neighborhood of Park Hill and I am the previous executive director for the Five Points Business District, and I'm currently a board member. I came here tonight because I wanted to to remind folks that, you know, I had the privilege of shepherding the vision plan that this council approved. And in that vision plan, we talked about the need for an entity that would work, would play a lot of the role that the Five Points Business District is playing now. And in that role, I believe it is this business improvement district. We we brought in back then the folks at home to help us look at what all the different models on. Again, if you revisit that document, you'll see all the different options that that that we would have had. But we actually put that in there because we knew at some point we needed to create an entity that would be self-sustaining. And in my mind, and we believe that's the vibe, that's the, the, the business improvement district. And so I come here tonight to just ask you all for your support on this, because, again, it wasn't something that just came out of the blue. We thought carefully about it when we were developing the vision plan and we incorporated it in that document. And so we're here now to kind of realize what that vision was and that this business improvement district is. It's what.
Speaker 9: We believe.
Speaker 7: Is the next evolution of moving five points forward. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Paul Brooks.
Speaker 7: Good evening, President and council members. Thank you very much. My name is Paul Books with Palisade Partners, which is a property owner and I'm also part of the Five Points Business District Board. I also had the privilege of being the chair of this committee to explore the business approved districts that we have and that we have in front of the council tonight. My story with the Five Points area begins in 2013, and I had no idea stepping into this this great neighborhood, how much work and effort had gone into getting the Five Points neighborhood to where it was in 2013. And a lot of the effort has to do with the effort that Wilson and Tracy Winchester had done up to that point. We had as well mentioned the neighborhood vision plan was in place. The urban renewal area had been approved for the area and plus it had been designated a cultural, historic district. These things and more created a platform with which the neighborhood was able to spring from. And then also on top of that with the Office of Economic Development providing the welcome challenge also as a spring spring board. I think that this business improvement district, if approved, will create the next base, the base of the future and create a viable and exciting commercial corridor. So I encourage a support tonight to help us with this next vital step. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Brooks. That concludes our speakers. Now, time questions. Any questions from members of council and Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Tracy Winchester, can you come up real quick for a question, Tracy? Just a couple questions. You know, a little bit Rapidfire of, you know, why didn't we? There's a couple concerns come up. Why aren't residents involved? Why are we not taxing residents? We looked at a general improvement district and just love to get a short snippet of why we didn't go that direction.
Speaker 6: Definitely it was on the recommendation of our consultant Puma that said that although we wanted to have a general improvement district as well as a business improvement district, similar to what Rhino did with overlaying the two areas that because of the feasibility study, the results of that study with interviewing people and talking to residents, it didn't seem like this was something that was going to pass. It didn't seem like the residents were ready to have a guide. In addition to IBRD, they understood that a bid makes sense because it's going to bring traffic, foot traffic in and visibility for the businesses that are there now on the corridor and those businesses to come. But the idea just wasn't the right time, as well as the fact that we didn't have a specific infrastructure project that we could really tie in to. At the same time, that was on the advice of the city that said, you really need to have something in place from the city government saying that this is what is going to happen for your area, that the residents can rally around and see specific benefits happening for them.
Speaker 3: Great. And there was another concern saying that, you know, this business improvement district is not going to bring any improvement to Welton. Can you talk about a little about in the budget that you're building out for the bid, what are the improvements that you're looking at? You know, the specific improvements, whether it be marketing, whether it be snow removal or the be all those issues, lighting.
Speaker 6: Right. The top three services that we want to provide under the Business Improvement District is safety and security. We want to be able to have private patrol, which is something that other business districts surrounding us, such as Lower Downtown Denver Downtown Partnership, as well as 16th Street Mall as well as Colfax, are looking into having some private security to make sure that we supplement what the police are doing. Now, the other thing that we definitely see is maintenance. I mean, this is something that's a responsibility, as you know, of all businesses need to take care of the exterior of their businesses so we can collectively come together and create a nice uniform, look a beautification of the corridor that we can collectively do together. That again, is a benefit and it's cost efficiencies. The other most of the people who are in the Welton Maintenance District right now, they're assessed fees are going to go down as opposed to it going up. So it's really in their best interest to be able to have a bid because the economies of scale allow us to get more money for more, but more. What is it for you? But for my board, that's it. And then the third is marketing and promotion. Again, we want to talk about what we're doing on the corridor and we want to be able to bring businesses and more residents to come to the quarter. And we need to do that with a collective marketing and promotion, which we will be able to do.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Thank you. Andrew. Real quick question for you. You know, couple of residents are fearful that if we approve this tonight, it's a done deal. But just talk about the process that they do get another bite at the apple. There is going to be election in November, things like that.
Speaker 7: Correct. So tonight what we're looking at is the creation ordinance and the ordinance in front of you today just simply creates the organization called the Business Improvement District. There's also other organizational aspects of the budget and whatnot, but they will this is a preliminary budget. They will also be bringing that budget back in the fall when they have a newer or a better handle on all the costs and what the local maintenance district moneys will be transferred. And then you are correct, the they won't have the ability to actually raise revenue through taxes until the November 2016 election, in which case there will be a vote of all the eligible electors in this commercial district that will have the opportunity to vote yes or no on whether or not to raise taxes up to ten mills.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. That same bank.
Speaker 2: Accounts and works. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Tracy. So when you do these videos, you do them a lot like council and count votes, you know? And so that's probably what you mean by polling. Do you have a map that basically shows where the support is and isn't in the bid so that some somebody like myself can understand what where that support lies and doesn't
Speaker 6: ? You know, we did not do that. We didn't overlay the petitioners who signed and overlaid it on the map. We can do that. But I didn't have that prepared for today.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 6: But I can get that.
Speaker 3: But that and then the just so the public knows that that percentage comes from land area. Correct.
Speaker 6: Right. Has to be to formulas that has to be met. It has to be with the value of the land, which is that right now, 62%. And then also the actual mass of the land that it represents or acreage. So 56% of our property owners who represent 56% of the land, the acreage signed the petition and the value is represented by 62%.
Speaker 3: Okay. Then I have thank you. I have one question for actually both Katherine Wells and Paul Books, and it's the same question. So can I have you both come up? Katherine, did you say you had 50? This is not for both, actually. Did you say you were there in a business for 50 years?
Speaker 6: Yes, sir. My mom and dad bought that property in 1956 and created wireless beauty Nook, and we have been there most of the duration of that time. My dad did own a property on on Walnut, and he had a bar and restaurant there and we rented out the property. Then we came back in the late seventies and renovated, and we've been there ever since.
Speaker 3: So the question for both of you is my experience with With Five Points only goes back 30 years. But in that 30 years there's been I've seen program after program and investment after investment, not unlike what you were talking about. So I would like to know both. Why didn't what you're in your opinion, why didn't they work or why didn't they do whatever they set out to do? And what makes this different? So.
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, there's.
Speaker 6: Always been a nonprofit organization over the. Over at the projects. The board members that were put in place normally were not really property owners. They were you might have one property owner on the board and the other people representing that did not pay any taxes. But yet we're making all of the decisions. And as you know, the five point Business Association misrepresented our our our fund, and they didn't get anything done. So it's been a problem of the board people and the fact that the city has not encouraged the property owners themselves to come forth and work with them, but rather we always have a third party. And you know, when somebody else is spending your money is easy. Yes, that's real good. When our money is being spent and we're not having the representation, then I don't think that that's really good.
Speaker 3: And so didn't have they. Have you communicated that? And is there an attempt to address that? Maybe that's a question I'll ask Tracy to follow up on that. Did do you know.
Speaker 6: I've only communicated with Tracey one time in 2016. It was a one on one meeting and it was held on April the 20th, and that didn't go too well. And so therefore the communication was not very good.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Paul essentially the same thing. I don't know how long your history is with Denver, but I'm sure purchasing into that area. You're so familiar with how much investment we've done essentially since Welton. I mean, Wellington Webb was in office, so we made that an area priority through multiple projects and multiple investments and and microloans or whatever. So what makes this different?
Speaker 7: Like you said, my history only goes. We moved to Denver in 2006 and have really been involved in the Welton Corridor since 2013. But I guess I've had the exact opposite experience. I actually did do the do real estate program at the time. I actually volunteered under Will Austin when they were first starting the Five Points Business District Improvement District, and at the time they were spending a lot of time mapping out who all the property owners were so they could start getting all of them into the same room and actually start having the right conversations. And so I think I think that's where the success really stemmed from, is starting to do the neighborhood visioning plan and make sure that I mean, they have a board that they actually had all these neighbors that were part of it actually signed this visioning plan and really say that they're a part of it. So they they really got community buy in. And then my my other experience has been is the Welton Corridor in general through the landmark process and through some of these other processes is forced great interaction among the citizens and developers and what they want. And and it has started to result in, I think, some, some great outcomes and actually could be looked at as somewhat of a blueprint for for Denver as a whole. But so I so I guess my, the short of it is, is I think and I don't know if they didn't do this in the past, but they really did unify the neighborhood. They got people in the same room talking and having the hard discussions. And we set together over the vision plan. And then on top of that, they implemented, like I said, the urban renewal area, also the cultural historic district, and then have continued to implement that plan. And again, my experience with Tracy has been that she's you know, we we went through the list every time we sat down to try to make sure we met with every single person and try to reach out and contact as many of the people, if not all of them as possible. So, again, that that that's been my experience through this process. And I think I think they've done they deserve a lot of credit for for what's come throughout the last six or seven years.
Speaker 3: I'm going to paraphrase what I just heard so that so that I can make a point of it. Yeah, I believe I just heard a developer say that landmark and other processes which are regulation regulatory force to great outcomes and now you're up here telling us to tax you more. I just wanted to go on record with observing that.
Speaker 7: I've had a great experience with one corridor and the landmark process I think has made our buildings better. Yeah, and it's, it's also I feel like I have a great relationship with many of the residents through the multiple meetings that we've been through.
Speaker 3: So I'm going to go I maybe this is putting words in your mouth, but does it is it because both design review and the bid you give you as a developer more predictability about what is the future of that place?
Speaker 7: When I first came into it, it was the only cultural, historic district, and there was there was no guidelines. What that meant. How do you how do you do a design review for a cultural, historic district? And we're actually in the process right now of of the landmark is putting together specific guidelines for this neighborhood. And so I think that will provide more predictability. We were kind of the guinea pig through the process. And I think a lot of the design guidelines for Landmark have stemmed from the multiple meetings. And and then and then Landmark has taken their own process as well with multiple public meetings. But yes, I think in the long run it will provide predictability. But what I also think it does is and I think it's a good standard anyway, is it does it has encouraged interaction and people listening to each other. And and so I, I think, you know, density in general is, has been successful there because they're they felt heard and they they they like the outcomes of what ends up with the building. So.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Thank you. And actually, Tracy, I think that that makes it pretty clear to me.
Speaker 6: About just what do they have a low point of clarification on when Ms.. Wells was talking about the Business Fiveways Business Association mismanagement of funds? It wasn't this organization was a previous organization. So we have never had any mismanagement of funds.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And that's what, that's that clarity that I got, which is that in, in the we those other measures that we've been putting in historically were sort of in these vacuums. And that was a place that that probably needed stronger leadership than it had, you know, more orchestrated manner, a little discombobulated in how things got metered out over time. And so, yeah, with a regulating guideline of the cultural district and, and guidelines and standards coming forward and all this other stuff. I do think it all helps to know that when that when a commitment like this is made by the. The commercial property owners that there will be some expectation of performance from the bid. And I'm glad that you put a ten year cap on it. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Tracy, I have two questions for you. The first one is for both existing as well as new residential projects that have commercial. How how will they be handled? Is it only the commercial part of those buildings that will be included?
Speaker 6: Well, I actually had a map that I took out of this presentation that really showed there's about three different types of commercial properties that will be included. Mixed use will definitely be included. But we will only assess the part that is retail and commercial. So if it's a 60,000 square foot building and only 4000 or 5000 on the first floor is retail, that will only be assessed on that 4500 square foot of retail. Vacant lots are considered commercial, are in fills and then also totally all commercial and industrial is also considered commercial properties.
Speaker 4: So any of the tiff. Projects. Those are handled the same if they have commercial in the buildings.
Speaker 6: Yes. It should be included. I mean. I mean, that's the way I see it. Yeah, sure. Please.
Speaker 8: Councilwoman, one of the real keys here as far as business improvement districts and what's commercial and residential is that's a determination made by the county, by the assessor. So it's not done by the district. It's a city person that does that determination. They'll need to be in agreement with the district. We have not got that together yet. We did get a very similar agreement in Reno, though, and I would expect to have the same thing here as far as how that's going to work. Okay. So that's the main thing. So, yes, those mixed use business buildings, residential, according to the assessor, will be assessed at the residential rate. Will not be included in this assessment. Commercial would be.
Speaker 4: Okay, great. Thank you for the question.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. The questions 341 Scene nine public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Two 2011, July 18th. If you would have told me and I think I said this, a business improvement district, if you said this is a business improvement district, it's late. I said, if you would have told me that in 2012, we'd have an urban renewal area and in 2013 we would start to get our first development. In 2016, we would have a business improvement district with over $300 million of redevelopment planned. I would have said, What street are you talking about? Are you talking about Brighton? Are you talking about Colfax? Are you talking about all the other streets in this city? It is. This is an incredible feat in the last five years to happen here. And a lot of the credit started with will Austin be in here? My main man who can sing, if he didn't know he can sing because everything starts with a vision and he brought the community together and got the vision behind it. A lot of people talk about, well, you just had a great economy. Yes, that was very helpful. But you need a vision and then you need people to right the ship to live out and dream out that vision. And so that's what we've had. And Tracy's been great at implementing that vision and it's been incredible. A lot of a lot of kudos goes to Puma for helping us walk through this process as well. And also Paul Bucks for, you know, being the chair of it, because a lot of folks don't understand that in five points in on wilderness, hand-to-hand combat, you know that what we heard tonight has been conversations that we have had over and over and over again. And your comments tonight don't fall on deaf ears. We really respect your comments and we want to continue to work with you. And, you know, if you don't see the growth that's happened on Walton, let's walk and talk about it and let's see the growth that you want to see on Walton. This is one of the things I'm most excited about in our district. The transformation that's happening in this district is incredible. I see OSD in the room splattered in the room here and Sylvia's been incredible. And Paul Washington. And I just want to say that the return on investment of what already has done has been incredible. And we're seeing it. And so I told I was telling one of my colleagues that the the unspoken word here in this whole conversation is gentrification. Are you all experiencing gentrification? And of course, we are. But the difference here, and I think you see it, is that there is a community of diverse leaders here. There is a majority of African-American ownership here on Walton. And you're going to hear a little bit tonight. There's over. Just about 280 affordable housing units on deck, and you won't be able to tell the difference on what's affordable and what's high end. And so we're really excited about that, where we're trying to bring that balance. And I think the Business Improvement District will keep us on par with what is happening in Reno, what is happening in LoDo, what is happening in ballpark, what is happening in Arapahoe Square. So, Mr. President, I am excited to support this and just thank you everyone for your hard work to get this done.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I will be supporting this. But I did want to speak to the opposition that these are these are always close votes. Just because it's a property rights obligation thing. And what I would suggest to you is that, you know, the boundaries, you go out and you start polling those neighbors. I mean, you start doing your your legwork because sorry, Tracy. Tracy is doing the same thing. And you go out and you try to get support for your your point of view, because I think that's leverage. I think you want to have this $155,000 a year bigger than our council budgets. Each one of these of us. And and because you have expectations, they haven't been met historically. So you want to be able to have your seat at the table. They're willing to have you at the table, but gives you some some leverage. If you go out and you start asking for people's votes in that area to help you leverage your position with with other owners. So I just that that's the legwork that you have to do between now and November. But I hope I don't think I think Tracy and Paul would probably be welcome, you guys, to the table. I hope so. Because the in the end, if it goes through, you're all going to be obligated and all have to be working together anyway. So do it from that point, which is we're just trying to make sure we have a strong representation and voice as a as a group. It sounds like everyone's open to that. Just make sure, because you guys have historical knowledge, Paul has new knowledge. And that's the future of of of Five Points is a blend of the two. So make make it happen. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Any other comments? 341. Scene on Madam Secretary. Roll call not black eye.
Speaker 3: Brooks Yes.
Speaker 4: Clark, i Espinosa. I Flynn. I Gilmore. I Cashman. Hi, can. I knew Ortega I. Sussman Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please, for the financial results. 12 hours of eyes, 341 some place on final consideration and does pass. Okay. The next one we have, I believe is 218. Councilman Clark, would you please put Council Bill 218 on the floor for a final passage?
|
Bill
|
Creates and establishes the Five Points Business Improvement District, appointing the initial members of the Board of Directors of the District, and approving the initial operating plan and preliminary 2016-17 budget therefor.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0218
|
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please, for the financial results. 12 hours of eyes, 341 some place on final consideration and does pass. Okay. The next one we have, I believe is 218. Councilman Clark, would you please put Council Bill 218 on the floor for a final passage?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the accountable to 18 replaced one final consideration and do pass. All right.
Speaker 2: A public hearing on Council Bill 218 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the council caught up with community planning and development, something. We have a rezoning in the Stapleton area at the northern boundary of Stapleton of vacant land right near the intersection of 56th Avenue and Central Park Boulevard. So we're in Council District eight, again, on the northern boundary of the city and county of Denver, right in Section ten, which is the little notch that is adjacent to Adams County and is just east of Dick's Sporting Goods Park. So as you can see, this is primarily a vacant land. It's a little over 155 acres. The property was requesting the rezoning from M or x five, which is the master plan context mixed use residential of five storeys and OSB, which is an open space designation to mix five and more x five. And the zoning change is to be consistent with the Stapleton Section ten General Development Plan. I to move into consistency with adopted plans. Blueprint Denver This is an area of change of single family, residential and a park designation, and the future street classification is 56th on 56th Avenue as mixed use arterial. While the proposed rezoning district is not exactly matching single family residential and in park designation, the the proposed district is in Blueprint Denver as a recommendation for a coordinated master plan development going forward, which I'll get to with the general development plan in the following slides. We also have the Stapleton Development Plan in this area, which is a mix of residential and employment. Land uses of moderate density in open space. And here's the Section ten general development plan, which calls for residential mixed use and general mixed use. And it has a zoning equivalency table of M, rs5 and X five. And this proposed rezoning exactly matches the general development plan. And the justifying circumstances. Obviously Stapleton is changing. There has been a number of adopted plans over the years and obviously the redevelopment of the area is a changing condition and meets that test. And it's also consistent with our neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. So with that, we do recommend approval of this item.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We've got two public speakers today, Bruce O'Donnell and force. Your last name was cut off. So, Bruce, you can go ahead and speak.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the council. My name is Bruce O'Donnell and I'm with Star Board Realty Group at 770 Sherman Street here in Denver. And I am pleased to be for you as the owner's representative for this proposed rezoning in filing 49, Section ten of the Stapleton Master Plan. This actually is the staff report indicated includes two separate rezonings. Parcel one is right at the corner of East 56th Avenue and Central Park Boulevard. It's a 24 acre parcel being rezone from Memorex five to Amex five. This will allow for development patterns that are consistent with earlier neighborhoods in Stapleton that have been planned, zoned and developed and will support the development of both residential and commercial uses of this important corner. Residential uses in the zone district may include attached single family homes and multi-family apartment style buildings in commercial will be more kind of a neighborhood character. The second parcel is 132 acre. That is generally north of parcel one and it's being rezone from OSB to mrx5. And the reason for this is at the time of the 2010 zoning code update was adopted. Little planning had been done on this area and open space concepts and infrastructure design were not well defined. The land was still owned by the airport. The current OSB zoning was a placeholder, anticipating the adoption of the Section ten CDP, which was approved in 2014 and identifies that the USP property be zoned to mrx5. This request rezoning to mrx5 is consistent with Stapleton's existing neighborhoods and will support the development of single family homes in multiple forms. As mentioned in the application, the rezoning application and also in CBDs pardon me, CPD's staff report and recommendation for approval. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with many aspects of the comp in 2000. This is in an area of change in Blueprint Denver and is consistent with objectives and Blueprint Denver and it is also consistent with many of the objectives in the Stapleton Development Plan. And more recently, the proposed MAP Amendment is consistent with and helps implement the approved Stapleton Section ten General Development Plan, specifically seat four, which Kurt pointed out in his staff report. The proposal, that's the proposed land use seat. It identifies these exactly and uses in these exact locations in that GDP. So it's been a long evening. I want to thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this rezoning request. I'm available to answer questions. I'm also joined by Forrest Hancock tonight with Forest City Stapleton, who is the hands on development manager in this part of Stapleton that I do want to say that consistent with community planning and development, department staff report and recommendation for approval and with the Planning Board's recommendation for approval, I formally request that City Council approve official Map Amendment Application Number 2015. i-00150.
Speaker 2: Mr. O'Donnell, your 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 7: I only get 3 minutes. Okay. Well, please approve us. Thank you.
Speaker 2: For. Thank.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the council again. My name is Forest Hancock. I work with four city Stapleton as the development manager 7351 East 29th Avenue in Denver. Really here to just answer any questions that the councilor members may have. Oh, thank you.
Speaker 2: Members of council. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions of members of council. Any questions from council? Right. Seen the public hearing to waiting is now closed. I will start. This is amazing to think we are reaching the point where we hit our last significant parcel when it comes to our old airport. And though the time has gone by quickly, the development that quickly moves through. And I would encourage my colleagues, if you not had the ability to drive north of I-70, there is a massive community now that goes all the way out to 56th Avenue, all different types of housing products, great affordable products, rental, great commercial that we have going on. And so kudos to the the visionaries of the council to create the idea of Stapleton. And while we are certainly have work to be done, what we have commended the community that we have so far is truly remarkable. So I look forward to this next step and I would encourage my colleagues to support this because there have been several iterations of this Section ten that we have gone through, and I am excited about the one that we have. And it does require a reason which most everyone expected. Any other comments to 18? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: It's a rezoning, so I got to comment. No, I was I was going to say. Is that. Yeah, well, we don't have great connectivity out there. Um, to mass transit mean to light rail. It's not, it's a straight line shot down Central Park Boulevard. And right now I'm in the wrong spot anyway. It is it is a you know, it is a it's as barren as it seems out there. It is still a prime piece of real estate with great views of the mountains and all that over Dick's Sporting Goods thing. Huge amenity that's right there. So I hope that in addressing even though there was a lot of mention about single family product I hope that for city has it master plan to to be at least mixed density so that there's an opportunity to capture some of the some of the potential of that site and help us with our housing needs in an affordable location with great access to certain amenities that support families. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. That's another Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Herndon. I want to definitely congratulate you know, you on this parcel and I actually drive this way every day to the city and county building. My colleagues will appreciate this because I usually don't take I-70 because it's congested. And so Central Park Boulevard is my go to route into the city, and I'm just looking forward to seeing what will be here and perhaps I can stop and get my coffee on the way in. So thank you. President Herndon.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Any of the comments to 18? Scene nine. Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 4: Black Eye. Brooks Clark.
Speaker 9: By.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. I Flynn. I Gilmore. I Cashman. I can each. I knew Ortega. I Susman. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. I'm sorry. Madam Secretary, please, cause very nice results. 11 nice eyes to 18 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right, next, when we have counter bill to five three. Councilman, clerk, will you please put 253 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 253 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. We need a second council. It is being moved and seconded. Public hearing on 253 is now open. May we have the staff report?
|
Bill
|
Rezones property at 8901 E. 56th Ave. from M-RX-5 and OS-B to M-MX-5 and M-RX-5 in Council District 8. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 8901 E. 56th Ave. from M-RX-5 and OS-B to M-MX-5 and M-RX-5 in Council District 8. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-13-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0253
|
Speaker 2: It has been moved. We need a second council. It is being moved and seconded. Public hearing on 253 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Sarah with CPD and I will be presenting the rezoning at 3401 Pecos. It is a request to go from PUD number 27 to see MPI two with a waiver from a maximum height of 75 feet down to three stories. 45 foot is in Council District one in the Highlands neighborhood at the corner of 34th and Pecos, about three blocks east of town. The property is little over 34,000 square feet. It's an existing structure that was previously used for education and nonprofit uses. The rezoning request is to use the existing building for missionary housing. The height waiver requested on this case is to bring the maximum height down to three stories 45 feet. No other modifications are included in this waiver. This is the second case in recent months where the maximum height of 75 feet in the two district within 175 feet of a protected district has come into question. After research, CPD agreed that the existing maximum height is not necessarily compatible with the intent of the district, which is to be applied at small embedded sites. As a result, CPD is committed to a future text amendment regarding the copy to district, and therefore the waiver is consistent with CPD's waiver and conditions policy. The campus education districts are intended for educational uses and facilities, as well as other types of civic, public and institutional uses. This to district is intended to be applied to smaller and medium scale campus sites, generally adjacent to single unit two, unit townhouse or rowhouse. Residential zoned districts where it's important to require more space and limited building height than this to II district to ensure these adequate transitions to the lower scale residential neighborhoods. In addition, certain land uses with the potential for offset impacts are more strictly limited in the capital district, such as restrictions on multi-family housing, lodging and laboratory research and development. The current maximum height allowed by the puti is actually higher than the requested waiver. The current maximum height is 50 feet and the waiver is down to 45. The proposed use would actually be permitted under the current Pudi. However, there's a square footage restriction for the residential portion. That's not sufficient for the intended user. And a more detailed summary of the Pudi was included in the staff report. The zoning surrounding YouTube to the west, north and south to the south is another old cut and to the east is YouTube. To surrounding land uses are a mix of single-family duplex and the current. The beauty to the south is showing up as mixed use because it is a religious assembly as well as a monastery use. The current context, low scale multifamily. Summary of the notice. We received the application in February. Planning Board Public Hearing was March 20th with a unanimous vote of recommendation of approval. Planning Committee moved it forward on April 13th of the appropriate are our and those were notified and we did receive a letter of support from the Highland United neighborhood. R.A. Which is in your packet. The first criteria consistency was adopted plans. We have comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Highland Neighborhood Plan. The request is consistent with various strategies identified in the plan. The Blueprint. Denver calls for single family duplex, which is a moderately dense area. The proposed zone district with the waiver, will maintain the character of the existing neighborhoods. It's intended for small scale campus uses in these low scale neighborhoods. The form standards and use limitations as well as the proposed height waiver. Height waiver will ensure development is compatible with the existing character. The Highland Neighborhood Plan describes this area as a predominantly single family, low moderate density residential area, and the suggested land use is to retain this low density residential. The request will respect the existing low density character due to the intent to be applied in these small scale sites, as well as with the height waiver. Staff concludes that the proposed map moment will result in the uniform application of the CPI to zone, district, building, form, use and design regulations, with the exception of the requested waiver to a maximum height of three stories 45 feet. However, the waiver provides better integration with the surrounding You Tube Zone districts and is consistent with the CPD policy to use waivers in situations where the waiver helps to solve an issue that CPD is committed to resolve through a future text amendment. Staff also finds that the requested will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. Justifying circumstance in this case is that the land or its surrounding environs have changed or is changing to such a degree that it's a public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area. And CPD finds that this criteria is met. The copy to district is intended to be applied to small and medium scale density areas. And given this, the overall proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context that exists in the surrounding area and with this to purpose and intent. Overall, CPD recommends approval based on finding that all of your criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have two public speaker two speaker for this publication, Robert Sasse and Mark Trimmer. So, Robert, you can come on up. And then followed by Mark Turner.
Speaker 5: Ah, good evening. My name is Robert Soares. I'm an architect with Tito's architects representing the honor, the Archdiocese of Denver. My address is 5400 Greenwood Palace, Plaza Boulevard, Greenwood Village, Colorado. I'm here primarily just to address questions, but I did want to make a couple of comments in representing the owner. First of all, this particular reuse of this school for the creation of city missionaries will essentially be a place for them to reside while they are serving the community in the downtown Denver area. And they will also utilize this as a chapel and classroom area for educating the missionaries who are residing there. The former school that was there had a playground area that is now basically just going to be a very quiet area where we will have kids playing outside. The intention of the building with its reuse is not to add on to the building, but just basically respect the existing character of the neighborhood. And finally, the other thing that's a nice advantage for the neighborhood is because we won't have a loading and unloading zone. All of those wonderful parking signs can be taken down that that the neighborhood can park there and they can park there as we have a very small parking requirement for only 16 stalls, which we will have offsite. And they really don't intend to use more than about half of those anyway. So anyway, I'm here for your chance to address any of your questions. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Robert. I'm sorry. Mark Trimmer.
Speaker 13: My name is Mark Turner. Obviously 3430 Quiver Street, my neighbor, directly to the west of the post change. And all of the neighbors support everything the previous speaker just said. We think it's a great use. The problem we have with it is the 45 foot. An elevation, which is basically increase in 15 foot. It's our understanding could be wrong could answer this question is that the existing building can't support another story as it exists now. And in addition to that, if it goes up another story, the setbacks come into play and changes the. Feel of the general neighborhood and that you can go two blocks and three blocks and most directions look back. And that will be definitely higher than anything that you see with the exception of some church steeples. So we think the waiver is too restrictive and not restrictive enough in that in the need of future expansion, the neighborhood . Well, let me speak for me since we didn't do a petition or anything as requested as could have been done, is that we think that more coverage of the lot should be considered as a waiver as opposed to just codifying a 45 foot there, that there's better options to get better architectural design and proper massing to fit the neighborhood that things better. So sum it up, definitely support the use that they're going for and have always been good neighbors since I've been in the neighborhood. But we'd like to see more leeway so there could be a better conversation on how the property could be redeveloped as opposed to being. That's only considering height on the redevelopment. So that's it. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from members of council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. So, Mr. Sass, would you mind coming to the microphone? So just to be clear, the expectation is to use the existing building and not to add anything on to the site. Is that correct?
Speaker 5: That's correct. We don't intend to change the footprint. The only modifications actually really being made as a as a street access for safety issues that the building department requested. As we're going through the the plan review process, we've made that modification. But we don't intend to add to the heights of the building, increase the footprint, change the the exterior expression of the building.
Speaker 4: I'm assuming you need to do some interior improvements.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a.
Speaker 5: Lot going on. Yes, exactly. But. But as far as the outside of the building, we we don't intend to change it. The archdiocese basically has owned the building from the get go. They don't intend to sell the property. They just want to reuse the facility that they have and repurpose it.
Speaker 4: What's the maximum number of people that can be in there at any given time?
Speaker 5: There will be essentially 40 residents in the facility that will be on the upper level and then the lower level will be utilized for there's there's a kitchen in there that'll be utilized as well as a little cafeteria area. And there will be a chapel there. There are offices will be in that particular area and also be a chaplain classroom.
Speaker 4: And will the missionary be used, utilized year round?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 5: They'll be rotating people. They typically will be on site for a year. And then other than then, they'll bring another group in. So how it works is college kids doing this?
Speaker 4: Great. I have no further questions. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Actually, a question for you again, Mr.. I didn't even write your name. The architect from Adios. Can you if this goes through, can you make sure that the owner, the archdiocese, somebody from the ownership can contact my office?
Speaker 5: Most definitely.
Speaker 3: I'm I am. I do want to know, when we had a prior campus rezoning, we actually had a real good way forward for this, for the community. I think that would probably work here if we get in that situation.
Speaker 8: Now, that'd be wonderful.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 8: They'd love to connect.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: And then I have one question for CPD. So how do we. Did you maybe you mentioned this, but how do we get around the minimum area required? Because for a CPA to I2, it is a six acre minimum. Unless it's adjoining and exists, there.
Speaker 4: Is no minimum area for a rezoning from an old code zone district, and it's an old.
Speaker 3: Computer. So it's a waiver for the PD. Okay. Um, could we consider, since you're doing text amendments, take it back to CPD. I go that we actually reduce the area requirement to go to campus rather than a six acre requirement.
Speaker 4: I think that minimum area requirements are already on our list of things to consider for various reasons. So all of them will be looked at.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. And if you want to go ahead. Yeah. So I'm Kyle Dalton with CPD. I would just add, you know, we have a list of that that currently numbers about 250 possible text amendments and and the minimum area requirements are one on the list. We don't know yet if that will be in the bundle tax amendment, but we plan to do this year or if it will have to wait for future years because of other priorities that we need to work on. But it is on our radar and we would like to to revisit those in the future. Thanks. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Any other questions? Two, five, three. CNN. Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just this one was I just could have been contentious. So I want to thank CPD for and I don't know which came first the the text amendment or this rezoning issue. But I appreciate the flexibility in approaching this waiver request from the Highland Neighborhood Association, because it is it is a appropriate compromise for that site and that location. I respect your concerns. Fortunately, there is a significant piece of property that is a buffer between your your property and this parcel.
Speaker 2: Mr. Jimmer, if if if you're going to rebut, please come to the podium.
Speaker 13: There is a significant buffer. That's true. The height really doesn't particularly affect me specifically, and that's really not my concern. It's more the architectural design on the corner that the other neighbors are worried about the height.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And so there's that there is that future with by right. Concern. And so specifically, if this rezoning goes through, that's actually what I would intend to discuss with the owners going forward is is how we address that with the community impacted. So with that said, again, thanks again for the waiver because it would have been really hard to understand how this was appropriate without that. But that makes a huge difference in this community. So thank you. With that, I will be supporting this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Any other comments? Two, five, three. Seen. And I'm secretary roll call.
Speaker 4: Black Eye Brooks.
Speaker 13: By.
Speaker 4: Clark. By Espinosa, by Flynn I. Gilmore, I. Cashman. I can. New Ortega. I. Assessment. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting results.
Speaker 4: To our right to.
Speaker 2: Our eyes. To find three has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right, last one we have tonight, 322 and remind remind my colleagues after 322, we then have to vote on 323, 324 and 325. So please don't leave after that public hearing. All right. Let's first get this on the floor, councilman. Clerk, will you please put 322 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill 320 to be placed one final consideration and do pass.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property at 3401 Pecos St. from PUD #27 to CMP-EI2 in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 3401 Pecos St. from PUD #27 to CMP-EI2 (campus education institution, 2 restrictive form standards) in Council District 1. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-13-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0380
|
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I have proclamation number 16 0380 designating May 15th through May 21st as public works week in Denver and congratulating the Denver Public Works Department's 12 Employees of the Year for 2016. Whereas, in celebrating the American Public Works Association's 2016 theme of public works always there, we recognize that public work Denver Public works through its 1100 employees, consistently delivers safe, high quality, cost effective services to the citizens of Denver. And. WHEREAS, Denver Public Works employees are integral to our residents everyday lives delivering services that include street sweeping, recycling and refuse collection, pothole repairs, street paving and mobility programs supported by top notch vehicle and equipment technicians. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works enhances the quality of life in our city by managing and maintaining public infrastructure, including streets, alleys, drainage ways, sewers, bridges, traffic signals, street markings, signage and on street parking, as well as contracting procurement, capturing and permitting programs that meet the needs of the public. And. Whereas, Denver Public Works continues to make a significant make significant contributions to our city's built environment, managing the planning, design and construction of public infrastructure and new transportation options that help people get around town with greater ease. And. Whereas, as our city grows, Denver Public Works will work to accommodate more people with a strategic plan that focuses on smart growth and making Denver more sustainable, multimodal, attractive, resilient and transparent. And. Whereas, the Council specifically recognizes and congratulates the Denver Public Works Employees of the Year for 2015 for their entitlements. And they are. Stephanie Reed Capital Projects Management. Irma Montour Finance and Administration. Desi Apodaca Fleet Management. Nathan Nguyen Fleet Management. Thomas Aveda Right of way enforcement permitting. Ryan Crum Right of Way Services. Brandon Lawrence Policy Planning and Sustainability. Rodney Frescas Solid Waste Management. Robert Page Street. David Hermosillo. Transportation and Mobility. Alex Snaith. Wastewater Management Admin. And Daniel Pacheco Wastewater Wastewater Management APS. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council designates the week of May 15th through May 21st, 2016, as Public Works Week in Denver and congratulates the Denver Public Works 2015 Employees of the Year for their outstanding contributions to the Department and City. Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attack a test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and the copies hereof before added to Denver Public Works and the 12 Public Works employees listed above.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman. Clerk, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the proclamation. 380 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Then move in second. Comments, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Public Works is an amazing department within the city because of the breadth and depth of everything that they do that affects all of our citizens on an everyday basis. I mean, as we're reading through this and we're talking about everything from potholes to trash collection to mobility and transportation, and they do such an amazing job, so much so that that, you know, we don't even notice most of it. And that's that's the hard part is they're out there working really hard. And when they do a really good job, nobody notices that anything's wrong. And we have a great program, even with potholes when they're reported. I was just talking to people recently about, you know, when you report a pothole, our crews get out there and and repair it very quickly. So this is just a fantastic department that we have that does a phenomenal job in our city, especially with all the freeze thaw cycles that we have and and the cost of beating up of our infrastructure. So I just want you guys to know how much we appreciate what you do and especially to our All-Stars. Who are the employees of the year? That's a big, big department with 1100 employees. And so to rise to the top of that, to be employees of the year is no small accomplishment. So I just want to say congratulations, and I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting this proclamation tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a very brief thank you. Public works keeps our city safe, clean and livable. And I think mostly they respond to complaints and not very many people probably say thank you. So I'm here to say thank you for all you do.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank Councilman Clark for bringing this forward and congratulate the 12 honorees, the 12 employees of the year. And I know that you all are reflective of the work that is done by your colleagues day in and day out, and you make us all very proud. So thank you for the work that you do every day.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Herndon. I also wanted to convey my thanks to public.
Speaker 7: Works and.
Speaker 6: Public works employees. You know, as a city council person, you get calls from constituents, from from different stakeholders. And I've always very aware that city employees get calls from everyone. They it's not one wheelhouse that they work with in the field, calls from all of the council offices, from constituents, from different stakeholders. And then you also have, you know, the different agencies within the city that you need to work with and partner.
Speaker 11: And so.
Speaker 7: Just wanted to say a very.
Speaker 6: Sincere thank you and that public works staff have actually come out and driven around the district with me to actually see firsthand.
Speaker 11: Some troublesome.
Speaker 6: Spots. And they get it addressed as quickly as they can. And so. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to join the waterfall. And thank you for our public works department. You do so much in responding to. I think what I would say is the majority of our calls. And they do it with pride. I have the honor to have actually been with a lot of our crews in the paving ops division going out there, some of the hottest days that are out there. They're out there doing it. They're out there working and they do the purposefully in the in July. So imagine a 100 degree day or high 90 degree day and pouring asphalt that's over 200 degrees. And you know, combine that and that makes for a hard that makes for a really hard day and everybody in this city wants their street paved and they want it now. And so that's that's the you know, that's the kind of work that our public servants do. And these are true public servants, and we honor them that way. And I'm glad we called them out in the in the proclamation. I'm glad we do this proclamation every year doing this. But it's more like public works. 24 seven. Right. So if there was a proclamation to do that every single day, I bet you Jolan would be reading it every single day if that's what it took. So. Thank you. Thank you, John, for that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clarke. You know, the public works department really takes care of the bones of our city, and they do not get any credit at all. And and just to piggyback off of what Councilman Lopez was saying, they redid York two years ago and York I don't know when's the last time York had been redone, but a lot of people kept emailing our office and we just said, you know, it's going to get redone, it's going to get redone, you know, whatever year was. And we would ask that you bring these folks who are out here slaving in this hot sun, a nice cold drink, and just say thank you . And we had. It was amazing. We had about 40, 50, 60 folks come in, you know, bring in drinks and say and just thank you. And the crew said, you know, we never no one ever says thank you. So we don't even know what to do here. And so it's just more to encourage us as we see any kind of public works individual out in our streets serving just to say thank you for for what they do and how they serve this city, because they're the ones that make it beautiful and make it great. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I'm I'm new here. So I get to see a different side than I had for the last 30 some years that I've been here. And so I just wanted to thank I don't see her in the audience. And Cassius, if you're here, District one constituent, thank you for being the liaison, because I know I've challenged public works many times since I've been here. And you've handled it well. Very well. It's a public works. Again, thank you for the work that you're doing. But I'm going to push. I would love to see us do more arterials, so I'd love to see you out there doing even more work than you already are. So I want to have a bigger thank you next year for all the arterial work. So, Mr. Mayor, let's get that in the budget because our arterials definitely need the attention. So thanks public works for the work you're doing because your reach is vast in your your staff is huge. But for the most part, we live in a very, very safe city thanks to the work that you guys are doing. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman new.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to just congratulate the department as well and two things that that have come up recently. You know, the cost of construction has gone skyrocketing here in Denver. And you look at public works and they are affected more than any other department, just about because of all the building materials they have to to purchase and to pave our streets and whatever. So for them to do the job they're doing and doing a good job with limited resource or reduced resources from a budget standpoint is phenomenal. So we need to recognize they're also we're looking to the future with transit and Kristi Fagan. Joe and her staff are doing a great job and we're looking forward to seeing that first transit installation implementation on Colfax and the bus rapid transit and and seeing transit develop in the city. So congratulations to the department and everyone in it. And great job.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I just didn't want the opportunity to go by to thank the members of the public works. Y'all are the best partners that I've ever had. And constituent services. And you've saved my bacon more than once, I'll tell you. And your responsiveness has been so great. And a lot of times I get to take the credit for. But I try always to say no. That's the men and women of the Public Works Department who got out there and got out there right away when people were having issues that public works can help with. And I can't thank you enough for all you've done in the five years that I've been here.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Any other comments? 380. Say non, ma'am. Secretarial call.
Speaker 4: Clerk Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi. LOPEZ All right. New, huh? Ortega Susman. Brooks, Black Eye. Mr. President, hi.
Speaker 1: Councilman Nu. I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. Those have only announced results.
Speaker 4: 11 Ice.
Speaker 1: Ice three has been adopted. Excuse me, Councilman Clark, is there someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr. President, I'd like to invite up George Delaney and Nancy Cunard.
Speaker 13: Good evening, members of council. I'm George Delaney, chief operating officer for Denver Public Works and Deputy Manager. I want to thank you for the proclamation. And probably more importantly, I want to thank you for your expressions of appreciation for our staff. And they do work very hard. They work very hard every day. And for them to know that you appreciate the work that they do is very meaningful. We're dealing public works, like most departments in the city are dealing with a very rapidly growing city and the demands that that puts upon our people. We have high expectations of ourselves and we know the citizens and you all have high expectations of us. One of the things I wanted to point out to you, I don't know how many of you are familiar with this, but this is a plan that we put out every year. It's called the Smart Plan, and this is our work plan that says here's what we're going to try to accomplish in the coming 12 months.
Speaker 0: And it's a document that we.
Speaker 13: Use to guide our work, but it's also a document that we can hold ourselves accountable to. And you can hold us accountable, too, because we do a report card on this every year. At the end of the year so that we can show how we're measuring up. So that's that's one of the ways that we are trying to adapt, trying to change, and trying to take on the challenges that we face in our department. We've also been working very hard with our employees on employee engagement, trying to the more and more pressure that's on you, the more hard work that you have to do . The employees, their effectiveness, their efficiencies, it becomes very demanding. And we want our employees to be engaged to enjoy what they do and to come to a safe and hazard free workplace. So those that employee engagement initiative we've embarked upon is very critical to both manager Josie and the rest of us. So, you know, Councilman Clark listed there are 12 employees of the end of the year. It's important to note that these employees of the year are selected by their peers. And so they are typically an employee who is an employee of the quarter and then were selected of the Final Four to be employees of the year by their peers. And I think that makes it even more relevant and more appreciated by our employees. So if I could have we have.
Speaker 0: A couple two here tonight. We have Stephanie Reid's here and Nate when but we also.
Speaker 2: Have a lot of other public works employees. Would you please stand to be recognized? You're the ones who do all the work.
Speaker 1: Todd. Thank you very much.
Speaker 13: For this honor. Thank you for the proclamation. And we will we plan to continue to serve you and meet your needs, as well as the citizens of.
Speaker 2: Denver in the years to come. Thanks.
Speaker 14: You.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark, for bringing that forward. All right. We've got one more proclamation. 381 sponsored by Councilman Lopez. Will you please read proclamation 381?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation Council Proclamation 381 series of 2016 recognizing May 19th as World Hepatitis Mean Hepatitis D Hepatitis Testing Day in July 28th as World Hepatitis Day. Whereas May 19th is National Hepatitis Testing Day in July 28th is World Hepatitis Day. Hepatitis C is recognized as the most common blood borne viral infection in the United States. And. Whereas, Hepatitis C has infected an estimated 70,000 Coloradans, as many as 3.5 million American residents, nearly one in every 50 persons and more than 130 people worldwide. And it is the leading cause of cirrhosis, liver cancer and liver transplants in the United States. And. Whereas, as many as 1700 hepatitis C related deaths occur annually in the United States, these rates are expected to peak between the years 2030 and 2035 at 36,000 deaths per year, making hepatitis C one of the top preventable causes of
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation designating May 15 through May 21 as “Public Works Week in Denver” and congratulating the Denver Public Works Department’s twelve employees of the year for 2016.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0381
|
Speaker 2: And it is the leading cause of cirrhosis, liver cancer and liver transplants in the United States. And. Whereas, as many as 1700 hepatitis C related deaths occur annually in the United States, these rates are expected to peak between the years 2030 and 2035 at 36,000 deaths per year, making hepatitis C one of the top preventable causes of death. Whereas people born between 1945 and 1965 are five times more likely to be infected than any other adults. More than 75% of all people with hep C in the United States are people in this age range and are largely unaware of the condition due to lack of any signs, symptoms and testing, leading hepatitis C to be labeled as, quote unquote, silent epidemic. And. Whereas, Hepatitis C disproportionately affects people of color and the majority of individuals living with the infection can be cured of the virus through the advent of effective treatment options currently available on the market. And those cured through treatment are able to stop and even reverse damage to the liver caused by the virus. And. Whereas, hepatitis C can be prevented, testing can identify existing infections and early diagnosis and treatment can save lives, money and resources. And. Whereas. Liver Health Connection is available as a statewide resource for education testing, linkage to care and other support services. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council agrees that preventing and treating Hep C as an important public health initiative that will improve the quality of life for Denver residents affected by the virus. Section two at the Denver City Council proclaims May 19th as hepatitis testing day and recognizes July 28th as World Hepatitis Day. Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Nancy Steinfurth, executive director of the Liver Health Connection.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council proclamation 381 series of 2016 be adopted.
Speaker 1: Moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I have had the honor to read this proclamation for the last eight years, every single year, and I do so. It originally was going to be read by by then Councilman Garcia, who was absent, and I need you to read it in its place. And as fate would have it, this is something really close to me. Something very close to my heart. I read it with pride, but also a little bit of sadness because this was the very same. Condition and virus that took my grandfather. Who died of cirrhosis of the liver caused by a hep C infection. And he had been a very healthy man his whole life. You know, worked very hard, proud guy. He had served our country in World War Two. And he was injured. And he received a blood transfusion and they didn't test for that then. And so he had became infected with the Hep C virus. During his transfusion, he did not know about it until well, well, well into his life, until he realized he was going to he's going to pass away from it. So it's very meaningful for me to read this proclamation because I know there's a lot of people out there, especially especially folks that were in that age range and that were mostly baby boomers that are born between 1945 and 1965. And as I said in the proclamation, are five times more likely than any other age group to be at risk and to have it and not even know it. And that's why it's important, because this is, you know, a while back, not too long ago, actually, this was almost a death sentence. And because of the resources, because of the research, because of the the work that that we as a world have put into this, there is now treatment and there's now even a cure. And it's important that we get folks into the into the laboratory get tested. And that's not no, it's not just for those that age group, but everybody. It's important to know that. So we will be actually having a free hepatitis C testing day this Thursday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the atrium of the Webb building. And so I highly encourage anybody to go out there and get tested for that. It's terrible. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments? Proclamation 381. Seen none, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Raquel Lopez. I knew Ortega. Hi. Sussman. Hi. Black.
Speaker 10: Hi.
Speaker 4: Brooks, I. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 13: Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please, for the very nice results. A Lebanese Lebanese 381 has been adopted. Councilman Lopez, there's someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation.
Speaker 2: Yes, I'm looking at it right now. I'd like to invite the executive director of the Liver Health Connection, which is formerly the Hep C connection. Ms.. Nancy Steinfort.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. I'm so honored to be here once again. And also thank you to Councilman Lopez, who's been our champion for so many years. We really do appreciate it. We gave you lots of statistics in that proclamation. I understand that. So it's it's kind of daunting to remember everything. So I'll give you one more statistic to throw at you. The CDC has 60 reportable conditions that they get statistics about on an annual basis. Hepatitis C is one of those statistics, one of those reportable conditions, as well as HIV and many other things. In 2014, the number of deaths related to hepatitis C surpassed the number of deaths for all 60 conditions combined. This is this is a big deal. This is a serious illness. And because the prevalence is so great among baby boomers and so.
Speaker 11: Many are unaware that they have it, that it's really.
Speaker 4: Becoming critical that we identify more and more people and link them to then care. So we're really excited about testing at the Web building on Thursday. There are 11 other partner organizations around the state that are testing that same day. Not all.
Speaker 6: We're building in their.
Speaker 4: Own communities, but we're honored to be able to do this. It's free. We will test baby boomers mainly, but we're happy to test anyone with any risk factor. There's a lot of risk factors. If you were a veteran in and served in the Vietnam War, that's a possibility because of blood transfusions at that time as well. They didn't start accurately testing the blood supply until 1992, and that wasn't really that long ago. So we encourage everyone to either visit us at the Webb building on Thursday or please ask your primary care physician because the test is considered free for baby boomers, because that is a risk risk group.
Speaker 11: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing that forward annually. Those were our two proclamations. So we're on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions.
Speaker 4: From finance and Services to 89 resolution. Approve any post lease agreement between City and County of Denver. Mile High Montessori Early Learning Centers for a child care center located at 957 Ulster Way. Governance and Charter Review 939 Resolution approve any post agreement between City and County of Denver Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Colorado to provide medical insurance coverage
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing May 19th as “Hepatitis Testing Day” and July 28th as “World Hepatitis Day”.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0261
|
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. Since this is the zoning measure and we have a required public hearing in four weeks, I just wanted to take the occasion to ask staff and anybody who is listening, who intends to come down here for this public hearing on short term rentals. I want to. To make to disclose some of the issues that I wanted addressed at the hearing. Okay. This ordinance is addressing an industry that whose business model is based on violating our current zoning laws. So we're looking at making a fundamental change in how we've regarded commercial activity in residential neighborhoods. So I would like some and I know I've distributed this to members, to my colleagues on the council and a few others. But this is a map of all the short term rental listings in the city. I don't know if Channel eight can zoom in on that or not. As of a point in mid-January, and I know they change from time to time, but it should be apparent from this map that while we are taking a one size fits all immediate legalization of short term rentals in every residential neighborhood, the demand is concentrated in only certain neighborhoods. So I'd like staff and any witnesses who want to testify to address why we should not look at a more tailored approach as to where we permit commercial intrusion and encroachment into traditionally residential neighborhoods. So that's one thing. Also, in our zoning code, we have plenty of provision for what we call home occupations, and we require a process called a zoning permit with informational notice for these. And if a person wants to repair watches in his basement for his customers, that requires a zoning permit. If they put in an art studio in their home, it requires a permit if they want to tutor students home tutoring. It requires a zoning permit. It's matter of fact, one of our home occupations is rooming house, but that's defined as being longer than 30 days. It requires notice to the neighbors posting of the property and a zoning permit. So I'd like to I'd like some input on why we are adopting approach and approach of making this short term rental, which is nothing more than a rooming house for less than 30 days. Why are we making this a use by right everywhere? When the guy next door who might rent as a rooming house for longer than 30 days has to go through all the notification of neighbors. So I need some more input on why we are not being consistent and why we're why we're affording this disparate treatment to short term rentals as opposed to any other home occupation. Did you to do and also the last thing I like addressed is the the amount of resources we believe will be required to enforce this. The reason I raised that is just in the last couple of weeks, I've been able to go through a few of the listings online , and I have found that there are some hosts on some of the platforms who have converted basements into basically into accessory dwelling units under the radar. So they've taken a single family home, they've made a duplex out of it. But in these basements, they have locked doors and they have four kitchens. And so I'm wondering what kind of resources we have to devote to enforcement of our zoning fire and building codes in this instance. So, Mr. President, those are the the major questions I would like to see addressed at the hearing in four weeks. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And for those watching, if you're unaware, should to 61 be ordered to publish? There will be a required public hearing on Monday, June 13th. Councilman, you dropped out. Councilman Espinosa, you got a question or comment or you want to called out.
Speaker 12: For a vote and just a comment.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, sir.
Speaker 12: I just I'm glad to follow Councilman Flynn's comments. I, too, am looking forward to seeing those answers. I have more thorough comments that I have that I'll be saying in the subsequent to 62 Bill. But it's consistent with what he's saying there in that there is a lot a lot of lot that needs to be still figured out. We're going to be the onus is going to be on us trying to solve it in real time after these bills are are passed. If they're passed. And we've been down this road with marijuana. And I see parallels when you legalize something citywide and you're not properly equipped for it. So to that end, when we do something like this citywide, I get it. When we did the legislative rezone in 2010, that was a much more complex thing and nuance thing and whatnot. But this is a single issue and I think this should have gone to the vote of the people. We should be voting on a ballot measure and letting you guys decide and then coming up with regulatory rules, not just putting it out there like this. And I'm not one, I'm not afraid, not shying away from my responsibility as an elected official. But but this is a citywide thing. I actually represent one of those districts that heavily has a lot of stores in northwest Denver. But what what's good for northwest Denver and a couple other council districts may not be good for the balance of the city. And I would like you guys to make that decision for yourselves. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman, comment to 61.
Speaker 5: Yes. Just comment. Thank you to my council men for raising the questions. I think that you'll find on the night of the hearing that you'll find some really good answers to those questions. We've been looking at this for two years. It's not the first time we've done a zoning change throughout the city. Just recently, the council did the Cottage Foods zoning change throughout the city. It is a common practice by the city and certainly this is one of those bills that has been studied very closely, not only by the planning staff, but also excise and license and not the least by community members who we talked with for quite a while and look forward to the conversations on the night of the public hearing.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Any other comments or questions? On to 61. All right. That was not called out. So we're going to go to 262 and we've got Councilmembers Flynn, new Espinosa and Susman. I'm sure somebody wants to call this out for a vote. All right. Yes. And I believe Councilmembers Flynn and Espinosa have amendments at offer. So let's first make sure. Councilman Lopez, can you make the motions for us tonight?
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr..
Speaker 1: President. All right. So we'll start with Councilman Flynn. You called out to 62. What would you like to do this?
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. You. You read my mind and the script. I have an amendment that would like to allow for a vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, so council members that we had an electronic issue, but you should have copies of both amendments on your desk so you can refer to those when the council members offer their amendments. Councilman Lopez. First, we need on the floor to be ordered to publish where you please put 262 on the floor to be ordered published
Speaker 2: . Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill to 62 series of 2016 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second. All right, Councilman Flynn, you're at first. Go ahead and offer your amendment.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. I have an amendment to offer that is aimed at addressing the issue of homeowner associations and coven and private covenants that may also deal with the same question. So if I may, I would like to to move this, read this amendment, and move it on the floor. Thank you. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 16 to 62 and the following particulars on page two, line 25. And this refers to the hard copy as opposed to the paginated copy on page two, line 25.
|
Bill
|
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow short-term rentals as an accessory to a primary residential use, with limitations, where residential uses are currently allowed. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to allow short-term rentals as an accessory to a primary residential use, with limitations, where residential uses are currently allowed. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-13-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0262
|
Speaker 13: Thank you. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 16 to 62 and the following particulars on page two, line 25. And this refers to the hard copy as opposed to the paginated copy on page two, line 25. After the word premises, insert the following. In addition, the applicant shall attest on the application whether or not the property upon which the licensed premises is proposed to be located is subject to any private restrictive covenants or other private contractual restrictions on the use of the property. And if so, whether the use of the property for short term rentals will comply with any such covenants or restrictions. The director shall deny any application upon which the applicant has self-reported that a short term rental would violate covenants or other restrictions applicable to the property. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to impose any duty on the director to independently verify any representations by the applicant in regard to restrictive covenants or other private contractual restrictions on the use of the property, or to interpret or to enforce any such covenant or restriction. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. It's been moved and seconded. Comments you want to add in, Councilman Flynn?
Speaker 13: Just briefly. Sure. Thank you, Mr. President. As many of my colleagues and other members of the public know, I've been working on some alternate approach along the lines of what I explained about council to 61 of my concerns there about how we are commercializing residential neighborhoods. And I would point out that, yes, the council did pass citywide cottage foods into as a zoning text amendment, but we also require a zoning permit with informational notice for that permit as well. So I think it's very important that we not initiate or be the cause of private party disputes in covenant communities. Most of the members of this body and I won't go into the particulars of it, but they remember that I had one such incident instance in my district that was particularly troublesome, that involved in a way and a short term rental. And that is that is thankfully has been resolved. But I want to make sure that we don't issue licenses to conduct an activity that by private contract the licensee has agreed not to do there. Just one brief story up in Councilman Espinosa's district. A friend of mine is in a townhouse association, seven units up in North Denver, and they found that one of the unit owners apparently had moved but was renting the unit short term. And and it took them quite a while. It was quite an ordeal, too, to put a stop to it. But in the midst of it, my friend, there was a bus stop across the street and and there was a house across the street that everybody thought was a drug house. There were a couple of drug dealers who lived there. And when she went out to wait for the bus one day, one of the drug dealers came out to her and said, Do you feel safe over there? We noticed there's a lot of coming and going and a lot of strange people going in and out of the out of your condo association. Do you feel safe? So I think when drug dealers start worrying about your safety, it's time that we take pause and examine where we're doing this and where are we allowed and what are the rules. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Council members knew. And Espinosa, you're in the Q. I just want to make sure you want to comment on the motion or did you have a comment on the larger bill? Larger bill. Okay. We'll come we'll come back to as amended then councilman another on the motion or to the larger bill.
Speaker 12: Larger bill.
Speaker 1: Okay. We'll we're walking down then, Councilwoman Sussman on the motion to amend.
Speaker 5: On the motion to amend, go read it. Okay. I'd like to ask a couple of folks to come up and address this particular amendment. Let me start with excise and license. Will it be sisolak? Sir, Nathan Batchelder would like to address how you are addressing the HRA information.
Speaker 14: Good evening, council president, members of Council Nathan Batchelder here with access licenses. I think we share the same concern with Councilman Flynn and the fact that we are actually providing a proactive approach to educating and notifying our short term rental applicants that they need to actually check with their HRA and and look through those rules of those covenants to make sure it's an operation that's all allowed. The way we're planning to do that is through our short term rental starter kit. Our starter kit will essentially be a separate web portal that gives the applicant a checklist of sorts that they will check through. And one of those checklists will actually direct the applicant to check with your HRA, make sure that your rules and your covenants allow this before you even start applying. So I think we also value and respect the covenants and the rules that are agreed to by archways. We actually have a much more proactive approach with our framework to make sure people are in compliance with their homeowners associations in the first place. Secondly, I think the department would have concerns any time that it's put in the situation of interpreting private contractual homeowners association language. So our current framework gives us both abilities. We'll be able to have that proactive approach of making sure that the applicant goes through our checklist and make sure that they check with their homeowner's association before they apply. And it also distances the city and the department from interpreting private contracts and HRA language of hundreds of highways in the city. But we absolutely do value and respect all the ways in the county that the city can offer. And we feel it's a partnership as well as a proactive educational campaign with all of our applicants.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. Noted Miss Locks, did you also want to address this? Okay. The second question I have, is there concern that if we put ourselves in the place of making sure somebody is informed their H0? A I'm wondering what legal consequences that might have. Archways have lots of rules. They have rules sometimes about design, house design, sidewalks, fences, what you can build and what you can't. And in no other instance do. We asked people applying for those permits whether they have talked with their house or not. This would be the only time that this request would be made. I think that it may have implications for that are distinctions between the public sector and the private sector. I wonder if Mr. Broadwell would address that for us and what what sorts of things that this might mean.
Speaker 13: David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. Well, first of all, in answer to your question, I'll call your attention to the last sentence and the amendment. And that is an attempt on my part to recommend to the councilman that we we stay away from those kind of problems by disclaiming that the director of excise and License is placed in a position of having to interpret the covenant. And this is essentially a self-reporting thing by the applicant, but doesn't get us in the business of adjudicating whether or not the permit will violate the covenants or not. One of the things that that of most local government attorneys like myself kind of learned early on, Councilwoman, as you indicated , is that private restrictive covenants kind of exist in a parallel universe out there. And there's a tremendous amount of conflict that happens between highway boards and individual homeowners in terms of interpreting and enforcing covenants that don't involve the municipality at all. And as you indicated, there are innumerable ways where cities regulatory laws may grant a permit or grant a license. But anyone receiving a perimeter license has a completely independent duty to deal with a homeowner's association if they're in one, and the deal with whatever civil liabilities they might have. So in this case, this would be unique, as far as I know, in terms of any of our regulatory laws, where a formal part of the application process would be a check off by the applicant in regard to the fact that they've vetted their covenants, if any, and are willing to attest to whether or not what they're applying for complies. But we've attempted to mitigate any sense that the director is going to be judge, jury and executioner in terms of deciding whether the covenants actually do apply to short term rentals, that we're not placing ourself in that position. So simply, it's essentially a reporting requirement by the applicant themselves. The only way that this amendment would force the director to do anything is if they've actually affirmatively self-reported. I checked, and it does appear to violate the covenants in that case, if they have attested and actually dare to say that on the face of their application, then then she's directed by this language to deny the license. But it is admittedly an unusual thing. It's not something we've done in our other regulatory laws. And believe me, from the little bit I do know about a litigation over covenants, there's a lot of subjectivity that is involved in whether or not a particular use does or doesn't involve or does, doesn't it doesn't implicate the covenants. Just in the last couple of hours, I found a recent court of appeals decision in Colorado that in fact involved a question about whether or not short term rentals violated covenants in a community down by Telluride. And in that case, the homeowner one was sued by the homeowners association, but the court ultimately sided with the homeowner's ability to use the property for for short term rental in that case. But it turned on the very specific wording of the covenants that were in play in that case. So lo and behold, this is actually a live issue that is being litigated out there between private houses and the people who live in those communities.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. This is that's probably my major concern about putting the HRA notification here. My first one is that we're doing some proactive stuff to make sure that the people who are applying for this kind of license will know what they need to do. And they need to check with their HRA and they need to check with their landlord. And we have that sort of education process that we're going to be doing between July and December. But secondly, if we. Start with this particular ordinance that you must inform your house. Whether or not we get involved. I think we raised the expectations of the community that the city will get involved in your litigation between you and your. And that opens up a great big morass that would worry me very much. So I encourage my fellow council persons not to pass this amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Espinosa, you now say you do have a question about the motion.
Speaker 12: Yeah, just in Nathan's response, actually.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 12: So. Well, I agree that it would generally be a morass. So you won't see me supporting this for for a whole host of reasons. It does it does mean that that situation exists. And if if David's over here talking about the confusion and that's already in live, as he said, you know, to expect homeowners to know and to figure that out themselves what degree their A rules and covenants do or do not allow this. It's easier just to check that box and move on. And and that's obviously happening because there are two ways that do prevent this, that these do exist. And so tell me, if somebody goes through the process, checks the box, what is the and it is I don't know how we find out that there's something wrong. But then he gets into the that person gets into the situation where they have done this against their H-2A rules. What what is the what is the penalty phase for that?
Speaker 14: Right. So with that particular instance, with a short term rental unit that is not in compliance with their H-2A, their H-2A will be able to issue whatever penalties and fines within their own private covenants for that particular unit. But I can tell you, I think it's more of a partnership right now between excise and licenses and the rest of the city's owners. We've spoken to several property managers and H-2A representatives who can actually partner with us of enforcement of our ordinance. For example, if there are some eateries or property management companies that know of a situation where a unit is not their primary residence, they might not be meeting safety features or they might be violent. Any other conditions of the city ordinance? We can actually partner with those organizations and those folks to make sure our enforcement tools are working just as well.
Speaker 12: So we'll always have the capacity to where you have sort of a blacklist or something like that where you can then submit the addresses for their units that are then no longer applicable, meaning they're not allowed to get license, or.
Speaker 14: If it's a complaint of a short term rental that's violating any condition of the ordinance. So not now.
Speaker 12: They first have to do it illegally and get to the point where then there's repercussions.
Speaker 14: If there.
Speaker 12: That you can't proactively as in HUAC are addresses are off limits.
Speaker 14: If that's taken care of within the private covenants and the enforcement of the specific nature ways. Right. So there's that conversation and what actually happens within their own rules and in their own covenants and how they enforce those own covenants. But what we can do in addition is to partner with each of ways. If there is complaints about people operating a short term rental unit, that might not be a primary residence, that might not be displaying an ad online, or they might be violating the conditions of the but.
Speaker 12: If we're going to register all these licenses, why wouldn't we be able to also populate that registry with licenses mean addresses that are not licensable by voluntarily by organizations, that.
Speaker 14: There's nothing in our ordinance precludes such a contract language, if that makes sense. Okay.
Speaker 12: Now, so back to where I really was going. So then, okay, so they voluntarily do this. They get to that point where it is recognized through your processes that it was not the way cut them off and says you can do this. At what point does it become some sort of violation of excise and licensing rules and what is the repercussion to that? That may mean that STR operator.
Speaker 14: Correct. So if we took a complaint from in a way, we would investigate that complaint accordingly with our inspectors. So we would ask we would first make sure they're licensed. Right. And if they're licensed, we would make sure that they are the proof of premise. They have permission from the property owner. They've been displaying their license number on the advertisement and that they meet all the conditions of the license itself. Right. So we would be able to actually partner with those management companies to make sure they're following the city ordinance that was actually stipulated in our licensing ordinance. That's separate from whatever restrictions or covenants are placed on short term rentals within the actual H-2A.
Speaker 12: So thank you for that. And the reason why I had that line of questioning is that's pretty much the answer that I've been getting since we've been asking the question since January, which is that there are no clear penalties, there is a penalty process, but there are so many hurdles and other bits and pieces and parts to the where enforcement lies is sort of all over the place. And that is inherently one of my problems with this bill is that there needs to be a clear penalty. That is direct. When a violation is found, a fine is issued and the person is is no longer able to operate that if they're not operating consistent with the rules of licensure.
Speaker 14: Correct. And we have lots of tools within.
Speaker 12: But it's a very, very evolved process. And the fact that you can directly say this is what happens when this when this fails has been an issue for me.
Speaker 14: Yeah. So I might actually defer to our senior attorney who can go into a little more details about what that licensure fee and penalty might be, including potential perjury.
Speaker 12: But the process to get to perjury is not direct.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Kelly Moore, on behalf of the city attorney's office. So I understand your concern.
Speaker 12: If I'm going 75 and a 55, I get a ticket. If I'm if I'm wrongly checking a box on my license or application, what happens?
Speaker 11: So there's always the discretion of an officer when you're speeding to get that ticket to say whether or not you actually get them. So while I understand that from your perspective, it's very cut and dry with speeding, there's actually a wide range of possible penalties in that realm, too. When we look over here, it's similar. If you are checking the box that says that you are complying with your terms and the you get caught lying, you could be subject to those penalties and then there could be charges filed against you as a crime. The Department of Excise and Licensing could also file to show cause against your license for that violation of itself. And we go through a due process hearing that way, which would then have your license potentially be revoked and you wouldn't be able to do the short term rental anymore. So. While it's not clear cut, I don't think there's anything when you violate the law that is a clear cut penalty that you're looking for to say if you do this, then that because we do have due process rights that attach to the issue a license to an individual.
Speaker 12: Which is why I can dodge on photo radar ticket if I want. Right. Because that doesn't ask me whether I violated the speed or not. So that sounds like a lot of city expenditure to go through that process just to get somebody to I mean, just to to really say that that you shouldn't have been operating. Is the licensee culpable for the charge? I mean, the charges that are incurred by the city throughout that process?
Speaker 11: I mean, that's something we could work into our our processes and our rulemaking. And I don't think that necessarily has to be set out now.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Enhancements as we got a little broader, broader to 62 in general. I hope that we can focus colleagues just on this motion right now because there's another motion and then there's Bill as amended. So there will be plenty of time to comment on this. So if we could have you just ask if you could just focus specifically on Councilman Flynn's motion. Councilman Ortega, you're up.
Speaker 6: So I appreciate this line of questioning that we've been going through. I was at a meeting with an HLA group in Lower Downtown and they're actually having to research the various sites that advertise because they know they have some people in their building that are. Basically renting out their unit as short term rentals and they have no other way of being able to find out who it is other than to have to play cat and mouse and try to track down who it is that that's renting their unit, which is in direct violation of their own. And so I think the concern is that this puts a lot of onus and responsibility on the boys to try to find out how. You know, who's who's doing this within their development and then what that recourse is and hearing the line of explanations of how that gets resolved. It's it's lengthy and it's expensive. And so it's putting the burden on the airways to try to solve the issue when there is someone who is knowingly violating the rules. And, you know, a lot of this hopefully will be resolved in the education process. But there may be some people choosing to ignore the process. And even if someone doesn't have a license and they are doing this, can I've been asked the city attorney this question. Do they still go through the. The normal process to prove that they should not be allowed to operate even though they don't have a license.
Speaker 11: So that the onus would be on the licensee, that they would have to prove that they are allowed to operate. And if they aren't allowed to operate, then they could be subject under our general ordinance guidelines that if anything is unlawful, you could be subject to up to a $999 fine and up to a year in jail . So it would go through the court procedure that way, if that answers your question.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it does. So thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn, I'm going to hop over you. We got some couple other people who rang in, hopefully to talk about the motion. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just trying to determine if there is a net benefit to this amendment. So I guess I have a question for you, Nathan. Does this amendment change the enforcement of this proposed law?
Speaker 14: No. There is no language in the ordinance right now that discusses private contractual language. And really what we plan to do, I think, is similar to what the sponsor of the amendment is to have that approach, that framework where we tell an applicant to check with their actuaries, to check with their covenants to make sure this isn't allowed use.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. And then, Councilman Flynn, I have a question for you. So it sounds like it does achieve the same thing. That will be part of their rules. And I wonder if it's confusing if with their long list of rules that this is the one that is in the law and the other ones aren't, and then it might set up false expectations.
Speaker 13: Mm hmm. Okay. I, I can say that I'm not confused by it, and I'm only confused by why why other members might consider not supporting this because it simply puts into the ordinance what the exercise of the license already is, has said it's going to do. It just requires them to do what they've already agreed to do. And the reason I want it in the ordinance is to maintain that requirement through the years. The only thing that it adds is it asks that that directs the director to deny the license of the self-reporting. Applicant says, I'm not permitted to do this by private contract. That's the only difference. And there are 850, give or take, homeowner associations registered in the city and county of Denver. This amendment in no way requires the division of the exercise of a license to look at any of the covenants, to examine them, to study any of them. It simply puts into the ordinance the requirement that they do what they've already said they're going to do by rule. I would rather see that as a requirement to ensure that it gets done down years down the road.
Speaker 1: Katherine Black. Any other questions?
Speaker 10: No, thank.
Speaker 1: You. All right, Councilman, do you now have a question about the motion? Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir. Ask the city attorney one question. There are some are questioning the councilman. Last question. Does this amendment give you the greater ability for enforcement? Enforcement is a big, big issue. And I just wonder, does this help strengthen the enforcement process by having this in the ordinance?
Speaker 11: I don't know that it would. It's a self at at attestation. So by merely checking the box, if someone does lie on that application, we have to go through the show cause procedure to then revoke their license. And then I think we would be getting into the very thing that Councilwoman Susman is afraid of, is that then we would be interpreting private contracts.
Speaker 14: So if they don't.
Speaker 2: Abide by you have to go through that process anyway.
Speaker 11: We do, yeah.
Speaker 2: And so by them checking the box is proof that they that is evidence that they are not comply.
Speaker 11: Well checking the box would give us evidence that they lied on their application fee. So if the license was then granted, we'd have to go through the due process claim. Typically, people who apply for licenses and they are denied also get a denial hearing to object to the denial of a license to. So we'd have to go through that process.
Speaker 2: Seemed like it would help you a little bit. All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman there, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. And my apologies to my colleagues for being late due to a family emergency. But I do appreciate that Councilman Flynn gave us some advance notice about this amendment. I did not get a chance to talk with the city attorney about my question in advance, but it was raised by other council members. So I just want to play out a scenario. I actually don't have a philosophical issue. I know some of my colleagues do. They don't like putting things in ordinance that could be in regulation or that could be input in other places. I'm a believer that sometimes it's comforting to have things in an ordinance if you're going to do them anyway. So I don't have a philosophical problem with that kind of ordinance drafting. I am worried, though, about unintended consequences. So I want to think through a scenario where a sincere owner has a difference of opinion with their HRA about what their articles do or don't say. And the scenario I'm concerned about is an owner attests that, you know, they read the language they think it allows subletting, for example, let's say that it says subletting and they think that that means that they can do a short term rental. And the House says no, subletting is different than a short term rental. And and then the department is indeed notified by this. And now we have a situation where the department is in a decision making mode about actually pursuing perjury charges against someone who who knowingly , you know, checked the box. So that's the scenario of an unintended consequence. So I don't know if either Mr. Bardwell, who helped to draft this or, you know, the city attorney who's advising the department, want to comment on if indeed given notice by an HRA that a unit is potentially in noncompliance, whether that obligates you to begin a hearing against someone, even if there's a difference of opinion.
Speaker 13: The intent of the draft is absolutely not to obligate us to conduct a hearing and to send them to district court if they want to argue about the meaning of their covenants in a case, as you described. So that's what's intended again. The last verbiage we included in the drafting in Councilman Flynn, including that in the drafting, was intended to make that point that we're not going to be the forum in which those kind of differences get adjudicated. But that that's the intent, Councilwoman. And because because it's based on the concern you just expressed, it does get the city into an unusual place. When, when, when, when, when assertions about compliance with covenants are not becomes a little bit our responsibility because we're building it into our regulatory codes in terms of making it part of the application process. And another aspect of this, just to reiterate, is that the one definitive thing the draft the amendment requires the director to do is if they've been so bold as to say, yeah, there's covenants and I think I'm in violation of them, that only in the most clear cut case where they've self affirm something that definitive does is say to the director to do anything, and that is to deny under that narrow circumstance, but not when there's some debate or some difference.
Speaker 11: And I realize that scenarios are dangerous, but I just want to play this out so it doesn't obligate the department to take action, but does it allow the department to take action? So, for example, let's say renewal is coming up and one of the provisions elsewhere in the ordinance states that license renewal does have a review of if you have violated any of these, you know, provisions and you start to have neighbors who are petitioning to say this should not be renewed. So I just want to ask, does the language allow the department to take action against the individual?
Speaker 13: Well, I'll defer to Biz Morey if she wants to comment on this one as well. But I would say, no, this doesn't affirmatively allow or require or anything else a director to get involved in those kinds of disputes. It doesn't create a basis for denial based upon an external allegation that the covenants are being violated. That's that's intentionally left out of the language for, you know, for a lot of the reasons you're articulating in terms of not just not wanting to go there. So so I think the answer to your question is no. And I don't know if Ms.. Morey wanted to comment on that one.
Speaker 11: And I would agree with Mr. Broadwell. I don't think it obligates the director to say no or say yes or not. Get involved. No, no, no, no. But remember, my question in this round wasn't about whether you're obligated, it's whether you may. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I believe that the amendment's written in broad enough that the director may get involved. Okay. That that right there is my concern. So I'm going to move to comments really quickly. But I just wanted to clarify procedurally, when we have our public hearing on the zoning amendment, was there a courtesy public hearing on the regulatory bill coming run first reading tonight?
Speaker 1: Right. If if both passed, Councilman Susman will like to 62 to move at the same pace as to 61 so they'll both be on the.
Speaker 7: So I guess.
Speaker 11: I am concerned about unintended consequences. I think I'm fine with the idea that you want to require people to pause and look at their HRA. I'm concerned about an unintended consequence because it happens now where neighbors come, they say, we want you to take action on this renewal. We think they lied on their application and there's political pressure and there's community pressure and the department has the authority to take that up. That to me is confusing. So for tonight, I'm going to vote no in the amendment. But I would invite folks to give, I guess, public testimony on this point. I'd love to hear some input during the hearing. Perhaps it may or may not be on point with the zoning hearing, but to me we have a second reading. But but I'm philosophically supportive of the idea of saying to folks, stop, pause, look at your HRA. I do not want a situation where neighbors feel like they have language in the ordinance to petition the department to somehow be engaged. I just given that people really do have sincere disagreements with their ways on interpretation all the time, and it'll take time for each of us to revise their bylaws to get clearer on this point. I'm just I'm a little nervous that we're ahead of that and we're going to create some unintended consequence. So no, for tonight. But I'm open to understanding, you know, people's perspective on it and thinking about it more. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Each. All right. The only person that hasn't come in yet in the queue. Councilman. Clerk.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think that I share some of the concerns about getting involved in these private agreements, and I would not support this if I felt like that did this. I also I have some trepidation, although I agree philosophically with where Councilman Espinosa was going. And I had the same thoughts on, well, if we know the statute doesn't allow it, why can't we preemptively put those addresses in there? But bylaws can change with a simple vote at one board meeting one month. And I don't think we get involved in this. I think that this amendment, however, is very simple. It is written and was crafted very well, and it says the director shall deny any appli or application upon which the applicant has self-reported and then goes further on to say Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to impose any duty on the director to independently verify. I believe that the way this is written. I am not convinced that this gives us a whole lot more than what's already in there. Their him. But it is one level above I'm checking off. Oh, did I go through my check sheet? Now I'm saying to the city I did these things. So it's one step higher. It's not a big step. So I'm not convinced that it's completely necessary, but I have absolutely no problem supporting this. I think that it's crafted in a way that I don't think that it will lead to unintended consequences. I don't think will put us in a sticky spot, which I would not support it if I felt at all that it would. On And while I have very few active activities in my district, if this provides a level of comfort to the constituents that my colleagues like Councilman Flynn are representing on ways and I'm very happy to support it. I think in in some ways and this will be very interesting as we get into public hearings on the bigger issue that we are making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. I think that it's simple, it's straightforward. It gets us a little tiny step further than what we have in the language, and I'm happy to support it. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. All right, round two. Talking on the motion. Councilman Flynn, you back up.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. The. There are many unintended consequences to every action that we take. Every single bill will have unintended consequences. The one that this amendment is is aimed at addressing is the unintended consequence of the city suddenly issuing licenses that could impact up to 850 homeowner associations. And the unintended consequence that we are causing civil disputes among these parties through our actions when requiring the applicant simply to go and check and verify that they can do this, is all that this amendment does. My hope is that we can prevent. 100, 200, 800 problems between private parties out there through the unintended consequence that is more likely to happen than the director being politically pressured into holding a show cause hearing that the that the audience doesn't require her to do in the first place. The Telluride case that that Mr. Broadwell spoke to he briefed me on that very he briefed me very briefly before the meeting. And although I'm not a trained lawyer, I've watched enough Matlock to be able to understand. But the Telluride case hinged on the covenants in that case. And Mr. Broadwell, jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, where the covenants were very vague and did not say you can't do short term rentals less than 30 days or what have you. It was a more broadly written part of the covenants that they had sued over. And in this regard, this would require the applicant to look at the covenants and not look for the provision in Telluride, which was only residential uses can be performed. No commercial uses can be conducted in the in the premises of this particular association. So I the unintended consequence I'm trying to avoid is for the city to ignite all these dozens, hundreds or whatever they might be of problems that don't need to happen with this one simple little checkbox that the division already has said they intend to do through their education campaign. The. And the final thing was on. Oh, that this is a unique action we're taking. It's been a while since Councilwoman Sussman had asked this question. This is sort of unique in that we don't have any provisions in our zoning office when a homeowner comes in and wants to put up a fence. We don't check whether their H-2A allows them to have a fence. I agree with that. But in this case, we are looking at taking a long standing. We've had long standing rules on fences. After all, your fence can't be more than four feet high if it's front forward of the front line of the house, for example. So if we suddenly changed our ordinance and said, you can have a six foot fence in your front yard, I think we need to understand what the implications of that are here. We are taking an activity that has been illegal since at least the 56 zoning code and probably the one that that replaced back in 1956. And we are saying suddenly tomorrow you can do this anywhere in a city. And so we're we're lowering the bar on commercialization in our neighborhoods. And because of that unique circumstance and because this is a change in use, this isn't a fence or it's not a purple. You know, we're not painting a house purple in violation of covenants. This is this is an introduction of a commercial use into residential neighborhoods. So I think it's highly appropriate that we afford highways, this little bit of cushion so that they don't they don't they don't face as many problems with licenses that we issued, licenses that we issue down the road. I think that was all that I have. Oh, and just to Councilwoman Black, the net benefit I believe the net benefit from this amendment is that we reduce the number of potential conflicts between private parties. I know the highway in my neighborhood that had to address the one situation that you're all familiar with, had to go through a lot of pain and expense to take care of that situation. I want to try to avoid that. I think this will prevent some of them. Not all of them. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you all for all your comments. I just as you can hear from the comments, my concern is that we're putting it in here. With the language that but we're not going to do anything about it. And it seems like it's for show because we already have these restrictions that we are going to impose in our rulemaking . And so why would we put in the expectation and expectation for an applicant or the HRA that we will enforce your rule that that for you, that we will help you in your and in your concern over an STR. We already intend to be proactive about this. But the other thing that concerns me is that we are that the community members out there who I have talked with for two years are just hearing about this tonight. And the whole ordinance wasn't done in a vacuum. It was done with the I and C neighbors who worried about this and looked on this worked. We worked with the stakeholder community. We worked with the neighborhoods, not just ANC, but individual neighborhoods. And here they are hearing about it for the first time. It is this is something that I think should have been taken to a committee. We've been talking about it since for two years. But we have new council people. We've been talking about it since July. This is. For months. This is me. And that's quite a long time to have maybe brought this before. So we could have vetted it with the community to see what they think about that. But now it's just coming tonight. And I, I think it might be wise for us to we we have in place we're going to have an advisory group with all the stakeholders afterwards to take a look to see if we've done it right. Have we missed some points? And that stakeholder group is going to be the same sort of folks that we talked to for the last two years. I don't know why we need to start changing the regulations at the last at the 11th hour.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: You know, I just in my little familiarity with these attestation forms. You basically are sitting there affirming the following statement. So I'm trying to figure out if this is doing nothing or if it's really doing nothing. And what I mean by that is, is if. If there is a if there's a situation where it's in dispute, the license has been issued. We're not talking about revoking the license. We're not going to change the status at all whether this statement is in there or not. And that person wrongly checked the box that said, tell me about the form. Does your will you ever get to this situation where you're not checking the box and getting license? Because don't you have to check the box and attest that you've already verified this with your covenants and it's a it's acceptable in order to get to the point where your licenses have been issued. Or can you actually will you be issuing licenses without this box checked?
Speaker 14: Some of this will sort of depend on the technology that we implement. But I think the thought is for now actually honored different steps of the application. You will actually not be able to move forward if you don't check the box, if you don't certified.
Speaker 12: It's like trying to use my app without agreeing to the licensing terms.
Speaker 14: So. So for example, if one of the questions will ask you for a proof of premise or permission for a property, or if you, if you do not check that box, you will not be able to allow them to move forward in the application itself. I don't know if that answers.
Speaker 12: Yeah, it does suit me because that's what I'm saying, that we're writing in here a rule to say that, you know, the director won't issue that license if that boxes in checked. Well, you can't even get to that point on the on the system if that box is in check. So I mean, the system itself is the de facto rule. So it's just a strange it's a strange rule. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Any other comments on the motion to amend? You. I will simply add this this this reminds me, I remember when we were going through the budget cycle last time and we had $1.5 million allotted to the Department of Safety and the Department of Safety told us they were going to use that money for additional police officers. Yeah, this council had a debate to make them put that. And had we done that, we only would have had 45 officers hired this year. We had a robust discussion and we realized we needed more and we had 85. So I don't think it's wise to put this in those rules if we already know that the excise analysis is moving forward. So let's vote on the motion to amend. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: FLYNN Hi. GILMORE No. Can each. No. Lopez I knew. Ortega I. Susman No. Black No. Brooks. No. Clark? Espinosa. No. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: No. Madam Secretary, please close. Very nice results.
Speaker 4: Five, six, seven, eight.
Speaker 1: Five, eight, seven days. The motion to amend has been denied. All right, we've got our next motion. Councilman Espinosa, would you like to do with this bill?
Speaker 12: I would like to amend my script. Sorry. I would like to move that. This the. Well, actually, no, Mr. President, I would like to move to amend Council Bill 16 0262 as follows on page two, line 30, after the word, a new insert the following. Upon granting a license to an applicant who does not own the property where the licensed premises is located, the director shall deliver written notification to the owner of the property, advising the owner that a license has been issued.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved. Colleagues, we need a second. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: So this is hopefully more straightforward but maybe is unnecessary, as is the prior. But I just. There is another attached attestation attestation on that form that basically says that yeah. Even though I don't own the property and renting the property, my owner is cool with me owning this mean renting out this thing short term and that's pretty much the extent of that. And also I want is this is the director they're going to have the license mean they're the owner information because that's also part of it too simply after that license has been issued to that individual who's already attested to all those things, is it being okay? Is this and notification to the actual property owner saying, hey, this property has been issued a license for short term renting? It's it's it seems pretty straightforward to me, an easy ask and a good safeguard to property owners citywide. So that's the purpose of this bill in this amendment. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. My first question is in the script, it says it's an amendment to Council Bill 261. Is that a typo?
Speaker 1: It is a typo was 262.
Speaker 5: It is 262. Thank you very much. I have I have similar problems with this particular requirement, and not the least of which is the amount of work and cost to discover the landlords of every single property, that of every single person who applies and would like to ask to excise and license. What would this mean to excise and license to have to be able to discover and find and notify a landlord.
Speaker 14: Yeah. So I think the department said Councilman Espinosa's concern of making sure that an applicant has permission from their landlord to offer to short term rental. We've actually already included that provision within the ordinance language itself. So under the application section subsection G, it says that the applicant must provide written documentation from the property owner, allowing short term rentals on the licensed premises. And what that means is that gives the department authority to audit and do spot checks of the licenses at any time. So through complaints or through simple auditing or spot checks, we can ask for that written permission at any time we want during our licensing enforcement procedures. In addition, I think there would be some concern about sort of the administrative burden of what that would mean to the department in terms of notifying property owners. Is the property owner a property management company? Where is that property management company located? Is the property owner under an LLC that's under different people and some people may not. So it's there are some concerns that we would have about tracking the property owners that are associated with the licenses. I think the tools that we have in place now are sufficient for us to request that written permission from the licensee at any time. And it really puts the onus on the licensee to obtain that permission from their property owner and show it to the department any time it requested.
Speaker 5: Oh, thank you. Would it have the same effect? We wouldn't be enforcing the landlord tenant relationship. Maybe this is a question for the attorney. Would it have the same effect as the H-2A proposal? Was that it? We wouldn't be enforcing a landlord tenant relationship either.
Speaker 11: I think there would be some of the same concerns. There's also concern that this would happen after we've granted that license. So, again, that property right in the license attaches to the licensee and we would have to go through due process to revoke a license if we found out that they didn't have permission. So again, we're kind of getting involved with private contractual matters.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Nathan was another question. Would this be a more complex process? One of the big things we're trying to do is make compliance 100% with this, make it more complicated for the applicant that we might discourage people from becoming regulated.
Speaker 14: Well, I think the the best practices that we've seen around the nation point us toward having a licensing system that is not overly onerous, that can have a high rate of compliance. The way we're trying to achieve that is through an online licensing structure that would allow people to simply apply online instead of having to come in person. I think there would be concerns that that compliance rate might sink as soon as we're having to review contracts or leases in person. So a streamlined regulatory framework that we have now with an online system. Our hope is to achieve that high rate of compliance and through auditing and spot checks and other enforcement tools. We can request that information whenever we'd like.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And I, I attribute a rise in consciousness about these. I know many people who have done staffers felt like they didn't know that it was illegal, but actually got an input from one of my constituents who said, not after two years. People should be quite aware that this is an illegal operation and they should be. And we've had some wonderful press and information in the papers and things that landlords should know that this thing is possible. And of course we will have the education process for landlords and houses and others once it's if if in fact it passes . And so, again, I'm not sure that it is a necessary process. It might discourage people from applying if they have to have extra steps to come down there and the landlords. One of the biggest things about the rules that we're having is that a successful applicant must list his license number in every advertising. This is a good tool for landlords and homes because they can go on every kind of site. We don't even have to decide whether it's Airbnb or VRBO, VR, Bio or Craigslist or, you know, mom's mom's list. You can see the advertising, and if the license isn't there, then you have a way to enforce it, not just by the city, but by landlords and by who is.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Sussman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 13: Thanks, Mr. President. And a question for Councilwoman Espinosa, because I'm a little confused. I thought I heard you vote no on my amendment for the very reason that Councilwoman Sussman and I and others are speaking against your amendment now. Would what would happen if a landlord who, upon getting your notice, says, wait a minute, I didn't give permission and contacts? The station says, you know, you got to do something about this. I did not give permission. And so how is this different? And and how would that work, in your view?
Speaker 12: Actually, I'm glad you asked me that question, because right here is my next question to Nathan was to explain, does the owner have a trump card so that if an owner has a renter that is doing this, do they have the right to say, look, I own the property and I want to cease this or now we're kicking it back over into the civil side and saying, nope, you got to deal with that with your renter.
Speaker 14: If a if a licensee cannot demonstrate that they have proof or permission from their property owner, then we will take action on the license.
Speaker 12: But is the owner being there saying, I want this to cease enough.
Speaker 14: So our inspectors can actually work with those owners and have the conversations with the property owners? Absolutely. So if we get a complaint from a property owner, then we can investigate accordingly. And depending on that case, depending on that investigation, if our inspectors feel that the licensee actually did not have permission from the property owner, we will take action on the license.
Speaker 12: Okay. It's not as once again, not as straightforward as I would hope. It's a process. Whereas I think as a person who rightfully owns the property, all parties, however many there are, should be able to go down there and say, pull the you know, cancel this license. At least there's a process for it.
Speaker 13: Okay. That partially answers that. I'm having trouble seeing the difference between your amendment and mine and in terms of how it operates in the end and works. So I'm struggling with that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn coming from knows I'm going to have over you to get to some people have chimed in yet councilman Lopez comments on the comments or questions on your on the motion on the floor.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President, I. Somewhere. I think I became a little confused here. Is it either you, Nathan? It's probably for you. Isn't it already illegal? For if it's I mean, I know we've been talking and know this is going into the substance of what the hearing will be about and the whole conversation of primary residents versus non. If we're asking in the bill if the whole fine I mean, we're not fine. But we've been having a lengthy conversation, hearing from people about the issue of owner occupied residences. Wouldn't it make that illegal? If you could only do it in owner occupied residences, wouldn't you as a renter be operating illegally?
Speaker 14: So a long term tenant under the current framework, a long term tenant could still operate a short term rental as a primary residence.
Speaker 2: Okay. That's where I'm a little confused. All right. All right. Oh, that. Okay. That changes some things for me. Thank you. I wanted to make sure I was clear with that. All right. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll start by saying I do think that this one is messier than the one we just had. And my biggest concern is with the cost of finding the owner mailing something to them. But I just I had to chime in because to argue that this makes it harder and discourages people to do something , the requirement that's in there is for them to work with their landlord, get something in writing, showing permission and produce that. This this language is only one sentence long. Upon granting a license to an applicant who does not own the property, whereas the licensed premises located the director shall deliver written notice to the owner advising the owner that license has been issued. Nowhere in there does it say that the applicant has to do anything. If you really if you're going to make the argument that ease and compliance, you should strike the other part and put this one in. So I think that everybody is positioning themselves for what they want and don't want in here. But let's be a little less disingenuous about what we argue on both sides of the table here. I do think there are legitimate concerns outside of that, but I do not think there's any valid argument to say that this makes it harder and will lead to less compliance because there's zero in this that the applicant is required to do. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman knew I was reading.
Speaker 2: Gee, again, you know, says that, you know, that you're going to receive written documentation for the property owner. So go to for them to do it right. Are you are you going to at least are you going to check need that that that is the right property owner.
Speaker 14: Yeah. So through our inspection services, we can use the many tools that are available to the city to make sure that it is the identifiable property owner and make sure that we able to reach out to that property owner and and have those discussions if they have that, that authorization or not. And we can do this, the auditing and the spot checks of the licenses, whether it be complaint based, whether it be spot checks at any time in that license, you will have to provide that that written documentation to the department of that permission and the written permission from the.
Speaker 2: And so this is the property the listed property owner differs from what the documentation says and that license will not be processed until that's clarified.
Speaker 14: Right. It would be sort of a case by case instance on an investigation of that particular issue. The way we have it set up now is that you will apply online for your license. You'll certify that you have permission from your property owner to do this. Once you go through the online steps and certification process, you'll then be issued a license number that then start advertising on your listings. Then it will be up to the department to go through those listings and check for compliance and do those spot check audits. Are you going.
Speaker 2: To check for the property owner before or after you issue the license?
Speaker 14: So in the online license application, we won't be able to have a document like a lease or a separate document uploaded into that system. It will be entirely audit based.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, I just have concerns about enforcement making sure that they see the sales very good what you're doing. But if you don't check to see if that's the correct property owner, I just wonder if that's really that sound or a private practice.
Speaker 14: You and I think, you know, once this this license rolls out, we'll be making fine tunes and adjustments to our enforcement. A lot of that is actually through our short term role advisory committee that can include department heads, hosts, non hosts, different agencies to really see how we're doing, to really make sure that our enforcement mechanisms get honed and sharpened over time. So we really feel that having a community based dialog through our advisory committee on our enforcement efforts is actually really important to the actual licensing scheme itself.
Speaker 2: I should encourage you to keep it as tight as possible. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. You all right? Round two comments. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: So I agree with you, Councilman Clark. It is actually really simple and probably would be cleaner my way rather than the way it is actually the. Because the fact of the matter is, is there is no extra step for the applicant. It's actually very easy. The assessor's office is right below you guys and there's excise and licensing and CPD. You'll have the address of the license location. You go to that record which we all have access to on the computer and you get the owner's information and then you put whatever the cost is, $0.42 or so used to those forever stamps. You stamp that on an envelope with the notification saying your license, your property has been issued a license for a short term rental to the following individual. It couldn't get any better than that, and that's a degree of assurance that I think we should offer. Those people that own properties where the long term renter is short term renting. And just so we don't think that this is a huge grave thing. We have approximately 2000 stores in this city and only a fraction, a very small fraction of those are being short term rented by long term renters. So we're not talking about all 2000. We're just talking about that small fraction that are acknowledging that they do not own the property that they that they call their primary residence, but they are short term renting. And so but I do have a question for the anybody here. Do we what is what is the percentage of those 2000 that are renters re renting their property versus non primary resident operators.
Speaker 14: You know, I currently don't have that information right now, but once we start licensing, once we actually start giving us the ability to collect data on our licenses and the number of licenses we've issued, we'll be able to work off some figures and some numbers for you. And as I mentioned earlier, our advisory committee can actually study that those numbers and study that data to see what the issues may be, to see what our rate of compliance is, to see how well our administration enforcement of our license has gone. So it's probably some numbers we don't have today, but with the licensing structure, we'll be able to have those numbers.
Speaker 12: So if I just said roughly 10% and I'm pulling numbers that are not fair, but 10% of the number of the 2000 are re renters. You know, long term renters doing short term rentals. That would be 200 of these properties. I can tell you that I've probably got well over 200 letters basically asking me to to get rid of the primary residency requirement. So if we're looking for 100% compliance or as close to it, we should we should this this rule, should it mean these laws should actually be capturing the industry? Not not. What my concern is, is that, yes, we got I.N.S. Compliance and we got a lot of compliance with the notion that I presented to Councilwoman Sussman when she went to the agency at Denver Water while I was on the campaign trail in 2014 that this should be for primary residences only. And so. So the. The the. My frustration is we're we're moving forward on this bill with that clause. And we're not thinking about all the other periphery things that actually could make this bill good from an enforcement side. And those are comments. But it's troublesome that we can't provide this one little safeguard reassurance that property owners will be notified when we know how to contact property owners for a whole host of reasons. And this is not a very big ask. Thanks.
Speaker 1: And you know, the councilwoman Sussman, you back up.
Speaker 5: I thanks everybody for their comments. But I do want to clear up what Councilman Clark and Councilman Espinosa said, that it wouldn't make more work for the applicant. And I believe that when we had conversations about this, you worry that it would require the applicant to come down to the Webb Building to show some sort of affidavit . Can you address that? Have you figured out since we last talked that they wouldn't?
Speaker 7: I'll give Nathan a little rest as Stacey likes the director of Excise and Licenses, just to be concerned when this is over. We're just now seeing the languages.
Speaker 11: One of the concerns.
Speaker 5: Is if you have to test, you have to give an.
Speaker 7: Address.
Speaker 5: For the landlord to be able to move.
Speaker 11: On to one of our concerns. If we just went to the assessor's office as we'd be mailing that letter to the same renter who just applied for the license and it won't actually necessarily get to the landlord.
Speaker 7: So we'd have to create additional.
Speaker 11: Steps in our licensing.
Speaker 6: Process of providing who the landlord is.
Speaker 11: If it's an LLC, if it's not a real person in the contact information, and that would be information that we may not be able to do online anymore. When we kind of build out those steps, we lose some of that simplicity of being able to do the online ordinance. And it's just one of the things we don't really been able to flesh out, and it helps to see the language itself, but that is absolutely one of our concerns of it might be that tipping point of what we can do online versus not online.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to let you all know that there was some thought that it might require a trip downtown. You'll recall our issues about trying to find the owners of marijuana stores and their LLC and partnerships and trying to find an owner is is not as easy. And we might have to have the applicant themselves do that work and come and show us what that means. I also want to say that we've worked pretty hard on this bill, and while we may have missed some things, you know, I think that we have looked at many, many of these things that people are amending or trying to amend at the last minute. So and I trust that going forward, we will have a good eyes, good eyes on the process. So just have the same concern that this is sort of a last minute thing. And you can see that we're sort of doing all the committee work here on the night of the first reading.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Sussman and Councilman the clerk.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to clarify. So the assessor's office does not provide an address for the owner of the property.
Speaker 14: Those.
Speaker 11: Well, the property's mailing address will be the property itself. That may not be where the owner themselves.
Speaker 2: Lives, but a property owner.
Speaker 5: Forwarding mail.
Speaker 11: Address. So if you think of a property company, you know, four poets wrote the you know, the management company doesn't necessarily have a mailing address on file, but it's one of the things we've.
Speaker 2: Got a property owner who is concerned about getting notifications about their property can tell the assessor, I own this property, I live there and we do record the address of the property owner. It may not be required, but the assessor's office has the address for the owner.
Speaker 11: The mailing address for the owner is currently located.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 11: That. Like I said, this is this is a really new kind of thing for us to trying to flesh out. And those are just.
Speaker 5: Questions that we have to.
Speaker 2: Well, because, again, I don't think that I don't interpret this as us happening to you. And maybe that maybe that is a problem with how it's written, that we have to go to extraordinary lengths to find the owner. I do know that you can call up any county assessor unless Denver is different from our sister counties and say, I own this property, I don't live there. Here's my address. And then notifications like weeds on your property, things that can be assessed against the property will be mailed to the owner in addition to the renter. That's already a function of our assessor's office. And so maybe the wording needs to be specific about we will mail it to the property owner of record in the assessor's office. I think we I'm assuming that's what we're doing. If that's not clear, then we could clear that up and then it would add zero additional searching. We just go to the assessor and we send it there. And if you're a property owner who doesn't want to put your address there, then you're not going to get the one about the weeds and you're not going to get the one about this. That's your choice. But we're notifying you in the way that you want to get notified as no additional work. And I think Councilman Espinosa brings up a good thing, which talks to my concern about the cost of this, that even if all 2000 of them were renters and we're paying a 50 cent stamp plus the mailing, you know, we're not breaking the bank to send this thing. And I do think that it provides a worthwhile addition to the thing to the bill. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Yeah. I just want to apologize to the audience and to my colleagues. I did, in fact, bring this up in a 1 to 1 briefing. And I brought it up in multiple committee meetings. And, you know, it was never entertained. And so that's why I'm doing what I can do as a councilperson to bring out the language directly for a vote. The you know, and I'm happy to amend the language if we think there's a simpler way. But that's exactly what I'm getting at, which is we have records of some sort and we tax these individuals from their property that they own. We should be able to connect these dots fairly easily. And and unfortunately, for some reason, in an effort to simplify the licensing process, we keep trying to downplay the sort of enforcement side. And and and this is a straightforward, direct concern because I've seen this already happen with owners of properties. They they find out that when they go to their property, it's not who they thought they were renting to. And and that is not that's that shouldn't happen when we have when it's so easy to actually correct.
Speaker 1: Think you know that. All right. Any other comments on the second motion to amend.
Speaker 13: This is my name.
Speaker 1: Is not Councilman Flynn. You got a comment?
Speaker 13: Yes, maybe I was clicking on the wrong thing. I'd like a little bit of clarification on an answer to the question that Councilwoman Sussman asked about, about an applicant being required to come down to the Webb building. That kind of went over my head because the only requirement in this amendment is for you to do something the applicant. This doesn't change any of the requirements for the applicant to attest that he or she has the permission of the property owner. What did I miss there? Would someone would an applicant have to come down to City Hall or to Webb Building? And then the other thing, while somebody is thinking of the answer is Councilman Clark is is correct that the assessor does list. I'm looking at a house right down the street from my own that is a rental. And the owner's address down in South Jefferson County is listed as the as the point of contact. So the assessor does list the addresses of the of the absentee owners. Not always is it clear if it's a natural person or not, but as long as we mail it to the same place, we send the tax bills, I assume, where they're paying our property taxes. So they ought to be able to get this notice. But could you clarify the answer about someone coming down because of having to come down because of this? I don't understand that. Or maybe Councilwoman Sussman can.
Speaker 5: Help me on. But they were the ones that told me that it might have to happen.
Speaker 14: I think it was. It's more of that. The goal of the department. Right. So the goal of the department is to make sure we have a regulatory framework that allows us to preserve an online license. Right. That's a really that's a really strong principle that we like to see move forward within this actual ordinance. So if there are as soon as there are complexities that come forward with reviewing applications in person, that's where we would have some concern. So as long as the regulatory framework itself gives us the the ability to still do that online license, that's really what we're as a department trying to keep.
Speaker 13: And how does this change that? Does this amendment change that?
Speaker 14: I think I would have to read the amendment language a little further. As I understand it, it's after the license is issued.
Speaker 13: Upon granting, you've already granted the license to the applicant, so he or she has already done what they need to do. All online, all you have to do or Stacy Schmidt delegated to you is to mail that mail that letter to that address.
Speaker 14: Right. And I think it'll just be a question of making sure we can keep track of the property owners. And we've discussed the assessor is but keeping track of the property management companies, keeping track of the losses. How frequently is that assessor's website updated? Just the department impact of making sure that we're giving the correct notice and the correct notice. The correct property owner is something that we need to determine on our own.
Speaker 13: All right. Thank you. This sounds like more of a morass than mine was about Councilman Espinosa. I'll vote for it anyway.
Speaker 1: All right. Any other comments on the motion to amend that? I was a councilman. Espinosa, you back up again.
Speaker 12: If, like, I don't know. I mean, I would be willing to amend that language to direct it towards the the the license, the primary contact on the assessor's office, not the mailing address, but the the contact. If that simplifies the management of this.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm looking to Dave, what can we vote on this motion? And then if there's a if there's a wording issue, I think we can get the intent out correctly. I mean, the lawyers can do that if people understand what the intent is or do we need to wordsmith right now, I feel as if we've had this issue before when we were talking as like we we had we voted on an amendment and we made sure that the lawyers were going to be able to flesh it out correctly. So that would be properly understanding. And I in my off base.
Speaker 12: David or the good news is we have time.
Speaker 13: Well, you well, you're a little off base. We tend to do that in committee, but not on the floor. This is going to be incorporated in the published version of the bill. You need to get the language and I hate to say this, but if if Council Councilman Espinosa wants to withdraw it and propose something else right now, or if it can be further amended on second reading, that's a possibility as well. But but we don't do conceptual amendments on the floor. We haven't historically.
Speaker 12: Okay, so let's move. Let's keep the language as is. And if there's a better way of of defining address, I'm happy to entertain that. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, any other comments on to 62? I will just add, I think that for a very small percent, I wonder if the amount of brain damage that we're putting into this. And I just I'm just joking with that. But for that small amount, I'm not sure if that's worth it to get what we want to get out of it. So I might think there might be a better way we can do this. And I will say, as a property owner, when I bought my house in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, I moved twice. Mean not one time did I ever contact the City of London to say that I had moved twice. And so maybe I'm just a bad property owner because I know they didn't know where I live. So maybe they tracked me down and I was unaware, but I didn't realize. I just think we're not getting to where we want to and where this motion is written. Madam Secretary, voting on a vote on the motion to amend. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: ESPINOSA Hi, Flynn. Gilmore No carnage. Lopez No new Ortega I. SUSMAN No. BLACK No. BROOKS No.
Speaker 2: CLARK All right.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: No. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank.
Speaker 1: You're good. You've got it, I. You're good. Okay. Madam Secretary, please close the voting out. The results.
Speaker 4: Five six, seven, 857.
Speaker 1: The motion to amend has been defeated. All right. So we still have our regular bill to 62, which is ordered published. Now, council members, before we get in the comments, I just want to remind you this is on first publication. There will be a robust time to comment in depth at the public hearing on June 13th should it pass. But I don't want to discourage anyone from commenting. I just wanted to remind you of that. Councilman, new Europe up. Go right ahead.
Speaker 2: Mr. Nader. Stacy, the one just to want to talk a little bit about enforcement and a little bit and right now, that's a process, right? That's illegal in the suit. It's been going on for quite a while. And what can you describe a little bit of what you're doing now to enforce the law and this is versus what you'll be able to do with this new bill?
Speaker 14: That's a great question. The current enforcement resource criminals can typically be onerous and difficult through neighborhood inspection services, and I don't know if anyone from CPD may be able to comment that or not, but typically what you will see is it's a complaint based. Someone will call 311 Neighborhood Inspection Services, an inspector will come out to the property. They'll investigate accordingly. They'll knock on the door. Someone will need to answer the door. They'll interview the person who answers the door and try and determine if they're doing a short term rental or not. They can then issue violations and citations and then the person can actually take that and appeal it to the board of adjustment of whether or not they've actually been doing a short term rental. So I think the current framework, the current options are lengthy, timely and onerous. With a licensing framework, we can actually make it much more streamlined and efficient. When we talk about two rules, we were talking about force and really talking about two different rules of enforcement. There's the enforcement of the sort of what we call common neighborhood complaints, and that may be noise, trash, parties, parking, etc. That's addressed with our existing tools that we have today through and I asked through DPD, through Environmental Health as a department, we plan on actually partnering with those departments to track those complaints on our licensees. Our licensing enforcement world will live within our own internal inspectors. We plan on actually creating a separate division within our excise and licenses inspectors. So the short term rental enforcement division that will include dedicated existing inspectors, where there are priorities throughout the work day, is to actually enforce the requirements of our licensing ordinance. That will include inspectors scanning through websites to make sure people are compliant with the license number, doing spot checks of making sure people have permission from their property owners, doing other audits to make sure that people are complying with the safety features of our of our ordinance. So it's really a joint effort between excise and licenses. Nice 311 and all of the other agencies involved to make sure that we can track and monitor the compliance within our processes as well. This is sort of a unique situation for us because we have a license that will bring forth a short term rental advisory committee and again, we'll have a community based dialog of how that enforcement is working. So the advisory committee will include hosts, non hosts, city agencies representing city council, other outside experts, and we'll be able to monitor the data that are coming in with respect to complaints and enforcement and be able to alter our framework accordingly through the work of the advisory committee. So this is certainly a working process. It's a it's a tool that we hope to continue to hone and sharpen over time. But really with the licensing component, we'll have much more tools at our disposal to revoke the privilege to operate a short term rental.
Speaker 2: Sounds like a lot more work, especially is not really being performed now. Right. And in sort of unregulated environment and the new work that you're going to have to be doing, how many more additional staff are you going to have to do this work?
Speaker 14: Right now, we're really relying on the existing inspectors. So it'll be a dedicated set of inspectors that will enforce the short term rental ordinance. Again, through our advisory committee, we'll be able to look to them for a recommendation of whether or not our staffing needs to increase and whether or not those staffing needs are on the excise and licenses side of the enforcement or on the neighborhood inspection services. But what we're really trying to do is have data driven enforcement, data driven policies. And the more that we can collect the data and collect information that will help guide the department on where those extra resources might be needed in the future.
Speaker 2: Well, it sounds a little unrealistic to think that your existing staff's going to try to do all this work that's not being performed. Well, I surely encourage you to ask for the staff that you need to get this done right and start off on the right foot. The advisory board committee will do a great job helping to monitor it. But if you start off with too few people and. You're going to have problems in the neighborhood. You're going to have a bigger issues. I think you ought to reconsider about whether your existing staff can actually perform all these responsibilities and duties force. It's a big, big issue with the neighborhoods. I've heard it over and over again. So I really encourage you to rethink what you're doing and and hope that you ask for additional staff to not only do the work, but also do it seven days a week. There needs to be some responsibilities on the weekends, too, if there's some kind of enforcement issue, too. And know I don't I'm not sure it's just an in-house issue. Maybe I think it's going to be your inspectors as well.
Speaker 14: I believe just with the weekend and evenings, there's there's tools in place now to address complaints for any residential property in Denver on the weekends or in the evenings. So the Denver Police Department is available at any time during the weekend. 311 is also available extended hours. And what our plan is to monitor and track and work with our partner agencies to look at the complaints that came in, to review those complaints and take action on the licenses if those complaints are significant enough to go to the action.
Speaker 2: Well, I just don't want us to waste a lot of police manpower, you know, when they should be doing other things, when this really responsibility should be yours. Obviously, there are situations of of of incidents at properties where they'll have to be involved. But I sure encourage your staff to pick up the load there and help enforce this ordinance, right?
Speaker 14: Absolutely. And again, the department can come back with more budget request in if future time. What we're really looking to do is collect that data and collect the information to give our department an informed decision of what those those staffing needs might be in the future. What we need to do to alter our existing framework.
Speaker 2: One last question. There will be a clear differentiation about what your inspectors will do and what you and I will do. Right. That will be really clear for the public to understand then, right?
Speaker 14: Correct. So the the the short term rental enforcement division will be doing enforcement on the actual ordinance language itself. At the same time, we'll be partnering with an IRS to look at the complaints that they've received and vice versa. So both the text amendment and the licensing ordinance, do you have the primary residency restrictions to them? We envision joint partnerships between an IRS and excise and licenses to enforce the same regulation.
Speaker 2: I think I still encourage you to make sure you have enough staff to get this job done right the first time. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman new councilman Flynn.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Mr. President, might I ask you a procedural question that I don't see addressed in our rules in four weeks, assuming that we postpone final on this 1 to 62 or you have torn to 62? Can the speakers on 261 also address you as part of the public hearing as a courtesy address? The subject matter of the licensing provisions is I can't find anything in the rules about combining hearings on two bills at the same time so that.
Speaker 1: They go ahead.
Speaker 5: Yes, of course. And that's one of the reasons why I'm going to postpone it. We don't have to have a public hearing on a licensing bill, but we will be having both these bills come up the first night. And I will welcome comment on either one of them.
Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you. Just that's why I wanted to clarify that our rules do allow speakers to address only the licensing aspect, even though the hearing is on the zoning bill. Is that that will be permitted. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Then Councilor Flynn. Any other comments on 262? Come. Katherine Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Closing comments or questions?
Speaker 1: These are these are comments to 62 as without any of the two motions. So as now it's on the floor for publication and comments or questions.
Speaker 12: So so this is my prepared statement, part of it anyway. This is a matter that impacts all residentially zoned districts. Means residentially zoned properties citywide and directly impacting neighborhoods, individuals and families, be they Denver residents or visiting star guests. I believe rulemaking should follow a vote of the people of Denver. Rulemaking on this scale citywide on a single issue should follow a vote of the people of Denver allowing str citywide. Only then council should move forward with regular with a regulatory solution better than what is currently and that should be better than what is currently being considered aimed at greater licensure, star rating or grading. Strong enforcement tools, including immediate and stiff penalties for non licensure or violations at a time when the city is struggling with displaced Homeless Persons, Council is considering a week measure only to which will only obfuscate and perpetuate a practice available only to people with an abundance of space or extra homes. While I personally support and use stars, this is not a good way to legalize and regulate stars in Denver. Proceeding with the bill and text amendments will be a missed opportunity for Denver to be a better and better model for the nation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa in the comments to 62. I will say I'm going to vote to move this today and as well as the postponement. But I do think we can get smarter with this bill. I appreciate Councilwoman Sussman leadership on this to take this two years ago and to be very thoughtful and a lot of hearing from different people with different interest. But I think we can do better at that. And I hope over the next month, as we move this to the June 13th hearing, we can find a way to tweak this a little bit that I think will allow us to be do better, a better job of regulators. So, you know the comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: SUSMAN My black.
Speaker 4: Eye. BROOKS Clark. ESPINOSA No. Flynn No. Gilmore I can ege. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Councilwoman Houston. All right, Madam Secretary, please. Because it's only now the results. Tennis tune in two days to 62 has been published. Now, Councilwoman Sussman, what would you like to do with 262 right now?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Accountable to 62 is, of course, a companion bill. The council bills to 61, which will have a required public hearing on June 13th. So in order to move the two bills together and to allow comments on both, I would like to postpone final consideration of this license bill. Council Bill 262 to Monday, June 13th.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get this on the floor. Councilman Lopez, will you please put 262 on the floor to be postponed?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 262 that final consideration accountable to has to be postponed to Monday, June 13th.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Any additional comments seen and voted on the postponement? Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 4: Sussman Black Eye. Brooks. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. I can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Please, for the very nice results. 12 eyes 12 by final consideration of two, 62 has been postponed to Monday, June 13th. All right. Those were all the bills that were called out. So all of the bills for introduction already published. Ready for the block votes. Councilman Lopez, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move. So that Council has the following council resolutions all series of 2016 be adopted. Its Council resolutions 289 939 166 303 12. Yep, that's it.
Speaker 1: And you just want to note that 939 is series of 2015.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. I didn't see that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Now, got it. It has been moved and seconded. Seen the comments from our secretary roll call.
Speaker 4: Can each Lopez.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: Knew Ortega. Susman High black Brooks.
Speaker 9: High.
Speaker 4: Clerk. ALL Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. All right. Gilmore, I. Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Council members. Brooks. Oh, yeah. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please, for the very nice results. 1212 eyes resolutions have been adopted in a block. Councilman Lopez, would you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage in a block?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following bills upon final consideration, will be placed upon final consideration and do pass and block all series of 2016 to 90 8 to 80 2 to 96 and to 97.
Speaker 1: Is then moved. And second, Encino comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black eye. Brooks Clark. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman, I. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please follow the voting results.
Speaker 4: 1212.
Speaker 1: The bills placed on fine consideration do pass and the BLOCK Council is now convened as a board of the directors for the River North Denver General Improvement District. Since we are sitting as the official board of directors for the Reno Denver General Improvement District, there are two bills that we considered last week that we published, and we
|
Bill
|
Amends Article II of Chapter 33 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding short term rental properties and adds sections providing the Department of Excise and Licenses authority to license and regulate short term rentals (rentals under 30 days) in the City & County of Denver.
Public Comment Period:
a) Introduction of the legislation. b) 15 minutes of public comment. c) Discussion. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Amends Article II of Chapter 33 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding short term rental properties and adds sections providing the Department of Excise and Licenses authority to license and regulate short term rentals (rentals under 30 days) in the City & County of Denver. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-13-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0272
|
Speaker 7: This is a designation for 200 block of South Lincoln. My name is Karen. I am with Landmark Preservation at the CPD. This landmark designation was proactively submitted to us from the community. Three owners of the does three owners within the designated property submitted it to us. When a property is landmarked, it is designated as is. There's no requirements to improve it or to restore it to a particular time period. Any changes would go through design review. That is an objective process and it's not frozen in time. You can make changes to it. You can work on the interior of the building. We don't regulate paint color or anything like that. But within a historic district, demolitions are discouraged. There are also benefits to being listed in and being a designated property. In general, property values are higher in historic districts than in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is based on the economic power of heritage in place, which is a 2011 study done by History Colorado. And they compared property values of historic districts and then the property values of those around it. They looked at historic districts in Denver, Durango and Fort Collins and found that property values are stable or higher within historic districts. Also, if you are in a historic district, you have the availability to use the Colorado Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Tax Credit, which basically means if you are rehabbing your particular property up to 20% of the interior and the exterior repairs would be available for a tax credit, and I know that there are multiple owners within this district that are anxious to take advantage of this tax credit. So for this, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed it and recommended it be for it to city council. It then went to Planning Board and they also recommended it to come to City Council by the ordinance. City Council should give due consideration to the written views of the owners as well as the public hearing for the designation. The application was submitted to us in February. And when it comes in, land preservation staff does a thorough review and we actually do research on our own to verify that the information is accurate. Paucity permits from the 1890s to verify that the information within it is accurate. At that point, then we set a public hearing and put it before the Landmark Preservation Commission. It went before them and they approved it to go forward. It went to planning board as well is the plan committee. It went through first reading and we're currently here at the second reading. We went through and did all of the notification that was required. The registered neighborhood organizations sent out all the legal notices and put it on our website as well. The applicants did a tremendous amount of community outreach for this particular designation. They've been working on this for several years. There were multiple community meetings with John Olson from historic Denver. He participated in one. I then went this past fall and met with the community as well to answer any questions that they might have for that. So what we're looking at is the 200 block of South Lincoln. It encompasses the addresses from 201 to 246. It's on either side of the street in general between Cedar and Alameda. There are 15 structures within it all would be contributing to the historic district. The period of significance for this is 1889 to 1895, which is encompasses the time period in which the buildings were constructed. So in order to be designated according to the ordinance, it must maintain a historic and physical integrity. And then it must meet two criteria and one of the following three categories, and it must also relate to the historic context or theme in Denver. So this if you're looking at the historic physical integrity, well, you look at seven different qualities the location, the setting, the design, the materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Basically, the idea is, would you recognize this when it was constructed in 1895? Would you still recognize it today? And this historic district has excellent integrity. There are a few alterations to the properties, but those are almost all primarily in the rear of the building as they have been added on to over time. And overall it's in the same location. It's still along a historic thoroughfare. It retains its workmanship. The setting and feeling are also there as well. So after passing the bar of being maintained or meeting its integrity, it then has to meet two out of the three categories. So under history it meets it as having a direct association with the historical development of the city. This is just a map of the area. The blue lines there show the historic trolley lines of the area. The district is outlined in yellow. The little red is already an individual structure, and then the two brown sides on either side are existing historic districts. This district and its growth correlates with the growth of Denver in the 1890s, up until about 1893, when there was the panic of 1893. And the country went from from gold and silver to just a gold standard for our currency. Because Colorado was so highly reliant on the silver industry and the mining industry, there was a downturn in the economy, but this particular area was started growth prior to that, and it continued a couple of years after the panic of 1893 . It coincides with the growth of Denver as the city began incorporating other smaller towns to the south. And it also tax there's all of these trolley lines were developed in the 1890s and so the growth of this sort of reflects as people are able to commute in to downtown. So this area is sort of a reflection of the growth of Denver at the time. The historic district also meets two criteria under architecture. It meets it under the embodying a distinguishing characteristic of an architectural style or type, which is the queen and style. This district is sort of a queen, a quintessential queen, and they have asymmetrical forms. They have corner towers, they have varying wall textures that are seen in the village board or the barge board and the gingerbread detailing in the shingles on the gable ends. They have decorative chimneys and brackets as well. It is also significant as the work of recognized architects. There are two primary architects within this historic district. William Lang, who designed the Molly Brown house as well as the Castleman Mansion, designed most of the properties that are on the west side of the road. And these are slightly smaller versions of these mansions that he built. And it sort of reflects that you had a different group of people living in this part of the town that's a little farther from town and also sort of reflects that the economy then had a downturn. And so you were building slightly smaller scale versions then the Molly Brown house. It's also believed that this is the largest intact group of living homes in Denver. So this is a great collection of his work. There's also F.h. Perkins, who was an architect. He left after the panic of 1893, but he did design several homes on the east side of the road. He was noted in California and he's also noted in Washington. Several of his buildings are Seattle landmarks. This property, this district also meets it under geography as having a prominent location or being an established and familiar orienting visual feature within the contemporary city. Since I started doing this and talking about it, I've had a lot of people who come up to me and said, Oh, those are the tower homes or those are the turret homes. This is something that people are used to seeing as they're driving into Denver. It's sort of the entrance into downtown. And since it's such a large collection of Queen Anne Homes, it's very noticeable and it's orienting to the community. They recognize this. As part of the ordinance. It also has to relate to historic context or themes. So it relates to the growth of Denver, to the early streetcar development into late 19th century Victorian architecture. At the Landmark Preservation Commission there were a ten minute presentation done by the property owners and the applicants. There were 11 public speakers, ten were in support and one was in opposition at the time of the Landmark Preservation Commission . There were eight letters of support within the application itself, plus 19 letters or emails received by our office at that point. We have since received one other letter that is not in support of this and it should be in your packet that was emailed to you. So when the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed this, they felt that it met the historic and physical integrity, that it meant history to under architecture and one under geography, and that it related to historic context or theme. The Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously, unanimously to forward it on to city council.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have 14 speakers on this one. I'm going to call up the first five. Make your way up to the first pew. Anita Lynch, Terry Garrison, Chelsea Wyatt, Charles Brannigan and Carolyn Bennett. You five can make your way up. And Ms.. Lynch, you may go ahead and begin your remarks when you enter.
Speaker 5: Good evening, council members. My name is Nita Lynch. I live at 2 to 7 South Lincoln Street and I'm one of the owners of that home and I'm also one of the three applicants. When this application was unanimous, unanimously approved by the Land Landmark Preservation Commission on March 15th, one of the board members even stated that it could serve as a template for other district request. Extensive research, thoughtfulness and outreach was done in preparation for this request. Of the 15 houses included, 14 of the owners are in strong favor of designation and one is opposed. I do want to address some items maybe of misinformation that could have been presented to council. One is a question of did indeed William Lang design the houses on the West Side? I spent hours and hours and hours of research at the library on the history fifth floor, going through the great big, huge books, making copies, cross-referencing the building permits. And it is clearly documented that William Lang did for sure design at least eight of those of the nine houses on the West Side. One of them, we have not been able to find who the architect was. And further, it was mentioned that F.h. Perkins, who was a famous architect, particularly in Seattle now, because he has a number of buildings there that is designated, that are designated, that he was the architect of some of those on the east side. Another thing that might have come to council as not a correct statement is a question of are these clean and houses? They clearly are. They meet the criteria of turrets and the steep pitch roofs. All of this is documented and explained in the application. And also the Molly Brown house is a queen. And the Queen Anne's were eclectic. There was not one single type of queen and. The applicants have worked diligently to achieve the goal of preserving these buildings. And we have overwhelming support from owners, nearby businesses, neighbors which include our West WISCH Park Neighborhood Association and the Baker Historic Neighborhoods Association. We fully recognize that there must be a balance between property owners rights and the rights of other neighbors who strongly want these homes preserved. And it is important to balance change with the respect and preservation of historical architecture and history. I believe that the balance tips in favor of the latter. I urge you to approve landmark designation for the 200 block South Lincoln Street Historic District to honor and protect the block, special place and Denver's history and architectural evolution. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Terry Garrison.
Speaker 2: Possibly me. I'll be at Terry anyway. I'm Terry Gulliver. Oh, I live at 227 South Lincoln with Nita Lynch, my partner. I'm also a co applicant. Nita did all the work for the application for our house individually and obtain designation for that. Some time ago, the point of this application that's before you now is for the integrity of the district. The cluster of 15 houses was two famous architects built in a period of just six years. At the end of the 19th century, individual owners have spent a lot of invested a lot of money in maintaining and in some cases, rescuing these buildings from. Pretty awful fate. And we have we have one member in opposition. I believe that most of the points of that opposition are actually addressed inside the application that you had before you. And some of the other points may be addressed by other speakers here tonight. I would ask you to support the application on its merits. Thank you. Thank you. Jesse, your wife.
Speaker 5: Hi, everyone, and thank you.
Speaker 7: I own the home.
Speaker 5: At 233, South Lincoln straight and I am the sole member.
Speaker 7: Who's opposed. There used to originally be eight out of 21 homes that were opposed in this group and minds the unfortunate one stuck in the middle. So mine's the unfortunate one that couldn't be carved out or excluded. According to landmark preservation, current regulations, which I recommend be strongly changed to be able to exclude those of homeowners who don't want to be included in this type of block. This was my first home purchase. This was a huge mark of pride and represents hard work paying off student loans, which I'm sure everyone is familiar with and is a huge amount of my personal net worth and eventually potentially my retirement. I'm in opposition to choose 72 because this is a bill that forces historic designation on something that's not the community's home, not the neighbor's home. It's my home. First, it places additional restrictions on the home. It reduces the number of contractors that I can actually use to those who may be able to understand or want to work on historic homes. And as we all know, the cost of construction is only going up. It also takes additional time for permits to go through for anything that I would like to do to the home. The current time for landmark preservation approval is an additional three weeks for anything that I'd like to do to the outside. This was something that actually cost me personally, financially, an extra $3,000 in just the last month, because I was told by John Olsen through extensive conversations I had with folks as well, that a desired step out door to an upper deck that already exists, I would never be able to do I'd have to stick with the Juliet balcony. That's a window that's broken now. So that's a property improvement. That would be better for myself and my renters, and it's something that I would be unable to do if this had been passed ahead of time. Forth. This not only limits development, but can actually limit the pool of buyers for folks potentially largely reducing value. There's a home at two 3 to 9 Elliot Street that had a published article on it in Denver describing how the seller actually lost 300 to $400000 in resale value upon this gigantic nation. And the Supreme Court has already said as well, if you restrict property rights, you largely reduce value. You don't encourage it or increase it. So that's been stipulated different ways. I've suggested several other options to the Landmark Preservation Company or commission for excluding my home and having it left out. The response was that the current regulation says that this has to be a contiguous block. That's a landmark preservation rule, as far as I know, and maybe it's time to change that rule. When I offered another viable option that one neighbor has already taking advantage of for applying for individual designation on their homes. The Landmark Preservation Commission mentioned in their deliberation that this the case for historic to.
Speaker 1: Acquire.
Speaker 7: Several homes actually.
Speaker 8: Was to.
Speaker 7: Apply individually. So I urge you to consider that.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Charles Brannigan.
Speaker 14: My name's Charles Brannigan. I live at 2105 Lafayette Street in a house designed by the architect William Lang.
Speaker 2: Who you've heard of today.
Speaker 14: I'm William Lang's official.
Speaker 2: Biographer.
Speaker 14: I think. And I've researched him and his career both in Nebraska and Denver. I'm also the creator of the Lafayette St Historic District, and I am prepared to give you some ideas about why landmark preservation is good. First of all, take William Lang. He was Denver's best presidential architect of all times. And the proposed district includes a perfect collection of.
Speaker 2: His middle class buildings.
Speaker 14: As opposed to the mansions that he's better known for. Lang began his architectural career as a grocer in Albion, Nebraska. Somehow he became an architect. In 1885, he moved to Denver and hung out there, single as an architect. And over the course of the next the next decade, he and his draftsmen built hundreds and hundreds of houses. He met and met an untimely end. He died in 1897.
Speaker 2: When he was hit by a train.
Speaker 14: He had red hair, blue eyes and a gold cap tooth. I got that from his autopsy report. This landmark designation accomplishes many good things. When we moved into what became the Lafayette Street Historic District, we were considered urban pioneers by the police. Gunfire was common. There was a chop shop up the street from us, which was eventually gobbled up.
Speaker 2: By the hospitals.
Speaker 14: Our house was in relatively good condition compared to.
Speaker 2: Most on our blog, but the water in the dog's bowl froze in our dining room in the winter.
Speaker 14: Some of our neighbors protected their motorcycles by parking them in the living rooms. The landmark designation stabilized our neighborhood and made it to hospitals. Couldn't gobble up more land. There's been a steady influx of stakeholders who see this landmark protected district as a place that to achieve the American dream. State tax credits have helped with renovations. Property values have increased tremendously. Crime is down. Landmark designation started at all. Why do we protect landmarks? They give the city a sense of identity which is missing. When the bulldozer challenges Denver's heritage. I encourage you to support the landmark application for this this district.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Carolyn Bennett. And as Carolyn comes forward, I'll call the next three speakers John Olsen, Simone McGinnis, Karen Hinkle, Anthony Hinkle and Lucia Browne. You can go ahead and get your remarks.
Speaker 6: Hi, my name is Carolyn. Myself and my husband Eric are fairly recent to the neighborhood. We purchased 2 to 4 South Lincoln in April 2014. After many years of looking to get out of the suburbs, we appreciate the architecture of the neighborhood and are honored to own one of the homes that are on the block that is up for historic designation. The history of the area was a huge appeal to us and the history and architecture of these unique homes is worth protecting and saving. We feel honored to be one of the owners who have the opportunity to buy here and hope we can maintain that for others. We understand the responsibility of living in a uniquely historic home, and we want to respect and maintain its authenticity for future generations to appreciate. As we do, we are in the process of renovating and we would have no reservations going through the historic approval approval process or the extra time it takes. We want to get it right. We would value the knowledge and recommendations of the historic society and would not want to do anything that would alter the authenticity of our amazing Victorian home. We would like the protection of this designation so that no one could come and destroy the character and historic value of these homes. For selfish reasons, we fully support the historic application.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. Thank you. John Olsen and Mr. Olsen, you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 14: All right. Thank you very much. My name is John Paulson. I'm the director of preservation programs at Historic Denver.
Speaker 2: We're a private, nonprofit.
Speaker 14: Advocacy organization, and we're at 1420 Ogden Street in Suite 202. I'm here to express my support of the Landmark District Designation Application for the 200 South BLOCK of Lincoln in Denver, Colorado. The application brought forward by residents on the block is for 15 properties in a contiguous geographic area along both sides of the street. Currently, it is thought to be the most concentrated block of William Lang design houses in Denver. Eight, possibly even nine of the 15 houses are laying design, but all are various interpretations of the Queen Anne style. Built between 1889 and 1895, Lang was one of Denver's most prolific architects of the late 19th century and the architect of historic Denver's very own Molly Brown House, a Queen Anne style building.
Speaker 2: In its own right, though, it's very different from the.
Speaker 14: Elegantly muted style that we find here. The neighbors first brought their hopes of designation to historic Denver way back in January of 2013. They were seeking our assistance and our advice. The very first outreach meeting for neighbors took place in March of that same year, and I was privileged to attend this meeting to.
Speaker 2: Outline that.
Speaker 14: Outline the district designation process and answer questions, as well as pass out informational sheets related to the responsibilities of owning a home in a historic district. Further outreach was conducted by the neighborhood through the spring and summer of 2013.
Speaker 0: An application for district designation was submitted.
Speaker 14: To the LPC later that year. However, that application was ultimately withdrawn on the recommendation that the applicants conduct additional outreach to ensure that all affected property owners had all the necessary and accurate information to achieve this goal, the applicant group hosted several additional gatherings to which all property owners were inviting, leading a very proactive effort. Additionally, handouts and summaries of meetings have been mailed, emailed and or hand-delivered to every household and owner in the district. The handouts and discussions targeted common questions about the effect of historic designation. One of those relates to property values and historic districts confirming that they tend to go up, not down. The assertion is conferred by both a local study of three historic districts in Denver and as a part of the economic power of heritage in plays published by History.
Speaker 12: Colorado as well.
Speaker 2: As several other.
Speaker 14: National studies. And the value of these districts is due in large part not to the individual building components, but to the collection of.
Speaker 2: Buildings as a whole, providing both.
Speaker 12: Stability.
Speaker 14: And context. Historic. Denver wants to commend the neighbors who have worked diligently and patiently to.
Speaker 2: Achieve this goal.
Speaker 14: The overwhelming, overwhelming support for this district from the owners and nearby neighbors is a testament to their dedication. A historic district, like a zoning district, does not require unanimous support. However, this district has demonstrated tremendous favor from its residents. We are very pleased with the application and believe a historic district on South Lincoln honors an important part of our local history, fosters our city's unique identity and character, and supports economic vitality. It is a pleasure to support this work to protect an integral piece of Denver's history. Thank you for your consideration to vote in favor of creating this district.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Simon McGuinness.
Speaker 4: Hello, council members. My name is Simon McGuinness. I am the.
Speaker 11: Owner of 223 South Lincoln. This property is also my first.
Speaker 4: Personal property ownership. I was immediately.
Speaker 11: Drawn to the beautiful architecture in the neighborhood and it was about eight years ago, 2003, really rough in the area.
Speaker 7: At that time. But it was definitely something to.
Speaker 5: A vision.
Speaker 11: For the future and invest in. And I just couldn't believe anyone not wanting to protect that and having an opportunity for anybody to come in and get rid of any of those buildings.
Speaker 6: Is.
Speaker 4: A little.
Speaker 7: A little hard to handle. So I didn't write anything down, but I just wanted to come in and say that I support this and I hope that.
Speaker 5: You all do as.
Speaker 8: Well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Karen Hinkle.
Speaker 4: Hello, everyone. My name is Karen Hinkle. I first bought 243 South Lincoln Street in 2000. I was a flight attendant with the United Airlines.
Speaker 5: I couldn't afford a house in Denver.
Speaker 6: However, I could afford.
Speaker 4: This house because it had two rentals in it. I lived in one, I rented out the other two, and I was able to afford a house. And that's how I bought 243 South Lincoln. And I lived there for three years in and then the house down the street went on the market at 209, South Lincoln, the single family house. And I was thinking, well, I've got these rentals now. I add to my income, I can buy this house too. And I did. So that's how I ended up with two houses, and I could only afford them if they had rentals. I was a flight attendant. We didn't make a whole heck of a lot of money at United Airlines, even though we had a lot of fun. So that's my story and how I ended up on Lincoln Street. People told me I was crazy to buy on Lincoln Street. I looked at Lincoln Street. I've traveled all over the world. I grew up in Nevada. And I said, You call this a bad neighborhood and the house.
Speaker 6: I just love the house. I didn't care.
Speaker 4: Where it was. And it's not a busy street. I don't care. I've spent years fixing it up. I don't have the big money to go in and totally redo everything. So I've been doing it slowly. However, I just did refinanced. So I put up new gates and new fences and painting everything. It's going to look beautiful soon as it stops raining. So I take a lot of pride in it. And my neighbor Grady, who's lived across the street from me since 1976, proposed that we become a historic district. When I first bought there in 2000, then I.
Speaker 6: Looked in.
Speaker 4: Awe how our block was really, really trashy when I bought there. I mean, the police were in our alley every other day, sometimes twice a day, people peeing in the front yards and, you know, and it was like, I didn't care. I had a house and it was beautiful. And and slowly over the years, people have moved in and fixed up. And then in the downturn, which actually was kind of good for us, people died there of foreclosures where flippers came in and they actually did very good work flipping these houses where they're still historical. They're still they created a house that invited people to move in. And so now we have a good concrete group of people who live there and who support the designation of being a historic district. And it's unfortunate, I think, that Chelsea doesn't support us because she's our neighbor. You know, she's also our friend. And I would hope that she would see that this this is going to be good for us. I agree. I think so. I agree. I support.
Speaker 6: Personal property.
Speaker 4: Rights 100%. However, in this instance, I think the whole is is takes precedence over the individual because it is a whole block. So I urge you to support us to become a historic district. And then next time you drive down like this, Hinkle, and say hi.
Speaker 1: It remains minutes thank you and I to work for you tonight. It was a lot of fun. Anthony. Anthony Hinkle.
Speaker 2: Good evening, everyone. My name is Tony Hinkle. I live at 209 South Lincoln, along with my charming wife, Karen. And I just wanted to say, you've heard a lot of arguments, mostly for, I think that the for far outweigh any negative impacts.
Speaker 13: I think that the.
Speaker 2: Benefits to individual homeowners as well as the. Population of Denver and everyone who drives up the street and notices all those homes. I think the benefits far outweigh any any detriments. So I'm totally in favor of this, and I hope you are, too. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Q Jay Brown. And as Ms.. Brown comes up, I will call the last four speakers. Carey Samuelson. Cherry. Gordy Grant. Adrian Brown. Charlotte Winsberg. In any good beginning remarks.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Lucia Brown. I live in the Baker.
Speaker 5: Neighborhood at 132.
Speaker 7: West Fourth. I am the immediate past.
Speaker 5: President of the.
Speaker 7: Baker Historic.
Speaker 6: Neighborhood Association as of last Tuesday.
Speaker 7: Also, the western side of this block is also within the boundaries of our neighborhood association. In the year.
Speaker 5: 2000, I was involved.
Speaker 6: In.
Speaker 7: Getting historic designation for Baker. I was assigned a couple.
Speaker 6: Of blocks and I had to research all the homes on that block.
Speaker 7: And back then, Debbie Ortega was our councilperson and helped.
Speaker 6: Us get it, get it through.
Speaker 7: And it has worked out wonderfully for Baker. Our property values have gone through the roof, no pun intended. When we're talking about houses. There's no need to fear.
Speaker 5: Of any values going down in this location.
Speaker 7: That's for certain. Had we not received the designation, we would have seen wholesale.
Speaker 6: Destruction of the houses.
Speaker 7: Which is now happening on the western western unprotected side of Baker in our neighborhood. So designation allows future generations.
Speaker 5: To enjoy the beautiful.
Speaker 7: And representative homes of the 200 block of South Lincoln. And I do encourage you.
Speaker 6: All to support this.
Speaker 7: Designation. Thank you so.
Speaker 6: Much.
Speaker 1: But my thinking was Brown. Kerry Samuelson.
Speaker 4: I hate speaking in front of crowds, so my presence up here should be evidence enough that I support this this designation. My name is Carey Samuelson, and I'm here to voice support for the Landmark District designation of the 200 block of South Lincoln. My husband and I own and reside at 214 South Lincoln Street. I'm a Colorado native. My parents are natives. Their parents are natives. My mother's side of the family moved to the state.
Speaker 7: During the silver rush.
Speaker 4: My great uncle was actually the mayor of Fairplay. Most of my relatives settled in Castle Rock, where four generations of my family graduated from Douglas County High School. I know Colorado. I am part of this state and I have spent my entire life watching it change. I still remember when County Line Road was a dirt roller coaster. I still remember when the star of Castle Rock could be seen for miles and miles because there wasn't an outlet mall or a suburbia maze blocking its view. I also remember what a pain it was that only one grocery store existed in town. I remember when my mom cut her arm on her windshield wiper and we had to drive 4 hours to find an emergency room which would stitch up. Good things come with growth and good things can come at a cost. As I say, you can have your cake and eat it too if you want. Convenience. Perhaps the forfeit of the small, quaint town you remember from your childhood is inevitable. I have seen the benefits of growth in Denver. I did not grow up in the city and I don't have the same childhood memories of Denver as I do of Castle Rock. But my husband and I have lived in the city for over ten years. I'd be lying to say we don't enjoy the new and nicer restaurants that have accompanied the growth or the fact that by person parks are clean and safe. But it's no secret that there are quite a few more people in town. It takes a long time to keep down Speer Boulevard. It's nearly impossible to find a quiet tree under watch. Read a book at Wash Park on a Saturday afternoon. It's crowded. This is an unavoidable cost to all of the great things we are enjoying, enjoying about our growing city. I'm willing to accept the pains of growth in Denver. I am not willing to define the.
Speaker 7: Potential removal and destruction.
Speaker 4: Of our city's history and beauty as one of these growth pains. We purchased our home because it's stunning, because the care and attention that went into its construction does not exist in homes today. Prior to living to our home on Lincoln, we lived in a similar style home in the Baker neighborhood, which is under historic designation. This designation did not prevent us from purchasing the home, but rather.
Speaker 7: Compelled the purchase.
Speaker 4: Much like Castle Rock. Denver will never be the same once. A Cowtown is now one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. As a Colorado native, I am a dying breed. Every everyone I meet is not from my state and they don't know the Colorado I once knew. And they crowd the parks and they jam up the roads and they cheer for teams other than the Broncos. I guess I accept this, but I do not accept one of them tearing down the gorgeous home next to me to build a modern cement spaceship. The block on which I live is beautiful. There is no reason not to protect the beauty of the older homes in Denver, if possible. The 200 block of Lincoln submitted. Miss Samuelson. Thank you.
Speaker 1: You did a great job, though. You do a great job. Next, we have Jodi Grant and Ms.. Grant, you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 6: Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Gurney Grant or Gertrude Grant, and I am one of the three applicants for this historic district. I want to thank the landmark staff and historic Denver staff for their help and support. But I also want to thank Karen Henkel, who started this process, and Nita Lynch, whose drafting and diplomatic skills have brought us thus far. I bought 242 South Lincoln Street in 1977 when I saw it from a bus on my way home from work. I also co-own 246 South Lincoln with Doris Bird, who is here tonight. We bought it a few years after I bought 242 because it was only four feet south of our house. And the thought of someone playing loud music late at night was disturbing to folks who work 8 to 10 hour days. I'm also a member of an LLC that bought 213 South Lincoln a year ago to save it from demolition because it sits on a large lot and was in deplorable condition. The four LLC members are working hard to save the House. In 1977, I was the youngest owner on the block. Now I'm almost the oldest. I bought my house because I love the fancy woodwork both inside and out of my house, but also the houses across the street and the other houses on the block. Since 1977, I have witnessed many challenges in the block drug needles, in the bushes, in front of my house from a drug dealer who lived across the street. Bullet hole in my front living room window when former gang members lived across the street, intoxicated men across the street celebrating there in their boxer shorts on a porch roof after a successful garage sale where some of the discards from our alley were sold to homicides in the block, a porch across the street collapsing after the intoxicated men removed the support columns in their jubilation for the roof. Now people are improving the houses and I welcome the change. This group of 15 houses presents to today's passers by and I hope for passers by for years to come. Examples of the 1880s and 1890s Queen Anne style architecture built for families of different size and of different incomes. They were all built within a short span of six years when the Broadway trolley was extended down to Alameda. The houses on the West Side, most of them, those wonderful torte houses, were built on small lots for working folks who could take the trolley in to downtown Denver to work and shop. The houses on the east side are a little larger on slightly larger lots for people of slightly higher income. And all those had staircases down the back for a maid's room into the kitchen. But they were also built so the residents could take public transportation into downtown for work and shopping. In this one single half block, viewers can see the contrasts and yet the similarities. There are similar front setbacks, front porches, some with fancier brickwork than others, and none out of character. Owners of 14 of 15 of the houses support this historic district. Both named both Baker and West Watch Park. Neighborhood organizations support it. Numerous letters in your file support it. I hope you will support the creation of this historic district. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Amos Grant. Adrian Brown.
Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Adrian Brown. I live at 132 West Fourth, and I share my house with my lovely wife, Luciano. I wanted to make two points. First, in response to the concerns, Speaker was while I was president of the Beacon Neighborhood Association, which just before in fact was registered as a historic district, and there were opponents and vehement opponents who really were concerned. There are none now after the council and the residents took this important but dangerous step. So I can offer that comfort to the opponents to this. But I also want to point out.
Speaker 13: What a wonderful.
Speaker 2: Opportunity these residents have given the city in offering their homes to be a cornerstone on a very busy road. And I applaud them for doing that, because otherwise it would be denuded of these historic houses, as Broadway has been. And we lost all of those wonderful mansions because it was a main road. And single family homes particularly ceased to be viable on there. These people have done a wonderful job for us as citizens and for you as the council in coming forward to make this happen. And I certainly hope you will you will support it. Finally, you in doing so, I think you also make some sort of a commitment to at least think about ameliorating traffic on all of our main roads and from this all the way through to our freeways. I think this council and subsequent councils need to take a long, hard look at the livability of of the houses along major thoroughfares. And you make a wonderful step in approving this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Brown. Charlotte Winsberg.
Speaker 4: My name is Charlotte Winston. I live at 590 South Sherman. Not. Not on the famed Lincoln Street block here. Batting cleanup and going be kind to you because you have heard so many wonderful things about why you should support this landmark district. And I can't think of anything I could add that would improve it. Everybody almost everybody in this town recognizes those houses because everybody has driven up and down Lincoln and many don't. And they there's dependance. Those of us who live in all Victorian homes treasure them deeply. And I wish my block could meet all the criteria for designation as well. But I want to hold you. Why don't you just all raise your hands and vote yes now and then you can go home. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mrs. Lindenberg. That that concludes our speakers. Now, time for questions of counsel and I will I'll chime in first. Chelsea, you want to come back at the podium? I'm curious. How long have you owned the property?
Speaker 7: I've owned it since 2012, and it was a lot more affordable.
Speaker 1: So I'm curious, you know, this they they mentioned that this process has been going on for a couple of years. And I thought I heard you say that you weren't at some point you weren't the only one that was against it. Did you say eight of 21? I wanted to make sure I heard that correct.
Speaker 7: Yeah, there were eight of 21 in the original 2013 application, and this has since been carved up so that there aren't any additional opponents. There also are two opponents who were on the east side who sold in that time frame. So they've decided to reapply. And now I'm the unfortunate one stuck in the middle.
Speaker 1: So of the eight. So the other seven that were against it. The other the other seven you were saying were carved out.
Speaker 7: They were either carved out on either side of the historic designation because it apparently still has to be a continuous block or those two sold.
Speaker 1: Okay. And if you could just and I apologize, I had to cut you off because the 3 minutes is up. But you could just kind of some kind of summarize what your what your concerns are and why you're opposed to this.
Speaker 7: So unlike some of my neighbors, I'm a young person and I have potential, you know, young family needs for growth. I may want to expand the back of the house. I may want to make modifications to the house. I love Victorian homes and that's one of the big reasons why I bought this as well. I would never demolish the home and I don't think any of these homes, which are all largely valued over half a million dollars now is in danger of being demolished, except for potentially 213, which has already been purchased and is being lovingly restored. I don't know that this is something that needs to be an application for all of these homes. I think that individuals can do the applying.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you, Mr. Olsen. Yeah. I'm not sure if you were a part of the original application, but I'm curious if you were if you could explain why I went from 21 to 15. Because in the original application, Chelsea was saying it was 21 home, but then it was done again. And just to the 15, I'm curious what the reason was for that.
Speaker 14: Well, you know, it was based.
Speaker 2: On.
Speaker 14: Some reevaluation of the what style of homes were being a part of it, as well as the geographical aspect of getting all those homes together. So there were some homes to the south that were were decided that they did not.
Speaker 2: Fit necessarily with the.
Speaker 14: The type of architecture so that were taken out. And also they were, you know, Chelsea is correct that they were opposed. And so because they were on the edge of the district or at the edge of the proposed district, it was possible to take that out and still have a very viable, historic district. Her situation is that she's in one of the Lang homes right in the middle of the district. And from a standpoint of, you know, in terms of how districts are formed, they're formed in a contiguous way, especially for a district of this size. It needs to have a cohesiveness to it. And her home fits all of the criteria. And so it needs to be included in that as a part of the district.
Speaker 1: Then I do understand, but I'm just curious if it the optics of eight out of 21 homeowners are opposing versus one out of 15 certainly goes better in your favor. So I was just curious what the real reason was for the shrinkage. So if you say it's it had a little bit to do with architecture or was it just because, you know.
Speaker 2: The ones on the ones on the edge.
Speaker 14: In terms of I believe in and we're not a co-op looking on this one. Of course we support it. But, you know, the three applicants were their reasons of, you know, why they're there. Certain homes are included or not included. But from from a standpoint.
Speaker 2: Of initially it was trying to get as much of the.
Speaker 14: Block as possible. And then after, you know, having that outreach and then realizing that there were some opposed, it was a relatively easy factor to be able to carve out those edges to the district.
Speaker 12: And then, you know.
Speaker 14: There were some aspects of a couple of.
Speaker 12: Sales did happen.
Speaker 14: So, you know, everybody that's involved now.
Speaker 2: As much as.
Speaker 12: Possible.
Speaker 14: You know, is for that particular district.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 14: And in terms of the you know, in terms of the outreach, the original application in 2013 was put forward there. And because of the opposition that came forward, it was the role of the neighborhood in the role of historic Denver and really even the role of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to do even more outreach to show them because.
Speaker 2: They're some of.
Speaker 14: The reasons for the opposition were based on inaccuracies in what they thought the district would actually mean. And in that conversation, we were also able to have, you know, some clarifications of that, why that was occurring. And so when the new owners came in and when the owners that were a part of this, they understood everything you could possibly understand about being in historic district. This is over three years of doing, you know, outreach. And I had several discussions early on with Chelsea about those, you know, issues in terms of, you know, what are the responsibilities and what are the benefits. Unfortunately, a number of those things that I offered in terms of additional advice were not taken up by her. And I you know, in the in her testimony talking about, you know, what I was saying, what is allowed and what is not allowed. I advised her to contact both the Landmark Preservation Commission, as well as just the city, from a permitting standpoint to figure out what would be allowed and what would not be allowed. Like when she's talking about putting additions onto the back, those are very much allowed as a part of historic district. So I feel that those are fears are on fire.
Speaker 1: I absolutely understand that. And I just wanted to question about the the downsizing and I got my answer. So thank you. I appreciate that. That's all my questions. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. Gurdy, would you mind coming back up for a second? Thanks. I used to take the Zero Limited also all the time, and I wanted to thank you for bringing this forward because one of the nicest parts of the commute on up from Broadway station to Civic Center was passing through this part of Lincoln Street. But I notice that you also own two other houses to the south of this district, to 58 and to 60. That's correct. And the reason for not including those is exactly what we've been exploring here, the lack of contiguity because there's a house in between. Is that one of the properties that.
Speaker 6: The Queen Anne's and the houses, the one house in between 246 and the two houses that I own is in. It's owned by an absentee landowner and it's an incredibly bad shape and I think it will probably be demolished when it's sold.
Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you very much. Kara, can I ask a quick question? I guess that's. Can I ask a quick question? Because everybody's wondering that I notice that there are some historic districts that also that lack contiguity along a block face and are some like Wyman that actually has an exclave or an enclave of non historic within it . What is the rule that prevents us or prevents landmark from considering not including a a certain property or otherwise along the block?
Speaker 7: We generally like to have historic districts that are contiguous. There are cases where it's not. Sometimes those were cut out. Sometimes they were for political reasons. They were often designated a while ago. So I personally don't have a history of why they were done. But in general, it's preservation policy. It's part of the landmark ordinance and part of what we look at here in Denver. But it's also overarching preservation policy that you try to have something that is contiguous, that doesn't have what we call a donut hole, which is something in the middle that's missing or that has not just cut in and out. It's something we try to avoid.
Speaker 13: Okay. But we haven't been able to avoid it all the time in the past. It has. But does that reflect a change in the policy or could that happen again?
Speaker 7: I mean, it could happen. And again, when you're looking at something that's a district that's this small and you start cutting things out, you lose the continuity of a district that's only two faces of a street. If you're looking at a larger district, you can still maintain the continuity and the history of it a little bit better
Speaker 13: . So a non contributing structure might be carved out in a larger district.
Speaker 7: Yeah, well, it would oftentimes just be non contributing. It would still be within the boundary of the historic district. It would just be determined, non contributing. These all were built at the same time, so they would all be contributing structures.
Speaker 13: I think that's on this problem.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Just maybe a question for John and possibly for Chelsea as well. What is that? And I feel bad because I'm a licensed architect here.
Speaker 9: Yeah. What is that? What does that turret form that. What is the official name for that thing.
Speaker 14: For the turret. Yeah. I mean, it's. It's a.
Speaker 2: Turret. All right. Yeah.
Speaker 14: All right. That's exactly what it's called. Yes.
Speaker 12: Question for Chelsea. Is your house one of the turret houses?
Speaker 1: My husband's one. Chelsea, we're gonna we're going to need you to come up to the podium, please.
Speaker 5: I have a loud boom, but sometimes not that much.
Speaker 7: My home is one of the targeted homes. I also, in my letter of opposition, question whether these are all Queen Anne's. There's other impacting factors like Queen Anne's are usually would a lot of these are brick that don't meet Queen Anne architecture whatsoever. And this is the first time, Kyra, that I've ever heard that it was a possibility to have the home excluded. I was told through and through, including at the landmark preservation hearing on 315 that that was not an option. So that's very shocking information.
Speaker 12: But so here's the question for you, Chelsea.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 12: So did you know that you can, in fact, do additions? There's this looking I've been exploring the aerial maps.
Speaker 7: To the back. I have been told that some things that I actually do want to do that I've now gotten permits for, including renovating the deck or doing a window to a door conversion to my upper deck to make it easy to access and actually step out to the upper deck rather than winding a window and trying to crawl through which you currently have to do would not have been an option.
Speaker 12: So it's really in the how. It's not necessarily the what unless it's really sort of egregious, but you'll find that, yeah, these really want to use this opportunity to let everyone know and yourself that actually there's a lot you can do. It just has to be within reason. And then there's going to be an emphasis on one side of the building versus all sides of the building. You know, there's there's other, you know, caveats depending on the house and everything else. But it isn't as if people sort of bothered to take their ideas to the landmark commission. I think you'd be surprised how much latitude you have and being part of the district does in fact give you access to other financial tools that that don't that aren't afforded to people outside these districts.
Speaker 7: I think the other concerns of the time frame it would take for approval and the additional cost, I've been told by several contractors who I got to come.
Speaker 5: Over for the original door to.
Speaker 7: Window conversion that I'm trying to do. They won't even touch a historic home. It's just not within.
Speaker 12: Their contractors will tell you a lot of things that you know and a lot of it is and it's just I'm being asked not to be believed. Sorry. It is additional time, but with a little bit of planning, it makes no difference in the in the end result. And and I just speak to that from experience, having renovated the state house of this of this entire state.
Speaker 5: Give me some good contractors if it goes through.
Speaker 12: All right. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Just a quick question, Carol, or one. I wanted to allow you to provide feedback. After what Jose just said, that that was the first time she had heard from that. Did you want to respond? Look like you want to respond.
Speaker 7: You know, we it wouldn't be allowed to be cut out just simply because of the size of the district. It isn't something. So while it has been allowed in the past, it's not something that would have been an option here. And I don't know that the landmark commission would have allowed it to go forward as that. So while yes, it has happened in the past, it isn't appropriate for this historic district.
Speaker 9: Right. And so in the district, there are 15. Every house is a contributing structure to the district.
Speaker 7: Correct? Yes, they all are.
Speaker 9: And I'm looking at it here and I can't tell. Are there any empty lots in the district there?
Speaker 7: Not necessarily an empty lot. There was a house that burned down. And so that lot has been combined with the one that the LLC purchased, I think. And so it's just one larger lot. But it was basically a sister house to the one that's currently there and it burned down a hundred years ago.
Speaker 9: So can it be built on?
Speaker 1: Sure. Come on. If you want to keep going after that. Come on. Come on up. You got to come to the microphone, sir.
Speaker 4: We actually I purchased.
Speaker 11: Two feet of land from the vacant lot from my neighbors in order to further prevent the double lot from being split and also to add a walkway path from my front yard to my backyard which the property was lacking. So it is.
Speaker 7: Not.
Speaker 11: Formally a double lot any longer. It is two feet under, so 48 feet. So it's not you can't legally build on that.
Speaker 9: Okay. So is there a you know, in just all are in this district? I just I'm curious can you build anywhere in the district?
Speaker 7: Not that I'm aware of. No.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 12: Actually, I want to make the exception you could build out and on. So I mean that there's space there that theoretically could have something built on it just couldn't do a new stand alone as a usable right. But with variants, you could also look at that because we've done that in Ghost.
Speaker 1: Right. Any other questions to 72? So, you know, public hearing and now closed time for comments. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank all of you for sticking it out this late with us tonight. I. You know, whenever we look at these designations, you know, one of the things that always weighs heavy is property rights and personal property rights. And this one's a little bit different in that it's not a hostile designation, but there's one person who feels that it's hostile. And for that property it is. And so, you know, I think that does weigh. But I think in this case, it it is outweighed by what's going on here. I am a Denver native who always cheers for the Denver Broncos. And I, I remember as a kid trips up and down Broadway and Lincoln to get to downtown. And I remember this block from when I was a kid. And it's a block that I always look for as I'm driving and as I'm riding through this part of town. Because it is it's this place where all of a sudden you're transported in time. And it's just a very, very special place. And this part of town has, as Denver has grown and will continue to grow, has absorbed a lot of that growth. We have to light rail stations that are very nearby. We just approved, you know, a stationary plan for the former gate site, which is less than a mile away, and the Almeida site around it that has a development plan for a lot of density that's a block away. And I think that, you know, as we grow and as we change, we have to identify those areas where we can do that, where we don't just sprawl out and we have to be smart about that. And those areas are identified around those two light rail stations. But then we also have to find that balance in preserving the magic that is Denver and our history. And this is one of those places that I think is is a slam dunk for us. Preserving it is that gateway to downtown. It's also that gateway between a traditional neighborhood and neighborhood in which park that so many people think of when they think of Denver. And it's that gateway now between that and between multimodal development and a light rail station. And I think that we have an opportunity in front of us to preserve something that is very, very special. And we have a group of of neighbors who are so passionate about where they live and about this preservation that a group of them have come together to buy a house when it came for sale, to restore it , to protect it and to bring it back. And so I am I'm very excited to represent this group of people. And I, I will say to Chelsea that I will be voting to support this. But if you are lucky enough to still own this property for as long as Jersey has owned hers, I'm I am positive. And you can come find me and tell me I was wrong that you will not lose money because this is preserved, that this historic district where it's located, unfortunately for affordability and for other young people and young families who want to live there, it's not going to get cheaper and it is really going to be a gem by our city that that the value will will be tremendous, both to us as a city, to us as Bronco loving Denver rights and 2 to 4 generations to see what what the city was and how it how it grew up. So I will be supporting this tonight, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Black.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I couldn't say it better than. Clark just said it. So I'm not going to add much except for to say Chelsea. I also am supporting this, but you do not have to wait as long as gurdy. I'm not calling you old Gerd, but it's 1970. Whatever was a long time ago. I would. I believe in personal property rights. I know your property is going to be worth more as soon as this passes. The tax credits are available. I, too, have driven down that street. I continue to drive down that street on my way to work every day. It's an important block to preserve in our city, and I know it will not be a negative thing for you. So I also will be supporting it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. I couldn't say it better than Councilwoman Black, but I want to and I just want to put out there that in my district, there are some. There's an enclave of historic homes that's not designated. But there are people in there who are faithfully restoring them to the mid-century modern style. And the folks who are doing that are realizing substantial increases in in their values compared with the few, unfortunately, that have been re re styled outside of the bounds of the mid-century modern cliff may style, they have sold for substantially less than the gain of the ones that have been faithfully restored. So I just wanted to echo what Councilwoman Black said, that I believe historic preservation in a district context will will only add to the value. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: I hope for your sake that Chelsea is not a hoarder and a cat woman. In 40 years, that could be a rough property. You're in one of the tenant homes and. And that matters. And that's unfortunate for you, but it's actually, in the long run, going to be fortunate for you. I would support it because that because I've seen this property over the course of 30 years, used to commute right by it every single day, and you don't not notice the turrets. What you did notice was the condition of that block, which was not good for a really long time. And when one person finally there was one person that always sort of maintained his house, but then when one person took one that was in that was very much neglected and started to transform it, that transformed that block. I don't know what you guys were all doing, but at some point it turned a corner and a domino effect occurred. And the profit that log went from from one of roof rental to one that that's achieving a potential that it had always been there. The nice thing is these are durable homes that are that are capable of withstanding neglect and then being brought back to life to their former glory, which is really tough to say for I mean, I can't say that for some. A lot of the new construction that goes on in in northwest Denver, a lot of people, when those things start to leak, are going to be coming looking for you to pay with their million dollars, provided you take care of it, asking for a real house, one that's got more than a 30 year shelf life. So that's the thing is it would really I, I respect the fact that they they basically insisted that you be part of it because because you you notice the pattern, you notice all those turns and your eye is drawn to it and it makes part of commuting up Lincoln wonderful. And so it's a sacrifice, but it's, it's, it's part of what makes Denver unique. And I'm going to be supporting this, but I do think that in the long run, you'll find that you can capture most of what you want to do. You can do it not as economically as you need to. And and you're going to have a very stable neighborhood, because that's what happens in historic districts, is is it becomes a known quantity and a very, very desirable part of town. So so I will be supporting this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President, I. When I saw this come up, I just had a lot of memories. And that memories, those memories for me are living off a link, living right off a Lincoln Street on 664, South Lincoln. And I was when I first had my first apartment and 17, 18 years old, and that was it. And so commuting up and down, I remember walking every single day to school over at UCD, every single day going up Lincoln on the bike, walking with groceries and those. The thing about historic districts is as you know it when you see it. Right. And and this was one of those areas of town you come in from South Lincoln where you you know, it. The houses have a particular flavor to it. The block has a particular flavor to it. And, you know, I you know, I definitely understand your concern. It does it does bother me that this is the first time you realized that you were able to actually possibly opt out of it. You know, the question of how they were selected still remains in my mind, because I think there's probably some houses there that are probably left out that perhaps could be included in it. And when you drive down that, you just you just see it, you know it. And so, you know, I, I know that you have a great councilman representing that area. And, you know, I think, you know, any time you have any kind of issues running into permitting or questions about what you can and can't do, I think that's a just an amazing resource to have as that, you know, as it develops . But, you know, I, you know, I have a villa park Bab house on a slab. Right. And it's nothing like the house that you were in. Those houses are solid. They last for a very long time. And if you take care of last forever, I just you know, I'm supportive of the of the historic district. I am supportive of this moving forward for preservation. However, I do think that we should be, as we start identifying some of these blocks, that we should be mindful and very, very flexible with some of the residents. I had no idea that they're going to be buying into a historic district. Right. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll try to be brief and not be redundant. I live in a very old home. Mine was built in the late 1800s and just being able to do work on these older homes that have just incredible woodwork and just unique characteristics, it's it's a work in progress and it takes time and money to be able to do the kind of improvements that we all want to do on our homes. I also was very intimately involved in the Baker Historic District. The Lower Downtown Historic District and the Potter Highlands District, which are all some of the larger districts that we have in the city. And in every one of those districts, the property values immediately increased. And this was long before we saw this uptick in our economy and the impact to the housing market all across the city. These were neighborhoods that saw some real stability in knowing that, you know, the property next to them was not going to be torn down , particularly in the lower downtown district when we worked on that. We had a number of property owners who were reluctant to have their building designated as a historic building. But, you know, fast forward to today and everybody really appreciates the fact that those buildings were, in fact, preserved. And it's a thriving part of our downtown. I mean, you know, we've extended the downtown all the way to include lower downtown and beyond. And so I think the concerns that have been expressed about. Impact to property values are not going to be realized. I think you'll you'll see just the opposite of that, as we have seen in other parts of the city where these historic districts have been around for some time. And I don't I don't see John Olsen still out in the audience, but correct me if I'm wrong, but in these historic districts, you can actually access grants to be able to do improvements to your properties. And if you can just kind of shake your head to confirm that. That's correct, John, because we're in comment period now, not question answer, but yes. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, I think there are opportunities available to folks who have historic properties. And it's to that that very point. But this is a beautiful part of the city. And being able to preserve it for future generations is, I think, important. I regret the fact that we had some incredible buildings that were in our downtown when at one point our urban renewal authority was part of the the vehicle that was helping tear down and work with developers to do some of these buildings. And there was a big push from folks to try to save some of those buildings. And, you know, we're lucky to have a number of them along our 16th Street corridor and in other areas of downtown. So. For people who come to this city and to try to recall what once was in my neighborhood in lower highlands, which is drastically changing, you know, being able to see some of that preservation is is really important to just knowing the history and the culture of our city. So I will be supporting this tonight. And I just want to thank the community for all of the hard work that went into putting this together. It takes time. It takes a lot of energy. And for every one of you who were involved in shaping this, congratulations. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Sussman, you're at I'm getting ahead of myself.
Speaker 5: I have a much more pedestrian comment to make. Not so high minded as my council of people. Thank you for one of the most entertaining public comment period we've had in a very long time. I appreciate it very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman, in the comments to 72. I will I will chime in briefly. One thank you all for coming out and sitting here in those chairs. I thought they were going to be here sooner than we got to this. But Chelsea and and being knowing you're the one lone opposition to this is come and speak your mind I appreciate you doing that. I didn't I didn't ask this question. But I imagine one of the reasons why you purchased a home was because of the charm and the esthetics is something that you really appreciated. And you even mentioned yourself that, you know, you wouldn't even consider tearing it down. And I understand your concerns, and it's easy for us to say we're property rights advocates when it's not our property and how we can easily just wave that magic wand and say, Oh, yeah, we should do this. I don't think it's a slam dunk as much as other people say this is something I will support. But I, I have concern about the optics of that and whether or not it was intentional to shrink the size to have a better view. I just think that that doesn't look right and doesn't sit well with me. I also think that we're a little naive to say you can accomplish all the things you want to do. It's not that hard. I respectfully disagree. I, I was looked really long and hard into finding an adaptive reuse for the Stapleton Tower, and one of the things we considered was historic preservation. And when I did some research and all the restrictions on that, and once you did, that gave me pause. And so that's something that I didn't want to consider, and that was just my personal opinion. So there will be some challenges and that's just the reality. But the greater good is that we'll have a beautiful collection of homes that show a part of Denver that can never be taken away. And I think that that's something we need to consider as well. But I just think it's unfair for us to just look at you and say, Oh, it'll be easy. You'll gain all this money back. And that's just not the reality of it. But we appreciate I sincerely appreciate your comments and sharing your thoughts. And I also appreciate all the other neighbors that worked really hard. And I know we love our neighbors and we all want to get along and sometimes we don't. But I, I can tell you, I really do get along. So I think that that's great. And no matter how this felt goes, I can I can imagine still be good. Neighbor So see no other comments, ma'am. Secretary Roll call.
Speaker 4: Clark is Vanessa Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. SUSSMAN Black. Brooks Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please, for the very nasty results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes to 72 is in place on final consideration and death penalty. All right, we've got one more. 311. So, Councilman Lopez, will you please put 311 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 2: Mr. President, I move that council bill 311 series of 2016 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. Call it up. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing on 311 is now open. May we have staff report?
Speaker 2: We got quorum.
Speaker 1: Two, three, four, five. Give me.
Speaker 2: Do you got.
Speaker 1: Me? Do you extend it. Got eight. Go ahead. We have seven. I can count.
Speaker 6: It.
Speaker 7: So I am Karen again with Landmark Preservation at CPD. This is for 1250 Welton Street, the Emily Griffith Opportunity School for landmark designation as a structure. And I will try to move through this quickly. So this is 1250 WELTON It's also known as. 1261 Glenarm The applicants are Denver public schools who are the owner. So this is an owner supported designation as well as a start.
Speaker 1: To my birthday just got excited go ahead you got.
Speaker 7: Oh he's excited about the owner supported. Yes so it is an owner supported this is for the entire block and it is divided into contributing and non contributing areas. The contributing areas include the 1926 schoolhouse as well as in 1847 and 1956 editions.
|
Bill
|
Approves the designation of 200 Block South Lincoln Street Historic District as a Landmark Historic District for preservation in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the designation of 200 Block South Lincoln Street Historic District as a Landmark Historic District for preservation in Council District 7. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-20-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0311
|
Speaker 7: Oh he's excited about the owner supported. Yes so it is an owner supported this is for the entire block and it is divided into contributing and non contributing areas. The contributing areas include the 1926 schoolhouse as well as in 1847 and 1956 editions. This was submitted to CPD on April 1st. It went through the Landmark Preservation Commission. It went through the committee first reading and second reading is right now. All of the notices were done correctly. It was posted on the website in legal journals and all of the RINO's were noticed. This is a slightly different application, so I'm going to kind of talk about this as being Denver public schools were involved as this is their property. They have a policy called the fee policy, which deals with historic schools. And the intent is to facilitate the long term preservation of the school district's most architecturally and historically significant schools, but also to meet the board's ongoing responsibilities for educational requirements and to provide flexibility for future generations to construct new facilities. The route for this particular designation started with a certificate of non historic status in 2012. Denver Public Schools withdrew it after historic Denver expressed interest in landmark designation. They initiated the FB policy evaluation. They hired the architectural firm of Slater Paul to complete the historic structures analysis. The HSA confirmed the National Register of Eligibility Determinations that there was that it is eligible and that there are adaptive use potentials for the building. So Denver Public Schools convened the Historic Evaluation Committee, which is made up of historic Denver Landmark Preservation Staff and History, Colorado. They basically agreed with the HSA findings and the committee determined to prioritize the designation of the Welton Street site as an option. Denver Public Schools formed a sales advisory committee and they wanted to balance capital needs, downtown development, zoning needs and preservation values. The city and county of Denver then hired Humphrey Polies and there is actually a representative of them in the crowd as well. If you have questions to do a study of this and to rate the designation and they felt that that they wanted to preserve the most significant buildings, which are those along Welton Street. And so the recommendations from this study were the basis of the application that's before you. This is a slightly different application. It's going to be kind of three parts. There's the standard designation that you guys have seen in the past. And then there are two other sections, one that deals with the design and development patterns, and it's an addendum to it. And then there's also a supplemental design standards and guidelines, which is an attachment. So part one for the Emily Griffith School. It is designated as a structure. Its zoning is DC and you one it's for the entire block of 170, which has been the historic boundary of the school since about the 1940s. But we understand that there's a large redevelopment for this particular area. So this is an opportunity to integrate the older historic building along with new construction. So the contributing area is along Welton Street. These are architect designed buildings. They were purposely planned and designed as the main street of the school. They were the primary operations and classrooms here. And these have the strongest association and history with Emily Griffith herself. The non contributing portion along Glenn Arm has some consistency in the architectural style, but it's much more simple. These parcels were purchased over time and there's less of a design plan for those. So in order to be listed, it has to have integrity and it has to meet two out of the following three categories and relate to a historic context or theme. This particular property has very high integrity. The school, while it was originally built on the edge of downtown and had more of a mixed residential and commercial setting originally still is in the same location. The original architect's design is intact, the brick and terracotta is visible, and it still has a really strong street presence. It meets the criteria under history for direct association with historical development of the city. The school was founded in 1916 and it provided an alternate education for the residents. It's a very innovative and early form of this kind of education. There was a lot of work for workforce training, for auto mechanics, plumber, plumbers. It helped build a competitive, competitive workforce for Denver. And there were a lot of partnerships during World War One and World War Two with the Emily Griffith School for Training the Workforce. It's also directly related to Emily Griffith herself. She was the driving force behind this. Behind this school, she is was the principal until 1933. She founded in 1916. And she is recognized at the state capitol as a very important woman within Colorado history. The property is also significant for its architecture. The original 1926 design has Renaissance revival styles with Beaux-Arts embellishments, and it's done with a lot of brick and terracotta details. The 1947 and the 1956 additions integrate the brick and terracotta, but they use an international style. And this would be one of the first international style buildings in Denver if it is designated. And finally it meets it under geography. This is a prominent location. It's just off of Colfax. It's highly visible. This school was called out on travel maps of the early 20th century, and it's one of the few remaining historic schools in the downtown area. It relates to the themes of vocational and continuing education, as well as women's history. And the period of significance for this property is 1916 to 1956. The Landmark Preservation Commission determined that it had physical integrity, that it met the criteria under history for historical development, as well as being associated with an important person that embodied distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type, and that it had a prominent location and was geographically significant. They also believed it in its historic context and themes of Denver, and they voted unanimously 6 to 0 to recommend it going forward. So part two of this particular designation is intended to help preserve the most significant parts of the building that are associated with Emily Griffith to retain the sense of massing and form as these distinct buildings and to make sure they're visually, visually prominent on the site. But it's also to accommodate new construction and the idea that there's going to be new, dense development primarily along the glenarm side of this. And so it's to ensure that you can integrate both the old and the new. So within this there will be a contributing a non contributing section within the non contributing section. Applications for demolition would not go to the Landmark Preservation Commission, but would be approved by staff. However, they would not be released until there was a replacement plan that was approved by the LPC. That is actually also true within the most part of the contributing areas. There's the demolition area for contributing that could also be approved by LPC staff for demolition. However, it would have to have a replacement plan improved in place by the approved by the LPC and also a plan that would show if you demolished part of the contributing building that the rest of the building could still be retained and would still stay up. That does not include the demolition, does not include the initial 1926 building, building, as well as the facing of the 1947 and the 1956 addition. Within that, what we're calling the preserved area that would go through the typical landmark preservation design guidelines would go through on the typical design guidelines that are currently in place. It includes the significant buildings along along Welton Street on the key Frontages and retains the cantilevered vestibule that's on 13th Street. Any part of demolition that would go through on the preserved area would be subject to the general chapter 30. So in terms of design parameters for this, there are two areas that are restricted, firm, any type of development. There the small yellow areas, restricted areas one and two. And the intent of that is to preserve the size of the buildings and give some sort of allow those buildings to remain prominent, the historic buildings on the site, while also allowing for development and growth in the transitional height area, which is the area that can be demolished , although it is a contributing building that would be allowed up to 112 feet. The remaining part is only restricted by zoning and the state owned state capital of you in terms of the size of the development and in the. Part that faces glenarm. And so this is kind of just to illustrate some of the areas that could be preserved in the areas that would allow for development. The yellow portion of that is the preserved area, and it's illustrated above is the part that would be protected and then you would have the non restricted height envelope and would allow to go as high as a zoning would allow for that area. So in order to sort of enforce that and to maintain that part of it will preserve, but also allowing for new construction. There are design standards and guidelines, and these are intended to be customized design guidelines for this particular site. It's to allow significantly larger construction abutting or connecting with the historic building. And so it's to encourage and integrate both the old and the new and to ensure thorough and high quality architectural design, articulation and materials for new construction. This is a separate document that would be approved as part of this designation process. Landmark Preservation reviews the design guidelines and standards as part of the designation as a whole, and then they in the preserved area in the other areas, they would combine the traditional design guidelines with the new design guidelines that are attached with this designation . Those design guidelines are intended to address the transitional height area, the restricted areas, as well as the zoning restricted areas. And there divided into four parts with an addendum that talks about the character defining features of the historic building at the Landmark Preservation Commission. There were there was a letter from historic Denver, which is a co applicant, as well as 30 additional emails and letters of support. We have not received any other emails since the Landmark Preservation Commission Commission hearing. There were four comments from the public. Three were in support and one was in opposition. And the Landmark Preservation Commission passed this unanimously.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have four speakers and I'll.
Speaker 14: Call all.
Speaker 1: Four and you can make your way up the beat to Bruce and Levinsky, Jane Chrisler and Sarah McCarthy so you can make your way up and Ms.. Bruce can begin your remarks.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Good evening, everyone.
Speaker 7: I am DEVITA Bruce.
Speaker 6: I have the pleasure of serving as the director of operations, outreach and engagement for our Denver Public Schools. Mr. President, Councilman Brooks, and other distinguished members of Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak speak briefly regarding the historic designation bill for the Emily Griffith Opportunity site. What you have before you is a culmination of years of thoughtful dialog and a broad with a broad spectrum of stakeholders with varied interests. As DPS prepared for the sale of the site.
Speaker 7: We were seeking to.
Speaker 6: Create a designation that honors the legacy of Emily Griffith and the countless contributions she made to the field of education.
Speaker 7: The city of Denver and the state of Colorado.
Speaker 6: How fitting that this designation bill occurs and the year that we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Emily of Emily Griffith's first school. We also recognized that it was important to establish a set of design guidelines that provided greater certainty and clarity for potential developers as they determined how this prominent square city block could continue to be a catalyst for future opportunity. What we.
Speaker 7: Discovered.
Speaker 6: In the act of this exploration was a pathway that allowed committed stakeholders to proactively resolve competing interests to get to an outcome that met the needs of all. Each step of the process leading to the has this.
Speaker 7: Historic designation.
Speaker 6: And design guidelines has been carefully considered. Having the support of the historic community as evidenced by historic Denver being a co applicant. There is a testament to what is possible.
Speaker 11: With the synergy.
Speaker 6: Of collaboration, the willingness of the civic, business and development communities to engage and provide input on how to balance the goals of the school district and the interests of the broader community has been invaluable. Just as Emily Griffith herself opened the doors of opportunity for all who wish to learn. Our hope is that the certainty provided with this designation will yield continued opportunity for downtown Denver and ultimately for the.
Speaker 7: 91,000.
Speaker 6: Students currently served by DPS. Thank you for your consideration of this bill. As Denver Public Schools seeks to utilize all available resources to ensure that every child succeeds. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Annie Levinsky and this 76 minutes.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Hi, I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver, located at 1420 Ogden Street.
Speaker 7: And I'm really thrilled to be here tonight. And it's not quite.
Speaker 6: The 11th hour.
Speaker 7: Yet. And fortunately, it's not the 11th hour for the Emily Griffith Opportunity School. We've been.
Speaker 11: Working on this.
Speaker 6: As the beta mentioned, for several years, more than three years of analysis and.
Speaker 11: Conversation and planning.
Speaker 7: And so I really want to thank DPS for their willingness to take a really careful look at this site before it transitions out of public.
Speaker 11: Ownership for the first time in 150 years.
Speaker 7: And I also want to thank the.
Speaker 6: City and.
Speaker 7: Brad Buchanan's leadership in helping the stakeholders.
Speaker 11: Work through the details related to this designation and the redevelopment concept before you.
Speaker 6: Tonight.
Speaker 7: Historic Denver does have a long history of working with DPS regarding historic schools, and in the 1990s we received a National Trust.
Speaker 11: Honor Award for efforts that.
Speaker 7: Encouraged student led designations of many of our most important public school buildings. And Sarah McCarthy will.
Speaker 6: Speak in a minute.
Speaker 11: But she was one of the volunteers that was really intimately.
Speaker 6: Involved in that.
Speaker 7: In the early 2000s, the program was further structured through.
Speaker 6: The DPS policy.
Speaker 11: RFP, which.
Speaker 6: Karen mentioned the policy at that time. DPA also conducted a survey.
Speaker 7: Of many of its UN designated buildings and ranked them from Tier one through Tier three, with Tier one.
Speaker 6: Being the schools that were most appropriate for historic.
Speaker 11: Designation. And Emily Griffith.
Speaker 6: Was identified as one of the Tier one schools.
Speaker 7: In 2012 when word spread.
Speaker 6: That DPS plan to move the school program from the.
Speaker 7: Site. Historic Denver heard from many concerned.
Speaker 6: Community members about what would happen to the buildings. We reached out to DPS to express the importance of preservation and they agreed to work with us and implement the policy outlined in policy. F.B. The process outlined in policy be the Emily Griffith.
Speaker 7: Site and specifically the Welton Street side of the campus, has been in public ownership for more than 150 years, with.
Speaker 11: The first public school opening there in the 1870s.
Speaker 7: In 1916.
Speaker 6: DPS granted Griffith, who was then principal at.
Speaker 7: Crofton Elementary.
Speaker 11: School, still standing, and Curtis Park.
Speaker 6: The permission to open a.
Speaker 11: Nontraditional school for all who wish to learn in the vacant building on the site. Based on her early teaching experiences, Griffith recognized.
Speaker 6: The needs of not only her students, but also their parents. Her first offerings at the Opportunity School included English language courses, citizenship.
Speaker 11: Courses and technical training programs. By the 1920s, the school.
Speaker 6: Was so popular that DPS.
Speaker 7: Invested in its expansion, constructing the classical.
Speaker 6: Revival style building that now sits at the corner of 12th and Welton.
Speaker 7: It was later expanded with Annex to.
Speaker 6: Significant international style.
Speaker 11: Additions that complement the 1920s building.
Speaker 7: One in 1947 and one in 1956. And that really.
Speaker 11: Completed the build out of the Walton Street side of the.
Speaker 7: Campus and replaced that earlier school, the Longfellow School, that had.
Speaker 6: Stood and been first used.
Speaker 11: Gradually and incrementally.
Speaker 7: DBC then acquired the property.
Speaker 11: Along Glenarm place to build a variety of one story shops. The 1926.
Speaker 7: 47 and 56 buildings along Welton Street are interconnected.
Speaker 11: And today are experienced as one.
Speaker 7: Building.
Speaker 6: With multiple entrances.
Speaker 7: The interconnected structure clearly and definitely meets all three criteria.
Speaker 11: In the landmark ordinance for designation.
Speaker 7: Representing the most historically, architecturally.
Speaker 11: And geographically significant.
Speaker 6: Aspects of the Emily Griffith site.
Speaker 11: And serving as a symbol of her legacy.
Speaker 7: It is through the doors along Welton that more than a million students have access to education and opportunity, and it is above these doors that the school's values of opportunity and achievement are emblazoned. Griffith's legacy is.
Speaker 6: Profound and historic. Denver feels strongly that it deserves.
Speaker 11: To be physically represented in a.
Speaker 7: Place that has deep and authentic history. We are confident that the Welton Street buildings, deemed most significant through this whole process, can meet the.
Speaker 6: Site's.
Speaker 7: Story and represent its architectural character. The designation application before you clearly identifies the structures on Welton as the structures for preservation and the smaller one story structures on Glenarm place as non contributing. This means the buildings on the Glen own side of the block may be approved for demolition without a public hearing.
Speaker 11: And historic Denver fully anticipates and is aware that a new and most likely quite large development will take place in this location.
Speaker 7: DB has officially listed the property in the same week the designation was filed and we are commend them and thank them for doing this process concurrently so that both the prospective buyers of the site as well as the community will have certainty about its future. Before those discussions get too far underway. Preservation, as Devina mentioned, is most successful.
Speaker 11: When it is collaborative. We are grateful to the city, the Community Planning and Development Office.
Speaker 7: Humphreys Polay Architects, the Downtown Denver Partnership, and all these stakeholders for engaging in thoughtful and productive planning for a place with great importance in our community. The Emily Griffith process demonstrates that property owners and the preservation community can work together to find solutions that make our.
Speaker 6: City more unique.
Speaker 7: More vibrant and more adaptable for the future. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Levinsky. Jane Chrisler.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Jane Kreisler with Humphreys Poly Architects. And we acted as a consultant to the city and Denver Public Schools. And I am here to answer any questions that you may have.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Sam McCarthy.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Thanks for your attention. More than 20 years ago, a collaboration began between Denver's preservation community and Denver Public Schools, led by Jennifer Moulton, who was then the president of historic Denver. This effort sought to identify the district's architecturally and historically significant schools. We found dozens of them. More than 500 students researched the history of their schools in their community, its architectural style, so they could nominate their schools as Denver landmarks. Many dozens of these students came happily before this body to defend these nominations. DPS and historic Denver received a national award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. For this program, I spoke of it as raising little preservationists. But we ran.
Speaker 7: Into a problem.
Speaker 5: Since the 1880s, DPS has been hiring noted local architects to design its schools using high quality materials and craftsmanship. These schools represent a spectacular 130 year span of the spectrum of architectural styles, ranging from.
Speaker 7: The 1880s. Richard Sony In Style through the.
Speaker 5: 1920s Collegiate Gothic style to the 1950s Usonian and international styles until 1952. No. Two Denver schools were built alike. Denver schools were built to last 100 years and more. And they have, consequently. All the schools first surveyed met Denver's landmark commission criteria for designation to designate all would devalue the recognition. So a tearing system was to was developed to identify the districts most architecturally and historically significant schools. The Denver Board of Education established its policy to recognize this.
Speaker 6: Unique ranking process to support.
Speaker 5: The preservation of schools like Emily Griffith Opportunity that was ranked Tier.
Speaker 7: One while balancing.
Speaker 5: The district's responsibilities to educate our young residents. Schools are tangible symbols of the value the community places on education. And in Denver, the value of our history, especially our public assets. I applaud this continuing collaboration. I wholeheartedly support this.
Speaker 7: Nomination.
Speaker 5: And encourage you to vote yes quickly.
Speaker 14: Thank you, Ms.. McCarthy.
Speaker 1: That concludes our speakers. Time for questions of members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Kara. Could you would the height of anything that's going to go behind it? 112 feet? What is the height of the 1926 building?
Speaker 7: I am sorry. I don't know that off the top of my head.
Speaker 13: I'm just trying to get a relative sense of the.
Speaker 7: Changes that it's three and a half stories. I'm sorry, three and a half stories.
Speaker 13: So.
Speaker 2: Four 4147.
Speaker 7: 5157.
Speaker 13: Thank you. That's almost perfect. I just want to get a sense of the scale.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 9: Yeah. Kira, quick question. Thank you, Mr. President. Gina is the Gina guy. Is he the one who who wrote or that person? Is that the one who wrote the letter of opposition or spoken opposition?
Speaker 7: I can double check the name. I don't have it right here in front of it.
Speaker 9: It is. But just can you give us for just this?
Speaker 7: She was basically concerned that designating the historic property would lower the value that Denver Public Schools could get for the land. Another member then of the community then spoke up who was part of the sales advisory group and felt that this would allow for a good value for Denver public schools. Knowing the surface.
Speaker 9: Is Gina a part of DPS at all or just a concerned citizen?
Speaker 7: I not that I'm aware of. I believe she's just a concerned citizen.
Speaker 9: Okay, thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember in other questions, 311. Seeing on public hearing is now closed. Comments.
