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?
Speaker 9: Yeah. Thank you. Mr. President, I move that council bill 87 be placed on the floor for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. The public hearing for accountability seven is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Good evening. Council President members of city council ryan winterberg with Community Planning and development here for rezoning 2015 i00136 It's portions of 601 South Panic 801 South Broadway and 99 West Kentucky. And the request is from TMU. Three waivers and conditions. You are one, and if you go to two CM 16, you are one, and CMCs 16 you are two. So to orient you to the site, it is in Council District seven in South Central Denver. Zooming in a bit, it's within the Baker Statistical neighborhood. And I'm zooming in a little bit farther to the location so we can see that our subject site is located essentially at the intersection of Interstate 25 that we see at the south and the consolidated main line that we see there to the west. It's located between the Denver Design District, which is the area just to the north and the CMS. So sort of sandwiched in between those two things. And it's less than 1000 feet from two light rail stations to Alameda Station in the I-25 and Broadway station, which of course, are served by five light rail lines and some of the best bus transit accessibility in the city. So we really do see a great opportunity for transit oriented development in this area. Okay. So the request on the property is 4.52 acres total. It's currently owned by RTD, but D for Urban. So that's the developer of the Denver Design Center to the north currently has an option with RTD to purchase the property beginning in the spring. RTD has authorized this rezoning application. It's currently used as an unimproved surface parking lot and it does feature some detention area in the lower left hand corner. So while the approval of a rezoning is not the approval of a specific development project, the property owner and applicant's representative are requesting a resounding in order to change the mix of uses and generally facilitate a transit oriented development consistent with the Denver Design Center to the North. And interestingly, the application does propose to maintain the UO one where it currently exists today and maintain the use of two in areas where it currently exists. And we'll see that in just a moment. So the request before you is to see an X 16, which is within the urban center neighborhood context, allowing mixed uses and buildings generally up to 16 stories in height. So now we'll walk through the existing context. So now into the existing zoning and this is where I can kind of point out the split between the two zone districts that exist on the site today. We can see to the north there's kind of a split in between the property. That's where the IFB used to exist today. And then the area to the south is where the TMU 30 waivers and Condition zero one exists. So TMU 30 is a former Chapter 59 zone district, and it's intended to be applied in transit, mixed use areas, near light rail stations, and the district controls building massing to a maximum of 5 to 1 and a maximum building height of 220 feet. So again, kind of regulated both by FLIR and maximum height. And we'll see there is a view plane that does apply to the site in just a moment. So however, the two new 30 zone district standards don't include, for example, what we know today to implement body, including build to requirements, active ground floor uses, transparency and entrance requirements. And so the rule one that also applies to this particular area allows for adult uses along with distance and spacing requirements. And now to the I.B. that we see at the northern portion of the property. It is a general industrial zone district allowing both the industrial and general building forms. The IB zone district permits maximum density through an R ratio of 2 to 0 and maximum building heights only one adjacent to protected districts. And this particular site is not adjacent to a protected district. The zone district as well does not implement the build to requirements, the transparency and active ground floor standards that we would expect in many tod areas throughout the city. And the 202 that's the billboard use overlay does apply within that particular area and it would allow for the installation of a billboard with distance and spacing requirements as well as the availability of a permit. Okay. So now into the existing context, we can see that the requested TMX 16 zone district is applied pretty consistently across the Denver Design Center to the north and to the east with both the UO one and the YOU oh two zone district overlays. We can see a general tapering and heights as we move closer to Broadway, going down to eight stories and five stories respectively, and then the implementation of some of the Main Street Zone district standards along Broadway. So in recognition of that Main Street corridor. Okay. So there are two general development plans that apply to the particular property. So the first one is outlined in red. This is the Denver Design District GDP. It was approved in 2009. And then we can see outlined in blue just to the site is the Cherokee redevelopment of the former Gates rubber factory GDP. So it's important to note that the Cherokee Games redevelopment GDP was approved for a very specific development concept, largely to the south of the interstate. We just have a very small portion of the site that applies to it today. And the majority of the site was not developed within the context of the GDP and urban design standards and guidelines that also apply. We have a new property owner that has purchased the majority of the site and they're seeking a new redevelopment concept within the framework of the Denver zoning code. So we do anticipate that the Cherokee Gate's GDP will be repealed at some point, and the urban design standards and guidelines will be substantially modified. So we're not going to be talking about them today in terms of consistency with adaptive plans for this particular piece of property, since they will no longer apply. Okay. So for the GDP, that does regulate the majority of our site. The Denver Design District GDP was approved in 2009. It's approximately 80 acres and it's bound to the north on Alameda, to the east on Broadway and to the west by the consolidated mainline in the south on the interstate. And it's intended to transform this auto oriented commercial context into a pedestrian friendly, mixed use TOD and includes a number of goals and strategies to implement that vision, including high quality streetscapes and open space, higher densities near transit stations with appropriate controls tapering down to residential