Speaker 4: Council is reconvened. We have three public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come to the podium. State your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding up time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Members. We have a technical problem with the screen back there, and so it will not be able to show the staff reports this evening so you can pull them up in your system or the two screens behind us will still show them. But unfortunately the screen in front of us is not working to show the staff reports this evening. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 406 on the floor?
Speaker 7: I move the council bill 40406 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 4: It has been moved and second in the required public hearing for council bill 406 is open. May we have the staff report.
Speaker 1: I'm Alice, Stevie. And this is the proposed map amendment for 1901 South Navajo Street and 1900 South Osage Street. So we are in Council District seven in the college view South Platte neighborhood, and the subject property is just under one and a half acres. It's located between Osage and Navajo on the south side of Jewell Avenue. There proposed rezoning from IMAX three to IMAX five is intended to facilitate redevelopment of the site. The current zoning is IMX three, which is the same zoning as the properties to the west, south and east, and then the zoning to the north is OSA. The land use map shows vacant along Osage in office along Navajo and Ruby Hill Park is directly the north and then the area immediately surrounding the property to the east, south and west is a mix of industrial and vacant, with a few instances of office or commercial and then transitioning to residential a few blocks farther to the west. So the bottom right image shows the subject property facing south from Jewell Avenue. The image above that shows the maintenance building in Ruby Hill Park, and then the image on the bottom left is an industrial building south of the subject property. Planning Board recommended approval of this map amendment and staff received a position, statement and support from the Ruby Hill neighborhoods. R.A., as well as two additional letters of support from neighbors, citing the need for higher density development surrounding the park to leverage the recent investment in Ruby Hill Park. So now for the review criteria, we have two plans to consider at this location. And the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with comprehensive plan 2040. It will enable mixed use development at an infill location where infrastructure is already in place. The requested I am x five zone district increases the allowed density, thereby increasing the number of residents or employees who can live, work and play in the area. In Blueprint, the future neighborhood context is a special district, or more specifically, a manufacturing district. The site is identified as an area that should maintain manufacturing uses. The future place of this area is called Innovation Flex, which is a mix of research and design manufacturing, light industrial uses with urban amenities, a greater mix of uses and transit and multi-unit residential is compatible. Osage and Navajo are classified as designated local streets, and Jewel AV is a residential arterial. Districts are anticipated to see around 5% of new housing growth and 15% of employment growth by 2040. The proposed MAP amendment to IMX five will focus mixed use growth adjacent to a regional park and in an Innovation Flex district, which is an intended location for this kind of growth. Therefore, this proposed rezoning is consistent with blueprint. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further public health, safety and welfare through implementation of adopted plans. And it allows increased density within close proximity of a park which has been linked to several positive health impacts. The staff report details physical changes in the area resulting from investment in Ruby Hill Park. So this rezoning would recognize the changed character of the area as it transitions from industrial and vacant land to an innovation flex industrial mixed use area abutting a major park amenity. The industrial context is characterized by larger blocks, with buildings closer to the street, ranging from 1 to 8 stories. The current zoned districts in the city sorry, the current zoned district of the property and the surrounding areas are all within the industrial context. The purpose of the IMAX IMAX districts is to accommodate a variety of industrial, commercial and residential uses and serve as a transition between mixed use areas and industrial districts. Given the existing land use pattern, the current zoning and the aspirational future character of this location, the IMAX purpose is appropriate for this location. And finally, the specific intent of the IMAX five district is for industrially dominated areas, served primarily by collector streets with a maximum building height of five stories. Given the property's location on a residential arterial and an industrial mixed use area adjacent to a regional park, the intent is appropriate for this particular area. So based on finding all right, review criteria has been met. CPD recommends approval and the applicant has submitted a form to speak as well.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. We do have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you sign up to speak on this item, I'd ask that you come up to the front row and when I call your name, you can step up to the podium. First up, we have Andre Covi on.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. My name is Andre Coogan. I live in Lakewood, Colorado. Work in Denver, Colorado. As I'm sure every all the council members know, resigning can be a pretty difficult and contentious process. I'm actually pretty proud of how this entire process has been handled. Before we even closed on the property, we reached out to Councilman Clark. We reached out to the adjacent neighbors. We reached out to the neighborhood organizations to discuss this whole process with them starting, you know, about a year and a half ago. I think that, you know, as you as you heard, we do have letters of support from the I.R.A. and from a couple of the adjacent neighbors. I am very proud of that. The one just the one point that I wanted to make was that, you know, the new 2019 blueprint, Denver makes it very clear that Denver needs to start directing its growth towards vacant lots near amenities like Ruby Hill Park and near transit stations and rail systems. There. The Evans light rail station is less than a mile from here, as is the South Platte River Trail. I feel like this is the perfect opportunity for city council to to validate, you know, that stance, that blueprint Denver has taken. Thank you for your time and I'm available for any questions.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Next up, David Burton.