Speaker 9: Councilman Brooks, how many questions for this one, huh? I am excited and really happy to support this designation. I always love to hear KERA Dona Dona owner support it, but I personally was involved this couple of years ago with in the process and was in the early meetings with Down Syndrome in partnership with Davida, leading those meetings with Annie Levinsky with many stakeholders. And I want to be clear that we are celebrating today, but there were many days in that room where I think I think folks were pretty far apart. And it's just amazing to see the community kind of come together. And I think Bradley can and played a huge role in that as well with his ideas as well. And so I'm excited to support this. Sara, I appreciate you bringing up Jennifer Moulton. You know, for for some of us younger urban leaders, she was a visionary that we long to live after as we're city builders here. And so I appreciate you bringing her up. The other reason I really am supportive of this is I think it sets a precedent for what we can begin to to see the integration of new development in historical buildings in downtown begin to look like. So thank you for the Denver Public Schools for being a part of this and being so open around this whole issue and everybody else who works so hard to be supporting this.
Speaker 1: In Katherine Brooke. Councilman each.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Brooks, for the role you played in the process. I was actually going to remember a time slightly even before that, which was with my former colleague, Councilwoman Raab, who really we have to credit her for helping to start the conversation early when the certificate of non historic status was filed . Our first meeting that I went to with Councilwoman Raab with the district was not so supportive. There was a flat out statement that there's just no market potential for this site if we do designation. And Councilwoman Raab, with her experience, was really able to offer the ideas of bringing in developers with expertize to get their input. And I think there was a walk through that happened really early in the process, even before there was a commitment to the committee. And that walk through is an example where folks were in I don't remember who we got. We had suggested folks like Dana Crawford and Charles Wooley and and but to to hear from folks to say there are ways that this could be done. You know, and I think that that first seed of it could be possible. I just want to thank Councilwoman Robb and for her, I think, diligence in helping to kind of help plant that seed and and help do a little activism. And I'm very glad that we have the happy story that we do. But sometimes in those early days, it takes a strong advocate to get that started. And so in this case, I just want to honor her and I'm excited to support this today. My experience with Emily Griffith is through the amazing construction apprenticeships that they have hosted at that school, all of the construction apprenticeships, including most of the union and a few of the nonunion, they get 42 hours of college credit and they've been earning them through a certification that Emily Griffith provided. So one of the things I hope with this designation in this redevelopment is that we get apprentices working on this building as it's rebuilt around with the new development. That would be a great way to bring Emily Griffith's legacy to a completion. So I hope you negotiate that in your sale contract because it would be a missed opportunity if we didn't anyway. Happy to support it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each next. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Comments. I just wanted to say, this is brilliant. This is a genius. Love it. Love how creative everybody was. And I like the councilman, Brooks said. I hope it sets a precedent. I know this is not easy work and we can't always do this, but I do think we should. We should be able to figure out how to when we have those buildings that we go, oh, when we see it, when a proposal comes in, whether they've applied for historic MENA status or, you know, it's going to lead, there is do we have the tools to sort of capture both new development in a creative fashion? I think part of the charm of Europe is they figured that out. And so we sort of have the two extremes. It's either preservation and maintaining it in its in in an intact form or gone. And there's actually a lot of potential in in this sort of blending. And so where we have those opportunities, I'm glad to see this this happen and this tool exists because I think we're seeing it over there potentially at the tavern as well. So thank you to historic Denver, Annie and John Annie. You guys are doing a wonderful job and CPD staff. Thank you, Brad. Thank you. So thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. Shooting. There are very few places in Denver that I think can match this site for its historical significance, along with its connection to so many, probably thousands of residents of Denver. I can think of maybe Union Station as another example where not only a historic structure, a magnificent structure, a beautiful structure, but one that has a connection to the daily lives of of so many people who grew up in Denver. And it's just a pleasure to to see this. It's it's almost an emotional connection to this building with a lot of people in Denver who took advantage of what what Emily Griffith established in 1916. And I think, Mr. President, my only regret is that the building on the on the Glenarm Street side is is going to be demolished because we taped so many programs from DPS on Channel six of Don Kinney's State of Colorado show in there. And I think just for that reason, it ought to be historic, but it'll be sad to see that one go. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I know the answer is no. I know you want us to stop talking, but I just have to say, I have a long personal history with this school. My dad taught there in the fifties. He taught bookkeeping and accounting. And I have a very long personal history with the Denver Public Schools. Hello, David. A long time supporter of DPS and the Emily Griffith Opportunity School, which is no longer called that. And as co-chair of the 2012 Bond Committee, we talked about this building a lot because its sale was supposed to fund the purchase of 1860. Lincoln, which is the home of the new Emily Griffith Technical School and High School. So I know everyone figured out a way to make it all happen, so I couldn't be more thrilled and also thrilled that Emily Griffith's legacy continues at 1860. Lincoln, which is now called the Emily Griffith campus and all of the things that she worked for are still happening today. And it's really incredible. And it is one of the greatest success stories of the Denver public schools. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: I am picking that up from that screen. I am super enthusiastic about this designation. You know, I think Councilman Flynn really hit the hammer or really hit the nail on the head and that it has so many such a big connection to so many people in the area. I talked about him earlier, but my grandfather was pictures right here and played the role of my dad. He was called to service in World War Two before he can finish high school from Ault, Colorado from up north and really use a beat picker. He ended up coming back and was able to finish that a program for folks who if they had, he was an older high school student. So after they came back from the service, he came back and finished his high school diploma at Emily Griffith. And that was the impact that that had for him in his life. But there's so many people around that time in Denver. Emily Griffith was the school. It was the school to go to. Yes, it was west and east and north and south. But you still had Emily Griffith right there. And he was able to do that, finish out and. You know, provide a foundation for a lot for a lot of his children and grandchildren. And I think, you know, that that's the historic nature of the school. We can talk about the architecture, but in its walls and in its brick and mortar, those kind of stories throughout Denver. So, you know, thank you. I'm proud to vote yes for this.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I believe that all the speakers.
Speaker 14: Are actually all the councilmembers are chime in our.
Speaker 1: Screens. Kind of crazy right now. I think that's everybody. So they were good. All right. So you know the comments, Madam Secretary, wrong call. Roll call.
Speaker 4: Brooks. Hi, Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn Hi. Gilmore I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega I black I Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 1: Now, secretary, please for civilian house results.
Speaker 4: 11 ice 11.
Speaker 1: Ice 311 has passed one for a German announcement Monday, June 13th Council will hold a required public hearing accountable to 61, allowing short term rentals as an accessory to a primary residential use with limitations where residential uses are currently allowed.
|
Bill
|
Designates 1250 Welton Street (Emily Griffith Opportunity School) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Designates 1250 Welton Street (Emily Griffith Opportunity School) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 9. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-27-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05092016_16-0350
|
Speaker 6: YMCA has various community centers here in the area. In addition to that, individuals, student athletes, NCAA personnel are going to be volunteering and stuffing backpacks with NCAA swag, so to speak. Shirts, hats, pens, pencils, so that the community really remembers what took place over this period of time. And so we're really excited again about the athletic component that's a part of this. But one of the key pillars of Division two is service. And you're going to see that here throughout the week, throughout the festival. And so when the NCAA does individual championships, you can understand the impact that it has on an individual basis. But if you think about the fact there's going to be six national champions crowned in one place, how much more impactful is going to be with 1100 student athletes being involved in the community and making Denver a better place? Thank you. Thank you. And then also, if I can, you know, this is. A large undertaking for years to say the least four years in the making. And so it's because of the vision. Dr. Jordan. People have come before me, the previous athletic director. I also have my assistant athletic director, Aaron Hilder, here, who has served as the primary liaison with the NCAA, who is taking care of logistics to make this happen. So I also want that to be on record as well. And we appreciate her efforts for that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Jo. And thank you, Dr. Graham. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for bringing this forward. All right. We are moving on proclamation 351. Councilman new, will you please read Proclamation 351?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm so pleased to be a part of this proclamation. I'm so glad to see the families of our fallen officers here tonight. So. Proclamation 351. Whereas the Denver Police Department has 157 year history of providing law enforcement for the citizens of Denver. And. Whereas, during the 157 year history, during nearly 10,000 individuals have served the citizens of Denver as Denver police officers. And. Whereas, every year, law enforcement officers die while protecting our homes, our families and our loved ones. And.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the 2016 NCAA Spring Sports Festival May 16-21 at Metropolitan State University.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05092016_16-0308
|
Speaker 4: Just come in, Mr. President. Go right ahead. So, public council members, this is Bill 308. What this resolution does is set a public hearing 531 Tuesday, the day after Memorial Day, for a public hearing for the business improvement district of wait for it. Well, 10th Street. Five points, which we're so excited for. This will actually be heard tomorrow in the Business Development Committee. For those of you who can make it to that, so just wanted to alert you to that on Friday, the petitions have been signed and filed by the clerk's office. So we are moving through the process. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, any other comments on three eight? Scene nine. We will move on to the next 1 to 97. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like for us to do this?
Speaker 4: I'd like to call it out for a separate vote.
Speaker 1: And certainly let's first get that on the floor. Councilman Ortega, could you please have 297 ordered published?
Speaker 8: Yes, I move that council bill 297 be ordered. Published.
Speaker 1: It had been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: You. Yeah, I'm going to read actually from a paraphrased email that I sent not on this particular parcel, but it's the exact same situation. And I've asked that other situation, vacation, alley vacation be brought to committee to talk about this very issue.
|
Resolution
|
Sets a public hearing on 5-31-16 for the formation and establishment of the Five Points Business Improvement District (BID) in Council District 9.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05092016_16-0297
|
Speaker 4: You. Yeah, I'm going to read actually from a paraphrased email that I sent not on this particular parcel, but it's the exact same situation. And I've asked that other situation, vacation, alley vacation be brought to committee to talk about this very issue. So I'm bringing this request to the attention of the Denver of Denver residents. This is a land grab utilizing city policy that gives considerable deference to developers with total disregard for the impact on the surrounding community. For 100 years, Northwest Denver has had these mid-block carriage lots that have been de facto open spaces. Since 2010, the city with a complete lack of foresight created zoned districts that allow a destabilizing amount of lot coverage and density in historically single family and duplex neighborhoods. Prior to 2010, these mid-block carriage lots existed almost solely in. In. Means being more creative in the earliest days of Denver. So these are square lots with a with a carriage lot that exists for actually for more of a public facility historically if these. So when a developer makes a request for these land parcels, we charge them $1,000 application fee and two $300 additional fees to give them the right to take. I mean, to have tens of thousands of dollars of development land developable or land. So if this vacation is found to be technically feasible, the request proceeds unchecked and the developer will gain the ability to develop and sell additional square footage and units. That would not be possible without this vacation. And there is no recourse by the adjacent property owners when this is requested because it is a technical consideration only. So that said, it then falls upon council after everybody else has vetted it and said, well, there's no technical violation, is there actually any need to actually vacate this land ? And so when we vote on these items, we're voting on whether it's acceptable or not for us to to, to, to to surrender this land. Now, I understand there's policies and we're I've asked that we look at to how we dispose of these properties because other municipalities don't do it the way we do it. And I understand that we do it by some amalgamation of state statute and city charter and in our own policies. But this is these are occurring since 2010 in our historic neighborhoods that have these square blocks, which is the original town of Highlands. And unfortunately, where we have GMU three zoning, which is fairly egregiously dense land coverage with minimal parking standards, you're taking you're allowing new development into the center core of a block where these units look into the backyards of house after house after house after house. And we're not getting anything as a city in return for this. And I just my question, why? So I would like to I called this out for a vote because I, I don't see despite the technical lack of technical and feasibility, I don't see any reason or purpose to to grant this property moving forward. I do see a need to maintain this sort of open space that we have historically had in this city. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect to my colleague, Councilman Espinoza, this is Council District three. And first of all, this is the other than watching the mayor council and realizing there was an issue with it, I understand that there's a larger policy question on vacation rallies. But first of all, I you know, this isn't the highlands, this is the Slums Lake area. This particular area in Irving along 17th between Irving and Hooker is pretty highly developed. And it would. You know, it's basically chasing down jumbo jet fuel. And on the runway, this development has always taken, already taking place, and it has substantially changed the character of this particular area. So the the second I think is an issue, and I wanted to call on our assistant city attorney, Mr. Broadwell. There's an inference of us getting something for the vacation. It's my recollection that in state statute, that's illegal. That prevents us from the city from getting compensated for any kind of vacation to an alley. Is that right, Mr. Burrows? There's something that I guess is can you help clarify that that question?
Speaker 5: Mr. President? David Broadwell, assistant city attorney, the the state statute doesn't make it illegal.
Speaker 6: The state statute doesn't.
Speaker 7: Require compensation for a.
Speaker 5: Vacation. It's silent on the question of whether or not you can charge. Traditionally, the city attorney's office has expressed concern about.
Speaker 6: Charging for real estate as an.
Speaker 5: Asset that the city didn't pay for to begin with.
Speaker 6: And in the absence.
Speaker 5: Of a provision for.
Speaker 6: Compensation in the statute.
Speaker 7: We've interpreted it strictly by the book following the procedures.
Speaker 6: Following the criteria.
Speaker 5: In the statute, without adding a compensation element. As a matter of custom and practice, I think Councilman.
Speaker 7: Espinosa was alluding to that.
Speaker 5: But it doesn't flat out say you can't charge. It's just been interpreted by us for years to.
Speaker 7: Say that we shouldn't.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Broadwell. And like I said, that's a larger policy discussion, I think. I don't see it fit or necessary to to hold this up until we have that policy discussion. You know, this has its due process and it's moving through counsel. This was brought up relatively recently. So like I said, I think when it comes to the character and the area. You know, this is not unique in any way in that particular corner, in that particular part of the city. So and I haven't had any kind of public. No. I mean, nobody's called my office opposed to it or concerned about it. Certainly nobody in that particular area. So thank you. I think that I'll just I'm going to vote for this to move it forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I have a couple of questions on this. The first one is just trying to clarify. I know we've seen development all up and down 17th Avenue in this area. Is this a site that has already been developed and that this land has been incorporated into?
Speaker 1: Can somebody has just come?
Speaker 8: Angela.
Speaker 9: Hi there. Angela Casey is for Denver Public Works. And I believe they are in the process of of creating the development. Now, I don't know how far along they are and in the development.
Speaker 8: Okay. I know sometimes this is a chicken and an egg situation, but I think before we allow development and I'm not sure that we actually have had other situations where the development starts and then we come back and do the vacation later. But if for some reason City Council decided not to approve one and the development had already started, I think that puts this body in the city in a very precarious situation. So I think at a minimum, we would want to make sure that the the vacation of any street or alley takes place before, you know, the development is allowed to begin.
Speaker 9: That that that is usually the case. And in fact, I believe now that this this situation is coming back to me there. There the owner the property.
Speaker 3: Owner owns.
Speaker 9: Like the adjacent property. And so is just asking for a vacation to complete the parcel.
Speaker 8: Okay. I know we had another one of these in the Jefferson Park neighborhood where the city was asked to vacate land. And this allowed, you know, a pretty high density development to go in where there was some parking challenges. And I don't know how much we're addressing the parking issue as part of this, but I think it's important to make sure that all those details are covered as part of the project before, you know, it's allowed to proceed. And so I'm just trying to get clarification on this one before I know how I'm going to vote on it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you back up?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So? So I can almost be assured that they're not moving forward with the development because they don't have this right today. They can develop their existing parcel that fronts the street to whatever GMU three allows, but they can't develop on the carriage lot because it not habitable units because it doesn't address the street. So what this vacation does then allows them to connect these two parcels and develop an additional six or so units on that on that property, all deeply. Right, smack smack in the center of this square block. This is exactly what's going on in Jefferson Park. Time and time again, more recently, this is the first one that's come up since I've been on council, which is why I'm opining here and I'll opine more heavily on the one that is in my district. But more recently, this is the exact case of the Anderson House and I did not sit on this dais for that . Otherwise I would have countered the developer, I mean, the arguments that were laid out there. But the reality is, is that when you when a homeowner who owns these parcels sells them individually, they have a certain value. But when you vacate this valuable land that joins these two parcels. Now you've increased the development potential dramatically. And so this was the case in the Anderson House where the homeowner had three distinct parcels and two of them, I mean, two were separated from one through a vacation. The city vacated that land, and that's where that $1.6 million valuation came from, because now you've added that additional development potential . So it's not lost on me that three days after that property was sold, the developer then turnkey that whole development for $2.26 million, making more money in three days than the prior owner had made in 30 years. And so that's what's going on here. The developer has acquired both parcels with this, with certain development rights on one and not on the other. By virtue of us vacating it, we're granting significant additional development potential. And in again, this is not through a rezoning process. It's not through a public process. The only reason we're talking about it is because I called it out. And and this is if you look at the character of that block, aside from what's going on on 17th Avenue, you don't have this sort of density. And you didn't historically, you know, you had a certain amount of density in the former, what I believe would have been R3, but it had open area requirements and and more parking requirements than what we allow in the GMU today. And so this is character altering and dramatic. And so I am going to I'm articulating all this because this is a conversation that never occurred in 2010 aside from in local areas, and it hasn't occurred until now. And so I'm going to be talking about this now, and I respect the votes where they go. But we need to have this discussion because there aren't. The good news is there's so few of these square parcels in the city of Denver with these cares lots that this won't be happening very often, but there are still a few and they still impact surrounding neighborhoods.
Speaker 1: Councilman. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez, you back?
Speaker 6: Thank you. Like I said, with all due respect, this is not a rezoning. And the second thing is that it's an open kind of parcel. And it's an alley that needs to be vacated. Is going to not going to dramatically change the character of this particular block. It's something that, you know, we see these alley vacations go through all the time without any major hiccups. And there are some absolutely in in the north side that, you know, that prompts a closer look. But this is not one of those. At least not not from what I can tell in this area. And I said in Council District three, you know, fortunately, you know. We don't have that that issue up there. So most of this area has been developed the way it is with the heights that it has. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: I'm not getting into this debate, but I just want to have this a clarifying question. Don't you notify neighbors, council people for any Ali vacation?
Speaker 9: Yes. Okay. We have a public process.
Speaker 4: Okay. I've been through about four or five of these. And I know that it's a huge public process for for our neighbors. And I just wanted to make sure that folks didn't think that the city was sneaking through alley vacations. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. All right. Hey, Councilman Espinosa. You betcha.
Speaker 4: I know. I got notified. What is the actual notify notification that goes to adjacent property owners?
Speaker 9: I believe there's a notification that goes out to the ages of property owners, to the RINO's in the area as well.
Speaker 4: I believe there.
Speaker 9: Is a sign posted physically on the property with a with an email address and contact information for people to reach someone to give public input.
Speaker 4: So was there any public input received?
Speaker 9: No.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 9: In that. And just for the record, that when we submit those vacations, when we submit our ordinance requests, if there is public comment or any.
Speaker 3: Or anything that we are.
Speaker 9: Not able to resolve, we'll let you know in the ordinance request.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that's another think, Angela. And the other comments, questions to 97. All right. It's on the floor. So seeing no comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: ESPINOSA No.
Speaker 7: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore I can each. Lopez I knew Ortega. Susman. Brooks Clark.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close me now. So, results.
Speaker 3: Ten eyes, one knee.
Speaker 1: And eyes one day 297 has been ordered published. All right. That was all that were called out. So all of the bills for introduction are ordered published. We're ready for the block votes. Councilman Ortega, could you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption and a block?
Speaker 8: Absolutely. For resolutions. Number 3083093 1034 315. 301302 316 299 and three or four. All be ordered published.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance vacating the alley located between Irving Street and Hooker Street north of West 17th Avenue, without reservations.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Vacates an alley between North Irving Street and North Hooker Street, North of West 17th Avenue in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 4-28-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05022016_16-0174
|
Speaker 6: The property is just over 21,000 square feet and the owner is requesting zoning that would allow for possible repurposing of commercial property fronting Colorado Boulevard. The current zoning is B3 or shopping center district with waivers and conditions. The Shopping Center District allows for a 1 to 1 floor to area ratio. The waiver specific to the current zoning include restrictions on more intensive commercial uses and those have been attached in to the staff report. And then conditions include a requirement for fencing between the commercial property and the budding residential to the rear street trees and then a restriction on retail uses before 6 a.m. and after 9 p.m.. The surrounding zoning include B three with waivers to the north and south as well as FCC three X or a commercial corridor, three story maximum height zoning to north and south with some limitations and s or suburban issue single unit D which allows for 6000 square foot minimum lot size. The requested zone district is s suburban context commercial corridor the CC and three storey maximum height with use limitations in these zone districts is intended to balance pedestrian and automobile access and provides for commercial mixed use development along auto dominated corridors, but allows for less intensive mixed use as commercial uses to serve as a transition between the more intensive commercial corridor or more auto intensive arterial streets and nearby residential. Look at the existing land use contact shows commercial fronting Colorado. Current use today is office and there's the lighter red color commercial retail along the corridor as well. And then immediately to the west you see the abutting single family residential land use. The center image is the subject property and you see it. A two storey office building on the site to the north. You also seek office and commercial uses fronting Colorado Boulevard as well as to the south, to the east. On the opposing side of Colorado, you see a larger retail complex and to the west fronting Harrison Street, a single family residential. The rezoning process to present has included neighborhood outreach by CPD and the applicant to the registered neighborhood organizations listed here. All of the written and posted notice requirements have been met leading up to the council hearing this evening. And despite this outreach effort and some communication with Wilshire Homeowners Association presidency, there has not been any submitted public comments specific to this rezoning. Let's look at the review criteria, beginning with plan consistency. The applicable plans are plan 2000, which encourages infill development that is consistent with neighborhood character, also encourages mixed use development and a range of housing types and services. Blueprint Denver shows a land use concept of single family residential, and we should take a careful look at the definition of single family residential as it is somewhat varied. It allows, while it encourages predominant single family homes or single family homes as the predominant development type or use type, there can be a variety of housing types and there can even be complementary land uses such as stores, parks and schools. And this is a citywide plan. And sometimes when we look at specific sites, we we need to carefully consider the definition of a land use as well as the land use context and other factors that we'll look at. This is also in Blueprint Denver, an area of stability defined as mean, intending to maintain the character of an area, but allowing and accommodating some new development and redevelopment. And also in single family land use areas, there can be a small employment base or a significantly smaller employment base. So between complementary stores and other uses and an employment base, we know that there can be more than single family, residential and in fact some commercial uses in single family. Mentioned. We look at other factors when determining how to best interpret a land use such as concept land use such as Blueprint Single-Family Residential in Blueprint Denver. As we looked at the street classification in this case Colorado Boulevard, that the property fronts is a mixed use arterial. This is a high capacity street carrying many vehicles, but also intended to carry bicycle and pedestrian trips that very much automobile dominated and the purpose of connecting neighborhoods to major employment and commercial centers throughout the city in the region. And here's an image of Colorado Boulevard, all six lanes plus that a diesel acceleration lane and center turning lanes. Very much a high capacity vehicle corridor. But we also see accommodations for bike and impaired. The next review criteria is would be met by SCC three X as it would result in a uniform application of the district building form, use and design regulations. Third criteria would be met as the would this district would further public health and safety and welfare by implementing recommendations from these adopted plans. The justifying circumstance would be a changed or changing condition to the property and its surroundings. Specifically, there was after this property was developed along Colorado Boulevard later in the 19 late nineties, we see the saw the development of commercial retail on the east side of Colorado. And then in 2010 there was comprehensive citywide rezoning where SCC three X zoned districts were applied to the north and south of this. Could it be three with waivers and conditions? And then in general, there is an aging condition. Each year, decade that passes these properties. Many were built in the early 1960s are aging and in need of some reinvestment. The fifth and final review criteria would be the consistency with the neighborhood context and the zone district purpose and intent . And in particular the Berman context can be defined as single unit residential uses located away from arterial streets, but also single and some multi-unit residential, as well as commercial strips and centers and office parks, especially located on these these arterial streets. And SCC three X is consistent with this with the suburban context as it would allow for development opportunities along auto dominated corridor such as Colorado Boulevard and allow for that transition between intensity to lower intensity to the adjacent residential while allowing for flexible design standards for building circulation and parking. CPD has found that all review criteria have been met and we recommend approval of this application and Planning Board recommended approval as well with a21 vote. The applicant is here this evening and prepared to respond to questions and I'd be happy to as well. And thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Think, tim, we have one speaker for this public hearing, Dan Burkey.
Speaker 6: Evening Council members. My name is Dan Burkey and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'm happy to address any questions that may be directed to the applicant.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, councilmembers. That concludes our speakers now. Time for questions. Councilwoman Black. Hi.
Speaker 5: Hi. Thank you, Mr. Burkey. This project is in my very own neighborhood. And could you just explain to the rest of the council what's been done to this property and why they are seeking the rezoning?
Speaker 6: Sure. My client recently acquired the property within the last year and a half timeframe and immediately went into a remodel. More of a facelift, really. We put in, you know, all new windows. And so it is existing office space, kind of boutique office space. And so with this recent remodel that we've just completed, it's for lease now. And so our immediate intentions for the the near future is, of course, to to continue to use that as a boutique office space. Now, the reason we're requesting the rezoning is because we do know that future development is a possibility. Again, we don't have any immediate plans or designs or anything at this point, but we would like to have the the rezoning, the I'm sorry, SCC three X that's what we're looking for to allow for more flexibility in the future, either if we were to sell the property and market it, or if we ourselves would like to redevelop it in the future. But the existing 1990s ordinance that we have right now is pretty restrictive on some of the various specific uses. I mean, I don't think.
Speaker 2: We're looking to do adult.
Speaker 6: Bookstores or tobacco shops, but we know that the new zoning classification does allow for a lot more flexibility and in what we might want to do in the future.
Speaker 5: I don't have any other.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Black. Councilman Espinosa. And sort of.
Speaker 6: Oh, I know it is. It's actually probably for Tim, but I don't know. Both of you might know it. The one vote planning board against. What was the nature of that? Yes. So, Don Elliot, after voting no at the end and explaining his position, felt that complimentary commercial uses should be more neighborhood serving and perhaps less oriented to a regional arterial street. But the rest of the the board members felt that complimentary could mean neighborhood serving and serving an arterial street passing near a neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Carter.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Espinosa asked my question so I don't have to thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, could you explain what differences there are, if there are any, between the waivers that are being now waived and the new zoning classification? Will there be? It looks to me like it'll be allow for similar commercial uses, but I just want to be sure.
Speaker 6: There are some similarities and I might just begin with the some of the uses that are restricted under FCC three x. So those would include body art, outdoor service and repair firearm sales and your heavier automobile services, vehicle rentals, contractors, lab research, general manufacturing, storage, wholesale trade and vehicles. So it's these larger, more intensive uses that might have larger trucks with, you know, as they back up, they beep. And so that's generally that the types of use is restricted today. And what you'll find in the list of restricted uses or waived uses from the earlier ordinance is very, very detailed uses which reflect the former Chapter 59 use list, which prior to the early 2000s was extremely detailed down to the type of store, grocery store, tobacco store, etc. and yet in the early 2000s, those uses were consolidated to. Reduced number of categories. More of a light, medium or large, medium, small. I forget the exact classification. So it's just really gone through a series of of evolutions and changes to where there is not a 1 to 1 comparison between today's use restrictions.
Speaker 2: And I know that in the past, under the old Chapter 59, my predecessors, predecessor, Councilmen Hackworth, often was highly specific when wavers were involved in a rezoning. That's why I was wondering what the neighborhood might have bargained for when the initial B three with waivers. What were the restrict? What were the waivers in the original B three?
Speaker 6: Well, there are quite a few, and I'll just give you samples perhaps and get an idea. But automatic indoor archery. Lane's Automobile Gasoline Filling Station Billiard Parlor.
Speaker 2: Pool Table.
Speaker 6: Food Locker Plant. Fruit store. Grocery Store. Ice skating and a roller skating rink. Just doesn't seem to be a real consistent list of what.
Speaker 2: You're right. Pool table. I thought of Harold Hill and the music man does it doesn't allow in your first list you talk about the new zoning does not allow things like body art. Are you talking about tattoos? Tattoo parlor? Is that what that refers to?
Speaker 6: Correct. So the closer you look at the exact definition, but that's my understanding is that type of.
Speaker 2: Is a permit marijuana sales.
Speaker 6: So that's under the control of excise and licensing.
Speaker 2: Okay. But it would be allowed under this new general retail.
Speaker 6: Okay. So long as the spacing requirements. Correct. Excise and licensing. Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Any other questions? 174 scene public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Flynn, to respond to your question about a marijuana store, there actually is one next to the property. So, no, there can't be one there. As I said, I live in this neighborhood and this rezoning is consistent with the other properties on that block. I don't see anything controversial about it. The owner has spent a great deal of money reinvesting in the property and is currently leasing it. There's no change in the structure, no change in the parking and no change in the use. So I won't be supporting it this evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 6: Councilman knew I used to buy an auto insurance from this from this building where Adrian was there, and it surely needed some improvement. So I welcome your your project to remodel and redevelop this project. I'll vote for it tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: And councilman knew you must have been getting a good deal on that auto insurance. Also, I was going to say is yeah, this is even if the other not in the other now.
Speaker 2: Nonconforming marihuana facility location.
Speaker 6: Was there there's a there's a residential zone district that is across the alley or abuts this. Correct. So this location would per our new ordinance wouldn't wouldn't be eligible anyway. So that's all I wanted to point out. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. And a comment. 174 Seen none, ma'am. Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 4: Black. Hi, Brooks Clark. Hi, Espinosa Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi, Cashin. Can each. Lopez. Hi, new Ortega Susman. Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Please close a very nice results. 30 Nice nice 174 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right, the next bill we have come up is 191. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 191 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
Rezone 2765 South Colorado Boulevard from B-3 with waivers and conditions to S-CC-3x in Council District 4. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezone 2765 South Colorado Boulevard from B-3 with waivers and conditions (Former Chapter 59) to S-CC-3x (suburban, commercial corridor, 3 stories, less intense use) in Council District 4. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-16-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_05022016_16-0191
|
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Please close a very nice results. 30 Nice nice 174 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right, the next bill we have come up is 191. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 191 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: Certainly, Mr. President, I move that council bill 191 be placed on par and final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Has been moved. Colleagues, we need a second on the screen. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Public hearing for Council Bill 191 is now open. And may we have the staff report.
Speaker 8: Good evening, council president, members of City Council and Tim is much taller than I am. My name is Ryan Winterberg with Community Planning and Development here to present a rezoning application at 4140 50 North Kittredge Street from Gateway Waivers and conditions to the Five Zone District. So as in district, it will seem very familiar to you. Based upon our last rezoning system and the location of it, we can see that our site is in far northeast Denver. It is in Council District 11, it is in the Gateway Green Valley Ranch statistical neighborhood near the intersection of Eastbound I-70 and Pioneer Boulevard. So the location specifically, we're at the intersection of East 40th Avenue and North Kittredge Street. You can see our site outlined in yellow. You can see Adams County directly to the south, sort of shaded in gray. And our subject site is located about 1100 feet from the Gateway Park Station on the east corridor. And that is by walking distance. So the request, our site features two ownership parcels totaling about three acres. And this site was permitted under one site development plan from 2009, and it permitted the construction of a four story hotel and a standalone restaurant. And you can see that the four story hotel has been constructed. That's what we see in the aerial image there. And then the southern part of the site is vacant. That's intended as a later phase for the restaurant. And the rezoning request before you is sort of unique in that the owners are requesting the rezoning from Gateway with waivers and conditions to the SCC five X in order to bring the existing hotel and the permitted restaurant into conformance with zoning standards. As you've seen in your staff report and as we'll talk about tonight, the existing waivers and condition zoning, it is highly complex, it is highly inflexible, which is unfortunately resulted in errors in permitting. So the existing hotel and permitted restaurant, they do not conform with the zoning standards in place today. And so while the hotel that you see before you today was actually constructed in 2011, the zoning issues were not discovered until recently when the property owner did request a zoning verification letter. So as you'll see, we have a really great solution within the Denver zoning code today that both meets the rezoning criteria and captures the existing entitlement. So you'll see that the structure, both the existing and permitted structure, are both fully compliant with the requested zone district standards. Okay. So the request before you is the five zone district suburban neighborhood context alone commercial corridor uses five storeys in height with ex indicating limited uses as compared to the SCC five zoned district. So this zone district both acknowledges that existing entitlement as you'll see, and captures the existing site. So now I'll walk you through existing contexts. So in terms of zoning, we can see that our site is called out with the Gateway, with waivers and conditions. This is Denver's first attempt at mixed use zoning in the late nineties, and the subject site was rezone to that waivers and conditions in 1999 as part of a much larger area and 96 acre sites in the city of the area that you see surrounding our site, all largely vacant at the time of the rezoning. And the subject site is located within the new two, which stands for mixed use two area of the Gateway Zoning and it included a maximum standard. So controlling bulk and density through R allowing density bonuses and a maximum height of 75 feet. So not measured in storeys, just measured in maximum feet. So there are a couple of issues with the current zoning that are detailed in your staff report. So just kind of hit them broadly today. So the 1999 rezoning to the gateway with waivers and conditions included a use area map and a building heights map that's in your staff report. So they're highly customized waivers and conditions. But it's important to note that the rezoning, the 99 rezoning to get with reversing conditions was for a 96 acre site entirely vacant, and it was tied to a very specific anticipated project. And that planned commercial development didn't really materialize as these waivers and conditions had anticipated. So the zoning became outdated, unfortunately, very quickly and was very inflexible and unable to adapt to change over time. So the three major issues that we see at our site today, the first is that the hotel structure was constructed in an area where hotels and restaurants are unfortunately not permitted. So that's the hatched area that you can see on this use map. And the reason why this area has occurred is that the original dashed line that you see on the map is where an anticipated street connection was intended to be built. So that use area, those restrictions were intended to occur north of that street. But as we can see where the solid blue line is, that's where the street was actually constructed. So essentially the north, 76 feet of our subject property are not permitted for hotels and restaurants, also for number two. And number three on this bulleted list, the hotel and the restaurant do not comply with set back standards and some other site development standards. So looking to existing zoning in the area. See, we can see the 96 acre site that was the subject of the 1999 rezoning. We can also see some gateway zoning to the West where we see a large multifamily complex and Adams County to the south. And it's also important to note that only about 5% of the original area zoned gateway as part of the Gateway rezoning after the plan was adopted exists today. So we also have a general development plan that applies to the subject site. And IDPs were required in the Gateway Zone District for sites over ten acres. And this is, again, aligning with the 1999 rezoning so that 96 acre site. But we do see that the infrastructure surrounding our sites or the roadway connections, the sidewalk, the bicycle and pad infrastructure as well as stormwater has already been been constructed in accordance with this general development plan. So we don't really see a planning and development purpose any longer for our subject site within the framework of this GDP. So if the rezoning to SCC five X is approved this evening, the site will be removed from applicability of this GDP. But however, it still will apply to the remainder of the subject site where there is certainly still a purpose. So looking to land use, you can see that our site is called out as retail commercial and vacant and we see other large commercial sites to the north and to the east and to the south and Adams County. We would see a very similar pattern and a large inward facing multifamily site to the west across Kittredge Street. Looking to the foreman scale, we can see this is pretty typical of the development that we see in Denver's gateway or auto oriented, large setbacks, suburban in nature, but again, mixed use with mid mid to low intensities. Now, in terms of process, we did notify the following five renos throughout the rezoning process and we've received one letter of support from Montebello 2020 included in their staff report. We did notify those Arnaud's and City Council of receipt of complete application on December 9th. On March 2nd, Planning Board unanimously approved recommended approval of the rezoning, application and signage and notice for today's City Council public hearing was properly posted on April 11th. So in terms of the five rezoning criteria, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans, and we see three adopted plans that apply to our site. And the first is comprehensive plan 2000. And we do find that the rezoning is consistent with comprehensive plan 2000. And the comprehensive plan also calls out very specifically the gateway as an an area intended for higher intensity, mixed use development. Next, moving on to Blueprint Denver, we can see that our site is called out in that purple color indicating mixed use. So areas that have a sizable employment base as well as housing, and it's also located within an area of change. So areas that blueprint, Denver recommends concentrating growth and redevelopment. And the gateway is also specifically identified as an area of change. In Blueprint Denver Looking to future street classifications, we see that North Kittredge is called out as a residential collector and East 40th Avenue was actually called out as an end designated local, which we believe likely to be an omission, given that is the boundary with Adams County and it's built condition. It is a four lane divided, very commercially oriented arterial. So we do find that it is consistent to apply the SCC five zone district here based upon this higher intensity street classification. But then again, the X indicates there's limited uses to providing sensitivity to the residential collector and adjacent multifamily residential uses. The Gateway Concept Plan was adopted in 1990 and we find that the rezoning is consistent with multiple strategies from this plan. The plan recommended highly flexible planning areas to adapt to changing market conditions, identifying that the plan horizon in the gateway would be 40 to 50 years so far beyond what we would typically see and plans that we oftentimes see today. The plan also recommended activity centers with large scale hotels and office clustered at major interchanges like the interchange of I-70 and Paint Boulevard and the 1999 rezoning to M2 to included a land use and building heights map that essentially provided an update to the 1990 plan, which is shown here. So we can see that a maximum building height of 75 feet is recommended with a move to include a mix of uses. And that we do find that the requested SCC five X respects both these building heights and latest recommendations. So we do find that the rezoning is consistent with adaptive plans. Moving on to uniformity of district regulations, we find that the rezoning will result in the uniform application of zoned district standards and bring a site into the Denver zoning code where it can find compliance within our zoning standards. We also find that the rezoning feathers furthers public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans. Moving on to justifying circumstances, looking to change or changing conditions, we find that adopted plans recommend a redevelopment in this area and a mixed use context. Recognizing the evolving character over 40 to 50 years in terms of Plan Horizon in this area, we have seen the realization of that mixed use note occur at the interchange of I-70 and Pioneer Boulevard. And of course, the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code in 2010 introduced new tools to implement plans were formerly highly negotiated waivers and conditions. Rezoning would have been necessary to implement plan recommendations in this area. We now have options within the Denver zoning code. So in terms of consistency with neighborhood context, we find that it's appropriate to apply zoning here within the suburban context and in terms of zone, district purpose and intent. We find that the rezoning request meets the purpose statement of the SCC zoned district and specifically the intent statement for SEC five X applying primarily to auto oriented arterial streets, much like 40th Avenue or a building scale of 1 to 5 storeys is desired with less intense uses respecting adjacent residential development. So based upon our analysis of the five reasoning criteria, we find that the rezoning meet our five and recommend approval. And the rezoning applicant here is tonight available for your questions. So happy to answer any questions for you as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: In Iran, we have one speaker, Jack Royal.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Jack Russell, 1801 California Street 2600 and Denver. I'm here as the applicant's representative this evening, so I've been practicing law for 25 years. And this was one of the more interesting cases back in the day. My client, who I didn't represent at the time, obtained a building permit, built this hotel and often rated it as if all things were good and we would not have found this issue. But for the fact that we went through a refinancing project last year and when we when we just, you know, easily went to the city to ask for a zoning opinion, we had this. So I want to thank staff. They took a potentially. Difficult situation relation proposed a plan to make it work so that what was built via a permit back in 2000 that would happen now will fit very nicely within the new zoning code. So we agree with the staff recommendation. We hope you support it. And I'm here just to answer any specific questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from members of council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I have a question about. And Jack, you're probably the best person to answer this. So we're segregating out this 3.5 acre site that has a hotel on it from the other 96 acres. The require. The. Plan for the 96 acres includes some drainage at various locations, which we can see in the maps. Typically, when we have projects that are standalone that come in, they require their own onsite drainage if it is more than an acre and a half. And so I'm wondering if other parts of the 96 acres that have vacant land start to develop. Can any of that begin to take away any of that detention that's been set up as part of the drainage for the 96 acres?
Speaker 2: It's a great question, Councilwoman. I'm not sure I can answer it, but let me give you my thought and then Ryan can answer it. But I think when this site was first designed and built, the there was storm drainage facilities, the design for the 96 acres that this was a part of it. So its development was was part of the overall drainage plan. But Ryan, did you have.
Speaker 8: Yes, that is correct. There's a number of different aspects of overall site infrastructure that are captured at the GDP level and site wide stormwater infrastructure is one of them. So a very large retention pond that you see at the northern edge of the GDP does accommodate the site as well as others. So when they do come in for development over time, they will be captured by the regional infrastructure there.
Speaker 7: So the detention ponds that are there will stay. They could start to encroach into that and take away any of the detention as part of the actual correct.
Speaker 8: The retention ponds will need to stay.
Speaker 7: Great.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Ryan, maybe you could help me understand. Sure. How would. How would errors like this occur? This was just 2011 and the new code was adopted in 2010. But the new code had. No. This is old.
Speaker 8: Right?
Speaker 2: I'm sure you did. But you know, when I read that the hotel was constructed in an area where hotels are not permitted. It makes me wonder how this escaped the eagle eyes of the development group.
Speaker 8: Correct? Correct. So the site development plan that approved the construction of the hotel and the restaurant was approved in 2009. So it does predate the code, but I believe for two years the development stayed in the development review and investing process. But what happened is.
Speaker 5: A.
Speaker 8: Interesting story. So the staff who would have reviewed this particular project are no longer with us at the city, so we can sort of pick their brains. But from the research that we've done, trying to puzzle this situation is that the waivers and conditions that are of course, included in the rezoning ordinance from 1999. So it's a separate document. It appears that they were missed entirely. So the development, it appears, was reviewed against the gateway with waivers and conditions and new to the mixed use two straight standards and missed the waivers and conditions, which is where you would see the area that is prohibited for hotels and restaurants that all lived within that waivers and conditions document. So we do suspect that it was just missed entirely, unfortunately.
Speaker 2: Okay. The question that that leads me to then is, are there other parcels in development or just recently constructed in this area that might have this same issue? And are we going back and looking at them?
Speaker 8: Yeah, that's a great question. So the site next door, 16161 East 40th Avenue also has a very similar problem. And we have received a map amendment application that is now posted to our city website requesting its own district that similarly will bring that site into conformance as well. Those are the only two sites that we have found within the GDP. We did undertake a pretty comprehensive review of permitted and existing development to ensure that there were no other mismatches.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you very much. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And the questions 191 seen none. Public hearing is not closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. You know this. I have to compliment the the owner and the owner's rep. You know, this was a simple financing that they went to, you know, get better financing on their projects and clean that up. And they, I think, opened up a can of worms that they were not prepared for. But they have been, you know, at the table talking with folks, always very forthcoming. And so I appreciate that and that going forward, it would be wonderful, especially if it's a clean up. I understand that CPD has a process and it has to go through the planning board and everything. But this was quite a lengthy process and I hope that that staff and others can maybe look at how to expedite some of these, especially if it is truly a clean up and good to know that in addition to everybody else, the city staff is human and mistakes are made. But this is in my district and I will be supporting it tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Any other comments? 191. Being UN Madam Secretary. Welcome.
Speaker 4: Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 4: Katherine. Hi. Can each. Lopez.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: New Ortega. Sussman Black Brooks. Clark. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Please. Vali Nasr. Results 3939 is when 91 has been placed on final consideration and does pass on Monday, May 9th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 256, dissolving the Ninth Avenue Business Improvement District on Tuesday, May 31st, Council will hold a required public hearing. Council Bill 218 changed the zoning classification for East 56th Avenue and Central Park Boulevard. Quiet Public Hearing on Council Bill 253 Changing the zoning classification for 34 or one North Pecos Street. Any protest against Council Bill to 18 hour Council Bill 253 must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon Monday, May 23rd. See no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located at 4100 and 4050 North Kittredge Street from Former Chapter 59 Gateway zoning with waivers and conditions to S-CC-5x in Council District 11. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 4100 and 4050 North Kittredge Street from Former Chapter 59 Gateway zoning with waivers and conditions to S-CC-5x (suburban, commercial corridor, 5 stories, less intense use) in Council District 11. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-23-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04252016_16-0258
|
Speaker 1: Councilman Flynn, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a brief question for probably George at the airport. Go ahead. George Merritt and I was able to prep him beforehand. So in the scope of services, Mr. President, for this consulting contract, for planning and development of land. One of the scopes of service is to engage in planning for development in the runway clear zones. And I just want to get out get out here. What are we thinking of building in the clear zone of the runway? What kinds of development do we envision in a clear zone of a runway?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman. So just for a clarification, the clear zone is this area around our periphery where airport property is actually the airport owns property in Adams County. And prior to the amendment, what we what we saw is this effectively a moat for economic development. So in terms of what we're going to develop on this, that's that's part of why we're doing this ongoing contract is certainly going to look all over the airport. But we couldn't really do economic development planning prior to the voters approving this amendment in November. So part of what we're going to be looking at with this contract is what sort of economic development will make sense in those clear zones.
Speaker 5: Okay, George, we're not. Are we actually talking about the entire perimeter clear zone? We're not talking about the clear zone off the ends of the runways, or are we?
Speaker 7: So this will be looking, you know, at we'll look at different nodes. I don't have a specific answer for where we would be looking or where we wouldn't. You know, certainly right off the end of the runway may not be, you know, you're not going to build a a 50 storey tower there. The FAA would certainly have something to say about that. But where as we do this on call and planning will be, we'll be examining different places that make sense, probably building. My guess would be building out from where there's already development.
Speaker 5: Okay. Can I request then that when you get when you start talking about development in an actual runway, clear zone, that you let us know because I don't even know if we should be building a one storey building in a runway clear zone.
Speaker 7: You know, that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Absolutely.
Speaker 5: That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I have a couple of questions. George, if you could stay there. First of all, is this part of the 15,000 acres that was approved or is this different from those 15,000 acres that the voters gave us the green light to move forward and do development on?
Speaker 7: It's a good question. So just a quick note. It's 1500 acres, but we've got a lot of land. The 1500 acres is a is a pilot program where we can actually pull what sort of withdraw acreage as we do economic development and we have a lease going forward to do development that is not specifically related to the airport. We actually will notify Adams County of what of the amount of acreage that will be pulling out of that pilot program. And sort of you can think of it as a as a bank and we're making a withdrawal. So technically, yes, if we if we decided important distinction that I didn't know before is in the clear zones. Our agreement with the in the in this idea is that we would in the 1500 acres we split the tax revenue 5050 in the clear zone that's actually in Adams County, 100% of the tax revenue would go to county.
Speaker 6: Okay. My second question is about a contract that we did. I want to say some time last year that involved multiple players, different companies that were looking at doing planning for Aerotropolis. How is that different from this?
Speaker 7: I believe you're referring to a seat on Aerotropolis study. Am I? If I'm thinking of the one that was presented?
Speaker 6: I'm not sure. There were lots of different companies that were part of looking at development of land, and I couldn't remember. I can't remember now if it was just specific to on or off airport land.
Speaker 7: So a couple of different things and hopefully this will answer your question. One is recently commissioned a study, an aerotropolis study that specifically looked at areas around the airport, across the region. And this was with a key to making sure that we were doing infrastructure planning that made sense across our boundaries, you know, as a region. And that is one study we have had previous planning contracts that we that we have basically started very high level that will advise certainly what Szaky is doing on this contract. As we get more and more granular, we just we have not been able to do a level of planning when we're talking about specific to the big contract. You know, prior to this, without without the amendment being passed by voters, we were specifically we could not do this sort of.
Speaker 6: So one of the one of the firms I remember was trailer that was part of a group of organizations that were looking at sort of planning for the future development. And that's where I was trying to understand how is this different from that.
Speaker 7: So so you want to. Good evening. My name is John Potts. I'm your development director in real estate and through the chair. The tribute to him Hill contract was what we would call the phase two effort, and it did a fairly high level of land planning. With the advent of the 1500 acres, we felt it was incumbent to do an additional drill down for the on an urban design basis. And so that is why we're asking the council to psyche contracting.
Speaker 6: So the work from tribal and teach to him Hill is done.
Speaker 7: It has been done. There was work done prior to that. That was phase one. The tribal work was phase two. This will be the third and final phase.
Speaker 6: So if any of us want to look at what they did, what came out of that, we could just contact George to look at that.
Speaker 7: Yes, ma'am. That would be the best. Some of the work that came out, it was quite, quite voluminous, thousands and thousands of pages and it was inch of.
Speaker 10: In draft form.
Speaker 7: But we do have it. If you'd like to see it, we can arrange for that.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Sorry. Just a quick question. So the contract says that the deliverable is a master plan based on the task order, scope, scope of services. But in the tab, in the scope of services, there actually isn't a master plan or draft plans listed. Am I missing something there?
Speaker 7: No, sir. There is a task the it is a task order contract, but the first task order is for a master plan. We specifically asked for a deliverable of a master plan and that will be documented with several different documents. So we'll have a small scale maps for the entire 9000 acres. We'll have the one, two, 300 or one ish to 200 maps for the more village size developments. So is.
Speaker 4: That under Amendment I mean, exhibit A of the contract.
Speaker 7: Exhibit A and then task order one outline.
Speaker 4: I've got onboarding and assessment, I've got visioning, I've got establish define scope of work and schedule for task order one. But the deliverable is the schedule in the meeting minutes.
Speaker 7: There should, there should be a master plan deliverable in the in the task order. And what we'll do as well as part of the we when we styled the task order, we wanted input from the planner that was doing the work. And so we'll be asking that planner to help us implement the best way to do that work, the best way to produce that master plan.
Speaker 4: I'm just wondering if I'm looking at the right agreement. Um, because, yeah, there's no mention of a master plan other than in the deliverables of the agreement. Yes, but by reference to the exhibit. Let's see. All right. I'm sorry. I'll keep searching for it. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, to take you back up.
Speaker 6: Yes. I just wanted to clarify. How many total acres are we talking about? So there's the 1500 from the original voter approval. And then this is asking to look at additional land for planning. This isn't the green light to go ahead and do any kind of development. Is this only land in Adams County or is any of it in Denver County as well?
Speaker 7: No, it will be the 1500 acres from the Ojai Amendment. Plus, it'll take a look at the residual of the 9000 acres. But for sure, the the heavy drill down will be on the 1500 acres that will be focusing on over the next few years. But we do want a comprehensive master plan that will advise us and guide us as we move forward to develop that through the development process. Those lands that look like they will be more than 15 or 20 years out, we'll probably do scenario designs on those. So that will. Put in place alternate land uses if if a given condition exist, the land use could do this. But if a given condition exist, it may be appropriate that it be this okay?
Speaker 6: And all of this is within the purview of what FAA allows. Denver to do on airport land?
Speaker 7: Absolutely. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I also want to tell you, you know, the questions or comments on 258. CNN. Thank you. We'll go to the next one, Madam Secretary. 25 seven, council on the new. Would you like for us to do this?
Speaker 10: I'd like to make a comment. Please. Go ahead. I'd just like to thank the Department of Environmental Services for their assistance and working with US ordnance and strafing it. I'm so pleased that I see that technology is being emphasized to help control orders and as well as the inspections and the follow up and notification process and the strong rules and regs they are providing too. So I really want to thank them very much for working with me on that and helping strengthen that. They've done a great job and look forward to to helping control those orders, which have been a big, big issue with residents, especially related to marijuana. So. Thank you very much. The only problem I have is we've been on great tours at Red Rocks in the mountains where I'm having a hard time explaining why I'm excited about going on the odor tour Friday. So, so, but thank you so much for all that you do with this audience. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilman, New York Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, am very excited to see this ordinance moving forward. But I would. I've had some questions from the community and I just thought would be helpful on the record, if I may invite the Department up to answer your question about timeline.
Speaker 10: Good evening, Greg Thomas with Department of Environmental Health.
Speaker 9: Thank you. So there's a couple different things that happen after this bill is passed. There's regulations that come, then there's an effective date and then there's a date by which things really have to be in place. Can you just very briefly just clarify for the public that timeline so they understand when they can start to expect that new technology will be installed, particularly in the covered industries that are required to do installations regardless of complaints.
Speaker 10: Right. So over the rest of the spring and summer, we will will be developing rules or regulations that really kind of get more at the details of stuff that is not in the ordinance. And that will involve consulting with industry stakeholders, with community stakeholders, and start to identify what we expect to see in an odor control plan . So right now, this rule is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Environmental Health in September. And so assuming that the end of September this is all passed, then that will trigger a 90 day clock for affected industries to submit an order control plan. So let's say December 31st, 2016, is when the plans will be due. And for certain facilities like marijuana facilities where we've done inspections in the past, we've been tabulating as we've gone along, how many facilities have some kind of odor control? And it's about 55% of the 250 to 275 facilities we've inspected have odor control. So for those, they will likely submit a plan. They were either already operating or they will be operating when they submit that plan. And it is just assumed they will be continuing to operate and maintain. And we will capture that and track that as part of our inspection process that we do each year for facilities that do not have odor controls. They will submit a plan saying laying out, here's our plan, here's our schedule, here's any challenges we have. Maybe from a budgeting and procurement and installation standpoint, we will review all the plans that are submitted within our department and then approve them. And so there can be certain situations where somebody is really running into some logistical issues and we'll be kind of use our discretion to really work with them to make sure that it's implemented . I would say if we were how to pick a target date, everything will be implemented pending, maybe a few really complicated facilities by July 1st of 2017.
Speaker 9: And I appreciate that explanation. I think that some community members have, you know, heard this is the law won't go into effect until July 1st, 2017. Nothing will be done until July 417. And what I hear you saying is that action will have to have been taken probably by the end of this year or early next year . Progress will have to be happening. And this is the furthest out date for some of those more complicated industries. So action will certainly be occurring before then. Exactly. And I think that's important for our community to understand. Thank you very much. No further.
Speaker 4: Questions. Welcome.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Leach, any other questions or comments? Two, five, seven CNN Maps. Let's go to the next 1 to 91. Councilwoman Ortega, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 6: I'd like to ask for a vote on this, please.
Speaker 1: Certainly. Councilman, can you make the motions for us tonight?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Will you please put to 91 that's as amended, I believe, on the floor? No, to 91 on the floor for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. I move that council bill 291, as amended, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Is been moved. We need a second council. Thank you. Moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry I was not able to be here last week for some of the additional amendments that were brought forward. And I certainly appreciate efforts to further to make further changes to the ordinance that work to address some of the impacts to the neighborhoods. I think there's been a lot of good work that's been done on the part of the committee with input from both industry and neighborhoods. I know Councilwoman Kennedy took the lead in trying to compile comments and input from everybody. I am just really. I don't know, frustrated, disappointed that we were not able to address any of the pending applications. And when you look at how many of those pending applications are nonconforming users, it's it's concerning. And we're allowing the pending to continue to go into neighborhoods that are already saturated. And when we started this conversation about trying to move an ordinance forward and out of committee, it was to deal with the issue of saturation, because we had been told that what? Is being produced by the industry today is already meeting the market demands and we had heard there were some pending applications. I started asking some questions about how many, where were they? And, you know, we have since gotten a complete list and we have maps. And there the majority of them are going back into the saturated neighborhoods. And the people who live in those communities came to these meetings over and over and over asking for some relief. Yes, the odor ordinance will help to some degree. That doesn't deal with the image and the stigma that these neighborhoods have of being, you know, the target areas for where many of the grow facilities are. I think we have a lot of very responsible operators in this city, and I certainly appreciate their participation in this process with us. I think most of the people who have been coming to the meetings are the folks who are committed to following the rules. We know we've had some who, you know, our excise and licensed department and our police department have had to, you know, kind of rein them in to some some degree where they're not following the rules, but the saturation and the impact to these low income and minority neighborhoods is what I think. We have not done a good job in trying to grapple with, particularly as we're putting more facilities and more licenses into their neighborhoods. So for those reasons, I, you know, again, appreciate the efforts of everyone, but I will not be supporting the ordinance tonight because I don't think we really did anything to address the impact. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 8: You, Mr. President, I commend Councilwoman Kennish on her persevering, perseverance and willingness to compromise and incorporate other priorities. I think she did address the saturated communities and the information we got last week. Councilwoman Ortega shows that there is one pending application going into Globeville and two into Elyria Swansea. So it's not an overwhelming number. I think Councilwoman Canisius proposal is not perfect, but it's a compromise and it greatly restricts the industry protecting neighborhoods in the future. And it requires community engagement. The omnibus omnibus bill requires needs and desires. We've got a new odor ordinance that will be implemented next year and it establishes a procedure for complaints. We're going to greatly limit where they can go in the future and capping the number. But I think it's very important that we also honor those businesses that followed the rules that the city established when applying for their licenses before the end of the year. As a council, we are committed to monitoring this industry and looking forward in the future to having a council committee that will address future issues. None of us have taken this conversation lightly. It's not perfect again, but I think it's a really good compromise. I also want to thank Ashley Kilroy and her amazing team and Stacey Locks and her amazing team who really answered all of our demands. And we really appreciate that. So thank you, everyone. And I will be supporting it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I could not improve upon the summary that my colleague, Councilwoman Black, just gave of the bill. In the ways that it does reduce impacts to saturated neighborhoods, particularly the distancing requirements from residential areas, was in direct response to testimony about proximity of cultivation to residential areas. I think there's good news and there's bad news in the fact that this is only the next chapter of marijuana policy. It is not the last. So if you don't like this bill and you wish that different things were happening, then perhaps it's good news that that it's not the last chapter. If you believe that there are some really important priorities of this city that we can and should be spending an equal number of meetings and in equal amount of time on. And perhaps you think it might be good that we're closing this chapter for now and it's bad news that it's not going to be closed forever. But whether it's good news or bad news, it is just the next chapter. And what I've learned from my time, both serving on this council for five years and observing it in the ten prior, is that is that these chapters tend to be short. One of the things we don't probably acknowledge enough up here on the dais is how much the market impacts and creates some of the conditions that we are doing our best to intervene with. We have no idea what the technological evolutions will be, what the market changes will be, what the state has to bring. And so we will certainly be dealing with forces beyond just this council, and we will do our best to continue to try to respond to mitigate them in the ways that we have in this bill with distancing requirements and other pieces. I will say that I have more emails right now and I went back, if you count one per party, one per person. I have more emails opposing this bill from the industry than I do from residents. Okay. That is because of the fact that 60% of the spaces that are currently being used for cultivation will no longer be available in the future. People are concerned that they won't be able to move. You know, they're skeptical that there will ever be a potential for new businesses to come in. And we've dialed down cultivation by 15. We've put a stop to all new medical. These are big limitations. And I think that the the actors who know the industry the best actually have expressed the greatest number of concerns, maybe not as vocal and visible as the communities, but I think that's telling. I think that's telling in terms of the fact that there are real impacts from this bill. I absolutely respect my colleague and I and I really respect the constituents who feel like it's not enough. And for you, the fact that this is only the next chapter is important. We will continue the conversation regarding resources. We don't have a lot of visibility of how marijuana resources are improving our city. They're in our budget, they're making things possible. But we could put more light on that. And I stand with my colleague, Councilman Brooks, in his multiple calls from this day as for greater responsibility from the industry, greater engagement with your communities, greater investment in their improvements, and greater connection to them as good neighbors. The owner odor ordinance is just one piece, and although that was the most prominent piece that folks brought up in the beginning, once we solved that, other pieces emerged. That's human nature. You solve one thing and you move on to the next. And so they have a high bar to meet to be like other industries, right? If that's the goal is to be on par with other industries, then they need to be making the kinds of contributions and positive efforts that other industries are making. I want to do one last thank you, not just to the staff on the data production and the charts and the updated information, but to the drafter. Our assistant city attorney David Broadwell and last week to Mali because this is the most amended bill I've worked on in my time in council. Five amendments proved that it was a collaborative process. So I want to thank for those who who cannot support the bill tonight, but who see that there is some progress in here. I thank you for those acknowledgments when you make them. And I hope that we will get to seven tonight so we can move on to the next chapter and to move on to the other problems the city is facing. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to reflect on some of the remarks already made, but not to compound them, I would note that from the original bill, all of those amendments and all of those changes moved only in the direction that the residents in the neighborhoods were seeking. Now, surely there will be many in the neighborhoods who say that could have gone further than that. But I have to say that with the amendments that were approved that were offered by Councilwoman Ortega on first and by Councilwoman Gilmore and by Councilman Espinosa and also. So the ratchet down that councilwoman commissioned, I worked out, I would have to say to the residents in in Overland and Hearth, Ma and Valverde and Globeville, Swansea, Elyria, that this bill has only changed in your direction and would that it could have gone further for you. But we have what we have now for a final vote. And thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Just sort of re articulate what I was mentioning last time, which was throughout this process, we heard a lot of public comments from constituents and people who live in those overly saturated neighborhoods. And what capping I mean, what denying the pending would wouldn't do is change those existing businesses and how the impact that they have good or bad in their communities. And I'm I'm going to be supporting this because we did incorporate the community outreach plan requirement. It's a licensing requirement that that creates an opportunity for dialog and to improve the outcomes on those businesses and those over particularly in those overly saturated areas. Because the more businesses you have, the more of these plans you'll have in place and the more potential there is to to capture some positive outcomes. And so I want to so I want to thank everybody that worked on that, because it was people from both sides making their case, stating what their needs were, stating what needed to be addressed, and creating this avenue for the potential. Those things can be so. The concerns that every community that is impacted by a business like this can actually have a chance to sort of articulate a possible better way forward is now in there. It's admittedly amorphous, but it's probably the right way to to to do this in a very granular way and address the impacts for each one of these operations in the immediate location that they're at. And I think the industry Kristen, Cedarburg, MiG, I think members of focus points, a lot of the residents who are articulated from Globeville , Swansea, Elyria who articulated their concerns because that's that testimony is going to be the road map for what are the potential solutions, what are the needs of these communities and how can they be met. Had to do does go back to those hours of testimony and go, what can we do to help address these things? So I'm going to be supporting this bill because thank you, Councilwoman Kennish, for listening to these amendments and incorporating them as appropriate. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate a lot of the work that's been done, particularly from from your office and then also from excise in license. I appreciate the different input that the representatives from the industry have had in this whole process, and I extremely appreciate Councilwoman CNOOC's work. To try to find a better solution than the moratorium. In this caps. And it's true there are steps in the right direction. There are, you know, the the distance from. A thousand foot distance from residential foreclosure. That's an important thing. And I do honor and respect that movement. I do honor and respect that, including inclusivity of that. However, I think. When I think of Mary Ann Swans here, and I do think of Globeville, I think of some neighborhoods like Val Verde, and there are some of those neighborhoods that are on that list. And there are a lot of neighborhoods that are on that list that, you know, folks are either fine with it or that we just didn't get any response from from those neighborhoods, particularly those neighborhoods in the north, particularly Elyria and Swansea. We did have residents that had said enough was enough over here when you look at. Where these licenses are in a vast majority of them over land O'Leary and swans here and again overland folks would weren't opposed to it but you know Larry and swans here, they came out in full force. You were not happy about yet another issue in their community that they feel doesn't allow them to move forward. And I think of these neighborhoods and not just for this particular issue. And certainly not a cause and effect. But historically, these neighborhoods have always been struggling. They're struggling for the city to correct bad decisions, the highway going through it. The pollution. The fact that there's still a food desert after 30 years of trying not to be a food desert. There are areas that the city has neglected. And they continue to. You know, now we have identified that neglect and have identified that opportunity to correct it and head the other direction. It. We can't cherry pick it. And I know that there are other neighborhoods that ranked higher in terms of licenses. And you're asking, what is a person on the west side? These neighborhoods are far from it. Care about that? Well, because there are sister neighborhoods that have very similar challenges. And we need folks who aren't necessarily living in those neighborhoods or drive through those neighborhoods every single day to listen and take action. Yes, there are only maybe three licenses. Right. But that's on top of a multitude and the majority and those neighborhoods combined in the city. And we made those points. And this has nothing to do with Councilwoman Canete, his work. But when I made those points during our public hearing, there was a lot of sneering and snickering and laughing. And that turned me off. And it's not just that, but as a city, we really want to improve this corridor. We've got to do it across the board. And we got to do it in a way that's serious. And what is the cultivation and some of these license do? What is it got to do with it? Well, these are areas that struggle physically for the infrastructure, but also socially and education. Some of these schools underperform. And some of these parents. And it wasn't something about some things that just about the history of marijuana or nothing like that. There there needs to be other outlets and other focuses and other uses in these communities. And an overabundance of marijuana, both in production and in sales, in licenses doesn't take us into that, doesn't take us in this step in the right direction and has nothing to do with some kind of scare of marijuana. It's just an.
Speaker 4: Overabundance and a lack of other uses.
Speaker 10: And that's why I'm basing my vote tonight. I'm not going to support the bill, not because it doesn't address it, just there. There needs to be a focus on that. And I know Councilwoman Cannings took that into account very seriously. But just for my own decision, I think that we should do more. And, you know, I would have loved to see those two neighborhoods, at least Elyria, Swansea incorporated into it in that those three licenses. Those pending licenses not be allowed to move forward in that neighborhood to give it a good step in the right direction. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I have total respect for my colleagues on the dais who will vote against this bill this evening. I understand that point of view. I will be supporting this bill. Everybody I don't know anyone on council who has not been thinking of Globeville, Elyria and Swansea and the other areas heavily impacted by this industry . There are complex issues involved. We look at at times incomplete and contradictory data as we try to make our decisions. I felt it was important for the licenses to go through. We've never. Stopped. An industry of pending licenses before when there are people following the rules. Thousands, millions of dollars invested. I understand this is marijuana, but so what if we have a developer who's bought land, started building a ten story building and he gets two floors out of the ground and we decide, you know what? We've just got too many people. The roads are getting too crowded. We just don't want to put any more pressure on our infrastructure. So we're not going to give you a permit to continue. I don't think we can go down that road. This bill, I mean, has for me is an amazing bill. We are capping locations for stores and grows the bill caps the locations at 469. It's a lot. As of a couple of weeks ago, there were 2193 places in the city and county of Denver to buy alcohol. We continue to license them at an average of about seven a month. There are some locations I know my colleague, Councilman Lopez, has had success in fighting some licenses, but most neighborhoods just wave them on, bring them on, bring them on. It's a different discussion, perhaps at one level, but at the one level, it's I think at the heart of what we're talking about, which is public health. And I think we need to really have a discussion as to what we're doing here. How do we really protect the public health? Councilwoman Cannick said this is not the end of this discussion. There's a lot more work to be done. I've asked recently for a listing of where our marijuana tax dollars are going and it's not available. There are general figures of this percentage going to this industry, but I've asked city staff to begin putting that together. So, I mean, I hear there's $40 million going to school construction and there's a certain amount of money going to offset to mitigate the impacts of legalization. But where that's going? There's not a book that you can go line by line and add up and come up with your total dollars. This is an ongoing discussion. A lot more work to be done. I will support this bill this evening. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to clarify regarding the amendment that I proposed and is now included in this bill, which included a conversation about the the top five statistical neighborhoods for both cultivation facilities and stores, and to really stay data driven and to stay objective about how we are regulating this industry, the statistical neighborhood lists, and how they are generated. They were provided by the Office of Marijuana Policy. And so they're not subjective lists. They are not cherry picked lists. They are lists that are driven by data and it's numerical data. And so I just wanted to make that clarification on how the neighborhoods are chosen and the list of neighborhoods that was the list of neighborhoods that were, you know, when councilman, clerk, when in my absence, the list of neighborhoods that he listed out for us and shared those neighborhoods can change with the 2017 lottery. And so they are not set in stone, they are objective, and they are based on data. This is a starting point for a much broader and deeper conversation about zoning, about quality of life, about environmental concerns in our neighborhoods. I have to be honest. You know, I heard loud and clear from Globeville, Elyria, Swansea. I also heard loud and clear from the Monticello community, the warehouse district that is zoned high density industrial warehouse. I don't represent that district. That portion of Montebello is a responsibility of my colleague, President Herndon, but it's still my community. And so weighing the different options of where industry is going to relocate or locate in communities, I have to applaud my colleagues for having a very robust conversation that was down to the nitty gritty of what this will do as far as, you know, intended and unintended consequences for neighborhoods. And so I felt important to share that. And today I also sat down with with folks from Denver Public Schools to talk with them about how they are paying attention to their call for new schools, especially charter schools, who are responsible a lot of times for securing their own building. And what is that communication plan between Denver Public Schools Excise and Licensing and the Office of Marijuana Policy so that everybody is going in with their eyes wide open as far as a charter school, a new school, locating into a neighborhood and are so excited about doing their work within the community. But they might be looking at a space that is very. Close to an existing cultivation facility or and I know that the stores those stores are covered. But, you know, having that back and forth communication, I think, is very important and and really, frankly surprised that it's not as robust as I think that it could be. But this is an opportunity for us to move forward. And so I just wanted to, again, reiterate that this is a starting point for a much broader conversation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Check. Check. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President, I. I just wanted to just make a couple of comments. You know, I think we're all tired of talking about this for weeks upon weeks. But this is this is an important decision that we're making tonight. So I just wanted to make a couple more comments and thank my colleagues all for working really hard on a very complex topic. I don't know if I've been on the know end of something so much than this, but, you know, for me, I think 63 stores in Global or Swansea, 63 locations is a lot. And I think that's one of the reasons why you saw a lot of those folks come out. Even in Cole and Clayton as well. And so I you know, I've said this before, Councilwoman, can each in the bill gets to a lot of the issues and it's the residents. The thousand foot requirement to the residents in these facilities really hit my issue with the the pending applications even even if it's three four on my list. That puts us at 67 is still an incredible impact to a neighborhood. And so I'll be voting no on this. I want to make it clear point right now to my colleagues that on some of these bills, Councilwoman Canete, you know this the H, the H0 revisions, the camping ordinance, all these bills that we've done in the past, some of us made a commitment to say, you know what, this isn't the end of the story. We're going to keep working hard on this. And I really hope that my colleagues commit to that because I'm turning my attention to the budget. We're heading into budget season. And, you know, I really think that these communities, if this is what we're going to say, you know, we're going to vote in this direction. I think these communities deserve a piece of the revenue that's coming in to improve sidewalks, to improve bus stops and improve some of these things. And so I hope that I can have the support of these colleagues in here to find out a funding mechanism to make sure that this neighborhood gets the quality, design and basic infrastructure needs that it deserves. I'll be voting no. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, any other comments to 91 as amended? I will chime in briefly. I will just say this bill, in my opinion, fails communities and the worst part about it. It fails the communities that are some of the most disenfranchized and neglected communities that we have here in Denver. When we passed these rules a couple of years ago, when I was part of that, and it was very difficult to see what was going to happen. But now two years have passed and we've seen the effects of it. And we're going to pass some laws, in my opinion, that will continue to move us in the wrong direction. And I recognize the steps that council members have taken to amend this bill. But simply because we've taken steps towards the right direction does not make the bill right. And I'm glad Councilwoman Gilmore brought up Mom Bella, because we keep hearing about Globeville. Swansea, which is certainly a community that has an overabundance, but so does Mom Bello. So does Northeast Park. And it is just troublesome to me that we're going to continue to pass legislation that impacts that.
Speaker 4: And the.
Speaker 1: What I think from the long view is that there should be concerns from this body about when any industry is overwhelming a particular portion of our limited industrial area, because when you have that one industry dominate, what you're creating is a bubble. And bubbles burst. And what type of status or position are we going to be in as a city should that happen? And I think that is something that we have the ability to prevent. But unfortunately, I can't support this bill for those following reasons.
Speaker 4: Councilman Espinosa Yeah, it's almost a point of privilege, but. To term communities. And I think it relates specifically to Greece Globeville, Swansea, Elyria, early swans here to term it Disenfranchized is sort of it strikes me because this is a proud community, one that wasn't disenfranchized when it was conceived and it was a meatpacking community, an Orthodox European community, and it thrived and it there still persist a very strong, healthy community there. The reason why it's gotten stigmatized and depressed is what happened in 1956 in the construction of I-70. So I'm just going to they're going there because it matters. We're going to widen. There's this effort to widen I-70, and we put $1,000,000,000 investment in the stock show. We're putting $2 billion in this in this highway and this disenfranchisement that has occurred there. The reason why this property has declined and it's been an opening for this is because we severed that community with that highway. And so it was it was a strong community. And with the bones are there and it's always been an industrial community. And so I'm the reason why I was supporting the bill and wrote the language that I did is that industry doesn't have to be detrimental. The industry can be community builder. It worked where I grew up in Golden with the Cougars industry, but the reason why this area struggled is because what we an error we made some 50 years ago. And so I just had to say that things.
Speaker 1: In other comments to 91 as amended. Seen none. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 3: Black. Hi, Brooks. No, Clark.
Speaker 7: All right.
Speaker 3: Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. I Cashman. I can eat Lopez. No new Ortega?
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 3: Mr. President?
Speaker 1: No. Madam Secretary, please thoughtfully announce the results.
Speaker 3: Seven eyes, five NIS.
Speaker 1: Five NIS, 291, as amended, has been placed on final consideration and does pass. Customer continued your chimed in there. Is that okay? All right, let's go. The next one, Madam Secretary. 293 Councilman Black, would you like for us to do this?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm calling this out for a separate vote. This bill states that it would only go into effect if 291 failed, which it did not. But we need to vote it down. It would have extended the moratorium for another 30 days.
Speaker 1: Got it. Councilwoman, can we please put it to 93 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 293 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Any other comments, Councilman Black?
Speaker 8: No, thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. See no other comments to 93. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black eye. Brooks.
Speaker 8: No. Sorry. No, no. Black.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 8: Example? No.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Brooks.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: CLARK.
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 3: Espinosa No.
Speaker 5: Flynn No.
Speaker 3: Gilmore No.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 9: Carnage no.
Speaker 3: Lopez No. New? No. Ortega No. Mr. President. No.
Speaker 1: Manchester police closed voting as a result.
Speaker 3: Zero I's 12 inches their eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 News to 93 has failed. I believe that was it, Madam Secretary. So we are now ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are order published. Councilman, can we please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block, please?
|
Resolution
|
Approves a contract with Sasaki for $3 million through 05-01-19 for land planning at Denver International Airport and assistance with various services related to the planning and development of land on the airport (201524391).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04252016_16-0183
|
Speaker 4: The proposal maintains the navigation easement requirement. The text amendment also cross-references some requirements that lie outside of zoning, and those are listed here. They include an amendment to Chapter five of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding noise disclosure at the time of sale and building code amendments to require the use of noise mitigation construction techniques which were just approved in the block vote prior to recess. Our review criteria requires consistency with adopted plans, which I'll talk about now, beginning with comprehensive plan 2000. The plan guides us to conserve land by reducing sprawl and creating more density at transit nodes, encouraging mixed use, transit oriented development and encouraging land use policies, or excuse me, ensuring that land use policies and decisions support a variety of mobility choices. The proposed tax amendment is consistent with this guidance from comp plan 2000. Moving on to Blueprint Denver. The map here is zoomed into the area between 56th and 64th avenues. The area where the A0 text amendment would add multifamily is shown between the two dash lines. Blueprint. Denver was updated for consistency with the 61st and pinion stationary plan and calls for a combination of mixed use open space, commercial corridor and transit oriented development in this area north of 64th, where the amended overlay would continue to prohibit all residential. The land use is employment and south of 56 where the overlay does not apply. The land use of single family, residential and mixed use. Blueprint. Denver identifies the entire AOE area as an area of change and provides some guidance on how overlay districts should be used, stating that overlays can apply to areas where there are similar objectives, but where the base zoning varies, which is consistent with the situation that we have here. And the finding is consistency with Blueprint Denver. Moving on to the 61st and Pioneer Station area plan. That plan has recommendations to support transit use by generally allowing for a mixture of uses as well as higher density housing. At the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee. The question was raised regarding whether the text amendment is consistent with the 61st and Panya stationary plan, given that it would continue to prohibit single family dwellings. The plan does have some language that accommodates single family units. But the plan stops short of specifically recommending a single unit residential as a land use. The plan allows for single unit residential only in the area identified as mixed use residential, which is highlighted in the circle here and is outside of the area that would be substantively affected by the amendment, which is highlighted by the dashed area here. But the intent of the mixed use residential category can be met with or without, including single unit residential uses. Since that land use category calls simply for a variety and mix of residential types. So wrapping up the guidance here from the 61st in Kenya stationery plan, the plan further states that strong transit ridership is tied to minimum residential densities of 30 units per acre or more and encourages a diversity of housing sizes, types, unit sizes and configurations. And the finding is that the proposed amendment is consistent with this plan. Finally the Gateway Concept Plan from 1919. The in the interest of ensuring that the Gateway area would be a quiet place to live. The 1990 plan calls for no residential development north of 65th Ave, stating that that area should be reserved for business and commercial uses. The Gateway Plan notes the serious problems in the past that were caused by the noise at the old Stapleton Airport and uses this as further justification for prohibiting residential north of 65th. The text amendment is consistent with this guidance because it would allow residential users only up to 64th. So that covers the plan consistency criteria in number one, moving on to criteria and number two, uniformity. The text amendment will result in uniform regulations that apply to all new development within the airport influence overlay area. And on the third criteria, health, safety and welfare. The proposal implements adopted plans by enabling multi-unit residential while maintaining reasonable limitations that protect current and future airport operations. And so the finding is consistency with numbers two and three as well. Planning Board held its hearing on this matter on March 2nd and recommended approval. And so wrapping up the staff recommendation is that the Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment number seven be approved finding that the applicable criteria have been met.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Houser. We have one speaker tonight, Mr. Ferd Belz.
Speaker 10: Good evening for Dallas, 1125 17th Street in Denver and come with LC and writer ink and we own about 150 of the 384 acres in the Penn Station area. I'm here asking for your support this evening. It's really consistent with the station area plan and the vision to make this a true mixed use development. It was actually kind of an oddity that residential is only allowed up to 62nd because the vision is for the whole 384 acres all the way up to 64th to be mixed use. And that's our plan. And we're moving forward with that. And with the approval of this this evening, we will be also coming to rezone our site in the not too distant future to the new zoning code so we can take full advantage of it. So again, just ask for your support and I'm here to answer any questions if you have any later. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Valens. That concludes our speakers. Time for questions from members of council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: First, will you come back to the microphone? I have a couple of questions. So the first one is how many additional acres does this put into the site for, including more residential?
Speaker 10: It put approximately 40 acres on a gross basis and probably about 32 on a net when you take out roads and some of the other public areas.
Speaker 6: Okay. And why do we need 40 more acres when we already have 300 plus that can be developed?
Speaker 10: It's an interesting development in terms of what's envisioned. Really what's envisioned is a complete mix of uses. So as you get farther away from the station, we felt it was important to continue to have residential so that we can provide a variety of housing, whether higher density close to the station and probably less dense away from the station. So it can be a mix of those types of housing.
Speaker 6: So earlier reference was made of the 1990 noise plan that would you know, in all of the negotiations, I think I'm the only one around that was. That was here when we actually approved the annexation of Adams County land to be used for DIA. I think Councilman Flynn, maybe. I don't know what that was from. So in his role as a reporter, I think he may be familiar with some of this as well. But clearly, 56th Avenue was that dividing line. And we were asked some time ago to approve extending that to 62nd to allow for, you know, the inclusion of more acres, to allow the development of more residential. So that's I'm struggling with why we need an additional 40 acres when we've already added and penetrated into the noise contour because it's my recollection that it originally was 75 was the noise contour. And this is the second time we will have encroached into that area where we drew that line saying we're not going to be putting people in a situation where they're going to have to deal with the noise from planes. And, you know, I mean, the big difference is if you're a single family, you get to sue the city. But I guess if you're multifamily, it's it's a little bit different. And so help me understand why why the need is there to do that. I'm struggling with that.
Speaker 10: So I can't speak to the noise contours. My understanding is that the defining noise contours actually 60 and were actually it is north of this 64th I think the gateway plan spoke to a 65th Street or avenue divider that I think was driven by the noise contours. I think there are people are from the airport that could speak more directly to the specificity of the noise contour. However, I think the other distinction is. We have a real stop. And so there has been change conditions since 1990. And I think some of the vision for the city and their policies about putting housing and density and mixed use around real stops is really what drove our station area plan. And I think we're really driving this to make residential an opportunity to be mixed use throughout the entire development.
Speaker 6: So other than Stapleton, this is probably the only one that has this amount of acres. I don't remember how many acres there are. Stapleton. Maybe, councilman. And how much?
Speaker 10: Tens of thousands.
Speaker 6: Okay. So so it's even more than stable in totality. And that's a pretty massive development that we've been able to see built out over a course of time. So I guess just understanding the history and having been here and knowing how. I mean, part of why we moved the airport was because we were getting sued by Adams County and Parkview because of noise issues. And, you know, we were trying to address the noise problem. And, you know, we went to a site that was so far away that we weren't going to be building any housing within, you know , a certain area. And we've already encroached into that once before. So we're doing that again. And I'm just struggling with that. So I'm just trying to, you know, bring some history to the table here. So thank you for sure.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. George, I hate to put you on the hot seat again, but I don't see anyone else here from the airport who can handle this. Or maybe Cortland could answer this. But during the development of this overlay, did the planning office or the airport take into account where the current noise contours are and where the future ones will be? I'm looking at two maps. The current noise contours from the 2013 noise report. But that, of course, only includes the runway 25 departure. And there's going to be a second runway there south of Pioneer Boulevard. So we need to take into account that one. So did we look at those 60 and 65 LDN contours?
Speaker 7: Yes. So and forgive me, I'm going to speak zoning, which is always dangerous for me. But the current conditions on this property are were were with the multifamily to 62nd and single family to 56 were were came about after a 99 1999 noise study that was done. And then in 2000, this area was was zoned when the city went through the zoning code update that we this this area was sort of set aside as an as the airport overlay. And so the the that those conditions still existed. But you have to rezone in to to if you want to build. So the those current conditions were based on a 1999 NOI study that we did. There was a second noise study that the airport did in 2004 that showed had some different assumptions in the study and showed the noise contours further north and that there were some zoning done in the city around High Point and other places that were based on that noise study that if you if you look on our website, that's the current noise study that I think you're looking at. I would say to, you know, to specifically answer your question to Councilwoman Ortega's point, we get nervous any time we start to get housing moving towards the airport. That's what we worked closely with, with this applicant and and with planning and and pushed for this mitigation effort on building codes to to strengthen that. And this is only multifamily with an eye towards you know we as single family housing tend to be outside more it's a little more subject to noise issues. And so they were more sensitive then. But certainly we're cognizant of those issues. We push for the building code mitigation to mitigate some of that noise, those noise issues as well.
Speaker 5: All right, thank you, Cortland. You have anything to add to that?
Speaker 10: No, I think that was a.
Speaker 4: Pretty accurate summary as to the situation. Did you have remaining questions.
Speaker 5: Only to observe that the that the land I'm looking at the the recommended noise contours and the 65 LDN contour actually ends significantly east of Tower Road and is north is about 70th Avenue. The 60 LDN doesn't extend farther south than about 69th Avenue. And I would note that north of 64th there already is excuse me, substantial commercial development already in place. So it's so if you are south of 64th Avenue, it does look like you are out of the both of the 60 and the 65 LDN contour.
Speaker 4: And that's how it appears that the map that I'm looking at as well. Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I wish I sort of understood how you get in a situation where you sue the city for living next to an airport. Must have been. We expanded Stapleton an odd ways or something, but here you are, very eyes wide open in this case where there's an airport there. And I don't know what we can do fundamentally to change the fact that people don't realize that they're moving here. That said, back when the airport was conceived and discussed and brought to life, I think there was some sort of notion that the future of travel would be sort of subsonic. I mean, supersonic and suborbital, you know, flights around halfway around the world, which I think sort of implied jet I rocket propelled travel and some of these like runways were deliberately long to sort of capture heavier planes with with burdened with these sort of equipment. Is there some some jettisoned idea about the future of DIA that would maybe would maybe result in a louder aircraft than what we are accustomed to and do will if we get there in the future? Are we opening ourselves up to the Stapleton scenario again?
Speaker 7: So let me take a couple of points on that. There there's a couple of distinctions I want to make about noise in airports. So it's at 65. That's actually the point where the FAA that's sort of the cliff that where the FAA, if there's a noise recorded above, above that the federal government actually comes in and will do mitigation on houses and actually start spending money. So we obviously want to stay very far away from that. And so we traditionally we've zoned at 60.
Speaker 4: Which is supersonic there.
Speaker 7: So there's a separate issue. To your point about the future, it's not so much louder aircraft. I think aircraft engines are getting quieter. But what we worry about is where from a runway standpoint, we are half built. We have six runways we want to go to for full buildout. And certainly we want to protect the asset that this community invested in less than a generation ago. And so we're certainly have have a mind to that. As we as we look toward encroachment right now, it is more about, you know, the risk of what what do you do as we go to do a study and a survey to build out our our runways? And we do that. Forgive me, environmental assessment. We have to go and knock on residences door at some point and say, you know, how do you feel about having a runway coming near you? And the the obvious answer to that is probably not that great. So we're we're very wary of encroachment. But again, on this particular issue, as you know, because this applicant has been cognizant of of of our concerns and worked with us, done some noise mitigation in the building, worked very hard. And we've worked very hard with Councilwoman Gilmore throughout this process. You know, they they are doing their best to recognize that.
Speaker 4: Is there some sort of covenant that we can have, you know, these buyers and future renters sort of to acknowledge that the D.R. is not at its full buildout.
Speaker 7: And that that's actually in there. So we've pushed for that as well. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Jill, could we have you join us up here from community planning and Development to talk a little bit about the building code and what will be required of anyone who builds within this area. And then maybe a little bit about the noise mitigation and the navigation agreements as well. Certainly. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Jill Jennings, Garlic Deputy Director, Community Planning and Development. So earlier tonight, you passed an amendment to our 2016 Denver Building and Fire Code to put a new section in called Aircraft Noise Reduction. And this requires, regardless of which, zoning code you're in, a new residential multi-unit dwelling or school educational use to be subject to these restrictions. If you're located within the airport influence overlay. And there are essentially two different methods which you can use to show compliance. The first being a prescriptive method, essentially a cookbook approach that says, here are the things you need to do in order to document compliance with this section. And we anticipate multi-unit dwellings will likely take that path. The second option is a method to which requires an acoustical professional to come on during the design process and provide various calculations and methods to document compliance with certain standards. We believe schools will take advantage of this, but some multi-unit dwellings may as well. We based these methods off what's in place in the city of Aurora. They've had construction noise mitigation requirements for well over ten years, and so we worked closely with Aurora, as well as with the airport and the property owners to develop these requirements. And I will note that with the passage of our 2015 Energy Code, some of the requirements may seem like they're a little low because with that new code, insulation requirements have gone up. But you can do trade offs within that energy code. So this guarantees a minimum level of requirements for insulation and windows to ensure that they're protecting against noise. And so that review will happen as projects come in for building permits. They'll have a customer will have to submit required plans and specifications to show compliance. And then in terms of the easement, I'll actually turn that over to airport staff.
Speaker 9: So we have evacuation easements built into this code provision that will essentially ask owners to waive claims for noise. At the airport, we also have a noise disclosure requirement. So any owners have to sign that. They acknowledge that they're next to an airport and there will be noise.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Gilmore. And the questions. 183. Seen none. Public hearings, not closed comments. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I've lived in District 11 for about 20 years, and we have been waiting very, very patiently to see what was going to happen out around 61st and Pena and with the TOD and with the developments. And, you know, it's an exciting time in District 11 and currently we in Montebello in Green Valley Ranch, High Point in Parkfield do not have retail. I could not go buy a pair of shoes in my district. I could not buy a purse. I could not buy a jacket in District 11. And so really realizing the opportunity with a TOD Station, a transit oriented development station. Right in our neighborhood is transformational for the community. And we are literally right now talking about two blocks that would allow us to fully realize the TOD Station and have the density that would encourage the mix of retail that we need, the mix of entertainment opportunities, possibly a movie theater, sit down, restaurants, places where people could truly live, work and play close to home. And, you know, it's great right now living in Monticello, we go to Stapleton. Northfield. I love Stapleton Northfield. It's great. But we would also like that in District 11. We deserve the residents and my community that I represent. We deserve places that we can go right in our community and having it along a TOD station, a stop is even better. And you know, noise technology on aircraft are improving every day, folks that are going to move out to the area. It's no secret that DIA is the biggest economic engine of, you know, the state. And so, you know, folks are excited, actually, to be able to come a little bit closer to the airport. They're going to be at that Tod station. And when you really look at it, I was out there at the station party on Saturday and you can see those two blocks. I mean, we are talking about two blocks here. They would encourage multifamily development for us to truly realize this dream. And so I asked my colleagues to join myself in supporting this and really building a TOD station that we can be proud of. And that will be a model for not only this area, but the rest of the city. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I want to thank Councilwoman Gilmore for bringing this to us because, you know, having worked out there in Green Valley Ranch for for the last four years, prior to being on council, one of the things that frustrated me is, is, is that urbanist is that there was a ton of single family development that was still going on. And that's our most resource intensive development pattern that we can have. And, you know, sprawl, sprawl, sprawl. I mean, we've we've seen it happen. And in this in Denver, where every place where we build a highway, there's a ton of infill at that low density. And this is an area where we just invested in this commuter rail. We have the purple pipe system going down chambers and other areas out there. And we have to build new road networks in this process. So we could be doing multi-modal ways that mean pathways and those work better when we have a significant uptick in density . You know, the Stapleton redevelopment that's going on out there has some of the most the whitest streets, and it's the most car friendly area in Denver. And if we're really going to try and capture affordable but vital living, it's it isn't continuing with urban and suburban sprawl. It is trying to capture a healthier density so that we can get a mix of uses and a mix of housing types and and whatnot. So this is I'm glad to see a dense redevelopment opportunity. I mean, development opportunity come right around one of our new TOD stations that has a direct link with downtown in our in a huge employer out at the airport. So and I'm glad to see that boundary expanding because it's a chance to get a mixed community, mixed mixed scale, mixed everything right in the city and county. Denver So thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, for taking that vision and expanding it and taking that opportunity, because it's vital if we're going to capture, you know, a diverse population in Denver to have these opportunities in very affordable parcels, too. These are great opportunities for the city. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Greenwich.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I think that this is an important piece of good transit oriented development. But where we expand the potential for housing, it raises the question of how that housing is going to contribute to the need for affordability. And while I agree with Councilman Espinosa that these parcels begin today at an affordable level, what we know is that the rate of change in Denver means that some neighborhoods that used to just be market affordable can quickly change over time as they become hot, as our population pressures increase. And so the best way to ensure long term affordability is through restrictions that keep that property affordable, you know, for 20, 30, 40 years into the future. I raised this because I've been asked it from constituents what we are doing as a city to help ensure more affordability in this site. And what I, I just want to share publicly what I've shared with those constituents and with the developer of who owns some of the land in the area of this station. But all of it, I believe, in the expansion that we're talking about today is that this is a tricky area to do restricted affordable housing. There is not a great demand among the tax credit finance folks who tend to find affordable housing to put tax credit projects in this area right now because it's not hot yet. Right. This is this old trickle we get about not wanting to put more affordability where it's affordable, but knowing that if you don't do it today , it can be hard to get for tomorrow. We're also in a moment where we're in a transition between areas of policy and housing right today. If you build new affordable rent or if you build new rental housing, there is no policy in place to help capture any of that for affordability. But we have a very concrete proposal on its way to this council in the next six months to have a fee on new development to help to put those fees towards affordable housing. And so should we pass that package of policies then? In fact, most of the development that occurs in this area, residential or commercial development, could be paying a fee to help towards affordability. Now, that's not quite enough. It means that these projects in the future might be contributing to affordable housing. But what we really need is land to build that affordability. I've been asked about ideas such as land banking and things like that. That's tricky to do when you have one landowner. Typically, land banking involves buying a parcel and holding that parcel for future affordable development in the next five years or so. Here, we don't have small parcels for sale. We have large parcels owned by single landowners. So some of our traditional tools are not in place or not good fits for this site, but I think that it is critical that we continue to strive towards not just maybe generating funding for affordable housing from this development area, but from actually using the funds both those generated in that area, as well as potentially funds from other parts of the city to continue to work towards affordability. If I had a more concrete solution today, I would certainly have advocated for that before approving more residential. But because we're in a time of transition, because this area is one, that financing is a little harder to know what's going to happen in three or five years. I feel comfortable that we as a city can continue to work on this while many other phases of this project go forward. Right? There will be rezonings, there will be future development approvals and I think that the dialog will be there. In part, I want to just toot the horn of one of the developers that is already working to get a 4% tax credit project for the workforce out in this area. So in some ways they're already leading with that commitment. If we're able to, you know, figure out all the government pieces to make that work, that's a pretty good evidence of commitment, and that helps to kind of create a place for us to go in the future while we figure out whether or not the financing realm can evolve a little bit and whether or not we get a more settled housing policy adopted by this council. So all of that is a very long way of saying that I wouldn't be comfortable expanding more housing in this area without knowing that more affordability is possible and coming. I believe that it is, and that we are going to have to be working to be creative and figuring out how to do that. I'm committed. I hope the city is committed. I know the developer has expressed their commitment and with that I'm comfortable moving this forward for all the reasons described. And I want to thank Councilwoman Gilmore, who's been a very, you know, diligent sponsor in making sure that we were all educated and briefed on this. So thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. And each. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I think in the context of Denver International Airport compared with former Stapleton Airport. There's really no comparison to be made in saying I am near the airport. I recall visiting people in Park Hill and and maybe this was a little bit of a ginned up memory, but I can recall that you can actually wave to the passengers in the jets that were landing on runway one, runway eight. And you could wave. You could see them in the window and you could wave to them. So to say, I lived I'm close to DIA because you can see it in the distance. Is is everything is relative. The distance from the corner of the northeast corner of this 64th and tower that we're talking about from the nearest end of a runway is equivalent to being at Monaco and Alameda. It's a relative distance from the threshold of Stapleton's old runway 35 left, which is to say people at Monaco and Alameda probably wouldn't have said they're too close to Stapleton. So I don't I just want people to understand that because we're approving a two blocks additional of residential and multifamily at that, that it is still not near the airport in the sense that homes were near Stapleton, literally across the street, that you can actually wave to the passengers . So. Mr. President, I will be supporting this tonight. And I see this as a very good leap forward for my my diagonally distant district 11 from southwest Denver to northeast.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the conversation that we've had on this tonight. I thought it was important to just share some of the the history and why the then council felt that it was important to create those those buffer boundaries. I have friends that live both in Green Valley Ranch and in Marbella. And when they want to go shopping, typically they go to the retail that is on Tower Road, which is not in Denver County. And, you know, one of the things that I campaigned on when I ran for reelection to come back onto the council was that we need to be doing everything we can to try to keep retail in Denver and encourage people to shop in Denver. And I know this site will, in fact, do that. I was questioning why we need 40 more acres when we have 300 acres to do this development. But, you know, if there is one place where it does make sense to have density, it's it's, in fact, in this area. I know Councilwoman Gilmore worked very closely to ensure that the noise mitigation was very much a part of the work that move this project forward. And in really appreciate that because I think the people who will be living in the development will also appreciate that. Um, and I know technology is changing. We had a briefing, I think a year or two ago talking about some of the changes that will reduce the noise on some of the jets that fly in and out of DIA. So, you know, I think that will help significantly as well. So I will be supporting this tonight. I think the investment that the city has made in doing the transit stop, which was not included when RTD moved to build the DIA train out to the airport, the city made the investment to allow that to happen and that should have been enough to really kind of negotiate further on the affordability of housing. And that is an important issue that I hope we will make greater strides in addressing, because when you look at how much development will be there, to do it without any affordability within the development would be a shame. When we did Stapleton, because they asked for $300 million of tax increment financing, we were able to get a serious commitment of affordable housing to be built on that site. And knowing that this site alone is bigger than Stapleton really means that we should take greater strides in working with the developer to address that. And I'm committed to working with Councilwoman Kenney or anybody else that wants to further that agenda, because I think it is important. We don't want to have people who have to work at DIA or who will work at DIA to have to live further. Away. Like folks in the mountain community do, we want them to be able to live close to the airport where they work or be able to work on the site and live close by when all of the commercial development happens there. So with that, I'll be voting for this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. In other comments. One 8339 Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Gilmore I question can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega black Brooks I. Clark Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Flynn, I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. And got it. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please for the very nice results. 1212 AIS 183 has passed. On Monday, May 23rd, Council will hold a required public hearing counter bill to 17 Changing the zoning classification. 5104 Dallas Street required people carrying Council Bill 219 Changing the zoning classification 4353 North Cherokee Street and a required Public Hearing Council Bill 249 Changing the Zoning Classification four 3250 South Colorado Boulevard. Any protest on county bills 217 to 19 or 249 must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on Monday, May 16. Seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 4: In private sphere. And that means that interesting frontages ones that attract us, that are transparent, that allow for that flow of in and out, are incredibly important to the way that we experience our street. And a lot of there's actually a whole lot of active uses along the mall, about 11,000 feet of things like shops, retail, restaurants and bars that have really active and pleasant frontages. But we still have about 30% of them that, despite having active uses, don't have what we would characterize as being a high quality frontage. So there's a low hanging fruit there. There's opportunities to just increase that experience naturally and have it more congruent with the functions that are that are attached to them. We know actually that part of this also takes place in affecting inside and outdoor activities. Like I mentioned and during this meeting, the street test, we know that about 90% of the businesses we surveyed, you could see all the little dots here said that business was as good or better. During this meeting, the street test. So Principle five is about supporting a wider network of investment. This is about existing initiatives. Brad mentioned some of it. This is about inviting public institutions. The non typical set, the non typical players of that are still vital to the cultural and civic assets of the city. How do we invite them to say, Hey, the 16th Street Mall can be your playground, your canvas? The partnership's already been working with the Botanical Gardens to some extent on this on the garden block. But how do we do more to not only invite these cultural institutions, but also everyday civic society, people that are interested in contributing and that can catalyze with their input to create a better street and a better city. And we see there's a lot of potential all at all through downtown to invite actively invite these institutions much more actively to not only collaborate in concert with the things that are happening along the 16th Street Mall, but maybe again, also use it as a canvas or an outlet or a satellite of of their location. It's incredibly important to to think beyond the the physical boundaries of the street. It's not just about from building frontage to building frontage for us. It's also about policies. Right. How do we rethink maybe some of the limitations? Liquor licensing, like, for example, having to put big barricades around restaurants that serve alcohol. Can that be changed? Maybe in certain areas. Can we encourage more mixed use development and and program adjacent underused sites, at least some parts of the day. So, you know, I think that. Then go back. You know, it's nice to be able to. Denver has got fantastic weather. It's incredible to be outside as much as you can in many places. But again, does it have to be behind bars? Literally, when you're when you're drinking, I don't know. We'll think about that. I've been in Europe for too long. Maybe so. I'm a little optimistic about the potential of that and what that can provide. But again, it's just that more open, free flow life that can exist coexist with different interests and and really make sure that we can get that coexistence. That's a key word about lingering about.
|
Bill
|
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to amend the provisions of the Airport Influence Overlay (AIO) District to allow multi-unit residential uses between 62nd & 64th Avenues in the AIO District and to make related conforming amendments. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to amend the provisions of the Airport Influence Overlay (AIO) District to allow multi-unit residential uses between 62nd & 64th Avenues in the AIO District and to make related conforming amendments. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-16-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182016_16-0154
|
Speaker 4: RTD has stepped away from it and funding it, which I'm very disappointed with, and I'll continue to work with RTD to try and bring them back into the fold on that and that the city is poised to pass on acquiring at a very low cost, if maybe any cost, the landing pad, the future landing pad for that bridge, making it virtually impossible then to build without condemnation of private property. That land exchanges is the sale is happening soon. And I just wanted to go on record saying that it is absolutely critical that the city secures the landing site. We have worked hard. We have a massive infrastructure project. Parks and public works have worked really hard to line up a great bike ped connection to that light rail station for all of West Denver along Alameda. And it will all be for nothing if we lose that landing pad, if we can't get that bridge built, because what it will do is, in effect, cause bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Alameda at a very busy juncture with all the on ramps for I-25 and Santa Fe and Commerce coming through twice, two additional times without that bridge to be able to use the current infrastructure which is on the north side on the underpass. So will I be voting to support this project? Because I believe that it is a critical step in getting us there. I don't want this this to go through without taking a moment to acknowledge that the bigger picture is about to slip away from us. And we have to make sure that we we deliver on the promise of access to public transportation for the west side of Denver. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn, your comments.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. I'm going to support this tonight, but I do want to reiterate a comment that we made in committee to city staff, which generally does a really good job on on these infrastructure projects. And this is a really, really good project. But the one thing that disappoints me about it is that it is utilizing 1345 square feet of Vanderbilt Park for one of the bridge, Piers. And the replacement land is about five blocks away and it's a little wedge of land at Alameda and La Pam right next to right across the west side of the river. And I don't think that's a suitable location for replacements. Like we build something in Civic Center Park on a thousand square feet and we compensated by by putting a thousand square feet somewhere off in the distance. I would I would really like the city staff to work on these issues when they come up again to find replacement park land that is adjacent and contiguous to the park that's losing the land. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. That does it for that council Bill. Councilman Kennedy, under Bill's introduction, you have called out Counsel Bill 291 regarding marijuana caps on locations. What do you want? What would you like us to do with this bill?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to put it on the floor for the purposes of entertaining a technical amendment that's going to be offered by Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: All right, Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill to 91 on the floor? It will be ordered published.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill to 91, be ordered published.
Speaker 2: All right. We have a second has been moved in second comments by members of council. And then let me just proceed by saying Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman Espinoza, Councilman Cashman and Councilman Flynn all chimed in. The council this hour to call this bill out is really go with comments and you can make your comments at that point. So go. Go for counseling. Or I mean, I'm sorry, Councilman.
Speaker 8: I defer to Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: All right, Councilman.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilwoman. I was just wanting to go ahead and put my amendment on the floor. Is it okay to put my amendment on the floor or. I don't necessarily have a comment.
Speaker 2: Okay. Council members. If you have an amendment, please indicate so on your touch screen. I think everybody's got it. And when you offer your amendment, please indicate the color of the paper used to distinguish your amendment. Counsel. I think we have that on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an Ordinance approving an Agreement with the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation for a major road construction project, known as I-25/Santa Fe & Alameda Avenue Interchange Project.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation for land transactions and underpass construction for the South Platte Regional Trail and roadway improvements between South Jason Street and South Huron Street for the I-25/Santa Fe and Alameda Avenue Interchange Project in Council District 7 (201626220). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-9-16. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-6-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182016_16-0291
|
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please withdraw your amendment so we can file a new motion?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. Pro Tem Lopez. I withdraw my amendment and would like to move forward with my new amendment.
Speaker 2: Okay, Councilman.
Speaker 8: Second, I agree.
Speaker 2: Thank you. All right, go for it. Councilwoman Gilmore, why don't you move to amend?
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem Lopez. I move to amend Council Bill 16 Dash 0291 in the following particulars on page six, line 26, add the letter S to the word license, and on page eight, line 18, strike the words stores and insert cultivation facilities. And this amendment would correct some typos in the bill as originally introduced. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Second is comments by members of council. Okay? Yeah. Councilman Flynn, did you try me?
Speaker 6: No, I did, because I was on the wrong screen, but. May I?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. Yeah. We're stuck on the vote screen. I think because we were. Well, why don't you go ahead.
Speaker 6: And if I could just ask Councilwoman Gilmore the changing stores to cultivation facilities, what is the effect of that?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. The the change is in my original amendment. It was written that we would have two separate lists, one for the top five statistical neighborhoods for stores, and the second list, the top five statistical neighborhoods for cultivation facilities. And then after that, it lists all of the different types. And in the original amendment, it had listed marijuana stores in with the cultivation facilities. And so we wanted to clarify that that was indeed two separate statistical lists, one for stores and one for cultivation facilities.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. That that clears up very well.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, I am showing that there are comments on this particular motion. Councilman Gilmore, I presume that you did not chime in to make another comment, did you?
Speaker 7: No, I did not.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm just going to go down the down the line, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Just for an amendment when it's time.
Speaker 2: Okay. And Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Okay. You just referred to just four comments on the bill at large when we're ready.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. All right. Roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, I can each new Sassaman. All right. Black. Brooks Clark. All right. Espinosa Flynn.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting in an.
Speaker 4: Excuse me, Mr. President. I wasn't called for Kashmir by Lebanese.
Speaker 2: Okay. Let's make sure the system is running well. 11. Of. 11 eyes the motion or the. Amendment is a. Added. Council members. Are there any other additional amendments to be offered to this bill? Please bring in Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 1: Mr. President, pro tem, I move that council deem council bill two 9291 be amended in the following particulars. On page 15, line six, add new sections 14 and 15 after the word 2015. Accordingly. Section 14, that Section six dash to ten of the DRC shall be amended by adding the following, adding the language underlined to read as follows Section 210 Licensing Requirements Provisions Applicable to all licenses. Applicant B application forms and supplemental materials. All applications for local licensing shall be made upon forms provided by the director and shall include such supplemental materials as required by this Article five The Colorado Retail Municipal Marijuana Code Correction and rules adopted pursuant there to including by way of example proof of possession of the licensed premises disclosures related to ownership of the proposed businesses. Business. Fingerprints of the applicants building plans. Floor plans designating the proposed license premises outlined in red security plans. And a community engagement plan that includes at minimum the following information one the name, telephone number and email address of the person affiliated with the applicant who is responsible for neighborhood outreach and engagement to the names of all registered neighborhood organizations whose boundaries encompass the location of the proposed license premises, and a statement that the applicant shall contact the registered neighborhood organizations prior to commencing operations. Three An outreach plan to contact and engage residents and businesses in the local neighborhoods where any license is located. For a detailed description of any plan to create positive impacts in the neighborhoods where the licensed premises are located, which may include, by way of example, participation in community service, volunteer service and active promotion of any local neighborhood plans. Five Written Policies and procedures to timely address any concerns or complaints expressed by residents and businesses within the neighborhood surrounding the licensed premises. Six Written policies and procedures designed to promote and encourage full participation in the regulated marijuana industry by people from community communities that have been previously that have previously been disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition and enforcement in order to positively, positively impact those communities. To the extent any of the foregoing, supplemental materials have been included with the applicant state license application and forwarded to the city by the State Licensing Authority, the director may rely upon the information forwarded from the State without requiring resubmit all of the same materials in conjunction with the local license application. The director may, at the director's discretion, require additional documentation associated with the application, including additional requirements for any community engagement plan as may be necessary to enforce the requirements of the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code. And this Article five. Section 15, that Section 6 to 18 of the DRC shall be amended by adding a new subsection F underlined to read as follows f all applications for the renewal of any license shall include a community engagement plan as required in Section 210. So the year. Can I comment?
Speaker 2: Do we have a second? Can each go for it? Make a comment. Go for it.
Speaker 1: I just want to explain that this amendment would require would add a requirement that the community engagement plan be included with all applications for any type of license under the Denver retail marijuana code.
Speaker 2: Are there any other comments? Okay. On the screen it says Espinoza. Cashman. But I think that that's for additional amendment. All right. So there's no other comments on this one, Madam Secretary, roll call in the amendment.
Speaker 1: Espinosa Hi.
Speaker 4: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore I. Cashman Hi. Carnage New assessment black eye. Brooks.
Speaker 4: Clark Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I am secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. The amendment. Passes. All right. Are there any other amendments that need to be offered up? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Councilman Cashman, you have an amendment.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Councilwoman Ortega is unable to be here this evening and asked me to read the following amendment. Mr. President, I move to amend the Council Bill 16 to 91 in the following particulars on page 15 Line six, after the number 2015 insert and the notification provisions required by Section 12, Dash 96 B as amended by this ordinance. And just a quick comment, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Go forward. Make that.
Speaker 4: Comment. I just wanted to explain that this amendment would amend the bill to clarify that in addition to new applications, the R.A. notification requirement in the revised Section 12, Dash 96 B also applies to all applications that were pending on May 1st, 2016, when the premises proposed to be licensed is in an I.A. or I.B. Industrial Zone District.
Speaker 2: All right. Do we have any other comments from members of council? Councilman Sussman.
Speaker 11: Just. Just a question. If they were if they are required of those who are now pending, I thought I understood Councilman Espinosa's to say it must be part of the application upon upon applying, so they need to redo their application. Is that what is required by this bill?
Speaker 4: No. This is just last week. Councilwoman Ortega passed a notification piece and it was apparently unclear from the wording of that. I said it applied to the pending as well. So a city attorney drafted this to be sure that the pending were included in the are in notification.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Susman, Councilman Creech.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to clarify that the burden of implementing this amendment is actually on the department to notify the R.A.. The prior amendment we discussed the Espinosa Amendment puts the burden of a community engagement plan on an applicant. So there are slightly different approaches. Both of them will help inform and give opportunity to communities to engage better but different different burdens in terms of who's carrying each of them out. Thanks for the clarification.
Speaker 2: Thank you for that clarification, Councilwoman. Are there any other comments? None on this particular amendment, Madam Secretary. We have a roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Cannick. His name is up.
Speaker 1: And still up.
Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Let's do it. Okay. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Cashman. I can eat my. Sussman. Black Eye Brooks. I'm Clark Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I. Mr. President. I knew.
Speaker 1: Up.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Key. Madam Secretary, can you please close the voting? Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. The amendment passes. Councilman Flynn, you have an amendment, mind you. Go ahead and make that motion.
Speaker 6: Mr. President. Pro tem. No, I don't. I clicked in in order to comment on the bill, but I think we need to move it to the floor as amended first.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's right. Okay. All right.
Speaker 1: Um. Yeah.
Speaker 2: All right, Councilman Cashman?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. And I move the council bill to 91, be ordered, published as amended.
Speaker 2: All right. It's been. Moved and seconded. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Last week in the room here, we ended up being deadlocked, 6 to 6 on a bill that was very similar, but lacked an element that some of us wanted to see in terms of providing a reduction in the density of some of the facilities that are in some of the neighborhoods that are are pretty hard hit economically. And after the bill lost last week. I wanted to give a shout out to the council member sitting next to me, Councilwoman Kennish. We went back and forth for a couple of days and we came up with a provision that I think starts to address the ability to d densify some of the neighborhoods that are so concentrated and maybe diffusing them a little better. And so I just wanted to give a shout out to my colleague next to me. I've heard I've worked with a lot of folks over over the years. And, you know, you've heard the expression that person's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I've said this, too, to Councilwoman Kenney. She's face during a meeting that she is very highly analytical, she's very creative, she's very thoughtful. And even when she comes up with something I don't like, which it might be this bill. I cannot criticize her intellectual rigor. And so I said to her at an early meeting that she is, in fact, the sharpest knife in the drawer. So I just wanted to thank her for the work that. Yeah, go ahead. I just wanted to thank her for reaching out and working with me and Mr. President and colleagues. I did prepare an amendment that you see before you, and it is in reserve only if this bill were to fail again tonight. I had an amendment that I would propose through a motion to reconsider if it were to fail. So. So it's still held in abeyance. So that's why I have. Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Other comments on Council Bill 291. Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just I have I wanted to say that during the last five months, we've heard from numerous neighborhoods that have voiced concerns that the facilities were impacting their communities and not easy to contact. So the amendment that I'm glad that my colleagues overwhelmingly, unanimously supported start to address what I've been sort of railing on the entire time, which is having some sort of direct community benefit, you know, commitment through these establishments. And so I want to thank Ashley Kilroy with the with the with the city Marly, and I'm going to butcher your last name. So with the city attorney, the marijuana industry and the community members who've helped in this in this final crunch time in actually getting that amendment crafted to the point where we could get to get this consensus. So I think everybody on both sides of the debate who showed up time and time again and I appreciate and members all the members of council appreciate your participation in the process. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinoza. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. I will be supporting the bill this evening as amended. And I just wanted to say that regardless of what we do tonight, we are not making a number of neighborhoods in the city whole in the way that they need to be made whole. Globeville, O'Leary and Swansea are mentioned prominently. There are other neighborhoods who are suffering lack of housing and infrastructure of of all manner. And as I said, whatever we do tonight, we need to this to be the beginning of a renewed commitment to those neighborhoods in a variety of ways. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. I wanted to first thank my colleagues in my absence. Last week I was traveling and unable to be here. And I want to thank Councilman Clark for reading my amendment and my colleagues passing at 9 to 3. You know, when I was first elected, I didn't really understand the saying that if you're doing things how you should be doing them. Nobody will be happy. And I think with this bill, that really comes full circle. There are a lot of issues that my colleagues have spoken to around neighborhoods that have an undue concentration. And there are a lot of different issues that are affecting those neighborhoods. And, you know, my own neighborhood where I live of Montebello. I understand this very much so. But knowing that there are going to be hard decisions going forward, because when the zoning is set up in such a way that you may have industrial right across from or in very close proximity to residential versus in the Montebello community you have an industrial park, but there's also the perception that you are very close to residential and honestly close to some schools. And so where we can continue that conversation as a community working towards making sure we're making good decisions for first the communities and folks quality of life, but then also realizing that the industry has tried to educate us and tell us their side and be good neighbors for the most part. I know that you always have examples where that's not happening, but I haven't had those people reach out to me. I haven't had them want to come talk to me. And so I look forward to continue the conversation. And you know, my colleagues, we this is really the honeymoon period is a little bit over because we've had to have those hard conversations. But I have to say that at the end of the day, we were able to come together to put a beginning. Chapter two, a chapter on marijuana in the city and county of Denver that is going to be more chapters are forthcoming because this is a point in time. This is a baseline. But I'm really proud of my colleagues that we are able to disagree in a manner that was respectful and that we were able to have those hard conversations. And so I just wanted to bring that forward. Thank you, President Pro Tem.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Gilmore. Thank you, Councilman Gilmore. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, I'm just I'm going to be you know, data led with my decision globally is Swansea absorbs 10% of all facilities in the marijuana industry and 10% of the licenses, and they represent less than 1% of the population. That's overconcentration. That's over saturation in the community. And as hard as everyone has worked on this bill, at the end of the day, we're adding to that and I just can't support it. So I will not be supporting this. The real work is going to happen with community leaders, folks in the city on the ground going forward to say, how do we move this community in a in a in a in an area, in a situation where it's a benefit for the community? I keep hearing benefits, but I don't see benefits. I see a community that's upset all day today talking to community members, trying to figure out a way and realizing that there's just not enough votes to get to the place that we need to get to. I appreciate the folks who have made some helpful measures to do community outreach and things like that. But at the end of the day, you know, this is a net loss for the community today. So I'll be voting against this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinoza, I see you up in the queue. Yeah. 1091.
Speaker 1: I forgot a name, so I hope Christian doesn't mind me calling him out, but he worked hard with Marley as well and bringing the industry to the table and addressing the concerns that had been brought up time and time again. So thank you, Christian, for for your work as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: The Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Just a few things. I just want the community to know that this is not a vote on whether we like marijuana or not or whether we think it's good for the community or not. We are voting tonight to greatly restrict this industry. And as Councilwoman Gilmore brought up, it's a compromise and it's not perfect and nobody is completely happy. But with Councilwoman Cornish's leadership, we have really forged ahead on a compromise. Again, it's extremely restrictive. Two thirds of the Grove facilities that we have today would not be allowed in the future. So if they move away, they won't be able to come back in into those areas. Many of us on council want to have an ongoing council committee to address future issues. There's a lot of support for that. This only addresses one thing, but there are many more issues related to marijuana and we are committed to addressing those . The industry is reaching out council and Espinosa's amendment is now part of this bill. It's really going to be great for the community now. But I also want to point out that Globeville, Elyria and Swansea are about to undergo undergo an incredible transformation with millions, if not billions of dollars being invested into that community. My concern is with gentrification of that community. And I think what we really need to look after with the people who live there today is to make sure that they reap some of the benefits of that gentrification. So with that, I will be supporting this amendment, and I appreciate everyone's passion on this. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Nothing much, because I will I'm going to pass on the roll call until I see that it will get seven votes. Because if it does not get seven votes of I would vote no so that I could then bring it up on reconsideration. I just wanted the members to understand that because I do think it's important that we come out with a bill tonight. I know that we have another bill on the agenda that would extend the the date until June 1st, I believe. But I think everyone here and probably everyone there wants to want us to move on with this. But my amendment would just to address Councilman Brooks concern. My amendment, I think, would address. The overconcentration in certain neighborhoods by having a slightly lower cap set than the one that is set in the ordinance that we have here. And I may offer that next week. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Noon.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I also would like to commend Council on condition all the hard work that she's been through to to bring this bill together to the floor and and especially Councilwoman Gilmore and her amendment to try to address the saturated areas. I've listened long and hard to my constituents, and I've had responses from hundreds of my constituents. And they're really clear to me that they feel like we need a cap on the licenses and locations and on marijuana. But they are gravely concerned about the pending of how increasing the number of pending applications will increase those those licenses and locations. I'm also very, very concerned about the saturated areas. I heard a lot of comments, but it's very different from what we heard last week as well as from other residents about the Globeville Swansea situation, about the oversaturation there. So really concerned about that. I think if we have some more discussion, if this bill does fail tonight, we have some more discussion. I think we'll come back with another bill will not be supporting this bill tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Kenny.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I gave a lengthy comment last week, and I'll keep this one brief, but I first want to say that I am very supportive of this bill as amended with the new pieces that were added this week for probably the fourth or fifth week in a row, if you count the weeks of committee, this council members beside myself have shaped this bill, so we can call it a Frankenstein, if you will, with a bunch of different creators. But it's definitely not my bill. It is a bill that has been shaped by many of you. And so I want to thank you for those contributions. I think it is difficult to say that you have heard concerns from communities. You have added pieces that directly relate to those. And then to see some of those same individuals still not support the bill at the end. And even that is the case with some council members who added pieces to the bill and still do not support it. I think that there is no timeline on good ideas. And so to the extent that my willingness to continue to work with the communities that have come forward is going to continue beyond this bill. And I, in Globeville in particular, I have been working for four years on an open space already. And so my it's not the first time I've had a conversation about the need for investment in Globeville. With this bill and this is not necessarily the most important investment that these neighborhoods need. As Councilman Cashman and Councilwoman Black have both mentioned. Right, the infrastructure like sidewalks, the affordable housing to make sure that families who are there now can continue to stay in the neighborhood. Each of those things is important, too. And if there's one thing that I think is unfortunate is that we have. Pitched the plight of an entire community on one minor aspect. And it's not that this is not an important aspect, but it's not the only aspect this community has raised. But it is now gotten ten times more attention than the conversation about sidewalks, than the conversation about bus stops, than the conversation about housing, than the conversation about gentrification. And that is, I think, unfortunate, because when I have dialoged with those community members, those issues have in fact been very prominent in some cases even more prominent for some of them. So those conversations can continue and they will continue and they will continue in spite of this bill. I want to just because several of my colleagues have raised the concept of spendings one more time, I do just want to clarify. I think that we received revised data as of Friday, and it's it's simply just not the case to state that that that there is a flood of of new locations going into some of the neighborhoods that have been prominent. There are two pending locations in Elyria, Swansea, and there is one pending location in Globeville when you look at stores and grows. So that's a total of three, one of which is already expired. And if they don't receive an extension from the city would be denied. That may be too much and I accept that. But I do believe that the the the characterization that there's a flood of new locations going in is is just simply not accurate and not supported. I also would disagree that this bill expands, you know, and it brings new those pending applications where pending before we brought this bill up, they were pending in the mayor's moratorium. So it's simply not accurate to say that this bill is adding any facilities to these communities. Those facilities were on their way. That is really important. There is no provision in this bill that gives someone an ability to open more locations than existed prior. This is really, really, really important, and I hope the media is paying attention. This bill will dial down the number of cultivation locations by 3030. It prevents transfers of locations into areas near these neighborhoods. So not just no new locations can go in. Existing locations cannot move right next to the residential areas in these neighborhoods. Those do not add. They subtract. They explicitly subtract. And I do. It's absolutely appropriate to have differences, opinions about whether the bill goes far enough or whether it does not. But this bill adds no location, no location that wasn't on its way the day we started this debate. All right. And I just want us to be really honest about that. We can all disagree, but let's use the same data. With that. I know that we're not done. We have a second reading ahead if we make it through tonight. I am hopeful that council members who can't get there tonight will can continue to understand the places that this bill makes improvements. If we did not have this bill, there would be no change in the rules. Remember, a no vote is not a vote for stricter rules. There is no stricter rule bill out there. A no vote is a vote for no rules at this point. So I believe this is a very aggressive bill working very hard to protect communities. And I hope that we can move it forward to second vote and then bring some closure next week. With that, I hope to encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: I think, Mr. President, I just wanted to chime in to offer a correction to one thing that Councilwoman Kenney said, maybe inadvertently, but the reduction in cultivation facilities under this bill is not 30. But 15. Thank you. So the knife has dulled a little bit maybe. But just so just for the audience here and for the folks on Channel eight to explain what we did from the last bill, I just take a moment to explain how it works. And if I'm incorrect, the sharp knife next to me will correct me. This bill calls for a lower cap, eventually on cultivation facilities, not on stores, on cultivation facilities of 15. And the way it will be achieved is through honors. The principle that Councilwoman Kennish brought to me that my competing bill did not do. And I see the merit in her argument, and that is that if we simply put a lower cap in and wait many years until enough shops and growers go away, that we densify these neighborhoods, then Denver will not the city will not have played a role or had an opportunity to play a role in licensing new entrants into the market, new entrepreneurs and cetera. And that's an important thing that we want to preserve. So the way this ratchet down will work is that for every two locations that go away, the city will hold the blind lottery and issue one license. So if in a year seven locations go away, then three new licenses would come up that subsequent that that subsequent year. So that's how the ratchet down works. I don't know how long it will take to reach the 15 reduction, but my hope and my belief is that they will leave some of the most highly saturated neighborhoods . So thank you for that one correction. Councilwoman Commission.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Thank you, councilman. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr.. Councilman Flynn. Two sharp points next to each other. I don't know if that makes us a carving fork or what, but I appreciate your correction. And I do just want to make a comment because I know a couple of folks mentioned, you know, they might have an interest in a deeper reduction. We don't know how long the attrition will take. And I think that it's important. I don't want to give false promises to the community. I mean, we could pretend that this bill would dial down by 100 locations. But if we don't actually see attrition occurring, if the businesses aren't relocating outside of the city or being revoked, then that would be a political move, in my opinion, to have a very high number in the bill because it sounds tough, but then to actually not see the attrition occurring to get to that number. So so I would suggest to folks that it is prudent to vote for this bill, as stated, to see how long it takes . And if we see that attrition is occurring in this industry, we can always revisit this bill. There's no time period in which the council can't pick up this bill again. I don't know that there's a strong appetite to do that quickly, but to the extent we watch how the first lottery occurs and we see how many cultivation facilities are leaving through attrition, we will have a much better a better view. It would be very easy to just pick a much bigger number, but I think we're being honest with our constituents when we pick a number that maybe is in the realm of possibility. We've, you know, looking at the data over the past three years, we've had an attrition of like 7 to 9 businesses who've surrendered their licenses. So that is partially why I picked the 15 number and not something much bigger. Even though it might have looked a lot better, I wanted to make sure that we were being honest and realistic about what the rate at which these businesses might leave. As it may be sooner and quicker in the future, the industry may get more competitive. We may see changes at the state that change that pace. And if that's the case, then I think it's fine to revisit it. But I suggest that it's best for us to move forward with a realistic number tonight that may actually be in the realm of the next few years. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilwoman Black. Yeah.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Just one more reminder to everyone. Under the current moratorium, the pending applications are being processed. And so if we don't pass something tonight, they are going to be continued to be processed. So if we don't vote on something tonight, those pending are still going to go through. So I think we should think seriously about this compromise and we may not get something better if we continue to delay it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Are there anybody else that's wanting to chime in? Is there anybody else don't have speaking here? All right. You know, I wanted to chime in. You can't laugh that hard. I wanted to chime in. I honestly. I really respect my colleague, Councilwoman Kan, each for her hard work. For her transparency and for her inclusiveness. I think any time I've ever had a question on the bill or some idea, I've been able to walk into her office and she sits down and brings out maps in front of me. So I know you've worked really hard, Councilwoman, and I think everybody in this room honors and respects that and your and your willingness to be inclusive. And I think folks have come your direction to the middle a bit. I also wanted to. Say something in regards to, you know, my comments last go around last week. True. They still stand today. And to address some of these assumptions. We were in there until we were in here until about 130 in the morning. Debating. And I always want everybody in these chambers and everybody who will either read or watch this to know that there is no hysteria here. There is no I a fear of the usage of marijuana. Oh, the fear of legalizing marijuana. I think all of us up here in this great city and county that we serve and that we live in are 100% behind regulating this industry and the fact that we should regulate it. And we are following the lead of the voters who had said regulate this like alcohol. Keyword regulate. And we've had some national attention about that. And we keep getting hit up by media outlets on the national side, I was last week on in a Spanish language broadcast that was national. Saying it was very important that we balance that we have balance in these regulations. It's very important that we do regulate this. I know Denver is completely different from the rest of the country. And first. And. The top in the world and how we regulate this. We have more dispensaries in shops than Amsterdam, so it's important that we do it. And also want to remind folks that it's important that the cities around Denver do the same thing as well. There is no real opt out of this. And I want to urge our neighboring municipalities and governments to do the same thing. In regards to that balance and being able to say that on a national scene. The world watched in Spanish anyway. I also believe that the industry does not need to be balanced in areas of the city that are dying for revitalization. That are wanting to move forward. And maybe it is a few licenses, but for some of these communities, it's too many licenses. I don't want to just cast off their comments as some kind of hysteria. They live in these communities. And their voices are important. And I. In looking at Globeville, Larry and Swansea, and what our city has in store for them. And looking towards the future with the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative with, you know, hopefully some revitalization that takes place with infrastructure and connect ability with I-70. With the National Western Stock Show. There's a lot of attention in these communities. But it's also at a critical state. Their opportunity to move forward with the rest of Denver depends on partly on some of these other issues, and that's industry is one of them. And having said that, you know, I thought long and hard. And I am still on the side of, of, of, of balancing this industry a little more. And regulating it a little more, especially in these neighborhoods. I think enough is enough with locating some of these new bookstores and cultivation sites in these neighborhoods. So I will not be supporting this bill moving forward without that. Thank you, Madam President. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black eye?
Speaker 1: BROOKS No.
Speaker 3: Clark. Hi. Espinosa. I Flynn.
Speaker 6: Past.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I Cashman. I can eat i. New. Sussman, I. Flynn, I. Mr. President?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Uh. You did.
Speaker 3: Madam.
Speaker 2: Got it? Yeah. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Eight eyes, three nays.
Speaker 2: Eight eyes, three nays. The motion passes as amended and is ordered published. It is now time for block votes. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Cashman, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block, all from series of 2016 to 20 8 to 20 6 to 27 and to 32.
Speaker 2: All right, we have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Clerk. All right, Espinosa.
Speaker 2: You made it.
Speaker 3: Flynn I. Gillmor, I. Cashin I need new. Sussman My black. Brooks.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted. Councilman Cashman, will you please, please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following bills be placed upon final consideration and do pass and a block again from the series of 2016 20426 149.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: SUSSMAN Hi, black eye. BROOKS Hi. Clark Hi. ESPINOSA Hi, Flynn. I more I question. Hi. Can each new. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please. Actually, Councilman Brooks. Councilman, you're hanging fire. All right. There we go. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and elsewhere.
Speaker 3: Vote results. 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes. The bills on final consideration have passed. We have one free recess announcement tonight. There will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 215 designating 4655 Humboldt Street, the stadium arena as a structure preservation. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter must see the Council Secretary to receive a speaker car to fill out and return to her during the recess of council. If there are no objections from members of council, we will take a brief 15 minute recess. That's convene at 715. Thank you.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance concerning the licensing of marijuana businesses, amending the Denver Retail Marijuana Code, Article V of Chapter 6, D.R.M.C. and the Denver Medical Marijuana Code, Art. XII of Chapter 24, D.R.M.C. by capping the total number of licensed locations where marijuana cultivation and sales may be permitted in the city, adopting new procedures for the issuance of retail marijuana cultivation and sales licenses, prohibiting the issuance of new medical marijuana cultivation and sales licenses, and adopting other related amendments. (Special Issues: Marijuana Moratorium) Amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning marijuana facilities and caps the total number of licensed locations. This bill was approved for filing by Councilwoman Kniech.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04182016_16-0215
|
Speaker 11: So the purpose of the landmark designation ordinance, which was passed in 1967, is to designate, preserve and protect historic resources, foster civic pride, stabilize and improve the esthetic and economic viability of the community. And to promote good urban design within the city of Denver, there are 335 individual landmark buildings and 51 historic districts. Those districts are comprised of about 6600 buildings. Out of the 160,000 primary buildings within the city, they can take a variety of forms commercial properties, firehouses, schools, churches or neighborhoods. Applications are submitted either proactively through surveys or grassroot community efforts, or also through demolition and certificate of non historic status reviews. In terms of who can apply by ordinance, it can be the owners of the property. The managers of CPD. Members of City Council. Or three persons who are residents or property owners within the city of Denver. Once a property is landmarked, it is designated as is. There are no requirements to improve the property and the only time that there is review is for exterior changes. Only a building isn't frozen in time. There are abilities to change, but we only review work on the exterior, not on the interior. Typically, structures that are determined to be contributing demolitions are discouraged for those parts. For this particular designation, there was one applicant who was the owner of the property. It went to Landmark staff, which we reviewed and determined that it was sufficient. It went to the Landmark Preservation Commission for a public hearing, which at that point they could terminate the procedure or they could recommend it going forward, which they did. And we are currently at the public hearing. The Landmark Preservation Commission notifications of of renos and all the legal notices were met for this particular designation. The property is 4655 Humboldt. We are designating everything that is in blue and that is the designation boundary. However, the only contributing structure within this is the stadium arena. The applicant for this is the city and county of Denver and it is supported by the owner of the property, which is of the building as well as the owner of the land, which is the Western Stock Show Association. There are currently several non contributing additions on this building. There's the stadium hall from 1991, the education hall and the exhibition hall. All of those would be allowed to be demolished, which is part of the the master plan for the National Western. The period of significance are when this building is important is from 1908 to 1951, when the stadium arena was the primary entertainment venue of the National Western Stock Show. In order for a property to be listed as a or designated, it has to maintain its historic and physical integrity and then meet two out of the three following categories in history, architecture and geography, as well as relate to a theme of Denver history. In order to maintain physical integrity, it has to convey its historic or architectural significance, and that is typically defined by the location setting design materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The Stadium Arena's integrity is compromised by the construction of I-70. However, the stadium arena has historically been surrounded by transportation corridors, whether it was East 46th Avenue or the railroad to the west of it. It also maintains its physical integrity, although it's partially covered by non contributing additions. These additions attach very lightly to the building. And it's actually quite remarkable that the oval shape is still seen through it, even though there are attachments around it. In addition to meeting its physical integrity, it needs to meet history, and it does actually under all three of the criteria. It has a direct association with the historical development of the city. The National Western Stock Show is an important part of the city's history, and this is an iconic building within the National Western Stock Show complex. It is also the site of a significant event as the statue has been held for over 100 years. And this was the major event space of it. And it's also hosted thousands of other important events within Denver history. It is also associated with groups of persons who are directly or substantially associated or had an influence on society. This ranges from governors and senators to business people who have advocated for the construction and use of this particular building. It also meets it under architecture in two different two different areas as being an embodying, embodying distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style and portraying the environment of a group of people who. Characterized by distinctive architectural style. So it has a neoclassical style is seen in the curved cornices, the geometric embellishments on the brick walls, the hipped roof towers, and the regular symmetrical form and fenestration. It's also an important and early example of steel skeleton architectural design. It's also emblematic of the architect of the agricultural society. It is a descendant of the round barns and show barns that were historically used within the agricultural community. And finally, it meets geography as a prominent location and is making a special contribution to Denver's distinctive character. It's near the juncture of I-70 and I-25, and it is visible on I-70. It's also a well-known landmark within the city of Denver, within the global Elyria, Swansea, a neighborhood and within the national western complex itself. And finally, it makes a special contribution to the character of Denver. The National Western Stock Show is an important part of Denver, and this is its iconic building. The landmark designate, the Landmark Preservation Commission, also deemed that it met the history and context criteria under transportation and livestock industry being related to the National Western Stock Show, the city beautiful movement in Denver, and the development and growth of the Globeville, Illyria and Swansea and neighborhoods. At the public hearing, there were three letters of support for the designation. There was a ten minute presentation by the applicants and owners and three public speakers. All were in support of the designation application. The Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed the criteria and determined that it met its historic and physical integrity, that it met its criteria under history in all three areas under architecture into and geography into. They also felt it related to important historic contexts and themes in Denver history. And the Landmark Preservation Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend the landmark designation move forward to City Council.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Hmm.
Speaker 2: We have three speakers signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call those three if you come up to the bench. That'll help speed up the proceedings. Liz Adams. Kelly Lead. John Olsen, Miss Adams, we will start with you.
Speaker 11: Members of Council. Mr. President, Pro Tem. My name is Liz Adams and my address is 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 1800. I'm here tonight to share comments from Paul Andrews, the president and CEO of the National Western Stock Show. He has sent sends his apologies that he couldn't attend tonight. Here are his comments. Members of city council. As a property owner, the National Western Stock Show is in full support of historic designation of the stadium arena in 1909 1909, when the Western Stock Show Association built the arena, then called the National Amphitheater. This building was considered the most modern and prestigious place to show cattle in the country. It positioned Denver to become the livestock center of the West. For over a century, the Grand Champion steer has been shown in the stadium arena. It is a tremendous honor to show cattle and other livestock in such a historic place, and those who win in that arena know that they are forever etched in history with the other winners from the past 110 years. As we look to the future, we hope that the arena will continue to be a showpiece of the property. The Western Stock Show Association supports this landmark designation and looks forward to continued partnership with the city on preserving this and other important historic assets of the National Western Center. Redevelopment takes place. Thank you. Paul Andrews, President and CEO, National Western Stock Show.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Adams. Mr. Kelly. Lead.
Speaker 5: Members of council. My name is Kelly LEED, and I'm the executive director of the new Office of the National Western Center. It's a great honor and privilege to be here tonight to make a few comments about the application. The city and the entire team working on this project have made a commitment to honor and interpret the rich history of the Natural Western Stock Show. As the site evolves and redeveloped, this has truly been a partnership. This is the first win of many in a continued partnership between the city, the Western Stock Association, Community Planning Development , the National Western Citizens Advisory Committee, historic Denver History, Colorado, Colorado State University, and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science to preserve and protect the resources at the future campus. The symbolism of this tonight shouldn't be lost. The Arena was the first permanent building built by the Western Structural Association and was a marvel for its time. Now it is the first historic landmark and one of many will be bringing forward to this council. The intent, future development in and around the arena and rehabilitation of the arena itself serves to complement and showcase the arena as a prominent, iconic and historic place at the National Western site. We've worked hard with our partners to determine an appropriate landmark boundary that would protect the views of the arena's historic features and also allow for historic growth around the building as envisioned by the master plan. On behalf of the Mayor and our entire team and all our partners, I encourage you to support this local landmark designation. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Leigh. Mr. John Olsen.
Speaker 10: Members of council. Thank you very much. My name is John Olsen. I'm at 1420 Ogden Street, Suite 202, and I am the director of preservation programs at Historic Denver. And on behalf of Historic Denver, I am very pleased to offer our support for the designation of the 1909 Stadium Arena on the National Western Stock Show. I'm also truly happy to be here at Council for a well supported designation. Historic Denver has been actively involved in conversations related to the National Western site since 2011, advocating for the historic buildings and site features which convey the deep history of the site and provide much of its unique character. In 2011, we provided the city, the stock show and other stakeholders important background and contextual information about the history of the site and its historic buildings. And from 2013 through 2016, we have participated in the master planning process as a matter excuse me, as a member of the National Western's Citizens Advisory Committee, this character and associated cultural identity of the site are critical assets to the stock show and to Denver as a whole. The designation of the stadium arena, the first official stock show structure constructed and the oldest actual building still used much for its original purpose is the first a very and very important step in the preservation plans for the site. The designation will enable the city and the National Western's Doctoral Association to earn grants for further analysis of the building and to design specific restoration or rehab actions necessary to reactivate the building for ongoing year round use. We congratulate the City of Denver and the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative specifically and the National Western Stock Show Association for their work towards this very important action and offer our gratitude for their commitment to the stadium arena and the heritage of this uniquely Denver site. Thank you for your consideration to vote in favor of creating this very new Denver landmark.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Olsen. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Could I ask her a question or two? And the first one is, do we know? I read through the staff report and I did not. It looks like we don't know who the architect was. Have we been able to is he just not a he or she just not a famous architect?
Speaker 11: We don't know. There was actually a consulting firm that was hired to to write this. And I know they spent an extensive amount of time looking and trying to find the architect, and they simply couldn't find it. There's connections with the Chicago. Cattle in the stockyards. Yeah, sorry. There's a lot of connection between them and they think it was maybe inhouse designed by them, but we couldn't find anything.
Speaker 6: Also, then when I looked at P at Slide, I think it's eight with the blue box, the area being designated. Can you tell me, does that boundary being designated, does that restrict what can happen on the on the on the grade on the on the empty space, on the parking lot that's within that box? Or does it just affect the building?
Speaker 11: So the intake, so the entire blue box, that's the designation boundary. It would have design review for what would occur there. It doesn't necessarily say that nothing could occur there, but there would be design review for that, what's within that box. And we felt it would preserve the view sheds of because the building itself is oval and we wanted to preserve that.
Speaker 6: Great. That that's an excellent that's what I wanted to hear. KELLEY Can I ask you one thing to follow up on that? Can you tell us what are what are the project plans for the the stadium hall and the exhibition hall and how that might play into the designation?
Speaker 5: Sure. So the the other buildings you're referring to that are attached, correct? I mean, ultimately, those buildings would be demolished or torn down. They will be replaced with new facilities. And, you know, for those that have toured the 1909 building, there was a lot of care taken that those attachments to the old building. It won't be that hard to disassemble those buildings without damaging the 1909 building. So that's one. But, you know, those buildings, the ancillary buildings would be torn down. And then we'll go through a process. The master plan talks about the 19 or nine building as if you've been to the Pike Street Market up in Seattle, which is a year round food market. We've talked about that as a possible use, celebrating Colorado farmers and ranchers and products from all over the state. We'd have John Elway throw the ribeye instead of the salmon, of course, but we don't know. I mean, we're going to go through a process, but it's a it's a it's an incredible building that needs to be shared with future generations. And our goal is to preserve it.
Speaker 6: That's only because the Broncos don't really have a starting quarterback at the moment.
Speaker 5: So we'll get Mr. Sanchez an opportunity to throw one as well then.
Speaker 6: Do you know, have we studied whether those buildings, those ancillary buildings, can they be detached without damaging the exterior of the of the 1909?
Speaker 5: We believe so. I mean, again, we'll you know, part of the exercise is to get a grant to obviously study the structural integrity of the 1909 building. But just in our walks around the old building and how those ancillary buildings were attached, again, there was a lot of care given. It's literally lightly touching the building with with with very minimal invasive connections so that we can hopefully disassemble that without much damage to the 99.
Speaker 6: But thanks very much. Appreciate that's all the script.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 1: Uh, a question for Kelly as well. The So do you have an actual set aside or project budget or one of those tasks that you've got many tasks over there at the stock show for restoration or real rehabilitation of this building? Because those old pictures show clear, a lot of clear story windows and things that are all lost to history. I agree there's a real light touch, so I'm just trying to figure out, do we have an actual plan in place yet?
Speaker 5: So the current budget, the 856 million covers phases one and two of the project, which includes land acquisition, some infrastructure in and around the site. The 1909 stadium arena actually falls in phase three, so we do not have designated funds specifically for its restoration. So part of this designation allows us to start to go after grants. And the first would be a structural assessment, and then we'd be looking at other grants to restore the building. But my hunch will be that we would look for partners to work with us as we identify the final use of that, that old building.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So just be I'm sure you're well aware the restoration that occurred at the capital and the rehabilitation of Union Station, somewhere in between, there would be nice to sort of restore the grandeur, the sort of exterior glory of that and the ramifications that that has on the interior. If those clearer story and all those windows were reintroduced would be pretty impressive. And then when you're doing your research, you mentioned Pike Place do take a look at Atwater Market in Montreal has similar sort of relationships to a two expressway freeway mass transit in a sort of moderate to low income community. But it is a year round indoor outdoor market in a climate that is not unlike Denver's. So it's a very good analogy. Plus, it has a walkway. I mean, actually both a canal and a bikeway get immediately within walking distance as well. So it's a very, very good analogy for this and.
Speaker 5: We'll add that to our list.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And just one more comment. But John, you mentioned well supported application. And I just want to go on record that those prior years that you've also been here while I've been on council were equally well supported in that they had tons actually tons more community support than I see here, a unanimous votes by landmark. And so just because it's owner designated doesn't take away from the fact that those were also well supported applications.
Speaker 10: I would absolutely agree. The the aspect of of of, you know, the aspect of saying that this is a well supported application. We have several of these that happen all the time. And of course, the ones that get a lot of press and the ones that fill up the the council chambers are generally the one. They're a little bit more contentious. But, you know, it would be wonderful if we actually had many, many more people here for an event like this, because I think this is going to be a really good feel good story for the entire city of Denver. And also, you know, obviously for the National Western Stock Show and the whole future that it begins here with the with the preservation of this very important.
Speaker 1: Piece.
Speaker 10: Of the National Western stock. And then we can take that and then and run with all of the other things that are planned for that site.
Speaker 1: Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, President Pro Tem.
Speaker 2: You know there are any other questions for Constable 215. All right. This public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council. Let's start with Councilman Brooks, because it's in District nine. Then we'll go with Councilman Flynn. Go for it, Councilman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. First I want to say, uh, do not let the absence of Globeville area Swansea, a citizens advisory committee at the National Western Show for you. Because they're not here. Someone we're here just got a blow to the stomach around marijuana and they left. But there is a ton of support around this project. And, you know, this is one of those collaborative projects that you just got to be proud of, of the owner, the neighborhood, the community, the support of to see all coming together. And so really excited about that. And it's a job well done for thinking about places to emulate. Granville Island in Vancouver is another man, just great space that encompasses a lot of what you talked about. I think the process that happened with. The community here folks at the national western in D.C. see Kelley his team. Historic Denver landmark commission actually meeting at the site. I've never seen that before was it's a best practice. I don't know how many times you can pull that off, but that was great to see. Commissioners actually walked the site with lay folks like myself. And and you could really and I'll just mention one piece. The 1909 arena sits within another structure that was built several years later with just I mean, inches it did not touch the 1909 arena. Inches of space between it and you could really go in and notice the difference which kept that structure in place. I've been to the 1909 arena many times. Never have I really sat in the seats. I mean, people are literally back there. Little people. Little people. So to be able to see the historic nature was just incredible. And so I will be supporting this. I hope we you know, this is this is something I think the community can come around. But I think on an a macro level, to see more and more historic structures be supported by owners community, the historic community is is is a hope for the future. So I hope we see a lot more of these. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem, it's it's really an honor to be had any role at all in designating structure for landmarking that is as significant as this one. And I know that there are going to be changes, interior changes. But when you walk into that building and I was going to say it takes you back, but it doesn't really take you back into the past. It takes you into the heart and soul of what made this city. And that's what's so beautiful about it. And it's it's just an honor and a pleasure to be able to vote. Yes. And that's really all I wanted to say, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I just wanted to thank the stock show and everybody involved with, you know, bringing this designation, an owner designated application. It's it's just, you know, it doesn't have to happen. And it did. And so I thank you for that because it's an important piece of Denver history. And then, Councilman Brooks, just four words, high fructose corn sirup. That's the difference between back then and now. So I hope in the future, Kelly, as you're making this the food mecca of the world or agricultural mecca of the world, we sort of try to address our sugar problem. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 8: Thank you. And thank you all.
Speaker 11: We had a great discussion in our committee meeting and delved more deeply into the topic. And I just wanted to say thank you for all of your hard work. Clearly, we're all really excited about this. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, councilwoman. Councilman.
Speaker 5: I just want to congratulate you also, Kelly, for the leadership you bring to the National Action Center. And the development is going to be quite an asset and a really jewel for Denver. And not only the new facilities and new partnerships you're bringing to the side, but also the most important thing, preserving this historic part of the important part of the structure. So graduations and we look forward to a great, great National Resource Center.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very excited and pleased to have the opportunity to support this designation. And I want to give just a little bit go a little bit East Coast here. So when I came out in 1971 to Colorado, I really expected I would be in the midst of the Wild West and there would be simulated gunfights on the streets and there would be all this stuff. And I was quite seriously really surprised at how little respect the city seemed to have for its Western heritage. You know, we had the I discovered the stock show early on, you know, for several weeks each year, but then that feeling kind of went dormant. And I am really looking forward to seeing the transformation out on the National Western Center grounds and expect that we will finally give Denver's Western heritage a real showcase that it deserves. So, again, I'm real happy to support this.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Cashman, are there any other comments? All right. I just wanted to say I am glad this is going to be designated. I think it's an amazing arena. I remember walking in before we had the the amendment on. Well. Before to see. And it's falling apart. So I am glad that this is going to get designated. I'm glad we have resources pouring into this. This is one of those structures that we just cannot lose. It's overshadowed by the skyline most of the time. But we cannot lose this. This is an amazing arena. So much history has been here. And I'm looking at both of you in different capacities. You've worked really hard and to help make this happen, you, sir, as well. But also, I think one thing that we can one group that we cannot thank you enough and is the voters of our city. We wouldn't be here if it weren't for that. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 1: Yes, I'm I'm sorry. I just want to say every time and a big issue comes up in this part of the district, I never say this enough, but I just got thank Councilwoman Monteiro. Who. Yeah, she teed up everything. I mean, I've only been over this for six months, and so I just want to thank Councilwoman Monteiro and her leadership for 12 years in this district. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, I think that's it. Can we have a roll call on Council Bill 215?
Speaker 3: Brooks Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. I can.
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: I can eat.
Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 3: SUSSMAN Black eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: All right. BROOKS You're hanging fire. Sorry. All right. Madam Secretary, close the voting. And as a result, 11 eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 215 has passed. On Monday, May 16, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 216 Changing the zoning classification for 1400 Race Street. Any protests against Council Bill 216 must be filed with the Council offices no later than noon on Monday, May 19. Seeing that there's no other business before this body today, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
Approves the landmark designation of 4655 Humboldt Street (Stadium Arena) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the landmark designation of 4655 Humboldt Street (Stadium Arena) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 9. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-30-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04112016_16-0129
|
Speaker 11: Again, Cherry Creek neighborhood in the Cherry Creek North Retail District, one block north of the Cherry Creek Shopping Center, four blocks south of Sixth Avenue, seven blocks east of university. There is a view plane, the Premier Park View plane that covers the property. So maximum heights would only be allowed up to 160 feet. Again, the land use is commercial. Currently a two story commercial. Existing zoning. Cherry Creek North eight and seven already exist on the west side of the property. Stepping down, you'll notice two to Cherry Creek North, five and four following the Cherry Creek Plan. And then a party that is outlined in yellow is the property we're talking about tonight. And to the east of that, another PD and then more Cherry Creek North zoning to the south. So again, commercial use surrounding on both south and east and then office on north and west. It's gives you an idea of the property upper right and then the surrounding office and commercial uses. Bottom is a restaurant across Second Avenue. So this was it planning board on February 3rd and planning board unanimously recommended approval. And then we were at the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee on March 2nd and the item was moved on to the floor of City Council. Today we have one letter from the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association that they said they would not oppose this rezoning. So the review criteria, consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances, inconsistency with neighborhood context in zoned district purpose and intent. The plans that apply to this area are accomplished in 2000 and Blueprint, Denver and of course the new Cherry Creek Area Plan adopted in 2012. Comprehensive plan tells us to conserve land by promoting infill development, encouraging quality infill development, maintaining Cherry Creek Shopping Center, ensuring Creek North as the premier retail destinations in the metro area and the region. Blueprint Denver It's an area of change. A pedestrian shopping center which is mixed use entertainment retail with lots of pedestrian amenities scaled to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Street classifications for Saint Paul and designated local and for Second Avenue and Main Street Collector. So the the framework plan for Cherry Creek acknowledges that we need to continue to grow in Cherry Creek and change and tells us to update the blueprint. Denver Areas of Change Map and modify the land use policy and zoning regulations to implement the recently adopted plan. So this is a picture of the new areas of change as adopted in the Cherry Creek Area plan. On the left, the older areas of change map I'm sorry. On the left is the older one. On the right is the new amended areas of change map that was changed by the Cherry Creek Area Plan. The property remains in an area of change on both maps, so in the Cherry Creek Area Plan also has sub area discussions and this property is in the Cherry Creek Shopping District and the property more specifically is called out as part of the regional center and where we want to continue to support mix a mixture of uses including office, retail, commercial and multifamily and to retain and enhance Cherry Creek's unique physical character and of course, encourage reinvestment. But probably the most significant recommendation on this page is the transition in building height from Second Avenue to Third Avenue, higher heights and Second Avenue trend is transitioning. So Second Avenue, eight stories transitioning down to four stories in the little graphic down below that, the wedge graphic that you see in the center, lower center of the screen . So staff believes that this proposal does conform to the Cherry Creek Area Plan, Blueprint, Denver and Comp Plan 2000. So we think it is consistent with our adopted plans and that by moving away from this customized zoning, we are furthering the uniformity of district regulations. And by implementing our area plans, we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. The justifying circumstance for this rezoning is changed circumstances. The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage redevelopment. The property is located in an area of change that is changing from a solely retail to a mixed use residential and retail land use. And it is in character with the existing area. So the context, urban center context is multi-unit, residential, commercial strips and centers, multi-unit buildings typically in the forms of row house or apartments and multi-unit residential and commercial uses, primarily located on residential collectors, mixed use arterials or local streets and the blocks, of course, shaped by the grid street system and the Cherry Creek North. Seven and eight zone districts were specifically tailored for Cherry Creek North and again speak to that transition from second to Third Avenue where we're stepping down in height . So with that, staff recommends approval and believes all criteria are met.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Miss Cicero. We've had two speakers for this publication, Marcus Faulkner and Matt Joe Blume. So Mr. Faulkner, you can go ahead and Jared.
Speaker 2: Terrific. Good evening, counsel. President Council members my name is Marcus Partner 7290 East First Avenue. I want to thank you very much for allowing us to speak tonight about this rezoning in deference to your docket this evening. We only have two speakers here, but please do not let that dissuade you from the amount of outreach and work we have done in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. We have worked on this rezoning for approximately nine months with the neighborhood associations and John, all of the neighboring associations. And we believe this is an application that is very reflective of the Cherry Creek Plan. I will say in passing and thanks to Theresa for going through all the justifying circumstances, it is a rarity when there's a neighborhood that has done as much to come forward with the Cherry Creek Plan, with area stakeholders and leaders and city and actually success suggest zone districts that go along with that plan. It is even more rare when then said neighborhood leader becomes an elected official to be sure that you actually follow that correctly. So we are here tonight in many ways to to verify and work and reflect what we think is really been a number of years working on the Cherry Creek Plan. And Matt Jobling is here on behalf of BMC. He is BMC. He's working on four or five very high profile projects in Cherry Creek. And we believe that is absolutely our calling, is to work with the neighborhood and really have these plans be some of the great examples of urban development in the city. So with that, we'd certainly request your support tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Joplin.
Speaker 5: Council. President, Member City Council, thank you very much for this opportunity. Honored and humbled to be in front of you for the first time for this project. I will be extremely brief as well. Not to waste your time, but please feel free to ask any questions you guys want on the project. You have a pack in front of you and I'll just go through it. But my name's Matt Job and BMC Investments in the CEO located at this project 210 St Paul and also 3003 East Third Avenue. The whole development team are all people from Denver. Very important to us to support the local community there. We have five projects in Cherry Creek. Number one is Steel Creek, which is fully up and operating. We've we're 96% leased great retailers we brought in. The key part about that was we worked very close with Cherry Creek East and made dramatic changes to the building based on their request that were, you know, better for the neighborhood, better for the overall pedestrian experience. We're about to open in 90 days what I believe will be one of the best hotels in all of Denver called the Halcyon in place of the old. The Old Post Office again worked very close with Cherry Creek North Neighborhood and working on that project. As an example, they requested that we heat the whole sidewalk again. We did that for them, worked with them on some other things as well there. We just started construction this week on the Moxy Hotel right behind it. A key point there is that we utilize the 15% open space. However, we're doing significantly more open space in the actual requirement and working very hard with the neighborhood to actually program that space if we can have lots of community events. The project we're talking about tonight is 210 Saint Paul. It has a sister building that's zoned already on Third and Saint Paul. The project we're talking about is 81 luxury units, 11,000 square feet of retail. Looking to break ground this July and open the building October of 2017. The next page of the zoning map, which Teresa already went over and then tells you what we're trying to do here. We're not asking for any variance in any way, shape or form, and in fact, are going above and beyond the requirements of the current zoning, specifically offering 31 more parking spaces and the zoning code requires. Lastly, tremendous amount of community outreach, all the different RINO's, all the different stakeholders, individuals, an exhaustive amount of time working with them, making sure we understand what everyone's needs are and how we address that in our plans. Then there are some basic renderings on this that you guys can look at to give you an idea of the 15% open space and the quality. The one thing I want to end with before you please ask some questions is that in working with the neighborhood in all of our projects, I feel like that we have set a new standard and a new bar in terms of the quality of the projects we're doing. But the things that we're doing for the public without actually asking for something in return or trying to get something. And you know, our goal has been all along to set this new standard so that when people come in to develop in Cherry Creek, they can point to our project and say, hey, here's what you got to do here. Here what these guys did. And so, you know, overall, long term, Cherry Creek becomes the continues to be the wonderful place it is. So with that said, if anyone has any questions, please, please feel free. If not, we we would be honored to have your support.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Joplin. All right, that concludes our speakers. Time for questions. Councilman New, you're up.
Speaker 10: Just have a comment.
Speaker 3: Oh, well, we'll come to that.
Speaker 10: Yes, I'll hold it till later.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. Questions. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Can you bring us.
Speaker 5: Theresa, can you bring up slide five and then Marcus, can I ask you a question real quick? So in I am rehashing you already. You already explained this and it's been explained about three times, but you've split the zone districts from C, K and CC seven. So there's a distinct line in your zone district proposed. Why is that line there.
Speaker 2: That's actually reflective of the underlying plan that was designed in the plan to step down from the heights as it transitions.
Speaker 10: To Third Avenue.
Speaker 2: So we're honestly we're reflecting the zoning envelope.
Speaker 5: In our submission. So thank you for respecting the lines that are in those local area plans. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Well, Councilman Clark. Oh, no sweat away, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Oh, no, I'm okay, too.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Oh, okay. So, questions, council members, Brooks says. Okay. Councilman Lopez, you have a question now. Okay. Brooks, you're so good.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 3: You guys mess with me.
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 3: You're early for this. All right. See? No other questions. The public hearing, once we know, has not closed comments. Councilman, new.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I just. I was involved with the zoning of this property, and it was been approved for quite a while. And the previous owner had the opportunity to opt into this zoning without having to go to the expense that my job was having to go for. And they chose not to at that time. So this is not a new issue, has been well discussed in Cherry Creek for several years and we're just very fortunate and agile and took over. This property is going to be a fantastic building and and residential building. And if you've been over to Cherry Creek and seen the house here and you've seen the first steel apartments that Matt has built, you can tell what kind of quality construction we're going to have in development. So it's going to be a great showcase and I just really encourage it's going to be a real asset to Cherry Creek, and I just really encourage all my council member colleagues to vote for this place.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Interesting. So I'm going to say this because we have a huge audience here for marijuana. My presumption not for this rezoning or not to the next one, but there was a very specific reason why I asked the question that I did. And you're going to see me elaborate more on that in the in the next zone. And so I, I commend these developers for respecting neighborhood plans and small, small area plans in defining their rezoning request to align and match with those existing negotiated plans. Because public input went into those processes. And so I'm going to support this rezoning because it honors that history. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Any other comments? One 2939 Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 5: New Art.
Speaker 6: Ortega Sussman. Brooks. I Clark Espinosa. By Flynn. I Cashman. Hi. Can each Lopez.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 6: Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, please. Those are very nice results. 1212 ies 129 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right, next public hearing we have up is 130. Councilwoman Black, would you please put Council Bill 130 on the floor for final consideration and do pass?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 130 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: It has been moved. Council. We need a second moved and seconded. A public hearing for 130 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 12: Good evening, members of council. I'm Steve Nash. I I'm the neighborhood planning supervisor with community planning and development. This is a rezoning located at 3200 Walnut. The request is arisen reason from IMX 302 to CMCs five and Cmax three. The site is located in Council District nine, right in the center of Council District nine in the northeast part of Denver. Zooming down a bit to the neighborhood, scale is located in the Five Points neighborhood, but locally known as River North or Rhino. The site itself is a full city block from 32nd Street to 33rd Street between Larimer Street and Walnut Street. The site itself is within a half mile of the eighth and Blake Station, the platform itself. And I'll also add it's within a ten minute walk of that station. Those two things don't always line up. The property itself is 2.4 acres. There are several warehouses, industrial structures on the site. The property owner is requesting to rezone to facilitate mixed use redevelopment up to five stories. Again from IMX three to UO sorry from IMX 302265 CMA x three. The applicant specifically requested to remove the UO oh to billboard use overlay. The Urban Center neighborhood context is the C for the district right. It lives within that family. Mixed the mix means mixed use and then the five and three respectively are maximum heights allowed within those districts. The existing context, building, form and scale. As you can see from the map, there's a predominantly industrial or some mixed use properties to the to the northeast and including the site itself, to the northwest and including the site itself. As you move to the east and the south, you can see a change in the land use. You can see more residential, mostly facing Lawrence Street. And so that's that's better known as Curtis Park. We'll talk more about that in a bit. Also on this slide, you see some photos. The top one is of the existing site and then the one below it is the structure across the street, across Larimer. So all listed register neighborhood organizations were notified throughout the process. Two letters were received prior to the deadline for the staff report packet. The the letter of support is on behalf of the Rhino Art District. It is addressed to Todd Triggs with Camden. He's a part of the applicant team. The letter thanks the applicants for the ongoing conversation. There's this letter is in your package if you'd like to review it in more detail. The letter requesting a delay was received from a property owner across the street, across Latimer from the civic site. The letter is addressed to Denver City Council and Councilperson Raphael Espinosa. It states there was misinformation provided and safety concerns related to the five and three story high transmission. One is also included in your packet. There are two additional letters received after the packet deadline and I believe other speakers, the applicant will will talk through those letters . Notice of receipt of application was sent out to the listed hour and it was on the previous slide. On December 16th, 2015, planning board public hearing was noticed on the first and took place on the 17th. Signs were posted on the property. Those signs included a map of the proposed rezoning from C mixed oversee mixed three planning board recommended approval with a53 vote. There was quite a bit of deliberation around precedent setting and the line where this line takes place. Neighborhoods in planning that the line from 3 to 5. To clarify it rose in planning committee was noticed on the 23rd of February and the meeting took place on March 2nd. At that meeting, there was more discussion about the transition from the 3 to 5 and more discussion about a precedent being established. Notice was set for this City Council public hearing on March 31st. Notification signs were placed on the property, including the same map that was included on the sign for the planning board public hearing. And we are here tonight for the public hearing itself. The Denver zoning code review criteria. So there favor review criteria starting with consistency with adopted plans. The sorry, the four adopted plans that are applicable to this site are listed comp plan, blueprint 38 and Blake Stationery plan it up and 29 and then the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. Before going into this plans, I just want to remind everyone of the intent of an adopted plan that it is advisory, it provides guidance, it establishes a collective vision for the future. It provides that general guidance and strategies that tend to be a little more specific for future decisions. It depicts concepts illustrative across large areas like whole neighborhoods to support the text. We really look to the text of documents to provide guidance. Text supersedes the graphics. Graphics themselves are just there to support the text itself. Also plans allow for interpretation when making specific legal decisions for individual properties. Right. So they they're advisory. They provide guidance. Four decisions tonight. The decision tonight is legal. It is ordinance, it is zoning. It is law. So getting into play in 2000 campaign promotes infill development at sites where services and infrastructure are already in place for road map and permit will enable mixed use development at infill locations where these services and infrastructure are already provided and where transit oriented development investment is taking place. This Cemex three and C mixed five zone districts allow a variety of uses and allows for increased density appropriate for this infill site. The rezoning is consistent with plan 2000. For Blueprint. Denver, 22. This is a land use concept. It's all area of change. It's all mixed use. Mixed use calls for a sizable employment base as well as housing land uses mixed with the same within the same building development block or within walking distance. It is an area of change and as you all know, areas of change. The recommendation is to channel growth and development, whereas it is beneficial. So the rezoning is consistent with the blueprint Denver recommendations by allowing for mixed use the redevelopment at an appropriate transit oriented location, improving access to jobs, housing and services. Key defines the request to see max five and three consistent with these recommendations. Excuse me. The next slide is related to the future of three classifications within Blueprint Denver. Walnut Street is designated as a residential collector. Larimer Street is a mixed use arterial. 32nd Street and 33rd Street are both on designated locals extremism. Five zone districts proposed for the subject site are appropriate zoned districts for the mixed use and residential arterial and collector street classification through the allowance of higher intensity mixed use development coupled with the pedestrian oriented building form standards contemplated in the blueprint. Denver moving to the 38th in Blake Stationery Plan adopted in 2009. On the left, the the plan recommends mixed use employment concept plan use. And on the right there's a building heights map that recommends 1 to 3 stories along Walnut Street. This is the rezoning request to see mix three and five is consistent with these objectives through the allowance of compatible mixed use infill development that supports transit ridership. The proposed rezoning will allow for neighborhood serving amenities and requires a high, higher level of pedestrian friendly urban form than the current. I am x302 zoning. More details available in the staff report. The Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan adopted in 2011. The land use recommendation is for mixed use industrial. That's the concept land use which is fairly consistent with the 30th and Blake stationary plan. The building height recommendations. This is the text from the plan that we scrutinize. The three and five storey areas are located generally between 24th Street and 35th Street. Moving from south to north, Blake Street and Walnut Street, supporting five stories. Larimer supporting three stories to aid in the transition between Renault and Curtis Park. 55 feet of chemistry with the rest of the axiom at five allows for an average height pedestrian to not perceive the five stories from the opposite side of Larimer Street. The requested rezoning is simple x five and 7x3 with a depth of 55 feet along. Larimer Street is consistent with supporting five storeys along Walnut and supporting three stories along Larimer. To aid in the transition between Reno and Curtis Park. So here's here are the maps supporting that text. So the land use map is a mixed use industrial concept, land use. And then the building heights map is five stories, five stories along Walnut Street and three stories along Larimer Street. So again, the transition from 5 to 3 stories is generally depicted on the height map between Walnut Street and Larimer Street. Much of the discussion prior to the receipt of an application was where the line takes place. Where does this transition actually occur? The alley on the site was vacated in 1973 and ever since has operated as one large site in order to meet the intent of the plan direction. We went into more detail and a lot of discussion and we actually created some 3D models to assist in determining the best transition point. So here are the models that we created to help inform us. The top image is a height transition. We're looking south only over a height transition at 25 feet. So from going from CM x five and then to have 25 feet of Cemex three. Now, if you were standing on Larimer Street in the middle of the street, you would you would see the five stories. The the middle graphic is 55 feet of transition from CM x five down to CM X three. So you've seen three, four, 55 feet along the site. If you are on Larimer Street as a pedestrian, you would not perceive you would not see that five stories. And Larimer Larimer Street would seem as if it is supporting three stories, which is the direction of the town. If you go down to the bottom graphic, that is, if you were to place the transition at the center line of the alley and you would not perceive the the five stories until you are on the close to the alley between Larimer and Lawrence. So again, we use this to help interpret the plan language. Again, if supporting three stories on Larimer and five stories on Walnut. And again, the intent of the plan language is to provide guidance for decisions that will be made tonight. And we have to interpret that that plan guidance, which is why we use three models to assist us. So the Northeast Downtown Narrows plan also recommended a few other things. And these are building form recommendations. To cite the building in a context sensitive manner, with emphasis on orienting to the street, with parking and access in the rear of the alley. Promote the use of design elements that link the building directly to the street environment, such as ground slurry activation, transparent windows, openings and doorways at the street. The recommended building for and standards are better met through CMCs zone districts than the current IMX 3002 Zoning C cm zone districts require a build to they require transparency, require street level activation and prohibit surface parking between the building and primary inside streets. CVD finds the rezoning is consistent with adaptive plans. Seth also finds that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning would result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans to justifying circumstance. The the application reads that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or isn't changing to such a degree. That is in the public interest to encourage the redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changing character of the area itself. So adaptive plans recommend redevelopment and recognize that evolving character redevelopment in the area signals an evolution in the environs. Additionally, the University of Colorado, A-line and the 30th in Blake Station is opening in a week two weeks. The nearby National Western Center has long term plans and initial funding to reimagine itself at its current location. A preferred alternative for I-70 has been announced, and the FDA is providing more certainty for its location and configuration. And the Reno area continues to experience rapid transformation as the city's areas of change continue to grow. The next criterion consistency with neighborhood contexts, industry purpose and intent. The Urban Center Neighborhood Context calls for multi-unit, residential and mixed use commercial with moderate building heights, consistent building orientation, shallow setbacks with parking in the rear and high levels of multimodal access. The proposed rezoning will lead to development that is consistent with the neighborhood contexts. Description. And then my last slide, slide four criteria consistency with neighborhood context and district purpose and intent. SIMEX Zone districts promote safe, active and pedestrian skilled, diverse areas through building forms that activate the street edge, enhance the convenience, ease and enjoyment of transit, walking, shopping and public gathering. Cmax five applies to areas where intersections served primarily by collector or arterial streets, where a building sell one of five stories desired. Mix three applies to areas or intersections served primarily by local or collector streets, where a building scale of 1 to 3 stories is desired. The proposed rezoning is consistent with C-Max five C-Max series on district purpose and intent statements. So with CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria have been met. That's my staff report.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we have eight speakers for this. I'm going to call the first five and ask that you make your way up to the front pew that we opened up for you Todd Triggs, Jerrod Carlin, Bobby Long, Ryan Seeley and Josh Katz. So you five can make your way up and Todd Triggs, you can begin your remarks as soon as you make it up to the front.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Todd Triggs. I'm with Camden Property Trust 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2400 Houston, Texas. I've been with Camden 19 years and I have over like 20 plus years of development experience. Camden is a re traded on the New York Stock Exchange under CPT. The 23 year old company. We are long term holders of real estate. We've been in Denver since 1998. We have a handout that we gave you. If you could flip the page to, you'll see a map of the eight communities that we own in Denver with over 2600 units. And some of those properties on that list are properties that we built back in 1998, and we're still holders of. If you flip the page three. They project that we just completed and Broomfield Scott Camden Flatirons it's a 424 unit apartment community and that picture there kind of shows the detail that goes into our design. And if you flip the slide for that shows a project that we've been working on that's in another market is in California and the L.A. Arts District. We've been working on this one for over two years, and this kind of shows how we can go into an area and help design a project that's going to blend in within the community in relation to the Reno site. This site fell under two different height guidelines that conflicted with one another, one another. We met with the city on several occasions to clarify and try to resolve the building height differences. We also had meetings with the River North Arts District to get their input and are working with the city and the neighborhood group. We feel we are meeting the intent and honoring the comp plan with moving the five storey portion of the building back 55 feet off the Larimer. This is a unique site that consists of a completed block with an alleyway that's been vacated, which will allow us to do a mixed use project that'll help activate the street on all sides will be able to offer some boutique, boutique, retail, live work units and stoops. We feel we can design a building with sufficient parking that will not allow any spillover parking into the neighborhood and be able to wrap that parking garage with unit so no sides of the parking garage are exposed. Also two streets to the south of us at 30th. And Larimer, there's a block that's already zoned for all five storeys. And when redeveloped, we'll have five stories that front along Larimer. This is going to be a quality project because we are long term holders of our communities. We use higher grade finishes throughout the project, such as higher rated STC windows to help reduce sound. We use additional layers of acoustic mad to help with sound penetration from floor to floor. We use higher grade plumbing fixtures, fixtures, so we have less leaky faucets and toilets and our maintenance guys can spend more time to customer service and not having to make repairs. We also use a higher grade paint on the and we also use a lot of masonry on the exterior of our projects to give it a better look. And we also even put on a 30 year roof because we're going to be long term holders of it. Some of them. And these that we're looking to include in this project will be a sculpture garden along Larimer that will allow outdoor seating and some art pieces.
Speaker 3: Mr. Triggs. Your 3 minutes is up. Okay. Next.
Speaker 10: Appreciate your time and consideration.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Jared Carlin.
Speaker 12: Good evening, council members. My name is Jared Carlin with Norris Design 1101 Bannock Street in Denver. We're assisting Camden with the planning and landscape architecture for the project.
Speaker 2: Thank you very.
Speaker 12: Much for your time this evening. I'd like to go over our extensive public outreach that we've completed over the last 8 to 9 months. Slide five, which is the slide right here on the same packet that I was talking about. Our lines are the groups that we contacted. We spent significant time contacting all the registered neighborhood organizations within the area of the proposed development. We've met with each of them and talked with each of them individually. Based on feedback we received, it became apparent that we, if we had the River North Arts District support, that most of the neighborhood organizations would follow their lead. So we met extensively with River North over the next few months, in addition to following up with other neighborhood organizations in the area. Slide six The next page outlines that public outreach timeline going back to September River North's primary. Primary concerns were to ensure that the development fit in with the community. Thus, it needed to have strong architecture that is interesting and fits in historically and needed to add to the uniqueness of the River North neighborhood. It needed to have a mixture of uses with meaningful spaces, but most importantly, it needed to have a project that created active streetscapes. And the best part is we agree, and we're committed to all of those same things. And we worked with Rhino extensively to get them comfortable with what we want to do. We'll continue to work with Rhino and the other RINO's throughout the development process to ensure that development is something that the community in the city will be proud of. Slide seven is our letter of support from the River North Art District. We're very proud to get this. We're also pleased to be a part of a neighborhood where high quality development is demanded. On Slide eight shows some experts from the excerpts from the letter of support from Reno. Those, though, say, among other reasons, Reno's art district is very supportive for the fourth of the following elements that have been proposed as part of the development of the site. Some of those reasons are integration of multifamily apartments, live work units, retail gallery and flex space into your design to help activate the street and create a true mixed use development on the site. Provisions for meaningful retail space that are consistent with types of small routine retail boutiques, galleries, small food service establishments that are found throughout Reno because and it concludes with because of your commitment to build responsible development, the Reno art district is pleased to support Camden's request for zoning of the site. We're very proud to have their support. We've done extensive public outreach. Camden and our team are committed to creating a project that fits in well its historic, unique neighborhood and adds to the active street set streetscape scene. And to turn it over to Kephart now to go over the proposed 55 foot transmission line. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, sir. What was your name? Because next week we have as Bobby Long.
Speaker 5: Good evening.
Speaker 2: My name is Bobby Long with Copart Architects. We reside at 2555 Walnut Street in Denver, right in the heart of Reno. We are also assisting Camden with planning and the architecture for the project. Thank you very much for your time and consideration this evening. As a long time resident in Reno, Kephart has been at 26 and one at location for over eight years, with both an intimate knowledge and a vested interest in maintaining and enhancing the character of the Reno neighborhood. I'm going to start with Slide nine and talk a little bit of focus on the transition line and all the work that's gone into bringing us to the proposed 55 foot line. Discussions between the city planning staff, neighborhood representation and the development teams focused on how to best balance density with the preserving and enhancing the neighborhood character and pedestrian experience along Larimer Street. Conceptually, we worked hard to determine an appropriate setback for those portions of the proposed building over three stories so they would not be visible to pedestrian walking along Larimer Street. Based on a typical building height conforming to Cemex three zoning, a 55 foot setback would provide the necessary massing relief with the parapet line of the three storey portion, screening the fourth and fifth levels beyond. If we look to the screen to Slide ten, we provided a few graphics that help depict the differences between a couple of different scenarios with which to better illustrate that scenario. Slate slides ten and 11 depict what might be a ten foot.
Speaker 12: Setback along.
Speaker 2: To better indication of a five story building would appear along the street. Obviously, you're going to see a lot of it with slides ten and Slide 11 with the two stories floating well above that three storyline. Slide 12 shows the section through what we are proposing with the 55 foot setback, noting that the parapet line would conceal the fourth and fifth stories beyond. Slide 13 really starts to show that you don't see the building beyond. Finally with slides 13 or 14 and 15, we've shown it with the 125 or basically lining it with the and beyond. Please note that the impact along the streetscape is no different with the 55 foot setback or the greater 125 foot setback, which is marked in contrast to the lesser ten foot or ten or 15 foot setbacks that have been proposed before. Working with staff and the neighbors to better understand the intent of the area plan and effect of the massing. The 55 setback brings the balance of density and building height and setback, and most importantly, honors the intent of the neighborhood plan. Thank you for your time and consideration this evening. We're certainly available for any questions you may have.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Long. Ryan Seely.
Speaker 12: Good evening. My name is Ryan Seeley. I'm with Camden Property Trust. And we'll be reading two letters of support into the record today from business and property owners in Reno who were not available to attend but expressed support.
Speaker 0: For our rezoning request and.
Speaker 5: Wanted their voice to be heard. You have the two letters at the end of your packets that we handed out to you.
Speaker 12: This first letters from an adjacent property owner owns the entire length of 33rd Street across from our site. To whom it may concern. This letter is written in support of Camden Living.
Speaker 0: Zone Change to redevelop the property located between 32nd and third, Larimer and Walnut Street. I have redeveloped.
Speaker 12: And owned four properties in the neighborhood since 2007 and I'm excited to see the positive changes that are taking place due to new developments. Unsightly properties are being cleaned up, repurposed and providing new homes and venues for people to be a part of the Reno community. The streets are becoming safer. There's more light at night and sidewalks are slowly being repaired.
Speaker 0: Or, as is the case on Walnut Street, being built for the first time. I spoke with Todd Triggs about Camden's project and appreciate their efforts to activate the street level with commercial space while providing living spaces above and the fast growing.
Speaker 12: City of Denver. We need more high density mixed use developments.
Speaker 0: Matthew Palmer. Dry Ice Factory. 3300 Walnut.
Speaker 12: The second letter is also from a rhino business and property owner. Dear Denver City Council. I'm a resident of the Uptown Neighborhood and a business stakeholder in the.
Speaker 0: Rhino neighborhood of Denver.
Speaker 12: I live in an area that was once considered up and coming, and I currently work in an area that is now the.
Speaker 5: New up and coming.
Speaker 0: I write you today in regard to zoning for the Rhino neighborhood along Larimer and Walnut Street. Every neighborhood strives to be a better place to live and continually improve, but this needs to be balanced with retaining the special atmosphere that makes the area attractive for living and working as a city growing quickly. We need to provide residences for the massive number of people simply moving to our state. We need an infrastructure that can handle the current growth, but also the growth of the future with public transportation.
Speaker 12: And connectivity that succeeds.
Speaker 0: Uptown is balanced new construction and classic brick houses that lay on the side streets of Pennsylvanian pearl. Uptown House is great restaurants and unique retail, attracting people to the neighborhood and making it an appealing community. Smart design can be accomplished, but the future and the long term need to be considered.
Speaker 5: I ask.
Speaker 12: That you consider zoning.
Speaker 0: The Rhino neighborhood for at least five storey height, if not more. Being close to downtown and near a public light rail station, the rhino neighbor.
Speaker 12: Needs to be needs the smart housing of smart housing, offering greater density and attractive retail to make the.
Speaker 5: Community a great place to live.
Speaker 0: And work. Please consider my comments genuinely. As a native of Colorado and a resident Denver allow for development now that will make the area successful today and in the future. Aaron Fisher 4055 Walnut Street.
Speaker 3: Then you would see me. Next we have Josh Katz, and as Mr. Katz comes up, I'll call up the last three speakers. Ryan Arnold, Jamie Lynn, go. Laura Phelps, Rodgers. You can make your way up to the to the front pew and catch your remarks.
Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Josh Katz. I'm one of the owners of the site. I am. My family's been in the neighborhood.
Speaker 12: For a hundred years. I've been going down to the site my whole life, and.
Speaker 5: I've seen.
Speaker 12: Significant changes along the site throughout my life. In the past 15 years or so, after the redevelopment.
Speaker 5: Of the low income housing that's to the east of the site by the Curtis Park neighborhood, that was kind of the first thing that spurred.
Speaker 12: The recent changes. And then, as Councilman Brooks mentioned earlier, there's a station at 38th and. 38 and Blake, that's opening up just a week, two weeks from now.
Speaker 5: And that will significantly change.
Speaker 12: The neighborhood again. It already has been changing the neighborhood. There's already been a lot of new development and new projects in the neighborhood. And my second point is that we chose this buyer for a reason. They weren't our highest offer. We left money on the table. We chose them because we thought they would be good stewards of our property that we've owned for think since the forties or so fifties. And we felt like they understood the as we were interviewing them, we felt that they.
Speaker 5: Understood the challenges with the neighborhood and the upcoming changes with the neighborhood.
Speaker 12: We also felt that they would be a long term holder of our of their projects, which made us more comfortable that they would spend more effort and trying to make a.
Speaker 5: Project that was.
Speaker 12: Compatible with the neighborhood. We currently use the site is light industrial. We don't have sidewalks on areas of the site. It really is incompatible with the changes in the neighborhood. It doesn't really have street level activation. It doesn't have any of these things that this new project will accomplish and will help this site with. So in summary, there's been big changes in the neighborhood in the recent past, and we chose a buyer that seems like they'll be a good steward for our property. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Famous cats. Next we have Ryan Arnold.
Speaker 10: Thanks to the council members I am the business owner in the neighborhood, actually have office space two blocks from the site. I think it's also important to note that we own all of the property to the west of this proposed rezoning and the property to the south on 32nd Street. And we are fully in support of this reason for this site. I think it's important for city council to prove this reason to continue the growth and activation of the neighborhood. Increased height means increased density near a light rail station, which then means increased street activation.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located at 210 Saint Paul Street from PUD-G #1 to C-CCN7 and C-CCN-8 in Council District 10. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 210 Saint Paul Street from PUD-G #1 to C-CCN7 and C-CCN-8 in Council District 10. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-2-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04112016_16-0130
|
Speaker 10: And we are fully in support of this reason for this site. I think it's important for city council to prove this reason to continue the growth and activation of the neighborhood. Increased height means increased density near a light rail station, which then means increased street activation. And usually when you get this, you get better architecture and better materials and design when you have the increased height and density. One thing that was mentioned earlier that I think everyone should note is that this developer, Camden, is typically a long term holder, which means they put a lot more money into their products and a lot more care into how it's designed, how it's operated, and how it fits into the neighborhood. I don't think that is something.
Speaker 3: That should be taken lightly.
Speaker 10: Density within walking distance to a light rail station, as you all know, is very important. And I think we would be doing ourselves a disservice not to take advantage of that at this location with a great site and a great developer. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Jamie Lee, go.
Speaker 4: Good evening, City Council. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I'm Jamilah. I serve as the executive director of the Rhino Art District, the Rhino Business Improvement District and the Rhino General Improvement District. And we are also the registered neighborhood organization for the neighborhood rhino has been very involved in working with developers and as has already been mentioned tonight, we're seeing a tremendous influx. We're talking to developers on a daily basis about what's going on. And when we come across a developer like Camden who wants to sit down at the table with us and find out what's most important to the neighborhood, we are very responsive to having a conversation about how we make a development fit into the neighborhood that meets the needs of everybody involved. And that's exactly what's happened with Camden since last fall. They've been at the table. They've listened. They've responded every single time to our our requests of what's important to us. And I think every time we look at a development of a parcel, particularly in a neighborhood like Rhino, where it is literally being built out of the ground right now, at this moment, every single development, every single conversation requires thoughtful consideration. We've heard the word precedent. There was a lot of conversation about that in the zoning meeting. I think we as a neighborhood are taking each development on its merit, looking how it knits into the overall fabric of rhino. That's what's most important to the neighborhood. We've heard the neighborhood tell us that ground floor activation space for artists, affordable live work space, affordable places for for people to to build a life, having green space, having art space, having transparency on the storefronts are all very important, especially on our main arteries of Larimer and Walnut Street and Camden, as we've gone through the process of conversation over the last several months, has brought that to the table. Live work units that are affordable price for artists to keep them in the neighborhood, small space for for restaurants, for galleries and a design that really knits into the overall fabric. And as rhino as a whole as a neighborhood densify. And you know, we are having conversations led by Councilman Brooks right now about up zoning around the station. We are not seeing pushback on height. What we're seeing is a demand from the neighborhood that that transparency and activation and the ability to create a walkable neighborhood that's about people, that's about bikes, that doesn't require people to get in cars and go places is most important. And that's why we pushed Camden to really be thoughtful about that. And they've responded on every level. So from a neighborhood perspective and representing all the different voices, we are here to say we support what Camden is doing and we're we look forward to working with them for the long term as long term players and the rhino. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Laura Phelps Rogers.
Speaker 4: Hi, welcome. Thank you for having me. Speaker at city council, I agree with everything that everybody said, but I did come here to protest a portion of this proposal, which is the 55 steps, that 55 foot setback for the view, the sightline. I also presented you with a small packet. At the bottom of that packet are two photographs that were taken from 29th Street into a development. They show you what a five story would look look like from the center of the street, from a three story to a five story transition, and then Photoshopped in at approximately 55 to 60 feet is what you would see. So I own the property immediately across the street from this parcel on Larimer, there is a lovely historic building right across from me that's included in those images in the packet of you looking north and looking south, which shows that there really are no five storey buildings yet in this area . So not for a long ways to the south and not for a long ways to the north. So it will be an entire city block will be five stories right there. So as it is currently said, I do support this change from the different types of zoning. But what it does include is three stories literally on Larimer and five stories literally on Walnut. There is a dividing line of the alley for most properties. In this case, it's unusual because the back alley was vacated. So again, on my presentation, it sure sort of gives you the story of what I would see if I was standing in the middle of the street. And it's quite extreme. I mean, I lose all of the blue sky. So what really is at issue, though, is I had a conversation with this gentleman here, and I don't think that this is the time and the place to hear about it. But literally when the first sign was put up, I called this gentleman and asked him, Does this zone change comply with the existing zoning in terms of height? Three stories on Larimer, five stories on Walnut. He replied to me, Yes. And in part he was telling the truth. But there was. Information in that the intent of this group was to take come forward 75 feet, nearly 75 feet from the alley, changing what you see when you were either standing in the middle of the street, across the street or from anywhere else. So the only thing I object to is that the zoning be changed to allow that five storeys to come up to 55 feet on the Larimer side, that it be required to meet what the zoning requires at 125 feet. And one of the reasons I would like you to either consider that or postpone this decision is because of the misinformation that was received. So I haven't really had the time to prepare a grand presentation about why I think this is important. And it's, it's it's it's a difficult situation. I'm not the best editor, as you can probably tell, even from the stuff I send them. My eyes are not exactly 100% perfect, but I've tried so.
Speaker 3: Mr. Rogers, your 3 minutes is up now.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 3: That concludes our speakers. Now, time questions from members of Council Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: And so you guys and I'm sorry to my colleagues, but I've been waiting a long time for this one to come before council. And so bear with me. I've got questions for a lot of people. Let's start with CPD. So can you go to the Slide seven? Actually, you go to the planning board slide. And this sort of dovetails into my comments earlier. This was a split vote planning board. And planning board is far less political than this body up here. A lot more. Technical there's criteria that set their voting restrictions. The same criteria applies here. But our only obligation as council is to hear this request not to not necessarily to approve it. We're not mandated in that way. So. That said this was a split vote, five three. And when this was presented at plan, the slide set was considerably different, was it not? No, it was. Go to the slide review criteria.
Speaker 12: So. So there's one slight difference. And it's.
Speaker 5: It's that one.
Speaker 12: Slide so that there's one slide.
Speaker 5: So this slide was basically written based on the comments that I am going to be illustrating here tonight. It's really to circumvent the case that I am going to be making for a line in a plan having meaning. And so a lot was spoken here about the the advisory nature of these plans. But you do have a slide here. And bear with me again. You showed the 2009 plan that clearly marks. It is Slide 16 that clearly shows that in 2009, this property was bisected by a line in a small area plan and that the higher the defined area was 1 to 3 stories. Two slides later, slide 18, we get to this site and now two years later, this site is still bisected by that line. But we've now changed and through a public process, three stories define half of that site in five stories the other side of that site in. And so there is a split vote on planning board because of this. And you spoke to it in his comments, in his briefing about this line and the meaning of this line. So going back to the slide that was added, it was all about the the the the language days basically taking priority. But we as a people don't necessarily we know what we're drawing and these have meanings. So now to an actual question. Where is that? You mentioned that on when you were doing that slide that was added that there was actually was the next one after you mentioned that there was language about the average height of a pedestrian in the neighborhood plan. Is that correct?
Speaker 12: This the slide?
Speaker 5: No, it was the one after the review criteria slide that was added. It wasn't you mentioned it, but it's not stated in the language that's on the slide. So I just wanted to confirm that that language, in fact, exists in the applicable plan.
Speaker 12: So do you want the language from the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan?
Speaker 5: Does it say that it references the view from an average height person in the right away?
Speaker 12: Are you referencing this slide? The northeast, downtown neighborhoods swing.
Speaker 5: I don't know. Just say it there.
Speaker 12: Okay. So I see. I see.
Speaker 5: It. Is this slide? Yes.
Speaker 12: So you're asking me if an average high pedestrian use and specifically.
Speaker 5: Stated that in the plan, it said that you're basing it on a you had a reference height of the average height person.
Speaker 12: Right. So that gets to the interpretation of the plan.
Speaker 5: The interpretation. So that language does not exist in the plan?
Speaker 12: I don't think it does. I mean, I could do a word search on average height pedestrian, but that again, it gets to the the fact that a plan is providing guidance and advisory. And we have to say.
Speaker 5: You just added criteria, did you not, about the average height person. Like, why is that the average wise person and not the person on the second floor of a adjacent property or the third floor adjacent mx3.
Speaker 12: Right. Because there is a lot of language in the plan that talks about street level activation and the pedestrian experience and urban design from the from the street level. All right. There's a whole lot of language about that. And so as a pedestrian walking down the street, we found that the the plan thought that that was very important. Okay. We look to the average height pedestrian to see what, you know, where five storeys would be perceived.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then maybe the architect would answer this better. Yeah. So could we get Bobby from Capehart? And I am asking you because you specifically mentioned the concern about the pedestrian on the street. So if that was the concern, why doesn't the 55 foot step back, turn the corner on 32nd and third?