neighborhoods, balancing modes of transportation and high intensity mix of uses. And additionally, there is a connection contemplated through the site to link up the I-25 and Broadway station area just to the south. So urban design standards and guidelines also apply to the Denver Design District. You GDP area. They are concurrent areas. They are again intended to create high quality TOD that integrates with the surrounding community and restores the urban fabric. They are administratively reviewed by CPD staff and our particular portion of the site that's within this UDC boundary is in sub area five, which is the office district. It's the commercial core of the area with the highest intensity office uses and a mix of other uses. And again, that gateway connection that's contemplated to the I-25 station just to the south, along with a multimodal trail, is reinforced to this document. Okay. So in terms of the existing view plane, the Washington Park View plane applies to the subject property and it originates in Washington Park and is intended to protect views of the mountains generally. The farther you move away from that origin point, the higher permitted building heights grow, and it would specify maximum building heights for all structures , so including rooftop equipment, that sort of thing as well. And for our particular site, maximum building heights are estimated at 122 to 146 feet across the subject site. So while the requested CMF 16 zone district does permit buildings up to 200 feet in height, the view plane will ultimately regulate the maximum building height for a building, so likely below the maximum height of the zone district. So in terms of existing land use, we can see that our subject site is unimproved surface surface parking in detention. We can see commercial and retail at the Denver Design District to the north and the east. That's the pink. You see. That's a pretty auto oriented context. We see some scattered warehouse commercial and office buildings to the east that generally orient to Broadway. Can we see substantial surface parking and vacant property to the south of I-25 and retail and warehousing to the west of the consolidated mainline that some some larger sort of big box retail there. So this is not a site that a lot of people would experience as a bicyclist or a pedestrian. So to orient you to what it looks like a little bit so you can see the photo in the upper right hand corner is looking north along the site. So the consolidated main line is just on our right hand side. And then the photo in the lower right hand corner is looking south underneath the Interstate 25 flyover. So now within the surrounding context, we can see some of the development that's pretty typical of the Denver Design Center that you may be more familiar with. So lower scale office, commercial and retail. And then the photo in the lower right hand corner of some of the smaller scale warehousing and commercial operations that that front on to South Broadway. Okay. So in terms of process, the following six registered neighborhood organizations have been notified throughout the process, and we have received two letters of support from the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association and the Platt Park Peoples Association supporting redevelopment of the site, as well as the multimodal connections that may be implemented through adaptive plans. And no other public comment has been received as of today's date. So we did send a notice of receipt of application to Arnaud's and City Council on December 2nd. On February 3rd, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval. On February 17th, the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee moved the bill forward. The City Council first reading was February 29th and signage of today's City Council public hearing and notice to Arnaud's was properly posted on March eight. Okay. So now in terms of the five rezoning criteria, we'll walk through all five, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. And there are five adopted plans that apply to our subject property. The first of which is comprehensive plan 2000. And we did find that the rezoning is consistent with comprehensive plan 2000, looking to a number of strategies, including the promotion of mixed use infill development, the identification of areas where increased density and new houses are desirable, and transit oriented development that makes effective use of existing transportation infrastructure. Now once a blueprint. Denver So you'll see that our subject site is actually omitted from the concept land use map. But we don't think that this was particularly intentional. We think it's likely due to its former function as a rail spur, where redevelopment was not contemplated at the time of the plan. But we can look to the surrounding land use recommendations in the Denver Design Center to inform the appropriate mix and intensity of uses for our subject site so we can see the purple area to the north and the east of our site is called out as town center and town centers are intended to meet a variety of shopping, entertainment, service and employment needs, and they're large enough to serve several neighborhoods. They are a destination and it uses include shopping and commercial uses at a high intensity. But unlike many shopping centers, town centers are intended to be pedestrian focused focal points for nearby neighborhoods. We can also see that our site is split between an area of change and an area of stability. Areas of change, of course, where Blueprint Denver recommends channeling growth to increase access to jobs, housing and services and benefit the city as a whole. And we do see that the area of stability roughly follows the I-25 corridor, which likely indicates that this stable transportation corridor wasn't contemplated for redevelopment. But that line where the area change and area stability meet, that's generally the boundary of the Denver Design Center GDP. So it's likely intended this entire area was contemplated for redevelopment. So we do find that the rezoning request to connect 16 U1 and TMX 16 year or two is consistent with recommendations in Blueprint Denver and in terms of future street classifications. Since this particular site doesn't have any frontage on the right of way, it has very little street context. We do look to this surrounding area to inform the appropriate mix of uses and intensity, and South Broadway is called out as a mixed use arterial street. So this is a higher capacity street featuring a high intensity and mix of uses. And Interstate 25 is called out as an undesignated arterial other. Because I 25 has very little presence at this particular site. It is elevated. We don't feel has a great contextual purpose to guide us in this particular location. So we do find