Speaker 9: Hello, counsel. My name is David Burton. I live in Jefferson County. I work in.
Speaker 0: Denver. I'm in Denver every day.
Speaker 9: I bought this property about a year ago and have been working with the neighborhood for about a year and a half, actually. And not only with the Ruby Hill and College your neighborhood associations, but a few of the other for. I'm currently on the board of Levitt Pavilion and I've been working with Levitt for the past four months trying to, you know, bring the Ruby Hill neighborhood.
Speaker 7: Up a little bit.
Speaker 9: This property has been underutilized and or vacant. Half of the property is vacant land and half is an underutilized building for ever. So one of the things that we would like to offer in this particular site is redevelopment and without any displacement. I know that there's been a lot of displacement in communities throughout Denver, and this is not one of those examples. So we do requests your approval for the rezoning of this property from IMAX three to IMAX five. And if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Just a quick question on the justifying circumstances. Frequently, I find that justifying circumstances might include some things that are only tangentially related to the parcel that we cited. But here, clearly, you mentioned investment in Ruby Hill Park. And I'm curious, what would the staff have found had Ruby Hill Park not had any investment, but just was Ruby Hill Park the way it's always been? What without it? Would there be no justifying circumstance for this? Would we not do the rezoning? Would you not have recommended it?
Speaker 1: I can't say whether, you know, that we wouldn't have just having not done that analysis. But the the justifying circumstances does also mention as kind of a supporting argument, because the investments in the park are definitely the strongest ones for this area. It does also mention, and the applicants mentioned, the proximity to the Evans Light Rail station. We didn't lean on that heavily in the staff report because we generally looked more like a quarter mile away. And this is farther than that. But this is it is less than a quarter mile from a bus line that goes directly there. So I think it wouldn't have been as strong an argument, but I couldn't I couldn't say whether or not it would have met the criteria.
Speaker 6: Because the Evans station has been open since 2000, you know, 19 years. So it's not really a change. All right. That's all I had, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: I couldn't find the letters from the R.A. or the letter from the R.A.. Can can can somebody speak to the content of that letter and why they supported it?
Speaker 1: I'm going to unless you guys can jump in quick. I think I'm going to look for it right now. But I believe that from the R.A., it was just the position statement when we send out the notification. There's just an a like a Adobe form that they can fill out that says if it's in support or opposition and how many people voted. So I will continue to look for this and chime back in. But I think that it might have been just that.
Speaker 7: Let me ask the the architect then, or owner sorry. When you conveyed a possible rezoning to the R.A., did you opine about the intended use of the property?
Speaker 9: We talked about doing mixed use residential on the property primarily. We've talked about doing coffee shop. And really the the residents want some sort of.
Speaker 0: Amenity there by the park.
Speaker 9: I've attended about ten or 12 of their meetings.
Speaker 0: Over the past year and a half, and I've been really working with them and will continue to do so.
Speaker 7: So is there any sort of hardcoded agreement on potential amenity or actual mixed use in the development?
Speaker 9: I mean, we really haven't discussed it and we can't discuss that. We really didn't solidify anything.
Speaker 7: The reason why I'm asking this is going to be the next question to CPD, because I'm struggling with the blueprint Denver justification. But you were the architect for the project in my district at 46 I 44th and Tennyson. Is that correct? That is a 100% residential structure on a five storey mixed use zone district. Correct.
Speaker 4: Could you come up to the microphone just a moment?
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 7: So now my question for Steph. So my concern is, is the blueprint Denver justification talks about districts, talks about industrial, talks about transition. There's a lot of this emphasis on this not being 100% residential. Is there any prohibition to a 100% residential development on this project and on this parcel?
Speaker 1: I don't believe so. And the staff report does also talk include the language from Blueprint Denver about how multi-unit residential is also compatible in this innovation flex mapped area. Yeah.
Speaker 7: So but when you have a community that is asking of a development to have to sort of incorporate the goals and ambitions that are set forward in our recently adopted plans, why wouldn't we codify that transition in? Why are we pursuing a zone district that allows a use that doesn't necessarily get that outcome that the community is is thus asking for?
Speaker 1: Well, in this case, we're evaluating the zone district and not a specific development plan. And because the zone district is consistent with the language in the adopted plan.