Speaker 2: Because the high transmission is specifically limited to Larimer and not necessarily the pedestrian connections on 32nd and third. As far as the three story limitation.
Speaker 5: So we're only concerned about because you drew some some renderings here that show to show the egregious ness of a ten foot setback, which is which is pretty substantial. Correct. But what you're saying is that's only a concern on Larimer, even though the better part mean a significant chunk of this is well beyond this this this dividing line that we were just discussing. Does not that does that line not speak to the intent of where three story was appropriate or not? And couldn't you have turned the corner so that at least that larger 55 foot setback basically applied visually from the street, as CPD talked about.
Speaker 2: Only in the sense that all the conversations revolved around and all the language, as I understand it, from the neighborhood code or the neighborhood comp plan. Talk about the transition at one. Not necessarily on any of the connecting streets going backwards. So it's really about the pedestrian experience along Larimer. And necessarily. 32nd, 33rd.
Speaker 5: CPD. Could you bring up slide seven? So yes, this property had its alley vacated. And my concern will be later on as far as precedent and what sort of precedent this set. And I think there's some assurance that, no, this won't set a precedent because of the difference between this site and the adjacent properties. So this slide right here shows that both adjacent properties to the north and to the south actually still have their existing alley intact. So the defined characteristic if we if we. Is that those. I'm pretty sure but maybe I'm wrong CPD or I don't see those adjacent parcels getting the same dividing line and that the character of the those properties to the north and to the south along Walnut or along Larimer would maintain a three storey around that, you know. And so is our concern truly just Larimer Street or is it a three story built environment versus our five story built environment perimeter?
Speaker 12: I guess I don't understand the question. I mean, we looked at the plan. The plan says three stories on Larimer Street.
Speaker 5: So then this would, in fact, be acceptable on either on in either area, north or south, for the same reason, because the concern is only Larimer.
Speaker 12: So are you are you talking about other properties?
Speaker 5: Well, if our concern is only Larimer Street in the appearance of three stories, so either property to the South don't have they only have frontage on Larimer. I mean, they also have the frontage on 32nd and third as well. So is it acceptable on those two properties to define this, their their subsequent rezoning on either of those two parcels with the same 55 foot setback? Because the concern is only Larimer.
Speaker 12: So, you know, I'm not in a position to opine on a rezoning.
Speaker 5: Well, how would this criteria be different for those two adjacent properties?
Speaker 12: Well, it's a different property to start with.
Speaker 5: Is Larimer not? Do they not front Larimer.
Speaker 12: It would, yeah. Fronts Larimer. But again, it's a different property owner. It's a.
Speaker 5: So how does that affect the zoning and the physical things that you look at at CPD?
Speaker 12: So so let me let me answer your first question. Let me just try to get the.
Speaker 5: K I just trying to figure out how Larimer differs between 33rd and 34th and how it differs from 32nd to 31st than it does from 33rd to 32nd.
Speaker 12: So Larimer Street itself, the street isn't different. It's the land on the street, right? It's the ownership, it's the block configuration, it's the alley configuration, it's the existing zoning. It is a whole host of other things that have to be considered when when looking at a rezoning application. So again, I'm not in a position to opine on some other property. Should that property come forward with a rezoning application, I would likely be in front of you giving a presentation. But again, I'm not in a position to opine on some other property. Okay.
Speaker 5: So now my next questions are pretty brief. Todd Triggs with Camden. How many units would be lost if the line were moved from third to Mid-Block? Essentially the center line of the alley.
Speaker 10: You'd probably lose about 30 units.
Speaker 5: 30 units. How many of these did the community inquire about? Affordable. I heard mention of affordable live work. What percent army will those units hit?
Speaker 10: It is not anything to do with a percent of gross, am I? It's that when we develop live work units, they are typically larger in size. So if you rent a unit for 600 to 600 square feet, it would be priced about, say, $2.30 a square foot. Once you get a unit that is a live work unit that's 1400 to 800 square feet, all you really gain is additional space. You're not getting additional bedroom, bathroom, other things. So the price for that unit gets priced a lot lower than what a typical apartment would be.
Speaker 5: Okay, so it wouldn't be at 230 a square foot for that unit. How many of those units.
Speaker 10: In the dollar 75 range or something like that? So it's it's a significant.
Speaker 5: Difference in how many of those units do you plan at this point?
Speaker 10: We are still in the process of trying to figure that out. Once we get our zoning squared away, we'll be able to determine how much retail, where it lays out the live work units where they're at. You know, we'd like to do probably ten, 9 to 10 units, something like that. But.
Speaker 5: And then how many how many affordable units that region am I? 100 or 60 or 80%. Ami, will you have in this project?
Speaker 10: No, everything's. It's a market rate project. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Josh Katz from the owners. Were you approached by any non-profits or land trusts for this land? Because it's it was a bid process and we got around 20 offers. No nonprofits? No. Nothing of the sort. So how just a sampling of how egregious were those other proposals that this one stood out? There was about six that were in the same dollar range. Mm hmm. More or less. Then below that, they dropped off significantly.
Speaker 12: Another 14 numbers might not be exact, but it's on that magnitude. And then we had.
Speaker 5: One offer that was higher than Camden. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Ryan Seeley. Just a quick question. You forgot to provide your address.
Speaker 12: I'm also based out of Houston, Texas, at 11 Greenway, Suite 2400.
Speaker 5: So you're part of the development team, is that right? Yes, sir. Thank you. Ryan Legato or Jamie. Like, sorry. Like, oh, sorry. So you mentioned affordable. What is affordable mean to you?
Speaker 4: So in talking with candidates that Todd mentioned, they noted that it's about a dollar 75, a square foot for some of these units. And the way that they were looking to design them is two stories potentially with their garage door on the main floor, live above, work below, be able to open your garage door and sort of be open for a first Friday type environment. Obviously, as we look at Artspace throughout Reno, you know, we just had the binder on Blake, just put in 13 artist studios there at $2 a square foot. And, you know, they all they all sold out. That's sort of kind of the threshold, I think, of paying for kind of artists. This is a work live space. So that was just for actual workspace, that $2 a square foot those people have to pay to live someplace else. So when you can combine your work live space at somewhere around a dollar 75, a square foot, you're in the affordable range for kind of the creative sector to be able to actually make a living out of those spaces. When you put in things like the garage doors where they can actually have people come in to their space on a first Friday or something like that, you're kind of opening up a new realm of possibility for how we keep artists in the neighborhood as.
Speaker 5: They discussed lease provisions. Because I have lived work in a development that I pushed for the same thing. But the leases don't. They don't. They don't. They don't support that. Do you have actual guarantees that these will only be leased to people that will operate a business out of them?
Speaker 4: Very good question is the question I asked Camden when they came forward with those opportunities, because I said, what types of users are what is the process by which you select users for this? And they said generally it's a first come, first serve basis. And so what I put out there was would you be willing to enter into a partnership with the Bid Park District, so forth, where we could help fill those spaces for you? Because we are right now in the process of collecting information about artists who need space, what their requirements are, you know, what they're looking for. And we're beginning to pair those artists already with developers who are building space. So we'd like to do the same for Camden and basically come to them with here's a list of 20 artists that are interested or ready to pay or looking for the space. Will you give them preference? And Camden said they would be thrilled to work with us on that. We've seen other bids do it really well so we can take a model from someplace else. And that's something we're not just working on with Camden while we're working on with all of our property owners.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then last one. You mentioned design. So what assurances do you have that they'll memorialize these requests?
Speaker 4: You know, we the letters. So there was a letter after our series of meetings that we've gone through with them. And we have seen the conceptual change over time. And I think the last conceptual we saw was probably in January or February at our last meeting where they incorporated a lot of our requests. At that time we said, okay, great. We, you know, we've sort of gotten to a place where we're comfortable with this. They put that in writing to us. We in turn, and our letter that is in your packet wrote saying we support this on kind of these conditions. So we can't, you know, obviously we can't tie them to do anything, but we're hopeful. And given the fact they've put quite a bit of energy into working with the neighborhood thus far and responding to us, we're obviously very hopeful that, you know, they're good on their word and they carry through and we'll be there, you know , vocally supporting them if they do and causing a ruckus if if they they don't do.
Speaker 5: You do know that once this happens, this is a use by right development and no ruckus in the world really changes that if they don't follow through with their plan.
Speaker 4: Sure. Absolutely. We get that. But you know what we're seeing? We've seen we have some incredible developers doing tremendous things on their own. And right now and we have some developers doing really not great stuff who are who have done really not great stuff. And even on some of those developments where the neighborhood was, you know, didn't have an opportunity to participate in a discussion about some of that, we are now going back and it's pretty incredible. I think the tide has turned in right now where people see if you're not kind of in on the partnership thing with the neighborhood and kind of supporting the neighborhood character they are trying to work back in. So we're seeing developers that maybe didn't put in ground floor activation that are trying to see how they can turn a unit or two into a gallery space or a flex space or how we can mural that first floor to tie it into the fabric of the neighborhood better, you know, and working in every angle we can. So we can only do as much as we can do. We are working on efforts to do design guidelines and design overlay and exploring all that, and we are hopeful we can get that done. And we use some of the things that were important to us from those discussions in talking to Camden. So we're hopeful that in time we will have more of a lever to be able. To, you know, persuade or, you know, have developers sort of conform to the character. But in the short term, where we're doing the best we can to create a partnership with people as development happens so intensely fast.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman, I know that Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Hey. All right. Since we had a whole 17 minutes of questions on the line, I just want to get our legal opinion around that. So, Mr. Lucero. So this is an interesting issue that has come up a couple of times. And I think it's important for, I think council to know I think it's important for the public to know when we draw lines within our planning documents, what kind of legal requirement are does the city have does the city council have to stay within those lines? Thank you, Councilman Brooks. And good evening. Members of Council Nathan Lucero, assistant city attorney and. Again, when.
Speaker 12: You're reviewing a rezoning application.
Speaker 5: The criteria is whether or.
Speaker 9: Not.
Speaker 5: The request is consistent.
Speaker 12: With city adopted plans. And so consistency is is something less.
Speaker 5: Than conformance or compliance. So.
Speaker 12: The lines that are that you see sort of drawn on a piece of paper are really just there as guidance. And again, as.
Speaker 5: Mr. Daley explained.
Speaker 12: The real crux is in the intent of that.
Speaker 5: Plan and what that means to city.
Speaker 12: Council and whether or not the application, again.
Speaker 5: Is consistent with the intent of the of the city adopted plan. Okay. So legally in making in our criteria, it's it's we are not held to that a legal standard that if we're not on the line in this particular rezoning, we are out of terms and in the legal requirement.
Speaker 12: So just to be clear, the line that's drawn in the plan is, is, again, just just guidance.
Speaker 5: And it's not regulatory and it's not prescriptive. Okay. On that line of questioning, Stephen, Ali. For neighbors who are listening. Because, you know, I think it's important that it be clear for folks and that that's the thing I want to be transmitted tonight, that it's clear. Is there an opportunity for or have you seen an opportunity? I feel like I'm doing five plans right now. And we do talk about a lot of lines. Very rarely do we put those lines into the words of the plan. Right. The the the content of the plan. And so is there an opportunity to maybe back up those lines or how can there be some assurance for neighbors? Right.
Speaker 12: So as you know, we are going through CPD is leading an effort to amend the plans around the 38th Blake Station area. And that could I could look like a change to a map. It could look like more clarity in the text as to the goals to the intent of that language itself. There are different ways to present building heights in a plan. For example, the Cherry Creek Area plan shows a gradient and it really leaves the interpretation open and does really rely on the intent and the language. And so there are a couple of ways to change the map through a conversation with the community. Leave the map alone, provide more clarity in the text to provide that guidance.
Speaker 5: The gradient is is where you think CPD is moving towards?
Speaker 12: Well, I mean, CPD likes to get guidance from the community. And so I think, you know, the gradient has worked, but there was a lot of discussion. Yeah. Into Krieg about what the gradient really means. Think so? You know, we have a toolbox.
Speaker 5: Great. Couple of quick questions from the developer owner's rep. Did you guys get a chance to talk to I know we have Rhino, which is you know, it's it's part of five points, but it's the new brand of five points and very little residents in the specific area of Rhino right now. Did you guys get a chance to talk to Curtis Park?
Speaker 10: Yes, we did meet with Curtis Part. His name was Su Glassmaker.
Speaker 5: Yes. And and we all know SU because SU is the lead, what I would call architect for us when we're looking at design on Welton. So did she give you a thumbs up or down or just kind of stay neutral? Because I didn't see a letter from her?
Speaker 10: No. When we met with her, we met her on site. We walked the site with her and, you know, talked about our development and what we proposed to do and the zoning that we were going after. And she said that she recommended that we get with the Rhino Group, meet with them, and depending on whichever way they were leaning to go, they would probably follow their, you know.
Speaker 5: Okay, that's great. Yeah. Jimi? Yeah, please.
Speaker 4: Sorry. I just wanted to jump in at Curtis Park did reach out to us, and they did express to us that they would follow our lead on this one and that they would not oppose that they would remain either, you know, just neutral or, you know, they opted not not to write a letter of support, but they said they would follow us. Great.
Speaker 5: Thank you. One more question around this topic. So we did talk about affordable housing and our typical definition of affordable is some sort of subsidized housing that hits different army levels. Rhino definitely needs affordable housing and that's a part of the 30th and Blake revisioning a station area plan so we're looking at wondering if you'd be open to meeting with the Office of Economic Development and looking at some of those units to make sure they hit those affordable levels.
Speaker 10: You know something we'd have we need more time to consider that. I mean, right now, it's hard for me to say because I don't know what those rents are based on our pricing, but the seller of what.
Speaker 5: We're buying the land at.
Speaker 10: That wasn't taken into consideration at that time. So, I mean, that's not a whole new, you know, line of negotiations with everybody.
Speaker 5: I think so. But you we will talk about it and have a meeting to discuss them.
Speaker 10: I think if it fell within our what we're in our pro forma numbers that we've already kind of, you know, considered we would I don't know. Do you know what those numbers are, what the rents are or.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, we can get down into the details of what the performer is. I'm not asking about that. I'm asking would you be willing to to meet to talk about me?
Speaker 10: I'm always willing to meet. All right. I just I can't commit.
Speaker 5: Thank you. And then the last quick question is I'm sorry, I forgot your name. Yeah, Laura. I just wanted one. Who's. Who's Councilman Garcia.
Speaker 4: You know, when.
Speaker 3: He's Mr. Right? Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers. I need to come up to the microphone.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, Councilman Brooks. I haven't had the opportunity to meet you. And I was very active in the Upper Larimer Neighborhood Association, and I did sort of part ways in terms of my interest in the organization, because initially when it was founded, the primary focus appeared to me to be more on the Brighton corridor. Yeah. And even still that's where the offices are. And there's a great deal of change as everyone has seen on the bright corridor. So historically, if you sort of look at some of the architecture I presented in my portfolio that I presented to you my packet, there's a drastic difference between the bright corridor and Blake Walnut and Larimer, which are an industrial neighborhood that was mixed with existing. Excuse me, ma'am. Architecture.
Speaker 5: I was just asking. I mean, I hear that and I appreciate that. I was just asking, do you know who Councilman Garcia is?
Speaker 4: I do not. Okay at this time. When I looked up District one, that's who actually says. And so I didn't have the opportunity to direct. Got it.
Speaker 5: And I know that's okay. I just wanted to make sure that you knew who your councilperson was and that Councilman Garcia served the time back.
Speaker 4: I do appreciate it. And thank you for the extra moment. Just.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 3: All right. There we go. 30 minutes of questions. Any other questions on 139? Public hearing is now closed. Comments. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a this is an interesting, you know, zoning proposal. Obviously, there are some some issues. I got a chance to talk to Joel Noble, who actually lives in Curtis Park neighborhood and is on planning board and voted against this because of his interpretation that potentially the plan might be misleading. And I certainly appreciate that and certainly appreciate the other conversations that I've had with other council folks and folks in the community about what kind of precedent that this will begin to set for others in the community. Again, I will be supporting this, and one of the reasons that I will be supporting this is because I don't believe in overprescribing our plan documents for several reasons. But it does require more conversation when stable neighborhoods are looking for, they're looking for assurance. And so what does that mean and how do we provide that from community planning and development? I don't think assurance is being overprescribed and requiring that our plans be a letter of law. Couple of things that this group did that that I really appreciate. Number one, there's no neighborhood group tougher, more rigorous than Curtis Park. And they went to them first, which is great. Curtis Park is a neighborhood that is not. They do. I wouldn't say that they're not pro-development. They have $300 million of redevelopment coming on Welton in a joint effort. And so for them to be supportive and take on two rhinos is one thing. Rhino Design Group met with this group and it is a let's just say I wouldn't say a snobbish group. I'd say that in the best way possible. But they care about Rhino because they want to live there for the next hundred years. And they met with this group and they scrutinize this group. And I really appreciate that because I think what greater rigor comes a great project. So I will be supporting this. Here's the the kicker in all of this. Plans are constantly changing, especially when they're in the urban core. We just finished our plan and global area Swansea and around this station of 3838 area station area plan we're amending it and it's only been a year. And so the environment is changing so quickly that we're trying to catch up with the very fluid nature of this area. So I'll be supporting this and I appreciate all the work from all parties and even folks who are coming to speak in opposition. And I think we'll get a good project. I hope that we can continue talking about affordable spaces for artists, because if we don't do that, we will lose the spirit of this neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Several things there. Councilman Brooks is right. Curtis Park is is among the toughest. So I think I don't I'm not comfortable putting words in their mouth and saying that they support it because there's no representative of Curtis Park. That said, so one thing they are very good about is communicating that in writing and particularly their support and the fact that that's not here. I read something into that, actually bonuses. So we have bonuses, density bonuses and other things that sort of are trying to spur certain needs of the city written into our zoning code. But the problem is, is they're not adopted or utilized. And the reason is, is because our base zoning is not restrictive enough. There's no incentive to take those incentives. And so that's where. The rest of my comments go because I understand completely that we are not bound by the lines drawn in the code. But the intent of the plan supports the line as it as it was drawn and it was shown. But I do understand that it can be moved. But when we arbitrarily move a line that has been vetted not just by the community, but supported by pass council, we should have more assurances in place to in place to support the increase in development potential that we're granting. You heard it here tonight. 30 additional market rate units are going to be captured by that line, moving just from the alley to this new point. And, you know, there is no shortage of 100% market rate rental projects in this city. What there is a shortage of is affordable housing. And so when we're moving lines, we shouldn't be doing it arbitrarily. There should be an ask there should be an ask of this city to say, look, we have needs. We're granting you additional considerable development rates because building these two floors and I'm a licensed architect, Vint here done that development is not new to me. The going those extra two floors is some of the cheapest development that you can do because you've already put the ground, the work in the foundation. You've already built that ground floor retail and and so now just repeating the same thing that you've done layer after layer cheap. So that's not a hard ask, but we don't ask it and we should. So, you know, the so that is the extent we have a line. It's been drawn twice. I think the intent of the code, the code as written supports that demarcation. I also think that it matters what third, the experience of 33rd and 32nd are like. If we're going to do this and we're going to honor that intent, that step back should actually wrap so that any place that side of the alley towards Larimer would have the same experience as if it were three storey mean zone district. So I will not be supporting this arbitrary move of this line. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman there.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I have great high regard for my colleagues and their comments. I also have the highest regard for Jayme Loco and what she's doing in Rayna Jaymes helping nursing Golden Triangle as redevelopment, an incredible urban environment there and develop lives. And. And when I hear her say she's going to be after these guys to build a quality development, they better watch out. I know what she's doing and go to trial cracking the whip. And so I feel very confident that Rhino's going to be the one of the premier places. It's going to be a really cool place to live and work and play, and so I feel real good about what's going to happen. I surely respect Rafael's comments. We've had this common conversation about lines and and architectural viewpoints on plans, and so we've got some good points to discuss further about support this project. And I really appreciate what's going to happen and a.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman there, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Very quickly, I didn't know who the developer was till I got here tonight, but there is a Camden development in my district at the Bellevue Light rail station. It's really great. The architecture is very attractive. The scale is just right for the area. The landscaping is great. They take really good care of it. So I just wanted to say a few nice words about them.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa, you back up?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. You for reminding me. Yeah, there aren't any assurances. As hard as you're going to work to make sure that this project follows through. There aren't. Once we grant this use by. Right. That said, the development teams here, the ownership group is here. What I heard in testimony here is that you've made commitments. My expectation is that you follow through that these are going to be rented to artists, that that street is going to be activated and that you're going to make good on making affordable opportunities. That because that is crucial to that area right now. And so, Jamie, is it. If you're not getting the traction, call me. I'm going to I'll be in there. Thanks.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman. Okay.
Speaker 8: Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. I was having a site conversation over here. I wanted to express my support for this application a number of years ago. This was part of my council district. And this has been a neighborhood in transition for quite some time. As you all know, where we have our light rail stations, and this one is very close by. We're seeing a lot of a lot of changes in these neighborhoods. And as you drive up and down Blake Street, you drive up and down Market Street, you are seeing many, many different new projects. This is on the other side of the tracks from the Blake, the Brighton Boulevard corridor, where we're seeing drastic changes to the neighborhood with very high density development, which under blueprint, Denver was proposed as a new growth area. And so this is in line with that. I appreciate the work that the developer has done with the neighborhood. Knowing the Curtis Park neighborhood as as I do and have worked with them for many years. If they did not support this, they would be out here in force tonight and they are not. And that speaks volumes because they they are not shy in expressing how they feel about anything that's happening within their neighborhood. So I think this will be a good project for the area. And I just wanted to lend my support.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments? 130. Scene one. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Brooks Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Oh, Flynn.
Speaker 10: Hi.
Speaker 6: Cashman. I can eat. I Lopez. I knew Ortega Susman. My black.
Speaker 4: Eye.
Speaker 6: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. Because we've only announced the results.
Speaker 6: 11 eyes, one knee, 11 eyes.
Speaker 3: One day. 130 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. Moving on to our last public hearing of the night, 264. Councilwoman Black, will you please move to have comfortable 264 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 264 be ordered published.
Speaker 3: It has been moved. And second, walk up the one hour courtesy public hearing for council bill 264 is now open. Audience and Council Members, please be aware that we do have an interpreter who is interpreting simultaneously from English or Spanish. During tonight's hearings, audience members may be able to faintly hear the interpretation, and we ask for your indulgence to process. Any testimony in Spanish will also be said in English to ensure that those present and watching at home will be able to understand the comments. Thank you. All right. We are first going to start with an overview, but just a reminder, as people are coming in and transitioning out, I will ask that we keep the comments in the chambers quiet so that we can hear the speakers, as well as our reminder that we are not allowed to have people standing on the back. So if you are here to watch and you are not going to speak, we do have 391 open and available for you to watch as well. So for those standing in the back, I'm going to ask that you would please find a seat if there is one not available. I need you to go to 391 and this front pew right here, sir, we're going to have the speakers come up there. So we're I need you to leave that open. Thank you, sir. So, once again, for those the back, please find a seat if you are able Councilwoman Kenny or David Broadway. We need the overview.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to all of you for your patience getting to this hearing. I want to thank and speak on behalf of my co-sponsors tonight, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Black. And to all of my colleagues, my name may be one of the sponsors on this bill, but every person that I've talked to, frankly , has helped to shape this bill. I also want to thank David Broadwell, who has not had a weekend off in more weeks than any of us want to admit, as he has been working with this council. So we are here today just to make sure that everyone's on the same page, because we had a regulatory environment that expired. We had a list of people who could apply for licenses and a list of people who could not apply for licenses. And that expired on December 31st. So that was an intentional move by the prior council to make sure we had this conversation. Right. That's what a sunset is. It says we need to check back and talk about this. And so that is what we are doing is we are fulfilling that responsibility. I want to summarize the features of the bill before you tonight to 64 NS new medical centers and new medical cultivation licenses. I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega. Those provisions were inspired by her desire to say no to some classes of new licenses. This bill caps the existing number of locations for all growers and stores. Whether they are med, whether they are recreational. There is a set cap. It includes a numerical cap, actual numbers in the ordinance. And I thank Councilman Espinosa for that recommendation. But should the number of actual licenses in effect, the day this bill passes be lower than that? Then the caps will be lowered accordingly. So the bill includes caps that are a maximum third. This bill includes a very aggressive buffer zone for growth, and that buffer zone is around residential zoned areas, whether there is a home or not. If the area is zoned residential, the thousand foot buffer applies and it also includes a 1000 foot buffer from schools. Councilman Herndon, thank you for your inspiration for the residential buffer and councilman knew was very important to him to have the school piece number four because we have an incentive to move away from medical marijuana towards recreational or retail because we have greater controls as a city over retail, because you can buy smaller amounts because it does not serve minors. We are allowing in this bill new licenses for retail at existing locations. So that is an important way to allow that migration to occur. Without that provision, the world would be stuck in the medical realm with all of the concerns that exist on that side. And so this bill allows existing locations to add recreational or retail. Five. If and when the number of stores or cultivation drops below the caps for each of those categories once a year, the department is directed to hold a lottery to issue any potential new locations. There are very high prequalification standards to enter that lottery higher than are required to apply for a license. Right now you have to have a very clean record if you're a prior operator. And so those those lotteries only occur if the number of locations drop below the cap and then you are pre-qualified and you meet all of the licensing requirements, then you may enter the lottery.
Speaker 4: Six.
Speaker 9: The bill between committee and today added a new incentive for that lottery so that there would be more entries for those who were from non concentrated areas, areas with fewer stores or areas with fewer cultivation centers. That language is likely to be stricken by an amendment that I intend to support tonight from Councilwoman Gilmore. So I'm not going to go into a lot of detail, but I flag it because it is new. It was not in the committee version. It was it came from feedback that we got at committee and after committee. But it may it may go away through an amendment number seven. The bill allows pending applications to proceed following the longstanding practice that this city has had of applying rules going forward and not changing the rules going backwards. So it allows pending applications to go through for council members. I do have a new handout that I just got this afternoon. I'm going to pass it around or if the secretary might assist me. It covers all of the pending applications in the thousand foot buffer zones and where they are at with their building permits so that you can see what types of building permits have already been issued. So, Madam Secretary, if you would, please pass those out. Number eight, this bill does not make any changes to manufacturing facilities or to testing facilities, so they are not addressed specifically in this bill. Now, I think it's critical to understand that this bill does not exist in a vacuum. There are other pieces of the statute that remain in effect and that apply, and there are other powers the city has. So really quickly, I just want to summarize things that are not in this bill but are important to understand it. First, there are existing limitations on stores, and there are also needs and desires hearings that have been used by neighborhoods very successfully to either kill liquor applications in the past or to get them to agree to community standards such as hours of operation and how to be a good neighbor. So that tool needs and desires and those distance requirements already exist in existing law. That's why they are not in this bill. They already exist too. Tomorrow, the City Council Committee on Safety and Health, chaired by Councilman New, will be hearing an odor ordinance that requires significant improvements for those stores or I'm sorry, for those facilities that have not invested in carbon scrubbers and other proven technology. That odor ordinance will be considered in committee tomorrow and then will work its way, hopefully through this council. But it is an important piece to consider about a request folks have had that's not in this bill but is moving forward on a separate track. Third, the city of Denver has budgetary powers. Many folks have asked whether this bill could include a special tax to tax marijuana businesses to improve communities. It can't without a vote of the people. They've asked about impact fees. It can't unless those impacts are directly related to marijuana. It can't be used an impact fee, can't be used to fix sidewalks or lighting or things that are not the problem caused by marijuana. But we as a city do have very powerful budgetary authority. And that is why on Friday, April 29th, when this Council convenes in our budget hearings to help to shape the mayor's proposed budget, I will be suggesting that we create a new marijuana community improvement fund that is existing to take tax dollars already flowing into the city through either the base tax on marijuana or through the special tax that's just on the retail side. Both are taxed at the base level. Retail has an extra tax to take those some dollars and set them aside for the top most concentrated neighborhoods and to allow those neighborhoods to participate directly in the allocation of that budget dollars through a participatory budgeting process. Denver has never before used to participatory budgeting where the citizens directly engage in how to spend dollars. This is our opportunity, and I believe it is an effective way to get at the concerns that folks have raised about whether or not this bill or whether or not marijuana dollars can be used to improve their communities. So with this overall package of an odor ordinance, a community improvement fund that uses existing dollars through council ordinance authority, write a separate ordinance. And then this bill, we are taking significant steps towards protecting communities, balancing some basic fairness for businesses and really maintaining a high standard that if you are going to do marijuana business in the city, you will come to the city for a license and we will set the standards rather than fueling a secondary market where businesses alone get to choose who enters and who doesn't. With those introductory comments summarizing the bill. I will now thank everyone for coming and I look forward to hearing your feedback in the hearing. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Committee. So for those that are unfamiliar with our one hour courtesy of public hearings, let me give you a brief overview. The. The clock starts from the first speaker and it goes continuously for 60 minutes. We have 52 speakers. So just by math, you understand that not everyone is going to get the opportunity to speak. And I do apologize for that. The way that we choose the speakers are when you filled out a speaker card, you noted you were there for against their neutral. Once you noted how you are the staff, not council members, then that the staff goes in order shooting cards randomly by support, oppose and neutral. So council members will have the opportunity to hear from everyone who has varying opinions and each person has the right to take up the entire 3 minutes. If you had the opportunity to get your minutes in your comments in 2 minutes, I'm sure the 21st speaker or the 22nd speaker would greatly appreciate that. So as my role as Council President to continuing to move people through so that we can hear as many people as possible, I do ask when I call your names, you come up to this front pew. So we have the opportunity to hear as many people as possible. So that is the procedure when it comes to the public comments. If any speaker is speaking in Spanish and requires translation, I will add an additional 3 minutes at the end for the translation. So that is one opportunity. Should we have to require any translation for that? It is implicit and it is anticipated tonight that council members will be offering amendments. It's my understanding three council members will be offering amendments. What we will do now is I will call on each of those individual council members, if they could briefly in council members, I will say briefly talk about their amendments so that all the speakers that have the opportunity to come up and speak can speak to the bill as well as any amendment that a council member maybe bring forward afterwards. So I will first start with Councilman Clarke. It is my understanding that you have an amendment, and I would ask Councilman Clarke if you could just briefly talk about what your amendment will be. We will have a more robust conversation later on. But just so for the speakers can speak to yours or any other amendments that are coming forward.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm actually presenting amendment on behalf of Councilwoman Gilmore, who is not here tonight. So I'll read her statement from again, Councilwoman Gilmore colleagues, I'm currently out of town at an airport conference. I send you my regards and thank Councilman Clark for reading my amendment tonight on with this statement. I'm proud of the robust dialog that we have engaged in over the past months. I've come to understand that there are very complex issues around marijuana from our neighborhood schools, regulations, the industry, law enforcement, the state. The list goes on. The one issue that has become very clear to me is that there are neighborhoods in Denver that for many different reasons have an undue concentration of cultivation sites and stores. This includes my own neighborhood of Montebello. I'm sharing with you an amendment to S.B. 16 to 64 that will remove the top five neighborhoods with. Undue concentration in cultivation sites and stores from the 2017 lottery per David Broadwell and I agree that the terms saturation or oversaturation that have been used are subjective and difficult to define. The term undue concentration is used in this amendment, which makes it completely objective by having the director simply calculate the top five statistical neighborhoods where the most licenses exist for cultivation sites and stores. As of last week, the top five statistical neighborhoods for cultivation sites were Elyria, Swansea, Northeast Park, Hill, Overland, Montebello and Valverde. The top five statistical neighborhoods for stores are Overland, Elyria, Swansea, a five points Northeast Park, Hill and Valverde. The above listed statistical neighborhoods will be excluded from the 2017 lottery. I hope that you will consider this amendment to address the issue of undue concentration in our neighborhoods. She also shares that she'll be available via phone or email if you have questions and that she'll be watching council proceedings tonight. Hi, Councilwoman. And she looks forward to public comment and the discussion. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Perfect. All right. My understanding is, Councilwoman Ortega, you also have amendments to offer. So I would ask if you could briefly discuss your amendments for the for the viewing pleasure and for the speakers.
Speaker 8: Great. And I will do them in the order that I would propose to introduce them. So the first one is would basically be addressing pending licenses that have not yet been approved by May 1st for both marijuana sales as well as cultivation licenses. This amendment would prohibit approval of such such licenses in certain statistical neighborhoods. And we've got 12 of them that have been identified. And I can read through those that already have a high number of marijuana businesses. Furthermore, the pending applications for the cultivation licenses. This amendment will require denial of the applications for locations that do not meet the new requirements for setbacks. And this is clear. These are for setbacks from schools and residential zones, and that the distinction between this one and the one that you just heard is these would be for any application that's pending as of May 1st, 2016 . This does not include the testing labs or the medically infused product locations. So that's the first one? No. The second one. Essentially would cap the license by license category and over time, it would essentially ratchet down the overall cap. So if you look at the numbers of applications that we have pending as of today and the total number of applications that we have seen, we are if the pending go through, we are at over 1300 licenses. Now, Councilwoman, a contentious bill focuses on locations. But I think to have the conversation without looking at the number of licenses that we have in the city is I think it's a misstep to not look at the number of licenses at the same time that we are addressing the amount of locations, because in some cases, there may be one location that has a number of licenses. So that's what the second one would do. It would essentially ratchet down the number by license category over time. And then the third one. And these wouldn't necessarily all be introduced. For example, if the first one passed, we would not need this third one. And this one essentially would propose a similar cap on sales locations and cultivation locations looking at the same statistical neighborhood as the first one. The distinct difference is this one would apply after the pending have been approved, and then the very last one would be an amendment that would require notification of neighborhoods that are in the I.A. and I.B. Zone districts for all license types. Currently, the IEEE and I.B. are the only zone districts where the neighborhoods are not notified, and this would ensure that neighbors in those communities have an opportunity to know about the applications. So in a nutshell, that's what they do. I can go into greater detail after we get into comments. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for your comments on those four possible amendments, I believe, Councilman Lopez, did you have amendments to offer?
Speaker 2: Yes, I do. I have two amendments. Thank you, Mr. President. And this is just on on the on the reasoning that, although are. Although we have a very robust regulation, we have a very robust environment. We are regulating the industry and we're doing it very well here in Denver. There are two amendments that I'm as we look at this bill, there are two amendments I would make. The first is in speaks to the concentration of marijuana centers in both medical and retail in our city that are concentrated in certain neighborhoods. And, you know, when we go into comments and later, we'll talk a little bit about and we all know in the room what neighborhoods those are. You've heard from them. There are a lot of them. So it would basically prevent the further issuance of any new licenses, both for medical marijuana and retail, as well as the changeover in these in these communities. It's Oberlin. Hilarious. Swansea of Five Points. Northeast Park Hill. Valverde. Baker. Sunnyside. Globeville. Montebello. Cap Hill College View Platte Park Civic Center Cole Hampden. Lincoln Park Park Lama, Rosedale, Ruby Hill and Speer. These are the the top 13 and those are going to cherry pick. At first we looked at it looking at areas where we know there was some, but we decided to go with what is legally defendable. The second speaks to cultivation, and that's the second opinion I'm bringing forward to, and it prevents the further issuance of any new licenses for marijuana cultivation in these certain named statistical neighborhoods. That's hilarious. Swansea. Oberlin. Northeast Park. Yale. Montebello. Valverde. College View. Lincoln Park. La Ma. Sunnyside Baker. Ashmore Park. Five Points. Globeville and Sun Valley. Essentially that's what those two amendments are.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez, and thank you to my colleagues for briefly announcing their amendments. Let me first ask, are there any council members that had other amendments they wanted to bring forward? Seven is enough. All right. Thank you. So we're going to start to list our speakers. And just to remind people, the reasoning for these random drawings is based off support, opposition or neutrality. Based on how you noted on your cards, please come to the front pew one hour time once the first speaker begins and I apologize in advance for any names I mispronounced. So first five speakers we have up and the first one is Hard Reader, Catholic, Miki Zeppelin, Gregory Wright, Lyndsey Gillis and Brendan Moyers. So those five, please make your way up to the front pew. I wanted to delay all five of them here. If we don't have some, then we'll get to some more. So, Rita, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 4: Dear Members of the Council, thank you for opportunity to speak. As you hear from my accent, I'm an immigrant, an immigrant from Ukraine. I came to this country 25 years ago and I started from McDonald's. Done some learning, done some studies, done some hard work, and feeling like I was succeeding in this country pretty good. Up to the last minute. So I to you know, when they start hearing those things so help me out, please. I also you know, I feel that the reason for my success that this country is based on integrity and this country based on honesty and this country based on the handshake, believe, if you go back to Russia and Ukraine, they wouldn't even believe our banking system. They wouldn't understand why people just not go and steal the money. They have the ability to do that, but they're not doing that. I had this handshake. The city of Denver in November opening OPEC in AMC. I followed all the rules. I'm an A student. If they say do something, I'm doing that. I had my card signed. ABC emcee called Signed already and I'm ready for licenses. I just found out that I cannot get the licenses because they put hearing on that. There wasn't supposed to be. They're just found out today. So that delays the process, which is already killing me. I have people working, getting everything ready. I have employees who is getting store ready to open and just spent so much money on that you can't believe. And I have a lease that binds me for for at least five years and I have to pay out of this lease. I recently had to stop my computer programing career to do this. So I just can't go back home and tell my family this is what's happening. And the implication sounds very, very innocent when you think in the application and it's pending. But no, in order to put that application, you have to sign you have to sign the lease with the landlord. And then, you know, from where you want the business, that lease is usually huge. And then you have to spend lots of money to invest for the grow. I build it, we build it all the past, those inspections. I just got my seasonal card signed and city went all the way helping me out to get things signed so quickly so we can open quickly. And I just can't go home and tell my family that this is what's happening. I have a partner. He has three kids. He has to put them to college and not to be for the rest of his life. Now, on the lease and bills on you know, this is just I understand that city may be deciding to change the rules and not to take any more applications. I wouldn't.
Speaker 3: Please, greta. Ma'am. Your 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 4: Appreciate your.
Speaker 3: Help. Thank you. And could you say your cities have resident? Do you live at your Denver resident? What city do you live in?
Speaker 4: I live in Greenwood Village in. I have properties in that property. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next, we have Mickey Zeppelin.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Members of Council. I live at 350, which is in Globeville. And the history of Globeville is one from the city standpoint of really shame. I think for the last hundred years Globeville has been really abused. The original highway came through, Globeville through when President Eisenhower did it. We've had smelters. We've had the sewer plant. Any undesirable use seems to end up in Globeville, and the benefits don't manage to get there. We have the worst air that we're schools, the worst health. And we also got marijuana and we got an abundance of it. And I think people felt really powerless in terms of protesting. I think New Hope came when we adopted the neighborhood plan. People felt somewhat empowered and there was a sense of hope. And people really gathered together. And when it appeared that there was going to even be more marijuana in there in the area which had disastrous effects , the roads are terrible. The whole environment is bad. And from my standpoint as a developer, there's really not much incentive to go along with what is in the plan to create community, to make things happen. From the community standpoint, I think they're looking at this not just as are we going to have more marijuana, but it's in essence the hope of that community of saying we're finally being listened to. The number of people here who came out who would.
Speaker 5: Never have come before to a.
Speaker 10: Hearing like this is amazing. And it's gratifying to see after 15 years that finally people have risen up and said, enough is enough, we want some benefits and not all the burdens. So I.
Speaker 5: Ask you.
Speaker 10: To provide that there be no more marijuana in the Globeville area. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mrs. Kaplan. Gregory Wright.
Speaker 10: I thank you for letting me speak. I'm a business owner. I have a manufacturers of refuse product licensing and located on 3936 West Colfax on January the 26 of 2015. A Denver zoning representative came in with a fireman to present me with a new law and to say a state that I had six days to cease and desist operations that I was no longer allowed to operate in a Nomex three zone. And I had to relocate. There was nothing I could do. Speaking to attorneys around the city and all, they said, you know, in any other business, in any other industry, we would be able to go and. Bring our case before the city as business takings. But with marijuana. Seems like no judge is going to be able to listen to any lawsuits and basically says, you know, take it outside and box it out on the grass. Gentlemen, we're not going to listen to you. So I've been hurt very badly by the city over the last year. I've had no income and I have licenses that I have paid for. As you know, these licenses are very costly. I have probably lost over $100,000 in the last 14 months supporting this business and trying to find a new location that suitable and approved by Denver zoning. I understand the plight of everybody that is is in the rears right now and waiting to get licensed. I went through the pain and still am going through it. I support Representative Canisius amendment and feel that this industry is overregulated. I've followed the rules from day one. Did everything right. Never fudged from it. We have a system called metric which tracks everything we do. My system was clean from beginning to end. Yet the city chose to come in. Knocked me off the plate and say. Try again. A lot of money lost. Thank you for listening to me.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. Next, we have Lindsay. Lindsay Gillis. Lindsey and Lee. Okay. Next, we have Brennan Moyers.
Speaker 8: Some of these folks may be downstairs that need to come up.
Speaker 3: Okay. We are going to I'm going to say the next five, Brant Beckman, Brooke Gehring, Holliday Aguilar, Lisa Salmon, CORERA and Brian Keegan. So if you five are in the room or in 391, I ask that you will please come up. Brant Beckman You can go ahead and begin your remarks.
Speaker 12: Hello there, city council. My name is Brant Beckman.
Speaker 10: I'm a resident.
Speaker 12: In Golden, Colorado, but also a property owner at Logan Street in the Globeville area. I guess we have a MIPS license, a medical MIPS license. And I guess I want to thank you, because it looks like at this point we will be able to get our recreational license. So I appreciate the fact that it does look that way from the deeper part of my heart, though, I do feel sad about what's happening to the medical community pushing things in that direction. And I also feel that we are a little bit on the overregulated side, and I think that the system, the way it is, can regulate it as is. I do hear the hearts of the community and some of the things that have been done in the communities. I think there's great things that you guys are doing at this point to make that better for the communities. And I guess just want to say thank you for hearing us all and I'll give time to the next speaker. So thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Beckman. Next, Brooke. Gary.
Speaker 4: Thank you, counsel. My name is Brooke Garing and I am a resident of District Six. I am a business owner for six and a half years in districts three, seven, eight. And I'm also a property owner in District eight. Some of my comments have already been made this evening. So I'd like Kristy Kelly, Vice Chair of the Marijuana Industry Group, to be able to speak for me tonight. Thank you, counsel, and thank you, Brooke. Christie Kelly, I reside in district one. I own multiple.
Speaker 3: Businesses. I'm sorry. I apologize. I was talking to the council secretary. You can't defer your time. So that was your time. That that is your time. You can't another person can't come up and take the remainder of your time. I apologize for that.
Speaker 4: Okay. I just didn't want to be. Okay.
Speaker 3: So apologize now. You can't have you speak for another person. We're we need to go to the next to the next speaker unless you want to continue your time.
Speaker 9: We're good.
Speaker 3: We get. All right. Thank you. Next, we have Holly Aguilar. And Madam Secretary, this will require translation. So could you do a total of 6 minutes for the speaker?
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 4: You see, when I said this and you're discussing numbers, Holliday. Aguilar, good afternoon. Good evening. Councilmembers. My name is Holliday. Aguilar. See you then. Go deal with scenario. This one's here. I come from the Swanson neighborhood. Babies are important to animals. I've lived there for 15 years. You're a member of the communities who needs the help of your Ilaria swans here. And I am a member of a community that is Sunni. That's from Globeville area in Swansea. I mean, I know some of the limit. And Imean, that gay pride, they must defend us in Bernardo Delas Villas areas stands out to us. And we are in favor in favor of the amendment that would prohibit more stores and cultivation centers in the areas that are already been that are already saturated, not good mosques acting licentious because dumping the enters in our community, we do not want you to accept the licenses that are pending in our community. Okay. But is it mutual? As you said, isn't the cornerstone, even though I'm glad of this, that they maintain important a mutual basis Pedro but is it cannot not and is Cucolo? I believe many of you know me. I have come to speak on this subject many, many times, but it seems like you might not have listened. Can I moschino's? Is Guccione in action? We want you to hear us and to take action in journalism. But these are mutual. There is a lot impact to this industry in our community that we have repeated many times what the impacts of this industry have on our community. Listen. But these are the mutual models loss impact those peripatetic you say this boom in tourism we have repeated these impacts to you, but it seems like maybe you're not interested in them. No, not anti portal status since they must represent them. And as personas can be hurting, we do not feel represented represented by you. We feel like you represent those that invest best. So I can represent an anecdote. Rose Caramels giving on ABC. Tara, whose Comunidad is Nuestra Comunidad. We asked you, we ask you to start representing us. We want you to come and visit your communities, our community. Get em all to a boil as he considers Buscaglia nosotros. But I started on the stand. We're asking you, asking for your support. Just like you ask for our support to be where you're at at this moment. Muchas gracias. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next, we have Lisa Samoa's career.
Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Lisa Simos. Korea and I live on Capitol Hill and I do have an MBA degree. And and that will explain my short statement.
Speaker 11: Anti-competitive practices.
Speaker 4: Are government.
Speaker 11: Practices.
Speaker 4: That prevent or reduce competition in the market. And since I have 3 minutes, I'm going to repeat that. Anti-competitive practices. Our government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. And I do mean this with all due respect. I ask each of you to be careful what you wish for by throwing up entries entry barriers. I am concerned that the ensuing protectionism will give companies insulation from competitive forces that would ultimately benefit the consumers that you are trying to protect. And I made a little note, a quote from Councilman Brooks Brooks a little earlier that he doesn't believe in overprescribing. And I hope the rest of you will consider that as well. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next, we have Brian Keegan. And as Brian. And before Brian Keegan begins his remarks, I'm gonna call the next five speakers Nicola Voulu and Elizabeth. Kristy Kelly. Martha Flores. And Flown Beth Beckman.
Speaker 12: Gareth DAVIES Good evening, President and members of Council. My name is Brian Keegan. I am here today as a marijuana industry professional. But more importantly, I'm here as a concerned citizen of District eight and the state of Colorado moratorium is coming to an end, as we all know. And we must decide how to move forward. I believe Councilwoman Kinesis proposal, is that correct? Way forward. Some of the proposed amendments, however, do go too far. And as we have chosen to speak with you today. My fear is that there are some anti-marijuana groups and influential people, some of them in this room that are using this topic and this time in history as another referendum on marijuana. The voters have spoken. As we all know. It is time for a sensible regulation like Councilwoman Kansas proposed that provides jobs and tax revenue for the city. I ask you to vote for a councilman, finish his proposal this this fine evening and urge you to vote against the proposals for one reason. I just don't believe that you guys have had enough time to hash it out, no pun intended. And and I don't think a lot of people in this room have really had time to digest those amendments as well. I think we've all had time to digest the the the bill at hand. But the amendments, they they definitely need some work. And I think we all need to sit down and go over them. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Nick Lovullo.
Speaker 0: Let me go below. Although I'm a resident of five points, just a neighbor. We wouldn't be here today if you all did what you should have done and just let the moratorium fizzle out. Should it just that have been it at two years booming industry marijuana crime down to next to nothing 0.03% of all crime in Denver . Millions of dollars in tax revenue. Well regulated. We win. The reward is that we get a ban on businesses. Weight of the 11th hour to reinstate the moratorium. Deliberate for five months on an issue that's several standard deviations away from what people care about. Now, you know, the priorities are just backwards. No new medical dispensaries. Zero. This is the first piece of legislation that I've ever read, ever in Denver, Colorado, that prioritizes casual consumerism over people who use marijuana as medicine. Zero. His Campaign for Patients Rights First. Until now. You guys have got to put your names all over this, Bill. Fewer people are getting red cards. So are you going to shut off the valve? There's zero forever. There's no sunset on this bill. There's no sunset. We don't get to talk about this again in two years and have the same conversation all over again. There's some gold medal, mental gymnastics going on that would lead you to believe that that's something that Coloradans would support. I don't know. You said something that this is does not capture test licenses. I wasn't sure. But, yeah, like banning, you know, restricting all these licenses. It's really reefer madness. It's a leap from common sense ability. Some of your council reps want to eliminate the pending applications in certain neighborhoods, my old councilman included. I understand that there is an undue concentration which is just as subjective as saturation. That word undue. Anyway, another 11th hour decision to pull people's licenses away from them. You know, even though the city processed all those applications, now, you know, where were you when those came in? Where were you when those licenses came in? Did you ever go to an excise and licenses, hearing, protest, something with your community? I don't think you did. That's the process that was supposed to go through, not tear the rug out from everybody and open the city up to potentially millions of dollars in civil liability claims. That's reckless. That's reckless. You're lucky you have elected office because you work anywhere else. You open that company, your organization, up to that level of liability. You're gone yesterday. So don't punish our entrepreneurs who follow the process because you failed to organize your communities earlier on, many months ago at a license hearing. Don't let businesses you know, businesses, investors have no recourse but to sue the city for their losses. You'll be the ones stamping those settlement checks and we'll be the ones paying for them. So you spent five months on this proposal. Sad to say, it's terrible. It's antithetical to Denver's normal dealing with local businesses, especially if you take away the licenses. It's anti-coal. Colorado's priority of treatment of the boulder.
Speaker 3: This is a little loose. Your 3 minutes are up, sir. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Next we have. Next we have an Elizabeth and that is and you are certainly have a right to clap. But all that does is possibly prevent future people from speaking. So I would ask if we could keep the clapping down so we can get through all the speakers. Miss Elizabeth, you're up.
Speaker 11: Thank you. And Elizabeth Global resident and I have a little studio there now. Thank you to the repurposing of a building. I'm here to support this bill, if amended by the combined amendments proposed by council members Ortega, Lopez.
Speaker 0: And Gilmore such.
Speaker 11: That no new marijuana business licenses of any type will be granted in the areas determined to be neighborhoods of undue concentration by the council and consensus, and that that the threshold be the top ten neighborhoods. We have 78 statistical neighborhoods in Denver that the marijuana licenses that as marijuana licenses may.
Speaker 0: Leave Globeville Leery.
Speaker 11: And Swansea in particular through attrition over time that reduced concentrations be enforced through licensing application freezes in these neighborhoods until Globeville, Larry, Swansea in particular move out of the top 18 concentration ranking that the total investment to the marijuana license applications pending firms be assessed in the global Elyria Swansea neighborhoods, and that the city offer recovery and incentives for the relocation of these pending applications from global area Swansea to other neighborhoods in Denver with new sites and that that no more that I'm going to derivate from my notes to respond. A couple of things here real quick. Number one, I'm a strong supporter of medical marijuana. I voted against Proposition 64 because I didn't think Denver was ready to administer this based on its experiences with excise, licensing and other matters matters. I did participate fully in the beginning from within the neighborhoods, in attending licensing hearings, in the facilities coming into the neighborhoods, trying to help the commercial firms recognize the impacts on the neighborhoods that were happening. I think that even though many marijuana business and I'm very glad that in the state legislature, the conversation around administering, giving parents the right to bring medical marijuana treatment to the school is available, still being.
Speaker 0: Considered possibly available.
Speaker 11: For children. I'm I support that strongly. But the hedonistic recreational use of marijuana, even though it is being used, even though the firms do.
Speaker 0: Often do.
Speaker 11: Adhere to the to the letter of the law and follow regulations. I don't think that courtesies have been in place throughout this.
Speaker 0: Are people such as myself that have wanted regulation. This is a different type.
Speaker 11: Of of of change socially and environmentally. And these it's not anecdotal or subjective. When you walk down the street and you smell the marijuana and you experience it in the daily lives, it's a it's a critical thing. We need the right regulation. If we have a lottery, I want the the concentrated areas to be removed. It is not unfriendly to business to ask for these these.
Speaker 0: Neighborhoods like Loveland, Larry Swanson, that want to support a diversification of business, a vital economy in emergence into a whole new.
Speaker 11: Culture along the corridor of opportunity. Be relieved of the pressure of this flood. Talk about storm water.
Speaker 0: We need to work with this this.
Speaker 3: Elizabeth.
Speaker 11: And we need.
Speaker 3: To this Elizabeth, maybe 3 minutes is very much. Thank you. Next we have Christie Kelly.
Speaker 4: Good evening again. Thank you. Council, President and Council. I'm Christy Kelly. I reside in District one and I own multiple businesses in District three. I am also vice chair of Marijuana Industry Group. I am co-founder of Accountability, which is a nonprofit for families dealing with very sick children who require cannabis medicine to help with their serious conditions . I am founding board member of the Fourth Corner Credit Union and co-owner of a business that employs over 50 Denver residents and has been in operation since oh nine and I believe in the efficacy of medical cannabis. Last week I heard hear from residents that they're upset about cannabis businesses in their communities. And this was shocking to me because conversely, my own experience has been different. 40 to 50 of my own neighborhood neighbors and District three thanked us for moving in, installing security and essentially eradicating the illicit drug dealing in the shared alley behind our cultivation facility. Which was in Councilman Lopez's district. My business has a directive to prioritize diversity economic, racial, sexual, religious and academic. Every one of my employees loves the city of Denver and believe that responsible businesses should thrive and coexist within the communities that we operate. And that's why it's really critical to allow pending applicants for business, for businesses that have gone through or are going through the rigorous application process right now. You have to acquire a zone, construct permit and then install security into these facilities. Often vacant buildings. This is an investment that requires millions of dollars. Then in the last couple of years, the evolving landscape added on to that rigor by with with an evolving fire, public safety, environmental, health regulation and regulatory framework. And that just adds to the investment pool. My sense is, wouldn't this be exactly the kinds of businesses that you would want to co-exist inside of your communities? The ones who are happily, willingly finding additional resources to happily comply with the evolving regulatory landscape. Don't you want well-resourced businesses who feel a sense of responsibility to the cities that they live in and the regulatory environments that we're putting forth? This should be exactly what we want in our communities, people who are willing to do whatever it takes to be compliant. Why punish them for following the rules on the 1000 square foot residential buffer issue? It's my understanding that the goal is to avoid saturation inside of communities and support the diversification of businesses. The challenge in this is that in the event of eminent domain and.
Speaker 3: Misskelley, I apologize to you, 3 minutes are.
Speaker 4: Up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, counsel.
Speaker 3: Next, we have Martha Flores.
Speaker 6: Excuse me.
Speaker 3: And this will require translation. So, Madam Secretary, we could do 6 minutes and before my floor. As you start, I'm going to call the next five names from that Beckman, Mike Wolfe, Carl Cheney, Little John, Jennifer Schuman and John Menzies. So if you five can make your way up my floors, you mean you can even begin your remarks.
Speaker 4: When I start? This may number as much as he possessed. Okay, come on. My already familiar Berlusconi, that is. Good evening. My name is Marta Flores, and I am here as a mother supporting our communities as farmers.
Speaker 11: Support and the estamos. I have all I mean.
Speaker 4: The private amnesty industry in bear Madero Salazar described as counsel to riders. We are in favor of the amendment that prohibits more stores in more cultivation centers in the already saturated areas. No caramels as a concept and a license. Yes. Because stamping the interest in a company that is we do not want you to accept the licenses that are pending in our communities.
Speaker 11: So my story preoccupied Upper Mexico's Justo.
Speaker 4: Lucha, the Nelson Plateau, Salvador Comida and in La mesa. I am a mother. And right now my concern is to make sure that my children have healthy food at the table, in my own pocket at recess. And they will come on as a community that says that in London, the contents of the marijuana eat and the smaller salad is a planter's. And I'm saddened to see the way our community is saturated by these marijuana stores in these cultivation areas. Your main work at this at this if you had an appropriate and familiar for measure that comes to me high school and then marijuana this to say better less quail and also odors. And I'm here speaking on a personally speaking because my son was involved in marijuana and he wasn't able to attend school reporting for medical marijuana and allowed us to prevail. He was. And because of marijuana and unfamiliar person for a person because of marijuana, he does not have his freedom. And I would hate for other families to go through what I go through. When it's done. Yes, that is it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Flores. Next, we have fun with Beckman.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name's Flaubert Beckmann. My address is 5060 Logan. Zip 81 six Globeville Neighborhood. Thank you for listening. The voice of the community. We all know this important. We know we all know that that is what form society. And we all like to be part of society. And thank you again for listening in the concert. So the cannabis business owners and your web page from the Office of the Economic and Development say you start your business, say let's stock this, come from your website about businesses. So that's what we're doing. We're talking and we're really appreciate that as a community that you're listening or concerns that you're questioning, that you're questioning signs that you're questioning the public services, but that then we has a obligation to educate your community, to educate your families. And I am asking for your help because as a community in the cannabis businesses, I think everybody we want people to be really well educated. We don't want children. We don't want families to be destroyed. So let's back. And because you are here making history by changing the lesson, Colorado, I want to thank you for the opportunity or for the privilege to hopefully acquire a recreational license for my medical infuse business. And as a company, we continuously aim to be part of a community where can all lead sustainable. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about how Denver can provide to businesses like the cannabis businesses and sustainable farm, a sustainable base that we can thrive. We can be all party and we can all be happy. So again, thank you. And let's talk about that, the sustainability of businesses. What is the carbon carbon footprint of each business? You know, they talk about some businesses. They has five licenses in that business. Let's talk about sustainability. Do you rather has five different buildings or you rather has businesses? They are small businesses in one location. So let's talk about that. And again, thank you for everything. And I just want a better Denver. It was something that I didn't ask to be, but all the businesses, somehow we ended up being in Denver and now we need to deal with. So let's be smart. Let's try to take good choices. Thank you again.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Miss Beckman. Next, we have Mike Wolfe and we are just over 30 minutes.
Speaker 0: All right. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Mike Wolfe. I work at ten, five, five five East 45th Avenue, Denver 8239. I'm testifying in support of councilwoman clinches marijuana bill and against any of the amendments. I'm 30 years older. I graduated with honors from Illinois State University with a degree in horticulture shortly after I moved to Colorado in 2010. I recently left my job as a production grower at one of the largest wholesale bedding plant growers in Colorado. At this greenhouse, I was exposed to extremely harmful chemicals on a daily basis. As of this past year, I was required to spray organophosphates. For those of you who are not aware, gain of phosphates accumulate in your body over time, they never leave. So if you are exposed to these at all, there is a good chance that you will have complications later in life. Organophosphate poisoning can greatly affect the nervous system. I also had very little excuse me, practically no room for advancement in my previous position. I was incredibly excited to accept a position as a lead grower with an extremely well-known cannabis company with a pending application. This company is about a month away from receiving its certificate of occupancy for a beautiful state of the art facility. The facility is located more than 1000 feet away from any residential area or school. I am I am so excited to work in cannabis because it allows me to use my degree and do the work that I love without putting my body and health at risk from harmful chemicals. This is also a much better paying job for me, which is great because I have student loans and I have a mortgage that I need to pay. Started training a few weeks ago. I was of initially I was a little hesitant to jump into the cannabis industry. But after careful consideration and research, I know that this is a company that is committed to doing things the right way and they are already training me in compliance. If the pending applications are denied, I will definitely lose my job. I honestly do not know what I will do. My bills are pretty high. I cannot afford to go without work. Please do the right thing and allow the pending applications to proceed. It is not just the owners who will be devastated. If these are denied, I'll lose the best job I've ever had.
Speaker 12: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Next we. Have Caro Cheney little John. And I would just remind our speakers if you could say your name and cities of residence and your home address if you are comfortable.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Carl Cheney, Little John and I am here representing the community of Mandela. I truly believe that on behalf of the children and my community of 24 years, that business owners understand.
Speaker 8: Can you lift your microphone up just a little bit?
Speaker 0: Feelings and of our community, the investments and the business plans that they have for my fellow, you know, everybody took a risk doing that. The. There could have been a consideration to these owners that you could look within a 30 mile radius of Denver to invest, and it would have been cheaper with the ordinances as far as Denver is concerned. After attending the. Agendas that you had here for city council. The assistant attorney advised the counsel of their right to support the marijuana industry. Council took into consideration children in the children and the communities. But they did not take the advice. The best advice of the assistant attorney, which was to. Stop. Let the business owners know that a stake has occurred. The city chooses to put forth a frivolous mask on pending applications to sacrifice our children and our communities to pass this ordinance. Is truly not fair to the communities and to the children. Coming to a meeting. I listened to Commish say that she has a six year old daughter. Our six year old. Something. But. In our community. I've been there for 24 years and I've been coaching. I volunteer for the community in everything. I have no I have no qualms with. The businesses that are there. But we have five schools within. A thousand foot of saturated community already, which you're going to install more. Businesses and it's not fair to our community. A lot of people aren't here to protect their sales, but I just want counsel to know that there will be consequences to pay for this. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thanks a little, John. Next, we have Jennifer Schumann.
Speaker 8: Hi. I'm Jennifer SHUKMAN. I live in District one.
Speaker 4: Councilman Espinosa is my representative. I'm a stay at home mom to two small boys. They're six and.
Speaker 8: Seven.
Speaker 4: And I don't personally use marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, what have you. But I see the value that these businesses bring to our city right in tax dollars.
Speaker 8: In renovating buildings and in employment.
Speaker 4: So bear with me here. I have close friends who own three restaurants in Denver.
Speaker 8: And I can't imagine that they would.
Speaker 4: Work in good faith to build out their restaurant and hire people, only to be told at the last minute that we just have too many places to eat right.
Speaker 8: Now and that location doesn't work anymore. And so maybe you're just not going to be.
Speaker 4: Allowed to open.
Speaker 8: At all through really no fault of.
Speaker 4: Their own. This is their money that they have invested. These are people who.
Speaker 8: Are citizens of this county, who have families who are following the rules. So that really wouldn't be acting in good faith to pull these pending licenses and to not allow them to progress.
Speaker 4: I assume it would open up the city to legal action. I wouldn't be.
Speaker 8: Dying to pay for it, given that I do.
Speaker 4: Have small children in school here. So these.
Speaker 8: Are people who have invested.
Speaker 4: Heavily and followed the rules. I respectfully ask that you act in good faith toward these people who are.
Speaker 8: Holding up their end of the.
Speaker 4: Deal. And I was a little bit unaware that there was an attempt to maybe legislate some morality on this issue or treat these businesses different than any other. I hope that's not the direction the city and council, the city and county of Denver is headed in. And I also strongly agree.
Speaker 8: With the woman who said earlier something along the lines of it is not the role of government to kill.
Speaker 4: Competition. So thank you for your time. I appreciate you being here.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Michigan. Next. Next, we have John Mincy. And as Mr. Menzies come forward, I'll call the next five names Tyler Henson, Scott Peck, Michael Liebowitz and Nadav Asner and Nathan Mendell. So Mr. Menzies, you can begin remarks.
Speaker 0: First off, my name is John Mekas and I'm a 30 for 54.
Speaker 10: Laughs and I'd like to thank the Council for the opportunity to.
Speaker 0: Speak to them.
Speaker 2: First off, I want.
Speaker 0: To let you guys know I'm the owner of a small mom and pop shop. I don't own a chain of retail stores, I don't own multiple stores. I own a 1000 square foot store.
Speaker 10: That is fortunate enough to see the demand outpaces supply, which is the reason why I went to the city months ago. I filled out my city.
Speaker 0: Application, paid my money, and in good faith began the very expensive and detailed long process of building out this facility. The warehouse that I took over at that time.
Speaker 10: Was completely gutted. There was a stop.
Speaker 0: Work order on it and it had been abandoned for the last three years. There was no electricity, no water, no walls. We completely went in there, fixed up the whole place.
Speaker 10: Were a few weeks.
Speaker 0: Away from getting our lights are getting our application code and it just seems really unfair at this point. Well, first off, I want to start by saying that I'm in support of Councilwoman Nash's bill, and it just seems really unfair to me to pull the pull the carpet out from under legitimate businesses who have been spending so much money and time trying to better themselves.
Speaker 10: Obviously, I'm the.
Speaker 0: Ultimate loser in this situation, but I'm not the only one. I have electrical contractors who are going to lose money. I have a lot of contractors who are going to lose money. Security people are going to lose money. We've already hired employees to work both the shop and the warehouse. As you know, this is one of the most regulated environments you could possibly imagine. You don't just hire employees and put them in a work environment overnight. That takes months of planning and anticipation. On a personal note, I mean, truthfully, I don't know if I will still be in business if you guys don't allow pending applications to move forward. I have sunk my wife and my full savings into this new business, and my wife is getting ready to have our first baby here in the next couple of weeks, and I really hope that doesn't coincide with the death of my business. So I appreciate your time.
Speaker 3: Tyler Henson.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much. My name is Tyler Henson. I am the president of the Colorado Cannabis Chamber of Commerce.
Speaker 12: We are located at 225 16th Avenue here in Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 10: A mirror testifies for that Colorado Cannabis Chamber of Commerce does not support this legislation or the amendments provided. One thing I'd like to state is this current bill that's being proposed. I look at this as a view of regulatory capture, which is a regulatory scheme that is to transform into a competition stifling tool that encourages rent seeking behavior.
Speaker 12: Which aims to use government regulations to impose regulations on competitors.
Speaker 10: In order to increase market share. I view these caps as an assault on businesses here in the state of Colorado, as well as the city and.
Speaker 5: County of Denver. Having a cap on licenses.
Speaker 10: Artificially increases the costs of licenses.
Speaker 12: In the state.
Speaker 10: They impede individuals from entering this market. And Denver should be embracing this new economy instead of prohibiting it. I will ask you to take a vote of no. On this bill. And I'm going to see the rest of my time. So individuals within this community who have licenses in this businesses or a pending licenses can. You can hear their voice so you can hear directly how this issue affects their businesses, their families and the communities they serve. And again, I asked you to.
Speaker 12: Not support this.
Speaker 10: Legislation or any of the.
Speaker 12: Amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next, we have Scott Pack. Scott Peck.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much.
Speaker 12: I'll keep this brief. I don't want to repeat a lot of the great things that have been said here tonight. One thing I want to point out is. We're on a threshold. Denver is actually cool again. Like it is a big phenomenon that is.
Speaker 10: Happening in Denver.
Speaker 12: Why is that important? It's important because companies from the best school, you know, from the best cities, some of their schools are moving to Denver. It has been some some of the most amazing things are happening in the city. What we're all afraid of is it's a very difficult process to manage growth of a new industry that nobody knows anything about. Everybody wants a crystal ball, right. I applaud the tough decisions that you guys are making. Really. It's really it's it's admirable. However, like. What you guys fear seemingly is going to naturally correct itself. It happens in every industry to the woman's point. You open up too many restaurants and you don't do a good job. You go out of business. Those licenses will be surrendered by business owners that don't do good in business. They don't have good products. They don't grow well. They don't produce safe safety and efficacy. The two drivers of Big Pharma, right? Safety and efficacy, that's all we care about. We're not increasing the number of drugs in our streets. We're not making it easier for kids to get drugs. I've kids I've it's it creates more of a safer community environment for everybody. So. I'm Scott Park. I represent. Ten licenses in two facilities in two impacted zip codes and over $15 million of investment that have. I've been under the care of now. Based in.
Speaker 10: Relying.
Speaker 12: Upon the laws that have been in place. It would be a catastrophic failure. If these bills were to pass and the amendments. Everybody's moving to this city. Second fastest growing city. It's amazing. Applaud you guys all. Don't put roadblocks. The best and the brightest of this country are coming here because it's affordable, more affordable housing and still a very, very high standard of living. The market will correct itself. So thank you.
Speaker 3: Next we have Michael. Michael Liebowitz.
Speaker 5: Thank you. My name is Mike Liebowitz. I live at a 3267 Newton Street. I have lived in Denver about 11 years before that. I lived in Boulder. Originally from the East Coast. I got in the marijuana industry back.
Speaker 0: When it started.
Speaker 5: Before this was ever imaginable. We met in meetings, in houses, in Longmont and debated, is this really going to happen? Is this really an industry that's really happened? But long story short, I have worked very hard personally to climb up in the industry, and I. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: I'm kind of forgetting what I was gonna say.
Speaker 0: I'm a little emotional. I'm a little angry. I went through anger, I went through sadness.
Speaker 5: And now I'm here to prevent it from happening again. Basically, I went into the city of Denver in July knowing that a property I owned on 38th was eligible because 30th Avenue on West 38th, a little west of federal, was was.
Speaker 3: Eligible for a dispensary because another dispensary moved.
Speaker 5: We all know the rigorous application and process of becoming a dispensary. I filled out all the necessary paperwork.
Speaker 3: The woman at.
Speaker 5: The desk hit the button and lo and behold, they would take my $5,000 for an application. And I was elated. I was qualified in this impossible world of qualifying to become a dispensary. I went ahead.
Speaker 0: And remodel, kicked my tenants out of a great.
Speaker 3: Rental property, remodeled a house.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 0: Went ahead and even.
Speaker 5: Purchased a convertible recreational license. So I could have both businesses at my my property.
Speaker 3: Finally got all my signatures completed and last Friday walked.
Speaker 5: An exercise in license as I thought a formality to get my business license. And I was told that that wasn't going to happen anymore, that I was.
Speaker 10: Under review basically.
Speaker 5: For a change of measurement.
Speaker 3: That wasn't made clear to me when I applied.
Speaker 5: Back in in October. So I'm obviously going to go through a hearing and.
Speaker 3: Debate my own issue.
Speaker 5: But just to speak on why we're all here tonight, it's incredibly.
Speaker 0: Unfair to take a.
Speaker 5: Taxpayer.
Speaker 3: I've been used to an apartment.
Speaker 5: Buildings and I got really crushed and.
Speaker 3: You know, 28 and 29, like a lot of people and built myself back up through the apartment, through the marijuana industry.
Speaker 0: It's just you guys aren't here to ruin people's lives. You're here to, you know, set regulations. But, you know, to allow.
Speaker 5: Somebody like myself to go to go forward and put all of his money into into a project and then for rules to change, you know, at the last minute and be.
Speaker 0: Denied that.
Speaker 5: It's just is just not fair.
Speaker 3: So I, I just want to say.
Speaker 5: That I support any measure that allows people that have already invested their money because they've been given approval to do something. You guys can't take that away. It's just not fair.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you both. Next, we have Nadav Aster.
Speaker 0: My name is Nadav Asher. I live in Denver. I'm an attorney here in Denver. And my firm represents a number of marijuana businesses, lenders, investors, landlords.
Speaker 5: You name it.
Speaker 0: I can't speak on behalf of all my clients today, but I speak on my own behalf when I say that I support a proposal, but I don't support this proposal.
Speaker 10: I'm going to talk a little bit about.
Speaker 0: The specific language, but I do want to say that I hope that if this proposal does pass, there's an opportunity to comment on the seven amendments because they are vastly different than the language of the proposal itself.
Speaker 5: And I'd like everyone here to be not to be disenfranchized and have their voice heard. I want to respond. There have been a lot of comments about the impact on the community in certain neighborhoods, in certain oversaturated areas. Certainly that's the case. There are oversaturated, saturated areas.
Speaker 0: You can drive around town.
Speaker 5: You know exactly where they are. The problem is that the people who are in those areas, the.
Speaker 0: Businesses in those areas, didn't necessarily choose to be in those areas. That's a product of Denver, Denver's zoning regulations, Denver's code, municipal code that has pushed people into these neighborhoods. And I do.
Speaker 5: Want to say that there are significant efforts by my clients, by many industry actors to to do farmer's markets, to do.
Speaker 0: Community outreach initiatives, to help better the community and to essentially to deny.
Speaker 5: Pending applications or to to tell the world that this industry is as bad because certain neighborhoods have more marijuana than others. It's a little bit unfair.
Speaker 0: Specifically, the language.
Speaker 5: Of the ordinance that I want to discuss relates around the lottery. There's been a lot of discussion about this oversaturation. I know that's a huge concern from speaking to many of you. This bill is going to. Encourage a secondary market. And again, I know that many of you do not like the idea of a secondary market where licenses, pieces of papers are selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars. This bill to keep a lottery in place to prevent new actors from coming in online is going to have businesses sell their licenses on the open market. It's going to do. The unintended consequences of this bill are staggering. And I really hope that you guys take some time to reconsider what the language of this ordinance says before you.
Speaker 0: Before you take your vote. Excuse me. Freezing dispensaries.
Speaker 5: In saturated neighborhoods by not allowing them.
Speaker 0: To locate dislocate from their.
Speaker 5: Growth is is a huge problem for for me and for many of my clients. The language of the bill talks about changing a location. If you're going to move a store, you have to move the licenses, associate with the store. So if you have a facility with a grow a store and a meat facility, for example, you would have to if you want to move the store, you have to move the others. What you're doing.
Speaker 0: Is essentially encouraging people to take businesses maybe from a beneficial neighborhood.
Speaker 5: A good neighborhood, and move it to one of these saturated neighborhoods, you know, as you're calling them, sort of bad neighborhoods. But but they're not. There's a lot of room for improvement on this language. There's a lot of room to make a an effective proposal that will satisfy your desires and.
Speaker 0: Will help the community and the industry to.
Speaker 5: Grow. And currently, we're just not there yet.
Speaker 3: So I think it remains. Nathan Mindel And as Mr. Mindel comes up, I'll call the next five names Truman, Bradley, Paul Andrews, Patrick O'Malley, Mike Elliott. And it's just one name, Angelina. So, Mr. Mindel, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 5: My name is Nathan Mendel. I live at 7362 East Mansfield Avenue in your district, Councilwoman Black. I own two companies. I own Mendel in company construction. We are a commercial general contractor and have been for 19 years. Five years ago I started a second company called Your Green Contractor specifically so that we could build marijuana projects in and around the Denver area. We have doubled in size since we started building marijuana projects. We have 32 employees now. What I wanted to talk about specifically in an overall picture, I'm a free market capitalist. I don't think there should be any caps on any business. It was mentioned earlier the number of restaurants, the number of contractors, the number of marijuana businesses should be determined by the market. But what I wanted to talk about specifically was the pending applications and the fact of changing the rules at the 11th hour for companies that have spent and invested millions and millions of dollars under a set of rules that they were told to work by. And now those are potentially changing as they're in the process. The process takes months and months and months, in addition to the either hundreds of thousands or literally millions of dollars that are invested to get to the point that they're at. I understand if you're going to put a cap on the number of licenses, if that's the decision that you make, I understand that. But you need to give people fair notice that this is going to happen on a certain date so that they can understand that the rules are going to change. And they know that if they're not in the queue by that time, that they're not going to be a part of the system. But to go back retroactively and say we are now going to go and take this away for you that have spent this dollars doesn't work at all. And is is not what the people of the city and county of Denver, I believe, want in this case. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Truman. Bradlee. We are just that. 10 minutes left.
Speaker 12: Good evening. Members of council. My name is Truman Bradley. I don't live in the city of Denver. I do own. Ah. I do want a business located here. I'm standing here before you. Holding job descriptions right now for 20 jobs. These are not lousy minimum wage positions. These are middle skills, as well as high paying jobs, all with benefits. Mr. Herndon. These great jobs are in your district. Council members. If you amend the bill before you to deny the spendings, you will destroy these and hundreds of other jobs. Denying pending applications after people have invested their life savings would be truly devastating. Hundreds of locally owned small businesses would be wiped out. You've heard from many of them. I would be one of them. This won't just impact cannabis companies. It will likely wipe out construction companies such as Mr. Mendez, as well as others. It will wipe out vendors, landlords and employees. Denver licenses over 200 different industries. Denying pending applications that are otherwise in good standing sends a clear message that Denver is too dangerous a city in which to invest. This applies to restaurants, hotels, breweries, hospitals, you name it. Denver has always honored its commitments with the business community. As Councilwoman Kennedy said in the committee meeting. There is no precedent for going back and denying these pending. What you guys are doing is simply cruel. Please don't set this terrible precedent. Please instead send a message to all industries that businesses can trust what Denver says. I'm sure you will hear testimony tonight about so-called concentration issues. Most of these state concerns about either crime or odor. As Councilwoman Kennish pointed out in the last committee meeting. Crime data shows that cannabis companies actually have an extremely low incidence of crime, in fact, due to the high number of cameras at the facilities. Many neighborhoods are, in fact, safer. Camera footage from my own company has helped solve three crimes that had nothing to do with cannabis. A domestic dispute, a traffic issue, and a break in a few doors down. As for odor, this council is hard at work on a comprehensive odor ordinance. This will take care of the odor issues. Councilwoman, nature's bill is tough on the cannabis cannabis industry. You've heard mixed reviews here. That's a pretty good indication that it's fair. It protects the communities while keeping faith with the business community. Please pass this bill out as it is written with only Councilwoman Gilmore's amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Paul. Paul Anders. Paul Andrews.
Speaker 12: Thank you, members of council. I'm Paul Andrews, the president and CEO of the National Western Stock Show and Complex, located at 4655 Humboldt Street. Has leadership of the Nation Western Stock Show. We're writing to express our support for capping new cultivation and retail licenses going forward and limiting pending licenses in the Globeville area and Swansea and neighborhoods
Speaker 5: . Which we will call geese from.
Speaker 12: This point forward, either by enforcing the 1000 foot rule or by another standard baits based on saturation.
Speaker 5: In the area.
Speaker 12: Over the last three and a half years, the National Western Stock Show, our neighbors in the city of Denver have worked together to develop the nation a Western Center master plan. That plan was Adobe adopted by the city last November, and the people of Denver approve the ballot measure to see to fund the development of the National Western Center. The Nation Western Stock Show and CSU are equity partners with the city and are committed to the success of the National Western Center. We're starting now to build a world class facility where businesses and neighbors will work together to welcome visitors from around the United States and in fact, the world. We are building a neighborhood that is thriving, welcoming and safe, both for residents and visitors. We understand that marijuana businesses are part of our community, but we have to ask how much one community can handle. We need to foster a diverse business space that meets the needs of the community. The overabundance of marijuana cultivation and retail facilities in the neighborhoods surrounding our complex has created challenges for our community. As leaders of an organization that's been part of Denver for 110 years, we want to ensure the exhibitors and attendees feel safe and welcome at our show. Driving through the neighborhood and smelling marijuana or witnessing a police presence at a local store is not particularly inviting. While not all facilities have issues that warrant a police presence or create unwanted odors, those that do create an unwelcoming environment for current and future guests to the National Western Center as well as a global hilarious wants your residents and businesspeople allowing additional facilities to be licensed and located. And yes, will continue to compound these problems. And we hope council members will consider this as they move forward with the legislation and amendments today. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Andrews. Next, Patrick O'Malley.
Speaker 12: Thank you. Patrick O'Malley live in Longmont. I have a medical nips in Montebello neighborhood. I only wish to speak tonight against any current or future proposed amendments that might apply to MIPS. I did have the pleasure of having a couple of council members through my MEPs over the last couple of months and while there the main point was to demonstrate that MIPS are really part of any solution for.
Speaker 10: Well, not all problems, but certainly some of the problems.
Speaker 12: That you're wrestling with here today. MIPS are part of the solution because they both create jobs and more importantly because they help reduce the risk of diversion out of state of product that might not otherwise be able to be sold. And I do yield the rest of my time.
Speaker 3: And you. Next, we have Mike Elliott and we are approaching one hour. I'll allow six more minutes for the two times we have translations. Mr. Elliott, feel free to begin your remarks.
Speaker 12: Thank you. Council members. My name is Mike Elliott, executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group. With regards to the pending applications, we are encouraging you to please support these and let these go through. With regards to them, we are trying to find this right balance with the community.
|
Bill
|
Rezones properties located at 3200 Walnut Street, 3220 Walnut Street, 3254 Walnut Street, and 3235 Larimer Street from I-MX-3, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-3 in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 3200 Walnut Street, 3220 Walnut Street, 3254 Walnut Street, and 3235 Larimer Street from I-MX-3, UO-2 to C-MX-5 and C-MX-3 in Council District 9. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-2-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04112016_16-0264
|
Speaker 12: Thank you. Council members. My name is Mike Elliott, executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group. With regards to the pending applications, we are encouraging you to please support these and let these go through. With regards to them, we are trying to find this right balance with the community. We I've certainly spent a number of times listening to other folks, stakeholders, neighborhood groups about finding that right balance, which is why we are supporting the CAPS but would like the pennies to go through because of the commitment that the city has made with the industry. But really, for for my time, I'd really like to focus on one issue that hasn't gotten a lot of attention this evening, and that would be the distance requirements that the new proposed distance requirements from grows to residential communities. Now, the piece of this is in these oversaturated neighborhoods. We need to come up with some clever ways of figuring out how to deal with that. And we're certainly open to talking to the community about maybe incentives and whatnot. But when it gets down to it, a thousand feet from residential and schools dramatically limits the ability of grow facilities to move to other places in the city that are not necessarily saturated. This piece about residential facilities well, I'll tell you, we're going to be at the Denver council meeting tomorrow. The committee meeting tomorrow talking about the odor ordinance. We've been working with the city the on this piece and trying to come up with solutions to that, which is really where a lot of the solution comes from here. But that thousand feet from residential communities, it limits the ability of people to move. And it's quite possibly be going it's quite possibly have people stuck in bad landlord relationships and unable to move. So moving it to 500 feet or getting rid of it altogether seems like a much better way to go. Thank you for your thoughtful deliberation, council members.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Elliott. Next, Angelina. Angelina in the room.
Speaker 4: When I started those stories, he said that our organization.
Speaker 3: Actually the one that we have trained, we have just.
Speaker 8: So it must get stranger. And there are trabajadores emotions.
Speaker 4: Yes. Para el mismo tiempo. Is that Estaban and Comunidades? We know that these businesses generate income and they generate earnings, but we know that they're also affecting our communities. LA Marijuana the battery workforce.
Speaker 8: Fair or not, I used to observe.
Speaker 4: Circle impact of. That marijuana will employ people. But there aren't very many studies in regards to the impact up in L.A..
Speaker 8: PETROVA Hong Kong is the.
Speaker 4: Droga that people will will have the people that are employed by this drug. No cat and mouse canister of horribleness. Estén trabalhando being al vocalist Tanya Sosa lo. Issoufou We don't want our youth to be working with something that will damage their health and their future. Queremos Nuestro Nuestro.
Speaker 8: Seahorse.
Speaker 4: Continuing as to the end of it things I will Nakahara University area but I support anything we want our children to continue studying and to have a university degree for a better future. Guitars. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. We still have some time left that bekind speakers up individually next. Tiffany Goldman is Tiffany Goldman in the room? She left next. Benjamin Roldan. Benjamin Roldan. Please send after Benjamin. Amanda Gonzalez.
Speaker 13: Thanks you council members. My name is Benjamin. Or then I live in the city of Denver, two 3019 Avenue. And today I want to talk to a point and nobody has talked. And he's how will the environment affects the quality of life of those that live we need that have a masters in urban planning and everything that is taught these how their environment affects the environment that being of the person right and Denver is his training for that approach. He's putting better sidewalks, he's putting better trees, he's playing better roads. It's creating bike lanes in the grow in the neighborhoods of Coalville. Here is when we see the opposite. Right? These neighborhoods have been under desert for centuries. Under the smelters that they were put there, they contaminated their residents and the future of that community. Also, I-70 has been a great impact of this, putting these neighborhoods outside the scope of the city. We see a lack of sidewalks outside of public investment. Until now, we've been seeing a lot of investment, but these investment has been negative to these communities. First, prices in rent have been increasing, taking out the communities that are most vulnerable. Most of the marijuana impacts have damage the well-being of these communities. Just because he makes marijuana more accessible to the kids, they see it as some commodity that they should use. Maybe that happens in the whole city. But these neighborhoods are vulnerable, so maybe they don't have the opportunity to go to a place or go to swimming classes or take music lessons. These communities are working class and they don't have the capabilities economically, socially or culturally to fight for their future. So what I'm asking is for please consider this approach and do not damage longer the future of their residents. So please says yes to Ortega's proposals. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Amanda Gonzalez.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Amanda Gonzalez. I manage a business at 3937 West Colfax. Let's see. I know many of you from my previous work in the nonprofit sector. Prior to working with Southwest Alternative Care, I worked to better the lives of Latinos, working class people and middle class folks in Colorado with Claro and Sealife. Part of what I love about my current position is that I get to put a lot of the practices, a lot of the policies that I was advocating for in my previous position into action. At our business, we've never paid an employee minimum wage. Our non probationary wage for a most entry level employee is currently 1150 an hour plus tips. We also offer paid sick days and vacation time. Additionally, this team is the most diverse that I've ever worked with. 40% of our staff identify as people of color. 20% are out as LGBT at work. And an additional 20% of our staff live in the same zip codes as our shop and are able to walk to work. Although this industry is not always portrayed in a flattering light, we are good employers. In fact, we're the kind of small businesses where coworkers feel like family, and we work hard every day to create the kind of jobs, work, environment and communities that will make our employees and our city proud. The cost of doing all of this is tremendous. Updates to buildings can cost millions of dollars and licenses can cost tens of thousands more. Once a business is open, we pay our retail employees out of our profits. Because of IRS Code 280, which limits what we can deduct as business expenses while our business does not have a pending application. I'm standing in solidarity with my fellow CEOs, business owners and business owners who invested thousands, if not millions of dollars in reliance on a city process that has traditionally license business, that has followed the rules. As business owners and business leaders, we are doing our very best to improve our communities. Preventing is preventing pending business applications from being approved could be devastating for many local Denver residents and businesses, causing people who live and work to lose the money they invest, they've invested and causing our employees to lose their jobs. It would also make it even harder for us to create the kinds of jobs in the communities that we would like to thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. We that is hour one hour, courtesy of public hearing, as well as the allotment for the Spanish translation. So thank you to all our speakers and our apologies for those that did not have the opportunity to speak. We are moving on to questions, and I would just like to say that counsel, we have questions. We have seven amendments and then we have the actual bill to discuss. So if there is any way we could follow the premise of less is more, that would be fantastic. So we'll start with questions. I'm scrolling down towards the bottom. I see.
Speaker 5: Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to move to amend Council Bill 16 to 64. In the following particulars.
Speaker 2: They're just two in question.
Speaker 3: But, Councilwoman, hold on before. This is what I. This is what I do. Any questions for speakers? I'll go questions first, and then we're going to go. Amendments. The same order that we gave the presentation. So if if there's any way we can just go in that order. That would be great. You will absolutely get your opportunity for the amendment. I just think that would be easier for the floor. I want to make sure we get through questions first for council members, haven't any speakers or to Councilwoman Canete or to David Broadwell about any bill or amendment, if we could just do those questions first and then we'll come to the amendment if that's okay with you.
Speaker 8: Questions of some of the speakers.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 8: The first one is Rita. I can't pronounce the last name, too, Lasky. I don't know if she's still here. I. Will you come to the microphone? So you talked about that. You. You have had a lease for five years and a location.
Speaker 4: I signed the lease for five years.
Speaker 8: You signed it for five years? How long ago did you sign that lease?
Speaker 4: Signed it in November.
Speaker 8: Okay. I thought the way you had explained that. You said you had a lease for five.
Speaker 4: Sorry. Okay. I signed it.
Speaker 8: So, do you have an existing operating business?
Speaker 4: No. I'm waiting for licenses, but, you know, I am kind of open.
Speaker 8: That's all I need to know. I have a number of questions, and we're all going to be asking questions. Thank you very much. The next person is. Nick Lovullo. I'm not asking you to come up. I just want to. You made a comment about we should be staying out of regulating this industry. We should just leave it as a free market.
Speaker 3: If you if you are going to come up and I know Councilman Ortega asked you that if you're going to rebut, I would please ask that you come.
Speaker 8: I'm not asking for a rebuttal.
Speaker 3: Okay. So.
Speaker 8: So I'm just I'm just making reference to, you know, a comment.
Speaker 3: I want I want to be fair to the people. If we can't, we're not to comment, period right now. So I would just ask if if you have a question, go. So but I find it unfair to to have some I stand up, give a comment and not allow them to rebut. If we're not in the comment period, if we're not in the comment, if we're in a comment period, feel free to say whatever you want. But at this point.
Speaker 8: For this one until the comment.
Speaker 3: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 8: All right. Let's see the the next one. And Michael Liebowitz. Rabinowitz. But if you can come forward, I do have a question for you. The location on West 38th Avenue is was the issue that it was within a thousand feet of a school? Is that why you were being told that you couldn't?
Speaker 5: Yes, but it was approved as a thousand feet within the pedestrian walkway. So when I went forward with it, it was initially approved. So I think.
Speaker 8: So. So were you told that when you made application that part of your responsibility was to look and make sure that there was no school? Because the school provision has been in place for quite some time.
Speaker 5: It absolutely has.
Speaker 3: In fact, it's 0.4 miles on Google Maps.
Speaker 5: The issue is not to get too much in my detail, but it's like a corner yard of the school to like the back.
Speaker 0: Part of my house, the property line.
Speaker 5: Feet. But yeah, as the straight line goes, it ends up being 990 something feet. So.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I think that's it for right now. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Well, thanks to President Pro Tem Rita Chadwick, is she you're still here. I want to ask you just one question, if you could come up. Thank you. And Patrick O'Malley also. Rita, where is your business?
Speaker 4: 1136 Yuma. It's zip code to zero four. Okay.
Speaker 7: And you live in Greenwood Village?
Speaker 4: I live in Greenwood Village and have a lot of businesses in Denver. Okay.
Speaker 7: And does Greenwood Village allow marijuana businesses?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 7: Have you ever gone to the Greenwood Village City Council and ask them to change that?
Speaker 4: No. But they have applied this Greenwood Village. Okay.
Speaker 7: But you haven't lobbied your own city to allow these businesses. No. Okay. And Mr. O'Malley, same question. You live in Longmont. I know there are some some some shops around outside the city limits, but the city of Longmont, my understanding is, does not permit recreational marijuana either.
Speaker 12: You're 100% correct.
Speaker 7: Have you ever asked Longmont to accept these means? As I know, in Littleton, for instance, there's a drive to open up Littleton. I don't know if they've done it yet or not.
Speaker 12: Well, well, certainly, Major. Just being one small businessman, that would be probably a gargantuan task. But I did view Denver as being basically the Silicon Valley of marijuana and, quite frankly, the optimal place to build such a business. Mm hmm.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, for a time, I'll defer my other question. I just wanted to ask Mr. Park. Maybe I'll see him later, but I just was curious when Denver stopped being cool in the first place. But I'll ask you later. I said it was cool again. I didn't know. I didn't know he had stopped. But thank you.
Speaker 3: Makes Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Is Gregory Wright still here? All right. Well, if he's not here, I don't have a question for you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Am I right? Go ahead, Councilman.
Speaker 5: Before you go ahead.
Speaker 10: Oh, am I right in that I can ask questions of Councilwoman Kennedy as the as the one who proposed this at this time?
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 10: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Yeah. Any questions of council member? You can do as well.
Speaker 10: So as we've been going through this, there's a lot in here with a lot of amendments that take it in a lot of different directions. I kind of break it into three areas. There's the proposal on the table. Councilwoman can with the caps, how do we grow? How do we handle locations moving forward? We also have how do we handle pending applications, applications that are in the queue right now? And then how do we look at protecting neighborhoods, especially neighborhoods that are I can't remember the word that we're using now, oversaturated. I'll stick with that until I can find out one. So, Councilman, can you could you just speak briefly to the pending side? I know there are a lot of amendments that get to the protection for neighborhoods to meet. I feel of what you've proposed is the caps and how we move forward in total. I personally think, you know, it might be useful if we looked at all three of these and almost voted on all three of these separately. Could you speak a little bit to what's in yours just on pending and what it would take to kind of vote separately on that?
Speaker 9: Thank you. Councilman Clark. So, in fact, I think we did in committee go through and vote on each of these types of issues through straw polling. So in part, I mean, I say that it's ironic that my name is on this bill because mostly I added things to the bill based on all of the feedback from the community as well as from the council. So, you know, each of the things that got added came from those straw polls. So the bill has the two protections for communities are the caps and the distancing requirements. And just to review the districts, the thousand foot residential buffer zone eliminates 60% of the locations for grows. The schools limitation of a thousand feet eliminates about 10% of the locations for growth. Now, some of those are hit twice. So what I generally say to folks is it will limit between 60 and 70% of locations for transfers of locations or for new locations. So that is the that is the neighborhood protection piece. And then the pending applications. The bill has a safety clause at the end of it. And we did we voted on this in committee two times at least. So to your to your request, it it was it would not be here if it had not survived two committee votes already of a committee of the whole. And I know that you were absent for some of those meetings because of family obligations. But but we had we had voted on it twice. And that's why that that provision is still in the bill. And I think that had to do with the very far distance that those businesses had gone, that 90% of the pending were in the building phase. They were not just having their paperwork reviewed. They were actually in the construction phase of building, permitting, etc.. So, so so that was the the reason why that provision is still in the bill. We'll get to vote on it again with Councilwoman Ortega's amendment number two. So there will be a vote on that issue in this in this next round. I hope that answers your question.
Speaker 10: Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Undue concentration was the word I was looking for. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Clarke. Councilman Espinosa. Questions.
Speaker 5: Maybe you should have been concentrating for Nick, what you did say. And go ahead and if you can come up here. Is. We are several standard deviations away from what people care about. What do people.
Speaker 0: Said were several standard deviations away from the largest problem facing the city when Denver when marijuana is 0.03% of all crime in Denver. Yes, that's what I said.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I'm still not understanding what that means.
Speaker 0: It means you're focusing your focus for the last five months on the tiniest quintile. Something that shouldn't have been really a priority.
Speaker 5: That's what I'm saying. And so what should be our priorities?
Speaker 0: Around this business. Well, it. What should be your priority as far as as far as marijuana and regulating dispensaries is concerned? Your top priority should be agreeing with what you have already decided to do, which is fulfilling the laws of the past and allowing everybody whose applications are pending through that should be number one priority. I don't even know I'm put on the spot. I look, I'm happy to.
Speaker 5: You know. No, I was asking because I don't I. I misunderstood. I understood it the way I wrote it. So thank you. Okay. And then so that was my only question, actually.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Okay. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a just a couple of folks I want to hear from from the community. Is Nancy Grace Jones in here from Globeville? Can I ask you a quick question? Come to the mike. Yeah. I can't hear you from there. You can come around. And Nola, if you would. Come on up and follow her as well. Appreciate it. So. You know, we've heard a lot from the industry. We heard from a few community folks about some of the concerns. I think it's really interesting that there's business individuals you represent one of them in the community that are are really concerned about the concentration, the saturation in this area. And so just love for for you to talk about your concern specifically for a couple of seconds. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Councilman Brooks and the other council members for hearing me. Yes, I'm a business owner in Globeville, and I got involved with.
Speaker 4: Globeville as.
Speaker 9: Part of my my moral compass.
Speaker 4: About being a good corporate citizen. I got involved with the Globeville planning process.
Speaker 9: And here.
Speaker 4: We have the Globeville.
Speaker 9: Plan.
Speaker 4: Which has.
Speaker 9: Extensive information in it about land use.
Speaker 4: For the Globeville neighborhood. We have the Health Impact Assessment, which also talks about for the Globeville, O'Leary, Swansea and Neighborhoods. And we've created.
Speaker 9: A vision which Mayor Hancock.
Speaker 4: Has uplifted.
Speaker 9: The neighborhood plan.
Speaker 4: Says one of the six priorities in the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative because it has been a neglected area.
Speaker 9: And we have a promise here from the.
Speaker 4: City about what we can't, how.
Speaker 9: We can transform a neglected and abused neighborhood. And you know what?
Speaker 4: This process has set up an adverse.
Speaker 9: Adversarial nature between the marijuana.
Speaker 4: Businesses.
Speaker 9: And the community members, which I think is very unfair. I'm a business owner.
Speaker 4: Council members have said.
Speaker 9: I've heard them say unintended consequences. City Council did not.
Speaker 4: Create the saturation problem.
Speaker 9: Zoning and zoning and free market did.
Speaker 4: Well, guess what? I didn't create it either.
Speaker 9: It's not the.
Speaker 4: Residents faults there that are.
Speaker 9: Low income people.
Speaker 4: That have no other place to live. Unintended consequences of having these marijuana businesses. Yes, you acted in good faith, but guess what?
Speaker 9: Don't blame it on us.
Speaker 4: Either, because we want to protect children from the schools. Children in schools. And we have people who are living right next door to marijuana businesses. And probably you don't do that. Your children or grandchildren aren't in those situations. So again, it's a problem for city.
Speaker 9: Council to figure this.
Speaker 4: Out. Maybe there needs to be some deeper diving on those pending applications, but with. 441 locations Elyria, Swansea and Globeville have 25% with 2% of the population. It is not fair and balanced. City Council didn't intend for that to happen, but that's what it is.
Speaker 9: And adding more, even.
Speaker 4: Adding three more in Swansea, a three gross, I mean three marijuana businesses that will be now next to a city park. How is that fair and balanced? It's not okay for the neighborhoods to bear to carry that anymore. So anyway, I mean, I had lots more comments.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Speaker 9: I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity, Robert.
Speaker 5: And then I'm going to bring up Nola, who represents a nonprofit. Live well and a lot of neighbors there. What you know, the crux of the argument tonight is around pending the pending applications. You know, why are you all organizing against the pending applications, especially in Angie's?
Speaker 4: Well, we've looked at the specific locations of the pending locations within Elyria and Swansea in particular. There are three that are directly adjacent to.
Speaker 9: Denham Park, two.
Speaker 4: Cultivation and one retail.
Speaker 9: Which we're very concerned.
Speaker 4: One of the committee community members that wasn't able to speak tonight lives adjacent to that park. So there is residential.
Speaker 9: And a park.
Speaker 4: And there's already, you know, several blocks away. There's already a whole cluster of cultivation along York and Josephine there that's already giving the orders and so on. So it's cases like that that we really need to think about with these pending licenses. If these are responsible neighbor or businesses that care about the neighborhoods, would they want to go right into the middle of a residential neighborhood? Could could we do anything with circumstances like this where these pending licenses are really going to affect the quality of.
Speaker 9: Life in these neighborhoods? Could we look at some of these cases one by one?
Speaker 5: Right. Okay. Thank you. That's it, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. All right. We're going to a second round of questions. And once again, colleagues, if we could try to get them, move them through as fast as we can. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up.
Speaker 8: I have a question either for Marlee or for Stacie Loucks. And this is about the omnibus bill that we had adopted. It's my recollection that there were some provisions in there that had a direct impact on pending applications back then when that omnibus bill was adopted. I don't know which one of you be able to address this.
Speaker 11: There were some provisions that the the the omnibus bill did affect existing pending applications. And I forget who addressed this, but that changed the distance measuring method from direct pedestrian access to straight line method, and it impacted medical centers only, not retail. They were already straight line and it affected medical centers distance from schools and also from daycare centers.
Speaker 8: And I just think it was important to remind the audience that we have done this in the past. And, you know, it's completely within our purview to be able to do this because this is still not a legal industry in the in the federal government. I so I think it was important to just clarify that. I want to just make a very brief comment, as we have heard.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman, I don't want to interrupt. This is important note, but it's a comment. If we.
Speaker 8: Have neighbors, if we are going.
Speaker 3: To have.
Speaker 8: A laugh, if we're.
Speaker 3: Going to.
Speaker 8: Have insulting.
Speaker 3: That is that is your prerogative when you get to the comment period. But I'm trying to get us to move through as efficiently as possible so we could just get to questions. We'll go to the amendments. I just I want to get this through without people going on tangents. And so if we could just things.
Speaker 8: For residents that have been given to the industry people.
Speaker 3: So I would. Perfect. Thank you. And any other questions, Councilor want to take? No. All right. Thank you. Councilman, questions were still on. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: My question was on one of the amendments. I'll defer.
Speaker 3: Councilman Flint.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Is the gentleman still here who had the shop on West Colfax that the inspector came into?
Speaker 4: So we're.
Speaker 5: Here? Yeah.
Speaker 7: He's. He's gone. Okay. I was just looking for a clarification on what happened there. Is Mali, could you answer another question for me in the draft bill? There is a clause that talks about one of the. Or David? Either one. There's a clause. There's a section in the bill that talks about the director of excise and license coming up with procedures during the blind lottery so that an entrant would have better odds of winning a license by proposing a location other than in the, whatever we're calling them, neighborhoods now. Do we have what what procedures do we have in mind? I'm a little uncomfortable voting yes or no without understanding what might have been discussed that that I'm not aware of. Does anybody know what procedures, excise and licenses discussed?
Speaker 14: David Broadwell, assistant city attorney, and I may defer to Councilwoman Canady to respond as well. But let me echo something she said a while ago, which is just bear in mind that if the Fifth Amendment, Councilman Clark is going to offer is adopted, it will strike that language. So it'll be a moot point. But if that language does remain in the bill, the sort of thing that was intended, it would be to say that if you've got an entrant in the lottery and they're proposing a location that's not in one of the more kind of concentrated neighborhoods, they might get their name in the hat twice as opposed to once, thus improving their chance of a draw. And if you're familiar, well, I won't use any analogies, but there are other lotteries that work like that, and that's the idea that was intended when that was originally drafted.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. I believe that's all, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. We're still on questions, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So there are three potential pending rows across from a park in Globeville. Larry and Swansea are the owners of those available to answer questions. I'm just curious if how far along they are in their construction. Now here. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Still on questions, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: Mr. President, if I may.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Councilwoman.
Speaker 9: I don't know. We have a list of all the pending grows in front of us, and we have someone from from CPD here. So I'm going to. If it's okay with the president, I'd like to ask her to look and see if she can figure out which of these addresses are the ones. And then two to come back to answer.
Speaker 3: The question if we.
Speaker 5: Mr.. Mr. President, can I have them work with somebody from the neighborhood to just speed up so they can if.
Speaker 9: Someone from the community wants to come with Jill to make sure we're looking at the right addresses, that would be great.
Speaker 3: All right. Still on questions, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Before Nola does that, Nola, I actually have a question for you. Sorry. The thousand foot requirement is roughly three blocks is just moving these businesses three blocks away from residences and schools. Is that enough? Or is is more need to be done?
Speaker 4: I think it would be huge. But we have a tenant that are existing in that thousand feet area over 30 within a year in Swansea. I think it would make it will make a huge difference to have them out. There's very. Clear industrial areas within Illyria in Swansea that are far, far away from residential, that, you know, there are a lot of businesses, marijuana businesses that don't bother the neighborhoods that are in those areas for sure. But it would also saturate those industrial areas with marijuana.
Speaker 5: So is oversaturation in a purely industrial neighborhood. The same thing is one that is a mix of industrial and residential.
Speaker 4: Well, you also see there's a lot less population overall. So you can look at percentiles as well. That should still work, if that makes sense.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it does. Because in this one get to my question for council woman black man Joel on Clark later. Thanks.
Speaker 3: You get to, councilman?
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Still on questions, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. And Elizabeth, can I ask you. Didn't come up in in your presentation tonight but you have some ideas about incentivizing businesses to of their own relocate from areas of undue concentration. Can you speak to that for a minute?
Speaker 11: Sure. I appreciate the opportunity. This this goes to recognizing and respecting the investments that are pending on pending licenses. License applications have accrued in this unknown environment of risk, where this very unique problem has come about, which is very different from a saturation of restaurants. There's more sociological and environmental, economic, land use, neighborhood plan alignment, etc., issues with something like this. So I feel creatively it would be fair in the welfare of the well-being of neighborhoods for the city to recognize.
Speaker 0: That there have been.
Speaker 11: Unknown knowns and that those that have invested can somehow be worked with to relocate if, you know, within Denver.
Speaker 0: Or within another city in a way that creates a.
Speaker 11: Mechanism of financial compensation for this mis estimation of a new industry. And so I think it's something I myself would even support some of the taxes that were collected being returned to businesses to save the neighborhoods for a better diversity of businesses and environment. And that I appreciate the idea of the participatory budget ideas coming up for for some of this compensation, but we don't need to wait. The industry itself can become maybe more engaged.
Speaker 0: With the compensating the sociological.
Speaker 11: Impact within the neighborhoods around the businesses. So I think it's fair for the businesses that have invested to to have a mechanism. But I think we need to get really creative to to make that happen.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. Questions? Any other questions from members of council? Right. Thank you. We are moving along. So now the public hearings were canceled. Bill 264 is closed. Council members and audience, what we're going to do now, I'm going to have council members formally offer their amendments if they still choose to do so. We will start in the order we went earlier. Councilman Clark, please put your amendment on the floor.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Council Bill 16 to 64 in the following particulars on page four, line 12, add the following definition 11 Statistical neighborhood means the geographical neighborhood boundaries established by the city and county of Denver in 1970, in conjunction with the Community Renewal Program, consisting of combinations of census tracts to which the city has assigned geographic place names corresponding to commonly used names of subdivisions and historical parts of the city. On page six, line 13 strike language after the word appeal, strike lines 14 through 20. On page seven, line 33, add the following Prior to the first annual open application process administered by the director. Under this section, the Director shall determine the number of license locations where medical marijuana centers, retail marijuana stores or both exist in each statistical neighborhood of the city. Likewise, the director shall determine the number of license locations where medical marijuana, optional premises, cultivation facilities, retail marijuana cultivation facilities or both exist in each statistical neighborhood of the city . The director shall then identify the five statistical neighborhoods where the highest number of licensed marijuana sales locations exist. And the five statistical neighborhoods were the highest number of licensed marijuana cultivation locations exist. The statistical neighborhoods, thus identified by the director, shall be considered neighborhoods of undue concentration of marijuana business licensing and shall be prohibited from further licensing as part of the annual open application process for the year in question. To the extent that there is a tie in the number of licensed location among two or more statistical neighborhoods with the fifth most licensed locations, then all such neighborhoods shall be treated as neighborhoods of undue licensing and shall be prohibited from further licensing as part of the annual open application process. Entry into the lottery for a retail marijuana store license shall be denied for any applicant proposing to locate a retail marijuana store in any statistical neighborhood determined by the director to be a neighborhood of undue concentration based upon the current number of locations of medical marijuana centers, retail marijuana stores, or both in the statistical neighborhood. Entry into the lottery for a retail marijuana cultivation facility license shall be denied for any applicant proposing to locate a retail marijuana cultivation facility in any statistical neighborhood determined by the director to be a neighborhood of undue concentration based upon the current number of locations of medical marijuana, optional premises, cultivation facilities, retail marijuana stores or both in the statistical neighborhood. Upon the completion of the first open first annual open application process, the Director shall report to the counsel regarding the implementation of this subsection, along with a recommendation about whether or not to continue to restrict licensing in identified statistical neighborhoods in future open application processes. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I was just I was just reading and I got lost in there. All right. That has been moved and seconded comments on this amendment. Council members, Councilman Espinosa, you chimed in twice. You have that much you want to say now.
Speaker 5: Go right ahead. More of a question, I think, for David on this use of the word undue concentration. You know, in the in the explanation, it says this makes it completely objective. But my understanding is that it's in tries to tie it into a calculation of a numerical definition. But undo would be more just a sort of a sense of reasonableness. How is undo defined here?
Speaker 14: The again, David Broadwell, assistant city attorney under concentration, is a term that's used in other laws and including liquor laws and it is so there's some case law around it and so on and so forth. There's no unique definition of it here other than functionally. What you get by doing it this way is you're doing a relative comparison of some statistical neighborhoods versus all statistical neighborhoods, and you're seeing which ones are at the top. Now, when it comes to cultivation, for example, there are about a dozen statistical neighborhoods of the city ranging from the north city city limits to the south, where there's industrial zoning. Therefore, plant husbandry is allowed where licenses could be for marijuana cultivation. But when when many of them are concentrated toward the top and fewer of them are concentrated toward the bottom of that list, then you don't have the ideal of fair and even dispersion over all the statistical neighborhoods where they could be. And so that's where Undue comes in. They've tended to mainly concentrate in a few of the industrial areas and not more generally dispersed over all of the industrial areas. And that's what the math leads you to in terms of what undue means is it's slanted toward some neighborhoods and not others as a result of the numbers.
Speaker 5: In part of this discussion came up from when we were using terms like saturation and oversaturation, and that was driven by largely by GSE and what's going on there. Oddly enough, in the calculation that is, you know, Globeville isn't one of the top five. And so my concern is, is that actually you mean Montebello is in the pending applications right now are all on 47th Avenue between Havana and and Peoria, which has zero or close to zero, I'm pretty sure it's zero residential units, which is largely different than the concentration, I mean, the situation we have in Globeville. So the my concern is, is is the intent of this amendment to address that the impacts on community? Or is it purely a numbers game? Because I would argue that in an area like that area between Havana and Peoria, you could capture a considerable amount of industry there because it's always been industrial, whereas we had a mix . I mean, it didn't grow around community. That was when we sort of had a different zoning. I mean, we specifically did that. Whereas, you know, Globeville historically grew in a different pattern. Um, so is the, is the intent to, to overlook a situation like Globeville in favor of a situation like Montebello? Because that's what this language does. Yeah. That's really. I mean, you're co-sponsor with with Stacy I mean because we're not actually addressing one of the hardest impact neighbors Hood's going forward in the in the lottery system this way.
Speaker 10: I again I'm reading this on behalf of Councilwoman Gilmore. I wasn't intimately involved with the drafting of it. And so there may be other people can answer this question better. I think that the problem that we grapple with is how do you define it? You know, how do you capture the nuances of zip codes have issues. There are certain parts of a zip code that might, you know, be exactly the area that could handle more in certain areas that aren't statistical. Neighborhoods fall in a similar category, I think in that as we start to try and offer protections for some of our neighborhoods, how do we define that? And so I think we have a couple of different options in front of us with these different amendments. You list out the ones that are currently impacted and then you said it in stone. And so a new neighborhood is more unduly concentrated down the road. This, you know, allows for an empirical way to look at it and say there are a certain number within these certain boundaries. But, you know, in that specific instance, you may have captured, you know, a loophole in the statistical neighborhood in the same way that there would be on zip codes. And and so I think this is an attempt to grapple with how do you provide protections but in a measurable way rather than a a list. But I don't know. I again, I was not as involved. And so maybe Mr. Broadwell can speak more to that than I can.
Speaker 14: Just briefly, I think that is a pretty good summary of the conversations I had with Councilwoman Gilmore. And the only other detail I'll add is note that the mechanics of this, the count and the determination of the five protected statistical neighborhoods would not occur until sometime in the future when we're going to actually have an open application process and a draw. So some some examples were given of what the type top five would be today, but we don't know exactly if any of those will change. And between now and when there's a first open application process. And and on that level, that reminds me an important detail from the the summary that Councilman Clark read earlier. The ordinance contemplates that the earliest there could be an open application process would be 2017, but it may not necessarily occur next year because you can only have the process if you have capacity under the caps. And until we see some shakeout, if this ordinance is adopted, we don't know exactly when that's going to be, but it won't necessarily be in 2017. And so the director would be would be directed by this amendment to basically do that count and determine the five highest neighborhoods at the time, whenever that's going to be, that we're going to have our first open application process.
Speaker 3: Counselor. That's those.
Speaker 10: Are you good?
Speaker 5: Yeah, mostly. But it still creates the potential for a situation. If it's. If it's truly arbitrary, it still creates the potential for us from excluding potentially places with high numbers of locations that actually are suitable for additional locations. Is that correct?
Speaker 14: Just because it focuses on these words like saturation and concentration by giving it a face, by defining that as where there are the most. Right. It doesn't look at the flip side of the coin that you're addressing now, whether even though there's a whole bunch, there's still other opportunities in that neighborhood. Now it is purely and simply defines concentration or saturation by how many there are, not how many others there could be in a particular neighborhood. So that's the logic of it, and that's why it's proposed the way it is.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting this amendment today after some really careful consideration. And again, based on the input, the input that I've heard from Mr. Littlejohn community and from the Globeville area, Swansea community. I think that Councilman Espinosa hits on a point about why we don't want to rush into barring entire geographic areas that can be in some cases, including deeply industrial areas that are really far from community from from residential. If the idea is that you want to be able to have, you know, a gravitation over time as new folks come into deeply industrial areas to to turn off access to entire neighborhoods is not done lightly. But there's a couple of reasons why I can support this amendment. One is it does it it does it in a time limited fashion and and in purpose. We are going to be if we if we adopt an odor ordinance at the first time, this provision would be triggered, would be protecting neighborhoods. And then the second time, we would know we would be 18 months to two years into an order ordinance. And we would understand better whether or not there are or are not odor impacts from deeply industrial areas that gravitate. So if you have a grow facility in a deeply industrial area, your kids aren't walking by it every day to go to school. So they're not seeing it. It's not creating temptation. Or, you know, if there are enforcement issues, they are not right next to a neighborhood, but you could have odor. And that was the number one thing I heard from communities and with deeply industrial areas was we are still experiencing odor from these deeply industrial areas, even if we're more than a thousand feet away. And so my reason for supporting this amendment is it gives us time to see if that odor ordinance works or not. And then we can basically make a decision about if it is working. Then you have the deeply industrial areas and maybe you go ahead and you can act accordingly to make that deeply industrial area available while you protect and keep protecting with very high standards the residential buffer zone or the edge, if you will. So for those reasons, I'm very appreciative of the objectivity of using an objective metric of the ability to give these neighborhoods time to see if the order ordinance is working, and then it does not, as some of the later amendments do. You will see this includes the top five neighborhoods, other amendments that you have go as far as to 12 to 18 into that. And they basically do eliminate any new locations. So this allows some potential. We don't know if the cap will have capacity or not. But for those reasons, after, you know, really trying my best to try to find common ground and move towards the feedback from folks who would like us to go slower. I will be supporting this amendment tonight and I would encourage all of my colleagues to do so. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Canady, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Mr. President. The neighborhoods that are over, unduly concentrated, actually could have been foretold almost 150 years ago when there were the Denver Pacific and the and the Kansas Pacific laid their tracks. That's where the industrial areas have gone. It's not for any other reason than the fact that that's where we allow this activity to occur. So with Councilwoman Gilmore's proposal, I have a couple of issues that I'm trying to determine how I'm going to vote on this, because I don't know if I could favor this until I know what's going to happen down the line . And I'll tell you why. The thousand foot buffer zone from residential that we're talking about, I think, places an undue burden on the growth, on the cultivation licenses to find locations where they can go. So especially with the amendment that was going to that's going to be proposed, where we have even more statistical neighborhoods that are not included. We're giving no option with Councilwoman Gilmore as we're only leaving five out at a time. So that would leave approximately seven or so statistical neighborhoods. Although, as Councilman Espinosa pointed out, Stapleton, east of Havana and the warehouse district in MONDELLO, still has other some widely open areas. So I would like to know. Before. Before I decide whether to vote on this, whether there's an appetite to shorten too narrow that buffer zone to 500 feet rather than a thousand either right now before the lottery or in the future when we do the blind lottery so that applicants actually have a reasonable opportunity to relocate to better locations. And that would only apply to cultivation licenses. Not not the sales licenses. Mr. President, I don't know if there's a way to to determine if there's an appetite for that.
Speaker 3: Well, I would suggest, as councilman, for instance, this motion to amend is on the floor. Why not just vote on that? And so if it's voted down, for example, and I we hear that the reason might be because the People Council feels the distance is too great. I'll defer to you to do with the motion. With the smaller distance request.
Speaker 7: And maybe other folks could comment on that before they.
Speaker 3: Could or not. If they don't want to. It's certainly their choice. Tin Tin. Thank you. Thank you, Governor Vlad, appreciate that. This message with you. Councilman Brooks, I think you're up next.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. David, I just have a question about the. The authority that the executive director of Access and License has. So. They will recalibrate the count at the end of each year to figure out the next year of the top five statistical neighborhoods. Is that how I understand it.
Speaker 14: The way it's worded, it would be an obligation for the director to do it before conducting an open application process in 2017. Sometime in 2017, the director would have to make a determination if there's capacity under the CAP, the CAPS, to even be conducting an open application process and lottery. And if he determines there is capacity, then the next step is going to be to fulfill this chore and find out if we're going to be accepting potential applications for new cultivation. First, I have to identify what the black hole statistical neighborhoods are going to be. So so it's kind of a sequential. You have to read this in the context with everything else about how that open application process will work, and that's essentially how it'll shake out step after step.
Speaker 5: Yeah. David, I'm assuming that all of that is, you know, I'm voting for this, assuming that all that is going to happen, right? That there is a black out does not occur and there is room in the market to do an open application. But once that happens, there's a recalibration of all the statistical neighborhoods and the director will take the top five statistical neighborhoods. And those could change is basically what I want to just make sure.
Speaker 14: To be very clear, the way the amendment is worded now, it's only mandatory for the first time. And then the director, after doing it once the first time we have an open application process, will report back to council and have a dialog about whether we're going to continue to use this system in the future. So it's not written to be self perpetuating forever. It's intended to be tried the one time with a report back to council. And that's that last sentence in there. Okay.
Speaker 5: Given given that explanation, I'm I'm going to support this. What I don't like about this is that it it leaves out one of the most in my mind the way that I would count these of the most saturated neighborhoods, which is Globeville and has the most area for. And I'd be for that saturation to continue over concentration, whatever the hell we're using tonight to continue. And so but I'm going to support that because I like that flexibility and I like that we as a council can revisit this. And I like that the director of Access and License will come back and have that conversation.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Nu.
Speaker 10: And David. This mineral will still allow all the pending applications to go through. That's great.
Speaker 14: That's correct. This amendment doesn't touch the pending application issue at all. Some of the others who may discuss next. We do get into that, but this only looks forward to the time. We'll have an open application process in the future.
Speaker 10: Where the numbers that were calculated for the undue concentrated areas were there pending applications, including those numbers.
Speaker 14: In terms of the neighborhoods listed earlier. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 10: So so they were all included in there. So.
Speaker 14: But but but again, pending means pending. We don't know which ones are going to ultimately be issued and so forth. So it could change. There could be there could be some movement in some of the locations of some of these licensed premises over the next year or two. So so it could change.
Speaker 10: In the fall. So there will be the caps will be in place and the thousand feet will be in place if this goes through. Graham romney's bill. Right.
Speaker 14: Right. This doesn't affect anything else about the caps on the spacing requirements.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman new councilman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm going to be supporting this. I think it's practical and not emotional. I think some of the other amendments that we're looking at are much more limiting. And an Elizabeth, to your great suggestion about maybe counseling cultivation facilities to move somewhere else. The other amendments will be so incredibly restrictive that there will not be any other locations available. This one is more flexible and hopefully will leave more available industrial buildings available for this. So I will be supporting it.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to voice my support for this amendment. There are a lot of amendments that we will be considering that talk to neighborhoods and protections for foreign neighborhoods. I think that this one provides, you know, the most concrete and measurable way to determine that. It doesn't determine that until a point at which we reach the need for a lottery, which could be five years, could be ten years away. And and I like that about it. And I have some concerns going through the other amendments, and it's hard to not have them all on the floor at the same time to compare with neighborhoods that I represent that are on these other lists that are on there when they're called out by names. And so. So I think that this one has a very clearcut explanation and a very fair way of determining what those are. Councilman Espinosa's point earlier, you know, I haven't seen a perfect way to measure that, but I think that this is the closest of anything that's been put in front of us to a really good way to measure where those undue concentrations are and which neighborhoods are most impacted. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: I wanted to ask Kelly if you have the flash drive that had the neighborhoods. I had asked Zach to provide that so we could put it up on the screen. It would. It shows is side by side the impacted neighborhoods, the top 12. And it shows the stores and then it shows the cultivations.
Speaker 3: She does not.
Speaker 6: Councilwoman, was it uploaded in desire? Yeah.
Speaker 8: He was supposed to have done that early today. You got it? Yeah. Okay, so it's on the sire system showing that I thought it would be important for you all to take a look at that so you could see that if we went with this just for senators, it'd be overland. Hilarious. One to you. Five points. Northeast Park Hill. And felt very for the cultivation. It would be Illyria Swans here, Overland Northeast Park Hill, Montebello and Val Verde. So all the other neighborhoods, including Globeville, are not included in the top five on either one of these.
Speaker 6: Are you talking about the top 12 cities?
Speaker 8: Yeah. If we're if we're going just with the top five, I wanted people to see what the top five would be. Just looking at these neighborhoods, based on what we have seen in terms of where that concentration has been across the city.
Speaker 6: Council members can click on documents and see a.
Speaker 3: Colleague, council colleagues. You have the opportunity to view that if on your on your computers in front of you council will take any of the comments.
Speaker 8: I just want to say part of my reason for not supporting this is because, first of all, it's it's going to protect five neighborhoods and it leaves everything else completely wide open in those other saturated neighborhoods. And I'll speak to my amendment when we get to it in a few minutes. But that did, in fact, leave other opportunities open in in other neighborhoods. And so I think just the fact that it completely takes some neighborhoods off line and doesn't really look at how we protect the other saturated neighborhoods is just concerning.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Cohen, each year you back up or you don't.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. This is where this evening is going to get interesting and in terms of procedurally having amendments that deal with overlapping issues. I'm going to encourage folks who are thinking that they want a stricter approach to thinking about supporting this amendment now, because you have the risk that the later amendments are not going to pass. Should you? So let me just play out a scenario for you. I would suggest you support this amendment now and then when we get to the more stringent or more expansive restrictions, you can also vote yes. And should any of those amendments pass, you could always move to reconsider the vote that was on this amendment to remove it. Or obviously we have maybe some drafting reconciliation that may need to be occur. But I would hate to see this amendment fail at this stage of the night and then have folks, you know, also fail on more stringent things that they want to see and have regret that they didn't take the first opportunity they have . So obviously, that's a very personal consideration in terms of your predictions and how the future votes are going to go. But it is not inconceivable that we could reconsider if someone feels like, hey, I went through the the least thing I got, the more thing, and now we can go there. So, so, so I'm going to ask folks to really think about that as as they vote on this amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Clayton. Yes. Council members, depending on which amendments passed tonight, we will the city attorneys will certainly make sure whatever our final answer is tonight will make sense from an amendment standpoint. So that may require some massaging depending on which amendments pass or fail. That is the conversation that I've had with the city attorneys. And thank you, Councilwoman Canady, for bringing that forward. All right. We're still on the First Amendment. Councilman Lopez, comment to your question.
Speaker 2: I do have a question. Mr. BROWN. Well, if we approve this particular amendment and amend to 64 and to 64 fails to pass tonight. Does the amendment still stick or does it has to be reintroduced? Does the bill have to be refiled and reintroduced? And then another attempt, another crack at this amendment, even if it even passes?
Speaker 14: Mr. President, you want me to go ahead and talk about the nuclear.
Speaker 3: No. And actually, David. Correct, correct me if I am wrong for this. And I. I had this conversation with Councilwoman Canete during the break. So Councilman Lopez, should. Should we have an amendment added to to this bill and that final answer be up or down votes they voted down in this particular instance. Council member has the right to file a bill on the floor. And the question is, would that council member file the bill on the floor with the amendment? I would assume that he or she would. I don't want to speak for that council member, though, Councilman, can you just nodding your head? So that's how I imagine that would play out if an amendment is passed by a majority of council members and then the overall bill is defeated, I imagine a refile would include the amendment, but we certainly won't know until that happens. But that's that is certainly a possibility. Councilman.
Speaker 2: I no, I just I wanted to ask that question is, do you think.
Speaker 14: That the councilwoman can you want to comment before? I do. I because I wasn't a part of that conversation. There's there's all kinds of scenarios. You guys can have to take it step by step here tonight. But if but if the bill or the bill, as amended, does not garner seven votes for publication, then we'll have a conversation at that point about next steps. We do have an extra week, Bill ten. There's a possibility to file bills this week for consideration on the 18th and the 25th. But but we really do need to take the conversation systematically as we go. But but there will be options still for four filing of alternatives before the May 1st date that's looming out there.
Speaker 2: Okay. Mr. President, I do have a comment and I haven't ring in for questions or comments until now. I do feel like I you know, I want to give this amendment a shot because it does try to restrict and protect some of these neighborhoods. But it's just it's not enough. And we've had folks from Globeville area and Swansea come in here and participate every single hearing, every single step of the process yet. Their neighborhoods out of the picture. And the only way it is in the picture is if they have more licenses. And, you know, it's kind of a. It's kind of a juxtaposition there. And, you know, I have a little heartburn about it now. We're asked to approve this and move forward because it may be the only thing we get. And that may be the shot because we have one council member missing. And pending approval no matter what. Now, I know that we've based on the questions that we've we've asked in this whole process and the questions that we've asked on this dais and, you know, the participation that we've had in these chambers in our in our council meeting room down in 394 or five, any five. I would hope. That whatever happens with this bill that the sponsor and the supporters of this bill also seek to accommodate some of the some of the desires and the concerns that are at this dais and not leave it a split vote in the future. I would like to see this particular amendment that we're considering now go a little bit further and not just by random, say, okay, we'll just kind of randomly pick five. Right. And arbitrarily use the number five. Why not six? Why not? Seven. We have. Whole bunch of neighborhoods. You minus the 13. There's just 65 neighborhoods in the city. That's a lot to choose from. Right. And so I just hope we have that conversation. I hope we're opening an opportunity to to do some more fine tuning to this bill. So, I mean, I do want to support the amendment because, hey, I would like to see one amendment go through. But let's I mean, I just hope that in good faith that we're able to. Take it a little further based on the conversations that we're having tonight and this whole process leading up to tonight. And a lot of the folks that couldn't sit in these pews but were standing in the back and had to leave.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman, new comment on the First Amendment.
Speaker 10: I still have issues, I guess, which is frustrating to know, to not have a great opportunity to discuss the issues thoroughly. These amendments, you know, that have come through and over this weekend, you know, I especially concerned about the saturated areas, but the pending applications being approved is something I think we need to see it. I really appreciate what Councilwoman Kennish has done and carrying out the pending applications. But as you look at that list, there's a lot of data missing from those pending applications until they exactly where they are and where they're located. And there's just a lot of information that's missing. So it's very I don't think I'll be supporting this this amendment and not because Councilman Gilmore didn't do a great job. It's just something that I think that we not addressing all the key issues. And I sort of agree with one of the spokespeople that we really need to talk about this a little bit further. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilman. There. All right. Any other comments on the First Amendment offered by Councilman Clark? All right, scene one. We're voting on the firsts First Amendment. For people in the audience. Amendments require seven council members to vote in. I. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Clerk I. Espinosa No.
Speaker 0: Flynn, I.
Speaker 6: Cashman All right. Can each I. Lopez All right.
Speaker 10: New no.
Speaker 6: ORTEGA No. SUSSMAN All black. All right. Brooks.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 6: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary, please cast your vote in and announce the results. 93 days. 93 days. The First Amendment offered has passed. All right, Councilwoman Ortega. Your motion to amend.
Speaker 8: All right. Let me pull up the one here.
Speaker 5: Tony.
Speaker 8: Okay, Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 264 in the following particulars on page four, line 12, add the following definition per in 11, statistical neighborhoods means geographical neighborhood boundaries established by the city and county of Denver in 1970, in conjunction with a community renewal program consisting of combinations of census tracts to which the city has assigned geographic place names corresponding to commonly used names of subdivision in historical parts of the city, and page 13 Line 43 strike any and insert except as provided here in any on page 14 after line four, insert the following any application pending on May one, 2016 for Medical Marijuana Center License, a retail marijuana store, a medical marijuana optional premise cultivation license or retail marijuana cultivation facility license shall not be approved by the director if the premise proposed for the license is located within any of the following statistical neighborhoods. O'Leary. Valencia. Overland. Northeast Park Hill. Montebello. Val Verde. College View. Lincoln Park. Well. Sunny Side Baker at Moore Park. Five Points Globeville in Sun Valley. Any application pending on May one, 2016 for medical marijuana, optional premises, cultivation license or a retail marijuana cultivation facility license shall not be approved by the director if the proposed location would be within 1000 feet of a school or residential zone district as prohibited by sections 6 to 14 and 24 or 512. Perrin F Perrin one. In addition, the pending application shall be required to supplement their application with a letter from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Schools indicating whether or not the school district has any plans to approve or establish a school in the next ensuring year within 1000 feet of a location proposing proposed for licensee if the school district indicates any such plan. The director shall deny the pending application.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. It has been moved and seconded. Comments Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: So again, part of what this amendment does is it includes the other neighborhoods that are. Saturated or impacted with these facilities. And I don't know if we put the maps up as well, Kelly. But we we had the maps put on this air system so you could look at where those saturated areas are and be able to understand why. We have had neighbors coming from certain neighborhoods expressing their concern about the impact that this has had to their community. You know, at one at our last committee meeting, we were we were told that there were only two such complaints. I've been to community meetings in these neighborhoods, hearing lots of different issues, complaints, concerns about things that go well beyond just odor. And so looking at how we address relief for particularly the global Elyria, Swansea and neighborhoods that are burdened with so many other issues that it just doesn't make sense to say, well, we only look at five neighborhoods and not include other areas of the city that are challenged and burdened with some of the concerns that we've heard reiterated over and over at both our committee meetings and some of the comments that we've heard tonight. So I would just urge my colleagues to seriously consider this and allow us to go further than what the last amendment did. This one does deal with pending applications, whereas the last one did not.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Clark. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. So my problem with this, as I alluded to in the previous one, is, you know, looking through this list, which we are setting in ordinance this list in perpetuity, in ordinance that these are the neighborhoods that we are protecting, we're choosing them. And yet Plot Park and Capitol Hill appear on these top 12 lists and do not appear on here. So I am I'm not comfortable with the process that somehow picks winners and losers without without that empirical. The statistical background for it and then with it. Then, you know, three years from now, there's another neighborhood that is the most highly impacted. And yet these are the ones that are in ordinance. And so for that reason, I will not be supporting this amendment and have serious reservations. I would encourage my colleagues to support it, as well as that is one of the two that are clearly left off just from these two. This is a neighborhood that I represent.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Mr. President. I wonder if I could ask Councilwoman Ortega if she would consider on the cultivation section reducing 2000 feet to 500 feet. From a residential zone district.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman flynn, david broadwell. I just wanted to chime in before. Go ahead. Craig david.
Speaker 14: I didn't mean to interrupt that question and i want to get right back to it, but an important clarification in terms of what councilman clarke just said. This doesn't codify these neighborhoods for exclusion for all times. This this amendment is only about the pending applications. So it doesn't go into the code language itself, as in contrast to some of the drafting I did for Councilman Lopez, which does indeed go into the ordinance name neighborhoods where there can't be any licensing indefinitely into the future. This this amendment is very laser focused on the pending applications in terms of where they can't be approved if they haven't been approved by May 1st. Okay. So that's that's important. Has distinguishing this from the others you're going to see later. Now, again, I'm sorry to interrupt. We turn to we're turning to a different issue now in terms of whether that's going to be addressed in this proposal.
Speaker 3: Thank you, David. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And thank you, David. That's a great clarification. As we as we move forward with this council on our take, the reason I asked about the cultivation licenses is that I I'm very troubled by the list of statistical neighborhoods that is on here for cultivation licenses. And they are the only statistical neighborhoods that even allow plant husbandry other than Stapleton, which has an industrial area east of Havana Street that goes all the way outside to I-25. And there's a big warehouse district out there that would be the only location under this amendment where a cultivation facility would be able to locate if it's pending as of May 1st.
Speaker 8: But that's not entirely true. If I can respond, if you look at the maps, which is why I was trying to get the maps up here so that we have an opportunity for you to see that. I'm sorry. I'm trying to find the right on the maps here. The. The boundaries for the residential and the schools still leave boundaries in those industrial areas where facilities can be located on the cultivation site. So we're not entirely closing out the ability for some of those neighborhoods to still be considered. What we're doing is focusing that in the industrial areas that are not within a thousand feet of residential.
Speaker 7: I understand that. But with the first paragraph, it absolutely says that any application pending as of May 1st for cultivation, which is what I'm talking about right now, cannot be considered if it's in those neighborhoods. And that's beyond the thousand foot issue.
Speaker 8: But but the second paragraph clarifies that the thousand foot is the right is the distinction the distinguishing factor right.
Speaker 7: That if it were.
Speaker 8: Allowed the opportunity for more of that space to be available.
Speaker 7: Right, if it were allowed in that statistical neighborhood in the first place. But the first paragraph absolutely says it shall not be approved by the director if the application is in within that statistical neighborhood at all. So that's that's the problem I'm having with it.
Speaker 8: Okay. And your request is. If. If I accepted the 500. That change your position on this?
Speaker 7: Not really, because I'm looking at the the draft ordinance that Councilwoman Kennish has, which also has a 1000 foot separation from residential for cultivation facilities that has that that's what has me very concerned. What has me concerned about your amendment is that it rules out all the cultivation licenses that are pending right now at all, because they can't go into they can't go into Harvey Park and they can't go into Sunny Chaffey Park or they can't go into Capitol Hill because they don't have warehouses there. So we're giving we're giving no option at all for any of the cultivation facilities that that's my concern.
Speaker 8: Okay. Well, that's.
Speaker 11: Your prerogative.
Speaker 8: To not support it. But, you know, the expectation was to allow facilities that are outside of the residential to still be available.
Speaker 7: Just just to clarify, if I could, there's a program that would apply after new applications come in after May 1st. Correct.
Speaker 8: Correct. This only applies to the demonstrations.
Speaker 7: Right. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: The Council and council and commission.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. David, I think we need you to chime in. The amendment is drafted as an and not in any of these statistical neighborhoods and not appending application. Correct. Councilwoman Ortega's intention, as she's describing it, does not match what's on the page. I would just like you to chime in on what is drafted in front of us.
Speaker 14: Right. There's not an end on the draft because this is what I felt I was being directed to draft. So. So Councilman Flynn's analysis is correct is that there's a complete prohibition on granting of the pending applications in any of the named neighborhoods.
Speaker 9: Even in the deeply industrial area.
Speaker 14: I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: Even in a deeply industrial area. In the named neighborhoods?
Speaker 14: That's correct. Okay. Okay. And and if there's for example, the Stapleton example is not on that list of name neighborhoods. The the other restrictions related to setback from residential and schools might knock out something in the Stapleton neighborhood because it's not mentioned in the first paragraph, but it would be knocked out by the second paragraph.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And then, Mr. President, I just want to clarify for colleagues, I just handed out a map that I got late in the day. I do have it on thumb drive if we need to ask the Madam Secretary to put on the screen, but and I'm sorry, it's small, but it is the blue on the map that you're looking at is industrial areas. And then you can see the statistical neighborhood outlines here. And so you can see that indeed, Councilman Flynn's analysis is correct that with this amendment, there would be virtually no industrial zoned areas other than the Stapleton statistical neighborhood that would be available. So and again, I know the names of the statistical neighborhoods are very tiny, but but what we do I just wanted to share this since I know Councilwoman Ortega was struggling to get the maps that she didn't have access to, but this is the map that shows the overlay. So thank you.
Speaker 7: Mr. President. Could I clarify something on that map?
Speaker 3: Should I count.
Speaker 7: The blue area in my district? It's not an industrial zone. It's actually lake marshland. So much so everybody's clear on that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. We are now up with Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: It sounds like an opportunity for a manmade island, so. Yeah. Councilwoman Kenny Ortega. Sorry, this the clarification, that mean what Councilman Flynn was. What also was giving me pause because there was no and it was absolute in its terms because I do believe that there are parts, particularly in the pending applications again for Montebello in Sun Valley , that could be captured well outside of the thousands, that thousand foot area. But the absolute terms of that first paragraph are strictly prohibited in those two areas, as well as the one pending app in Sunnyside that also would fall outside that boundary. So those the fact that it's that exclusive was giving me pause on supporting this.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman?
Speaker 4: Yes. Oh, thank you very much. I won't be supporting this particular amendment nor anyone of those that give no options to pending licenses. I, I don't smoke marijuana. I don't eat marijuana. I don't put marijuana in my ears. I don't do anything with marijuana. And I have no connections with any marijuana businesses at all. But I am vehemently in favor of allowing spendings to go through in some manner. Would. I don't know. Whenever we have never that we have not grandfathered people in circumstances like this. I can't remember, certainly not in my tenure that we didn't grandfathered people when we were making major changes in the law and people who followed that law faithfully. I just think that if we prevent the pending going forward, we are acting in bad faith and. I would be personally embarrassed. To do such a thing. So this is the first of some of those amendments that are going to prevent. In total some spendings to not go through. I continue to be amazed at the sort of midst last century mid-century opinions of marijuana that we still hold on to that were part of a hysteria against drugs, particularly drugs used by lower income people. And and they made these laws that were extraordinarily damaging to minority communities then. And, of course, applied in this extremely discriminatory discriminatory enforcement. On people of color. And one of the biggest shames of our justice system. It is that discrimination that destroyed these communities. And it's just ironic to me that we have the problems of the communities that are of color, who are who are worried about them, the legalization of it. When the when the illegal possession of it was so harmful. And it was the number one reason why Denver rights voted to legalize it by 67% was the injustice of its enforcement. And sometimes I feel like the 33% are trying to take that back. And I think we owe it to understand in our communities that we wanted to legalize this. But if but it's got to be somewhere in order for it to be legal. And of course, we have more in Denver than we do anywhere else in the state, because we have more people in Denver and more businesses. We have more coffee shops here, more liquor stores, more everything here. And we have them in. Communities. That we have also ignored in our in our history. And maybe it's our ignoring those communities, which is the cause of having this kind of saturation. But we ought to pay attention to the the ignoring of these communities. This is just sort of an effect. So I, I did my marijuana thesis. I did my thesis, master's thesis on marijuana in 1971. If you can imagine. So I know a little bit about this and particularly the sociological aspects of it. So I haven't said very much tonight and I'm probably not going to say much more, but any amendments that prohibit any pending from going forward, I just will never be able to support.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Before I go to Councilman Lopez and Ortega, I would hope that council colleagues were kind of going off into the final question, which I think people will comment on once we get to a bill as amended. I would hope that up until that point, we can just focus solely on these specific amendments. Otherwise, we will break the record for the longest council meeting ever. So if it's possible, colleagues, if we could just focus solely on these amendments, I think about the people who are sitting in these pews watching who would really like to get an answer sometime today. I just really hope we can take that into consideration as we continue to give our comments. Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And as far as the longest council meeting ever, that was Garcia's thing. I think that went to like three or four in the morning. You know, top of that. Thank you, Mr. President. I I'll I'm addressing my my comments for the need for an amendment. And as much as I absolutely love and respect my colleague, Councilwoman Sussman, it's easy for her to say, because there are very little spaces in her district where a dispensary or a grove facility can go. And it's easy for folks to say that, well, maybe we can attribute this to communities of color being ignored. Well, you have a whole bunch of them that came throughout this process and have said we need some kind of level of protection for Globeville, for Elyria, for swans here, for Val Verde, for a lot of these neighborhoods of color. And they're being ignored. Right. And here's the other thing. You're shaking your head. Are you a person of color? Do I see very many owners of these dispensaries of color? Do you live in Globeville, Elyria and Swansea? If you do, please stand up. I'd love for. I love for an owner to say, you know what? I live in the neighborhood I serve. I don't get to go to a grocery store. Like they don't get a go. That's good. We have one right on that, too, right, hon? Right on. So here's here is my point. Here is my point. For those of you who come up to this dias and say, how dare you attack our business? How dare you attack our industry?
Speaker 0: Tell me another city in this.
Speaker 2: State that you can go in there, Dias.
Speaker 0: And say, please accept my application. You're welcome.
Speaker 2: Turning away for your welcome. This city. From the get go. From the get go. Whether it was decriminalization. We were supportive of it. That meant less youth of color in our jails. Right. You should all be clapping for that one. Amendment 20 medical marijuana. Denver was at the forefront and I respect the folks. User. User from Chicago. I think you went to northern. I respect the heck out of you. I respect the folks that actually look at this as a medicine. As something that can be used to develop. That's why I'm not against MIPS. That's why I'm not against laboratories. Recreational. When it was time for us to implement Amendment 64, regulate it like alcohol, we were on the forefront. I was there. My amendments actually pushed that. And when I said we wanted to separate it 1000 feet away from each other, when I first said we're going to have an undue proliferation, everybody shook their heads. No, we're not. No, we're not. No, we're not. And you know what? You blasted it when I said we need a 2500 foot distance, so we have a fair shot for everybody. And you know what? I had to reduce it down to 2000, wasn't good enough, took it down to 1500, and now we're at 1000. And by the way, for the folks in the community who say we have no other choice. Yes, you do. It's 2016, folks. These applications, although they're pending. There is no guarantee of their approval. There's still a needs and desires hearing for those folks that want open centers. So, yes, communities, you do have a voice and you do have power. But I forgive me for being. So what's the word emotional about it? But I am. Because I grew up in this city. I live in this neighborhood. My mom taught at Swansea Elementary School.
Speaker 0: Every single day those folks wake up.
Speaker 2: To the smell. Not of flowers, not of bread baking, not of the coffee shop on the corner of dogfood and weed. There are communities that have no it has nothing to do with you all as business owners. Nothing to do with it. What it has to do with is their communities and what they want to see in your communities and their communities. Greenwood Village is a bunch of grocery stores. There are areas all over Denver. Across the train tracks. They have grocery stores galore and dispensaries. And it's a happy little world. But for folks all around this city and primarily in areas like globe, Elyria, Swansea are involved in Sun Valley. There's not a grocery store within walking distance. But there are a bunch of dispensaries. Oh, by the way, a whole bunch of liquor stores. And if you want to open something that's available to. Picture what we want our city to become. And if we want to really level that playing field councilwoman. Now we have to look at this from a 35,000 foot view. If we really want to talk about equality. Absolutely. I applaud those folks. There's a woman there sitting right next to you, the one that owns three dispensaries in my district. That said, I employ a living wage. You said this to Amanda. Living wage. You have folks of color. Great. Well, we got a lot of progress to do with the ownership. We got a lot of progress to do with folks who were in this city, wanted to do business and called this city home as well to. And Denver should not be the only place that regulates marijuana. We can't be. We all should be clapping. Lakewood. Adams County, Jefferson County. These are all cities that thumb their noses. You can't even have a hearing in their chambers. That's all these amendments are speaking as a reason why we're putting these amendments forward. Now, whether this bill passes or not. I think there needs to be a discussion whether it's maybe it's not statistical neighborhood, maybe it's none of these amendments that are going to work. But we have to address this. We absolutely have to address this. I've seen this from beginning to end. I'm the only sitting council member that has seen it from beginning to now. And I implore you to consider it. Not once did we have a speaker that was for the industry. This is what we did with the community. This is what we're doing to reduce this. This how we're working with global learning in Swansea. Nobody said a thing. We are being we've been we've been leaving. And I'm like, please, please don't play. I'm not doing this for applause, please. We've been leaving little tidbits here in there of how to do this, and nobody has picked up on it. Okay. So let's please. Let's give this some respectful consideration. Thank you, Mr. President. I and I intend to supporting this amendment because I think we if this isn't the answer, we still got to be pushing for it.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. And I'm going to continue to advocate that we vote. So let's eventually get to this point. Colleagues, thank you for your comments. We can continue to go down, but I hope at some point we will vote on this amendment, the other five, and then the bill as amended. So please, let's continue to drag along. Councilman Ortega, you're up, man.
Speaker 4: Um, well.
Speaker 8: The only thing I wanted to add is that when we started this conversation and only half of this body was here when we started dealing with the retail recreational marijuana, we had 210. We now have 1000, almost 1030 licenses that will be that will exist in this city. I'm sorry. It's 1301, to be exact. So when you talk about the the the fact that we have moved so fast and furious in a short period of time, as I said in committee, this city has been very generous. There is no other city in the world that has as many licenses we do, not even Amsterdam. So when you look at the fact that, you know, we're trying to look at some balance between having neighborhoods that have some quality of life and. Allowing the industry to exist. You know, I supported this as we move forward and we had the the recreational retail framework that was put together by half of us that were here. And. The fact that some of us thought we were only tying the. Recreational to the medical. But somehow we went from five. We're now at 561 existing licenses. On the growth side, with 132 pending and a majority of those are on the medical side where we have a declining number of cardholders. On the store side, we have 346 existing with 34 pending. And then on the maps, we have 134 with 62 pending. So you can't tell me that we haven't already done more than any city in this state is done or in this country in trying to be generous and work with this industry. And I get that many of you have been through a process, but when you look at how many of these are already in existing operating locations, only 62 of them are for new locations. So I question, you know, the investment, the information we just got tonight doesn't give complete information on, you know, exactly where people are at in the process. But, you know, I had argued maybe we should only deal with the 62 new locations and forego the rest of them because those are already existing operating businesses. But, you know, I think addressing the issue of licenses is an important one. And so I would just respectfully ask that my colleagues give this serious consideration.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yeah, very quick question, right to the point on this bill. Councilman Ortega, are you willing to adjust this bill at all to the considerations that. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I would be. Okay. And that would take you down to 500 feet instead of a thousand. Is that what you're asking?
Speaker 5: Yes. But it's also asking the question around what David Brown? Well, it seems like there was some miscommunication of what he intended. The and that's in the provision and what you intended. I guess my biggest question is if there are pending licenses that are not within that buffer zone, that they would not be touched. You know what I mean? And so I just want to make sure that we can address that, because it seems like there'll be another kind of supporter there, if we could.
Speaker 8: So I want to be clear on what you're asking in terms of the buffer that you just referred to. Yeah.
Speaker 5: So, Councilman Flynn, are you are you asking about the and provision? Are you asking about the 500 to 1000 provision? Which one?
Speaker 7: Thank you. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: But that was President.
Speaker 7: Councilman Brooks. I had a side discussion here with Councilwoman Ortega earlier, and the and I'm talking about the end. In order for the 500 foot buffer reduction of two 500 feet to mean anything. Then the first paragraph of the amendment would have to be stricken for cultivation licenses.
Speaker 5: And that could get you supportive of this.
Speaker 7: I'm not sure it accommodated her because it also it also if we only remove cultivation licenses for the for the pending, it still leaves in all the retail and medical spendings that would be thrown out.
Speaker 5: Okay. So never mind.
Speaker 3: All right. Any other comments on the First Amendment by Councilwoman Ortega? Seen none. Madam Secretary, Councilwoman Kenny, each last minute chimed in. Ah, nope. She backed out. You could pull them back. All right. Thank you. All right, Council. We are no more comments on second first amendment by Councilman Ortega. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 6: Ortega I Susman No. Black, no. Brooks Clark.
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 5: Espinosa Bass.
Speaker 6: Flynn.
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 0: Cashman, no.
Speaker 6: Carnage. Lopez. I knew Espinosa. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Now. Correction, I. Madam Secretary, please quote the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 6: 66 nays.
Speaker 3: Six I6 nay. The motion has failed. Councilman Ortega. You have your second. There you have your Second Amendment you wish to offer me.
Speaker 8: Read this. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 16 to 64 in the following particulars on page one, line 11 through 12, amend the title by striking the words number of license locations where marijuana cultivation and sales may be permitted in the city, and inserting a number of new licenses for marijuana sales, marijuana cultivation and marijuana products manufacturing that may be issued in the city, a line 13 after the word licenses insert in both retail and medical marijuana products. Manufacturing licenses. On page two, strike line 23 through 37 and insert the following. Number two Cap on marijuana cultivation licenses a maximum 275 medical marijuana optional premises cultivation licenses or retail marijuana cultivation facility licenses on page three, strike line one through 13, and insert the following three. Cap on marijuana sales licenses, meaning a maximum of 250 medical marijuana center licenses. Retail marijuana store licenses. On page three line 14, insert a new subsection four in re number succeeding subsections accordingly. Number four cap on marijuana manufacturing licenses, meaning a maximum of 150 medical manufactured, medical marijuana infused product licenses or retail marijuana product manufacturing facility licenses. On page five, strike line 37 to 39 and substitute following marijuana cultivation licenses, the cap on marijuana sales licenses and the cap on marijuana manufacturing licenses. With these caps to be administered and enforced by the director in accordance with this section, strike lines 41 through 46 and remember each succeeding subsection accordingly a line 49 strike end and substitute a comma on page six. Line one after comma insert medical marijuana infused product license or retail marijuana product manufacturing facility license align to strike license locations and insert licenses straight lines three through five and insert the following licenses the cap on marijuana cultivation licenses and the cap on marijuana manufacturing licenses, respectively, allowed six strike sales locations, strike lines nine through 20 and remember succeeding subsections accordingly on page seven, line 11, strike end and substitute a comma after the second licenses insert and marijuana products manufacturing license to the extent capacity for new licenses exists under any of the respective caps. On page eight Line 44, insert a new Section five of the Council bill and renumbered succeeding subsections according to Section five that the introductory sentence of Section six, Dash 213, Denver Room II Revised Municipal Code shall be amended by adding the language under underline to read Section 6-2 13 Licensing Requirements Retail Marijuana Products Manufacturer Effective May one, 2016. The director shall not receive or act upon any application for retail marijuana product manufacturer license except through the annual open application process set forth in section six. 203 In addition to the requirements set forth in the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code, any rules or regulations adopted pursuant there to the following recommendations shall apply to the issuance of any local license a retail marijuana product manufacturer on page 12. On page 12 Line eight, insert a new section of the Council bill and renumbered succeeding section according section. There is no number here. That Section 20 4-509 Licensing Requirement Medical Marijuana Infused Product Manufacturing License Effective May one, 2016. The director shall not receive or act upon any application for medical marijuana infused products manufacturer licensing, except through the annual open application process set forth in Section 6-203. In addition to the requirements set forth in the CMC, the following requirements shall apply to the issuance of any local license for medical marijuana infused products and manufacturing. And if I could just explain what this does. As I indicated earlier, this would create a council.
Speaker 3: And let me first just move your motion of the first and second, and then I'll come to you directly for comments. Okay. All right. So that was second motion to amend that has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Ortega, go right ahead.
Speaker 8: So what this does is it creates a cap over time. By each category. So that. Over time that we would essentially ratchet down over a period of time so that we have caps on the different categories. And we don't, you know, unless there's something that opens up and we have the lottery process that's spelled out in Councilwoman , can you just fill. We basically have a ratcheted down number based on the numbers that I read earlier.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I strongly support this. One of the problems I have with the bill as it is originally drafted is that it's such a cap. All caps are arbitrary, by the way, but the cap in the original bill that we're looking at unamended leaves us with a cap that is everything that exists now and everything that gets approved, that's still pending and that's just as arbitrary. I. Denver really is, as the gentleman said, the Silicon Valley. But we're actually we're the center of it because around and if you bear with me, just take a second. The cities in the metro area that prohibit what we're doing here tonight. Arvada, Brighton. Broomfield, Castlerock, Centennial. Cherry Hills Village. Columbine Valley. Englewood. Erie Federal Heights. Firestone. Frederick Golden. Greenwood Village. Lakewood Littleton. Longmont Lone Tree Mawson. Parker, Sheridan, Superior, Thornton and Westminster. If you look at the maps that are online of where to buy your marijuana, all of the most of the pinpoints are right in the center of Denver. So to be getting emails for the last two weeks about how we're assaulting the industry and we're stifling the industry, I think the exact opposite is true. This is about the only place in the metro area that you have this kind of that you have this kind of access to the market. And by the way, this is not a free market. The folks who testified up here that we're overregulating and it's a free market, the people who wrote Amendment 64 said it's not a free market. We're doing the job that they told us to do. I wholeheartedly support setting a cap that is lower than what we will end up with by simply letting the paintings go through. We will have a number of like we will be over the cap for some period of time, but over time it would ratchet down . Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Perhaps someone can.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to again reconcile between the framing of the amendment and the language. Mr. RUDD Well, I'm reading the back page of the amendment. I don't see where it ratchets down. What I read is it includes the total number of existing licenses plus the pending. I don't see that there is a ratchet down. It's basically status quo, what's what's what's existing, plus what's pending. So Councilman Flynn is has based his vote on the idea that it ratchets down through attrition, but nothing in this language does that. So I want to just clarify what it what it does and what it does not do.
Speaker 14: Well, I think I I'd stated a somewhat different way. There's a big ratchet down implicit in the amendment, but it's essentially a one time thing. It's a it's the idea that there's a number of maximum licenses. We're no longer talking locations here. We're talking licenses. That's a stated number that would be codified in the law and which would tell the director, you can't conduct an open application process or a lottery until sometime in the future when the number of licenses in Denver go below that number. And the numbers that are proposed are substantially lower than the number of licenses in the city today that that this really puts off until some some distant future when the number would go below that in terms of licenses that we would be accepting new licenses under the open application process. That's what this move if there was.
Speaker 9: Slightly to that language, please, where the number is lower. I've heard this in the description, but I am looking at the text of the amendment and I do not see where it changes the number. So if you can just point me to the line.
Speaker 14: I hope I've got the right copy. The middle of the first page 275.
Speaker 9: Oh, we don't have that number.
Speaker 14: Okay, maybe I'm looking at the wrong version. Sorry.
Speaker 9: Okay. I must have an old version. Mine does not have a 275, so. I mean, look.
Speaker 5: Where is this?
Speaker 9: What color? We.
Speaker 8: We passed out the.
Speaker 5: That's the way.
Speaker 8: It should be. I'm sorry I wasn't reading from the colored one. Oh, we passed out the one that was written on.
Speaker 5: The white.
Speaker 10: Flight.
Speaker 9: Okay, so I just want to clarify. We skipped over Amendment two and went to Amendment three then. Is that what occurred?
Speaker 8: It is correct.
Speaker 4: That.
Speaker 9: Okay, that helps quite a bit. Thank you. I was an amendment.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Councilman Ortega chose to. Were you still going to do for Councilman Ortega or did you or.
Speaker 8: I do plan to do for.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. So, Councilwoman Kinney, any other questions? Tracking. Now I make sure I got councilman carnitas questions answered.
Speaker 9: Can someone just confirm I'm on the right color?
Speaker 3: It is the. I'm looking at white. It is the White House.
Speaker 9: Okay. There's no.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. This is our Second Amendment. Any other comments? On Councilwoman Ortega's Second Amendment. Councilman Kim H. I thought you might have something I wanted to give you a minute.
Speaker 9: To thank you and your.
Speaker 3: Parents.
Speaker 9: I'm juggling a lot of paper up here, and I think I must have had an earlier version of the amendment. So I want to just point out one of the significant differences that this amendment will create, as opposed to the bill as drafted, which is not just that there is, you know, a ratchet down in the numbers , but there will actually be no city controlled new entrants. So we at this point, we would have a secondary market where existing business owners could sell licenses to others, but there would be no ability for the city to set a higher standard. So, for example, right now in this pending in this drafted bill, the lottery pro qualifications include the fact that no one has had any any violations of a safety related matter in the prior year. No one's had any revocations at another location. And that applies to all of the owners that are involved. None of those criteria would then apply because this new law is for individual businesses to choose who they want to sell to. The city has certain veto powers. For example, if you had it didn't pass the criminal background check, for example, but you would be literally giving the existing industry exclusive control over who the new entrants are. So that isn't perhaps an unintended consequence, but it is indeed a consequence of this dial down. And this was earlier in this process, a persuasive issue for some people who felt like it was important that the city be the one to be controlling new entrants to the market. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Kenny. Councilman Flynn's okay if I hop over you for councilman new councilman new. You're up.
Speaker 10: Just a question on the deputy's license numbers. Is that about 50% of what the current license figure is? Is there some is there some percentage of your work?
Speaker 8: That is that is correct, except on the maps, it's actually higher than more than what it is. With the total number, including the pending that would that would go through. But certainly on the on the grows and on the stores, it would be about half.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman new Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Just for a clarification on the secondary market issue, Mr. Broadwell, maybe you could help me out here or maybe Stacy. But when a when an operator when a licensee wants to sell the business to another to a buyer. They can't just give them the license. We have to approve that. So it's not the case that you're selling our license. You're selling your business. And yes, it may be more valuable because we're limiting the number of businesses. But you're not selling a license and we can subject the transfer to the exact same standards. Simply by adopting that. If we don't have them already, I'm shocked. I'd be shocked that we don't have the same level of scrutiny for a license transfer as we do for anyone else applying for a license. Could you help me on that?
Speaker 10: Mr. Bravo.
Speaker 14: Yes. Just briefly on that, the neither the main bell tonight or any of the amendments change up the basic rules for transfer of ownership of a license and transfer of ownership of marijuana licenses very similar to liquor licenses is a fairly simple process now under current law that basically you don't do new needs and desires or anything like that. It's just doing the criminal background and character check on the new owners. Right. It's essentially a look at the character of the new owners. But as of right now, the kind of what what you look at, what the disqualifier as might be, are entirely set forth in state law. The city has never adopted any unique or additional filters or criteria for the background check for the new owners. It's not something we've ever regulated in detail. There was going to be there's there's some additional requirements set forth in the in the annual open application process and the underlying bill for new licensing. But for transfer of ownership, it's pretty minimalist in terms of what the standards are under state law that we follow currently.
Speaker 3: You're a good councilman for good. Councilman Kenny Tribeca.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Yes. As I caught up with my reading, I began to apologize for being on the wrong amendment. Two other consequences I want to make sure folks understand. We had had an extensive conversation in committee about the importance of allowing conversion or additions to retail. This would not allow it. The cap on marijuana sales licenses at 250 would prevent existing medical facilities from adding retail to the extent that they would exceed the cap. So there would be no we would remember we've talked about freezing the world in medical. This bill would do that because it applies the cap to both medical and retail in combination. The second piece that this amendment does that, again, we had talked about in committee, we had no testimony about impacts to communities from MIPS. MIPS tend to be thousand feet type facilities, which is like, you know, think about your house square footage probably, you know, if you live in a in a single family home or a duplex, your house is perhaps more than a thousand feet of of space. These are small commercial kitchens, laboratories that do extractions. They do not have customers coming and going from them like stores do. And they do not have growth of marijuana. They're not cultivators unless they have a cultivation license. And that's a different matter. But this would limit the manufacturers as well, which as we discussed in committee, there was not a strong interest in that obviously could have changed. But I just want to make sure folks understand that with this bill, you are capping manufacturers along with the other two categories we've mostly been discussing. And you also are prohibiting addition or conversion to retail because it would exceed the cap. So just making sure folks understand that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. All right. We've got Councilman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I have a question. So this is based on capping licenses. And the premise of Councilwoman Finishes, Bill is locations which I thought we were all in agreement about. And so I'm wondering if this passes, will it replace. What's in Councilwoman Pernicious Bill regarding licenses over locations.
Speaker 8: Do you want me to address that or she's looking at you, David.
Speaker 3: But I think. Dave I think she was looking at you. Okay.
Speaker 14: I will defer to the proponent of the amendment, but but this is germane to if you go back to the top of this amendment, you'll see this is the only one that actually amends the title of the bill because it fundamentally does change the thrust of the bill, that the conversation that the bill itself is focused on capping locations based upon the status quo, essentially. But this does by changing the focus to number of licenses instead of number of locations, it actually necessitated a change to the bill title, right, in addition to a number of the details in the body of the bill itself. But but it does, you know, undoubtedly kind of change it from one paradigm to another. And that's why it required a couple of pages worth of worth of amendments to do that. But it's still a the bill, right? Still has the open application process somewhere down the line for new licensing. If we ever go below these numbers, some of the fundamentals of the original bill are still in place. But it is really a shift from the location idea to a license idea and a license number that is a much lower than current status quo number
Speaker 8: . And if I could just continue. So. Effective May 2016, the director wouldn't accept new applications, but with all of the current, existing and pending. It would start from that number. And so after all of these licenses that do allow the the co-location are approved, then it would set a different number as as the cap for each of the categories.
Speaker 4: All right. Well, thank you. I won't be supporting it because I fully support our original premise, which was to. Look at the locations and not the licenses. I also don't think we should restrict maps for exactly the same reason that Councilwoman CORNISH mentioned. I won't repeat them. So. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Next, councilman to take you.
Speaker 8: I'll pass a lot. My colleague speaks that. I just.
Speaker 3: Okay. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, sir. I just wanted to clarify that for Councilwoman CORNISH, that the this amendment applies only going forward, that it doesn't affect the pending application. So any conversions that are already in the works would go would go forward if the applications are in. I'm. Hmm. No. We would end up with the number that we end up with. But you couldn't have any new applications until we get below the cap.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, any other comments on the Second Amendment? So. So, David, I just want to ask if you could just one more time, since there was a lot of confusion going back and forth. And if you could just succinctly say what this amendment is, again, I want to make sure I don't see any other comments or about the vote, but I want to make sure everyone's clear about what this particular amendment is. And there was a little bit of confusion. So if David, if you could just one more time, just some me some summarize.
Speaker 14: Okay. So so the the base bill coming in to tonight cap the total number of locations in the city pretty much based on status quo, existing plus pending. Right. And it was very focused on physical locations, as we've all learned. Many locations have multiple, multiple license layered on to the same location. But that was the thrust of the bill. This changes the focus to number of licenses in Denver, Colorado, and basically says that it's that unless we go below a certain number as specified in the amendment, we will not be accepting new applications for licenses, whether they're co-located with existing in the future or whether they're going to be a unique location. We just won't be accepting them until total number of licenses in Denver go below the number. The other significant thing I'll emphasize again that others have noted is that this is the only amendment which also gets into the realm of manufacturers. Okay. Everything else you're talking about tonight is stores, sales and cultivation. But this one gets into capping the manufacturing licenses as well. And that's another unique aspect of this, which takes the bill into a different realm.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And this has no impact on the previous amendment that was passed earlier in regards to the lottery. Correct.
Speaker 14: And any impact on what.
Speaker 3: The previous amendment that was passed in regards to a lottery.
Speaker 14: No, this was still leave provisions in the bill or regarding a lottery at some point in the future. The amendment you passed earlier talks about blacking out some statistical neighborhoods that would still be in play whenever that would occur in the future. But this would basically make that future a long time further away in terms of when we would probably be going below those numbers.
Speaker 3: Thank you, David, for that clarification. Any other comments on the Second Amendment from Councilwoman Ortega? See nine. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Ortega Susman.
Speaker 4: No. Black? No.
Speaker 6: Brooks, clerk. No. Espinosa, no. Flynn.
Speaker 0: I. Cashman now.
Speaker 6: Can each know Lopez?
Speaker 2: Pass.
Speaker 6: New?
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 6: Lopez.
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 6: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: No. Madam Secretary, please, first of all, announce the results. 369389a second. The amendment fails. Councilman Ortega, do you have a you have a Third Amendment you'd like to offer?
Speaker 4: I do.
Speaker 8: Amendment four is the gold sheet, and this is. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 16 to 64 in the following particulars on page 13, line 42, add section 12 to the Council Bill and Marine number of succeeding sections. According to Section 12, the Section 12 Dash 96 for B DRC shall be amended by adding the language underlined to read as follows. Section 12 Deaths 96 Dash Notification. The following agencies of the city shall be responsible for the following notification. Proposed Action Application for any type of new business license under the Denver Medical Marijuana Code or the Denver Retail Marijuana Code in any location in the I8 or I.B. Industrial Zone District, as defined by the Denver Zoning Code, or any proposal to change the location of the existing marijuana business license to a new location in such zone districts and the responsible city agency would be excise and license.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: So basically what this does is it ensures that communities who are adjacent to the I and Ibe zone districts who currently are not receiving any notification would be entitled to that. Any of the IMX zones do provide notification to the adjacent neighborhoods. They just don't. For the IEEE and the IB and we have heard repeated testimony from the community asking for this notification. So that's what this would do.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I seconded this motion. It's my intention to support it. I believe this allows an opportunity for communities who've been asking for notice to be able to have an opportunity to reach out to the businesses and create a dialog. The council member can be a part of that or not. But it creates an opportunity for communication where there hasn't been enough. Clearly, we would not be as as Nancy mentioned, we would not be in this boat if we had had more communication from these businesses to these communities. And this creates that opportunity. So in an effort, as Councilman Lopez requested, to try to find ways to find common ground, this is a good one and I'm happy to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 10: Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. David, let me ask you a quick question around this. On the similar bill that we are not a similar bill, but we passed this omnibus bill earlier this year. If we did the notification and in the omnibus bill, we talked about getting a number of signatures. And Stacy LAX can answer this question as well. A number of signatures for a hearing. Does this coincide with that? Can you have a hearing for an I believe even those for you, sir, I. Even if you had a number of signatures.
Speaker 14: Well, I'll invite others to talk about that. That particular provision of the omnibus who worked on that more directly. This is purely a one way street. It's just a notification requirement that excise and licenses has to provide to the R and O's when there's any kind of marijuana business licensing in these in these industrial districts. It doesn't talk about hearings. It doesn't talk about petition processes. It's just notices that have to go out to the RINOs more. More broadly, there are some existing notification requirements they have to do now. Yeah, that's already in the same ordinance. But this makes it broader. I'm in the I want and I.
Speaker 5: And David, I'm clear on that. What I'm not clear on is will this connect to the greater omnibus bill that talked about existing notification? Was that all only for IMX Stacy? It's about time you come to the mic tonight.
Speaker 4: Thanks. Councilmember Stacy Lux, that executive director of the Denver Department of Excise and Licenses. This does not connect to the omnibus bill that was specifically for the iMac.
Speaker 9: Zone districts to provide that notification requirement, a public hearing requirement. This would be entirely.
Speaker 4: Separate for a night.
Speaker 9: B zone districts, not for IMAX.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Given that, you know, I will be supporting this, I think it is important to underscore and underline that this gives kind of a false hope in representation, that there could be a public hearing and needs and desires hearing for for this. I want to remind folks in the public that I be is for use by. Right. There's several other breweries and things like that are in this is very difficult and I know a lot of folks in the community asked me to look at this. We looked at it. So it's a it's a tough deal, but I just I'm going to support it with the understanding that I think what councilman can each say it was right on that this helps in that community process. It's amazing to me, you know, at these are my comments for the the larger bill, Mr. President. But I'll just say this is amazing to me that there's so much so many people in the industry upset. But I heard very little, very little on community outreach. And I just want to tell you, community outreach, reaching out to neighborhood residents, giving me a phone call in the community does not take much effort. And so this would require that and, you know, I'm going to support this, but I'll say my comments the larger bill.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Hey, thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 10: Thanks, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I'd like a little clarification maybe from Councilwoman Ortega or from Mr. Broadwell. Section 1296 of the R.A. Ordinance says in paragraph A that we notify registered neighborhood organizations when something happens within their boundaries or within 200 feet. And but then I see in the proposed action, it says it doesn't have any distance. It says any location in in a fire or I.B. zone. So does that need to be reconciled with the fact that it follows a paragraph that says within 200 feet because some of these will be, as we know, they got to be more than a thousand feet from the neighborhood so they won't be within the 200 feet . And that's one thing. And then the second question is, Councilman Ortega, what R.A. would be notified if, for example, that A or I.B. zone is not in is not covered by an R.A.? Are you talking about any surrounding that zone or.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so maybe.
Speaker 7: That and maybe that has.
Speaker 0: Clarified.
Speaker 8: Geographical boundaries. So they would have to be within the geographical boundaries. But there are some are in those that cover the whole city, so they automatically be notified.
Speaker 7: But, you know, as we know, if you send an email to agency about something that's happening in my neighborhood, no one in my neighborhood ever hears about it. So I'm most concerned about getting this notification to the R and O's that border, but may not cover that industrial zone. So will this do I'm I just wonder, will this do that?
Speaker 8: David, I would appreciate your interpretation, but it's my understanding that the R.A. who covers the geographical boundary where the application is proposed, would be notified if they're outside of the boundary. They wouldn't be notified. David, do you have something more?
Speaker 14: If you could come back to me, you're quoting it in context with the rest of the section councilman. Is that right? And I don't have that in front of me right now in terms of reading this language, in the context of the proximity language. So I think if it can wait a second and I can do that.
Speaker 3: And Councilman, we'll we'll come back to you as we have more council members in the queue. Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I was having questions along the line as Councilman Flynn, so I really want to hear back from David Brown on what? He thinks about that. But this is a step in the right direction. And I agree with my colleague on the east side. Councilman Brooks. And I think a lot of this could have been quelled. Very easily. It's looping in the neighborhoods. It's creating that relationship because at the end of the day, you could have any elaborate security system you want. There's nothing more elaborate than those nosy neighbors. And they look out for the businesses and they look out for everything in that neighborhood. So especially the ones out there in Globeville. All right.
Speaker 3: I support this. I think David Davis got the answer.
Speaker 14: No. Well, actually, at this late hour reading the sense of council, we will make sure that it codified as an amendment to the bill, that it includes both the literal and the proximate, because that's the spirit of a lot of the notification requirements that are in the code now. So if the amendment itself is improperly worded, we'll make sure it gets inserted to cover both scenarios.
Speaker 7: Okay. And that's the reason I brought that up. As I see, there are some RINO's in. MONDELLO For instance. MONDELLO Tony does not their boundaries do not include the warehouse district that where where this where cultivation is allowed. And I certainly want them to be notified if that happened.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. Any other comments on the Third Amendment from Councilwoman Ortega? All right, CNN, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Ortega I. Sassaman.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: Black. All right. Brooks Clark. All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 6: Flynn.
Speaker 7: Hi.
Speaker 6: Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew. Mr. President, I am secretary.
Speaker 3: Please Thursday announce the results.
Speaker 6: 12.
Speaker 3: 12 eyes. The motion passes. How about that? All right. And unanimously. Councilman Ortega, you've got one more.
Speaker 8: I believe the last one. I think because it's so similar to one of the other ones that I brought it basically. Let me just tell you what it does and why I'm not going to bring it forward. I find it. Um. Thanks for your. So this particular amendment. Or. So this particular amendment would have proposed a cap on sales and cultivation in the statistical neighborhoods, which are the same neighborhoods or similar neighborhoods that are some a number of them are overlapping that would have basically gone into effect after. All the pending had gone through. And given that we have not had support for addressing any of these, I'm choosing to withdraw this at this point in time.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. So those were your three. Councilman Lopez, did you have a motion to amend?
Speaker 2: Yes, I have two amendments that.
Speaker 3: Go right ahead. Whichever one you'd like to begin with.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Constable's 16 to 64 and the following particulars on page four Line 12. By the following definition, 11 statistical neighborhood means a geographical neighborhood, boundaries established by the city and county in Denver in 1970, conjunction with the Community Renewal Program, consisting of combinations of census tracts to which the city has assigned geographic place names corresponding to commonly used names of subdivisions and historical parts of the city. On page eight, line 43, add new section five to the bill and renumbered each succeeding section accordingly. Section five, that section six Dash 26 to 11 shall be further amended by the addition of a new subsection F to read as follows . Section six Dash to 11 Licensing Requirements Dash Retail Marijuana Stores D Effective May 1st, 2016 New application shall be received. No license shall be issued for any new retail marijuana store in any of the following typical neighborhoods. One Overland. Two Elyria. Swansea three five points. Northeast Park Hill. Valverde. Baker Sunnyside. Globeville Montebello. Capitol Hill College View Platte Park Civic Center. Coal. That should be Hamden. As a sec, as a separate neighborhood, that's a typo. 15 Lincoln Park, La alma, 16. Rosedale, Ruby Hill and Speer. On page ten line 33 ad the new subsection e read as follows de effective me first 2016 application shall be received. No approval shall be given for the change of location for any existing license for a retail medical marijuana store to the new location in any of the following statistical neighborhoods, Oberlin is 1 to 5 points Northeast. Parkhill. Valverde. Baker. Sunnyside. Globeville. Montebello. Capitol Hill. College View Platte Park Civic Center. Cole Camden. Lincoln Park Lama. Rosedale, Ruby Hill and Speer on page 13, line 42 and new subsection G, Teresa's read as follows Effective G Effective May 1st, 2016. New application shall be received and no approval shall be given for a change of location for any existing license for a medical marijuana center to a new location in any of the following school neighborhoods. Oberlin, Elyria, Swansea, a five points Northeast. Parkhill. Valverde. Baker. Sunnyside. Globeville. Montebello, Capitol Hill College View Platte Park Civic Center Cole Hamden. Lincoln Park Larchmont. Rosedale. Ruby Hill Spur on page 13, line 43 strike any and insert except as provided here in any on page 14 after line four, insert the following any application pending on May 1st, 2016 for medical marijuana, optional premises cultivation license or retail marijuana cultivation facility license shall not be approved by the director if the premises of the proposed for licensing is located within any of the following statistical neighborhoods Oberlin, Elyria, Swansea or five points Northeast. Parkhill. Valverde. Baker. Sunnyside. Globeville. Montebello. Capitol Hill. College View. Platte Park. Civic Center. Cole Hamden. Lincoln Park, Llama, Rossdale, Ruby Hill and Spears.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Lopez has been moved and second in comments. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I made my points at an earlier, earlier testimony into a very similar amendment, but a little different. This one actually separates out retail medical centers, the actual marijuana centers and the cultivation, you know, as I said before, has nothing to do with it is a matter of making sure that we have choice in our neighborhoods of other uses. We don't have that in very many of our neighborhoods. And as a city, we need to do a better job. But that's not just the role of government. That's the role of everybody. Do I think, you know, here's the reasoning for all these neighborhoods. These were the neighborhoods that were identified. It was empirical. It was not just cherry picking by whatever one rhymed with Oberlin. It. It was completely empirical based off of the saturation. Right. These neighborhoods from top to bottom, saturated, saturated all the way. And there was, I think, a seven way tie from. Not mistaken with the number 13 spot. So I just I included them all in there. To be fair, no way. It didn't look like we were just picking one over the other. Just to be absolutely fair and empirical. And I hope my my colleague, Councilman Clarke, appreciates that. Empirical miss. So, you know, I hope. This if it does not pass. I just hope it strikes that discussion and that point. You know, I, I, I'm passionate about it because I live in one of these neighborhoods. I live among my whole life. I'm not one of these folks that have this this fear of marijuana. I grew up around it. I know how to roll it. I know. I know. I know. I know a lot about it. And it's one of those things that, you know, it's sad because you see you see arrests happening on around. You see you see everything that comes around with the community for good and for bad, for better and for worse. You know, it is it is one of these things that I wish people had more respect for. As a medicine. We'd be in a whole different ballgame at one. You know, if the FDA just got with it, we wouldn't have a need for a dispensary, folks. You just be able to walk into Walgreens, get the prescription and go home. Right at the end of the day. So we don't do it for Tylenol. You don't have dispensaries for Tylenol, sir. So anyway. Thank you, Mr. President. I think folks get my point.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Lopez, I just want to clarify before I decide on this. The as far as licensing requirements for retail, everything except the cultivation. You're saying effective May 1st, no application shall be received. A no license shall be issued. Do you mean that? Does this mean that all the pending ones would also not be issued?
Speaker 2: All the pending.
Speaker 7: Okay. I would only support this if that were removed. I can support going forward with effective May 1st. No application shall be received from these neighborhoods. But we've already voted down an amendment that would have not process the pending. So if you were open to that, I could support it. And also, if you took out the cultivation section.
Speaker 2: There's only a cultivation section in the next amendment. This one doesn't have a confirmation on it.
Speaker 7: Did you not read this point on the.
Speaker 2: They have a cultivation.
Speaker 7: Yes. Any application pending May 1st for a medical marijuana optional premise cultivation.
Speaker 2: Right. You're alluding to the other.
Speaker 7: I'm curious about the list also, because it includes neighborhoods that I don't think have cultivation, Capitol Hill Civic Center especially. So if that were removed and if it only applied going forward to new licenses, I could support it, but otherwise not. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman and Councilman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I appreciate everyone's concern for our neighborhoods. I have deep, deep sympathies for the injustices to a lot of our neighborhoods, particularly Globeville, Elyria and Swansea. But the injustices were not caused by the marijuana industry. The marijuana industry did not cause the odor of Purina, but has been there my entire life. Nor is it the marijuana industry's fault that there aren't grocery stores in neighborhoods. So.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that for applause.
Speaker 4: I just I think we're confusing some things that aren't necessarily related and by preventing the pending applications to go through. It's not going to bring us a grocery store and it's not going to make Purina smell better. So those are issues that absolutely have to be addressed if we can have economic incentives to bring Panasonic and Costco . I really don't understand why we can't get grocery stores. I, I just find that really hard to believe, but I don't think that it's because of the marijuana industry. And I do want to help these neighborhoods absolutely 100%. But I think the blame should not be put on the industry. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Lopez, it's okay if I go to Councilman Espinosa since you had a chance to speak.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I'm just I'm just going to comment. The fact that these businesses are concentrated in areas that have our food deserts is not an applause line. This is sort of what I've been trying to push in committee, is that we should be using this industry, both the money it's generated and the opportunities that it can create to actually solve problems like that. And so. And when we get to the final comments, you're going to hear me say a lot about the fact that none of these proposals even touch about community benefit and how we can actually maybe liberate more locations to be eligible for this industry. Because the problem isn't these that these businesses exist. It's how they exist. We can all do better on both sides of this thing. So that's not an applause line. And I'm sorry, I just had to say something. I can't listen to that.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 2: So I draft this. And this is the making sausage part of governing governance. Right. And I'm absolutely open to having the conversation on pending. I'm absolutely open to having the conversation on which neighborhoods should be here in which should I put them all in here just to not cherry pick, to put them all here? This list was provided to me based on the numbers that are there. So as I mentioned before, finding that middle ground and keeping the fine and keeping to keeping that search on for that for that sweet spot and how we actually pass a bill that addresses a lot of this. This is this is a step in the right direction in terms of how we having that conversation. I just hope that we are all open minded to be able to do it. And secondly. You know, to address the issue on grocery stores. You're absolutely right, Councilwoman Black. It's not this industry that caused this problem. It isn't. It's a lack of regulation in the beginning that did that. It's a it's a lack of priority on a citizen that has done that. But I'll tell you a story. We decided to I mean, in the spirit of 64, Amendment 64 is to regulate like alcohol. I got excited about that because I think there's a lot of problems with alcohol regulation. I think it's a heck of a lot more dangerous of a drug than this will ever be. And so we decided to block an application through needs and desires. And that's why we have a needs and desires. And hearing in here that the community says, we have enough. You don't need it. We have a lot of them. And in our neighborhood, we have a lot of liquor stores. You can walk to all kinds of different ones from your house. Well, there's one on first inox. Now, we fought that one off. Why? Because it used to be our grocery store. And we fought another runoff. And guess what? We were able to land a grocery store. Because we fought it off. Twice. And the other one right across the street where Moka had this restaurant is matter of fact the owner the owner A and I hate this wanted a liquor store. Because of our policies, because of the things that we were working on, talking about how we modeled the needs and desires hearings here and because of our distance regulations. We were able to actually block that one and convince the owner. Of something we actually need. I and, you know, we don't have a restaurant in this little area. There. Heck, a lot of us that like us. And guess what she did. She opened that restaurant five years ago. Six years ago. It's the most popular one in the neighborhood. Sometimes it does take some pushback. Sometimes it does take us work in the market a little bit, and sometimes it does take us a step in there. And the fact that there aren't any grocery stores, that's not your fault. The fact that people raise their rents around you because they see you around. It's not your fault. They just do it. And as a byproduct, it's harder for some of these mom and pop shops to open up grocery stores. There's a lot of different reasons why grocery stores don't want to go into the. And it's not right. And someone should put a stop to that. Someone should incentivize that that conversation is taking place. But I do that and I talk about those food deserts because that is what the midst of what you are in if you are in these neighborhoods. That's just the reality of it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, want to bring us back. If we could continue to focus on the particulars of each amendment, we will get out of here before 3 a.m.. David broadwell did. You said you wanted to chime in.
Speaker 14: It's a quick clarification. This was probably related to drafts flying around this morning. To be clear, the amendment on the floor is only supposed to be about marijuana sales stores all the way through to the end on the pending application provision. It says cultivation, but it's not meant to say stores. So this will prohibit new new stores and centers in certain neighborhoods and also cut off the pending application for marijuana sales in those neighborhoods. The next amendment is entirely about cultivation, again, blacking out certain neighborhoods and cutting off pending applications in those neighborhoods for cultivation. So that was just a word processing error. If you vote on this, understand this is going to be entirely about stores. Cultivation will be the next amendment. Sorry about that.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you so much, David, for that clarification. Councilman Flynn, you got something?
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you. That's that's exactly what I was going to bring up. Apparently, I was looking at the Amendment one, the yellow sheet, because Councilman Lopez was reading from a yellow sheet. So I apologize. But in the list of just for clarification, the list of neighborhoods. So I guess I'll bring it up when we get to the yellow sheet.
Speaker 2: Where.
Speaker 7: We are on the other one. Okay. Amendment one. Okay. In the list, there's a neighborhood. I think there's a says Cole Hamden.
Speaker 2: It's supposed to be.
Speaker 7: It's just supposed to be Cole.
Speaker 2: That was a typo. I didn't hit the space. I should've hit the honor bar.
Speaker 7: Do you mean to include the Hamden as well? Okay, that's what I needed to know. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 2: And it was an identified neighborhood.
Speaker 7: And Councilman Lopez. Are you are you open to restricting this only to new applications after May 1st?
Speaker 2: I'm absolutely open to it.
Speaker 7: If you do that, I would vote for it.
Speaker 2: You can talk about that afterwards. Right.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. So once again, thank you, David Broadwell, for that clarification so that people are aware of what this amendment speaks to specifically to stores, not cultivations. And correct me if I'm wrong, it also includes not allowing opinions as well. There was just a conversation about would he be willing to change that? Councilman Lopez says he is. However, this particular motion includes the pending. So to make sure everyone's aware of that scene.
Speaker 14: Mr. President, if I could interrupt, I don't know if that was intended to be a friendly amendment where the movement is now agreeing to sever that last paragraph. So it's not in there anymore. But that's what I heard the colloquy laid out.
Speaker 3: I was I was not I wanted to make sure we just kept the motion that Councilman Lopez originally said is on the floor that does take out pending applications. And if he wants to offer another one, I will go to that after we vote on this.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 3: We got company. Yes, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah, if I don't click in. Who? Can you trace that? So I did have a question, a clarification. Did I just hear the exchange between Councilman Flynn and Lopez say that this only applies? To do that. This was on. Two applications after May 1st.
Speaker 3: This one does not. No applications after May 1st, as well as pending applications.
Speaker 10: Thank you. All right.
Speaker 3: See the comments. Madam Secretary, roll call Lopez.
Speaker 6: I knew Ortega. I Susman. No black? No Brooks Clarke? No Espinosa. No Flynn. No passion. No carnage. No Ortega. Ortega.
Speaker 8: Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. What was your vote?
Speaker 11: Had voted earlier. I.
Speaker 8: I just had pressed it on her. Okay.
Speaker 6: Can each. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I. All right, we got them all. Madam Secretary, please close the voting results for ice.
Speaker 6: Eight nays for.
Speaker 3: Ice, eight nays. The motion has failed. Councilman Lopez, do you have one more motion you like to offer?
Speaker 2: Last one. And I will do my best to read right through it. Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Constable to 64 series of 2016 and the following particulars on page four Line 12 add the following definition 11 Statistical neighborhood means the geographical neighborhood boundaries established by the city and county of Denver in 1970, in conjunction with the Community Renewal Program, consisting of combinations of census tracts to which the city has assigned geographic place names corresponding to commonly used names of subdivisions in historical parts of the city. On page nine, line 27, add the subsection E to read as follows. E Effective May 1st, 2016, no application shall be received and no license shall be issued for any new retail marijuana cultivation facility in any of the following statistical neighborhoods. One Elyria. Swansea A. Two Oberlin. Northeast Park Hill. Montebello. Valverde College View Lincoln Park Lama Sunnyside Baker ATH Ma Park Five Points, Globeville and Sun Valley on page ten, line 33, a new subsection Eat or use it read as follows. Effective May 2016. No application shall be D effective May 1st, 2016. No application shall be received. No approval shall be given for a change of location of any of the existing license for a Retail America retail marijuana cultivation facility to a new location in any of the following statistical neighborhoods. Elyria. Swansea. Globeville. I'm sorry. Illyria. Swansea. Overland. Northeast Park Il. Marbella. Valverde College View. Lincoln Park Le Alma Sunnyside Baker Atheneum Park Five Points. Globeville Sun Valley on page 13, line 20, line 42. At a new subsection G. Theresa read as follows g. Effective May 1st, 2016, no application shall be received and no approval shall be given for a change of location of any existing license for a medical marijuana optional premises cultivation facility to a new location in any of the following statistical neighborhoods. On page 13, line 43 strike any and insert except as permitted provided herein any. On page 14 after line four, insert the following any application pending on May 1st, 2016 for a medical marijuana optional premises cultivation license or retail marijuana cultivation facility license shall not be approved by the director if the premises proposed for licensing is located within any of the following statistical neighborhoods. Elyria. Swansea. Oberlin. Northeast Park Hill. Montebello. Valverde College View. Lincoln Park Lama. Sunnyside. Baker. Asma Park. Five Points. Globeville and Sun Valley.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. It has been moved. Colleagues, we never moved and seconded comments.
Speaker 2: Councilman Lopez speaks for itself. Same, same principle.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments on Councilman Lopez's Second Amendment? No comment. All right. Cena and madam secretary, welcome.
Speaker 6: Lopez. I knew. All right. Ortega I. Susman no. Black no. Brooks Clark no. Espinosa no.
Speaker 10: Flynn no.
Speaker 6: Catherine no. Kenny, no. Mr. President.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, please. First of all, right, now the results.
Speaker 6: Five, seven.
Speaker 3: Five, eight, seven, eight. The amendment has failed. All right. So that that concludes all of our amendments. So, Councilwoman Black, since the bill has been amended, we had two successful amendments. We need a motion to order published as amended.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 264 be ordered, published as amended.
Speaker 3: And wait for technology to catch up. It has been moved and seconded. Before we go on to comments from members of Council, David, could you for us to summarize that? And David, Dave is not listening. Hey, David, bravo. Could you just quickly summarize it what we have now with the bill and the two amendments that were passed and I'm sure a council member would do it, but I would just defer to you as our legal.
Speaker 14: You ask me to summarize.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just that the two the two amendments that pass what we have now before us. Briefly, briefly. Yeah, briefly.
Speaker 14: Why are you asking me? This is the bill as as filed on Thursday as you saw it filed on Thursday with with some time ago. How long ago was that? The the clerk Gilmore amendment was adopted early on that struck a provision of the bill as filed regarding improving the chances of being picked in the lottery and so forth, and adding the requirement that the director assess the five five highest concentration neighborhoods, both for stores and for cultivation, prior to conducting the open application process in the lottery, either in 17 or as soon thereafter as we have capacity to do new licensing. And then the one you just adopted was broadening the random notification for all all marijuana business licenses in I and Abiy's home districts. Otherwise it remains intact. And if you order it published, we'll have a final vote next week.