that it is appropriate to apply the high intensity mix of uses through the proposed TMX 16, UO one and two zoning at this particular site. Okay, so two neighborhood plans also applied to the subject site. The bigger neighborhood plan was approved in 2003 and it includes framework goals that apply to the entire neighborhood as well as sub area strategies. There's more detail in your staff report, but you can see that framework goals generally recommend creating and maintaining an appropriate balance of land uses to preserve stable areas, but developing vacant land in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding lands and encouraging a mix of uses that assure availability of neighborhood services and amenities to reinforce the role, identity and needs of the neighborhood. So in terms of the sub area, our particular site is within the retail centers. Sub area retail centers are destination business areas, often including retail and offices, and they may include some moderate density housing, but they are predominantly intensely commercial. The area is intended generally over the course of the plan horizon to develop to more intense uses in the future. So the plan does recommend this long term redevelopment should be facilitated by a flexible framework in zoning standards that we see proposed before you today. And the retail center sub area also makes several urban form and urban design recommendations to address the urban context and to establish a pattern and character for the long term evolution that is both intense and dense but also pedestrian friendly. So we find that the rezoning requests to connect 16 year one in year two is consistent with both this land use guidance and these Urban Forum recommendations, where we find that the current mix of zoning, the 2030 waivers and conditions and IP doesn't really compel this pedestrian oriented character. The Alameda Stationery Plan adopted in 2009 also applies to our subject site, and it did not supersede the adoption of the Baker Neighborhood Plan. So we do look to the totality of recommendations. So the format of this plan includes recommendations that apply to the entire area based upon the principles of transit oriented design as well as some sub area strategies. So the principles of TOD that are shown here include redefining the station's nature as a destination, place and oriented density closest to the Alameda station and Broadway station areas for that appropriate mix of uses. So in terms of land use and building heights recommendations from the Alameda Station area plan, you can see that our site is called Out in Office Employment Land Use Concept. So this is really an area that recommends channeling office and commercial uses to create create an employment center and a diversity of employment options for the neighborhood. So we do find that CMF 16 is consistent based upon these land use recommendations. Our subject site is also recommended for a maximum height of 14 storeys. So without a 14 storey zone district option, we do find that the requested CMCs 16 zone district does fulfill that building height recommendation, of course, coupled with the Washington Park View plane that will ultimately cap building heights likely below 14 stories. And the Alameda Station Area plan also makes a number of urban design recommendations related to a future Bannock street connection that we can see running north and south through the site and linking up to the I-25 and Broadway station that are not implemented, not captured by the current mix of entitlement. But we do find that the CMCs 16 zone district would implement. So our site is also within the Denver Design District, as I mentioned earlier. And you've seen the goals presented already today and our subject site is within Sub Area five. Again, that's the Office District, which is the commercial core of the project high intensity office uses. And of course general development plans are able to provide guidance to subsequent rezonings of properties within that GDP area. So we do find that the requested TMX 16 zone district is consistent with this mix of land uses. And in terms of building heights, we see that the Denver Design District GDP also recommends building heights of up to 14 stories for our subject site, again regulated by the Washington Purview Plan. So based upon the analysis, we do find that the rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. In terms of uniformity of district regulations, we find that the application of the CMC's 16 you a one and your two zone districts will result in the uniform application of some district standards across the city as well as the Denver Design Center. Well, they will be applied uniformly. We also find that the rezoning will further the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans. In terms of justifying circumstances as stated in your application, change or changing conditions is called out and we do find a number of change conditions both at a regional scale as well as at a site specific scale. So as presented today, there are numerous adopted plans that make recommendations for the evolution of this particular area into a transit oriented development concept and context. We see a number of redevelopment projects both within the Denver Design District and to the south, anticipated at the I-25 and Broadway station. That's actually signaling the physical evolution in these environs. Of course, for our particular site at a site scale, we've seen a great change condition in that the site has transitioned from formally being a railroad spur now to a potentially developable site, especially with the proposed sale from RTD to a private developer later in 2016. That's really going to unlock the potential for the transit oriented development that's contemplated by our adopted plans. So in terms of consistency with neighborhood context, we do find that it is consistent to apply zoning here within the urban center neighborhood context based upon adaptive plan, vision and multimodal context. Again, the rezoning is consistent with the zone district purpose statement for the seam zone districts, and specifically with the intent statement that the CMF 16 zone district applies to areas served by arterial streets where a scale of 3 to 16 storeys is desired. Of course, South Broadway is a mixed use arterial and numerous plans recommend a maximum building height of 14 storeys. So based upon our analysis of the five criteria, CPD recommends approval and the current property owner and both potential purchaser are both here to answer any questions you have today, and I'd be happy to answer any as well . Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Two speakers tonight, Bill Serrano. I'm sure I said that wrong. I apologize. And Dan Cohen. So, Bill, you can begin your remarks.