Speaker 7: So that's where I'm struggling. Right. Because if we go back to the comp plan, which has the six objectives, the L vision elements, they talk to these other aspects. Right. And so are we supposed to sit in this box of. Well, I am. Zoning is the appropriate zoning district to meet the blueprint Denver map or are we supposed to. I'm sitting here, I'm opining out loud, but I would actually like a response if you could to help me and my colleagues going forward. Or should we factor in all of this other vision statements about how the other needs of the community are, in fact met that are consistent because those things came were forged together. The park plan, which applies to the property directly across the street, the comp plan which applies to all these things and and blueprint Denver which then speaks to these districts and this mix of uses. Yeah we are saying, you know, that's great, but we're not thinking about that. You know, we just hope for the best or can we? Are you guys talking about how we're going to actually get these sorts of outcomes that the community is asking for in our development?
Speaker 1: The process we currently have is to capture that kind of community input in the plans and then ensure that rezonings that we recommend for approval are consistent with that. Okay.
Speaker 7: So to the property owner, you can see that I'm struggling historically. My time here on council has been, you know, full of developer agreements and private, you know, we've had to work outside of zoning to get outcomes. You've already articulated that the community has asked for these things. Are you prepared to at least go on record right now and say that you will provide the amenities and a non residential component on your ground floor?
Speaker 9: Yeah, I'll definitely work with the community, with the Ruby Hill Neighborhood Association and College.
Speaker 7: Here to give them.
Speaker 9: Some sort of community amenity that they can utilize, whether it's a coffee shop.
Speaker 0: Or something like that. I told them I would do that. So yeah.
Speaker 7: I'll go on record and say Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 406 is closed. We're going to go on to comments by members of council, and I'll start because this one's in my district. I just wanted to first say thank you. I'm not sure. And four years in office, I've seen anyone be as present and engaged in dialog with a community on a rezoning as, as you guys were. I mean and and not just at the Arno, but, you know, with with the Levitt Pavilion with multiple Arnaud's because it's in a place that two different Arnaud's claim as their own. And so just really appreciate seeing that level of engagement and involvement way ahead of the time, not just, hey, here we are, but in that consistent engagement and, and really being a part of the community over the past almost a year. So I really appreciate that. Thank you very much for that. I know that this is something that the community is very excited about. And I mean, as we can see from tonight, with support and knowing here in opposition, this is something that everyone is really excited about. So I hope we'll see something come to fruition, not just change in zoning, but actual actually see something come out of the ground because this is something that the community's been waiting for, watching for. I know we talked, you know, Councilman Espinosa talked a little bit about that activation, but also we just had a group of in Rubio get together to talk about how do we get more eyes on the park to get some of the negative activity that's happening in the park? And one of the biggest goals, one of the biggest things they want is more people living on the park who create that, you know, community of people who. Look out the window and see stuff happening. And this also does that. And so I just want to say thank you very much. I think in addition to that. STAFF Thank you for the staff report. I think it's clear that this meets the criteria for a rezoning, and I will be voting in support of it and would hope that my colleagues would as well. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So I want to thank the developer for, for hearing my request in and acknowledging the willingness to have that dialog with the community. And hopefully, I mean, I hope I heard that as you committed to, to putting that in. I trust you heard me being frustrated because we don't have ways. I mean, we have the means to codify this thing and sort of make this happen, but we don't. But, you know, is this is not coloring my opinion on this rezoning application. But you. Mr.. BURTON No. You know, my history with particularly with parcels adjacent to parks and ground floor activation, whether it's the Zocalo, the River Clay or the Element 47 projects, and how important that is the future. And even though it may not make sense, day one, it will make sense eventually. And so I appreciate you being willing to make this. And why that was important is because of the reason why ultimately I will be voting in favor because yes, all the other checkboxes on the zone map are are checked. Right. This is the appropriate zone district to meet all those plan objectives. My problem is, is that we should have ways to sort of compel those plan objectives other than hoping for the best. But thank you. I am hoping for the best in this situation. I'll be voting to support things.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Espinosa. Flynn All right.
Speaker 1: Gilmore I.
Speaker 0: Herndon All right.
Speaker 5: Cashman Carnage. Lopez. All right. New Ortega assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 5: 12 hours.
Speaker 4: 12 hours. Council Bill 406 has passed. Councilman Espinosa, will you please for council 547 on the.
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1901 S. Navajo Street and 1900 S. Osage Street in College View - South Platte.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone properties from I-MX-3 to I-MX-5, (increases the height limit from 3 to 5 stories) for properties located at 1901 South Navajo Street and 1900 South Osage Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-7-19.