Speaker 3: Thank you, David. That was very succinct. All right, council members, we are now voting on the big bill as amended. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 10: Ura Thank you, Mr. President. For those of you who think we don't care, that we're not listening and that we don't know what we're doing, I would offer up that we do care. We are listening and we do know what we're doing. We may not be doing exactly what you want us to do, but we know what we're doing. We're trying to keep an industry afloat that.
Speaker 0: Generated $996.
Speaker 10: Million of sales last year in Colorado. We're trying to do that without crushing any individual neighborhoods.
Speaker 0: And without even more importantly.
Speaker 10: Bringing the wrath of the federal government down on us. In case anyone's forgotten, this is illegal on a federal level, and we're dancing a fine line so we could go Wild West on this and take just take all the regulations off. But I really think in this particular case, the danger is not overregulation. The danger is under regulation. Any bill that we pass is going to annoy somebody because it is going to clamp down a bit on somebody. But I think it's something that we need to do. I am not a particularly happy camper tonight. I am not happy at all about putting even one more location in in neighborhoods that are begging us not to put one more location in there. I am a neighborhood guy. I think our neighborhoods have the right to say I don't want it. Unfortunately, I agree with what Councilwoman Sussman offered up so eloquently earlier. I don't see how I can stop the pending locations. I have looked at the possibility of, as Elizabeth talked about before, some sort of fund so we can stop these locations, these new locations and make people whole. I've been advised that that's not wise. And when counsel says that if we're sued, if we were to stop these paintings and we were sued, we'd probably win. In court for various reasons. Well, that eliminates the last make hole opportunity that I've got. You know, if you open up a dispensary and it turns out you don't know how to do business and the competition beach and you lose three, four or $5 million. That is the risk of doing business. But if you follow the rules that the city presents to you. For me, that's a contract that we need to uphold. Yeah. That's all I've got. I will be supporting this bill tonight.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you. This is really democracy in action. It's great to have everyone here. Thank you for staying so late. The diversity of opinions is incredible and we are going to compromise. And like Councilman Cashman said, most people aren't going to be happy. But that's that's what happens. Thank you to Ashley Kilroy and her staff and Stacey Locks and her staff and the other city people who have been here. Councilwoman Kanis did a tremendous job trying to accommodate everybody's different wishes on this bill. This was not the bill she started with, and she really did a lot to work with everyone. So I appreciate all of her hard work. We all want to protect neighborhoods in our kids. That is absolutely 100% true. This ordinance is much, much more restrictive than the moratorium. We're going to set a citywide cap. We've got the buffers around grows. We're going to limit where growth can be in the future. The or odor ordinance hopefully will eliminate odor. And I think that is the biggest complaint that people actually have is odor. And so hopefully we will get that worked out. We're going to prohibit medical licenses and we're going to have needs and desires hearings in neighborhoods. So my final wish is that we have a permanent council committee, whether it meets monthly or whatever. We'll just stay on top of this issue and we will continue to create legislation that addresses marijuana. I agree. We need to honor those pending it. It was the contract this city made with the business community. I think it would be damaging to our reputation. I appreciate. And Elizabeth, again, her suggestion that we could counsel people out of certain neighborhoods. And I hope that we can still do that. I know a lot of you have investments, but if some of you are still willing to look elsewhere, I think we should work with you on that. And I know some people up here said. You all need to engage more with your neighborhood. So I hope I hope you will do that. I won't go on and on. But thank you again for your passion and for being here.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank all of you all for being here past midnight in those hard seats and hope your cars are okay and you don't have any tickets. I, I don't I don't take it for granted that you all are here, honestly. So I really appreciate I really appreciate you for just being here and dealing with all the issues. Councilwoman, can each my partner in crime on many subjects. I really appreciate your thorough nature in putting this together. This is. This is our job. And it's never 100% ever, ever, ever. And so we live with a constant dissatisfaction of not being able to get it right. But I hope you feel satisfied that I think you did a really good job among 3013 crazy individuals. I want to thank I want to thank the marijuana policy team led by Ashley Kilroy for all your hard work. I want to thank Stacey and her team for your hard work. So I, I represent let me just start by saying I get knocked on this council by being the pro-business guy to a to a discredit. And this is why perception isn't always reality. And we are people up here who have many different lenses and in our many different contexts. But I will tell you why. It's important for me to side with this incredible neighborhood in which I'm six blocks away from and why I'm not supporting the pending licenses. Number one, we had I believe I believe in the ethos. The ethics of business and the ethics of businesses is not so much the profit. It's about the customer in the community. And if that is not your focus, you should not be in business. I just honestly and and and here's my problem in the Cole Clayton global response he neighborhoods we had. A town hall. We had a town hall and we had 100 people come to it. And we had, as you said here, Brett King. And I appreciate that. And Brant was one of the only representatives from the industry. That's him. That's a layup. That's a give me for business and the industry to say, hey, we want to learn. What can we do? What can we do to mitigate some of the issues you're experiencing? That's really all the neighborhood wanted to see. Are there some? Can we meet in the middle? And no one showed up except for Brant. I got a big issue. I got a big issue with that. And I think the neighborhood had a big issue with that. And so I find myself in this position of, you know, this bill doesn't quite get to all the neighborhood protections in the future that we need. But I hope that there's a lesson that's learned in all of this, that there are ways to meet in the middle. And for the conversation about the grocery stores. Some of us know how to go after and get a grocery store and make it work. But we can't teach a business how to be in a community and be effective. You got to do that. And that's why we're in the place we're in and we're not discriminating. We do the same things with liquor stores. We do the same thing when there is a conglomeration of bars. We have gone in and worked hard to get a bar shut down if it's if they're not communicating, connecting with the neighborhoods. So there is no discrimination. I live in them. I represent the most eclectic district with all these issues. And so I will not be supporting this bill tonight. I can't support this bill tonight because I live in a neighborhood. I live 800 feet from a grow facility. And. When you begin to saturate and when you begin to concentrate, there's no smell ordinance that can identify where this is coming from. Right. It's not a particular location when you have all these locations in one small area. And I've never seen a council so sure of a bill. That hasn't even come through committee yet that it's going to work. So and it's much more than smell and it's much more than folks going through the dumpsters. And it's all you need to do is call and all you need to do is call enforcement. We know that communities of color do not call like that on specific issues. So this bill doesn't get here. I'm upset about tonight. I don't feel like, you know, we're getting to the issue. I think Councilwoman Black brought up a good point. We need to continue a working group to get to some of these larger issues. I am fully supportive of figuring out a financial mechanism to see some of these saturated, highly concentrated neighborhoods receive some of the resources. And so it's not the industry's fault, but they can be a part of the solution. Oh, and by the way, I got about five, six, seven people who are in the industry sitting down right now that I trust a ton. And they're doing great work. And the other thing that drives me crazy about this is they're taking the heat for some bad actors in the neighborhood. And so it's a it's a it's a tough place to be in. But I will not be supporting this. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. It is not often. Necessarily that we don't call. That said, no one responds. And we found that out to be an issue with our own city. And it's that that accountability. Right. I also live in an area that is identified as one of these neighborhoods. And. I'm a council man. I'm blessed to have a job, but to be able to drive back and forth to it or take the bus, I have my choice. I also live in a neighborhood where people that don't have a lot of choices. And. They love the neighborhood. But it says something as a city when we're. Creating density in of services, an area in poorer neighborhoods. You know, willing to. Load it with services. Right. Load it with whatever we can do in the public sector. But. When we look out for the daily lives of the folks in those neighborhoods, we cut our hands off. Right. I'm talking about areas like Villa Park and Sun Valley and Wild Ride. They. These are areas that. We still have some spaces left. And there are some hopes for other uses. There are some hopes to not gentrify the neighborhood. But to develop the neighborhood in a way that folks can stay there, be there, live their lives. And I talk about this particular neighborhood because this it's interesting how this neighborhood is so adamantly against. Any more dispensaries. Associations are big time. Cultivation big time anti. And when I heard testimony from a similar organization not too far away from us in along South Broadway, they said, oh, we ain't got no problems with it. I find that to be completely interesting. At the most dispensaries in the city. And in the overland neighborhood these areas. Most dispensaries in the city. Right next to cultivation. What is it? What is it about that neighborhood in our neighborhood? Well, there's different access to different things. There are choices. And as a city, we've historically looked to neighborhoods quite differently. Right now, we need to level the playing field so that no matter what industry exists. You don't get the bat end of the stick. And but it's going to it's going to take this participation. And I think when we look at how we're regulating this, you know, I think my I can't say anything that would ever top what Councilman Cashman had said. Exactly what he says. And Councilman Black wanting to see this be a permanent. Committee is absolutely necessary. We lead the world. And how you regulate. But here's the thing. Here's the only thing I would say differently. We can come up here and meet as many times as we want and figure out and scratch our heads on how to find this middle ground. You all are the best ones to do it. You all know the interesting intricacies of your industry. The folks that you employ. And that's the kind of input we need. But we need it open and we need to be able to do it in a way that protects some of these neighborhoods and protects them in a way that allows them to have other choices and help solve some of these other industries are completely intrigued. But the idea and the thought that. The marijuana industry is helping a neighborhood get a grocery industry. Think of what that possibility could be. But we're not here to talk about that. We're here to talk about this bill. My only. My only. Torn side of this is I was completely I'm completely torn about this. And the one thing that's really keeping me. I'm fully is the respect I have for my colleague Robin each. I've texted back and forth to her. Not during public hearings. I have, you know, back and forth all day. Yesterday came in on my day off just to talk to her, to kind of pick her brain a little bit. Councilwoman Canete, you worked really hard on this and. Not for any anything else, except for if she wants to help solve this problem. And you're the one that took this on. And I want to help you solve that problem. I want to get closer to figuring this out. I absolutely honor my my colleague, Councilwoman Kenney. She is taking that higher level. And looking at this from a completely different level in a lot of us, council district members are. So I respect that, but I have to stay true. To. Our car is out there and tonight I won't be supporting this bill. But I don't think this is the end. I think this is just another step in that process. And making sure that we have a bill that takes into account seriously. What so many of us have been saying in this on this dais, but folks have been coming to these council meetings who don't have any who are not paid to do this or anything else. They don't have an industry. The only thing they got is the home that they're raising their family and they want to be able to stay there. So with that, I thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, folks, for being here. Let's help solve this together.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Where do I start? The. I mentioned it. I referenced it, sort of my frustration is, is that none of the I've been commenting, if you've been watching this whole process and then commenting from sort of early on this need to address the concerns that this industry brings or raises. And so where we stood and I'm and I'm really frustrated, actually, Ashley, I want to commend you for the work with the excise and licensing policies that we adopted. But I'm really concerned with the administration and our leadership in how we even got here 2016 in this extended moratorium. Because I knew, you know, yeah, I was sworn in in July, but I knew that there was a moratorium deadline at the end of the year. And yet we don't talk about it as counsel until November of 2015. And we create this weird situation. We approve language that puts these pending applications in limbo. And I can't like my councilwoman, my colleague, Councilman Cashman, can't can't justify putting having put out that language and saying you're okay and then pulling the rug out from underneath those industries. I mean, does does those actors and if you've been watching, you've heard me say, I have no problem with it, I have no problem with it. But that was a bit of language that I actually didn't fully understand that I had approved. And that's really a shameful thing for me to admit. But it's true. And so once I saw that specific language, I just can't do that. I can't do that to those applicants that came in before the end of July, I mean, December 31st. But one of the things that we did by waiting until the 11th hour and not getting not spending the first five months of my time here working on this legislation is that we did not. Ever put forward the effort to try to address the community concerns in any language? Prior or past, what we were talking about was another two year extension of the moratorium. So guess what? None of this matters if we're doing that. So anything that we're doing, limited or not, is still not another two year extension. What to do, what to figure this out. Because we just said we don't know enough information. But what that is, is that's status quo, how we've been operating for the previous two years since its inception and then moving forward two more years, just keep doing what we're doing as we were doing it. So no improvements, just more status quo. And that's my concern about every single thing that we've done here today or talking about amendment wise is it's more status quo. It's just a now it's just the number of businesses that are operating in that status quo. So like I said, if you've been watching, you'd see me sit there and go, well, how can we actually. Push these businesses to actually be the leaders of the community. The pride of the community. Let's take Globeville. And maybe I got my history wrong. But yes, we knew that places a meatpacking mecca in years past. And if you go down to the Orthodox Food Festival and stuff like that, and you meet multi-generational families that were from Globeville, they take real pride. They don't mind that the area stunk. They take real pride in their sense of community around an industry. Well, now we got a whole new industry, but no sense of pride around that. And so that's where I see there is an opportunity and it can either be voluntary or involuntary, and we're not getting in voluntarily. What I did have conversations had conversations with major lobbyists, big players in Denver about this. And I charged them with, hey, what can you do to bring this industry in? I mean, somewhere close to the community. And I got a commitment that we could look into that. But I'm actually sitting here going. The only language I have is the stuff that I generated myself. And unfortunately, too late to actually get get it properly vetted. But what I've been posturing for is why not? If the if the industry's not going to itself perform these duties, why not regulate it so that it does? And and so, like I said before, I'm actually more open to more flexible location allowances and stuff like that. But if we had some provisions and and you know what? I've, you know, there is a licensing I mean, licensing in Dave is going to get mad at me, but I have looked it up while we were here . The statute, the Colorado revised statute on business improvement districts, there is no limit, there is no size restriction on boundaries or specific operate, you know. You know, the specific I have already dropped my language. But anyway, what we can do through our licensing requirements is we can require certain bits and pieces of information to be in an operating plan. And what that can do, I mean, then operating plan then has to be approved by the city. And so these property owners that want this industry, we could make it so that they actually get into into essentially a voluntary district that they make themselves eligible for these things. That's a public private meeting. That's a vote of themselves. But it is a you know, this this operating plan and these other things could we could we could make that part of the hearing process, part of the approval process, and we could talk about those requirements so that we actually get some sort of commitment. So I and so I'm going to I'm throwing that out there because here's what I would like to see happen. I would like the council to take another 45 days, sorry, to devise a means to mitigate the impact of these types of facilities on the surrounding residential communities. I'm only concerned about that. Like you heard me talk about how Montebello is an industrial industrial area. Stapleton is the same way. And then there are parts of my district, Sunnyside, I mean, yeah, and in Sun Valley that just people aren't living. It was designed for industry to exist. So when we're talking about this interface between actual living communities and schools, that's what that's my area of concern. So I in particular, I would like industry specific districts with specific requirements to address facade treatment, site lighting, odor control, right away improvements and community outreach. You know, that's amorphous. But I think we can I think we can hammer down what that is so that we actually our our marijuana industry becomes a pride because it already is a source of revenue. It's a source of it's a driver, a catalyst in this community. But why not? Why not amplify rather than mute? So these conditions would be a requirement. The way I would see this as not making these pending applications ascribe to this, because like you said, the rules were set. But what we would do is we would create a series of triggers so that as there were changes or as there were licensing issues and things like that, that these things would have to be assumed so that you're making a calculated decision after May 5th, I mean, May 1st or actually July 1st or something like that. So again, you continue to operate the way we are, but we set a time limit and this is not unheard of . We do this in the building code, right? You don't have to modify your building until you choose to modify your building, even though the code changes every two years. And so we we can do that. We have the tools, we have the wherewithal. So I think but I just we need a little more time to figure that out. That said, I do want to commend Councilwoman Canete, because you did a hell of a job getting it this far that we can even talk about that. And I appreciate you mentioning this notion of Community Improvement Fund, because if this goes through, that's the piece that I'm going to say. Let's let's I've got you on camera. That's the part I'm going to hold you to. I don't know how that one works, but. But that that's that's what I wanted to get out there. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to vote no on this. One of the major. Elements that I wanted was a lower cap and it's not part of it, and I can't support it without a lower cap. I also can't support it with the thousand foot buffer from residential zones. That impacts the only areas where we actually permit cultivation. But I think as was amply shown during the testimony and during the comments. Denver We talk about how we have saturated neighborhoods. We have a saturated city in relation to the metro area and the state. If all the pending licenses go through city and county of Denver, we'll have just about 49% of all the licenses in the state of Colorado. We have a saturated city. It's not just some of our neighborhoods. So I want to see something that has a lower cap and not just what we serendipitously end up with after processing all of the applications. And then one last point to Councilman Lopez and Councilwoman Black. There is actually a nexus between supermarkets and marijuana outlets. I know from personal experience, for example, that Kroger King Soopers does not want to be in shopping centers where there's a marijuana shop. So to the extent it comes from Lopez, a District three in fills with marijuana shops, your chances of landing a Kroger outlet is diminished somewhat . So, Councilwoman Black, there is somewhat of a nexus between the two. So I would I'm going to vote no on this, and I would urge my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I was thinking about waiting till the end, but I thought it was important to go before everyone had had a chance to dig themselves into their final votes. I, too, want to thank the staff. The enormous personal cost that they have all invested in the time they have spent preparing numerous maps, documents, spreadsheets. They're all here now. They've been working this weekend. They've been working mates and they've been working mornings. And you really can't actually thank public servants enough for the kind of dedication, especially when they serve elected officials. We're a hard bunch to serve. And I just want each of the departments to know how personally I appreciate all of their time and their effort. It's it's hard to imagine what this process might have looked like if we had taken the slow path. I think Councilman Espinosa touched on this point. You know, if we had just said time out, two years. I think that there is something to be said for the frequency with which we met and the depth with which we could go when we were meeting that frequently that as difficult as this speedy process has been, perhaps allowed us to really stay focused in a way that would have been much more difficult if we'd met once a month over the course of two years. And honestly, I think it would not have been led by this council. And and I like Councilman Espinosa. I mean, I stepped up in part because I am responsible. I was a carryover council member. And, you know, I, too, could have and should have stepped up and prompted conversation sooner and did not. And so it is in part that sense of responsibility that has me feeling like it is our job as a council to engage and to lead. We are we have more resources, the 13 of us, in terms of interacting directly with the community, ironically, than than than the administration. We just have a different access to our communities and a different ability to to engage them. And and so so I want to just thank my colleagues, frankly, for the breakneck speed and pace that we've pursued. This I, I would not support a delay. I don't believe that we can necessarily bridge the Gulf that we have on pending applications. It is such a moral issue for folks. And and just speaking for someone who has aired on the side of allowing the pending applications to proceed it, I do it at great cost. I don't take it lightly. I have there is not an argument that I have heard in this entire debate that I would consider invalid, particularly for those community members, most of whom are not in this chambers anymore. I hope that they or their, you know, their their organizers with whom they're working are watching or summarizing. But to the residents of Globeville, to Elyria, Swansea, I we do still have my fellow here. We had a resident from Cap Hill who had no affiliation to those residents who are not employed or affiliated, but who put their time and effort in. You have changed this conversation. You have changed this bill. You have changed me through this process. I think that Mickey spoke very Mickey Kaplan spoke very eloquently about the idea of how communities feel empowered. And one way that you feel empowered is that you get everything that you asked for. But another way that you can feel empowered is to know that you changed the conversation. I am serious about my my commitment to carrying a budget proposal to this council that includes a community impact fund approach. I am serious about probably the 3 to 5, maybe even six changes I made to this bill in direct response to the feedback I heard from communities and so organized communities, eloquent communities, communities that spoke from the heart. You have an impact make on impact value in mutual spaces, which is opportunity that is. I can be our. Khorasan is imminent. This you've changed hearts and you've changed minds. So I want to say to my colleagues now, I'm a no vote on this bill does not get you a more stringent bill. Reminder that a no vote if no bill gets out of this council, the moratorium ends. And we could revisit this Gulf on pending applications for 45 more days or 45 more months. And I do not believe we would probably change the hearts and minds of folks on that issue any further than they have moved that that divide has stayed. And I'm counting votes, as my colleagues know, probably several times a day. Folks have just not moved on it. And so I.
Speaker 4: Say to you.
Speaker 9: Why put the community through that additional time on an issue that we have debated for weeks publicly? We have debated this issue more publicly and more transparently than probably any other major debate we've had. We don't ever debate zoning laws before they come. We you know, the camping ban was mostly debated on the floor and one or two committee meetings. This is the most transparent debate we've ever had. And I believe that we all compromised in the process of doing hard fought things. I was once told when I was running for office that someone who did not agree with me on every issue said that they were going to support me because they thought the council had a lot of 12, one and 13 zero votes. And that probably wasn't good for the city because if you don't have some divided votes, you're probably not taking on hard enough issues and you're probably not digging deep enough into them. And so we've done that. But what that means is that people walk away without everything. So a no vote on this bill is a luxury. It's a luxury to vote no and then say, okay, what are you going to replace it with? Because there are not the votes on this council to replace this bill with something else magically. Okay. So we have 12 members here today in a66 vote kills this bill tonight. We have a missing member who will be back this next week. And we can talk about if this bill fails. But again, a no vote doesn't get you something else you want. It just says no to what's on the table. And there's a risk in that. This bill has.
Speaker 4: Moved.
Speaker 9: Twice tonight towards opponents. Towards opponents. I'm not I have never once been excited about this thousand foot residential buffer. The first time I saw it, and I saw that it hit 57.98% of all facilities, I said no way could I ever support something. If we're going to do that, let's just ban GROSS. Let's just do it. But I moved, as did others in this dais, towards opponents, towards those who wanted more. So I've moved twice tonight. Others have moved twice tonight, moved two or three times in committee. So I ask those of you.
Speaker 4: Who will.
Speaker 9: Seek a more conservative.
Speaker 4: Bill. Where have you moved?
Speaker 9: When have you moved? And if there are not the votes for your position, how can you in good conscience kill this bill and put us through another and not just us as council members, but this community through months? More of debate, right? Without the votes to move an alternative. So I ask one several of those of you who have reservations, who wished who wished that one of these amendments might have passed to acknowledge the distance that has been traveled, to acknowledge the impact that these communities have had in this bill, and to move us forward , not to end the conversation, but to continue it on all of the fronts, to continue it with a serious set aside. I to my councilman colleague, Councilman Espinosa, I agree with you that we should be using the resources and the treasure of this of this industry to benefit communities. If we needed more money to do that, we could take 45 more days to create a new mechanism. Again, I don't think it's a bid because even if you have one business in a bid, guess where you can raise the money, you can use it on the sidewalk in front of that business. You can't use it outside the zone. So you can have a one business bid, but the money can't go outside that area. So here's the thing. We don't actually need more money. We have a surplus above and beyond the city's reserves right now, a surplus that arguably was buffered quite a bit by this industry. We have the money. We have a budget mechanism. We don't need to delay this bill to pursue that kind of an investment in these communities. We should. And you have moved me. This would not have been my my budget proposal, but for this conversation and the impact this community's had. So I say that we have the tools we need to continue this conversation in the budget and in the other areas. And I urge us to bring this to a closure of this chapter so that we can move on to those other chapters. This has been an extremely constructive process. I want to thank everyone for their respectful disagreements, the sincere efforts to keep the lines of dialog open. I have never probably felt as collaborative with this council as I have in this bill, and we can use that collaboration on the next step. So I urge those of you who who thought you were going to vote no, who've stated you were to reconsider, to move this bill on to a second week. There is anything else we can do between first reading and second reading. My door continues to be open. But let's move on. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each councilman. Clerk.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. There's so much to say. And yet it's almost 1:00 in the morning. So I'll try and boil this down as quickly as I can. My. My heart. In this issue, five of the top 12, no matter whether you look at storage or cultivation from a neighborhood, statistical neighborhood, five of the top 12 are neighborhoods that I represent. I am one of two councilmembers to my knowledge, and I don't have everyone's home address. So correct me if I'm wrong, but one of two council members who lives in a neighborhood that appears on one of those two lists. And I'm raising a seven year old and a nine year old. So I think that I feel the impact and the weight of what we're discussing up here. And I relate with both sides of this debate as people come up and I hear, you know, the emotion and the passion and the fear in people's voices. I've said in committee before and I'll say again, this body, it's our job to write the rules. And it gets harder and harder every day. Still, in my first year, as six of my other colleagues are seven of us total to put that blame back to another council. And here I think we sit with that perfect example. I have said before, all along the way, we set the rules and I feel like we've come to so many compromises tonight. We have voted and we have openly debated so many things. And we've come to a bill that is in front of us, that has been amended, has been tweaked, has been changed with as many areas as could get enough votes. And that's how we work. Do we get enough votes? And now here we are faced with do we pass a bill or do we not? And I've said before, anywhere along the line, we could have closed the door. And I will say we now an own it because this is us as a body and I'm not trying to go after anyone in particular or anyone who's voting one way, but as a body of city council left the door open during the previous moratorium and said These things are okay, continue doing them. When we extended this moratorium and said We're going to take time to think in January, we could have closed the door on pending applications and we didn't. Whether that was the right decision or the wrong decision at the time, we are going to vote on something today. And if this bill fails after all the compromises that we've made. We're going to ask for more time to think about it tomorrow. Someone maybe in this room, but across the city, people are going to spend money because tonight we tell them it's okay, because tonight we say these are the rules and then we're going to take 45 more days to decide whether we're going to pull the rug, slam the door. It's time for us to make a decision. And we've debated what it looks like moving forward. And I feel like there is enough consensus on that. And we have debated protections for neighborhoods and different models for that. And we've come up with an amendment that was the one that had enough support. And now it's time to do something. Faith in government is at an all time low. And it's because more often than not, government doesn't do anything. It's not, What are we doing that I'm mad about? Then be mad about it. But we're doing something. It's that we're not doing anything. We have debated for hours and hours and hours and there are either enough votes or there weren't enough votes and there was ample opportunity for amendments. Clearly, anyone who said I think it should be this way could throw it on the table and we could vote in public in front of all of you. And there's either enough support for it or there's not. And now we're here, and our choice is do nothing. And that's what I've always loved about city councils. The only reason I decided to get into politics is that I felt like city council was different. It wasn't about doing nothing and fighting about doing nothing. It was about having a healthy dialog and a healthy conversation. And you don't win them all. But at the end of the day, it's about doing something. We've had our chance to amend this bill. We've had our chance to change this bill. We either need to close the doors tonight and let people have closure or we need to set the table for what we're doing. The time for dialog is over and now it's time to move it forward. There were chances to change and amend this in every way and I feel like it will be a disservice. We will have failed as a body if we are if we choose to walk away tonight as a body saying. We've done nothing. We've sat here since we switched over to this item at 8:00, 9:00. And at the end of the day, if we don't pass this bill after all this work together, after listening to you, to all of you, and listening to each other and making our peace heard and having the opportunity to say our piece . If this bill fails, we will have done nothing for the last 5 hours. And tomorrow people will be spending money. And we will still be deciding whether we're going to pull out the rug. We're going to still leave neighborhoods in limbo about whether now anything will happen and a moratorium will expire and it will be free market , because that's what we do. If we don't pass this bill. So I would implore my colleagues that the time for dialog is over and it's time to get something done. It's not perfect. We were on grand display today showing that democracy is messy. It's passionate, it's emotional, it's messy. Now let's do our job and get something done before we leave here tonight, because it would be a tragedy to have done all of this and to have done nothing. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. You're right. It is messy. And it doesn't mean that because we disagree that. We shouldn't stand by your principles on the things that we think are important, that, you know, some of us tried repeatedly to get addressed in this process. But, you know. Some of these issues just did not get clearly covered in the process. So, you know, the 20 foot buffer from schools. Okay. We're going to deal with that. But it's only after we have 266 number of those have already been approved. But that's how many pending applications we had when this process started. And. When it started, we had the neighborhood saying to us. Hey, guys, we need some relief. We were feeling boxed in in our own neighborhoods by this industry. I think by and large, we've had a really good dialog with the industry. I have been in a number of facilities. You know, I'm not anti-marijuana. You may feel that way because of the amendments that I've brought forward. But the reality is this is trying to strike a balance between having quality of life in our neighborhoods and allowing the industry to exist. And, you know, the fact is, we did stop pending applications with the omnibus bill. We didn't hear all the screaming and hollering when we did that. We had the ability to do that here. But, you know, the votes weren't here to address that. We have a number of outstanding issues that this body hasn't even started to talk about. You know, the state legislature started having a conversation about the potency. That's the potency on the chips is where the biggest concern in the impact, especially to kids, is that my concern from day one has been what are we doing to ensure that we're protecting keeping this product out of the hands of our kids and making sure that where we have saturation in neighborhoods where we have lots of kids that, you know, we're looking at, how do we ensure that folks are keeping their dumpster lids closed and that they're not leaving? Marijuana leaves all over their parking lots. Like one of the facilities that I toured where that's exactly what I walked up to when I when I went to this facility. You know, so if it's that available, kids are going to look for this stuff and, you know, what are we doing to ensure that we're addressing all of those things? Yes, we have an enforcement arm. You know, there's compliance, but we don't have enough inspectors to be at all these facilities all the time to ensure that everybody's following the rules to the tee. And I think it's the bad actors who are typically not the people who come to these meetings and not the people trying to, you know, ensure that they are in compliance, that that are creating part of this problem. I also appreciate the businesses who came to the public meeting that Councilman Brooks talked about earlier because they wanted to hear what the neighbors had to say. I actually talked to a couple of the guys from Live While and I know there were more more of you that are in this room that were at that meeting. There were Councilman Brooks was was indicating but the folks from live well we talked about coordinating a meeting with all the groups facilities in the neighborhood and starting to have this conversation. I think, you know, the discussion we're hearing tonight about how do we do that in a much bigger way is an important conversation. And, you know, remember, you know, as a city, we could actually tax this at a higher rate. I'm not suggesting that's what we need to do, but it's it's something that we could be doing. And we've not even had that conversation about how do we address some of these unintended consequences, not only to the neighborhoods, but, you know, you guys have heard these discussions, many of them that have been had at the state level . We've had some of the input here in the committee meetings when we had presentations from different individuals and not just from Smart, Colorado, but talking about the impact that we're seeing in our schools. I've got grandkids that go to school and they talk about how easily this is accessible to kids. And you look at the statistics of how many eighth graders have access to it. It's it's astounding. And so protecting our kids and being in compliance with the Cole memo is one of the things that I think is paramount. Otherwise, we jeopardize a whole damn industry and the federal government come in and shut us down at any point in time saying, you know what, you guys did not heed the warnings and let's just shut them all down. And so that has been my threshold with which I've been trying to, you know, kind of. Encourage and urge us to be paying such close attention to, because I think the the reality is at any point, the whole industry is in jeopardy unless across the country everybody votes to pass it. And, you know, that hasn't happened yet. The other thing I think is important is. We were adamant that we were going to shape this. And yes, we had input and involvement from our marijuana policy office, but it was we need this information, provide us that information. It wasn't a partnership in terms of saying help us look at the things that you guys are dealing with and you get calls about day in and day out so that we're doing this together and not just saying we're the legislative body and we're going to figure it out alone. I think we could have done a much better job in that in that arena to ensure that. It was a little bit more comprehensive then than what we were able to do. And, you know, I sincerely appreciate the efforts of Councilwoman Canete, who, you know, worked to try to round up the thoughts and ideas of what had been put on the table. But I'm. I'm frustrated that we really have ignored. Through through the. To where we are now in this process. The voice of the neighbors. Who. Who are just. You know, we've we've had people come to these meetings. I've talked to one woman who cried after leaving a meeting feeling so frustrated. Like, we are not listening. And you heard that testimony tonight from a couple of the Spanish speakers. Whoo! You know, I was insulted that a couple of people were laughing while we had a Spanish speaker trying to talk, whether it was directed at that or not. That's what I saw. And, you know, if this is how industry folks feel about the neighborhoods that they're in, that they're impacting. You know, we're going to get nowhere. So we need to have a serious attempt at trying to figure out how do we. Address the real impact to these communities? Yes, I get that. You know, when the framework was created about where the medical facilities were originally placed and again, none of us were here except Councilman Lopez. Because that was done before we all got elected. Yes. That identified primarily the industrial areas. And that meant that some neighborhoods were going to get them and then other neighborhoods weren't going to get any. And and that's what you see. There are some neighborhoods that have, you know, very little of any of the retail facilities. But you see that it's predominantly low income neighborhoods and minority communities that are saturated with the grow facilities. And the odor ordinance is going to be 18 months before folks have to comply. So for the next 18 months, you know, these neighborhoods still have to deal with that problem. So I'm not there. I'm not there on on supporting this. I know we've all put a lot of work into it. I've attended every meeting that that I could be at. I think I may have missed one. But, you know, we're all trying to give input on how we can get there. And I'm just not there yet.
Speaker 4: So thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Mr. President. Just briefly, I want to slightly differ slightly from the suggestion that the folks who are intending to vote no tonight haven't moved on anything. I feel personally, I've moved a lot on the things I wanted and we've all moved toward each other trying to find those seven votes and we all move for the same reason, and that was to try to get the seven votes. So we built an extra week into this process precisely because of this possibility. And I would suggest the people who who want to vote yes just to move it on, that you that you can vote no because we have another week to work with. But the suggestion that the people who are voting now haven't surrendered anything that they wanted just was disproven tonight by the fact that a number of these amendments lost. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Clay and Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. On my screen, I see two Espinosa's. Maybe that's because I've been to Espinosa that out, but I see two Espinosa right here. Espinosa out. Yeah, I've been. It's been. I was out. I'm tired. I China has done. The first contact. Hi. Without anything that's working. Mr. President, I chimed in because I was moved by. But Robin, what Councilwoman Kenny had said. And. I know at this moment it's a little late, but. I am willing in this next week. To make some of those moves to the middle. With my amendment. I know we had a discussion. On this dais. And I know that was an unanswered question in terms of the pending and has it as it relates to this amendment, number one. And I'm willing to have those conversations. Uh, Councilwoman, I do want to meet you at the middle. I don't want your work to go in vain. Not necessarily because I've known you. And you're my homegirl. But. Because I think, you know. That's just what we do. This is the sausage making that's happening. And I think. In this next. Weak, perhaps, that we have built in. I'd like to explore that idea. And if there are open minds. I'm open on what neighborhoods are there. And I'm open on. What applications are there and what are. So. Just a final comment.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I don't know if you're paying attention. You notice that I actually didn't say how I was going to vote. That's because I'm pretty torn, to be honest with you. But the comments here matter. And so it's going to be clear who this is directed to. The time for dialog is not over. The comments by the bill author were a very open door. Thank you, Robin. So to that end, my concerns that I already stated, meaning I already stated in my comments that I supported the pending apps and that I'm not interested in changing the rules for those that are already in the queue. I am interested in changing how this how we. The outcomes that we're getting going forward. And I would, I heard in Robin's dialog and others is that yeah. So this bill goes through. There's still a chance to amend or put in different, different rules and different ordinances. So this is not the end of the line or the end of conversation, I hope. So to that end, if I need to be the seventh vote to get you to next Monday, I'm happy to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Any of the comments on 264? I will I will chime in and then we will go to a vote. Juan, I want to apologize. I was I was confident I could get you out here by midnight. I was grossly wrong. I tried really hard to push this through. And but I appreciate the dialog one from you and your perseverance to stick around as well from our council colleagues. You know, this body decided in November. We wanted to tackle this head on. We wanted to we wanted to dove in like we did a couple of years ago when there wasn't an Office of Marijuana Policy. And we have that prerogative as a body. And from that was information, I believe, that we weren't aware of. When you go down into the weeds like the agencies do, you learn some things that you were unaware of and it allows you to make a more informed decision. And that's why I have no problem saying we should stop the pending applications. And I think it's important we start from a reality of where we are. And Councilman Flynn said this, and I'll just echo it. We're not in a free market. We're not. And I it's a great argument. It's a great soundbite. But that's not the reality that we live in. And there is saturation. I wrote down the comment. One person said so-called saturation. That is that is absolutely a naive opinion. And my the way that I look at to say that there are communities that are not saturated, it is not so-called it is real. And I don't believe anybody on this body is wanting to stop the industry. The industry is being very successful, as Councilman Ortega said, very generous in the legislation that we passed earlier. And you thrived. And I think for us to take a look now and say, how can we, for lack of a better word, level the playing field so communities feel and I say communities feel because right now they don't feel this way. Communities feel they're being heard. How can we do that? And I believe that's one way to to help, is we're stopping the pending applications because the community, the industry will still thrive. People will still have the ability to get the marijuana anywhere that they need and very openly. So I don't understand how as I listen to people speak, they speak about how we're being unfair. One person said they were experiencing anger and sadness. Well, I imagine that's how rich barrios feels. And for those of you who don't know who Richard Barrow is, he's the site director for the Montebello Boys and Girls Club. And he came and spoke about how that has impacted his community when he sees these kids know they have more access to marijuana than anything else. One person mentioned that there are businessperson how they would be the ultimate loser if we stop the pending applications. I respectfully disagree. I would say the ultimate loser would be the communities, particularly the Globeville area, Swansea. That has said repeatedly over and over again help us so that we can have something that is not just marijuana throughout our entire community. I don't think there's anything wrong in saying let's help these communities and was and I appreciate Councilman Brooks's perspective when he said not a lot of industry representatives came to the table and say, yes, we can do better, because I didn't hear that generally speaking. And that's what I hope we can hear because the industry is here to stay, but you can absolutely be a better community partner and the first thing you do is acknowledge that. And I hope we can get to a point where the community does that. And I know there are some people that have that recognize that, but generally speaking, it's just about us and how government is getting in your way. And as Councilman Flynn said, this is regular. This is illegal in the eyes of the federal government. So, yes, we have a responsibility to go a little bit closer than we would than a restaurant. Because I remind people, restaurants are in this entire city. Restaurants are in every neighborhood. Marijuana dispensaries are not. So no, I don't support the pending applications. No, I do not feel bad about changing my opinion because I now see taking a deep dove how that has detrimentally impacted particular communities. And I believe we have a responsibility and an obligation to help those. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Look, I. Brooks.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 6: Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 6: Can I. Can I. Lopez?
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 6: New Ortega assessment. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: No. Councilwoman each. Madam Secretary, please close vote. Announce the results.
Speaker 6: 66 nays.
Speaker 3: 66 nays accountable to 64 as amended has failed. One three adjournment announcement Monday, April 18th Council Hold Required Public Hearing Council Bill 215 Designating 4655 Humble Street the stadium area as a structure for preservation. See, I know of a business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance concerning the licensing of marijuana businesses, amending the Denver Retail Marijuana Code, Article V of Chapter 6, D.R.M.C. and the Denver Medical Marijuana Code, Art. XII of Chapter 24, D.R.M.C. by capping the total number of licensed locations where marijuana cultivation and sales may be permitted in the city, adopting new procedures for the issuance of retail marijuana cultivation and sales licenses, prohibiting the issuance of new medical marijuana cultivation and sales licenses, and adopted other related amendments. (Special Issues Marijuana Moratorium) Amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code relating to marijuana-related licenses and locations.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04042016_16-0147
|
Speaker 7: This is a project that is funded through federal funding, that goes through seed, through Dr. Kong, the Regional Council of Government, and then to Denver. And we are actually building it.
Speaker 3: We are building it, yes. Even though it's it's affecting the state highway. Thank you. We are okay. That's all I need.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, ladies. All right, that was it. Soon we are moving on to the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman Sussman, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block?
Speaker 5: I certainly will. Mr. President, I move that the following resolutions be passed, be adopted, they all or series of 2016. They are resolution 186 187 180 8167190233193.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Moved and seconded. Seeing no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Flynn I Gilmore. I Cashman. I can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman Black Eye. Brooks. Clark. Espinosa.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and providing for the execution of a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) concerning the "I-25 and Broadway Interchange Reconstruction" project and the funding therefor.
(IINFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Appropriates $17,373,000 of federal grant funds pertaining to the intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation for the I-25 and Broadway interchange reconstruction project through Fiscal Y ear 2018 (201626760). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 4-25-16. The Committee approved filing this bill by at its meeting on 3-23-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_04042016_16-0173
|
Speaker 13: Here with me tonight, we have from RTD, Bill Savoy and Kate Iverson from Civitas. Our consultant team, Chris Perris and Jason Newsome. Jeff Walker, who was on the steering committee as an RTD board member, as well as Ryan Winterberg in community planning development. I say dedicated because they are here tonight. Oh, and Janice Finch from Public Works, you already heard from because they are all here and really helped deliver the plan that you'll hear about tonight. Christopher Parisotto and his wife are expecting a baby any moment, so he's here. Despite that, Janice Finch just returned from vacation as he was literally on vacation this morning. She came back for this. And Ryan is a graduate of University of North Carolina who will be playing basketball in the national championship in a few minutes. So she's very anxious right now. So without further ado, let's dove right into the stationary plan with a map of the station area itself. I'm sure you're very familiar with this area. I 25 Broadway station near the interchange of I-25 and Broadway. The station itself has been there for over 20 years. It was actually the end of line station for the first RTD light rail opening up in the mid-nineties. A lot has changed since that time. The Gates factory site has been cleared since 2000. RTD is out of the Southeast and Southwest extensions. So now the I-25 and Broadway station is in the middle of the RTD rail system with the stationary plan in particular. We started this effort last March. I did a lot of the heavy lifting over the summer and early fall with our public outreach and actual plan production. Phase three was in the fall and winter where we actually worked on delivering the plan itself and began the review of a public review draft and planning board drafts leading to planning board approval last month. And now we're here with you tonight for adoption. The outreach process that was advised by the taskforce, I think, was very robust and encompassing a lot of legwork done upfront by them with individual interviews with our steering committee and other stakeholders. We had three public workshops, a newsletter email list. I think number now is at 471. People signed up to hear email blasts from us. We had media outreach to the three public workshops I believe had new stories by the local TV stations. A Senate committee was really the linchpin of the process. We had five RINO's on that steering committee. Various property owners, including Broadway station partners, owner of the gate site and D4 Urban owner of Broadway Marketplace agencies and organizations such as Walk, Denver, Bike, Denver, RTD staff and RTD directors that started in Councilmember Nevitt district. And then when that changed over to Councilman Clark, he's been leading it since that time. Here's a quick image of those neighborhoods. It is in the Baker neighborhood, but it is really at the kind of intersection of multiple neighborhoods that really kind of claim the station as their own. And we heard loud and clear through the planning process that improved access to the station was a key need for this location. And here's a quick snapshot of the workshops. Workshop one in Top Right Corner. It's actually a walk shop where we actually walked through the rain last June and illustrated the difficulties of moving east, west and even north south through this area and to the station. We learned through those public workshops that the two decision typology identified in her two D strategic plan, which really relates back to the comprehensive plan in 2000, where that called the station out as an urban center. As far back as at that time, that the urban center designation still makes sense for this location. If you look at the kind of elements of a urban center in that strategic plan, we call out things such as shared and structured parking, an employment focus, smaller program, plazas and open space, high ease of use, bicycle infrastructure, high frequency transit and pedestrian infrastructure. I think if you look at the plan from covered to back, you'd see these type of elements reoccur over and over again with our recommendations. Out of that urban center designation. We worked on a vision and principles that identified the station area plan, creating a connected, resilient, vibrant and transformative multimodal hub that renounced the stationary station area and the fabric of the city, and identified four key principles that are connected, resilient, vibrant and a multimodal hub. We also had eight transformative projects identified throughout the plan document that really are the big ideas that would move the plan forward. I won't run through all the recommendations for you today, but I think I'll try to highlight some of the key ideas, mainly through a series of maps and those transformative projects. So in our connected section, we identify a new street network as, you know, with the Gates site. There are lack of infrastructure. So this is identifying a new street network within the station area. And really just as important, maybe more important is the pedestrian bicycle facilities, a framework which really is showing a much more robust multimodal access to the station and through the station area from the west and the east. Key transformative projects that kind of highlight the connected section is starting with Mississippi Avenue. So if you're familiar with Mississippi, it has a multi-use path within the station or on the north side. The recommendations speak to improving the underpass condition, probably most importantly, extending the path west into Ashmore Park, which would not only improve connections of the neighborhood but also to the parks, which is a Ruby Hill and pavilion. And then also kind of in that same vein, a new connection to the South Park River Trail on the north side. So that would eliminate a crossing of Mississippi and make it easier to get to the trail and again, to those recreational amenities. Staying on the west side of the station area, we have a another project called Exhibition Avenue. This is actually a right of way that is just not being utilized right now within that industrial area. And if we could reclaim that and turn that into a multimodal street, that greatly improved our connection to Atma Park. Moving to the east side of the tracks, east side of the central rail line. We had the Exposition Gateway Project, which is a new street at South Broadway in exposition on the west side of Broadway. So this would be a new multimodal entrance into the station area. Connecting to a feature back street would run north south into the the station. And another one is a signature shared U Street. This is kind of the heart of the redevelopment of the Gates site, where they call for a new North-South street running parallel to Broadway. Very much a pedestrian and bicycle emphasis on this street, as you can see with the image on the bottom of the screen of an idea of a very much a shared use public street. And then finally it was connectivity. Again, this is an important aspect of the plan. Call it three kind of levels of improved kind of connections here with this project. One, being a pedestrian bridge over the consolidated main line, the tracks. Second, a multi-modal bridge over the South Platte River at approximately the Kentucky alignment. So improving access into the former Gates site. And then finally, a signature pedestrian bicycle bridge that would provide that high ease of use bicycle connection that we're looking for going on to our resilient section. This is where we have economic resiliency, environmental sustainability and social sustainability called out. I just want to note really quick with the proclamation on the fair housing that we do have for housing recommendations in Section three of this, part of the plan focused on making sure we're meeting the intent of the IATO. Other elements of the section include Vanderbilt Park. Right now Vanderbilt Park East is a dedicated park, but it would not be identified of that if you just looked at it. It is essentially a vacant land. So this has recommendations on the design of that that park space and then improvements to Vanderbilt Park West, which is a heavily used recreational park, but could have improved kind of passive elements to it. Moving over the vibrant station, which is talking about how the station should be a mixed use district. That's the heart and gathering place of the neighborhoods as well as a regional destination. This is where we have our land use map blueprint. Denver does call this station to be a Todd Islands designation. This is a refined land use framework that looks at here in both residential and office components, as well as an industrial mixed use element to the south of Vanderbilt Park to help activate that park space. Proposed building heights ranging between five and 16 storeys. Another thing we definitely heard from all the stakeholders was that the West Wash Washington Park view plane should be adhered to in this area. So this map really represents that as well as appropriate zoning district heights that align with that viewpoint. And then finally, with a transformative multimodal hub section, we have the connected section. At first it's all about access to and through the station area. This is more focused on the actual transit interface and making sure that we maintain the the high level of access to the to the trains and all modes actually in the station areas is an important part of the RTD system. So we have recommendations relating to urban plazas. So this is an image of an improved transit plaza space. I would help improve that that that intermodal part of the station for not only bus commuters or pedestrians and bicyclists, but as well as commuter parking. And then we also have a civic plaza space. So as redevelopment occurs in the station area and it does start to become more of an urban center and a midtown destination, here's the heart of the stationary and a civic plaza space. And also from a design standpoint, trying to improve kind of the underutilized spaces. Another project is this I-25 overpass, where we look at taking the existing condition of that over the under the overpass area and improve it with amenities, maybe potentially some retail artwork or even a bike station that includes a lot of important commuter facilities like repair or shower facilities, etc.. Quickly to recap, our planning board public hearing summary planning board did vote to approve the plan unanimously on March 2nd. Based on a plan, the consistency of criteria with plan, consistency, inclusive public process and a long term view. We did take public comments and testimony during that public hearing. We heard positively from Arthur Moore Park, West Wash Park, Baker and Platte Park. Arnaud's in your packet, you should have had letters from Baker and Platte Park and via email today. West Wash Park. A majority of comments we heard at that public hearing were about East-West connectivity and parking. So I just want to bring those to your attention with East West connections. As I mentioned before, this really was the number one thing we heard throughout the process and that we needed improved multimodal connections to the station and through the station area. We have multiple plans that address that critical need as many of those transformative projects outlined and we do in our our moving forward section are implementation section and call for a next step study that public works is already scoping. And I would anticipate anticipate be in the 2017 caps from them. And then parking something we heard both from comments from neighborhoods and commuters that parking is critical here that we need to get it right at the station. So there's multiple plan recommendations to address these concerns. We're really trying to have a balancing act here of maximizing transit access with placemaking potential. We can't have too much parking or too little parking or we're going to get it wrong. So the planning recommendations really focus on allowing flexibility to manage parking over time. It's going to change significantly. It's changed a lot in last 20 years. Imagine 20 years in the future, a demand not just for commuter parking, but for the parking for the uses on site are going to evolve. So there's a priority recommendation related to a comprehensive parking management strategy in the plan. And that really requires immediate and and kind of well coordinated action between all of our stakeholders, including the city, RTD and the property owners. And reality, it's not just one strategy. It can be a phase set of strategies. Over time, I'll be working to balance that parking solution. So with that, the staff recommendation is to adopt the 25 station area plan as a supplement to the Denver comprehensive plan here for any questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. All right. We've got seven speakers and I'll just I'll call all seven. You can make your way to the front pew. Jeff Walker, Bill, Sarah Kim Q Sarah Charlotte, Winsome Bird, Sarah McCarthy, Gertrude Grant and David Roybal. So you seven can make your way up and Mr. Walker.
Speaker 8: Excuse me. Good evening, everyone. This man. My name's Jeff Walker. I'm on our TDS board. I represent District D, District D actually starts south of Broadway station. It starts at Mississippi in Florida and head south from there down to the Englewood border. Pretty much. I'm speaking as my role on the board, not for the board. I did participate on the steering committee and I was very pleased with the amount of public participation that was offered, the amount of public comments that were received, especially in December. And so. So my thoughts on this is that I, I am in favor of the plan. I think that the connectivity is is greatly enhanced by the connections over the South plant. The number one issue that I've heard about is the parking situation. I totally understand that sometimes I parking neighborhoods in the neighborhood just to the east of Louisiana, Pearl like I did today. I also use that station. Sometimes I have to park at the farthest reaches of the parking lot, about 800 feet. I totally understand the concerns that that that I've heard about the distance from the platform to the parking. But what's important to remember is that any proposal for development will have to go through the RTD board. That's another opportunity for for public involvement. So this is a broad plan. Anything that comes before the board, the RTD board will be very specific. And that's when that's what the devil rides right in the details. So that's what we hope to have a whole lot of public involvement at at that level. So those are my comments. I appreciate the work that you've put in and the work that the staff has put in both our TDs and the cities and especially the that the work of the citizens and the residents of the neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Bill Cerar.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Phil Savoy. I am the senior manager for Transitory Communities and I'm available to answer any questions that council may have.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Can you share?
Speaker 9: Hi. My name is Kim Kaiser. My address is 1660 Lincoln St number 1800, and I'm here to read a statement on behalf of Broadway Station Partners. They are the owners of the former Gates rubber factory site. They wanted to share with you that Broadway station partners was integrally involved in the station area planning community process, including sitting on the stakeholder committee. Broadway station partners worked closely with the city to provide feedback. Overall, that feedback was generally well-received, and at this time, Broadway station partners offer support for the station area plan, and they encourage you to support that plan this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Charlotte Winsberg.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Charlotte Winsberg. I live at 590 South Sherman Street. I'm a board member of the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association. And on the zoning committee today, our board, by email, passed a resolution to support the Broadway station plan with a vote of eight in favor, zero against ten, zero abstentions. First of all, we'd like to reiterate what other people have said about David Jaspers and Chris from Civitas. Being so open to working with neighborhoods, everybody had ample opportunity to be heard and they listened and that was one of the most impressive planning experiences I've had. Some of the improvements made to the plan based on the input just from West Wash Park are as follows refined a provided more explicit definition on where the station plan supercedes, neighborhood plans, location of income, diverse housing, the boundaries of a core station area. They added the 2008 I-25 interchange project in its conclusions, including stoplights, pedestrian access across Ohio. It said to the plan they included verbiage to reflect the aims of the city beautiful initiative. Add an emphasis to access to Ruby Hill as well as West Marsh Park and added language to include nearby residential blocks as required noise protection from . From the Broadway development. We feel it's a good plan, but it's not a finished plan. As the previous speakers have talked about the concerns about connections to the West End parking plans. They they're just too vague. This there are people standing in the wings waiting to complete the purchase of these properties and start digging holes and have both the parking plans and the connections to the east. West aren't put down in concrete. Pretty soon they won't be possible. Somebody's going to build something just for the best bridge could go up. The parking plan. It's so vague. We've already lost the 250 spaces when they closed the parking at commuter parking at the Alameda station. Nobody knows. I think I know what the parking plan is. It's the West Washington Park neighborhood east of Broadway. People. Commuters have been parking there for years and I expect it given the opportunity. This property will not be developed to park the cars that come in and out of there. And I really encourage council to put pressure on planning to get that done as soon as possible before it's too late. And that's basically about it. This has been a very good experience. We've been through so many Todd plants in the last ten years and most of them came along pretty well. But this one was probably one of the best experiences with the people we worked with.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Name is Windermere. Sara McCarthy.
Speaker 5: Council members. Good evening. I'm Sarah McCarthy. I live at 374 South Clarkson Street. I'm here tonight to applaud the efforts of the consultants Civitas, as well as the city planning staff who were receptive to many of the ideas and suggestions as they develop this proposal, especially on how to incorporate the city beautiful principles of enhanced vistas and recreational activities into 21st century developments. I'm aware of the redevelopment pressures blowing down the necks of the city staff, but two very important planning details remain missing from the plan. The genuine increase connectivity from Broadway across the South Platte River Drive near Lappin Street, and as mentioned elsewhere, the detailed parking management plan. The city's known for ten years that this was coming, and yet these two critical aspects have been given minimal attention. And the city planning board has had mere weeks to study the 90 plus page document that is going to impact hundreds of thousands of people over the next 50 years. This is a complex geographic area of Denver that has a very long history of congestion. Reaching back to the 1870s, congestion along today's Santa Fe Drive prompted farmers in 1874 to request the county build a new road into Denver so they could deliver their produce. After several years of discouragement hearing. It's too hard. It's too expensive. Residents dragged a log. Up and down what is now Broadway and others planted trees almost immediately. Congestion exists today, and if you want a free high drive on Mississippi, west of Broadway, around 330. But this connectivity issue across Broadway has minimally changed since 1910, when the underpass was built along Alameda under the railroad line. Are we fooling ourselves that this plan is visionary? Despite multiple references about the importance of connectivity. I'm here to observe that the emperor has no clothes. No new passages proposed, whether for vehicles or pedestrians, to connect Broadway through the station to the west side of the South Platte River Drive near Lappin. When 60,000 new vehicle trips are expected. I wish the plan were visionary, but unfortunately it tweaks the status quo. When I asked why, I was told, it's too hard. It's too expensive. Despite good intentions, the proposed plan lacks vision to increase connectivity.
Speaker 2: Ms.. McCarthy Your 3 minutes is up, ma'am.
Speaker 5: And continues Denver's unfortunate history of segregating the East Side and the West Side. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Gertrude Grant.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Council representatives. My name is Gertrude Grant. I live at 242 South Lincoln in Denver, and I've lived there since 1977. And ever since 1977, I've been trying to get on the Platte River bike trail, and it's almost impossible. I raised two kids, tried to take them on bike rides from our house on the east side of the river over to the west side. And I think it's a shame that there is nowhere in this plan a top priority of enhancing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity from the west to the east and the east to the west . Right now you go zig zag, zig zag in the plan, and it's as though it's an afterthought. And I'm just very disappointed that nobody seems to say pedestrians and bicyclists matter more than cars, and it's going to be too late. You approve this plan? Day after tomorrow, the zoning will be approved. The day after that, the land will be sold to developers and it'll be too, you know, quite expensive, as Sara said, in order to make these bicycle and pedestrian connections possible. I am on the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association board. I reluctantly voted to support the plan because a lot of people worked really hard. But I. And I think it's. A good plan, but it doesn't go far enough. And I think you folks are the ones that that have the clout to tell the city planning department to get going instead of talking about pedestrian and bicycle priorities. Do something about it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: They gave us Grant. David Roybal.
Speaker 7: Hello. My name is David Roy Ball. My address is 2107 South Jason and Lucky District seven. I just want to express I wish the activist groups had open platform at the cabinet in the community meeting like they did at Kepner for the podcast. The Way Family and I want to speak on this because I've been to the community meetings and all the community meetings have supported this and this is a very, very big plan that is going to mean a lot for the future of Denver. One thing I saw is like the bridge that's coming through. You know, I just you know, it took a plan like that for a bridge to bring the isolated community, because I feel the Sun Valley deserves a bridge between eighth and 30th Avenue. There's already two organic food stores in that area. And I know when this plan come through, it's going to capitalizes on more businesses than than communities that have a lack of businesses and a, you know, food, access to food. And one thing that concerns me is just the more input of residents from the age of low income and the affordable housing within this area. And I just feel that this plan happens in 20 years. It's going to be a a place where it's not very social. People don't speak. And everywhere I go, you know, raising consciousness, awareness of the history and culture in these redevelopments, you know, it's really it's really taken away from the culture history of people that built their legacy here. And I just want to just also want to say, you know, I hope that this is the right plan for Denver. I hope that this community is something great. And there's a lot going on from the I 25, the expansion, the Cedar and the Mississippi. And there's just so much going on. Same as the National Western. There's already two projects going on within this and I just hope it gets more overlooked in and hopefully these projects get finished before the ground breaks. And I thank you for your time, members of council.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Roybal. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from members of council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 11: I wanted to ask someone. I'm not sure who the appropriate person is. If the bridge that will be built across the river will have pedestrian and bike access to get people across.
Speaker 13: Sure. If I could maybe bring up a map might be helpful to illustrate some of the the connections that we're highlighting in the plan. So the maps in the bottom right corner. But this illustrates some of the the key connections to the station from a pedestrian and bicycle standpoint. So where the red circle is, that's identifying a location for a new pedestrian and bike bridge over the tracks connecting both sides of the gate site. The there's also a second pedestrian bike bridge to the south of that there's are two pedestrian bridges going across the tracks. We also have a this multi-modal bridge over the Platte River.
Speaker 11: That's what I'm talking about.
Speaker 13: Yeah. So that's a vehicular bicycle and pedestrian bridge. The image there kind of shows that where you have a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle, like a cycle track. Essentially what we have outside here on Bannock on this bridge, that's an idea. So that would be a truly separated facility for for bicyclists from vehicular traffic, but it would have all modes on it. And that's going between South Platte River Drive and.
Speaker 11: How many lanes of traffic will that have.
Speaker 13: The plan doesn't design the bridge to that degree. So I couldn't tell you, for example, for certain.
Speaker 11: Factors in a certain swath over the the river or.
Speaker 13: Just a general location, approximately the alignment of Kentucky. Okay. But it doesn't prove that vehicular access to the gate site.
Speaker 11: So can you tell me if it is proposed that the developer doing the project on the gate site is responsible for building that bridge? Or is there an expectation that Denver will apply for the appropriate funding and Denver will take on building that bridge?
Speaker 13: Sure, the plan doesn't identify who would be building the bridge. I think that is going to be coming forward as entitlements come forth with after this plan, you would see zoning and then ultimately a development agreement between the city and Broadway station partners. And I think you'd see those details at that time. Right.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Hi. I have a couple of questions for you also. Can you explain the role of this plan that it's not binding? For example, Councilwoman Ortega brought up the size of the bridge. This is just more of a guiding document.
Speaker 13: Sure. Yeah. It's important to note that as a stationary plan, it's a visionary document. It's not as high level as the comprehensive plan or blueprint, Denver, but it is a supplement to the comprehensive plan. That's what we're asking you tonight, is to adopt it as a supplement to the comprehensive plan. So it does just provide guidance for future activities such as a rezoning or other infrastructure improvements on site. So it's at a higher level. The key there is we're trying to take the community vision that we gained from the steering committee and the public workshops to identify those high level ideas and hopefully set in motion implementation of the plan over the coming years.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. And can you also remind us what the boundaries are? I know Ms.. Grant was talking about getting from your house. I think you said 242 South Sherman. Is is that part of the plan?
Speaker 13: So if we look at the map excuse me, the solid line that that's showing, they're bounded, bounded by center Broadway, Mississippi and Huron, which was the Corps station area. And where recommendations related to land use, building heights and urban design were focused on the dashed area, which extends further out. Dakota, Logan, Arizona and Lapan included multimodal recommendations. So those are the bike and pad and vehicular access recommendation because obviously it's a network, it's expanding out beyond there. The the areas. It has a lot of planning. It's already occurred. So I mean, we tried to focus specifically on the station area for a lot of the key recommendations and other stationary applying. For example, Alameda has actually shown on this map, Alameda stationary is right here. There's been a stationary plan that has been adopted for that. We have a neighborhood plan for whitewash park, etc. So we want to focus a lot of the recommendations on the station itself and making sure that it is either where there's overlap or a conflict between plans that would rectify that.
Speaker 5: Okay. So, Ms.. Grant, I just want to say that the City Council and the Mayor is very dedicated to mobility. And so I don't think that we've abandoned you, but the whole city needs it. So we only have so many resources, but we agree with you. So that's all I have for you. I have a question for you, Mr. Walker. Thank you. Hi. You said that our TDI board would have to approve any proposal. So is that for the private property? Does RTG have to approve private development?
Speaker 8: No. I'm sorry. I wasn't clear the property that RTD owns. I imagined that we would be consulted, the referral agency, possibly to any development on private property. But I was referring to the property that RTD owns.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Black. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Janice, perhaps you could join with either Bill Savoy or Jeff or Director Walker, but do we know and I asked you this out in the hallway during the recess, how will the bill that we just the agreement we just passed with CDOT on the I-25 southbound on ramp, how is that going to impact , if we know? And David, maybe you can weigh in also, how will that affect this plan? Because it seems to me that that's a big piece of infrastructure that's kind of cutting right through part of the north part of this area. Have we accounted for that in the plan?
Speaker 13: Surely see if I can bring up another map for you. Maybe that's why I believe what you're. This area that would be just north of I-25, on the west side of.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 13: Of Broadway. Is that correct? Yeah. So, you know, for example, I mean, the exposition, the new street between Broadway and Bannock would be just north of that. So that is starting to take into account the the reconstruction of Broadway and in the wedge ramp, as it's called, that connects there. We don't have and if we go to the land use map really quickly. Hmm. We just called that out as to the office. So we don't have a lot of specificity, specificity, details of that. That's the word. Always getting the hang of it if you use that multiple times, never works details for that area. But in the plan itself, I believe in multi-modal. So somewhere around page 66 or 68, we do call out a potential for structured parking in the future as redevelopment occurs. And I believe it's somewhere in that general vicinity. So that's an example of the plan starting to think forward. But we don't have enough details besides that.
Speaker 3: Right. And you're actually anticipating my next my next volley of questions. But before I leave this, I noticed that none of these diagrams show what we know is a project that we're going to do, which is that wedge ramp. And I find that curious. Well, why it's not on there. Oh, well, let me let me let me get to the next question then about parking and you get to my I actually wrote these down RTD, maybe Bill. Sure, I can remind me, but it seems to me that RTD had a policy of basically being held harmless when when a project impacted the number of parking spaces at a station that we deemed necessary to operate. That stated that we. Forgive me, I don't work at RTD anymore. At RTD deemed necessary to make that station function that they had to replace it in kind. Is that going to be the case here?
Speaker 7: You know, just to add, I mean, to respond a little bit to your question before as well, we have been working with the city and the public works staff on, you know, the design for the wedge ramp. And we knew there's going to be impacts during construction. But I think both city and RTD are on the same page that any permanent impacts will be dealt with.
Speaker 13: I mean.
Speaker 8: The city will provide.
Speaker 13: Replacement parking to deal with any permanent.
Speaker 7: Loss to parking as a result of the wage ramp.
Speaker 3: Project. Now, I saw when I read the plan and just just so you know, and I mention this to Janice and some others that in fact, Director Walker, I forwarded an email to you from a constituent very concerned, a constituent who uses that station all the time and was very concerned about the very vague language about how we're going to replace. And what I saw in there as far as RTD policy, it was that half of the parking replacement should stay within 600 feet of the station center. 75% or the next 25% should be within 900 feet and the rest can be about 1500 feet.
Speaker 7: Was it. Yes. That's referring to our transit access guidelines.
Speaker 3: Yes, exactly. Which is that what we're going to pursue here? Because if we are, then that implies to me that we're going to take this very close in parking and it's going to be scattered or maybe among several smaller sites, maybe in structures here or there.
Speaker 7: Well, I think with the way we're looking at is that we don't know what the ultimate development plan is going to be here. And we're we're trying to work to define a plan that's flexible, that can respond to development. What I would say with regards to those access guidelines is that that's the exact intent of those, is to provide some flexibility so that as we work, we are not refined or confined to a specific standard that says you have to all be within a certain distance so that that's the intent. I think we.
Speaker 13: Are. I mean, David talked about working.
Speaker 7: Together on a comprehensive parking strategy, which we.
Speaker 13: Are doing and will be.
Speaker 7: Dealt with over the course of the.
Speaker 13: Next few months, which will define one probably a location where we put structured.
Speaker 7: Parking, but also look at how we would respond to.
Speaker 13: Development as it occurs on the site.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm. And do you know offhand, among all the rail stations in the RTD network, where does this rank in terms of boardings and a lightings?
Speaker 7: It is in the I believe it's in the top three, not three.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Back on that. Did I did I maybe missed that. Did I hear you say that the parking had to be within 900 feet, up to 1500 feet? What we defined with the transit access guidelines that we want a certain percentage, basically half of it within us, that basically what we're saying is a thousand foot walking distance, which is the equivalent of 600 feet direct. A thousand feet walking distance from what? From the platform. Platform. Platform. Thank you. And 1500 feet would clearly take you across Broadway, correct? Well, it could if you went directly to the to the.
Speaker 13: West or to the east.
Speaker 7: Excuse me. But again, we're talking here, confining ourselves, I think, to the.
Speaker 13: Property that we control and or that could be controlled by others that we would we would.
Speaker 7: Potentially involve in the plan. So it really is talking about everything west of Broadway. So is that stipulated or made clear that within this distance. But what? But on the proper property of David, answer one.
Speaker 13: I don't believe we verbalized that in the plan. But there's a map again, I believe, on page 66 or 68 that shows the transit access guideline thread that RTD has. And we actually, with input from Walsh Park, intentionally cut that off at Broadway to make sure we were indicating that we weren't anticipating capturing that RTD parking on the east side of Broadway. So the intent is to have it more than the stationary.
Speaker 7: And there's a there's these map concepts that we're doing at the TOD site, the watershed maps. Mm hmm. Do you have a sort of before and after based on these the connectivity concepts?
Speaker 13: Yeah. There is before and after walk. Should maps in the plan actually show what the existing watershed is and then what the auction would be after these key pedestrian bridges would expand the collection?
Speaker 7: Thank you. And then one question for Sara McCarthy was a little bit confused. Are you asking for that connection, connectivity to the plan to be is that a vehicular connection or a bike and pedestrian connection?
Speaker 5: Multi-Modal. Multi-Modal, that it's that it's all through. There is there is no access between Mississippi and Alameda, which is at Santa Fe Drive a distance of a mile and a half. And what the plan, as I understand it, calls for, is to draw more traffic onto northbound Santa Fe Drive. There is nothing that is a path, a singular path for all three that goes all the way. So there's a mile and a half that will remain congested, that was congested in the 1870s. It was congested in the 19 tens, and it is congested today. Before this, all the development has been built out and it will affect everybody's quality of life. And and, yes, it's difficult. But in Boulder, they figured out a way to go under rail roadways and over roadways. And we need more access all the way across because bicyclists and pedestrians aren't going to zigzag through the site, which then will leave people dependent on Mississippi and Alameda to get across. And it's already congested. It isn't easy, I get that. But it to me, this plan will not do for Denver and the region what is hoped because of the confluence of the river I-25, the various light rail lines. It won't happen if we can't get people through and across multiple ways. And we just it needs to get done and it'll cost money and it will take time. But it's not definite in this plan. And I've learned in the 35 plus years of. Being a neighborhood activist that if you don't get it in at the very beginning, it doesn't get in and it's more and more difficult over time to answer that.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And then one question to the two presenter on the plan. There was a slide before the one that's up where it shows all the pedestrian paths connecting.
Speaker 13: Like that one.
Speaker 7: Mine's lagging. I'm sorry. So it's great that you're showing those connectivity through Vanderbilt Park and all that and through the proposed new bridge. But then everything gets to the site proper and just vanishes in these arrows. What is what is the plan for connectivity through the what's the network of connectivity where all those things just happen?
Speaker 13: So you're looking at this right at the station area essentially where that all yeah.
Speaker 7: Because if we're talking about neighborhood, you know, neighborhood residents either north or south of I-25 filtering through the site. Are they going to at some point be on the new proposed roadways or their actual paths that are designed in the manner that these other things are?
Speaker 13: Sure. So I mean, that that area is the RTD parcel in particular, and I think a lot of extra design thought will need to go into how everything works together. I think the key there is if we. Go for a few slides. One of the reasons that I.
Speaker 7: Ask this is, you know, there's a sort of history of RTD, sorry, you're hear of not making that connection, bringing your line to a point and not really thinking it through. So back to one of the challenges that was here and this is more comment, but my expectation is RTD, CPD public works, the developer don't. Do don't create these gaps. You know this is too important.
Speaker 13: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And I think, you know, one of the reasons I was going to try to highlight is that the plaza space there is kind of where all these paths kind of come together. And we were trying to, you know, again, allow a little bit of flexibility on the alignment of the Street network. That's essentially, you know, back a new band could be coming down under through the underpass, connecting to that new exposition and then eventually going underneath the light rail flyover and connecting to the kind of new shared use street that Broadway station partners would be building on the gate site. So it's kind of your North-South movement, but how that actually works does need to be worked out. Same thing with East West with pedestrian bike bridge, where that lands on the RTD site and how it interacts with the the transit will be critical.
Speaker 7: You know, and don't get silly territorial as well, where there's seemingly visual connectivity, but then a physical barrier, you know, or curbs stops and things like that. It's just this has been sort of no man's land. And we're trying to do some placemaking here. And it would be silly to sort of put barriers that are more for. Insurance reasons are policing rather than actual experience. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I think we're all trying to tease out some of the same things. And it's it's really hard be patient, because every time we change speakers, we lose the map. We were really frustrating and I'm sure our new system won't do that any more. I guess for the for for Charlotte and Gary, I wanted to get a sense I think what I heard from you two was not so much concern that the East West connections that they have planned because on page 65 that outlines several it's not that they that you disagree with them, it's just concern about the certainty of them occurring and the trust issue. Can I just clarify that from the neighbors and then I'll have some follow ups for CPD but go to your Charlotte if it it was there are someone said there are no east west connections. There's there's a lot of East West connections in here. But the concern is will they really happen?
Speaker 6: Absolutely. And if they don't get planned concretely very, very soon, I don't think they'll happen.
Speaker 10: But the three that are listed here on page 65 and again, I'm sorry, I have to go back every single time we change speakers, but that those three you guys are supportive of and as as making some connection across the river and across the well.
Speaker 6: Look, there's only one that crosses the river.
Speaker 10: Okay. But but there's two other connections there.
Speaker 6: They cross the tracks.
Speaker 10: Yes. That cross the tracks. That's it. Right. So so those are things you guys are supportive of. You just are searching for more specificity.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 6: It's if I lived over on Central Avenue in Ashmore Park wanting to get to the light rail, I'd have to go probably. And if I wasn't biking, I'd have to go all the way down to Mississippi and drive up Broadway probably, or send up. I think the west side needs a lot of attention, folks. We're we're always said to be a very protective neighborhood. But I think the West Side has been neglected so badly by planners, the city, not just this administration, but several administrations, probably since the flood of the sixties. It's a vital neighborhood, but it's being impeded by being landlocked like this. The bus service on Mississippi and Alameda is not good. During the quiet times of the day, the Alameda bus runs sometimes as little as once an hour. The Mississippi bus, they say, doesn't get enough ridership that RTD wants to make it possible for people to ride it regularly. Those neighborhoods suffer from the lack of the ability to get along around easily.
Speaker 10: And so there are still some missing connections that you're describing. That's so there's certainty questions about the ones that are in the map, and then there's still a feeling that there are some connections missing.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I see one little bridge crossing the river in a dumpster right into Vanderbilt Park or or going straight down to Mississippi. And Ms.. While they may get a bike path there along Mississippi, and I hope they do, it's still kind of a long way around, you know, glide path. And Jason is all industrial. The streets only go through in that one area where you've got some unused right away. So what happens? There is a long time in the future to get the residential areas close. And I wish there were people here for math, Mark, who could talk about it more clearly than I do. Okay.
Speaker 10: But that's it. All right. And David, I wanted to move to you then, if you can help me understand. First question, I think I have three questions for you. First question is, did you guys explore the potential for a strain on all the way through vehicular access? And were there some downsides to doing that or some reasons why that that was not recommended? We often actually, I think about a lot of planning processes where most residents ask us not to do that straight through particular because they don't want a freeway going through the neighborhood. So they want to make it twisty and hard because they want to slow people down. So I'm just curious whether you guys had that conversation.
Speaker 13: Sure. Absolutely we did. And in fact, I believe in public workshop, too. You would have saw maps like this that showed I think we were exploring an underpass somewhere near the Tennessee alignment to try to have that vehicular connection occur. And we were going to try to study that further. I think we quickly realized that the extent of of having a on a real travel spread study needed a bigger budget and more time. We weren't going to build a tack it onto this plan process. So that's where the the priority recommendation for that next step study for East West connections come into play. And so as I mentioned, Public Works is already scoping that. That's a multi-modal connection. It's not just pigeon bikes. Obviously, that will be a big emphasis, but that will look at vehicular movement east west through this area. So obviously could be looking at existing connections, Mississippi or for Alameda. But on the if there's an opportunity for regular connections, it will explore that as well. And so that's a much bigger challenging issue to tackle than what this plan could have done. And so that next step study is the vehicle, to no pun intended, to really look at those connections in more detail.
Speaker 10: And then can you explain how that would work if if the connection alignments change? I mean, obviously plans or plans or guidance, they are not binding for better or for worse. So it disappeared again. I'm going to go nuts. I might keep these maps up here so we can keep them up. Whether or not we are, you know, in trouble if if it suggests a significantly different alignment that we have in this plan.
Speaker 13: Mm hmm. I mean, the maps are one, one portion and what we typically look at. But if you do read the text, I believe in the transformative project that speaks to East-West connectivity. It's a little bit more broader, as well as in the implementation section. On that next step study, we discuss exploring all modes. And so I think there's enough language to allow the wiggle room necessary to explore any connections that we can find.
Speaker 10: Okay, great. And then I think my last question on the connectivity issue is just about and I particularly asked about cars separate from bike and PED, because I do think that the types of routes bikers are willing to take. Again, most of the bike trails that I'm on are zag and it's part of what makes them interesting. And so I guess I was curious. Same kind of question that I asked about the cars. Are there reasons why maybe we see some zigging and zagging in terms of activation, for example, or, you know, is it were there some conscious decisions made? Again, because we hear some some folks saying we want it straight through. Are there pros to not being straight through?
Speaker 13: Sure. Well, I think that the the most direct route to the station is the the green dashed line here that I'm trying to highlight with the mouse, which crosses the tracks, goes through the Animal Park East, aligns with that vehicular multimodal bridge at Kentucky, and then can either has a direct access to the Platte River trail. That's what the the white circle is there or can proceed west to the animal park and then split off it here on or continue through the industrial area. I mean, it's not a straight line, but it's it's pretty close, actually. And then we also have a very hopefully an improved multimodal path along Mississippi on the north side, which does not continue west right now and does not provide the connections to South Park that we're looking for. And that is probably a maybe a, you know, a lower hanging fruit, I guess from a connectivity standpoint, that's an existing route. So it's not completely straight, but it's pretty, pretty close. And those were, you know, consciously placed because of the station itself and access to the West.
Speaker 10: Some of that some of these things are a function of where the amenities are in terms of you couldn't just go straight east without getting into something that you couldn't get through.
Speaker 7: Sure.
Speaker 13: For example, I mean, if we wanted to have I mean, we could easily align this right here. The bridge over the tracks can't really shift much to the north or south just because of the the life light rail flyover, which is now picking up, you know, altitude there elevation. And then to the north you have the overpass. So it's pretty limited at that point as it crosses the the river. You have southbound and northbound traffic on South Platte River Drive and Santa Fe. And there's distances between on ramps and intersections. We're trying to find the right sweet spot for this. The path through the park could easily adjust and maybe be a little bit more on East West, and the plan isn't going to prohibit that adjustment of the route.
Speaker 10: Okay, great. And this is my last question, and this may be for you or for Kim to Sarah, but what is the timeline by which a general development plan might come forward in the process of what comes next for the significant landowner around the station? So we know there's a singular landowner for a big, big portion of this plan. It's a little unusual. It's not like we're talking about, what, 20 or 30 or 100 landowners might do. In this case, we have one significant one. It's my experience that typically speaking, these kinds of infrastructure routes and things get somewhat settled in the general development plan. Is that correct? So when might that type of specificity be occurring?
Speaker 13: Sure. I'll let Ryan, who's been working on the infrastructure master plan, give you those answers.
Speaker 10: Maybe tell us what the infrastructure masterplan is.
Speaker 9: Sure. Thank you. Councilwoman Ryan went to vote with community planning and development. So you'll notice in the moving forward chapter we have a recommendation for ensure that implementation tools advance the plan vision. So there are a number of different tools that we have available in the Denver zoning code today to implement the vision of the stationary plan . One of it's being a general development plan, one of which being an infrastructure master plan. So the plan also speaks to the existing sort of layers of regulatory tools that exist on the site. There is a general development plan and there is also a currently an infrastructure master plan which was required by the current authority with waivers and conditions, zoning. And of course, one of the big change conditions that we see today is that we have a station area plan that does guide a lot of the high level connectivity recommendations that we would typically see housed within a general development plan. Of course, we have a stationary plan that gives us that vision today, one that is also developed through a community driven process where formerly we didn't really have that existing with the former Cherokee Gates redevelopment plan. So in a very thorough and complex analysis, both in public works, in community planning and development, and the Parks and Recreation Department, sort of our internal team, we've identified that creating a new general development plan to replace the existing Cherokee Gates general development plan really doesn't feel a need, since we have both a stationary plan that provides that community driven process for us. So we're going to be moving straight into the infrastructure master plan that really provides both kind of a framework of connections, but also establishes the regulatory framework for the technical infrastructure and design studies that will be informing this very specific questions. So we've been very involved with our planning board in terms of what this process looks like. So we've done two information items so far, one in December and one in February, if you do want to get a little bit more detail about what those planning documents include. But we do expect that the infrastructure master plan will be approved likely later in the summer, and then a repeal of the existing TDP will be coming before the planning board after that to make sure that we've captured all of the important items.
Speaker 10: Thanks. And our last question. Thank you, Mr. President, for your forbearance. Are the groups and the steering committee that have been involved in the stationary planning getting briefed on and part of that infrastructure planning process in some way, shape or form?
Speaker 9: Yes. Thank you. So Broadway Station Partners has assembled a Broadway station technical advisory committee. Is that correct, Ken? I think I got the acronym right. So they convened a number of different meetings with this group of neighborhood representatives to vet all of the concepts that may be housed within a GDP, maybe housed within an imp, to make sure that all those boxes are being checked, that everything is being captured. Additionally, there will be a public meeting later this month hosted by Broadway Station Partners. And again, those two information items that we've presented to Planning Board.
Speaker 10: I like one teeny tiny that question. Does that will that create more specificity on these alignments?
Speaker 9: That's correct, yes. Okay. And then they the infrastructure master plan is at the higher level, but it will establish the framework for the technical studies that are really the engineering documents that are giving incredible specificity to those alignments.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Keech, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I can't tell you how happy I am to hear neighbors get up and say how happy they've been with the inclusive process of a consultant team and the city. And it's a great example to set and it hopefully will lend itself to a great process moving forward. I know Councilwoman Clark will be leaning heavily into this effort to see that something wonderful grows up on this ground. And Councilman Clarke, I hope you don't mind if I wander into your district for a second. We if you asked everyone up here on the dais to name the people in their districts who were important to to the work that's been done. While West Wash Park is in Lucky District seven and not an extremely fortunate District six, I've had the opportunity to work with Sarah McCarthy and Charlene Winds and Bird and Judy Grant in my previous career for decades. And I just need to say that that the wonderful fabric that has. Been woven to create this wonderful place. This wonderful community definitely bears the imprint of these three hard working women. And I believe among things I remember the I believe it was was gurdy taking me to the spot. And on the eastern side of Wash Park where the view plane was measured from. And I could name dozens of such projects. So for me it's a little bit like looking at at a minor Mount Rushmore. And I just wanted I wanted to acknowledge the three of you as far as the property itself. For me to underscore with several of my colleagues have said, I think the the most important opportunity for this property is to provide that connectivity. I would rather see nothing built on it and connection to the West Side than I would to see whatever fabulous structures rise out of the ground and not get and to miss this opportunity. So and I know it's it's been said in some form, I'm still a little bit unclear the bridges to be built both over the tracks and over the river. They're all the responsibility of whoever builds on that land. Is that correct? And anyone.
Speaker 13: The plan itself does not outline the responsible parties for the right structure. Right. I think as as Ryan was detailing the the process going forward is going to be more clarity. And as you know from the previous redevelopment, Cherokee Gates redevelopment, there was a tax increment financing package there, and that could be an element of that going forward. But I think all those details on who pays for what and when will be coming to you in the future.
Speaker 8: Sure. And so what opportunities between now and when dirt gets turned? Will there be for community input in into all these issues surrounding what grows up on that land?
Speaker 13: Mm hmm. Well, as Ryan was was detailing, Broadway station partners has a public process right now, which is kind of really just coming right on the coattails of the stationary plan, building upon the the plan vision to fleshing out more of those details that then will be captured in that infrastructure master plan that would, you know, be completed later this year. So that that is where some of those details will be clarified. And they do have a public process that they're building upon.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman, I suppose I'm a huff over you and get the councilman knew since he hasn't asked questions yet.
Speaker 12: David, before you leave the that bridge is going from Parkland to Parkland. I mean, it looks like green space to green space. Is that correct? Is that right? Okay. I'd like Mr. Parks to come up to the podium, please. Mr. Gilmore, please. Thanks.
Speaker 1: It. Hello.
Speaker 12: Scott. You have a great opportunity here. Looks like you know that ice bridge is going from Parkland to Parkland. And I guess if you've been involved with a discussion about this bridge going from one area of the park to the other.
Speaker 8: Yes. Scott Gilmore, deputy executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. I've been involved with all the planning discussions and actually some of the concept designs for Vanderbilt, East and Vanderbilt. Well, so I've been working with the team very closely on what's going to happen in both these spaces.
Speaker 12: Right? Yes. Good news. Are you planning on asking for the funding in this bridge and the bond issue coming up in 2017? I wasn't planning on it. I encourage you to ask for the funding for this bridge in there just to make sure this is a part. Responsibility sounds like.
Speaker 8: It's it's the bridge. Going from park to park basically is a vehicular bridge with some multi-modal connections. So for me, it's more hopefully I'm more worried about.
Speaker 7: The the the South Platte.
Speaker 8: River actually connections that actually will get people down to the river and get them moving along the regional trail. So I think that's pretty critical for me.
Speaker 12: All right. Well, I'm sure my colleague, Councilman Clark, will help with that funding request. I'm sure. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman, new councilman. That's not.
Speaker 7: Um. Yeah. Could you bring a slide 22. Please. And this is. This is almost you know, this is not really common. It's sort of in-between. I the reason why I wanted him to bring that up is. Because I wanted to show something.
Speaker 13: I I'm sorry. Which side was it?
Speaker 7: It's the slide that shows the 16 story. The height. I mean, the. The massing.
Speaker 13: Oh, the building heights.
Speaker 7: Building heights. Mm hmm. So this is true integrity and Sarah and company the if you it's up there now so you guys know the history of that sort of dead man's land where the carpet place was in those all those failed warehouse businesses were in that Bermuda Triangle between Santa Fe, I-25 and the railroad tracks. What you see here between the green space amenity and that 16 story, the largest block of 16 story development density is in that Bermuda Triangle. And so we've already shown a pension at Blake and at 41st and Fox for crossing over to doing these these rail crossings. And so there's a ton of incentive because of if you look where that T is and you look where that 16 story is, there's a ton of incentive to make that crossing and make that crossing a good crossing. And so it's not a guarantee. But this is all the all that things are aligning just perfectly for these crossings to be good. And it's just a matter of the design. I mean, that that that these will these connections will be made. And so because this is important for that development to work well with that mass transit opportunity. And we're committed Dolan's committed to seeing those things being done. So I just wanted to give you that assurance from here. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you for helping us to know the that want to taking in colleagues we could just we'll go we're doing comments afterwards.
Speaker 7: We still do it after you.
Speaker 2: Get the questions. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 11: I just wanted to ask a question about the I believe it was three acres that was on the original site that is proposed for the Gates development. What where has that land been moved to? Historically, there was a park on that site. It was about three acres, as I recall. Kim, you'll remember this. Can you tell me where that open space has been shifted to? Because we can't technically just get rid of it without replacing it because we'd have to go to a vote of the people.
Speaker 13: Yeah, absolutely. No, it's it's still there. And it will actually.
Speaker 11: Be will be on that same side of Santa Fe.
Speaker 13: Correct. So it's actually highlighted here in green. It's kind of that triangle. That is what will be Venable Park East. So that has a dedicated park space and there's a kind of design recommendations on how that is actually designed and will function in the future.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other questions from members of council? None. Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I. This has been an exciting ride for me. Starting before I was even running for this job. My first meeting with this stationary plan was as a stakeholder representing the Greenway Foundation. And that night I stood up and gave a very passionate speech about the connections to the South Platte River and the East-West connections. I first want to thank David Jaspers specifically, but the entire planning team and consultants. They set a really high bar for public outreach and public engagement through this process, through the public meetings, the stakeholder meetings, getting feedback from all of the Arnaud's small meetings in the community on very targeted issues. David gave up some evenings, including one where he walked into a very hostile room of about 60 West Watch Park residents were very upset about the alignment of how bikes were going to get from the station area to the park. And we closed the door and didn't let him go until we had unanimous, not a single dissenting vote, unanimous support for the language adopted in the plan and all the way down to working one on one with members of the Arnaud's and who are on the zoning side of that. It was really tremendous outreach and tremendous engagement. I also want to thank all of the residents who are involved in this. Thank you to Gertie and Charlotte and Sarah who are here, but also to all of the constituents who are involved in this process all the way along. You know, I think one of the things that's been frustrating for me and for everyone in this is that this is this is a 30,000 foot level plant. And I think we're already with this site to get down to the specifics, to get down to exactly where and what and how is it going to get paid for . And so I just want to say that I am ready to jump in as I know all of my constituents are as well. I think that for this level planning document, when it comes to parking, when it comes to connectivity, it sets the right tone, it puts the right pieces in place for us to go do the next steps. The next steps are critical, and we have to go at those and we have to go at them quickly. But I think that for what we can accomplish in this level of plan, I think, you know, I think there's even Joel Nobile at Planning Board who said who said I'm paraphrasing what he said, that at this level of plan, when it comes to parking this, this is the right language to make sure that we have the flexibility to grow with this site that is currently just a sea of nothing and surface parking to see what it's going to be, but also has those protections in there for residents and for commuters. And it's going be easy. It's a lot of work, but there are a lot of tools that we have at our disposal. I think that sets that right tone. I think that, you know. This station is so critically important, this area to Denver. It is. You know, I've been told I think tonight it's a top three. I've been told this is the second biggest multi-modal hub in Denver's Union Station. And then the Broadway station, if you combine Broadway station with Alameda Station, which are in the same area, and that is is a massive multi-modal hub in Denver, it's also an area that had a development plan and had a developer that fell apart. And I think that part of this anxiety and anticipation to get going was also that there was a plan and there was somebody was going to develop it and then that went away and will soon be in some ways starting over. But what's important is that was in place and was going to move forward without a stationary plan. And here we stand tonight with the opportunity to approve a station area plan that will sit and will guide and will have to be adhered to by future development no matter who that developer is, hopefully the one that we have in place now. But you never know where things turn with the economy. I think that this site also not only is critical for all of Denver, but it's it's as you've heard tonight at the heart of my community that I represent. But it also is at the heart of so many things that divide this community. And so it's unique. I think in a lot of ways about the district that I represent is that instead of drawing the district boundary line along all those divisions, somebody drew it across them. And it's a great place to to be to be forced to look at that and to prioritize those connections. We have Broadway, we have the consolidated main line, we have light rail, we have Santa Fe, we have the South Platte River. And in parts we have I-25. That's a lot of barriers. There are a lot of parts of town that don't have nearly that many. And getting those connections, whether they're bike or pet or vehicular in a stretch between Mississippi and Alameda, that is somewhere around a mile is always difficult. It's something that we grappled with when we did the master plan for the South Platte River. One of the ideas with that is could we bury Santa Fe to make some of this land riverfront? And I think those conversations and dreaming big are really important and it could we tunnel underneath. But I think that what this plan sets forth is a lot of things that we can realistically achieve. It doesn't mean that we stop dreaming or we don't look at the next step. Studies that every option. But I think that there are things in here that we can get done and we can get done over a shorter period of time that will really bridge these communities, this district back together. I have constituents on the east side, as you heard, that since 19, what was the greatest, would you say in 1977 have tried to get to the South Platte River? We spent the last 17 years of my life feels like a former life almost at this point, working on connecting people to the South Platte River. And we have $30 million worth of park and recreation amenities that have just gone in to complement everything that's happened since 1965. We have the Levitt Pavilion opening. Those connections are critical, whether you're a pedestrian or a cyclist or a car. And then I have constituents living on the West Side who can sit and watch a light rail train go by from their front porch, from their backyard, and cannot safely get to it if they're a pedestrian or a cyclist or they're jam packed in traffic and in a car. And so I think that that connectivity and that this plan calls that out as one of the main pieces is connected station area. The site really has the potential to reconnect and re weave this area together and establish those connections between neighborhoods and also from neighborhoods to amenities. I also think that this this area that has been it was a major workforce center with the Gates Rubber factory for Denver forever as a true opportunity to build a live, work and play community in Denver. We already have designated Parkland that can't be touched, as my colleague Councilwoman Ortega mentioned, without a vote of the people . And it won't be. And that on a person like this that that is unique sometimes to have already set aside play space to complement the the live and work that we can build. It's also as Denver continues to grow, this is putting density where density belongs. It was something that, you know, when I was on the campaign trail going door to door, we talked a lot about Denver getting denser. And I don't want this here, but everybody who I knocked on their door almost without a single dissenter said that's the right place. We put density there along the rail where there is multimodal connectivity so that people can reduce the number of trips that they're taking, that add to congestion. That's where it stays out of the West Wash park, the watch park view plane. That's where it belongs. And so to start setting the pieces where we can start to do that and accommodate growth and keep Denver affordable as we continue to grow and there's a serious supply and demand issue I think is important. This can be a true midtown area somewhere between downtown Denver and the tech center, a real place for for for Denver to to thrive and create a great community that serves the communities around it. So I think this plan is just this. Ah, there is a lot more work to do. But as everyone has seen tonight, I have the smartest constituents in the entire city and the most passionate constituents in the entire city, and they are not afraid to make their voices heard. And so I have no doubt that working together, this is just the start and we can get it done. And so tonight with this in front of us, the opportunity to have a stationary a plan that will guide development, that is the start of something, not the finish. I will be supporting this and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I feel compelled to apologize for the level of intelligence of my constituents in view of a councilman clerk just said, but that perhaps it's the altitude sickness from from being in the highest district in the city. Mr. President, I'm going to support this tonight. And Councilman Clark also, but I do so with a lot of trepidation about some of the issues that my constituents have, you know, reluctant as they are to speak, have brought forward about the parking. As Councilman Clark mentioned, this site is has a lot of boundary issues, has a lot of barriers. It has the wall of I-25, it has a consolidated mainline. It has I-25, it has Broadway, it has the high traffic, has Mississippi, which is unbearable, not only because of the underpass, but because of the the traffic signals at Santa Fe. It takes about a day and a half to get through there during rush hour. I want us to remember also, though, that those same facilities make this the hub. As was mentioned earlier, it also makes it the hub. It makes it a place, as Bill Savoy from our Judy said, maybe the third, largest, third busiest RTD rail station in the system. And we I don't want us to lose sight of that. It's not acceptable for my nursing. Constituent I have a constituent as a nurse out of and shoots who lives in Mali and she uses this station every day and it's not acceptable to expect her to walk 1500 feet. That's you know, that's over a five minute walk in the dead of winter, in the dark of night. And when she's coming home or in the morning when she's going to work. That's just not acceptable to me. So I'm hoping that the vagueness that I saw in the parking in the in the talk about we're going to work out parking details in the future. We're at a 30,000 foot level. I hope that we keep in mind that as we convert this this once great industrial site of Gates Rubber Company, as we convert this into a place where people actually live, work and play, that we don't forget that it's also one of the busiest transfer stations in the regional rail network. And in the time it takes to walk from 1500 feet away, whether that's east of Broadway or no matter where it is, my constituent is going to miss at least one, maybe two trains in the downtown for her transfer, and that's not acceptable. So I hope that we keep that in mind when we plan where our parking will be. That will serve the commuting public that needs this station so vitally. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of things. Number one, David Gaspar has set the tone in the planning department with the dress. So I like the tie. Please let other planners know that they're going to come with a tie. And secondly, it's so encouraging to have residents who are just so passionate about multimodal development and so and connection. And so I just want to thank you all for that. You wouldn't believe it. In some parts of the city, we have to educate folks on what multimodal development and connections are. And so I appreciate you guys being so passionate about that. I just want to say, there are people who are watching right now who don't understand planning and don't understand implementation and how we do things in the city and county of Denver. The plan is is laying of the tracks and greasing the track for the train to come. We are seeing plans being implement. We're seeing plans being adopted and implementation happening in less than a year. We're in this time of quick technological advances where things are just moving very quickly. I am we adopted the global response to a plan, three of them like stationary plan just a year ago. And we are redoing it right now because of all of the growth that's happening in this city. And so I want to applaud you all, and I think you will see those connections much faster than you think because you have a city council person who's going to be here for another 11 years, knock on wood. So I just want to continue to encourage all of us with these plans and also want to, you know, have two council persons up here. And I thought Councilman Flynn was going to say this. You know, there are areas of the city that don't have plans. There's areas of the city that do not have this direction. And we as a city need to get on that. There are areas in cities that are that are overlooked. And so, although this is great for this area and so excited that this neighborhood's been working so hard on that and Councilman never given him a shout out. I've been working on this. Let's make sure we get those places that haven't been touched yet. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Burks. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to lend my support to this station area plan as well. Quite some time ago when I served on the city council. This used to be part of my district. It went all the way to Mississippi. That's why I was very well aware of the three acre park parcel that is a part of this proposed development. This site has been around for development for quite a long time. Gates, buildings, most of them have been gone for quite a while. I know at one point there was a lot of talk about trying to save, you know, certain aspects of it. And so there was a community conversation about that. But to realize that we're getting closer, especially with the existence of our our rail system being built out, really makes this exciting. And I remember the site was proposed for, you know, higher density as as we're continuing to talk about the one thing that I just want to raise and I will do this with every site where we have rail. That carries cargo, specifically hazardous material and flammable liquids. And I had this conversation with the developer and miscue server when they came to meet with me. It's looking at the fact that we will have so many people on this site. And when you look at both this site as well as the site immediately to the north that we dealt with last week. This is the size of lower downtown or Cherry Creek, actually a little bit bigger when you add all of it together and it's putting in large numbers of people. And when we get ready to do the tours for districts, one of the things I want to do is get you all to tour the Central Platte Valley. Just yesterday, as a matter of fact, when I was driving back there from from being down here at the office, there was one of these train cars that actually, again , stretched from one end of town downtown throughout the Central Valley. And just the issue of safety of the. People the protection of the infrastructure that's going to be built that will support all those people being there is really important for us to continue to look at and address. And Councilman Clarke and I are both serving on a committee. We hope to have some information back to you with the chief Tate's leadership by July. But this will continue to be part of what the city is going to look at as we move forward in trying to address true health, safety and welfare of communities that we're going to be encouraging to live in these facilities as a result of the development that's going to be there. So I'll be supporting this tonight, and I just want to congratulate all the folks who have been involved, think the neighborhood for their input can't see behind all these trees over here. But I think the fact that we have a few neighborhood people here tonight really says a lot about the process that you all went through, because when they're not thorough and engaging, we have these seats filled up. So good job on the work you've done. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Cleage.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I chimed in only to add a new comment that wasn't made, which is to commend folks on Section three of the plan on social sustainability. I don't know if council members got a chance to see it, but this site has a very long history of engagement from a really broad coalition of community organizations looking to say that when you do major land use, the only outcomes shouldn't be physical things that you should see. It should be the economic opportunity that's created for the residents, particularly those who are vulnerable. It should be the types and prices of the housing that's created and the connection to jobs, all of that. And I was really pleased to see really strong language on that. And so kudos to the neighbors for both supporting and embracing a diversity of incomes in the housing. That is a sign of the richness of a community, this idea of recognizing and embracing that, but also to the plan staff for for bringing those things. I would say this plan goes further than most I've seen in terms of really addressing it even mentions local hiring. Councilwoman Ortega. So I think that is I'm not sure I've seen that before maybe in the responsive plan, but I think that that piece is what to me makes all this worthwhile, right? East West connections are great, but they exist for people. And having those people have access to housing and economic opportunity is what makes all that other infrastructure meaningful. So I want to commend you and thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each. Any other comments? 173 seen on Madam Secretary, Raquel Clarke.
Speaker 6: Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Cashman. I can eat Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Sussman.
Speaker 5: Black Brooks.
Speaker 6: Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please cast your vote in. Now the results.
Speaker 6: 3939.
Speaker 2: Is 173 has passed. On Monday, May 2nd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 174, changing the zoning classification for 2765 South Colorado Boulevard and required public hearing on Council Bill 191 changing the zoning classification for 4140 50 North Kittredge Street. Any protest against Council Bill 174 191 must be filed with the Council Office no later than Monday, April 25th. And Councilwoman Black wanted me to acknowledge, to say thank you for all those that have the plants on our diets are due to April is Child Abuse Prevention month. So this is a reminder of council for that seen all the business before this body this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
Adopts the I-25 and Broadway Station Area Plan as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Adopts the I-25 and Broadway Station Area Plan as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-16-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03292016_16-0165
|
Speaker 5: Thank you. This is a re-appointment of native Caldwell to the Stapleton Development Corporation. I just wanted to thank Nadine as the representative on Stapleton Development Corp. from Aurora. She has such a lengthy list of accomplishments, particularly in redevelopment of these brownfield sites. She was on the Lowry Redevelopment Authority. She was on the Fitzsimmons Redevelopment Authority, and she has been the Aurora representative on our Stapleton Development Corp.. She served on Aurora City Council, all during the construction of Denver International Airport. And she is I think she's been on Stapleton Development Corp. since the inception. And I just wanted to thank her for her service. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Can I, uh. Can I say any more? She's a remarkable asset to that team. All right. We're going to go to the next 1105. Councilwoman Ortega, would you like for us to do with this a question? Go right ahead.
Speaker 7: Run. Would you mind coming forward a little from Denver Human Services? So this is a contract for right of passage in the amount of $3,520,000, $20,080. And what I'm trying to understand is how many youth annually will that serve? And is this different from. The fact that we are closing the Family Crisis Center. Will these be some of the same kids? Will they be different kids? Help me understand.
Speaker 5: And I'm going to do a quick calculation here to get you the answer to your first question.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 6: It looks like that's about.
Speaker 5: 16 kids a month. That that can handle the cost are approximately 6000 to $7000 per month for having a kid in that level of care. And I'm.
Speaker 9: Sorry, I'm.
Speaker 5: Ron Mitchell. Good evening, everybody. The the second part.
Speaker 9: Of your question. The FCC. They may have taken some of those kids in the past. So that that is a possibility. What happened is, is that that particular facility that specialized.
|
Resolution
|
Approves the Mayoral reappointment of Nadine Caldwell to the Stapleton Development Corporation Board of Directors for a term effective immediately and expiring 6-30-18, or until a successor is duly appointed. (GOVERNANCE & CHARTER REVIEW) Approves the Mayoral reappointment of Nadine Caldwell to the Stapleton Development Corporation Board of Directors for a term effective immediately and expiring 6-30-18, or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 3-17-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03292016_16-0105
|
Speaker 9: Of your question. The FCC. They may have taken some of those kids in the past. So that that is a possibility. What happened is, is that that particular facility that specialized.
Speaker 5: In juvenile delinquents and the the division began using them for shelter.
Speaker 9: Care, essentially. So when kids when there's a limit reached at the detention facility, those kids have to go somewhere. It's a state law and they can put them into the custody, the department, or they can send them home with plans.
Speaker 5: And they put a number of those kids in the shelter program, and some of those kids end up staying there for treatment purposes.
Speaker 7: How many can they house on a given night? Do you know.
Speaker 9: At that facility? I don't know. They have about a 500 bed. Yeah, it's a very big facility.
Speaker 7: They located in Denver.
Speaker 5: They're located east of Denver. They're on the other side of four seven. The East.
Speaker 7: River.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 7: So. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ron Ortega. All right, Madam Secretary, those were the resolutions around the bill's introduction. 173 Councilwoman Gilmore would like for us to do with this.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to request a one hour courtesy public hearing on Monday, April 4th, 2016, on Council Bill 173, which approves the I-25 and Broadway station area plan. And Councilman Jolin Clark regrets that he's not able to be here in person and make this request, but he's on spring break with his children. So he's being a good dad right now. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Ma'am, there are no objections from members of council, and I see none will ever be required. Public courtesy one hour courtesy of public hearing 173 Monday, April 4th. Okay, go. The next one 183. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you like for us to do this?
Speaker 4: I just have a comment, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to make sure that constituents in District 11 and the viewing public understand that I'm sponsoring this tax amendment that will allow multi-family residential to extend from 62nd Avenue up to 64th Avenue in District 11 at the 61st and Penna transit oriented development site. It's a two block increase, and it will ensure that we have the density that is required to ensure that we have the retail development that we are currently lacking in District 11 and to really serve the commuter rail as a robust stop. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. In the comments or questions. 183. Seeing nine. We've got one more bill for introduction 169 Councilman, to tell you, would you like for us to do this?
Speaker 7: I need this out for a vote for the purpose of an abstention. I'm on the board of a nonprofit that receives some of the. From time to time, some of the Ryan White funds. And so I will be abstaining.
Speaker 1: You guys.
Speaker 7: I serve on that board.
Speaker 1: Councilman Brooks, can you make the motions for us tonight?
Speaker 9: Certainly, sir.
Speaker 1: Can you have 169 ordered published?
Speaker 9: Yes, I yes, I put 169 to be ordered.
Speaker 1: Published, moved in. Sacrament. Did you want to add anything else, Councilwoman Ortega? No. All right. We got any other comments? 169. Scene nine. Madam Secretary. Roll Call.
|
Resolution
|
Amends a contract with Rite of Passage, Inc. for an additional $3,520,080 for a new total contract amount of $4,300,300, to provide placements and case management services to youth in out-of-home care (2015-21670-02).
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03292016_15-0937
|
Speaker 1: The public hearing for Councilor Bill 937, as amended, is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 11: Good evening, Tim Watkins, Community Planning Development Case Manager for rezoning case number 2050 934 Property located in North Denver Council District nine. In the southwest quadrant of the Globeville neighborhood and specifically within the 41st of Fox station area. In fact, very close to the platform, as you can see here in this vicinity graphic, you see the property outlined in red just adjacent south to the 41st and Fox Station Area Platform Park. And you see the pedestrian bridge connecting Globeville to Sunnyside and Highland neighborhoods where continued pedestrian access has been made possible with a pedestrian bridge that is shown at 38th and anchor, which connects pedestrians further south to the city of Cordova Car Park in the South Platte River. The Gold line of transit line will connect from Denver Union Station North with this being the first stop to the north sometime this year in 2016. And there's also RTD bus Route eight, which connects along Fox Street between downtown North Denver and into Adams County. Fox Street is also anticipated as a future study for future bike route. Here's another view of the station, park and ride and infrastructure platform and pet bridge that's under construction and soon to open. And here's the property. The request is for 1.44 acres to be zoned. Access would be at 40th Avenue from Fox Street to the property via 40th Avenue, and the owners requesting zoning that would allow for transit oriented development. The current zoning is I.B. or heavy industrial with the yellow two billboard use overlay and a or light industrial also with a billboard use overlay and the requested zone district is c mixed 20 or urban center mixed use with the 20 storey maximum. This is a zone district that encourages compact, walkable and diverse uses that can be supported by collector arterial streets and multimodal transit, and is intended with design standards to encourage street active uses and pedestrian scale at ground level uses that very much complement pedestrian activity along walkable streets in a transit oriented development environment and up to 20 storeys. Look at the existing land use context is predominantly industrial today. However, that is changing. And just as an example, the area north of the site is shown is industrial. Our current land use mapping, but that is converting to parking, transit or in development facility to support surrounding redevelopment and transitional use into mixed use development. There are also some vacant properties, parking areas and a little bit of scattering of commercial retail and even a few multi-family low rise. Users in the area. The site is shown here in the center in plan view. To the north you see the park and ride facility under construction and advanced stages of construction. To the east is light industrial parking and retail. To the west as industrial and the rail corridor. And to the south is industrial use. The applicant has reached out to the. Registered neighborhood organizations listed here. And that has resulted in a letter of support from United Community Action Network. Or you can and all of the written and posted notice requirements have been met. And this was a case that came before council with a request for. A modified request to modify the application, which Council approved on February 29th, and the hearing was rescheduled to this evening. Let's look at the review criteria beginning with consistency with adopted plans. Comp Plan 2000 encourages conserving land by promoting infill development and promote sustainable centers of live work activity through mixed use development, especially near transit station areas to provide for diverse housing needs and in correlation with public transportation. The concept land is a blueprint. Denver is transit oriented development, which is land use that correlates directly with mass transit, encourages a balance mix of uses ranging from compact mid to high densities. And this is in an area of change where there are public benefits can be achieved by channeling growth. To these areas, such as improved transit, access for jobs, housing and services, and fewer and shorter automobile trips. Blueprint Denver Street Classification for Foxx Street is mixed use Collector Street, north of 40th Avenue and then between I-25 and Fourth Avenue. It's actually a mixed use arterial. Collect your streets, support access between neighborhoods while arterials are focused, or support longer trips between regional destination or urban areas throughout Denver. Both street types are intended to support walking, biking and vehicle mobility with features such as tree lawn sidewalks on street parking in alleys. And 40th Avenue is a local and designated street. The Globeville Neighborhood Plan supports land uses and building heights that are recommended in the 41st and Fox station area plan and just reinforces what's already adopted in the 2940 and Fox Station Area Plan, which shows the concept land use as mixed use office residential, 3 to 20 storeys, and that is defined as land use, supporting employment services and residential uses within walking distance, in particular within walking distance of of nearby services in transit. Second Review criteria uniformity of district regulations cm x 20 would result in uniform application of district building, form, use and design regulations, and it would further public health, safety and welfare by implementing recommendations and the vision for urban center and transit oriented development at the 41st and Fox Stationery fourth review criteria as a change or changing circumstance of the change or changing condition of the property as a justifying circumstance. Specifically, the station platform, the PED Bridge in the Park and Ride facility are nearing completion and that service will soon be available along this important transit corridor. There are nearby properties that were recently resigned to see them x 20 cm x 12 and CMS eight. And there have been recent developments at 39th and FOX and 42nd and Delaware. This DMX or urban center is part of the urban center context encourages compact, walkable and diverse areas, and this meets the vision, not necessarily the land uses today or the context today of industrial, but meets the desired neighborhood vision or context of an urban center. A transit oriented development station area and CM 20 specifically encourages a street active and pedestrian skilled ground level uses to support walking, shopping, public gathering, near transit and up to 20 stories. So CPD is finding is that all review criteria have been met. We recommend approval and planning board also unanimously recommended approval. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Watkins. All right. We have three speakers for this today. I call all three. You can make your way up to the front pew. That Texas. Amanda monroe I believe that white and then Whitney. I'm so sorry I got cut off. And then we have David Roy Bell. So, Mr. Texan, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 5: Thank you. That is tax of 4535 Julian Street, Denver, Colorado Council Members. Instead of rezoning this pastoral parcel, you should purchase it as a site for a new homeless shelter and mental health treatment center. After all, apparently you have millions of dollars for a new performing arts complex for the rich. Once again, the wealthy come before the needy. Perhaps you could levy a 1% design and construction tax to first purchase the land. A construction tax on developers in the Arapahoe Square area, out of which you've just driven the homeless in order to facilitate profits for the 1% and 1% tax would seem only fair. But maybe you just don't understand the plight of the homeless. In this regard, it might be helpful if, given the walkability of this zoning site. If you took a walk along of South Platte near this zoning site where you've driven our least fortunate citizens through your camping ban.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Tech, sir. Ms.. Monroe Whitney Europe.
Speaker 12: Hi. Amanda monroe, Whitney. I am the granddaughter of the property owner of 75 West 39th. I live in Denver 45 if I sell to Yosemite. I believe that this amended zoning change that was done on February 29th was not commuted, communicated correctly to the Monroe Investment Company LLC, which is my family's who owns the property. I do believe that Tim Watkins did answer all the questions to the best of his knowledge and in his capacity. But I do also believe that the person that is supposed to be here tonight, which is he is not, has communicated the reasoning of zoning it half and half did not communicate it well whatsoever to my mother , who is the manager of the Monroe LLC. I'm completely against it. I would rather have it zoned all commercial residential that way. It also falls in line with the Fox Street trans oriented development that the city wants. And that is all I have to say. And I do have a question. We are able to change the zoning if this is finalized tonight, correct?
Speaker 1: We'll have we'll have councilmembers speak to that when it comes to comments.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Famous Monroe Whitney. Next, we have David Weigel. Hello.
Speaker 9: How are you doing? Members of council. I just want to address the offensive training of the Klan. I feel that the clans presence and history needs to be acknowledged by the government in schools. And on that, I just feel that the expansion of the city cares more about the people that are coming here than the people that built the legacy here. Where this redevelopment is happening right across in District one, they have a huge redevelopment from the skate park and none of that is going to be affordable and towards putting in a redevelopment area. I'm not in favor of it because I come from the Sun Valley neighborhood and at the time that little raven was being expanded as a $2 billion project that capitalized between Highlands and downtown. And that's another capitalization of the river area in my neighborhood. The Sun Valley is get ready to get hit next. And I'm not in support of this. Capitalizing and making a high, high income area nor affordable housing. And now the homeless that are down there that can't be at the homeless shelters, you know, where are they going to go now? And I'm just not not in favor of this. And, you know, a lot of the developers, when you live in a neighborhood, when your neighborhood's going to be redeveloped and these are redevelopment come, you know, it's pretty much the same stuff telling you plans and people are powerless, people are oppressed and you know and now Swansea A they've been going through this for so long they're burned out the Sun Valley, we've been going through this for all seven and you know, we don't, we don't want people that are going to come redevelop our neighborhood. We want people that are going to come be a part of the community. And that's the thing about it. Our communities, again, so broken by these new redevelopments because they come move in, they don't reach out to the original people there and the people that are there, they don't want to reach there. And it's just, you know, I just feel there's more community involvement in our city's changing so drastically. And I just hope that it could be a better, fairer Denver and make our city great, you know, for all of us. And, you know, I love Denver and I plan on staying here the rest of my life. Thank you. Members of council. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That concludes our speakers. Now time questions from members of council. Council members?
Speaker 9: Yeah. Tim Watkins can. Tim. I had a had a bunch of other questions. Kind of philosophizing on all of this, this redevelopment and the some of the issues. But because of Miss Monroe, who came up and spoke, I mean, that kind of changed everything. Is is the person who who called for the rezoning here.
Speaker 11: The applicant representative is not here this evening, and I don't fully understand what scheduling conflict may have. Occurred.
Speaker 9: But they didn't send a representative or.
Speaker 11: I think the intention was to be here, but I think they could be on their way.
Speaker 9: Okay. And so when you put forward the recommendation that this be a split rezoning, the. You know, the property owner was not consulted in it.
Speaker 11: So we received a request to modify the application and put that forward to council. And I did speak with the property owner and had the understanding that the property owner was aware and supportive of this.
Speaker 9: Okay.
Speaker 11: As well as the representative.
Speaker 9: Okay, look. Mr. President, can I call it Miss Moral?
Speaker 5: Good.
Speaker 9: So obviously we're getting conflicting stories here. So I'm trying to understand your grandparents, I believe it.
Speaker 12: Was it was my grandfather and actually his dad that had bought the property in the fifties. And just to let the people know that we're here talking about development. I mean, we helped build Denver and Colorado Springs and everything. We're a rental construction company. Okay. And we closed our doors in 2014. We've been open since the early fifties, early, late 40. Sorry.
Speaker 9: Okay. And so are you aware that your Grimm father talked to Mr. Watkins?
Speaker 12: My grandfather. It was my mother. She is the manager of the Monroe LLC. The property is owned by three members of the family Roderick Monroe, Peggy Monroe and Vickie Monroe. Vickie Monroe is the manager.
Speaker 9: Okay. Are you aware that your mother talked to? I am. And and consented?
Speaker 12: I am. And I'm still going to disagree with it because I do not think that the person that is supposed to be representing us who's not here tonight gave her clear communication of the reasoning of zoning in half and half.
Speaker 9: Okay, well, you understand our conflict as well that I did. Okay.
Speaker 12: I just wanted to go on record and voice my opinion just because I'm highly invested in this, too. I've been the property manager there now for two years since my uncle passed away and close the doors. Okay. So this and I mean, I grew up there. Yeah.
Speaker 9: So and I don't believe that this forfeits your right on the other parcel to Rizzo.
Speaker 12: That's what I'm concerned about. This deal proposed. The deal doesn't go through. I'm hoping that we have the opportunity to to go back to our original. Rezoning application, which was the CRM max 24, the entire property.
Speaker 9: Okay. I'm pretty sure that it can't, but thank you. Thank you. Mr.. Mr.. Watkins, just real quick. You know, we've kind of talked about this before, and there's two, two different questions that I want you to kind of talk about, and maybe they'll be addressed in Blueprint. But then I imac's kind of zoning in flexibility within the IMX. There were some mention of it in in the Globeville plan, and I know you and I have had many conversations on the restrictions within IMX in the city, but just wondering, was that a part of the conversation at all with the with the applicant?
Speaker 11: The applicant has always requested the sea or urban center mixed use zoning and the 20 story in it. Really this is about phasing for the applicant and the desire to keep the southern portion of the property in productive industrial use and have flexibility to keep it productive and solvent in terms of lease ability while the phase one to the north is under construction. Did you have a question specific to the uses allowed under IMAX and whether that zone district was considered or.
Speaker 9: I know the uses and you could if r if we had flexibility in our IMX zoning and especially in identifying the IMAX, you could do an IMAX rezoning here, but we don't have that within our zone districts.
Speaker 11: Correct. Well, the IMAX goes up to eight storeys. That's right. Right. So there's not and so if if maybe they're interest in taller than eight storeys, push them to the CMCs.
Speaker 9: But I'm just wondering, Max, and wondering about the conversation and blueprint and in saying could there be more flexibility, Max, to go up to 20, the examples that we've seen from cities like Vancouver that have, you know, multiple housing units, have an ability to do light manufacturing, have retail on the bottom, all the things that we kind of, you know, want in our city, you know, this is a part of the city that we are rezoning from industrial into commercial a lot. And if there are not some opportunities for us to, you know, fit the mold and see if there's a go between a hybrid or, you know, we're going to be in trouble. So just was seeing if that was an opportunity. The last piece is this this zone district is recommended in the plan to 3 to 20 storeys. And we we've had a lot of conversations and I don't think that this has been mandated yet with the city. But minimums is minimum has minimums have been a part of the conversation.
Speaker 11: You know, you've raised two very interesting points that could be very interesting citywide conversations. And just harkening back to your how do we define Emacs and how is our understanding of IMX evolving and how could that be reflected in both the CMS districts as well as the Emacs districts? So that's I think a very. Exciting opportunity to explore that as well as. The point you just raised on the minimum heights. And in fact, I believe Councilman Espinosa brought that up on previous Fox area rezonings. And our response at that time was that there could be a conversation and might have implications citywide and beyond the specific rezoning and the specific station area. So two very interesting topics related to planning and zoning that council might wish to further explore.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I'll address it in my comments. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I honestly am confused. So I thought the property owner initiated this rezoning. And are you, Mr. Monroe, are you one of the property owners? I have a.
Speaker 1: Daughter, Ms.. One right where I need to.
Speaker 8: So I would just like some clarification as to.
Speaker 12: Okay, originally the property was bought by my grandfather and my great granddad back in the early fifties. Once my grandfather passed in 2006, the property was then put together in a monroe LLC which consisted of the children and his wife. If anything were to happen to the children at all, his wife and vice versa, we all know how that goes. So as of right now, the property is owned by Vickie Monroe, Peggy Monroe and Rod Monroe. And I am the daughter of Vicki Monroe and granddaughter of Peggy Monroe. And Pat Monroe, the original owner.
Speaker 8: And so. Though they were the owner there. The owners requested the rezoning.
Speaker 12: My mother did. She is the manager. But like I said, I have been explicit. And is that this rezoning of half and half? The person that is representing us is not here. And I do not think that he has communicated the reasoning behind doing half and half and still instead of the full singer Max 20 And no , we were never told about IMAX. At least I wasn't. And I've been in communication with our representative and my mother throughout this whole thing, except for the February 29th Amendment.
Speaker 11: So.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 11: So I spoke with Vickie Monroe about the purpose of the application modification request and felt that she had an understanding of it and that she. Was inclined to approve it. And I understand that there are some differences among some of the family members.
Speaker 12: And like I did say, Tim has answered all the questions to the best of his knowledge in his capacity. But like I said, the person that's representing us has not represented it correctly. And what is the mode of operation in doing this? This is why it's about tonight.
Speaker 11: And the applicant representative who submitted the request to modify the application. I communicated with him as well as Vickie Monroe at the same time, and I felt that there was collective understanding, but not necessarily agreement among family members.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Council. I want to tell you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Unless you're somebody that deals with zoning and land use issues on a day in and day out basis, it's complex and not easy to thoroughly understand. So I could understand someone being told, This is what we want, this is what it does. Without going into a lot of detail and thinking, Oh, that sounds all right. But you know, the devil is always in the details. So I had a number of questions it's hard to be able to ask them without the applicant being here. So that's what makes this really kind of kind of a screwy process. I don't know how we justify moving something forward without the applicant even being here to address some of the questions that we have. So, I mean, Tim, I could ask you a few of the questions that I think might be helpful in just understanding what would be proposed for this particular zone category and at this location. So for example, is there open space requirement on this size lot? And if not, what would is the size threshold that requires open space to be incorporated?
Speaker 11: There is not an open space requirement for the CME zone districts and that's more associated with a general development plan.
Speaker 7: So the fact that there's no park in the neighborhood, the fact that we're putting so many residential units, at least when we did the Central Platte Valley, we made sure there were two very large parks that would not only serve the new development, but it would serve the entire Highlands neighborhood that was park deficient. So we're creating a community that has no place to go other than their own units. And so.
Speaker 11: If I could respond to that. The 41st and Fox stationary plan does envision parks, but it doesn't necessarily. Explicitly state which parcel should be purchased for park. So there's an understanding that there should be proposed parks and open space areas, but that those are.
Speaker 7: What if we're rezoning all of the land and we're not? Requiring any set aside of any of the development for open space, then chances are it could be all gone and we get no open space for the massive amount of density that we're allowing.
Speaker 11: There was a set aside at 4400 North Fox Street, part of that.
Speaker 7: The Denver Post say you.
Speaker 11: Think you just need 2570.
Speaker 7: But that's for that development. Right.
Speaker 11: But publicly accessible. Okay.
Speaker 7: Let me go on to my next question. What is the parking requirement for this Todd category per unit?
Speaker 11: It is 0.75 parking spaces per residential unit.
Speaker 7: Okay. And was there any talk at all about commitment to affordable housing in the city's discussion with the proposed the proposer of this application?
Speaker 11: The development concept is is not advanced enough to speak specifically to affordable housing opportunities. So there's not really the properties in a transaction mode and development would be intended after that transaction is finalized.
Speaker 7: So we have no idea. Exactly how many stories are being proposed. The zoning allows up to 20 stories, but we have no idea what is being proposed. That's a goofy part about this process, is not having any knowledge of exactly what we're being asked to approve other than, you know, within this grandiose framework, if you will. Let me move on to my next question. In your conversations with the applicant, what specifically did the city do to address public health, safety and welfare with? Consideration of the close proximity to the commuter rail line, which is just immediately the other side. The other side of the. I'm sorry. I meant cargo. It's immediately west of the RTD commuter rail line.
Speaker 11: Yes. My understanding is those conversations are still underway among city agencies and looking at health risks and how to address appropriately. So that's.
Speaker 7: So in the meantime.
Speaker 11: Encouragement, previous encouragement, those discussions are still underway.
Speaker 7: But there's nothing happening when an applicant comes through the city to ask them to consider looking at how they might be willing to address that.
Speaker 11: Not during the rezoning phase. There is not currently.
Speaker 7: Okay. That process is ongoing. We will have a some recommendations that come out of that by. July. But in the meantime, we have lots of applications coming forward along corridors that will be building high density housing right next to rail. We're not addressing any of the kind of details that ensure that we are in fact protecting human life and addressing public health, safety and welfare. So I'm just I will keep asking this question wherever we have commuter rail lines that run alongside cargo lines. And, you know, my hope is that we have people willing to do some things until we do have some clear recommendations in place. Um. I think that's it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, gentlemen. I'm going to jump in real quick. Tim, the applicant is the the the the Whitney family, correct? I would say who's the applicant? Because we said the applicant's not here. The applicant's representative is not here. That's correct. Because there was never intended for the applicant to actually be.
Speaker 11: Indeed the applicant property owners out of state.
Speaker 1: Okay. So so Miss Monroe in if I just want to ask you. So you you just disagree. So your grandmother is for the I might be using a wrong terminology, but she's the head of the estate, correct?
Speaker 12: She has the most units.
Speaker 1: Most units. Okay. So you just disagree with the direction. I just want to make sure and because you're your argument is not with what CPD has done, because you said that Tim has answered all the questions.
Speaker 12: That I do. I want to make that clear. Tim has answered all the questions to the best of his knowledge in his capacity. That's what's very important here. He is a staff member of yours. He doesn't know our personal business. He does not know. Absolutely. And so in his capacity, he has done an excellent job. And I love his pictures. I love how he's presented us. So, yeah, my grandmother is the majority owner of the property and both my mom and her brother Rod have 29.1.
Speaker 1: So if I may correct me at this wrong, you just disagree with the direction that they move that they're going forward with. Or do you feel your representative who's representing has not and has not represented your family, in your opinion, in the best interests?
Speaker 12: Absolutely. To the best for our best interests. The representative that is supposed to be here has not represented why we are doing this rezoning this way.
Speaker 1: But you feel that way. You know, you obviously cannot speak for your parents or your grandmother. That's just the way that you feel about it.
Speaker 12: That is how I feel. And my grandmother, I spoke to her about it. She does. She's like this. The uncle just sits on the west side. I've been involved with our property since I was born and I've been even more involved in it for the last two and a half years. I've done all the phases in at the environmental. I've done everything with it. So that's fair.
Speaker 1: Thank you for advice. What make you think? Well, we've got a lot of people in here. Councilman, new Europe.
Speaker 5: Has been as question in addition to your grandmother, the other two family members who have ownership, how how do they.
Speaker 1: Feel about this rezoning?
Speaker 12: My mom is in she she agrees with it, but I do not think that she was communicated properly. And why we are rezoning it this way. My mom has always wanted to do the zone full, commercial, residential, and then all of a sudden this half and half started coming about, which I didn't understand what was going on . And I do not think she does and I do not think that she is clear on it. Tim Watkins has told her, told her the benefits of it. He has told me we have had similar conversations. But the representative, like I said, who is not here this evening, has guided my mom in in in a in a in a way that is representing us to the to the best.
Speaker 5: What about the third family member of this ownership?
Speaker 12: I have asked him I have shown him all the documents and he says, just let me know when it's bad.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 12: Mm hmm. Um, I think Tim also wanted to.
Speaker 3: Address your.
Speaker 12: Question. Do you want.
Speaker 4: To estimate to the podium?
Speaker 5: Tim. You like to. As something.
Speaker 11: Yes, if I could. So, Amanda, we met with the applicant representative, your mother, you and I, the four of us together. And we had a lengthy conversation about what it would mean to modify the application and reduce the area to be zoned to 20. And the pros and cons. And we explored what follow up steps to further research that would be required. And I did some follow up research, and I reported back to all of you. And I felt that that was a very open and transparent conversation between the applicant, representative, you, your mother and myself. And every attempt was made to continue that conversation. And then I did have a follow up conversation with you separately and your mother separately. And I felt that everyone had the same understanding, and it just came down to choices. Do we choose to rezone the property in its entirety or have half options? And so I felt that there was a slight mischaracterization of the. The applicant representative terms of not communicating the purpose and intent.
Speaker 7: To me are going to talk into.
Speaker 11: The area to be resolved. So that's.
Speaker 12: Think. Did you have any.
Speaker 7: Other questions, Councilman?
Speaker 11: No, thank.
Speaker 6: You.
Speaker 3: Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you. This is pretty simple for me. I don't see how to possibly resolve this without an applicant here. I mean. Tim is. Staff. Ms.. Munroe is not an applicant. So what. What are. And anybody who knows can answer this. What are our options for delaying this vote?
Speaker 1: It's funny you mention that. I was just having a conversation with David, so I won't speak for David if you want to chime in.
Speaker 5: David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney. One option you have available to you is to continue the public hearing and postpone the matter until a date certain to get the applicant here. This is we don't really have a precedent. I don't ever recall an applicant not being here informed, representing their application on any prior actions we've taken. I believe that there that options available to you in this city. CPD staffer Nate. Know some reason why that couldn't occur, but that's a procedural option available to you. Or else you can just go go ahead and proceed to a vote on the merits.
Speaker 1: So. Councilman, just looking at CPD, they said that is an option that we could do if that's what this body wants to do.
Speaker 5: Is there something we need to do to make that happen, sir?
Speaker 7: We need a plan.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we would. Yeah. David, I'm. I almost feel like we need a motion. Correct me if I'm wrong, David, to postpone until a date. Certain, but we need to have what we need to save the date certain now. Or would we?
Speaker 5: A postponement needs to be to a date certain. That's always a problem in terms of looking at your advanced calendar. But but also again, the point is we haven't gaveled closed the hearing. So if you want to hear from more people on behalf of the application, you need to keep the hearing open so we don't have to re post notice of the hearing itself. So it'd be a motion to postpone and continue the hearing until a date to pick a date.
Speaker 1: Well, we got people in the queue, so let's do this. Councilman Cashman, if there are any outstanding questions that councilmembers have now, let's get those out of the way so we don't have to ask the questions later on. And then we can if the sentiment is there, once the questions are done to postpone to a date certain, we could do that. Councilwoman Gilmore, you're up.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, I have a couple of questions for you, please. When you're communicating to property owners or the applicant, is that done via email so that there's a record of it or is it verbal communication or how is there a process in place to ensure that there isn't miscommunication from the interested parties?
Speaker 11: Well, that's a good question. And there has been a mix of in-person communication and phone conversations as well as emails. And I did strive to copy all parties and sometimes didn't have a correct email address, but attempted to forward afterwards. But when I'm the call is placed to me from the property owner, applicant, and then the property owner applicant's daughter, I take those calls and I have direct conversations, but I haven't. Summarize the conversation and emailed it to both parties after the phone call.
Speaker 4: Okay. And so there is no I mean, so then with with you saying that there there isn't necessarily an official sign off of the interested parties on a confirmation that they clearly understood what was conveyed to them necessarily. I mean, you're communicating with them over the telephone. There's not a process to create a summary and send it back out to them or verify that that they're understanding it explicitly.
Speaker 11: Well, I rely on the application which the property owner entity has listed and then the applicant representative is listed. And as a case manager, a primary obligation is to communicate directly with the applicant representative who then coordinates with property owners. But when property owners call and ask to have a conversation, very much pleased to to respond and. Sure.
Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. One additional question on the original, the packet of information for Monday night. There's a document in here that it's the rezoning guide and the rezoning application. So it's page three of three and it has listed I, I believe it's I think it says Vicki Monroe and that it's the property owner interests percentage of area of the zone. Lots to be re zoned and it indicates that she is 100% owner. Of that zone lot and. I guess it might be appropriate for for Miss Monroe, Whitney for or someone to clarify if it's actually three folks that are owners of the zone lot or if Ms.. Monroe is the 100% owner.
Speaker 12: No, that's not true. My mom is not a 100% owner of specific zone. Lots and specific places of of the property. The entire property. There's never been any any direct. Okay. Vicki owns this part. Right? Owns this part. My grandmother, Peggy owns this part. No, it's never been like that, ever.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: And I guess this is for Mr. Monroe. Just sort of reading between the lines. It sounds to me like the developer interest development interest is seeking new zoning on their interest, but members of the extended family would like the entirety of the family's land to be resolved. Is that correct?
Speaker 12: Can I repeat your question? Your question was, is that that a developer wants.
Speaker 9: I'm trying to figure out and I'll ask Tim, because you said he explained this as the best way forward. I'm trying to figure out how we go from a giant L-shaped property that goes from 39th to north of 40th to something that is only the upper half of that when you're sitting here telling us is that you would rather see the entirety of that parcel. Is that what it was mentioned here in in passing was that this preserves some industrial use of the lower the southern half of the parcel while allowing developed redevelopment potential of the northern half. And so I can see where we would make that split if we didn't want to create a non-conforming situation on the Southern half. But I'm not because of the sort of tenor of what has been described here, etc.. It sort of sounds like it is been conveyed in different ways. And I'm trying to understand how it is that we got to just the northern half TMX 20 because I can see in my development experience because my understanding is historically there were two development interests, two development developers interested in this parcel. And so and I don't know if both the development interests are still interested in this parcel or we're now talking about one. Now we're just securing redevelopment potential for that portion of the land. So how did we get here? Because I do think that if there is no nonconforming if the if you if the building business is shuttered, like you said in 2014, then there is no non-conforming sort of situation. So it does make sense that if we're going to rezone, we'd just rezone the entire portion. Part of me wonders why we didn't just do this as a legislative reason for all of this area. But because this is like the eighth one of these things that I've seen in the last four, eight months.
Speaker 12: Yes. Yeah. I've done my I've done my research on even the property that is north of the light rail, the gold line. They've all been resolved and they still work at the capacity that they were working at originally. So their zoning was is grandfathered in. My, my and my mother's questions, big questions where is if we did change the zoning to complete SIMEX 20 that the AIA and the IP zoning be grandfathered in? We never really got a clear, concise answer to that.
Speaker 9: And then I give you a clear, concise. No, I use. Once that rezoning occurs. Now you can't you can't do certain uses there because you've it's not allowed and it's not permitted in that zone district. So you don't just get grandfathered in because the building looks a certain way or acted a certain way.
Speaker 12: Right. We have we've had renters on the property until the February 29th, and I'm trying to get renters in there. Now that were of the same.
Speaker 9: You didn't. That would create a problem that were renters. Yeah. That's why that's what.
Speaker 12: He did that if we don't see him next 20 that abuse would not be we would not be able to use that.
Speaker 1: Miss Whitney, I don't want to stop your conversation, but, councilman, I want to make sure that you have more so she can come converse with.
Speaker 9: You, because that that sort of explains to me because, like I said, I didn't it was either one of two situations. And I think it's very clear that that it's it's it's it's a functional issue on why you're ending up in this sort of redefining of the boundary. And it to me now makes more sense why we would do something like this. And it isn't. You're just so for your sake. Yeah. Yeah. Coming back and going through this process and the southern half is not is going to be fairly straightforward.
Speaker 12: I was here in the future. I've been to the meetings.
Speaker 9: Yeah. It's going to be fairly straightforward on the on the southern half in the future. What you like you'll never see CPD sort of willfully doing is creating non-conforming situations and that's what you're sort of asking for. But if you want to continue leasing it as a use by right the way it is, that use by right actually goes away when you change the zone district. Which is what we're talking about tonight. If I had if I said anything wrong, I stand corrected, but I think I got it right. So thank you. Thank you. No more questions.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 4: Okay. I just like I have a couple of.
Speaker 7: Simple questions for Ms.. Monroe.
Speaker 4: You are not the owner of the property. You are not the applicant of the property.
Speaker 12: No, Keith, get out. I get close. Originally was the applicant. Okay.
Speaker 7: And so.
Speaker 4: You're. And we don't know. How the applicant or the owner feels about this. We just have your testimony that says they don't like it. Was there a reason.
Speaker 12: Why I disagree with it? But we don't know if the owner does or the applicant. But there's like I said, there's three owners. One is the manager and she is the one that made the decision. But you are not the owner and you are not the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. We are round two of questions, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I just wanted to ask him if he clearly communicated that if for any reason this rezoning, this zoning application goes down, that the property owner would have to wait a year before they could re file an application for this property.
Speaker 11: To the same zoned district. And is that all CMC's own districts or just CMC's toe? Just toe could not be applied for for one year.
Speaker 7: Okay. So if they applied for something different, they could they could apply on the site. So has that changed in 2010 when the citywide rezoning happened? That you could apply for a different zone category or some district, and it would still be okay to do it within the one year time frame.
Speaker 11: I'm sorry. I'm just receiving notice that the applicant representative is here so might be here. But see, amex toe could not be applied for for one year if you denied the rezoning request this evening, but other zone districts could be applied for within one year.
Speaker 7: So you're saying the applicant is here in the room.
Speaker 11: Here at the building? I suppose I'm just getting messages as I'm communicating.
Speaker 7: If the applicant is in the room where you please raise your hand. We're having this conversation in circles with this. Okay.
Speaker 12: So he's the representative? Not that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's.
Speaker 7: He's the applicant on behalf of the property owner. Right. Okay. Yeah. I was just trying to clarify and understand that if this went down, it sounds like we're probably more willing to move to postpone it if the applicant representative doesn't show up before we finish this discussion. If. They are able to change the zoning to a different category if it went down.
Speaker 11: The applicant is here. Who representative is here?
Speaker 7: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 6: Art Vasquez, 2943 Tampa Street. I am the applicant for the zone change and I apologize for not being here earlier.
Speaker 7: Oh, you missed out on all our questions.
Speaker 6: Oh, no, I saw I saw I had somebody watching and telling me all the questions. So.
Speaker 7: So is there a reason you weren't here when we started this?
Speaker 6: Yes, there is. I had a flat tire and couldn't get all state to show up, so I had to find somebody to give me a ride to get fix the flat, fill it in my tire and drive here and hope that maybe Tim might give me a ride home if my tires flat when I leave.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 7: Um, I don't know that we want to start this round all over again. It's your prerogative, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 1: If. Well, actually, who's up next is Councilman Brooks. So, Councilman Brooks, you're next in the queue. Did you want to ask some question?
Speaker 9: Yeah. You know, I was prepared to postpone this just because I don't know if I've ever had a situation in five. Years and I've been on council where this has happened. Thank you for showing up. Thank you. Things happen. So let's just cut to the chase. We we have a member of the family who is objecting to the parcel. Kind of splitting the split parcel rezoning that we did February 29th, saying that you're not clear. You haven't been representing well. So, first of all, I want to give you the opportunity to talk about the person you are representing as the owner and their wishes to split this parcel as CPD did.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Let me start by saying that the owner of this property is the Monroe Investment LLC and the manager and decision maker of that is. Vickie Monroe, which is Amanda's mother. She has full authority to make decisions up to this point. These are the decisions she has made. Number one, she signed a listing agreement to sell the property. Number two, she's accepted an offer to sell the property. Number three, she's authorized me and hired me as her representative to change the zoning. At the time that we decided to change zoning, we wanted to change the zoning to CMCs 24, all of the property. We made an application to do so. We then later change that application to change the zoning for half of the property. The reason being is that each and every buyer that was interested in the property. Was only interested in the property if they could keep the industrial zoning on the half the land that had all of the improvements. The reason for that is because those improvements are not conducive. With the zoning, we'd want a change so they could actually rent that property out and subsidize while they develop the other half. And then they would later changes zoning on the second half so that they could further develop that. This is such a big parcel. There is no way there is any developer that's going to develop this property and develop 2.8 acres this close to downtown and spend $100 million to develop it. Plain and simple, the developers that are want to develop this property, want to develop it in stages. That is the reason why they want to do one half of the current zoning the way it is x 20 and leave the current half industrial. So to answer your question, I have full authorization to represent the family on the zone change. This was a decision made by the decision maker. It was an intelligent decision based on the facts and based on the fact that we have a buyer who's willing to buy the property and only wants to buy the property if only half the zoning has changed. Mr. BROOKS.
Speaker 9: Okay. You have a letter of support from you can, which is conglomeration of global response, the neighborhood leaders. Yes, we do. When you sat down with them, you talked about what you wanted to do. Did you talk about the future of the property? Did you talk about affordable housing? Did you talk about some of those?
Speaker 6: Absolutely, we did. As you know, the environment has changed. Because of the of the current legislation is not all that well makes it easy or easy for lawsuits to be filed for condominiums to be built. This is the reason why so many apartments are being built, and we have no condominiums being built. We have a high demand for housing right now. And the problem is that we have single family homes, that the newest single family home that you can buy the lowest price. And in Denver is 400,000. Do you hear what I'm saying? 400,000. The reason for that is because we cannot build condominiums. Now, I do understand that city councils change that for the city and county of Denver. But the banks still do not want to lend because the state law allows for two homeowners in an eight to sue. And no investor wants to take the risk. So what we decided to do is said, okay, if we're going to build apartments, let's build apartments. Here's the problem. The problem lies in the fact that we have almost a 20% vacancy rate because of the glut of apartments versus single family and condominiums that are being built in the city and county of Denver. It's a problem. Affordable housing is the probability here. We've had conversations about it right now with where the vacancy rate is and where rates are dropping for rent rental rates. It's not likely that we're going to build apartment buildings for the open market. It may not make sense right now. The current buyer that we have right now is wanting to close and take that risk. And they are talking about affordable housing. And we have met with the neighborhood groups and talked about affordable housing. Obviously, in a capitalist society, you're going to have an entrepreneur go with whatever the best route is to get a return on their investment at this current time. It looks like affordable housing may be that route. Now that I can't guarantee which route the investor is going to take. I can only tell you that in the open market. Apartments are not desirable at this current time. Mr. Brooks.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, a month ago, we adopted this amended parcel, and it was for precisely the reason that you just outlined. I'm reading it right here. And Ms.. Monroe, it sounds like we amended it precisely to do what you say you wanted. So I'm very confused as to why you would be opposing this. And this is Vasquez.
Speaker 6: Yes. Right. Mr. Arthur Vasquez? Yes.
Speaker 5: Arthur Vasquez. The buyer is buying the entire parcel, correct? Correct. The Family LLC is not retaining any of it. Correct. Okay. And so what we heard Amanda say earlier was that that they wanted to that that she wanted to preserve the right to maintain the industrial activity on that southern portion, I believe. And she's she's nodding your head. Yes. No.
Speaker 6: She the the idea was that the industrial the south half has all of the improvements. Correct. Which are conducive to the current zoning in order for those improvements to meet the criteria for the open market for TMX 20, that it would require over $500,000 of improvements. Sure.
Speaker 5: Sure. Amanda. I'm sorry. And I. You're among. I forget your accent. Your last name is what? Can you come forward again? Yes.
Speaker 1: Monroe. Whitney.
Speaker 12: It's Monroe. Whitney.
Speaker 5: Whitney. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 12: The where I'm now confused is that if we were to do all Cemex 20, that the industrial zoning would be grandfathered in. And so even if we were rezoning TMX 20, that I could still rent the property out to, say, a construction company that is had the same use as we have done there since the fifties. Okay.
Speaker 5: And you could not let me down. Okay. Okay, hold on. But the Family LLC is selling the whole parcel. You won't be leasing any of it. That's what I don't understand.
Speaker 12: That's what's under contract right now. It's under contract. That does not mean that it's been sold.
Speaker 5: Right. But if you sell the whole thing, you won't be leasing. You're the family won't be leasing any of it. You'll be out of it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So the Bayesian explanation that was just provided by the applicant is consistent with what I was getting at in my previous comments questions, which is a viable approach to redevelopment of the site. The question I have for you, Mr. Monroe, is do you understand that where you can have a non-conforming situation in a zoned parcel is if that operator continues, it has continuous operations. So it's really the same person or business entity that is operating in that facility from the prior zoning into the new zoning. What happens when you re zone and you then get a new person to lease that space? That's when you lose that. That becomes decoupled and you have to get into it's a change of use and all these other things. So to preserve this development scheme, you have to do this sort of split right rezoning.
Speaker 12: I was under the impression that not only would we have the industrial and I'd be grandfathered in. And I was also told that if the property is vacant for one year, then the commercial residential scheme next, then it goes into effect immediately. And if I was to make any improvements on the property after the reason to CMCs, then those buildings or any improvements ought to be CMC's 20. Not industrial. Okay. Those are that is what I have been told this entire time. Okay.
Speaker 6: Mr. Espinosa may make a comment. Sure. Number one, the prior use has to be maintained as the exact same use. And if it isn't what, even if even if we changed, the only becomes a use which is a legal nonconforming use. If that use doesn't meet the criteria of being the same use, not just general industrial use, the same use, it is lost. So for instance, right now there is a it's power equipment that's being rented there. So if it now it's vacant. So if we don't get another power rental equipment, a renter and a taxicab driving company want to be there, it does not meet the requirement to fit within that zoning. And let me just say something to move this thing forward. I've worked with Amanda and she is part of the family. She has zero say in what happens with this property. She has zero authority. She is not on the LLC, nor is she any not even a member of the LLC. She is discontent and she is unhappy with the decision her mother's made. So her presence here is merely to disrupt what is going forward because of her personal opinion. She has zero and I am speaking on behalf of the family and I will swear under testimony that she has zero authority for the family. She is merely here to disrupt this hearing and to prevent this zoning from going forward. And she has no argument why it shouldn't happen and no authority.
Speaker 9: One related question the do you know if this site would meet the criteria for medical for a marijuana grow?
Speaker 6: Which you mean on the current zoning to the current industrial building. I'm not 100% sure. I'm not an expert on all of the uses for industrial, but I do believe that the current zoning of industrial now you got to remember, this is a unique property. So let me preface it by saying that we have two separate parcels. We have one parcel with two separate zone lots here. So we have a B zone lot, which is the lot we're looking to change. So it's I, b, so b I zoning. There were like 18 changes here, max 20 the zoning that we're not looking to change is an I a zoning. So I am not 100% sure whether or whether or not it is allowed for medical marijuana to grow. I would think that I a my understanding is that it may be something that would allow a possible grow at this facility. I will say this, that the there hasn't been any any ownership interest previous ownership interest in a grow. I can't speak for the future buyers.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: We've been at this for an hour. Councilman Cashman, hopefully this is the last question so that we can move forward on this.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I agree. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I'm not an expert on public hearings, but my experience is that anyone is allowed to testify in a public hearing. And if it wasn't for Ms.. Monroe Whitney being here, we'd have long ago postponed this for for a week or two. So if I were you, I'd buy her a drink after the hearing.
Speaker 6: I'll buy her three drinks.
Speaker 5: That's very generous of you. My question is, you mentioned affordable housing. And when you say affordable, what level are you talking it? 80%, Amy. 6030. Where where where are we aiming?
Speaker 6: Well, here's the here's the deal, Mr. Cashman, one of the buyers, other than the buyer that had the acceptable offer, wanted to come and do a tax credit program. They that's what they specialize. And the current buyers are not experts in that. So they're going to seek outside counsel on how they can move forward. They are buying this property in the hopes that the market continues to move upward and onward. And as it looks now, when you look at the current rental rate for open market, you're requiring about $2.40 a square foot for the project to make sense. If you built a five story building minimum there. And those numbers aren't crunching right now. So when they buy this property, their next step is to go to other experts within the community and talk to them about the tax credit program. One of the persons that we've spoken to is a guy by the name of Andrew Romero that works for, I believe it's KeyBank, and he's an expert in these tax credit programs, and that's going to be the next step for the buyer. Again, I can't speak on completely on behalf of the buyer, but that's the information that I received from the buyer on their intention.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. See no other questions. Public hearing is now closed. And let's see for how long these comments go. Councilman Brooks, you're up.
Speaker 9: You know, I wish I could say, you know, in my 25 years of doing being on council, but in my five years, I've never witnessed anything like this. And I I'm glad that your tire or whatever it was got put together and you got here because. Well, I'm giving councilman you get you. I don't think you're.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You go into that breakdown with that.
Speaker 9: But, you know, there's several comments that I wanted to make on, you know, I it makes zoning, you know, minimal allowable uses and standards here in our zoning code but. You know, I'll just say that just because we've been at this an hour that I am, I'm thrilled that you met with the neighborhood association. I'm thrilled that Armando Payan, who is a huge advocate in this area, knows this area, lived in this area for 50 years, is supportive of this. And that that speaks volumes for me. Who is, you know, a person who's really concerned about this area. You know, obviously, our context is zoning. We try and encourage folks who are thinking about development to think about the values of the community. We can't force those values upon you. Open space design. Ground floor activation. Affordable housing. But those are our values. And I think you got some of that from Armando in the U.K. And so I appreciate that this reasoning lines up perfectly with our plans in the Globeville area plan. And the one thing that I wanted to say is the importance of small area plans in our city. And I know my colleagues to the left of me are excited to see some smaller plans in their neighborhood because this is the result of it is an environment where you have community support and and things begin to happen. So in the context of this public hearing and what we're supposed to be, you know, judging, does this meet the criteria of the planning, the plans that we have in front of us? In my mind, it does and it does perfectly. And we just passed our Globeville planning day. Was it a year ago now? Almost a year and a half ago. And so those are plans that are hot off the presses and excited. I'd love for CPD to start thinking about minimums, and one of the reasons is, is because when we start talking about different economic cycles, people are going to build to what the market is allowing them to do. And it has been a you know, it would be perverse if we had all this investment in rail and a three story would stick project was developed there. And so I really I really believe that we need to think about the investments that we're making public publicly and put it that way. And so I'm supportive of this. I know this was kind of a crazy hearing. I've never heard one like this, but I appreciate you being here. I think you got educated on, you know, kind of some of the stuff that we do here. And I hope that wish you all the best with your family. And thank you, sir, for being here representing the family. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say thank you for clarifying everything. I do understand it now. And Miss Monroe, I think the. This rezoning actually will achieve what you're looking for, that the property can still be used for industrial use. So I think it's a good outcome for everyone. So I will be supporting it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: Not only because we've already talked this line that I'm going to articulate something that I mean, I said early on one of these rezonings and I've sat on my hands through most of them, and it has sort of nothing to do with this. But everything to do with this is there's a station area plan. There's a Globeville plan. There's no guidelines and standards. There's no minimum built tos that Alvis is talking about. There's no way to sort of ensure we're maximizing the TOD potential for this site. So once again, I'm going to support a rezoning and hoping for the best, but it's really up to the development community to come through in this situation because we don't have any. We have visions, we have plans, we have no obligatory requirements to meet them. And that's really unfortunate. But I do think that this is actually the best way to sort of achieve the balance of the use by right on the industrial with the redevelopment potential on the 20 storey parcel. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly for Councilman Brooks. This hearing will be second place in my memory to the day I believe it was the rezoning on the Diamond Cabaret back in the eighties when I witnessed from the press table councilman, former councilman, Irving, look, do a bump and grind during his testimony. So this is second place.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for that visual. All right, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to first state that, you know, since this is an area of change and it is a Todd location, this is also part of what was envisioned in the Globeville Station area plan. I will be supporting this tonight. One of the challenges with this area is that Fox Street is going to be very much like Brighton Boulevard, where the development is coming in. And then we're worried about how do we address so much traffic on this one road because we're putting in so much density and we haven't really adequately talked about or addressed how we're going to deal with that. And, you know, it's kind of a chicken and an egg. And I think it's important to ensure that CPD is having that conversation around exactly what is being done as each development is coming in to be part of those improvements so that we have the appropriate right of way to be able to move traffic and hopefully it's one of the corridors or we'll have some bike lanes as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. I tell you. Any other comments? 937 as amended. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I. Gilmore, I. Cashman. I knew Ortega. Sussman All right.
Speaker 7: BLACK Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results tonight. Tonight, 1937, as amended, has passed. All right. That's not the tempo for the next two. All right. Next, we have two bills, 69. Councilman Brooks, would you please put accountable 69 on the floor for final passage yet?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 725 West 39th Avenue.
(NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 725 West 39th Avenue from I-A, UO-2 and I-B, UO-2 (Industrial 3,000 to 4,500 sq. ft. zone lot; Use Overlay allowance for billboard) to C-MX-20 (Urban Center, Mixed Use, 20 stories) in Council District 9 IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-9-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03292016_16-0069
|
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results tonight. Tonight, 1937, as amended, has passed. All right. That's not the tempo for the next two. All right. Next, we have two bills, 69. Councilman Brooks, would you please put accountable 69 on the floor for final passage yet?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President, I place Council Bill 69 to be placed on the floor for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Moved and seconded. Public hearing for Councilor Bill 69 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 7: Tourism research with community planning and development. How I ended up in the wrong place. So this is a rezoning located at 5050 South Syracuse Street. The request is to rezone from B eight with waivers and use overlay one and use overlay to two suburban mixed use 12 stories. Eight is the former chapter 59 zone district waivers will get into, and the use overlays are for adult uses and for billboards. So this is located in Council District four in the Hampton South neighborhood, generally north of Bellevue Avenue, south of Union Avenue, east of Interstate 25, and west of Goldsmith Gulch. It is within a half mile of the Belleview Station Transit Station. The property is about an acre or 55,000 square feet. Currently a restaurant use and the waivers are for fabrication and wholesale and warehousing and reducing the four area ratio from 4 to 1 to 2 to 1. Property owner is requesting rezoning to get rid of that far limitation. So again, the request is to rezone from eight, which was a heavy business zoned district and very intense business zoned district with waivers. Use overlay one and use overlay two to suburban context. Mixed use 12 storey height. So the suburban context is characterized mostly by single unit and multi-unit and commercial strips and office parks. Single unit is generally suburban house forms. Multi-unit are primarily located on archer arterials and collectors, and the block pattern can vary from a modified grid to in some of the office parks like in this location , very different block shapes and sizes depending on the street on the street system. So again, the context surrounding context is B eight with waivers u0102 The land use is restaurant. It is a one storey building currently. So the waivers that we're talking about do apply to all of the surrounding properties as well. Waive the right to fabricate anything other than art goods, custom clothing, costumes, custom furniture, jewelry and needlework. Waive the right to sell at wholesale and warehouse, but reserve the right to sell at retail. Waive the right to the amount of gross floor floor area allowed in the Bay Zone District, which was that four times the size of the property or the zone lot, and instead have a two times the area of the zone lot requirement. And then the addition of the you will want and you ought to use overlays, allowing adult uses and billboards. And so all of these waivers are the same for the surrounding properties. Again, it is an existing restaurant adjacent to another restaurant to the south, and then surface parking and office buildings of varying heights. You'll see that in the pictures here. The restaurant itself is in the upper right hand corner. The surface parking lot to the east is the middle of the right. The restaurant across the private drive is lower. Right. A five story office building across Syracuse and the lower left. And then a 12 story office building to the northeast of the property, surrounded also by surface parking. So that there is no registered neighborhood organization in the area other than I.N.S. and the Denver Neighborhood Association. So those are the organizations the applicant reached out to. And all of the written notice and posting has been correctly done for both the planning board hearing, the plan committee hearing, and for this hearing and of course, written notice of the receipt of the application. As soon as the application was thought to be complete on November 5th, we notified council and the registered neighborhood associations and to date we have no public comment on this application. So you know the criteria very well. Let's get into them. The plans that are relevant. Our current plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver Current plan tells us to enhance the existing business centers, particularly the DTC Denver Tech Center, which is our second largest employment center, to preserve and enhance the vitality of our business centers and to encourage quality infill development that's in character with the surrounding area. Blueprint Denver Land use concept for the property is employment, where we typically see office warehouse, some light manufacturing and some high tech uses as described in Blueprint. And there are definitely fewer residences with some commercial and industrial uses and the property is in an area of stability. Future street classification for Syracuse Street is mixed use arterial, where we want to see a high degree of mobility and these types of arterials generally interconnect major urban centers like downtown, major shopping centers, major office centers and Syracuse Circle itself is a private street, so we would consider that a local street. Staff believes that the criteria for consistency with adopted plans is met and that we, by getting out of the customs zone district of waivers, that we are furthering the uniformity of district regulations. And by implementing our plans, we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. The justifying circumstances has changed conditions. The applicant cites the obsolescence of this, of the waivers on the property changing in the property from the restaurant to the office use and the new zone district, allowing care for the property to redevelop in character with the surrounding area. Staff believes this is the appropriate and justifying circumstance. So as far as consistency with the zone, district purpose and intent, we talked a little bit about the suburban and context, the single unit, multi unit in strip centers and office parks, the multi-unit and commercial uses primarily on arterials and collectors and the varying block shapes and sizes depending on the whether it's a modified grid or not, even a grid street system. And then the mixed use zone district does promote safe, active, diverse uses and is appropriate on major arterials, which is, of course, or South Syracuse. So with that staff recommends approval of this rezoning, believes all the criteria are met.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Cicero. We have one speaker tonight, Michael Campa.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the Council. My name is Michael Campa and I'm representative of the applicant. And I am here and thank you. In the interest of time, I will remain available to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That concludes our speakers. So questions from members of the Council, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I have one question in all of the drawings that were in the PowerPoint. It shows the boundaries actually encroaching into Syracuse Street. Is that intentional or help me? Yeah, I guess if you could address. When we rezone property, we do rezone the street to the center line of the street. Okay. Okay. I hadn't always noticed that in many of the other applications that have been brought forward. No, that's the way we do it. So that there is no in-between. There's always the zone district right up next to another zone district. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Champa. This building is in the Denver Tech Center, and this council is often asking questions about development plans, and you actually have development plans. So I think it would be interesting to hear from you about the architectural controls that are enforced by the Denver Tech Center and also to talk a little bit about your parking situation.
Speaker 5: Okay. As you are probably aware, the Denver Tech Center has a very strict set of architectural controls. We've been through two of four meetings with them already. The building will be essentially a glass curtain wall facility. And rather than going to the sea of parking sort of approach that some of the buildings out there have, all the parking will be contained in a structure within the building envelope. So there will be virtually no surface parking on the site. As to the traffic movement, we had a number of discussions with the tech center as to how best to orchestrate the traffic on the site. And the parking in particular is three and a half spaces per thousand, which is one space per 200 and some square feet.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. And another thing I found interesting about this project is you're fairly close to the Bellevue Light Rail station. And can you tell everyone here about your thoughts on getting people to and from that light rail station?
Speaker 5: We are the property is about a ten minute walk from the Bellevue Light rail station, which is easily walkable. We also have a bus stop at the property. We are looking at a bike station there and we are also talking with the tech center about the shuttle to transfer some of the building occupants to the light rail station.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Any other questions on 69? CNN public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. This is in my district. It's currently a restaurant called Garcia's of Scottsdale, which has been there since I was in high school. So I'm sad to see it go, although I haven't been there since the eighties. Anyway, the Denver Tech Center is an office park. It's a very thoughtful development. The developer and I have met several times. I've been out to see the property and I think it's very thoughtfully done. One thing we didn't bring up is the fact that it's going to be LEED certified as well, which I think is another great aspect of the building. So I think it's very appropriate and I will be supporting it this evening. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Any other comments on 69? Scene on Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore Cashman. Hi. New Ortega says Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please quote a very nasty result tonight. Tonight, 69 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We've got one more. That is Councilor Bill 87. And Councilman Brooks, would you please put 87 on the floor for final passage?
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located at 5050 South Syracuse Street from B-8 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to S-MX-12 in Council District 4. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 5050 South Syracuse Street from B-8 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to S-MX-12 in Council District 4. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-17-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03072016_16-0157
|
Speaker 2: Whereas Denver's Denver Health Bernard F Gibson Eastside Family Health Center opened in March 1966 as the third Community Health Center in the United States and the first west of the Mississippi River. And. WHEREAS, The East Side Family Health Center is named for Bernard F Gibson, Colorado's first board certified African-American surgeon. And. WHEREAS, Denver Community Health Services now has eight community health centers and 17 school based health centers, with the mission of providing primary and preventative health care services to the residents of the city and county of Denver and acts as a safety net to the medically underserved of Denver. And. Whereas, the community and school based health centers are located in high need areas, provide comprehensive primary health care services to their patients, and provide services to all residents of their service area with fees based on ability to pay. And. Whereas, Denver Community Health Services is the leading primary health care system for low income Denver residents providing health care services to 60% of Denver's uninsured population and over half of the city's Medicaid patients. And. WHEREAS, Denver Community Health Services provides high quality health care, as evidenced by indicators such as childhood and adolescence, immunization rates, well-child visit rates, adult hypertension control and diabetes management. And. WHEREAS, Denver Health will be opening its newest community health center, the Southwest Family Health Center, at 1339 South Federal Boulevard on April 18, 2016, providing urgent care, full spectrum primary care, dental services, behavioral health services, and more. And. WHEREAS, the Bernadette Gibson Eastside Family Health Center will have provided 50 years of continuous service to the citizens of Denver on March seven, 2016, now therefore be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Council of the City and County of Denver applaud the tireless commitment and work of the Bernadette Gibson Eastside Family Health Center. Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to Dr. Art Gonzalez, CEO Denver Health and Dr. Simon Hambrick, Chief Ambulatory Officer, Denver Health. So I move the proclamation. 157 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Anyone who want to start off with comments on proclamation 157. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: I'd be happy to make some comments. So first of all, I want to congratulate Denver Health for just the outstanding work they've done across this city. I can remember when this body had to play a role in approving the school based clinics being allowed accepting the grant funds that allowed the first school based clinics in our high schools. I think it was east and west and North High School, I think were the first three that were started out. And it was it was a political football because there were a lot of concerns about what kind of services were going to be provided and, you know, making sure that contraceptives were distributed to students and all of those kinds of concerns. But really, those clinics have played such a vital role in ensuring that uninsured students are able to have access to, you know, if they play in sports, they have to have their what do you call it, physicals, their physicals, so that they, you know, have that sign off before they can play the sports. And in in many cases, you know, they didn't have a doctor or they didn't have insurance. And so the clinics played such a vital role, and I'm very familiar with this particular clinic, have had an opportunity to step in there and and be in that general complex where we have a number of city buildings. And I just want to commend Denver Health for just the outstanding work that's been done across this city. I can remember when the clinic in the Globeville neighborhood closed and, you know, we worked really hard to get the LA Clinic up there to ensure that that community still has access. And in that case, they're serving a large number of people. But to know that we have the new clinic that's going to be opening in southwest Denver, that will have a number of services. And just so you know, that's in addition to Sam Sanders clinic, the demand in that quadrant of the city has grown so much that there was a need to build a new facility. And so I'm just pleased to be a co-sponsor of this bill tonight and just grateful for the incredible work that Denver helped us in our community. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. President. Councilwoman Ortega, with her last remarks, took the words out of my mouth. I wanted to thank Denver Health and Denver Community Health Services for the 50 years in the East Side. And I wanted to take the opportunity to point out, as Councilwoman Ortega has, about the new Southwest Clinic, which is an extension of this vital service coming down to to our neck of the woods. And it will open on April 18th. I just wanted to mention the date, April 18th that clinic will open and we welcome it with open arms. The services that have been provided for 50 years in eastern Denver are coming down to Southwest. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman. So, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I believe the Eastside Mental Health Center used to be the Malcolm X Mental Health Center. Is that correct? At least that's my recollection. That's how long I have been in Denver. And it was a good idea. What?
Speaker 7: It's a good idea.
Speaker 5: It was. And it and they I was a graduate student, a dude studying psychology. And they I guess they needed somebody under 25 or something to sit on the board. And I remember we were all very proud of that name, Malcolm X. And we had we had been encouraged for years to change it because of the controversial aspect of the name. But we held on to it for quite a while because it had so much meaning to that community. And so I feel particularly connected to this mental health center. But more than that, I not more than that. But in addition, it's so funny how life has so many coincidences. My telephone number was one different from Doctor Gibson's, and I would get Dr. Gibson's phone calls all the time until I got to kind of know him and, you know, and they'd say, and I would have his phone number and say, No, you don't have Dr. Gibson's office. And I remember that very well and thought it's fun to be connected to some of the history in Denver. And congratulations to you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Sussman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to just congratulate Denver Health and the folks who make Denver Health happen and those of all the employees that work to make these these clinics work. I remember a day where you walk into a clinic and you were there all day, and I didn't have health insurance until I was well into my twenties. But I remember having to walk in the Mariposa and having to be there all day before you got even to sign up for an I mean, you had to be there all day and it didn't guarantee that you got seen the next day or that you're first in line. You just told you to go home and come back tomorrow. And if you can get if you can just get back in line, you can. But they didn't hold it. But it's changed in such a revolutionary way. The way Denver health delivers health care to our communities, care for the indigent, but also for everybody. And Councilman Ortega is absolutely right. It'll 219 and 80204, which are the two zip codes in Southwest and West Denver, the highest number of patients in the area, largest underserved area. And that new in Southwest uh, uh, clinic. I would if you want to go to it and it is amazing what they've done over there that these these neighborhood clinics, these community clinics, it's important that we honor them, but it's important to know that we've fought for them to stay open. And the fact that this one for celebrating its its 50th is just remarkable. And it's a great feat for Denver Health. And you know what? If it's not a clinic, maybe it's a library or some shape or form, I do think and let me go on record in saying we do have to honor Malcolm X and the way and what he contributed, not just to African-American, um, African-American history, but all of us and that memory and that network that does have to be commemorated. And it shouldn't be controversial.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments? Proclamation 157. I would simply ask that you cannot understate the impact that these clinics have had to the communities that they have served. And I'm familiar with the Gibson Family Health Clinic. Not as much as I'm familiar with the one in my district in Montevallo, but I just think about how vital that is to the community. And not only does it provide health care services, but quality health care services. So no matter where your income level is in the city, there's a place for you to receive that quality and health care. And I just have to give kudos for the Denver health team for putting all this together, because it is it is vital for those communities that they serve. And congratulations for 50 years and continued success. Seeing the comments on 157. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Black Clerk I Espinosa Flynn I Gilmore I Cashman. I can each Lopez. I knew Ortega assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close voting out the results. 1212 eyes 157 has been adopted. I would like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation. Richard Castro, Ambulatory Health Service Administrator.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. Council President Herman. I'm Richard Kallstrom, clinical administrator for the Family Health Center. Along with the other East Side clinics are Parkhill, Montebello and Lowry have another administrator, and she's oversees the other clinics on behalf of Denver Health and the behalf of Simon Hemorrhage. And Dr. Gonzalez, just want to say thank you very much for recognizing Denver Health Community Health Services. Denver health. I just want to say, on behalf of 606,500 employees at Denver Health, I accept this recognition, proudly accept it for 50 years of service to Denver City and County. As we began our work back in March 7th, 1966, in a dilapidated bakery in a five points neighborhood that was transformed into the side family health center and later renamed a Gibson Eastside Family Health Center in 2000, in honor of Denver's first African-American surgeon, minority F Gibson Senior. Then those first days or first weeks of operation at Denver Health at East Side, they served 1200 patients and 14 the first 14 days at 14,000 visits. So we have a here a couple of people who've been this in this journey from the beginning and very. Carlos, could you stand up? I want to recognize Colonel Sam to Steve. And he he was one of the pioneers in guiding East Side Family Health Center and West Side Family Health Center started. He was president of the city council. Actually opened it on March 7th, 1966. You don't look like it, but we got the pictures. Okay. Thank you, Carlos. Without. Without you and sitting down. Without pioneers like Carlos and the City Council, we don't have community health in Denver. We've grown from 14,000 patient visits in the first few days, first two weeks to over a half a million annually. That's a lot for Denver. A half a million visits? Yeah. I have just recognized another person. I can recognize everybody but Sherry Stevens. Just stand up and I know you're so shy. Or Sherry Johnson. I'm sorry. Sherry Stevens is. No, Sherry's mom was. She started at 50 years ago at Eastside Family Health Center, and she retired. And Sherry. She's been with us for 31 years. So they've seen the 50 year journey. Journey this family has. Thank you. Sharing. And that's important because in all of our clinics, especially at the Eastside Clinic, which is the oldest one, we're in our fourth generation of patients. And there's a good reason for that is because we do give darn good care. We have doctors that can work anywhere, but they don't. They can work anywhere for more money, but they don't. They work at Eastside and or other clinics because that's what that's where the reward is. In 1966, the promise of community health was a simple one go where the need is. We remain committed to going where the need is and for caring for Denver's most vulnerable regardless of their ability to pay for the next 50 years, for that last 50 years and the next 50 years and beyond. We plan to be here. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We are moving on to our last proclamation, proclamation 158. I am not reading that one. Councilman Lopez, will you please read proclamation 158?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating the 50th anniversary of Denver Health’s Bernard F. Gipson Eastside Family Health Center and Denver Community Health Services.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03072016_16-0079
|
Speaker 2: And when the LED right red light appears, your time is up. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and direct their comments to the council members. Speakers are prohibited from using profanity or making personal attacks during their comments, and we've asked speakers and audience members to refrain from applauding. All right. We're going to speak on Council Bill 79. Councilman Clark, would you please put Council Bill 79 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I remove the council bill 79 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing on Council Bill 79 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 4: And even John Carter with the Department of Finance Constable's 160079 is an ordinance to approve to service plans for metropolitan districts supporting the redevelopment of the former Denver Post building sites at Southwest Intersection of I-25 and I-70. The service plans are being submitted on behalf of Ascendent Capital Partners DNA LLC pursuant to the requirements of Special District Act and related state statute. The redevelopment of the redevelopment area of the proposed district consists of 41 acres. More specifically, the boundaries are West 40, West 43rd Avenue to the South, Fox Street to the east. The Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the west and Interstate 70 to the north. The site is intended to develop into a high density total development near the light rail station at 47th and Fox. Opening later this year. The District should be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, acquisition, construction and operation and maintenance of the public infrastructure and services within and around the project site. In order to provide these improvements as services to districts will be created. West Globeville Metropolitan District One is anticipated to contain single family residential properties, as well as commercial and retail components of the Division of the Development. The rest, Globeville Metropolitan District number two, is anticipated to contain multi-family residential properties. The districts will partner with one another, provide the public services and improve this needed for the development. Each of the districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authorities of the granted by the Special District Act, including through the imposition of no levies, rates, fees, tolls and charges. Initially, the boundaries of each district will be de minimis, with the majority of the 41 acre development property being located within a specific inclusion area. It is anticipated that the portions of the inclusion area will be included into boundaries of districts. Once the public improvements are installed and development proceeds with the service area of the two districts may overlap. The districts will not be overlap. I'm sorry. While the service area of the two districts may overlap, the districts will not overlap physical boundaries, nor will the districts be overlapping, providing duplicate services or improvements. So in order for the districts to have financial capacity for providing self-isolation of the public improvements required for the development, the district shall have the combined ability to issue up to up to $22,785,000 in debt. The repayment of the debt will be supported by revenue generated from the imposition of a mill levy of up to 50 mills . Council's approval of two service plans would establish the following. There are sufficient existing and projected need for organized services in the area, and the existing services in the area is inadequate to meet those needs today. The districts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The areas to be included in the districts will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed debt on a reasonable basis. The facility and services standards will be compatible with the city standards. The districts have a proposed have proposed an organization in TABOR election for May of this year as required by state law, pending approval by the eligible electors in each of the districts in the in May of this election this year. The districts will have the authority to operate in a manner described in the present as service plans. City staff recommends approval of these service plans, and we're happy to answer some questions. I want to introduce you to a few of the development team here. We have Zach Kessler and Graham Bennett banished from the developer team. Brad Nieman from Miller and Associates is the developers counsel and Rachel Prestige from Sierra Associates. Rapid asked your questions about the development or or the judges.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Gardner. All right, we have five speakers, and I'll just say our five. You can make your way to the front pew. Brad Nyman, Graham Bean is that Texan, Mr. Sekou and Nathan Burger. So make your way to the front. And Mr. Nyman, I apologize if I said that wrong. Nieman. That's one of those too. You can begin a master.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. City Council. It's Brad Neiman from Miller Associates. I'll be very brief here. I am here on behalf of the proponents of the West called Metropolitan District Numbers one two. And I just wanted to state for the record that notice of this public hearing has been provided in accordance with applicable law, namely Kress. 32 1204. I'm here with Graham Bennis and Zach Kessler on behalf of the property owner and developer, as well as Rachel Prestwich as a consultant of the developer as well. And we're available if you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Graham Bennett.
Speaker 3: My wishes for. To answer questions. I don't have any. Thank you.
Speaker 2: That text.
Speaker 3: That tax of 4535 Julian Street, Denver, Colorado. The city decided to clear city homeless camps from Arapahoe Square just as developers ask for new zoning and design standards for Arapahoe Square. What a coincidence. How many of the homeless will end up in West Globeville, Metropolitan District one in West Globeville Metropolitan District two? But of course, we're told that this is occurring because of potential health and safety emergency. They don't explain why this emergency just developed or why it will be any less if they simply drive the homeless someplace else. And once again, where will the homeless be driven into Globeville and our other neighborhoods? Will the developers be taxed to pay for the dislocations they're causing and the potential negative impacts on Globeville and other neighborhoods? Of course not. Once again, the developers say jump and the city asks How high? The city should be ashamed of itself. But hey, what's new?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. TEXT. Mr. Secretary.
Speaker 3: My name is Jeremy Sekou. I am the. Organization Founder CEO, the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working poor and homeless people. We are supporting the. Passing of this. Metropolitan District. With reservation. On the surface, this appears to be a wonderful thing. And we're moving forward to develop this area that has been neglected by the city for a long period of time. And the people have now stood up and decided that they're going to do it themselves and they're going to pay for it. Now, a lot of people don't know how these metropolitan industry works. So you move into this thing, you get this house and you get a tax bill and you don't even know nothing about the military on this thing because most people don't understand how this thing works. And there hasn't been a lot of education on how these metropolitan districts work. And there's a downside to these things when you click it up becomes self-serving. Community input is denied. And community control over this development. It's done by a few. For the many. And in the process there is no oversight by city council. To stay focused on its development. And so it gets to be real serious looking wicked. And so the people who are watching this tonight, I suggest on television. That you do independent research and find out how this thing works and then engage in the process of participating. And getting active and making this thing work. See, I know we're in a we live in a republic and it's not a democracy. And the people have been pushing it forward to get it to that democratic process. And yet the still tools are still in effect. So that as Cosmo was talking about a revolutionary change, this is not even revolutionary change. This is just the same old, same old with the same old players playing. And then those that got get and those that don't, don't. So I am demanding that city council sit on top of this on a follow up to make sure they do the right thing for the right reason. And represent the people in a way that will give them faith that this thing is for everybody and not a few. In closing, I like to say that my grandchildren are now begin the process of watching this on television.
Speaker 2: Mr. Sekou, your 3 minutes is up, sir.
Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. And have a good day. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Next, we have Nathan Burger. Nathan Burger.
Speaker 3: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Nathan Burgher 201 Steel Street.
Speaker 0: Suite 201 Denver.
Speaker 3: 80206 And I represent a special district that has been providing water and sewer services in and near the Globeville area for over 50 years. We got a notice of this meeting. I don't know why we got a notice, but we are the ones that provide water and sewer for the inhabitants within our boundaries. And we would object to any other entity that would think they would come into our boundaries and provide water and sewer. That's the only issue I have that doesn't look from looking at it. It doesn't look like it's within the boundaries. But we got a notice. So I'm just and I wrote a letter to council just to make it clear we are not consenting if there is any water and sewer services to be provided within our boundaries. We are the district that would provide that and it couldn't be done without our consent and we would not agree to any service plan that would share those types of services. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions of members of council. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. With the city staff to address the notice issue that just came up from our speaker in terms of whether or not you've examined the overlapping boundary potential.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Brennaman, once again. We provided a resort a in overlapping report from the county assessor's office seeking any overlapping special districts in the boundaries of the proposed districts. In addition to any districts within a three mile radius of the districts of the proposed district west levels one and two. And it is that three mile radius report that may have. I'm not sure exactly what which water and sanitation district Mr. Burger was representing, but I know that it involved the I believe, the North Washington Water and Sanitation District, and there's a Pecos North Pecos one as well. Those there are no overlapping water sanitation districts, as far as I am aware, based upon the reports that I received from the Denver assessor's office and the the notice that Mr. Burger may have received or did receive was based upon that three mile radius report.
Speaker 5: Great. Thank you very much. And then, Gram, can I ask you a question, please? I won't ask you whether or not you feel that the council has provided you constant attention, as one of our speakers suggested. But I will ask you if you could please share what efforts you've made around the topic of affordable housing exploring that topic. During the process you've been going through the past few months.
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you, Councilman Creech. Your pregnancy is a lot more because we still have a lot of work to do on our project. But yes, we have made considerable outreach to the affordable housing community, and we are very well schooled in affordable housing. And, you know, we're very committed to pursuing affordable housing on the site, and we are very excited about the opportunities that we are seeing an interest from affordable housing developers that will be doing the vertical development once we get through our steps with the horizontal development and obviously with a big step being tonight with the infrastructure improvements . And that's a big step for the the vertical developers for us to have infrastructure and especially a nice four acre park for the project as well as our rezonings that we'll need for the remaining 30 acres. That which is why you'll be seeing us a few more times and that those rezonings obviously will, will, you know, follow our GDP with, you know, mix of uses of commercial and residential. And so we look forward to continuing to explore as well as detail our plans that were that we have and and the interest that we have for affordable housing developers.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, counsel. We can count on you to tell you.
Speaker 9: Mr. Berger, I think you might be the best one for me to ask my questions up, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. Now, Mr. Berger. What is the exact name of the water and sewer district that you represent?
Speaker 3: North Washington Street Water and Sanitation District.
Speaker 9: And it's independent of Denver water in our Denver wastewater system, correct?
Speaker 3: Well, we work we get our water from Denver water, and it goes through our system and we work with Denver. In fact, we just what raised the issue was we just included a part of Denver based upon an agreement with Denver wastewater on an Asarco redevelopment project. And this is nearby. So I was a little concerned about overlapping, but after hearing the proponents discuss, it sounds like it won't be overlapping our district's boundaries.
Speaker 9: Okay, thank you. I have another question for one of the other speakers, I believe Mr. Nieman. So my question is about the infrastructure that will be built on site. So the roads, the parks. You know, we've seen sort of some master plan designs that have come through on previous applications before this body. So is it anticipated that. The infrastructure is maintained by the the metro district, or is it an expectation that the roads and the parks get turned over to the city and the city is expected to maintain them?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Council Ortega. It is the expectation that all public buildings, with the exception of certain storm drainage improvements and certain baca curb improvements, will be ultimately dedicated and maintained by the city. There is a four proximate four acre open space park that will be constructed, that the district will be districts when one or both of them will be responsible for maintaining until such time as the city accepts it and the warranty periods expire, at which point it will be formally dedicated over to the city.
Speaker 9: And is there a warranty period on the streets?
Speaker 3: It will, yes. It would follow the normal dedication process.
Speaker 9: So what is that normal time frame?
Speaker 3: I believe it's two years.
Speaker 9: Okay. I know this is an issue that has come up with some of our tax increment financing districts in terms of the added costs that the city has to incur as a result of them becoming city streets and parks. And so that's why I wanted to understand this, because we're trying to ensure that the districts that are creating the infrastructure sort of handle that responsibility until in the case of a TIFF district, until the tiff has expired. You know, we're not completely there as as a, you know, a formal body in the administration ensuring that we're all on the same page with that. But, you know, that is a concern because when you have these big districts, it just adds that much more. I get this will be new infrastructure. So the maintenance should be probably less than some of our other streets in the adjacent neighborhood that are not paved and have no sidewalks and some of those things. But thank you for answering that question. Let me see if I have any more. I think that's it. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Noon.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Johnson. So do you.
Speaker 2: Um, Councilman. Oh, that's a car owner.
Speaker 8: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Yes, no problem. I'm subbing for Anderson. Right. So it's not a problem.
Speaker 8: Just looking at revenue sources on page 24 and 25 of the first document just. And the Avalon of the 50 mills. Well, what is going to be the average cost used in the 50 mills on an average price of a home in that area? What do you think the increase will be?
Speaker 4: Do we have those numbers quickly? Well, maybe. It's an easy calculation. It's an easier calculation. We can do the calculation pretty much as if you had we we have rough averages of the 84 that home. I think they had averages of around 350,000. Zach. For average home sales. Okay so so what you do you can use your if they had a they have a. The way this works is developer will put a model of what they think the the home price will be for the sale and then we can do an average of what we think the home sale price would be. So if you use a average home sale price of $350,000 and then times up by the assessment ratio. I'm looking for Zach to pull the numbers real quick.
Speaker 8: As a calculator. Yeah, if he's.
Speaker 4: Got a calculator quick, you can fool the $350,000 times the 7.97% ratio.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Yeah. So let me just do this here real quick. So if we had a home of $350,000. Times. .0796 times .001 times 50. It's about 1300 hours for about 1400 hours for the year for 50 meals on a $300,000 home.
Speaker 8: Okay. On page 25 is talking about a1a fee there, a facilities fee. There's like $3,000 for single family and 1500 dollars for a multi-unit family unit. Is that a one time fee? It's going to be, I believe.
Speaker 4: Yes, that's the one time fee that would be charged. I think probably at the time of sale.
Speaker 8: At the time.
Speaker 4: Or the builder fee, actually, you can sell it to the builder to pay.
Speaker 8: Their existing homes in that area.
Speaker 4: Now, they're not.
Speaker 8: All brand new, right? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Grill. But what about your rental projects? Are you still thinking about rental building on rental units or are you going to jump into like that capsule in connection to the condo market?
Speaker 3: Or if Councilman Kennedy would like to sign personally on guarantees? That's that's fantastic. But so far, we're not I don't have the appetite, you know, to to engage in any kind of construction. But, you know, we're we're seeing, you know, a little bit of a little bit of interest from the condo developers. And, you know, we've always had the interest from some that are lot smaller scale and would not come under the auspices of some of the trial attorneys. But, you know, we have not seen any large scale condos yet, but we just it would be a fantastic addition to our project and talk about affordability. It could really get really, you know, be a great bolster for the city.
Speaker 8: Well, we sure hope you'll consider it. And Mr. Broadwell is going to protect you there. So let me ask you a question about this tax. What do you think this everyone tax is going to be on your project? What do you think the total will be for you and what do you think that you'll probably have to pass on to your rental units?
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. In regards to what.
Speaker 8: Level of tax on your property you're going to have this you're going to have larger you know, you're going to have 300 units or.
Speaker 3: I think we projected seven, 750 units.
Speaker 8: Okay. What do you think the the property tax bill would be for you for that?
Speaker 3: That would. I do not know.
Speaker 8: I may need a calculator.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Get that big calculator on that one.
Speaker 4: Are you looking for. I'm sorry, the total tax revenue.
Speaker 8: Just like to know what? His tax bill. He's going to be the property underwriters. So he'll be paying that tax rate. And so. So then I'm sure you'll pass that on in to rental for your use. If you just let me know what that information is. You know, just. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, Councilman.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. New council.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure who the appropriate person would be to answer this, but looking in the presentation, it outlines 450 single family residences and knowing that the Metro District Board will be initially set up with large land owners in the area. Where do you see or is there going to be a transition when residents of those 450 single family units might look towards elections to serve on the metro district board?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Gilmore. The natural life cycle of of a district basically is as residents come into the district and own property there, they become eligible electors of the district. The at this organizational election coming up in May of this two months I guess there'll be and each district there'll be three board members who have a four year term which will expire in May 2020 and two. That will have a two year term that will expire in May 2018 and that's statutorily set. Basically, it depends on the phasing of development in how quickly single family residents move in there and and renters other times, I think is going to be renters when moving. They're basically there can be as dependent on how development continues there can be new board members as of May 2018 if they are voted out. So they'll be a full term. A full house will turn over the board in May 2020.
Speaker 9: Can you confirm Will is the board set up currently with five members?
Speaker 3: Yes, it's a five member board, and that's usually the default for a special district.
Speaker 9: And will it stay at five members or as you have.
Speaker 5: New property owners, come.
Speaker 9: In through the single family residences? Will the board grow?
Speaker 3: It'll stay at five. Okay.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Gummer. Councilman.
Speaker 5: Yes, thank you. Real quick. I was listening to the question for my council colleague, councilman, to whom I worked together a lot. And so I said, we're developing the mind meld. But I just wanted to check really quickly. Graham, if you could clarify, are you can you please describe which piece of the development your company is doing and then which pieces will be done by others? Because I think, Councilman, you may have been asking you for information you might not have. And I just want to make sure that we all are clear on your role before we close out the hearing.
Speaker 3: Sure. Councilman. So we are only the horizontal developer. We control the entire 41 acres. So we are just, you know, putting in the streets and national attention and the parks. And the plan is for us to sell to vertical developers. So we do are the the financing plan that we came up with to support the districts is just is based upon, you know, some what we think, you know, could happen here and with a mixture of different housing types, different price points, mix of of of single family and multifamily housing. But we are just the horizontal developer and we do not have plans to to be the vertical developer of the product at this time.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Kenny. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: I just wanted to ask if it looks like at this point that the the building, the Denver Post building, if any of that stays or if it's expected that that goes? Or is that proposed just to be an interim use? A former competing newspaper guy. So don't listen to what he's saying.
Speaker 3: You know, I may abstain from answering that question just as I don't you know, I don't want to upset Councilman Flynn, but we do not have any firm plans for the demolition of that building at this time. You know, we still have some some some very interesting ideas for the repurposing of that building. However, you know, there there there does still need to be the infrastructure put into to make the building more accessible and to, you know, add add things like the park and, you know, bring in a mix of uses. So that is a very large building and there are no plans, you know, either way at this point. We continue to explore, you know, the the opportunities as well as get the pieces in place that we can start redeveloping the entire site.
Speaker 9: So assuming you have seriously interested folks that wouldn't require the demolition, do you anticipate in the interim continuing to see things like Denver fully back there?
Speaker 3: We that was that was a phenomenal event. And we absolutely want them to continue. And it's really helped, you know, for people to actually see where this is and be in the building. And so we're absolutely exploring, you know, bigger and better things for for that. And we I've thought about this building every day for eight and a half years. And so I would love to see the building stay. And, you know, but it's you know, we're really excited about bringing a mix of users into the site.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other questions on Caterpillar? So nine. CNN public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilman Canete.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I have not consulted with my colleague, Councilman Brooks, but this is in his district, and I know that he would not want us to allow a project of this magnitude to go forward without some comment of support. To say that we are excited about the potential. I know that he has spent a lot of time thinking about the importance of transit oriented development in his district. And and so I, I want to appreciate, again, how much time this team has spent getting to know the council, getting to know some of the visions we have for TOD in the city and really helping to, you know, marry the vision that you have had for this eight and a half years with some of the plans and visions the city has. So it's never easy doing a project of this scale. But but the infrastructure is the beginning of it. So I want to thank you for the time you spent and wish you luck with the next phases. And I will be supporting this metropolitan district tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. So technically, this site is in the Globeville neighborhood, and I know that the applicant has had conversations with folks from Globeville, as well as the Sunnyside neighborhood. And yesterday, actually, I went and drove around on the west side of the tracks and both the Sunnyside and the Globeville neighborhood adjacent to this Tod stop . That will be opening, I think, next year. Right. Is is seeing a lot of interest. We this body has risen several other properties to the south of this site that are hoping to do some TOD development. And my hope is, as we see more and more investment, we're having a separate conversation about sidewalks. And, you know, this is an area that still has no streets and no sidewalks. And so I'm hoping that as a city, we get to a place where all of our neighborhoods have that basic infrastructure. I'm not asking the developer to do that for the rest of the neighborhood, although that would be nice. But, you know, it's it's one of those things that I think we're continuing to look at in terms of how we have that basic infrastructure consistent all across the city. But I want to commend the developer for their commitment in addressing the affordable housing issue. I don't have to tell you what a challenge this is across the city for people who want to live in Denver that can't afford the prices. And so just knowing that that's a commitment you're making is very much appreciated. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to pile on. The affordable housing element of this was real interesting when this project came before council originally, I guess last fall or maybe it was even late summer. And I got the feeling from the team that I think they kind of thought it was just going to be a perfunctory visit and sell along. And one by.
Speaker 3: One, I'm aware that that.
Speaker 8: That topic of affordable housing came up and which is a priority of this council. And the project kind of went on hold for a while. And it's my understanding, as has been alluded to, that you folks did a lot of outreach into the affordable housing community, which is a great start.
Speaker 3: But it's only a start. And I am aware you are horizontal developers and.
Speaker 8: You're the guys that pick out.
Speaker 3: The vertical developers.
Speaker 8: So the responsibility lays with you to continue.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 8: Step to and do everything you can to fulfill the vision that I.
Speaker 3: Believe is shared.
Speaker 8: That there be a a robust, affordable housing component to to this project. So I want to thank.
Speaker 3: You for.
Speaker 8: Putting it on halt.
Speaker 3: Rethinking.