Speaker 5: Hi. My name is Bill Savoy. I am representative of RTD and here to answer any questions tonight.
Speaker 1: Dan Cohen.
Speaker 5: My name is Dan Cohen with the For Urban. We're the auction holder on the land, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Time for questions and members of council and Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Bill, could you address the question that immediately popped into my mind, which is, why do you want to retain the adult use overlay? You know, I that's a good question, because I. Maybe I should ask Dan. I'm sorry. Yeah, you probably should ask me. I, I wouldn't say that I would want to personally, but. Okay, so why are we, why are you proposing to retain the adult use? We we have no specific intention to integrate adult uses on the site. I believe that there's also some legal considerations on the city side for maintaining that aspect of the zoning. Then third, try. Let me ask Ryan why why are we retaining the adult use over shore?
Speaker 10: So when we receive a rezoning request where the you one adult user currently exists, we do examine each request based upon a case by case basis, whether to maintain or to remove the other one. From the city's perspective, to not run afoul of the First Amendment, the city must still maintain adequate opportunities for adult uses throughout the city and county of Denver. So when we do receive a request that proposes to remove that, you are one we must analyze to see if that is putting us in any potential risk of First Amendment rights. But again, the applicant did make the request to maintain the overlay. So that is how we reviewed the application.
Speaker 5: Okay. I didn't realize that was a First Amendment right. Is that that seems odd. In fact, this is the old railroad. This is the old Colorado in Southern. There's never even been a structure on here, to my knowledge. Is that correct?
Speaker 10: I don't believe so. I've looked at aerial imagery as far back as 1933 and I can't find a structure.
Speaker 5: Okay. My only other question is for Bill. Sorry. This is land that RTD acquired as part of the original Mac line, the original light rail line, and I believe that was all locally funded. There's no federal funds that acquired this property. So my question is, are there any encumbrances due to any of these federal funding that implies or imputes any restrictions to how this could be used in the future? No, no. And you're correct, this was bought with local funds when it was built up in early nineties. That's good enough. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman, I tell you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I have a few questions as well. The first one is for rain. What is the open space requirement on a parcel of this size? This is 4.52 acres. Right.
Speaker 10: So our particular site is located within the Denver Design District, GDP, a portion of that particular site. So the GDP does have an open space requirement of 10%. So roughly that GDP area is about 80 acres. So 10% of that extrapolate out is about eight acres.
Speaker 7: And are we counting the. Streets as part of the open space.
Speaker 10: So streets are subtracted from the gross area to develop a net area calculation and those are publicly dedicated rights of way to create that the baseline.
Speaker 7: Okay. And then on the detention, is that currently detention that's on the site for RTD or is it part of the detention that was required for court?
Speaker 10: But actually the detention and correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, it currently does serve the RTD Park and right area to the south as well as portions of Interstate 25. So when the property does come forward for redevelopment, that's that's something that'll have to be accounted for and accommodated in other ways.
Speaker 7: Okay. Let's see. My next one is on this one would be for Dan, if you would mind, coming forward. So. I get this is sort of being morphed into the bigger D4 project and can you speak to what the affordable housing commitment is overall for development that's going to be going onto the site?
Speaker 5: There's not a a specific consideration within the GDP for affordable housing, but it's certainly something that we're looking at. Actually, our first phase of development on the site is what I would call a market rate affordable project. I believe that when we first opened for occupancy, probably 40% of our units were at or below 80% AMI. So while it's not a tax credit, affordable housing development, it's something that we're definitely committed to. But we don't have a specific doctrine or written commitment of any kind that that we have at this point.
Speaker 7: So thank you for answering that. So for people who currently utilize the park and ride that's there, will there be some other form of parking for folks who will continue to use that site? And if so, how will that be addressed?
Speaker 5: Bill, would you like to? He's probably better placed to answer that question. Thank you. Sure. And I think there's a lot.
Speaker 9: Of things going on at.
Speaker 5: This site in and around, obviously, you know, that there's there's the to the south. We had Broadway station partners. We have the interchange project. So we're currently working with the city on what we're calling a comprehensive parking strategy to look at how we evolve parking.
Speaker 6: Which will look.
Speaker 5: At things like where do we put structures and other things like that. I think there's.
Speaker 6: A the notion that parking is going to.
Speaker 5: Be impacted. There's going to be periods of time where we'll probably have less parking. I think our overall goal is that we retain essentially the parking that we currently control, which is around a thousand spaces.
Speaker 7: So it may not be in that same physical location, but somewhere in the nearby proximity. Sure. Yeah. Okay. And then let me see if I had one more question. Mira talked about the maximum heights being controlled by the new plane. And that's 14 stories, right? This is the maximum height.
Speaker 10: Of well, in terms of adaptive plans, we do see recommendations for 14 storeys, but for the view plane, maximum heights will be regulated to about 120 to 246 feet. So they may actually fall below the 14 storeys because that does include permitted height encroachments like elevator shaft, safety equipment, that sort of thing. So we may see buildings falling below 14 storeys.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel. And I'll take Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: Yeah. Did you what was the what was the open space requirement in the GDP?
Speaker 10: I believe it should be 10%.
Speaker 9: And what is it in a cmcs 20 or whatever we've got going on here?
Speaker 10: I see about 16. So the CMC 16 zone district itself does not have a built in open space requirement. But through the general development plan informed by the Alameda stationary plan is how that open space requirement will be implemented.
Speaker 9: Are we going to we had this funky definition come up in District one. Are streets going to be considered open space? Are we actually defining open spaces, being on individual parcels and not in the right of way?
Speaker 10: So the general development plans does set forth different types and kind of characteristic qualities for open spaces. Some are aggregated open spaces that are truly plazas and and larger urban spaces, some with landscaping, some with grass. But then enhanced streetscapes are called out as a type of open space that I believe actually in the Denver Design District . GDP don't count towards the 10% requirement.
Speaker 9: Awesome. So when future rezonings in this area come up, who's responsible for being mindful that the open space requirement is being met so that we're not rezoning things to to. So that allowed development potentially required development potentially in some cases to to co-opt that open space requirement.
Speaker 10: So the c m x 16 as well as TMX eight and EMS districts that we see applied throughout the design center don't preclude open space as a use within the permitted use list. So it's kind of a layered way of reviewing developments within this area. So the zoned district is a framework that would allow for private development, but also for open space. So at the time, a site development plan review, there are certain triggers in the general development plan that trigger our Development Services Department to look for the implementation of those open spaces consistent with the GDP. So the rezoning to see 16 or any other urban center zone district doesn't preclude open spaces, since we do have another tool that captures that ultimate implementation.
Speaker 9: So if the open space is the open space defined in such a way in the GDP, that there is a certain characteristic, it sounds like there's different types and there's certain characteristics that actually require more set back that is not consistent with a cmcs zone district or.
Speaker 10: Not anything that I believe would be precluded by a C 16 zone district. These aggregated open spaces are often framed by an intervening street network. So again, the step back really wouldn't be pegged to the open space itself. And there are smaller, more kind of intimate spaces that are proposed through the general development plan. And I don't believe that the zoning standards would preclude those or hinder them in any way or the development that orients to them. Additionally, we also have urban design standards and guidelines that apply to this particular site that do offer an enhanced level of development, review and quality. So if there was any conflict between, say, a zoning standard and the ultimate intent of those open spaces as captured in the urban design standards and guidelines, that could certainly be something.
Speaker 9: How would we resolve that? Would we resolve that with a relaxation of the zoning requirement and some sort of modified zoning or or what.
Speaker 10: You know, without a specific project or site in mind, it's it's difficult to kind of contemplate.