Speaker 8: And coming back with a broader approach. And I look forward to supporting this this evening.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Cashman and Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few brief comments that this project has been long in coming, and I really welcome it. It's a I think it's a fabulous redevelopment site near the 41st and FOX Station, not light rail, but commuter rail. They haven't announced an opening date yet, but when I left the project, it was expected to be around October sometime in the mid fall. And quite a historic site as well as the Argo smelter used to be there. And and then, of course, the Denver Post printing plant. And it's good to see some activity, some residential, some commercial activity coming to that area at one time. Maybe I should've asked this during the hearing, but at one time, the investors included coach Mike Shanahan. I don't know if he's still involved in the group or not. So there's a long history of trying to get this thing off the ground. And I'm glad to see that you're finally there. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Any other comments? Constable 79. CNN Madam secretary, welcome.
Speaker 5: Can each.
Speaker 6: Lopez new Ortega I assessment I black eye. Clark. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore Cashman.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 6: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Madam Secretary, please. Those are only now the results. 11 eyes 911, 979 has been placed on file. Consideration does pass. Well, that's the bell. So seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving Service Plans for the creation of West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 1 and West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 2, relating to the redevelopment project known as the 25/70 Development.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the service plans of two state-authorized metropolitan districts: West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 1 and West Globeville Metropolitan No. 2 both in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-9-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02292016_16-0001
|
Speaker 11: And you see the property highlighted in yellow, the northern portion fronts, 40th Avenue, where you have RTD, bus route service 44, which connects between downtown and the 40th and Airport Park. Right. You also see outlined the property of the market lead, which the city recently acquired from BNSF and that was just recently acquired in the month of January. The property is 1.72 acres and within a half mile walk of the fort of Colorado station platform. And this will be the second station along the University of Colorado Line, which opens in April 2016. Here's another view of the property and the you are h 2.5 zone district that's being requested requires a full block face as a minimum area requirement. So the applicant's primary interest is in the property that they hold towards the south or the left end of this block face. But the entire block face, with a 58% approval or signatures representing 58% of the property, is in support of this application. The owners are requesting zoning to allow for infill residential development. And specifically the general urban neighborhood. Context Rowhouse 2.5 Story Maximum Zone District is being requested. This district promotes safe, active, pedestrian, skilled residential uses. Building forms and reinforces desired residential patterns, including shallow front yards, tapered building heights on sides and the rear. 20% of the lot is limited to one story, consistent with development patterns in urban residential neighborhoods. The site and surrounding zoning is ESU d x or urban edge single unit d x, which allows for single family houses on a 6000 square foot minimum lot size. Existing land use is predominantly single family. But as you saw in previous images, across the street east of Cook Street is fairly intensive industrial use and outdoor storage to the north side of Colorado. Across from the site is so a variety of mixed uses, occasional small industrial site or religious quasi public use in the blue. There are also some vacant parcels nearby. Here. You can see the site in the center image. We're looking at the property from the corner of 39th and Cook to the north. You see one of the small religious assembly buildings on the north side of Colorado to the east. On the right, you see single family residential as well as the larger scale industrial and outdoor storage use. To the south, we see residential and also this abandoned rail track system that you see here is a sliver of that market lead property that city is now the owner of. And to the west, 39th and Adams. We're looking at single family residential. The applicant and city of Denver have reached out to the registered neighborhood organizations listed here and have met all of the written and required written and posted notice requirements for hearings and meetings leading up to the public hearing this evening and to present no public comments have been received. Let's move to the review criteria beginning with consistency with adopted plans. Comp Plan 2000 encourages conserving land by promoting infill development consistent with neighborhood character and encourages neighborhood investment for a range of housing types and prices. Concept Land Use in Blueprint. Denver is Single-Family duplex, which allows which encourages primarily residential uses of moderate density and allows for a mix of housing types, including single family duplex rowhouses, small apartments, and I would add garden court apartments or garden court bro homes. And this is an area of stability. The Street Classification and Blueprint Denver for 40th Avenue, which fronts the northern short side of the block, is a mixed use. Arterial arterial streets connect major destinations between neighborhoods, regional destinations, and in this case, it's an east west connector between 40th and Colorado and 30th and Blake Station area and on towards downtown. And as I mentioned earlier, RTD bus Route 44 runs along Fourth Avenue. Cook Street is local and designated street type provides access to individual homes and businesses. The O'Leary and Swanson Neighborhoods Plan adopted just a year ago 2015, actually captures this site around the 40th and Colorado stationary, which was the slightly expanded portion of the response to a neighborhood planning effort. And as such, we have very clear land use and building height guidance. You see here single family duplex similar to the concept land use and blueprint Denver. This kind of tennis yellow color and then the maximum building height shown as two and a half stories. And you see a progression from the site moving to the east or to the right, two, three stories and five stories. And that's really marks the transition at Cook Street from lower scale established or traditional residential areas to what's anticipated as transit oriented development getting closer to the rail station. So for traditional residential areas in the area in Swansea, a plan, there is encouragement to allow for some investment in these areas of stability, infill development, but allowing or providing for some economic benefit, not just to the reinvestment areas of the station areas, but also for residents in the neighborhood, thus encouraging infill population to support desired services and providing economic opportunities such as what you see here in this image is a tandem house similar to an accessory dwelling unit, but in this case could be sold off or owned entirely as a separate, separately owned unit. And here's some of the text from the earlier in Swansea Neighborhoods Plan showing that a range of housing types is encouraged and allowed in single family duplex ranging from single family to row homes and small apartment buildings. The second review criteria is uniformity of district regulations and you RH 2.5 would result in uniform application of district use , building form and design regulations, and would further public health, safety and welfare by implementing recommendations from these adopted plans. The justifying circumstance or fourth criteria is that the change or changing condition of the land and its surroundings, specifically the station, platform, park and rider nearing completion, soon to open in April 2016. And the city's recent acquisition of the BNSF market property, which runs right along the south and the southern boundary of the site. And there are new sidewalks being designed and soon to be built along 40th Avenue. Fifth and final criteria is consistency with neighborhood context, own district purpose and intent in the you are each 2.5 district is consistent with the recommended urban neighborhood context as called out in the alerts. Once the neighborhoods plan, the existing community fabric matches the the description of that context and the you are each 2.5 is consistent with the purpose and intent of his own district. CPD finds that all review criteria have been met and we recommend approval of this. Application and Planning Board has also unanimously recommended approval. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have three speakers called up. We have three speakers for this bill. And I'll go ahead and call all three speakers, Michael Tumor, Ken Gilman and Mr. Sekou. If we can make your way up to the first Q Mr. two men, Mr. Gelman and Mr. Sekou and. Mr. Toomey, you can begin your remarks when you reach the podium.
Speaker 11: I am Michael Tara. I am here to answer any questions that you may have in regards to this project. And we'd like to just kind of let you know, our excitement in doing a project that's so close to all the new light rail development at the 40th station and to provide a project that's. Someone affordable. The way that the real estate market has kind of developed in Denver, we can do some pretty nice. Things with this piece of property.
Speaker 1: We'll do questions later on. Thank you, Ken Gilman.
Speaker 11: Ken Gilman. I'm the other owner, you know. So again, we just think the project will improve. The neighborhood fits into the neighborhood plan, especially around that transit oriented development. And we're here to answer questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Mr. Sekou. Let's just take a. She's.
Speaker 4: Yes. My name is Jeremy Sekou. Organize it. Founder Like Star Action Movement. Representing poor, working poor and homeless people. First of all, it's an honor to be here. To have this kind of conversation is a very serious one. And from my experience, from being down here previously for the last six years, there is a tendency to come and get the zoning approves. And are according to the plans of 2000. And here we are in 2016 with changing conditions. Everything that I'm seeing tonight is market value. No consideration for poor, working, poor homeless people. There was an article in the paper today, different weekly news that says. There are over 3000 homeless people in this town and only 1200 beds available. That leaves 1800 people every day subjected to a hostile environment with the weather. So as you gobble up the land during this. Open market stuff. There's nothing there for us. Including jobs so that we could even afford to buy one of these things. Especially in the black community, where we go to any site in the city that's being built now, and you will see black workers on that site like flies and buttermilk. You can't count the ones that are there because they're not there. And so now we're talking about historical black community that folks can't even work in and then get gentrified and pushed out. And we call ourselves civilized. And this is a city for everybody, except if you're poor, working poor and homeless, you've got to go. There's no place for you. And yet these are taxpaying people. And so most of the folks here well, not most folks, but folks who've been here for a while, they've heard this story before. And I've said it over and over and over again. And I still get a response. Of apology, rationalization, denial and impact. When they say they're working on it. Has the impact of a net by an elephant on the butt and you call that progress? You are treading very dangerous water when you have a sizable population of people who are not stakeholders in the development of the city . They have no reason not to rebuild. And so you have another Ferguson and you have New York and you have San Francisco housing riots, all of that.
Speaker 1: Because to say to people. Mr. Sekou, listen, Mr. Sekou, you're 3 minutes is up. Thank you very much. All right. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions of council councilmember.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Illustrative verse. Tim, quick question. I want to I wanted you to go back to the Olivia Swan, to your plan. You highlighted this. I didn't hear what you said, though. You highlighted this particular parcel. How does it relate to the plan?
Speaker 11: Yes. So I pulled up the graphic of the of land use in the Swansea neighborhoods plan and it is recommending single family duplex, which is defined in very similar terms as Blueprint Denver, which is anything from single family to duplex to row home and even small apartments. But specifically in this plan, it calls out. Rowe homes as appropriate building form within this.
Speaker 7: And the overall plan speaks to affordable housing, does it not?
Speaker 11: Yes. There are many recommendations related to affordable housing investments, particularly near rail transit, but also in established residential areas. And I pull this graphic up, these graphics are actually in the plan showing that there can be modest infill within. Stable residential, traditionally stable residential areas where a homeowner could actually even sell off a portion of the lot or bring some rental income. So stabilizing a stabilizing these established residential areas. So there are multiple strategies.
Speaker 7: Yeah. And In The Heights, you didn't really speak to that.
Speaker 11: Sorry if I went over that too quickly. And here are the highlights. On the same slide as the land use to the right, we see maximum building heights at two and a half.
Speaker 7: Got it. Okay. Thank you. And maybe one of the representatives. Yep. Did you guys. What neighborhood did you get a chance to talk to and talk about this project?
Speaker 10: We spoke with Clayton as well as.
Speaker 11: The Neighborhood Association, right? Yeah. Oh, man, I'm primarily Clayton.
Speaker 7: Clayton, so. Yeah. But I know Elyria. I know Leary and Swansea are, you know, kind of in a shuffle, but do Dutcher Candi CdeBaca, did you get a chance to talk to any of those folks?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 7: Okay. And who did you talk to from Clayton?
Speaker 2: And John Ricky.
Speaker 7: Okay. You know, one of the things I want to get to is, you know, when we talk about rezoning, we talk about some of the values in the neighborhoods. And I just wanted to know, you know, what do you hear from them and what are you looking to apply from those values into your project?
Speaker 2: I guess when we first kind.
Speaker 11: Of started talking about this project, I had actually spoke to you two and a half years ago, probably, and. Kind of one of your thoughts was, well, you know, maybe a little bit of mixed use would be great on that site. And from that point, we kind of started going through different discussions with the city of Denver with Tim, and kind of looking at Blueprint Denver. And so from all of what's already been kind of developed on that side, it was determined that because of the that particular street having the industrial use on the other side of that street, that to try to step the the neighborhood kind of down, like trying to step it from industrial to residential in one street, wasn't going to work and wasn't going to promote kind of the the. I guess kind of the development that needs to happen in that area with the being so close to the light rail station and creating the density and so that the commercial side kind of kind of dissipated where everybody has more.
Speaker 7: Did they speak to you about just attainable housing for affordable housing and trying to, you know, get some of that in the neighborhood, different army levels at all?
Speaker 11: No, they didn't. We did. We did go knocking on all the neighbors doors and on the block. Every one that we talked to seemed to be in favor of having more options for their properties as far as making the neighborhood, as far as making it a little more affordable instead of being single family, you know, by having multiple units, we can take the price down. You know, a lot of the prices in Denver have really gotten out of hand. We did talk to John with the Clayton Neighborhood Association and he said he only got positive feedback, no opposition and he posted it on their Facebook page a couple of times.
Speaker 7: I don't know. Okay, great. Just last question. Thank you, Mr. President. Would you guys be open to having a larger conversation with some, you know, should this go through with other neighborhood leaders? What kind of vision of the neighborhood, what the neighborhood is looking for? Mm hmm. That's kind of some of the the meat of why we asked folks to meet with the neighbors.
Speaker 11: And I think we sent some emails out. You know, I. I live in Whittier, so I get it. Like, I don't want to see the neighborhoods go away, you know, totally lose their character and culture and that sort of thing.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Yeah. And I apologize, Mike. My option isn't there to chime in. So to the owners, are you familiar with the garden court for. Either. It is fine. I know. I know you are. I'm asking these guys, the developers.
Speaker 1: But we need you to come up to the podium.
Speaker 11: Not so mean. I can't describe it to you right now, but I know that there's different forms of building structures that are all part of this particular zoning.
Speaker 7: And how does the garden court form deviate from a row house form? And I apologize to my colleagues. I this was the one plan committee that I missed. And there's important information in these questions.
Speaker 11: So I just first. Are you saying like garden court as far as. The structure surrounding kind of a center area. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the site provides for the potential for that. Okay.
Speaker 7: So do you have any sense about how many units you can fit on this development?
Speaker 11: So like we've had some, we've had architects look at it and kind of depending on how it would lay out somewhere between 12 and 14.
Speaker 7: Interesting. Okay. So thank you for that, Tim. If they were to phase this project in such a way that they developed row houses on 41st and 40th avenues, would that then move the the the primary street set back so that any infill between those would now go to the five foot side setback.
Speaker 11: I'm going to pull up a map, councilman, if I may, and refer to that. So you referenced 40th and 41st, correct?
Speaker 7: So if they oriented low housing to those streets. Then their five foot side setback would be the north south street, which. I'm sorry. Let me bring it up. Oops. What is that? Cook Street. So the Cook Street has a primary street set in a block since street set back, which is considerably more than five feet. But if they were, since this is a RH three, I mean, RH two and a half, they could then redevelop a portion on the north side, in the south side of the assemblage, so that it was oriented both to the south and to the north in a five foot side setback would then be on Cook Street. And then a primary if they were to remove the houses in between a primary, I mean, a block since the setback at that point would be five feet.
Speaker 11: So my understanding is that in. Site plan review. They would be under rules of measurement. Section 13 adult.
Speaker 7: Primary would be.
Speaker 11: Primary to primary yes. Being Cook St and likely then for their particular holdings. 39th being a side street then yes, five street. And then Cook Street would be a context sensitive step back 20 feet, or they would look at the general set back of structures along Cook Street and take the average of those.
Speaker 7: So my hearing with 100% confidence that Cooke Street the front that mean the setback for any developed redevelopment of the site under this proposed zoning would be consistent with the street the front setback that we see today.
Speaker 11: That's the intent and the guidance in the code.
Speaker 7: I understand that. But you can develop. We had this conversation about some GMU three down in Curtis Park where that we were going to create new blocks since me, new C-Max on the corners, which would then allow zero set back. And as a result the new GM, the existing GM U three moves that set back up several feet closer to the curve. And so there is a development scheme here that would actually alter what is now considered block sensitive if they phased it in such a way. I'm just making sure that that can't happen. What happened in another place can't happen here. Okay.
Speaker 11: So what I can definitively respond with tonight is that for the Rowhouse building form.
Speaker 7: I get the real hospitals when I'm.
Speaker 11: Talking in garden court that yes, a block sensitive setback is required and where it does not apply, which will be determined by development services under site plan review be a 20 foot setback would apply.
Speaker 7: Okay. So what I want my colleagues to know is that in his in what Tim said specifically he mentioned in his presentation was, well, we talked a lot about the rowhouse form. He specifically mentioned garden court. And the garden court is not a row house form, but it is allowed in the RH 22.5. And so when I want to get back to is what is the specific language of the code here in section 5.2. Point to point to specific intent in. Row House 2.5 urh2 point 5urh 2.5 is a multi-unit district that allows up to two and a half storey rowhouse building, for it also allows the urban house, the detached accessory dwelling unit, the duplex and the tandem house building forms. There's no mention in the specific intent of a garden court, but it is allowed. And so why I'm telling you this is that. There are development schemes on here that are significantly more dense than a row house form and they mentioned the garden court. The developers familiar with the garden court. And this is a designated area of stability. You've seen the neighborhood plan images there, nothing at all like the density of a row house and certainly nothing at all like the density of the of the garden court, which would allow considerably more density if you start making those developments perpendicular to the street rather than horizontal. So I get that if they were to just blanket come in with a single block proposal today, that they would be restricted by the block since the setback. But there are development schemes here that could actually alter that and there are no protections. And so that is a loss of eight potentially affordable units with a development scheme that is far more dense, potentially, and with no commitment to affordability in an area of stability. So I just wanted to say that.
Speaker 11: Councilman, if I may, the primary building form standard section 5.3.3 does list the garden court as one of the allowable building for rent.
Speaker 7: That's exactly what I'm talking about. Okay.
Speaker 1: And thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Another questions, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to ask a question of the proposed developer. One of you two, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. So do you own the entire half block today?
Speaker 11: We have.
Speaker 5: All the property.
Speaker 11: From 39th on the corner of 39th and.
Speaker 5: Just to the first square here.
Speaker 2: Well, there's no there's.
Speaker 11: It's basically 28,000 square feet worth of a lot. So it's I would say it's probably the first third of the block.
Speaker 5: But what we're doing is we're being asked to rezone the entire half block.
Speaker 2: That was the requirement.
Speaker 11: To rezone the whole front facing of the block. So we yes, we own the in the yellow from 39th. If you go all the way up to there's like a little white beach. Yeah. Right where that garage and then the yellow line cuts off there. So I guess maybe just a little more than a third of it.
Speaker 5: Okay. And in are you are you all trying to purchase the other properties to do this development or your intention is only to do within that four square in the yellow?
Speaker 11: Yeah, our intentions are to work within that square.
Speaker 5: Okay. So I don't understand why the city made you. Three zone, the whole half block. That makes no sense to me. And you want to speak to that.
Speaker 11: Yes. So there are minimum area requirements for certain zone districts. And in this particular case, you RH 2.5 requires. Either a certain minimum acreage, which is either two or four acres or a block phase. I think the intent is to apply the zone district in context of a block and not necessarily a smaller site by site basis
Speaker 5: . And so the other property owners were completely on board with having their properties zoned.
Speaker 11: The applicant acquired signatures representing 58% of the ownership of that block face.
Speaker 5: And does that include them? As the property owner?
Speaker 11: Yes, the 58% includes property owners plus additional property owners. And you can speak to your conversations with the residents that you saw, their property owners that you saw signatures from. Of all the property owners we talked to, we're in favor of it. We went door knocking a few different times. Sometimes you would get a husband who wasn't on the deed or a wife or was or. So everyone that we talked to, we got a signature from. And you know, once we.
Speaker 5: How many properties is that of the total?
Speaker 11: Probably us plus I think maybe for three or four.
Speaker 5: Okay. So there's three or four of the seven properties that are on here that do not include yours.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 11: Now there's three. Yeah, there's several properties. Now they have more options.
Speaker 5: Okay, so. Tim, I want to get back to asking you a question about a statement you made that they can sell off a portion of the lot. Now, is that only allowed in this particular zone district? And just help me just understand that.
Speaker 11: So that's related to the tandem house building form, which is very similar to accessory dwelling unit. The difference being that you could sell a tandem home, but you cannot sell an accessory dwelling unit, you must rent out the accessory dwelling unit. So that's an A. So under you RH 2.5 zoning, you could build an accessory dwelling unit and rent it out, or you could build a tandem house behind your existing house and rent it out or sell it. So those are additional options available to these existing homeowners should this.
Speaker 5: So so when it's zoned, does it have to be split up into two separate zone lots on each parcel?
Speaker 11: I don't know the zone lot requirements. I would have to get back to you on the.
Speaker 5: I'm asking this because I worked with a woman in the Highland neighborhood who had a carriage lot in her back yard that was used for a commercial purpose. And she was told she could sell it. And when she tried to sell it, she was told that she had to rezone it as a separate zone lot.
Speaker 11: I said, you know, district that applied to that property.
Speaker 5: I do not. I'd have to go back to getting.
Speaker 11: An understanding.
Speaker 5: That it's in the lower highlands neighborhood. So that helps you.
Speaker 11: With if it was a two unit zoning or row house, then it would seem that that option should be available. If it was single family, then no would not necessarily be an option.
Speaker 5: Okay. I was just trying to understand how that would work for somebody that wanted to buy a unit and might then find out later that they need to rezone it to to have separate legal, you know, definition for for the property they're purchasing if they're buying one of those tandem units.
Speaker 11: Okay.
Speaker 5: So. Do you know whether they would be required to do that?
Speaker 11: I do know the tandem house building form is allowed under you RH 2.5 zoning and it allows for multiple ownership of two structures on one's own. Got it. So exactly what I would be purchasing if I was purchasing a rear front unit, whether I'm purchasing the building only with. The right to reside on his own on buying a piece of property. I don't know the mechanics of that. But I'd be happy to get back with you.
Speaker 5: That would be helpful. I have no further questions, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilman. I take it. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Ortega got at what I was going to ask would if I could explore that a little further. I'm somewhat uncomfortable changing the zoning on someone else's property where they might not know about it. The the applicants have indicated that they have 58% of the of the frontage I imagine ownership representing that they've approved or they they approve of this change. That leaves 42%, if my math is correct. I know I got a head cold here. I'm having trouble with math. But as 42% of the owners are seven other properties on that block, some of which are houses that were just built three years ago that are being impacted by this change. So I'm a little uncomfortable being asked to consider changing their zoning if they might not be aware of it. Is there anything in our code or our procedures that requires when we rezone, when we require a full block face to be resolved, such as this rowhouse zoning that we have to obtain registered mail, or we have to make sure that the owners of those properties I literally know that we're changing our zoning.
Speaker 11: So the requirement is that at least 51 signatures representing at least 51% of the area to be resolved are on the application, in which case they exceeded that by 7%.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 11: And then the door knocking that and of course, the signage which was posted on Cooke Street, 40th Avenue and 39th Avenue for 15 days prior to the planning board hearing and 21 days prior to this hearing. Okay.
Speaker 4: And the owners indicated that of those they spoke to, they all approve. Can I ask one of you to tell me whether you spoke to all of the owners or because you said all the owners we spoke to approved of it? That begs the question.
Speaker 11: Some we ended up speaking to via phone because we were over the 51%.
Speaker 4: We didn't bother you didn't need their signature.
Speaker 11: But yeah, we didn't get their signature. But every single one we had spoke to, either the husband or the wife or one person, the head of household gave our numbers out, asked for any further questions that they may have about it. But every we did speak to every single person on that. Okay. Whether it be, you know, by phone or by by face to face meeting.
Speaker 4: That's good to know. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, for the developers wondering if I realize where rezoning a piece of land and not a particular project. But I'm wondering if you can envision at this point how large these units might be and what kind of price point you're envisioning.
Speaker 11: From what we've looked at. We've looked at units that would be two and a half stories. That would be somewhere around 13 to 1450 square feet each, kind of. Basically. Then as far as they'd all have backyards, they'd all have garages, and they would have a price point of somewhere around 350. 300, depending on where they are in the block, 300 to 350.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman and Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: I guess this would be for the property owners.
Speaker 5: So you answered part of my question, I about the units having garages.
Speaker 6: Are they one.
Speaker 5: Or two car garages?
Speaker 11: We haven't totally. Yeah, we haven't gotten that far yet. I think some would be two and some would be one, but it's just going to be a space layout on the how they're going to be. So yeah, I think it'll pretty much be some two in someone. Okay.
Speaker 5: And that leads me to my next question, where the property owners.
Speaker 9: That that you spoke with.
Speaker 5: Even if you didn't need their signature, were there concerns about.
Speaker 6: Street parking.
Speaker 5: Or added traffic? I mean, ideally we'd have folks, you know, taking transit, but that doesn't always happen. And so were there concerns from.
Speaker 6: The other property.
Speaker 11: Owners? No, there wasn't. You can see from that picture how few cars are on either of the two sides of those streets. So I don't think that has ever been much of a concern on that particular block anyway. But no, that was never a a concern from any of them.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. You know the questions. 0001. Mm hmm. CNN public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I you know, I said I want the you know, first of all, this is in the Clayton neighborhood. This isn't in Elyria, Swansea. And one of the reasons it was in response to a plan is because Clayton does not have a small area plan. And so to simply be here's another neighborhood that is looking for a small area plan because there's a lot of stuff going on in Clayton. I've heard it from their neighborhood president and also their community. So I appreciate the I didn't want to give off as if they didn't meet with the correct president because you did. And John Rickey, although he has stepped down, they have a new president. But. I would love number one for those other neighbors to be contacted about what's going on. And also for you to understand a little bit about what the neighborhood is envisioning in their values so that we can see what we can do with the property . So some site design, all that kind of stuff. I'd love to do that with the community just for a little, just to orient people to this part of the city. This is at 40th and Colorado, the type of developments that are going in there. We just we just did a 100 and 120 0 to 30% am-I homeless housing right there on the corner. One of the best units, best developments that I've seen in a long time from Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. Catty corner behind the retail is 160 workforce housing units. Beautiful, just gone up behind that is some more workforce housing units, too. So this corner is is seeing a diverse level of investment in affordable housing. So I'm happy about that. I would love for the property owner to look at ways to making this affordable. I think $300,000 in this neighborhood, new construction is going for $500,000. So it's attainable, you know, when you look at the whole neighborhood. But to start looking at affordable, subsidized housing in that sense, I would love to have a conversation with you all and consider that I'm going to I'm going to go ahead and support this redevelopment. And I hope that we can continue working together with the community. And this is this is going to be a really interesting location because the market lead is going to be a part of the drainage process project in the in the two basin that we're going through. And so I think there are a lot of neighbors concerned. I probably got a lot of support because there's a lot of neighbors concern that people are going to want to live in that area. And so it's going to be a really interesting area. But I'll be supporting this. It obviously is in line with our adaptive plans and in context. And so I'm in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I, I well, I don't believe that you're necessarily intend to develop the half a block as needed to achieve maximum density. However, in an area in an area of stability that that has a smaller you plan that specifically speaks to rowhouse and single family and duplex and then has a vision graph that shows something that is far less dense with the tandem house forms. That means that I can't support this rezoning.
Speaker 1: And you can't have another Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Just as a matter of general policy, as I understand it is 51% of the landowners need to sign on. And I think you said you have 58 and I'm unclear. And I did listen as to exactly how many people you spoke to and how many responded, if there were questions. I just wanted to say that if for me, when we're rezoning, I think it's important to get as as much of a buy in as you possibly can and at least be sure you make that extra effort to talk to all the neighborhoods that are affected by a development. And I'm not interested in, you know, 58, 42 range wars, you know, and so I'm just not confident that there was a full outreach on this project. So I just wanted to say that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Kathryn Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. You know. You know, listening to the back and forth and some of these questions on the council. I mean, I. You know, I'm very familiar with this neighborhood. I know it's pretty active. I know a lot of people feel a lot of pressure regarding gentrification or development, at least some of these areas, especially at the price point. What we're looking at, looking to rebuild, I think, you know, as a general practice, I think it's super important that you have that outreach to folks no matter what community. But I was a little surprised that, you know, they didn't really have very lasting or meaningful conversation with some of the neighborhood associations that are there . And I think that that is a big deal. I know in our area, if we reason, at least we look at rezoning a parcel. I have a whole neighborhood of folks that are coming to the table and thinking about it. And here's the thing. I there's nothing to fear with it. I think it's something to be straight forward. Now, I do agree that that I mean yes, that you are requires that 51%, but it also requires that that minimum area coverage. Right. And I do believe that that's been met right across the street. I was trying to figure out what that what the what the uses were, but it didn't look residential. This could be a good buffer that you are h is definitely a zone district that can provide that buffer between some of those urban or some of those residential ESU type single home properties. And so here's the thing. I I'll see a reluctant support for it because most of the folks that come here in these chambers and that want to see a rezoning, especially at this magnitude, in a neighborhood like this, they've done their due diligence in making sure that people in the neighborhood have been outreach to. And it's much more than just knocking on doors and getting signatures and saying, hey, look, we got a lot of these folks on this block to support it, but you really want to get there and engage that community, whether they're for or against it, whether they support or oppose it. The matter, the fact is you just at least get to them an outreach to I don't know who the neighborhood association is there, but it was kind of surprising that there had been no conversation with some of those folks. So. Anyway. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. In other comments, Council Bill one. Seen none. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 3: Brooks Clark. All right. Espinoza. Yeah.
Speaker 4: FLYNN Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. Catherine Carnage. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman Black. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Now for the results.
Speaker 3: Ten eyes, two names.
Speaker 1: 11 Lebanese, two nays Council Bill 0001 has passed. All right. We're on two counts, Bill. 39. Councilman, do you please for the council? Bill 39 on the floor.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 39 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. We will wait for technology. It has been moved. He's been moved and seconded. Public hearing on Capitol 39 is now open. May we have a staff report.
Speaker 5: As soon as I can get to my PowerPoint? Okay. So seriously. Sarah representing community planning and development. This is a rezoning of property located approximately 6756 Archer drive from oh one to general excuse me urban context multi-unit five stories and this is in the Lowry Field neighborhood in Council District five.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property at 3901 – 3991 North Cook Street from E-SU-DX to U-RH-2.5 in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 3901 – 3991 North Cook Street from E-SU-DX to U-RH-2.5 in Council District 9. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-20-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02292016_16-0039
|
Speaker 6: So. So for all of those reasons, I'll be very proud to support this tonight. I wish. And my guess is the city of Denver is paying in a subsidy for any of the additional costs of that parking, which is why I care. It's great to have more parking than you need. It's just that it's generally the government that's paying for it and it's less that we're not spending in units. So trying to get that match right is challenging, but obviously I'm very supportive in spite of that concern, and I'm glad there's a plan to monitor it closely and be thinking about ways to share with other projects. I think that's very innovative. So so thank you and enthusiastic support tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney to Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. My comments would be similar. I want to first support this project. And number two, I think it's a national model around, you know, homeless housing to make sure that sites all over the city and not just focused in one area. And I think you guys are serving as a model. I read through some of the letters of support that a community would say, yes, we want an integrated model in our community and which also support is the design elements. I mean, you're not going to know which housing is of different incomes. And so just want to really, you know, give you guys a lot of credit and just say thank you for that because that's what we're looking for in this city, is is a city with diverse incomes, you know, a continuum of housing opportunities all over the city. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to add my comments of support for the project as well, and thank the team of all the players, including the neighborhoods who have been engaged in the conversation for a number of years. The one thing I want to mention that hasn't been said is that there are some great schools in this area and the fact that there are two and three bedroom units and we'll have families of children who will go and will be going to school in this neighborhood. It's it's going to benefit them tremendously. So kudos to all of you for the great work on this one. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega in the comments. Council Bill 39. See none. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Recall Specimen Black by Brooks i clerk by Espinosa.
Speaker 11: I.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore I Cashman can eat Lopez. Hi, new Ortega. I Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi. Councilman Flynn. Thank you. We got it. Madam Secretary, please consider the results. 3939. 39 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right, we've got one more. And that is Council Bill four zero. Councilman New, would you please put council bill four zero on the floor?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill four to be placed upon final exploration and defense.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. We need a second. Got it. Thank you. A public hearing for Council Bill four zero is now open. May we have a staff court?
Speaker 5: Theresa may, Sarah with community planning and development. The next rezoning request is at 668 through 670 Inka Street. It is in the Lincoln Park neighborhood in Council District three. One block north of Sixth Avenue. One block east of Santa Fe Drive. Four blocks west of the Denver Health Campus and Speer Boulevard. Property is about 12,500 square feet or about a third of an acre, and there is an existing single family structure on the property. The property owner is requesting the rezoning to redevelop a vacant portion of the property. Existing zoning is an old chapter excuse me, 59, and the requested zoning is urban context rowhouse. Three stories from the eight associated with this zone district allows apartment buildings on certain streets, collectors and arterials, which doesn't apply to this site because the both streets on the site are local streets.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located at approximately 6756 Archer Dr. from O-1 to G-MU-5 in Council District 5. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at approximately 6756 Archer Dr. from O-1 to G-MU-5 in Council District 5. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-20-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02012016_15-0912
|
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Council President, members of the Denver City Council. I'm Stacey Lux, the executive director of the Department of Excise and Licenses. And I'm honored to be here before you today. Council Bill 912 is an omnibus bill of two dozen proposed changes that will ultimately provide clarity, consistency and codify excise and licenses existing practices for regulating medical and retail marijuana. The bill amends language in our general licensing chapter 32 and the Medical Marijuana Code in Chapter 24 and the Retail Marijuana Code and Chapter six and repeals the now obsolete medical dispensary code. The clean up changes in this bill will standardize language and definitions between the medical and retail marijuana codes and harmonizes the city's procedures and authority with the states. I appreciate your careful consideration of Council Bill 912 and remain available for any question.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. We've got five speakers, and I'm just going to call all five. Please make your way to the front pew so we can get through expeditiously. Vernon Hill, David Roybal, Nancy Grandees Jones and Elizabeth and Mike Elliott. So please make your way to the front pew. And Mr. Hill, you can go ahead and begin your remarks.
Speaker 8: Well, thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of City Council. My name is Vernon Hill. I'm a business owner and a resident of the Globeville area. And the reason I'm speaking to you today is I would like to clear up a couple of things over the last month or so. There's been a lot of discussion in reference to the marijuana issues in our area. And I've noticed through the media that there's been a lot of things said that we were more or less bashing the marijuana industry. That is not really. So what we wanted to do is we wanted to state the facts and let you be aware of the.
Speaker 9: Situation that we have been.
Speaker 8: Experiencing in our area. There are locations that are in our area that have been there and probably will be there. We're realist about this situation, and we do understand that this marijuana situation is going to be here for quite a long time. What we do want and what we would like to have from you is when you change these bills and you make up these rules and regulations for them that you think of us as.
Speaker 9: People that are living this whole.
Speaker 8: Situation. And what we would like you to do is give us the ability to have some control over what takes place in our neighborhoods. And as we move forward with this, we will do everything in our our our power to explain and give you an understanding of what we have to deal with with this situation. And as we move forward, not only do we want to see the the the medical marijuana and the retail locations in.
Speaker 9: This type of situation, to.
Speaker 8: Have rules on it is the real concern is to grow facilities. There are no buffers for these areas.
Speaker 9: For these types of businesses.
Speaker 8: As far as to grow facilities in these areas that will isolate them directly from the specific residences in the neighborhoods and.
Speaker 0: Stuff like that.
Speaker 9: And we would like to see.
Speaker 8: More of that information put into the bills. So that way there is some control over that. But the biggest thing is to have some type of teeth in this bill that will allow.
Speaker 9: Us to have some say so which that will allow us to.
Speaker 8: Have some say so about what's going to take place in our neighborhoods. And that's basically it. Thank you very.
Speaker 9: Much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, David Roybal.
Speaker 8: Hello. It's an honor to be here.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Ortega, for bringing this courtesy hearing. I live at 2107.
Speaker 8: South Jason Street in a district 58. And in that area, we actually have 300 marijuana businesses, the most marijuana businesses.
Speaker 0: I'm originally from the Sun Valley. I live in the Sun Valley neighborhood from 1987.
Speaker 4: To.
Speaker 0: 2012.
Speaker 8: When the marijuana businesses first passed, they took over rapidly. We actually had a neighborhood stores there for 20 years. A&M, a good community store, had more than food, had more to offer.
Speaker 0: It got shut down, turned into a medical area. We actually had a reentry program for DACA in the neighborhood.
Speaker 8: They turned around, turn that into a medical area, medical dispensary. And it.
Speaker 0: Was actually two blocks from a.
Speaker 8: From a school.
Speaker 0: And the Sun Valley Coalition actually stood up about three years ago because we actually had.
Speaker 8: A marijuana grow facility.
Speaker 0: On the same block as the youth center. And one thing I like to just tell, you know, most.
Speaker 8: Areas that have the highest drug activity before marijuana came, those are the areas that, you know, the most medical facilities are.
Speaker 0: So people are still coming to the community for drugs. And if you see a the Denver Post.
Speaker 8: Interactive map, you can actually see where most of the the facilities are saturated. We have a you know, we have a lack of food. We have a lack of resources, healthy food stores. But we have so much so much of these in and.
Speaker 0: Of the Sun Valley coalition.
Speaker 8: Being a part of it. Since 2007, we never had a marijuana.
Speaker 4: Business owner come to the community group.
Speaker 8: We never had them bring in awareness, letting them know that they wanted to come here.
Speaker 0: And we, you know, we would love it. As communities that have more involved, me and some of the.
Speaker 4: Some of the stuff they give back to the community is discount medical marijuana.
Speaker 8: We don't want that. We want them to be a part of the community. And another.
Speaker 0: Thing that we had to issue.
Speaker 8: Some of the marijuana that was in dumpsters kids.
Speaker 0: Were finding and these kids were bringing.
Speaker 8: It back to the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: And there was a high possibility that some of it could have been contaminated.
Speaker 8: Could get people sick. And then plus, it's everywhere. It's everywhere in our communities. It's more it's more.
Speaker 4: More out to the youth. And I just hope.
Speaker 8: That, you know, that the the medical, you know, facilities.
Speaker 4: Could come to the.
Speaker 8: Community and try to make a good relationships, you know, so that way we can make the best make the best of this.
Speaker 0: So and to be part of the community, we don't want no discount weed.
Speaker 8: And that's all I want to share. I appreciate it very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Nancy Grandees Jones.
Speaker 7: Thank you council members and especially thank you to Councilwoman Ortega for giving us this opportunity, bringing the request for the public hearing. I am a member of the Globeville, Globeville Civic Partners, which I hope all you council members received the letter from the Globeville Civic Partners, which outlined our request some inclusions for the omnibus omnibus bill. And I just wanted to just give you a little background that I've had a commitment and investment in the GSA neighborhoods since 1975, when my husband, Bob, who's now deceased, purchased the meatpacking plant at 5300 Franklin that the city just bought back. We had the building that got repurposed into Project Angel Heart, and through my company we were a silver sponsor for the Globeville, for the Habitat President Carter Build. So we since 1975, have been committed to Globeville. The issue is the M.J. I call MJ OC. The marijuana businesses are embedded in a community that has a strong residential base. And so the omnibus bill needs to have more inclusions for community input through notifications and public hearings. And I think you have not I think I believe you have an opportunity to make course corrections in some of these regulations that previously did not have that inclusion for notification of R.A. and public hearings. The unique part about Globeville, Leary, Swansea, as you know, the residential communities, but the industrial areas where there are the grow houses without that 1000 foot distance protection, there has been a lot of investment by the residents, property owners, businesses and the city and county of Denver in the HIPAA, the Health Impact Assessment and the Geese Neighborhood Plans. I believe that City Council has an obligation to ensure that the omnibus bill aligns with the findings and the recommendations of the HRA. I've got lots of green stickies here of all the marijuana stuff and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. And. To safeguard the health and the quality of life and the business vitality in the GSE neighborhoods. So I would request that you please take into consideration what our recommendations are and any more that you might make to strengthen the community input in the omnibus bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have an Elizabeth.
Speaker 12: Hi, folks. I appreciate that. Broncos resolution and Elizabeth P.O. Box 16545 in Globeville 80216. But it says Denver. I do have a business that I'm happy to eventually let people know about in Globeville, and I'm still being passed from person to person as I get a permanent home back in my neighborhood. I would like to speak in support of the effort and suggest a couple specifics. On page six, the results of investigation, decision and director. It is Strike MP, page six in item C one. The striking not less than five days prior to the date of hearing the director shall make known. It's striking that not less than five days prior to during the initial marijuana hearings of recreational hearings, I myself attended hearings where people had not or applicants had not met. The requirements for applying for licensing and the hearing essentially shouldn't have happened. So I'm not quite sure why that was stricken, because I think it was it's something that would support excise and licensing to have advance notice. So my apologies if I misread it, but it just seems like a housekeeping thing. In support of what Nancy was just saying on page seven, the reasonable requirements of the neighborhoods and the. The desires of the adult inhabitants, as evidenced by. And then there's a list of things like petitions. I would request that you add approved area or neighborhood plans and regional masterplan such as national western with the list where you stipulate petitions. Remonstrance is I can't say that word, have to look it up or otherwise and that this the neighborhood plans are aspirational but we need to move into an era where they are seen as implementing. I want to do a shout out to the National Western Center effort, which has outbid some of the acreage that could have gone to marijuana growers growth, growing efforts in the footprint of the National Western Center and ask going forward, that part of the discussions have to do with protecting the brand of the National Western Center as a neighborhood unifying asset in the neighborhood finalizing asset. And that some of that can happen under signage and advertising in in an omnibus bill. And so in in addition to that, I'd like to ask that. And I again, I tried to read this. I'm here predominantly as an affiliation with Globeville Cares, which is a resident based and neighborhood organization that nearly every event we've had in our park or community meetings has had between three and 600 residents from the area. It's always a reunion and there's a very definite change in atmosphere with the marijuana industries moving in. And I feel like the awareness, the concordance that you're creating with the ominous built with the state licensing is good, but I hope that the rigorous discussion will be in terms of public education, youth education and listings. Are we at the Red Oak anyway? So thank you for your effort and please consider the marketing as part of the the enforcement as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Last speaker, Mike Elliott.
Speaker 4: Thank you, councilmembers, for this opportunity. My name is Mike Elliott's. I'm the executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group. We primarily want to thank the people working with the city because it's been a really you all have a really great team put together.
Speaker 8: Of intelligent people working.
Speaker 4: On these audiences. We had a number of issues going into this that we managed to get a lot of them solved and a lot of them addressed through just open communication and working through a lot of items. So we do have one final concern, though, that it's our understanding it's going to be addressed through rulemaking. But I did want to highlight it just to throw it out. There is still something we've been worried about and it gets back to the public comment I made at the committee hearing, which was the current language in this proposed ordinance, would say that any transfer of ownership would be stopped for any disciplinary action. And our question was, well, how far does this go with any disciplinary action? Could it be something as minor as just having a camera pointed in the wrong direction? And after speaking with folks in the city attorney's office and the mayor's office and Stacey Loucks, of course, we're under the pressure now that this is really intended for the more egregious violations. And and so this is apparently going to be addressed in rulemaking, and we will be satisfied with that having it be addressed there. But this is just one of those issues that we just wanted to see how far that language would go. So wanted to put it on the record. But we definitely want to thank Stacey, Ashley, Marlee and all the folks of the city because they've been great to work with. So thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 1: That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from members of the council. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Stacey, can you come to the microphone, please? And then Malia may have a I am an attorney question legal question for you, Stacey. Can you talk about one of the speakers discussed the public hearing process. And so for that specific bill are around IMAX zones, industrial use zones. Can you talk about the public hearing process and why you all decided to change it? The challenge that we're facing over here.
Speaker 7: Exactly. So in the proposed bill that you're looking at today, there's actually three kind of references to public hearings. The first one is that we're adding a requirement for needs and desires for medical centers. That's we've never traditionally done any sort of public hearing in order to open a medical center. So for right now, under the moratorium, that'll be for transfers of locations. So we now are adding the first public hearing requirement for medical centers. We're also codifying an existing practice, which is that we do do public hearings for transfer as a location for retail centers, but that's not an ordinance. So that's something that we're putting in the proposal before you amphitheater requirement is what Councilman Brooks is referring to right now in the code. If you are in a grandfathered grow location, if you're in an impact zone district, there is annual public hearing requirements to look at whether or not it's frustrating the comprehensive plan or violating kind of some of these have safety welfare aspects in the last year and some are that we've been conducting these public hearings. We've held over 100 public hearings and we've only had one resident show up. So what we're proposing is, is that tool, it's very valuable and I think will absolutely address concerns as growth happens, particularly in some neighborhoods where the neighborhood plans and the comprehensive plans are being traded. So we're asking that there's an absolute minimum threshold, ten signatures, then we'll hold the public hearings. But having 100 public hearings has been a significant resource challenge for our department. We think it's actually caused a lot of fatigue for registered neighborhood organizations, for people that are getting constant notifications, maybe about one location has multiple licenses, and these are getting multiple notifications. It's also there's a lot of resources for a city attorney's office, for a hearing, officers to have 100 public hearings where no one has showed. So our proposal is, again, not is to keep that tool, to keep the public hearing, but to have that ten signature threshold grant.
Speaker 4: And my next question is just we had another speaker talk about the five days and striking the five days. I don't know if you or Marley want to address that, but can you can you talk about why you put the five day, why you struck the five day?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman. I think that might have been an earlier version of the bill. We've added that back in.
Speaker 4: Done.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Black.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I was actually going to ask some of the same questions just to clarify for the global civic partners. I read your letter very carefully today, and I believe that what Stacey just clarified actually addresses some of your bullet points about the hearings. No.
Speaker 1: Oh, man. Man, we're gonna need you to come to the microphone. Can you feel free to come on? I just need you to speak for the microphone.
Speaker 7: Out of the 100 hearings, I don't know how many were were held for Globeville, Elyria, Swansea. Hear the word on the ground and in the communities has been there have not been public hearings and notifications in Globeville, Elyria, Swansea. And I think it has something to do with the idea in IBI which that zoning which is used by right as I understand, and learning all these things. So it's so we're not afforded those public hearings that were part of the IMX. So I'm learning. I mean that's that that's my under. That was my understanding. So Globeville Elyria, Swansea does does present a unique situation that may not be in other areas of the city that have a lot of marijuana places, marijuana businesses and especially the cultivations. That is huge.
Speaker 11: Well, one improvement that will hopefully impact your community is that this bill is now going to require a needs and desires hearing for both medical and retail. And so in the future, if a medical or retail facility wanted to go into the neighborhood, there would be a needs and desire hearing, correct? Yes. And that the community would have input on that. So moving forward.
Speaker 7: But there's there's nothing. I may be mistaken. You know, I tried to read that bill spent many hours that there's nothing for public hearings for the renewals which were those weren't those 100 public hearings about license renewals. I mean, I don't know. So that I mean so that so that's one thing that we're really concerned about is renewals, businesses that have violations that we know about that. Thank you very much. There is one. I am zone district north zone grow license north of I-70. Nancy's correct. Most of the growers and north of I-70 are used by rights and I zone districts in terms of renewal hearings. Actually, one of the elements that's in the recommended, if the 24 recommended changes that we're bringing for you today is to give that director of excise and licenses the ability to call for a renewal hearing for exactly just what that's and that's not an authority that I have currently, but that's one that we're being asked for in this new bill.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Black, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: I don't know if there's anybody here from maybe CPD that can answer this question, but that whole discussion that just transpired there, you know, back when the zoning code was adopted in 2010, that predated much of what we're seeing now. And I would like to know what specific uses were in the use table that allows this as a use by. Right. In both a retail and a plant.
Speaker 1: Husbandry Council member actually had an answer.
Speaker 4: So I don't have an answer specifically for that, but this is a big issue that we said we want it to be taken care of in in actually marijuana committee and on February 8th. And so CPD hopefully that day, if they're ready, is going to present everything to us and dealing with all the uses before 2010 and some of the issues that we're facing now so that we can make some policy decisions on where to go from here. Yeah. And so to that end, I actually think the zoning is potentially a better tool. It comes it comes back to us on what we what we do to rule on a rulemaking side. So then my other two questions particular to to this. Is. What was the. Well. It's confusing about this renewal hearing is that all renewals are the nonconforming ones that require ten signatures. I mean, ten signatures.
Speaker 7: Exactly. That is just for the non-conforming for the for the growers that are licensed and non-conforming zone districts which are typically IMAX zone districts. So if if neighborhood plans are adopted in some traditionally industrial areas, then become mixed use areas, those locations would then be grandfathered and also subject to these hearings.
Speaker 4: Is there a distance requirement or is it just any ten people?
Speaker 7: Right now, we've we're are aligning it with liquor that you have to be ten people within the designated area. I believe the designated area is five blocks north, five or an R.A. that touches and overlaps within the designated area.
Speaker 4: So any member of the R.A..
Speaker 7: The R.A. body itself. Okay. So I think.
Speaker 4: And then to that end, right now, it's an automatic renewal hearing. How can we ensure that neighborhoods continue to receive some sort of notification on these types of.
Speaker 7: Great question. We have a three part strategy. The first one is we'll put it on our website. All the renewal dates for all of the. Grows in the IMAX zone districts. Our intention is also to notify other council members who have these grows in your districts. And then the third piece we're looking at is the technological solution. If we can just send out an automatic email to the impacted areas, that one, we just have a little bit of trickery and we're working with technology services and kind of need to maintain a little bit of flexibility. So our two point strategy is to work with your offices and to have all the information available on our website.
Speaker 4: Previously it was an automatic hearing. Now it's any time, right? It's or is it some window?
Speaker 7: So it's a 90 day window before the renewal.
Speaker 4: Is there a way to extend that if per request or something like that?
Speaker 7: If we wanted to extend that window for the neighbors to be able to collect signatures. Yeah. It's no. Yeah, I might have to. We'll have to think about that. I think that idea is that it's 90 days before the renewal date. So he's thinking like more 120 days before the renewal date that the neighbors could submit.
Speaker 4: Well, it really I would much rather and I'm sorry I didn't think of this before, but I would much rather say any time after the renewal, you know, because what's going to trigger somebody to even inquire about that is an incident and a problem. And you can't time that in a 90 day window. And so if you start to have an operator that starts to go south, you would like to be able to sort of fire off a hearing if it's a community gets the ten signatures.
Speaker 7: Absolutely. So. So the bill has a couple has a lot of different elements. So with the Imac's grow facilities themselves, it's 90 days before the facility. Now those facilities have violations. One of the things that we're asking for in the bill is to give the director immediate summary suspension authority and to do renewal hearings for any of the thousand licenses, not just grow licenses, not just grow licenses and Emacs districts. So we feel that would be an effective tool as well for if there are incidents, if there are complaints, if there is that trigger, that we can hold a renewal hearing for any of our thousand licenses.
Speaker 4: Great. And then the last one, what's the rationale behind the transfer? I'm trying to figure out my own writing between the rationale behind the sort of loosening up of the transfer constraints, uh, for lack of a better term. Is that another alignment with the state or what is that.
Speaker 7: That is that the speaker the before we are really trying to tether the local and state licenses. There have been times that we've gotten out of sync with somebody supplied at the state for a transfer of ownership or transfer vocation, but didn't necessarily come in in a limited amount of time and apply with us. So we're trying to synchronize as much as possible, and especially if you're under significant disciplinary action at the state, if you're under a show cause of the state because of a major violation, we want to be able to have protections that you can't come in and transfer ownership into somebody else's name at the local level. We want to make sure that we have the same ownership on licenses at the same time with the state.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Stacey, if you could stay there for a minute. So first of all, I want to ask how. The complaints play a role in addressing odor or disposal of product. Not following the the rules of other types of complaints. So help me understand if that applies the same to all or just certain licenses.
Speaker 7: We track complaints on every license, so every license has to go through a number of annual inspections and compliance investigations. We also track complaints through 311 through the Denver Police Department, through the State MPD. So all that is tracked on the individual licenses. So we are able to see if any particular licensee or business is starting to accumulate complaints, then we can take the appropriate action. But we track everything and we have a pretty good data gathering.
Speaker 3: So with the changes in this omnibus bill. That will give you the authority to call a renewal hearing. That can happen anywhere, regardless of the HIV issue.
Speaker 7: There are no hearings for any license renewal.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's that's good to know. And the complaints all have to have at least ten signatures.
Speaker 7: Now, that is just to hold a public hearing for the I am ex the non-conforming gross. Whether or not that's the issue.
Speaker 3: There are ongoing issues with some of those things that we just talked about in terms of complaints being lodged with exercising license. That can be enough to call a show cause hearing or a renewal hearing.
Speaker 7: Right. We can hold a show cause any time.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I think that's good to know. So I'd like to know that for any of those that came in after we adopted the regulatory framework for recreational. I attended most of those meetings, paid close attention, and thought we were doing a moratorium on everything. And when I realized that medical establishments were still being able to get their licenses and I saw the numbers and how they had grown, it just shocked me. So I just have to share that. But. For any of those that may still be in the pipeline. How does the fact that a community any and we're doing more and more these tied to our neighborhood plans that have health impact assessments how does that health impact assessment get factored in when you are issuing licenses? Is there some kind of overlap communication that happens and if it's not happening, we need to rectify that. That ensures that you all get to look at those recommendations and those concerns from those neighborhoods, many of which already have serious other issues, which is why they're trying to do these in the neighborhoods with their neighborhood plans.
Speaker 7: But the most direct way to consider impact studies and stuff like this. If it's about to attention during the public hearing, then that's can be something for contemplation.
Speaker 3: But if you're in a neighborhood that doesn't get a public hearing because your zoning is used by. Right. Zoning, that's a problem. So we need to correct that. And I know that's something we'll be talking about at our February meeting. So that's what I was just trying to kind of underline here. So. Okay, that's that's helpful. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Stacey, I have a question for you. So when an applicant submits a completed application on that application, do they need to specify if they are going to move into a preexisting building, if they're going to, you know, do construction or if it's a brand new build? And are those treated any differently?
Speaker 7: They specify with the planning department. So you go to the planning department to get your zone use permit initially, and then you come to our department to actually apply. And that kind of once you apply, that kind of saves that location as you go through the application and inspections process. So zoning looks at that initially. If it's a new location, as long as it has an address, we're able to accept the application. We don't treat it differently if it's preexisting. It has the same expectations for inspections, certificate of occupancy and has to meet all the same building code standards, whether it's a new build or whether it's an existing building.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counselor. I'm sorry. Was that all you had, Councilman Gilmore?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Any other questions? 912. Scene. None public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Calvin Brooks.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Stacie Marley and the whole team for putting this together. This was those 24 adjustments that were making administrative adjustments. But as we had this in the Business Development Committee, it was quite clear that they were, you know, microcosm of some bigger issues that we need to address. And it just kept coming up. And so I want to thank all the folks who who testified today. Your words are not lost on us. We are we're working diligently to make sure that we're trying to get the right balance here, because it is clear in certain neighborhoods we are out of balance. And, you know, some of our neighborhoods that are in transition, some of our neighborhoods that have been historically industrial, that are right next to a school, right next to a residential location, we didn't think about that when we talk about zoning and some of it got passed, all of us. And so we really want to address those those issues. So, you know, and I think in the neighborhoods I represent, the IMX, there are IMX zoning locations there, but it's more I-and I be in An and B locations. Even though we can trigger a public hearing, there's no notification, there's no distance between schools and residential neighborhoods. And it's a it's a serious issue that we need to address. So excited that we will have a hearing conversation about this with CPD. CPD will give us a lay of the land in our marijuana task force or committee of the whole that we have. And we can begin to talk about how we might address some of these issues. So thanks, everybody, for moving this forward. I am fully on board with supporting this. This came through committee. We we had a lot of conversation about it. And some of the changes that I think we do want to make may may have to wait until another conversation. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Black.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to have a clarification for the viewing public. I think people in my district in particular are going to be pleased with the fact that in the future we're going to have a needs and desire hearings for both medical and retail, and it will be more similar to the way liquor license are issued. But that said, under our current moratorium, no one is applying for retail or medical licenses except for testing facilities. Thank you, Nathan, for pointing that out to me. But also in the coming months, I know you all have brought forth a lot of issues. David Roybal One of those issues is concentration of a lot of facilities in the same neighborhoods, and we are all meeting, you know, over these coming months to discuss a lot of the issues that you're bringing up. And we want to address them and we hear what you're saying. So we'll talk about zoning and location of ground facilities. We'll talk about zoning odors and again, the concentration in certain areas. So we are listening to you. And I think the bill that that we all look into is a complement to this, what they're doing from excise and licenses. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Well, Councilwoman Black just gave my speech, actually. Thank you for making those comments. First, I want to thank everybody, including the industry, who participated with our excise and licensed team in shaping this. And I know this would not we wouldn't have as few people as we have here tonight, even with the weather. Had we not done that, this room would still be full. So I appreciate all of those efforts. And, you know, there are some things that we still need to work on. My hope is that we can do that within this timeframe before we make a decision on whether or not we extend a moratorium, whether I want to make sure we have a conversation about whether or not we cap the number that we have in this city because, you know, no place else has the same number of establishments that we have in Denver. And, you know, we thought we were capping them. I thought we were capping them when we brought forward the last group of regulatory bills on the recreational marijuana. But so I think this will be part of the deliberations that we will go through, ensuring that we deal with the issues that have been brought to our attention at the public hearings around. You know, odor and crime in some cases is is a big issue for communities that are next to some of these facilities. So I just want to encourage the ongoing participation from both residential communities as well as the industry. And thanks for for all the work that you all have brought forward. I think these are good changes and it will help, you know, ensure that we're doing a better job dealing with some of the issues that have been brought forward. And I know that because it is such a new industry and we've sort of been the lead city trying to shape this as we go along. You mentioned earlier that they got police next to schools. Well, what we know is when the state legislation passed, some of these places just started opening before we got a chance to deal with any of the regulations, including the state. And so that's why we have a number of nonconforming uses in various locations. And, you know, it's been it's been a lot of fast and hard and important work that's been done by the city as a whole. The legislative body, along with our administrative branch and the excise and licensing department working side by side with industry and communities. And so. Great job. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I want to thank you guys, too. I think it's a smart move to get this alignment with the state and to sort of figure, you know, use the lessons learned to come up with these changes. And I think it's a smart way forward. I'm not a big fan. I'll just say it right now. License transfers. Hopefully we can figure something out going forward about that. But I also think that zoning might be as much as people don't want to probably go there. I'm happy to go there. I think that I think we should look at it. We did some special carve out for six plants and 12 plants or whatever to sort of say, here's where it's appropriate and residential and here's where it's appropriate in commercial and industrial. So we have already the tools there. We just didn't layer them in in a in a manner that would allow us to actually have a a zoning hearing, you know, a public zoning hearing about whether this is the appropriate place. We just mapped it to an existing use. And and I'm jumping to conclusions. I look forward to having that conversation as part of the marijuana moratorium hearings, the committee of the whole. So I encourage you guys to stay involved. I know that I've seen you there because that's probably an opportunity to get a little bit more advance involvement on placement, concentration, density, size and impacts. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counselor Sosa in the comments. 912. Scene nine. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 5: Ortega.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Black eye. Brooks Clark. Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 9: Hi.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. Cashman.
Speaker 9: Hi.
Speaker 5: Lopez Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Kathleen Kennedy is back each.
Speaker 7: I thank you.
Speaker 8: I thank you.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Now the results.
Speaker 5: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 eyes 912 has been ordered published on Tuesday, February 29th, 2016. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill one changing the zoning classification for 3901 to 3991 North Cook Street. It required Public Hearing County Bill 39, changing the zoning classification for approximately 6756 Archer Drive and required public hearing on Council four zero changing the zoning classification for 668 to 670 Anchor Street. Any protest that counts against council bills 139 or 40 must be filed with the council offices no later than Monday, February 22nd, 2016. Seeing no other business before this body. Go Broncos. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
Amends various sections of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by updating certain sections to address challenges experienced over the past two years; delete certain provisions that are now obsolete; standardize procedures between the Denver Revised Marijuana Code and the Denver Medical Marijuana Code; and harmonize sections within the Code by adding or amending sections to accommodate changes made in state law with regard to marijuana and medical marijuana.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01252016_16-0015
|
Speaker 6: integrating it into the rest of our programs. Kind of like trying to repair a moving car as it's going down the highway. I think we should pull over and make this program part of our ongoing workshops. We're having another meeting just on Wednesday, this in two days to discuss our homelessness programs. I'd like to see this fit into a system of programs that lend equity to our neighborhoods, where this particular program will be sending homeless, chronically homeless, almost exclusively from the downtown core. We already have homelessness and homeless people living along Sanderson Gulch, Bear Creek and the other neighborhoods. And it's inequitable to those neighborhoods to disperse the homeless into those neighborhoods without designing a program for the people who are already there. We've been told that we can't have geographic preferences for the housing under the Fair Housing Act, and I understand that. But for the housing that's being built in my district, we already have a geographic preference and that's been de facto constructed by how the tenants will be selected for this. The tenants are being selected from the chronic high end users. In other words, those who are being arrested the most, in detox the most, and costing us the most money under the philosophy with which I agree, under the philosophy that if we house them, they will cost us less. And this program simply borrows money from the private sector to be repaid with those savings. But I do want to point out that we have a geographic preference, because all of the effort or most of the effort to identify the people who will be on this list has gone into the downtown core, where, of course, that's where most of the homeless are. I acknowledge that we don't have as many in my district as we do downtown. I just want make sure that they're being taken care of. Mental Health Center of Denver, a very fine outfit. Doing great work is going to build 60 units at Federal and Iowa. But because all 60 units are part of this program, no one from my district currently there will be eligible for one of these likely will be eligible for any of these units. I've talked with them each CD and I see some of the folks in the audience and they've expressed agreement that this would be a good thing to do, but they just don't have a way to do it. I think, you know, you can work out anything if you really put your mind to it. In the North Colorado station where the Coalition for the Homeless is building the 100 units, 20 of which are for this program, they had no problem dedicating some of the units outside of the social impact bond program. And so I would like to I would like to put the brakes on it and and find a way that we can accommodate some of the folks in my district. The fact is, on the very vacant site where I made a CD while build these 60 units, there was a homeless camp. And those people were evicted. Now, when I worked at RTD on the airport train project, if we had to acquire a residential property, we had a legal obligation to find a place for those people to live, and we had to compensate them. And here we're evicting homeless people from the site of a homeless facility where they won't have any chance to get into that homeless facility. I do want to give a shout out to the Coalition for the Homeless, because through my outreach to them, they have proposed to me a program where they will do more outreach in southwest Denver. Mr. President, they have agreed to come down twice a month to do street outreach in Sanderson Gulch and perhaps in other areas, but mostly around where this is going to be going to be built. I also want to point out that. We're saying the repayment of these bonds, which, by the way, they're not bonds. As we understand bonds, we're borrowing money from private investors, banks and foundations, and we're going to repay them from the savings. This is what we're told, repay them from the savings that we experience by not by not being in the jail as much or Denver general as much. But that's not what we're doing. This contract, the mechanism for repayment in this contract does not come from the savings, from the jail, from less money we're spending at the jail or at the detox center. It's going to come from a general fund appropriation that we have already made. And the amounts that we're going to repay them already are fixed in the contract, for example, if they reach the minimum of 20% fewer jail days. We will pay Denver first to the vendor on this. We will be paying them the equivalent of about $1,066 a day. Per tenant. I don't think that a person in the county jail costs us $1,066 a day. If they reach the maximum repayment level of 65% fewer days in jail, we will be paying them the equivalent of 6670 $5 per person per day, $169,000 a day. If all 250 tenants in this program don't go to jail that day. I don't think we're saving $169,000. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to have. I think we need an independent auditor to track the success or the level of success of this program. I do believe we will save money doing this. We are not privatizing these services, by the way. We already do these services. We deliver these services privately. We have contracts, numerous contracts with the Coalition for the Homeless, with them, each CD with Saint Francis Center. We already have our services delivered by the private sector. What's different here is we're borrowing the money upfront from lenders and allegedly repaying them from the savings. But as I've demonstrated in the contract, we literally are not repaying them from the savings. If we believe this program saves taxpayers money, we should fund it upfront and realize that savings ourselves. If we repay the investors, the money that we say we've saved, then we haven't saved the taxpayers any money. We've just given it to the investors. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman knew you had a question?
Speaker 4: Yes. Mental Health Center of Denver. Representative here.
Speaker 8: There are councilmen. Why don't you ask your question? We'll make sure we get the right people up there. But we do have representatives from both the organizations. Right.
Speaker 4: Right. Well, I think it's extremely important. I think we learned from our retreat on homelessness that you've got to get the homeless off the street in order to provide services effectively and to to be able to hopefully break that cycle of homelessness. So it's hard for me to disagree with with taking homeless off the street. You know, I do worry a little bit about the the the individuals we're dealing with and what services will be provided at the facility. So. So, I guess, Kyra, I just want to clarify, maybe, you know, a couple of questions again that we've had before. Again, the services.
Speaker 2: There will be provided.
Speaker 4: Mental health services, drug addiction services, job training services. Will they be provided at the facility? That where the where the homeless will be housed.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council thank so much Kerry Kennedy and the Chief Financial Officer for the city. And I think your question is probably most appropriately addressed to John Providence, the head of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, who will actually be providing services at the facilities themselves. If you would like, Mr. President, I'm happy to give some remarks about the program in general, or I can ask John to come up to address the question.
Speaker 0: Well, I only have John answer the question, and then if there's if there needs to be more, you certainly can be able to do that.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Hi, John. John, thank you for coming up. Jump. John Kavinsky, the president of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. Mr. President, Councilman knew this social impact bond program targets 250 chronically homeless individuals who are currently on the streets. There's no differentiation in terms of which of these individuals will go into the new developments that the coalition is building or that the mental health center of Denver is building. So there's a total of 160 dedicated units, and the rest will be housed in scattered site housing throughout the city. So your question as to whether this the services will be provided on site or off site? The answer is yes. They'll be provided in both locations. It'll be determined by the needs of the individual resident, and it will be done in accordance with the individualized treatment plan. This developed in conjunction with that individual. So whether the services mean the core of the assertive, modified, assertive community treatment approach is that it's based on the needs of a particular resident, that the team is mobilized to be able to provide whatever services the individual needs and be responsive to that on a 24 seven basis. But the way that those services are provided, if it's job training, not necessarily best provided in the home, but rather in a location that the individual is introduced to the services from outreach to engagement, getting them housed and keeping them housed is the core of the services that will be provided where the individuals are by a trained team. But the individualized services will be provided through a range of mechanisms throughout the community. And you you've done this effectively with your current programs, right? We've been doing this housing first. We have 360 people currently in housing throughout the city, in both housing that's owned by private landlords that we support through grants and other services, as well as housing that we own and manage. And we have a 95% success rate and keep keeping these individuals in housing, even though they've have a history of about eight years of homelessness prior to entering the housing. So you have a disruptive or abusive person that is in the group there. How will you be able to handle that individual? Are we excluding for the program and and take another candidate to take his place? All right. So both the goals of this social impact bond program is to keep people housed. We work as hard as we can to encourage the individual to change the behavior that might jeopardize their continued housing. Many times that will require that we relocate that individual to another housing unit. That may be more appropriate to what they need. And so but in continuing to house them, continuing to engage, continuing to counsel them and how they can change their lives in response to issues that might jeopardize their housing, that's the key to the engagement. The key to the success of the program. If we have that continuing engagement, working with folks, helping them from where they are to where they want to become, where they want to go, we find that that's the most successful approach for this population. Will you be providing 24 hour, seven day a week supervision at the sites? So on the fixed sites that we we manage, we do have an on site managers and we will have 24 hour staffing to be able to ensure that the property is well maintained and well managed. When we rely upon private landlords to provide the housing, we rely upon their own management and supervision of those facilities. We provide the services, they provide the housing. What about transportation to services? Will you be able to provide transportation to make sure they get to the services offsite? Yes, we have a fleet of vehicles that we use to engage in to move people, get them to appointments. We have case managers whose job it is to do that. Many times they will transport individuals in their own vehicles, but we have vans available and will be assigned to each of the housing developments that we have in this program. All right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, you.
Speaker 4: Had a question about selection, Carrie. Can you. Selection of the candidates to go after the housing. Q Tell me a little bit more how they will be selected again.
Speaker 8: Sure, I'm happy to do that. I may call Tyler up to address that question as well. But I just wanted to make a point on your last question. From the city's perspective, we only pay if the program is successful. So the outcome payments you will make, the city will make going forward. Well, you'll only make those payments if these folks are stably housed for long periods of time. And if they stay out of jail, the the investors are at risk of losing their principal of losing the funding they are going to put in to provide these services if they aren't successful at accomplishing those objectives. So the providers have some discretion here and how they work with these individuals, but the incentive is in the right place. The incentive is to help the individual heal, to stabilize them, to make sure they don't cycle back through the criminal justice system. And that to me, is is a really important component and why using social impact bond financing makes so much success because that incentive is placed in the right place for the providers now. To your question about how individuals are selected, the eligible population for social impact bond financing to cover supportive housing is individuals who have are homeless and have been arrested at least eight times over the last three years. What we know is we have more than 250 individuals who are going to fit that criteria. And yet this funding provides new supportive housing units for up to four 250 individuals. So there will be more people who fit that eligibility criteria who won't be selected. This will be a lottery. It will be a randomized trial in order to to have these individuals moved into housing. And long term, hopefully, if this program demonstrates and it will have one of the most robust evaluations ever done on permanent supportive housing , if it shows that it's successful and individuals can be served better through supportive housing at less cost than the taxpayers are currently spending on them through the criminal justice system. Then, of course, the city could expand the program to serve more individuals.
Speaker 4: I think we're all impressed with the financial arrangement, and I think we're hoping for a great success. I think hope it will be a great success. Let me ask David Broadwell question, please. David, as we're selecting the candidates to go out to the homes, you know, and the city is is assuming that responsive was selected these folks and and we won't have we have any liability for for these individuals if they cause to have disruptive behavior and in cause any incidents to cause bodily harm to anyone. David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney I'm going to defer this question to the attorneys in the room who are actually staffing the contract because there may be special provisions in the contract that are directly related to the answer to your question. So I see general burn mobilizing in the back there.
Speaker 1: Sorry. It was crowded when I walked in.
Speaker 8: Amgen Wellborn with the city attorney's office and I helped draft the contract with Tyler and his team. I don't think we're concerned about being liable for the actions of a participant in a.
Speaker 10: Program that.
Speaker 8: We are funding. We're not funding the providers directly, frankly. And the this contract is between City and Denver, which is the intermediary, which is contracting with the providers and contracting with the investors. That being said, there is indemnification language in the in the contract. So to the extent that we're sued, we're all going to be in the mix. But we feel confident that if we are sued by a property owner or someone else who's affected by the the folks in the program that we are, that we won't be found liable.
Speaker 4: So with the proper supervision, that should minimize any liability.
Speaker 8: That's right. And we I mean, we can't do anything about someone trying to sue us. Right. I mean.
Speaker 10: But and the other the other aspect of.
Speaker 8: This is that, of course, we're not liable for torts under the Governmental Immunity Act. So and there wouldn't be a contract claim between those folks. So it would be the claim would be attenuated, I guess I would say at this point, not not knowing how that might come about.
Speaker 4: Okay. Well, thank you very much. Sure. Thank you much.
Speaker 0: Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Just debating with my fellow council member over here. I just I want to make two quick points because, you know, I think I think we're deep in finances and I'm don't go back to finances. But here's the reality to Councilman Flynn's point, that we can delay this because it's not going to impact anyone. It will impact eight individuals this week if we delay this. Eight individuals who are on the street this week will not have a place to stay if we do not execute this contract. 25 in the next couple of weeks. 250 in the next year. And so that's the reality of what we're dealing with. And I'm so passionate about this because we've been dealing with this for the last four years, and we finally have data driven results and a program that Clinton Global Initiative praised this for. And all these cities have talked about, we want to implement this in our city as well. And it's because we have finite resources and we have a real challenge addressing issues in our city, and we are trying to address those issues. And every time we come up with some complex financing, we have these issues. And so I'm going to I'm going to have Tyler, if you can answer this question for me, because I actually want you to respond to Kevin Flynn's question about the 9.6 million, if you can give me that deal so quickly. Thank you, sir. So in the slide presentation, we we got the total investment amount of your housing stability payment at approximately $8.6 million, and that is including housing stability in jail. Bad days, correct? Tell me that is not including Denver cares. That is not including Denver health as well. There's other cost that the. There's other costs that the taxpayer of Denver incurs. Correct.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Council President Councilman Brooks. So when we look at kind of what are we paying for certain outcomes, we're actually factoring in kind of projected savings to the different institutions. So looking at detox, looking at arrest costs, looking at court costs, all of those different costs that go into different incidents. So if a person's arrested, they might be booked in and that's a specific cost, and then they might go to court at a specific cost and then they might go to jail. That's another specific cost. When we were looking at measures to actually monitor performance and for the city to pay out on, we picked the two measures housing stability and jail bed reductions. Housing stability is is really and John is a better person to really address this than anyone is really an indicator of whether a housing program is doing well. Are the individuals that you want to house actually staying housed? And studies have really shown that a person stays housed longer. They're less likely to be engaged in a lot of other systems and then in jail that day reduction. Well, it's not accounting just for the cost of what is a jail bad day. It's looking at all of those arrests and criminal justice costs as we're putting them together. So as we see tangible reductions in interactions with the criminal justice system, we're seeing projected benefits across the entire system.
Speaker 3: So so just let me ask my question again. I appreciate the explanation. Is the 8.6, including everything that a person would incur in the cost for a taxpayer, is paying for them? No.
Speaker 11: So we were being very conservative and only looking at Denver Health and Hospital because that's where kind of the direct connection between the city and kind of a hospital is. We did not look at the other hospitals in the area where we know individuals might go as well as we did not look at sign of kind of what is the cost of specific homeless outreach police officers. And we did not also look at ambulatory care. So when looking at national studies, usually they the cost of an individual not in supportive housing is closer to 40 or above $40,000 per year, and we estimate it here to be about 29,000.
Speaker 3: Great. You know, just the crux of some of my colleagues argument is we we don't want corporate interests profiting off of, you know, individuals in in the community. And so I completely understand that. But just your numbers showed us that there is much more costs out there. And what you were showing was condensed costs off of the data that you've been collecting over a while.
Speaker 11: And just to that point, specifically, the reason why you do pay for success contracts is because the city only wants to pay for outcomes. So if no outcomes are met, so if no one stayed stably housed, then no. We saw no reduction in jail that days and the services in Colorado coalition would still be paid for, but the city wouldn't make any payments, so the lenders or investors in this transaction wouldn't see any dollars at all on the higher end if we start to see increased outcomes. So increase outcomes that lead to benefit to the city. Yes, there is a higher rate of return and actually as you see a lot of the investors that are included as part of this project, a lot of them are foundations that are doing this out of what's called program related investments, which is actually a federal law that says it has to be below market rate of return. And then our largest investor on this has actually created an agreement under the learning loan conditions that any returns over 3% would actually be shared with the provider so made CD and CCH themselves. So we're not really talking about investors who are really trying to make quite a bit of money for themselves off of this transaction.
Speaker 3: Last question, how long have you been working on this project?
Speaker 11: I always say that I'm three years into a one year fellowship.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Brooks, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I will pick up where my colleague left off on the savings question, and then I have some some comments and responses on the bigger picture questions that my colleague raised. But so I heard one very big clarification, which is that you can't just compare the price, the cost of what we are paying per day for staying housed with the cost of what you would have spent in a night in jail. We're including the cost of the night in jail, the cost of the court, the cost of all kinds of other things. Another thing, though, that I just want to clarify is it sounds like my colleague just divided, you know, the total payment by the number of nights, but you don't get paid till there's already 365 nights of being housed. So, in fact, you'd have to divide what we're paying overall, not by one night, but by that first 365 days. So the actual amount per night that you stay housed in year two includes having stayed housed for an entire year prior to that. So I just want to clarify that I'm doing I'm thinking about the math correctly. You can't you can't ignore that there's 365 days that precede the first night of payment.
Speaker 11: So I think there's a couple of things that I think with the math, it was probably, I think, trying to take we're. Building these into two outcomes one, jail that day reductions in housing stability. And I think it was trying to look more at jail day day reduction. So I'm not sure how those calculations came out. I think it might have been trying to look at what you would be paid for a certain percentage threshold and then dividing that. I think maybe by what we've seen in jail, bad days among the population looking backwards on housing stability because we want to pay for success. We have a threshold that in order for anyone to be eligible for any days to be eligible for payment, an individual has to be stable house for at least 365 days.
Speaker 10: Right. Thank you very much for that clarification. I want to talk for a minute about this concept of savings, because I think this is really important for the public. Two things. One is that we have an overall annual growth in costs that occur even if you don't serve a single additional person. Right. So it costs more every year to light a building. It costs more every year to provide health care for employees, all the things that we pay for. Those costs go up over time. We also then in Denver have population growth. Right. So so even if, you know, it costs more to serve the same number of people. So you have a cost curve that looks like this and then you have more people coming in. So you have a cost curve that looks like this. One of the questions that my colleague has asked is, well, this isn't really savings because we're not actually cutting the jail budget. We're not actually cutting the hospital budget. Right. Can you talk for a minute about the idea of changing the curve of cost increase versus OC? Yes, we're not cutting the budget, but it would have grown by this much. Can you just talk a little bit about what savings means in this context? Because because I think people are thinking, oh, the jail budget is, you know, $40 million this year and with this program, it'll be 39 million. And that's that's not really I don't think what you're proposing.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Councilwoman, it's a great question. And if Denver's population was staying static, if it was going to be exactly the same over the next five years and the demographics weren't going to change then, yes, you could look at translating these savings into line item budget reductions. These 250 individuals right now living on Denver's streets are spending 14,000 nights in Denver's jail. They're being arrested over 2200, over 1500 times, 2200 visits to detox. So a lot of costs for Denver taxpayers, over $7 million a year for Denver taxpayers for these 250 individuals. And if we weren't seeing a growing population, then that would be real savings. If you cut the number of detox days in half, if you cut the number of jail beds and half, you cut the number of E.R. visits in half. It would be real savings to Denver taxpayers. You would be able to reduce budgets by that amount. But we are growing. To your point, we're adding 10,000 people a year right now to Denver's population. So there's pressure on Denver jail to provide additional beds for additional people who are being arrested. There's pressure on all of these systems. So in essence, what you're doing is you're freeing up capacity. What we know about this population of chronically homeless individuals is that they aren't being well served in the criminal justice system. These individuals are being arrested for public nuisance, for public alcohol consumption, for panhandling, for trespassing. And so it's really not the best use of Denver's taxpayers money for those individuals to be spending 60 or 70 or 100 nights a year in the Denver jail. It's much more effective to free up that jail bad day for somebody who needs to be in jail. So the saving comes in the form of cost avoidance. And if if it's okay, Mr. President, I just want to jump back on the on the previous question related to the rates of return for these private investors. These are primarily philanthropic investors. And I just wanted folks to understand that baseline that if less than 75%, 75% of these individuals are housed over a long period of time, meaning they're in their housing for more than a year, the investors start to lose money. And if we don't actually see jail bad day reductions of more than 30%, then the investors start to lose money. If we see what we're expecting to see based on national outcomes, study for this population being moved out of the criminal justice system and into supportive housing, that would mean 83% of them are stably housed and experience a 40% reduction in the nights they spend in the Denver jail. The return that investors will receive is 3.4%. That is before the commitment that Tyler just announced, which I think we want to take a minute and recognize the significance of the largest investor in this project has said they won't actually keep any returns over 3% even . Best case scenario, they won't keep anything over 3%. They're going to return it back to the Coalition for the Homeless and MHC to continue to serve this population.
Speaker 10: So just a couple of comments to close it out. Mr. President, thank you for allowing me the questions. You know, having started my second term, I remember a time on this council when our employees were furloughed. Our libraries were closed several days a week, and we were laying off police officers and other critical safety personnel. It's very easy to today imagine that we could just pay for this program out of our budget because we are in such good economic times as a city. But the truth is that we very recently were not. And unfortunately, history tells us that economic cycles will come and go again. And so I think this is a really critical program to understand this model, to test it, to see if it works because these resources might not be available in future budget years. I hope that we continue steadily to invest in the kind of preventative services we're doing here, but I don't want that to be the only way that those preventative services get provided. And so I am glad to see additional capital coming from the community. And one really important fact which Carrie didn't mention is that if these individuals succeed at a very high rate, we will both pay back those investors and spend less than we would have on the services. So there are dollars savings to the city. And the best case scenario and that's really important. So so that's how I feel about the dollars and the money. And I. My colleague raising some really important questions. I want to just acknowledge the concerns that Councilman Flynn raised about the overall system, though. I think, you know, we have spent a number of committee meetings as a council recently, and I'm very proud of this council. The level of knowledge that people want to have about housing and homelessness has has really been, I think, a testament to how important this issue is for the folks who serve up here. It's become very clear that we have gaps. We do not have an individual in a job title that is specifically responsible for setting goals, for supportive housing, for homeless individuals and getting them into it. We have pieces of programs spread across several departments. We have good intentions. We have providers who sometimes build that housing and they come to us and they propose good projects, but we are simply not leading consistently in a systematic way. And I think that that's become very apparent. And so this project is coming forward in a bit of a piecemeal fashion because we haven't figured out that big system. But I don't believe you start progress to complete that system. I believe you continue this progress. You ensure that these services are provided and then you work simultaneously to improve that system and fill that gap. That's what I hope we come out of our conversation on Wednesday when we meet as a council to follow up on the homeless retreat. I hope that we set a high expectation that we work closely with the department to say that this needs to be a systematic and integrated piece of what we do going forward. And I think the same can be said about the concerns you raised about outreach and how we reach individuals who might be homeless in other parts of the community. I expressed that, you know, we've talked a lot about jail nights and savings, but the individuals we're talking about are among the most vulnerable and they're likely to die on the streets. That's why morally it's okay to prioritize them for housing. It's not really about the rate of return. It's about the fact that these individuals are most likely to die. We know that. We survey them. And so morally it is okay and it is appropriate for us to focus really quickly on getting them into housing as the first individuals in the door. But Councilman Flynn, you are so right to say that the other individuals in different neighborhoods who may not get arrested as often and who may not come to light because they try hard to stay out of the light, we have an obligation to them. So I do think that another thing we as a council can have an impact on is we can talk about how that outreach occurs. You know, we've already, I think, started a conversation to say, how is it that outreach thinks about being more holistic, about covering the entire city? I'm so glad the coalition is going to spend time in your district. I think we need to continue to push for that throughout the city. It may mean fewer contacts in our because you have to drive further to get to people under a gulch or under a bridge. That's okay. That's okay. If we sacrifice perhaps some numbers to reach new individuals we haven't been talking to as much and we have to talk about that as a council. But I also do not believe that you stop this project from going forward to do that. This is a both and this is do this project and have much higher standards, invest much more strategic resources and do a more systematic job going forward. And I will be at the front of the line advocating for that along with you, Councilman Flynn, you are right on. I appreciate the time you took to show me your district and the ways that this project may impact and and could interact with your community. And so so I think that I've already heard some of that commitment from this council, and I am hopeful we do continue to push those envelopes, both with the administration as well as sometimes with our service providers. If that's what's needed, it may take resources and I think that that's something we're all coming to terms with. But I am very proud to support this project tonight. I believe the things that we will learn and the lives that we will save will make some of the challenges and some of the unknowns worthwhile. So thank you for the team for bringing it forward. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Quinn. Each Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just wanted to say a few thoughts because I don't want my vote to be misconstrued as somehow being non compassionate or not wanting to support what I think is actually a very clever idea in a way, to sort of really incentivize and fuel additional focus and resources. But I have a problem with bottom line, and that's where this all ends for me, which is the structure in the bricks and mortar. There's a huge chunk of public subsidy and in the rental of that unit, there's a huge chunk of public subsidy. And then we're going to put this money in this fund. I mean, it's set aside in this well, we're going to do this contract. I'll get my terms right. We're going to write this contract to deliver these services, not unlike the way we deliver a lot of services through contracts. But this one has this incentive, this sort of carrot on the end, which is doing has the potential for doing really good. But if we're worried about how our fiscal future is on a. Five year trial. If this is wildly successful, we're going to pay significantly more out of our general fund or out of it. Kerry Correct me if my terms are wrong, but we're going to pay significantly more to the people we're contracting with for having done a good job when what we are committing to is that eight plus million dollars. So we will be on the hook potentially for that amount unless they underperform. And and so. My actually. So there. Well, no, we're actually on the hook for those varying amounts. I should correct that. So if they underperform. Yeah, we safe. But why not if we think that they're going to actually perform? Because that's what the modeling shows that they're going to perform. Why not contract out directly with these service providers for the $8 million rather than have the potential to be on the hook for 11 plus million dollars over the course of five years? We have the money set aside as the city three some odd million dollars we will be continuing to set aside so that we can cover these payments in case they are on track. So we we are making the commitment to the funds. What we're not doing is doing it. We're we're doing it in this sort of distorted way. And I would rather us, as the city sort of take on this responsibility wholeheartedly. And if we have the ability and the will to commit to $11 million, then let's commit to $11 million right now and get that stuff done. That's and that's where why I'm going to be voting against this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Kerry in Tyler for answering many of the questions that I had after this came to committee. I think he received several pages of questions from a number of us, and I appreciate the time you took to sit down with me and walk through just how this is going to work. So, first of all, I want to ask, do we have any idea what percentage of these folks we're talking about are men versus women?
Speaker 11: And so we don't have an exact percentage on that right now. But typically it's been around 75% men. But we have seen a rise in women that are part of the population as well.
Speaker 1: And will the development be coed to the fixed site?
Speaker 11: Yeah, they're independent units. So and I'm happy to provide John if he wants to talk about how they do units more, but it would be more coed.
Speaker 1: I'd like to ask John, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. So one of the issues that I've struggled with is the fact that as a city, we're not like other cities that have centralized intake where, you know, you're you're able to take all of the different people that we're talking about in and really identify and prioritize the folks who truly are the chronic homeless frequent fliers that go through our jail system, as well as the hospital in detox. And I'm I'm familiar with the fact that you have a separate system from the homeless management information system that other providers have. So how how do you see in your mind the prioritization happening when you have your list of people who your organization deals with on a daily basis, whether they come through the clinic or street outreach workers, versus folks that may be referred to you from street outreach workers, from a different agency.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Ortega threw the Metro Denver Homeless Initiative Initiative MDH. There is a coordinated assessment and housing placement process where individuals are assessed using a national tool called the Vulnerability Index or the vice. That version for short and those that score over ten on that scale are judged to be in need of permanent supportive housing. There are. That instrument has been given now to over 2000 individuals throughout the metro Denver area, and people are prioritized based on the time in which they have completed that measure and the how high they score on that scale with those with high level of vulnerability being health, mental health, addictions, service interactions with the police and jail . Moving them higher on that scale, we will have a side by side process for the social impact bond and individuals will have to complete the vice cadet as they are referred through this process. And those who are judged in the end, not in the control group and the treatment group will be prioritized for.
Speaker 3: Housing through that process.
Speaker 4: Recognizing that because of the vulnerability and because of the high service utilization and the cost to the city, that the housing resources that are being brought to bear for this project will be matched with those individuals.
Speaker 1: So who's got that master list? I guess that's what I'm struggling with. I know that through our Crime Control Commission, they've got a list of the frequent fliers that go through the jail system. You all have, along with other service providers, have lists of individuals who have received various services there in the homeless management information system. So help me understand how the to interface with one another and ensure that it truly is the the chronic homeless the frequent fliers that we are going to get into these units because I'm. I was around when we did our first round of homeless housing and we said the very same thing. I worked at Denver Human Services when we came before City Council and we said, we're going to reduce costs. We're going to be able to show that we're going to save the city money. And we did not have the right tracking system that ensured we were targeting the right people. It was based on which street outreach workers were able to identify. People that were willing to go into housing, they weren't necessarily are chronic homeless, which is what we were originally trying to do. So this is where I want to make sure we get this part right. I think what we're doing is critically important and this is something that we talked about doing after we passed the camping dancing, we were committed to ensuring that we were going to have some permanent housing and, you know, wrapped around with the support services, which I'm very familiar with your programs, John. I know you guys have done an outstanding job. Keep people in their units. Folks are now back in the workforce. They're, you know, they've moved out of units. But but I'm I'm just struggling with the initial intake process and how we ensure that we are targeting, if you will, the right individuals that we want to prevent from dying in the streets.
Speaker 4: So it's important to understand the context. So I mentioned the vice, but that assessment has been given to over 2000 individuals throughout the metro Denver area. And this instrument is targeted to single individuals as opposed to families. Over half have been judged in need of permanent supportive housing, not just affordable housing within that group less. Only about 100 have actually been housed over the last two years. So we have a very critical shortage of available, permanent supportive housing. This project will create and leverage 250 units of housing, both physical through these facilities and housing assistance to allow individuals to move into private landlord housing. And we will be targeting those who are frequent users of the system. So there are currently two lists. There is an overlap of that list. But through this process, those who are referred from the Crime Prevention and Control Commission will be merged with the Coordinated Assessment and Housing Placement List. By virtue of their referral and prioritization into the treatment group. They will rise to the top of the list and therefore be prioritized to the limited housing resources available.
Speaker 1: And that's coordinated with the list through MDH II. That's correct. Okay. And that's a seven county metro list, not just a Denver list. So we're extracting out Denver people. Correct? Correct. Okay. The last question that I wanted to ask you is. I can remember when the Housing First Units your first project opened, we were looking at roughly 15,000 a person to house them with the wraparound services. Is the escalated cost a result of primarily land land prices in the city and how we have seen them escalate because we're now talking about 29,000 a year to house an individual with support services.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think the 29,000 figure is the unintended cost of emergency services that could be avoided by providing the housing supportive housing. The actual service costs associated with supportive housing is averages about $10,500 per person. The actual cost of housing, either the rental assistance to allow someone to rent an apartment in the community or the housing that is made available by the construction of these new housing units will cost an average of about about $800 a month. So almost 10,000. So the true cost are separate, but you will have a net savings when you compare the cost of doing nothing versus the cost of this best practice.
Speaker 3: Of providing permanent supportive housing.
Speaker 1: And these are, in fact, units that already have low income tax credits and other subsidies that allow you to write down the cost of the unit to be able to bring the price down to that 800 a month.
Speaker 4: That's right. And in this project is leverage leveraging that resource from from the Section eight program administered from the Denver Housing Authority and from the Colorado Division of Housing. So these are costs that will not be bear borne by the investors or by the city, but are being leveraged through this project from other resources.
Speaker 1: So as soon as this passes City Council, how quickly would we see folks housed in the scattered site units?
Speaker 4: If this passes city council tonight, we would begin to house people tomorrow. Oh.
Speaker 1: And it's 20 units that she would be providing to individuals through these social impact bonds. Correct.
Speaker 4: A total of 165.
Speaker 1: Over the in the immediate units that would be available.
Speaker 4: Immediately there. There are nine that will be released immediately, another 25 that will be available at the end of next week.
Speaker 1: And you have a project that's coming online. How how quickly will that project be available?
Speaker 4: So the as soon as the building department gives us a certificate of occupancy, we understand there's some scheduling issues around that. We'll be able to begin moving people in the next day. When we opened the Start Street Lofts a year and a half ago. It took just three weeks to move 100 or 75 individuals into that housing. And it wasn't because we couldn't find the individuals, but it just took that much time to get them leased up.
Speaker 1: Do you have a hard time finding the individuals?
Speaker 4: Now we have many more individuals than we have housing resources for. All right.
Speaker 1: How can you stand that? I guess? I mean, when somebody has been identified as one of the individuals, they've been through the process and then it's time to actually get them into their unit. Is it is it difficult finding them to let them know their unit is now available?
Speaker 4: You know, because of the great outreach work that our street outward workers do, and if you haven't had a chance to visit with them and to go out and outreach, these folks know just about everyone who is on this list. And so the trigger will be that they will be a recent interaction with a police outreach officer or or a citation. And that will then focus the attention to be able to immediately outreach, get them connected to that housing resource.
Speaker 1: Thank you, John. Mr. President, I just wanted to make a couple of comments. I do concur with my colleague, Councilman Flynn, that when we are building units in neighborhoods that have homelessness, we should be setting aside a percentage of those units to be able to serve those folks who are also chronic homeless individuals. I often talk about a woman that I see on a regular basis who actually lives under a bridge at Sloan's Lake, who is one of these individuals and I don't know her frequency with the jail system. I would imagine she's probably been in and out of the hospital on on many occasions. But this is an example of somebody who is more than likely going to die on the streets. Who I would want to see be served in a project in her neighborhood rather than say she's got to just get put on some wait list that has to wait for some of the other units that we're going to learn about later this week when we meet and talk about how we're trying to address some of our other low income housing needs, which will also serve homeless individuals as well. I think this is an important program. I will be supporting it tonight and I think it is important that we always get our questions answered, that we know exactly what we're voting for, what the financial implications are to the taxpayers. And I'm just looking forward to seeing some of these people who. Have been in and out of our hospital system, in and out of our jail system that hopefully can get their lives back on track. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I have tremendous respect for my for my colleague, Councilman Flynn, when it comes to this issue, especially when there is a.
Speaker 3: New tool.
Speaker 2: As untested in this city. But. Here's where I absolutely concur with my colleague. We've talked about this in the past. And as the Sanderson Apartments. And as we look at creating units all over the city, we want to see that all over the city. Number one, I want to see that all over the city. Second, because it works when you are able to contact the individuals who are either at risk of being homeless or are indeed homeless in those areas and be able to create a priority and to create that that that place in that geographic area, it's important. It's important to realize that we have a lot of homeless folks who are not necessarily under a bridge, but they're in a backyard. In a shed, in a garage, in an alley, in a gulch throughout West Denver. You do see a lot of it. There's ways that we can go about by doing this. You know, it was, I think, in August when I visited in Los Angeles and really had an opportunity to really to meet with the L.A. Homeless Authority, L.A. County Homeless Authority out there, and to really understand and see how just how much Skid Row has grown. It's no longer the row. It's the whole area. Right. And one of the things that really caught me is when they said, you know, the worst mistake we made was to centralize the services. Right? When all we did was concentrate here, when we should have gone back and we should have developed these units all throughout the city and these projects all throughout city. And we should have made sure in order for prevent for us to prevent this from happening, we had a we should have priority prioritized those folks and that or those areas. We're also going to come into the center and the city core seeking refuge. And I think that's one of the things that we've got to be mindful of. So I in that aspect, I absolutely concur. The other thing is that. I don't. I think that this is a great opportunity and I know are then Deputy Mayor Herron and.
Speaker 3: Treasurer.
Speaker 2: Kerry Kennedy had briefed me at length about how this may be a revolutionary idea. Right. And it's another tool. Now, I don't agree with some of the policies and policies in particular, you know, a couple that we have on the books that regarding homelessness. But I do believe and using the tools that that we have to be able to help resolve this issue. Now, at the end of the day, I think the best tool is paying somebody a living wage and giving them access to health care and creating affordable in affordable units and really, really creating that opportunity. That's how you solve a lot of the issues on the front end. And some of the same people who come to us and talk about some of these other policies are reluctant to do that. However, I think that we have an opportunity right here. Another tool in the toolbox that we can use with this now is. You know, is it untested? Probably. But do we have an opportunity to try this as a city innovated? Absolutely. And I don't want to fear passing this opportunity up, because we just kind of fear the change of it because it's something new. And I know that's not why my colleague is is concerned about it. But I actually I want to see this move forward because I'm very curious to see how this works. Right. And not just in theory, on paper, but in our community and in our city. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Councilman Lopez. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. This bill, if it passes, will not solve the problem of homelessness. Our Department of Public Works is looking at beginning a program called Vision Zero that aims to bring auto related deaths in Denver to zero. It's a great program. I look forward to its implementation in 2015. 60 people died from auto related accidents in the city and county of Denver. Shortly before Christmas, a bunch of us were on the front steps of the city and county building while the names were out of the 129 people, homeless people who died on the street in 2015. I'm preparing in our committee of the whole dealing with homelessness to offer the idea that we have a Vision Zero type of program aimed at ending homeless deaths on the street. I share Councilman Flynn's concerns in a number of areas. I think this program needs to have rigid auditing to be sure that the numbers justify what we're doing. But I also think this may be a good beginning, looking at the population, as Councilwoman Coolidge mentioned, as being in such jeopardy of being some of those names that get read out each year. I think this this program may help to drop that number. So I'll look forward to supporting this bill this evening.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief or just some final remarks. Considering all the comments that were made from colleagues, I. I really don't have any doubt that this will be a success. I really don't. I based on all the briefings I have had, I think it's going to work. And that's why I would concur with Councilman Espinosa. I think it's going to be successful. We ought to fund it ourselves. Instead of re paying back investors. In fact, for an $8.6 million investment from the lenders, if this is as successful as the contract anticipates, we would repay over the five years $11.6 million. That's a 34% rate of return over the five years. I think that's money we could well use delivering the services ourself. I have that much faith in it. I've seen Housing First. I believe that people will be arrested less than if they remain on the street. And that's why I think that this this is going to be a successful program. But I want to remind my colleagues that the savings that we are imputing is an arithmetic average. There are fixed costs at the detox center at Denver, at Denver Health, at the county jail. There are fixed costs that don't go away. Whether these 250 people are not arrested at all or not. I want to remind my colleagues that we're not actually saving the taxpayers any money until and unless we literally spend less money than we otherwise would have. Even granting that there's a natural councilwoman candidate, even in granting that there's a natural growth in other people, etc.. We are not saving the taxpayers money unless and until we literally spend less money than we would have. And I don't see us under these contracts spending less money. I can't support tonight program going forward like this without an overall fabric defined for me and for the other district council members for their neighborhoods as to how how this program will not this program, but how the rest of our programs will serve the homeless in my district. Literally, literally, we evicted five homeless people from mental health centers property last fall who had set up a camp there. And they're living somewhere now, still in my district until we find a way to serve the people already in the neighborhood where we're moving the folks from the core. I can't support this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. See no more comments. We're voting on 15 and 16 together in a block. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: FLYNN Now.
Speaker 1: Gilmore I.
Speaker 5: Cashman I can.
Speaker 3: Lopez All right.
Speaker 5: Knew Ortega. Black Brooks Clark. Espinosa No, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Victoria Police Force heavily announced the results.
Speaker 5: Ten ice, two days.
Speaker 0: In ice two days. Resolutions 15 and 16 have been adopted in a block. All right. The next one, I believe, Madam Secretary, 927 Councilman, New Cavaney, what would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 4: You said the question is, please.
Speaker 0: Go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Just not sure who's here about the handles, the transportation discussion.
Speaker 0: Do we have someone in the audience for 920? Okay. I think Brian.
Speaker 8: Miller is making his way up.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Go ahead, Wayne.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. President. City council members. I'm Ron Mitchell from Human Services.
Speaker 4: Right. Very, very impressed with the transportation services like Salvation Army. Get out to the Peoria Center and just wanted to ask a little question of how is the transportation services going to work with this new program for this next year, especially when we're losing the the shelter in Peoria is another host.
Speaker 3: So for this particular contract.
Speaker 2: This will provide up to 40 over.
Speaker 3: 1400 trips a year. It breaks down to about $415 per round trip. The there are several pickup points within the city of Denver, more of the downtown area. And it goes out to these outlying areas where might be rec centers, for example, that might house as overflow shelters for the homeless. My answering your question.
Speaker 2: Will they be picking up.
Speaker 4: Will be helping transportation say rescue mission. Salvation Army. The main areas of where our homeless reside.
Speaker 3: Yes. What they do is a there's a pick up time of about 7:00 and then in the morning they pick them up and they return them to those same locations.
Speaker 4: We just finished this lengthy discussion about getting the homeless off the street. And this is this transportation to me is very critical to get them to the shelters off the street. So this will be an improvement of the services we're proposing offering.
Speaker 3: This contract has actually been in effect since October of 2013, and it was it was a through an RFP from 2012. It was expanded last year as a result of wanting to begin to cover the summer months as well as the winter months. So overall, this is definitely an improvement over what we have historically had.
Speaker 4: All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman there. Any other questions? 927 Madam Secretary, that was all the resolutions. We've got one bill for introduction, I believe it was 17. Councilwoman Ortega, would you like for us?
Speaker 1: There was just a couple of questions. Is Jeff Steinberg in the audience? Jeff, would you mind coming forward? This acquisition of property that's north of National Western and Japan. I had a chance to talk this afternoon. A couple of questions that I didn't get a chance to ask you are, first of all, is is the building currently occupied with a business, an operating business?
Speaker 6: I'm Jeff Steinberg. I'm director of Real Estate. The answer to that question is, yes, there are businesses.
Speaker 3: In that operation.
Speaker 1: Do we know how many jobs will be displaced as a result of this acquisition?
Speaker 6: There won't be any jobs that are displaced. The businesses that are there will continue to be there for an interim period of time.
Speaker 3: The major tenant is a company called Boulder Meats, and they're seeking to find a larger location because they're expanding their operations.
Speaker 1: Okay. So that was my primary concern was just trying to figure out you were able to address a lot of my questions related to some of the, you know, the the terms of the agreement, the price that we're paying, you know, the condition of the land that we're going to get it in.
|
Bill
|
A resolution approving a proposed contract between the City and County of Denver and Denver PFS, LLC for outcome payments for a social impact bond project.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves a social impact bond contract with Denver PFS, LLC for five years and six months and a maximum payment of $11,571,000 for outcome payments related to permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals who have been identified as high utilizers of safety net services (FINAN-201523939-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-16-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 1-12-16.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01252016_15-0927
|
Speaker 1: Okay. So that was my primary concern was just trying to figure out you were able to address a lot of my questions related to some of the, you know, the the terms of the agreement, the price that we're paying, you know, the condition of the land that we're going to get it in. You know, all of those things, you were able to answer my questions, but I was curious about employment and what kind of displacement we might be seeing. So you're saying there they have it on the market because they were looking for a new location and until we acquire it and utilize it for relocation or whatever of other other businesses, then they'll continue to occupy it until that time.
Speaker 6: There's two sides to that.
Speaker 3: One is the.
Speaker 6: Seller of the building, owns the building.
Speaker 3: And has space within.
Speaker 6: The building.
Speaker 3: And then the primary tenant, Boulder Meats, is a tenant. So they are not the ones that are.
Speaker 6: Choosing the sale to occur. What we're doing is, is.
Speaker 3: We will inherit their lease, but we'll work with them to allow them to get out of their lease when they find a new location that they desire to go to that will accommodate their expansion.
Speaker 1: Do we have any idea how many of those workers actually live in these neighborhoods of Globeville, Swansea, Elyria?
Speaker 3: I have no idea.
Speaker 1: Okay. It would be helpful to have some kind of, um, plan or fold that into the work that the city is doing around workforce development. As we're working to put together a robust program for both I-70 and National Western, ensuring that employment opportunities are available to people from those neighborhoods. So thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. I believe that was all the bills that are called out. So we are now ready for the block. Vote on the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Cashman. Sir, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that following resolutions be adopted in a block. C.R. 15 932 C.R. 16 0008. C.R. 15 965 966 967 968, nine, 69, nine, 79, 71 nine, 72 973. C.R. 16 00300 ten zero zero 30 700 38. C.R. 15 eight, 98, nine, 27 and 988.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You've got them all. It's been moved and seconded. I've seen no comments. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 5: Can each I. Lopez. Hi. New Ortega.
Speaker 1: Black.
Speaker 5: Brooks.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 5: Black. I said I. Oh, I'm sorry. I can hear Clare Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gillmor, I. Cashman.
|
Resolution
|
Amends a contract with Busco, Inc. to add an additional $40,000 for fiscal year 2015 for the months of November and December and to add an additional $550,000 for the 2016 fiscal year program for a new contract total in the amount of $1.45 million through 12-31-16 to provide transportation for clients from the Denver Rescue Mission to various approved recreation center/shelter locations throughout the Denver metro area (SOCSV-2013-13589-04). (SAFETY AND WELL-BEING) Amends a contract with Busco, Inc. to add an additional $40,000 for fiscal year 2015 for the months of November and December and to add an additional $550,000 for the 2016 fiscal year program for a new contract total in the amount of $1.45 million through 12-31-16 to provide transportation for clients from the Denver Rescue Mission to various approved recreation center/shelter locations throughout the Denver metro area (SOCSV-2013-13589-04). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 12-8-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01252016_15-0625
|
Speaker 13: Connects east west across the site. A few more vantage points were looking northwest from spear, close to Spear and 32nd Avenue intersection. We see an office building. Along Speer Boulevard. And here we're looking at the site in the foreground or bordering east of the site is this commercial car wash. And then the actual site is this small. Formerly Medical Use Office Building, which is now vacant. These images. Reflect the longstanding commercial use uses that have been a really long 32nd Avenue. In particular. At this corner, we're looking here at 1933 aerial imagery with superimposed Sanborn maps. We can see the uses highlighted here in red that were commercial whether it be filling station where the carwash is today. The little office building on the site. The Denver bred company was in operation in 1910. So very much a commercial node for many decades now. Compared to the residential nature of 31st Avenue. You see in contrast that looking. East along 31st Avenue, we see the residential streets next to the existing mayor's church. And also looking north along Irving towards 32nd Avenue, we see residential character of that street. Rezoning process to president has included public outreach to these registered neighborhood organizations, including West Highland Neighborhoods Association, Federal Boulevard, Corridor Improvement Partnership, Denver Neighborhood Association, Inc. and Inner Neighborhood Cooperation, as well as other outreach efforts by the applicant. The African outreach is focused on both the rezoning as well as a proposed project, and really started back in August of 2013 when community meetings were were held and organized to try to engage residents and representatives in the neighborhood, including to community meetings, as well as two meetings focused on property owners within 200 feet of the surrounding site. In February 2015, a website describing the proposed rezoning and intended project was set up to provide current information as well as background and. Background related to this effort. Then in April and June of 2015, there were two site design workshops that were coordinated between the applicant in West Highland neighborhood. At these meetings, neighborhood representatives were selected to explore building form and materials that might be appropriate. They applied to the site under the UM's two zone district, and this resulted in a vision document produced by the applicant intended to guide the design and potential development of medical office project. The applicant has been seeking to regularly attend and participate in West Highland neighborhood meetings since October 2014. The original application was submitted on March 3rd, 2015, and it consisted of Lot six through ten. These are surveyor lots, the green lines and you see the numbers here within the parcel which is outlined as yellow. The parcel or the actual area proposed for rezoning to um, is to ex. And so initially this was just over 39,000 or about a 39,000 square foot proposal. The feedback received in West Highland neighborhood at this time was that a traffic and parking study was requested of the applicant and that this would be needed before forming an official position. On July six, CPD received a revised application revising the area proposed to be rezone to Lot six through nine, thus reducing the proposed area to just over 31,000 square feet or just under three quarters of an acre. Also to the same zone district. And then about a month later, written and posted notice of an August 19 planning planning board hearing was provided three days prior to that hearing was titled Neighborhood Provided a letter of opposition to the application. And just to get us oriented, the application under consideration this evening is this modified application request, which counsel and I should say accepted the modified application rather than approved it. Tonight you'll vote whether to approve or not the modified application. But you've proved that. This is now an application consisting of surveyor lots, six through eight. Just under 23,000 square feet or just over a half acre is still at the proposed you me two zoning. So back to summer 2015 when the revised application went before planning board. Public testimony was offered in both opposition and support of the proposed rezoning. And Opposition has expressed concerns over some negative traffic impacts and parking impacts. There were concerns expressed about the unknown scale and character of the building in the project. There was disagreement with staff's interpretation of Blueprint Denver, which I'll cover in just a moment. And there was also quite a bit of interest in a pod over ums two x, although details of what that might become were not provided. And then there was quite also some opposition to rezoning from the current U.S. district. The official West Highland neighborhood position was that single family residential development was unlikely and that a planned unit development was preferred. Public testimony in support of the application, expressed support for a more productive and vibrant use of a vacant parking area small office building that was in decline and at the time some of the former school buildings that were also vacant. That were part of that larger site and the earlier application. There was support expressed for mixed use services in the neighborhood, such as medical office. It was recognition that of the existing commercial character along 32nd Avenue, in particular at this Speer, Irving and 32nd node and then planning board recommended approval with a vote, five three vote. Two of the opposing votes were based on the context and scale, in particular, the depth. And the total area of the proposed area for rezoning was of concern to two planning board members and one planning board member expressed opposition. Based on her expressed disagreement with staff's interpretation of Blueprint Denver. Has provided plant support for the application. This is planning board. This is the process that we've been through to present and to state initially that all of the written and posting requirements have been met for all of these public meetings, including neighborhood and planning committee meeting on September 16th, after which there was an initial council hearing date scheduled for October 26. But this was postponed to November 2nd to allow more time for mediation between the applicant and representatives from the neighborhood. And this concluded on October 23rd without the two parties reaching a resolution, after which there was a protest petition submitted by property owners within 200 feet of the proposed area for rezoning on October 26th. And about that time a submittal by the applicant a request to modify the application which. Council voted to accept the modified application and reschedule the hearing on November 22nd to tonight. And here we are at the rescheduled or postponed January 25th hearing. Since Planning Board CPD has received numerous public comment letters or emails, including letters of support, supporting mixed use development, supporting medical office as a neighborhood service and amenity, and expressing support or a view that the church is compatible as a nonresidential use next to the site that the proposed commercial site or mixed use site. Letters of opposition continue to focus on assumed traffic impacts, potential impacts to nearby residential uses. Stating disagreement that blueprint Denver's single family concept land use would support the requested commercial mixed use zoned district. There's continued has been expression of continued interest in a planned unit development to reflect neighborhood input and to protect character. Neighborhood character. Opposition by some to even changing the current single unit zoning. And then there's quite a lengthy letter packet from a West Highland resident that provides multiple opinion statements, as well as a lengthy summary of an analysis of an online petition. So I think you've got all of that in your 270 page staff report. And on January 15th, we did receive another protest petition for the modified area that was you can see here on this map, the 200 foot area surrounding the proposed. Map Amendment area and after review and verification of the signatures, CPD found that signatures represented 24% of the property ownership in this area, which exceeds the 20% minimum required for a ten council vote for application approval. I'd like to now go through the review criteria as spelled out in Section 1247 of the Denver Zoning Code. The first review criteria is consistency with adopted plans, beginning with Plan 2000, which encourages infill development near existing services and infrastructure intended to establish mixed use neighborhoods consistent with existing neighborhood character and quality. These could provide convenient access to work and neighborhood services, strengthen sense of place, and even activate neighborhood based facilities. Including places of worship blueprint. Denver provides a land use concept recommendation of single family residential, and that's this yellow area that you see. And this reflects the predominant residential character and composition of this neighborhood. But it is important to read the definition of what this yellow area represents. And as we look at the text of Blueprint Denver single family residential lies under the general residential area neighborhood definition, which is primarily residential, but also providing for a variety of housing types as well as some complementary land uses, including stores, apartments and schools, and then specific to single family. That the definition of single family homes. Are they predominant development type? But there's still a significantly smaller employment base, thus suggesting that there is some variety to the land use and it's not 100% residential single family uses. So the question becomes where? Where could these? Complimentary land use stores, parks, even smaller apartments and townhomes. Where could those be located? Within single family residential. And that's part of the analysis that CPD has conducted and that I'll continue to share with you this evening. Blueprint Denver also calls this area as an area of stability. And we read the definitions of areas of stability, and we see that there is a committed area of stability where neighborhood and neighborhood may benefit from minor infill development and reinvestment areas of stability or of stability where reinvestment could actually help to stabilize an area or a site such as an underutilized parking area and a vacant building. The UMC two zone district could implement some of the strategies that are spelled out for areas of stability, including addressing incompatible zoning and land use issues. Improving compatibility between existing and new development through design standards and potentially even increasing housing diversity as UMC two X allows for commercial as well as residential uses. We also look at the street classifications in blueprint Denver to help answer the question where. Other uses besides single family residential might be appropriate in single family residential concept areas. Irving Street is an undesignated local street. These streets provide access and circulation to homes and services throughout the neighborhood. And then key here is this green label or depiction of 32nd Avenue as a main street collector. Collector streets provide access between neighborhoods. They promote walking and bicycling in addition to vehicle trips. With features such as tree lawn's amenities on sidewalks, on street parking and buildings located close to the street. This street classification reflects historic. Land use and transportation patterns and past uses along 32nd Avenue that we see here in this historic map of the Denver Tramway Corporation Service Network. And two used to be streetcars that went along 32nd Avenue connecting downtown up to the Lakeside Park and Berkeley Park area. And the star that you see here is actually the site of 32nd and Irving. And so 32nd Avenue was a very important segment along this tramway service that we also see in the previous zoning code, which was originally adopted in 1925 and revised here in 1944, the dark area that you see lining the north and south sides of 32nd Avenue. And here again, you see the star indicating this. The subject property. This was commercial zoning and had a direct correlation with the type of transportation, the multi modality that was provided along 32nd Avenue , connecting folks throughout the entire city along and through this corridor to access services and of course, serving this neighborhood. And here's the result of that, that land use and transportation dynamic and relationship. And we see this continuous main street street wall of buildings that have. High level of transparency, which encourages pedestrians to walk and look through windows and enjoy parking along the street and walking and shopping and accessing other services that are provided in this mixed use environment and also serves to buffer the intensity and the vibrancy along 32nd Avenue from the adjacent residential uses on either side of the these buildings to the rear. So that could be described as a complete main street, whereas here we're looking at what could be described as an incomplete main street, looking at 32nd and Irving, this segment where we see no buildings other than the small office building, but a fairly significant gap in terms of this main street fabric along a main street corridor. Another important ST classification to consider is Spire Boulevard, which is a mixed use. Arterial arterial streets connect neighborhoods to employment and commercial centers. They can accommodate 10,000 or more vehicle trips daily and still can provide a variety of travel choices in addition to vehicle trips, including bike and pet. This is significant in that although the site does not front Speer Boulevard, it certainly is serviced by Spear Boulevard in the provides access to the site not necessarily frontage, but certainly access from the north and from the southeast. And really is quite visible as we saw in the earlier existing conditions. Photos from Spirit Boulevard. And here's an image of Sphere Boulevard not far from the site, but looking south towards downtown or he's southeast towards downtown. So the UMS two exon district is consistent with O plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver and that this is a zone district that provides some of the highest. Level of design standards as well as the most restrictive use limitations. Than any other mixed use or commercial zone district intended to support this Main Street Corridor experience and a successful transition from Main Street to predominantly residential or single family residential neighborhood. Again you miss two X is intended to promote consistent neighborhood scale and character, as we see elsewhere in West Highland, particularly along 32nd Avenue, and does help to address the need to transition from Main Street Corridor to the residential surrounding areas. Want to mention that the applicant and CPD explored a few different zone districts as the uh, we're going through the pre application period, including a ums three as a, as well as a ums two. And through discussion we landed on ums to X and encourage the applicant to seriously consider this as it provided the additional use, restrictions and limitations that would be considered of the surrounding residential area. But looking east or west in particular along 32nd Avenue. And I could show other slides later of the current zoning, which is max two and three along that corridor. The second review criteria is that there should be uniformity of district regulations, including uniform application of the building form and design standards which could be achieved or would be achieved with UMC two X and that public health, safety and welfare would be further advanced through implementing the recommendations from these adopted plans to meet the third criteria. The fourth criteria is a justifying circumstance that the land or its surrounding area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area, specifically commercial mixed use. There was a commercial mixed use building built just to the west of Erving fronting 32nd Avenue in 2012 after it was zoned in 2010. There is a vacant school building adjacent to the proposed rezoning area, as well as a small vacant office building on the site and an underutilized surface parking area. The immense church has divided its property into two parcels, anticipating potential redevelopment or beneficial use of the area, fronting 32nd Avenue and has obtained a recent Certificate of nine historic status for the small commercial building on the site. And just a look going back to 2010 and these aerial images, you see a vacant lot on the site across the street, West Irving, and you see what appears to be freshly painted parking and even playground indicating active private school use of some of the church property buildings. And go to 2012. We see the commercial building under construction and possibly some of these lines fading just a little bit. But in 2014, the school had. No. Was no longer in operation on the site. And we see a fully operational mixed use commercial building. So this progression of images reflects the change or changing condition that we just. Went over in this list the fifth and final review criterias consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. So the urban neighborhood context can be characterized as single unit, primarily single unit two unit residential uses. There can be embedded small scale multi unit residential and commercial uses. And this is typically within a regular orthogonal grid of streets and blocks, usually served by alleys to provide vehicle access interior to the blocks. The U. M's two acts are urban neighborhood main street. Two storey maximum with youths and. U.S. limitations and other restrictions. Is intended to advance neighborhood quality and define neighborhood character. It provides for a mix of uses, including accessible neighborhood services. It is intended to give prominence to the pedestrian realm and prevent more pedestrian activity, especially along the fronting the main street corridor. And it is intended to establish a sense of security and community and provide for a successful transition from Main Street to the nearby residential uses. And again, MZ two X is intended primarily for embedded commercial and mixed use. And in this case, we have it as a key component of a main street corridor, but again intended to limit the potential impacts on surrounding residents. CBD is finding is that. The review criteria has been met and we recommend approval of this application. And as I mentioned earlier in a presentation, planning board also recommends approval of the application.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Sam. All right. We have 58 speakers signed up, 39 in favor, 19 in opposition way. This is going to work. I'm going to call the first five speakers and I would ask that you can make your way up to the front pew to go ahead and get started. And the first five names I will be calling out have 6 minutes each. So and apologies for any mispronunciations. Neal Lindorff, David Hagan, Bradley Zweig, Sonari Craft and Keith Bush Dyker. So you five can go ahead and make your way up to the front pew. And Neal, you can go ahead and begin your remarks. And each of you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President, and members of Council. My name is Neil New Dorf and I live on West 71st place in Arvada. I've been the volunteer president of the mayor's church congregation since 2012. You may have put a lot of thought and prayer into the decision to propose a neighborhood medical office building project. It was very important to us that we use this valuable church resource, the underutilized land north of the church on the 32nd Avenue Main Street, in a way that would serve the community and be consistent with the church's mission. Over 2012 and 2013, we heard a wide variety of proposals with everything ranging from single family development to mixed use to commercial projects such as the sprouts. After a significant amount of decision, discussion, deliberation and prayer, the May the mayor's church community decided that a neighborhood medical office building would be the most consistent with our mission. We believe that when Jesus was here, he healed bodies as well as souls. In our sanctuary, we share the gospel with our congregation and with the Medical Office Building. We would love to provide health care and physical wellness to our neighbors. We've been talking about this project with the community for two and a half years, and for most of that time there were as many opinions about what should be built on our land as there were neighbors. However, recently, a few neighbors have joined together to raise their voices in favor of leaving the current zoning in place and building single family houses. Even though the land is along a main street corridor and is surrounded by commercial uses and has always been nonresidential. The immense community did consider building single family houses, but we decided against it for a variety of reasons. It is very important to us to utilize the land in a way that provides a needed service to the community and the increasing neighborhood population and need for more medical care options, particularly doctors that can take Medicare, Medicaid and CHP plus fits that requirement. We were also very conscious of parking issues in the neighborhood, and we wanted to make sure that there were no conflicts between the parking needs of the church, which is busy on Sundays and occasional evening activities and whatever was built on the land. Again, doctor's offices that were open only during business weekday hours are a great fit as an added bonus. We plan to offer space to our parking lot, to neighboring businesses on evenings and weekends, which would help relieve the parking situation in the neighborhood. And even though we love the residential area to the south of the church, providing a few more houses or townhouses didn't seem to fill a need the same way that medical care does. The reality is that Hamas has been working on this project for years. If a rezoning is denied, we would not be able to even submit a different rezoning request for one year. The church cannot afford that kind of a delay, especially since we started. We'd be starting over from the beginning. If he mayor's is not able to utilize this land in an ongoing, financially sustainable way, it is possible that the Church will have to leave all of the land mass owned 63,000 square feet from 32nd to 31st would be sold to a developer. If the developer knocks down the 100 year old church and redeveloped the entire property as a large block of residential. I'm not sure that the neighbors would be happy with what they got, particularly given the amount of vitriol that exists around other modern residential lots in the neighborhood. We brought Centuri into our team a year ago in part to help with some of the technical things, like building a website and answering questions in social media. However, we did a lot of outreach before community outreach before soon to be joined us. Our initial outreach was to the West Highland Neighborhood Association back in August of 2013, including a meeting with their zoning committee members. And in early 2014, we went door to door to speak with all of the neighbors living within 200 feet of the project. During those conversations, we were honest about what we hope to build. We also talked about the potential outcome if the land wasn't zoned, which is that a developer might try to put as high density single family housing on that land as he could. During those conversations in early 2014, we secured support of over 50% of the people living within 200 feet of the project. We also held two meetings in the spring of 2014 that were specifically for people living within 200 feet of the project. When members of the West Highlands Neighborhood Association learned of these meetings and asked if they could attend, we welcome them. During those meetings, we listened to our neighbors thoughts about the project, talked with them about why we felt that the medical office building fit with the church's mission and our potential concerns about other kinds of development, such as residential housing, creating competition for church parking on weekends as an issue that wouldn't happen with a medical office building. I lived in the church parsonage for three years while I was getting back on my feet. You see, I was convicted of a drug offense back in 2007. I was released to a halfway house in 2010 and then returned to the community fully. One year later, I have been sober for nine years. Parties participating in Narcotics Anonymous and work as a volunteer capacity at the church because I believe in serving my community. During the time I lived at the parsonage, I was sober and working and there was no reason for anyone to know about my past. However, I believe in connecting with my neighbors, and I also believe in being honest about my past. I am the one who told neighbors about my past, criminal conviction and the spirit of honesty and supporting my commitment to my rehabilitation and reintroduction to the community. It saddens me that a few of these neighbors have not only chosen to use my past criminal conviction as a way to attack the church and the project, but they have gone beyond that, distorting my record and telling unconscionable lies about me in order to convince those that previously supported our project to instead oppose it. This kind of fear based attack creates an environment in which distrust takes over and attempts to tell the truth aren't heard. It is truly unfortunate. Thank you for your time and God.
Speaker 6: Bless you and your families.
Speaker 0: Thank you, David Hagan.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Mr. President, member of the Council. My name is Dave Hagan. I live on Little Raven Street in Denver. I'm the developer and a partner with the Mayor's Lutheran Church on the Neighborhood Medical Office Building Project that we're talking about tonight. Our partnership plans called for an initial 5050 partnership with the church, whereby the church can take full control and ownership of the project over probably about a ten year period. Depending upon how it leases and cash flow. So I just wanted to give you that by background so you understand that the church is a participant and long term holder and owner. Tim laid out all the ways in which the application meets the legal criteria for rezoning, but I wanted to highlight the concept of context and what it to the important role it plays. As we look at the designation of area of stability for this parcel. It's not to correct and it's not correct to assert that an area of stability means that no change can ever happen. Instead, Blueprint Denver clearly states that areas of stability are meant to maintain the character of an area. While accommodating some new development and redevelopment. As has been established. The character area along this Main Street quarter on 32nd Avenue was clearly commercial. Tonight, you're going to hear a lot of testimony about things like building size, design, traffic. And we understand that these are important aspects of development and probably need to be addressed for any new development. And that's why we engaged with the community and neighborhood to the extent that we did and we provided the information about the project during the course of the last two plus years. However, we also think it's important to note that these things are actually not part of the legal criteria for rezoning. We'd like to keep that in mind as you hear all these speakers tonight. Both CPD and Planning Board have found the rezoning proposal does meet the necessary criteria laid out in the city code and blueprint. Denver and I agree that that assessment would I agree with that assessment and do not believe that the area that they are legally just file grounds for denying this rezoning. Our traffic engineer was planning on being here tonight, but unfortunately he's ill. So I'm going to step in and explain a little bit about the traffic study that we conducted. And it's in a handout. It's in tab three, I believe. The handout. Each of the council members has, and I'm available for questions about the traffic study, although I'm not a traffic engineer. But there are a few things that I want to highlight. First, the study area was for a larger building for I believe it was a 25,000 square foot building. What was the original intent? The traffic study is comparing potential potential traffic to the most recent use of land, which was a school building. The traffic study focuses on the morning and afternoon peak hours. If you look at your packet and look at the traffic study, you'll see that there's a decrease in traffic projected for the morning peak hour and only a slight increase for the afternoon peak hour. The peak hour traffic cannot be reasonably extrapolated to all hours of the day. The nature of doctor's offices is that there will be an evenly spaced flow of cars. And as you'll look at the traffic study trips as a defined term on the traffic study, represent a trip in or a trip out. So ten trips equals five cars. Even though the building size and traffic are not part of the legal criteria for rezoning. I'd like to present some facts about the building and how we we came to the conclusion what size building we're going to be looking to build. And we're not exactly sure what the city will approval ultimately, but we've got some limitations that we want to talk about, and that is that we we have a letter of intent signed with a hospital system to be a major tenant in the building. Their criteria calls for a parking ratio of three spaces per 1000 square feet of building area. So in order to meet the criteria, we work backward into building sizes. At a minimum, code requires two spaces per 1000 square feet of building area. If you look at a 22,000 foot lot and we have a two storey building under UMC two X, we can build a building of about 17,500 square feet and that's an exhibit in your packet as well. If we were without then that's all onsite parking at a 2 to 1 ratio. If we're able to get the 3 to 1 ratio by utilizing some offsite parking, we can build a building of about 22,000 square feet. Once again, a two storey building, each floor plate being about 11,000 square feet. So as you can see, we don't really understand what we can build yet because we haven't been through that process . But we do have some limitations on building size. And I think it's important, as you hear some additional speakers come up in terms of context for the neighborhood. So some of the other things you might hear tonight are some claims by the neighbors that we're going to build a gigantic building by either providing underground parking or try to sneak in a third story by building a garden level to the office building and just addressing the underground parking. It's not a financially feasible model to look at underground parking on this project. The project is too small to support that at a cost of approximately 30 to $35000 per parking spot to try to fit, you know , 60 spots or 70 spots on that would be not feasible for us and and or tenants. And in terms of fitting in a three story building by building a garden level or basement level, if you will, the same limitation on parking applies with the tenants that we have in place. So therefore, our range.
Speaker 0: Mr.. Hanging your 6 minutes is up.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Bradley Zweig.
Speaker 14: Good evening, cast members. My name is Bradley Zig and I live at 1285 Dexter Street in Denver, as retained as the commercial real estate broker for this project in 2014. There are currently good doctors practicing in order to Denver area. However, the population in that part of the city is drawing including families, young children and older people who are aging in place. There is a need for additional medical care within a neighborhood friendly context. We're not going to be building a hospital or a big fancy medical facility. This building will not be accepting ambulances and overnight stays will not be allowed as per the zoning code. Our hope is to offer a family practice that keeps long, extended hours, as well as a handful of other doctor's offices. The building has not yet been designed and we don't have any leases signed, so we can't speak to specifics about exactly what will be offered. However, we do have a letter of intent from Lutheran Hospital to provide the doctors for the family practice. We feel that a partnership with Lutheran hospitals, a natural fit for the American Lutheran Church, and we feel fortunate to have the opportunity to provide such high quality health care in the neighborhood. Despite what some may think, there's still economic diversity in that part of the city, and good quality doctors who can accept Medicaid are an important part of providing real health care services in their community. Jennifer Rona is here this evening from Lewiston Hospital. She will able to testify to provide more information about health care, questions that you might have. I want to speak about one aspect of care that has been frequently misrepresented in neighbor discussions. It's important to recognize there are probably thousands of medical procedures. There won't be providers in the medical office building simply due to its size and the limitations of family practice. Doctors, all patients who need a procedure is not done by doctors in the building will be referred elsewhere by their physicians because the land and building will continue to be owned by Lutheran Church. They may ask Lutheran Church. They have stated that abortions will not be performed at the building. This is something that is deeply held belief in the church, and it's not an unusual practice whether medical facilities are owned by religious organizations. Just as with any procedure not performed in the building, patients needing an abortion will be referred to a where they can provide that service. This facility will not diminish the number of medical services available to women in the community. They will serve the same number of legal options they are currently have. The medical office building will just be adding more options for things like pediatricians, pediatric care and primary care for the residents of the neighborhood, including internal medicine for seniors. There are some members of the community that are especially passionate and knowledgeable about walkability, and all of them do most of the speaking about that, I just want to state that an important part of creating vibrant walking communities is integrating land. Usually people can be closer to the services that they need. Please see Tab two of the handout for an infographic from Walk Denver. By the way, you guys just approved applying for the Dot Smart City Grant, and I think that fits nicely into the kind of thing we're trying to do here within this embedded neighborhood business. When we talk about the need for mixed use that can refer to mixed use communities, not just a mixed use of sort of mixed views within a single building, insisting on segregating residential and commercial areas as a way to guarantee to business on cars what this project is proposing to put medical care along a main street corridor surrounded by other commercial uses with residential nearby. This strikes an ideal balance. In addition to and walkability, the site has a bus stop right in front of it and B cycle station one block away. There are numerous active, active transportation options. There are a lot of big statements about negative impacts of this project that have been made by a few neighborhood opponents. However, it's easy to use rhetoric. Our focus should instead be on what is actually supported by facts. Traffic, for example, even though traffic isn't a part of the legal criteria for rezoning and traffic, studies typically are not prepared until later in the process. When the neighborhood organization ask us to do a traffic study, we're happy to oblige. In short, the studies show the driving impact will be minimal compared to the most recent use. In addition, Development Services Transportation Department reviewed our concept and so the traffic actually was not needed this stage, which means they determined there were no negative impacts to mitigate those. Were attacking this project based on fears about traffic or misguided concerns about parking are similarly unfounded, particularly since we're providing 150% of the parking in corporate code. In fact, the typical business time, busy time from parking prospective for the neighborhood is evenings and weekends when residents are home and local restaurants are at capacity. Our medical office building won't all be needing all of the spaces during those times, so our plan has always been to partner with neighborhood businesses to offer some sort of shared or valet parking. Our project with this large parking lot will actually serve to decrease overall parking pressures in the neighborhood. It's also important to acknowledge all of the intervention use limitations are written into the code. Our request is not for you and asked to, but for you and to x that indicates a less intensive zoning and carries with it additional restrictions, including design guidelines. One last note lands. The Medical Office Building will be held by a for profit LLC, which means all the taxes will be paid both on the land itself and with the income promises from the building. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Sun Craft.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Mr. President, members of council. My name is Elizabeth Craft. I live one block outside the boundary of West Highland on Elm Street in Wheat Ridge. A year ago, I was hired by the mayor's team to help provide help with communications. So often, community members feel that developers don't communicate enough, provide information about their project, or respond to their questions. And so I was brought on to help with that. We've provided you with a timeline of all our community outreach and communications and tab four of your packet, and I promise I will not go through all of it . I just wanted to note that since the Church first reached out to the neighborhood organization back in August of 2013, since that time, the mayor's team has attended nine wina meetings, held four additional community meetings, including two specifically for those that live within 200 feet of the project, hosted two community design workshops and participated in an extensive mediation with neighbors who had publicly stated opposition to the project. This has been, in addition to our online outreach, the website and other things like hosting a booth at the Highland Street Fair. We've interacted with the community in a lot of different forums and there have been some interactions we've had that have been primarily about providing information and other interactions that were purely collaborative. But in every interaction we have heard and paid attention to community feedback and as a result of that community feedback, our project has changed in some significant ways over time and there's initially planned a three story building. However, there was a concern from a business to the north about a three story building, casting a shadow on their property. So we commissioner architects do a shadow study and when it was determined that it would create a shadow on their property and amassed, then agreed to lower our desired building height to two stories. The original size of the north parcel to be zoned as as Tim went over it was 39,000 square feet. People were concerned that that was just too big. So we revised our application to reduce the size to 31,000 square feet. There was continued discussion about lot size, and that discussion specifically focused on the location of that southern boundary and community meetings and many other discussions. We heard the neighbors clearly express a wish for that southern boundary to be brought up so that it matched the U.S. UMass two X Pincher Taco's development to the West. This was also something that our council person said that he would like to see during our committee hearing to bring that lot line up to that place. So after our mediation was unsuccessful, as you know, we came to you to ask to revise our application specifically to bring that line up to where people had said they wanted it that area reducing our to 22,000 and change the initial vision called for the family practice in the building to be open 24 hours a day. However, again, after hearing concerns from neighbors, we agreed to limit the hours of operation for the family practice to 77 P and the rest of the doctors would have regular business hours , 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.. So I'd like to talk a little bit about the mediation process. We initiated mediation on September 16th and our mediation process was closed on October 23rd. Confidentiality was a condition of mediation, and therefore none of the participants can share what was discussed during the meeting, during the meetings. But the facilitators report stated that mediation was done in good faith. We had engaged in conversation with the community leader as early as May 2015 about our willingness to codify the project concessions that were important to neighbors. But we were told at that time that there was not an acceptable tool available to codify those concessions except to Pudi, which CPD had already told us they would not support. It wasn't until our council committee hearing on September 16th that we were told that there was in fact an acceptable tool available to capture and codify any outcome of mediation. And I contacted the mediator that same afternoon. I think it's very important to emphasize that even after all of the outreach and discussions over the course of this project, Mayor's entered into a professionally facilitated mediation process. The mediator was someone who was contracted by the city with extensive experience in these types of situations. And again, the confidentiality prohibits us from sharing things that were discussed during mediation. But this was a thoughtful and thorough process, entered into in good faith and it was unsuccessful. I encourage you to listen closely to the testimony tonight, to look at the changes and concessions Mayes has voluntarily made to the project and understand that throughout this entire process, unfortunately, every single effort to reach a compromise acceptable to the project's opponents has been unsuccessful. We have really tried, and now we ask you to consider this rezoning request based on the legal criteria and to allow the church community to move forward with its project. It is a significant thing, as I know, you know, to come down here and testify at a public hearing. And obviously, the people here, as wonderful as they are and as many as they are, represent only a minor fraction of the number community. Some of the citizens have chosen to participate. Sending in letters or emails. We had 34 people send direct emails to planning board in support of our project. Around 40 people have sent emails to all of you in support of the project with about 20 additional hard copy letters. Some of the people here tonight are very active in local government issues, which is also commendable. However, it can be problematic when they present their position as being the voice of the neighborhood. Our neighborhood is incredibly diverse, and the truth is that those who hold different opinions about issues like development sometimes don't feel welcome at neighborhood meetings . They are also uncomfortable with the idea of coming to a public hearing like this, particularly when they know about the passion with which some of the neighbors disagree with them. We're grateful to the many community members who have showed up tonight in support of our project, some of whom have been members of the mayor's church. As you'll hear, it's amazing for 60 or 70 years or even more. They're looking forward to sharing their stories with you and their reasons for supporting the project. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Keith Bushtucker. And as Keith comes forward, I'm going to call the next five names. You can make your way up to the front pew. Paul Hack, Eric Wills, Cara Cara Fitzpatrick, Sean O'Connell and Donald Grimm now. So you five, please make your way up to the front pew and so you can begin remarks.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President, and members of council. My name is Keith Stecker.
Speaker 3: I live on West 95th Avenue in Arvada. I've been a member of the Mayor's Lutheran Church for about 20 years and continued to come back to my church home even though I don't live in Denver anymore. Currently service volunteer chairman of the Church's Property Board, as well as a member of the Development Committee for the Church. As you know, as.
Speaker 4: Tim pointed out, the planning board.
Speaker 3: Considered our application vote in favor of our project, found that it does meet legal criteria for rezoning. There were three dissenting votes of planning board members who subsequently addressed those concerns to the planning board. Members who voted no stated that they felt the lot line at the time when the parcel was bigger should be moved more so . It was in line.
Speaker 4: With the new impacts to X property.
Speaker 3: Immediately to the West in November. As has been discussed, we revised our application and moved the lot line to where those planning board members wanted it. The third planning board member who voted no made a statement saying that he wished the development team and neighbors could sit down and figure things out. We did, as you've heard, engage in comprehensive, facilitated mediation with our neighbors. Unfortunately, that was unsuccessful. So even though I'm already playing board member support our application back in August, we want to be sure. Council is aware that we've heard the concerns and address those as we move forward. I'm one of the smartest members that went to door to door to speak to nearby neighbors. We started this back in 2014, I believe, and then did again once we realized neighbors had previously signed letters of support, had somehow been convinced to sign a protest petition opposing our project. The turnaround didn't make sense to us, and we thought it was important to reach out and learn why.
Speaker 4: As you may know.
Speaker 3: The city's forum for protest petitions does not provide any actual information about the rezoning request. Just a complicated legal description of the property in light of the city, then hands petition to the people who most want the project fail. And there's absolutely no oversight.
Speaker 13: Or what they.
Speaker 3: Say about the project when they go around to gather signatures. Several neighbors we spoke to reported being told that Neal is a drug dealer and a felon. So he's discussed how.
Speaker 4: It was stated that he.
Speaker 3: As a criminal would personally profit from this project. Which is which is untrue. Most disturbing of all, Neil's previous success recharge of charm, deodorant. Because of his child was in the home when he was using drugs, was present at least to one neighbor that we heard from, has charge of child abuse and molestation, which is very disturbing to me. In addition, neighbors told me it would use eminent domain to condemn nearby properties, knock them down and build something huge. Neighbors are told by petition canvassers that project was part of a plan for May is to take over neighborhood, kitchen and leave, which is just the opposite of our goal. Our goal our goal is to stay in the neighborhood by developing a portion of our property. We did have one neighbor sign a protest withdrawal form once we learned more about the project. Other neighbors reported being told. Other exaggerations either did not sign the protest petition in the first place or just wanted to be left alone. Even if we were to set aside methods used to collect signatures for the protest petition, there are basic legal grounds for concern with protest petition. We an Afghan team, not a lawyer. So we showed the protest petition to an attorney without numerous issue who found numerous issues with the legal validity of many of the signatures and found that remaining valid signatures did not meet the 20% threshold. Therefore, we believe that a determination of adequacy of the protest petition was improper. We do not know if City Council has an authority to override CPD's determination on the protest petition, but if you do, we'd ask you to take a close look at the legal issue file issues filed by our attorney. We frequently heard neighbors posing as projects that we could build something gigantic, perhaps covering the entire lot with the building and constructing an underground parking to meet our parking needs, as they've described earlier. They've discussed our parking needs, along with the prohibitive cost of underground or structured parking. They create a real limit on the potential size of the building. However, because the church recognized that this is such concern, while a few of our neighbors, the church membership, voted in support of a formal resolution, please refer to to have someone on your handouts. The resolution states a clear limit of 23,500 square feet. Other for the size of the building is a maximum. The resolution also prevents underground or structured aboveground structured parking restricting parking to surface lot only. This resolution was passed unanimously by the church membership, some of whom are here tonight. Tonight, we're asking council to also delay the final vote on a rezoning until February eight, when the full council is scheduled to be present. We recognize that council frequently votes on items without everyone in attendance. However, we have significant concerns regarding the legal validity of the protest petition. We would also like time to learn about our options for challenging it prior to City Council voting voting. We also feel that the extremely high requirement of ten votes for approval create a unique, uniquely extraordinary circumstance. As you know, typically Democratic decisions are made with a simple majority vote, even Congress's supermajority of 60%. The requirement of ten votes out of 13 represents 77%. And with or without 13 councilmembers. Tonight, that's an even higher standard to reach. We understand that everyone here wants to see a resolution to this issue. However, last time we appeared before council to revise our application, the mayor's team was willing to come back in five weeks to complete the process. Our opponents requested and received a delay of almost three months so they could collect their protest sections.
Speaker 0: EUR six months is up. All right. Thank you for your time. Next, we have Paul Haake. And Madam Secretary. Thank you. And you say you have 6 minutes as well. Now you can go ahead and begin. We'll get to that. You can go ahead and begin your march, please.
Speaker 11: Good evening. My name is Paul Haake. I live at 2935 Grove Street, two blocks from the proposed development. I'm also principal at Anderson Mason Dale Architects. We have the building directly across from the site. And many of the people that work in our firm live in the neighborhood and walk to work and walk down Main Street to many of the different establishments. We took this commission only because we had the commitment that we would be able to do a good urban building. And that's why I'm here. I won't. If you turn to the first page of the handout, you can see the context of the site. It really is a commercial context on Main Street. The site is bordered on either side by a car wash. And as you've already heard, the pinched taco building as well as the Denver Bread Company across the street, our building, which is an office building and the frame shop. And when we look at this site as architects and urban planners, we believe that the role of the building is really to tie these disparate pieces together into a cohesive image for West Highlands and actually as a gateway site into the West Highlands and Highland Square. The next illustrations, the next to demonstrate the two floorplans are footprints and massing studies that David already alluded to. So I won't spend a lot of time on those. Only to point out that the massing studies and the footprint studies are almost identical to the pancaked taco development across the street from Irving. So we believe that it's very much in the character of Main Street and is very compatible with the existing building that's going on. Page four of your handout. I thought this is interesting. It really demonstrates where demolishing that existing office building out on 32nd as well as a piece of the as well as the school and office building. And if you superimpose those demolitions on the proposed site, you'll see that the amount of square footage or the footprint that we're proposing closely mimics what we're taking down. But essentially we're building it back on Main Street. I think that's what's really important here. We're trying to fill in the missing tooth and there is a neighborhood precedent for this. If you look on the illustration on page five, the floorplan underneath is the floor plan of the proposed development, and superimposed over that is the Mondo Vino building, which Tim had a photograph of earlier. And what you can see in both in terms of building square footage and street frontage, they're almost identical. So the kind of development that already exists on Main Street is identical to the kind of development that we're proposing for this project. And if you turn the page and look at illustration number six, that shows the kind of character and massing of Main Street on 32nd. The top image, of course, is the Mondo Vino building. And Tim already alluded to the quality of that building about the transparency and the rhythm of Baz that are very human scale to the pedestrian level, as well as having some simple brick masonry openings above the drawing below. That is one of the sketches from our neighborhood workshops where we explored what we might propose for this site. And you can see that the same character exists in that building at that very comparable, compatible, excuse me, to the precedents that are already in the neighborhood. We're also hoping to integrate the bus stop as well. If you look.
Speaker 4: At illustration.
Speaker 11: Seven, we've taken that elevation and superimposed that and dropped it in on the south side of the proposed site. And I think you can see in this illustration the compatibility between the pinched taco development and the proposed building. The arcade level continues across the street. There's an active pedestrian edge. Some of the comments that the neighbors made about reinforcing the corner are integrated into that. And I think this really shows what a great.
Speaker 3: Main Street.
Speaker 11: Building could be on that side, and this is the basis of our proposal. The next several sketches, I'm not going to go into them in great detail, but Sundari had indicated that we had. Two workshops in our office. The first one, we explored the implications of M.S. to zoning, and we went around the neighborhood looking at different precedents. And we shared those with the neighbors, and they shared with us their preferences and their concerns about certain aspects that we showed them. And based on that discussion, we developed a series of sketches which if you go through the next several pages, you can see and we asked the neighbors to participate and to mark upon the drawings, the things they liked, the things they didn't like. And we summarized all of these things into a vision document that we are going to use, hopefully when we start design to guide us and how we develop and develop the project, because I think that is a project that both the neighbors can support as well as the mayor's development. And we think this is a good and appropriate use for mass zoning this site. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Eric Wills. We not have Eric Wills. These are what is unfortunately, the name is Eric Will. So that's who I have to call. So. Madam Secretary, that's the correct name, right? Eric Wills. So if Eric Wills is not here, we will go to the next speaker. Kyra care excuse me, Fitzpatrick, and you have 6 minutes as well.
Speaker 1: Carrie. My name is Cara Fitzpatrick, and my husband is the pastor of a mass Lutheran church in the West Highlands. I live in the church parsonage at 3245 West 31st Avenue. The church proposal to build a neighborhood medical office building in our empty lot at 32nd in Irving has brought about a lot of discussion in the community . We are sometimes asked about the work of Masters and what we plan to do if our project is successful and the church is able to remain in the neighborhood. I wanted to share a little bit about a miss and we hope and what we hope for and the future for our church and serving the North Denver community . Growing up in Saint Louis, I learned a lot from my parents, especially my mom, about helping those in need. Working with Catholic Charities, I saw my mom strive to improve the lives of the poor and the needy, as well as those suffering from substance abuse and other challenges. We were blessed with much in life and so learned to share with others who weren't as fortunate was part of my upbringing and in part is what drew me to my husband. He has a caring heart, especially for those who are hurting and suffering. Throughout our nine and a half years of marriage and ministry together. We work to ease the suffering of many in different areas of life. Moving to Denver from Garden City, Kansas was in some ways like coming home. A big city was all the joys and sorrows that big cities have. Since we came here 13 months ago, we've begun integrating into the community, especially among those in need, by using a major amasses resources to connect to ministries such as Bienvenidos Foodbank, the pet food pantry of Colorado, Habitat for Humanity, and countless ministries, just to name a few. The Neighborhood Office Building Project would help not only to stabilize the church financially, but would also allow us to grow our ministries, lifting up those who are suffering in need. Here's just a few of those hopes that we are the mayor's have for our future as part of the North Denver community. A community garden on our South Green face was classes teaching how to grow and use fresh produce for your family and Chris Archer Port for the Neighborhood Foodbank more organized community events to feed those in need. Like our recent Christmas Eve outreach to feed people experiencing homelessness, provide outreach to the elderly, drive them to appointments, shovel snow , take them grocery shopping, etc.. Offer us space and supervision for our youth and teen activities for the neighborhood. Faith based marriage classes, community social activities like cooking classes, music classes, or summer music programs for kids. These are just a few of the things we hope to do as a mayor's ministers to others within the North Denver area for the next 100 years. We truly believe that rezoning just the north portion of our unused space for a medical office building is appropriate. And the resulting building will serve the neighborhood in a way that's consistent with the mission of the church. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Fitzpatrick. Next, we have Sean O'Connell.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name's Sean O'Connell. I'm a resident of the neighborhood. I live at 3010 Irving Street. And I'd like to speak a little bit about some of the concerns that the and some of the neighbors have about this project. You know, the. The large office building that's coming in just doesn't seem to be viable traffic wise, in line with the neighborhood or in line with the zoning that we currently have. And there's a reason that we have that zoning. It's because the area is majority residential. I think the staff report showing the nature of Speer Boulevard, showing the nature of some areas of 32nd was completely incomplete and didn't show the entire nature of the area. First off, this property isn't accessed off of Speer Boulevard, meaning that when people are coming to this building, they have to go past bear to another light in the residential district and turn their past to other residences, creating new traffic issues for the neighbors. Also Irving Street at 32nd dead ends. It's not a through street now. But the blocks to the south of the proposed property will become very much a through street, with traffic coming off of 26 , 29th, all the way from Colfax using Irving Street, which is now mainly just a residential street as a thoroughfare to get to this business. It's not something that we need. It's not something that we want. The Church seems to. You know has has said that the process. The the the. Development will meet their mission as a church. We've heard this before. When they last sold property. It was to meet their mission of providing school service. That money is all gone. That school closed three years later. What is our guarantee that after they spend this money, the next thing isn't going to be to redevelop the church, building, the current school, building, other areas that they own, and that they'll be back here to ask for a new zoning for those areas that also doesn't meet the the neighborhood in focus, in size or in feel. The church membership. And you heard from some folks so far who basically work for the church and don't live in the neighborhood. But the church membership appears to be dwindling, which is why they're willing to give up their last parking lot after selling the last two parking lots that used to be needed to support this church. By selling their admitting that this church is a dying thing and that it no longer is viable as a church, we can only expect so long before the entire thing goes away.
Speaker 0: Mr. O'Connell, your. Your 3 minutes are up. Thank you. Thank you. Donald Graeber Now and as Donald comes forward, I will call the next five names. You can make your way up to the front pew. Jenny DAVIES, Daniel Gribbin, Randy Mast, Dalton Grima Now and Connor Farley. So now you begin your remarks, sir.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Carl.
Speaker 11: It's an honor to be in front of you. As I said, as you said earlier, my name is Donald Gravina, and I grew up in North Denver. I married my wife and I didn't.
Speaker 4: Move from too far from where I.
Speaker 11: Grew up.
Speaker 4: And I was in northwest Denver and I'm in West Highlands and we haven't moved.
Speaker 11: I've also been a member of MRA.
Speaker 4: Since I was in my baby in arms.
Speaker 11: I went to this school for nine years and.
Speaker 4: Was married in the church as well. So I have a long history with the church and still live in northwest Denver.
Speaker 11: Not too many blocks from it. I just started give you that as a little bit of background. I was one of the members who volunteered to go out and talk with the neighbors again after we learned that there had been a successful protest against our old zoning application.
Speaker 4: I was really surprised at some of the comments that were made personally.
Speaker 11: One of them was.
Speaker 4: That our church president, the one who was accused of many different things and had served his time and is a committed Christian at this point and a very successful and contributing member of our community. He would personally profit from that. And I, I can attest that there is no money to profit from that. We did sell property in 2009. As gentleman that just spoke said, we did use it to try to continue with the school. We found that we could not support the school we are. My wife will probably talk about why we couldn't, but we didn't squander it. We paid our our teachers as we released them and kept the health insurance going until they could get their new positions. And we paid off debts that we had incurred, but we found that we had not made a good decision in selling the property and decided at that point we would rather keep control of our property rather than let it go to whatever it was. That property was actually sold and what amounted to a fire sale. We needed the money. We sold it as residential. One of the things that really bothered me was the Assocation or the the statement that our church president at the time was a child molester. There is no record of any child molestation. And he did take care of his daughter. So that one was sent to a number of people in the community and that it is patently false. There was a statement that we would use eminent domain. We're not allowed to use that domain to buy any additional property. We have no desire to. It's also that there's what we as this project is a way to cash in and leave the neighborhood. We've been there for 125 years. I've been there not all of that time, obviously, but I really have no intention of leaving this building or my neighborhood. And I think it's important to have churches within a community. And we've lost way too many. There's no there's nothing that says a petitioner cannot say whatever they want. There is actually for the neighborhood organizations, there are things that they have to should really to be legitimate. Follow that for a petitioner. Petitioners saying, you know, we don't want this because of this, this or this. There's nothing that says they can't say anything that I know of. But it's it's a lot easier to make hesitations than it is to try to correct exaggerations or misrepresentations. I guess I could say against that. And I guess I would say one more thing. We went out to try to get people to rescind their signatures. I better check that. I can understand why neighbors would not wish to rescind their their signatures. They've got to live next to these people within 200 feet. And the petition people are in that area and you owe a lot to your neighbors. I do, too.
Speaker 11: I guess I.
Speaker 4: Could go on, but I want one. I. I did want to say is.
Speaker 11: That I have been involved in politics and in neighborhood organizations, including Weiner and Sloan's.
Speaker 4: Like citizens. My wife and I are members of Wild West or the West Highland Neighborhood Association. But well, I'll leave it at that. I enjoy good relations with my neighbors in my own neighborhood, and I do support many of the functions.
Speaker 11: Of the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: Organization, and I'm very pleased with it. But I am disappointed in the way this project's opponents have misrepresented why. West Highland Neighborhood Association's formal vote on the rezoning. I've heard it said more than once that West Highland neighbors voted to oppose our project. Actually, that was one of four options, and it was not the one that got the most votes.
Speaker 11: The vote of the West Highland Neighborhood Association.
Speaker 4: Was how we got time. The members of West Highland Neighbor Association, having listened to the arguments and discussions over the past many months on this issue, are under the conclusion that the redevelopment of the site and then this is a task other than for a single family is unlikely.
Speaker 11: And we believe is the best.
Speaker 4: Way to move forward as we have something that we would be able to live with, which is a 50 year plan. Mr..
Speaker 0: Mr.. FREEMAN, we.
Speaker 11: Cannot.
Speaker 0: Your 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you much.
Speaker 0: My apologies for saying that you had you had 6 minutes. I didn't say that. Next, we have Jenny DAVIES.
Speaker 10: Good evening and thank you for the opportunity for me to speak with you tonight. My name is Jenny DAVIES. I'm one of the 200 footers. I live directly catty corner from the property. Before I even say anything, I want to say that I've heard a lot of stuff about rumors and innuendos. I, for one, have not heard any of these things before, so I just kind of want to put that out there. Anyway, I live right catty corner. I am. I consider myself a very reasonable person. I would love to see some kind of development on this corner because it is very underused at the moment. But this is just not the project. It is vitally important that we make well-reasoned decisions about development in this city. Every proposal can't be approved simply because growth is happening and we have to accommodate it. We must ask questions like, Is the infrastructure in place to support this? And if the answer is no or if we can't build it, we've really got to look at different options.
Speaker 8: In this case, we have narrow streets.
Speaker 10: And nonlinear intersections surrounding the parcel. These are already dangerous for pedestrians and motorists. I know that in my letters to all of you, I've.
Speaker 8: Encouraged you to really.
Speaker 10: Actually come and visit it because it's really hard to describe it if you actually haven't been there and seen it right now before we have a medical center and.
Speaker 8: Before we have a huge don't forget, we have a huge, large apartment complex going on two blocks west at 32nd and Lowell.
Speaker 10: Before these two.
Speaker 8: Projects.
Speaker 10: These intersections are frequently backed up and difficult to negotiate safely.
Speaker 8: I have a daughter.
Speaker 10: She walks to North High School every day. She has to cross both 32nd and Irving and 32nd and Speer. And I am telling you right now, before these.
Speaker 8: Projects.
Speaker 10: Are built, I am concerned for her safety twice a day.
Speaker 8: This jog in.
Speaker 10: Irving, it's not. Not only is it closed a one block thing, there is a dramatic jog. So any time somebody wants to make a left onto 32nd.
Speaker 8: It is a.
Speaker 10: Very stressful situation.
Speaker 8: Just this weekend, I saw two cars come this close to getting into a crash.
Speaker 10: The odd angle was Speer in 32nd and the volume, because it really is a commuter way from North Denver, but also Wheat Ridge and Arvada.
Speaker 8: And there are already tons of commuters. And in November, a mother and child were hit by a car. I'm trying to.
Speaker 10: To cross that intersection.
Speaker 8: So continuing to act like our infrastructure.
Speaker 10: Is enough for what we have now.
Speaker 8: Let alone continuing.
Speaker 10: To build and build and build without really taking this into consideration and and mitigating it, if that's possible. I don't think it is 32nd because of of how narrow everything is.
Speaker 8: I've heard about this traffic study that concludes that there'll be.
Speaker 10: Somehow less traffic based on a something that, you know, is not have anything on it right now. I'm pretty.
Speaker 8: Skeptical. And honestly, I just want to say it's time to go back to the drawing board and project. That could be a win win.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Daniel. Agreement now.
Speaker 11: Council President Council members. My name is Dan Grosvenor. I live at 2967 Okello Street in Council District number one. I live in West Highlands or Northwest Denver as I grew up knowing it.
Speaker 4: I purposely purchased my own home just so I could stay in this neighborhood.
Speaker 11: I've been attending services at Amherst Lutheran all my life. It's my home church. It's been a historic part of the neighborhood. It's within walking distance of my home. I've been a member of and a board member of many of the recent successes and challenges at Amherst and in the neighborhood as it's gone through.
Speaker 4: Historically, back in.
Speaker 11: 2008, Amos basically had to think about and eventually did sell a parcel of land owned at the southwest corner of 32nd and Irving. Now, that's where sits a taco shop, a gym, even an orthodontist. We use that money from the land sale to help fund our school. Our mission at that time. But that money ran out. We did what we could to keep the school running. We updated equipment. We did outreach. We did tuition help. But eventually it just wasn't financially possible. The funds from the sale were used to help keep the school going so that we could close with a minimal of hardship to both our workers and our students. We now have land that's in a wonderful Main Street location, but it's currently just a parking lot with a big chain link fence around. It's not enhancing to the neighborhood. It's not contributing anything dynamic to our community. Now we've been criticized by a lot of people for in the neighborhood for how we handled that last land sale. We basically, you know, stuck up a sign and put it up for sale. It was within it without any restrictions. It was basically sold to the new owners who resumed it and redeveloped it. Now. We learned a lot from that experience, and that's why we want to do things differently this time. We don't want to just sell our land and abandon it to whomever. Not only is that just not a financially sustainable solution, but we want to stay connected. We want to be a part. We want to. Put something into what becomes part of our neighborhood. We're now proposing to keep ownership of the land and partner with a respected local architecture firm to create a beautiful building. Will allow us to stay involved in the property, stay in our community, as opposed to losing control of what's built there, how it looks, how it's used, what our nearest neighbor to us becomes. We really want to create something that's a benefit to the neighborhood. A mission for our church, not just another business or a building. The land along the Main Street corridor, surrounded by commercial uses should be redeveloped. We think the way that we could zone it right is for it to become UMC to X, which is really the most appropriate zoning. So I hope that we can all look forward to seeing how this building will be incorporated into our wonderful existing neighborhood and city. Thank you so much. Please vote in favor.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Randy Mast.
Speaker 12: Good evening, Mr. President. Council Members, thank you for your opportunity for this opportunity to speak to you this evening. My name is Randy Mast. I am a neighbor to the mayor's church. I live at 32, 33, West 31st Avenue. I have no ill will towards this church. In fact, I have been a neighbor to this church and in good standing for more than 19 years. I am opposed to the business that this church has chosen to partner in, and I am against this rezoning application. This church has made the decision to become business partners in a development process, a project that I oppose. That does not mean I am against the church. I am also not against development. I understand for Denver to continue to thrive and continue to grow, we as a city need to develop our underutilized properties within our city. But bad development is bad not just for immediate neighbors. It is bad for Denver development that fails to recognize the unique character of Denver's communities and focus only on what will create the most income for developers is a failure for us all. This proposed development is just such a project. It is too large and out of scale and out of character for our community. We have repeatedly asked to be included in the important aspects of this process. We have been repeatedly been ignored and dismissed our views and thoughts on how this development could benefit. Both the development team and the neighborhood have been told they are neither pertinent nor desired. The unyielding reply from this development team has been that they will not discuss lot size, building size, building usage and a desired zoning designation. The Mayor's Development Team repeatedly told us that they have decided what is best for our community. The mayor's team has given us only two choices either support their development or oppose it. They offer no middle ground. This neighborhood is designated as an area of stability stability for small scale infill projects. The proposed project seeks to develop single family home lots into a single, huge commercial lot that is not small scale. This rezoning is outside of our neighborhood commercial center, encroaching into what the 2010 rezoning designated this area as single family homes only five years ago. Families and mortgages and communities rely on the consistency and predictability of stable zoning. This application is asking you to throw all of that away in favor of one development. This has been a long process with arguably no winners. The last thing I want to be spending my time doing is fighting with my neighbors, the mayor's church, about zoning. But I do not think that the proposed zoning is good for our neighborhood or community or Denver. The neighborhood. The community. The city deserves a voice and a seat at the table. And until that occurs, I respectfully ask that you vote no on this rezoning application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Dalton Green now.
Speaker 1: Thank you, president and council members. I'm Doyle and Gribbin. I live at 2944 Osceola Street, which was my grandmother's home. My husband and I are both members of West Highland Neighborhood.
Speaker 3: Association and have been involved in our community for many years.
Speaker 1: My husband served the Denver Planning Board under.
Speaker 3: Mayor Pena's administration. I have been a member of a.
Speaker 1: Mayor since I was a child. My parents were married at a mass.
Speaker 3: And my husband and I were married at a mayor's.
Speaker 1: The church has a long and wonderful history in North Denver. My husband attended the Amos.
Speaker 3: Lutheran School.
Speaker 1: Through eighth grade. The architecture of the church is special, and the church's place in the community is special. The request to zone change for the north section of the property would fit with the city's plan and would be less invasive to the community than what is happening.
Speaker 3: At 33rd and lower.
Speaker 1: 38th at Lowell and.
Speaker 3: 33rd and Vendrell at Federal.
Speaker 1: Many people think of me as could have kept the school open.
Speaker 3: But the Denver.
Speaker 1: Public Schools Choice Program and the Colorado Charter Law has enabled parents to make numerous choices for their children and not have to pay tuition, as has been done in the past when they wanted.
Speaker 3: Different options.
Speaker 1: It was not economically feasible for Amyas to continue to operate the school because people had choices and didn't have to pay tuition. The zone change would enable a mars to continue to be a viable part of the North Denver.
Speaker 3: Community.
Speaker 1: Without dangerously impacting the community life of the surrounding neighborhood. The church could continue to operate as a church and provide.
Speaker 3: Spiritual guidance.
Speaker 1: To the area as well as community activities. A mars has been a good neighbor in the past and the congregation congregation plans to continue. This request for rezoning is not an effort to destroy the neighborhood, make buckets of money off of a project, or ruin the quality of life in the immediate area. The rezoning will enable Mars to continue as a viable part of the.
Speaker 3: Neighborhood.
Speaker 1: And hopefully be embraced by the neighbors as friends and fellow North Denver ites. Please vote in favor of the rezoning. Thank you for your time and patience.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Connor Farley. Mr. Farley, you have 6 minutes, and I'm a call up the next five names Colleen McGowan, Cindy L-A, Ronald Leach, Ray Defer and Judy Labs. So you five can make your way to the front pew is the Farley. You can begin your remarks.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council president and council members, thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight. My name is Connor Farley, and I live on 31st Avenue near to a mass Lutheran church. Like the others who oppose this rezoning. I have no ill will towards my neighbor and the Lutheran Church. I am also not against development. However, I am against the proposed rezoning here for several reasons. But given time limitations, I will address only two. First, the application does not satisfy the legal requirements for a rezoning. Specifically, it is not consistent with Blueprint Denver, which is the first factor that you have to consider under the Denver zoning code. Blueprint. Denver lists our neighborhood as an area of stability, yet the mayor is seeking significant change. They propose to go from one of the strictest residential zoning categories to a much less restrictive commercial zoning category. Such significant change is incompatible with an area of stability. For this reason, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with Blueprint Denver and should be rejected. The proposal is also inconsistent with the public health, safety and general welfare, which is another factor that you have to consider under the Denver zoning code. Irving in 32nd, which found the amass property, are both heavily used by pedestrians, including children. Children, including mine, use Irving and 32nd every day to walk to and from the Skinner Middle School to and from Highland Park, where Westbury, the Westbury branch of the Denver Public Library is, and to and from Norris High School. In addition, as you heard previously, the intersections at 32nd and Irving and 32nd and Speer are high risk because the streets are offset and do not intersect at 90 degree angles. The proposed rezoning will lead to more traffic and vehicles driving at higher speeds along these very roads and through these very intersections, given our already high levels of traffic and congestion. The proposed rezoning and project will inevitably lead to more accidents involving injuries and fatalities. Such an outcome does not serve the public health, safety and general welfare welfare of our neighborhood or this city. The proposed rezoning. There's also no circumstance justifying the rezoning, which is yet another factor that you have two legal factors that you have to consider. The primary factor cited as evidence of a significant change circumstance is that the school on the Imus property is no longer operating. But this, I would respectfully submit, cannot serve as a changed circumstance. If it is, it gives every landowner the incentive to allow their properties to fall into disrepair to create a justification for the rezoning. Such an incentive is contrary to the public interest. In short, there is no circumstance justifying this dramatic rezoning. And finally, on the legal criteria, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with a neighborhood context. If approved, a mayor's would be permitted to build only the second 100% commercial building in our neighborhood. But it would be more than twice the size of the only other 100% commercial building in our neighborhood. In conclusion, the application does not satisfy at least four of the legal criteria that you have to consider in ruling on whether the rezoning application should be approved. Now, let me just touch on briefly the the outreach that you've heard about. What's important to note here is that there hasn't been genuine outreach, as Mr. Marsh just told you. We have been eager from day one to discuss our major concerns with the mayor's team, the dramatic ups, zoning and the size and 100% commercial use of the building it proposes to build. But the only issues they have been willing to discuss with us are relatively inconsequential things like the exterior finish and landscaping. Everything else we have been told from day one is off the table. Now you've already heard amassed asked how to alleged compromises that they have made in the neighborhood. The first involves scaling back the project from 3 to 2 stories. Yet it was readily apparent that the city would never allow a three storey building on this property from the start. As a result, AMASS is opening position that it would build a three storey building was designed for one thing to allow a mass to make a fair concession up front and thereby create the appearance of reasonableness. Amass has also pointed to its most recent amendments reduce the size of the part of the parcel subject to rezoning as evidence of their outreach. Like its earlier concession, this one was also made for the sake of appearance because a mass will allow cars visiting the new building to park on their property. This alleged concession has no impact on the size of the building that amassed plans to build. In some analysis, outreach has been superficial at best. I would respectfully submit and designed to create the false appearance of reasonableness and willingness to engage with the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would respectfully request you to vote no on this dramatic upskirting, and I would also add that I concur with the points made by those who preceded me who oppose the rezoning. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Farley. Next, we have Colleen McGowan.
Speaker 15: Thank you. My name is Colleen McGowan. I live at 1915 Grace Street in Adubato. I first began attending a mass in 1991. I found them in the Yellow Pages and chose them because they had a Spanish speaking congregation sharing the building. Now, I appreciate a mayor's four more important almost reasons the scriptural teaching and the loyal church community. In 1995, I adopted a ten year old special needs child found through the Rocky Mountain Adoption Exchange. Initially, and for all the past 20 years, emails members have supported me in this very challenging adoption. Sorry. Today my daughter is independent. She's married and a mom she homeschools. I'm a Kaiser. R.N. officially retired, but I still work on call in part time in neurology at three different locations. We very much need additional medical care options. There are some private physicians in this area, but not nearly enough providers to serve the neighborhood's population. Also, it's important to have care close to where we live. This not only reduces the travel time, but it makes timely care more likely because of being convenient and accessible. Any financial benefit from the medical office proposed would go toward sustaining the nonprofit work of the church, which in turn would inevitably benefit the immediate community. We hope to build on the support we've been giving Bienvenidos Food Bank and we also hope to expand services for the homeless. For example, on Christmas Eve, we help provide homeless individuals with warm, fresh burritos, hot chocolate treat bags filled with fruit, nuts, candy plus clothing and blankets. We believe doing these things is part of what we're here for. We believe caring for the poor, the fatherless, the widow and the stranger among us is part of our mission. We hope to continue. Please vote in favor of this rezoning request. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Cindy Ely.
Speaker 8: Good evening and thanks for the opportunity to talk with you tonight. My name is Cindy Eby and I live at 32, 33, West 31st Avenue, which is one house away from and from the mayor's church. And I've lived there for 19 years. Tonight, I want to speak to you against this rezoning. I do want to say, as others have said, that I am actually for development of this parcel. I just think this rezoning and proposed development is the wrong zoning. It is too high intensity of use. I was going to talk to you about traffic. You've heard a lot about that. So I'm not going to say too much. While some have painted the picture of it being misguided to be concerned about traffic, I do have two children who walk to Skinner Middle School also. One will start to walk to North High School next year. I'm very concerned about their safety as they walk on the streets in this area. As my son's friend was hit by a car just blocks from this area and hospitalized. So I would challenge anyone to cross the intersection at 32nd and Speer and not.
Speaker 1: Fear for your life. It is frightening.
Speaker 8: And I would like to also talk about my concern for the changing residential character. Should this commercial building be built, it would increase intensity of use. Would I live there? It would change how it feels every day, day to day. And that is a concern for me mostly. I do want to talk to you about the process and the high level of neighborhood opposition to this. So you've heard some today about these rogue neighbors who are scaring other neighbors into into opposition. And that has not been my experience. Apparently, I'm one of those rogue neighbors because I'm in opposition. But there's clear disagreement with this rezoning and clear opposition from neighbors. And I want to point out a few different ways. The West Highlands Neighborhood Association did vote against this rezoning. There was some reinterpretation of that from another speaker, but it was clear that West Highlands Neighborhood Association voted against the rezoning. There have been also two successful protests petitions within those who own property within 200 foot of the parcel, not one, but two. We had to do it twice and we did it twice and we were successful. And also we had a petition where we have over 270 signatures from those from citizens, largely a huge percentage right around the area in opposition to this rezoning. And the underlying theme there is that it's in opposition to the rezoning, but interested in having conversation about different use of the parcel that engages community input. And that just has not been allowed, as you've heard others say. So I just want to say I request that you vote no on this and I agree with others points that have been made in opposition to this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Ronald Leach. Do not have one. Oh.
Speaker 4: I will make mine short. My name is Ronald Leach. My residence is 351 Milwaukee Street, Cherry Creek North. I'm glad to say tonight I'm one of the many people in that area that voted for this gentleman when we knew. I've known the staff from two years. This may have hurt for over 40 years, everyone. And tonight we've been talking about the challenges that face us. And in this great nation, this great city, this great community that we have. I'm proud and very grateful in my heart to see that this congregation is going to step up and and do what they can do to become a part of the solution and not part of the problem. And I will be very pleased to see you pass this motion tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Leach. Next, we have Ray Devore. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: My name's Ray Depay. I live at 30th and Rollin. I'm a member of the West Highland Neighborhood Association and served on the Joint Committee of the West Valley Neighborhood Association that worked with the St Dominic's to create a rezoning application was that was acceptable to and supported by all of the parties. City Council approved the same Dominick's rezoning application on December 7th with the City Council vote of 11 to 0, Saint Dominic's request for neighborhood involvement in the rezoning process and willingness to engage in respect for dialog and compromise to each to reach an acceptable resolution for all parties stands in sharp contrast to the approach of the Mayor's Development Team. St Dominic's came to the West Highland Neighborhood Association meeting last winter to inform us of its general plan to expand and invited our input. After a joint committee was formed, the committee met on a monthly basis with several members of Saint Dominic's for about ten months. Both sides got to know each other and made compromises to reach a consensus. As noted, this process was successful within a ten month period in the West, Highland Neighborhood Association supported the rezoning application of Saint Dominic's. Amos's approach has been completely different. The mayor's development team made it clear from the start that it would not discuss with the West Highland Neighborhood Association, nor the neighbors, immediate neighbors, legitimate concerns about his proposed rezoning or the size and scope of the proposed project. In essence, the mayor's development team came to the West Highland Neighborhood Association and its immediate neighbors declared its plans and said, Take it or leave it. Given the dramatic changes that the mayor's development team proposed, it is hardly surprising that its neighbors were and are concerned. Yet Imus has remained unwilling to even discuss its neighbors legitimate concerns. It is very important for you to keep in mind the successful sealing Dominick's rezoning application. As you consider the mayor's application, the mayor's development team will seek to proprietary the West Highland Neighborhood Association and neighbors as unreasonable and unwilling to consider any development in our neighborhood . Saint Dominic's successfully. Successful community outreach and resulting successful rezoning application proves the focus of the portrayal and reveals that Imus is the only unreasonable party in this situation. I ask that you do not support the mayor's rezoning application.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Judy Labs. And as Judy comes forward, I want to call the next five names Jackie Youngblood, Don Mueller, Marilyn Quinn, Danny Wise and Pat de Fe. So you five can go ahead and make your way up to the front pew and you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, President and council members. Thank you, each one of you. Thank you. Is that better? Well, yeah. I just didn't want to echo. My name is Judy Loves, and I live on West 112th Avenue. And I've been a member of Imus for says almost 50 years. 1967. The part I think I love most about Emerson's community is that we are relentless in our giving and our commitment to our helping people in the neighborhood and showing them God's love and caring and hope. And we've done that for over 100 years. So we are doing something right. Lord bless us and we bless the community and they bless us. There's been some talk during the public discussion about the masses supposed greed and the idea of that. We're designing a project in order to make the most money that we possibly can. First of all, I think any sensible person could realize that a building of neighborhood doctors and an extra large parking lot is not the most profitable commercial use in the world. Secondly, all the acquisitions or acquisitions, I should say, of Greed by Amos make no logical sense that the church is a nonprofit. Obviously, the money we make will make by renting the rental, the building, the spaces to the doctors will also pay off the costs and construction of the maintenance of the building. But any money's left over will go to the church's ministries. All our church councils and committee members are volunteers. So nobody's going to realize any money off of this project. We pay, of course, our pastor, like any church, we pay the accountant and our part time secretary. That's it. The project will enrich no individual, but will only serve as we have in the past and can hope to continue in the future. Our wonderful community. One of our groups is our UMass quilters and they just celebrated their 50th anniversary. And some of the ministries and missions that they give money to are the Tennis Center for Children Rescue Mission, the Elsie M EST Disaster Response and Meals on Wheels, just to name a few of their that they do. I belong to the S Little Lutheran Ladies Guild, and we do various projects like selling greeting cards, bake sales, my collection boxes, things on that order. All of the money or of the offerings and the residuals that we get from these projects are donated to good causes, both religious and secular. Some examples of those groups that we give are excuse me, Concordia Technical Seminary. Glory Reborn Motherhouse China. Hearts for Jesus. Lutheran Family Services. Lutheran Bible Translators. Lutheran Prison Ministries. Email Social Ministry.
Speaker 0: Miss Labs. Your 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Your 3 minutes are up, ma'am. Your time is up.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: I know.
Speaker 1: Thank you very.
Speaker 3: Much to you.
Speaker 0: It goes by fast. Next, we have Jacqui Youngblood.
Speaker 1: My name is Jackie Underwood.
Speaker 8: I live at 2975 Irving Street. I'm the current president of the West Highlands Neighborhood Association. WEINER The property is within Weiner boundaries.
Speaker 1: You may, as has appeared many.
Speaker 8: Times before, the neighborhood association while Weiner was on summer break, he may have requested a special meeting. The special meeting was held on August 4th, 2015. After their presentation and discussion, the following was decided Weiner would not support the redevelopment of the site other than single family homes or a negotiated site plan. There were 40 eligible voting.
Speaker 1: Members in attendance.
Speaker 8: 34 in favor.
Speaker 1: One opposed and five abstaining. You may as.
Speaker 8: Proposed. Use of the site is not a good fit for the area. The site is zoned.
Speaker 1: You eschew a single family homes.
Speaker 8: It is located across the street from the Ghost Historic District. I respectfully request that the zoning application be denied.
Speaker 1: There is a very large crowd here tonight and I would like to ask those who live at our current residents.
Speaker 8: Of West Highlands to.
Speaker 1: Please stand. Current current residents. If you are opposed to the rezoning, remain standing. Most of you do not live in West Highlands. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ms.. Youngblood. Next up is Don Miller. 3 minutes. Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the council.
Speaker 11: My name is John Miller, and I live at.
Speaker 2: 81 West 10th Street. I have been attending services.
Speaker 11: At events for all of my 69 years. It's been my home church. My parents were married at a mass 1943.
Speaker 2: And I went to grades one through nine.
Speaker 11: At the Mayo School. I find this new development exciting. I am also a fan of church history, and since.
Speaker 2: The church has been at this location.
Speaker 11: In West Highland since 1907, a lot of history to know. For example, there's a building that sits in this section of the land that we wish to rezone. Now we call it the ARC Building because it's.
Speaker 6: Used to hold the church's archives. Unfortunately, the building was ruined when some pipes burst and it is.
Speaker 2: No longer usable.
Speaker 11: Back in the thirties and forties.
Speaker 2: The ARC Building.
Speaker 6: Used to be a.
Speaker 11: Doctor's office right on the UMass land. So you see, this is not a new use for this location. In fact, we're honoring our history by returning this land to its previous use. Now, just a final thought. We know the city's rezoning process is set up to be extensive and thorough. We understand that. However, we in the UMass community have really gone through a lot in our efforts to redevelop our land so we can better serve the neighborhood. We would just like to ask that are rezoning requests received fair consideration by council? We hope the Council will agree that part of having a fair hearing is allowing all 13 members of the Council to vote on our rezoning.
Speaker 2: We know that we need ten.
Speaker 11: Votes to pass and we want a fair consideration. This hearing was delayed for almost three months so that the opponents could gather protest petition signatures. And now that they have done that, we think asking for two weeks so that we can have a full vote of council is only fair.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mueller. And that's an incredible radio voice. Nothing. Right next to Morgan Freeman. I want you talking about, you know, they also invite you back. Next up is Marilyn Quinn.
Speaker 1: Tough act.
Speaker 5: Tough act to follow. My name is Marilyn Quinn. I live on Fairview Place about a block and a half from a mass church. I've lived there within a block and a half of a mass for 15 years. And I'm one of the West Highland neighbors who oppose this application for rezoning. I'd like to mention two specific reasons for my opposition and to suggest a broader policy recommendation for you to consider in the future. First, the mayor's proposal is inconsistent with a blueprint Denver.
Speaker 1: It would take the property from.
Speaker 5: One of the most restrictive residential zoning.
Speaker 8: Categories to create the.
Speaker 1: Largest single use commercial.
Speaker 5: Building in West Highland. A development of this size outside our commercial center in an area of stability as designated by Blueprint, Denver is completely unreasonable.
Speaker 1: A project that was truly.
Speaker 5: Transitional between this residential area and the commercial area that begins a block west of our area would be much more appropriate. And I think that that sentiment is reflected in the vote that was taken up, y'know, that you've just heard about. Secondly, it is the proposal is inconsistent with the neighborhood context described in the zoning code. Thousands of hours of public participation and hundreds of thousands of dollars of.
Speaker 8: Consultant fees.
Speaker 5: And staff hours were spent to describe neighborhood, character and function. This request ignores the huge amount of work that has been done.
Speaker 1: Both blueprint Denver.
Speaker 8: And the zoning code should offer.
Speaker 5: Residents stability and predictability in their neighborhoods. But this.
Speaker 1: Proposal completely.
Speaker 8: Overrides those assurances.
Speaker 1: I'd like to.
Speaker 5: Contrast the quality of neighborhood outreach in two recent rezoning requests in West Highland, both by churches located two blocks apart. The pastor of St Dominic's Church came to the West Highland Neighborhood Association shortly after they began internal development discussions. Although they were not required to do so, they invited neighborhood participation at every stage in their decision making. I was one of the, y'know reps. We attended their pre application meeting with the City Planning Department and were involved in every step along the way for about ten months. Their proposal passed council unanimously on December 7th with great neighborhood support. By contrast, the Mayor's Development team brought its neighbors an almost finished product and has been unwilling to engage in substantive discussion or to consider alternatives with the neighbors, except for inconsequential features such as building, exterior and landscaping. While I have seen the Mayor's Development Team at Neighborhood Association meetings and I don't attend all of them, they don't seem to interact with neighbors and are often clustered at the periphery of the discussion. Because of the development team's unwillingness to engage in constructive discussion. After nearly two years, their proposal is not only completely unwelcome in the neighborhood, but is only just now arriving for your attention. The church has been part of our community for a century, which makes their inflexibility especially disappointing. The contrast between Saint Dominic and the mayor's projects illustrates a flawed public participation process in which the city only includes neighborhood outreach as a box to be checked off after the developer has spent many months of negotiation with the city planning department. It sets up an adversarial situation between neighborhood neighbors and developers. This is where policy changes could make a difference. There has to be a better way. But that does not excuse a dismissive attitude toward residents of the stable Denver neighborhood, who themselves have invested many hundreds and even thousands of volunteer hours to craft a vision for their neighborhoods future. Regardless of the timing and openness to public participation about this request, the AMA's proposal is a poor fit at this location, as demonstrated by a lack of consensus among the Denver Planning Board, which only narrowly supported the proposal. I urge you to vote no on this rezoning application and ask that you in the future, you strongly encourage rezoning applicants to begin discussions with neighborhoods well in advance of present city requirements. This will help minimize friction between those looking for change and those who are most affected by it. I am not opposed to development, but I do oppose this rezoning proposal. As neighbors, we welcome an opportunity to work with the mayor's church as they plan for their future. Your no vote on this proposal will support our efforts. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Quinn. Danny Wise.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the council. My name is Danny Leece. I live at 4415 West Hayward Place. I am one of many people here.
Speaker 4: Tonight in support of the project who lives in Council District one. I just want to say that I am in support of this rezoning. I believe that the medical.
Speaker 6: Office building we hope to build will serve the people in the neighborhood.
Speaker 4: We understand that there are residential areas on either side of the Main Street district. However, there are no residential. Right next to where we are.
Speaker 6: Will build the building, the residential areas to the south along 31st Avenue. Our building would be along the 32nd Avenue.
Speaker 4: Main Street.
Speaker 6: South of the building would be a large parking lot.
Speaker 3: Then the.
Speaker 4: Church building, the DNR lawn. Then there's also.
Speaker 6: The parsonage and the closest neighbor who lives across the alley from the parsonage. There are commercial developments all along Main Street on both sides of 32nd Avenue. We're glad that the commercial Main Street is enabled in the resident area because this means more people can walk and bike to the commercial business. It's a great thing. Please vote in favor of rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Pat Defang. And as Pat come forward and Pat, you have 6 minutes as Pat comes forward. I'll call all the next five speakers Jerry Meline, Scott, Nemours, Marie Benedict, Ling Lee and Bertram Sanchez. And begin your remarks.
Speaker 8: You got it right this time.
Speaker 1: I'm Pat Duffy. Good evening, council members. I reside at 30th and Raleigh Street, less than a mile from this proposed rezoning in northwest Denver. I have lived and volunteered in our community for over 36 years and have lived in my second home in the area for the past 30 years. The entire city was resigned in 2010 after months of community meetings throughout the city to make sure the entire city was zoned properly for many years into the future. One of the outcomes of the rezoning in 2010 stated by then CPD director Peter Park was to show developers where they could go to build the developments they chose to do. It is all spelled out in those binders that you all have in your council offices, direct to direct you as developers approach you on projects in your districts. Please note council members that almost all of the church facilities in the city and county of Denver were zoned single family. That is what the mayor's property is currently zone. Please note another document that all of your city council offices should have on your bookshelf and its blueprint. Denver, Page five and Blueprint Denver. Areas of stability include the vast majority of Denver and are primarily the fairly stable residential neighborhoods where minimal change is expected during the next 20 years. Meanwhile, the vast majority of new development will be funneled to areas that will benefit from and thrive on an infusion of population, economic activity and investment. These places are areas of change. Page 120 and Blueprint Denver Areas of stability shaping Denver's future involves more than deciding where and how new development will occur. It is equally important to enhance what has drawn people to live in and be loyal to Denver over the years. In recognition of how strongly Denver's citizens feel about their neighborhoods. Blueprint, Denver includes tools that focus on keeping valued community characteristics in many of Denver's older and stable neighborhoods. These new measures provide tools that help shape where and how development occurs. Page 122 In Blueprint, Denver shows a picture in the upper right hand corner, and it is of West Highlands. It's very small. It's up here in the corner and it says. You can find it here. West Highlands is a neighborhood that illustrates the characteristics that draw people to Denver. Chapter seven Areas of Stability and Areas of Change. So the map is here and you'll see. Its area of stability. I would like to thank our Northwest Denver community and once again coming together to supply testimony that this proposed rezoning of the property at 32nd and Irving Streets, which is currently zoned residential, should remain that way. A stable neighborhood. On a side note, there are many residents and homeowners that prefer to stay in northwest Denver, but they're not able to find affordable and suitable housing as we age. There is a lack of so-called patio homes with no stairs in our neighborhood. This property could be a perfect location for that type of homes, with the central location and access to downtown, the freeways and to local bus service. Thank you for your time and please vote no on this rezoning. We do not need a huge medical building or whatever. They end up wanting to build on that very busy corner, an intersection our gateway to the 32nd and lower business district in the West Highlands neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Jerry Moline.
Speaker 6: My name is Jerry Moline and I live at 30th and Irving Street, one and a half blocks from this site. The Highland Square area is a favorite destination for people all over the city. One of the reasons they come is the historic commercial buildings and homes in the Highland Square area. This creates the old small town atmosphere that contributes to the area's value. People get a warm, comfortable feeling when visiting the local shops and restaurants. It's like the goose that lays the golden eggs. You can't create it or design it, but you can preserve it and nurture it. Our neighborhood is an area of stability which calls for small scale development. If new buildings that are non contributing to the local character are built, it can spoil the charm of the area and decrease the draw to the current businesses, causing business closure and property devaluation. This leads to the urban blight that other areas have suffered. So now across from the Ghost Historic District, we're faced with the proposal of construction of the largest single use commercial building in the neighborhood, which is blocks from the neighborhood center. I hope it does not become the ghost of Christmas future. If a modern steel and glass building is planned for the site, the appropriate structure would be a phone booth and nothing larger. If a properly sized, small scale mixed use brick building consistent with the context of other buildings along 32nd Avenue were constructed. It could contribute to the character of the approach to Highland Square. A mixed use building would be acceptable if its size were small, small scale similar to the building across the street southwest corner. And it contained the architectural features of the period buildings at Highland Square and contributes to the character of the area. Please help protect the goose that lays the golden eggs by sending this turkey back to complete the Medich mediation process. Maybe we can turn it into a quail which should be smaller, look better, and will not foul the neighborhood. Please deny this application until the applicant is willing to meet with the neighborhood and work through a site plan that works for everyone. Our neighborhood is an area of stability. Let's keep it that way. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Scott Nemours.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, members of the council, my name is Scott Demers. I live in Lakewood, just south of Sloan's Lake. I am not a member of a mass Lutheran church, but I do get benefit from its membership in the community. I am a member of the North Denver Board Gamer's Group that meets there on a weekly basis. If you're ever in the neighborhood on a monday, come get your geek on 32nd. I've frequented the area for over 18 years with both my time and, as importantly, my money. 32nd Avenue is undeniably the main street of West Highland. I find it interesting that Mr. Mast referred to the commercial this as being an extension of the commercial district.
Speaker 3: The commercial district already goes.