Speaker 9: Well, the reason why I ask is it's easy to capture open space on a development parcel, but if the intent is to bring it to have a more civic quality, but the zoning sort of mandates that it's more internalized. We capture the open space, but we're not actually functionally generating what is desired. And so this is just another chess piece. And and so I'm just sorry. When we talked about that, I didn't when you when you mentioned this open space, it suddenly made me sort of think back to how we've redefined in the St Anthony's development open space, being in the street. I'm glad to know that's not the case here. But this is a large there's a ton of potential in this site. And I want to make sure that we're not overlooking something or creating a situation where we have internal, privatized open space when that was not the intent, and that our zoning somehow addresses that need comfortably so that we're not actually forcing more interior courtyards. Right. In that. Yeah. To achieve that.
Speaker 10: The aggregated open space recommendations that the GDPR I think do a very good job of capturing that as well as the GDP does contemplate multi-modal street connections that integrate surrounding communities into the site. So the development that occurs in the Denver design district is certainly not inward facing. Exactly to that.
Speaker 9: Point. I'm glad I asked all this because now it tells me that I got to go look at this to help us sort of guide other things in our station areas as well. So thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Any other questions? 89. A7 skimming seen on public hearing is now a close time for comments on 87.
Speaker 7: Councilwoman Ortega I'd like to make a few comments. When I started to serve on City Council and represented District nine, the Broadway marketplace was actually part of my district, and we worked very closely with the bigger neighborhood in doing and the Denver Urban Renewal Authority in in doing the development on this site. I can also remember going over and being on site when the Montgomery Ward building was imploded, left many of us scrambling, trying to get out of the cloud of dust that was blowing our way. But a lot has changed since that time, and I don't think any of us envisioned the kind of density development that we're seeing happen in the city that is being encouraged. Obviously, it was long before the vote for RTD and creating the rail stops that are encouraging the TOD development though. The one thing that I did not raise in my questions was proximity to rail because I see on on here that at the southern end of the property, the central mainline is further away from the site. So it's got that natural buffering that's already sort of built in into place to ensure that we're not building housing or other high density uses with lots of bodies, lots of people right next to the rail where we see cargo and specifically flammable liquids and hazardous materials that might pose a risk to human life. And so, again, as you heard me say earlier, we will have some recommendations in July. Councilman Clarke and I are serving on the committee that Chief Tate is spearheading, looking at all of these issues and development, being part of the conversation and ensuring that we are, in fact addressing public safety, health and and welfare of the people that will be essentially encouraging to live or work within a close proximity of these rail corridors. I think. You know, clearly this has been an area of change. It's the the buffer of both the WASP Wash Park and the Baker neighborhood. And clearly, we have three. What will be three rail stops by there or is it just to just the two? Okay. That will serve the, you know, the large density that will be both at the Gates site as well as the D4 properties. So I think this is quite appropriate. I'm anxious to take a look at your master plan and see what you know that big picture looks like. I know this body looked at some of that when the drainage project was proposed to come through the site. I think the zoning had been done prior to this council being seated. But. You know, this is right along the lines of what has been proposed at all of these TOD sites. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 9: My little bit of Kevin Flynn tonight. Uh, my senior prom in 1990 was in the printing building. 1990? Yes. I'm an old man to you, Elvis. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Any other comments? 87. Excuse me. Seen on maps. Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 3: Ortega Sussman. Black Brooks Espinosa. Don Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 9: Every time I.
Speaker 3: Vote or.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Question.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Knew. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please, first of all, announce the results tonight. Tonight, the 87 has been placed on final consideration. Does pass one period. German announcement Monday, April 4th. Council will hold a courtesy one one hour courtesy of Public Hearing Council Bill 173 approving the I-25 and Broadway station area plan as part of the city and county of Denver's Comprehensive Plan. And on Monday, April 25th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 183 relating to the Denver zoning code, amending the provisions of airport influence overlay zone district. No other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Rezones portions of 601 South Bannock Street, 801 South Broadway, 99 West Kentucky Avenue from T-MU-30 Waivers and Conditions UO-1/I-B UO-2 to C-MX-16 UO-1/C-MX-16 UO-2 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones portions of 601 South Bannock Street, 801 South Broadway, 99 West Kentucky Avenue from T-MU-30 Waivers and Conditions UO-1/I-B, UO-2 (transit, mixed use, 30 stories, use overlay allowing adult businesses and billboards) to C-MX-16 UO-1/C-MX-16 UO-2 (urban center, mixed use, 16 stories, use overlay allowing adult businesses and billboards) 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 2-17-16.