Speaker 4: All the way down to Speer Boulevard. Adjacent to this lot is pinto tacos, Denver Bread Company, a car wash, 211 photography and a framing studio. The thing that doesn't fit. If you're familiar with Sesame Street, the thing, you know, one of these things is not like the other is the parking lot with a chain link fence around it that doesn't fit. Frankly, what does fit would be the two story doctor's office, which, as facts say, from an impartial presenter. The first one to go tonight said that there were there were rules on what it could look like and how big it could be. And it fits in with the things around it. Additionally, there was reference to the traffic study or at least reference to traffic being increased. I think Mr. Farley and others have spoken about that. The reality is, again, the traffic study presented in partially said no impact. So I please encourage you to consider facts and not just doomsday. Speak when thinking about how to vote on this. I love this neighborhood. As I said, I've been coming here for 18 years. And I find it really sad, these attacks on the church, this project and frankly, the people whom I know from a personal basis, you know, are worthy of affection, not the vitriol that we're hearing here. There's really no factual evidence to support the things that people have said except from one side. And that would be the side of a mass Lutheran church. I think it's really important to meet the needs of all people and not just some people in the community. And that's what a doctor's office does, is it brings a service to this neighborhood. I think putting a two story doctor's office in that commercial location is the smart thing to do, and I encourage you to vote yes . Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next year, I'm Marie Benedict. It must be an ex. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. My name is Marie Benedict's. I live on 3284 Osceola streets here in Denver. I have no ill will towards the famous Lutheran Church, and I'm not opposed to developments in our neighborhood. But I do I do not support this rezoning application. It is not appropriate development for our neighborhood. Contrary to what you've heard from some here today, this proposed up zoning is not supported by Denver's zoning code. This property is located in an area of stability, which is overwhelmingly residential, in character and in zoning. Therefore, it is not correct that an up zoning would be a fit with the existing surrounding environment. In addition, this lot is not located adjacent to the existing embedded business district. The Neighborhood Center for Blueprint Denver, which ends at Julian Street, a long block of residential property along 32nd Avenue, separates the embedded business district from this property , which is located at Irving Street. And even if this property were located right next to the existing neighborhood center, it would be incorrect to state that we're dealing with a small property and that rezoning it would in any way fit the existing character of that district. Here's why. The embedded business district on 32nd Avenue between Julian and Perry is characterized by small, unique businesses, each occupying a typical life size of 3780 square feet. That's the median size to 5960 square feet. That's the average site size. The proposed zoning before you is for a lot of approximately to 22,700 square foot. That is 4 to 5 times larger than the typical lot size in the embedded business district. In fact, a 22,000 square foot size, the proposed up zoned lot would be larger than every property but two in the area. Those two are the Eden Manor formal old folks home and the strip mall at 32nd and Lowell. If you know the area, we can intuitively agree that neither of those two is really representative for the character of the area. In fact, you'd more be more likely to hear the opposite that those two stick out and do not fit the area's character. In summary, this is not a small lot. It is located in a residential area and not next to the embedded business district. And even if it were, its rezoning would not fit the existing character of that business district. If approved, the proposed up zoning would allow the construction of a large 26 to 28000 square foot two story, character altering building. It would be the largest commercial building by far anywhere along the business district at twice the square footage of any other commercial building. This large new development would attract several hundreds of new daily car trips added by doctors, nurses, assistants, administrators, patients, service providers and others. This would adversely impact the quality of life of the neighborhood, and especially for the residents immediately surrounding this lot in a residential area. Specifically, the small residential streets like 31st Avenue, 30th Avenue and Irving Street would be treated to an increase of up to 86 car trips per hour at peak hours. I read the traffic study according to fact from that traffic study, which misrepresents current conditions in order to present a false conclusion. And because both the city and current development plans for the site call for fewer parking stalls than are needed. In reality, 20 to 40 overflow cars attracted by this development would be parked on neighborhood streets at peak hours. This estimate was made by civil engineers and traffic engineers who volunteered their time to wina. The applicant has not provided any such data, despite being asked by the Neighborhood Association for about two years ago. In conclusion, this development is not supported by Denver's zoning code. It is not a small lot and its up. Zoning would in no way fit existing character or the built condition. It would negatively affect families, neighbors, property owners who bought properties on these residential streets to raise families in a safe and quiet neighborhood. They have the right to expect stability and predictability. That was why the 2010 rezoning, big rezoning, was put in place. I heard some interesting things from CPD here today. I heard that infill should be consistent with existing context. This one is not. I heard that suitable components, aside from residential properties for neighborhoods are stores, parks and schools. Don't those sound wonderfully small scale and like they serve the local community? It doesn't sound like a 26000 to 28000 square foot single use commercial building that attracts several hundred additional car trips onto small neighborhood streets. I also heard the CPD characterized 32nd and Irving as an incomplete main street. Yes, indeed. That's because there's a long block of residential properties along 32nd between Julian and Irving.
Speaker 0: It's fantastic.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have bowling alley.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Members of the city council. My name is Lee Ang Lee. I actually don't live nearby. I live on 854 Pearl Street in Denver. Resident of a council term right now. I've actually only been in Denver two years. I'm a summer. I'm from upstate New York, so I'm sort of an outsider and I really appreciate the chance to have my voice heard regardless how highly you take my opinion. I'm a member of the board game as well and the church and really generously allows us to use their space for the weekly community. For me, the church has been a gateway for not only not only the community, but given me with opportunities for engagement and holiday events, but also many of the local businesses that would otherwise not visit. Just down the street, there's bookstores there, bars, restaurants that I would not know of if I'd didn't go to the church. I feel, furthermore, that the character of the church is really more than the board game club as well. And I feel that the the code of the church will continue to more than the medical center that they are proposing. I think it's easy right now for some people to stand for the council and claim that they know what the neighborhood wants in the neighborhood once what they want. But I think they don't acknowledge how diverse our neighborhoods are. There's many people of all ages, me included, from all walks of life, and that we want many different things and many people would agree with me and that the medical center would be a great idea. I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity to come out and actually see the place. I think that if you stood in the corner and looked around, it would be very clear it's a main street. There's a it's already a commercial area, as far as I know. I really have no idea why it's zone residential to begin with. And, you know, there's business around it and businesses down the street. I think the church is already a great gateway for me as a foreign traveler who from New York can plan on staying in Denver. And it's a great gateway to the neighborhood. The story, the building would fit nicely and the parking lot tucked behind the building would be much better than with the chain link fence parking lot that's there right now. And please vote in favor. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Bertram Sanchez. And as Mr. Sanchez comes up, I will call the next five speakers Virginia Rier, Brad Balsam, Dennis Fitzpatrick, Harry Brick and Greg Pratt. Mr. Sanchez.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. My name is Bertram Sanchez. I live at 3225, West 31st Avenue. I'm one of the 200 footers that opposed this. I've lived there for 29 years and 29 years. I have seen traffic. Exponentially increase. I have my kids went to north. I bought that house, raised my son and daughter there. My kids went to North, went to Skinner. They had to dodge cars in the eighties. It's worse now. I have my grandson that lives in my house. He's 16 and goes to north. I went to North. I'm a native of northwest Denver. I grew up on 38th and Teal. I'm 67 years old and have seen a lot of changes in North Denver. And this is not a good change. There are so many things wrong with this. Not just the traffic. The church itself. I didn't want to speak about religion. I have my own religion. I have nothing against anyone else's religion. There was a there's a church on the other corner of 31st Avenue on Grove. It was the fourth Church of Christ when I moved in. And that church didn't have the congregation and had the courtesy to sell it and get out of the neighborhood. They sold it to a Zen Buddhist, which didn't didn't get the congregation they needed. So they sold it to another church last summer. That church is doing great. They build two parking lots up all the street up on Sunday Mass. I have never seen a mayor's church in 29 years try to increase their congregation. As a matter of fact, 29 years ago, when I moved in, one of the members told me that there were other Lutheran church for people of my color. And I. Didn't like it then. I don't like it now. I don't like prejudice. Like I said, I've lived there for 29 years, have not seen anything. With any future in that church. They've never, ever been part of the neighborhood. And to put in a medical center there, there's 29,000 square feet is absurd. I'm against this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Virginia. We're.
Speaker 1: Good evening, Mr. President.
Speaker 5: Members of the Council. My name is Virginia Rear. I live at 891 14th Street Council District nine, and I'm retired now after practicing law for 24 years. I'm here tonight to speak in favor of the rezoning application. As such, I would like to speak about the importance of legal predictability. Denver Zoning laws clearly lay out the criteria for rezoning. This has to mean something.
Speaker 1: Without predictability and consistency.
Speaker 5: In the way our zoning laws are applied.
Speaker 8: The law and the code.
Speaker 5: The zoning code becomes meaningless and capricious.
Speaker 1: Subject to political whims. Thus, if a citizen or an.
Speaker 5: Elected official takes issue with an element of the zoning law, the solution is not to ignore the law. The solution is to go through the proper process to change the law. But the zoning code, as currently written, must be adhered to. I am very grateful for our representative.
Speaker 1: Democracy.
Speaker 5: And for the fact that it is.
Speaker 8: A group of.
Speaker 5: Elected officials representing the entire.
Speaker 1: City. With that is charged.
Speaker 5: With determining whether a rezoning request.
Speaker 8: Meets the legal criteria.
Speaker 5: As provided in the code. And in this regard, I'd like to point out a recent Boulder initiative, ballot initiative that would have.
Speaker 1: Allowed a micro community approximately 166.
Speaker 5: Of the population of Boulder to determine the fate of nearby rezonings. The ballot that ballot initiative failed by a large percentage, and I believe this reflects a good policy reason behind the fact that we don't put redevelopment decisions solely in the hands of adjacent neighbors.
Speaker 1: Instead, a code is relied upon, which takes a.
Speaker 8: Broader view based.
Speaker 5: On the guiding principles of smart city growth. In closing, I want to thank you for your time and service to the city and to strongly urge you to join.
Speaker 1: The community planning and Development and the Planning Board in.
Speaker 5: Recognizing that this present rezoning.
Speaker 1: Proposal meets the legal.
Speaker 5: Criteria for rezoning as defined by the code and is consistent with Blueprint Denver.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bolton.
Speaker 3: President Council people, thank you for allowing me to speak. And my name is Brett Bortz and I live at 32, 39 West.
Speaker 2: 31st Avenue with my wife and two daughters. We are a taxpaying homeowners in the Highlands. We have another property in Berkley. We've experienced a ton of growth. We've watched the growth.
Speaker 3: We moved in 2009 to Highlands, to a bigger house. I am 100%.
Speaker 2: Opposed to the redevelopment request by the mayor's church.
Speaker 3: I'm I'm also.
Speaker 2: A little bit sick of it. This has been going on now for three years. A church that's truly embracing the community and working with the community wouldn't have.
Speaker 3: To hire a PR person.
Speaker 2: To push an agenda. That, in my opinion, is based off of, quite frankly, their own agenda. It's not representative of the neighborhood. I think it was extremely telling to see how many homeowners we have here that are paying taxes that are opposing this project.
Speaker 3: I would like you as council people to.
Speaker 2: At least consider the fact that you have so many people opposing this project.
Speaker 3: You have the board.
Speaker 2: Gamers from all around Denver speaking tonight on behalf.
Speaker 3: Of the church. My heart goes out to the members of the church.
Speaker 2: I actually have no ill will towards those people, but this project has gotten so ridiculously out of control that I strongly encourage you to think about.
Speaker 3: What the people that live in the community are trying to tell you, and that is that it doesn't fit in the neighborhood.
Speaker 2: We're passionate group of people. My neighbors are.
Speaker 3: Incredible. This whole process has brought us together even more.
Speaker 2: And we'll continue to fight this as long as we need to.
Speaker 3: Having said that, I would I would like you to.
Speaker 2: Reject the notion to have a vote when.
Speaker 3: Assessment is here, because there's no telling what's going to happen when they want to have the vote.
Speaker 2: There could be two of you missing. And then what?
Speaker 3: We just want to.
Speaker 2: You know, move on and keep doing what we're doing. So thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Dennis Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick, I believe you have 6 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Good evening and thank you for hearing me. My name is Reverend Dennis Fitzpatrick. I live in the parsonage at 30 to 45, West 31st Avenue, just south of he Mass Lutheran Church. When my wife and I moved here 16 months ago to serve in Ministry Mass, we were very excited. Both because of the creative thinking of the people you see here gathered and how they want to use their property and the warm community that they're part of. I was impressed by the determination and commitment that they offered me that they wanted to stay in the neighborhood and not just simply give up, sell and leave like others had done. The doctor's offices seemed like a perfect opportunity to both give something back and stabilize the church and be useful, not just another bar. No, it isn't. The most profitable use for this land. But it is useful to many in the community. The diversity of which can be seen on our side of the table. In my short time at Mars, I've been working hard to fashion our church as an outpost to help those who are needy and in need of a hand up. And I intend to continue to push an agenda of mercy and caring to those who are suffering. And while I have enjoyed working with these wonderful people, they asked me after my first year here how it was going. I said they were great. They laughed because they know what we've been going through. I said, it's okay. All the misery is coming from the outside. I have to say, I was very disappointed in how we were treated. I have compassion for the fact that zoning issues can be heated. I get it. All of us get angry at times. The harassment my wife and I have endured goes far beyond. What any of us would consider rational. Or reasonable, as I've heard, words like that used tonight. Our nearby neighbors have repeatedly shouted, used profanity, abused and threatened us. They've come out of it. Come over to our homes multiple times, sometimes pounding on the front door. I've gone out to speak with them at length on the porch while being shouted at called. All manner of kind of things. Things that aren't proper for this venue. While my wife sat inside. Afraid. A member of the development team who is familiar with the history of harassment in West Highland encouraged me to call the police. Well, I believed respect and understanding could prevail. I was mistaken. The harassment and verbal abuse by the nearby neighbors continued, and I had to call the police and later a report against them. We asked that the neighbors stop harassing us and refrain from coming on our property in the future. There is a persistent assumption of bad faith among the opposing neighbors. That's troubling to see. It has no basis in rationality. At all. A social media discussion about our development included the following comment about myself. The pastor is a hatchet man. The Lutherans have sent here from out of state to get rid of the property. The church is next, mark my words. And if you think those comments are odd or out of place, it's all too common with our opposition. We have tried over and over to explain. In fact, the opposite is true. We want to stay. I was called to a mass in order to expand and deepen the church's work. The doctor's offices being proposed are being proposed in order to allow the church to stay in the neighborhood. We want it to stay for the next 100 years. And there's one more issue I'd like to address briefly. You're hearing repeatedly that the AMA's team has not been willing to engage in substantive discussion or offer any real compromises. If we were not bound by the confidentiality requirements of the mediation process, he may ask would be more than happy to share what we were willing to put on the table. However, since we can't share that, I simply say that the claims you are hearing about our lack of willingness to meaningful compromise are deplorable and untrue. In the extreme. It is unfortunate that people are taking advantage of the mediation confidentiality in this way. It's despicable. And repeatedly making inaccurate statements that ignore what really happened in mediation. Good neighbors. It's part of what this is about. We're trying to be good neighbors. We're trying to find our way. Find a new mission. Find a new way to continue to serve. This medical building will allow us to stabilize the congregation and continue to work on outreach and do good things for Denver. Denver deserves better. And what this R.A. is presenting before you today. And I ask you to seriously consider accepting our rezoning application and allowing UMass to remain serving the community for the next 100 years.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Harry Brick.
Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Harry Breck. I live about a block and a half from the church and I'd like to thank the City Council for letting me speak, even though I'm not wearing a Denver Bronco jersey. But thank you very much for that. I am strongly in agreement with the others who have spoken in opposition to this rezoning request because it is grossly out of scale with the neighborhood. I was going to make a lot of the same points that my neighbor Marie Bendix made. I just like to remind you that I agree with all the point she made. The only thing I would add is that I would been a health care provider for over 40 years. And when you consider the number of doctors, the number of nurses, the number of lab technicians, the number of receptionists that would be in a building this size and serving people for 15 to 30 minutes a visit. How this wouldn't grossly impact the traffic in the neighborhood is beyond me because those roads are already quite busy. Also, a lot of the points that were made by some of the people who are for the zoning as well as Mr. Watkins, are incorrect in saying that the pinch taco building or the Mondo Vino building are good comparators because those buildings have several different small scale establishments in them rather than one built one commercial establishment that's going to be bigger all by itself. I suspect that if the church had been amenable to discussing other things than just the plantings and the sides of the building, and that's all that was allowed to be discussed by them. Perhaps a mix of stores and apartments. The community response might have been different, but we are where we are. I would like to ask the County City Council to respect the many developmental democratic steps that have been taken in the development of the Denver zoning. It was only five years ago that there was an extensive citywide planning effort to update our current zoning system with a great deal of community input. West Highland was designated an area of stability. Furthermore, churches throughout the city have been zoned in accordance with the houses that are immediately around them. But at the planning board meeting, which considered this proposal, Mr. Tim Watkins stated that he had gone to the site and while he recognized it was an area of stability, it just looked like an obvious entry point for commercial district. You can check the records to see if that's correct. So we have the substitution of a democratic process for Mr. Watkins view about how the city should develop. At the last election, our neighborhood spoke clearly replacing a city councilor who favored a large scale development with a candidate who was supportive of thoughtful development, compatible with existing.
Speaker 0: Communities. To break here, 3 minutes are up. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, we have Greg Pratt. Do we not have Mr. Pratt? All right. I will call the next five speakers in Trevor Grieco, Ryan Wright, M Jensen, Ken Random and Karla Jones. So, Mr. Greco, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President, and other council members. My name is Trevor Greco, and.
Speaker 3: I reside at 33rd in Ocala.
Speaker 4: I am in opposition to this proposed rezoning and in the interest of time of your time tonight.
Speaker 3: I just want to say that I do support the other issues that were brought forward by the other opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ryan. Right.
Speaker 3: Hmm. Well. Thank you. My name is Ryan Wright.
Speaker 13: And I live at 2770 California Street in what I believe.
Speaker 3: Is known as Fine District nine. That's right. I have only been attending.
Speaker 13: Services at a miss.
Speaker 3: For three years, but in that.
Speaker 13: Time I've come to care.
Speaker 3: Deeply about this church. I want to see the church.
Speaker 13: Continue to grow, to share the grace of God through practical ways. Such as food, shelter and a place for broken and hurting families to find.
Speaker 3: Hope and truth. As someone who.
Speaker 13: Cares deeply about his church and its future, I'm aware.
Speaker 3: Of the tone.
Speaker 13: Of the community discussions about this project. What I've seen is truly unsettling.
Speaker 3: For months and months, this project's.
Speaker 13: Opponents have demonstrated outright hostility against Hamas in public discussions, horrible and unfounded personal attacks against our pastor and other church leaders in support of the project.
Speaker 3: Antagonistic behavior and community beatings.
Speaker 13: And harassment of our pastors family in the neighborhood and at his home. I understand that this kind of outrageous neighborhood behavior shouldn't have anything to do with the legal criteria for rezoning.
Speaker 3: But unfortunately.
Speaker 13: I think it does. It does because we're at a public hearing and council is weighing public comment before making its decision. I think it's.
Speaker 3: Worthwhile to look at how.
Speaker 13: This public comment has been influenced. For example, in a recent.
Speaker 3: Letter to the editor of our.
Speaker 13: Local paper, the opposition's leaders made multiple misleading statements about the project and then encouraged readers to join them in opposing.
Speaker 3: They stated that.
Speaker 13: We were planning a 26 to 28000 square foot building, which is untrue. They grossly misrepresented the findings of our traffic study and said it wasn't worth the paper.
Speaker 3: It's written on and they outright lied.
Speaker 13: About a mayor's outreach and willingness to compromise by omitting the fact that we had engaged in prolonged good faith mediation with the neighbors. There is another tangible, extremely serious consequence of these kinds of misleading statements, the protest petition. Other church members who went door to door.
Speaker 3: And learned what.
Speaker 13: Neighbors were told in order to.
Speaker 3: Convince them to sign. The petition will.
Speaker 13: Speak directly about what they learned. But I would just like to point one thing out. The individual neighbor who was quoted in Westword is saying The congregation has done. There are more funerals there than there are new.
Speaker 3: Cars in the parking lot. And who completely lied in.
Speaker 13: Westford about the medical services we would be offering?
Speaker 3: The same neighbor.
Speaker 13: Who shouted at used profanity.
Speaker 3: And verbally harassed our pastor and his family multiple.
Speaker 13: Times until pastor eventually had to call the police. This is the same neighbor who circulated the majority of the protest petitions. This is the person who went door to door. To his very nearby neighbors and convince them to oppose this horrible project. I hope the spirit of bullying doesn't prevail.
Speaker 0: Mr. Wright. Thank you. Your 3 minutes are up. Thank you. Next, it's M Jensen.
Speaker 8: Hi. I'll try to be brief. I know you're tired, and God knows I am too.
Speaker 1: My name is Mary Jensen.
Speaker 8: I live in West Highlands in in Denver at.
Speaker 1: 37th and Raleigh. I'm a homeowner.
Speaker 8: And an active community member.
Speaker 1: And a registered voter.
Speaker 8: Please forgive me. I have a terrible cold and I am a really lousy public speaker normally and the combo is just not good. I am a nurse. My husband is works.
Speaker 1: In the construction industry and as you may have guessed from my very Danish sounding name. I was raised in the Lutheran religion. As a result, we are generally pro-development.
Speaker 8: Pro medical and pro Lutheran. However, we.
Speaker 1: Are strongly against this ill conceived up zoning and huge commercial development in a largely residential area. And I urge you to please vote no on this rezoning application. It is simply out of place and out of scale.
Speaker 8: As we strive to make our neighborhood more pedestrian friendly and.
Speaker 1: Bicycle friendly. Does it really made sense to add commercial scale traffic to narrow residential streets?
Speaker 8: Trust me when I tell you sick people do not walk to medical appointments.
Speaker 1: This can only make our busy roads busier and our hazardous off kilter intersections even more dangerous. This residential area is an inappropriate site for a massive commercial development. Currently the is zoned single family residential and as luck would have it, the neighborhood needs, wants and is willing to pay handsomely for single family homes. There is enormous profit to be made in single family homes in our area and the AMAZE team will not lose money if the current zoning stands, but the existing residential neighbors and homeowners will suffer greatly if this up zoning is approved. Please don't be fooled by this slick PR. Please vote no. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Can random.
Speaker 4: My name is Ken Random. And welcome to the president and the people that are involved here. Appreciate your staying late to. My mother has gone to that church. She's 93. I'm 73. I still take her every Sunday. I went to the school through Charlie Brown is through the basketball hoop and I promised myself I wouldn't demean the other side and I'll try not to. Years ago, we had the Spanish ministry there. We started the Spanish church. We had Alcoholics Anonymous there now. So government thing. We taught Spanish English to immigrants for a year. I did that. We had quite a bit of effort by a lot of people who are gone and a lot of people who really care about the corners. The people and I grew up in the neighborhood, so that's my comment on the, you know, the interracial thing and all that kind of bothers me. It's the same thing. It's getting mad at somebody. You know, we have to make these decisions over like any council. The Forest Service has to make decisions for both sides for that. That is not a good thing to do because, you know, there's three things to the truth mine, yours. And the truth is pretty tough sometimes. And I.
Speaker 6: Recognize that. And I think.
Speaker 4: They've done enough to make the world work. And I I'm really feeling guilty because I helped bring the pastor here. I'm a little worried about up above because Pastor Dennis and his wife got shot down the first time. And I, I read their real they were kind of small town owners and and Garden City Council and I, I kind of pulled that off. So that's my comments. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Fingers. Traynham Next, we have Carla Jones. And as Miss Jones comes up, I'll call the next five names. Larry. Excuse me, Dyson Sharman Safer. Pamela Beck told Dwight Helmers and Sue Pop. So you five can make your way in, Ms.. Jones. You can begin your remarks.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. My name is Karla Jones, and I live at 3206 North Sphere Boulevard. I am directly catty corner from the parcel. And so I wanted to speak because I am a neighbor of a mass Lutheran church. My oldest son went to a mass for early childhood education prior to the closure of the school and we loved it. So I have no issue with a mass, but I do oppose the rezoning. And additionally, I am frustrated with the the claim that they reached out to every neighbor within the 200 foot radius because.
Speaker 5: I live across Spira Boulevard and I.
Speaker 8: Wasn't contacted until after I signed the petition opposing the first time, and I've signed it twice. So additionally, there are plenty of doctors offices in their neighborhood, so I don't think it's a legitimate argument that we need an additional doctor's office.
Speaker 5: In the area.
Speaker 8: There are plenty. I take my kids there and traffic would be an additional issue.
Speaker 10: So thank you.
Speaker 0: Amos Jones. Larry Dyson.
Speaker 4: Thank you. My name is Larry Diaz Land and I live in Wheat Ridge. My wife and I have been members of the Mayor's Lutheran Church since the mid 1960s. My wife was a teacher when we had a school. She is currently the church organist and I am an elder and we are both active in the church. As someone who has been part of this church for half a century, it deeply saddens me to observe the recurring pattern of distrust and suspicion with which this project's opponents have treated us. Regardless of what we say, how many discussions we participated in, or how many changes we make to the project, there is a consistent assumption of bad faith related to everything we do. For example. The opponents have posted on the public Facebook page a long message ahead of our preceding appearances. City Council accusing him as of only pretending to want to delay the public hearing. To dissuade opponents from showing up. The opposition group also stated that he mass was revising the application as a dishonest trick to postpone the hearing. In reality, the AMA, his team did want to revise the application and risk edge of the hearing. Even the concrete changes that he makes to the project are not met or met with distrust. Our initial plan called for a three story building. However, after listening to concerns expressed by neighbors and paying. Our Architect for shadow study. We agreed to lower the building to two stories. This was not a trick, as so we could pretend to negotiate the size down. As our opponents claim. If it was a trick, we would not have paid the architect fresh out of study. Emails has been sincere and open throughout this process. However, it is impossible to constructively work with people if they believe that everything you do is dishonest and in bad faith. The church has been part of the neighborhood for 109 years, and we want to build an attractive medical building on our property that will be an asset to North Denver for years to come. Please support this zoning request. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Shaman say through.
Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Sharman Slater. I live at 3317 West 30th Avenue. As far as the church goes and location, the access to the alley where I parked my car is kitty corner from the church. I am in favor of the zoning. One of the few neighbors here that is. But. I have reservations. I'm not 100% in favor. I've stood back. And every once in a while, of course, I had to say something, but. There has been contentious comments. On both sides. Of this whole story. And I didn't want to get involved.
Speaker 3: So I pretty much I haven't.
Speaker 1: I won't say good or bad about either side. But it has been bad at times. And like I say, from both sides now my reservations are. Traffic will increase. And 32nd. And Speer. 32nd. And Irving. Are going to be bad. What I want to be. See. Is that city government?
Speaker 3: Do something.
Speaker 1: Sit up and take notice of what the problem is and don't just sit back and say, okay, this zoning has passed. Now it's their problem. We're telling you now that if you pass this, which I want you to do. We will have traffic problems. Let's see. As far as the church goes. Yes, I do not think that they were 100% honest with us. They told us what they wanted to say. And one person in particular who I won't name. I think that's where from the very beginning, they didn't know how to hold meetings, didn't know how to answer questions, kind of.
Speaker 3: Spun the.
Speaker 1: Whole thing. I still and I've been to almost all the meetings, including the design process. Don't know where the hell we are. I didn't know. They weren't talking about an urgent care anymore. And we just had a1a meeting a few weeks ago. Why didn't they come and tell us that sort of stuff? I didn't hear it.
Speaker 0: But you're 3 minutes are out.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Pam. Pamela Beck told me.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the council. My name is Pamela Berchtold, and I live at 15 to 78 West LaSalle Avenue in Lakewood. I currently work as the secretary of the Mayor's Lutheran Church, a position I have held for more than 25 years. During my time at Mass, I have seen the dedication of its members, some of whom who have been a part of the church for decades. I have also witnessed the arrival of new people to the church where they were existing, accepted by the existing community. As someone who works for me, as I am very familiar with the roads leading to the church. I am aware that a few opposing neighbors tell horror stories of back up and congestion along our Main Street corridor in West Highland. But that has not been my experience. In fact, it seems to me that the patient traffic for the medical office building would naturally trickle in and out throughout the day. There is no natural rush time for doctors appointments and I doubt that a few people coming and going here and there would be noticeable on our streets. The only conceivable time there might be a small rush is when the officers staff is arriving in the morning and leaving in the afternoon. However, what's interesting to notice is that those people will likely be moving against the flow of traffic. In the morning Highlands residents are heading out of the neighborhood toward downtown and the highway and commuting doctors and patients would be driving in. The opposite is true in the afternoons. This is a clear reverse traffic pattern and I don't see how it will burden the traffic, as our opponents say. Also, during many of the years of my stay at UMass, we had a school, we had like 58 parents coming in the morning to drop their student, their children off for school, and then again they would pick up their children after school, causing a rush. And I never.
Speaker 8: Heard.
Speaker 1: These opposing people oppose our school and the traffic that the school presented and. I would like to say that if the Council does not approve this zoning change, there is a good possibility the Church will not be able to continue to exist and therefore the property would have to be sold to a developer who in most probability would not listen to what these people want or what they need, but more what their interests are, which is money.
Speaker 2: Aspect of.
Speaker 0: Youth remains.
Speaker 5: Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Dwight Helmers.
Speaker 4: Mr. President and members of the council, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak this evening. I would recommend you people get paid overtime for staying so long here. I live not in Denver, but at 1079 South Johnson Way in Lakewood, Colorado. My connection here is that I presently serve as a vice president of the Rocky Mountain District of the Alchemist, the in the central area. This is the church body to which the AMA means congregation belongs. And I've had the opportunity to work with them for a little bit of time here, particularly in the calling of their pastor . I would suggest to you that the stability of the church is an advantage to this neighborhood and that accepting this particular rezoning would be indeed a help to that stabilization. I think the congregation has attempted to some degree to to develop a win win situation, even though it doesn't always look that way. They were looking for a way to serve the community while providing for a continuing source of revenue for their own ministry of Outreach. Serving the community here meant developing the opportunity, so to speak, of a of a health care facility where people could come and receive care. I wanted to say just a little bit about the calling of Pastor Dennis Fitzpatrick, because I was quite involved in that about a year and a half ago. One of the prime criteria for calling Pastor Fitzpatrick was that he would be involved in outreach. I heard one of the other speakers say I may have never tried to outreach. I'm amazed at the things that Pastor Fitzpatrick has done and continues to do. I attended one of his sessions, for example, his Memorial Day picnic, and I met more nonmembers at that than than members. I think he does a very good job. My wife and I attended church there. And here's Pastor Fitzpatrick, not inside the church waiting for people to come, but standing out on the sidewalk, welcoming those who were coming into the church and welcoming those who are going by. I see a man who wants to outreach for the sake of serving the community. Denver is a great city. It is one of the reasons is because it has many historic neighborhoods, often defined by a house of worship. A mass defines the neighborhood for 109 years with with this rezoning, it will continue to define the neighborhood with service to the community for many years to come. In Christ's name. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Could you say your name for the record?
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't. My name is Dwight Ellmers.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Sue Pop. And as Sue comes forward, I'm going to read off the next five names James Foreman, Jane Bustamante, Mary Williams, Amelia Miers and Elliott Sawyer. You five can make your way to the front pew. This part, you can begin.
Speaker 1: Mr. Chairman and the Council. Thank you for allowing me to testify. My name is Sue Pop. My husband and I live at 4557 Wyandotte Street in Council District number one. We have been members of Remains Lutheran Church for 24 years. We like attending services there because we enjoy pastors, sermons and his wonderful Bible studies. The people are very friendly and we enjoy this community. We support this project because we think that having a medical office building in this location will be very handy for the neighborhood. Also, it may as well make the parking lot available to other businesses on evenings and weekends. So we think that will be helpful. We've heard a lot of people talk about how they don't want to see any changes in our neighborhood. We've lived here a long time and things are always changing. Our neighborhood isn't meant to be dipped in amber and preserved in one way forever. This should not be about a few people wanting things to stay exactly the same for them. But we should be looking at the whole community and the types of services that are necessary. People like mixed use buildings, which I understand. I don't understand why our two storey building is being criticized for only having doctors offices and not adding a bunch of other things. Mixed use doesn't only have to happen within one building. Mixed use can be a mix of nearby uses within a neighborhood. We need primary care doctors and this building will provide that mixed in with the restaurants, shops and the residents nearby. Please vote in favor of this rezoning application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: James Foreman. Hello.
Speaker 2: My name is James Farmer.
Speaker 3: And although I'm from Broomfield, Colorado, I do a lot of work in this particular area and I'm usually down here around 2 to 3 times a week. First of all, I just want to say this is the last time I go to a rezoning meeting and skip dinner.
Speaker 6: Bad move.
Speaker 3: The lot of land that we're talking about is in a very interesting position. It's surrounded on the north side by commercial property and on the south side by residential. 32nd Street is a main street. It's where all of your businesses are located, converting that one parcel, the northern portion of it. Too commercial would bring it back into alignment with the rest of that street. It seems to me that the church is trying to find a use for that particular spot of land that meets both their beliefs. As well as their mission. I just asked the Council to review that particular partial. And reason the.
Speaker 6: Land is commercial.
Speaker 3: So that way it can fit back into and blend in with the rest of that street. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jane Bustamante.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Council members. Good evening.
Speaker 5: My name is Jane Bustamante.
Speaker 1: And I live at 11387 Lawson Lane. I have been a part of the mayor's community for 52 years, and although I haven't lived in the Highlands area since I was a little girl, I continue to be important to me as continues to be an important part of my life. My mom and stepdad were married in the church. I went to school at UMass and so did some of my granddaughters. All of my children. Granddaughters, and now a great granddaughter have grown up and belong to Mass and most are still members of the church. I have two granddaughters who work in the Highlands area. I support the Medical Office Building Project because I feel it is a way for us to give back, to contribute to the community, and it would also allow us to continue as a church.
Speaker 5: In the future.
Speaker 1: My main hope is for us to expand the work that we do with the homeless. For many years now, my granddaughters and I have spent Christmas Eve making sack lunches for the homeless throughout the years. Throughout the year, we collect coats and blankets, and on Christmas Eve, we make breakfast burritos, fill lunch bags with snacks and toiletries , make a huge container of hot chocolate. And then we go to a spot near the shelters downtown and spend time handing out all that we've collected. This year, we were joined.
Speaker 5: By over 25.
Speaker 1: Of our highlands neighbor neighbors who came to help us make the burritos, fill the sacks and give to those in need. My granddaughters and I are hoping to be able to add other giving days throughout the year, not just Christmas Eve with the help of our neighbors. Thank you for listening to me. Describe the charitable work that I so enjoyed doing with the. I know that the church is good. Works are not part of the legal criteria for rezoning, but they do fit with this project's goal of serving the community. The legal criteria for rezoning has been clearly demonstrated by the presentation from the gentleman from the City Planning Department. The Planning Board agreed with the CPD's position, and others familiar with Denver's code have stated that the rezoning is appropriate. I would like to make a plea for fairness and say that in light of this ten vote requirement that I hope the city council will agree to delay the final vote on our project for two weeks. We agreed to wait almost three months to come back to council after revising our application and surely waiting two weeks for the final vote isn't too much to ask. Please vote yes on the delay and on the rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mary Williams. Do not have Mary Williams. Amelia Miers.
Speaker 1: Good evening and thank you. My name is Amelia Miers, and I live at 1550 Platt Street in Fine and number nine. I'm a transportation policy consultant and Denver native, and I came to speak about this project because it is bigger than the Highlands. It's about Denver itself and how we need to be treating our population. Our elderly population is growing. Could I get a show of hands of who is over 60 in this room right now? All of these people are going to be needing medical care and as they age, hopefully longer into their eighties and nineties, eighties and nineties , I'm talking about hopefully when they age into their eighties and nineties, they're going to need reliable transit and walkable. Places to get their medical care. And this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the community. This is a great place to have a medical facility that's walkable. It's right by a bicycle. It's right on a transit stop. And having the bus line go to this medical facility is much better than having to spend our money on non-emergency medical transportation that would have to pick people up individually to transport them to a medical facility.
Speaker 8: This will save the community money and the city money overall.
Speaker 1: This vibrant and walkable community that will be created is integral.
Speaker 8: To having a smart city.
Speaker 1: And I'm really proud of you guys for passing the Smart City.
Speaker 8: Grant this or accepting that.
Speaker 1: The Department of Transportation can go along with the Smart City grant because this fits right in. And if a Smart City Grant is awarded, this is the type of community that will thrive with connective transit and walkability. And I urge you to support this for the greater good of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Elliott Sawyer. No. Elliott Sawyer. Then the next five, we have Charlie Johnson, Chad Johnson, Brian Kowalski, April Vermillion and Jennifer Salvatore. So the first one up should be Charlie Johnson.
Speaker 11: Sure.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, could you grab.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Q My name is Charlie Johnson. My address is 1415 Park Avenue West. I belong to a Lutheran church that is a sister church to a mass. I also own a business nearby. Because of these things, I have followed the issues closely. I've often heard opposing neighbors broadcast numbers from a Change.org petition. They started considering that this translated into actual inform community supporters for their position. To begin with, the basic language of the petition is incredibly incendiary and inaccurate. This day they may as well be building something much larger than what it sounds like Hamas has committed to do . They also characterizing mass as refusing to engage in mediating dialog, meaningful dialog. Despite the workshops, the mediation sessions and other kinds of outreach. However, the most troubling aspect of their position is the public publicly viewable comments that go along with these online signatures and provide you with some of the screenshots of comments on the petition demonstrating that many of the people signed for reasons totally unrelated to this rezoning request. For example, I'm sick and tired of the gentrification that is happening in North Denver. High low can explicit off. Obviously this project is in West Highlands, not low, high or high low. I'm worried about my daughter being run over by speeding ambulances when of course, we know that the metal office building will not accept ambulances. I don't believe that we have coherent discussion at the last meeting at the Methodist Church was a farce. This is not worth it because the meeting at the nearby Methodist Church was for the development project at 30th and Lowell of the Mace Project. And last say, I'm sick of seeing all the tasteless new houses in the Highlands neighborhood going up, stopped destroying us, saying this position. There are many, many additional examples. It seems very clear that these folks are upset about use by right development that are using small rezoning as a way to funnel their anger. Lastly, there's an issue with the anonymous nature of Change.org and how valid and supporting signatures actually are. I did a little experiment. I went to change that. Oregon created my own petition, and I created five separate email addresses in Gmail and sign me on petition five times. This whole exercise took less than a half an hour. There was no reason to believe that the 270 some supposes signatures represent the 270. Some actual people hope that City Council will decide this issue based on the legal criteria for rezoning. That's a smoke and mirrors that those would claim some sort of community mandate based on the petition and is demonstratively unreliable. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Next, we have Chad Johnson. Chad Johnson. Brian Kowalski.
Speaker 7: Good evening, and thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Brian Kowalski. I am connected to AMS only through their hosting of the gaming group that I go to and I'm connected here, helping represent them just because of the ongoing, continuous generosity we've experienced from EMS Church. As for in the nature of the lot and quest and it.
Speaker 2: Sounds like it will event.
Speaker 7: Based on this decision it either becomes the medical building or eventually becomes residential again. But it's really hard to imagine that site as a residential as residential buildings, their front windows will look into businesses and their backyards will look on to the carwash. It will be a very. It will stick out considerably from what it already exists there. And leaving it as is would just be a continuing dilapidated parking lot. The. The Church is focused mostly, as I understand it, on helping the least served of individuals.
Speaker 11: And most of the complaints that I have heard have been focused on protecting property values.
Speaker 7: Which strikes me as two very different populations being served here. And just based on what I met of the people I met and connected to the church, it it seems almost impossible for me to believe that they were not forthright and earnest in their efforts to connect with the community, because that is the nature of what they intend to do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. April Vermillion.
Speaker 1: Good evening, President and council members and congratulations. You are almost done with the testimonies. My name is April Vermillion and I live on Decatur Street in Potter Highlands.
Speaker 10: I lived in West Highlands for seven years.
Speaker 8: The Highlands have been my home going on 12 years. Also, I own a real estate marketing business.
Speaker 1: I spend hours a month learning and understanding the Highlands, growth changes and culture.
Speaker 8: I know the.
Speaker 1: Church's location intimately and I support the rezoning and would like to see the site offer medical.
Speaker 8: Services. As a longtime resident who has not.
Speaker 1: Attended a mass, I'm shocked by my neighbors rude behavior and lies in public. And even today, as the pastor shared his and his church's pain from harassment. I believe this historic church is doing their due diligence. So on behalf of the Highlands.
Speaker 8: I'd like to apologize to the Amos for our community's behavior.
Speaker 1: They do not reflect all neighbors opinions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, we have Jennifer Salvatore. Jennifer. Right next to and last because Jennifer Rona. And Jamie Chester after Jennifer.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Jennifer Arona and I am the Vice President Business Development Strategy at Lutheran Medical Center. And I am really.
Speaker 1: Glad to be here this.
Speaker 8: Evening and hear all of the diverse opinions and the passion about this community.
Speaker 1: That Lutheran Medical Center has actually served over the last 100 years. And I think that this community here.
Speaker 8: This evening, in addition to community members that are not here this evening, really represent the community and the diversity of the population that Lutheran Medical Center serves. There are.
Speaker 1: Only just a few things.
Speaker 8: That I really want to speak to this evening. The primary purpose of Lutheran Medical Center's involvement with this development is to make sure that health care stays local and is available to all members of the community. It is intended to be a family practice to serve the immediate community of the West Highlands neighborhood. The other piece that I'll speak briefly about, I don't have an expertize on traffic patterns, but I do know in health care facilities we typically have a 2 to 1 ratio for parking that accommodates our communities. And in this particular development, one of the.
Speaker 1: Reasons why we've been interested in participating in it is that the parking development.
Speaker 8: Actually is a 3 to 1 ratio, which is higher than what the standard is. I know that there have been a number of questions about the scale and scope of services that are provided. I think I've mentioned that it would solely be to the community immediately in that neighborhood. So it would be a reflection of members who are commercially insured, who are Medicaid patients, who are chip patients, and that is the community that we intend to represent and that we see we've represented over the years. And then lastly, the one last point that I wanted to make is that our real interest in supporting this effort is to continue to preserve the health and the wellness of the community.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Last speaker, Jamie Chesser.
Speaker 1: Good evening. Guess I'm wrapping things up. President and City Council Members.
Speaker 5: My name is Jamie Chesser.
Speaker 1: I reside at 32nd AV and Osceola Street.
Speaker 8: With my husband and two young children. We've been there for about ten years.
Speaker 1: Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts. I just want you to know that I have no ill will to the amazed church and its members, and I'm not.
Speaker 8: Opposed to thoughtful development in West Highland.
Speaker 1: Or the city. I agree with the.
Speaker 8: Points.
Speaker 1: That were made by the others. My neighbors who've spoken before me in opposition to this proposed up zoning. Connor.
Speaker 8: Randy Mast, Marie Benedict, Marilyn Quinn, Pat Duffy.
Speaker 5: And I respectfully request your consideration.
Speaker 1: On this matter and do hope you will vote no on this up zoning proposal.
Speaker 8: Thanks very much for your time and your service.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers. Thank you all so much for being efficient and thoughtful and colleagues. As we move to the question period, I would ask that we just make sure we stick with the questions and then we'll go to comments afterwards. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Let's see here. CPD. Thank you. Could you repeat for me first the change in condition that you see that would justify the rezoning?
Speaker 13: Certainly. So I'm pulling up the slide presentation and I'm on slide 40. And the list here. Includes the commercial mixed use building that is on the west side of Irving fronting 32nd Avenue, which was built in 2012. Was the rezoning leading up to that's very much part of the analysis of the changing condition right. To further characterization and. Completion of that Main Street character, then the disused school building, the vacancy of that and the underutilized parking area on the site, and the small commercial office building, which is.
Speaker 3: Um.
Speaker 13: Seems to be in disrepair from what I've heard. We also look at changes in entitlement and or. Not just excuse me, not so much entitlement, but actual. Creation of parcels anticipating development that's included here see me as church having divided church property into two parcels and the certificate of non historic status for the small commercial building. Thank you for the four that we listed.
Speaker 4: As far as I assume this is the usual deal where we're not approving a particular plan, we're approving zoning for the site, correct?
Speaker 13: That's correct.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 13: In terms of the rezoning.
Speaker 4: Criteria, right. So the size of the building, we're not determining and the use on the property we're not determining. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. I don't know whether it's sundry or the developer. I'm wondering the packet that we were given on the front page has a picture yellow rectangle. It says two storey, 17,500 feet, total square feet. And then last page, the resolution from the church and condition number two says restrict the building size to be constructed on the property to no greater than 23,500 feet.
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm Keith. Bush, decorated to me as a Lutheran church. Could you repeat the question?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. So this packet that appears on the front page, the rectangle representing the building to be built, says two storey 17,500 total square feet. But the letter on the back page, which shows a mass Lutheran Church resolution, says restrict the building size to be constructed on the property to no greater than 23,500. So I'm just wondering if you can clarify. Yeah.
Speaker 3: The the smaller size is we we did an evaluation.
Speaker 4: If we.
Speaker 3: Have to provide all the required parking of 2 to 2 parking spots per 1000 square feet on the zone lot the size of a building, we conclude we could have a 17,500 square feet.
Speaker 4: If we. Are allowed to use offsite.
Speaker 3: Parking and share some of the parking with the church to get 3 to 1 parking. Then we could have a building is approximately as big as 23,000, 23,500 square feet. So the church itself wanted to restrict itself because there was criticism that we were going to build a much larger building. So we sort of limited ourselves to the maximum size we felt.
Speaker 4: We wanted to.
Speaker 3: We would build on the on.
Speaker 4: The property and that maximum is 23,000.
Speaker 3: 23,500 on two storey. So. Okay, about 11, 1200, 12,000 square feet. And I believe it's the second drawing in the packet.
Speaker 4: You were given. Thank you. Thank you for that. And the last question that I have is for Mr. New Dore. So you you had mentioned that you had considered town homes at one point, but decided against that use. I was wondering why what.
Speaker 11: Your thought is that also would require a zoning change. And in early discussions with our neighbors and our congregation, there was no, you know, desire to do that. We got no positive response from anybody regarding those. And they also required a zoning change from single family.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilwoman Cashman. Just one. The I was in on those discussions, too. And the other reason we didn't proceed with with townhomes or multifamily is because it would have taken the parking away from the church. What we've come up with is something that doesn't we don't compete with ourselves for parking.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: I'm going to have questions for Tim. Tim, Dave and Keith. Keith, Dave. Hey, Hagan and Keith, the D.A.. Is still here. Oh, great. You changed your jacket. So can you go to the slide that actually shows the the noncommercial I mean, the commercial thing that you're justifying using to sort of justify the change in condition. Not just the slide that has the text.
Speaker 13: It's a progression of three slides showing, well, 2010, 12 and 14. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: I don't know. And I apologize. Everyone asked system, my system and Councilwoman Gilmore's art system seems to lag really far behind. So. You've included areas on this plan that actually haven't changed condition physically. So can you go, too? So you've got you've got the P.J. Taco site, and I don't know if I should even be saying that on TV, but, um, you got the taco site which got zoned legislatively in 2010, and that definitely has gotten a building constructed. But you still have the same parking lot, you still have the same car wash, you still have the same two nonconforming uses across the street. I mean, exceptions across the street, one in a residential form, the other one in a in a building structure. I mean, a commercial building that's got an exception. So go to the zoning slide that you had previously. The. It's like existing.
Speaker 13: Zoning. Oh, sure.
Speaker 3: Existing slide.
Speaker 13: Might be faster to scroll.
Speaker 3: Right? So I just want it to be very clear that the only thing that's changed is the addition of these of this new small, small building, a 10,000 square foot. Commercial structure caddy corner. I mean I mean, it's just across the street from this vacant lot and that all the zoning surrounding it is, in fact, residential. So in the case of the USA a the least, the, the least, the most restrictive, it is the most restrictive residential use that we have. So yeah, so it's U.S.A. one across the street. We have the pad. That hasn't changed. We have the U.S.A. on the subject parcel and surrounding it. And then that one exception, that one carve out for the Peachtree taco. So. When you're doing justifying circumstances, it's nice that you go and color in a bunch of things that sort of optically render a certain way. But this is very much the heart and these are sort of going into comment. So I won't. But this is what I want eventually. I want my colleagues to understand is that this is in the very core. This is the map that one of the members I'm going to I'll comment later. The question is, have you performed so have you performed a planned review of this design? Are these proposals compliant with the zoning? That's a question for the applicant. No, that's for CPD.
Speaker 13: So with development services, I can't answer that. I'd have to defer to the client to.
Speaker 3: Respond to that question. How about that? Sort of. One is based on the prior.
Speaker 13: To my knowledge, these are not approved by development services.
Speaker 3: So can you can you the question came up earlier from the audience. Can you create your own change of condition? So if you leave your building, if you if you abandon your pride in your building from its prior use and you let your product, your parking lot deteriorate or turn it into a parking lot, does that can you create that and self create your own change of use? Because the only change of change of condition. I'm sorry, I'm using the wrong time. The only change in condition is the adjacent site across Irving.
Speaker 13: That's the change in physical form condition. But the change in use and activity is another condition, changing condition.
Speaker 3: Okay. So the bread company hasn't changed since 1994. The the the car wash is probably longer. So. You mentioned the parceling of the property as a change of condition. My concern is, is this second. The sequence here shows a 17,500 square foot and 35 space lot. And then this option two, which shows the obliteration of a school building in a US Hughes owned district that is now a parking lot. So are we now? Is that prelude to that becoming another area of change in an area of stability? I mean, can you do that?
Speaker 13: Per our analysis of blueprint Denver which. Debs states that the street classification is main street collector and the properties fronting that. That st are appropriate for. Converting to mixed mainstream land uses and mixed uses, then that would not support blueprint Denver, as it's written today would not support. Zoning rezoning further south, embedded further south where the church is.
Speaker 3: So I'm sort of trying to struggle with the healthy amount of parking that supports both the existing church structure, which is significant in size and a total build out of the to the agreed to 23,500 is a massive block sized redevelopment. That is a significant difference than what we're even talking about. But that's you know, we're getting to that. But I just if we're using the fact that a change of a parking lot can be a change of create, this sort of change of condition in an area of stability that that is concerning. So and I'll get these are much more brief. So I listened to the planning board again prior to entering chambers, and I'm concerned that your portrayal of the planning board, a statement of concern about the depth of the lot, when the concerns were about scale, intensity of use and lack of design standards, was the depth of the lot mentioned in the deliberation, and if so, by whom?
Speaker 13: I recall it being. Her name will come to me. Renee Martinez. Stone. That's my recollection. And that she.
Speaker 3: Okay. I will. I that's one that I paid particularly close attention to because she had very cogent comments on the scale issue.
Speaker 13: I believe Christopher Smith as well.
Speaker 3: They both. Both of them spoke to this.
Speaker 13: That was my understanding.
Speaker 3: Chris. Chris. His comments comments were particularly. I'll get into that as well. You stated that no details were provided by the opposition at the Planning Board testimony. Is it customary for the opposition group to come armed with APD, with Puti language? I don't know.
Speaker 13: But there were no ideas or concepts or. Direction, even in concept that we could understand what was encouraging rather than.
Speaker 3: Welcoming than at when and at what point in the development process. Would you welcome outside PD recommendations?
Speaker 13: It's primarily for the applicant to consider, but they were not provided specific details as to what a party might entail.
Speaker 3: So at that testimony, at that hearing, they testified that CPD advised them that it did not meet the criteria of uniqueness.
Speaker 13: For a unique and extraordinary circumstance. Okay. To. War and peace.
Speaker 3: And then a member of the Planning Board lamented that two questions for CPD had remain unanswered. And actually, this is in Renee Stones testimony. I mean, in her deliberations. And I suspect you're prepared today what is considered a small site for the U. U. M's to access own district.
Speaker 13: There is not a definition in the Denver zoning code of a small site, of a medium site of a large site. And that's where looking at the existing context becomes very important and in this case, looking along. The 32nd Avenue corridor and the alley alignment of the depth became very important consideration during and after planning.
Speaker 3: But we look at the 32nd Avenue corridor. Passed. Julian then, because if you look between Irving and Julian you have a very different characteristic mean the depiction in your photographs of 32nd at Lowell.
Speaker 13: Looked primarily west of Irving. Which is where should I pull the map up?
Speaker 3: Yeah, west of Irving is the picture Tycho. And then there's probably about eight or nine single family and duplex homes. Then you get to the the three dogs and then you get to you get into mix of commercial.
Speaker 13: So it was a look at the adjacent or. The the corner building west of Irving Street and then a look. At the general development pattern along the corridor.
Speaker 3: I mean, because if you look north, south, east and west, I mean, north, south, northwest and south. I've got it all screwed up. But if you look just about anywhere where you took pictures, you're going to find residential construction. And in some cases, you have businesses operating with exceptions in residential construction.
Speaker 13: And indeed, we found this area to be in particular at Irving and Speer, 32nd, the main street commercial node. At this location and then corridor wide. There's a recurring pattern of stretches of commercial Main Street. Then there's some residential than others.
Speaker 3: But we didn't recognize that at the blueprint. Denver. On Slide five, I just want to have for clarification, you have Irving Street dashed. Continuous North-South. I want my colleagues to understand that that is not a through street. It is blocked from through traffic. It is cut off as well as it indicating 32nd Avenue is some sort of really viable route, east, west. But even the traffic study that was provided shows that there's almost no through traffic there because it's it's a glorified alley. So I just want you to understand that the depiction sort of belies the actual way you navigate the system in a car. So my question for David, the excerpts from the parking study that were provided lacked the total car trips for the school if it were in use today. How many total car trips did that? Was that number? You also have to apologize. I don't have the study in front of me. So on these two. So the two sheets that are what do they do over here? So you've got this sheet here that is missing the same information down below, which is the weekday. So there's a total car trip here that's not here. So you just give me the peak hour for both. But in only one case. Did you give me the total car trips? Excuse me. Would you mind just turning your pager on that? It is. They weren't numbered. Sorry. It is these two that looked like that. You need. So. Excuse me, would you repeat the question? I'm just trying to find out what the total car trips that are, because in certain areas I've heard people testify to the sort of delta, the difference between how continuously used a medical facility, which we're not doing. You know, we're not talking about a project, we're talking about zoning, but we are talking about something that is a significantly different in scale than anything that has been constructed there other than the apartment building. The which. So there's that in the use that has been described, there is a continuous use, not just a peak there both have peak hours, but with a school you have a big rush, you know, at drop off. And another big rush to pick up a little bit of rush when the teachers are arriving and then sort of a very, very low amount of traffic throughout the day with the medical facility. You know, they the way they tend to operate, at least the one that is right across the street from me is a very full parking lot. And they try to keep people moving in and out of there. So we've got 808 car trips a day for the medical facility, but no depiction of how many car trips the school was. And just Connor. Do you have that information? Is Connor here?
Speaker 0: Mr. Farley, if you want to respond, we need you to come to the microphone.
Speaker 3: Anyone have that information? Oh, I think you mentioned it. I specifically do not have that information, but perhaps my neighbor Mary does.
Speaker 8: I don't. But I did hear the secretary of the church say that when the school was running, there were 58 students. And if I recall correctly, from the traffic study, not parking study, it assumes 125 students.
Speaker 3: And I suspect it wasn't an overly used parking lot considering the amount of play area that was painted on the floor. And then the last question is for Keith. And I don't know. I hope that you can speak to these. You should be able to. Because the way they are written. Can you. What are what were the key concerns for the neighbor in the. In the mediation process. I'm sorry, what was the question? What are the key concerns for the neighbors in the mediation process? Well, I'd be happy to answer that question, but we can't because the mediation was confidential. The entirety of the mediation or. Yes, that was a major conversation was that this is all. Confidential. So did you hear anything there that you hadn't heard before? Did I hear anything in mediation? Because you've heard things. You've heard. Don't tell me about what? The mediation. What you discussed in mediation. Tell me what the key concerns are for the neighbors now. That would.
Speaker 4: You know, we we agreed to.
Speaker 3: Confidentiality, you know, on the issue. And if I discuss it now, Councilman, I feel like I'd be disclosing what was discussed in mediation because of the way you phrased your question. Because that's what you're trying to ask, I believe. No, actually. So let me let me scratch the mediation thing. And actually, I won't even ask you. I send Ari because she's very good at answering these questions.
Speaker 0: And Councilman Espinosa, you're at 16 minutes now. I was just hoping that we could if the four other council members behind you, I want to afford them the opportunity to ask them questions, too. So if you could if you have several more, we could just defer and come back to you.
Speaker 3: I just have four here, but I can I can defer. I'd be glad to do that.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. My questions get to the crux of kind of what everybody's talking about here in this blueprint Denver area, stability and kind of our consistency with adaptive plan. So to answer this question for me and if if you can maybe Nate Lucero can give me the kind of the legal definition of what this means . But the first point is committed neighborhood may benefit from minor infill development. That's not what I really want to go into. But reinvestment stabilize or underutilized site through reinvestment. What does that exactly mean from a legal definition? You know, I get the idea. I get what we're going for, but. How do you decide what's. Appropriate for an area of stability, since that's one of our.
Speaker 13: Sure. I if there is a legal definition of it, I'll leave that to Mr. Fitzgerald. But I can describe to you what the language and blueprint Denver is and how it describes or defines what could be pictured as a continuum between very stable to going all the way up to full areas of change. And so we have area of stability. We have area of.
Speaker 3: Let's let's keep let's stay in area stability. Let's stay in our context right here. What does reinvestment mean?
Speaker 13: Reinvestment. Encourages. The. Redevelopment or re-use of a site that could actually bring stability to a neighborhood. That reinvesting or redeveloping or bringing property to more beneficial use could actually have a stabilizing effect on a neighborhood. And it lists examples including and not so applicable to this neighborhood. But if there's a neighborhood that has housing stock that is in a decayed condition, okay, that's appropriate reinvestment. That's helpful area of stability.
Speaker 3: Nate, let me ask you a question. From a legal standpoint, does reinvestment in a area of stability, is there any can you quantify that at all? Is there is there a size or I mean, or is this just the the vision and the value that we're looking for?
Speaker 16: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Nate Russo on behalf of CPD and. So reinvestment, I think, is, is a term that's going to be. Defined by the by CPD or the manager of CPD, and in that term will somehow be defined through the comprehensive plan. And so the definition that Mr. Watkins gave is the only definition that that we have to base that opinion on. And and so I don't think that there's necessarily a legal definition to sort of quantify what that means. Okay. Not sure if that helps.
Speaker 13: Even if I could just refer to as does.
Speaker 3: He. But go ahead.
Speaker 13: Page 13 of the staff report describes according to Blueprint Denver areas of stability are intended to maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. So that's text from Blueprint Denver. Areas of stability are defined on page 122 as belonging to one of two categories. And so jumping to reinvestment areas where neighborhoods character is desirable to maintain but would benefit from reinvestment through modest infill or major projects in a small area.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 13: So it really is flexible and kind of nuanced and applicable to unique circumstances in a neighborhood. Reinvestment areas are intended to encourage investment, but in a more limited and targeted way than areas of change. Reinvestment. Challenges. Such as lack of services and improvement opportunities, such as redeveloping underutilized land to provide needed neighborhood services can be addressed through infill development. But those are two examples.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you. And then one last question. We get this a lot, I think, in planning what percentage of applications are denied? You know, I think the the idea is that we see, you know, everything that that comes out here is, you know, just makes it all the way through the process. But there's been many times when you talk about the number and percentage of applications that get denied.
Speaker 13: The percentage I don't have on hand, but I believe the majority do not get past that initial pre-application stage. And advanced to full application.
Speaker 3: Majority 660 about.
Speaker 13: 50 plus 1%. I don't dare guess, but okay. If a number magically appears on my phone, I'll share that with you.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Thank you. That's impressive.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions, so I'll try and get through them quickly. My first one is for Jenny DAVIES, Cindy Lee or Marie Benedicts, whoever still in the building here. Looks like you're up again. Cindy. Okay. You all to my best recollection and keeping notes all mentioned that you are not against redevelopment of this corner, just not this kind of development. Can. Can you speak, I guess, for yourself? Maybe not the other people. What is is is your concern from a is this consistent with the neighborhood? Are you are you it should only be residential. It should only be redevelopment as within its current zoning. Or do you think is there a scale and massing issue? I'm trying to get at, you know, what what did that mean? Because a lot of you said that but didn't expand upon what that meant.
Speaker 8: That's a great question. And I think it's a great question for the neighborhood. And I think what the neighborhood would love to see is a collaborative process where neighbors have really input and especially those who live really close to the site as to what they would feel comfortable with, what would be perhaps enough zoning, but not too massive. And maybe I don't have myself a specific opinion on whether there should be enough zoning or not of some kind. I know some people would like to see none. Others would be open to some. What I have heard mentioned by people who are open to some is some form of perhaps commercial downstairs, residential upstairs right at 32nd, and then with perhaps more residential as you go further south away from 32nd Avenue. But I by no means pretend to speak for all close neighbors. And I think the main takeaway would be to perhaps send this back to a drawing board where neighbors and the applicant work collaboratively together and come up with a solution that neighbors will support here. Okay. Thank you. Is that okay? Yes, thank you.
Speaker 2: A couple of things. And Tim, maybe you can take a stab at these. First, somebody had said that this is the only the second 100% commercial building in the area and it's twice the size. Do you have any statistics? I'm trying to look at these maps like how does this compare to me? What I struggle I'm struggling with here is lining up with the criteria for rezoning is the scale of this. I'm trying to get a feel for what is the scale of this compared to what is existing?
Speaker 13: Sure, I know the applicant has studied the surrounding buildings in greater detail. I have looked more at parcel sizes. Okay. Not as much of actual square footage.
Speaker 2: So before you leave, then, from a personal standpoint, the the parcel that's proposed, is it how does it line up in comparison? I mean, on the map that I'm looking at here on slide eight, it looks considerably bigger than the adjacent, um, x2x is it is that two times is that a one point? How much bigger is that than the directly adjacent you x2x.
Speaker 13: So there are a variety of parcels and some of the buildings fronting 32nd Avenue are comprised of many small parcels, and then some are on larger sized parcels. But I don't know if you see this graphic on your screen. Now, this is just a actually a supplemental slide, as I anticipated some questions related to parcel size. I've labeled select parcels at the corner of Lowell and 32nd Avenue all the way to Speer. You can see a range of 0.29, all the way up to .95 acres. But some of these parcels, which are even smaller, have wall to wall building on the sides. And so it's hard to gauge. Collectively what the ratio of.
Speaker 2: Building to and that's 0.95 is the strip mall. Is that correct?
Speaker 13: That. Yes, the part shop it whatever it may be.
Speaker 2: Sorry, strip mall. Not the appropriate terminology.
Speaker 11: I apologize.
Speaker 2: I didn't mean to offend. Okay. And then somebody from the applicants I'd want to talk to square for the square footage versus the person size.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, what was the question?
Speaker 2: So from a personal standpoint, I'm trying to get the scale of this as as it fits into or doesn't fit into the neighborhood. So have you looked at the scale of other 100% commercial buildings or other buildings built in the X to X that are nearby?
Speaker 11: We have looked at the buildings, not at the parcels.
Speaker 2: Right. So Tim answered my partial questions. Now you're on for building.
Speaker 11: Yeah. So I think in your packet, or at least in the one that I handed out comparing the the 22,000 square foot, 23,000 square foot building to the building adjacent, the depth of the building and the height of the building are, it seems to me, relatively close. The square footage of this building is bigger compared to that.
Speaker 2: To what scale? Bigger. It's 10%. Bigger, it's 20%.
Speaker 11: I don't I haven't done that calculation. It'd be hard for me to answer that, but I could you could compare it to the Mondo Venus site, which is at 32nd. And Lowell, I did do that. And you have that information in front of you where those both in terms of square footage and street frontage, they're almost identical . Those two.
Speaker 2: Buildings. Okay. Okay. Back to Tim for a second. So, you know, we've seen lots of maps and they know that we're considering zoning and not a specific development plan. So without getting into the specifics of, I guess, what this will be. Can you explain to me because we've seen lots of different drawings on this parcel as. You know, Councilman Espinosa asked a question and it is confusing to me to see additional parking lots attributed in some of these images to it, because it looks like we're looking at this parcel. But then is it this parcel plus? So just this parcel in this zoning, what kind of massing could be achieved? Because the truth of the matter is we rezoning a property as possible that the church, whatever happens, life happens. They can't do it now. It's zoned. Somebody can come in. What scale of building could be built on that size lot in that with that zoning. Can you can you can you draw a picture for me of that?
Speaker 13: I'll attempt to describe in relative terms what the scale could be.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 13: And it could be a building built right up to the property line on the front and the sides to maximize the. The width and the configuration of that parcel, but then the depth and then of course, the maximum height. Two stories. But the depth of that building would be a formula based on the proposed use, whether it be restaurant office, residential, that there are specific parking standards in the um's two zone district that would. State the required minimum parking, which would then have to be provided on that site or and I'll just acknowledge that with an adjacent church parking lot, there is potential for offsite or shared parking in the Denver zoning code. So right now, it's it's a formula that development services would have to approve that is not known for certainty at this time.
Speaker 2: So so I'm unfamiliar with the offsite parking and how it plays in, let's say, offsite parking with the church parking lot. But then whatever is developed here is, is a separate ownership, separate parcel. It is now has a different owner from the church. The church leaves and says No more shared parking. What happens then?
Speaker 13: Then they would lose that parking and title.
Speaker 2: They would have a building that isn't parked because there was an agreement between two property owners. Yeah.
Speaker 13: That's correct. It's based on agreement between property owners.
Speaker 2: Again, outside of these applicants, this zone district, this lot size, could you build subterranean parking and build literally a building over the entire mass of the of the parcel at two stories. The that allowed.
Speaker 13: Would not prevent or disallow underground so.
Speaker 2: The biggest but building size then could you go edge to edge on the parcel if you manage to park it to use but either offsite or underneath.
Speaker 13: I suppose hypothetically you could build underground parking if it were cost feasible and. Right. Not seen that with a two storey product. So here, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Again, it's hard because we keep being told, hey, we're not looking at a development thing. So I'm trying to look at what could be built here because it's not part of a development plan. Yeah. And so juggling that. So I'm just trying to get a feel for what could be done most probable.
Speaker 13: And I think what development services would encourage would be. The. Some onsite parking to meet parking requirement minimums, and then any supplemental parking or extra parking desired above the parking minimum might be explored off site that that could be part of what's explored through development services. I would expect building and surface parking in a two story development, but that's just a possibility.
Speaker 2: Okay, sorry. I'll try and wrap up here. Last question. Paul Haake again. So again, what I'm trying to get at is, is what what is the scale of this? And does that scale is that fit with the neighborhood and with with with the criteria? Again, there are lots of drawings showing, you know, hey, if we tear down this building and a building that's not on this parcel, then it adds up. It shows extra parking spots. So now I know we're not talking specifically about it, but we're talking specifically about it.
Speaker 4: So what what.
Speaker 2: What is the it feels a little bit like we've there's been a lot of concern, it sounds like, along the way, I think the applicant side has said with the parcel size in the parcel size has shrunk in terms of what's being resolved. But I also look at page three and it looks like it hasn't shrunk because the two adjacent parcels are both owned by the same person. So can you talk to me a little bit about what what is being designed? And is it really being designed to fit on the parcel that's being resolved? Or is it really still being thought of as a contiguous piece of property that is co-owned and under two parcels?
Speaker 11: It's being thought of as one parcel, a main street development, two stories with full frontage on 32nd Avenue. The only change when you add the other parcel is to get the parking count up to three parking spaces per thousand. That's the only real difference with the. Except I should correct myself. It goes from 17 five to the 23,000 because that's how you balance out the three parking spaces per thousand and the building.
Speaker 2: So I guess maybe to be more succinct, if you take out anything that is not on the parcel that is zoned, the rest gets bought by somebody else. Could you build this 17 five and park it according to use, or is the only way that you can do that's what you can do on this parcel. But if to get to 22,000, you need the additional parking. In my understanding, not correct.
Speaker 11: I think you're interesting that correct. The first. The 17 five is what by right self-parking you could do on that site. That's what would make in my estimation. That's the point of departure for a really good urban building. The additional parking is to the additional site is to provide additional parking to get the count up to 3 to 1000.
Speaker 2: And also allows for.
Speaker 11: A lot. It allows you to build an add on about 12 feet to the building in order to get to balance out the parking and the square footage.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Clerk, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 1: This is along the same lines of questioning that I had. And I've got a couple of questions. First for so for the folks from the church. So is it your intention to own the medical building? If someone can address that? So you will continue the church will continue to own all of the land, regardless of the fact that we're being asked to rezone the parcel where the new building would be built.
Speaker 4: Yes, the church will be.
Speaker 3: A partner with the developer. Because a developer knows how to build buildings. We don't know how to build buildings. But we will continue to own the property. And the plan is to ultimately buy the developer out after about a ten year period.
Speaker 1: Okay. And the parking would be between the new building and the church or the school. Right. Essentially where the school playground is today.
Speaker 3: Yes. And the school would be take school would be taken down. We have no need for it now, since we have no school. So we're we have a high heating bill right now is what we have.
Speaker 1: So that adds to where you're able to do more parking by taking the school down, is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: And that's part of the parking that would be shared between the two.
Speaker 3: If we had shared parking, we would, as Paul is just talking about, with the 17,500 square foot building they required, parking per zoning would be on the zone lot and any supplemental parking would be on the adjacent. A call to school lot.
Speaker 1: So, Tim, I need your help here for a minute in understanding when we have. Parking requirements for the church. I'm assuming the taking down in the school gets factored in to what the current requirements are for parking for the church in the school. Correct. I mean, there have to be certain parking requirements for that site today. You know, that.
Speaker 13: Church, the standard, I believe, for parking for the church, for a religious assembly would be two spaces per thousand. And I think it's an 8000 square foot church. I believe so. There could be excess parking that is on the immense parcel after the church, after the the unused school buildings are demolished that if they have excess parking , then that could be devoted to another off site project.
Speaker 1: So I guess what I'm. Struggling with is we have parking requirements for an existing structure, which is the church and the school. The building has not yet been demolished. The school building. So. How do we. Factory and parking for a new building when the current structure, regardless of whether it's fully occupied or not, it has these requirements . So how do we then blend those two?
Speaker 13: It's a good question because currently there cannot be approval of a site plan until steps are taken to further establish what the end use is on the main site and their parking and meeting their parking requirements. Then development services would look to see if they have excess parking or what a proposed shared parking agreement. So it's subject entirely to their review and approval. And this is just conceptual at this point as to what could take place under the provisions of the code, the parking chapter in particular.
Speaker 1: So I see one of the challenges that we're experiencing with more and more of these earnings that are coming forward is the fact that we this body don't have anything to do with the the set criteria on how many parking spaces will be required, what the total square footage size of the footprint of the building will be on the site. We disapprove the zoning and then CPD goes and works through the details. And so residents are looking for a little bit more security or detail in the zone application, but those are details that we no longer see after the 2010 zoning changes occurred. And so it makes it a little more I don't know if people are looking for us to to insert more details, but that's not what we do under the current zoning code as it as it currently reads. And so that is a a tough place that that puts us in trying to address and and speak to the the point that residents want to see addressed in these projects, where you're looking for some balance to the developments that are being brought before this body. So I want to ask David Broadwell a question about. Where it is in the zoning code that we. Split. A site where we can then change the zoning. I mean, is this just available to any property owner where they can split the site? Is it isolated to certain sized parcels where that can be done so that you can look at more than one development on a site? I know we started this conversation about accessory dwelling units on on residential properties. So help me understand just that piece.
Speaker 4: David Broadwell, assistant city attorney there. There is no limitation in the zoning code for taking a larger parcel and dividing into two and zoning only a portion of the parcel. There are certain limitations on the size of the Rees owned area that apply very in very detailed ways to very specific kinds of zoning. But essentially you're creating a separately defined zone lot with a different zoning category and that that's basically doable. I mean, it wouldn't have gotten this far unless it were doable. And there's nothing in the zoning code that prevents it. And thus thus you end up with common ownership. But on one end of the block it's its own one thing, on the other end of the block, it's on something else.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but they're not always under the same ownership in some of these cases where we're splitting.
Speaker 4: So I'm just saying there's no rule against adjacent differently zoned properties being in common ownership.
Speaker 1: I think the issue is ensuring that where we are allowing shared parking, that we're ensuring that each you know, the existing. Building structure and the new are not competing for the exact same spaces that there's adequate parking to address the needs for both both uses.
Speaker 13: It's for me. I would just further address your question. Go ahead. Okay. So I have not been in a position to provide a hypothetical build out of what I think the range of square footage might be. But the applicant has chosen to bring that information, although it's outside the review criteria, to at least provide a range of potential of what they're interested in exploring with development services. And so I think they've been as transparent and forthright as possible with that information that we have a sense in this room, despite it being outside the rezoning criteria, what the potential yield is in a low to high range. Subject to development services review and approval.
Speaker 1: Right. Right. And I've heard those figures talked about and, you know, it has been sort of within a range. So it's not it won't be clear until they go before CPD and have a clear, um, site development plan that's approved that defines what those exact square footage and parking requirements are. Okay. I think that's it with my question. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, I was wondering if you have any familiarity of the history of the zoning north of 32nd Avenue in terms of the Denver bred company.
Speaker 13: I can tell you that although it is currently zoned. Let's look at the zoning U.S. way.
Speaker 3: A one.
Speaker 13: In one. There is a provision in the code which allows for recognizes the historic nonresidential buildings in Denver as. The UMC or UMC to ex uses would apply to those buildings. And so that's certainly the case for that property.
Speaker 10: Even more specifically than that. Do you have any knowledge of a conversation in the department over the last five years about the fact that that property was owned in error to usou that in fact it was just an oversight in the city by zoning?
Speaker 3: I do not familiar with OC.
Speaker 10: Been asked to rezone that as a sponsor at one point because it was zoned an error. It has continuously been the bread company, as Councilman Espinosa said for 20 years. So. So there is some history there with that site. And Usou is.
Speaker 3: Was.
Speaker 10: Probably not an accurate zoning at the time that it was applied. So anyway, the second question I have, a number of folks have mentioned the St Dominic's rezoning. I don't know if any of those folks are still here, but are any of any of the folks or any of you familiar with the parcel size that was involved in that discussion? Okay. No worries. I can look it up. Thank you. I'll reserve the rest for comments. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Keys. Councilman, you.
Speaker 4: Just had a quick question about the mediation and the confidentiality agreement. Which party did did one particular party insist on a confidentiality agreement?
Speaker 8: The truth is, is that I feel like I can't answer that question because that would probably be breaking the confidentiality and. Sorry.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think you could get away with it. I think I want to go asking.
Speaker 4: Details about what was discussed or anything. But I'm just I find it so unusual, especially with say no breaks, how successful that was and how excited we were and approved it unanimously. And I was so excited to hear that you all had a mediation and all of a sudden I heard that there was this confidentiality agreement. Then it all fell apart. But I just wanted to know, was there one party that insisted on that? Part. Maybe you could answer the question.
Speaker 8: Maybe I just.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Once you get it.
Speaker 8: You want to tell him, like.
Speaker 4: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 3: I also am hesitant to say I mean, we we we entered into the confidentiality to allow the parties, the freedom to say anything to each other and not feel like anybody was going to be spun afterwards based on what was said in that room. Okay. So.
Speaker 4: So you can say yes to a legitimate exercise?
Speaker 3: Well, I think the confidentiality agreement was important because it did allow us to have a full and frank discussion.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: I apologize.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Brooks just passed me now. So in 2015, 16% of the submissions, rezoning submissions were approved, 84% were denied. So Councilman Brooks asked and I would say that. So I did. Councilman Kenny Tribeca.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I just wanted to chime in and my colleagues should have used Steve Charbonneau in the past, should correct me. But in my experience, Steve Charbonneau as the mediator, insists on the confidentiality. It's usually his idea. So it's my experience that generally comes from our mediator. I don't know if any other council members have had different experiences, but that has been my experience when I have asked for his services.
Speaker 4: All right, thanks for the clarification. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Counsel National's Rebecca.
Speaker 3: All right. Personally. So I'll take Councilman Brooks this question and it was on your slide committed areas. This was sort of I think you said it was a reinvestment area in a committed area, but committed area are committed areas are stable neighborhoods that may benefit from stabilizing the effects of minor infill development rather than large scale large redevelopment. Major redevelopment, for example, reinvestment in the Wash Park neighborhood is not necessarily necessary to improve its character. And then so in reinvestment areas, examples of challenges include concern about deteriorated or poorly maintained housing stock, inappropriate land uses or inadequate buffering between uses, lack of services such as grocery stores, lack of curbs and gutters and other infrastructure , and maintaining affordable housing opportunities for improvement can also vary widely. Examples include redeeming vacant land for a neighborhood park or redeveloping underutilized land to provide needed neighborhood services. So and I'm saying that because Blueprint Denver defines these two types of areas of stability, the committed areas and the area, the reinvestment areas. And just so you know, this is the map of Denver. So the yellow is the area of stability. It's huge. And so it does capture a lot of a lot of our stable neighborhoods. But some of our stable neighborhoods are in decline and some of them are not. This is not one that is in decline. We have a vacant parcel that could be a lot of things in a use by right as use zone district. And if you don't think it can get developed, I got one in my district right now. It's a block. It's six houses. You know that. And. And this is happening. So. But my questions to send now. So this is not about. Whatever you guys talked about, because this has been a three year long process. And to correct the record, it was stated that Cinder has been on for a year. She was at the first meeting that I witnessed, which was in May of 2014.
Speaker 8: No, Councilman, I was I was went under contract on December 29th, 2014 and began work January.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. So you might have been in a contract, but you were. As I said.
Speaker 8: Councilman, I wasn't there.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 8: So obviously I really wasn't.
Speaker 3: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yeah. But I do want to say that you did take my comment out of context with regard to where the where the appropriate break is, because there were several other recommendations at that time. And I also was not the councilman at the time. It was councilman elect.
Speaker 8: Oh, you're talking may and May of 2015. Yes. Yes. That meeting I was that.
Speaker 3: So. So what? In all the research that you've done, what are the key concerns for the neighbors?
Speaker 8: Well, in my experience, because we have gone through a lot, it's sort of been this evolving situation.
Speaker 3: So give me five.
Speaker 8: I'm going to answer your question. So our experience has been that a concern will come up and we'll do our best to address it first. What is the.
Speaker 3: Key? Give me five. We've done this before and are in this room. I just want five words. Give me the five key.
Speaker 8: I would like to speak to our experience of continuously addressing concerns and then having something new evolve.
Speaker 3: And so I thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Gentleman from the church grieving. All who went to the school. Is he still here? Oh, hi. There you are, right in front of me. Has in your experience, has the lot there, the parking lot on Thursday. I'm over here to your right.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 6: Right. Has the lot there? Always, always been vacant. I'm looking at the Sanborn map from 1933. Has that always been a vacant lot other than that office, little office building?
Speaker 4: As far back.
Speaker 11: As I can remember, it has been a vacant lot ever since I was there.
Speaker 6: Okay, so there's never a prior to that though.
Speaker 11: I do know there was housing in that area.
Speaker 6: On this property.
Speaker 4: I think you are on this property across the street.
Speaker 11: It was. I know for sure.
Speaker 6: Okay. Okay. And. The. Let me ask somebody, I don't know, maybe from and from the neighborhood or is Randy here still?
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 6: The school building that is on there is about 16,300 square feet. And if that is demolished and replaced with this medical building, it'd be about 23,000 square feet on a lot that's been vacant at least since the Sanborn map here in 1933. I'm really struggling with this. I've been up to the site three times. And I want to understand from the West Highland perspective, why do you consider this to be so out of character when it's been a vacant lot for probably about 100 years and a 16,000 square foot building will be replaced with a 23,000 square foot building . Why is that such a radical change in character?
Speaker 12: Are you asking me why the developing this lot is a change of character?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 6: The school is on the same lot. It's just farther south.
Speaker 12: The school is on the lot defined by the church and defined by the city. Right. And that is, as far as the neighborhood was concerned, was part of the church. What you're asking is about the portion that fronts 32nd Avenue, which potentially would be twice the size of the nearest closest precedent building that they're citing, which is the taco building next door. And this, if you notice, the one slide where it showed this island here is significantly to the east of the neighborhood city center.
Speaker 6: And which one are you looking at? I'm sorry.
Speaker 12: Tim. Where's the slide that shows? The. The whole neighborhood. Is this a good one? No, I want to see 30 seconds also. Oh.
Speaker 13: And clicking and arriving.
Speaker 3: Here we go.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 12: So this this is an anomaly. This island is an anomaly that we're adding to by adding this US USB max two to it. Whereas the center of our neighborhood commercial area is is not here, it is to the west at 32nd and low. And so by adding to what has been an anomaly, we are reinforcing that anomaly, which then over time will give precedent for other building along 32nd Avenue. Who knows? Maybe down spear. Who knows? Maybe down Irving.
Speaker 6: In other words, to close the gap between Julianne and Irving and with commercial rather than the current resident.
Speaker 0: That's right. That's right. Okay.
Speaker 6: I was just trying to understand. Sure. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Flynn, Council National's Rebecca.
Speaker 3: Try one more time, but I'm going to go with more of a straight shooter. Neal, can you answer that question? Can somebody. What is the question? What are the key concerns for the neighbors? Like, you know, if if we were just talking about, hey, you want two things, the key.
Speaker 11: Concerns of the neighbors is change.
Speaker 3: No. I mean, what were they asked? Like, what were they going saying? Hey, how can we make this work?
Speaker 11: I wasn't part of the mediation?
Speaker 3: No. Just in two.
Speaker 11: Years, we had several meetings for 200 footers. We went to, I think a dozen, y'know, meetings at least. And it was a, it was a moving target. They would bring up an issue and we'd say or get you some answers and we would have our development team meeting and we'd try and address that. And they'd say, That's nice. You know, we have a new issue for you. It was it was a shell game that we that we struggled with. And and no matter what answer we gave in, no matter how much and how much we conceded. We couldn't we couldn't find common ground to make them happy. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn, Europe.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe this would make it easier. Maybe one of the neighbors come up and answer that question. What are your five key concerns about this? Thanks.
Speaker 3: So am I obliged to come up with five?
Speaker 6: Only if there are five.
Speaker 3: The key concerns with this are the fact that it's a dramatic zoning from very restrictive residential that was just put in place five years ago by this body. After a lot of consideration and a lot of input from the neighborhood. And we're going to a much more significant up zoning commercial, less restrictive zoning. The size of the building that they're going to build on there or our capable building on there. Under the proposed up zoning. And by the way, I just would like everybody to know that the two numbers you've heard tonight, 17,000 523,500 square feet. That is the first time that we have heard that. Prior to tonight, we'd only heard 26 to 28000 square feet. So that speaks to their outreach as well. But so I would say dramatic up zoning going from restrictive residential zoning to much less restrictive commercial. A two storey building that will be. At 23,500 square feet. I've done the math. I've looked at the pinch tacos building, and I apologize for saying that incorrectly, but it's approximately twice the size at 23,500. So it's only the second 100% commercial building in our neighborhood. And it doubles the size of the only existing 100% commercial building that we have in our neighborhood. Parking and traffic are huge issues. You heard me talk about it. You heard many people talk about it. You've heard about their traffic study, which somehow concluded that the building of a 23,500 square foot building in a place where there is no current building, is not going to have any impact on on on the traffic in our neighborhood or maybe even decrease it. That's obviously incorrect. And that's another very major concern of the neighborhood. Let me just turn to my neighbors and see if I missed anything.
Speaker 6: I think that was four. So if there's one.
Speaker 3: So I get one more. Now.
Speaker 0: Mr.. Mr.. Brady, if you to speak, you can feel free to.
Speaker 4: Harry Brick I live about a block and a half. All the comparative buildings that were mentioned by the architect. I have multiple small stores in them. You know, Pincher Taco has at least three or four organizations in it. Mondo Vino has several. So it's not only larger, but it's out of character with the other kind of smaller commercial establishments. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other comment on some of the statements.
Speaker 0: On that question? I would I would prefer we. Do you think question period just took an hour probably longer for comments. Oh, Councilman Clark, you got a question?
Speaker 2: Just a quick follow up to that. You said you'd never seen the 17,500. Again, I'm really struggling with the scale here. So is that a scale that had you seen before is more palatable? At what level does the scale fit?
Speaker 3: So what I what I tried to convey was that's the first time that we ever heard that number here tonight.
Speaker 2: Yes, I know. Part of it I'm less concerned about the process. I think we've heard complaints on both sides. What I'm trying to get at is, does this fit with the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood? What is the scale that does fit?
Speaker 3: Well, to give you a comparator, looking at the Denver real property records, my understanding is that the taco's building is in the neighborhood. It's approximately 11,000 square feet. So this would be a very significant increase over that. I, I, I personally still think it's 17,000 square feet. It's still way out of context.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Councilman Espinosa. Well, you in a way. All right. Any other questions? Thank you. Public hearing is now closed. We'll move into comment and it's midnight. So, colleagues, if you each talk for 5 minutes, we'll be here for over an hour. All right, Councilman Espinosa, you're up.
Speaker 3: So I wanted to be the example that I use because you were talking about scale building is that and I don't know that everyone has this reference point, but we created this, um, ask to zone district for a very particular need. When we were remapping the city, we had these little small embedded business districts like the lush parks and similar little coffee shops where you had a business use. Not unlike the bread company, actually, where you go, okay, I've got a commercial use in a neighbor in a predominately sub zone district. So we created this little, this little carve out to X and that's key and that's a big difference between two. And so that's sort of why they're sort of articulating and finessing this in a way that says, well, it is the least intensive commercial zone district that we have, but it also is the most restrictive residential zone district that we have that's surrounding what is being proposed. But this is not a wash. It is not a you don't get a 20 to 17000, 22,000, 26,000 square foot coffee shop. That is a different that's a different thing. And so I get what you're saying now, and I wish somebody had sort of articulated all along, because in my own sense, you know, when we show pictures of 32nd and law, we see that granularity, that pattern, that cadence. And while you can do it architecturally is a single use. I mean, it's going to be alive at a certain time and it's going to be not alive at a certain time. And yeah, you're capturing that for the church. Maybe we didn't answer the question about whether and I forgot to ask that question is can you do surface parking in a useful way? Pretty sure you can't. Maybe there's a carve out for churches because there's a lot of little nuances there. But then can you do it in the church? That's a whole ball of wax, but it comes down to the scale, scale, scale, scale. And that's where the that's where the concern lied in planning board because our blueprint Denver is we don't have a small area plan for Walsh Park I mean for I'm sorry sorry West Highland so we don't have a small area plan for West Highlands. So we have to rely on the on conformity with Blueprint Denver and Blueprint Denver is very, very clear that this is in an area stability when you that the idea is that you're trying to redirect growth. The reason why we have there is stability in areas of change. You're trying to direct area growth to the areas of change so that areas that will benefit from the infusion in activity, we're sort of going and stretching the truth. I mean, not the truth is sort of stretching reality to say that this is an area that exhibiting change when the only thing that's new besides some new housing is the taco building. If you look at there's a lot of new businesses, no doubt, but they're utilizing existing strip malls. You know, there's a lot of new 20 year leases on that sucker. What can go there is even bigger than this. And we're dealing with the car wash up on 38. That is that same zone district. Can you imagine? That's what that's it. But that sort of illustrates the disconnect when we're talking about zoning versus intent, because there's really great intent statements in the front of each chapter of the zoning code, but it doesn't tell you that on 38th Avenue you can if you have an MZ three, it's acceptable to have a single storey long one car, mean garage, mean tunnel carwash that's going to service 350 to 800 cars day. We're not talking about that here, but we are talking about entitlement that can capture what we've shown, probably can capture something bigger, probably can capture a lot of things smaller. Absolutely. But we don't have a project. And when you're interjecting this scale of development in an area of stability in this one, I didn't I spoke to on that map. Is the largest single contiguous area of stability in District one. My district is this is right smack in the middle of it, you know, and and it's what makes that area desirable. And so one of the concerns that we have when we're talking about character is your form base code might map the right sort of volume, but what everyone's distressed and it's part of why I'm sitting here today is because. Are you spy, right? I mean, what was allowed in the U.S. spy right in our zone districts is very, very different in material durability. And a lot of the things that Blueprint Denver talks about as desirable in our areas of stability. And so one way to capture that and we have it in our zoning code, we have the way to do it in our zoning code is any of the customized zoning. And I understand that the applicant was turned away when they requested that, and that's unfortunate. But to go to a blanket zone district of this size and scale a US-EU A is a 3000 square foot parcel. That is that is a fraction, a tiny fraction of the size of this parcel, even in the reduced form. And we won't know what planning board even says about this reduced form because because it didn't go back to planning board. That said, I've always maintained that there's probably a way to to to insert something of this scale, but it's got to be done right. You're right next to the most historic district in a blanket rezoning. As much as we'd love to say as members of council that mean as a as a city, that it's a lot easier for us to just give you a blanket rezoning. There are conditions. You've got the historic structure across the street that we know is a nonconforming mean a an allowance. Maybe we should be looking at a legislative zone, not unlike Saint Dominic's, which was a campus. And I believe there is an acreage requirement. You may know what the campus rezoning requirement was, but it was I think it was I mean, it was clearly bigger than this. But we look at doing the entire church and and we and we capture the spot across the street. And you know what, Neal, you know, you commented that if this doesn't go through tonight, that you guys are going to be blacked out and you can't do anything for a year. And that's true. But I want to work with you. And I don't have any I don't harbor any of the animus that you may feel that that's out there. And as a as a as the representative of that district, I can legislative resolve this and I would be happy to go that. So if this doesn't pass, I'll be the first one to say, let's talk about how we can make something work, work for you and work for me because you have been there for 109 years and the next hundred and nine years can be even better. But we have to start from a better place than we did this time. And I believe we can do it because that's what happened on Saint Dominic's. It was contentious at Planning Board and I went out in that corridor and it brought both sides together and said, I think we're closer than we are further apart. And while it seems like we're really far apart because I've observed this and I've gotten all the emails, I see a lot of of where we can overlap and mesh. And, and so I'm committed to doing that if it doesn't go through. But I also don't know where it's going to go. So thank you, guys. Thank you, everybody.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to mention a couple of factors that I think are important in making my decision tonight. The first is I really do think that input is is important and can can help projects make make a better outcome. I do think the St Dominic's is an important comparison. However, the bigger the site, the more room there is to come up with new and creative ideas just for my colleagues on council. This site is 0.5 acres. The Dominic St Dominic site that was resolved in December was 1.7 acres is more than three times as large as the site. 25 acres is, to give you a sense, is the size of a single family residential lot in Douglas County. All right. So we are not talking about a gigantic parcel of land and it's one third. So when you think about how many scenarios could the neighborhood have come up with with this developer, it's significantly fewer than might have occurred on a site that was three times larger. So I just wanted to give that perspective. The second thing that I think is really important is regardless of, you know, the and and I and I will I asserted earlier, but in the question periods, I was cheating. But it is it is very clear that the Denver Bread Company was was erroneously zoned usou. It had been a commercial property. It should have been zoned commercial predecessors and CPD acknowledged it and, you know, put it on a list of errors. And so regardless of that error, every direction that you look from this property is commercial, left, forward, right, it's commercial. And so that is a significant context point to the criteria. The next thing that I think is really important is this criteria about when we had this discussion about sort of stability. This is, you know, my experience with West Highland is that there's an important respect for historic properties and for character. And I think one of the things that I have engaged with the community successfully on previously with this sort of properties is the idea that if you don't allow a historic property to evolve, you, sometimes you can kill it, right? So if Union Station, for example, if we had insisted that Union Station must only continue to be a train station. Right. That wouldn't have been an economically viable use. And so one of the things that I'm very proud of, this community, the city of Denver, is we acknowledge that to for the train station to live on, we had to allow it to evolve. I have seen so many churches lost in Denver. Right. I voted to preserve Beth Eden. Right. And that was the one that we've saved. But we have a rezoning with a church happening. And I believe it's the hilltop neighborhood. A changing circumstance your side didn't mention is declining church membership. That is a justifying circumstance in this city. If we do not allow some adaptation around these churches, they will die. They are dying. And that is something that I don't want to see happen. And so facing that idea and Tim, you said this, that sometimes allowing a small amount of change is actually necessary for maintaining the greater stability. Absolutely applies in this case. And I just don't think anyone can argue with me that this is a citywide phenomenon. And if I say no to any change around churches and then say I will be in, I know exactly the scripture in which is the church goes out of business. They put it on this, you know, historic status application for the church. The neighborhood will file an application for historic designation. Right. I mean, it's a script we've seen play out in this council. So that for me is an important criteria for the zoning justifying circumstance in addition to those that you stated. Lastly, and this is kind of just for us as a body. I have heard us many times, including the prior council, not just this council, but especially in the last six months, say that we want to hear more about projects when we see zoning. We don't want to just hear, Hey, here's the land use. We want to hear what a project is. We have an applicant before us who has a signed resolution telling us the maximum building size they're going to do. They've shared with us publicly their letter of intent and who it's with and what that Lutheran Medical Services does. Medical care. They have shared more with us than any other applicant. And these are the kinds of things I have heard my colleagues ask for week after week after week. So now we have an applicant who's sharing with us. And for me, the only premise to then vote against the project is the assumption that the church is lying to us, that in fact they will build a building bigger than 23,000 square feet in spite, or that they won't really do medical service, that they'll do some other thing. It stretches my credulity to believe that a church would lie in that way. Now does everything, you know, they have admitted they don't know about the shared parking and they've been honest about that. But I just we if we can't have it both ways, we cannot say, I don't like this generalized land use. I want to hear more about projects and then have applicants come in and tell us exactly the parameters of their project and say, not good enough. We don't like that. We can't trust that. We really, as a body need to decide either we are comfortable with generalized land use or if we ask about projects and people tell us about it, that that matters to us. And so I don't know how this vote will turn out today, but I hope that regardless, we will really ponder our expectations because I think we are sending mixed messages. If we penalize applicants who have shared very detailed parameters of what they want to do, and then we say that's not good enough because it's not binding, because there's not a PWD that guarantees that. I mean, to me, that is a real serious concern about the kind of expectations were placing on the people who come before us. With that, I want to thank everyone for their testimony, both sides. I hope that if you succeed, you will consult this neighborhood on design, as painful as it may be. And clearly some healing may need to occur. But I hope you will do that. And if this zoning fails, I hope that, you know that the collaboration that Councilman Espinosa believes is so possible will occur. I don't have any confidence in that. But but I, I think that regardless of how this turns out tonight, there's work to do. So I hope folks will keep doing it.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman, you have more?
Speaker 3: Yeah, actually, thanks for the vote of no confidence there. Now, I am. I'm committed because I've I've seen further parties, parties further apart than what I've seen here. And there's some weirdness here. But get come together and there's a real, real, real there's an undeniable good opportunity here. And and that was reflected in the Weiner vote, right. They had those four votes and it really didn't even come up here. But the overwhelming support was one that was a redevelopment proposal with input. That's what's missing here is this. And nothing illustrated it more than talking to two members of the of the team that's doing this not be able to answer what the what what the community wants most. You know somebody is not listening in this in this dialog and that's key. That's key. But I shouldn't be telling that to a church because you guys, you know, you know all about that. But it would the there is parallel to the St Dominic's and because this is a half acre, but it's a third of the site. So what happened at St Dominic's is we were doing a priory, a very, very small project on a portion of the property. But in order to justify the zoning, we had to capture a whole bunch of area that we didn't that weren't even part of the project. So we could do that here because then it forces us to think about the entirety of it. And so but the thing there is, again, where what's missing here is we have that what was the what was the tool that it's not a proclamation that the thing that your board voted on.
Speaker 8: The.
Speaker 3: Resolution we have the resolution that sets the resolution of your members. And there's a huge disconnect because it's not with your neighbors. And that's that's exactly the point where we were with Saint Dominic's. The opposition came from those people that were directly impacted by the development in the compromise was reached with those people that were directly impacted by the development. They didn't just get insular and say, we're going to focus on what we will agree to, but let's come up with a solution that we both agree to. And so so those two things matter, which is it was a smaller project in a bigger context. This is a small portion of. Things that we're talking about, different bits and pieces to move here, there and everywhere. But. And. So I mean, so that's I've sort of talk that way to death, but I want to acknowledge the community's effort to get the two to get to the protest twice. You know, getting there once is very difficult doing it twice. And this sort of speaks to the neighborliness, right? When people put their names down on a piece of paper. I don't want you challenging them for a dot. You know, these are people. They have. They have. This is impacting their livelihood for for a long time. And gestures like that don't help. You know, the choking symbol, I mean, if that's the tenor, we're never going to get there. And that's what I heard about. And where do I see it? I don't see it from the community. I see it from the developer. And so that and that was reflected in the legal challenge to those signatures. And that's just that's not how you treat your neighbors. Love thy neighbor. If you're going to pull out the biblical verses, I'll do it, too, and do unto others. I mean, this is you guys are the big, big property in the room. This is an activity, a redevelopment of a portion. This was all open area here and across the street for years. And now it's getting redeveloped. Why can't you make some have some dialog, make some concessions? What I heard at Planning Board, even among those that voted to move it on to council, were concerned about the lack of design guidelines and standards. And we're going to work on it as a community. But we have that. You can make the concessions. We can work on design guidelines and standards and adopt those for your project moving forward. So I just I'm saying all that because I want my colleagues to know that. That this is this does fail to provide consistency with adopted plans per the criteria because it is in an intense up zoning and in an area of stability that is not intended for this intensity. And you can sort of overlook the fact that the zone map doesn't comport with what's there. But what which is it? We are we doing this on a legal basis and what the context is or are we doing it sometimes? You know, we develop and we ignore the built environment. Now all we're doing is focusing on the built environment and going and ignoring the map, the context, the zone maps. You know, we're trying to to weigh it both ways so that we can just push push along development. And people have been fearful fearing that citywide and and to to ignore the efforts of of the the residents within the 200 feet gathering those signatures and making enforcing this vote would be a severe disservice to the democratic process in an effort to sort of expedite you the additional property rights that really should merit some compromise. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me just start out by thanking the folks that come to testify. Again, we have another late night. I'll just say right off the bat that I'm pretty conflicted here. And I'm also very turned off. In all my. I've seen some pretty bad public hearings. But I haven't been at a public hearing where there's been this much snickering back and forth and also on council. And it. You know, I think that when we look at an application, we got to look at look at it objectively as we can. And to really take a look at it on its merits. This has been in the queue since about September, since we knew about it. But coming up to the microphone and saying, oh, they're lying. They're lying. He she said she said it just. I feel like I'm channeling Councilman Brown here. It just it just feels like there's a lot of hair pulling going on. I don't like it. I don't like it in the chambers. I don't like it on the dais. And it's turning me off to the point where I don't know where I want to vote. I know that for a fact. This church isn't going to go away. Right? It's not going to go away. You can shrug your shoulders. I've seen this church my whole life. It's sat next to an empty lot. And it hasn't gone away. Develop or not. I believe the church is going to be there. This this hearing is not about whether the church is leaving or not. Right. The other thing is that I don't know if residential is the right fit here. I think you look at it. And all around U.S. commercial. On the strip. It's on 32nd Avenue in between a car wash across from a taco shop and across from a bread company. And down the way what used to be American Apparel, which was a little bit more of an industrial use before. So I don't know about that argument. The matter of fact, was in this room, a lot of the folks who testified in favor of it were not residents. Yes. They are congregation members. Not very many residents. So that that's that that's a that's a big one for me. Finally, I, you know, I, I know that there's been them going back and talk about developer this and developer that, but this, this applicant as a member of the community. It's not like some, you know, big corporation or LLC is coming in and saying, We want to do this in the middle of your pretty little neighborhood. Right. And, you know, I so I'm conflicted. And I could tell you what, you know, looking at the facts, there's a conflict here. But the one thing I could I could say is that and colleagues and forgive me, I'm not trying to point fingers or anything or suggesting it's just I don't like the snickering back and forth and I especially don't like it on the dais.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 2: You know, I think we have some work to do in terms of how we handle the quorum in our chambers, because this is a matter of respect. These walls have been here for a very long time. And you know, I'm not staying up till 230 at night to hear to hear that or to see hair pulling. So. Anyway. I am absolutely conflicted with this application. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank everyone for your emails and letters and those of you who have sat through the long evening now into the morning hours and sharing your input on all sides. I've looked at this very carefully and listened to the input from everyone. And. I think that the proposal that is on the table. For the building that has been identified and articulated by the applicant is a reasonable request. I understand the concern that neighbors would like to see residential there, but I think the scale of what you can get as residential on this site could be far more impactful to the adjacent residential property owners than would be what this this site would do. This is not a 24 seven operation where you're going to have traffic coming and going all night like some of the other commercial uses that do exist on 32nd Avenue. And I, I appreciate the fact that the church has struggled trying to figure out how to. You know how to do something that keeps the church in the presence there, that allows them to continue to serve the community in many different ways. But at the same time looks at something that could benefit the community and this type of use. We're seeing some of these these clinics in other parts of the city because of the need and the demand for addressing health care for for folks all over. And again, I think this is a reasonable request and I will be supporting it tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, back up.
Speaker 3: Yeah, just as a point of clarification, I hope I didn't confuse any of my colleagues when I waived the residential stuff here that has that no one was talking about. I don't think residential use on the site. And in fact, the white vote was particularly towards a mixed use sort of development that did not preclude even the proposed use that is being discussed. I mean, mentioned even though so where the emphasis was was sort of having some guiding principles and in codifying as much as possible the sort of character how we're going to sort of maintain character. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. You know the comments. 625. Seeing none. Councilmember is just a reminder that since a successful legal protest was submitted, signatures of the owners of at least 20% of the property within 200 feet of the site has been met with the petition signatures, therefore requiring ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven to pass this bill. Madam Secretary, roll call 625.
Speaker 5: Espinosa.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 8: Flynn.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. Cashman.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 5: In each Lopez. I knew.
Speaker 11: No.
Speaker 1: Ortega, I.
Speaker 8: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Brooks. Clark.
Speaker 2: No. LOPEZ Oh, already hit it.
Speaker 5: ORTEGA Sir. Clarke. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please, first of any announced results.
Speaker 5: Eight eyes. Four days.
Speaker 0: Eight eyes. 26. 25 has been defeated. Seen of the business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
Rezones 3268 West 32nd Avenue from U-SU-A to U-MS-2x in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 3268 West 32nd Avenue from U-SU-A (Urban, Single Unit, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to U-MS-2x (Urban, Main Street, 2 stories less intense use) in Council District 1. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-16-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01112016_16-0013
|
Speaker 1: Councilman Brooks. Katherine Brooks, would you please read the proclamation? 13.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly will. Now, this isn't just an irregular discharge. This is Proclamation 13, welcoming the 110th National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show to Denver. Whereas the annual National Western Stock Show Rodeo and Horse Show opens in Denver for the 110th time on January 9th, 2016. I just want to say we would have done this last Monday, but we didn't have council, so that's why we're a little late. Whereas the National Western Stock Show is a storied treasure of Denver's past with a unique and colored history dating all the way back to 1906. And. Whereas, Mayor Robert W Spear declared Wednesday, January 31st, 1906, Denver Stock Show Day an official holiday in the city of Denver so everyone could partake in the first ever stock show. It was on this day that banks, department stores and other businesses and every corner of Denver shut their doors at noon while streetcars bustle and hustled from the 15th street loop every 3 minutes to the stockyards and the Burlington Railroad rush. Special trains from Denver use Union Depot from the round trip charge of $0.25. Wouldn't it be nice to live here that day? And whereas, today, the primary mission of the National Western Stock Show is to educate urban and suburban citizens about the importance of understanding and preserving Colorado's Western heritage and agriculture, providing city kids hands on experience with farm animals, and to host one of the largest professional rodeo horse shows. And. WHEREAS, The National Western annually attracts more than 600,000 visitors from all 50 states and 40 foreign countries and contributes approximately $100 million to Denver's economy. And. Whereas, activities during the 15 day event include Wild West shows, horse shows, dancing horses, super dogs, a myriad of types of livestock, our expert expedition and also Colorado's largest trade show. And. WHEREAS, the voters of the city and county of Denver generously supported funding, the new vision of the National Western Center that sets in motion a new year round, a new year round destination of gold, promoting new out-of-state tourism that would generate job growth for generations to come and plan that will position Denver as a global player in the 21st century agriculture that were vanced. The knowledge of healthy food production and and safety at an international scale. Now therefore be a proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, section one that the Council hereby enthusiastically you can see by our dress welcomes the 110th Annual National Western Stock Show Rodeo Horse Show to Denver extends its best wishes and other exciting, exciting and successful year and encourages Denver residents to saddle up and enjoy the show. Section two that the clerk in the city of the county of Denver shall attest, in effect, a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that the copy be transmitted to the National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I make a motion that we adopt Council Bill 13.
Speaker 1: A proclamation.
Speaker 5: Proclamation 1326.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is one of one of our most exciting proclamations, because I think the National Western stock shall just have such a storied history. It's who we are in Denver. And I think that's why you have so much buy in of so many councilmembers up here and why you have 650,000 people, the number of citizens in Denver that go to the stock show facilities within a 15 day period. It is incredible. And I also want to say that the stock show broke a record on their opening day that 47,000 people was the normal record. But just this Saturday, 50,000 people descended upon that facility, that aging facility, and had a great time. It was incredible and we are so excited to be a part of this. But what makes this special this year? Is Denver. Just approve one of the largest bonds in Denver's history, the largest bond to Denver history, over billion dollars to see the whole facility transformed so that we can take this vision of the stock show to the next level from the communities of global response here to the rest of the world, so that we can really take this agriculture and this urban ag experience to the rest of the world so we can understand what it means to feed the rest of the world. And so we're really excited about this. And I think what I'm most excited about, number one, every precinct in Denver voted in favor of to see. So we're so grateful for Denver voters. And the neighborhoods that were closest to the stock show voted the highest percentages, a 73%. So that says a lot about the outreach that was done and that says a lot about what the neighbors believe and see and believe what that area can be. And so in an age where I think there's a lot of controversy between development and neighbors, this is one example of a development that came together and saw that the community is just as important as the facility. I'm so, so excited to be a part of that in my last little piece because I see we got some folks who want to say a couple words is I just love them. My kids love this. And Kelly, if you can just put that on the screen, this this young lady right here is an urban chick, okay? She lives in a concrete jungle, jungle of coal neighborhood, but she loves animals and she wants to be a veterinarian one day. And her favorite thing to go to is rodeos. And when we get these kind of urban kids excited about agriculture and the agrarian lifestyle, I think that's the connection that is priceless that we're making around the stock show. And that's what the National Western Stock Show has been about for the last hundred ten years. So I'm happy to support this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Councilman Brooks, thank you for bringing this forward. Excuse me. I had the benefit of representing this area of town for 16 years when I served on the council my first time around and had the benefit of working directly with National Western in their many requests to ask the city to help them to grow in a bigger way . And it was in this most recent conversation, an effort with the Hancock administration that the package was able to be put together that went before the voters and approved the $800 million, complemented with the 200 million that the CSU was able to get for this incredible vision for this site. It will certainly transform this area. There will be additional acreage added on to the site of full buildout, 170 acres compared to its 90 acres today. The. Future opportunities with the new partners. As Councilman Brooks alluded to, I think pose some just incredible, an incredible future for the city of Denver, not only looking at how we address food sustainability and the work that CSU does and working with our agricultural community, the opportunities for young kids to be able to go to the site and learn about, you know, the. The life of people who raise cattle for for beef that we consume. You name it. The opportunities are just incredible for those of you who are consumers. I want to encourage you all to go and take a look at the exhibits that they have. There are some incredible exhibitors that have jewelry and Western apparel for both men and women, as well as, you know, equipment that you can buy for the livestock industry. But the economic surge that we see in January is not only a result of attendees showing up and paying the ticket price, but it's a lot of those purchases that we see from many of the products that are on display at the event. I just want to congratulate National Western on 110 years of commitment to this city as well as congratulate them in the recent success of the ballot initiative that passed that will allow us the opportunity to ensure that they're here for another hundred years. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Governor Ortega, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. It's always been a a very good thing to see this proclamation every year, every year that I've been on council. And that's eight years already. This is now. I've been able to see this proclamation of different people come up in front of it, from Pat Grant to Paul Andrews and now the Honorable Terrance Carroll, who come to receive this little later. But and then to see different iterations of of of cowboy hats and and shirts and just to be part of this to see the parade come through downtown Denver is awesome. To see the Longhorns come through, to watch the Mexican rodeo extravaganza that happens as part of the heritage of the western part, a big part of of of the identity and the culture. The word rodeos as a Spanish word, the lucky arrows where it all originates. And just to be part of it, you know, if you're not from Denver and you haven't done it yet, go to the stock show. It is, there's much more than meets the eye. And, you know, you walk around those grounds and you see the Denver Coliseum to think of the different things that have happened through the Coliseum , the Western Stock Show, the event center, the exhibition hall, even the old 1900s building that still stands. And thank God we're going to preserve it. This is. The stock show is to Denver what the orange is to the Broncos. It's the identity. It's our identity. Before there was the Broncos, before there was Mile High Stadium, before there was Coors Field, before there was even Bear Stadium or Mike Nichols Arena or the Pepsi Center. There was the National Western Show. Before there was a Super Bowl, there was the National Western Stock Show. That's how important this is and this part of our heritage. Let's go check it out. And those of you who are from Denver for some reason have not visited it. Go see it. Go see it now, because you're going to experience what the change will be. Go walk along that area along the Platte River. That's going to be turned into thriving parkland. A mile of it, right? And it won't just be something that happens in November. I mean, not November, but January. It'll be year round. There'll be outdoor amphitheaters. There'll be connections and infrastructure. Right. That connected a neighbor that will reconnect the neighborhood to the rest of the grid. It'll help. It'll help do things that we just haven't done right all these years. I remember during the tour of the stock show almost nine years ago and looking at the infrastructure and looking at the needs. And it was leaky. It was rickety. Was historic buildings that were just falling apart before our very, very eyes with no mechanism and nothing to help preserve it. And now that we do go visit it now so you can be part of that change, go experience touching those austere. And they're so beautiful. You walk in there and it's like, man, these guys look like they made it out of velvet. Who do think this makes such a tasty burger? I'm just kidding. Just don't name them. Don't make the mistake that I go in and I say, Hey, what's up? And I make a name for the cow or the sheep. And I realize, man, I shouldn't have done that. I feel guilty later, but it's just such an amazing, amazing experience. Amazing for the kids. It's amazing for everybody. Just enjoy it. Anyway, I just wanted to share that little piece and congratulations to the stock show. Congratulations to Denver once again, the Mile High City. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I would like the secretary to make note of which members have the black hats and which have the white gray. Secondarily, though, and seriously, I wanted to echo Councilman Brooks in his remarks about the voters of Denver overwhelmingly approving something that is going to make a vast difference to this city, not just to Elyria, Swansea, but to this whole city. And we often have talked about a stock, at least I recall when I was at the newspaper covering stock shows. In fact, I recover that. I remember the media parties, which were quite eventful, but we talked about it in terms of reflecting Denver's heritage and its history and how it made us look back to our past. But I want to tell you that this year, again, to echo Councilman Lopez, that I think this year we should look forward to the future and say that what we see there at the stock show is not a reminder of our past. It's a harbinger of our future. And so I, too, look forward to coming back down the road and seeing the changes and the improvements that will be made in those communities because of the thanks to the voters of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I grew up in Rush, Colorado, and so I was that for each kid who during the summers was washing steers and using a whole bunch of aqua net to make sure that, you know, I'll just leave it at that. If you don't know what Aqua Net is used for with steers and when you're showing them, I'll leave that to the Internet for you to research. But, you know, I moved up here to Denver to go to school when I was 18. And it's just a great reminder of, you know, agriculture, the West, the northeastern plains. And, you know, I'm proud to say that my mom was a barrel racer and my dad was a brand inspector. And so those agricultural roots go very deep and I'm never too far from home. I thought moving to Denver, you know, the agriculture and the West and the traditions, you know, I was in the city now, but it's really nice to come full circle and the resurgence of, you know, concentrating on where our food comes from, how we manage natural resources and conservation. I think it's going to be very wonderful for not only the city but the entire state. And I predict that we're going to have tourists from all over the world coming and seeing the innovative things that we're doing here in Denver. And so I just wanted to congratulate the folks again and proud to be a fourth generation Coloradan. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: You know, probably the only place more rural than brush is where I spent my teen years, which is rural Sublette County, Wyoming. That is county number 23. If you're looking at the plates, which means it's the least populated in the state of Wyoming, which is saying not very much. That said, I do encourage everyone to go there because if you put I mean, go to well, not to I'll go to Sublette County because it's actually some beautiful, mostly unspoiled land. But that's a whole different story. I'm encouraging everyone to go to the stock show. And the reason is, is because if you type in raise cattle in your app store, there is no app for that. There's a different sense of time. It's life spans, it's generations. And it's whenever, whenever the calf in the barn makes some noise, you've got to respond. There's seasonal things where you're moving cattle, you're switching fields. And in branding season, I don't know if they still brand. That's how long it's been since I've been that guy. Yeah, but learning about rustlers and being a puncher and. And B, being a wrestler in junior high and being a puncher in high school, those are terms that still mean something in the ranch land. And so go there, understand that this has this has real world impact on how we move forward with the project that we just funded. Because what you're going to find, it's people out there with a with a not a work ethic that we don't have, but a real solid work ethic that is enviable. And because when they start something, they started to finish it. And when you do something, you do it right. And so we remember what we're doing and who we're doing it for throughout this this project at the stock show, we will have great outcomes. So go there, experience it, meet the people, see what they've done because they're going to be out there doing it tomorrow like they did yesterday and generations from now, like they did generations before. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I forgot to say a few things, but it is interesting that Councilman Espinosa said the word puncher. I think I was a punchy in high school anyway. Oh, no, I. I wanted to really hone in on a few things. And as we look to our future and say, you know, there's a lot of the some of the things that we just didn't do right that we have the opportunity to do again. And I think, you know, when we tour that stock, shall we find out? Not very many people from the neighborhood were working there. And that's important. From laying concrete to erecting structures and building a new and doing the landscaping and even the sails and and from every aspect of the labor force. We have to do a better job in creating those opportunities all throughout Denver, but especially for those neighborhoods surrounding this dog show. Right. And it's those jobs. It's their future. It's a sustainability, but it's also that sense of ownership. Right. We can put on a cowboy hat and a cowboy shirt and say, oh, we're part of the stock show or cowboys, but and we're part of the West. But truly, truly, the hands that are building this new center, the hands that will lay those bricks, the hands that will shake you and we shake your hand when you walk in there and greet folks in the stockroom. We have to make sure that we participate at a local level as much as possible. And here's the other thing, too. For decades that that stock show has been so close to the neighborhoods in the north. Right. You think that all the ag all the education about food and so many people still living in a food desert. We have to fix that. And we have to fix it in a way that that that when you when you go when you go to that area, you will never hear anybody say anymore. There's no grocery store out here. We don't have access to fresh food. Right. We have to fix that with all that acreage, whether it's a market like they were talking about. Great. That's absolutely great. Let's make sure that there's access and make sure that the owner snap. Let's make sure that we are creating that opportunity for the whole area of Denver in spans council districts that even spans counties. Right. Let's go in there and it's create a great opportunity. Let's bring the AG back into households, even if has to be with refrigerator to start. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Any other comments? Proclamation 13. I just I second all the comments from the council members. I was there on Saturday, Colorado versus the world. It was a great event to be there with my family. I am really excited and looking forward to my seven month old. Not only seven months, but participating in the mutton busting though with the death grip that he has on his mother's hair. Sometimes when she's feeding him, I think he could do he could be very successful right now. But it is exciting to see the future of the stock show and what is about to be what is going to become of that. So, so thankful to be a part of it. So, you know the comments, Madam Secretary, call Brooks.
Speaker 6: Clark. I. Espinosa. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew.
Speaker 4: Ortega I. Black tie. Sussman Hi.
Speaker 6: Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Council woman can each. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please cast a vote now for the results. 3939 Proclamation 13 has been adopted. Councilman Brooks, is there somebody in the audience you'd like to invite us to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 5: Let me look around. Yes, I'd like to call up our first, the honorable Terrance Carroll, first African-American speaker of the House in the state legislature, and also a board member of the National Western Stock Show.
Speaker 7: Glad to see you. Have a nice hat on. I couldn't done a better job if I picked it myself. Oh, wait, I did.
Speaker 5: You're the one to fix this girl.
Speaker 7: First, I'd like to thank the members of the City Council for this proclamation. But I would be remiss if, on behalf of our President, our chairman, and my fellow board members and the entire national Western family that didn't think the residents of the city and county of Denver for showing their great faith in us by overwhelmingly passing to see it ensures that the National Western will be in this great city for another 110 years and beyond, well beyond. Any of us will be here, but our children and our grandchildren and great grandchildren will be able to see this great institution continue, hopefully in perpetuity, but definitely for a long, long time that the rest of us can even contemplate. And so it's actually a great thing for Denver, a great thing for Colorado, and it's a great thing for the entire nation. So I definitely want to thank you for that. And I want to also say that we had a record day on Sunday as well, and we broke another record. And I think the only thing that keeps us from breaking more records is that we're running out of the space at the national western complex and thanks to to see will go from having on average 650,000 folks who show up at the National Western every year to closer to 1 million folks who show up at the National Western during those 16 days in January hopefully will expand beyond that. So once again, thank you very much and extend the personal invitation for you all to come out to my ranch if you want to do some branding, because if there's no branding, that's a possibility of having Rocky Mountain oysters because the two go hand in hand . Councilman Kennish, you'll enjoy it there. Deep fried man. And deep fried. Do we even have tofu oysters.
Speaker 1: If that to make you feel better?
Speaker 7: Again, thank you very much. And thank you for your support of the National Western and the Western Stock Association and everything that we do. And I look forward to seeing you all out at the grounds over the next 16 days or so as we have a good time down there. And and I know you'll spend money, but I just want to encourage you to spend even more money when you go down there. Some good stuff down there. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you to the honorable Terrance Carroll. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for that as well. We're going to get that frog. It's fitting to have the former speaker when the session starts on Wednesday, find that you're not going to be there. He does not miss it. Best of luck to the two as the session does begin on Wednesday. All right. That was the only proclamation. We're on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, would you please read the resolutions.
Speaker 6: From business development 982 resolution and oppose Fourth Amendment to agree between Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. and City and County of Denver related to terminal and landslide area redevelopment at Denver International Airport 1989, a resolution approving a purchase order between City and county.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation welcoming the 110th National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show to Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01112016_15-0850
|
Speaker 6: Resolution Approve any post contract between City and County Interlock Construction Corporation for on call Construction Services 50 resolution approve any post contract between city and county ever and am Golden Constructors Rockwall Construction Services 51 resolution approve any post contract between city and county offering spectrum General Contractors Inc. for on call construction services in 52, a resolution approving new post contract between City Encounter and Turner Construction Company for on call Construction Services 853 Resolution approve any post contract between city and county for O'Neil Construction Company of Colorado for Uncle Construction Services 54 A Resolution for Universal Contract between City and County Wilderness Construction Company for Uncle Construction Services 959 Resolution Preventive Post First Amendment to Concession License between City and County Denver Wilshire LLC 960 Resolution Approving Concession License with Tim Fun LLC to operate Boat Paddleboat Right Bike Rentals and Food Services at Washington Park and City Park 974 Resolution lane out opening in 77 real property as part of city streets and parcel land as West Florida Avenue near intersection of South Fetter Boulevard and West Florida Avenue 975 resolution laying out openness to fishing certain real property as part of city streets as in parcel land at the Cota avenue at the intersection of South Jackson Street into. So to Avenue nine any resolution laid out opening establishing a certain real property part of city streets in some parts of Atlanta's East Evans Avenue, intersection east of Annette Avenue and South Jasmine Street. 85 resolution lane out of many steps in certain real property as part of city streets and parcels of land as West Colfax Avenue, near its intersection with Ninth Street. 986 A resolution grading vocal print at Downing and P Tower, LLC, to encroach in the right away at 1600 Downing Street. 996 Resolution laying out opening steps in certain real properties by city streets to some parcel of land. Peoria Street near its intersection with 39th Avenue 997 resolution laying out, opening and establishing certain real properties part of the city street system parcel of land at Peoria Crossing, nearest intersection II 38th Avenue 998 resolution lane out opening establishing certain real property as part of city street system of parcel land as East 39th Avenue, intersection with Perez Street 999 resolution lane out opening establishing certain real properties part of city street system parcel and as Denver place near the intersection of East 39th Avenue and Perez Street from Safety and Well-Being 977 a resolution Lee authorizing the mayor and other proper officials of the city and county of Denver to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police. Denver Sheriff Lodge, 27 For the years 2016 to 2017. Resolution 11 Resolution authorizing approving expenditure Premiere from the from the appropriation account designated liability claim some $40,000 per year to Rathod Hey LLC In full satisfaction of the November 2nd, 2015 order issued by the District Court for the city and county of Denver
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and MW Golden Constructors for On-Call Construction Services.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a $5 million, three-year on-call construction contract with MW Golden Constructors for citywide projects (201524789). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-25-15. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-12-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01112016_15-0891
|
Speaker 4: I sure will. Mr. President, pro tem, I move that council bill 891 be placed on the floor for final consideration.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Councilwoman, it has been moved in second in a public hearing for council bill 891 is open. May we have the staff report? David Gasper. From Community Planning and development.
Speaker 5: Guzman-Lopez Councilmembers David Gaspar, principal city planner and community planning and development. Happy to be here tonight for the rezoning of 770 South Federal Boulevard. This is a rezoning that would go take be a one with waivers as former Chapter 59 zoning to the BMX three zone district. This is in Council District seven, Kathleen Clark's district, right on Federal Boulevard and Atmore, Moorpark on the far western edge. If we zoom in to the location a little bit closer, it's at the intersection of Federal Boulevard and Ohio Avenue. It's on the east side of federal really essentially between the major arterials of Alameda and Mississippi. The request here tonight is to rezone parcel just over a an acre in size, 45,000 square feet. It's currently a single story church. The property owner, Central Federal Investors is requesting the rezoning to allow for mixed use development. And Representative Dennis McClean is here to answer any of your questions to him. The rezoning is from be a one with waivers. That's a commercial zoning and the old code. The waivers reduce CFR the buildable amount in the area to 1 to 1 from 2 to 1 in limited the amount of uses to the annex to read. I'll quickly go through the existing context the zoning, the transit service on the corridor, land use and building and scale existing zoning on site. There is still be a one with waivers both to the north and south. The same zoning and beyond. That impacts three is also on the map. To the west there is B2 and to the east. In the Upper Park neighborhood is Eastside. So that's single unit urban edge transit. This is an enhanced transit corridor. RTD has significant amount of service on here with four routes providing a high frequency service on Federal Boulevard. Route 11 is the nearest east west route exposition on the northern border of the block. If we look at the land use, as I mentioned, the church surrounded by commercial and residential uses quickly through there's the church there looking from federal single storey, surrounded by parking. Out of the north, there's two and a half storey apartment buildings to the west, single story strip, commercial to the south, additional apartments. And on the east backside of the property, essentially, this is, I believe, Elliott Street, where there's the single family residences process. Notice of receipt of the application came in late September. Planning Board was scheduled their public hearing on November 4th. At that time, Ashmore Park, a neighborhood association, did speak in favor of the rezoning. I went to a plan committee in November and we're here in front of you tonight and January the next three. It's urban edge, neighborhood context, mixed use, and it's three stories, maximum heights. We'll go through the review criteria, mainly focusing on review criteria. Number one, consistency with the adopted plans. We have a comprehensive plan 2000 blueprint, Denver and the Ashmore Park neighborhood perimeter plan to look at for a review criteria. There is significant consistency with adopted plans through the comprehensive plan with promoting infill development at the site. We zoom in a little bit more to Blueprint Denver. The land use concept is commercial corridor and it is an area of change. We look at federal for many features through classification. It is a commercial arterial and an enhanced transit corridor. So the next three fits very well with Blueprint Denver. We zoom in with Ashmore Park with the neighborhood plan was adopted in 2000. There is strategies that speak directly about redevelopment along the transit corridors and promoting having rezonings for tomorrow mixed use transit sporting development also strategies to target new commercial retail to come to Ashmore Park and to promote commercial industrial areas, good investment opportunities. So there is significant consistency with adopted plans here through those three documents. There also is uniformity district regulations. The mx3 is mapped along Federal Boulevard near the property and along other commercial corridors. The application is consistent with furthering public health, safety and welfare with just varying circumstances. There is change in changing conditions at the site since the zoning, which dates back to the seventies. There has been the adoption of the plans I just mentioned, in particular the neighborhood plan in 2000. Also the adoption of the new Denver zoning code, which has mixed use districts that implements the goals of those adopted plans and that redevelopment along commercial corridors that align with the mixed use zoning standards that were not prevalent at the time of the existing zoning adoption all lead to a justifying circumstance of changed conditions, and there is also consistency with neighborhood context. If you look at the urban edge neighborhood context, it does speak of being characterized by low scale buildings, except for some mid-rise commercial mixed use structures, particularly at nodes and along arterial streets. And it makes you zoned districts in particular intended to promote safe, active and pedestrian skilled development in those areas. So with that, CBT does recommend approval of the rezoning of 770 South Federal Boulevard from B A-1 with waivers to the Annex three zoned district. Based on all on finding all review criteria have been met. You're for any questions.
Speaker 7: All right. We have one. Thank you for the staff report. We have one speaker this evening. Dennis McLean, if you want to come up to the podium. And forgive me if I'm not pronouncing your last name right.
Speaker 5: That's okay. McLean Council Members Dennis McLean City with McLean Commercial Addresses 4007 Bryant Street. Denver, Colorado 80211. I'm just here to answer any questions that you guys may have about our project.
Speaker 7: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Mr. MacLean, would you mind coming to the microphone, please? Can you give me an idea of what you're planning to do with the site?
Speaker 5: You know, we're not sure we bought the site some time ago and the zoning is pretty interesting.
Speaker 7: On the site. Typically, it's my.
Speaker 5: Understanding when the new zoning came around Denver, anything that had a waiver just got not looked at. So we bought the site knowing that someday we redevelop it and it's gone.
Speaker 9: So you have no immediate future plans to level the building and to put something else in there? Not immediate. Okay. And about how many acres is the site?
Speaker 5: It's about 1.17. It's about 47,000 square feet. Roughly three. Pretty good sized parcel on federal.
Speaker 9: Right. I'm familiar with it. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem.
Speaker 10: Dennis, can you answer? Is this property vacant right now?
Speaker 5: It is not.
Speaker 10: Vacant. It is not. Is it? Is there a church, a congregation still meeting in it?
Speaker 5: We have a couple groups that meet in there regularly. We have English as a second language group that meets in there and a couple churches that use.
Speaker 10: A customs or a couple of churches.
Speaker 5: Of different church groups that do things in there.
Speaker 10: I see. And you haven't given them notice or how they are month to month arrangements?
Speaker 5: They're all month to month. They know that we're working on something.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you very much. That's all.
Speaker 7: Are there any other questions for members of council? All right. This public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council will go to Councilman Clark where this is located. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. This is, you know, something that is right in my district. And I want to commend the applicant. The original application that came through was for a different zoning classification, and my neighborhood organization had expressed some concern with that. And I was actually at the meeting that Mr. McLean came to with the park neighbors and he introduced himself, had talked about, you know, his history with this city and then said to this community, I don't want to build something that you don't want in your neighborhood. So tell me what you would like. What zoning would you like? And we just hear so much, you know, sitting up here and in the news about when zoning is contentious and about developers and neighbors not working together and to sit there and watch that and then see this come forward with full support from the neighborhood organization, I think is a model for how we can have neighborhoods and developers working together to move Denver forward to bring positive, engaged use to a corridor that needs it that the neighborhood wants it at. And so I will be enthusiastically supportive of this tonight, and I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. I think this is one where we really got it right, and that's because we had a developer who really cared about the property that someday he will develop. And and as I heard him, you know, just as I can go say, I don't know what I'm going to develop, I'm sure that that's because he's going to sit down and talk to the neighborhood about what they want. And I think that that is something that is really spectacular and the way that we should have our community and our developers as a city working together to build this city. So I'm enthusiastically supportive tonight. Thank you. Councilman Clark, are there any other comments from city council members? All right. Before that, I'll make a comment. I used to represent this this area. I'm right across the street. You guys will probably know this from if you've ever sat down at the first 75 or the crawling crab and looked out outside the window as you're enjoying your bowl of this is what you're staring at and it is this whole property. The good thing about this property is that under the old chapter 59, this would you I think you would be able to allow a junkyard here at one point. And that's how outdated the zoning was here. So to move 4amx3, which allows that mixed use, allows, you know, residential income and commercial to mix. This is exactly the vision for four federal boulevard. It's been underutilized under visualized and it looks like this is the right move. And Councilman Clark, I think you're exactly right. I think this is a good example of what happens when there's good communication ahead of time and when there's collaboration and with the community. So having said that, Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 6: Clark Espinosa, Flynn, I Gilmore, I Cashman. All right. Can each. Lopez I knew Ortega I.
Speaker 4: Sussman Black, I.
Speaker 7: All right Madam Secretary close to voting. Announce the results. Lebanese Lebanese Council Bill 891 has passed. Thank you very much for attending tonight. There is no pre adjournment announcement and seeing that there's no other business before the body, this council meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
Rezones 770 South Federal Boulevard from B-A-1 with waivers to E-MX-3 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 770 South Federal Boulevard from B-A-1 with waivers (Old Chapter 59 Code - Business Arterial 1) to E-MX-3 (Urban Edge, Mixed Use, 3 Stories) in Council District 7. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-18-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12212015_15-0933
|
Speaker 3: Councilman Brooks, would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm I'm calling this resolution now, for purposes of an amendment to change the contract number, to correct the date, Costco can begin petitioning funds and extends the maturity date so that the contract will terminate the last day. Costco can request the funds.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. So I will first check with councilmembers Flynn, Lopez, Ortega. I'm assuming you don't have issues with this amendment. Otherwise I'll come to you all for comments after we move forward then. Great. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Resolution 933 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 933 be adopted.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Brooks, your motion to amend.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 93 be amended in the following particulars on page one. Line 13 Strike City Clerk's Filing Name 201524655. Dash and replace the city clerk's filing number to 01525975 dash.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded any comments on this amendment? I'm pretty sure those are for the overall bill. All right. Scene none. Madam Secretary, voting on the amendment. Motion to amend. Take a roll call.
Speaker 4: Brooks Clarke Espinosa. Flynn r Gilmore. I Cashman.
Speaker 11: I.
Speaker 4: Lopez, all new Ortega Black. I Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi. Madam Secretary, please collectively announce the results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. Council Resolution 933 has been amended. Now, Councilwoman Gilmore, we need a motion to adopt as amended.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolution 933 be adopted as amended.
Speaker 3: All right. It has been moved. We need a second. Moved and seconded. Now let's go to comments. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just had a few questions, actually. Go ahead and maybe Jeff can address them on. And we had a very good exchange today about a lot of the details, but I still wanted to bring out a few things. There is an existing tax increment finance agreement in place here, and the amount of that was $7.3 million. And it expires November 5th of this of 2016. Or 2015, 2016, and that was one of the reasons for the amended filing. Could you explain that? Sure. Council President Members Council My name is Jeff Romaine and with the Office of Economic Development. First off, I'd like to thank both city council staff, the city attorney's office, as well as City Council for making the amendment. It was a minor, but very important changes, as many of you may have already heard. And so to your question, yes, there is an existing tax increment financing agreement on the property that is called Alameda Square. It expires, as you point out, 11 526 2016. The way that we have structured the agreement between Costco in the city and county of Denver, Office of Economic Development is the incentive cannot be paid until the tip is expired. The reason is obviously we do not want to double incentivize activity at that site. And so upon that point, then we'd be the Costco would be able to receive the increment or not the increment, I'm sorry, the incentive. So they'd be able to first receive the incentive for the fourth quarter activity in 2016 and be able to invoices in 2017. So again, that was what the amendment for. And thank you, Councilman Flynn, for bringing that to my attention this morning. Thank you. And the tiff, the financing, will that be paid off? The thing that I know about Alameda Square, I remember I used to take my kids there to the organ grinder pizza place. And it's been and it's long been a difficult as Councilman Lopez will probably make note later. I've been a difficult area to keep businesses going. We've had various things in there. And the Lowe's, the TIFF was was adopted for the Lowe's project. Correct. Councilman Flynn, members of council, actually the tiff was with Brighton Corporation for the Development. Lowe's was the result in Venice was a tenant, if you will, because they came in as a tenant. Right. Whether whether or not the full amount of the 7.3 that's a that's between Durham, Brighton Corporation. What we do know for your information is, is the tiff expires on that date. In any tiff, of course, if the activity doesn't move forward in the increment isn't fully realized, that's the risk between whoever may be purchasing that debt or that or I should say, that bond. Okay. So I can't speak on behalf of the city, county, Denver. We would need to have Dora here to be able to talk about whether the $7.3 million in proceeds was fully realized through the tiff. All right. Thank you. That was going to be my question then. So thank you, Mr. President. I have anything else.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: I just have some comments. Go ahead. The. This is such a good agreement. And I am glad I was really thrilled to know that Costco was entering into negotiations with the city and looking at this site. And for folks to understand it's not going to be your typical Costco. So there's two things there, three things I want to say. First of all, it was it's been 20, 30, 30 years in the making to redevelop this site, to get the site activated moving forward. At one point, there was a Walmart that wanted to come there. Neighbors, businesses a new way push really hard back on the city. The it wouldn't play well with the the A's and business owners that were there. They usually bring in their own tenants. So it sat there for a while and then, lo and behold, Lowe's and a lot of folks came to the table and said, we can do this if we get the property owners on board and we can actually keep those local businesses there without having to to move them out or or buy them out. And so that's why you see that redevelopment there. So it has been definitely a labor of love in the making. The good thing about this is that though there's these Costco business centers is what it's going to call. They sell things by the pallet. So you know how you buy it by the by the mule load. Now you buy it by the pallet, right. So, you know, I don't know what I could do with that much Cheerios, but I tell you what, you're probably going to get a good deal. Here's the thing. Only I think they have one place in Carson, Salt Lake City, Chicago. And now Denver is the only places where they have these business centers. So they're going to it's going to bring a lot of jobs to the neighborhood. It's going to really bring that activity. We sat down, Councilman Clark and I used Councilman Clark, who we used to share that boundary. And now it's entirely in Councilman Clark's district and councilman in Council District seven. We sat down with him, said, look, we also have a food desert in this area. We don't have a grocery store. We used to King Soopers. The organ grinder used to be there. My stomach is hurt now. I want that again. We were able to sit down with them and said, Can you do some kind of Harvard? Can you break up some of those palates? That way you can have sales for regular sized household. Fresh fruit, veggies, things like that, breaking up some of these pallets. And they said, look, we'll come back to you on that. They agreed to. So not only is this is this a victory for economic development and just and really getting into that area especially over there involved there were where we do need that EC and that those economic drivers. But it's going to help solve part of the food desert now this isn't the only thing but so Councilman Clark and I are both shaking their heads and really happy about this because this helps address that issue. And, you know, you won't find that hidden here in this bill. That story won't be told in this bill. And this bill most likely move forward and that'll be it. And folks will see a Costco business center. But. That's the story. And I'm very supportive of this resolution and very supportive of this deal. Hopefully it moves forward with flying colors. The only thing I'm disappointed at is you don't get that dollar 50 hotdog in a soda, man. It's the best deal in town. And I still have the drive drive at it for that one. I'm glad somebody laugh. Thank you, Jacki.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: Well, I just wanted to add my support for this particular ordinance moving forward. This did come to committee. We had a lengthy discussion about it. And I think, you know, some of the things that were shared by my colleagues about the benefits to the immediate community, but also to the greater Denver community. One of the things we learned is that this business center will serve many of our neighboring states as well, not just, you know, Denver Metro, but people will come in from Wyoming and maybe New Mexico and Utah to buy some of their things for their businesses. So, you know, we get those sales taxes. And I'm very confident that the incentive dollars that we're providing for this will be paid off in very short order. And thereafter, all of those revenues come to the city. So I'm pretty excited about it. I do want to mention that there's a strong Asian and Vietnamese presence in that shopping center and. Councilman Flynn and I were were at an event last evening, and I know from some involvement that my office had a couple of years ago. There's been some work to do, a statue in that park, and we'll all be getting an invitation to go to that unveiling, which would be sometime after the first of the year. So I just wanted to share that as well. So, Councilman Clark, congratulations to your community for lending this and to OED for making this happen.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to also voice my support of this project. This is something that the neighborhoods in that are now in my district are very excited about. It's going to bring 150 good paying jobs with good benefits. And I really want to thank Councilman Lopez for his work and collaboration on helping get that retail component, because there is a real issue with the food desert over in these communities. And I think that that's something that like Councilman Lopez doesn't top out on this bill, but is something that's critical to what's happening in this community . And I think that, you know, we draw lines in the city where council districts are. But that doesn't mean that we we are bound by them in one way, but in another way we reach across those lines and collaborate. And that wouldn't have happened without that piece of this wouldn't have happened without Councilman Lopez's involvement in this. So I just want to say thank you and encourage my colleagues to support this. This is something that's really important to Aqua Park and Verde in my district. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Any of the comments on Resolution 1933 as amended. CNN. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 8: Brooks I.
Speaker 4: Clark Right. Espinosa.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 6: Cashman Hi.
Speaker 4: Lopez I knew. Ortega I. Black I. Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 3: Magic trick exclusively announced the results.
Speaker 4: 11 Ice, 11.
Speaker 3: Eyes Resolution 933 has been adopted as amended. Next one, I believe, was 948. Madam Secretary. Councilwoman. It was 925. Then the next thing I see on I right that. All right. 925. Councilman Flynn, what would you like for us to do with that?
Speaker 6: Thanks, Mr. President. Just have a comment.
Speaker 3: Go right ahead.
Speaker 6: Thank you. This is the. Thank you, Mr. President. This is the the resolution that sets the DPS meal levy for this year, for taxes for next year. And I didn't want the occasion to go by without letting people know that when they get their tax bill next year, that they should be prepared for these new mill levies
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Costco Wholesale Corporation to locate and maintain a retail and wholesale facility at Alameda and Zuni.
(BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) Approves a City Business Incentive Fund (BIF) contract with Costco Wholesale Corporation for $2 million covering a five-year period for performance-based criteria associated with renovation of buildings at the Alameda Square Shopping Center (Alameda Boulevard and Zuni Street) and opening a business service retail store in Spring 2016 (OEDEV- 201524655-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-11-15. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 12-2-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12212015_15-0924
|
Speaker 6: Thank you. This is the. Thank you, Mr. President. This is the the resolution that sets the DPS meal levy for this year, for taxes for next year. And I didn't want the occasion to go by without letting people know that when they get their tax bill next year, that they should be prepared for these new mill levies and the new reassessments. It will be more than it was last year. You will be paying more in most cases because of the reassessment citywide. And I ran the numbers just on my own property. And and between the the the mill levy that we set for the city and for DPS and the special districts. My property tax bill will be going up about 27%. It's going to vary, of course, across the city. I do want to make note, though, that the mill levy is decreasing from last from the current as well as the city's mill levy that we adopted last year. We were we did mitigate for some of the increase in the assessed value, and you will see those results next year. I just wanted to make note of that. So it didn't go by on a block vote. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. Now I'm secretary. Next one. Now we're at 948. Great. Councilwoman Gilmore. Would you like for us to do with this?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm calling out this resolution for a separate vote. I used to work for this organization, and I will be abstaining.
Speaker 3: Thank you for that. Well, Councilwoman Gelman, will you please put Resolution 948 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 948 be adopted.
Speaker 3: It has been moved and seconded. Any additional comments? Incomes will get more. Where you good? Just want to make sure.
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 4: Gillmor. Epstein Cashman.
Speaker 11: I.
Speaker 4: Lopez All right. New. Ortega All right. Black Brooks. Clarke. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi. Madam Secretary, please. Those are very nice results. Tonight's one abstention denies one abstention, 948 has been adopted. Next one, Madam Secretary, I believe 942 councilman was 40 and I'm out of the tonight. 940 Councilwoman Ortega okay, come one Ortega 940. What would you like for us to do with this question? Go right ahead.
Speaker 10: Is there anybody here from our H.R. department? Can you come forward, please? So this is our second year utilizing this new company, correct? Correct. Can you tell me if we have done any surveys or assessments of employees who have utilized these services? And do we have that data that you can share with me?
Speaker 5: All I'm aware of is that we have reporting data based on the utilization of the plan.
Speaker 10: So we haven't asked the employees how it's working for them.
Speaker 5: I can find out if coms, like, has done that.
Speaker 10: Okay. I'm just curious because I know when this came forward, I had a lot of questions and concerns because one of the programs that we used to have was our cancer buddy program. And I know this, you know, covers a lot of different elements. It replaced our Office of Employee Assistance, which covered, you know, a lot of confidential issues that employees might have. But I just and they're not physically here. So I just want to know how it's working. So if we have not done a survey of the employees who have utilized it, I think it would be invaluable to us to know how is this working to be, you know, dealing with somebody confidentially that is remote and they don't get to really sit face to face and talk to somebody as they're trying to deal with any of these multitude of issues that people may be calling in about. So can you follow up on that and get back to me, please?
Speaker 12: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: And could you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Speaker 5: Yes. I'm Jennifer Cahoon with the Office of Human Resources.
Speaker 12: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Captain Ortega. Next on Madam Secretary. 942. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like for us to do with this? I just had a comment. Go right ahead.
Speaker 8: I just wanted to I had a hard time when I was reading this, putting it all together. So I just wanted to clarify that this bill request not only dedicates land as public alley, but it also rededicate a portion of Main Street, which was vacated in 1989.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution levying taxes for the year 2015 upon all taxable property within special districts within the City and County of Denver for purposes authorized by law for special districts
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the 2016 Special Districts mill levy levying taxes for the year 2015 upon all taxable property within Special Districts within the City for purposes authorized by law for Special Districts. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 12-3-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12212015_15-0942
|
Speaker 8: I just wanted to I had a hard time when I was reading this, putting it all together. So I just wanted to clarify that this bill request not only dedicates land as public alley, but it also rededicate a portion of Main Street, which was vacated in 1989. And that was that was it. Thanks.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. Those are all the resolutions. Next up, bills for introduction. I think believe the one we had was 955. Councilman Flynn, what would you like for us to do with this thing?
Speaker 6: Mr. President, I would like to this bill allow for a separate vote. It involves the annual RTD eco pass contract for city employees. And I was employed by RTD up until July 10th. And under the city's code of ethics, I am to abstain from any actions until six months had passed. I would then ask if if it is ordered published by my colleagues, I would ask that Councilwoman Gilmore make a motion to postpone the final vote until January 11th, because as timing works out, when this would come up for final next week because of the holiday season, there apparently will be only seven members of council present. And if I had to abstain, the bill would die with six votes or up to six votes. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. First thing we need to do is get it on the floor. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please have Council Bill 955 ordered published?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 955 be ordered. Published.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Has been moved and seconded. No other comments. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 4: I thought, Oh, never mind. I'm sorry. Flynn.
Speaker 6: Epstein.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. I can. I can each. LOPEZ. All right. New Ortega. Black Brooks. Clerk Clark. Espinosa. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please for the vote. Now the results.
Speaker 4: Ten eyes, one abstention.
Speaker 3: 10 hours, one abstention. 955 has been ordered published. Now, Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please make the motion to postpone final consideration of Monday, January 11th?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 955 be postponed to Monday, January 11th, 2016.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Don't believe we have any other comments. So, Madam Secretary. Rocco.
Speaker 4: Black eye. Brooks Clark. Espinosa Flinn.
Speaker 6: Abstain.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. Eye Cashman. Eye Lopez. I knew Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary, please. Girls voting announced the results tonight. One abstention in ideal abstention final consideration of 955 has been postponed to January 11, 2016. All right. We had one bill on final call out 900 Councilman Flynn and I to Councilman Black as well.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution laying out, opening, and establishing as part of the City street system a parcel of land as a public alley near the intersection of West 50th Avenue and Vrain Street.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Dedicates land as a public alley at the intersection of West 50th Avenue and Vrain Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 12-10-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12212015_15-0900
|
Speaker 3: I. Madam Secretary, please. Girls voting announced the results tonight. One abstention in ideal abstention final consideration of 955 has been postponed to January 11, 2016. All right. We had one bill on final call out 900 Councilman Flynn and I to Councilman Black as well. Kathleen Flynn, did you want that on the floor or do you have a comment? I believe kind of question. QUESTION Again, Councilwoman Black, if you want this, call that for vote. Correct. Correct. All right. So we need to have 900 placed on final consideration and do pass. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put 900 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 900 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: All right, it has been moved. Colleagues, we need a second on the screen. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Comments. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask either Kelly or John a question about one aspect of the actually that's not in the bill, but relates to the Uniform Relocation Act that we have said that we would follow, pretty much follow during the acquisition process, even though there are no federal funds in there. And I just wanted to make a record, Mr. President, so that so that people would know going forward what our intent is, because it's not mentioned in the bill. So maybe, Jenn, you could just briefly explain to us what the Federal Uniform Relocation Act is and why we've chosen to follow it here.
Speaker 9: Sure, I'd be happy to. I'm General Warren with the city attorney's office. What you have in front of you is a is the ordinance that authorizes us to move forward with acquisition of land within the boundaries that are drawn in the ordinance, in addition to the acquisition, which we have to do in accordance, of course, with the Constitution where we pay just compensation for property. And in addition to the Constitution, we also have a state statute that requires that that acquisition take place in a certain manner.
Speaker 5: The the state.
Speaker 9: Law does not require that we pay for relocation. There is a federal law called the Uniform Relocation Act that requires payment for relocation for folks who are displaced by federal projects. This is neither being done by a federal agency nor has federal dollars in it. So this the Uniform Relocation Act does not apply by its terms. However, the city and Kelly's team at the DCC has decided that the right thing to do is help people relocate. But instead of creating a new scheme in which to figure out who gets what and what we pay for and and all that, that would be difficult and expensive to create on our own. We are going to use the Uniform Relocation Act as a guide. And indeed that has, as you might expect, uses federal dollars to relocate people displaced by their projects. And so there's a there's a manual that Scott puts out that's a good guide in how to implement the you are . So we will be doing that. It's just that by its terms, it doesn't apply. Mm hmm.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And I also Jen, I want to commend Kelly and the team for taking that on, because it's a moral obligation to this to help those who are displaced by our projects. There may be some areas and again, I just wanted to make a quick record. There may be some areas where we do not strictly follow the Federal Uniform Relocation Act, however. Is that.
Speaker 5: Correct? There may be.
Speaker 9: And we are in the process of hiring specialists who will help us with relocation, who actually they go and sit in people's homes if their homes are or go to their businesses and figure out exactly how that occurs. That's a very detailed work. And so we will have to. We plan on using those specialists to help us work through how we might use the U.S. But I expect in most big, big ways, we will follow it.
Speaker 6: Will you publish any brochure or or pamphlet that will?
Speaker 9: Yeah, there will be a.
Speaker 6: Lot of the property owners, what they were going to do.
Speaker 9: Collaterals, collateral materials provided during this process.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: That's all. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be abstaining from this vote tonight. I have family members who own property that may be acquired. It's a building where my father in law's business has been operating for 34 years. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Black. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: A similar question. And this only comes up because as prior to this role on council, I was a member of the Board of Adjustment and we had a property and you probably know what I'm talking about out there that sort of uniquely falls not in the housing residential category and not in a commercial category. And it's certainly a historic building. So how do we capture that with the provisions that we've got where you have a essentially a 5 to 10000 square foot residence, but it is clearly a historic bank structure. Is that classified as a commercial property is vacant property is industrial property or is a residential property? And then you locate relocate that individual into a similarly scaled home.
Speaker 9: So again and I'm sorry I can't answer in the particulars, although we'd be happy to provide you with more information as as the process unfolds. And as we get the specialist online to help us, I will say in general, we will help whoever is living there or or doing business in a commercial place. Whatever they're doing in that space will help them do that somewhere else. So it doesn't I'm not sure it matters so much what the zoning is and stuff. And we as at a minimum, the relocation will require us to provide I can't remember the three adjectives safe housing, basically. And it's not a one for one thing, the just compensation that we're required to pay will take into account, you know, how big the the home is and the condition and all the things that that the Constitution requires us to consider and that the courts have required us to consider. But in terms of the details about that particular property, and I'm not familiar with it, so I don't I can't really address it specifically, but we'd be happy to keep you in the loop to.
Speaker 8: Sort of by by circumstance. There's a lot there's not a fortunately, there are not a lot of residential properties there yet, but they're there. You might not necessarily have the most real estate savvy individuals having to navigate this process. Do we have a mechanism or system in place for. Those those owners to challenge the value determination or.
Speaker 9: Yes, the state statutes very clear about how to do that. And they are provided with all of that information in materials which we have to provide by law and certainly will provide. And all of those materials can be translated also. So we intend to make sure that we're working one on one with all of those property owners. So if they if they do want to challenge it, they certainly don't have to agree with with our appraiser. They are we are required to pay for an appraisal that they can go out and get. And if we can't come to a meeting of the minds, then there's a there's certainly a mechanism for them to object.
Speaker 8: Okay. I would just love to see a copy of that final information that you're providing to those people.
Speaker 5: You can. So we can do that now.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: I just had a question about the translation. I don't know how many of those property owners may be Spanish speaking, but I just wanted to clarify if the translation was in layman's terms that the average person could understand them, or if it's actually translating from from English to Spanish for any of those property owners who may need to have it translated in their own native language. And also in layman's terms.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Councilwoman Ortega. I'm Katy Spritzer. I'm working with Kelly's team on the NDC on the land acquisition. And in fact, we're working with a relocation consultant who has a Spanish speaking person that's part of their staff that knows how to translate this all into layman's terms. And in fact, we had one meeting already yesterday or not yesterday, last week that the the translator was at and her job is the relocation process. And she's also a Spanish speaker. So it's perfect. And the folks with with whom we met were very grateful that we provided that service.
Speaker 10: Awesome. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, counsel. Marty.
Speaker 8: Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to piggyback on on that comment. Think it's a great comment. Councilman Ortega and I was at a meeting last week on a different Denver project in District nine where they had a translator and they're actually walking through the relocation act with this translator, which is which was great . But I also want to make sure that we underline that this is not just for owners. There are some property owners who own property and are not there, but is for renters as well. And there has been some property that's been acquired not for this particular National Western Center, but for that where those renters have have received compensation and have now purchase a home. So I think it's important to have the renters in there as well.
Speaker 5: Good point. That the the relocation assistance is available to both property owners and property renters or tenants in property.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. You bet.
Speaker 8: Just now that I know that there might be multiple translations, I just want to state that I would like all those iterations. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. Any other comments on council below 900? Scene nine. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi. Cashman, I. LOPEZ All right, new ORTEGA High Black.
Speaker 8: BROOKS High.
Speaker 4: Clerk.
Speaker 1: CLARK All right.
Speaker 4: ESPINOSA Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Those very nice results tonight.
Speaker 4: One abstention in.
Speaker 3: ISE, one abstention 900 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. I believe that was on the bill. So we are ready for the block votes. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block. 956 924 925 nine 3953 938 nine 4943 944 945 946 947 949 nine 5951 942 922 and 983.
Speaker 3: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Seen no comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 9: Gilmore I.
Speaker 4: Cashman Hi. Lopez All right, new Ortega I black Brooks. Clark All right. ESPINOSA Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Hi. Madam Secretary, please Kosovo Denounce the results.
Speaker 4: 11 ICE.
Speaker 3: Alumni as the resolutions have been adopted in a bloc. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for a final passage in the block?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following bills be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block 882, 934 and 918.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to such property, as needed for the National Western Center Project.
(FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the designation of certain properties as required for public use and authores acquisition as needed for the implementation of the National Western Center Master plan vision. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-1-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12072015_15-0874
|
Speaker 5: Espinosa Abstain.
Speaker 6: Flynn, I.
Speaker 4: Gillmor. I Cashman. Can each new Ortega. Sussman Black. Brooks Clark.
Speaker 1: All right, Mr. President. All right. Can you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting announce results.
Speaker 4: Lebanese one abstention.
Speaker 1: 11 I as council bill 874 has been adopted. Let's move on to 896. That's you. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. ShotSpotter is a technical assistance program that works with the Safety Department, specifically the police department, to identify the location of gun guns being fired. And, you know, we have seen that this has been highly successful in the city. And I just had a question if there's someone from the Department of Safety.
Speaker 1: Once you get that question.
Speaker 5: So my question is, is this resolution? So let me ask this first. So what we had in our neighborhoods with ShotSpotter to begin with, do we not have an agreement with ShotSpotter? And now, is this a resolution to set forth a formal agreement?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Councilman. And for the record, I'm Captain Steven.
Speaker 5: Carter with the Denver Police Department. I'm also program manager for ShotSpotter.
Speaker 6: No, we did not have a prior agreement with ShotSpotter. The program was purchased on behalf of the city and county of Denver by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. They provided first year funding. We wanted to see if there was an efficiency and effectiveness to it that we would then adopt it within our budget.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. I just want to just make a comment. I have personally sat with victims that we have caught because of this technology. Just want to thank you and your team for working so hard on this. And I hope that we can expand this to other hot spots within the city and county in Denver. Thank you. That's our hope.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn, you called out 843 on page six. What would you like to do with that?
Speaker 7: I guess I just have a question for parks.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Scott. Probably that question.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Hi, Scott.
Speaker 9: Hello, Councilman. Are you good?
Speaker 7: As you know on in this agreement with Denver water, the saiga one of the provisions in my page just flipped on me. Hold on. At 5.2.2.5, we are agreeing to update the scope and scale of the program through which we're converting some of our turf in our parks, our green longs to natural areas. And as you know, that's been a source of a sore spot in my district in some of those smaller parks where the conversions look more like we just forgot to mow them. And I want to make sure that as we do this through 2017, I think it says here, April 30th, 2017, to complete this update that we include a pretty robust neighborhood outreach around any of the parks where we are considering making this fundamental change in how they look and that we get neighborhood input. Do you know if that will be part of the plan?
Speaker 9: Yes, that's Scott Gilmore, deputy executive director of Denver Parks and Planning. Yes, that will be something that we will definitely do. I actually was talking to staff today about just, you know, we're doing these conversions. And, you know, last week we just had this huge sustainability conference. And a lot of this the next point is 5.2.2.6. And it talks about sustainable park systems. And, you know, a lot of these conversions are really to try to make sure our park system is at a sustainable level.
|
Resolution
|
Approves a loan agreement with Northeast Denver Housing Center, Inc. (NDHC) in the amount of $785,000 from HOME funds (HUD) to support the construction of 84 affordable housing units at the Northfield at Stapleton Apartments project at 7955 Northfield Boulevard in Council District 8 (OEDEV – 201524304). (SAFETY AND WELL-BEING) Approves a loan agreement with Northeast Denver Housing Center, Inc. (NDHC) in the amount of $785,000 from HOME funds (HUD) to support the construction of 84 affordable housing units at the Northfield at Stapleton Apartments project at 7955 Northfield Boulevard in Council District 8 (OEDEV – 201524304). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on . The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 12-8-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12072015_15-0843
|
Speaker 9: And a lot of this the next point is 5.2.2.6. And it talks about sustainable park systems. And, you know, a lot of these conversions are really to try to make sure our park system is at a sustainable level. We just cannot continue having parks at a green blue grass from curb to curb. So this is something we need to do. But we as a Parks Department also need to do a better job of educating the public why we're doing this. And we can't just go out and turn a park that was turf for years and years into a natural area without reaching out to the public. So I totally agree with you and we will definitely have a robust outreach program on this.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. That's that's all I could ask, Mr. President. And plus, when you do those in my council district, I'd sure like to know when you have those meetings.
Speaker 9: We will do.
Speaker 7: That. Thank you. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Councilman. Thank you, Councilman. And thank you, Mr. Gilmore, on a 68 under final consideration, Councilwoman Gilmore. You've called that out. And so as a councilman, new. So why don't you. Well, councilman new. Why don't you? Go ahead and speak on this as you like to do with this. I know that.
Speaker 8: It's just a question about the historic designation of this program. I don't know who would answer that.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, this is something that's going to be ended up on the floor. So why don't we just do that? And then we'll ask, are you as if I think you're in the process? Thank you. Councilwoman Gilmore, do you want to put Councilor 868 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be offering an amendment to correct the bill title.
Speaker 1: Okay. Why don't you go ahead?
Speaker 4: Councilman, to put the bill on the floor.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's right. Okay. Sorry about that.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you, sir. I move that House Bill 868 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. We have second.
Speaker 5: Hey. Catch a.
Speaker 3: Second.
Speaker 1: Okay. Comments. Members Council Councilman Gilmer.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to amend Council Bill 868 to read on page one, line seven, after the words for the sale of insert the words property adjacent to.
Speaker 1: All right. You have a second? All right. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman, you are Councilman Gilmore and then Councilman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. The purpose of the amendment is to correct an error in the file. Bill Arias address is 1416 Platt Street, and the parcel being sold to REIT by the city is property adjacent to the business.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Nu. And then I have Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Okay. Just out a question about a historic designation. I apologize. I was out of town for some of the discussion on this and. Just wanted to. I was told that this property the other question is designated historic. Is that correct?
Speaker 3: Good evening, Lisa Lumley, division of Real Estate. The RBI building is has a historic designation. The parking lot does not. The RBI building has a conservation easement that runs on it.
Speaker 8: Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Just a quick clarification. The assessor calls this parcel 20/314 Street. Is there a reason why we don't just say 20/314 Street?
Speaker 3: Because we don't find any other records through the files of using that address. And so that's why everything in the file historically has been adjacent to.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you very much. And Councilman knew that historic designation was way back in 1972 for the art for the old Denver tramway power plant, in case anybody was wondering what that was. And there's been reference in this material that there is a limitation on the height of any vertical structure on the adjacent parcel. Is that is that the case? We've yet to see any instrument that actually states that. And by what authority do we say that there is a height limitation on anything on that parcel?
Speaker 6: Yes. Brant Eisen with the city attorney's office. And there are two documents that are currently of record. One being the conservation easement from the Colorado Historical Society, which requires a view corridor on the southern and the southern face of the southern facade of the property, whereby nothing can be constructed by the owner of RMI, but the owner of that building that would impede that view. The second document of record is a permit and covenant entered into by the city and RCA, which requires if the RTI building is sold, the parking lot must be sold as a single unit and so any subsequent owner would need to abide by that restriction. Furthermore, RCA has agreed their title work. The Historical Society parcel shows up in their title work for this parking lot, and they had always but contracted with us under the assumption that there was a no build covenant on that land, that it was a subsurface construction only. And they are willing to enter into a deed restriction for for the purchase which restricts any. Above ground.
|
Bill
|
Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Denver Water in the amount of $4 million that addresses water usage at Wellshire Golf Course and Harvard Gulch Park and outlines agreements to the Central Control Master Plan and a funding mechanism for recycled water conversion over time. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a $4 million intergovernmental agreement with Denver Water that addresses water usage at Wellshire Golf Course and Harvard Gulch Park and outlines agreements to the Central Control Master Plan and a funding mechanism for recycled water conversion over time. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-17-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12072015_15-0868
|
Speaker 6: And they are willing to enter into a deed restriction for for the purchase which restricts any. Above ground.
Speaker 7: Can we can we insert that into this bill?
Speaker 1: Let me. I think Mr. Broadwell read in. So we ask Mr. Broadwell to address that.
Speaker 6: Yes. Quickly, David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. Jumping ahead a little bit on tonight's agenda. If the amendment occurs, the bill will have to be republished and what you'll actually be voting on the merits of the bill and the transaction until next week. What Mr. Eisen just described will give us that opportunity between now and next week to produce to you the additional covenant which will seal that question in terms of clarifying that indeed the limitations on construction on the parking lot property will carry forward with this transaction and they'll reiterate some of the things that were done 15 years ago. But but you won't be voting on the merits of the transaction tonight. Instead, just the technicality is by charter. Every time there's a change to the title, it has to be republished before it can be adopted.
Speaker 7: And just a little further clarification, the conservation easement on the RBI parcel does not cover most of the fact any of the parcel that we're conveying in the sale. Our Kennebec Conservation Easement on the RCI property. How can that encumber a completely separate property from vertical construction?
Speaker 6: Because it says that RCA is not permitted to build any structures that would block the southern side from. From the park. Right of way.
Speaker 7: Right. And but if that parcel were sold to someone else, the parking lot, which is not in the conservation easement, could they? And this is related to the amendment because we're redressing the property. I know that's a stretch, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: But I mean, at this point, the city already has an option to purchase the property under their lease agreement, and they've exercised that option. So selling to someone else isn't really an alternative.
Speaker 7: And just for clarification, so that I'm very clear when they say the southern facade of the building, you're actually talking about the one that faces the west, the the long portion of the building and not the the portion of the faces, the river.
Speaker 6: The parking portion that faces the parking lot.
Speaker 7: Okay. Okay. Most people most people call that the West facade. Thank you.
Speaker 6: It's it's referred to in the documents. Okay. But this would certainly be spelled out very clearly in a deed restriction. Right. That that that they have no problem with.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinoza, you have any comments or. Yeah, no comment.
Speaker 5: Just to clarify what is being said, because I think it's been somewhat unclear the. The conservation easement is to the grantor, which is RPI, but that's for their property. They own a significant amount of property along that facade. And so it actually has a boundary of where that conservation easement applies, meaning you cannot build something in that area to block that southern facade, but that this property wholly exists outside of that boundary. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: That's correct. It does, however, say in the conservation easement that they can't build on adjacent properties. I think Section 3.1 of that easement doesn't permit RTI to build on anything adjacent that is not specifically described in the legal description. So that would prohibit them from from building.
Speaker 5: Correct. So then the but there is existing CMCs five zoning unencumbered by height. And so the contract with RTI says that it should be sold for the appraised value, but it was appraised with encumbrances that don't exist. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: No. Is that an encumbrance does exist and RTI would not be permitted to build on that property by virtue of of.
Speaker 5: But we could sell it to somebody other than RCA if I chose not to have this option, which they actually let sunset. What, in 2003. But you extended it for.
Speaker 3: They they the option that expired was at a set price in 2003. They've always had the option. It's been continuous all this time. It was exercising it before December of 23 would have been at the 403,000. After that it was at then the appraised value. So we time after that.
Speaker 5: APPRAISER Not of the value to somebody other than RPI but only as as it would be conveyed to Aria.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 6: I guess.
Speaker 1: Why don't we do this? Why don't we do this? Because we're talking about the amendment, and the amendment is what's up right now. Right. Well, you'll have that opportunity to ask that. What we need to do is just speak to the amendment, and then once it's published, that's going to be coming and we'll have the opportunity to address those questions and go into those further details. So, you know, definitely hold on to those questions. Thank you for those answers. Think you'll be prepared to do that? All right. Or when it's published. So are there any other accounts? Are there any other comments on 868? Right. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 4: Gilmore by Cashman. I can eat new Ortega.
Speaker 3: Sussman Black.
Speaker 4: Brooks Clark, I. Espinosa, I.
Speaker 7: Flynn, I.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes. 868 has been a minute. Councilman new. We're going to need a motion to order 868 published as amended.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Move the council. Bill 868. The order published as amended.
Speaker 1: Right. It's been moved. We just need a second. Second is Ortega comments by members of council. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 3: One woman. It's okay.
Speaker 4: It's not. Giving you that option.
Speaker 1: Take your time.
Speaker 4: We're going to try one more time. Someone's liking it. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 1: The movers knew in the seconds when.
Speaker 4: Gilmore.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman I can each. I knew Ortega Sussman, Black Brooks Clark. All right, Espinosa, I. Flynn, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce results.
Speaker 4: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 1: Right. 12 Eyes Council Bill 868 has been ordered published as amended. And just to the note. Final consideration will be Monday, December 14, at which point we can talk about it further. All right. Are there any other bills I'm going to just kind of sweep through? Councilman, if I'm wrong, I don't think there's any other bills that need to be called out, which means it's time for the block votes. We are now ready for the block votes. All other bills are ordered published. Councilman Louie, please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that following resolutions be adopted in block eight 7899 894 907 910 677 856, eight, 95, eight, 96 and 957.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam President.
Speaker 3: Raquel Kenny.
Speaker 4: I knew.
Speaker 1: Ortega and.
Speaker 4: Susman. Black Guy. Brooks Clarke. Espinosa, I.
|
Bill
|
Approves the sale of city-owned land for $500,000 to Recreation Equipment Inc. (REI) which has been leasing the land at 1416 Platte Street in Council District 1 for parking since 2000. The purchase price is based on an appraisal (FINAN 201523366-00). (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the sale of city-owned land for $500,000 to Recreation Equipment Inc. (REI) which has been leasing the land at 1416 Platte Street in Council District 1 for parking since 2000 (FINAN 201523366-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-19-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12072015_15-0775
|
Speaker 10: services with dorm style residents on site. So the proposed zoning district is simply too and that stands for a campus context and education institution, too. So it's pretty self-explanatory. The campus district proposes uses such as educational facilities like schools, churches and so forth, and the two designation is a more restrictive campus district that's designed to be located near single family residences and embedded in the interior neighborhoods to provide a sensitive transition to lower intensity uses. So now we'll get into the existing context. The current zoning on the north side of 29th Avenue is UCB, which is a single unit district, and on the south side of 29th Avenue is U, t, u c, which is a two unit district. So the site is also completely surrounded by single unit and two unit districts. And these are all considered residential protected districts, which in the CMP, A2 District calls for enhanced transitions to those protected districts. So the existing land uses are a combination of single family, two farm, two unit or duplex uses, but which is also unique. At this corner of Grove Street, there is an established nonresidential presence today with a vacant medical office building, which is in the red on the south side of 29th Avenue, and the parish center, which is owned by Saint Dominic's Catholic Church, where they have offices and other meeting spaces on the north side of 29th Avenue. This gives you an idea of the existing building form and scale of development. Again, image number two on the top right shows the parish center, a two storey nonresidential land use. Image number three, just below that is the single storey medical office building with a surface parking lot that's alley loaded on the bottom of the slide. So the the public process followed our standard approach, which entails notification to the registered neighborhood organizations and the affected council districts. In addition to that, the applicant, prior to submitting their application, engaged both registered neighborhood organizations on concerns about the proposed rezoning and met several times over a period of several months to come to agreement. However, at the Planning Board hearing, several of the immediate surrounding neighbors were not notified and did not and did not know about those conversations and did show up at the planning board and expressed opposition and concern not only about the proposed rezoning, but also about other church properties that were outside of the proposed zoning area and what might happen to those in the future. So after the planning board hearing at the request of Councilman Espinosa, a mediator was brought on and a mediation process took place with the surrounding neighbors, the applicant and both registered neighborhood organizations. And they met several times to come to a good neighbor agreement with which all parties signed off on, which basically spells out a communication protocol as when the or when the church develops any future projects with their property that the all parties be notified and engage in a process. So now I'm going to get into our review criteria. The first is consistency with adopted plans. We have two adopted plans for this location comp plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver compliant comp plan 2000 or the Comprehensive Plan 2000 and has several policies that are consistent with this promote for proposed rezoning talks about promoting infill development, increasing more amenities in neighborhoods with a variety of variety of compatible uses, and increased density support for Denver educational facilities and institutions. More flexibility to accommodate changing demographics and encouraging investment in neighborhoods and community facilities. In terms of Blueprint Denver This area is a single family area of stability and it's also on a residential collector street and near an enhanced transit corridor, which is Federal Boulevard. So Blueprint Denver articulates the definition of areas of stability as preserving the existing character. But one of the strategies to preserve existing character is to encourage reinvestment in stagnant commercial centers or other areas where reinvestment would be desirable to make the surrounding neighborhood more attractive and stable. In this case, we feel this meets the goal of of areas of stability, because the existing building on the south side of 29th Avenue is a vacant medical office building, has been vacant for a number of years, and it's deteriorated somewhat. So this encourages the revitalization of that property and contributes to the stabilization of the neighborhood. In addition, residential neighborhoods, according to Blueprint, Denver call for not only residential land use, but also complementary nonresidential land uses such as small shops, parks, schools and cultural amenities such as churches and other services for residents. So obviously, by this investment with the church, with a supporting use, it encourages additional residential complementary amenities and nonresidential uses. We also feel that this furthers the uniformity of district regulation and public health district regulations and public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. It's also meets our justifying circumstances review criteria in that it responds to changing changes in the surrounding environment and encourages a redevelopment consistent with the character of the area has been prompted by growth in the neighborhood that's contributed to an increasing demand for church services. And so this helps respond to that changing circumstances in the neighborhood. The proposal is also consistent with the neighborhood context and the zoned district purpose and intent. So this MPI to district was specifically written and designed to be applied to smaller and medium scale campus sites that are located adjacent to single unit two unit townhouse and other lower intensity, lower intensity residential zone districts where it's important to have a sensitive transition to those lower intensity uses and ensure more open spaces and sensitive setbacks. So to recap, we do feel that this proposed zoning case meets our tests for meeting our review requirements. It's consistent with blueprint members goals for areas of stability in residential neighborhoods. The CFP to district is designed for this type of scenario in this context and this location. And the proposed zoned districts use regulations standards for height, height, step backs, building coverage and setbacks are designed to be compatible with the existing homes at this location. So with that, community planning and development recommends approval based on the finding that all of our review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Upton. We have ten individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five speakers. And if you can make your way to the bench here at the front, and it'll be helpful in speeding up the proceedings. So first you have Thomas words and forgive me for messing up names. You can call me. You can mispronounce mine if I do yours. Thomas words that Texar Mariana MaryAlice Browning, Teresa Cooney, Andrade afe. Tom Squirts.
Speaker 6: Hi, my name is Tom Wirtz. I'm representing the applicant. I'm an architect here in town live at 257 South Logan so I'm not a resident of the district, am concerned but wanted to share that the rezoning effort is really to facilitate the desire for for new priory and novitiate, which really is in support of the religious life of the Dominican friars here in Denver. So it really facilitates it facilitates their common life. Saint Dominic's has been a cornerstone of the neighborhood. They have been in that location for 125 years. And as such, the relationship with the neighbors has been very important. So to that end, we implemented what we believe is a pretty strong outreach program. We met initially. The very first thing that we did was we met with West Highlands and with Sloan's Lake Citizens Group. We met with them to talk about what this rezoning process might look like and how we should we should move forward through the process. We met with them monthly. We did do a public meeting in July after about probably three or four months of meeting with the neighborhood groups. That public meeting was advertised by both neighborhood organizations through an email blast that went out to 1800 residents. All of that said we did not reach everybody. And so thanks to Councilman Espinosa and his efforts, we did have a mediation with some of the more immediate neighbors to the site. And that really facilitated, I think, what we believe is, is pretty unanimous support for the The Priory Project and the rezoning. Knowing that it's probably not going to be completely unanimous. But we do believe that we have reached everybody. We've heard all of their concerns and address them in a number of and in a number of strategies. One is a good neighbor agreement with all of the constituents, including the immediate neighbors, that talks to a communication process as we move forward, as the parish moves forward. Even beyond this project. We have talked about use and height and density with the neighborhood groups and have in that consideration we have drafted a deed restriction. It is final and in order to support that, we've got a good neighbor agreement that fundamentally says we will upon approval file a deed restriction, but with with the property. So I believe it's it's all working out well and I am available for any further questions. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Words that text. Mr. Tex.
Speaker 7: Said. Tex of 4535 Julian Street, Denver.
Speaker 6: Begin by noting that.
Speaker 7: This city must be.
Speaker 9: Really bad.
Speaker 6: Shape.
Speaker 7: Seems like there's no one in the city but a happy Heinz who's available to fill positions. It's also nice of you to spend another $140,000.
Speaker 6: Of our money to settle a case of police brutality while you're doing nothing meaningful to reform the police department.
Speaker 1: Mr. Tex. In regards to the particular issue.
Speaker 6: Given the commitment of the Catholic Church.
Speaker 0: To dealing with poverty. This parcel that you're.
Speaker 6: Rezoning tonight would really make an excellent location for another homeless.
Speaker 0: Shelter. You know, a couple of weeks ago, Councilperson.
Speaker 6: Ortega mentioned that she was afraid people were going to die because of the cold weather. That same week, the Denver Post reported a.
Speaker 7: Person freezing to death in an.
Speaker 6: Alley on Broadway. I hope that on Friday, when you're on your retreat for homelessness, you're going to be.
Speaker 7: Willing to spend as much.
Speaker 6: Money.
Speaker 7: For warm beds for.
Speaker 6: People as.
Speaker 7: You're spending for warm beds for horses at the stock show.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Tech's a very honest brownie.
Speaker 3: I'm Mary Alice Ramming 2040 Hooker Street, and I'm a parishioner at Saint Dominic's. I support this project. We're a growing parish. We've been a parish there for 125 years. And we are attracting many new young families. And the Dominicans have been really committed to our parish. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Teresa Cooney.
Speaker 3: I'm Theresa Cooney, 4610 West 26th Avenue. I'm a member of Saint Dominic's and I fully support this project. Saint Dominic's has a long history in the neighborhood. They do very positive work in the neighborhood. They're inclusive and welcoming to Catholics and non-Catholics alike alike. They do a lot of outreach to people in need. And I think this really is a positive step forward for the parish and I fully support it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, miss. Getting ready for a.
Speaker 6: Friday, 2979 Raleigh Street and the West High in the neighborhood. I'm a member of the West Valley Neighborhood Association, and I'm on the Land Use Committee, Design Preservation Committee and on the Joint Committee of the West Highland Sloan's Lake neighborhood representatives who have been meeting with the Prairie and their architect. Handprint Architects. For the past eight months, I've seen a lot of development in West Highlands over the 30 years that I've lived here, but I've never seen a development that sought neighborhood involvement early in the process, as this project has. This reasoning should be used as a model for how rezoning should take place. St Dominic's Priory came to the West Highland Neighborhood Association meeting last winter and explained what their long range plans was for this site and asked for input on that. A neighborhood advisory group was formed with the West Highlands Neighborhood Association. This was like Citizens Group representative from historic Denver and several Prairie members who had been meeting for the past six months. We were invited to attend the Resource Rezoning Pre-Application meeting with CPD at every stage that follows. Also, the project and the rezoning was presented to CPD. CPD recommended that this rezoning not be Miss three but simply eye to the Hamparian Denver team. The priorities of the R.A. representatives agreed to that zoning was the best fit for the neighborhood in this area of one and two story homes Zone two, unit and single family residence . The heights of the new buildings were. The primary concern of the neighborhood. The primaries plans were for a three storey building. The zoning allows more than that. There is some give and take and the end result. Of the current rezoning application and deed restrictions put in place to cap the height three occupied storeys. This is how all zoning and neighborhoods should occur and process come to the neighborhood, work with the neighborhood, have an outcome that is a win win for everyone. I ask you to support this rezoning.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Defender. I'll call it the next five. That's Jacqueline Youngblood, Mary Edgar, Geri Olsen, Gilbert Martinez. And when we bring Tom Brown up here as well, too, if you want to make some room. We'll start with Jacqueline Youngblood.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Jacqueline Youngblood. I live at 2975 Irving Street. I am the president of the West Highland Neighborhood Association. I am also a member of Saint Dominic's Church, and our association appreciates the communication and presentations that St Dominic's has provided regarding their project. In October six, our association voted to support Saint Dominic's. I am happy to be here this evening to share with you our support for St Dominic's project. Marilyn Quinn, who has worked very closely on this project. She could not be here this evening and she is celebrating her father's 91st birthday in Grand Junction. And she writes, As good a project as this is, it is unfortunately revealed a problem with the citywide rezoning that passed over five years ago. Prior to rezoning, immediate neighbors would have received written notice of rezoning, and many in the city believe that was still the case. Unfortunately, right now it isn't, and it created a problem in our neighborhood. We like to think, Councilman Espinosa, for arranging mediation among the neighbors in Saint Dominic's church that has resulted in the Good Neighbor Agreement. We strongly encourage council to reinstitute the requirement for written notification of immediate neighbors in all cases of rezoning. Thank you all very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Youngblood. Mary Edgar.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Good evening. I also. My name is Marie. Edgar and I live at 3532, West 39th Avenue, less than a mile from the church. And I'm also a parishioner, and I'd like to support this rezoning. And just to say, I'm very proud of the parish and the councilperson and the neighbors for planning it the way they did. Thank you.
Speaker 9: Q.
Speaker 1: Mr. Jerry Olson.
Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Jerry Olson, 2195 Decatur Street.
Speaker 7: Denver, Colorado. A member of the Jefferson Park United Neighbors Board. And I would like to say that we definitely support this rezoning. This site really needs to be rehabilitated. And I would just like to say.
Speaker 9: As a good loser, and I'm glad to see them doing it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Olson. Mr. Gilbert Martinez.
Speaker 9: All right. Gilbert Martinez. I live a 1940 grocery. I've been a member of that church for 60 years. I'm a Vietnam veteran. I got married there. And. I've seen the good times. I've seen the bad times. And. Now we're going through some good times because a lot of young people are willing to the area and St Dominic's has really helped them up a lot. And it'd be a shame if we couldn't keep it going the way it's going now because these young kids need a lot of help nowadays. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Thank you for serving our country, Mr. Brown.
Speaker 6: I'm Tom Brun. I live at 2105 Newton Street. And I'm on the board of Sounds Like Citizens Group.
Speaker 7: And I'm the.
Speaker 6: Head of the zoning committee. And I want to once again congratulate.
Speaker 1: NPR architects.
Speaker 7: And the Dominicans.
Speaker 5: For.
Speaker 7: Their neighborhood outreach. We've been meeting with them for months.
Speaker 9: Going over.
Speaker 1: Their proposal.
Speaker 7: And they have worked with the neighborhood it wonderfully well. I mean, as ready to face that this should be the model for.
Speaker 9: The way people.
Speaker 7: Come into the neighborhood and want rezoning.
Speaker 6: So I definitely.
Speaker 7: Want the rezoning.
Speaker 9: To be approved. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 6: Oh.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: No, that's okay. After me.
Speaker 1: I figured you probably had a question since it was right. Let's go to Councilman Brooks, the Iranian first. Councilman Espinoza and then. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Kyle, can you. Can I ask you a question? This is kind of a larger question, and it will not be the last time I ask it, because we're going to start to see a lot of these throughout the city. But I'm wondering, is on a macro level for this city, is CPD beginning to look at customization of zoning of churches within single family neighborhoods? This is a great example of something that worked well, but we have many examples of contentious rezonings of churches in neighborhoods. And it's coming up more and more. So I'm just wondering if you guys have taken a look at scope back to to start to do some customization. Zoning. Sure. So I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. More specifically, we've seen a pattern of rezoning requests over the past couple of years in relation to both places a religious assembly, but also other civic institutions that are experiencing in some cases, decay and in some cases growth. And we're finding that that we have to look at them on a state by state basis to see what kinds of zoning solutions are necessary. In many cases, there are standards on districts available, like in this case on the books that will satisfy the needs. And in other cases, we've had to look to custom zoning options that that sometimes are what it really just depends on what the plan direction is, what's going on. But at a broader level, we see that there's this trend that we want to look at as a city. And so we've suggested that this be a topic that we look at during the Blueprint Denver's citywide plan update next year. Perfect. Perfect. I'm glad that it's going to be on the docket on a larger deal. You know, I think as for us, the city council and a lot of heartache for the community, it's a lot of heartache and for you are CBD. And if we can get an agreed upon plan of principles of how we kind of go through the zoning, I think that would be very helpful. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 5: Kyle, don't go away. Yeah. Hey, Tim. Got it, Kyle. And here's where I. Now I'm going to screw up. Is it did you. My understanding is you came to Denver from a similar type of department in Phenix. Is that correct? Or is that somebody else? My colleague did. See, I told you I was going to screw it up. I think I would like to speak to your colleague.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 10: And almost got out of that one.
Speaker 5: Yes. What were the notification requirements in Phenix on rezonings?
Speaker 10: So in Phenix it was a little different. They do do mailing notifications to a radius surrounding the subject property.
Speaker 5: Okay. I just I thought I understood that about Phenix and I wanted that said because it came up and I don't I would like to encourage counsel to consider that putting that back into our requirements. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Rose. I just would like to make a comment about the good neighbor agreements that I just really want to commend CPD and Councilman Espinosa and and all the neighbors for working out and developing this good neighbor agreement. I see these agreements working in contentious situations, but also in very favorable situations where you have a documented discussion about what the uses and issues are with the age of the rezoning. So I just really want to commend CPD for going forward on this and I hope this will be a this mediation and good development, good neighborhood agreements will be something that will be adopted in continuing rezonings in the future.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Are there any other questions from council? All right. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council and Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 5: All right. So first off, Tom, Brian, great pen. I really like that. So tell me where I can get one. And he's not paying attention. Okay, Tom, I just said a great pen. I like it on your shirt. So my brief comments are going to do this. Justice would mean do justice what it took to get here. Whether you think it was three months or eight months, it was still a long process. But when you come in to this dais and you see nothing but support on the monitor, I it feels like from district one , it feels like I'm in the twilight zone. So I swear Rod Serling is going to meet me out in the corridor. But listening, finding compromise and agreeing on language which allows both the developer and the community to move forward together. The fact that all speakers were in support on a sizable District one rezoning prove that it can be done. It starts with meaningful communication, and I think I speak for many involved when I say I deeply appreciate all of your hard work and willingness to dialog. Thank you all. Oh. And I encourage my colleagues to to approve this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Right. Are there any other comments from members of the council? Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to clarify one point that was raised by one of the speakers, Jack Youngblood. She asked that we ensure that notification of the registered neighborhood notice registered neighborhood organizations continue to be a practice unreasoning. And that is, in fact, one of the stipulations of the registered neighborhood notification ordinance. My predecessor, Sal Carpio, was the author of that legislation, and there were a number of things that the ordinance required notification to neighborhoods on in rezoning applications or in fact, one of those. And if a city attorney could just nut his head, this has not been changed since then, to do my understanding. So is it, in fact, correct that this continues to be one of the notifications that neighborhoods receive?
Speaker 6: David Broadwell again, notification r and o's has taken consistent through the years. I think the comment made earlier was direct mail notification to adjacent neighbors. And I honestly, I think though the word that was used was reinstate or I'm not familiar with whether we ever did that in the past or when that might have changed. But I think that's the point the speaker was making, in addition to her now notification, advocating a system for direct notification of neighbors in writing.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. It's not my understanding that there has ever been direct notification by the city to all of the adjacent property owners. That has typically been the responsibility of the developer that is proposing a project. So thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting this application today.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa, is that okay if I go to Councilman Cashman first and then come back or do you have an answer?
Speaker 5: Yeah, no. I was just going to make that clarification that why don't you let Jackie, who is was talking about, was direct notification of adjacent property owners. And the rule that we used to have is within the 200 foot halo on rezonings. And then that any requirement for that when it was and it was specific conditions was stripped in the 2010 legislative Rizzo. Nope. Okay. I stand corrected. Oh, Kyle. Looks like you can speak to one question. Thanks for the opportunity to correct the record here. Kyle Dalton Again with CPD and previous to 2010 and former Chapter 59, there was not a requirement to provide direct mail notification. The only thing that changed about notification from the old code to the new code was the addition of of another hour and no notice at the time of complete application, which was not required before. Other than that, there was no change to the notification requirements. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just couldn't let this go by without saying how absolutely thrilled I am to see a property owner work so openly with a community to arrive at a solution. And I don't believe you have to be a church to show that type of respect and compassion to the neighbors. We've sat here in recent weeks and had examples of half hearted efforts by one developer and a complete disrespect for the community shown by another. And I think I don't think a landowner is obligated to do everything that a community asks them to do. But I think a landowner is is morally obligated to engage in an open dialog in an attempt to create a win win situation. I think there are places where private property rights and community property rights come together, and I think it's been a fabulous example of that. So I just want to take my hat off to my colleague, Councilman Espinosa, for the role he played and certainly to to the church and the community for the time they invested in this. Thank you all.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Kenny.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I am I, too, want to thank all the speakers tonight for their thoughtful work and for sharing their support for this project and will be voting in support of it. I did just think it might be helpful, though, to chime in, since I imagine members of the public are a little confused. We've got some folks saying there was notice happening and the staff confirming that there wasn't. What I wonder if some of the members of the public might be thinking of is the Zipkin zoning plan informational notice. There are certain types of requests for oversight fences or other types of things, some home occupations that require an informational notice that goes to people. And it might have been a you might still be, I would assume is still the same amount of distance as it was in the prior code. So folks may have thought that that meant that all zoning things were notice to neighbors, and that's not the case. So if you're feeling like, hey, I know I've gotten a notice before, I've heard of notices before, you probably have. But it wasn't a rezoning notice. It was probably an informational notice for a certain category of probably what I would consider lesser changes. And Kyle can certainly step up and correct me if I'm wrong, but I just want to affirm for people who think they've seen and heard of such notices, they do exist but also affirm the staff that that's very different than notice for a rezoning. So just to help clarify that, Rick, thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilman. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and I'm supportive of this. This is great. I wanted to speak on this notice piece again further clarifying with councilman can each that the department when you're doing a legislative rezoning when one of us as council members do a legislative rezoning, they actually encourage you to send a letter to every house that's impacted. And I know our office has done that. Five Voice Business Association has done that. So there may be further confusion there. And I also know that if a home is doing a pop up or things like that, they require to notice the adjacent house front and back as well with the letter. And so there's a lot of confusion around the rezoning stuff, but I am so supportive and so, so great to see you all come together and agree on this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments, Councilman Espinoza?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman Brooks, for that best practice. I appreciate that. And I'm going to commit to District one from now on when I get rezonings. Until we have a law, I will notify my neighbors that are impacted. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Can't any more. All right. I wanted to chime in and say that I'm impressed with the process and I'm impressed at how smooth this has gone. And also, I just you know, I my daughter attended the school just north, and it's quite a catalog of such a long time. And to see the level at which you participate in the community and what different community events and everybody use in your your parking lot, I mean, it's probably the only parking lot I know out there. I know that you guys are great players and you have a great choir. So hats off to the process. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, for your work on the ground. And thank you, folks, for making this a smooth process. With that, Madame Secretary, if we have a roll call on Council Bill 775.
Speaker 6: Espinosa I.
Speaker 4: Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Cashman. I can h. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. Black Brooks II. Clark, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please announce the results.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Bill 775 has passed saying that there's no other business before this body. Today, this meeting is adjourned. Everybody drives safe.
Speaker 3: Denver eight TV. Your city, your source.
Speaker 0: Denver eight on TV and online to stay connected to your community, your city, your source.
|
Bill
|
Rezones 2901 North Grove Street, 2921 North Grove Street, 2890 North Hazel Court, and 3120 West 29th Avenue from U-SU-B, U-TU-C to CMP-EI2 in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 2901 North Grove Street, 2921 North Grove Street, 2890 North Hazel Court, and 3120 West 29th Avenue from U-SU-B (Urban, Single Unit, 4,500 sq. ft.), U-TU-C (Urban, Two Unit, 5,500 sq. ft.) to CMP-EI2 (Campus, Education Institution, 2 or more restrictive form standards) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-28-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11302015_15-0871
|
Speaker 10: Is someone here from the Parks Department that can answer my question? This is on Red Rocks. And a couple of us have been asked to serve on a committee that's going to be looking at a number of things. And I think the parking lot may be part of that. So what I'm trying to just clarify is if this contract is part of that master planning, that's going to be happening with that committee.
Speaker 6: My name is Scott Gilmore. I'm the deputy executive director of Parks and Planning. Councilwoman Ortega, this is not part of that. This is actually a separate project to actually work on. We actually drove by these projects when we actually took nine of the council people on the tour. These are actually we drove through those parking lots. It's the Lower South parking lot where it's going to it's going to cut off a small section of the road and actually straighten it out and fix the irrigation, add a sidewalk, improve safety, getting people to red rocks. And then the other section is the Y section where we have horrible traffic flow and have numerous accidents all the time. That section will be one of the Ys will be removed. And that's that's what this project is.
Speaker 10: But it's separate from it is going to go on with that committee.
Speaker 6: Yes. To the work on that committee is actually going to talk about looking at the designation of the park, how we can adjust the designation boundaries, the two landmark designation boundaries that Denver recognizes through our landmark commission with the National Historic Landmark designation. So we're going to look at how we can make those coincide a little better and actually look at some maybe.
Speaker 2: Some design guidelines for the overall park.
Speaker 10: Great. Thank you, Scott, to hear my questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Now security at the next one, 873, I believe. Councilwoman Ortega, would you like for us to do this?
Speaker 10: Just another question.
Speaker 1: Go right ahead.
Speaker 10: I was looking at the map in the documents that we have, and I was trying to understand if that would have any impact on the adjacent community garden and just wonder if there's been any dialog with the folks that run that community garden immediately to the north of where this it's actually to the to the west of where this alley would. Go through.
Speaker 8: Hi, angelica CSM with Denver Public Works. I do not know the answer to that question, but what I can say is we did not have any, you know, any concerns about it. So I can get more information for you, Emily, tomorrow and and let you know for sure.
Speaker 10: So I'm assuming this is being done to provide better access to the business at the south end of the bridge, the ones that made that request.
Speaker 8: Yes. It's being dedicated as public alley.
Speaker 10: Okay. So that will increase traffic in that alley. And I just want to make sure that there is some dialog with the people who run that community garden, because sometimes there are children in there. I believe it's fenced off on the East End. But I just want to make sure that there is some communication with the folks who are in that garden.
Speaker 8: Okay. I'll gather some more information on that and get it to you.
Speaker 10: Okay, great. Thank you, Angela. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa, you've got a question.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to add my $0.02 on that. It's the dedication actually ends between lot line between lots 12, 11 and 12. And there's a fence along that property line. So there might be some secondary impact, but it won't be directly due to the dedication.
Speaker 10: Yeah. I can see that on the map.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. Those were the two resolutions. And next, we had bills for introduction 868 called out by councilmembers Ortega and Espinoza. Let me first ask Councilman Ortega, did you want to call this out for a vote?
Speaker 10: No, just a question.
Speaker 1: Councilman Espinosa, did you want to call it out for a vote?
Speaker 5: I would like to do that.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, for the question then, Councilman Lopez, can you make the motions for us tonight? Yes. Mr. President, could you please have 868 ordered published?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move council bill 868 series of 2015 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: All right, we'll have technology catch up for a second because we'll need a second once it shows up moved and second. All right. Councilwoman Turner knows your names up top. You want to go ahead first?
Speaker 5: Sure. Two questions. Is there somebody from the department that was handling this things?
Speaker 4: Good evening, Lisa Lumley, division of Real Estate.
Speaker 5: So I'm what's got me scratching my head is that the this is nearly an acre worth of property in cent in the Central Valley and it's being sold at $12.26 a square foot. How did that value get determined?
Speaker 4: We used an appraiser. We also there are height restrictions there based on zoning that limit what.
Speaker 10: Can be constructed there and.
Speaker 4: How high which played and factored into the actual appraisal value.
Speaker 5: So do you know what that exact height limit is?
Speaker 10: I don't. I can get it for.
Speaker 4: You, but I know that it is not supposed to block at all the Southern exposure. And since the property has already been built out and repaid for the construction, both of the underground parking and the aboveground lot that the intention was not to construct on it, it was to go ahead and finally secure their parking that they had paid for.
Speaker 5: So I understand that sort of general practice is to to dispose of properties that are, you know, disposable. Is there a reason why in a situation where we have a lease arrangement and we're basically probably generating revenue, why wouldn't sort of maintain and hold that relationship?
|
Resolution
|
Approves a $2,683,899.77 contract with SEMA Construction, Inc. for the CM/GC (Construction Management/General Contractor) construction contract for the Red Rocks Parking Lot and Traffic Controls Phase 1 project (201524962). (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a $2,683,899.77 contract with SEMA Construction, Inc. for the CM/GC (Construction Management/General Contractor) construction contract for the Red Rocks Parking Lot and Traffic Controls Phase 1 project (201524962). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-15. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-19-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11302015_15-0868
|
Speaker 5: So I understand that sort of general practice is to to dispose of properties that are, you know, disposable. Is there a reason why in a situation where we have a lease arrangement and we're basically probably generating revenue, why wouldn't sort of maintain and hold that relationship?
Speaker 4: Ari, I had the option from their original lease to purchase the property and it was based and then we allowed that option to continue and further amendments and it would be based on an appraised value. And so from the very beginning.
Speaker 10: When the lease was.
Speaker 4: First negotiated, they had that option.
Speaker 5: Okay. And then what was the appraised value?
Speaker 4: $500,000.
Speaker 5: $500,000. Okay. So I had heard otherwise I didn't get an actual copy of the appraisal. Can you send that one? Absolutely. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 10: So, Lisa, my question for you is, should this is the law adjacent to their property and thank you for an across the street. Correct and thank for is still owned by the city as well.
Speaker 4: Correct. Correct. But thank you. Let me clarify this. And we thought we had it changed. Inspire it is adjacent to 1460. It is. We are not selling 1460. The property does not have an address. We're selling it by the legal description.
Speaker 10: Okay. So we continue to own the property across the street.
Speaker 4: This is the this is the parking lot to RBI.
Speaker 10: Okay. And so my question is about a discussion that we've had at several committee meetings. I think it may have come up in some of our council meetings as well about and I don't know that we are scheduled to to look at this, but there have been conversations about what the city's master plan is for disposing of city assets.
Speaker 4: And I know that there is a process in place that's being put together right now.
Speaker 10: So that's not scheduled as of yet? No. Okay. I think that's going to be really important as we continue to have requests brought forward so that we have an understanding of what that big picture looks like. Sure.
Speaker 4: No. And we've been working on the draft, so there should be something coming to you shortly.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. At least just a quick question. We talked about this last week, and I did think it was going to be reworded to say adjacent to 14, 16.
Speaker 6: And I don't know if that.
Speaker 4: Means the council. So I'll follow up and make sure that that is corrected for final.
Speaker 11: Yes. Okay. I don't know if we need to do an amendment on that since it's been introduced. Does that require an amendment, Mr. Attorney?
Speaker 6: It sounds like it might require a little more investigation just to see what needs to be done, but it can be amended on second if that's what you need to do. And I think we can let that folks figure out what needs to be done. And we may have something on the floor for you to act on next week.
Speaker 11: Okay. And the assessor in his records does have that partial list of his 20/314 Street. Would that not.
Speaker 6: Be?
Speaker 4: The title company is not showing it that way. And like I said, so we will transfer the property based on the legal description, not an address.
Speaker 11: All right. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: So on the contract, the trigger, I mean, was RBI essentially allowed to do that at any time or was there a window that they had to do that in?
Speaker 10: There had been a window, and then we had renewed it to allow them to have it at any time.
Speaker 5: Okay. And when did that sunset originally.
Speaker 4: Honestly, I would need to go back and look at the document. I don't remember, but I can get that for you as well.
Speaker 5: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Do you know, does this property include any of the property that the Platte Valley Charlie operates on?
Speaker 4: No. And that is why there's been a little bit of a time lag between the appraisal and wrapping it up now, because we made sure between the work that's going on along the river for the dedication of the park and the trolley. It took us it was very complicated as it related to the legal descriptions over there. And so we made sure that we worked with both RBI surveyor and our own surveyors to get those legals right so that we carved out a parcel for the part, the trolley.
Speaker 2: And then the plaza is remains public to all of the paved area where the train track.
Speaker 12: Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. In the comments. Questions 868.
Speaker 12: All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It is on the floor to be published. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Espinosa No. Flynn I. Gilmore I. Cashman, I. Kinney.
Speaker 6: Lopez, I.
Speaker 4: Ortega Sussman. Hi, Black. Brooks Clark.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi. Councilmembers. Lopez Ortega. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please cause very nasty results.
Speaker 4: 11 eyes, one knee low.
Speaker 1: Nice. One day 868 has been ordered published. All right, leave the last one. 892. Councilwoman Canete, would you like for us to do this?
Speaker 7: Just a comment, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Go right.
Speaker 7: Ahead. Thank you. It's six. I'm sorry. Eight. Nine two is a new policy that the city and county of Denver is proposing for haulers of waste. As everyone knows, one of my favorite topics talking about trash, composting, recycling.
|
Bill
|
Approves the sale of city-owned land for $500,000 to Recreation Equipment Inc. (REI) which has been leasing the land at 1416 Platte Street in Council District 1 for parking since 2000. The purchase price is based on an appraisal (FINAN 201523366-00). (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the sale of city-owned land for $500,000 to Recreation Equipment Inc. (REI) which has been leasing the land at 1416 Platte Street in Council District 1 for parking since 2000 (FINAN 201523366-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-21-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-19-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11302015_15-0892
|
Speaker 7: Ahead. Thank you. It's six. I'm sorry. Eight. Nine two is a new policy that the city and county of Denver is proposing for haulers of waste. As everyone knows, one of my favorite topics talking about trash, composting, recycling. And so the interesting thing is we spend a lot of time talking about it, but usually we're only talking about half the city. We're talking about single family homes and multi-unit properties of less than six or less units. And so what that means is when we're having all these great conversations about how to have a more sustainable city, we're literally only talking about half the city because we have a situation where companies and multifamily properties have seven units or more are covered by their own trash haulers who don't work for the city, don't report to the city, and we don't have any ability to really track what it is they're throwing away, what they're recycling, what they're composting. So I'm very excited about this ordinance because what it's going to do is it's going to create a very low threshold for licensing so that we will then know who is hauling in our city and what they're hauling. I will be very honest that I'm ready to do more than just know. I would also like to require them to be recycling and composting, but we don't have a lot of data yet, so I'm happy to wait and get that data and then move us continuing along the line of a more sustainable city . Just to compare. In committee, I don't vote on this committee, so partially that's why I'm making my comment from the floor. But we heard about many cities that already license their haulers, but many of those cities additionally require them to offer recycling at competitive rates and also, you know, including provisions for how that's done. And so there are ways to kind of improve our sustainability, not just in the residential areas, but in the commercial areas. Making sure that trucks follow emissions is really important for our neighborhoods that have a lot of commercial businesses. If you have trucks that aren't properly registered with the state and have bad emissions, that's not good for the air quality of those communities. So we'll be able to make sure that they're properly registered with the state through this process as well. So I want to thank the Public Works Department for all the work they did, putting this proposal together and really think it's an important step forward for our city. So just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge it. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. That was on the bill's call now. So we are ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Lopez, you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council resolutions 879. 80. 888. 832. 863. It's 71. It's 72 x 73. 936.
Speaker 1: You miss the eight. Oh, sorry. One more. Eight, seven, six. Yeah. Got more. All right.
|
Bill
|
1) Proposed CB15-0892 amending sections 48-61 through 48-90 and 32-116 of Chapters 48 and 32 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to require a license to operate Solid Waste and Recycling hauling activities in Denver: a) Presentation. b) Fifteen (15) minutes of public comment on proposed CB15-0892. Two minutes per speaker and equal opportunity for opposing perspectives as determined by the Committee Chair. Individuals wishing to speak must sign up in the Council Conference room (3rd Floor City & County Building, Rm. 391) beginning 30 minutes prior to the Committee’s scheduled start time of 10:30 am. Sign up ends 15 minutes before the meeting begins at 10:15 am. The order of speakers will be determined by the Committee Chair. c) Action on CB15-0892.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11232015_15-0811
|
Speaker 9: owners in a common interest community to institute a claim for construction defects. Taking out the words at least, makes it very clear that a simple majority is all that is required, and that no more than, say, a supermajority or even unanimity can be required to proceed under our ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, any other comments on the motion to amend? CNN. Madam Secretary, welcome. Oh, I'm so sorry, Councilwoman Gilmore. I looked away. Go right ahead. Thank you. You make fun? Microphone.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask David Broadwell with this change. Any issues or how will that affect when you're talking about deleting the words at least and simple majority, how how that affects this ordinance?
Speaker 6: David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. I believe the meaning of the ordinance will be the same with with the words in or with the words out because and I went back and kind of did some reality checking on this in terms of some other state laws and so forth. And often a law will say you need at least a majority to do such and such. Meaning the same thing is you need a majority to do such and such, right? It's just a different way to express it. I think Councilman Flynn and perhaps some others were concerned that the use of the word at least might appear to green light something beyond what the ordinance intended. But but I think it's still, at the end of the day, has essentially the same meaning. And if you all agree, it's a clarification worth doing. The intent here absolutely is to say city law requires in future common in interest communities that there be a simple majority before a claim is brought.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Gilmore. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: I apologize if I got something. Clarification on this. Was there a clarification on how ownership would be handled in multiple building situations?
Speaker 6: Not in this amendment. There was some other offline discussion about that issue with a couple of your colleagues. But unless something else happens here tonight, that that issue is not subsumed in this amendment. I understand that. I may be asked about that comment on that issue a little bit further later on when you get past this amendment , there may be other discussion of the bill where we'll talk about the issue of multiple building type condominium developments.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Spinoza, Councilman Flynn, you back up.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Brennan. Just to clarify for Councilman Espinosa, he's exactly correct. We did have some discussions and we may have some down the road about the ability to separate out a multiple building project. Mostly, we've had in mind with this bill, we've had in mind single buildings, high rises, etc. But I have some projects in my district that consist of 30, you know, 25, 30 buildings and where defects affect only a portion of that. We wanted to maybe look for a path forward to proceed with how best to deal with resolving those, but it's not necessary to do that tonight.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Any questions? Comments currently on the motion. And then we'll get to the bill as amended, seeing none. And I'll wait a second. I'm Secretary Rocco.
Speaker 4: Flynn. I Gillmore. I Cashman. I can ege Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Susman Black. Brooks Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Mr. President. I.
Speaker 1: Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: I thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Got it. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. Because of only now, the results. 3939 as councilor 811 has been amended. Now, Councilman Ortega, we a motion to pass has amended.
Speaker 7: Are we not going to talk about the the bill before we pass it as amended?
Speaker 1: You have. We have to first put on the floor.
Speaker 7: A move that council bill 811 be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 1: A place on final consideration.
Speaker 7: Be placed on final consideration and do pass as amended.
Speaker 1: Got it. Moved in second. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up.
Speaker 7: I wanted to speak more about the issue that was just raised a few minutes ago about the multiple building situation. We've got a number of large developments that will be happening that have been approved by this body. Those projects have not yet been constructed. We don't know what the ownership is going to look like. So several of us were engaged in conversations with our city attorney, looking at how we might address that particular issue, where multiple buildings are under the same ownership or the same way, where a defect may only exist in one building. But in conversations with our city attorney and I'll let David speak in just a minute. He was explaining that even though the so you would have to engage the whole way for the entire complex, even though it might only affect one building. But the fact that a claim would be filed through the highway, in turn affects all those other buildings. And, you know, there may be some things that the state legislature will be looking at related to this or some other concerns, because this particular issue was raised by one of our state senators, and we know that more than likely they're going to be dealing with this particular topic again in this next legislative session. And, you know, whether they get there or not is yet to be seen because we know they've been dealing with this particular legislation for the last couple of years. But, David, I'd like to ask you to just elaborate a little further on the conversations we've had about why it would be challenging to try to do an amendment that really would not have the effect that we're hoping that it would have where we have multiple buildings under the same nature. We.
Speaker 6: Yes. How come it briefly and then be happy to answer any follow up questions as well. Bear in mind that the 50% consent by the unit owner unit owners applies to claims brought by the association so that the Board of the association can't just would not be able to do it unilaterally if if a claim is going to be brought in the name of the entire association. That's what would trigger the need for 50% consent. So that's exactly what the bill applies to and all that it applies to. Now, a couple of nuances of this that we didn't talk about last week. There are some situations in large and more complex developments where there may be such a thing as a master association and sub associations of unit owners. And if that were the scenario in a particular development, then the majority consent would potentially be in one of these sub associations, right? That the entire legal framework and structure of the entire development might allow for the vote to occur in some smaller unit because it's hierarchical and broke broken down that way. So that's a possibility. But but in those kinds of arrangements, but something else to emphasize, again, it's only majority consent for claims brought by the association on behalf of the association and not so other scenarios where it's conceivable that you could have claims by individual unit owners or by a group of unit owners regarding defects in the portion of of their unit they happen to own. There's no majority consent associated with those kinds of claims. Those are just being brought by the individual unit owners. So the whole 50% thing doesn't even apply to that scenario. Now, the main global legal explanation that we gave to Councilwoman Ortega and to others who have asked this question is that is that bear in mind that the purpose of one of the main purposes of the majority consent requirement is because in an association hall unit owners fate is tied together. They have a legal relationship all with one another, including assessments to pay for repairs and so on and so forth. If there are problems in the entire association, when an association brings a claim, even if it's related to the defects and only a part of a building or in one building and not others, all the unit owners are brought along in that claim. If they're all part of the same association, whatever cloud or whatever cost might be associated with the claim or borne by hall, even if the defects are only in a portion of the project or in one building and not another. So the rationale for the bill, having informed consent of everybody in whose name through the association the claim is being broad, would apply even in the multiple building scenario. Everybody's unit is going to be tied up in that. If the if if a claim is brought in the name of the association because they're all bound together index in that sort of a legal structure. So we urge you all to consider that and say and understand that the purpose of the bill still applies, whether it's one building or whether it's multiple buildings. And we urge you to to keep that particular provision intact for majority concern.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, if I may, I just wanted to clarify that some of us were concerned about how challenging it might be for people in one particular building that was affected where other buildings might not be. And again, we don't know what the make up of the buildings are going to look like for some of the future development . But in the case where that might exist, the concern was that to get 50% plus one of not only the people in your your building per se, but the entire h.O.H. To then move forward with a claim would be a little more challenging. And that's why we were looking at this as sort of a solution to not make it more difficult and more challenging for those folks in that particular building that are affected. Having heard the explanation, I chose not to move forward with an amendment at this time because it doesn't appear that it's going to make a difference. And I think it may be important to continue to look at other ways to try to solve this. I mean, I also want to make sure that other people who would be affected have the opportunity to know that a claim is coming forward and the entire complex, if you will, would be affected by the the fact that a claim is being filed. And if somebody wants to sell a unit, a unit there, they're not able to do so. So, you know, this may be a conversation that we continue into the future, but at this point in time, I am not bringing an amendment forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cashman, you're up.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. As with most of my colleagues and probably most of you out there, I've tried over the last couple of months to come to grips with this issue of how we can nudge the development community into constructing well-built for sale condominiums by reducing the risk of high award lawsuits, while at the same time maintaining or bolstering protections that allow redress for homebuyers who are victimized by quality failures in the homes they've purchased.
Speaker 2: Hmm. Excuse me. The bill.
Speaker 6: The bill's been crafted clearly to stimulate construction, to provide additional home buying options to those who want to make Denver their home. While it does give a small nod to the interests of home buyers. When something goes missing in the construction process, the bill is not designed with protecting homeowners interests as its prime directive. The element of the bill that that's been discussed of informed consent does make it a bit more difficult to file legal claim instead of a simple vote of board directors. I recognize that the positive side of this is that homeowners won't be caught unaware of the situation that impacts them. But Section ten, Dash 203 that talks about this goes into great detail on the seven consequences of filing suit, all of these conditions, except one that lists an approximation of an award. They might look forward to focus on deadlines, costs and liabilities that point out the potential downsides of filing an action that might dissuade someone from going forward. This requirement of informed consent for me doesn't follow to the other side of the equation. Section ten Dash 204 states that by taking title to a unit, each owner acknowledges and agrees that the terms of the declaration requiring alternative dispute resolution of construction defect claims are a significant inducement to the declarant willingness to develop and sell the units, and that in the absence of the alternative dispute resolution provisions contained in the declaration, declarant would have been unable and unwilling to develop and sell the units for the prices paid by the original purchasers. Ten Dash 204 goes on to say in harmony with the Village Court decision that the ordinance, quote, expressly prohibits any future amendment to the declaration that would modify or eliminate the requirement for alternative dispute resolution absent the consent of the declarant. My my researches has brought forth the fact that these declarations often include provisions that might tilt arbitration in favor of the builder by limiting the scope of the arbitration proceedings tend to allow for means that not only can the HRA not remove the requirement for arbitration, as was the landscape possibility before of LIGO. But it also means as well that any conditions that are part of the declaration that may limit the scope of the arbitration may not be altered either. With all of these warnings in mind, I would think similar codification of the seller's responsibility to inform homebuyers, with similar emphasis about the precise meaning and implication and limitations that might be inherent in the arbitration agreement. In the sales agreement in a true way declaration, including in-depth explanation of the fact that arbitration is a means of dispute resolution, does not necessarily carry with it the same protections of a trial in a court of law and may carry with it substantial costs, not necessarily attendant to a court proceeding. It appears to me that the things that I'm looking for that would provide the consumers the most, the support they're craving require changes to Colorado's Uniform Arbitration Act. It is this act is my understanding, that allows the arbitrator to establish the format that will govern dispute resolution. And that format has no requirement to follow the structure. You may be. Miller with in a court of law important to changes important changes to state law are needed before I will be able to play the role I had hoped to play in support of this bill. So I will be unable to support it this evening.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: So, you know, there I, I have several developments in my own district that have a sort of combined two building scenario, one where one building is, in fact, bigger than the other. So if you had a problem in the smaller building, meaning in the let's say the larger building, you could, then what you're saying is get get the majority of that one building. And then if they're all part of the same H okay, encumber the other building. Is that correct?
Speaker 7: The vice versa.
Speaker 6: If majority consent, if there's one association and majority consent is obtained from the unit owners in that association, a claim can go forward.
Speaker 5: Okay, so then can the covenants, the initial covenants be written to prevent sub associations from being created?
Speaker 6: It's sorry to prevent what from being created by association.
Speaker 5: So say you say you're in that situation where one building is is is got the problems and the other building doesn't because maybe there was a contractor change after recognizing that the failings of one and so let's just say that everyone in the development is altruistic enough to sort of agree that we're going to let we're going to we're going to split our away. We're going to hit our 51% and divide one building from the other. Could could the covenants be written to actually prevent that from happening?
Speaker 6: Well, at some point I may have to beg off in terms of some of the technical hypotheticals you're raising. But as I understand it, they basically, if it's hard wired in originally to the covenants that there's going to be one association you buy in this development, you're a part of the association and you wanted to change to a different structure that would require an amendment to the covenants. And the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act very specifically says amendment can occur without majority consent or up to 67%, depending upon how it was written originally. Right. But but you'd have to go through the an amendment process for the original covenants to be able to go to a different governance structure. I think in answer to the hypothetical that you're raising.
Speaker 5: No, that's good. And it means the same threshold to subdivide is the same threshold to to agree to to get into the claim to file a claim.
Speaker 6: Well, just to be clear, hypothetically, it could be more because Kiawah allows covenants to put in in order to amend has to be at least 50 can be up to two thirds. So and I understand and others, again, have more real world experience in the room than I do, but that that is fairly common to have a higher threshold for amendments to the covenants, because Kiawah allows that to to be true in Colorado generally. Hmm.
Speaker 5: Okay. Council President, are we offering our comments at this point? Yes. Okay. So that's that's good information, sort of. Uh, I'm still that's not going to change my own thoughts on this matter. So I'm going to say my sort of prepared remarks here, because this directly, my concerns, I do have concerns based on what we were just talking about. But I do think that there's an opportunity to correct that down the road if, in fact, these manifest themselves in some sort of way. So the current defect, the current construction defects laws have not stopped construction in this boom. We have built lots of single family homes, townhomes, commercial low rise to high rise. One market segment is lagging behind the one market segment that's lagging behind as condos. So this really is, in my opinion, condo defect reform. There are no guarantees, but this law is at least an attempt to break the stalemate, making the development process more predictable for the buyer and the contractor alike. I am strongly pro-consumer and pro homeowner, so I will play. I will pay close attention to the market and the industry. And if it becomes apparent that buyers are being taken advantage of by this change in a way that is negatively impacts them, I would advocate that Council revisit this law when that if that starts to occur, because I, I do think, you know, there are things like this that that give me pause, but not enough because of the sort of strength and transparency of this proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, do.
Speaker 8: I want to thank David Rowell and our work on our amendment to craft this fine amendment? I think this ordinance would do a great have great effect on increasing the number of condominiums we have constructed for especially for middle income families, as well as for senior citizens. I'm looking forward to this passing tonight. I think the thing to remind is the state law schools is closed here. There, gives full protection to homeowners. And this law has no effect on the protections given by the state law to homeowners. Homeowners must be protected and they will under the construction defects legislation by the state. I'm hoping that our will be a are willing go along with other municipalities in encouraging the state to look at the state law and and make changes. I intend on supporting this tonight and I encourage my colleagues to do so. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add that why is this important? It's because right now for many people who are wanting to buy. There. There is limited new construction for sale housing being built in this city and. We have an inclusionary housing ordinance. So anybody that's building over 30 units in the city of for sale units would have to include affordable units within that development. I don't have to tell any of you what a challenge it is for individuals who are trying to purchase in this city, what the price of housing has done to making it unattainable for many, many families. And by allowing this to move forward tonight, it ensures that as our development community moves to build more condos in this city. And our hope is that this legislation will assist to some degree in addressing the insurance issue that would then allow these units to move forward. It means it it opens up other opportunities for individuals and families who are trying to find something they can afford. Besides the fact that the city has worked very hard and I want to commend my colleagues. Councilwoman Connie Chung, Councilman Brooks, in working with the administration to identify resources and to look at a dedicated revenue stream that will assist us in producing more affordable units in this city. It takes time for the units to come online. And, you know, as I indicated earlier, we've got a number of development projects that this body has approved that have not yet been constructed. There's a potential that some of those developments can be for sale, as well as rental housing. But it's important that we have a mix of different type of housing in this city that increases or creates the opportunity for a variety of income levels of people to live in this city. I don't want to see us become like a manhattan where the only people who can live in Denver are the people who have high incomes and can afford the price of housing. I think it's vitally important to having, you know, the kind of diverse city that we have always been to have that mix of income levels. And so that's why I will be supporting this tonight. I will also pay very close attention to the effects that this will have on the purchaser, the consumer. We know that this legislation won't do anything for people who have already purchased and who may have been dealing with issues. This only deals with projects moving forward after the legislation is adopted. And so some of us will will look at that carefully. And if we need to bring this legislation back in and deal with it further, will do it. We'll do it at that time. You know, some of us are crossing our fingers and hoping that this will result in more units being constructed. We've heard some developers saying they want to wait until there are further changes at the state house before they will, you know, take any steps to build for sale units. But, you know, this is all kind of in hopes that this takes moves the needle a little bit further in encouraging developers to take that step and build these for sale units. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I made most of my comments when we were in the as I chair the business committee. But I just want to again and my support behind this bill, I think I want to thank David Bravo for putting a well-crafted bill together, one that I think sets a great example for other municipalities who are dealing with this in the in the state and also. Sheds light.
Speaker 2: To our to our state.
Speaker 5: Capitals. The folks in the legislators saying, hey, our capital city has taken a bold step in the right direction. You know, in light of the conversation tonight, though, I do want to say that the Business Development Committee would like to revisit this in June after let after the legislature meets so that we can review how we're doing on our folks coming to the table on construction and some of these issues and.
Speaker 2: Concerns that I think.
Speaker 5: Council members have that we can address.
Speaker 2: Some of those as well. So I stand.
Speaker 5: Support behind this and I hope that all the colleagues as.
Speaker 2: Well can get on board. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Any other comments? 811 as amended. Steve Nunn Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Flynn I.
Speaker 4: Feel more. Cashman.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 4: Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega Susman. I black Brooks Clark. All right. This Wednesday. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes one day.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes one day. 811, as amended, has been placed on final consideration and does pass. I believe that was all the bills that were called out. So we were ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block.
Speaker 7: And move that the following bills be placed on final consideration and do pass in the block vote? Council Bill 829 eight 3839 eight 4841.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Um, those are the right ones, the ones I'm looking at. Are you reading bills on final or the bills for introduction? Resolution URIS You're in. The bills were final. Councilwoman Okay, we're gonna get to those right now. It's just the resolutions. Oops.
Speaker 7: I started backwards. Okay. Resolutions. Council. Will they move for the adoption of Council Bill 867. It's 857 858, 859 868, 64, eight, 66, eight, 55, eight, 61 and 69.
|
Bill
|
Amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code by adding a new Article XII to Chapter 10 concerning construction defect claims in common interest communities.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11232015_15-0676
|
Speaker 7: It is separated into two different sections. The framework plan is the part of the plan that tells us this is where we should take our direction for zoning changes. The district plan portion of the plan tells us this is where we should look to define some of the characteristics of specific areas in the planning area. So the framework plan defines this area as a town center. And tells us to focus intense and strategic growth areas to the town centers to introduce a greater share of market rate housing units to support infill development and mixed use projects, especially in our town, in the areas designated as town centers, and to focus the most intense structures and uses in the dense core and ring that dense core with medium intensity structures that taper in height, mass and scale to fringe areas and to the existing neighborhood. So the South links lines like general development plan, as I said, adopted in January of 2014. There are several pertinent things on this graphic. The dashed line is the core area that defines where the greatest height and intensity of land usage should occur. The there are definitions of the maximum stories that could occur on each of the blocks and then a definition of the height transitions that should occur and for the subject block . The height the height is set at between one and 20 storeys. And the transitions are, as you see, similar to the deal five, with a transition to five storeys on both 17th Avenue and Quitman Street. So this map amendment will result in a uniform application of zone districts across the city. So we feel like that second criteria is met. It also will implement, well, further the public health, public health, safety and welfare by implementing our area plans and by doing what our plan says. Having that dense core and stepping down to the existing neighborhood and the justifying circumstance for this is changed conditions. The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to recognize the changed character of the area. And I guess nothing can be more changed than redevelopment of a vacant site where the hospital left. So we feel that that criteria is met. The CMA eight does promote urban center, promotes the pedestrian scale, diverse areas, multiple residential and commercial buildings, and is intended to apply to areas primarily served by arterial streets. In this case, it's served by a collector, mixed use collector. So the. Neighborhood context. We feel that it meets the definition of urban center and conforms with the center, the urban center context not speaking well tonight. The DOE five does require that five stories step down on 17th Avenue and Quitman Street that also conforms to our area, most importantly, to our West Colfax Plan and our general development plan, but also to the intent of the design orally. So with that, staff recommends approval of this rezoning application.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have ten speakers signed up. I'm going to call the first five and ask the first five. Come up. You can make your way to the front pew. Cameron Bertrand, Larry Ambrose, Megan Yankee, Corinna Carlsen and Kim Koo. Sarah. So you can make your way up to the front pew and Cameron, you can begin your remarks. And you have 6 minutes to.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. Thank you all very much for having us here tonight. My name is Cameron Bertrand and I work for EFG Sloan's Lake One LLC, and we are the applicant that is in Microfinance Group Company. And you have seen me here before. We feel strongly that the proposed rezoning meets the city criteria and obviously encourage you to vote in favor. There have been significant changes to the neighborhood that warrant consideration of the rezoning. Obviously, I think the largest of these two is both the relocation of the hospital and the redevelopment of that site, as well as the light rail coming to the West Colfax corridor. In addition to complete in 2000 and Blueprint, Denver City Council has passed the West Colfax Plan. That is the plan that we focused most strongly on when we sought to redevelop the former hospital complex. And we feel strongly that this proposed rezoning is very much in conformance with that. It it incorporates and recommends a number of recommendations, including many of those in the St Anthony's task force, which preceded and created a basis for the West Colfax Plan that included a diversity of housing options and encouraged the creation of a town center to provide new neighborhood serving retail opportunities and to anchor the development by a public gathering space or open or open space. In our master plan and in the general development plan, you'll see that Raleigh Street is that town center. That's the area where we focus the retail and office concentration. And the Chapel Plaza in that general development plan is that open space center. So it's around that that you see in the development where we're trying to encourage the densest housing options. And so for that reason, this block immediately across from the Chapel Plaza, we think is appropriate for denser development. The plan also, as Teresa mentioned, calls for residential development to taper as we go towards the single family neighborhoods on the sides. And we believe that the design overlay that city council has already passed helps effect that by holding development to three stories directly across from single family detached housing and to five stories on West what, 17th Avenue itself? It's also worth noting that at CMC's eight, that step back creates a shadow effect in which the eighth story stepped back to the south, and the five story on 17th Avenue have almost an identical shadow. So there's really no shadow difference at a CMCs eight zoning because of the design overlay, which we think is something that came up in many of those neighborhood meetings and as a is a positive for this. As explained in staff report, the rezoning is being uniformly applied is consistent with the neighborhood context description, the the zoned district purpose and intent statement and is a positive for the general health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. As a proposal as the applicant, we believe the rezoning will help to ensure the diversity of housing options that's also called for in the plan and will help make it a reality to ensure the vitality of the neighborhood retail. In the case of our site, these plans are actually very much a reality. There's over 90,000 square feet of retail and office under construction on the broader San Anthony site today along West Colfax and along Raleigh. So it's coming to life. The housing option, the housing developments that are either under construction are planned, are many and diverse. They include market rate, workforce and affordable rental housing. They include townhomes, condominiums and IHG units. And so we believe we have been very successful in trying to implement the vision of of the West Colfax Quarter plan in preparing for tonight's meeting we have for community meetings specifically on this topic. In addition to more than 80 meetings we've held over the course of the entire project, attendance at those meetings was strong and the response was generally favorable, with most questions related to parking, traffic and others that you might expect in a development conversation. Given the holiday week. And the fact that at our last hearing I think it took three and a half hours to get through our speakers. We encouraged people to write letters of support rather than come out and speak. I believe you've received 12 of those to date. There was one letter, to my knowledge, that was expressed a concern. So with that, we again encourage you to support the rezoning. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with the city especially. Staff, Theresa and the others in committee planning development. And we're happy to take any questions when the time is right. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Larry Ambrose. And Mr. Ambrose, you have 6 minutes and.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm Larry Ambrose, 1750 Meat Street. I'm the vice president of the Sloan's Lake Neighborhood Association. The beginning of this hearing, there was reference to the the right of judicial review, an important part of the democratic process that I am here because there is a, um, as we speak, a consideration of a rule 106 a for review of the City Council decision regarding block one of this development. I just want to review the, um, the basis of that challenge, which was that and is that the zoning did not conform to, in our opinion, the West Colfax Plan. The West Colfax Plan was a process that I participated in and many others in our neighborhood back in 2006. We also had a concurrent process called the St Anthony's Redevelopment Task Force Planning Process was more than 100 people participated in that process, and it consisted of business people, developers and neighborhood residents, city officials. It was a year long process in which there was developed guiding principles, a number of guiding principles. And although block one and block two conform to many of those guiding principles, the paramount guiding principle in that Saint Anthony Task Force report was one that had to do with where the tall buildings were to be located. And in that task force report, it was recommended that the tallest buildings be towards West Colfax. What did that mean? Well, first of all, recognize that that process was not just a neighborhood process. It was a process that involved a lot of different players. And what the neighborhood wanted at that time was was actually diluted somewhat. But what we did get out of that process was the concept that the tallest building should be towards Colfax, not on 17th Avenue, not on the park. In other words, back towards West Colfax, it was very clear that was part of the outcome and those guiding principles were incorporated into the West Colfax plan. The challenge that we the city is is is making to that plan is that that guiding principle is not important. You know, when you talk about and I'm sure you hear this from your constituents as well, when you talk about zoning, the most important thing to people is where the tall buildings are. I don't think people are against high rises. It's where they're located. It is a it is a crucial part of zoning that an open space, which we didn't get either in that plan and this current plan, but very, very little of it. And how did this happen? It happened through what's called the general development plan process. And I want to just run by you and ask you please to consider what's going on with the general development plan process prior to 2010. The general development plan came after the zoning. It is a technical document, not a planning document. It was intended to follow the zoning and come up with the infrastructure, the sewers, the streets, the streetscape planning, the infrastructure for buildings that were determined by the zoning, the height of the buildings, the density of the buildings were determined by the zoning, not by the general development plan . We have reversed that process in 2010 to where the GDP sets the height of the buildings, sets the open space. It actually determines the density. That decision making responsibility was taken away from city council, given to the Planning Office and the Denver Planning Board. You no longer have say over that and now you consider it even on those slides. When they put that slide up, it said adopted plan. You adopt plans, not the planning board. You adopt plans. It's not an adopted plan. It means nothing. It should be coming after the zoning. Now, a year ago, Mr. Buchanan convened a task force. It consisted of five neighborhood representatives, five people from the city and ten developers. We met for four months. We had five meetings. And at those meetings we talked about where does the GDP fit in? Everybody on that task force agreed. It comes after the zoning, except for Mr. Buchanan and one member of the planning board take back that decision making responsibility. Now, this GDP has been given more power and determined heights. Yes, the GDP says that you can have up to 20 storeys on this building, but it comes after the zoning and the this will still be the tallest building on the site. So the same principles that are involved in this challenge, this review of the zoning that occurred in 2014 on February 2015 and February are at play here today. The court is deciding this now. It is before the court, although the city challenged standing number one. We do have standing we have complainants who have standing. And the court will consider the merits of this complaint. The other thing that you should realize in this in this sir in this complaint is that the city is arguing that small area plans are not. They don't you don't have to be consistent with smaller plans. They've actually argued that the comprehensive plan and the small area plan are only advisory and do not have to be followed if that is the case. Ladies and gentlemen, why do we have community planning at all? Why should we participate.
Speaker 1: In this process? Your 6 minutes is up. Sorry.
Speaker 6: Okay. I just ask you to postpone your decision on this until the court decides. Thank you so.
Speaker 1: Much. Thank you, sir. Megan Yankee.
Speaker 3: Good evening. This is my first city council meeting, so hopefully you'll be kind. I'm a homeowner and resident of District One off a big Xavier Street, a new homeowner. So when you're talking about making affordable housing, it was very difficult for us to get into this neighborhood that we loved. And one of the things that really drew us to this neighborhood was the St Anthony's development. It was the community's investment in density, pedestrian and really forward looking uses of this property. So I'm here not just speaking for myself, but also the we can organization, the R.A., no one else on the board could attend this evening. So I'm attending in their place to emphasize the letter that we submitted on behalf of the R.A. in support of this project. So with due respect to the comments that have been made previously, we believe that this development plan and rezoning is consistent with our goals for the neighborhood in terms of density, commercial development, etc.. So keep my comments brief and to that point.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Could you say your name for the record, please?
Speaker 3: My apologies. Megan Yankee. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, Karina Carrasco.
Speaker 3: Yes. Good evening.
Speaker 4: Carina Carls Guard at 4745.
Speaker 3: West 38th Avenue, unconcerned with uncontrolled and rapid growth and development in the city of Denver. Many of these inhibit pedestrian bicycle traffic as well as discourage the growth of small businesses. Zoning codes, even for Main Street uses, are intended to ensure new development contributes positively to established residential neighborhoods and character and improves the transition between commercial development and adjacent residential neighborhoods. The concern here is that many of the new proposed developments do not support this city's intended zoning purposes. As a business owner, I opposed the clean carwash development at 4895 West 38th Avenue for these reasons. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next we have Kim Kucera and as Kim comes up, I'll call the next five speakers Teri, Carl Gard, Brenda Lawson, Megan Doyle, Rachel Klein and Dan Schorr. You can make your way to the front. Make sure you can begin.
Speaker 3: Hi, I'm Kim Key. Sarah, 1660, Lincoln number 1800. And I'm actually reading a letter into the record from Mr. FEIBEL Goliad. His comments are as follows. My address is 5100 West 14th Avenue. It was my intention to appear at this hearing, but I can. I am unable to do so. I appreciate the privilege of having my comments read into the record. I live in the neighborhood. I am employed in the neighborhood. And I own property four blocks west of the development site. When I moved here 25 years ago, I joined the efforts to pull our neighborhood up by its bootstraps. The fruits of our efforts in trying to revitalize the neighborhood into a family friendly area with neighborhood amenities have been long in coming. We have found the LFG team to be uncommonly open, receptive to community input and responsive. Progress comes at a price and from my perspective, I see the palpable positive vastly outweighing the theoretical negative. The inclusion of a world class developer who is prepared to add upscale rentals to the mix of retail, buy to own and other economic levels of rental increases. The potential positive impact on the neighborhood. And if a world class developer with an excellent reputation needs to request the city to tweak the zoning requirements by a few stories in order to include retail on the ground floor with sufficient residential above to support the retail and the overall project. It seems little to ask in order to include his product and eventual impact into the project and the neighborhood. I would respectfully suggest that city council approve the zoning change request. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Terry Carlstadt.
Speaker 6: Good evening. And it's Terry Curls Guard 4745 West 38th.
Speaker 2: I'm concerned about the rapid pace of development without.
Speaker 6: Proper vetting by the city.
Speaker 2: And in particular the residents of our neighborhoods, and specifically the threat to public safety and noise in our neighborhood. 30th. These developments have deliberately been kept under the radar and permits fast tracked without the opportunity for resident comment or approval. Public safety concerns and compromising the character of our historic neighborhood. A case in point is the Gilliam carwash planned, or I should say the high volume gleam carwash planned for 38th and Wall Street? This facility is planned to service in excess of 2000 cars a day and with only an entrance and exit off of Wall Street, not on 38th. And I think that's a really key point to understand. Is it only on Wolf and not on 38th or Harvey Air? And this, again, is a major public safety issue that we're concerned about, and it has definitely put itself outside the character of our neighborhood. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Brenda Lawson. So we see how.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Brenda Lawson. I live in the Berkeley neighborhood. I just wanted to express my concerns for overdevelopment in the residential neighborhoods and how single family homes will be affected.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Megan Doyle.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Megan Doyle and I live in the Berkeley, Berkeley neighborhood as a third generation Colorado native, Denver native and a third generation Denver homeowner. I would like to express my concern for overdevelopment in residential areas and the negative.
Speaker 7: Impact that this has.
Speaker 3: On the adjacent neighborhood character, especially those of us that are single family homeowners. That bringing all of this development into our neighborhoods not only increases pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic and automotive traffic, it just kind of is crowding everybody out. And I specifically have concerns with high volume businesses, especially the Glen Carwash proposed on 30th Avenue. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Rachel Klein.
Speaker 3: Scare. Hello. Rachel Klein. I'm concerned with the development in Denver and the rapid pace at which it's happening. I'm concerned with city approval of projects without first assessing neighborhood impact, specifically from current residents. I'm also concerned with a high traffic business encouraging traffic in vehicles into a neighborhood that prides itself on walkability, in addition to health and safety concerns that come with that development. And because of all of these reasons, I am opposed to the gleaming car wash occupying 4895 West 38th Avenue. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Dan Schorr.
Speaker 2: Thank you, members of council for entertaining our comments. I'm here for the West Colfax Business Improvement District and the district is very supportive of this project. And there really I mean, it grows out of the alignment with the project and the West Colfax plan. That's the primary reason. But I really want to talk about and people had mentioned the overlay as sort of reflecting the concerns about tapering to the neighborhood. But I think the most important part of it is that this is an important contribution to creating in West Colfax and really a mixed income and pedestrian friendly neighborhood. That pedestrian friendliness and sustainability are really facilitated by relatively high densities, intensities of development in areas where it makes sense. And, you know, that's what the plan called out this as one of those intense areas for intense development without, you know, a reasonable number of pedestrians, as we're finding on West Colfax, it's very hard to to get the kind of infrastructure to enable crossing of Colfax, for example, that one of the key considerations is how many people are walking so and biking. So it's very important to have this kind of intensity density for that in addition and, you know, perhaps of even greater import to the business improvement district ultimately is that this supports the kind of businesses that people in the neighborhood have long clamored for wanted. I wanted. There are some good examples that are right on this site with some the Highland Tap and burger. But for us also, we're really very focused right now on a food co-op that would be very that would serve the full demographic of the neighborhood , this kind of, you know, the additional rooftops, as it were. And people that will come as a result of this kind of development is a really important part of what makes that kind of retail amenity for all the people of West Colfax very important. So those are all the reasons or those are the primary reasons why we support it and encourage council to support it as well tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. And just in case I missed it, could you just say your name for the.
Speaker 2: Dan Shaw S.H. Age shot?
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers. Any questions from members of council? Oh, come on. There we go. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Actually, this is this was on my list of announcements, and I forgot to chime in. But the mention of Clean Carwash actually has prompted me, so just bear with me. Tomorrow evening, my office is hosting a neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed carwash on West 38th Avenue at Wolfe and Xavier. The meeting is at 630 at the Denver Puppet Theater, 3156 West 38th Avenue. And I will have more comments, but I won't go into that. But it's a use by right situation, which is why you're probably hearing this at this public testimony, is that there's there's really no avenue for that. With respect to specific questions, I did have one. And where did I put that? Mr. Ambrose, you had handed me you inquired about doing a USB mean a USB drive to submit documents, but you didn't mention any of them, but you did give that to two counsel.
Speaker 6: So yes, there are a certified record and pleadings from the case and a new district court decision on standing is also included in the records that I've submitted. Okay.
Speaker 5: So you intended things. And Cameron.
Speaker 1: Bertrand.
Speaker 5: Had a question for Cameron as well. You have both the design review board and design guidelines and standards. Is that that's not codified in the design overlay? How is that? Is that through your metro district or what is what is the mechanism that puts enforces that? Got it. So the the original impetus for the design guidelines and standards and the design review committee is the general development plan. So the general development plan requires that one be created. So we created one and it runs in, I'll say, in favor of the Metropolitan District. So the Metropolitan District has recorded against the property the obligation for anyone who buys property within the development to go through the design review process. And the, the excuse me, the metropolitan district is who has created the design review committee. That committee is made up of three members of the community and two members of the Metropolitan District Board. And if I'm correct you, you extended an invitation for one of those three community member positions to somebody, I mean, to a group that is directly in opposition to block two. Is there a current vacancy there? There is not a vacancy on the board. There is, however, the. Well, so let me be clear. When when the design review committee was created, opportunities for positions were sent to all three of what I would call the most neighborhood of the neighborhood organizations West Colfax, Sloan's Lake Citizens Group and Sons Lake Neighborhood Association, Sloan's Lake Citizens Group and Sloan's Lake and excuse me, and West Colfax Association of Neighbors each held votes and put forward two members, both of which were accepted and put on the board. The Metropolitan District has the ability to expand the board. Six would be awkward, so I'm sure we would look at another way of doing that and it would take an act of the Metropolitan Board to do that. So at the time, the Sun Lake Neighborhood Association turned down the opportunity to play someone on the board. But what we have said in, you know, conversations is, you know, we the the intent of the design review committee is to, you know, allow the neighborhood input and oversight into implementing the design guidelines themselves. So that would always extend to all the neighborhoods. And we work with them on a way to make that happen, even if it's later than originally anticipated. Great. Thank you. And then one final question for Ms.. Megan Yankey. So she's still here. You said something that sort of threw me off because I thought was caught me we can was out of the business of supporting and I didn't actually get a letter of support.
Speaker 3: I misspoke on that. I thought that my colleagues were submitting a letter and I misspoke on that front. So I apologize.
Speaker 5: All right. Sorry. Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman New. In your Mac from. Reverse.
Speaker 6: Yes, sir.
Speaker 8: Cameron, first of all.
Speaker 6: Cameron, first.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I'm sorry, sir, but I just want to understand a little bit about the town center concept and how that's going to be developed in this project. I sort of envision there is green space, open space restaurants and stuff. How is that being developed in this project?
Speaker 5: Yes, sir. It the when we put together the masterplan, we talked to a number of retail developers, all of whom encouraged us to have what I call two sided retail. So in Denver, successful active streets have retail on the ground floor and residential above. Given that Rawley Street is the street with the traffic light onto Colfax and Raleigh Street is the street one street where we own a block that actually fronts Colfax. We decided to make Raleigh Street that retail Main Street. So we have called for the development along that block to be anchored on Colfax, and that is very much happening with Alamo Cinema Drafthouse and another 55,000 square feet of office and retail on that block. It's also near an existing parking garage, so there's plenty of parking. And then it continues up the street at the ground floor level along Raleigh between Kansas and 16th, and then again between 16th and 17th. Some tenants have been announced already. Dan Reference Highland Highlands, Tap and Burger and then Mid-Block. There is the Chapel Plaza. The Chapel Plaza has retail on two sides. This block proposes retail on a third corner, but then this redevelopment and this rezoning would allow for that to happen. And then finally it would bookend at Sloan's Lake Park on two additional plazas, which would also have the opportunity for retail seating. So it's not meant to be a mall, if you will, or have hundreds of thousands of square feet. But to have a street level feeling similar to what you might see in parts of uptown South Gaylord Street, Pearl Street, Tennyson, classic Denver neighborhood, and provide this neighborhood with some services they don't have and complement what we think is happening on Colfax.
Speaker 8: And the open space and green spaces. Is that going to be configured into this? Where's that?
Speaker 5: Very much so. So it's configured throughout the site and a number of different plazas. There are three plazas on 17th Avenue across from the park, but then the largest piece is right at Raleigh and 16th Avenue. It's the site of the former shrine, which was part of the City Anthony's Hospital Project. It's a small chapel that was built in the thirties. We've preserved it and put about a half acre of open space around it. That open space opens up onto Raleigh Street and the retail there, and then we've made 16th Avenue wider than the typical street so that that street and the Chapel Plaza together create sort of a festival street. So the it's designed to be shut down for farmer's markets or community events. And so 16th Avenue, Chapel Plaza and Raleigh really are the heart of this development.
Speaker 8: Now, the question about transition of heights, you know, I'm very familiar with the plans that that really favored transition of heights toward a specific area. And and it seemed like it would just be natural to transition higher heights from Colfax down to the lake and allow everyone the maximum view that beautiful lakes. I'm trying to understand why you didn't prefer that kind of transition.
Speaker 5: Well, there are so I don't believe that we're opposed to that kind of transition. And I actually think that the GDP, to the extent that it the area that it covers, allows for and encourages that as well. There are nine blocks covered by that plan, only six of which are covered by the general development plan. So the key blocks that you're discussing, that you're thinking of, I believe along Colfax, Colfax, period, equipment, equipment to Raleigh, Raleigh to Stuart are not part of the general development plan. So they don't encourage or discourage development there. In terms of the six blocks that are covered by the general development plan, they call for heights as high as 20 on the back blocks. So I think an eight storey building here certainly tapering down to five at the lake, certainly would start what you're discussing. And given that there is an 18 storey building directly behind this building, I think five 818 is sort of very much what folks are are thinking of, but it doesn't mean it's going to happen. Obviously, zoning and development are two separate things, but certainly this rezoning, I believe, supports that concept, as does the general. Development plan.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you very much. I have a question, david broadwell, but it looks like he slipped out of.
Speaker 1: I don't come after him.
Speaker 8: You don't look like David. It's just a question about the the outcome of the 106 complaint that's in process now that's in the district court. Will it make any difference to what we decide tonight if depending on what the outcome of that decision is most likely?
Speaker 2: Adam Hernandez, Assistant City Attorney Most likely, not every rezoning is independent. So any challenge, potential challenge to this rezoning would be, you know, addressed independently in any sort of. When a sex appeal.
Speaker 8: So in your opinion, is not it's not a best practice to go ahead and postpone this tonight and rather than making a decision on this tonight.
Speaker 2: The city feels like they have a strong argument and the current one on sex appeal so. We don't feel that a postponement is necessary right now.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I have several questions. My first is for Larry Ambrose. If you can stay in that front row, Larry, can you just clarify that all of your testimony was specific to block one or were you speaking about the entire development? Can you just clarify that?
Speaker 6: I was speaking to BLOCK two, but alluding to BLOCK one, having the same principles that are involved in the Rule 106 review.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 6: And that is that the tallest buildings on the site should be towards West Colfax, not on the park and on the lake.
Speaker 7: Okay. I now want to go to Teresa Lucero, if you wouldn't mind, coming forward, Teresa. So in the change that we're making, I just want to clarify that the. Going from the. A mixed use. Five Category two The urban mixed use Category eight allows to go up to eight storeys, but on the 17th Street side and on the east edge of the property, it limits it to five storeys, correct? Correct. Okay. Because we're retaining that design overlay. Design overlay. Five. Okay. And then, Cameron, if you can come, I have a question for you. I have two questions for you. The first one is about the commitment that you made to Parks and Rec Department for. Investment in looking at some additional planning for the park and the fact that there will be more bodies in the park. And I haven't heard anything about where that is at and just wanted to check in with you on that whole process . So, number one, have you all already given the city the money to do that planning? And then number two, what do you know about where that's at the planning process and among the administration about it?
Speaker 5: Yeah, so I think it would the question is probably the better part of the question is better answered by Parks and Rec staff. But the commitment that you're talking about was codified in the development agreement, and the development agreement has been signed and recorded. The commitment calls for the and I'm going to speak from memory here, but for Parks and Rec to identify that a planning process is ready to get underway, at which point there is dollars for that, and then there are also some dollars that are available at the time at which there's actually investment in the park as a result of those plans. So it's twofold. It's help, it's money to help plan, and it's also money to help build. And the commitment is there. But where it it's it's initiated and driven by the Parks Department, not by not by us.
Speaker 7: Okay. So, Councilman Espinosa, I would just suggest that maybe we both check with Parks and Rec on the status of where things are at with that plan. Because the reason why that's important is there's only one trail around that park. And so the whole discussion was about looking at the need for an additional improved trail around the park.
Speaker 5: So I certainly don't disagree.
Speaker 7: Let me go to my next question, and this is more about the GDP. So help me understand why it is that there are some blocks within the Sloan's Lake development that are covered under under the GDP and others that are not.
Speaker 5: So the the I'm not 100% sure that the way you're saying that I'm going to rephrase what you just said.
Speaker 7: I was regurgitating what you had to say.
Speaker 5: That I may have said it incorrectly, too. So I'm going to I'm going to say it again a little bit more clearly. The St Anthony's task force and the West Colfax corridor plan cover a nine block area. That nine block area was not owned by the hospital, so it covered an area that was larger than the hospital itself. In moving forward with a general development plan, we could only plan for and record a general development plan against property that we owned, which is the original area of the hospital. So like many planning documents do, it looked a little broader for context reasons than what I'll call the heart of the artichoke, which was the hospital in this case, the blocks that were not owned by the hospital where the blocks on West Colfax Avenue, if that if that makes sense. It's also true that the six blocks that we do cover in the general development plan are the six blocks that were in need of new infrastructure and both horizontal underground utilities, what have you , and then streets and parks aboveground. And as Mr. Ambrose said earlier, the principal purpose of a general development plan is to plan out the infrastructure that's coming right, discuss the potential kinds of development that would happen. So we only looked at per direction from the planning department, the area that would need new infrastructure.
Speaker 7: Okay. So can you clarify how many units and or buildings within that make up those units are being proposed for this particular application tonight?
Speaker 5: So I want to be a little bit careful because it's a rezoning application, not a development application. Having said that, having said that, the developer that we are working with, Hines, who has introduced them, announced their plans and introduce their plans to the community, proposes approximately 250 units on this site, which is interestingly very not necessarily more units than you would fit under the current zoning. They're just configured differently.
Speaker 7: And do you know of they're proposing rental or for sale?
Speaker 5: They are proposing rental.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank Mr. Cameron. You you worked for Denver Urban Renewal Authority at the time the West Colfax Plan was developed. And you participate. Did you participate in the development of the plan?
Speaker 5: I did not participate in the development of the plan. However, I did work at the city's Urban Renewal Authority. Okay.
Speaker 9: The only reason I ask is your name is on the document. So.
Speaker 5: Got it. Oh, that's exciting. I'm sorry. I said. I say with great confidence, but maybe. Maybe I should be careful. But I don't have a specific recommended recollection. Okay. Working on that plan, because.
Speaker 9: I was just wondering if you had actually participated in the plan, what was your thinking about the recommendation that the massing of higher density occur closer to Colfax than the park?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I certainly, as I, you know, said earlier, I think that that is a understandable and sensible outcome, primarily because Colfax is the focal point of the West Colfax corridor plan and it's closer to the light rail. And that's the place that that plan is trying to bring vigor and vitality to. I do think that the that the plan is much clearer and more intent on making sure you taper to the single family houses that are immediately adjacent to the site. And I also think it's an interesting point to call out is height. Height in those plans is never specifically called out. So I think I ask the question relative to what? And so I often think that the design overlay sets one benchmark in terms of relative to what, three stories on the edges, east and west and five stories on 17th Avenue and then upward as you go inward and south . The other benchmark is the 18 story building immediately behind this one. So again, five, 818 feels very much like the intent of that plan. Mm hmm.
Speaker 9: Okay. I'm looking at page 133 of that plan from 2006. And it seems to show the opposite of what the diagram or what the zoning and the design overlay show on the rezoning. It shows clearly shows much lower buildings on 17th and no higher buildings until you get to 16th.
Speaker 5: Could you state that page again?
Speaker 9: 133.
Speaker 5: Oh, the stamp. Yeah. So, so I think that.
Speaker 9: And I understand I'm sorry to interrupt, but I understand on the very next page it says that this is just one of many concepts.
Speaker 5: Yes, I.
Speaker 9: Do understand that.
Speaker 5: So I would say to you in looking at that plan, I agree with you that that the concept that is that is shown here is interesting for a variety of reasons. For for one, it's the middle block, not the block closest to Colfax.
Speaker 9: Because that's the existing 18 story.
Speaker 5: No, it's not. It's in front of the eighth. So so in this picture, they've demolished an existing 18 storey building and then they've put a taller building in front of it. This plan also has no scale on it. However, the existing houses that are there are the existing houses. Right. So you can see clearly from it that the yellow on the sides is taller than the single family houses that are there. And then orange steps up from there. And so if you did a scale rendering of this, which I actually have, you would find that that middle building is over 20 storeys high and the buildings in the front are easily over, over five stories. So again, the question is, you know.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry, you said in the front, do you mean on 17th?
Speaker 5: Yes. Because what you see there is you see that it says higher density, intensity, fully residential structures. Is the bright orange, right. Medium intensity residential uses over active ground floor commercial uses. So they're calling for medium intensity with active ground floor retail on 17th and along Raleigh and then in that same block, stepping up to higher intensity , fully residential structure. So I would argue that having going forward and saying that the darker orange at five storeys and ground floor residential which is what we call for and stepping up to seven right is medium stepping up to higher. So we think we're quite and you know, obviously we're not literally in conformance with this draft. Right. But we think that this plan very much backs up and supports even this one example. What's what's being discussed here?
Speaker 9: Mm hmm. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 9: Larry Ambrose. Your name. Your name is not on the document. But you said you participated. Did you participate in the West Colfax plan?
Speaker 6: Yes. My wife was on the committee and I.
Speaker 9: Her name name's not in here either.
Speaker 6: Her name is on there.
Speaker 9: I find it interesting that we have a document that names people who weren't involved and doesn't name.
Speaker 6: Who I participated in. We had a series of Oh Charette, you are familiar with threats where you have tables. And I was part of that process where people actually sat down and drew their visions, and that was where the concept of the tallest buildings towards Colfax came. And if I can just say one other thing, the block four and five, which have four story buildings and a little bit of five story on them. If this project were moved back because eight story building were moved back to that site, that would be appropriate. But unfortunately, they sold that site before they. And I think at the same time, they also always intended that the tallest buildings be closest to the lake, because that's the market. That's what the market is demanding. But we don't do zoning based on return, on investment or shouldn't.
Speaker 9: All right. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Adam. I mean, Mr. Hernandez. Sorry, the. Was the GDP approved by council?
Speaker 2: No GDPs are approved by the Development Review Committee, which is made up of various city agencies.
Speaker 5: And I'm asking that because I again, this is sort of a teaching moment. And what Mr. Ambrose was saying about the process in the town center redevelopment on page 130 of the neighborhood plan. The very first statement is the following utilized the guiding principles of the St Anthony's Hospital Redevelopment Task Force in preparing and implementing future plans for the redevelopment of this 16 acre urban site. I'm saying that because you're going to hear in my comments that this rezoning I mean, other rezonings, this GDP, this entire process figured central into why I'm sitting here today. And there's some sort of disconnect in that. There's a statement in a small area plan which us as council are trying to encourage in other neighborhoods across our districts. Yet it got usurped by a GDP process that is not approved by council. And then we're reviewing rezonings relative not to this point well within with this in place, but in context to that GDP. And so as many struggles as we have on on the tools that are available to us to sort of negotiate better outcomes, this one sort of circumvents us fairly robustly. The and so one my concern is, is that the city does have a very good case in the 106 action on block one. But part of that relies on the fact that these documents, these smaller plans, don't have the weight or gravity or teeth that we ascribe to them as a community. And so I want that to be known by my colleagues here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn, you back up.
Speaker 9: I apologize, Mr. Rose. I did have one more question for Adam on the rule when I was six. And I know that I know that you said we're confident in it, etc., but it seems to me that the same principles apply to block two as are being litigated in BLOCK one. So I'm curious, do you know what the anticipated schedule is or when we might expect a ruling on on this? And what would be the damage to the city if we postponed this until after the ruling so that that could inform our decision here? If you know.
Speaker 2: It's difficult to say on one of six decisions, it can depend on the individual judge. I believe right now the city is due to file their answer brief tomorrow, which would then have the plaintiffs file. I want to say in 3 to 4 weeks, I don't have a rule one or six memorized. And after that, it can take anywhere from one month to. Six to 8 to 10. It just really depends on on the individual job.
Speaker 9: What is the damage that's done to the city by postponing? Is there damage, too? I don't want to be pursuing.
Speaker 2: I don't know if there's any damage to be done other than, you know, each rezoning is its own independent decision. That would be, you know, analyzed independently by by whatever judge would look at that challenge. You know, in this specific rezoning staff feels that this application does meet the designation, the I'm sorry designation, the rezoning criteria. And so the city, you know, feels that a postponement is just unnecessary at this point.
Speaker 9: Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Cameron, question for you. Can you please speak to what Councilman Flynn just was asking about a postponement?
Speaker 5: Um, well, I should be careful. Probably not to speak to the status of the 106 itself, but I would tell you that from the perspective of the applicant, we would feel we would be harmed by it. We are. This is a process that started in the spring that brings us to this point. We've had a variety of meetings with the neighborhood. We are trying to bring forward and continue the positive retail environment that we've had and move forward. So a delay, especially one of an unknown duration, is would be a significant consequence to us as the applicant and would certainly make a statement to the vertical developer as well. So I would certainly strongly encourage the council given that they are independent blocks, independent requests to let them move forward independently. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. All right. You know the question. 676. 69 public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Okay. So during my short time on council, we have approved several of zoning similar to this bill. Both CMC's five and eight districts have development potential. That is dramatically different than what lay the lay person understood in the 2010 rezoning zoning update. There's a reason this city has been litigated against multiple times around mixed zone districts. Many of those concerns could have and should have been mitigated in the zoning text. Failing that rezoning should afford the public the right to address deficiencies, or should afford the opportunity for the public to address deficiencies until the city has tools to negotiate and memorialize better outcomes. I will continue to scrutinize blanket rezonings in areas sensitive to destabilizing development. Fortunately, in this instance, there is a design overlay along with design standards and guidelines in place. I read my own statement.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: So I want to say that again because I want with emphasis. Fortunately, in this instance, there is a design overlay along with design guidelines and standards in place. Additionally worth noting, the master developer has extended the invitation for the design review board board position to two. The alternate mean the OP as the opposing voice in this development. I believe we as council need more support for customized zoning to allow for collaboration between developers and the community they are impacting. I will be voting well and so before I say how I'm going to vote. Like I said, this was central to my election and part of that was that the GDPR does call for a 20 storey, allows for up to 20 storeys on block two. This one that we're talking about and and the applicant at that time talked about the potential for offloading affordable housing to a different part, not part of these seven blocks that are the 16 acre site. And I'm happy to say that the proposal to go with a seven storey proposal on an eight storey zone district is a net 12 storey reduction and the potential supported by GDP. In addition, during that time between election and swearing in, they agreed to 32 to put 30 affordable housing units on this on the property that was previously being sought as is being put off site. And now there's talk about an additional up to 30 more. And that to me is what I'm talking about when we when we know there are more than one way to skin the cat. Back then on the block, one rezoning, there was a lot of talk about density in the proposal. On block one is 222 units. If I'm not mistaken, this is 250 and it's five story shorter. So when I'm talking about density, there's different ways to achieve what we're trying to do, and we can do it in ways that are responsive, especially if we can do that negotiated here. Again, design guidelines and standards are in place, the design review board. And so there's a lot of things that are important to the civic environment that are already codified through prior agreements. So with that, I will be voting in favor of this rezoning. However, it should be noted that there is pending litigation on the adjacent block to the West. And should a ruling of the adjacent block be in favor of the plaintiff, the future of this zoning could be impacted.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I, I generally like the proposal as it's put forward, but I am uncomfortable approving a rezoning under the same principles and procedure that are being contested in court on an adjacent block. And to just to pick up on what Councilwoman Espinosa just said, that we could be challenged on this one as well down the road. I and I don't understand what. And given that there's no harm to the city in postponing this, I would like to suggest that we that we postpone this until after while we can. We have to pick a date certain. So I'd like to make a motion that we postpone it until January 19th. Can I make that motion?
Speaker 1: Yes, you can.
Speaker 9: I'd like to make a motion that we postpone final consideration of this until January 19th, which is about a little less than two months from now, would give the court time to give us guidance on whether our plans are small area plans and should be should have more consideration in our in our rezonings.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved. It does require a second.
Speaker 8: So I can.
Speaker 1: Katherine, then you want to click on for the screen move and second it. Any comments on the motion to postpone? You have anything else to add, Councilman Flynn?
Speaker 9: No, no, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. So, Lopez, I think you were commenting on the bill. Do you have a comment on the postponement?
Speaker 2: I had a comment on the on the original motion, which is the bill. But then I. I know that Councilman Espinoza was right after me. And I think my question was on this on this particular motion to see how the councilman in the district felt about.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilman Espinoza, did you have.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I'm sort of trying to figure out what the net benefit of that is. For a postponement, simply because if it impacts if it impacts, it impacts my you know, I don't know that. And so help me out. Can either the city attorney or Councilman Flynn, because it's not necessarily retroactive? I think you would still have to the either the applicant would have to sort of recognize based on the decision that they need to alter their application, which is a reapplication process anyway. Or they would basically feel like they could proceed in a month or two with the application in hand and then go through the 106 action again. I mean, what is what's the benefit of delaying?
Speaker 9: If I could respond responding well.
Speaker 1: I will let other people comment before we go back and forth. So I do want to know that you said you didn't see value. I wanted to allow you to if you want to comment further. But we got a lot of people in the queue and I want to afford them the opportunity to speak on the motion to postpone. If you had anything else to add, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: No, I don't know.
Speaker 1: You went back in Lopez for the postponement or did you want to?
Speaker 2: I wanted to comment on the honor on the bill.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, we'll come back. Well, if it postpones, you have to wait till the 19th, but we'll come back to you. Okay. Councilman Brooks.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Adam, this is a question for you, but.
Speaker 2: You know, you know, it's.
Speaker 5: It's really for Braswell because, you know.
Speaker 2: We are you know, the applicant is due.
Speaker 5: You know, their response in this public hearing to be independent of all other pending cases. And what I'm wondering, Adam, is are we then liable for not giving the applicant their due in this public hearing because we're inquiring about other pending cases? In other words, would the applicant then could they file lawsuit against us? Because we are making you know, we're outside of our kind of criteria of making this.
Speaker 2: I don't know about the liability, but there has been. Some deliberation. The public hearing has started. So. It seems that a postponement. May have been more applicable before all of that had occurred. Okay. Got it. That's what that's what I want to hear. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilman Brooks, I'll jump in. You know, I Adam, you didn't come up with the harm to the city. I can come up with one delaying of the movement forward of this zoning, particularly if we have their independent. So one does not have any impact on the other. And so to delay for what good reason. And so I think that is harmful to the city. I also think it's harmful what type of message this sees that litigation can stall city business. So I will say, just as I was thinking, I think those are two reasons that I don't understand the reasons for this postponement. So I would certainly hope that we we think hard about doing that because I don't see value in that. Councilwoman, I take it you're up.
Speaker 7: First, I want to say that during the course of the process, I attended many of the meetings that were held in the neighborhood. This was when the old St Anthony's Hospital was still on site, and many of the meetings were held in the actual building. And I think Cameron spoke to 80 build 80 meetings that were held with the community garnering lots of different input and. That the overall plan for what was going to be brought forward was shaped based on that community input. And, you know, as with many of the large scale developments that we're seeing, they're coming in as different development applications for the different parcels. That's very different from when I served on council before, where they were brought in as one sort of master plan, if you will, and the zoning was was done differently. But that was all before the change to the 2010 zoning. So, you know, given where we're at and the process that has gone forward, I don't think it makes sense to postpone this tonight and because they are separate applications. And if we. Did this with this particular development. You know, we could be kind of in this box with other developments all across the city where there are different buildings that will be going on to a development site. And we've got a number of large parcel developments that are yet to come forward. And I just think this is. This is not an appropriate reason to justify postponing. I think it makes sense to move forward with the action by city council regardless of how the votes will come down and, you know, let it move forward as a standalone zoning, as, you know, the previous ones have. So I will not be voting for the postponement. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Canete.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, will speak against a postponement. I'm going to use a little stronger or, you know, maybe plainer wording than the city attorney has. And he should correct me if he feels I'm overstating anything. But it's not just that each rezoning is independent. The review on a 1 to 6 case is based on the record established in that particular zoning. So if there's a deficiency in the record of that event, it has to do with the evidence, it has to do with the deliberations that occurred, not just the site. And so for that reason, I would say there's virtually no impact that that decision could have. We have a record before us tonight that includes the testimony we heard tonight, includes the documents in this record. Nothing that occurs in that case is going to tell me about this efficiency or insufficiency of this record. And that, you know, the city attorney. Let me pause since since I only play an attorney and Channel eight these days. Did I misstate that in any way?
Speaker 2: No, no, that's a correct statement.
Speaker 10: So so with that statement, I think that we have before us a complete record. And that complete record includes not just the the testimony before us, but it also includes the documentation regarding, you know, the long planning process that occurred. I, too, am one of the individuals who was part of the St Anthony's task force discussions. And one of the things that I think, you know, Dan Shaw, one of the speakers in the hearing tonight referred to, is the key reason for the residential density along 17th is that there was no way to get to the retail and business desires that this community had. And I say this community, not this developer, this community. I sat on a subcommittee, the economics subcommittee, chaired by the chair of of Schaefer, Roy Alexander, trying to look at how we get more neighborhoods serving businesses. And that was impossible without residential density. And so we have a record before us that really has that as the key fact. We have all of the other pieces before us. It is a complete record and I would urge my colleagues to oppose a postponement. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Correction. Excuse me. Thank you. Councilman Kenny's Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: You know, any citizen, any property owner in the city and county of Denver has the right to put forth a rezoning request and have their day in court. As we sit in our quasi judicial role on city council.
Speaker 6: They do not need staff approval. They do not need approval.
Speaker 2: From the neighborhood to have their day to sit and have us review based.
Speaker 6: On five criteria.
Speaker 2: The merits of that case and make a ruling. Those five criteria are consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations for public health, safety and welfare, justifying circumstances.
Speaker 6: And.
Speaker 2: Consistency with neighborhood contact zoned district purpose and intent. There is absolutely no criteria.
Speaker 6: Upon which.
Speaker 2: This public hearing the right of this applicant can be delayed. In my seeing under the there's there's not a sixth criteria. That is pending litigation on a different piece of property. I think that the discussion we should be having right now is about what we're going to do based on the testimony and the public hearing. I would strongly oppose postponement. I think there's absolutely no standing for a postponement, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote no on postponement.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Clerk. Councilman Espinosa, are you back up?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Also, you're going to say on the word where the harm is is actually in the development proposal, because as an architect and developer myself, I know that there's economies that can be gained in a seven storey eight storey development that can't be obtained in a five storey development. But I can also tell you that it's very, very, very easy to do a five storey development, you know, as evidenced by blocks the use by right developments on blocks five and six on St Anthony's. And so I you know, if you put a rezoning in limbo, you actually make a useful right development more viable at some point. And so, you know, I think that the the sort of creative approach, even though we're not.
Speaker 1: Approving a project.
Speaker 5: The creativity, the latitude that you get through that economy of scale is. Going to will result in a greater public benefit or community benefit. Could. It could and should. So there is potential harm in that regard. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thanks for President. The single reason than the only reason that I moved for the postponement was because the same principles, questions about process apply to this rezoning. And I don't want to see us back here with another having to do this all over again. If the Court in the unlikely event, I'm told, that the Court would find against us. And so that was the only reason I'm not advocating that. That this doesn't meet any of the criteria and postponement is not a no vote. That was the sole reason I actually favor the proposal. I'm just concerned about having to revisit it. If should we lose the the first case because the same principles are there. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman and clerk, you back up.
Speaker 2: I just want to quickly respond. There's nothing to stop this applicant. Even if the lawsuit were to go against the city from coming back and getting to this point, this is the applicant's right to sit here with us regardless of that lawsuit or whatever they say. Just wanted to add that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark, in the other comments and we're talking about the postponement, and I'm still sending Councilman Lopez, you're waiting inside. You'll be the first one I call on. Should this both of them to be defeated? All right. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other comments, we are voting on the postponement to January 2016. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Flynn I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore No.
Speaker 4: Cashman No can eat. Lopez No new Ortega?
Speaker 3: SUSSMAN Absolutely not.
Speaker 4: BLACK No.
Speaker 2: BROOKS No.
Speaker 1: CLARK No.
Speaker 5: ESPINOSA No.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: No. Councilman Lopez. Oh, no. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please, first of all, denounce the results.
Speaker 4: Councilman, who did you vote? He did.
Speaker 1: He voted yes.
Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. Two eyes, 11.
Speaker 1: Two eyes. 11 nays. Motion to postpone a January has been defeated OC. Written comments. Yes. Comments on 676. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I you know, I, uh, here's Council District three just on the other side of Perry. And before we when, when we first started talking about this site in the St Anthony's redevelopment site has been a for a long time. I think when I when I was first elected, it was still kind of a myth. Right. We didn't know what the heck was going to happen over there. And I never thought that Council District three would butt up against it. So I was kind of like, Oh, that's Garcia's problem. I'll let him deal with. That was, you know, council people's problem then it is now my problem. And so thank you, Councilman Espinosa, for inviting me to share your problems. Oh, no, sir. Here's the thing. I know that this I've been watching it from afar. And, you know, in the last few years, actually, I've been sitting in on some of the meetings here, this particular project. And, you know, each block has its own little development. Each block it comes with its own set of scrutiny. This project and this development has been watched with intense scrutiny under a big microscope. And every foot that you build in the air or or in width comes under intense scrutiny, as it should. Every rezoning should we should look at things with with with a skeptical eye. But with something like this, with the design guidelines that are in place, with the amount of input that people have had, and just with the with them, this kind of array of of different variables that have been on our table, but also the different options and what could have been but actually what is it's a breath of fresh air for a lot of folks in the area who are a little well, I would even say a little, but very concerned about about overdevelopment in areas. And, you know, here's a one thing that we have to really keep and really keep in mind. We see this. This particular zoning is a particular development in and of itself, in a universe of in and of itself. We forget where it fits sometimes. And when we look at it, we analyze it, we forget where it fits in the context of the city. Keep in mind that folks on the West Side to catch a movie, we go to Belmar. Or we go to the pavilions. But for the most part, a lot of folks head to Lakewood right when they're looking at looking when they're looking at places to live. That's where they're looking at looking west. And this is a great opportunity not only to provide those those those units. And and I'm glad to see that, you know, they're becoming a little bit more affordable. At least some of the units are becoming more affordable, but also to have those kind of services in the community that that we don't currently have. And I think this particular zoning, when you look at the design guidelines, when you look at the process that has been at the table. And, yes, you know, you're still going to have a lot of folks that are really discontent with the development as a whole. But when you look at this particular zoning and that's what we hear charged with, it seems to dot all the I's and cross all the T's in my book. And, you know, being the councilperson who represents the districts just to the east, you know, just barely to the east, I'd say that this is actually makes sense. Now, the other blocks, we'll have to look at that, another case by case basis in the car wash. I have no idea what the heck people are talking about the car wash, but I guess I'm going to find out so soon enough. So thank you, Mr. President. I do support this moving forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments? 676. Scene? None. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 4: Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Gillmor, I.
Speaker 4: Cashman I can eat. Lopez I knew no. Ortega I. Susman I black eye. Brooks. Clark.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes, one nay.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes one nay. 676 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. Next we have Council Bill 722. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put 722 on the floor?
Speaker 7: I would be happy to move that council bill 722 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing on Council Bill 722 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Good evening, members of Council. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development with the staff report for Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Number five. I'll note that we start over counting text amendments when Council re codifies the code as you did in June. So this is the fifth since the re codification. It's actually the 25th to the Denver zoning code. And we're here tonight to introduce a new series of zone districts to the Denver zoning code. I'll talk about who's sponsoring it. The process we went through the purpose of this amendment, and I'll review its provisions. I'll go through the three review criteria for a text amendment and then offer our recommendation. So first, the ordinance is sponsored by the Department of Community Planning and Development. But we worked in close concert with the property owners who are likely to be the first folks to ask for a map amendment to this new series of zoned districts in the Pena Boulevard station area. They also had their design professionals test and develop the provisions of this new text amendment. The TEX amendment process begins with what we have done with every text amendment since the Denver Zoning Code was adopted, which is taking it to the Committee of the Zoning and Planning Committee of Inter Neighborhood Cooperation, a registered neighborhood organization. And we did that in June of this year presenting a summary of the proposed tax amendment. We then released a public review draft 30 days, more than 30 days before the planning board public hearing, which is again, our practice not required by code, did that in July of this year and then provided formal notice to registered neighborhood organizations and city council throughout the city. At July 28th, Planning Board held an informational item and then held a public hearing. That was probably a notice to all registered neighborhood organizations in the city and all city council members.
|
Bill
|
Rezones property located at South Sloan’s Lake Filing 1, Block 2, Lots 1 and 2 from C-MX-5/DO-5 to C-MX-8/DO-5 in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at South Sloan’s Lake Filing 1, Block 2, Lots 1 and 2 from C-MX-5/DO-5 (Urban Center, Mixed Use, 5 stories, Design Overlay South Sloans Lake) to C-MX-8/DO-5 (Urban Center, Mixed Use, 8 stories, Design Overlay South Sloans Lake) in Council District 1. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-14-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11232015_15-0722
|
Speaker 5: organizations and city council throughout the city. At July 28th, Planning Board held an informational item and then held a public hearing. That was probably a notice to all registered neighborhood organizations in the city and all city council members. That hearing was on September the 16th, at which time they heard testimony from one person and then unanimously recommended approval. It proceeded to the Committee of City Council, the Neighbors and Planning Committee on October 14th, and City Council's public hearing tonight was also again notified notice with 21 days advance notice to all register neighborhood organizations and all city council members before tonight's public hearing. We received a total of two written comments which are both included in your packets that we submitted last week. One is a general comment, not specific to this text amendment from Virginia Vail Community Association. And then there was a comment specifically in support of the text of this text amendment from a developer of transit oriented development in the Pinion Boulevard Station area Four Bells. And he is here tonight. So here's the purpose of the text amendment. The goal is to create a brand new series of suburban context zone districts. So we're adding to the menu of current zone districts in the Denver zoning code with five new ones that are designed to fit within the suburban neighborhood context but have a more urban, pedestrian oriented character than the current menu provides in the suburban context . It does this by adjusting some of the building form standards in the suburban mixed use zone districts, and it does so in a way to try to increase the predictability and implement adopted plan goals and objectives from the citywide adopted plans. Here's a summary of the main provisions of the text amendments. They're further detailed in your staff report and in a lengthy red line ordinance, as well as a black line ordinance. At the committee meeting, we received valuable feedback from the committee members that perhaps these would be better shown through graphics. So I asked my colleagues with developing some graphics to illustrate the concepts, and so I'll walk through them here quickly. The first is there's an adjustment to the build to range. So on the left hand side of this slide and all the subsequent slides, it shows the current smc's suburban mixed use zone districts. They remain on the books and they continue to be mapped in various locations in the city today. The current rule in suburban mixed use is that there's a bill to range from 0 to 80 feet in most instances, although sometimes that goes as much as 150 feet. In this new series of zone districts, the smic's a zone districts the 2a42 stories 3a43 stories, 58a and 12 a that we would narrow the bill to range. So it would be from a minimum of zero feet to a maximum of 20 feet. There's also an increase in the percentage, which is the width along the zone lot that the building needs to be met. So in doing so, it brings buildings closer to the street and again, kind of seeks to achieve a more urban, pedestrian oriented character. The second thing that smacks a zone district is do as compared to the current suburban mixed use zone districts is to prohibit surface parking between the building and the street. So on the left hand side, you can see today surface parking is allowed between a building and a primary street and suburban mixed use in the new series is on districts that would not be allowed between the building and the primary street. So it need to be located to the side, to the rear in the building itself. The third thing that's different about the SMACKS makes a series of zone districts is the pedestrian access requirement. So in the suburban mixed use zone districts again today, already what the rules are on the left is they only require a pedestrian connection, which is a clear, visible path from the street to the building. On the right, you can see the new requirement in this Amex zone, districts which require a street facing entrance so a door in the building must face the primary street. Finally, there's the addition of a street level active use requirement. So today, although there there are built to and transparency requirements and all the other street level activation requirements I've talked about so far in the suburban mixed use zone districts. There's not actually a requirement that there be an active use in the building. What we're introducing with this cements a zone district series is a 40% street level active use requirement, which is consistent with what we require in our other urban, pedestrian oriented, mixed use districts in the city today. So essentially what that means is that within 40% of the width of the building that's meeting the build to requirement requires a use other than parking and a few others that are not very street lively and active. So you can see on the left today that could just be a parking garage behind the windows, whereas one example of what might develop within the new series of zone districts is a cafe or or any other use that isn't prohibited in the code as an inactive use. Another thing that the text amendment does is it only allows the general building form. What this does as compared to the suburban mixed use some districts is it essentially prohibits drive thru lanes and drive thru services between the building and the street, although drive thrus as you drive thru uses would still be allowed if locate if not located between the building in the street. So there are three review criteria for a text amendment. The first is that it be consistent with the city's adopted plans and policies. We provide a further detail in your staff report, but in summary, we find that it would be consistent with comp plan 2000 and ensures that the zoning code is flexible and accommodates changes over time . It will encourage mixed use and transit oriented development in those locations where it's mapped and identifies in response to community design and development issues that have been raised, targeting those concerns with appropriate new controls and incentives. The second criterion is that it needs to further the public health safety in general welfare, which the text amendment does by providing clarity through the New Zone District in terms of the building form and predicted predictability in terms of what the rules will be, and also facilitates plan development within the new zone districts and it continues to implement our adopted plans. And then finally, it must result in regulations that are uniform throughout each of these new zone districts. The regulations will apply uniformly to all buildings and land uses that develop within each of them again when they are mapped. So having reviewed it against all three review criteria, we recommend that you approve the text amendment.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have one speaker for bells.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Four Bells two 2335 Glencoe, Denver. Thank you. Council President and Council Members. My letter has been submitted, but I wanted to, first of all, thank the planning staff for their efforts on this. The S-MAX is just not stringent enough for what we wanted to accomplish out there. But some of the other zoning designations really don't fit the context. As you know, we were wheatfield until recently, and fortunately we're under construction and putting infrastructure in and developing what we believe will be a leading transit oriented development that we'll all be proud of. And it might take ten years. It is 400 acres. So we believe this will allow for our pedestrian oriented streets to be truly pedestrian oriented. We really don't want a bunch of parking between our pedestrian oriented streets and our buildings. And so this helps us accomplish that by really defining what we want to accomplish and not having some X, just pure s-max and having like so. So we encourage you to support it and we look forward to moving forward. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 10: Thank you. One question for the planner, please, Kyle. Yes. Sorry. I just have a really basic question, which is you've described a lot of the requirements of this own district, but were any of these things not allowed in the prior zone district, or is there things that an applicant can do that they wouldn't have been in the other one? I'm just trying to understand kind of that tipping point of necessity versus what was possible.
Speaker 5: Sure. So in all cases, this will increase minimum requirements. So development, everything that's available in the new districts, you could also do in the regular districts. It's just that in the regular districts, you could do kinds of development that wouldn't be as compatible with the goals of the new one. So it is restrictive, more restrictive in all cases.
Speaker 10: All right. And I guess my main question there is I mean, it makes perfect sense to me, but in a case where an applicant can choose which one to do. I guess I'm still a little stuck on the need for a new zone district because anyone who doesn't want to do these things could just choose the old one. Right? We're not eliminating the old one.
Speaker 5: Correct. They won't be removed from the books. But we do think that there are instances where the smic's straight zone districts wouldn't implement plans and wouldn't be consistent with the city's adopted plan. So these will be more consistent in areas where we have stationary plans calling for a more vibrant character or pedestrian oriented character.
Speaker 10: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off there. So let me just so if I understand it correctly, it's not that applicants won't still see that more permissive zoning, but you would be, for example, now that this exists, less favored to support it. For example, from a staff perspective, if you felt like this one was a better fit with the plan. You know, the planning board might be reviewing against this so so you it will in effect the existence of the to two comparative you know zone districts will will indeed result in some folks being steered this way who might not have otherwise.
Speaker 5: I think that's a fair statement.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you for helping me understand.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman can. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I'd like to ask for bills, if you can come forward. So in looking at the documents, I didn't see a map that defined the boundaries. So can you both define the boundaries and tell us how many acres we're talking about that make up this area?
Speaker 2: So the entire area that was part of the stationary plan which was approved is from 56 to 60 fourth. And Pen Boulevard to Tower Road actually includes our land and some other landowners who also participated in the stationary plan and the general development plan, including Disneyland. I mean, this is truly our co-developer on this project. So currently that land is on the old zoning code, CMU ten, 20 and 30. And we are actually done preliminary submissions with the planning staff to rezone our land into the new zoning code. And this we will designate some of our land as some mix a as we come forward and obviously you'll see that when we come forward.
Speaker 7: So we'll be seeing other zoning applications come forward, is what you're saying?
Speaker 2: Yes. In fact, you will see we own about 150 acres of it. The EIA will not be, as I understand, submitting because they're the EIA and basically they have their own designation, which is fine.
Speaker 7: And how many acres are the A dia?
Speaker 2: 60.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 2: There's another landowner that's about another 150 acres. And they have not decided yet whether they're going to rezone.
Speaker 7: So part of this is just to give the development, the developers options between the two different zoning categories that are now available with.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes. We worked hand in hand with the planning staff developing this text amendment really to kind of craft it through what we desired on what I would call our most pedestrian oriented streets. So those pedestrian or streets will be our primary streets. So we will have the build to requirements and the transparencies along those streets, which are the key walkable streets.
Speaker 7: And four. Can you help me recall whether the Metro District covered the entire boundaries of all the acres that we're talking about?
Speaker 2: The metro district does include all of that. It's actually 380 acres. It has inclusion areas. They can take it up to over 600 acres. For instance, DIA is not in the specific metro district area now, but they can be included. In fact, we had ten metro districts that, as you may recall, we saved one for DIA if they want it. So it's generally the entire area? Yes.
Speaker 7: In an up to how many mills will that allow to be included in?
Speaker 2: I'd. Say that again. I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: So the metro district will allow the mills to be raised?
Speaker 2: Oh, yes.
Speaker 7: So is there what's the cap on?
Speaker 2: It's the standard that the city and county has approved generally, I believe, which is 50 mills for capital. And then you can have an operating a mill on top of that.
Speaker 7: Okay. So given the the role of. Special financing tool. What what is the commitment to affordable housing for any of the housing development that's going to be built on the site?
Speaker 2: We have not made a specific commitment to affordable housing. We are working with the local developer, MGM, to have our first project. They are having meetings with the city on some potential financing mechanisms to have a portion of their their apartments that would be rental be affordable.
Speaker 7: Okay. And is that a development that's moving forward now or.
Speaker 2: Yes, they are under contract.
Speaker 7: Okay. Okay. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I think, Kyle, you're probably the best one for me to address this question, too. So first, I have to say thank you for including the schematics in the presentation and with the parking, you know, not being facing the street. Sometimes people wonder if there's going to be enough parking. But it's my understanding that there's going to be hundreds of parking spaces that are close to the platform. And I think that number was 800, is that correct? Or and that might be a question for Firdous as well or Dan. But you know, how much parking is there going to be and then encouraging that walkability through, you know, multimodal bicycles and other mechanisms, if you could talk a little bit about that.
Speaker 5: Sure. So I'll speak to what I know and then you can maybe address questions elsewhere. So this is a text amendment to add zone districts to the book. It's not actually being mapped anywhere tonight. And I'm not familiar with the details of any particular project. And I'm I'm genuinely not familiar. So what I can say is with the zone districts, when they are mapped, they will require the suburban neighborhood parking ratios, which are some of the highest in the city in terms of the off street parking requirements for the uses. I'll also note that the suburban context is not likely to be mapped at the platform itself. So immediately next to the platform is zoned DIA and will likely remains on the air. The next out from the DIA land is most likely to be an urban center kind of zoned district. That's what the plan would point towards being a steer towards. I guess the applicant towards rezoning to the suburban would be, you know, more appropriate, a little bit farther out, but where there's still a pedestrian related influence. But but I can't speak specifically to how many spots are are being proposed at this time.
Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you for it. Or Dan, could one of you speak to that, please?
Speaker 2: I'm sure Dan knows this as well, but it's part of the approval process with the Public Transportation Authority. We were required to do an 800 car parking lot for the rail stop, and that 800 acres is entirely on the air land. And it's right here just adjacent to the rail stop. And then so that is actually under construction. The zoning that we required is, as we come in, as kind of said, will be printed on the designation. We have some of our blocks that we've met and proposed to the city to be CMCs, which are the more dense and more stringent than even smoke say. But so some of them will be CMCs and will be, as some say, and some will be as. Some X as some x will be out by Tower Road primarily.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Ferd could open up and down an up and down. In your letter of support, you said that this would that this zoning, this text amendment could help address some of the challenges of developing one of the only greenfield tod sites in the city. Explain what those challenges are and how this language helps you.
Speaker 2: Sure. We in addition to the two zoning that we will have, we also have the design guidelines and the design guideline speaks to a lot of the same criteria. Sometimes it's challenging to implement the design guidelines if you don't have the proper underlying zoning. So we believe this bolsters it and helps it in addition to have Cinemax throughout. Two 200 plus acres and then jump right to Suburban. In terms of transition, really didn't work as well. So I mean, this kind of allows us to transition from Tower Road, which is a more car oriented, if you will, into the site. So that's kind of the challenges we're trying to address.
Speaker 9: Excellent. Thank you for the clarification. And Kyle, can I ask you, this is a text amendment and there's no map amendment in front of us tonight. I'm not even from Mr. Bell's. Where do you see if, you know, does the city plan to propose any map amendments to institute this? Are we simply going to wait for property owners or or interested parties to propose to us?
Speaker 5: Yeah. At this time the city does not have plans to grow CBD. Does it have any plans to initiate applications.
Speaker 9: Other than Mr. Bell's and the property up there at the station on Pioneer Boulevard? Do we know of any other applicants who are coming forward now that we will have this?
Speaker 5: We don't what we did, we took a look at whether there would be other areas of the city where this might be applied in the future. And that's why we proposed it as a text amendment, because it may make sense near some other suburban transit stations, but we don't have any particular applicants identified.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you very much. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Mr. Bell's. Sorry, you probably said this and I missed it. Is your metro district already formed?
Speaker 2: Yes, it was approved. Two and a half years ago. I believe in fight, but then city council.
Speaker 5: And then the design guidelines, the standards were concurrent or they followed that.
Speaker 2: They were they were they followed it and they are in or they're not formally in place. The design declaration that enables them is in place and so they are encumbered. The declaration is a covenant in our land and is actually a covenant on the dear land as well. So even though DIA will not be rezoning, they are going to follow the same design guidelines so that we have consistency, you know, between our acreage and their acreage.
Speaker 5: Okay, good. And the good news there is maybe they're already great to begin with, but man, you hear a lot about the talk about how we don't have any we can't grow out. We can only grow up. Well, this is an area where we can grow out. And it would be sort of not a very good sort of environmentally sustainable sort of approach if we didn't try to capture density here where we have this sort of greenfield opportunity with transit and recycled water systems and everything in place to do this right the first time. So I strongly encourage you when you're looking at your rezonings, to sort of try and capture more of these higher density ones. And CMCs that you're talking about in this in your master plan development proposals.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And one question for Kyle.
Speaker 5: Are any of these districts, maybe the two or the three? Are any of these considered protected zone districts? No. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Any other questions? 722 Seen. Let's call it. Okay. CNN public hearing is now a closed time for comment, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks for pointing out, Councilman Flynn, that we were we're looking at a text amendment. We're not looking at it a zoning. And while Mr. Bell's was in favor of it and gave us a very good description of how such a tax amendment would affect his project, we weren't we aren't talking about his project, but to me, this is a slam dunk. It's good design. It makes the suburban areas much more at a human scale. It's more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. And I was thinking, why shouldn't our suburban citizens also enjoy these design considerations that we enjoy in our more our older neighborhoods and are trying to reproduce where they aren't ? So I would recommend to my fellow council people to support this amendment. I think it's a really good idea of what what we can do in all of the green, the inside, the city and in our green fields. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilwoman Sussman and Kyl. Thank you. Because in my district, which is suburban, where we have four light rail stations, this is exactly the kind of zoning we need for new development. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Herndon. I wanted to really thank Kyle and the KPD staff and really, you know, in District 11, this is a game changer really for District 11 and the TOD Station. Really encouraging residents to be able to take the commuter rail to 61st and Pena and stay the entire day and walk in the area bike , you know, go to a full service restaurant, shop, everything. And I mean, you know, when you start talking about street level active use and patio areas and places where people will really enjoy the full, you know, urban feel but be close to home is something that is very much needed. And I just appreciate the conversations around making sure that this can become a reality, not only to encourage retail and multimodal transportation, but also to encourage the health of our residents in the area that you don't have to get into your car and drive a mile to eat somewhere and then drive another mile to shop. You will truly be able to do all of that in one area. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think about Councilwoman Gilmore's district and I think about the challenge as a mom, Belo and Green Valley Ranch, I think about some of these areas, especially along our my boundary with Councilman Flynn on Florida. And I think of Jewel and I think some of these areas that, you know, they were built to fit a suburban lifestyle, but now you bring them to this context. Now those strip malls own I mean, it's it's Family Dollar. It's, you know, they're mostly vacant. You really can't get much out of it because it requires you to jump in a car and get there. Not it's not very many services now that some of these strip malls are abandoned in some of these places, to be quite honest and be quiet unless you do a pod pod. There's really no zone district that's going to create that that that little Main Street feel to it, unless it's a big one where you can actually demolish a mall and and, you know, turn what you turn it into Belmar, basically. So, you know, I think this is a gray zone district. I like coming up with new zone districts and I like being able to think about that and how we apply it in the city. And I just want to keep saying, Marley shopping center. Marley Shopping Center. Marley Shopping Center. It's places like that that, you know, could really use a zone district that really kind of tailored to that suburban zone. But you got to remind ourselves, they were suburban areas in the fifties and sixties. They're not suburban areas anymore. You live in the city and county in Denver is it's urban even in a lot of parts. So we don't think it is. All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the the community planning development staff for seeing this need in this gap and filling it in. I'm very familiar with the 61st and Pena development, and if I were so fortunate as to have a rail rapid transit station in my district, I would be looking forward to this even so much more as Councilwoman Black is in her district. But as Councilman Lopez said, we we don't have that advantage in southwest Denver. But I do see a possible application for this along some of our rubber tire transit routes on Federal Boulevard, maybe even on Sheridan. When you mention Marley Village, I'm thinking of Target Village as well at Sheridan and Evans. This is an opportunity to take a relook at those at those opportunities, at those sites and see how this could be applied. So I'm very supportive of this and happy to vote. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: The only thing I want to add to what my colleagues have said in support of this. This language, text amendment, language change is that by increasing the flexibility and the opportunity for development to occur in these suburban areas, it's an opportunity to keep our tax dollars in Denver. I know for folks who live out below and Green Valley Ranch, most of their shopping is done in Aurora. And so we don't capture those tax dollars unless they're actually shopping at King Soopers. That is at Green Valley Ranch. But I think this truly is an opportunity to look at the kind of need that we have. And I know at one point some time ago, our Office of Economic Development did you know a survey of how much leakage we have of dollars that leave the city and don't stay in Denver? And we may want to resurrect that as as we're looking at these opportunities citywide in trying to capture those tax dollars. So I will be supporting this today. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. In other comments. 722. I will just add to echo Councilwoman Gilmore's comments as being very familiar with this area. I think about all the exciting opportunities at 61st and Panya, we certainly know about Panasonic that's coming out there. And this this tax amendment will allow this to be a truly dynamic station and the possibilities truly are endless. So I want to thank CPD for the team for their for coming up with this. I appreciate and hope that all our colleagues will support this because this will be a great opportunity. And since the question was brought up of affordability, I will just bring up you know, there are several places in Denver that are really unaffordable, but I have to commend Pat Hamel, Green Valley Ranch at Oakwood Homes, because they they create a product that is affordable, high quality and very good space out of Green Valley Ranch. And so that is one of the few places in there, certainly others. But since we think about VR and affordability, I have to give kudos to Oakwood and the team for what they are doing out there and regards that. See no other comments, Madam Secretary? Roll Call 722 SUSMAN Hi.
Speaker 4: BLACK Hi, Brooks. Clark Hi, it's Vanessa Flynn.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore I. Cashman I can eat. Lopez All right. New ORTEGA Hi, Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 3939 7722 has been placed on final consideration and do pass on Monday, November 3rd. There will be a required public hearing in Council Bill 828 designating 5115 West 39th Avenue, the Lamberts View House as a structure for preservation, saying no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. The.
|
Bill
|
Approve the Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment #5 to establish the new S-MX-2A, S-MX-3A, S-MX-5A, S-MX-8A, and S-MX-12A zone districts. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approve the Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment #5 to establish the new S-MX-2A, S-MX-3A, S-MX-5A, S-MX-8A, and S-MX-12A zone districts. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-14-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11162015_15-0768
|
Speaker 1: First thing we have up is Council Bill 768 as amended. Councilman Flynn, will you please put seven 8768 as amended on the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 768, as amended, be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: And wait for technology to catch up. And we are still inputting the names in the system. So we will keep that going so that we can just keep the process moving. Council Bill 768, as amended, approves a zoning map amendment. The Council is required by law to conduct public hearings on zoning map amendments, and Council's actions are subject to a court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items placed to the council are marked as exhibits and become part of the record. The public hearing for accountability. 768, as amended, is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 5: Good evening, President Herndon, members of the City Council, and Barbara Stockman, steely principal planner for Landmark Preservation. I will be presenting this case for the staff. So this is a landmark designation that is not owner initiated. Ideally, owners are the ones who are applying for landmark designation, and that's been the case for most designations in Denver. But also in Denver, you can have three persons who are residences, residence and or property owners or have a place of business in Denver. And that is the case here. This case was initiated from a certificate of not historic status. A certificate of non historic status is application by the owner or their designee for certification that a property is not historic which allows it to be demolished for up to a period of up to five years. In this case, here we are at the Green Box, which is the city council, a public hearing decision because it is a designation case that came out of a certificate of non historic status. The City Council decision and the action must be completed within 120 days, which in this case is Thanksgiving Day. As indicated, this case came out of a certificate of non historic status. It's one of two designation applications that are being processed out of 592, that of certificates and demolitions that we've reviewed this year. So it's actually a pretty small number. This case is it 23, 29, Elliott or 23, 23 West 23rd Avenue. It's in Council District one in the Jefferson Park neighborhood. The property as initially submitted by the applicants, it was included. BLOCK 34 lost 24 and 25 in the South, ten feet of Lot 26, which was 8400 square feet. The applicant was four property owners and the property owner is James son Lightner, who is opposed. At first reading, the boundary of the designation was modified to B block 30 for the easterly 80 feet of lots 24 and 25 and the easterly 80 feet of south ten feet of construction, which would be a 4480 square foot parcel , are 53% of the original designation boundary as shown on this map. The reduced designation boundary is part of a almost 20,000 square foot assemblage by the property owner and the proposed designation area is 23% of the land area in this assemblage. As shown on the attached map. These are photographs of the house here. The one on the left is a street view of the house from Elliott Street going north, and the other is a front view of the house. These are additional photos of the house. The one on the left side shows the some of the south side of the house. These photos here. The photo on the left is from the south alley, showing the south side of the house and part of the rear of the house. The upper photo on the right is taken from the carriage lot showing the back of the house and the non historic garage. That's not included in the reduced designation boundary. Again, we are at the second reading and the designation deadline is November 26. The Landmark Preservation Commission held a public hearing. There was posting signage for the hearing. There were owner notifications and letters. Registered neighborhood organizations were notified as well as city council members. Staff has met with the owners representatives and has also met with the designation applicants and have communicated regularly with parties from both sides. The application gave the name to the House as the William W Anderson House. The House is a circa 1888 to 1890 House. The proposal is to designate as a landmark structure as recommended by the Landmark Commission. It would be based on history, designation criteria and history c. An architecture a. Under Chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, a property to be designated as a structure for designation is required to maintain its historic and physical integrity to to meet one designation criteria and two or more of the following categories history, architecture and geography. And three relate to a historic context or theme. So number one is the ordinance says a property must maintain its historic and physical integrity. And then it goes into more detail and it says what that means. It's not really the physical condition of the house per se, but it's the ability of the structure to convey its historic and architectural significance in being recognized as belonging to a particular time and place. And Denver's history and the seven qualities that define integrity per the ordinance are location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The landmark staff in the Landmark Commission both found that the House maintains its historic and physical integrity. It's largely intact. It has minor alterations and has integrity. The second criteria is that the property must meet one designation criteria in two or more of the following categories. Category one Its history property has to be 30 years old and shall c have direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons who had influence on society. This was the criteria that the Landmark Commission felt was met under history, that the House was the home of William W Anderson. Anderson associate is associated with Alfred Packer. Packer was infamous for his sentence of manslaughter, for killing and allegedly eating other members of an expedition party traveling between Provo and Breckenridge in early 1874. He was very, very well known. Various accounts there are various accounts regarding Anderson's exact association or relationship with Packer. Some of the stories have indicated that Anderson actually did represent Packer. Others say that he was hired by Bonfils and Taman from the Denver Post to free Packer, but then he misrepresented himself to Packer, and there's various other renditions of that story. But clearly he did visit Packer. Clearly there was some relationship with him and Packer and Bonfils and Hammett, as reported by many histories and accounts throughout the years. What we do know is that on January 13th, 1900, Anderson shot Henry Chapman and Frederick Bonfils, owners of the Denver Post, during an altercation at the post office over Anderson's representation of Alfred Packer. And The Denver Post attempts to free Packer and obtain exclusive rights to story. Local Stories Report. Anderson Living at 2329. ELLIOTT The day after the shooting, which is confirmed by city directories and U.S. Census data at the time of the shooting. And many of the pictures that are in the PowerPoint are from the newspaper stories of the day. The shooting made headlines around the United States, including The New York Times and San Francisco, and was a major a major saga, continuing saga. And Denver, Anderson, was tried in 1900 and twice in 1901. He was eventually acquitted of charter charges. He insisted that it was self-defense. Ten men and boxes were eventually indicted and convicted of bribery due to jury tampering on the trial. One of the trials, Packer, kind of on a separate track, was paroled in 1991. This is just some examples of the newspaper coverage of the day. This actually relates to the bribery charges of Born Free in Timmins. But there was I counted over 20 times that this story was in the the in various newspapers. And it was probably more. More stories about the acquittal of Andersen. The in terms of having a direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons who had influence on society. Andersen is associated with Alfred Packer one way or the other, and Alfred Packer's pictures on the PowerPoint. He's associated with Bonfils and Taman, eds and owners, the Denver Post and the events and the persons, including the related newspaper coverage. Trials, acquittals and convictions were high profile and influential events, including coverage of Andersen and his trial. The second designation criteria that the landmark commission thought was met are determined was met with architecture to a embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. The house is queen and style architecture. It's a substantial example, particularly for Jefferson Park is a 2243 square foot house. There's only one designated structure in Jefferson Park. It's a dramatic hilltop. Location, which sets it apart from other Queen Anne homes in the neighborhood. It has its asymmetrical, has it has multiple materials, decorative brick coursing, original wood windows and porches, wooden brackets, trim details, half timbered porch. And the decoration is pretty much original, with a few minor exceptions. The third criteria is to relate to a historic context or theme. The story of Anderson in the House relate to late 19th century Victorian architecture in northwest Denver and Jefferson Park. Denver journalism hidden history, including the Denver Post involvement with Packer Anderson, the notorious shootings, trials, acquittal and convictions and Alfred Packer. The letters and petitions received have been honestly a little hard to keep track of. I have some notes here, so hold on. Actually, I think I'm missing that part of my presentation. But so we up to the Lpsc public hearing. We had 12 letters of support and two letters of opposition. We have additional information from the owner, which is 89 additional letters of opposition. We have additional information from the applicant received on November 16th, which is 53 additional letters of support. There are petitions of support provided by the applicants and the petition of opposition provided by the owners. They both have over 500 names on them. We don't have standards in Landmark for a petition, so we have some concerns just about the overall validity and consistency between the petitions. The applicant's petition has about 90% of the petitioners are Denver residents, and it was 53% for the for the owners. And many of the applicants also kept track of how many were within a mile. And there was a pretty high percentage that were immediately adjacent to the within a mile of the property. The Landmark Preservation Commission, there's been some questions about the Landmark Commission. They're appointed by the mayor and they have nine members. They include professional historians and architectural historians. They're professionally trained. They are volunteers. The landmark Commission on Public Hearing allowed 10 minutes for the applicant and 10 minutes for the owner, which he delegated to his agent. There were 35 spirit speakers and there was a three and a half hour plus public hearing, including deliberation. The LPC, the main discussion points is they felt the story of Anderson was part of the history and mythology of the West and it was an important story. The nation was captivated by the altercation, which they thought was significant. They thought that Anderson's association with Bond Fee and Tasman's editors of the Denver Post and events relating to the shooting and trials is an important story. Anderson's association with Packer is significant. There are few examples of historic Queen Anne Homes surviving in Jefferson Park, and this example is intact, has a high degree of integrity, is substantial with a spectacular setting. They talked a lot about it wasn't as ornate as high style Queen Anne Homes in Denver and US featured in coffee table books. But it's a very representative and prominent example of a middle class home from the late 19th century in Denver. And they thought it was an increasingly rare example in this part of the city. So the landmark commission recommendation was that it met the Denver landmark designation and criteria and chapter 30. It maintains its historical physical integrity meets designation criteria and history wants and architecture to see and relates to a historic context or theme.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I apologize for that delays, Kenneth. Okay. So for this first public hearing, we have 40 speakers. And the way for those of you not familiar with the process, we tend to go for and against. So thank you for noting that and we apologize if we might have gone multiples, but if one tends to be more for or against and those speakers tend to go at the end. So I'm a call up the first 5 a.m. ask that you make your way to the front pew so that we can try to have the process go through quickly. So the first one is M Quinn. We could not read the first name, so we apologize for that. M Quinn, Jessica, our Alice Zita, Paul Lloyd, Scott Moore and Carrie Mock. So if you five could make your way to the front pew, that would be great. And then, Quinn, I apologize for not knowing who exactly that was. You can begin your remarks as soon as you make your way to the podium.
Speaker 3: I'm Marilyn Quinn. Sorry about that. I live at 3249 West Fairview Place, about a mile from 2329 Eliot Street. I'm asking for your vote to designate the Anderson House a Denver landmark. My interest in preserving this House is not financial gain and it's not to prevent development. You've received letters and email messages and petitions from hundreds of Denver residents in support of landmark designation. Over 400 supporters signed online and paper petitions. More than 100 of whom live within a half mile of the Anderson House. A few of these supporters are here tonight, but not all will speak. I'd like to ask all those here who support landmark designation of the Anderson House to stand and then sit down. Thank you. Thank you. Denver has some of the strictest landmark designation guidelines in the country. So far this year, 592 applications for demolition of potentially historic buildings have been reviewed, putting us on track for a 20% increase over last year. Most of these applications are approved this year. 34 properties. About 6% of those reviewed were determined to have potential historic significance and were posted for public comment. Of those, only two nominations were submitted and found worthy of landmark designation. That's about one half, one half of 1%. The Anderson House has met these strict Denver requirements. This House is our last link to a powerful story of justice triumphing over evil in early Denver. Mr. Anderson was a reputable lawyer who ran afoul of the yellow journalism of the Denver Post publishers. A jury ruled he acted in self-defense, but of greater importance today are the guilty pleas by Denver Post publisher Tillman, a court bailiff and a police magistrate for bribing the court against Anderson. Denver cheered the purge of corruption from its courts. Mr. Anderson's story is important to me and to my community and should be preserved along with the House through landmark designation. For tonight, I hope you will consider as your constituents the over 400 people who have spoken so emphatically in support of landmark designation and that you will vote to keep this landmark that has stood in Jefferson Park for over 130 years. Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Quinn. Jessica Lazaro. And you have 6 minutes of deferred. 3 minutes for an additional 3 minutes for you.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Good evening. Members of council. My name is Jessica Serafino. Liz Day 1800 California Street, Suite 2600 Denver 202 and I represent Mr. Sun liner. Jim's here and he'll be speaking to you in a little bit. He's right there and he's at the center of this case this evening, but he'd like to wait until he hears from some other speakers. So we would like to pass out to you just some talking points. Clearly, if you'll indulgence, those are from the sites who are supporting Jim and who are against designation. So in the course of this dialog, the applicant have made this evening about everything but Jim's rights, about price. And now there's a so-called better offer that's alleged to be good enough to take Jim's rights away. But the question is good enough for you. And with all due respect, Jim is well equipped to make those decisions for himself, as any of you would be on a contract for the purchase of your home. We ask you, in your wisdom this evening, to not be distracted from the purpose that we're here. The purpose of the hearing this evening, which is to answer one question Does the community's interest in Jim's house outweigh Jim's property rights? The code says that hostile designation should be limited to extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary architecture, an extraordinary history. And after reviewing this application, the LPC ultimately voted to refer to you this evening. They were conflicted about whether or not Jim's house met the basic threshold requirements for referral. As you'll hear, they found that the architecture of Jim's house to be an example of vernacular. I had to look that up. Queen Anne style. And what that means is ordinary. And I'm no architect. But certainly Jim's house is not. The best example of ordinary queen in architecture in the city. Nevertheless, I'd also like to point out that there are many great examples in the packets that are in front of you, right in Jefferson Park that are along a river drive. So I ask you to take a look at those photos. But nevertheless, we recommend that most of the members of the LPC are architectural experts. So we won't argue with that determination, but we would ask you to take a look in that packet at their determination. And while they were making that and the comments, those are direct quotes that they clearly had the difficult difficulty with this questionable case. So we'd simply ask you to consider does even the best example of ordinary architecture meet the extraordinary threshold set out in your code? Next, even if ordinary is somehow extraordinary, you are well equipped to determine whether a some loose association, to quote Ms.. Stockton's dealing with a swindler and an attempted murder is somehow extraordinary. In the press release from designation proponents, they say that the House highlights Denver's past in the age of yellow journalism. But nothing happened in this House. Even The Denver Post, a central figure in the story that proponents are trying to tie to Jim's home, urged against designation of Jim's house. Lastly, in addition to considering the architecture and history, unlike the LPC, counsel considers much broader issues and implications in designating Jim's home. So for example, if you find that Jim's house is the new benchmark for extraordinary history and extraordinary architecture, then you're likely to see an endless line of individuals concerned with growth in our city, and rightfully so, attempting to designate any building built before 1985 as a way to stop development. And that's already happening there. Applications coming in for that very purpose. So there's obvious pressure building in Jefferson Park, and we acknowledge that in other neighborhoods. Jim's seen that pressure firsthand. Jim's lived there for 40 years. He's not immune to the changes that you're hearing about from other neighbors. And perhaps it's time for the planning department to address that growth through their very collaborative process that exists to do that. Planning and zoning is the proper venue to have these discussions, but historic preservation that take away Jim's property rights is not the right tool. There are many demolition permits issued for older homes prior to this case, and there are likely to be many issued after. But Jim's home isn't a tipping point. We would respectfully implore that it does not meet the threshold to take Jim's property against his will. So thank you very much for your time. We would very respectfully ask you to consider the real issue at hand, which is not the quality or even the existence of a so called offer for Jim that he has determined is not a good deal for him. We believe you will do the right thing, because this case, the in this case, the community's interest in Jim's house does not outweigh his property rights. It is not extraordinary. And we would ask you to consider that it sets dangerous policy. So respectfully, please vote no.
Speaker 7: Against this designation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. As I mentioned before, the public hearing started that we are required by law to conduct these and all actions are recorded as part of a public review and testimony. It was just brought to my attention that even though the green light is on, generally it is not recording this. So we are going to have to take a recess. Counsel My apologies until we can figure out Channel eight gets back up so that this testimony can be recorded. So I ask for your patience. We're going to have to do it. Are we good now?
Speaker 10: Well, yes. Let's proceed with the recess. We're trying to confirm whether it's being recorded at this point. That's that's the point that we're at. But, Don, we're not sure how long this may take, but we want to get it absolutely squared away before we resume with the testimony. So with your indulgence, if you take a recess for us to get this figured out. Thank you.
Speaker 1: We'll take it. We'll take a short recess and try to reconvene a moment soon. And.
Speaker 4: But you just heard.
Speaker 1: The audience in the chambers. The Channel eight feed is down, however, Channel eight, so you won't be able to watch it on TV. We are streaming online and it is still recording. So that was the most important thing to know that we are still recording. So there is a testimony so we do not need to bring up the previous speakers as well. So our next speaker should be Paul Lloyd.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Members of Council. My name is Paul Cloyd. I live at 3033 Yates Street and have done so since 1984. I am a Colorado registered architect and professional engineer. I support this landmark designation of this Denver cultural asset. While I have no financial stake in the result of your decision, I do have a stake, I believe, as you do as well, and the quality of life, the sense of place and the sense of history for our city, my city. Denver, Colorado. On January day 1900, William Anderson walked down the steps, those red sandstone steps that you saw in the images. And he entered a historic maelstrom. William Anderson rented the house in the town of Highland as his family residence from 1897 to about 1904. Mr. Anderson subsequently purchased the home in 1915 and lived there until his death in 1930. A well-respected lawyer known for his hat plug hat Anderson practices profession in Denver, the Denver Times newspaper reported. Mr. Anderson found himself granted the power of attorney by Alfred Packer, believing he could appeal his case on a technicality. If you don't know the Packers story, you could get information at a restaurant and grill on the CU Boulder campus. On that day, January day, Mr. Anderson would walk down those steps, bought the number 34 tram and traveled to downtown Denver. He would go to discuss the Packer issue with the reviled Denver Post publishers Harry Taman and Frederick Bonfils. These publishers were known for defaming their enemies at business rivals in their paper. Upon Mr. Anderson's arrival, an altercation arose. Reportedly, Mr. Bonfils struck Mr. Anderson across the face. As you've heard, Mr. Anderson shot. Both men enact that a Denver jury ultimately after three trials determined was an act of self-defense. Headline News raced across the country for the ensuing three years. Mr. Anderson, in the story, remained in the national news. A yellow journalistic campaign by the Denver Post attacked Mr. Anderson in its pages. Competitors to the Denver Post also provided significant coverage. This competing coverage would report complaints from the jurors of the first Anderson trial that the Post publishers working with court officials had attempted jury bribery. In November 1901, a Denver jury acquitted Mr. Anderson of all charges. A grand jury completed their investigation into the jury bribery in April 1903. Two weeks later, April 25th, 1903, just before the start of their criminal trials, Mr. Tillman, the court officials pleaded guilty to the jury bribery charges reportedly to protect unnamed others who had.
Speaker 1: Mr. Lloyd. Mrs.. Mr. Lloyd, I apologize your 3 minutes ago. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, scott. Morning.
Speaker 11: Thank you. My name is Scott More. I reside at 4175 South Acoma Street in Inglewood, Colorado. I'm an architect. And a general contractor. I have no connection with any of the parties involved here. The reason I'm here is because my blood boils when I read about these historic designations in the newspaper. A colleague brought this one to my attention. I took the opportunity to do something about it. I'm the kind of person that will call the police if I see a mugging. Taking place, and that is my motivation for being here. I've had the pleasure of sitting on a building department board of Appeals as a historic preservationist. And I'm here to tell you that although this house is nice.
Speaker 4: It is not nice enough to merit the taking of someone's pension, which is essentially what's happening here. Vernacular is, by.
Speaker 6: Definition, ordinary.
Speaker 11: This house was ordinary. It is ordinary. It is not in the best interest of historic preservation to have.
Speaker 4: The important work of historic Denver co-opted and used.
Speaker 11: To circumvent the city's master planning process to.
Speaker 4: Block development.
Speaker 11: I am speaking against designation of this property.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Moore. Kerry Mock. Ms.. MOCK And you have 6 minutes. And while she's come to speak, we're going to call the next five names. You can make your way up to the front pew. Gerard Seidenberg. Marie Benedict. Elizabeth Rogers. Marie Edgar. And Andre Kilian. So you five can make your way up this month. You may begin.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Members of council. I'm glad to be here. My name is Corey Ellen Mock. I live at 2101 Clay Street and I am an architect. That's three for.
Speaker 8: Three. So we're on a roll.
Speaker 3: Here, I guess. I support this.
Speaker 7: I support this landmark designation, and I have no financial interest in the outcome of this hearing. I believe the architecture of the Andersen House is significant, as you've already heard from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This building is structurally sound and is an excellent example of middle class, dare I say, vernacular or usual. Queen Anne style home popular in Denver between the 1870s and 1890s. There's a lot of history that's happened in ordinary buildings, and so I'd caution us from using that as a reason not to think of this as a special place. Originally prominent in the early town of Highland. This building remains a unique landmark in the Jefferson Park neighborhood, built in 1888, the home rises from a Rusticated Stone Foundation and includes a well-executed masonry detailing that goes all the way around the front. Gabled roof accentuates the asymmetrical facade with a prominent front porch and decorative trim highlighted with contrasting colors. Brick detailing emphasizes the arched front window that you saw in the photographs earlier and extends around the South Side, which also features decorative elements on the dormer bay, window, side, entrance and chimneys. I only wish so much of our architecture today. Even buildings I work on could afford that kind of detail. When I compare the House of today with the 40 year old photograph I see and Ruth Weinberg's book, Rediscovering Northwest Denver. The level of architectural integrity that remains is truly remarkable. Beyond simply exhibiting the characteristic queen in form and fenestration, this house has retained character defining features that are usually lost by now. Well, you can find more elaborate homes of this style elsewhere in Denver, there are precious few remaining in this neighborhood and none with this colorful history is this one. I learned that a couple of years ago when I was researching the history of my neighborhood for a better block event. I offered to do walking tours, and so I was looking through history books and I found one house in the middle of Jefferson Park, just one house with any sort of historical story written about it. And it was this one house. So we can talk about photographs of other houses in the neighborhood. That may also be pretty, but it doesn't have the historical significance that this one house does. So the existence of other structures in the city do not diminish this home's clear architectural significance, nor would they necessarily be eligible for designation under Denver's strict landmark preservation guidelines. This home, once considered the tall house on a tall hill, has the architecture, the history, and even the geographic location to earn it a historic designation. Members of City Council don't be bullied by by T-shirts or by slogans or by issues that aren't central to what this is this and don't be bully bullied into a false choice. You can create a win win here for our community and for the homeowner. I asked you to take the long view for the community and grant designation tonight. Thank you for your consideration and for your service.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Bond. Next, we have Jared Seidenberg.
Speaker 4: Members of council. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. My name is Gerard Seidenberg. My address is 6825 East Tennessee Avenue, Suite 5525. I'm a business owner within the city and I'm a property owner, Branson's Lake. I'm here tonight to speak in opposition of this historic designation in a hostile manner, as was noted by the LPC. This is an interesting story and I've been following along as a lawyer who does not represent any parties here and has no other interest in this matter. I'm deeply concerned with the ramifications of approving this hostile designation and the direct effect on our property rights. However, I'm not here tonight to talk about this topic tonight. I'm here to address something that's near and dear to my heart. You see, my family has lived in and around Denver for six generations, beginning when we settled around Sloan's Lake in the 1800s. In many ways, my history is inextricably intertwined. Excuse me with that of the Queen City. Whether I walk the streets of downtown around the highlands, where my wife and I buy our first home, our collective history is everywhere, and every house has a story to tell. In that way, our history is alive as it is now. I'm often supportive of historic designations and usually in favor of protecting our valuable history. But in this case, I just cannot. The history reported here is weakly tied to events that impacted society in the homes place, and that history is bootstrapped by time and space in a way that cannot qualify it for historic preservation, especially in a hostile manner such as this. We're not talking about Molly Brown or McNichols or Speer. We're not talking about a house where historical events took place. As the LPC chair suggested, this is a stretch and he was right. This property has no direct or substantial influence on society. And while the story of Mr. Anderson is admittedly interesting, he himself failed to have a direct or substantial influence on society in any positive way. So what do we have here? All we have is the Denver Post puts it is some mighty thin gruel. It is clear that Mr. Anderson lived in Denver at one point, renting 23, 29 Eliot, and then later purchasing the property. He was not the original owner and he was not the builder of the structure. It's clear that he was an attorney. It is purported, but unsupported, that Mr. Anderson sought to undertake the representation of Alfred Parker. But his legal career is otherwise unremarkable and his relationship with Packers tenuous at best. Contrary to the narrative of the Hustle application, Mr. Anderson didn't take any remarkable cases, championed any contemporary causes or influence society in which he engaged. He didn't seem to even move the needle as a lawyer, and I found no one in the community that knows of his story. For Mr. Anderson's most notable moment. It is suggested that a disagreement over his suggested appeal strategy for the defense of Parker between himself and the publishers Denver Post, Bonfils and TEMIN led to a disagreement so fierce that he brandished his concealed weapon and shot both men in their office and Denver Post. Let me repeat that. His most notable moment is that he shot but failed to kill. Publishers of the Denver Post in their office over a disagreement. For this act, Mr. Anderson was tried three times for his alleged crime, but never convicted. Now I find these actions and I find nothing in these actions at a substantial or direct effect on society at all. Fact is that even if one was to concede that Mr. Anderson tried to represent Alfred Parker, and even if you can see that the subsequent trial was garnered by national headlines and sensationalist, there's nothing historical about 2329, Eliot, in a way that's contemplated by the hostile assault designation. No actual history of significance occurred within its walls. It merely serves as a thin, tangential tie to a nefarious history of a man who lived in Denver and acted as a loose cannon, who took a pistol to an argument, lost control of his emotions, and turned to violent violence to solve these problems. Approving the designation does not, which does not have any merit to the premises, and requiring the visitation of the preservation of the structure does nothing to preserve Denver history and does nothing to promote the sense of community. Because, as I remind you, nothing of historical significance happened at 2329, Eliot. History is important. It tells us who we were and it sets the bar for who we want to be. So I ask you, is this the history that we wish to protect? That of a violent shooter, a marginal lawyer? What is the measure of a human being that requires us to forcibly protect the place where he, he or she slept? How low is the bar? To become so notorious that merely living in a structure makes it a part of history. These are the questions that we must ask ourselves, because that is exactly what you're being asked to do. Protect the place that a man slept because he was involved in a sensational shooting, notorious in its time and nothing more. We are a community. That knows too well what affect gun violence has. We're all too familiar with the ramifications of lone wolf gunman. So I suggest to you to review these events surrounding Mr. Anderson through a modern lens. Think about how his story sounds in the context of the events that have unfolded in our own communities. And think about the message we would be sending to our children. Fame and notoriety. The kind of which that leads to the preservation of your home long after your death, should not come from a violent act, but from positive , direct and substantial effects on our community. The type that our community leaders often have landmark designation, hostile or otherwise, should serve to protect iconic structures and people. Hostile designation should be used only in the most extreme cases where failing to do so would deprive us all of a historical roadmap. Should send the right message about who we are, and it should be a proud example of who we want our children to be. Not to perpetuate a myth of gun violence in the West. Unfortunately, here we do not have such an event or structure. And for these reasons I ask that you do not approve the hostile landmark designation before you tonight. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. Steinberg and I failed to mention you did have 6 minutes. Thank you. Next, Marie Benedict.
Speaker 7: Thank you. My name is Marie Benedict and I live at 3284 Osceola Street. I have no financial connection to this house. If this were a normal landmark hearing, we would simply stop with the history and petition signatures. However, the issue of property rights has been raised and as has the specter of anti-development and loss of financial well-being . To try to characterize our effort to preserve the House, the applicants and those who have supported this designation are like most Coloradans and Westerners in our deep rooted belief in property rights. However, we are aware that we live in a city where.
Speaker 3: Our property rights are tied to laws and ordinances designed by.
Speaker 7: Its residents to benefit the community as a whole. The landmark provision excuse me? Yeah, the landmark provision is no different than any other zoning mechanism that is used by the city to shape the character of our town. If designated the owner of 23 323 West 23rd Avenue will receive more than the reported current offer for his property . While a community of residents who feel passionately about the preservation of this building will see it remain. We'll see it remain. To tell the story of their neighborhood, and a Denver developer who will provide characteristic developments will have the opportunity to see a significant profit by restoring and building multiple new units hand in hand with residents.
Speaker 3: Ultimately, if we do not.
Speaker 7: Preserve the few buildings that meet Denver strict code, we will have nothing left. When anybody still be talking about Molly Brown if we didn't have the house. This building teaches us important lessons about an.
Speaker 3: Everyday man who stood up to moneyed.
Speaker 7: Interests and abuses of power, and one that is a story that would be a shame to forget. As you know, Councilman Rafael Espinoza has recused himself here tonight. And you heard earlier of the 392 Denver residents who have signed the petition to preserve the Anderson House. The vast majority of them live in District one and as such tonight, have no representation.
Speaker 3: I ask you tonight to please treat all those constituents as you would your own constituents and represent us.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, Elizabeth Rogers.
Speaker 7: Hello. City Council. My name is Elizabeth Rogers. I live at 2801 South Sherman Street in Inglewood. I am here to express my concern, and I'm asking city council.
Speaker 3: To please vote down 0768.
Speaker 7: And not support this historic designation. I'd like to speak for just a minute to Jim, the person I've known Jim for 23 years. I consider him a close personal friend of mine. Jim is cut from a different cloth.
Speaker 3: He is one of the hardest working.
Speaker 7: Ethical people that I know. He very often works seven days a.
Speaker 3: Week.
Speaker 7: And.
Speaker 3: Doesn't complain. He's just a very, very positive, very down to earth person. Jim is old school.
Speaker 7: The level of ethics that he conducts himself are not very common anymore. And I have a lot of respect for Jim. Jim has done a tremendous amount of work in the community.
Speaker 3: He has supported people that.
Speaker 7: Others would not.
Speaker 3: Homeless people, people that are in dire need that need a.
Speaker 7: Hand up, not a handout. And Jim has tirelessly helped people in the community for many, many years.
Speaker 3: And I think it's important for you to hear that.
Speaker 7: Jim never says no, and I'll speak again on a personal basis for my husband and I. I consider Jim a mentor. He has supported us, like I said, for 23 years in in in our efforts and has been there at critical times when no one.
Speaker 3: Else could help us. I'd like to speak a little bit about Jefferson Park.
Speaker 7: My husband and I, we bought our first home at 2732 Clay Street. This is in the early nineties.
Speaker 3: A very rough neighborhood. I can assure you that this.
Speaker 7: Was not a desirable place for people to live. It was a risk.
Speaker 3: To buy in that area. It was a risk that we took on.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 7: Several years before us, it was a risk that Jim took on. We invested ourselves personally and financially in that area. Our house was one of the ugliest houses on the block. We took our very, very limited money that we had in our early twenties to improve our personal property. And the amazing thing is, as we did that, we looked around on our block and the other owners started to take notice of the condition of their properties. And it continued and it continued and homes were improved. We were the ones that went in to make that initial improvement and commitment and the domino effect went on from there. So I think it's really important that Jim be recognized for being one of those anchor people in the.
Speaker 3: Area who has invested himself.
Speaker 7: Personally and financially. Again, as I mentioned, Jim is an extremely hard worker. He's a roofer, very often working seven days.
Speaker 3: A week and very, very committed.
Speaker 7: I personally understand the need to designate appropriate historic properties, but I think it's.
Speaker 1: Rogers. Apologize. Guthrie. Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Marie Eggert.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Marie. Edgar and I have lived at 35, 32 West 39th Avenue since 1986. Like the owner of this property, I want my standing as a Northwest Denver property owner to be respected. I have no financial connection to the property owners house. I am commenting on the news, the recent news that the property owner has been offered more than $1 million for his property. A story was created in the press that with designation of Mr. Sun like News House, he would see the value of his property reduced to 600 or $700,000. The applicants for designation have argued that this story is a fiction. Yet it has still captured the attention of many. I now understand the reality to be that the applicants have heard from interested developers who would be willing to purchase the property for the same or above the stated offer of $1 million. A developer on Friday offered the owner $100,000 above the million dollar offer. This was a real offer. He would develop the property around this house and he would restore the historic Anderson house. The owner did not sign the agreement, preferring to wait until after this hearing to discuss offers. He and his broker have seen the offer and have even made modifications amenable to Mr. Sun Leitner. These recent events make it clear to me that the owner of this property will not be harmed by this designation. His retirement does not hang in the balance at this hearing. This excellent opportunity, along with historic designation of the Andersen House, creates a win for the owner. A win for a developer and a win for Jefferson Park and the city of Denver. I respectfully ask that you honor the public's interest in designating this House as an historic landmark, allowing many differences and hostilities to be resolved. Your decision to landmark would be in line with the city of Denver's goal of preserving the valued identities and characters of our neighborhoods. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Andre Cooling and I'll call up the next five speakers if you can make your way up. Jerry Olson, Jim Potter, Betty Lou, say who has 6 minutes? Matthew Rock and then Nick Garcia. So you five can make your way up and so you can go ahead. Begin.
Speaker 4: Thank you, counsel. My name is Andre Kirby on 2202 Iris Street, Lakewood, Colorado. I have successfully taken five different projects through the Landmark Preservation Commission process, and I definitely have a respect and understanding for what the LPC aims to do. As you heard earlier, the meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing on this was three and a half hours. And on the one hand, I was really very proud to see two pretty heated sides discussing in a civil discourse. It was it was I was very proud to see. But on the other hand, that three and a half hours pushed other projects and other deserving landmark preservation cases further down and eventually off of the agenda. There are three things that I want to share with you today, largely procedural, that I wanted you to know as you consider this case. The first one is that this this designation was originally filed specifically to stop development by Nick Garcia. He'll hear from later. It was filed to stop development. The second thing that I want you to know is that the city of Denver already has two directives related to development. The first one is the 2000 blueprint, Denver, which and this is a direct quote, the planning process for Blueprint Denver resulted in a new vision for Denver in 2020, organized organized around the plan's central premise that growth should be directed to areas of change. And in Blueprint, Denver Jefferson Park is specifically designated as an area of change. The second is the Denver zoning code from 2010. This is a direct quote from the intent section of the code. This code is designed to provide standards for compatible transitions of use density, building scale and height between existing and new development. The Denver Zoning Code states that this property is zoned as Jim three, which allows for a very specific amount of density and height. The code also says this The code is designed to provide clear and consistent procedures for appropriate and effective public involvement in land use and development decisions. Section 12 .3.4 of the Denver Zoning Code clearly directs this public involvement to the planning board, not to the Landmark Preservation Commission. And that leads me to the final thing that I want you that I want to present to you. If you allow historic circumstantial designation to be used as a weapon to fight development, you will see more and more of these cases in front of you every Monday night. And they will continue to clog up the agendas of the Landmark Preservation Commission, preventing them from ruling on things that I feel are far more important than this . And you'll be ruling what I feel like is in direct conflict with two of the developers, two of the directives that the city has already put in place to govern development. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Jerry Olson.
Speaker 4: Yes. Good evening. My name is Jerry Olson and I live at 2195 Decatur Street, one block away from 2329 Elliott Street, the Anderson House. I'm an applicant for the landmark designation.
Speaker 2: For the past eight years, I've been active in the Jefferson Park United Neighbors Organization, Japon, and I am a board member. First, I would like to say that we in Jefferson Park embrace sound development. And because of our proximity to downtown, we know development is coming.
Speaker 4: Many homes have been scraped to make way for multi-unit housing, but very few homes are like the Anderson House, which merits landmark designation in the redevelopment.
Speaker 2: Of Jefferson Park. We have worked very successfully with developers like Silk Law Development and Allied Realty.
Speaker 4: They communicate very well and they work with us, not against us. And while we have remained.
Speaker 2: Positive in our in our endeavor, unfortunately, the developer in this case has not done so.
Speaker 6: Instead, he has blocked community voice.
Speaker 4: He has. Done. He has colluded.
Speaker 2: To pull the original application for landmark designation.
Speaker 4: At the 11th.
Speaker 2: Hour, he has sued the city and lost, I might say. And he has been pushing the owner into the media, his poor gym.
Speaker 4: By attempting to intimidate an applicant, also by attempting to intimidate an.
Speaker 2: Applicant.
Speaker 4: For the.
Speaker 2: Designation through their employer. Employer. By forcing a j pun vote.
Speaker 4: In a manner that has forced the R.A. Board to change its bylaws by shutting also by shutting down all.
Speaker 2: Attempts by applicants to even sit down with the owner and discuss the issue. While we respect the owners decision to sell to whomever he wishes time and time again, we have not heard from the owner. But instead the.
Speaker 4: Buyer, his PR firm, his lawyers and other developers connected with the project.
Speaker 2: While we expect to hear from him today, please know that the community, which is looking to preserve this home, has always been committed to ensuring that the owner will not be harmed financially. In closing, I would like to say that we in District one have been disenfranchized.
Speaker 1: Mr. Olson, I apologize. You 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 4: Too bad. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jim Potter. Jim Palmer. Jim Palmer. That's okay, Betty. Lou saying and you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Betty Luce. I live at 2660 mead in Denver, which is about a mile from the Andersen house. I've lived in the neighborhood since 1990. I'm a senior broker associate with nostalgic homes, and I've been employed there since 2000. I am speaking in favor of landmark status for the property at 2329 Elliot Street. Last week I presented a backup offer to purchase the property on behalf of one of my longtime clients. This offer was was presented to Michael Ayre, who told me that he has a listing agreement with Jim to sell his property. So I've communicated with him several times and the offer was in fact emailed to him. My client has offered $1,100,000 for the property with no contingency related to historic designation of the House. It is his intention to restore the Anderson House and to develop the property. He has investigated the zoning and the building code for the site quite thoroughly and is satisfied that he could build an adequate number of attached dwelling units on the property to justify the purchase price of 1,100,000. In other words, if the landmark status is awarded to the Anderson House and if the owner would eventually accept my client's offer, his proceeds from the sale would be greater than he would net under his current contract. And as we say in real estate, there is nothing better than a back up offer. My client's career in Denver dates back to the seventies when he developed large commercial projects. Later, he created many for sale townhome developments in the metro area. The most recent being Lowell Rowe at 73rd and Lowell near the new light rail station that is going on up there. He has made a name for himself in the North Denver neighborhood in these past few years by renovating and expanding vintage homes. He hires the best architects. His houses are beautiful. They complement the context of the neighborhood. In fact, he and his wife moved into one of their own renovations in North Denver several years ago. And speaking as his realtor, I can tell you that his projects are in very high demand. They sell immediately, some of them even before they're finished. In my years as a realtor in that neighborhood, I have listed and sold many vintage homes and including two of the three houses in the neighborhood that I refer to as our signature houses. These imposing Victorians are part of our neighborhood identity. All have gone through periods of serious decrepitude. They've been faced with demolition, with people who wanted to scrape them. And but fortunately, now through all three are beautifully restored and they're occupied by young families. I would tell you that the house at 32nd and Osceola, for those of you who know the neighborhood, was nearly scraped about eight years ago to make way for ten townhomes. It's hard to imagine our neighborhood without these houses, multiple townhomes standing on these corners instead of glorious houses. It's not a pretty picture. The Anderson House is Jefferson Park's signature house. This is a more humble neighborhood and it's a more humble house. The house is high on the hill because the house looks pretty tired and rundown right now. Many think it would be just okay to scrape it and make way for something new. But a superficial evaluation does not reveal the truth of this house. There are many recent photos, the recent photos of the exterior. It is built on a three foot deep stone foundation. There is a bit of minor cracking near a window on the south wall, but for the most part, the house stands tall and drew. The 22 Redstone steps leading to the entrance are perfectly straight. The idea that this house is a wreck is ridiculous to me, to be quite honest. I can assure you that it would be a very expensive proposition to demolish this house. And I can also assure you that the neighbors would be devastated to have to watch it happen. Now I'm a senior citizen, as well as Mr. Sonn Lightner and I also live in an old house. I'm well aware of the daunting challenges of maintenance, particularly deferred maintenance. It faces us after we've lived in our houses for a long time. And the idea that he would lose 400,000 from the purchase price offered by the buyer if his house is designated? Well, that is a frightening thought to any retiree. There is no doubt that Mr. Snyder is ready to be gone from his house, but his house does not need to be gone from the neighborhood. We have a qualified buyer who has made a higher offer and a better proposition. I can assure you that when my client is finished with the property, it will shine with distinction, will be a source of pride and part of the charm of the neighborhood for many years to come. If we let go of our historic houses without a protest, the coming generations will have no idea of the proud history of Denver. This is a western city and a relatively young city. We have precious few of these great old houses and we need to try a little harder to preserve them. I'm asking you as council members to take a vote to preserve our heritage and to grant landmark status to the Andreassen House at 2329. Elliott. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Matthew Rock. Do not have a matthew Rock. Okay. Nick Garcia. And as Mr. Garcia comes up, I'll call the next five. Mike Ayer, John Olsen, David Bertran, Andy Levinsky, and Dan Rogers. So you five can make your way up. And Mr. Garcia, you may begin.
Speaker 4: Good evening, everyone. My name is Nick Garcia. I'm here to say that I opposed the historic designation of this property. I owned the property at 2324 Federal Boulevard, and I provide affordable housing for the neighborhood, which is very hard to find right now and very hard to maintain. This historical designation will not only make things very rough for Jim in his future, it's also going to really affect my business and the families that live at my units. I have a four unit building, all three units. There's family that families that lived there several years ago when they widened federal, they took out all my parking on the street. I only have four spaces private, one for each unit, three bedroom units. So if the husband has a car and the wife needs a car to have a kids, she's out of luck. If if I go and I have to meet with my tenants for something, I'm out of luck. If the handyman has to go fix something, he's out of luck. Well, Jim was nice enough during this time to let me park in his in his yard and in his back lot. And also, we began to park in what was then the alley, but now belongs to Jim. So that that really saved my business. I originally did oppose this, this, this whole situation, and I was for the designation to stop parking, just as the gentleman before me said. So I was I was originally for this designation. Thankfully, that really thankfully Nathan Adams reached out to me and he says, Nick, listen, you need parking. I think I can help you. That was a blessing for me to hear that. That was a blessing for my tenants to hear that, you know, which people seem to care very little about. Anyway, Nathan and I did make a deal and he did agree to. He changed his whole plans. I was floored me to help me with my parking, to accommodate me. It was it was really impressive. He did do that and I'm very grateful to him. So bottom line is, if this goes through, it's certainly going to it's really going to hurt my business. It's going to hurt Jim. It's going to make it difficult for me to to to operate. And I am against this project. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mike Ire.
Speaker 4: My name is Mike Air, and I'm opposing this designation. I'm Jim, Jim's listing agent, and I've been with Jim since the beginning of the sales transaction. I've been selling and developing real estate for more than ten years in the Denver area, as well as into the mountains. Currently, I'm working on another project in the Sloan's Lake area with 24 units, so I'm very familiar with the property values in the area. I evaluate, evaluate each of Jim's properties and looked at the development potential when deciding to proceed. We felt there was probably a little more value in the land at the time of the contract. More than 15 months ago, when looking at the comparables but felt there was a lot of hurdles to go to get over to get the deal done, we felt that Adams development had the neighborhood experience to get the job done . We felt very good about them having the capital, the layout, to get to the finish line and get Jim paid so he could retire. I want to clear up a couple items as far as a back up offer. We did receive a backup offer. The offer had a number of contingencies, not one regarding the historic designation, but a number of other contingent contingencies. The proposed buyer is interested in doing 10 to 12 units is, which is what he told me on the phone when we discussed it. My understanding with the current zoning code for GMU three is that you require 50 feet of frontage to develop more than a duplex on the property. So by making the property historic, it would take it from being anywhere from 12 to 18 units on a property down to a duplex with possibly a carriage house. And then for this prospective buyer to come in and restore the Victorian home. So I'm not sure where everyone's going with as far as they have, this bona fide $1.1 million offer. Because I heard the guy loud and clear and he said, You want to do 10 to 12 units? And I said, Are you willing to proceed and move forward with the contract based on a duplex and restoring a Victorian home? Then he said it didn't make sense. Then I suggested that he contact the zoning department to reaffirm that. I have as well spoke with Doug Jones of the development services at the City of Denver and confirmed this requirement. Now, I just want to make sure when you guys come to your decision that you don't let this backup offer muddy the water. Tim has lived in the neighborhood for more than 40 years between the north home and his current home. This home has always been Jim's home. He bought these homes with the hope that he would be a good investment. When he when it came time to retire, Jim has been roofing for 40 years, which is very physically demanding. He's ready to retire now and downsize into a more manageable Mr..
Speaker 1: Mr.. Air. The idea is you get 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Next we have john olsen.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, counsel. My name is John Olsen.
Speaker 6: I'm the director of preservation.
Speaker 4: Programs at Historic Denver and a resident of Northwest Denver. Historic Denver is a 45 year old nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing our city's unique identity through education, advocacy and stewardship of local heritage and historic places. While historic Denver is not an applicant for designation of this property, we have been involved with the house since last spring when a neighbor called us and asked for help researching the home's history in response to the Certificate of Non Historic Application. As a nonprofit advocacy organization, we strive to be a resource and because we felt that this home deserved further conversation, we provided that assistance. When that original neighbor withdrew their application for designation, we shared the content we developed with us, with the applicants here today, and they have since expanded on that content. Again, we did this because we think our historic resources add important value to our neighborhoods and our city and deserve thoughtful conversation and full consideration. Because once they're lost, they are truly lost forever. Historic Denver often supports projects that involve both the preservation of historic resources and the creation of new development. And we believe strongly that the dynamic between old and new is a critical part of what is needed for a vibrant city consequent. Consequently, we do not believe the question. We do not believe the question for this property is preservation or development. We think it can and should be preservation and development combined with the carriage lock to the rear. The recently vacated alley, which represents 300 square feet, transferred from the city to the current owner this past July and the adjacent assembled property to the north, there's ample room to build while maintaining the old. We conducted our own analysis of decided zoning and discovered as as has been Eric has been was the backup. When this offer for the property was recently published in the press that the property retains significant development potential and comparable, if not better value offer for the designation was indeed foreseeable. I like to further note that when Dr. Tom Noel wrote in the Denver Post this last week that the United States Supreme Court in the 1978 penned central case has confirmed and reaffirmed in many, many cases since then that local governments have the full authority to regulate private property through historic preservation policy, as they do under current zoning laws. One of City Council's most important responsibilities is a regulation of land use, and at no time is that responsibility more important than during periods of great change. Council already exercises land use authority related to this property assemblage in July and when the when the alley vacation was granted making the site the development opportunity it has become designated 2329 Eliot as an individual landmark as a reasonable tradeoff after receiving such a gift from the city and its taxpayers, one that preserves the properties values.
Speaker 6: Of the current owner.
Speaker 4: Preserves significant development opportunity, paves the way for a project that incorporates the old and new adds density, recognizes a unique and influential story in our history, and enhances the.
Speaker 1: Character character all year. Three Man says, Thank you so much. Thank you.
Speaker 6: David Burden. I actually have something to hand to counsel. My name is David Burton. I am the architect on the proposed project that's going to be located at 2329 Eliot Street. I am a property owner in the neighborhood, a business owner in a neighborhood. I've been a volunteer in the community for almost 20 years. I coauthored the neighborhood plan for Jefferson Park about ten years ago. This is a usual ordinary home. It's an interesting story, but it's no more than that. I'm generally an advocate for historic preservation. I've brought cases to Landmark Preservation Commission multiple times. But this particular house is not remarkable. I really want to talk specifically about the Jim three zoning. If this if this application gets approved and it gets designated historic, the property will only be able to utilize the urban house and the duplex dwelling form based on the reduced frontage that would be approved with this designation. If this designation is approved, the frontage of this large parcel would be 36 feet, and you would need to have at least 50 feet to do anything more than a duplex where a single family zoned zoning form on this particular lot. I gave you basically the give you three requirements for all the different zoning forms right now. The plan was to use the apartment zoning form. But as you can see, if you look at this detailed information, truly the urban house, detached accessory dwelling unit and duplex dwelling forms would be the only one that would be allowed with a frontage of 25 to less than 50 feet. So again, based on this reduced frontage, the development rights are are greatly reduced. And I believe this would reduce the property value. I implore you not to support this historic designation and don't promulgate the acknowledgment of an alleged shooter in it as a historic location. I respectfully request that you deny this council Bill.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Annie Levinsky.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I'm Annie Levinsky, executive director of historic Denver, Inc. John Olsen already described our organization, and I want to thank you for taking the time tonight to discuss a piece of Denver's past and a piece of its future. I wanted to speak separately from John so that I could take a few minutes to put tonight's discussion into a bit of context. The demolition review component of our historic preservation ordinance was created by the unanimous vote of Denver City Council in 2006. Council took this step to prevent surprise demolitions during our last boom cycle. It is not dissimilar to some two. It is not dissimilar to ordinances in other cities of our size, although our designation criteria actually set a higher bar than many of our peer cities. The ordinance is intended to give the community time to react to potential demolitions and to seek solutions that are in the best interests of owners, neighbors and the city at large. The ordinance has worked well in this way in several instances, with conversations leading not to this room, but to positive outcomes. It is historic Denver's policy to pursue creative solutions. And I believe because of that, council has been in your shoes only a few times in nearly ten years. So while we are here tonight talking about one specific property, I thought you should know about dozens of other properties and historic resources already lost this year. As one of the first speakers noted, there have been nearly 600 demolitions reviewed this year and only 34 properties were posted as potentially eligible for historic designation of all of those properties. There's only one this designation this evening and one other anticipated by the end of the year. This means you are being asked to consider saving only point 3% of all the buildings we are losing this year, a record year. Some of those other losses that did not come in front of you include commercial properties designed by architects, historic cottages and five points in the Five Points neighborhood. The entire historic hardware block in River North and several fine had homes in hilltop. I bring this to your attention to demonstrate that this property clearly carries significant value, historical importance and community support to have reached this step in a process that requires a great deal of energy from the community. If there had been an opportunity to have a meaningful dialog with the current owner or the owners representative, we would have happily facilitated those conversations as we have in the past because we do believe this property represents a very real opportunity for a win win outcome due to its size, common ownership with neighboring properties and the alley vacated by council earlier this year. Unfortunately, our invitations to meet with the owner and the developer to discuss creative ways to develop the site while retaining the house even without historic designation, were not accepted. The sheer volume of demolition taking place in our city this year means that we have to have hard conversations. Are all those places worth saving? None of them. Or some of them, as you're being asked to do tonight at historic Denver, it is our job to take the long view. What will our city look like, feel like and live like? Not just next year, but ten years from now, 20 years from now or 50 years from now? What will we still have? A unique identity. We hope so. But we need to consider our historic places. And I thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Lipinski. Next, we have Dan Rodgers. And as Mr. Rodgers comes up, I'm going to call up the next five names who all have 6 minutes Diane Irvin, Justin Archuleta, Brad Evans, Nathan Adams and Jude Aiello. So you five can make your way up to Rodgers. You may begin.
Speaker 4: My name's Dan Rodgers. I'd like to also speak to the contract that's proposed on the table. I'm from the commercial job site. Superintendent is my background and I've done some historic renovation stuff to look at of Heights Catholic Girls School that the Salvation Army currently owns. I've been hands on on a lot of these jobs and have the experience and care very deeply about the work. The whole that the the contract that's on the table has a lot of holes that could get poked in it. Jim shook Nathan's hand. I met Nathan for the first time tonight over 13, 14 months ago. Jim's been wanting to retire since that day. He was looking at nine months ago that he could retire. He was on the roof today, finishing up a roof hump and bundles on a steep pitch. He's 63, almost 64 years old. He needs to get off that roof. No more messing around. He's got he shook Nathan's hand. That's the deal. That's the kind of of of person that Jim's son Leitner is. There's contracts and paperwork. But he told Nathan he was going to sell them that house. Nathan's worked very, very, very hard to get that $1,100,000 offer. Without the work that Nathan has done. That number would never be achieved. Ever. So I've got to tell you, this kind of odd story here you guys are. Call it the Anderson House, the name on the shirts and. Correct. Jim's an old renowned motorcycle road racer. Got my wife and I into it. Him getting us into that sport actually got my wife a college scholarship for road racing motorcycles and helped us with our education. There's a lot of not world renowned but widely known racetrack here in Colorado called Second Creek Raceway. And there's a pretty difficult corner in that particular racetrack that Jim had the opportunity to crash not only his primary race bike, but his back up race bike in the same day and was complaining to the track. Guys, how about what a rat's nest this thing was, right? So from that day forward, Jim became rat and that became the rat's nest across the country that when he'd have the Christmas party for the Motorcycle Road Racing Association and all of our families would come up. It was that rat mansion. That's the name of the house. That's what thousands of people in Denver know it as his rat mansion. We need to get this deal, move forward. He needs to retire. That's it. No more messing around that for that million. One has tons of holes in it. All it's going to do is keep him from retiring. So that's it. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Diane Irvin. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 7: I'm Diane Irvin. I live at 4047. Wyandotte and I have since 1989. I'm a founding member of Sunnyside United Neighbors. I my office, my business that I co-founded in 1989 offers an historic wheeler block building for 18 years in the Highlands. I support the designation and I have no financial interest in this hearing. My focus is our shared interest in economic development in this city and how historic preservation supports it. Businesses in Jefferson Park Town Square support this designation. Owners of both the Jefferson Park Pub and 2914 Coffee have signed to support it out of a commitment to the community, but also because they understand that historic preservation and compatible new development attract paying customers. Give the story of hot tempers and the three year national scandal around the likes of William Anderson and the Denver Post owners and editors and the Adams Mystery Playhouse at 25th and federal will turn it into revenue. Tell the story enough. And entrepreneurs from Union Station to coffee shops around the city will sell t shirts and yellow Denver Times newspaper headlines about the shooting to tourists from California to New York, the Andersen House. History is the entrepreneur's opportunity to generate revenue for their family businesses and for the city. The National Trust for Historic Preservation and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development at the national, state and local levels see historic preservation as vital to urban revitalization. Judith Kremen, executive director of the Baltimore County Historical Trust, lauds the benefits of preservation to local economies. Historic preservation creates jobs, which increase revenue for suppliers and service providers alike. It is an ideal economic development strategy for attracting entrepreneurs and retaining taxpaying, job producing small businesses. It targets blight and neglected properties for improvement. It encourages private investment by visually demonstrating public investment in an area. Denver's Landmark Preservation Commission adds to the list of economic benefits of reserve preservation. It enriches residents and business owners alike by visually representing that we value continuity and connection to places. Historic districts support neighborhood stability, which contribute to long term neighborhood viability. Historic preservation stimulates government revenue. Building permits from. 2010 to 2012 show that construction investment is 3 to 10 times greater in historic districts than in other areas. A 2011 study by Clarion Associates reports that for every $1 million spent on historic preservation, 32 jobs are generated. Those 32 jobs have paychecks. They pay taxes and they support even more jobs in the community. Garrison Keillor on NPR just this past week broadcast from Cleveland. He was extolling the exciting, historic preservation of Cleveland that had to be worth millions to Cleveland. Historic preservation is synonymous with economic development. We learned that with Larimer Square is the redevelopment. Let us build on that wise decision and do more of what we have already proven we can do so well. My company brings money into Denver from across the nation and 30 countries like you. I'm committed to economic development of the city. Let us build on what we have done well and bring more money to Denver from across the nation in good conscience. I ask, how could you not vote to designate the Andersen House as a historic landmark? Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, Justin Archuleta. And you have 6 minutes as well.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Justin on your letter. I am a homeowner in District one. Address 1599 West Berkeley Place and I am currently under contract to purchase my own home in Jefferson Park, though I'm not a resident quite yet. I consider myself a part of the neighborhood community. I've worked with local organizations and a volunteer capacity. I've studied the neighborhood plan in great detail. I've attended numerous neighborhood organization meetings, and unfortunately, I likely buy much more coffee and food from local area businesses than many residents. I also work for Adams Development, the small Jefferson Park based business involved in this transaction. My role with Adams is primarily that of development project management. I'm here today to speak about an issue that has come up in conversations regarding Jim's house that of Right of way vacations, commonly known as alley vacations. We've heard about it tonight and we heard it about it also at the Landmark Preservation Commission. To be clear, the issue of right of way vacations has no place in the debate regarding the merits of whether Jim's home is historic or not. It simply is unconnected, and there's no relationship between the two. There is a place for discussion of right of way vacations in a larger context about development. And I believe it's become quite clear that the debate about 23, 29 Eliot Street has transcended historic designation at this point. This property and the debate surrounding it has become an outlet for a portion of the community to voice concerns about development in general. It is to those concerns that I would like to speak. Comments were made by Dennis Gallagher at the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing that the city is choosing to give land away to profit driven developers and receiving absolutely nothing in return. That is simply not true. The city actually maintains a policy statement on street and alley vacations that I think many, including Mr. Gallagher, may be unaware of. I'd like to go over some of the information contained in that policy statement with you now. First to address comments that the city should have sold the land to gym and gotten financial compensation. Those pushing for this are likely unaware that there is actually a state law prohibiting the city from selling dedicated right of way upon vacation. That's outlined in the city's policy statement. Now, that doesn't mean that the city is simply giving land away without thought or without a policy for protecting the public's interest. Vacations go through a lengthy process of review at the Department of Public Works. Alli vacations are only approved if the applicant accommodates the needs of transportation, storm, sanitary utility and other needs. To quote from the city's policy statement, the applicant must understand that the service level of the remaining right of way must be maintained or improve the existing condition. On page 11, in the packet that was distributed to you. Is a photo taken of the land that was vacated? That land was not serving any public interest and has been a dumping ground that attracts waste that Jim has become responsible for. Because for the city, the city has not been maintaining that right of way. That right of way was a pretty small portion of land that divided the property that Jim owned in the front of the lot from the carriage lot that he owned in the rear. There's no other party that could have benefited from that land. It was unpaved and a redundant alley within the block. On page 12, you can see a diagram of the extremely valuable benefits intended as a result of that Ali vacation. The city balances the vacation of land with the requirements of developers that developers actually dedicate or give back land to the city. Though I'm unaware of any state statute prohibiting the city from paying for that land, the reality is that developers are required to dedicate that land back to the city for nothing. Now, not just for nothing. Because developers are also required to spend considerable amounts of money to improve the land that city owns tied to receiving construction permit approval. In the case of 2329 Elliott Street, after considerable time effort of working with the city and the city's requirements for development of that property, we have received what the requirements for development will be from the Department of Public Works. Those requirements are that any development on the property would require that 900 square feet be granted back to the city and no cost. In addition, and the reason for that would be to widen those alleys. Those alleys are all at ten feet. They're recognized by the neighborhood as kind of being dangerous because there's steep slopes. So there's people that won't even use the alleys in the winter for fear of sliding down into pedestrians. So those alleys would be required to be widened. That land given back, as well as all of the alleys surrounding the entire property, would have to be repaved. The cost of that paving is going to be over $100,000. That work. The right of way permits, as well as just the concrete work involved, is not cheap. Now what that will do is benefit all the neighbors of the block, the community in general. I've heard from a member of the Parks Board of Denver that has recognized that the back of that alley as being a place that crime happens, people dump, trash, etc.. So the Department of Public Works is not giving in to greedy developers when it recommends that city council vacate land. The policies of the department actually result in huge benefit to the committee, the community, the city and neighbors. Bringing the issue of alley vacation into any conversation about whether or not to designate gems. Property is inappropriate and only meant to be a distraction to cloud this issue further. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next to Brad Evans. Evans, you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Council members, thank you for allowing me to speak here today. My name is Brad Evans and I reside at 2835 West 24th Avenue, a stone's throw from this home that is up for a public hearing to council build. 1507 16. The historic designation that has been sought for this property is not being done by a rogue group of neighbors seeking to stop development. It's nor is it a band of outsiders trying to trample on an individual's property rights. It has instead become a narrative about what Denver will become and what it was. Ultimately, the decision you are faced with today is whether or not we as a community have access to and can use already established sets of tools to retain a collective, collective connection to the past. I've been part of the Jefferson Park United Neighbors since 2004, and Japan has been vigilant in its efforts to create a harmonious connection with the past and with its close proximity to downtown. It's also work to find win win solutions for the new development that's coming to the neighborhood. Over the past 12 months, numerous 1900 area homes have been raised on nearly every block of northwest Denver, and more are being slated to be demolished in the coming days. Japan has long supported development, and this house on Elliott is not just another poorly maintained property, long in need of tender loving care. It's also in the middle of what is considered the core residential of Jefferson Park. This is noted in the Jefferson Park plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2005. Blueprint Denver considers this to be an area of stability, and there are few. There are also those that believe that this is one of the few homes left in Jefferson Park that should be preserved. And even Article one of the Denver zoning code allows for a single zone lot to be part of a zone, a part of an assemblage. So the argument that the 92 feet requirement can be is moot because it's the zoning code allows it. Yes, this home has a storied past, but is not the only reason to vote for its preservation. With a yes vote for this historic designation, this House will serve as a beacon to future generations about the Wild West characteristic of Denver and those that resided here at the turn of the century. While I have no financial interest in this property, I do have a long held interest in Jefferson Park and the community that it serves. Having served on the board of Jay Pond and chaired the Land Use Committee in the past, I'm also an active participant in today's development community. I am also familiar with the issues.
Speaker 6: That we are faced with the exploding.
Speaker 4: Growth of our city. Please allow me to share a few salient points about the evolution of where Jefferson Park has been and where it's going. Since the sixties, there is a well-known lack of investment in Jefferson Park, and up until the early 2000s, it was a haven for drug dealers and gangs. Jefferson Park has long been populated by cherished groups that include urban pioneers, pawn indigent Latino families, as well as historic residents that were born in the homes they will see that they still inhabit. And haven't the Javon Board has acted as a champion for development and reinvestment as a means to place more eyes on the street and in an effort to combat the criminal activity that had become part of the day to day goings on of this urban core neighborhood. John was approached by the city of Denver in around 23 to participate in the redevelopment of the former district. One police department located at 22nd, Decatur and city leaders thought Jay Pons input on the RFP and so valued input from the community that they gave J.P. and one of the three votes on that RFP. The winner of that RFP was David Zucker. And this is what spurred the development. Jefferson Park. This is the project. It was 42 condos. A lot of them affordable in it. And this company is also still and. Developer, still a participant in the neighborhood.
Speaker 6: Their next project, which was on Clay Street, was.
Speaker 4: Literally designed on the neighborhood board's kitchen table. They brought their people in and we put pieces of paper over here and did vignettes and really worked on what that development would look like. That's the kind of participation Japan in this neighborhood has done in development. I'm here to lend my voice in support of this historic designation, not to stop development, but to ask you to allow the neighborhood the ability of self-determination, which in part gave birth to the current development free for all that's happening in my neighborhood. Should you vote against this bill and allow this home to be torn down, not only will we be losing a link to our past, but we will be tearing down a part of our future. I appreciate your time and thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Nathan Adams. So you have 6 minutes as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Good evening, council members. Thank you for your time and for your public service. My name is Nathan Adams. My company, Adams Development, has been working with Jim for 14 months now to purchase the properties of 23, 29 and 23, 21, 23, 31 Eliot Street. You decide very important matters. And tonight you are tasked with the decision as to whether or not to give 2329 Eliot Street landmark status against Jim's wishes. This case is not a theoretical rule change that will apply equally to all constituents. The decision made tonight will have a direct impact on a 40 year resident. 27 of those years living in the home we are discussing. In addition to the impact to Jim, there are ramifications for a small business, a business that I own. I employ 14 people and indirectly employ another 30 to 50 people at any given time. Decisions of this magnitude should be absolutely certain. Designating a home against the owner's wishes should be an extraordinary circumstance. With this in mind, serious questions have been raised tonight about the merits for landmark status. The architecture has been deemed the Denver vernacular of a Queen Inn. Simply put, the home is not monumental. It is rare to find a home that is not a vernacular of some style as to history. There is no direct way to tie the house to history without relying on second degree and tangential connections. Additionally, the attempts to connect the House to Anderson's shooting the Post editors is a glorification of gun violence, violence that did not happen at the house. The criteria for designation is anything but definitive criteria. Cited for designation is a stretch and is in no way, shape or form an extraordinary circumstance worthy of landmark designation. The bar should be raised or at the very least, strictly enforced. Either way, we should not leave here tonight with 2329 Eliot Street being designated a landmark building. The issue being brought by applicants is a small part of a larger discussion around Denver's growth and change spot zoning via hostile designation is not the right approach. Significant time, taxpayer money, financial burden on small business and economic harm to a homeowner have resulted for making the single property the focus of what should be a larger conversation. Resources utilized could have been spent supporting voluntary designation or voluntary historic districts. River Drive in Jefferson Park, pictured on page 14 of the book that you have there. River Drive is an example of a place we should be looking at for voluntary designation. There are eight two storey Queen Anne's on one block alone, many of which are a better representation of a Queen Anne than 2329 Eliot Street. This issue is not simply a developer against the neighborhood or a homeowner against a neighborhood. The neighborhood and city are divided on hostile designation. I personally support preservation when appropriate. I have restored a landmark building. I've renovated over 200 homes. I've lived in the historic district of Potter Highlands. I've owned in the historic district of Potter Highlands and lived. I understand clearly that preservation is a worthy cause. However, I firmly believe that zoning this property with hostile designation against a homeowner's wishes is extreme. Such extreme measures should only be used in the most extraordinary of circumstances. John Olson of Historic Denver told me that hostile designation serves a purpose. He cited Mt. Vernon. Mt. Vernon was saved by hostile designation. John and I can agree that on that end, extreme circumstances like saving Mt. Vernon hostile historic designation serves a purpose. Ladies and gentlemen, 2329. Eliot Street is no Mt. Vernon. Is a house that did not have a known story until a story was needed as a means to preserve, to stop or to alter development. Hostile designation sends a message to anti-development groups that utilizing the landmark ordinance as a tool to fight development is okay. This is becoming all too common. Trammell Crow recently experienced a threat on their 30th and little site and 5115 West 29th Avenue. They will be heard in council in two weeks. Hostel designation is not the correct forum for the conversation that needs to be had. Preservationists should be. Preservation should be a civil discussion on a large neighborhood or landmark district scale for structures that don't stand on their own merits. Like the Molly Brown House does tonight, please say no to spot zoning. Protect Jim's property rights, defend small business, and preserve due process for our constituents. As a show of support. We've submitted 98 letters and have collected over 500 signatures opposed to this designation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Julie Aiello. And as she would come forward, I'm going to call the next five names to speak, Jim songwriter Dennis Gallagher, Mr. Saca, Sophie, Billy, Zeke and Mary Hendrick. So you five can make your way up beside you may begin and you have 6 minutes to talk.
Speaker 7: Thank you. My name is Judy along. I live at 909.
Speaker 8: Lafayette Street in Denver. Although I was a 33 year resident of Northwest Denver, I'm a member of Denver Neighborhood Advocates, which supports preservation of neighborhood character. Please support designation of the Anderson House. As you well know, as council members, your job is almost always about deciding limits. Just like when council re zoned the entire city. Limiting, but not.
Speaker 7: Taking away what property owners could do. In this case, you.
Speaker 8: Are to limit what is to be considered and voted on to the preservation.
Speaker 3: Rules. Does this meet.
Speaker 8: Two of the three criteria? If you personally think preservation isn't ever needed, or that by limiting what the owner can do to his property that you have somehow.
Speaker 3: Taken away his rights. This should have.
Speaker 8: No place in the decision making process. Another Denver commitment. The 2020 sustainability goals also should be considered. It supports keeping buildings and reducing construction waste into city landfills.
Speaker 7: You've already heard the statistics of the number.
Speaker 8: Of demolitions this year, a 20% increase over last year. Thousands of demolitions have been approved in the last few years. These applications and decisions required no public notice, meetings or votes. Interestingly, council seemed to have no problem with press, with trusting the City Preservation Department to decide if these.
Speaker 7: Hostile demolitions from the viewpoint.
Speaker 8: Of many neighbors who have to put up with them, meet the guidelines and can move forward. Yet when the Preservation.
Speaker 3: Department.
Speaker 8: Determines a property does meet historic designation guidelines, a number of hearings and votes are mandatory, and the expert judgment of the Preservation Department is questioned. This four one half of 1% of the demolition applications.
Speaker 7: The preservation preservation.
Speaker 8: Guidelines, support designation of structures which meet the strict Denver criteria. Even if the owner is not the applicant.
Speaker 7: It is not hostile. As a former councilman named them a term which is not used, thankfully, by the Preservation Department. The historical value of some buildings outweigh.
Speaker 8: The wish of the temporary owner to maximize his financial gain. Ultimately, owners often find historic designation raises the value of the property, even though national and state historic designations in most states and cities require only one criteria out of three. Denver requires at least two and often seems to expect three.
Speaker 7: I personally think this meets all three, and despite this high.
Speaker 8: Bar, the Preservation Department confirms the out Anderson House meets Denver's strict criteria. Council recently approved an ally vacation, without which the owner wouldn't have been able to access additional land and access for development. City Council's already given the.
Speaker 3: Owner this free gift. I'd like to.
Speaker 8: Talk about what I call the Wal-Mart defense, which is my term, which describes owners claims that only.
Speaker 7: One type of development is possibly possible or financially viable. This is a.
Speaker 8: False and unsuccessful tactic that was used in the Highlands and a ninth and Colorado Boulevard.
Speaker 3: Cases. It's on display by.
Speaker 8: This owner and possible future developer in this case, as history and the non owners of these properties showed, there is more than one choice for a financially successful development in both the Highlands and ninth in Colorado Boulevard.
Speaker 3: Examples. The business is chosen.
Speaker 8: In place of the Wal-Marts. When. Not only much better fit.
Speaker 3: For the neighborhoods.
Speaker 8: But wildly financially successful. I think it can be the same way with this property.
Speaker 3: We need to preserve history and places where.
Speaker 7: Even tragic.
Speaker 8: And embarrassing events happened. Future generations shouldn't be shielded from the truth, even if that truth doesn't represent Denver Heights in the best light.
Speaker 7: I trust that when you vote.
Speaker 3: Your decision is based on the city's criteria for.
Speaker 8: Approving the historic designation of this building criteria, which it clearly.
Speaker 3: Meets. If you find your personal objections.
Speaker 8: Or feelings prevent you from supporting this.
Speaker 7: Designation.
Speaker 8: I request you do the honorable thing and refrain from voting.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Iowa. Next, Jim, sunlight through. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 12: Hello. I'm Jim Sun Lightner. I suppose I'm the whole reason for this.
Speaker 6: Whole.
Speaker 12: Ordeal. But basically, I've worked hard my whole life. My plan was the only thing I own out of it is my houses. My plan was to take my houses and use them as a retirement fund. Once I got to all the pound nails anymore and I've never been married, don't have a wife and kids. The historic designation, I feel, is trampling my property rights. I feel I should be able to sell my house without having to go through a rigmarole. But I don't know that, you know, that is the way the system works is is not my problem. But I would I would urge the council to respectfully give me a no vote on this designation. Allow me to retire in peace and possibly build a little house with no stairs. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we had Dennis Gallagher. Who this is who I think it is. I don't see in the chambers. All right. Next, Mr. Sekou.
Speaker 12: Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Advocating for poor, working, poor homeless people. You know. But what we're faced with this evening is a conversation where we must put principle before personality. And I don't see any bad people in this. I just see people doing what they feel they need to do with rationalization, justification. And on and on and on. We put the principle at the forefront. What we're really talking about is, are we going to be a city of me or are we going to be a city we see? Because in the we is our culture and our tradition that's bigger and greater than any individual in this room. Now, the spirit of Mr. Anderson is in this room. That's how significant this is, because he put principle before personality, because he had to go up against the power structure that was defaming and slander in his name. And he's decided to take the personal responsibility to fix that, to defend his life, being attacked by people who were considered more powerful. Now, in this room, we have people who have come together as a community to say our culture, who we are, means more than the money. I'm proud to be raised and born in Colorado. I love the wild, wild west. I've been to the East Coast, I've been to the West Coast. And the quality of the people are greater than all of that in this country because we believe in a fair fight and we believe in honesty, man. And I've heard a lot of stories up in there and there's a bunch of lies going on up in here. We're talking about a real estate deal that you got another deal on the table just in case this don't work. That would get you more money and still give the people what they need in terms of their history and their culture. Now, come on, y'all. We got to sort through this thing and look at this rationally with who and what is being told is the truth. And the kids need this history. I wish there was some more Andersons around today that would stand up against those that are powerful and take the personal responsibility to take care of that and then weather the storm and take it to Judge Judy and take it to the people to see if I can if I'm right or wrong, because that's the way our country works. And what we have in this room is an outstanding, outstanding example of why this country is so great.
Speaker 1: Mr. Speaker.
Speaker 12: This is year in effect.
Speaker 1: This is.
Speaker 6: Kind of every year, 3.
Speaker 1: Minutes. Is that so? And, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker 12: You're going to give a 13.
Speaker 1: Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Sophie and I apologize, Bill. Thank you, Europe.
Speaker 7: Hello. My name is Sophie Blue and I live at 2822 Race Street in Denver. I'm a lifelong lover of history and I was intrigued when I read about the life of William W Anderson. The act for which Anderson is best known for his shooting about peace and famine is not a laudable act, and none of the applicants are arguing that. However, the story exemplifies many themes present throughout Carlyle's history and ties into an overarching, overarching mythos of the American West. At the turn of the 20th century, Denver in 1900 was a small town, small town stories. These stories tell us something about ourselves and where we came from. They should also give us pause and make us think critically about where we are going as a community at its heart, Denver started as a town run by vigilante Justice Tillman. Bonfils often stoked this fire screaming headlines that got them to trouble more than once. The incident with William Anderson is a glimpse into the past, exemplifying many common themes from Colorado history that students learn about today in class, the role of vigilante justice in the early years of Denver, the rise of yellow journalism and widespread spread corruption in Gilded Age politics. William Anderson's Gilded Age sense of honor led him to confront Tammany Bonfils directly. Denver's history of Western style justice helps explain why he would have chosen this course of action. The rise of yellow journalism helps us to understand why Tillman and Bonfils were so caustic and bombastic in their careers. Thankfully, we as a society have moved from these tactics, but just because we find them unsavory today doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Well, we should edit our history to center out the bad moments. We should ignore parts of our history that make us uncomfortable or which are inconvenient. Another Denver landmark. That's an excellent example of how we as a community can talk about historical events without. Glamorizing them as the House of Mirrors at 1946 Market Street. It's a contributing building in the lower downtown historic district. It also happens to be one of Denver's most infamous landmarks, which was home to not one but two of Denver's most successful madams. The brothel status as the landmark does not mean that we as a community condone prostitution. Instead, we are acknowledging the social history of Denver and the reality many women in the West faced as they worked to create a new life. There's a world of difference between acknowledging and glamorizing the darker parts of history as an important. It is important that we recognize the difference. Not only am I a lover of history and great stories like this, but I'm also a lover of education. I'm I work at Girls Inc of Metro Denver, which is about a mile and a half from the Anderson House. I often drive around the neighborhood and it seems like there's a new development every month. I'm certainly not against development, but I think it's important for today's youth, like the girls that come to girls think especially neighborhood girls, to be able to see history around them and not just read about it in books. I urge you to vote in favor of creating a local historic landmark Anderson House for future generations to appreciate. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Mary Hendrick. And as Mary comes up, I'm going to call the next five, David Zucker, Janice Stice, Trevor Greco, Rebecca Hunt and Amy Zimmer.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm here to ask you to support historic landmark designation for the Anderson House. You've heard the back story. I'm not going to reiterate that. But to save time, I just wanted to share that. I've lived here 43 years, raised a family, and I've lived in all parts of Denver, and I've made Highlands my home for the last 20 years. We've basically seen many changes throughout the Denver metro area over the past 43 years, much of it welcomed and embraced. However, we are witnessing a level of development within our neighborhood that is unprecedented and the result of outside developers who see our neighborhoods as ripe for the picking. With Jim Sant Lightner, the owner of this victory and made it known. And again it's I'm reiterating what everybody knows here that he wants to retire and live out the proceeds of the sale of his home. I understand the first offer entertained by Jim was out of Adams development, who is hoping to be the only offer on the table with what quote unquote appeared to be a generous offer of $1 million. However, Mr. Adams, owner of Adams development, recently purchased a much smaller home south of Jim's home for 1.6 million, which makes Jim's offer pale in comparison. Now, Mr. Adams has said that Jim's home would only be worth 600,000 with a historical designation. What a bit of backpedaling going on here. Nothing could be further from the truth. And those who are familiar with historically designated homes know that such a designation garners far more money than not. As a result, I am asking you to consider. Well, let me finish here. I'm sorry. I jumped ahead here and offered to top Mr. Adams bid by another developer was just presented, as we all heard, for 1.1 million. And as this story gains traction, it may be that other offers will be presented and considered by Jim, which would benefit him and in the process, preserve a gem of historical significance that has a place in Denver's history. As a result, I am asking you to consider granting this historical designation. Other districts in Denver are could conceivably be presented with a loss of historical status if such homes in those areas are considered commodities. For those developers who only whose only concern is to make as big of a profit margin as possible without regard for the home that is being scraped. Just to give some perspective, I had heard recently that approximately 4000 applications for scrapes were presented this past year throughout the whole of metro Denver, with only 41 applications for historical designations. And I just want to finish saying that the current owner will not be harmed, but on the contrary, will be in a much better position to negotiate a higher price for his home if it is given this historical designation it's deserving of. Thank you for listening.
Speaker 1: Marin, could you say your name for the record? Yeah.
Speaker 3: Mary Hendrick. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Next, we have David Zucker.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Councilmembers. My name is David Zucker. The developer has chosen to work closely with Jefferson Park neighbors. My office is two blocks away from this property on Decatur Street. I have no financial interest in the outcome of today's hearing, nor am I typically a fan of adverse historic designation. I've always called Jefferson Park the non NIMBY neighborhood. My experience is that residents have been accepting of it, in fact anxious to see change and have always pushed to ensure that this change positively affects the community. When our first condo project got underway as a result of an RFP for the vacant district, one police station, gang activity and gunshots were rampant. Working closely with the Jefferson Park neighbors to put eyes on the park and our subsequent River Clay project designed in concept on a sound on a Saturday morning around the dining room table of the neighborhood president's home. These are still among my most gratifying, professional experiences. Increasingly, and with sadness, I sense that the care and forethought that this neighborhood brought to each proposed project through the neighborhood's Land Use Committee is being lost to a developer land grab. The public, the great public realm, the historic homes, the modest, the walkability of Jefferson Park are at risk. But moreover, the community's cultural and economic diversity is being lost as this once affordable, historic single family homes are lost to redevelopment. Diversity has always been a hallmark of the neighborhood and a goal of the R.A., which formally published a dual language newsletter. Like other great historic urban neighborhoods like Highlands and Lower Downtown, the ability of the neighborhood to steward growth helps past current and future development. From my perspective and having spoken with neighbors and. Are no board members. There's a sense the neighborhood is under siege, that the stewardship of development, the Land Use Committee and the Arnaud itself are being overrun. As I understand it, the Arnaud board is currently working through bylaw changes to be protective of the residents voice. If the Anderson home is designated historic, allowing the Arnaud to effect amendments to this would be protective. But losing the diversity of an architectural, significant mixed income community hangs in the balance. As a supporter and denizen of the neighborhood, I hope to see it thrive, ensuring that this neighborhood retains diversity in architectural history. I'll end with the President. Words of the 25 neighborhood plan. On the first page, it states. Although the neighborhood generally welcomes new residents and businesses, it desires to protect and enhance the historic character of the diversity of its residents. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Zucker. Janice Stice.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Janice Stice.
Speaker 3: I have lived in northwest Denver most of my life, currently at 3843 Vallejo Street. I am a founding board member of Sunnyside.
Speaker 0: United Neighbors.
Speaker 5: Inc and have been active in the neighborhood in neighborhood.
Speaker 3: Improvement for 25 years. I know the Jefferson Park neighborhood.
Speaker 6: Very well.
Speaker 3: And I support the designation of the Anderson House as a historic landmark.
Speaker 6: And I have no financial.
Speaker 3: Interest in this property or designation. I don't believe every structure built in the past 150 years should be.
Speaker 0: Saved simply because.
Speaker 3: It is old. But neither do we have to lose all of our history and leave us with block after block of characterless cubes. It's very easy.
Speaker 0: To simply scrape.
Speaker 5: Everything and use.
Speaker 3: Stock building plants to quickly throw up the kind of development we are see all over northwest.
Speaker 6: Denver.
Speaker 3: The Anderson House occupies only the southeast quadrant of the total developable site. This is an opportunity for a classy and interesting development. Restore the exterior and remodel.
Speaker 6: The.
Speaker 3: Interior. It could house two very nice living units or possibly offices, exercise facilities or party rooms. A more creative, farsighted.
Speaker 6: Developer could still build up to 15 townhomes on the.
Speaker 3: Balance of the site with the Anderson House as the centerpiece.
Speaker 6: This could be a win win for both the community and the property owner.
Speaker 3: This house is not a grand mansion. It is a fine example of local middle class Queensland architecture. It was the home of William Anderson. His somewhat transitory relationship to Alfred.
Speaker 6: Packer is not.
Speaker 3: What makes him important to history. What is important is that William Anderson, acting in self-defense and ultimately acquitted, found himself at the center of a story that led to purging.
Speaker 6: Corruption in the Denver courts and exposing the.
Speaker 3: Owners of the Denver Post for.
Speaker 6: Their yellow journalism, bribery and an unlawful.
Speaker 3: Partnership with city officials, something the current owners of the Denver Post are loath to acknowledge.
Speaker 6: Developers come and go, Oh, they'll make their big.
Speaker 3: Profits and most will move on. The people who have lived here for.
Speaker 0: Generations.
Speaker 3: And love our city and its vibrant history will still be here. Please don't make.
Speaker 6: Us regret what Denver may.
Speaker 3: Become a place full of nondescript boxes.
Speaker 6: A boring place with no texture, no memory.
Speaker 1: Days. You're 3 minutes ago. Thank you. Trevor Greco.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Trevor Grech.
Speaker 4: I reside at 3284 Osceola in Denver. I'm also the vice president of West Highland Neighborhood Association. You should have in your packets a letter of support that came from a unanimous vote from our general membership. I also to personally support this designation. Tonight, I'd like to read to you a letter from Joel Judd, the former state representative from the fifth District. And he starts off in 1979 by in his 1893 home. And I'm going to fast forward a little bit in the interest of time. And he talks about his neighborhood getting rough and getting worse and worse. But I'll pick up from there as my corner lot backs onto a steep pitched, narrow alley, two houses sit on the far side of the alley, both owned by my neighbor Jim. Over the years, Jim's told me stories about the bigger house in which he lives. In 1900, a lawyer named Anderson lived there while representing Colorado's most famous cannibal, Alfred Packard. Anderson shot two of its best known newspaper magnates, Harriet Harman and Frederick Bonfils. Their newspaper, The Denver Post, survives as Denver's only Colorado leading newspaper. Well, I suspected Jim was pulling my leg. The story turns out to be true. Bonfils and TODMAN were renowned as extortionate scalawags and ink barrel blackmailers while they turned their attention to Anderson. He fought back. Ultimately, the jury acquitted Anderson. Jurors may have been enchanted by Anderson's repeated excuse me, rapid police statement. And immediately after the shooting, boys arrest me. I just shot a couple of skunks. Today, a developer, Nathan Adams, has a property under contract with plans to build 18 townhomes. While I look forward to meeting some new neighbors. I'm not keen on losing a historical touch stone with such a fine story to it. Fortunately, Jim says, some of other developers have figured out how to pay him just as much while retaining the Anderson House. Adams has put in a lot of time and money in planning this development. I'd hate to see him lose his investment, but not as much as I'd hate to lose the Anderson House. I'm hoping the council votes yes. Thank you for your service.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Have Rebecca Hunt.
Speaker 3: Good evening, President Herndon and ladies and gentlemen of the City Council. I'm Professor Rebecca Hunt, a historian of Northwest Denver, just completing a book on the ethnic communities in this neighborhood. And I have lived at 2502 West 32nd Avenue for 22 years. Just finished four years as president of Highland United Neighbors. My only interest in this property is historical. I'm here to support saving the sterling example of our north side and of Denver's architecture. I'm also here because I know firsthand that preservation can pay. In 2014, I spearheaded a hostile designation of the Daniel Lucy House at the corner of 35th and Navajo Street. Daniel Lucy, by the way, was a ten year member of this esteemed body from 1990 to 1929. That designation never made it to this chamber because an enlightened developer, knowing what it meant to the neighborhood, chose to renovate the house and now has it on the market for $1.2 million. That is independent of the money she's going to get for a malibu Modern and an 82 that are also on that property. She'll do okay. She was enlightened. It would have been so simple here if the developer had been as enlightened as the woman I dealt with. We know that there is another developer, at least one out there who's interested in this property. We know that Jim Sun Lightner will not lose. He will still get his retirement nest egg. Preserving significant old houses is right for keeping Denver original and special. Preserving significant old houses is good business. I therefore ask you to approve the historic designation of 2329 Eliot Street. This is right for Northwest Denver. It's right for Jefferson Park. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the Denver City Council.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Hunt. All right. Our last five speakers, Amy Zimmer and Leo Darnell. Charlene Tebow. Tebow, Joe Bowman and Pat Devore. And Amy Zimmer. You can begin your remarks.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is Amy Zimmer. I am a member of the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission. The commission is made up of historians and architects who are qualified to determine the historic and architectural significance of potential landmark structures. The Commission held a public hearing on October 6th, 2015. Hearing lasted nearly 4 hours and included testimony from approximately 35 individuals. The majority of those testifying in favor of designation were nearby neighbors whose own property would be directly impacted by this development. While those most of those testifying against the designation were more developers and business persons, many of whom who supplied addresses outside of the city and county of Denver. Further, the Landmark Preservation Commission questioned a petition submitted by the developer, Mr. Adams, which include mostly names from outside of Denver or even Colorado. While the applicant submitted a petition with over 200 names of signatures from people who lived in Jefferson Park and the Highlands area, the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission is tasked with to turn, determining whether the property under review meets at least two of several criteria outlined under the categories of history, architecture and geography. The Commission found that the Anderson House did indeed meet two such criteria, including history Part C direct association with a person or persons who has had influence on society. This is clearly met by William Anderson's association with Bonfils and Tillman, owners of the Denver Post. While Anderson's association with Alfred Packer may be negligible, his association with Bonfils and Hammon is indisputable. And those men, as owners of the newspaper, clearly had a direct influence on society. Landmark Commission also agreed that the Anderson House meets criterion under architectural significance, which is that it embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. This home is an excellent example of the Queen Anne style, especially as it was adapted to Denver. The home also retains its historic integrity with numerous original architectural details. And I also want to point out that the packet that was passed out to you earlier this evening was also passed out to the Landmark Commission. And the examples cited by the developer of Queen Anne's in the neighborhood were actually determined by the commission not to in many cases, not to actually be quite Nance. Finally, although it was not specified in the application during deliberations, several commission members also noted that the House would have qualified for geographic. Significance for being prominently sited in a well-known structure in the neighborhood. We have heard a lot of prop about property rights this evening. So I ask you to please keep in mind the property rights of neighbors whose property will be directly affected by the act, by the development of the site. And more importantly, I ask you to please vote in keeping with the recommendations of the historians and architects who make up the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission and designate the Anderson House as a landmark to preserve this link with Denver's colorful past in a neighborhood that is quickly losing all traces of its history. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Lee O'Donnell. Good evening. My name is Leo Darnell. I live at.
Speaker 11: 3536 Stewart Street in northwest Denver.
Speaker 4: I'm in Council District one. I'm the assistant dean of.
Speaker 2: The College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Colorado, Denver. I'm a member of the American Institute of Architecture. I'm also a trainer. I also am trained in study urban design. I would like to encourage.
Speaker 1: The council to designate the Anderson home.
Speaker 2: As a structure for landmark.
Speaker 11: Status.
Speaker 1: I'm here to speak to you.
Speaker 2: About why it is important to save historic and specifically this historically significant home. In part delivers a remarkable city because of its collection of unique city neighborhoods. And I've had the fortune to live in several neighborhoods, including.
Speaker 4: Congress, Park, Ballpark, Rhino and now Highlands.
Speaker 2: Each neighborhood has a unique vibe and a distinct sense of place.
Speaker 1: Think how different.
Speaker 2: Capitol Hill is from LoDo. Both are exceptional places. However, when you're in Capitol Hill, you know you're not in LoDo or Walsh Park. The buildings are different. The streets and the people are different. These neighborhoods were built at different times and often for different purposes.
Speaker 11: Denver is currently.
Speaker 2: Experiencing a boom in development. This is a great thing for our region for many reasons. For example, more people have jobs. The real estate market is thriving and architects are working again. That being said, it appears that our haste to build more housing we are jeopardizing one thing that makes Denver a great city to live and work in. We are losing the once.
Speaker 11: Distinct, unique qualities of.
Speaker 2: Our neighborhood. Much of the multifamily housing being built or.
Speaker 4: Recently built.
Speaker 2: Has no contextual relationship to the neighborhoods they are being built in. The same buildings that are going up in Jefferson Park are going up and low. High. And the Golden Triangle. Are also going up in Dallas, Phenix, Houston and Tampa. I believe this is destroying the sense of place as a distinct neighbor, as distinct neighborhoods that have long been inherent to Denver. I'm not anti-development or growth. I want to see neighborhoods embracing smart growth mixed with buildings that speak.
Speaker 11: To our history.
Speaker 1: I understand the city's.
Speaker 2: Neighborhood plan for Jefferson Park and the other area of change called out around the park for new development. However, I have heard many times Jefferson Park wants to save some of its historical structures. The Anderson.
Speaker 1: House is one of.
Speaker 2: The extraordinary well preserved homes or could be. That gives Jefferson Park a sense of.
Speaker 11: Place and needs to be preserved. I live in a similar house.
Speaker 2: That is one of the original structures in my neighborhood. I bought it because it contributes to the sense of place that is a collection of buildings that represent my neighborhood. In following this preservation story. I understand the homeowner of Jefferson Park wants to sell to a developer who would move, remove that the historic home and build multifamily family housing. I think this would be a huge loss for the park, the neighborhood and for Denver. I believe there's there there is another option that would allow.
Speaker 1: Him to make similar money on the Anderson House without destroying it. Mr. Darnell, you're here. 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you. Charlene. Thibault. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of council. I'm Charlene Tebo. I reside at 1475 Monaco Parkway. And I am here this evening to ask you to please support the designation of 2329 Elliot, known to all of you as the Anderson House, Mr. Sunlight and his house. But to me it is known as Barbara and Fred's house. My sister and her husband purchased the home in 1974 when Jefferson Park was an extremely blighted area. The home was a boarding home, and we all we were just pretty dumbfounded that Barbara and Fred purchased this home. But when you got into the home, which I do have pictures of, that they restored, you could see the beautiful architecture behind these boarded up walls, the impeccable foundation of the home. It is it far surpasses anything that you will see in modern structures. The retaining wall that most of you have seen in some of the pictures, my sister and her husband never had to alter or repair that retaining wall. That in itself speaks to the foundation of the home. But more than anything, from 1974 until my sister's death in 1987, she lovingly, along with her husband, restored this home to its natural beauty. They did so without contractors. They did this of their own volition, not to ensure that the integrity was kept and which they did do. Barbara wanted to do. She wanted to have the home. She actually had applied for a historic designation, but because of her diagnosis of cancer, was not able to follow through. My former brother in law is the one that sold to Mr. John Lightner in 1989 when he remarried. If my sister was alive today, she would still be in the home. It would have its historic designation and we would not be in this lengthy proceeding this evening. I ask you with all urgency, please, not in the memory of my sister, but what is right for our history to preserve this home. When Barbara was going to get the historic designation. I remember her telling me, she goes, Sure. Do you know that the the attorney for Alfred Packer owned this home? And I said, Wow, Barbara. I said, That's amazing. I said, Well, you know, C.U. has named their cafeteria after Alfred Packer. And she goes, Yeah, she said, So I'm going to seek historic designation for it. And to this is not this is nothing gruesome in our history. It's just history. Would we would we tear down the Ford Theater because Abraham Lincoln was shot there? No. And right down to in Philadelphia, there is an annual festival there. And they have a tent. And this tent is entitled the Alfred Parker Memorial Dining Hall Serving Humanity since 1874. So this is far reaching, not in just the city of Denver or even the state of Colorado, but this is known nationwide. And it's also it has also I'm sorry, it gets a little motivational, but this has created the dialog citywide as well. I have a resident from Windsor Gardens, Linda Hargrave, who wrote a letter to council saying last summer I volunteered. This is in part last summer. I volunteer that this historic Denver slash discover Denver booth at a community fair in Jefferson Park, an area of the city that I was not familiar with. I was very impressed with the number of Jefferson Park residents who stopped by our booth to share information about their historic Jefferson Park properties and to express their enthusiasm and support for historic preservation in their neighborhood. Many of them also expressed their deep concern about massive redevelopment projects currently underway in Jefferson. Some park that have already resulted in the demolition of numerous historic properties and is changing the character of entire neighborhood blocks. Again, I go back to 1974 and this was not the popular thing to do, but my sister saw what history meant and what it means to this city, and this is why we need to preserve this home. And in the testimony that I have heard, it sounds like there are many alternatives to preserving the home plus moving forward with development. I ask you, city council, please do designate not the Anderson house, but Barbara Fred's house as historic designation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Joe Bowman.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Joe. My name is Joseph. By then I have lived at 2643 West 23rd Avenue in Jefferson Park since 27. Longtime listener, first time caller. I'm a former vice president of Jefferson Park, and other neighbors work closely with developers as a member of the Land Use Committee around the newsletter for a number of years . I also recently worked to enhance property rights through legislation in Colorado. I have no direct financial stake in the outcome of this hearing today. However, I live in and have a stake in the future of the community. I'm asking you to preserve this home not just for myself, but to maintain an important landmark in history for the future of my neighborhood and city. And I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to take a quick step and repeat a little bit of what people said. But I want to say this. There are many landmark properties in Colorado that remind remind us the story is important or that our story is important to remember but not flattering of our past. Ludlow's Stone Creek Camp, M.A. Even the opium riots where numerous Asian Americans died in Denver, or all stories we must keep so that we do not repeat our past mistakes. However, the Andersen house is not one of those stories. It is the story of a man who caught who was caught in a small stream of events, was targeted by the social elite, and saw his life transformed into a hammer used to purge corruption from Denver courts. I also want to just note that the developer who has already brought forward this alternative option has talked with Ken Brewer at CPD and they verified that 15 units are possible in the property as area after area of Denver is renamed and their story is retold. We are quickly losing the story as a tie as to the character that many have come here seeking. Celebra, rhino, LoDo, Lodi, Uptown, Midtown, Ballpark. All of these names have been coined to reshape the past of neighbor of a neighborhood and the zoning crafted to prime it for change. But even in these places, landmarking has been a tool to connect a new generation of Denver sites to the good, the bad, the ugly inspiring of Denver's rich cultural heritage. Whether it's Matty Silk's brothel, the Molly Brown house, the Quail Chase House, and Thomas Hornsby Feral House, both similar in stature to what we ask, what we are asking today, or the William W Anderson House. These homes preserve the stories of our neighborhoods and our culture so that they are not only not forgotten, but can serve as lessons for the future. The Anderson House represents a true story, not of a tycoon we glorify for achievements while whitewashing their business practices, but of a well-known lawyer who found himself influencing the upper echelon of society after a dispute with the Denver Post owners that led to his becoming a symbol of a middle class disgruntled by corruption in the court systems. Jefferson Park residents have likely had more development going on in their backyard than most Denver sites have experienced. They have worked closely with developers to try and make it a welcome addition to our community. Unfortunately, as we have heard, the development company in this instance has shut down lines of communication instead of committing to them. It is equally unfortunate that its actions to force and Stack of Japan has compel the board to rewrite its bylaws , designed in part by myself believing in the magnanimity of people. Luckily, the applicants have worked to find a solution that is a win win win for the community owner and potential developer for this home. Much as we have done in the past. The deal creates a sizable payment to the owner, allows for increased density for the city, revenue potential for a developer, and preserves the community's past and character. How this company chose to communicate it could have been part of the solution. Was Anderson perfect? No. Did he take the law into his own hands? One columnist said. So is his story and his influence on individuals a power important to Denver? Yes. William W Anderson was well known in Denver before his run in with the publisher The Denver Post. But story became legend, the target of yellow journalism after its argument with the Denver Post owners over his brief power of attorney with Alfred Packard led to a shooting of them in what a jury called self-defense. In a subsequent trial that led to a Supreme Court case, a grand jury hearing and the eventual conviction of one post owner. A magistrate and the court bailiff for bribing the jury against him.
Speaker 6: As you have heard.
Speaker 4: This story was covered in the local national papers over three years and helped purge corruption from the West Denver courts and reframe the perception of the city as one of law and order. That is a story verifiable through any impartial historian you might put on the task. The Landmark Commission, a panel of real historians and architects, have approved this designation and been adamant that the architect architecture fits undeniably the criteria. Members of the Commission have commented the story is as good as any in Denver, and they even opined on whether to take time to also use geography to designate it. John Olson. Tom Noel. Thomas Carr, who is the senior staff archeologist at History, Colorado. Mark Barn. Joel Judge Dennis Gallagher, Brad Evans, Michael Kiley, David Zucker. And over 400 Denver residents have asked have asked for this designation and believe that it has. Value in the home and its history to the community, the economy and the people of Denver. Today, there are two options on the table for city council to vote on. One is created by a company that invested in a zero sum game to maximize its profits at the expense of all parties involved. The other is a Nash equilibrium, a deal brokered with the Jefferson Park residents, current owner, potential developer and all residents in mind that maximizes the benefits to the location's future homeowners and all members of Denver community. We, the residents of Jefferson Park of District One and the Denver metro area supporting this landmark would ask you to choose a second option. By doing so, you will preserve an important landmark only the second in the works town of Highland. You will ensure our story, a story that recalls a city of near lawlessness in battle with yellow journalism and corruption that, through a series of nationally publicized events, changed the city and the perception of it is not forgotten. While Los Alamos Development LLC will likely mean a tax write off with a loss to our community if this property is not designated will be irreparable. Please choose to preserve 2329 Elliott the William Anderson house as the landmark of.
Speaker 1: Denver's past approving your 6 minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Last speaker, Pat Gaither. I apologize for the fact and you have said you have 6 minutes as well.
Speaker 3: Well, I won't need 6 minutes because a lot of everything that's been said is in what I was going to say. I Pat Duffy, 29th and Raleigh Street. I'm a 38 year resident of Northwest Denver, and we're in our second home. We have chosen to live in northwest Denver. A lot of it is because of the history and the character that our neighborhood has. I have with me a book that a lot of people in our neighborhood own. It's Rediscovering Northwest Denver, Its History, Its People, Its Landmarks. By Ruth Louise Lieber. Lieber. She has passed away, but she grew up in this community and wrote about many of the of the spectacular homes and and spectacular places in our community. She has a whole three pages about the story that you've already heard. But one of the last paragraph, the grand jury did not find them guilty of bribery. And a third trial was ordered for Anderson at that one. The jury, obviously influenced by the publicity, as well as the deviousness of in the previous two cases, acquitted him. And Anderson continued to live his respectable life in his tall house, on the tall hill until his death. This this book isn't a marked today. Houses that have disappeared from northwest Denver. All of these marks. So we hope that that this is not a house that we're going to lose. The history and the story. Rediscovering Northwest Denver. Ruth Ruth Weaver says, I have long been interested in the history of the northwest sector of the city where I have lived since I was about ten years old, when I would fantasize about the intriguing houses I passed on my way to Edison's school. I have come to some conclusions on the completion of this book, which was written in the mid-seventies. The first is obvious that Northwest Denver is a rare treasury of Victorian and turn of the century houses still well-loved and well-kept. The only problem I have tried to present is the one a preservation of the traditions, the homes, the trees, gardens, views, beauty and pride that make up northwest Denver. Much of this history and the older homes is why my husband and I chose Northwest. Denver's our home. Please learn the Anderson House to be landmarks so that your grandkids can see what made this area so special. Once torn down, it is gone forever. Like the yellow markers in this book. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions and members of council and colleagues. I would just ask that we focus on the questions and not bleed over to comments. There will be an opportunity for comments later on. Councilwoman can eat you up.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I have two questions. I'm guessing the first many of my colleagues are wondering about. We've heard several opinions about what's possible in this site. Did by any chance CPD themselves weigh in on that question?
Speaker 5: I. Barbara Stockman, Steely. This is kind of zoning on the fly. So I did go over during the speakers and talk to one of the zoning planners who's working late tonight. And it's hard to speculate on a prospective project that's not in front of you. But this site has GMU three you oh three zoning. There is a requirement in that zoning for a 50 foot wide zone lot at the street and a build to requirement for 60% of the front of the of the building to be within 10 to 20 feet. So. So if the property the property is currently proposed to be developed as one zone lot. So if it continued to be developed as one zoned lot, there would not be an issue with the 50 foot minimum with the build to perhaps would be an issue. There is some compensation in the zoning for a block sensitive setback. There's also some provisions for bill to through the administrative adjustment which may or may not apply here depending on the requirements. There's also a historic preservation hardship in the zoning. And then, of course, there would be variances. And a historic preservation designation is a very typical hardship case. At the Board of Adjustment, we often go to the Board of Adjustment, write letters to the Board of Adjustment, supporting those cases. That's probably the best information that I could provide. But we often see cases where there are variances for historic properties to accommodate development, and this could be a case that would meet that.
Speaker 8: That is very helpful. Thank you. My second question is for legal. One of the speakers mentioned that there was a higher standard of extraordinary importance for non owner applications. I've been combing the ordinance. I find one reference to extraordinary and it's an in or statement just in the criteria. I don't find the reference mentioned by one of speakers. So I want to ask our attorneys, is there indeed a higher standard for non owner designated in the statute or in may be in case law that I can't see in front of me that would would comport with the statement that was made.
Speaker 4: Adam Hernandez Assistant City Attorney Councilwoman You're correct. The only reference to extraordinary, I believe, is in the history criteria where it states to have historical civic significance. The structure or district shall be 30 years, 30 or more years old, or have extraordinary importance to the historical development of Denver and Shell. And then it lists three criteria underneath there. And no, there is not a higher threshold for non owner.
Speaker 12: Initiated designations.
Speaker 8: And that extraordinary. I just want to clarify, I heard you correctly that it's in or it's not in and criteria has to be one of those or the other. Not both necessarily. Correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Kenny G. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: Nathan Adams. If I can ask you a couple of questions, please. So just to be clear, if we were to choose to designate this property, would you develop?
Speaker 4: Would I develop around the existing home.
Speaker 6: With it and around it?
Speaker 4: I would not. I've vetted the zoning. And contrary to what Barbara has stated, the property would be designated historic with its own zoned lot. The remainder of frontage would be 36 feet. You need a minimum of 50 feet of width to do any semblance of build form outside of an urban house or a duplex or an accessory dwelling unit. We show that really clearly on page ten of the book that was handed out.
Speaker 6: And the other question is, and this Levinsky from Historic Denver mentioned that you are unwilling to meet with them. What is that correct?
Speaker 4: We had a conversation via phone. She had talked about potential compromises. I even went so far as to offer her that if they would like the house after I purchased it, they'd be welcomed to the home. It wasn't designated or proposed to be designated on its geographical significance. She told me really clearly that would be of no interest and I opted not to have a meeting.
Speaker 6: Okay. Is there anyone here from the CPD that can, given which version of the zoning might be correct? Right.
Speaker 5: Hi. I'm Barbara Stockman Seeley, principal planner and CPT for Landmark Preservation. There's no requirement that a historic property be a separate zone lot. And we've we review projects all the time that have historic buildings with larger construction on the back. So I'm not really clear on what the. That there wouldn't be a zoning requirement for it to be a separate zone. So I'm confused by that.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Barbara, if you could just come back. So that was my question about whether the historic designation would in any way, shape or form hinder the development site from being one's own lot. I mean, if you wanted to separate it out and sell it separately, then it would need to be a separate lot. But if you were going to incorporate it into the development into one project, it would be one sunlight. So as if it was only be closed with the two properties adjacent to one another. And the notwithstanding the amendment that we did last week, this would still.
Speaker 3: Allow it to be one.
Speaker 5: Zone. Correct. That's my understanding, yes. Any clarification on that from the city attorney?
Speaker 4: So I'm unclear right now if this property is currently one zone lot four 2329 Eliot, and then the adjacent property is another zone lot.
Speaker 5: My understanding that a.
Speaker 1: Parcel or.
Speaker 4: An owner can always come in for a zone lot amendment. Granted, it would have to meet the requirements of the zoning code in order to to have a valid zone lot of amendment there are. You could go through a variance process if it did not meet certain criteria. But as Barbara stated.
Speaker 11: I don't believe just because a.
Speaker 4: Structure is designated that would.
Speaker 2: Preclude any sort of.
Speaker 11: Zone lot of amendment on.
Speaker 4: The property.
Speaker 5: So Adam, in your experience with the Board of Adjustment Process, is there typically greater, I don't know, leniency, I guess, for lack of a better word, for historic properties?
Speaker 11: I would say there's there's not one way or the other.
Speaker 4: I would just say that there is an actual specific criteria for a variance dealing with historic properties. And I think by analogy, it's kind of easier to explain if if a house was in a historic district and. The zoning limited the height to, you know, theoretically 25 feet. But the context of the district had houses at like 50 feet. That could be a criteria for a variance in addition to all the rest of the criteria that variance needs to satisfy.
Speaker 5: And I just have one last question for you, Barbara. What is the height limitation under the current zoning for this these two properties or this particular property? 40 feet. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Is. Is Mr. Garcia still here?
Speaker 1: He's not. Oh.
Speaker 3: Well, my question would be only able to be answered by him, so I guess I don't have a question.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Sussman and Councilman Black.
Speaker 7: So I have a question for our city attorney. I believe in the ordinance. The city council is charged with an additional criteria, which is to look at the owner's wishes. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: That is correct. It might be helpful just if.
Speaker 4: I was to read a city council's criteria.
Speaker 2: Right now it's in.
Speaker 4: Section 30, Dash 510 action by City Council upon receipt of the recommendations transmitted by the Preservation Commission. The City Council may, by ordinance, designate property as a structure for preservation or a district for preservation. Due consideration shall be given to the written views of owners of affected property, and the City Council shall hold public hearings on any proposed structure for preservation or district for preservation designation.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Can I ask two more questions? I'm wondering in the Jefferson Park neighborhood how I think I've heard it reference that there's only one house in the neighborhood that is designated right now. And I'm just wondering, with all the interest in this house, are other people applying for designation in the neighborhood, Barbara? Have you had applications from other homeowners in Jefferson Park?
Speaker 5: We have not had other applications.
Speaker 7: And is it true there's just one at the moment in Jefferson Park that has been designated?
Speaker 5: That's correct.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And I have one final question. Is someone here from the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Association? Yes. Oh, and we didn't hear about the the vote of the neighborhood association. And I know that in the report that Barbara did, it mentioned reaching out to a number of neighborhood organizations.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: I'd be glad to explain that. Oh. Let's see. It was September. What was it, Nathan? What was the date? September. You know the date. September 8th, I believe. Tuesday night we had a a normal board meeting and, uh, Mr. Adams had, has brought his cohorts from his business office to attend all of that. See, there were nine votes. There are seven votes that are opposed. And those seven votes all had addresses of 28, 99, I guess it's 29th Avenue. Uh, that's a rather small office. And from our perspective, well, these people were also l l and the truth be known is that they didn't represent the neighborhood. And so Mr. Adams here at the very last minute called for a vote. In fact, he forced a vote in which nine people voted in opposition. Seven people voted to abstain. And I'm one of those I'm a board member and we are all board members. The reason that we abstained is because the board had made a decision that we did not want to have this conflict coming into business. So we all abstained. And so the fact is that there were a total of nine votes who voted in opposition to historic preservation. Now, what has transpired since then is that the Jefferson Park Board has signed it necessary to consult with the city attorney to tighten up our regulations. And on the front page of the Jefferson Park News, the last one for November. It states specifically that we're going to go to a vote for the specific purpose of avoiding a developer, stacking a deck with his employees and voting in opposition to what the interest is of the general neighborhood. Now, the people who are really considered to be voting members are residents, businesses. This did not represent a clean vote. This represented and then they paid lation of a vote.
Speaker 4: Anything else?
Speaker 1: And Mr. Booth is Mr. else. And could you say your name for the record?
Speaker 2: Yes. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Did you say your name for the record? Did you say your name for the record, sir? Just as you answer the question, we just needed you to state your name again for the record. Oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Jerry Olson. Yep. That's me.
Speaker 7: Okay. I'm not sure if it's relevant, but why didn't you go revisit the vote if you felt like it wasn't fair?
Speaker 2: Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, there was a very large meeting that the board called for our last general membership meeting, and we must have had 50 to 75 people present. Now, all the voting members voted to continue the vote until December, but we were thrilled, actually, that we got 50 to 75 people present at the station, and now we can begin a good dialog with people in the neighborhood, and then we'll go ahead and finalize revisions to the voting rules in Jefferson Park. Yeah. Jason.
Speaker 7: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Had a one question for maybe zoning or for legal. I'm not sure who can answer it, but the bill that we're voting on says that this is a bill for an ordinance designating 2323 West 23rd Avenue, formally addressed as 2329 Elliot Street. When did the address change? And when I was doing my round of. You can answer this or Adam. When I was researching this, I discovered that no longer in the assessor's record is there a 2329 Elliott Street? It doesn't appear any more, although I can click on it and pull it up. And there is no 23, 23 West 23rd Avenue address in the city. That's over when 23rd becomes Water Street. How? Why does it have this address? It's nowhere near the house.
Speaker 5: I can't really answer why it has that address. I just know that partway through this process, and I believe it was after the city council approved the alley abandonment that the assessor records showed all of the parcels combined with a new address.
Speaker 2: Okay, Adam, what is the impact of us saying if we were to approve this designating 23, 23, West 23rd Avenue, which is nowhere near this building, if you look in the bill.
Speaker 4: It actually gives a legal description, which would be the actual designation. And as Barbara said, I think it's just that the addresses have not been updated as a result of, you know, elimination processes.
Speaker 2: Under our street, numbering our address, numbering convention. This could not be 2323 Mar 23rd. So that's my goofy question of the night and I'm a little uncomfortable going forward with with uncertainty on that. Mr. President. But my second question, I think is for the woman from the Lamar Commission, was it Amy Zimmer? I know you had represented that you did not believe it was. I don't know if this is your opinion or the landmark commission, but that the houses on River Drive actually typified Queen Anne. And I'm looking at all the pictures. And just as during the testimony, I called up your website, the commission website, and I discovered that the Queen Anne Bed and breakfast on Tremont Street, which is in the Clement's historic district, which is a dominant queen and Italianate style district, that those houses and the Queen Anne bed and breakfast itself do look like all these houses on River Drive. So I'm wondering why you would tell us that, that you didn't believe that the river drive homes look like Queen Anne's?
Speaker 7: Sure. It's possible that the packet you have has been updated since the one that we were presented at our landmark hearing. But the one that we were presented with had a number of houses not only on River Drive, which, yes, is many Queen Anne's, but also just around the neighborhood in various parts of Jefferson Park. And they included everything from Denver squares to classic cottages, neither of which are Queen Anne's. And the developer was representing those as examples of Queen Anne's around Jefferson Park, not necessarily River Drive, but around the neighborhood.
Speaker 2: That's fair. Thank you. Because I did drive River Drive during my research into this. And I did know that there are a lot of different styles on that street, but there are certainly a number of Queen Anne's.
Speaker 7: Yes, there are. Queen Anne's on River Drive. River Drive is not designated historic right now.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And what impressed me about that was that these all look more like Queen Anne's than the William Anderson House.
Speaker 7: The the commission did determine, including the expert advice or opinions of the architects and the historians on the commission, that the Anderson House is indeed a Queen Anne style. Okay.
Speaker 2: And do you know who Queen Anne was? We've been talking about it all night. I just thought maybe.
Speaker 7: Yes. A somebody who has absolutely nothing to do with Denver. Okay. I just another name on the stuff. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. Thank. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 13: Councilman New. Amy, could you let me ask you one question, please? A reverend I represent over.
Speaker 1: Here you.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 13: Represent Denver District ten, and we have just the largest percentage of historic homes and districts in all of Denver. And I all during my campaign. And I just had the wonderful opportunity to travel and walk through all these neighborhoods and talk to a lot of the property owners. And they convince me that their property values were significantly enhanced by historic preservation designation and it did not decrease. And I just wondered if that's the experience that the Landmark Commission has. That historic designation does increase property value and does not decline in property value.
Speaker 7: Yes, that is correct. We have found numerous examples where the historic designation does indeed increase the property value. This covers for several reasons, including the cachet of having a landmarked structure, and also because the error also occurs because designated structures or structures that are contributing to historic districts are required to go undergo design review under the Denver Landmark Commission. And this often results in them having better design and design that that is often more better thought out than properties that do not undergo that design review, which can add to the property value.
Speaker 13: All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman. Any other questions from the council? Seen none. That concludes the public hearing. Now, moving on to comments and I will just say, colleagues, recognizing that we have another public hearing and a impending blizzard coming. If we could just take the opportunity, if you could be succinct, that would be great. If not, feel free. It's your privilege. I just want to put that out there. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We could filibuster and wait out the blizzard if you know, that could be another choice. Thank you. I think by far the most interesting thing that I learned through all this and is that no one ever told me in my 35 years as a newspaper journalist that I could shoot an editor and be acquitted. So I see John Murray furiously taking notes on that. But other than that, I have to say that I am I am completely unimpressed with the case for designating this property. I believe that it fails on both criteria that the Commission recommended. The facts are that this House, not Mr. Anderson, but this House and Mr. Anderson, in fact, has they have no direct or substantial association with any person who had any influence on society at all. Mr. Anderson was not Alfred Packer's lawyer. He was a 48 hour fraud down in Canyon City. He never filed a document. He never represented Mr. Packer. None of the events in the story. Very interesting story. None of the events took place on his property. It's interesting to me that if that if Mr. Anderson's house is worthy of landmarking because of this episode, this brief episode, Endeavor's history, the home of the key figure whose being shot gave rise to this. His house still stands and his house is not a Denver landmark. Harry Tavern's house still sits on Humboldt Street. It's in the Humboldt Island historic district. But it itself is not a a landmark. The house next door is but not Harry Truman's house. Why are we designating the house of the man who shot him when his house and he's a much more important figure in Denver isn't designated the support for this. I just think it's exceedingly thin. It doesn't make it on architecture either. It is not even a remarkable example of Queen Anne's style. I struggled over this because it was it might be well known that during the campaign I had taken a position that I would be very reluctant to do to approve a designation of a landmark property without the owner's consent. And even though the ordinance doesn't require it, I personally would have a higher bar. I'm very relieved, learning that the ordinance doesn't establish that as a basis that I don't have to rely on a higher bar at all. If this were an application filed by Mr. Sun Lightner to designate his own House, I would be voting no on this. I just don't find that it that it meets any of those criteria. If we relied on the stories we heard tonight, there's probably no 30 year old structure in this city that we couldn't find some connection to somebody who lived there once who did something remarkable. Maybe even my own house, which is over 30 years old. So I think the best reason of all that the council has to back away from this dispute in North Denver, which I think goes beyond historic structures. And those issues has been given to us by the broker who found another potential buyer. Because there is. Allegedly another offer on the table and that there is no condition on this. It is not contingent on achieving landmark status. I think the best course of action for the Council is to turn this down and let the market decide, let the owner decide between these two between these two offers. I think the second offer definitely shows that Mr. Swan Leitner has choices and it's not dependent on landmark designation. On the other hand, if we approve the landmark designation, we are making that choice for the owner. We are telling him he cannot accept the first offer and he has to go with the second offer or look for others. And I don't think the strong arm of government should be used in this case. And with that, Mr. President, I think that's the summation of my remarks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you. Councilman Flynn. That's an interesting take on on the second offer. I, too, am not particularly impressed with the idea of this hostile designation, as I had mentioned in committee. It's interesting that we want to designate the home of somebody who I now learned wasn't associated with a cannibal. Probably, but certainly that was associated with an attempted murder and. I think it was Mr. Soderbergh who mentioned very discreetly that we've had a lot of interest. We've had a lot of issues with shooters that are really very tragic. And the idea that we would historically designate the home of a shooter doesn't doesn't feel right in that any sense to me. We do designate the places where people were shot. I mean, we have the San Creek massacre. We don't honor the home of the people who shot them. We honor the place where they died. The Ludlow Massacre. I think Mrs. Thibeault mentioned the Ford Theater, the places where people might have died. When I mention this question committee, the city person said, Well, he wasn't successful. And I thought, Well, is that the new criteria? We can designate the place of a person who tried to shoot somebody but wasn't successful. It just didn't seem right to me. And what else does it seem right to me? As I have great respect for the Landmark Preservation Society in the historic Denver Historic Society, but actually learning for the first time tonight that the connection with Alfred Parker is unknown and kind of loose and not too sure and maybe could make. And yet, in the document that the LPC recommends for historic status, it says, Let me just try to find this. Anderson's association with Alfred Packer is interesting and significant historically. It seems like if it can't even be discerned what his relationship was. That's perhaps.
Speaker 7: A little bit.
Speaker 3: Overstated that it was significant historically when we're not even sure what the what it was. I heard so many people tonight speaking very passionately about historic pieces of property, and I understand that. But I heard more often a fear of development.
Speaker 7: And it it also.
Speaker 3: It it resounded with me. That historic designation is important, but it shouldn't be done just to keep development out. That's why I was going to ask Mr. Garcia the question. I'm sorry. I just wanted to clear up. But he did say that he'd lose parking for his property if this project were to go through. And I wondered, is was that the reason why he became one of the people who filed? He even said at the end that he was against this project, which was a little unclear to me. But I assume that what he means that it was against he is against the development but did not speak at all about the his history. I heard people say often that they spoke against development or neighborhood is overrun with developers about how much money is happening. The neighborhood is under siege by developers there. It was a recurring theme that I hear and I can understand that you might want to unite, not want to lose something that you feel is historic . But I didn't hear that as often as I heard. We just didn't want this one this place developed so the are and they again though I think Councilman Flynn's idea that the offer is an interesting place that whether we designate it if we don't designate it, the owner can choose between the two. It was it was difficult for me to hear sort of real estate negotiations, which seemed to me to be such private matters, to be a matter of public discussion about what I will buy, what I won't buy, or whether I should take the offer. My neighbors think I should take this offer. My neighbors think I shouldn't take that offer. That just made me itch that my neighbors would discuss real estate negotiations that I was having at a club in a public forum. So I will be voting against historical designation.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I really appreciate it. Some of my colleagues comments. But I, I think I want to go to the statute. My my former colleague, Jenny Raab, taught me a lesson, which is to always go back to the statute. And so I want to be really clear about the criteria I think we're evaluating before I comment on them. Folks have raised this word significant, and I just want to be very clear. The ordinance does not require that the individual have a significant influence on society, only that there's a substantial association between the person and the property . Right. He lived in the house for many, many years. He owned the house for many, many years. So substantial association, I think is fairly established. The question then is with a person who had influence on society, that part of the ordinance does not state substantial, just says influence. So an influence doesn't even say positive, could be negative, could be questionable as we're experiencing tonight. So so I just want to be really clear that the ordinance doesn't require that there be a substantial influence. And I feel like many of the speakers tonight imply that that was a criteria. So that's why I went there. Secondly, distinguishing characteristic of an architectural style doesn't say extraordinary, doesn't say best in class. So so I think the ordinance sets a little bit lower bar than I heard, with all due respect. And I heard my colleague evaluating it and then I heard some of the speakers wanting us to evaluate it on. So then my question becomes, does it meet those criteria? And then there's the question of taking into account the owners views. So, so that's where I'm at in terms of the bar that I think is set. And in this regard to me, the case has been made that we really do have a case of an distinguishing characteristic. And one of the things that's interesting about anything historical is that the fewer there are of something, even if it was once ordinary, the more special it becomes, right? So there are many, many things at a certain point in time that are very typical. And then as they disappear, the few remaining specimens become more special to us in terms of their importance to reflecting a time. So for me, in fact, it's ordinariness or vernacular is is not at all a counterpoint to the potential that it is distinguishing characteristic style that we don't have everywhere all the time in Denver anymore because of change. I will say that although I did hear a little bit of anti-development sentiment tonight and I'm not one to I don't think anyone's really ever called me anti-development in my term here in the council, I tend to be pretty supportive of change. I tend to be pretty supportive of density. So but I the fact that I may have different views about development with some of the folks that are speaking or in the audience tonight doesn't mean that I change how I evaluate the criteria. So so for me, that's how I'm going through these standards. The last piece that I, you know, in terms of weighing this against the views of the of the owner, I do like Councilman Flynn mentioned, believe that there is a higher standard when you're dealing with someone's home. The last designation we had before us was a church, which I think is a different piece of civic, civic fabric. But when you're dealing with someone's home, I do think that it requires a higher standard. So, you know, looking through the materials and hearing the testimony, to me, what I did not hear is that this is an economically infeasible property to redevelop, and that is the language the ordinance use uses in other areas. It asks. In the review process. Is it economically infeasible to redevelop or reuse? And I did not hear either in the written testimony or in the spoken testimony tonight that it was infeasible. And so I regret the burden that that it's going to place. And I acknowledge the burden. But I also believe that there is this ordinance exists for the preservation of historic fabric in the city. So weighing those criteria, looking for, you know, a case to be made that it's not economically feasible, I did not find that. And so on that basis and and actually without considering the counteroffer, that's not in my opinion, that's not a piece of this right. Analysis. So that was not just for the record, not a part of my analysis. I will be voting to support designation tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman and Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe in historic preservation. Many of you may remember the magnificent Republic Building downtown. My grandfather was a dentist there for many decades, and that was a tragedy when that beautiful building was torn down. Thankfully, historic. Denver Dana Crawford. All the preservationists have worked hard to save some of our buildings, and I really appreciate the work they've done. But at the same time, I do believe in private property rights and to designate a structure without the owner's permission, I do believe a higher hurdle has to be cleared. The landmark preservation looked at the Andersen house and evaluated their criteria. We just learned that the ordinance charges City Council with the additional criteria of considering the owner's wishes. So in this case, the owner is opposed. And in reviewing the other criteria, I don't think that a strong case has been made. I, I agree with Councilman Flynn on that. The occupant did have some notoriety, but he didn't have an influence on society. And nothing significant happened in that house. I don't think it meets the higher hurdle that a hostile designation would require. I'm very sympathetic to the residents of Northwest Denver and their efforts to preserve this house. I think it would be great if the house was preserved. I understand their frustrations with the great changes in their neighborhoods. I've received dozens, I don't know, maybe hundreds of letters. And I've listened to the comments tonight. And as Councilwoman Sussman said, many of them have expressed their unhappiness with the development, but that is not a criteria for designation. Many of them have stated that the owner will not be harmed by the designation and that he will win no matter the outcome. I don't believe it's the community's role, nor the City Council's role to speak for the owner or to decide if he will be harmed or not, or to influence who he chooses to sell his property to. Many reference other successful landmark designations like Lower Downtown and the Molly Brown House. I just think the Anderson House dims in comparison and to curtail the owner's property rights. I think that the historical significance should be extraordinary, and in a close case, the owner's wishes should prevail. As council members, again, I think we need to be very careful about placing restrictions on private property. I am in favor of historic designation, just not the hostel's designation of this property. And no matter the income, the outcome tonight, I do hope that the House will be reconsidered and that the new owner will reach out to community members. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman New?
Speaker 13: Yes. I'm neither a trained architect or a historian, and I really appreciate the professionalism and the talent on the landmark commission. And I really have to respect their work in upholding the ordinance on historic preservation. So I appreciate the three and a half hours that they do do due diligence for this application. I think that speaks highly of the professionalism and making sure that all sides are heard on on this important decision. I also have architect friends and a respected developer who I listen to as well, to have seen this house who understand the historic value of this house. So I do respect their professionalism and an opinion about this house. So to me, the historic story is interesting but is secondary to preserving the historic value of this home and a history of Denver. So I will support this designation. Tonight. And I think that there's what I've heard there can be a real win win situation with the homeowner and any new developer or this developer. I don't think the historic designation will erode the economic value of this home, and I think there will be both a win win situation. Thank you both.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman there, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I think I'll join in those that feel like the history of this particular designation is a tad thin. It's not the monumental story that would make this very simple. Let's see. I'll trust CPD's interpretation of the zoning. That this property can be adequately developed. While it may not be a spectacular queen and mansion of some sort. I don't think that we're here to worship extravagance or the wealthy. But to maintain a healthy connection to our past, I think is the purpose of this ordinance. I certainly expect that. What is there now at 2329, Elliott is probably a better representation of our past, far better than what will be developed without it. I'm not happy to hear, you know, with preservation of our past so important, such a critical element, no matter how you feel about this particular piece of property. I'm disappointed to hear that a developer was unwilling to sit down with historic Denver and fully discuss what options might be available. So I'm also comfortable while recognizing the importance of this property to the owner. I'm comfortable that there will be a positive outcome for the owner. So I'll be supporting designation as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to explain where I'm coming down on this. I've got 36 years of experience having dealt with the Jefferson Park neighborhood, having worked for Sal Carpio as the councilman, and then I represented that district and have continued to have interface and have seen significant change to not only Jefferson Park, but many of our Northwest neighborhoods, as we are seeing with many of our communities across the city. And I think when we have an opportunity like this where we can, in fact, preserve a structure that still provides the opportunity for the assemblage as one's own lot for development activity to occur, I see that as a win win for the neighborhood and a win win for the property owner. I think the. The fact that historic properties and I was involved with, you know, the the Baker historic designation, the Jefferson Park, I mean, Potter Highlands historic designation, the lower downtown historic designation. I, I know those are larger, you know, community wide designations, but all of those resulted in significant increases in property values to those communities. And we have seen that happen with other single homes that have been done in various communities across the city, including many of our school buildings that this body had been asked to to preserve and protect. And, you know, notwithstanding all of the testimony that we had tonight, I do want to thank everybody for coming and sharing their point of view on all sides. I think this designation is warranted. I will be supporting it tonight and appreciate the work that everybody has done on on both sides to share your thoughts and comments via email and just by being here tonight. But I think this is one where, as someone said, the neighborhood plan speaks to the internal fabric of the neighborhood trying to be preserved. You know, this neighborhood has seen significant density increases on the edges of the community. And I have seen the Jefferson Park community embrace that development that has come in. And it has created the opportunity for some additional amenities to be added to the neighborhood. So the fact that the opportunity still exists for development to occur, I think, again, this can be a win win for both sides. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez, I don't see your name up, but this point you want to weigh in?
Speaker 11: I think there's a conspiracy. I kept pushing. It doesn't show. Go ahead. I'm just kidding. I first of all, I wanted to thank folks for coming out tonight. You know, I think we've seen times where you've seen these chambers completely lopsided or absolutely empty. When you see something like this, I am going to also are in the side. I think this is this is kind of a stretch when we're looking at the historic designation. And in it it sucks because I'm very, very familiar with a lot of the challenges in Northwest Denver. Councilman Espinoza and I share a boundary on Colfax, and I travel up Irving and I see home after home after home for sale. And in their stead, I see shoeboxes, gray shoeboxes, with maybe a little splash of blue. And they are indeed very concerning and they are a threat to the neighborhood character. I do see a redlining of certain neighborhoods where people live. I see a red lining right where you look at demographics, where people of color live and where people of color don't care for folks living where they don't and their property values and how they access that. I think that there is a huge problem with an overdevelopment in northwest Denver. And but I don't think this is the tool in which we fight it. And let me tell you why, because regardless of what this house becomes, historic or not, there are still a whole bunch of families who do not live in historic houses that can't afford and won't be able to afford to stay in northwest Denver unless they're able to get some kind of loan to access that capital that they now have. Because if they don't, somebody walk in, knocking on the door, offering 200 grand, it's going to look awfully good to pay off all the all that debt. So if they did survive the recession and held on to their homes and have lasted as long as they have, they may not have a home that is eligible for historic designation. So what happens then? What happens to those folks? How we fight gentrification is not necessarily in a historic designation. And, you know, here's here's the issue for me that that that's a big one. And in that and it also doesn't sit right that our colleague who represents this district is an it can't be here and he can't be here for a reason of ethics. And he chose not to do that. And I honor that. I think there's there's a lot to be said there, however, that cause remains. And I think that we have to address it. This is not the way we address it. And it hurts to say that. It absolutely hurts to say that. But to call this house historic is a stretch for me. And also because we have to have a standard in terms of what we're deeming historic. I mean, go on by saying that. Do we remember Leonard? Do we remember Chapman? I remember John Lennon, right? I don't care where Chapman lived. I don't care where his house is in Fort Worth, Texas. But I do care about everything that John Lennon produced. Right now, I'm not comparing the two. But here's another problem in how we designate history in our city. We have a whole neighborhood named after a clans leader. That does not sit well with me. That doesn't sit well with a lot of people in this city. But guess what? It's historic. We have streets in this city, in this in this very city named after people who carried scalps of our ancestors down there. And as a matter of fact, the governor at the time that was cool was shaving ten. The largest mountain we see right here in the front range is named after him. So we have to be very careful in how we honor and who we honor. Now, I don't believe that this Anderson was a revolutionary, somebody that that was worthy of of historic designation, who had a great impact in this city. I don't. Now, do I agree with yellow journalism and maybe some of the shady things that those characters did at The Denver Post at the time? No. I would name after much after that either. But in order for us to create this this city and and these neighborhoods in something, we have to send a message of what we aspire to be, what we aspire to do, and how that history is remembered. I think it's a stretch. That doesn't mean that that the folks who came to the podium and they don't know their stuff or that that for them it's not worthy. It's just for me that that that sits really wrong in my stomach. And I think, you know, I think Councilman Espinoza understands the priorities as part of Denver. He is the elected official in this part of Denver. And I think this is a challenge that is beyond. Like I said, it goes beyond a historic designation on one home. There are thousands if not, I mean, hundreds, if not thousands of folks who are struggling to hang on. And they may not have a house that's historic. And I think last but not least, I think this. Jim, I your stand up guy is somebody who works so hard. And, you know, if there's anything I can relate to is everything I have, everything I worked for is in my home. You best believe it. Everything I've worked for is in my home. I would hate to not be able to to use that one day. Right. Especially if I didn't have a good retirement account here or there. I work with my hands all my life. I mean, that's that's I know that's my grandparents. Investment is their home. This does not nothing historic. It's historic to me, but not to the city. But I know that's everything and the only thing they got. And so having said that, you know, I although I do understand the struggle that we faced in the west and northwest Denver, this is not the answer or the time for it. So I will be voting no on this one. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman, can you speak again?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be very brief. Reasonable minds can really disagree on this, and I think that's apparent. Regardless of which side folks fell on, it's it's a pretty close call. And so because you don't have a district councilman here tonight, I just felt like it was important to end this by saying that although designation I'm doing the math, it's it's not going to happen tonight. There are choices and I'm disappointed the developer didn't want to hear the choices being presented by CPD. But there's at least two choices that could be pursued here in terms of, I should say to the owner, since you haven't closed yet, but you could combine this zone lot and do a number of units. You could also ask for a variance. So there are paths to still save this house even without designation, and I hope that you will pursue or consider those while maximizing your options. That is your choice when you walk away from this meeting. And I just want to appreciate the respectful dialog among my colleagues even as we disagreed tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman, can h. Any other comments? 768 as amended before we vote, I just want to say so. We are going to move forward with our second public hearing on construction defects. I can't imagine most of you are going to stay. So I would just say when you could you please be quiet as you were exiting chamber so we can move forward with the presentation and for the individuals waiting to speak on the next one. So if you could just hold your conversations until you get outside of council chambers and please exit quietly. We would sincerely appreciate that. And safe driving. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call 768 as amended.
Speaker 3: No, no. Sussman. No. Black.
Speaker 7: No. Clark.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Flynn.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. No. Cashman. I can. I. Lopez. No. New Ortega. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: No. Madam Secretary, please, first of all, announce the results.
Speaker 3: For ages 78487.
Speaker 1: 768, as amended, has failed. All right. Next, we are moving on to we are moving on to 811. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Bill 811 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
Approves the designation of 2329 Eliot Street (a.k.a. 2323 W. 23rd Avenue) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the designation of 2329 Eliot Street (a.k.a. 2323 W. 23rd Avenue) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-28-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11162015_15-0811
|
Speaker 1: 768, as amended, has failed. All right. Next, we are moving on to we are moving on to 811. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Bill 811 on the floor?
Speaker 2: Mr. President, as I move. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 811 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: You got it. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing on Council Bill 811 is now open and we'll wait a couple of minutes. Just to make sure that everyone can hear.
Speaker 2: That's right. You know.
Speaker 1: Maybe. Maybe we have a staff report.
Speaker 13: Yeah, there are priorities.
Speaker 10: Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to give the staff report. I'll try to be as brief as possible in light of the hour that we have a full written record of the rationale for the bill in the file. So that that allows me to be somewhat brief. And Skye, Stuart and I will be available for questions about the the proposal after the folks have a chance to make their comments.
Speaker 5: The can we ask that the doors be closed?
Speaker 1: Can we please shut the doors just so that we don't hear the noise outside? Go ahead, David.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. As you all know, this proposal comes forward from the mayor's office. If council proceeds with the ordinance has proposed or some version of it, Denver will become the ninth home rule municipality on the front range to adopt an ordinance addressing the issue of construction defects. We understand from conversations with our counterparts in other cities that there are others about to come online testify. Colorado Springs is considering a bill next week on first reading on the same subject, which in fact borrows some of the elements from the bill in front of you tonight, particularly the new elements regarding building permit building codes and how they're used in construction defect defect litigation. All the cities who have been seeking to address this locally, including the mayor's proposal before you tonight, are motivated primarily by one thing. And that's the dearth of condominium construction currently in Colorado and what efforts can be made by municipalities to reinvigorate and catalyze once again, the the the condominium construction industry in order to provide that as a housing choice for our residents. As we explained to the committee a couple of weeks ago how we illegally analyze this whole thing as a matter of mixed state and local concern, where you're you have some opportunity to regulate and legislate at the local level, as does the state. The interest in quality and affordability and availability of housing is something that really knows no boundaries. The state has laws on this subject to municipalities can as well. We've talked about the particular interest in Denver in incentivizing our condo market because of our basically we're the most urbanized and popular populous city in the state where a lot of our growth opportunities are going to be vertical, not horizontal. And if we want our home homeownership opportunities, inevitably they're going to have to be in a condominium format in a more urban environment, as well as our obvious character as a transit hub with lots of opportunities for transit oriented development. While we're obviously experiencing significant construction boom in Denver right now. Virtually all of the vertical residential that we're seeing in town is apartments, is not condominiums. And this is an imbalance that the ordinances has designed to try to effect to the positive in terms of, again, incentivizing more condominium development. To the extent we're having condominium development in Denver, it's all on the luxury end of the scale because of the risks and costs associated with condo development. Again, one of the major rationales for proposing the bill. The hope is that if we have more condominium construction in the future and somewhat more normal percentages of our new available housing stock, that it may have a moderating, in fact, impact on housing costs, both on the for sale side as well as the rental side. Because even though we have a lot of cranes out there, a lot of vertical getting built to the rental that is getting built tends to be at a very high end as well . So if people have more opportunities for for sale units in a more urban environment, in a TOD environment that may have a moderating effect on the high rents that we're seeing. I won't go. I won't go. I don't need to speak at length about how Denver has been at or near the top in terms of housing inflationary costs as compared to peers, cities all throughout the United States over the last several years. The the as we've discussed in with each of you individually and in committee, the premise behind the bill is that construction defect litigation trends over the last ten years is one of the leading causes of the dearth of condominium construction. Nobody is claiming that it's the only cause. There are other economic factors. There are other market factors in play as well. But the premise of the bill is certainly that condominium defects, construction litigation and claims in the condominium market, in particular in common interest communities based upon all kind of evidence we've received from people who work in this area on the ground is one of the main causes that we aren't seeing. The product getting built are getting built in a wider variety of price points. So, so very quickly, the contents of the ordinance we try to address to the extent a municipal ordinance can to try to address some of the legal landscape in which construction defect claims are brought in and common interest communities. There's the element of the bill regarding how our building codes may or may not be used and defect litigation. We believe there's strong case law supporting your ability to influence the manner in which code violations can be used either either as a sword by the plaintiffs or code compliance can be used as a shield by the defendants, as explained in our written materials. And this proposal that's kind of maybe the centerpiece of the proposal is to urge you to adopt. Specific, specific local legislation talking about how our codes are used in these battles. Secondly, the major theme of the bill is to support alternative dispute resolution, particularly arbitration in lieu of litigation as a way to more efficiently and nobly and with a greater degree of certainty for all the parties and get to resolution of these claims as the ultimate end game instead of litigation promoting arbitration where the covenants have already provided for it. This bill does not mandate the use of arbitration in other forms of ADR. But it says when the Declaration of Covenants have provided for it and condo purchasers have bought into those communities, that Denver law supports the use of ADR, where the parties themselves have agreed to it under the covenants. And finally, there's the informed consent component of the bill that talks about the concept that on this most important investment, just about any of us ever make the home that we invest in. If there's going to be construction defect litigation, that there be a higher degree of buying involvement by the people whose condo units will be tied up in either the arbitration or the litigation if a claim is filed. And again, we're available to answer questions on any of these after the hearing. A couple of quick couple of quick clarifications from questions we've heard from you all. The ordinance clearly strictly only has prospective application in the future. It doesn't affect any homes built in the past. And to the extent it applies in the future, it's only in the common interest ownership situation, which will typically mean condo buildings almost always mean condo buildings in the future. New common interest communities established after January 1st with no retroactive effect on anybody whatsoever. And then finally, another really important point of clarification, and I, I want to thank House Manu for circulating. For those of you who had any interest in seeing at the the state law, which fundamentally regulates the claims process, the notice of claim process , the Construction Defect Action Reform Act, originally adopted in 2001, is not affected at all by this bill. A conscious effort was made in this proposed legislation not to interfere with her conflict with in any way the parties respective rights and responsibilities under sadara as has been balanced by the state legislature. This goes back to my original point, which we think it's essential if this ordinance is adopted and never tested in court, that it not conflict with existing state statutory law. So efforts are made here not to conflict with sadara and not to conflict with the Color Consumer Protection Act either, which is another statutory route that plaintiffs sometimes take to sue builders with construction defect claims. Well, absolutely. The intent of the ordinance is not to create any conflict with state law, although it definitely adds some additional elements locally that don't currently exist in state law. So that's my quick report. And again, a lot of detail left out, but I know the hours late, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, David. This is a one out of courtesy public hearing, and with 3 minutes each, you can quickly do the math and the number of speakers we can have. We have 22 people signed up to speak. So I'm going to ask that you certainly have 3 minutes that there's an opportunity for you could do it. And two, to allow these last two speakers. It would be unfortunate if people had stayed late and didn't have the opportunity to speak, but we will see how it goes. First, five speakers Trinidad Rodriguez, Justin Blue, Aaron Foy, Jonathan Harris and Mr. Siku. So if you five can make your way up to the front pew, we will go ahead and begin. And Mr. Rodriguez, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you, members of council, for considering this very important ordinance. I am Trinidad Rodriguez. I'm a resident of Denver. I work at 1550 Market Street, Suite 300 and Denver. I'm the past chair of the Board of Commissioners of Denver Housing Authority. I continue to serve on the Board of Commission of DHS. I am the Vice Chair of Denver Civic Ventures and more member of the board of the Downtown Denver Partnership Management Group. And I'm here speaking in part on behalf of both organizations, but we have others here to address the body from the downtown Denver Partnership as well . Both DOJ and the Downtown Denver Partnership CDP are acutely aware of the dire need for affordable housing options that Denver is currently facing. DOJ has been pursuing a steady strategy to revitalize what used to be referred to as projects neighborhoods heavily impacted by poverty into sustainable, vibrant communities with more diverse, more and diverse housing options in the following communities Curtis Park, Benedict Park Place and Mariposa District. All told, this water could represent 480 units of for sale product in transit oriented development communities. Incredibly high value development opportunities in areas that, as I said, were impacted by poverty and create tremendous housing options for people of many incomes and and many backgrounds. Endeavor efforts to stall. Those are efforts to develop for sale. Housing in those communities over the years has failed. Clearly, the economic downturn and overall real estate credit crisis had major impacts on the ability to develop these properties with for sale housing. This we as an agency have a number of very attractive opportunities to develop for sale housing to create again diverse housing options at many price points. Affordable housing, affordable for sale housing was a key component of our applications to the federal government under Hope six and now in the Future Choice Neighborhood Initiatives Grants, capital grants that would provide for massive investment into Denver communities to create these for sale, condo and townhome housing opportunities. So this is yet another way that the city can support Denver housing authorities efforts to create these vibrant communities that create a range of different ways for families to build sustainable lives and and financial security. So I ask you to.
Speaker 1: Senator Rodriguez, your 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Justin Ballou. Don't see just a blue. All right. Next, we have Aaron Foy.
Speaker 4: Evening. My name's Erin Foy.
Speaker 2: I'm a principal with Boulevard Builders and a resident.
Speaker 4: Of Hutchinson's Hutchinson Hills in southeast Denver. We're a builder of multifamily for sale housing here in metro Denver. We're currently building 28 townhomes in the River North neighborhood and have a couple other projects around town. We're also looking at some other larger sites in the city and county of Denver with the hope to build as many as or more than 100 units. The lack of a de facto ordinance has created some strange incentives for companies like ours. We've seen some other competitors who.
Speaker 2: Build townhomes with no highways.
Speaker 4: Which leaves kind of weird questions about payment of water, tap bills and other things. And then and then also leads us to not maximize the density that's already built into the Denver code. Our first project, for example, is built on a CM x five zoning zoned lot, but we're only building three storey buildings. And, and in general, the current building climate makes our sort of project very difficult. It's difficult to find investors.
Speaker 2: We've had conversations with banks who at the very first conversation said we will.
Speaker 4: Not finance a for sale attached product in Colorado.
Speaker 2: And these are local banks, Denver based banks, who just won't.
Speaker 4: Won't touch.
Speaker 2: Our industry today.
Speaker 4: And as a result, we end up getting financing through private sources, ends up making our financing more expensive. We add in the insurance costs and other costs and means that the only way we can truly build this product is to build the top end of the market, selling in the 400 and $500,000, I guess, to.
Speaker 2: One of the points that I think is going to be made from some of the opponents of this ordinance.
Speaker 4: Related to demand for condos or for townhomes. When we first opened our project in River.
Speaker 2: North, we were starting our prices in the mid 300,000.
Speaker 4: Range. We ended up with a with a interest list of 200 people for our final 14 units in that project. I think if people are able to hit that price point, which I think with condominiums we can, there's going to be we're going to see tremendous.
Speaker 2: Demand and a tremendous number of projects that that take.
Speaker 4: Off. Like I said, there are a lot of challenges with raising the money and getting these projects done. And hopefully this ordinance helped. And I think that's what I saying.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Jonathan Harris.
Speaker 4: Leaving Council. Thank you. My name is Jonathan Harris. I'm a condominium owner who's been through a defer claim and also president of Build our Homes. Right.
Speaker 2: Build our Homes Right is an organization of individuals who have been.
Speaker 4: Through deferred claims or allies and legal advocates. I purchased a brand new condominium in Denver that.
Speaker 2: Leaked water from.
Speaker 4: Around windows and doorways.
Speaker 2: The concrete interior courtyard was sloped incorrectly, causing the water to run into the drains and away.
Speaker 4: From the drains and into the condominiums.
Speaker 2: Two units in our complex were so badly water damage that they were uninhabitable. Our association worked with the developer and builders for years to obtain a solution.
Speaker 4: Using and use the litigation only as a last.
Speaker 2: Resort. Denver has a problem.
Speaker 6: With the shortage of condominiums and.
Speaker 2: Affordable housing. The proposed ordinance does nothing to address those issues.
Speaker 4: It does.
Speaker 10: Create a magnet.
Speaker 2: For substandard.
Speaker 4: Design and.
Speaker 6: Construction.
Speaker 4: Low and moderate income homeowners.
Speaker 2: Homeowners are the hardest hit by faulty construction.
Speaker 4: And Denver already has some of the weakest consumer protections. The builders and developers.
Speaker 2: Tell us that they are building condominiums because the DFA claims.
Speaker 4: To have made insurance for them.
Speaker 2: So expensive and effect claims.
Speaker 1: Lawsuits common.
Speaker 2: The solution for homeowner homebuilders is to build homes free of defects in the first place, not to weaken the rights of consumers. Why is the.
Speaker 10: Building industry so afraid to stand behind their product?
Speaker 6: I became involved in this issue because I see an attempt to strip away our.
Speaker 2: Rights and privileges to a court.
Speaker 10: Trial and a defect claim. This ordinance.
Speaker 2: Singles out and discriminates against homeowners.
Speaker 4: Rights.
Speaker 2: By allowing forced arbitration weighting in favor of developers.
Speaker 4: To be mandated in in dispute resolution. Arbitration was.
Speaker 2: Originally intended for large corporations with lots of money to resolve disputes between themselves, not for large.
Speaker 4: Companies against north of small nonprofit organizations.
Speaker 2: Our courts are meant to balance the scales of justice.
Speaker 4: This proposed ordinance has no guarantees that condominiums will be built, but it does take people's rights away. The mayor.
Speaker 12: Himself couldn't.
Speaker 2: Promise more condos and affordable housing options would come of.
Speaker 10: This ordinance.
Speaker 6: In fact, a similar measure.
Speaker 10: In Lakewood.
Speaker 2: Passed over a year ago, a year.
Speaker 12: Ago now and now has no.
Speaker 2: New condo project permits have been filed.
Speaker 4: The author of the story Sorry, it's time to take a pill. Silly people didn't realize there's going to be. So it doesn't address the problem of substandard and defective.
Speaker 2: Construction, which created the large number of legal claims.
Speaker 4: Other organizations that.
Speaker 2: Oppose this ordinance are there color.
Speaker 10: Latino leadership.
Speaker 4: Advocacy and research organization.
Speaker 6: The Latino.
Speaker 1: With the Heritage Chapter? You're 3 minutes is up. I do apologize for that.
Speaker 2: Please vote no on this ordinance.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have Mr. Sekou and Mr. Sekou comes up on my call. The next five, Liberty Lewis, Jason Peck, Ashley, Doug Douglas, Justin Croft and Pat Pacey. So you can make your way to the front pew. And Mr. Skinner, you can begin, right? Earmarks.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 12: Jeremy SIEGEL of Black Star Action Movement representing poor, working, poor and homeless people. We stand with the previous speaker opposed to this ordinance and with a little bit of experience as the housing director for The View on his point Community Development Corporation in San Francisco, who rehabbed the Navy shipyards out in San Francisco. And having a little experience with with contractors. This ordinance is the abomination because it doesn't set the standards for what is normally considered appropriate. I could not build a house for somebody else that I wouldn't live in because of the way I built it. And one of the problems of this country is that we have settled for mediocrity and less than in exchange for a proper model. And then the thing falls apart and everybody wants to walk away like it ain't about nothing. Well, what happened to us, man? What happened to us? See, we used to stand for something. But now we just go for anything. And then folks come in developers and they just bully and run over our communities, man with no consequences. And then we vote for this mess with no conscience. Would you buy a house with a defect in the person who built the house to walk away from with no consequence? Are you kidding me? Come on, y'all. That's crazy. And yet we see a constant decline in the quality of life of the American citizen. The average Joe Plumber guy who doesn't have the money to fight. So we know that the interests of one in a condominium complex into some wall at the plumbing don't work for me and then go to work for nobody. So we all go down the drain and everybody just walks away like, well, welcome to the free market system. Well, that's not free market. That's capitalism. That's cronyism. And there's another word for it that I buy. Used to probably get me put out of here. Come on, Joe. No, absolutely not. Everybody's got to stay on their dime. Everybody's got to take personal responsibility for what they do, including these corporations, including these associations that do this kind of stuff. If somebody could stand up for 3.
Speaker 1: Minutes is a guy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Next, we have Liberty Lewis.
Speaker 7: Good evening, counsel.
Speaker 8: Thank you for the time. My name is Liberty Lewis. I'm a licensed professional engineer and a resident of the Berkeley neighborhood.
Speaker 7: I want to speak today specifically about concerns related to the amount of.
Speaker 8: Construction that falls outside the explicit and prescriptive nature of.
Speaker 7: The code. There is a significant amount.
Speaker 3: Of.
Speaker 8: The work that is done on a.
Speaker 7: Jobsite.
Speaker 8: That comes not from a specific measurement provided.
Speaker 7: In the code or a specific section of the code, but to designers.
Speaker 8: Interpretations of those codes. It's for that reason that both the code and the building department require that plans be.
Speaker 7: Presented, prepared, reviewed, and that's typically a multistep process. There's some discussion as to how are those codes being interpreted.
Speaker 8: How is the application of the performance standards.
Speaker 7: Of those codes being achieved by those designers? And though that lack.
Speaker 8: Of prescriptive nature, the fact that you can't go to the code on many issues and say.
Speaker 7: This is exactly how it must be constructed.
Speaker 8: Makes this ordinance challenging to enforce and to ensure that we have quality construction. To this point, I've read the Building Department's response to the recent.
Speaker 7: Concerns about this ordinance.
Speaker 8: One of the items they point out.
Speaker 7: For instance, is that the building code does specifically require compliance with the window manufacturers installation instructions. I agree that's true. However, that.
Speaker 8: Language is not included in the requirements for installation.
Speaker 7: Of stone, of bricks, of facades, of trusses.
Speaker 8: Of structural connectors.
Speaker 7: None of that requirement to meet the standard is explicitly listed out in the code. It must also be noted that the code which provides.
Speaker 8: Minimum standards.
Speaker 5: Doesn't touch on.
Speaker 8: Is in its own nature, consistently behind the times because of how the code is prepared, because of how new materials.
Speaker 7: Are brought into the industry, because those.
Speaker 8: Materials must warrant and they must be used in that industry.
Speaker 7: And regulated before they meet sort of the level that they're even considered by the code writers. Those code writers then must write the code, adopt the code, and then this body must also adopt that code. There are materials that Denver.
Speaker 8: Being on the cutting edge of many energy efficiency requirements of many.
Speaker 7: New modern materials there. There are without being used on a regular basis that are not touched in any way by the code, such as rain screens, green roofs, attachment of.
Speaker 8: Solar panels. All of these items are.
Speaker 7: Not expressly discussed in the code, but could potentially be read to be.
Speaker 8: In the wall coverings section of the code, for instance, depending on interpretation, which would then be covered in the code.
Speaker 7: So if a rain.
Speaker 8: Screen which is not expressed in the code is installed.
Speaker 7: Incorrectly, it may meet the.
Speaker 8: I'm going to lose my time. So I'll just say there are holes in the code that we address with plans and drawings.
Speaker 7: And by ignoring those things.
Speaker 1: Your time is up.
Speaker 7: Willy Falls.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jason Peck.
Speaker 4: Thank you. My name's Jason Peck. Thank you, city council, for your time this evening. I'm a realtor, local realtor. My office is just right down the street. I also have served in a capacity with Denver Metro Association of Realtors as government affairs chair and also served on the Board of Directors, which covers about 6000 local members here in the city of Denver. That's O'Hare. What I want to share with you is actually a story of one of my clients. I can get you a long speech, but I felt is more important. I have multiple stories, but one in particular I'd like to share with you this evening. The client there was a Denver firefighter who end up losing his condo because of construction defects. His condo didn't have a defect. What occurred with his condo complex was on the north facing side. There are some ducts leaking. About 15% of the homeowners had leaky decks that were icing up on the north face. He decided to file a lawsuit. He didn't know about the lawsuit. He wasn't informed about it, so forth. He didn't find out about it until he tried to refinance back when the market crash was occurring, he found out he can't refinance. The proponents are the people that are against this ordinance won't talk to you about is the impact of war instability. When a condo complex goes into a lawsuit and litigation occurs, it's no longer warranted. Wolfer for lending. Okay. It's very limited from that standpoint once it's settled. Fannie, Freddie Mae. Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac. FHA won't land for minimum two years after the lawsuit has been settled. So in his case, since he wasn't able to refinance, we tried selling his property, we tried short selling it. Reason we had a short sell. It was because his property value overnight dropped by 50,000. He owed more than what it was worth. Okay. And ultimately, he ended up doing a strategic foreclosure on that property lawsuit wise. No one in that in that complex could have been able to refinance or sell their property unless it was a cash investor or someone doing a portfolio loan. What is important about this ordinance is it speeds up the process. A lot of this litigation goes on for five, six, seven years. It gives an opportunity for the builder and the homeowners to come to the table and work it through arbitration. The other aspect that's important about this ordinance is proper notification. Why not give the homeowners a right to vote on this versus leaving it to the board of that homeowner's association? I'm more than happy to provide other stories or answer any story questions later on. Feel free to call me up. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Actually, Douglas.
Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Ashley Douglas and I have worked for reconstruction experts for the last six and a half years. Over the last six and a half years, I've interacted with many boards of directors and community members who are dealing with construction defect. And I know firsthand the devastating and severe impact that it's had on their lives. I have a few stories of some specific people that I've gotten to know. First would be Lorna, who loved to spend time on her patio. She was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and for the last few months of her life, she did not get to enjoy her patio because it was condemned as unstable. Next would be Nathan, who felt a tremendous responsibility as a board president. He lived in a community that housed mostly active duty military, and he knew that these people were living in homes that had firewalls that were inadequately rated. And he just he knew that he had to protect them in some way, and he wasn't able to do that. And then any moment the unthinkable could happen and put these people in harm's way. Lastly would be Jerry, who called me in tears as a waterfall, cascaded down her down the walls of her home. She experienced five water losses in a period of two months due to improper grading and drainage in her community. Those in support of this ordinance are putting a limit on a homeowner's ability to file a frivolous lawsuit against their builder. But are we saying that a structurally stable patio, adequately rated firewalls, and properly graded and drained communities are frivolous expectations of a homeowner? As is written now, this ordinance makes it nearly impossible for an H way to hold their builder accountable for serious and legitimate construction defect. So much money and time is being spent on getting this ordinance to pass. But where is the conversation about holding the builder accountable for proper means and methods of construction? What are the processes and procedures that are going to be implemented going forward to make sure our homeowners are buying products that are not defective and potentially life threatening to live in the current inspections and quality checks process has failed. So the answer is simple build it right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Douglas. Justin Croft.
Speaker 4: Good evening, members of council. Thank you for your time tonight. My name is Justin Croft. I work at three, five or seven rings be caught in the taxi development. I am the president of the New Rhino Business Improvement District. I'm also the co-founder and co-chair of the Rhino Urban Improvement Committee, which essentially handles the registered neighborhood organization duties for the Rhino Art District. And I work with Mickey and Karl. Zeppelin is up in development. I'm also a millennial. A number of us are in our thirties at this point, so watch out. So I'm here tonight just to stand up in support of this ordinance. In Rhino, we have an incredibly unique community. We have a mixture of developers, artists and small business owners all working together and really have come together over the last year to form the Business Improvement District. And the tagline you might remember, those of you that were here for the Business Improvement District was Keep running wild. So there's really been this momentum in the neighborhood to try to keep what's what's there. And a lot of what's there is the artists and the small business owners who have built up kind of the soul and the culture of that neighborhood. The stakeholders in Rhino have significantly contributed through the Business Improvement District, and we also passed a general improvement district on the west side of the neighborhood to the tune of an increase in taxes of four mills, which is $580,000 for the 2016 budget for the bid. Another four mills, which is equates to $300,000 for the guide. And then an additional assessment along Brighton Boulevard, specifically for capital improvements in partnership with the city for the $26 million investment for Brighton Boulevard. And to speak to that, the city really has been an incredible partner over there with the formation of the DCC and just the significant investment that's going on in Rhino. So as part of Keeping Rhino Wild. We are planning on rolling out a number of strategies beginning next year that specifically target affordability in the district. And as you know, affordability is a very complex issue. So we're trying to figure out, you know, what different things can we put in place to impact that? That looks like we're looking at a low interest revolving loan program for small businesses. We're working with Artspace, a developer that specifically builds low income housing in neighborhoods that are historically home for artists to keep them living in their neighborhood. We're looking at art grants and commissions for artists, and we're also working on marketing events and Placemaking for Rhino specifically to try to bring dollars to the neighborhood and keep those who have really built up that neighborhood in place. For the bill in question, it's become clear to us that there are a number of people not only in Denver, but specifically in Rhino, who were there. Condos available would purchase those condos as a first entry into ownership or potentially as a second home. And right now, because they can't, the it artificially increases the price of apartments and single family homes. So we feel like there's really pressure on these different aspects of the homebuying market and that are negatively affecting affordability and rhino. So I'll just close in saying that we need the city as a partner among the variety of tools that we're working on that you all host across. Yes.
Speaker 1: 3 minutes is okay. Okay.
Speaker 4: I'll just say please vote yes for this thinking.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next we have Pat Pasi. And as Pat comes up on a call, the next five. Tom Clark, Adam Maldonado, gymnast Maria, Flavia and Buzz Coble. And you five. Please make your way to from Pew. Pat, you can go ahead and begin your race.
Speaker 3: Yes, my name is Patricia Pasi and I'm an economist and have a small economic and business consulting firm up in Boulder. And I was retrained over retained over a year ago by build our homes right to do housing market analysis which I as to my understanding most of the members of the council have received a copy of it. What I'm going to say here tonight is basically what I said then. Markets work. Economists do believe markets work. The housing market is working in the right direction. The data is indicating that 22% of the new multi-family applications within the city of Denver have been identified as for sale properties. This is without any change in the ordinance as 22%. The data also shows in Lakewood, which was the first, to my understanding, municipality to pass an ordinance. There have been no new multifamily permits to our understanding that indicate that they're for sales since that that was passed. The basic reason for this is because the market is about supply for and demand of housing. Supply always legs demand. It's supposed to and it should. You can't expect a builder to build a multifamily condominium unit and then wait for demand to come later because they would have no profits. Their costs would be eaten up in that. So we expect demand to always be ahead of supply. It's a basic economic axiom. And so then the question is, well, why have there been high rent condominiums or high value condominiums and high rent rentals? Basically because the market would say that's where the best profits have been. That's in the past few years. That's where the best profits for builders to be and developers to be, and that's where they should be. We don't expect them to build less profitable or unaffordable things at the time. More specifically about what's going on in the market, and we said it before and people and economists are saying that now the market is moving in the right direction. Demand has to be both willing and able. Lending requirements are loosening up. Earnings for millennials and minorities are improving, although not at the levels they were in 2006 or seven, but improving. So they're more able to start buying, and so demand is going up. There are also other societal types of trends. We know that millennials have delayed marriage and delayed childbearing and have delayed homeownership. How much of that is a permanent trend and how much is that is simply a trend. A different trend from earlier generations is still not clear. But millennials are beginning to enter the market and they are becoming more willing, as are minorities. Then we turn to supply. What's been happening with supply? What we know about with supply and what we've been able to identify quantitatively.
Speaker 11: Is if you can wrap up 3 minutes. Well.
Speaker 3: Okay, that was.
Speaker 11: You want to make 1/2.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 11: All right. Next up, we have Mr. Tom Clark.
Speaker 6: I'm the city council. My name is Tom Clark. I'm the CEO of the Metro Denver EDC. I'm also a member of the Homeownership Opportunity Alliance. Three years ago, the Metro Mayors Caucus came into our office and said, We can't understand why. We can't get anybody interested in building condominiums on our transit side. Transit stops. Could you please help us understand what's going on in the marketplace? We created an organization called The Homeowner excuse me, the Homeowner Opportunity Alliance, which is now 55 organizations made up of housing advocates, housing authorities, economic development groups, chambers of commerce, all focused on one issue How could we get condos built? And we weren't interested in $400,000 condos, $400,000 condo in metro Denver today. Is the price you need to be able to pay for and 100% guarantee of litigation for construction defects. We were looking at 170 to $290000 condos. This were condos that what we called attainable housing. These were housing for seniors who wanted to move out of a three bedroom, three bathroom house and move into a condo along a transit line. Young millennials, who people are quick to say are never going to buy a home. And I'm surprised that the person who spoke before me a year ago actually said that in public that millennials don't buy houses. 80% of millennials plan to buy houses. What we found also was that construction defects were the primary cause, and most of the people have covered most of the issues in this ordinance that I was planning on talking about, and I won't go into them. But what is important to us is that this is a project that is not about expensive home condominiums. It's an issue about what do we do for young families and what do we do for seniors and what do we do? Not just in Denver, but what do we do in collar suburbs where we have median wage rates that are much higher than other parts of the region where elderly cannot age in place, stay in their community, get out of a home they can no longer manage and move into much more manageable housing. You have created in this ordinance a much better process than we have. There is a market out here and if there was not a market, there would been not we would not have set a record last year in used condos . Last year we built nine that we sell sold 9900 condos in metro Denver, but we only built 187. You will see as a result of the efforts that many people are undergoing in many cities around this community, we're over a million people in Colorado are now covered by construction defects. The classes are.
Speaker 1: 3 minutes of that.
Speaker 6: They're coming.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Adam Maldonado. Members, thank.
Speaker 2: You for your time tonight. My name is Adam Maldonado, and I'm a manager with reconstruction experts.
Speaker 4: I worked with reconstruction.
Speaker 2: Experts for a little over five years, and I spent a decade in new construction prior to getting involved in the reconstruction side of the business.
Speaker 4: I have seen construction defects.
Speaker 2: Related to all sorts of construction assemblies, building envelopes, structural.
Speaker 6: Grading, drainage.
Speaker 11: Fire ratings, you name it.
Speaker 2: We've seen it built wrong. I've seen these defects in multi-family units. As has been discussed tonight. I've seen it in single family homes. I've seen it in apartments. And I've seen it in commercial spaces as well. These defects affect all types of construction, not multifamily alone. My role at.
Speaker 11: Ari allows.
Speaker 4: Me to.
Speaker 11: See this issue through a.
Speaker 2: Lens of impacted property owners, people who have that fear in their eyes. They don't know what to do when their house is leaking or their business is suffering. One project that I worked on here in Denver was a large downtown apartment community that had significant building envelope defects. These defects resulted in structural damage. They resulted in water intrusion and resulted in mold.
Speaker 1: Personal property loss.
Speaker 2: To the tenants as well as to the property owner of the apartment complex. Every project that I've worked on, the property owners have suffered as a result of the inherent defects in their buildings. I believe this ordinance will make it more difficult and more burdensome for the victims of these properties to protect themselves, their property and their families. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Jim Nash.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Four years ago, my wife and I moved back to Denver. We retired from long broadcasting careers the last 17 years in Los Angeles, 35 and more. Years ago, she and I met at Channel two in Denver. We went to Washington for ten years, and I'm done with that. Now I'm Grandpa and I live here in Denver, where our families fortunately live in District four, well represented by Kendra Black. Thank you. The reason I care about this is because I love Denver. This is my hometown. I don't like what's happening because trial lawyers are shaking down the whole city. The people that work on the other side of the park here, the legislature handed them a bonanza. They are suing everybody I know. I used to be the president of a homeowners association. Townhouses outside Washington, D.C.. We were being sued. No.
Speaker 1: By Mr. Nash. Mr. Nash?
Speaker 4: Nobody could see us, counsel.
Speaker 6: Sorry. The point I want to make is this. There are two running stories about Denver. Number one, it's the number one millennial destination in the country. That's wonderful that the best and brightest, young, bright people are moving here looking for occupations, futures. The other running story is that for the last two or three years, we've had the most rapidly increasing cost of housing in the country. Pretty soon those millennials are going to say, I don't know, I guess I'll go to Salt Lake City or Austin. Oh, Texas housing is cheap there. I can't afford to live with those prices up there in that Mile High City. I'm really worried about what's going to happen here. Mayor Hancock is asking you to do the job that the people that work on the other side of the park won't do. For some reason, our governor has ignored a bipartisan majority in both houses. He won't act. He won't lead. You have to. You've got to send a strong message to those people up there, get on the stick and do this right. In the meantime, as soon as you pass this. The trial lawyers will take you to court. They'll fight you for years. And who knows what judges are going to do in the state state justice system? You've got to put pressure on those people to make this law fix it. The things that are in this ordinance are what should be in that state law. Please do this for the future of Denver. Or they're going to stop coming here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Nash. Mary Livia.
Speaker 7: The thank you, counsel. My name is Mary Livia. I'm President. My H0 of 266 unit high rise condo in DTC. I'm a retired commercial real estate broker with 30 years experience in the Washington, D.C. market. Colorado Public Radio reported this morning that slow condominium development is not unique to Denver and is, in fact a national issue. Yet developers have managed to convince our local representatives condo development lags because of frivolous construction defect suits that raise insurance costs as a victim of construction defects and having that many others who've had the same experience, I can assure you these lawsuits are anything but frivolous. While your desire for more affordable housing and entry level condos is admirable, I question why you support an ordinance that does not ensure this will happen. Have representatives from the insurance industry assured you their rates will drop? Upon its passage, this ordinance requires owners to prove the defects were not built according to code. If code requires, windows must also be installed according to the manufacturer's specifications. How did the 1000 windows in my community meet code? How is the certificate of occupancy granted? The window manufacturer and architect warned our developer by not following their specs it would lead to leaks and condensation. Sure enough, we heard. Excuse me. We had leaks and condensation. We only learned the developer did not follow the specs or adhere. Of those warnings through discovery, which may not be allowed in arbitration if this ordinance passes. This ordinance allows a developer to write into a condos declaration, an arbitration clause, where he can choose the arbitrator. He can prevent discovery, and he can forbid the owners from amending that article. He holds all the cards. All this ordinance does is bind the hands of your constituents by forcing them into developer controlled arbitration and removes our right to a trial by jury. This ordinance does nothing to require developers to build it right or hold them accountable for bad construction. I leave you with this scenario. Developer builds two buildings identical side by side, ten stories, 100 units each building. He sells his condos, building b he keeps for himself as a rental. A few years after completion, defects start to appear. Same defects, both buildings, leaky windows being one of them. With this ordinance, the condo owners may not sue the developer, but the developer may sue the contractor for his rental building. So now you have created two classes of citizens, those who have access to the court system, but and those who do not. The developer wins millions to make repairs. But because of the restriction the developer wrote in to the arbitration clause, condo owners can't get it for first space passed. Where is the justice in that? Arbitration creates an alternate system of justice. What is the old adage? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Please vote no tonight. Do not pave that road. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Livia. Both Coble and as best comes up to call the next five brief like off John Stovall, Joe Bachus. David McLane. Mike Copp.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President, members of council. Great to be here tonight. My name is Boz Coble, president of Copeland Company. My father, Stan, founded the company in 1952, and we're considered the longest continually operating real estate community development company in the state. In 1958, we started our flagship community, which is Pinehurst Country Club, the largest at the time master planned golf course community in the city limits of Denver. We always prided ourselves on being pioneers. In 1970, four years after the condominium law was passed, he started building condos along the golf course at Pinehurst, built 140 condos over the next seven or eight years. But since then, we have been sued with no opportunity to try and fix. And as such, we will build no more condos under the current environment. Also, as co-chair of the T-Rex Election Finance Committee in the Speaker's bureau, we marched all over the metro area telling people that the light rail would create market driven smart growth and higher density mixed use at the transit stops. That was a precursor to fast tracked. The tragedy now is there's about $7 billion of light rail construction and 52 stops where I don't think there's any condos for sale that are planned on the books. We think that's that's a bad, bad thing for Denver. Our company is very concerned about affordable housing. We will deliver 400 over the last four years, 400 affordable housing units in in the in the Denver metro area, the largest in the state that a private company delivering. Every one of those is rental. None of them are for sale. Three of them are at transit stops. All of them are our rentals. We're not interested in building condos. What you'll hear from the opponent, the opponents is, first of all, it kind of bothers me when the premise is all builders are bad. Those of us that are local and work hard, we take pride in what we do and we try and correct our problems because they do happen occasionally. They also say this is simply there's just simply no demand. I don't think you can prove a negative. But I'll tell you the flip side of reality. I've already told you we will not build condos even in the two or three or four transit stops that we're currently involved with. So I think I think what you've heard tonight and what I'll say to you, listen to what the proponents have had to say. The last gentleman made some great comments. The fireman story has happened many, many times and has adversely affected people who owned condos and were had tainted title by virtue of the fact that there was a lawsuit that had been filed. So I ask the city of Denver tonight to join Lakewood, Aurora, Commerce City and the others to send a message across the way that this is a problem that is in need of a solution. I greatly appreciate Mayor Hancock, David Broadwell and the rest of the team for doing what they've done to move this along. And I strongly urge you to support this effort tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. Bruce Lakoff. Thank you. Members of council. I'm. My name is Bruce Lycos, and I've been a resident of Denver for 40 years. I strongly urge you to pass this bill. Really? Take a look at who the burden of our housing crisis falls on today. Frankly, it falls on young folks. You know, we call them millennials. They're not all millennials, but they're looking for their first opportunity to buy a house. It falls on empty nesters, frankly, folks like me. I'm really tired of raking leaves. I was raking him this past week and I'll be raking them again. And we have virtually no empty nester housing in Denver. And the alternative for folks who are empty nesters otherwise, frankly, has Arizona, Florida and empty nesters are an incredibly valuable commodity for our community. In addition to their experience, they pay a lot of taxes and they demand very little in services, particularly in the schools. It also falls particularly heavy on members of our society in our city of color. Getting housing is the very best chance to get your foot on the ladder of wealth building that we have in this country, thanks to Congress. But those are the policies and we don't have that opportunity in our city. And frankly, it's also falling on our merchants and restaurants and the like, because with the incredible increase in apartment rents, we have loads and loads of people paying way more than the recommended 30% of income on housing. That means less dollars available for restaurants, merchants, cultural facilities and the like. I mean, the money's, you know, coming out of somebody's pocket. The other thing I would point out is that Denver isn't a competition. Our friendly neighbors to the east and west, both of whom are in light rail lines, have already adopted these ordinances. And one thing I can tell you, because I've represented developers for most of those 40 years, is they're pretty smart people in figuring out opportunities. And so if they're looking at sites, for example, on the west side of Sheridan Boulevard and the east side of Sheridan Boulevard, and the primary difference is that on the west side of Sheridan Boulevard, their risk of getting sued and losing millions is a lot less. They're pretty smart. They're going to figure that one out quickly. The other thing I'd like to mention is a few things you heard tonight that probably need a little clarification. You heard earlier that there has been a substantial increase in applications for permits for multi-family housing. What you didn't hear is that those are virtually all townhomes, not condos. Townhomes are lovely. It's part of our mix. We need it, but they're not very dense and they're not going to house very many people. You also heard that Lakewood passed an ordinance and they haven't had any condos built yet, which may be true. But I can also tell you from personal experience that developers are at least talking to Lakewood about projects. I can't promise any of those will happen or when they'll happen. But if you don't open the door for developers, nobody will even be talking to Denver. And the last thing that I want to comment on is we heard a few minutes ago that under the current system, developers can select arbitrators with a suggestion that they would automatically be unfair arbitrators. Well, the ordinance you have in front of you tonight would require that any arbitrators be third party impartial neutrals, which is actually a very protective approach for consumers. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, John Stovall.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, council members, thank you for taking time to to listen to some opinions tonight. I'm a real estate broker, have been in Colorado for 42 years, a realtor for most of those years. I actually succeeded in retiring from that. Now I'm a resident in a high rise condominium in the tech center area, 266 units. In fact, Miss Livia is the president of our association and I am the Treasurer. Our building is one that definitely was impacted by construction defects and not just a few windows on one side, but every unit in our building had construction defect repairs that were needed in the unit. So it is something that is of serious interest. And basically the the problem of affordable housing is a totally separate problem. It is a problem that needs some solution. But this isn't it. This isn't what's going to make that happen. This bill seriously erodes a basic right of our citizens, and that is to take their grievances to court. It made a big difference in our situation. Just let me mention a couple of things that were in our original declarations, which, under this ordinance would become extremely difficult to alter. Our original documents required that we had to have permission from the developer to sue the developer. Not likely. Oh. And as long as they had one unit in the property, they had absolute veto. They just say no. And that, by the way, would apply to arbitration as well as it would to litigation. Even with the developer's permission, it would have required 80% vote of the owners. Mandatory arbitration was required, but they specified that they got to pick the arbitrator. With 42 years in real estate. I've seen arbitrations and I know they can be excellent and I know they can be harmful because the arbitrators go one way or another at times. Oh, under the declarations, Discovery was virtually ruled out until we were already into a legal action, and then only with the permission of the arbitrator, we would not have found a number of the serious problems in our building, or at least not the cause for them. Had we not had access through discovery to company records from the developer and the builder. Again, this related to windows leaking. Windows were installed so that the manufacturer canceled the warranties for every window.
Speaker 1: Mr. Sobel, your 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Please don't pass this ordnance.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Joe Rogers.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you. The council president, Herman Herndon and honorable council members. My name is Joe Lasseter's. My address is 1430 Larimer Square, Suite 200 and Denver. I'm the chairman of the downtown Denver Partnerships Management Group. I'm here tonight representing nearly 750 downtown business members, over 400 commercial property owners, and 120,000 employees, and the largest business district in the Rocky Mountain region. I'm also here as a developer, which I'll talk about in a minute. Last month, the downtown Denver, Inc board of directors unanimously voted to support Council Bill 811. We believe that diversity of housing options and price points in our center city is essential for sustaining this vibrant 24 seven world class downtown and council. Bill 811 will help us achieve this goal. In 2007, the Downtown Denver Partnership and the city and county of Denver created the downtown area plan. This plan was the guiding vision for the next 20 years of downtown Denver and set a goal of adding 18,000 new housing units. Where are we with this? Well, in 2007, 112 rental units were constructed and 874 sale units. Now, let's flash forward to 2012. 709 rental units versus zero four sale units. And finally, so far in 2015, 1777 multifamily units have been constructed and 59 condominium units have been built. So with all due respect to, you know, previous people who provided testimony tonight, we have a problem and it is a Colorado problem. And I understand that that this this bill may not be everybody's perfect solution for this, but we have a problem. And I'd really like to see the council provide some leadership with this. Yes, we wish it could be solved at the state house, but we really need some leadership. I'll tell you, as a developer, I can't develop condominiums. The first question my insurance company asks me is Have you developed multifamily residential housing for sale in the past ten years? Are you planning on developing if I answer yes to those questions? They are not interested in providing insurance to me. So it's just simply off the books. My banker wants to know the same thing. And not only will a banker not provide financing for these projects, my banker would would see me doing those kinds of projects are putting me at risk. So I think it's really important that we provide some leadership tonight. I really hope that you vote in favor of House Bill 811. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next, we have David McLean.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is David McClain. I'm an attorney in Denver, a resident of District four, and I represent homebuilders. And I am here tonight to talk a little bit about what I've heard from some of the folks that have spoken in favor and against the proposed bill. First, with respect to Mr. Nash talked about the problem with the existing state law, and I did want to touch on that because there's a component of Bill 811 that fixes that problem and that problem. If you look at the restriction or how building codes can and can't be used in construction defect litigation. Section ten 202 looks a lot like part of the Construction Defect Action Reform Act, and it comes from the Colorado Statutes 1320 804 which is a restriction on negligence claims under sadara for alleged construction defects, saying that you can't have a negligence claim for a technical code violation unless that causes damage to real or personal property or a threat to health or safety. And the issue with Colorado law is that when that restriction was put into the law in the early 2000s, it was effective. And it was effective because at that time, builders were still able to disclaim implied warranties, implied warranties of the claims that get asserted in these cases that are have been likened by the appellate courts to strict liability for construction defect claims. In 2007, the plaintiff's bar passed or had the legislature pass the Homeowner Protection Act. So as of 2007, builders can no longer disclaim implied warranties, causing there to be a strict liability standard for construction throughout the state. So where the legislature originally had a right in including a restriction on negligence claims it didn't go far enough and that it didn't affect other claims. This ordinance does. And this ordinance kind of writes the where the legislature left off in the early 2000s in Sadara and later in the Homeowner Protection Act and I think puts construction defects back where it should be, that technical code violations should be a construction defect and should be actionable in situations where it impacts the performance of the House, causes a loss of use, causes property damage, or a threat to life or safety. A few other points informed consent. There's been some talk that that 51% is too high a threshold. And I just want to speak to that and say that on a firsthand basis. I've been involved in situations where homeowners associations have overcome that and have moved forward with an action. And then finally, with respect to the idea that there's a right to a jury trial, I just want to dispel that and say that that's not true.
Speaker 1: Mr. McClain, you're 3 minutes is up.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Please support.
Speaker 1: The bill. Next, we have Mike Cup. And after that last speaker, George Krueger. So you can come up as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the council. My name is Mike Capone, the executive director of an organization called Colorado Concern. Colorado Concern is an A and an organization made of 120 plus CEOs across the state. Our main interests are economic in nature, so therefore we care about a vibrant economic outlook for the state of Colorado, which means principally, of course, jobs. And we are seeing more jobs come to the state. But as it relates to the conversation tonight, of course, new job seekers need a place to live. When you step back and you look at the fact that really it is incumbent upon policymakers, in my opinion, to set policy that will encourage things that are so fundamental to be an American, like the ability to get into a home. So my first point really has to do with availability. Policymakers can make all kinds of policy choices that do make it more difficult to access affordable housing. There's no question about this. Policymakers do it all the time on a range of issues. So for some to suggest that the decision that you make as it relates to construction defects won't have any impact on the availability of housing, I think has is demonstrably true. In fact, what we're seeing here in the Denver market, in the Colorado market, I believe, is you're seeing upward pressure being applied on housing specifically because of the policy that that we have in place now. I think the bill that you have before you is a good one. I thank you for taking it up and I thank you for putting up with a lot of folks to come out on a snowy night to talk about this. Secondly. In the last few seconds that I've got here, I'd like to speak to the issue of accountability. It's been suggested that really there are no other provisions wherein a homeowner could have problems fixed outside of litigation. And I would just I would just ask you to think about that statement or that very idea for a moment. How many times in your daily lives do you need litigation to solve problems? There are other mechanisms in place in daily life that work, common sense solutions that work, that help people get through problems quickly. You've got a good solution in this bill. Ask for your support.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And last, Speaker George Krueger.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Good evening, counsel, and thank you for letting me speak. My name is George Krueger. I live on Capitol Hill. I want to make a couple comments here from the bill that's actually come starting in Section ten, does 202 under see says the building codes adopted in Article two of this Chapter ten are intent to establish a minimum standard for safe and sound construction in Denver. And that same thing, if you go up to a in a violation of any building code as adopted in Article two of this Chapter ten, or a failure to substantially comply with any such code shall not create a private cause for action, a violation of any building code as adopted in Article two of this chapter, or a failure to substantially comply with any such code may not be used to support or approve any construction defect claim, regardless of the statutory or common law theory under which the claim is asserted, except for actual damages or possibility damages to life and limb. This does not address any loss of value in the property or any insurability. I understand this bill is brought forward to promote condo development and I can understand that we need a bunch of different solutions for people that are looking for housing. But if the developers no excuse to bust Caldwell there cannot ensure that they and their subcontractors can meet or exceed the building codes. Maybe they shouldn't be built working in Denver anymore. I would have to agree with Mr. Sekou Adam Maldonado and Ashley Douglas that if you want to build the condos, do it right. Because obviously all this litigation over the past few years and the fact that you cannot get your development's insured because of past defects, obviously is going to have to take a while to overturn again. Thank you very.
Speaker 0: Much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. We got to everyone just in about an hour. Thank you all for that. It is now time for questions. And once again, colleagues, let's make sure we focus on questions and we'll have comments afterwards. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I've got several questions. And if other people well, we we have a list here of people waiting. So let me just first ask our city attorney in the drafting of this and the dialog with different parties, were insurance companies part of the folks that were talked to? And did they if so, did they believe that this language would make any change in their reduction of costs of insurance on for sale units or condos?
Speaker 10: The answer is yes. Among the many people we talked to and and pick their brains were representatives of the insurance industry who basically explained to us kind of the reality of a kind of a chicken and egg problem you've got here, where the problem with the lack of availability and affordability of insurance is driven by claims history in the past under prior law, and it reaches a certain critical mass where certain insurance underwriters choose to leave the market, are priced their products at a very high level. The problem, as we talked about it in committee, is that there has to almost be a new paradigm established on the ground where you've got new construction occurring , where condos would again resume to be built. And then you'd have to see what the new claims history is related to them and how these laws play out over time in terms of whether or not it's going to have an effect on the overall availability and price of their products there. To get to this specific thing, I think you're asking. No, there is no definite answer that this bill solves the problem in terms of the lack of availability or affordability of insurance. This bill, the feedback we get in the way we've gotten is may help, may help, but no absolute assurance that it's a silver bullet. And as some of the speakers acknowledged, it probably has to be a combination of some local action as well as state action over time. So there is no definitive answer to that in terms of saying that this this will solve the issue and cause the floodgates to open in terms of new construction from their perspective.
Speaker 5: So another question, in looking at the drafting of the language, did the issue of trained workforce come up as part of the sort of the big picture equation because. I think that plays a big role. There's so much construction going on in this city that we've had. People reach out to my office where there are builders on a particular project that are being bringing people in from other countries who aren't necessarily the skilled workers that are needed. And, you know, I don't know whether that plays a huge role in whether those folks know exactly what they're doing, that they can read the plans that , you know, they've got the math skills to measure things adequately, etc., etc.. So did that come up at all in the conversations?
Speaker 10: The availability of trained workforce was never mentioned to us by anybody as part of the problem. There is obviously substantial workforces out there building things. A lot of things are getting built. They just don't happen to be condos. But but no. It really has been a part of the conversation to date or anything. We've heard from anybody as being part part of the explanation for why there may be a lack of condo construction.
Speaker 5: David, one other question about the role of our inspectors. So I don't know today if our inspectors are cross-trained to be able to go out and inspect roofing and, you know, or if we have specific trained skills for the different sectors of the construction industry so that when they are doing the inspections, they're not all cross-trained and just know a little bit about each category versus people who are experts in their in their own field. And I'm just so so that's one question. What are what is the level of of our inspectors? And then tied to that is if we're not doing adequate inspections and we're approving work that is found to be not correctly constructed. What is our liability?
Speaker 7: So Sky Stewart Mayors Office, I'll start with the beginning of that and happy to get you more specific information. Our inspectors over the last number of years have had the ability to be cross-trained. I can't tell you on the ground if everyone is out there doing various inspections. We do have a system set up where they could do that. But our inspectors are professionals who are trained and certify work to be code compliant. So I can't say that I believe that there's a case out there where somebody's a certifying work that is not code compliant. It's their job to certify that work as code compliant or two sided if it's not and have that work corrected. As far as liability, I'm going to turn that over to David.
Speaker 10: The the liability issue from our perspective. On any regulatory matter, governments enjoy a high degree of governmental immunity in terms of our we pass laws, we do inspections, we do the best we can. But given the color of Governmental Immunity, Act explicitly says that failure to adequately inspect is not a cause of action for a claim against the government itself. That's why all of this is fought out between the private parties versus the homebuyers and the home builders and the design professionals and so forth. You know, obviously, even though that's the pat answer from a liability standpoint, the city strives to take seriously the laws that pass passes and staff up and do adequate inspections . But certainly some of the stories that are told by folks who've had claim situations in the past have to do with potentially a failure by both in both the construction site and the inspection side. Those things in the imperfect world we live in obviously happen at some time and on some occasions and are actionable when they do , but they don't tend to be actionable back against the government for failure to adequately inspect. One of the things that you all of which have provided budgetary support for. We are trying to staff up more. Our building inspections office overall because of the sheer level of activity in town. And we're probably going to be approaching record levels in terms of the commitment of resources to that. But but yes, it is definitely imperfect, but when it is, the claims tend to be fought out between the private parties.
Speaker 5: Mr. President, you want to just put me at the end because I do have other questions and I know my colleagues do as well.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Councilman, new.
Speaker 13: Question, dave broadwell as well. David, i heard concerns tonight about problems, defects that are related to violation of the building code or the manufacturer's recommendations or just really a general lack of quality workmanship. You know, there's nothing in our ordinance that prevents an actionable action against the correction of any of that. In our audience at all, is that correct?
Speaker 10: Yeah, that that's correct. And I try to emphasize that point in my introductory remarks. There are basic avenues to redress where you where you have a defect resulting from a CO deficiency or for some other reason, where you have a defect that causes damage and is traceable to negligence or traceable to some fraudulent misrepresentation by the builder or the seller of the unit. Though those statutory causes of action remain fully actionable, notwithstanding anything in this ordinance. So, you know, and I would say as your attorney, we we we couldn't give any different answer than that. The city doesn't have to have the ability to take away the basic redress that plaintiffs are guaranteed under state law.
Speaker 13: And so the state law applies. We have minimized any any protection from the homeowner by state law.
Speaker 10: In my opinion, this ordinance does not.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: And Ashley Douglas. I don't know if you want to come up, but when you came up, you mentioned three specific situations an unstable patio, inadequately rated firewalls and improper grading. I don't know the specifics on the unstable patio, but I can tell you that inadequately rated firewalls is a code defect, meaning is a code non code compliant situation. Now, does our new ordinance, as I understand it, prevent that from happening? No. Does it make it against the law? Technically it already is because it's non-compliant. And so the time to address that is during the construction when that's spotted, because you're not going to spot it after the fact. Now, you could spot that, something like that after the fact, but then it's still not defective because you don't know until you have an incident whether it's going to breach or fail or whatnot. You may have a reasonable reason to fear, and that's one of these sort of caveats that you guys can litigate later. But an improper grading is a code, is noncompliant is a code. So there's certain things that if you have water intrusion from, you know, you have the loss, this law protects you. You know, that's that's the whole point. So I guess I won't ask the specifics on the unstable patio. It's just that it's not you cite these instances that are that are definite issues that you know and have ramifications. But if there's a loss, this law protects you. You know, it's not those were not code compliant installations. So the combination of both the non-compliant installation or workmanship and the loss would make you want to put you in the avenue for recovery in. So, yes. Now you get into the other aspects of this. But, Councilman.
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure you have a question. I'm just watching the minutes tick away, and I haven't heard a question yet, so I.
Speaker 4: Haven't gotten to speak all night.
Speaker 1: I know we're still in a good time.
Speaker 4: All right, then. No, I do have a question for both Pat Pacey and Mary, Latvia. So, yeah, I just but it's worth pointing because these things come across and they sound like they're they're they're issues, but they're not issues. So for Pat Pacey, the 22% for sale multifamily is that what is the breakdown of townhouses versus condos not present? Okay. That is a question I've asked and I would really like it answered.
Speaker 1: Not here. She's not here. She is not here.
Speaker 4: Mary, Latvia. Lithuania, Latvia. You had stated that rental owners can sue, but condo owners cannot.
Speaker 7: No, I didn't say rental. Well, yes, the developer can sue for construction defects in his rental property, and I cited the two buildings side by side.
Speaker 3: But the condo owners under this law.
Speaker 7: Have to go through arbitration. They don't have access to the courts. And how the developer rights that arbitration clause is can be very controlling and make it extremely difficult for the owners to to win an arbitration. Whereas under if they go to court under the existing laws, they have discovery, they have many more means available to them
Speaker 3: . How are how how are homeowners, especially in affordable.
Speaker 7: Housing, going to pay for all of this?
Speaker 4: Would arbitration have prevented you from finding resolution on the matters that were present in your property?
Speaker 7: Yeah, because through arbitration we wouldn't we were not allowed discovery in. It's in discovery. We found the emails from the architect and the window manufacturer outlining everything they were doing wrong and what.
Speaker 3: The developer did. He fired the architect.
Speaker 4: But that wasn't that couldn't be discovered forensically.
Speaker 7: If the developer chooses to write in the arbitration clause that discovery is not allowed, we will be bound by that. And he can do that through David.
Speaker 10: We repeat that nothing about this ordinance stipulates any particular format for arbitration. The principle of the ordinance is to say when people have bought into a community where arbitration is in the covenants, the city law supports the viability of that contract. Right now, the we've we've built in specific things to say, but city law supports arbitration clauses with some prophylactic claims, we say, but only if they have a neutral arbitrator who has to give full disclosure that follows the substantive law of construction defect claims and happens in Denver, Colorado. So so we've we've said we honor and support and reinforce those covenant clauses if they have that minimum level of protection. We don't talk about discovery. We don't talk about any other details in terms of what would have to be in the covenants for Denver law to reinforce and support it. So there may be a myriad of things that might be in the covenants that are that aren't addressed in our audience at all. But again, the basic principle is to say that if it's part of what you bought into and it's in it's hard wired in there, it can't be taken away later. Those are the terms and conditions under which claims in your community will be arbitrated.
Speaker 4: So I mean, that seems it seems sort of you know, you can't if I'm understanding you, right, David? Again, this goes back to the first part of this law. So basically, if if this if this if this non discovery component was there and they purchased under with those in place, at least they knew about that. And that's that's neither here nor there, in my understanding that that's I mean, it's certainly within their right. But it's the buyers. It's it's the buyer. It's it's in that contracting process that they are both made aware and assuming that that covenant or clause.
Speaker 10: That that's the principle underlying the ordinance said that that is correct. Now, let me just point out that and there's also a cross-reference to the uniform arbitration law, the Colorado State Statute, which does contemplate describe discovery and arbitration proceedings. Right. The witness is giving an example of where it was taken out in the arbitration clause in her particular covenants. But I'm as I'm saying, it's not inevitably that way. There may be discovery. There may not. It just depends upon the details of the particular covenants.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 3: And what developer wouldn't write that into his declaration in order.
Speaker 7: To protect himself seriously?
Speaker 4: Now, you know, but again, then you have to, as a buyer, have to choose.
Speaker 7: To be where. And you're talking about affordable housing. How many people read those documents and understand everything? So once again, the onus is put on the owner and I'm sorry, I why not build it right? Why not just.
Speaker 4: Build? And that's actually where I'm that's where I'm actually going, which is what is build it. Right? Is it is that code compliant or not.
Speaker 7: Build it right is to take extra time to ensure that when you mix the concrete it's not over mixed and.
Speaker 4: It to to meet code or meet some higher standard than code to me.
Speaker 7: Code. Well, to meet code because.
Speaker 4: That's all this law is saying is our expectations.
Speaker 3: For this meeting. I mean, you know, our windows met code, but no, they didn't.
Speaker 4: And we've now reviewed that.
Speaker 7: And so at the time our building was built, it was code. It was code. And then when the developer was warned, he not only fired the architect, he he, the window manufacturer, wouldn't provide a warranty. And we never knew about that until we got to discovery.
Speaker 3: Right. So, you know, I mean, we're pro-development.
Speaker 7: We're not anti-development. But I don't my my cost alone would have been $24,000. You go to affordable housing and you say to somebody, you need to come up with five grand to file this claim and then maybe they'll win something. But then you need to come up with 10,000 more to make up the difference. How many people in affordable housing are going to have an extra $15,000 laying around? So what happens? A third of them can't do it. The other two thirds have to pick up the slack. It they can't do it. First thing they do, they cut back on maintenance on the floor.
Speaker 4: Figure out a way to sort of not get into this sort of endless spiral of litigation.
Speaker 7: Yes, it goes on. So it was built right to begin with. If they would just.
Speaker 4: Write code compliant?
Speaker 7: Not necessarily. I don't think so. But how do you prove it? You know how we would approved. Ah, we had to inspect every window. They weren't. There was no thermal brake. Do you know how much money that cost to inspect a thousand windows?
Speaker 2: So it was.
Speaker 1: Speaking in the spiral. Councilman Espinosa, I just we appreciate the dialog between the two of you, but I think there's a back and forth versus do you have any more questions for Mr. Villa or for anyone else currently answering?
Speaker 4: Ms.. Livia and I thought I had one more for David, actually. Go ahead. I missed it. If it's in there, the the American Arbitration Association, is there is there a reason why we don't why we put why we put the arbitration language in a way that I mean, why we don't actually just say that it has to go through an independent third party rather than sort of let the two parties work it out.
Speaker 10: Well, there is the reference to the fact that the Denver law supports only the use of neutral arbitrators. But but if you're asking, you know, why the ordinance doesn't list a particular organization, for example, to provide the arbitration services. And in general, my recommendation as a city law, I shouldn't do that. Contracts, yes. And contract drafting. The parties may agree this is the place will go to get the arbitrators to use in the event that there's a dispute under the contract. But generally, my view is it's not proper in a law to name a particular private organization to provide a particular service. But but the concept of using a neutral arbitrator who must make full disclosure and if he's later found to have a conflict, can be basis for reversal of his award. Right. Those those key principles are built into the ordinance.
Speaker 4: I mean, we do review the code on a regular basis, as there may be an avenue there to sort of address that in a more fluid manner.
Speaker 10: Which code would that be?
Speaker 4: The building code, the one that basically this then rolls into as a standard.
Speaker 10: Of you, Bill, you will be reviewing all the all the that the new code adoptions early next year and there may be some additional part of this discussion you want to have at that time.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to be clear on that last line of conversation, I just wanted to be clear. Mr. Brouwer, also in this process, just to be clear, who selects the arbitrator? Is it the developer alone? Do they set the rules or is it is it both parties?
Speaker 10: This ordinance doesn't dictate who selects the arbitrator. That, again, would be one of the myriad details that would be addressed in the covenants, the covenants. We'll talk about all kinds of details related to the arbitration process that aren't dictated by this ordinance. Again, the principle is if it was buyer beware and someone bought into a community that had an arbitration clause that we intend to support that as the contractual commitment made by the parties, whatever the details may be. So in science, in some in some examples, maybe in most examples, the neutral arbitrator will be selected by the defendant or by the by the builder. But you just don't know. It depends upon the details of the covenants in question.
Speaker 11: Would we have the right to dictate those terms, as in the audience that the arbitrator selected by both parties?
Speaker 10: Well, there's an enumerated list that I've summarized just a moment ago of. At. At Page nine of the bill that does what I described a moment ago that says the city supports the inviolability of these arbitration clauses as long as they contain these basic elements. If you wanted to add a longer list of things, the covenants would have to include to have the support of city law. Then that's where it would be. This represents some of the key concerns we've heard and also reflects a little bit Senate Bill 177, which passed the Senate earlier this year in terms of just not any arbitration clause, these basic elements of fairness. But we don't attempt to start getting into further micromanagement of the process beyond the elements you see listed here on page nine.
Speaker 11: Okay. And one final question, Mr. President. This is something that I you know, in looking at I mean, what I need to do in this committee work on the floor. But, you know, when when I was looking at the different things that were changing, one of the things that really stuck out was, I think this the notification and the idea that 51% of the tenants or owners would they would be the decision maker. They'd have to have 51% of those owners or tenants. Right. To decide whether to pursue any kind of legal remedies or not. Here's that here's the question I have. I know. Mr. Braswell, maybe you can you can help me think through this real quick or just like. Yes, the question I have is that 51% of what is it, 51% of all of the owners slash tenants? And there's a second part to my question. What if not everybody, what if not all of those tenants respond? Does that count against the 51%?
Speaker 10: The way the ordinance has drafted the consent would have to come from a majority of the unit owners. Tenants have nothing to do with their agreement. So these are the unit owners, not counting any units that are still in the ownership of the original declarant. So it's intended to be fair. Those have actually passed into private hands. You'd have to have majority consent of those folks. Now, one of the things I had a colloquy with one of your colleagues on on this key point, one thing that is more favorable to the homeowners associations in our proposal is this idea that you can take as much time as you want getting those sign offs and approvals from that number. There's no 30 day deadline. There's no 60 day deadline as there is in some of the other proposals we've heard that some of the other ordinances we've seen out there. So it's open ended in terms of how long it might take. But you affirmatively need written signoff from that majority in order to meet that threshold and go forward with a claim.
Speaker 11: Is there any kind of stipulation that goes beyond that or does it does it are we are we? I guess what I'm running into in my mind is the situation where not everybody who is a party to it or those unit owners actually responds that say the majority of them just don't respond. And you can't force somebody to say, Yeah, I want to participate. You've got my consent or not. Does that count against you?
Speaker 10: That's right. The non-response is tantamount to a no vote when a law is written like this. And there are other examples of laws that are written like this where you had to have to achieve a certain target percentage in order to go forward with fill in the blank. And that has to be manifested by written consent in a variety of contexts and other kinds of laws.
Speaker 11: Okay. And I guess and I'm sorry for having to go down this route. I just want to be clear. If there are multiple owners, let's say there are two owners per unit, it's those both of those owners individually as well.
Speaker 10: It depends upon how their ownership interest is characterized. But again, the denominator in the numerator are units. So you have so you have to have a certain number of the ownership of a certain number of units can consent. Right. And in some cases, depending upon if there's joint or mutual ownership, it may be both of them or and maybe one of them that would have to give that consent, depending upon how it's set up.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Mr.. Mr. President, I know that there are other folks that are in the queue. I think my, my, my concern is the lack of participation probably by some folks. They just don't want to respond. And I think what that does is that. Makes it even harder for someone to get that consent. And anyway, I'll bring I'll bring that up later. I do have issue with that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Catherine.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. David. My understanding that the ordinance that we're proposing does not talk about right to repair. Is that correct? The state law does, however, does it not.
Speaker 10: That our ordinance, unlike most of the other municipal ordinances that have been adopted, does not address right to repair at all? We have there are a number of reasons, both policy and legal, that the mayor chose to not try to tackle that issue. But but to respond to the latter point of your comment. Not right to repair, but opportunity to repair is written into SADARA the Code of Construction Defect Action Action Reform Act in the sense that the very detailed like cookbook type procedures that define the notice of claim process under that statute. And at one point in that process, the builder can offer to repair, but the homeowners association is not compelled to to accept it or to allow the original builder back into the project to do the repairs. So there's a definite procedure for offering, but no obligation that the offer has to be accepted on the other side. Some of the other municipal ordinance ordinances that have tackled this subject kind of flip it a little bit from the standpoint of giving the builder the opportunity to offer and require, and the homeowners association would be required to allow them back in. But one of the main policy reasons this wasn't included, as we know, this is a very incendiary issue among the homeowners associations who, if they feel aggrieved at the defects that they believe were caused by the original builder, they may not necessarily want to deal with the original builder in terms of being forced by a law to require the original builder to come back in. So we knew it was very controversial from the homeowners perspective. But but also, as I said at the top, we're trying to stay away from altering or conflicting with any of the details in the notice of claim process and the state statute itself in terms of the the philosophical approach we're taking in our ordinance. But but it's an often asked question because everybody kind of knows that it's a part of the mix of the debate out there. That right to repair is seen by some as being kind of a key to all of this. But we just don't go there in our proposal.
Speaker 6: Thank you. One more question, which I was going to ask you, Mr. Coble, if he's left of any of you out there who are hoping that we pass this ordinance. I'm wondering if it passes, what specifically in this bill would cause you to go ahead and start building condominiums? Anybody out there?
Speaker 4: Please come to the.
Speaker 1: Bike and come to Michael.
Speaker 6: Thank you. The rest of you are cowards.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. I guess.
Speaker 1: You say your name for the record again?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Aaron Foy was full of our builders, and. And I think by mine, the one thing that. That sticks in my mind.
Speaker 2: Is this majority vote.
Speaker 4: Before I became a homebuilder, I was an attorney for ten years and and did some defense of home homeowner cases against builders. And. And in my mind, if there's something wrong, it should.
Speaker 2: Get.
Speaker 4: Fixed. The issue is that relatively minor problems turn into major lawsuits, and issues that could get fixed are not allowed to be fixed. And I think having.
Speaker 2: A majority vote of all members of the association really.
Speaker 4: Slows down the process so that someone can come in and fix it. And in my mind, that helps us tremendously. And as I said earlier, we've got investors and.
Speaker 2: Banks who are scared to death of this.
Speaker 4: Stuff. And anything that we can give them to make them feel more comfortable helps us.
Speaker 6: Sure. And the other question again, anybody. If it's you, what what I'm wondering about so it's I guess everybody's guess that if this passes tomorrow, insurance rates don't drop. They may down the line. My guess is by the time they drop that the economy will have changed and will be tough to figure out why they dropped so today. So you're going to build a $200,000 condo with the higher insurance rates. What's the price of that condo? Is it 230? Is it 410? I mean, I'm trying to get an idea of what the scope is. I think.
Speaker 11: I think this helps in a few.
Speaker 4: Ways.
Speaker 2: One is is.
Speaker 4: As I said earlier, we're building a three story, you know, buildings in five story zoning. If we're able to build five story buildings or can convince investors that it makes sense to do that, we get more density. The relative cost of our land purchase goes down as well. We will still have to pay our insurance and it does increase the cost of building. But it's not that 200 to 410. It's these other things like land cost. It's things like like who we need to get money from. I can't go to a bank and get a get a 4%, four and a half percent construction loan. I need to go to two groups that are a little more risk. You're willing to take the risk, but they charge us more for their money. So all of that adds up and and makes it difficult to build that $200,000 or $230,000 condo. But if we're able to convince those groups that the risk isn't that great and these types of ordinance help us do that, then we're able to to get to that sort of price point.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman and Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Is John Stovall still here? John. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry I didn't recognize you, and I put you on a spot. Maybe you have the silver bullet. Because I think you said that you recognize that there is a need for some changes. I was wondering if you knew what they were. Oh, despite all of my glorious experience. No, ma'am, I do have it. Do you have any suggestion for changes that ought to be made in terms that aren't in this bill, in terms of affordable housing or accessible housing, whatever you want to call it? Probably the only answer in our current kind of market, which is so hot, is indeed public support to the builders, meaning subsidy, a subsidy of some sort to the builder to to get that 300,000 down to to 75 or to 75 down to to 50. You know, it isn't. And the degree of that is a matter of the ability of a community to step up for that. There are a fair number of subsidized projects in the rental business, but we see almost none of it in the ownership business. Okay. Thank you, David. I had thought that I came out of the committee meeting on this a few weeks back with a pretty good understanding of the neutral arbitrator provision. But I'm hearing something different tonight. And so maybe it was my misunderstanding, but the selection of a neutral arbitrator is not actually spelled out here. It's spelled out in state statute. We just require them to follow the state law on. Arbitration. And what I thought I heard you say tonight was that A the developer itself could select a neutral arbitrator. Is that because in my mind, that's not a neutral arbitrator?
Speaker 10: Well well, there's got to be some sort of selection process. Right. And, yes, that's possible. But the. But the way neutral is defined in the Uniform Arbitration Act means no affiliation and no predisposition with with the developer. Right. So so that selection could occur. And I guess the premise of your question, they inevitably then they're prejudiced toward the person that selected them. But the definition of neutrality means they cannot have any any intrinsic business interest or relationship with whoever has selected.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Between tonight and next week on final. I would like I'm going to look at the state statute a little more and maybe I maybe I'll send you some more e-mails over the weekend or something.
Speaker 10: It's a fact, and I'll be happy to send you that. What I was just quoting and.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 10: That would be a lot easier than some of your other questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I'm sorry that Miss P.C. left because I wanted to follow up. She wasn't able to finish her her presentation on her economic study. But we I think it's been granted. And David, I think you said in your presentation that this isn't the only factor that is causing the lack of construction of for sale, multi-family units , condos. What are some of the other factors?
Speaker 10: She definitely would have been the best one to ask. And you may others in the room, may, may, may, may have some perspectives on this also. But you all have probably heard and this is addressed in her extensive study that they published in the last year, that after the recession and the foreclosure crisis, there were major changes in terms of qualification standards for for for financing, for home financing. And that changes the market dynamics right there in terms of who's able to to afford and get into any kind of for sale product, including condo products as well. I think we all know that. And I think one of the speakers alluded to this is that is that, you know, undoubtedly there are overall market forces that drive up the cost of everything because we're so cool and so many people want to live here. Right. And so there are basic land economics that make things more expensive in Denver that are beyond the insurance issue. Right. And that and that affects everything in terms of the affordability issue. But but others have commented on some some more some some tangential things about the the level of college debt now, which certainly didn't exist in our generation. And that causes people perhaps to delay their home purchase decisions until a later time. And so there's a lot of theories out there about what what changes there have been in market forces, such that the kind of very, very, very low cost condos that were so common back around 1980, for example, even if condo supply resumes, it may not tend to be at that really low price point because it's a different world now. Condo projects tended to spread out more, and now we're more into an infill mode in intrinsically expensive locations, in urban environments and so forth. So a lot a lot of factors like that. So what we're.
Speaker 2: Doing is we are we're just taking a bucket of water out of a bathtub or out of a larger vessel or out of an ocean. We don't really know.
Speaker 10: And again, others may want to to add to kind of my recollection of some of the other things that have some credibility in terms of affecting the issue to me.
Speaker 2: Okay. I don't really know because of the hour. I really do want to explore this fully because this is a this is a very serious issue. And there are well-meaning people on both sides. I just want to. Sure, I understand that. So I'm going to try to go quickly and maybe keep answers short. But I'm I'm a little concerned about one of the clauses on page seven. I'm sorry, page nine. No, it's seven. I'm sorry. B, paragraph B, majority consent of unit owners required. And what I read in here is it says that the written consent from owners other than the declarant of units to which at least a majority of the total votes are allocated. Does that mean that in the covenants and this is based on something you said earlier, can the builder require 80%? Can the builder require more than 50% plus one? Can the builder require a 100% consent before a claim can be pursued under this?
Speaker 10: This is an example of where the ordinance itself is dictating the threshold and it is 50%.
Speaker 2: Okay. So the builder and under our ordinance a builder in Denver cannot in a covenants require 60% or supermajority. If 50% plus one signed on, then they can file a claim.
Speaker 10: I confess I haven't thought of that question or the answer is at least that through about whether someone then would by covenant require some greater level, that this ordinance just doesn't address that at all. This ordinance says the the policy decision of the Denver City Council is that future claims and future common interest communities should be preceded by majority consent. That you're imposing that as a requirement of city law. Right. But it does it doesn't prohibit or dictate one way or the other whether some other arrangement might be made by way of covenants.
Speaker 2: Okay. So you're saying that it is possible or it is not for a builder to require more than that? I'm just thrown by the at least a majority because we're setting a threshold, but not a ceiling.
Speaker 10: I guess it's possible again, the first time I thought of that question.
Speaker 2: Okay. This was confusion by the name of by someone who said that a builder had required maybe 80%. At one time. I thought, well, we're taking care of that. But when I saw this, at least I thought maybe we're not. But our intent clearly is that if you hit 51%, then it's valid, not higher. Okay. That is our intent. Correct?
Speaker 10: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Our intent is Sky is saying yes. I'll accept that. I'm a little disappointed that that both sides in this issue pushed back on the right to repair. We've gone over that extensively already. So I don't want to re re plow that ground. But I am disappointed in it because I see the end game here as being taking care of a problem. And it seems we're doing everything we can to stand in the way of taking care of a problem as Jason perched on her.
Speaker 1: He just left.
Speaker 2: He just left. Oh, Lord. Okay. I wanted to ask him, is there another realtor here still who can answer a question and follow up on? He had said that he can't he couldn't sell that firefighter's condo B, because the the association had filed a lawsuit. And I wanted to know, could that have been different if the association were merely in arbitration because it's still a claim? Does that does arbitration affect the financial ability or sale ability of of the condo as opposed to being in litigation? And if you can answer that, could you come to the.
Speaker 1: Microphone and come to Mike from.
Speaker 2: In my experience, it does exactly to the same degree as litigation. Okay. They simply will not look at financing. I will also tell you that in our project, during the litigation process and in the two years subsequent, we have been selling and financing units and we helped people find sources of portfolio loans, not hard loans. Right. Yeah, because it only affects some of the financing, not all of them. And then finally, regarding David, what you and I went over this on email, but I just wanted to get it out on the record. But regarding the provision, require majority consent of all unit owners in a case where a construction defect impacts only a few of the buildings I have a development in my district, for example, has about 30 separate buildings and where you might have a say, 500 units. I don't know the exact number, but if there were a defect that affected only three of those buildings at the low end and there's a drainage problem doesn't affect 27 of the buildings. There's obviously not much of an incentive for the owners, as Councilman Lopez was getting at, to sign and intend to sue. And since we're codifying the finding of the Velasco case that if there's an arbitration clause, that's what you must use, you can't remove that. Is there any way that this could be fashioned so that it's we're trying to steer people to arbitrate, to get to get settlements faster? Is there any way that this could be could consider an avenue that if you go to arbitration, then the board can do it? You don't need 51%. Would that change anything? Because I'm concerned about the ability of people who have a genuine issue in one or two buildings to be able to get consent from from 30 other buildings.
Speaker 10: Certainly, it could have been written differently, but the mayor's proposal is very consciously designed to say the 51% is important, whether it's arbitration or litigation. And in fact, the last comment you just heard proves the point is that both going into either route for resolving a construction defect claim has serious implications for the entire community. And so and so it's consciously written this way. And and that's the proposal.
Speaker 2: Okay. Mr. President, I think that's all I have right now.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Flynn. We're back. The council members are taking Espinosa for round two. I just have one quick question about the majority, David or Sky, any up? Are there any requirements currently in state law that require a majority? Because it seems that some council members are alluding to the fact that that's a huge threshold. So I'm just curious, in current state law, are there any mandates now for a majority, a majority of owners?
Speaker 10: Well, the biggie is that in the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, to amend the original covenants requires at least 50% and up to 67% of unit owners to do an amendment to the covenants as basically a concept that's hardwired into the law. And it's the same thing where where you have to get you have to get to that number in order to achieve something very important. And and and, in fact, that's that's where a lot of the action has been in the courts and including some of the big reported decisions like the ISO is. That is where an owner has tried to put an arbitration provision in the original covenants. And once a number enough of the units are sold off, then folks rally to collect up enough votes to take out the original arbitration clause by hitting that number. Right. So, so, so that's the outstanding example in terms of where something like this already exists in the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act. But as I said earlier, there are lots of other kinds of laws that require you to hit a number 2 to 2, to take some significant economic action on behalf of a larger group.
Speaker 1: Great. Okay. Thank you. So this is that's not new. Thank you. I want to take you back up.
Speaker 5: I have two questions. And the first one is a point that was raised by Liberty Lewis about holes in the code. She used an example about solar panels. I received something in writing that raised questions about, you know, misrepresentation, that there are certain kinds of environmental things included in a in the unit they're buying, but yet they find out later that those things were not included. So how do we address these issues where there are holes in the code? So, David, can you speak to that?
Speaker 10: Yes. And hopefully I can say this briefly. I was listening very carefully to her comments as well. And let me just say that the language that talks about the code setting a minimum minimum standard for safe and sound construction, it's it's very it's very surgically written to to say what it says. Therefore, any particular element.
Speaker 6: Feature.
Speaker 10: Component or other detail of an improvement or real property that is specifically regulated under the city codes and is constructed are installed in substantial compliance with the codes shall not be considered defective. Now, think about what that doesn't say. If it's something about the construction that is not a detail that is specifically regulated under the codes, then people can bring to bear on whatever argument they want about what the safe and sound standard should have been for something that's not regulated under the code. You understand? What I'm saying is that for things that are a gap, that aren't addressed in the codes this language doesn't speak to at all. So you make your argument that that is not addressed in the code. And here is externally from an industry standard or whatever. What would have been the safer way to do it or the safest way to do it? If it's not addressed in the code, it's whatever creatively the plaintiff wants to argue about what the proper standard of care should have been. Right. So the point being, this ordinance doesn't address that situation. Plaintiffs are free to make their claims. But if what they're claiming about is a detail that is specifically regulated under the code and it's installed in accordance with the code, then the builder can use that as a defense and avoid not having to pay on that claim
Speaker 5: . Okay.
Speaker 10: Let me move on. The point is, this was written to acknowledge there are some things that aren't regulated under the code that the parties will continue to argue about.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 5: So my next question is, I'd like you to clarify that. My hope is that the focus is to try to cure the problem. And I'm not sure if. A person needs to go to arbitration in order to have a problem cured. So can you help clarify the the recourse or the route, if you will, or correcting a problem without having to, you know, file a claim, without having to, you know, go through a lengthy legal process.
Speaker 10: And the short answer to that is, is provided by sadara by per by the state statute, which talks about the back and forth initial sharing of information to see if the parties can can amicably agree to fix something before having to proceed to either arbitration or litigation. That interplay is addressed in state law, and it's not disturbed in any way by this ordinance one way or the other.
Speaker 5: Okay. I have no further questions at this time, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: David, is there language about the consequences of filing a claim that can be included as a provision under the required notice to the owners?
Speaker 10: Could you repeat the question?
Speaker 4: Is there language about about is there language about the consequences for filing a claim that can be included as a provision under the required notice to the owners. So the owners for filing. You know, to to go to the claim process. They are required to get notification 60 days prior. And we have a provision for you know, for. The provision is, where's that language? Now I lost it. The deck in the declaration. So there's a in the purchase agreement, we have a provision that has substantially, you know, takes the following form, and it's the actual language of what we expect to be articulated. But if there are these actual consequences to the potential that are that are potentially dangerous in the interim, in the claim process, can we make sure that that people that are voting on on whether or not to go to a claim are actually made aware of what that potentially does, how it might encumber their property in a way that prevents them from selling, prevents them from refinancing, prevents them through the duration of that process.
Speaker 10: Well, the contents of the notice that are enumerated on page six and seven of the bill, I think include the issue that you're address and councilman, particularly on page seven. Number six, number six, the one component of the notice would be until the claim defective construction work is repaired or replaced or until the construction defect claim has concluded, the market value of the affected units will be adversely affected and it's also addressed somewhat in Southern as well. So take a look at six and seven and see if they adequately encompass what you are concerned about.
Speaker 4: But when do those get put put in front of the the buyer, the owner? Where am I at?
Speaker 10: Right. This is a notice they have to receive before they they vote to give their assent. Okay. To to filing a claim.
Speaker 4: Sorry. Never mind. That answers the question.
Speaker 1: Okay. Good, Councilman.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Hey, Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 11: Mr. President, I think mine is more in line of a comment. All right, well, we will. We will.
Speaker 1: Get you. Go ahead and chime in. You'll be first to go. Any other questions? 811 CNN public hearing is now closed. Comments. Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to really explore that question. I know this is first reading and we wanted to have this on first reading so we can hear from folks and then try to iron out our issues or any other pending questions before the final vote. I my question remains this and I ran into it because we were trying to rename a street in West Denver and we were looking at as a lot of you know, we were successful in getting a majority of property owners along Morrison Road in favor of of changing it that says it's Chavez Boulevard. And although we got the majority over 64%, what the city required was 100% participation. So it was a no by an impossible yes. And having said that, we tried to track down every property owner we could and we couldn't find them. There were some folks we had to track down outside the country and we could never get their response. And because we could never get their response, we failed, even though we had 64% of the property owners along Morrison Road support it. So what I'm trying to figure out if that if that's similar and if that applies, that's skip the road and think about a, you know, a highrise with condos right now. Is that 51% requiring 100%, 100% participation in what happens if if some people just do not respond, whether they want to pursue, you know, move forward with the lawsuit or lawsuit or not or or remedies or not. And I don't have a problem with the 51% required. And my question is the 51% of what I and that is what's what's hanging fire for me. You know, having been a labor organizer for for seven years and I, I would I'm going to spill the beans here. I liked arbitration. Because I knew I knew that if as long as we played fair and as long as that arbitrator was neutral, being that, as long as we as long with the other party were okay with a neutral arbitrator. For the most part, we came out on top. As long as we played fair, as long as the the level the playing field was level and the rules were the same, those issues would be remedied. Now, I don't like seeing it tied up in courts. I don't like the idea of of somebody who is in a project or is in a set of units, has a unit that cannot sell it or refi because it's held up in court. That's ridiculous. I don't like that. Part of affordable housing is preventing folks from losing their homes and that's being able to utilize that capital to utilize whatever tools they can to stay above water. Our market fluctuates. Those of us who were council members during the recession, we saw that property values, I mean, not even as customers, but we all saw that our property property values tanked. And then now they're at all time highs. I don't want to hold this up for the sake of that that question. Here's what I will say. I am not in the spirit of 100%. I am not 100% all the way there unless I get those questions, unless I feel I know that that's not a yes by an impossible no. But I say that right now. I know by an impossible yes. So I am I'm okay with moving this forward. But I'm not 100% on my final vote. I'm not just saying that to build a suspense is because truly that is an issue for me. Knowing how hard it was to try to achieve that just on a street renaming in Denver where we had more than a simple majority. How hard will it be for unit owners to achieve that? And that 51% sure we're in the United States of America. That sounds great, right? Majority. All of us are elected 50% plus one. Right. But imagine if they set the bar and said, well, you had to have so much participation from your district. So that that's just words. I'm I'm mean. Yes. For tonight I'm a little I'm a I'd like to get to 100% by next time, but they don't want to see status quo.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: And this is a little bit of making the sausage, but I think that's really the entire point of this whole of this whole ordinance is that is that it has to be a higher threshold, a higher bar to to sort of obligate the entire property. And you really should have more than half of the owners involved in that decision, not just the minority share. And if you're not going to participate, yeah, you're a no vote until and but there's no time limit. They can keep going and keep going and keep going until they can get it, you know. And so that's really the intent here is that we don't get a firefighter sort of stuck in a situation where he's been encumbered by a handful of people that were on the board. But my actual back to the six and seven items I would like to see if it couldn't be put to me. It's not plain enough language back to the sort of who who's going to be reviewing this at the time it comes through. It says until the claim defective construction work is repaired or replace or until the construction defect claim is included concluded, the market value of the affected units will be adversely affected. It's really not a question. I guess it's comment to my colleagues, which is that that sort of implies that, okay, go fix the problem and now you can sell your unit. But no, the claim is the legal process and you're tied up until that's concluded, which could be settlement, it could be repair. And what is the conclusion? Angel You know, so I don't know if I got that, that language in a letter that informed me that this is something that the I mean, the the building is trying to do that you would know that you're actually encumbered. Yes. And item seven then sort of gets into, in addition, certain federal underwriting standards or regulations prevent refinancing or obtaining new loans on projects where construction defect is claimed. In addition, certain lenders as a matter of policy, they don't actually it sort of doesn't still doesn't get to the sort of way that we look at products, you know, when we go to the to the bank and ask for this that other clause. The other provision to me is very, very clear in how it delineates what the issue is that I think could could confuse somebody. And so where they think they might have an avenue to sort of correct and and move on if their if their building is tied up in an obligation. That said, I understand that the entire intent of the law is to not get to this point. So maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. I just leave the language as it is and hope that we never get there. But if we do get there, sure, it would be nice that it was clear what the heck you were doing. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just thinking about some of the development that we have approved that have come before this body, where we're going to see multiple buildings built on sites like the Gates property, the Denver Post site. And the point that Councilman Flynn raised about the threshold being at 51%, where everybody in the entire complex that's part of the highway has to you have to have 51% of everybody, but it's only one building that's been affected. I'd like to explore some language that really hones in on that one building, as opposed to everybody in the development having to sign on. You know, it ties up the other buildings and all of that stuff by requiring everybody else to weigh in when the reality is it's only affecting one building on the whole site. So I'd like to explore that with our city attorney between now and bringing the bill back for final reading so that we can, you know, try to correct that problem. We all know this is something that we've been needing to address for a long time. We all would like to see for sale units. I don't know that that means we're going to see affordable. For sale units. I remember when we took a trip to Vancouver a number of years ago with the Denver Partnership and, you know, we all came back, everybody was excited about density. And, you know, if we get density, we're going to see affordability. And that's not what we've been seeing in this city. We're seeing density, but they're not affordable even when we were building condos. And we know that, you know, apartment buildings are very costly now. So, I mean, we are putting money into addressing affordability as a city. And, you know, it's a partnership between the city and our development community to address some of these challenges we have with, you know, part of our workforce that can't afford to live in the city and they have to move to the suburbs. At some point, you know, they're going to realize they can find the same kind of jobs, especially for so many that are working in the service industry where they live, as opposed to having to come into the city. And at some point we're going to be struggle struggling, trying to ensure that we've got workers for our service industry. You know, so I mean, there's some challenges that that I think are inherent that we're we're trying to solve here. But in general, I think the need to get to a place where we can build for sale units is very important. I'm glad my colleague, Councilman Cashman, asked, you know, one of the builders if this language is actually going to make a difference in whether you all will start building. And, you know, I know the insurance plays a role in that and we don't know exactly what's going to happen with that. And, you know, my hope is that we don't go through all of this and we're like Lakewood and some of the other communities where there's still no for sale units being built. But I'm I'm supportive of moving this forward on first reading. Really want to explore the threshold issue, particularly where we have multiple buildings on a complex that, you know, just ties everybody up. So I'll stop at that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. This is this is an issue that I've read almost everything that has come our way from both sides. And and we know statistically, we know what the statistic shows about the market in Denver. I'd like to see some information about markets elsewhere in other cities to see if they're suffering the same dearth of condo construction as we are. But there's just something about this common interest community that seems to be attracting all this litigation that's not happening with single family homes or with other communities that are being built by the same builders. And just as there are, there are examples of attorneys who are not ambulance chasers. There are examples of builders who are good quality builders. And so when I hear Build It Right the first time, I know that that's that sounds really good. But I do know that there are builders in this market who do build it right. There are good quality builders in this market. They'll build it right tomorrow. They'll build it right next year. They build it right last year. But they're not building right now. Whether this moves the needle or not is something we can't know. It's I feel a little bit like I'm throwing darts in a foggy in a smoky bar room, you know, am I going to hit the board? Is this the right thing? What other factors are at play? But I do know that as we've talked about financing and down payment requirements having been strengthened since the recession, well, that applies to all mortgages. That doesn't just apply to condos. So why are we not seeing the condos being built? Those restrictions apply across the market. So there is something going on with common interest communities. Can this solve it? A lot of people think that it can that it can move the needle. It was very hard for me to come down on where to where to vote tonight, let alone next week. But just this afternoon, after digesting everything, when it occurred to me that we do have builders that will build it right and they're not building. So we need to find a way that helps clear the way to get shovels in the ground and start increasing our for sale supply of multi-family housing. So I'll support this tonight and hope to look more into the the arbitration issue before the final vote next week. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Kasich.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to frame this issue, I think, in a. Or a way that maybe some have. I think the goal of tonight is about ensuring that individuals still have redress when there are wrongs in their properties. But it's creating more certainty and more clarity on the process so that the outcomes are a little more predictable. This entire realm of policy, as Councilman Cashman and I were talking about last week, is all about managing expectations and fears of risk. Right. That's what insurers are doing when they set rates. That's what bankers are doing when they set insurance rates. That's what contractors are doing when they bid on jobs. And so we can't control this directly through public policy. We are just trying to create an environment where people feel like they are better at predicting risk and therefore don't overcharge. That's that's the goal. Well, no one's ever going to get a satisfactory answer on how much calculation of risk is going to change the game. So we are legislating in an uncertain environment, but it's one that I agree is necessary. After spending some time talking over several years ago, before the legislative process began with both sides, including mostly the attorneys and insurers, frankly, to cut through what sometimes is an overstated issue on both sides. So so that's my frame for what I think we're doing tonight and what we're aiming to do. And then the question is, are we doing it? So a couple of things in the language that I think are really important to point out. So first of all, where harms occur, there is redress here. And in particular, you know, folks have raised different concerns. But, you know, it's my understanding, you know, as as as a as a non-practicing attorney. But there's there is a strong case law regarding harm. And it doesn't just mean, you know, that that, you know, you had a ton of property damage because a window leaked and you had to replace your carpeting. You know, the loss of value of your unit is a pretty, you know, clear area where you could argue harm if you're if your unit value is reduced, for example , or your enjoyment, if you if you could never use your patio for some reason because it was flooded, those are all things that the common law generally recognizes as harm. So so where there is harm, there is redress in this in this approach. And that's really important. The next thing that I think is really important is that there is a provision that clearly states that if any arbitrator fails to follow the lives of Colorado with regard to construction defects, there's a redress in court. So I think that's one thing that we haven't talked about enough up here, which is that this does not close your door to court. If you have an arbitrator doesn't follow the law as they're required to do, then you can go to court and you should go to court. And that path is there. And that's important for me. If it were not there, I would have maybe different feelings about the balance between these issues. Folks have talked about the right to cure. I would not have supported this ordinance if it had included a provision that allowed a builder to repair something without negotiating. Right. That's that's not appropriate. What the current state law provides is a period of time for that discussion to occur. What arbitration creates is a framework for that discussion to occur. And that, in my mind, is important in retrieving the balance that we're looking for, saying that someone could come in and repair your unit even if you didn't agree that that was the needed repair. That's not a path I would have felt comfortable with. So I appreciate some of the restraint that the mayor has shown in this approach that I do think is quite balanced. The last comment I want to make is a little bit of a of a of an in spite of which is that I do not believe that as long as we have buyers willing to pay $500,000 for condos, that the market is magically going to produce 250 or $300,000 condos in Denver. So so I think that demand is going to continue to determine pricing. But what I do know is that we have a policy framework in Denver that requires affordability in projects of 30 units or more. I'm not thrilled that some of the folks who asked me to vote for this ordinance tonight were up there asking us not to vote on inclusionary housing. And to me to link this argument to affordability while opposing that policy is is one that I'm not happy about. But just look at the prior vote. Just because I disagree with folks on one issue does not mean I cannot agree with them where they have the merits on their side. So I would not be able to support this ordinance if we did not have a framework for affordability that underlies it. So today, that framework is an inclusionary housing ordinance. We've proposed in the future that the framework would be an impact fee. I hope and I expect that the folks who've asked us to support this. Porting the new framework, should we propose one for affordability? And that means affordability to folks, you know, at below 80% of median income. That's not something this market is going to produce with or without this ordinance. And so because we have a policy framework, though, that says when these projects are built, by definition, they'll be building affordability. I feel comfortable saying that it's in our best interests to produce more condos in Denver because I know there will be affordability. So with that, I will be supporting it tonight. I want to just signal to some of my colleagues that I'm you know, there's a few tiny details that folks have brought up more clearly delineating that both parties have input into the arbitration selection process. I myself didn't go back and reference the state law in that clearly enough until tonight. So there's a few areas I would be open to. Not very many, but little tweaks like that that if they occur between first and second reading, I would be open to considering. But fundamentally, I think this ordinance strikes the right balance for the reasons I've described, and I will be supporting it and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm with my friend, Councilman Lopez. I'm not there yet on a yes vote for next week. I think there's enough here that that I'll be looking to move it along tonight. We're doing two things right. I think I think Mr. Broadwell and the the administration has done a pretty commendable job at crafting something that may move our friends and the development community in a more positive direction towards building the condominiums that we need. I'm not at all sure that it's fairly balanced in assuring homebuyers that they've got the full redress that they need. One thing I'd like to see, and I think Councilwoman Kinney's you alluded to it, but I'd love to see something in the language of arbitration that prevents some of the more onerous conditions that that we've heard have been written in to arbitration provisions. So with that said, like I say, I'll support moving it forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman, that's another your backup. Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, I am curious on what Councilwoman Ortega brought up on the buildings, because oftentimes certain projects will have different contractors working on different phases, different buildings. But I don't know how that works. Will it relative to banks, because they might look at it as a whole one project anyway. So if one building is tied up. So I'd look to you guys for some clarity on that. I would also encourage us to maybe include some language that that the conclusion of the claim process be sent to all owners via certified means so that the you know, it doesn't become a problem for the buyer, for for the owner when they're moving on to something to have to track down a document that they really their banks are going to their lenders and stuff are going to need. And then I just wanted to say that, you know, there was a mention about affordable housing and accessible, primarily accessible housing. If we can get some public dollars into any one of those condo projects, that would hopefully get built by that virtue of that investment. Those are then have to be visible and accessible units per the fair housing requirements. And so this is a heck of a lot easier sort of product type to get accessible units built into than these sort of townhome forms. You know, because these are ground forming, these are accessed by elevators there. And so I think it's actually an opportunity to actually get more accessible units easier, especially if we start to finance them with public money things.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Any other comments? 811 CNN Madam Secretary, Roll Call Lopez.
Speaker 3: I knew Ortega Sussman. Black Eye Clark. Espinosa. Flynn, I Gilmore. I Cashman. I can each. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please cast Vali Nasr.
Speaker 3: Results 12 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 12 Eyes 11 has been published and final consideration will be Monday, November 23rd. One pre German announcement Monday, December 14th will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 827, changing the zoning classification for 510 East 51st for 80 East for East 51st Avenue 4855 Perot Street 4871. Pearl Street 4877 Pearl Street. Any protests against Council Bill 827 must be filed with the council offices no later than Monday, December 7th. Same. The business before this body. We are adjourned.
Speaker 7: Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source.
|
Bill
|
Amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code by adding a new Article XII to Chapter 10 concerning construction defect claims in common interest communities.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11022015_15-0826
|
Speaker 5: If someone in your own family suffers from Alzheimer's, please use the resources of the Alzheimer's Association and other groups for support. No one person or family should have to go through this alone. There is no cure and you can help find one by supporting the Alzheimer's Association and other groups.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to ask first that my name be added to the proclamation. I want to thank Councilwoman Black for bringing this forward. My mother also suffers with Alzheimer's, and I actually served on the board of the Alzheimer's Association. And it was during that time that we noticed some of my mother's behaviors that were just not quite right. And I remember she took a trip. She lives in Grand Junction, and she had taken a trip down here to Denver. And she was driving back with my stepdad. And she had left my sister's home and my stepdad was waiting for her to come to pick him up. And my sister called and she said, I just got a phone call from Dad. Where is Mom? She'd been missing for 2 hours. She got in her car and thought she was driving over to pick up my stepdad and she drove to Colorado Springs. So that was kind of the first real clue that something, something more serious was going on. And in the time that I was on the board, I was like totally in denial that this is what my mother was experiencing. And since then, she was absolutely diagnosed and takes the the medication. She's now living in a nursing home in Grand Junction. And so I know all too well the the trials and tribulations that families have to go through. So I think this is really important to continue to draw awareness to this serious and costly disease. Linda, I hope you'll tell us whether Alzheimer's is whether. Medicine and science is any closer to finding any cures to this horrific disease. But it is, as the proclamation indicated, very, very costly to our our systems and to the lives of the people that it affects. And so I again, just want to say thank you for bringing this forward. And my hope is that one day we can see a cure, too, where we no longer have to keep drawing attention to this issue. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Mr. President, I would just wanted to share. I, too, have a loved one suffering from dementia and unsure yet if it's exactly Alzheimer's or never form. But I appreciate you bringing this forward and I'd like to add my name as a co-sponsor. Thank you for raising this awareness.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would like to also add my name. Sorry I didn't do it earlier. And because my family is also one that's not immune to Alzheimer's affliction. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Any other comments? Proclamation 826. Seen Unmanned Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 7: Black Eye Brooks. Hi, Claire. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I gillmor. I Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 7: Brooks.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Please cast a vote in the results. 1212 I's Proclamation 826 has been adopted. Councilwoman Black, there's someone you'd like to bring to the podium to receive the proclamation.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to introduce President and CEO of the Alzheimer's Association of Colorado, Linda mitchell.
Speaker 10: Thank you so much, Mr. President, and thank you for bringing this proclamation forward. The awareness that you're creating tonight is extremely important to the Alzheimer's cause and the Alzheimer's Association. There's probably very few people in this room who have not been touched by Alzheimer's disease. And for those of you who haven't, it will definitely impact your family at some point in the future. There's no question about that. With the aging of the baby boomers, one in three families is already impacted. You've heard the numbers, the cost of Alzheimer's disease and some of the human toll that this disease takes on our families throughout Colorado and throughout the country. In fact, globally, there is probably more than 30,000 individuals living with Alzheimer's disease in the Denver metro area today. And for every one of them, there's at least three families members whose lives have been impacted forever. They're the caregivers, the unpaid caregivers, for the most part that you heard about 234,000 in Colorado already today. So we have a huge public health condition here. We have an enormously burdensome disease on families. This disease has no cure at this point. It's the only one in the top ten causes of death that can't be effectively treated, slowed or certainly cured at this point. But there is good news. Research is moving very rapidly right now. There's a new focus globally on Alzheimer's disease prevention research. And I think some of the most promising research that we are supporting is the identification of biomarkers to identify people who are at the greatest risk for developing this disease and targeting treatments at them at the very earliest stages or even before symptoms occur. So that one day, hopefully not too far in the future, Alzheimer's disease will be like cancer. If you get a diagnosis of a stage one cancer, for the most part, that's quite treatable. Well, we want stage one Alzheimer's disease versus it being diagnosed when it's progressed for ten, 15 years or more and the symptoms are quite prominent . So that's some of the most encouraging research right now. We do have medications that are available if the disease is diagnosed early. And that's another one of our challenges is that raising the awareness in the community, that early diagnosis does make a difference. Medications can be tried. Families can come in to the Alzheimer's Association for services at a very early stage in the disease so that we can help them plan and gather their resources for the years ahead. For the most part, this disease will last 8 to 12 years. And again, that toll on the family increases year by year. The Alzheimer's Association is here in Denver and throughout Colorado to provide services for families at every point in the disease from very early stage through the end of life. We offer a helpline, support groups, family counseling, care planning, education classes, art and music, opportunities for individuals living with the disease and a host of other services. And what's really important for the community to know is that those services are offered at no charge to families. And all of the crazy fundraising that we do year around is to be able to provide those services to all of our citizens in Colorado at no charge. So you can all help us spread that word to. So if you know someone that's in your circle of friends, your neighbors, your church, your community, who is struggling with this disease in the in their family today, please make them aware that the Alzheimer's Association of Colorado is here to serve them, and we want them to come and contact us. We have our headquarters here in Denver near Fifth and Sherman, and then we have six other regional offices across the state. So thank you again for the awareness tonight and the opportunity to speak with all of you. It helps our cause enormously, and we have a very special reason for being proud of the Broncos great football, but also a great organization that is now standing behind the Alzheimer's Association. The Denver Broncos have made the Alzheimer's Association of Colorado one of their community partners, and the ball and family has stepped forward to help increase awareness. And bring attention to this disease. So we're very grateful for that as well. So thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And thank you, Councilwoman Black. All right. That is all for the proclamation. So next we have the mayor's proposed 2016 budget. Councilmembers this year last night to offer any amendment to the mayor's proposed 2016 budget. Do any council members have any amendments to offer?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing November as National Alzheimer’s Disease Awareness Month and National Caregiver Month.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11022015_15-0625
|
Speaker 2: Thank you. It has. Madam Secretary, please announce the results. 1212 by 625 has been taken out of order. All right, so 625 is up. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 625 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 625 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: All right. We're going to wait for the technology to. It has been moved and seconded. I have an amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to acknowledge that the applicant requested the City Council to modify the original zoning request to reduce the size of the proposed you must to X rezoning area. The request was made after the mediation process did not reach a resolution. A modification request after hearing has been scheduled is allowed under section 12 .3.3. ten of the Denver zoning code and requires a vote by council to take effect. So I move that Councilor Bill 625 be amended in the following particulars on page one, strike lines 25 through 27 and insert quotations on page one. Strike the language stated in lines 25, 26 and 27, and replace with the following language. Lot seven and eight. Lot six, except the E 16 feet thereof, said exceptions conveyed to the city and county of Denver for alley purposes. BLOCK 30. Highland Park. City and County of Denver. State of Colorado. It has been moved in second hand, starting with comments. I will just say I'm first Councilwoman Sussman, the committee chair of the Neighborhood and Planning Committee was unable to be here and asked that I make this motion for her just so that we can get the conversation first about the modification. If there was someone from community planning, Bauman can just give a brief overview of what this modification does so that for those that didn't understand all the language that I just said, could a just briefly overview and then we'll go into other comments. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Certainly. Good evening, Tim Watkins, community planning Development Case Manager for this rezoning application 2014 833 This is if we could get this visual up on the monitors for council members as well as the public, please. Okay. So this.
Speaker 11: Is a visual.
Speaker 3: Of the current application and you can see light six, seven.
Speaker 1: Eight and nine. And the proposal.
Speaker 3: The requested modification is to reduce that area, which shows that 31,000 164 square feet. Two lots, six, seven and eight. To the adjusted area of 2026. 70 square feet.
Speaker 2: Perfect. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Comments. Questions. Members of Council Councilman Espinosa Earp.
Speaker 3: I don't know if this is a question for Tim or we should get the actual applicant, but I would like to know, does this actually change? So there's been a lot of discussion about an actual proposed building for an urgent care facility. Does this actually change anything at all about the struct, the size of the structure that that they're proposing to put there? I would defer to the applicant if you'd like to call me. Yeah, sure.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Council President Herndon and members of council. My name is Cindy Kraft. I do the communications and community engagement for the mayor's team. I'm joined tonight by Dave Hagan, our developer partner, and Keith Bushtucker, who is a longtime time church member, as well as the volunteer property board manager for the church and the All New North who was acting as the volunteer church president at the time. We submitted our application.
Speaker 3: Ask the question, does it change the size of the structure proposed?
Speaker 10: Well, what I'm going to say to that, Councilman Espinosa, is that we, based on feedback that we heard, including from you. Yes. Or decided decided to shrink the lot size. We invested initially in this in this process. We really went above and beyond in trying to provide a lot of information about what we were hoping to build . Things that aren't part of the rezoning process, like the size of the building is actually not part of the criteria for rezoning. But we an effort to try to provide as much information as possible put a lot of thought into what we hoped to do and provided a lot of information about things like the size of the building. We were thinking of building, the hours of operation, what the building would look like, etc., etc. And all of that information was helpful to many members of the community who supported the project and who have sent you letters. But of course, for a core group of opponents, providing that information was not helpful. So now that we've made the decision to shrink the lot significantly, we've decided that we're just going to kind of keep things simple, which is to keep things focused on the criteria for rezoning, which is the size of the lot, and the UMC two X designation that we're going for, which is the most restrictive commercial designation in the code. The building size is something that's determined in a process following rezoning, and we're committed to working with a site engineer as well as development services to design a building that is appropriate for this new, smaller lot and want to go through it with all of the same approvals and permitting and all those things that have to do. But since the size of the building is not a criteria for rezoning, we're just going to keep it simple and talk about the lot.
Speaker 3: Tim So the proposal at some point, it's been varied from 23 to 28000 square feet. Could you build a 23,000 square foot structure on the on the remaining parcel on the remaining zone lot in the you too you 2xumx2x that would be subject to site plan review.
Speaker 1: And administrative.
Speaker 3: Review and whatever the proposed uses are in the building, the parking requirements and whether or not the on site parking parking required. So is there a configuration that you can build actually in excess of 23,000 square feet? I don't know. Wow. Okay. All right. Site plan to be determined what the size of the building would be based on the proposed uses. So we just are developing for three and a half block parcels with no proposed use. One zone lot comprised of three surveyor.
Speaker 1: Lots six, seven and eight.
Speaker 3: And there could be an variety of uses as allowed under UMC to X part of nine or not. It looks like 16 feet of there was a part of lot six would be reduced by 16 feet to dedicate to the alley. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Colleagues, my screen went out, so I had to log in. Was there anyone else that had chimed in for a question or comment? I apologize for that. No. No. Right. Any other comments or questions on Councilwoman Ortega?
Speaker 9: So I guess I'm trying to understand the reason for. The. The proposed amendment. And the reasoning for proposing to shrink the size of the application. I mean, typically this stuff is not done on the floor. Typically it's done where, you know, it gets worked out before it comes to city council or it's sent back to be worked out. Correct. So I don't I don't understand the the rationale for why this has been brought forward as an amendment. So, Councilman Herndon, you're doing this on behalf of Councilwoman Sussman. I know this is not her district, but I just didn't understand that.
Speaker 2: Well, who the applicant is the one that requested. So we can certainly allow them the opportunity.
Speaker 10: Thank you so much for your question, Councilman Ortega. So as Councilman Herndon had mentioned, we were in mediation and of course, we can't discuss anything that happened in mediation. However, the mediation officially terminated Friday at noon on October 23rd. And at that point, the mayor's team kind of regrouped. And we we did feel that we had a good application. I mean, it was supported by CPD. It was passed through planning board. But following the close of mediation, we got together and said, you know, is there anything more we can do?
|
Bill
|
Rezones 3268 West 32nd Avenue from U-SU-A to U-MS-2x in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 3268 West 32nd Avenue from U-SU-A (Urban, Single Unit, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to U-MS-2x (Urban, Main Street, 2 stories less intense use) in Council District 1. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-16-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10192015_15-0758
|
Speaker 1: So I did forget to announce that. Kudos to the airport. All right. Proclamations. We have two this evening. We'll start with Proclamation 758 sponsored by Councilman Lopez. Will you please read Proclamation 758.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I will. Proclamation number 758 Series of 2015 Celebrating Denver Afterschool Programs and the 2015 Annual Nights I'm Sorry National Lights On After School Day. Whereas the Denver City Council recognizes that after school programs make a lifelong difference for kids and their parents. And. WHEREAS, Denver is home to over 93,000 school age youth, producing a significant need for afterschool programs to support their academic, social and physical development. Those engaged in high quality afterschool programs outpace their peers in academic growth, have better school attendance, and have better behavior in school while staying on track to graduate high school. And. Whereas, high quality afterschool programs provide students with access to academic support, music, arts, sports, leadership, development, conflict resolution and more. Building many important 21st century skills that inspire increased confidence, making connections to future education and career opportunities. And. Whereas, the demand for after school programs far outweighs the availability for every one student enrolled in a quality after school program, there are two students just waiting to get in, and national studies show parents with regular after school care for their children missed eight more days of work per year than their peers whose children are in regular school after regular afterschool programs. Revealing the importance of these programs and supporting working families the economic strength of our great city. And. Whereas, The Denver Afterschool Alliance, a collaboration among the city and county of Denver, Denver Public Schools and many of Denver's funding and community based organizations helps improve program quality and increase afterschool access for all of Denver's youth. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Afterschool Alliance provides tools and resources to help providers improve program quality and measure outcomes, creates a long term collaborative, collaborative plan addressing the need for high quality afterschool programs across Denver and maps programs citywide, addressing gaps in availability and helping parents fight the right or find the right program excuse me for their child. And. Whereas, every $1 invested in afterschool programs saves $9 by reducing crime and welfare costs, improving kids performance at school, and increasing kids earning potential. Whereas the Denver City Council pledges to support afterschool programs so that Denver's children and families benefit from quality afterschool programs that help close the achievement gap and prepare young people to compete and succeed. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council, the city and county of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council recognizes the outstanding leadership of the Denver Afterschool Alliance for their innovated afterschool programs for Denver children and recognizes the 2015 National Lights on Afterschool Day. Thursday, October 22nd, 2015. In Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and a a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit it to the Office of Children's Affairs.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to.
Speaker 5: Adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council proclamation number 758 2015 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is just a great program. Eight years ago, I traveled with MAXINE Quintana and leaders from our Denver Public Schools, inner city to Washington, D.C., to make sure that we fight for funding for this program and actually to grow the program now. It was excellent then, but it is even more impressive now. And when I hear about this program, I think other colleagues on this Dias have had this experience of reading this proclamation. And I'm just glad that we're able to do it and bring it back home. It's great to see this kind of success. And I just am I can't emphasize more just how important that return on investment is. $1 saves nine. And far too long and far too much. In this city, we seem to be too focused on correcting adult behavior rather than creating amazing children and not having to build jails, but instead build schools. So until we get to that day, I think we're going to take your lead and these great kids who are here dressed in orange. And especially the kid at the Broncos hat. I think we really have a great thing going. Mr. President, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think, Mr. President and Madam Secretary, please. I mean, to this this proclamation has a sponsor. Councilman Lopez, you've you've been on a roll two weeks in a row. Four excellent, excellent proclamations. I feel like we need to do a proclamation to you. But I want to just just talk real quickly about the just the importance of public investment and private investment. Public private partnerships into afterschool programs, I think is incredibly important. I grew up as a latchkey kid, so I grew up in these programs. And my professional career started leading these programs. And so as I look in, I see the the youth leaders and folks here, I want to thank you for your investment into these young people. And there's an ROI that you cannot count from a fiscal perspective. And it's a changed life. You can't count that. And that's what so many adults did for me. And that's what I got a chance to do for for so many young people. And now those young people are 25 and 35 and they have kids and and they are now leading in this city. And I just hope that the young adults who are leading here can one day see these young kids who are in a city council meeting. For goodness sakes, I'm so sorry. You you can see their lives in the next five, ten years and see them as transformed. And so we need more and more of this all throughout our community. And we can never stop investing in our young people. You want to know what Denver looks like? I tell people this all the time. You don't know what Denver looks like. You look at these orange shirts because that's our future and that's where we need to be investing in, too. So I proudly support this, and I would proudly support any budget amendment to put more money into afterschool programs. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 5: Thank. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing this up, this proclamation. I'm very excited to support this tonight. There is no better investment than we can that we can make in the future of our city that investing right here and all of you see the future of our city, future city council people. Although after tonight, you might think this is a little boring for what you want to do. Future mayors, future leaders of our city. And I love that on your shirts that says after school matters because I matter. So if you'll indulge me for just a second, I'm gonna count to three. And all of you out there in those shirts, I want you to yell as loud as you can. I matter on three. You think you can help me out? That I can't hear you? Can you help me out of that? That's more like it. One, two, three. Thank you all for being here. You are the future of our city, and it's fantastic whenever we can do anything to support you. So when you guys need something, you call us, okay? Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. There's no better way than. And on that note, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Lopez I knew Ortega I assessment I black brooks I matter. Clark, i Espinosa. Flinn, i gilmore i cashman. I can eat. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: Well, interestingly enough, Councilman Lopez, we were waiting. Got it. Madam Secretary, please call the voting. Announce the results. 3939. 785 has been 758. Excuse me. Has been a Dr. Catherine Lopez. Don't suppose there's someone in the audience you like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 5: Yes, I do. There's a couple of great people. First is MAXINE Quintana with the Denver Office of Children Affairs and she has a guest, too. I want to welcome to the microphone. It's Arabi, Mohammed. Welcome.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Thank you guys are for letting us be here tonight and for this wonderful proclamation again and just getting to bring our young people here in city council chambers to see what you guys do as the leaders of our city everyday. So thank you. I'm not going to speak long. I really want to give Aubrey a chance to say a few words. But in my role not only as the director of Out-of-School Time Initiatives for the Office of Children's Affairs and as a member of the staff team for the Denver Afterschool Alliance, you guys all have additional information about the Denver Afterschool Alliance in your packets. I just want to reiterate again the importance and the need for afterschool programing. And again, as Councilman Lopez said in the proclamation, for every one child in a program, there are at least two waiting to get in. I want to thank City Council for the support that we as a city already provide for afterschool programing through our dedicated funding for Measure two A and the marijuana tax revenue funds that we get in our office. That again goes right back out the door to serve program during the after school hours. And while again it's meeting some need, it's still not meeting enough. And so we in the Office of Children's Affairs and the Denver Afterschool Alliance are continuing to leverage our resources and to bring more stakeholders to the table so that we can ensure that every child in every neighborhood in Denver has an after school program that they can benefit from. So I want to introduce Aubrey. Hello.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is. I have a moment. After school programs have made a very amazing impact in my life, especially at the Bridge Project and Boys and Girls Club after school at the Bridge Project and Boys and Girls Club give you a safe place to complete homework and to be able to experience new opportunities. At the Bridge Project I have experienced being able to work with kids that have different abilities than me. I have also experience being able to speak out on my voice and say my opinions and thoughts throughout the public. I've also been able to speak at the voice of educator and education and prove to the educators that Davis Elementary School should stay open at the Boys and Girls Club. I have experience being able to run for Youth of the Year, which is a program that you have to explain what the club means to you and why you go to Boys and Girls Club. I have also experience being able to attend Easter Parade, which is which is a program that you get to create your own Easter and walk down the red carpet after school programs, give us kids opportunities to have a chance to experience new things and to be able to meet new people . Afterschool programs also give us kids a chance to make strong relationships with kids and stuff. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing that forward. And thank you all for coming. I can't imagine you want to stay. So thank you all so much. All right. We've got one more proclamation. And what do you know? Sponsored by Councilman Lopez 779 We read please read proclamation 779.
Speaker 5: Oh. Councilman Brooks, you got your wish, man. Council Proclamation 758 series of 2015. Well, I know. I'm sorry. Sorry. Scott Shire Council Bill. Our Council Proclamation 779 six of 2015 proclaiming the week of October 19, 2015 to October 23rd, 2015, as Choose to be great week in Denver, Colorado.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 2015 Annual National Lights on Afterschool Day. A proclamation celebrating Denver afterschool programs and the 2015 Annual National Lights on Afterschool Day.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10192015_15-0779
|
Speaker 5: Oh. Councilman Brooks, you got your wish, man. Council Proclamation 758 series of 2015. Well, I know. I'm sorry. Sorry. Scott Shire Council Bill. Our Council Proclamation 779 six of 2015 proclaiming the week of October 19, 2015 to October 23rd, 2015, as Choose to be great week in Denver, Colorado. Whereas the city and county of Denver is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all its residents and visitors. Whereas, youth violence, delinquency and bullying are concerns both locally and nationally. And. WHEREAS, the Gang Resistance, Education and Training Great Program as an evidence based gang violence prevention program built around school based law enforcement and officer instructive classroom curricula. Teaching youth to say no to gangs, drugs and crime. And. WHEREAS, the great program offers a continuum of components for students and their families that focus on providing life skills to help youth avoid bullying, delinquent behaviors and violence. And. Whereas, GREAT has now served over 6 million students nationally and internationally since its inception in 1991 and since 2011 has been taught to over 5000 students in the Denver Public Schools in partnership with the Denver Juvenile Probation Department, Denver Police Department, the Denver Sheriff's Department, in coordination with the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver or. Great. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council, the city and county of Denver, Section one, that in the pursuit of reducing youth violence and bullying while fostering a better relationship between youth and law enforcement officers, the Council of the City and County of Denver does hereby proclaim the week of October 19, 2015 through October 23rd, 2015 , as Choose to Be Great Week. Section two that the Council of the City and County of Denver encourages all students to sign the great pledge. Quote unquote. I pledge to use my great skills to reduce violence in my community, work to resolve conflicts, conflicts peacefully, and stop bullying whenever I see it. Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver saw attest and affixed the seat, the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to the executive director, Paul Callan, and the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver Chiefs Chief Sean Cone of the Denver Juvenile Probation. Chief Robert White of the Denver Police and Sheriff Patrick Furman of the Denver Sheriff's Department.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council proclamation 1779 2015 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I had the great privilege. Not only to watch this program take place in our schools and to see all these young people involved in this program, but to see some of the results as well, too, in an area that I know we've had a huge problem with youth violence, in an area that I know and a lot of people who would walk around years ago and say that this was a rough neighborhood and you felt afraid in it. Well, that's no more. It's a different feeling in the neighborhoods, and there's a lot of things that attribute to that. Even. Rec center and library hours. Attribute to that or paved streets and sidewalks. Attribute to that it's a big thing but. The one thing that we can't discredit or look past is this program and these efforts. And it's it's a it's an amazing program and it's part of a great initiative to reduce gangs in Denver and not by simply trying to arrest our way out of a situation of this problem. We can't. And it forces us to look at other measures and and focusing more on preventing violence rather than reacting to it. And so the last thing I will say is, you know, in its inception, I actually had the great pride and privilege to that, to be a co-chair of the other group. And they've done great work. They've done great work, and they continue to do great work. So being that, I'm using the word great a lot. Thank you, Mr. President. It's been a great proclamation.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, in other comments, seven, seven, nine. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to just acknowledge the great work that Deborah Garcia Sandoval has been doing as the leader of this great program for a number of years. And I don't know if you all know this, but this program was actually not proposed to have funding last year as we were looking to do the budget for this year. And, you know, I know some of us made phone calls to the mayor's office and said, you know, this is such an important program and it's such a small amount of money in comparison to dollars that are earmarked for other programs. And it makes such a huge difference for the lives of our young kids. And I was so pleased that the mayor continued funding this program and had an opportunity to go to one of the graduations and learn a little bit more about, you know, the coursework that the young folks participate in throughout the year. And, you know, this ties in perfectly with the proclamation that we did earlier, because having positive outlets for our young people is so important to ensuring that they continue to leave, lead their lives in the right path. And this program really has has just made such a difference. And so I just wanted to put my $0.02 in thank Councilman Lopez for bringing this forward and just want to see it continue because it really is helping make a difference. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other comments? 779. Routine. UN Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 2: Lopez Hi, new Ortega. Sussman Black Brooks. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. I Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. If we first announced the results. 3939 779 has been adopted. Councilman Lopez, someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation?
Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. There are three individuals who I'd like to come up to the to the podium recognizing. First, I wanted to ask and recognize our chief probation officer, Sean Cohen, Deborah Garcia Sandoval, who was the the great probation officer who worked with us on the proclamation, who works daily with the program. And then a woman who I always would get her emails or she'd get mine somehow. And I hear about this this p lopez. Denver Pearl Lopez from the Grid Project, who also worked on this proclamation, has been serving our city in a variety of capacities for a while. So welcome.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: I wasn't prepared to say anything. Our program director from GRID, Mr. Paul Callan, did here in the back row. I think he was the one that was.
Speaker 5: Going to get over here with.
Speaker 6: The goggles.
Speaker 5: The cameras are on you now, so you got to get up.
Speaker 6: So I would just like to say thank you from the bottom of my heart that I have the privilege to live in a city and to work in a city that supports programs such as Great and the Grid Project, the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver. And I also want to be extremely thankful that I work in a department where I have a chief probation officer that is so visionary and thinks out of the box. That allows me, a probation officer, to be on special assignment to the city, to go into these schools and to teach the kids to say no to gangs , drugs, crime and violence, and to say yes to a great future. Great is an awesome program that's been around. You heard since 1991, we've served over 6 million kids. It's international. It's in Central America. They're going gangbusters over there, no pun intended. But it's it's just really awesome that I get to be a part of all of this. And if we would really focus on putting the dollars on prevention, I think that we would like my chief probation officer said, probably work ourselves out of a job and we would be happy with that, wouldn't we? Yes. So I'm going to let my chief say a few words.
Speaker 3: The only comment I would want to make is that this is such a true collaboration between state and the city and county of Denver. And I came from Adams County, worked 15 years in state probation there, and was very difficult to break some of those barriers and gaps when you're talking about county funding versus state funding. And really, I think that we have put forth an effort to serve really the the children and families of Denver, regardless of whose silo they fall into. And so this has been a really enjoyable experience to work alongside with city employees and the Denver public schools to reach out to probation are to young people before they hit our door. And I know state judicial was very apprehensive about allowing a probation officer to do this type of work because it really is outside of our scope. But to me, it makes the most sense is that if we can prevent people from entering the justice system at any level, we're doing a good job. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Hi. I just want to say thank you also to Denver Public Schools for allowing us to be in the schools and to teach great to the elementary and middle school students. We're very welcomed in the schools. And again, we've taught over 5000 students in Denver up to this point. So thank you again for the proclamation and for the students really acknowledging this this whole week. And we've made videos. Officer Garcia has done a lot of work in really highlighting this whole week. So again, thank you. Thank you very much for the proclamation.
Speaker 5: And Mr. Khan, why don't you come up? I made a big mistake. My I. I read this wrong. I read the highlighted part, and I forgot. So I want to make sure you know that you are also in Colorado, just my right here. So without further ado, the executive director.
Speaker 6: Again to Councilman Logan Lopez and the rest of the council. Thank you for support of the great program. It is the anchor program of the city's gang prevention efforts. It's a program that truly exemplifies the coordination and partnerships that go into reducing gang violence in this city. In addition to police officers, sheriff's deputies, probation officers that teach the program starting in January 2016, we'll also have U.S. marshals and U.S. attorneys teaching the program alongside their probation officers and the police officers that are teaching the program. It is a program that has shown positive results in Denver on building relationships between law enforcement and youth and teaching kids the skills to stay away from violence and gangs. So, again, thank you very much. And there is funding for the next two years for the program.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Captain Lopez, for those two proclamations. All right. We are on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions.
Speaker 2: From business development 724 Resolution for an unbiased First Amendment between City and County of Denver and ThyssenKrupp Elevator, Inc. concerning a maintenance agreement at Denver International Airport 726 resolution approving any proposed Second Amendment to hotel management agreement. The Westin Denver International Airport to City and County. A different West India Operator, LLC. Related Development of an airport hotel at Denver International Airport 727 A resolution approving proposed airport use and cargo facilities. Lease agreement between Atlas Air Inc. City and County of Denver. Related Lease Space at Denver International Airport from Governance in Charter Review 696 A resolution approving the mayor's appointment of the Denver Community Corrections Board from Infrastructure and Culture 623 A Resolution Little Change Party to the city, streets and Bars Magnolia Street, its intersection with East Colfax Avenue 630, a resolution laid out opening a step change part of city streets as a marshall Plan and Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard and Central Park Boulevard at Stapleton filing number nine 640 a
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation proclaiming the week of October 19, 2015 – October 23, 2015 as Choose to be G.R.E.A.T. Week in Denver, Colorado.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10192015_15-0720
|
Speaker 6: Uh, this this contract. One of the things that gives me pause, but it's not it's not really our purview at this point is that the team that's going to be managing this contract has not been sort of forwarded. I don't even know if it's been created yet. I've asked that specifically out in DCC. And so it's a legitimate concern. On May 25th of 2015, we passed the date that the VA was supposed to open, and as we all know, that's a joint venture by Cuit and Turner. And so this this leads directly to how well those contractors are led by our side. And so it's very concerning to me that we don't know who this contract from our side. And I would really like to have that information going forward and things.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I have no major problem with this resolution in and of itself. I have a similar concern with Councilman Espinosa that the oversight team be well formed. I'd love to see a direct council involvement in that. My problem is that it's my understanding that this bill, in part, involves projects that facilitate the future reconstruction of I-70 East. And I'm at a position where I'm not comfortable that the current proposals that CDOT is making for environmental mitigation for homeowners in the near reaches to I-70. I'm concerned as to whether they're sufficient or not. And until I can get comfortable with that, I'm going to be unable to vote for anything that moves in any part. The I-70 project along. Now I am in conversation with see that and it may be an understanding on my part of their position or it may be in substance. And I expect to know that in short order. But for a night out for tonight, I'll be unable to vote for this resolution.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Brooks?
Speaker 6: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to call someone from the administration. Kelly, would you be the appropriate person to answer questions? And I wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about the lead on this on this deal with. Q with the question that councilman that's been asked.
Speaker 7: Sure. Thank you. My name is Kelly LEED, and I'm the executive director of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative, just as a base of context, you know. So we have six portfolios within the NDDC, one of which are Brighton Boulevard and a variety of projects in River North or better known as Rhino. And for each of those six portfolios, we we have a two overarching structure, one that we've worked on. So again, we've been at this since 2013. We have been what we call our steering committee, which is made up of all the key agencies that are working on these efforts. That group meets every three weeks, and that group deals with kind of strategic resource issues, policy issues, you know, the management of the six projects as a whole to make sure that those projects move forward and that we are coordinating across all the agencies and all the various interests, be them environmental, be them more construction related, be them financing related. So we've been at this now for a couple of years as we dial down to specific projects. So as an example, I'll use Brighton and that's a big enough project where we actually have a project lead out of public works. The contract specifically calls for a point of contact within public works to administer the contract, but we will continue to have a team that works again cross-functionally to make sure that the projects delivered on time and on budget and it's coordinated with all the other projects in the region. One of the benefits of this contract is that typically the city would issue multiple contracts to do work in this part of the city, and that in and of itself can be an administrative challenge. So in this case, we have one contractor that becomes our partner in a CMG, C, a construction management general contractor sort of relationship that works. And in collaboration with us, they act as an extension of the city to deliver what is a whole series of small projects in this area. So, you know, our intent and I'm happy to bring forward a specific org chart. You certainly started to see some of that during our budget hearing. Todd Winckowski, if you recall and I can resend this, started to walk through how this how the projects are organized and how we are coordinating those efforts. But I think on the point and this gets to Councilman Cashman's question is it's our full intent and we've been very transparent. I think another benefit of the way we're we're managing our budget as an example is normally agencies would make individual requests for all the different projects that they're responsible for within the DCC. In this case, the NBCC compiles all those schedule requests or our funding requests, and we make one request through the NBCC. Those dollars get pushed back out to the respective agencies to implement. But we, the NHBC, will do all the reporting so that you have one point of contact. The public has one point of contact. And we've been, again, really deliberative with both the agencies and in council. So it would be fully my intent as we actually get into implementing these projects, that we have an oversight structure that includes council and all the appropriate eyes, so that both the public and city council knows what we're doing, how we're doing it, and should an issue arise, how we're resolving it.
Speaker 6: Kelly, when when do we break ground on some of this kind of improvement for the Montclair Basin and Park Hill Basin, things like that.
Speaker 7: So the the the Early Action Drainage Project, which is the part that happens in the Coliseum parking lot that is tied back to our the idea was see that we have to have a functional system in place by December of 2017 or 20. So we have to break ground by 2017. So, you know, our intent is to break ground actually this next year in 16 after the stock show, because we have to have a functioning system in place by December 17. The other probably equally important is that we want to coordinate that work, that storm drainage work with what's going to happen in Brighton Boulevard itself. So, you know. Q It will help oversee as the CMG see that project and having the benefit of them both doing pre-construction services but also construction coordination will help make sure that all those different components get aligned as we start to get into Brighton. So our goal in Brighton as an example is that a design will be done before the end of this year and then there's an official handoff to curate to start the project of implementing that project. So our hope is that we're, you know, in the ground with, with Brighton early this next year and that's about an 18 month, 20 month project that will probably start with utility relocates first. So over the course of what would be 16 and 17 will be rebuilding Brighton and then coordinating the drainage with it.
Speaker 6: And we, we can expect that accountability, looking at change orders and things like that will be the oversight will be within DCC. Yeah.
Speaker 7: That is correct. I mean again, I think the beauty of having an entity like the NDC that is working with all the agencies, rolling up, reporting, rolling up how we manage schedule. And then when you have a really complicated project or a large project like I-70 or the National Western, you'll have an executive oversight committee or another structure in place that helps manage that project from the day it starts to the day it ends.
Speaker 6: Got it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman New.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I share some, I guess, gasoline, cash funds, concerns about I-70. And just can you tell me what the relationship is of this project? Is it you're referring to the drainage project? Yes. So, you know, for a long time, this part of the city and when I say this part of the city, we're talking specifically about Globeville. Areas once here and parts of Park Hill have been susceptible to flooding when we have any amount of significant rain. And, you know, the way the city typically solves those drainage solutions is incrementally we based on money we have through our capital fund, or if we're lucky enough every ten years or so to do a bond project, we might make some larger improvements. And what one of the things that happened out of you know, out of the whole effort of creating the NBCs was how do you strategically align the planning and the implementation of these six projects? How do you leverage the opportunity that will accrue as a result of these projects? So, you know, obviously I-70 has a planning effort and we're coordinating that with CEDA, the Department of Transportation, which is leading that effort. We, the city, had an interest in figuring out how to solve no longer solved incremental solutions around drainage. But how do you really leverage the fact that you've got five other big projects happening in this region, in the city, and what could we do around drainage to solve that? So one of the things that has come out of this collaboration is an idea with CDOT to have these complementary solutions, one of which protects more of our neighborhoods by pushing a drainage solution we're interested in farther south of the highway, but at the same time acts as a redundant system to protect the highway structure that see that also has to protect. So this is a project of of complementary features and one that provides us an opportunity to solve a significant drainage solution while we're doing all this other work in this part of the city. You.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. New. No. Councilman Espinosa Okay. If I go to Councilwoman Ortega, she they to chime in.
Speaker 4: Councilwoman Ortega Thank you, Mr. President. Kelly Would you let us know what the thinking and timing is for the governance structure for the National Western Center? I know we're waiting to get past the November election, but what is the thinking of where we're going with the governance structure for that?
Speaker 7: So, you know, we're actually in the process of trying to get briefings scheduled with council around governance. And again, you know, governance isn't just starting. We've actually been overseeing this project now since the decision was made for the stock show to stay in Denver. Right now, we have an interim governance solution in place called an executive oversight committee that's made up of nine members, five of which are from the city. One of those city representatives includes Councilman Brooks, along with representatives from the Colorado State University and the Western Stock Association. So that Executive Oversight Committee has been meeting for now a couple of months. I think we've had four meetings. We're on our fifth. And the idea there is that we're advancing the master plan in these early phases. And then the ultimate is intent is based on some due diligence, is to look at the creation of a public authority. And our intent is to go through a process, you know, from the administration perspective of we're actually working on bringing outside counsel on to help us think about the legal components of how you build that authority. Again, looking at all the different authorities from around the country that are applicable. The reality is there's no one entity that exists today that actually meets the exact interests of this very unique place we're going to create. So Council will help us come up with some suggestions because you'll have multiple revenue streams, you'll have multiple tenants on the campus, lots of kind of complicated things that we have to work through and we want to make sure we do it right legally. So this in the interim, we have an executive oversight committee again that's helping us work through some of this early work. And then we'll ultimately bring forward the idea of a public authority at some future date.
Speaker 4: So other than the approval of that in any land acquisition, what are some of the additional approvals that this legislative body would be asked to be dealing with?
Speaker 7: So the first will be land. I mean, you know, the intent is to bring forward a land acquisition ordinance to council for the campus within the campus boundaries. The other will be, obviously, as we bring those individual parcels forward virtually via purchase and sale agreements. We will also, as you'll recall, with the previous council, we stood up the initial new zoning for the campus, the National Western Center Center, campus zoning. So as we bundle and acquire parcels, we'll come forward again to council to roll those new parcels into the new zoning because we can't fulfill the vision of the campus without the new zoning in place. And then there will be a variety of probably other things. Will there be environmental remediation or things that require because we'll be using city contracts to do all that work. So the extent we hit thresholds under our procurement rules, we would be bringing things before Council for their approval as they're required. There's a lot of work to do.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Kelly.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you're.
Speaker 6: Not just because you brought up the specific project of, I mean, I-70 drainage down Brighton Boulevard. One of my questions that I had early on in our discussions was and it couldn't be answered clearly at the time, and hopefully it can be now is we're building we're underneath Brighton Boulevard. We're going to be putting in 100 year drainage for I-70 while we're putting new roadway. Our new storm inlets going to tap into that or they're going to be separate.
Speaker 7: You know, I'm probably not the right one to answer that. I can because I'm not a drainage engineer. But what I can tell you is we are coordinating both the needs for Bryant Boulevard itself, which will have a drainage system along with running sea. That's pipe in a portion of Bryant Boulevard. But we can certainly have one of our drainage engineers get back to you with that solution. I'm not the right one to answer that question.
Speaker 6: Because I really looking at those sort of things as sort of opportunities to to provide sort of savings to the you know, to sort of improve the efficiency of what we're putting in. In your.
Speaker 7: Question.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 7: I can tell you that, again, one of the underlying objectives of the INDC and the four goals the mayor laid out is to strategically align the implementation and the planning of these projects, which includes how you leverage the investments that will accrue and how we leverage those investments to get things done and to the extent we can , through coordinated efforts, create savings and buy more program for the benefit of a part of the city that seen no infrastructure investment for 30 years. We're absolutely going to do that.
Speaker 6: And so that's my goal. And that's why I'm so concerned, is I want to, with this matter what these millions of dollars I really want to capture as much program as we possibly can. And if we already have numbers that have generated this $140 million, we already have an estimate on what this initial project is going to cost, but yet we don't actually know what the scope is. And so that's sort of that's where my concern. Right.
Speaker 7: So the project councilman lays out a process by which projects actually come forward. We still if you read the contract, it lays out a process. Right. Which Q it as the see them as an extension of the city brings forward those projects are we can bring forward those projects. So as an example it contemplates a 100% design, right? And then we would bring forward 100% design for the scheme to kick in and start to do the work pre-construction services and then ultimately lead an effort to procure the development of that project. So there are a variety of flexible opportunities within this agreement for the city to engage. Q8 As our partner in the delivery of these projects and certainly focusing on maximizing the opportunity, both in terms of schedule and savings, are a key part of everything we're doing in this part of the city and certainly a part of this contract.
Speaker 6: But I don't want 100% design to be one. That's not a good solution. And so how what is the process to actually that's, you know, who's.
Speaker 7: Doing it now? That's a different question. Again.
Speaker 6: That's why I'm confused if we don't know it.
Speaker 7: Actually, this is you couldn't ask for a more or a better best practice in terms of, I think, the flexibility we've created within this contract to recognize that the world of construction is not so prescriptive. I mean, that's part of the challenge sometimes of contracts as we make them so perspective, prescriptive, you don't get the benefit of of opportunities that.
Speaker 6: I'm not asking you to do a prescriptive contract. I'm asking you to tell me what the process is to sort of vetting the solution.
Speaker 7: So that's that's what I'm trying to get to. And I think I'm trying to describe to all of council and the public who's watching this is that we've laid out an agreement with it that allows a lot of flexibility for us to drive best practice solutions, be them drainage, be them delivery of a road or other infrastructure , and again, a region of the city that has a lot of challenges. So, you know, I've offered a variety of times to come visit with you, and I continue to make that offer to walk you through. I think the due diligence we've put in place to not just deal with this contract, but how we're managing the whole effort of these six portfolios for the benefit of the citizens in this part of the city.
Speaker 1: I think that we've kind of gone off the current resolution, but certainly good questions for a broader dialog. I know infrastructure and culture will be a great avenue to have that should Councilman Clark find time in the schedule and there's a council need for that, as well as just doing one on one on off lines as well . But I'd certainly wanted to make sure we kind of came back to Resolution 720, not to say the questions are unimportant. Let's just make sure they're asked and answered in the correct forum. So anything on on this particular resolution any more, Councilman Espinosa?
Speaker 6: No, thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Kelly, for that.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 1: We've got one more, I believe 692.
Speaker 2: This one's a vote.
Speaker 1: Oh, I apologize. I was calling for a rewrite. Yet there are no other comments or questions. 720. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for that correction. See? Nine. Madam Secretary, roll call Cashman. No.
Speaker 3: Can each.
Speaker 2: Lopez New Ortega I Assessment by Black Brooks I Clark I Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Pass.
Speaker 2: Flynn I. Gilmore, I. Espinosa.
Speaker 6: Abstain.
Speaker 2: Mr. President. High.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you announced the results.
Speaker 2: For Lebanese, one nay, one abstention.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Kiewit Infrastructure Co. for an integrated construction program for Brighton Boulevard and Montclair Creek Area improvements located near I-70 East and National Western Center.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a contract with Kiewit Infrastructure Co for $140,000,000 and through 12-31-2019 for construction management of projects located in the vicinity of I-70 East and National Western Center in Council Districts 8 & 9 (201524268). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-9-15. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 10-7-15.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10192015_15-0692
|
Speaker 2: For Lebanese, one nay, one abstention.
Speaker 1: The Lebanese one day, one abstention, 720 has been adopted. All right. Now we're on to the next one. 692 Councilman Flynn bills for introduction. What would you like for us to do with this? Thank you, Mr. President. Just had a comment. Go right ahead.
Speaker 6: Thank you. With regard to the buyback program.
Speaker 1: And the expansion and the addition of protected parking.
Speaker 6: Protected bike corridors, I'm very excited about this. And I want to ask that public works.
Speaker 1: As we move into this and as we expand them to take advantage of the opportunity to take measurements. Now.
Speaker 6: As far as vehicle traffic speeds and the impact on this expansion, on vehicle traffic speeds, because I believe that this can be one of our vehicles, if I can.
Speaker 1: Use a pun for a moment.
Speaker 6: For calming traffic in our not just in the central business district, but out in our neighborhoods as well. And as as the City.
Speaker 7: Council's.
Speaker 1: Newest.
Speaker 5: B cycle.
Speaker 6: Account holder, I would certainly appreciate that information.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That's all. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. I believe that was it. So we are now ready for the block votes. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Council Assessment. Will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in the block?
Speaker 3: Certainly, Mr. President, I put the following resolutions of in a block for the option series of 15 resolutions 724 726 727 696 623 636, 46, 93, six, 94, six, 95, seven, 21 and 734.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Clerk I Espinosa Flynn i. Gilmore i.
Speaker 6: Cashman i.
Speaker 3: Coinage i.
Speaker 2: Lopez. New Ortega. Assessment by Brooks. Hi, Black. Hi. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please. West Virginia announced the results.
Speaker 2: 3939.
Speaker 1: As resolutions have been adopted in the block. Councilwoman Sussman, would you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage in a block?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. I move that the following bills be placed upon final consideration. And do pet be and do pass in a block. Council all series of 15 council bills 668 673 674 675 684 671 686, 97 698 699 700 7017027037047057067077087097 ten 711 712 713 and 556.
Speaker 1: Thank you. One I also make sure we get it 668 as amended because we did them in that last week so got them all just want to know it. Six, six, eight as amended. It has been moved and seconded, seeing no comments. Madam Secretary, welcome.
Speaker 2: Brooks Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi, Cashman. Kenny Lopez. Hi. New Ortega Sussman. Hi, Black. Hi, Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting out the results. 3939 The bills on final consideration have passed since there are no public hearings and if there are no objections from members of council, we will not take a recess. However, one German announcement Monday, November 2nd.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending sections of Chapter 54 of the Revised Municipal Code to provide definitions and enforcement of bicycle lanes accompanied by a buffer area.
(INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Amends the Denver Revised Municipal Code to allow parking protected bicycle lanes. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 10-8-15
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.