Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 and 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-759 has passed. Thank you to the staff and members of the public who joined us for that required public hearing or on to our second council member Flynn, will you please put Council Bill 810 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 3: Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 1-8 ten be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 810 is open and I see we have Libbey here for the staff report.
Speaker 7: Did you guys see my presentation on your screens?
Speaker 1: It is now. Okay.
Speaker 7: Okay. There we go. All right. So good evening, council members. I am Libby Kizer of CPD. And we are looking at a rezoning of 1091 South Parker Road and 7400 East Mississippi AV. The property is in Council District five represented by Amanda Sawyer. And it's in the southwest corner of the Windsor neighborhood. The property is located south of Parker Road and west of Mississippi Avenue. The two parcels occupy nearly 149,000 square feet or 3.4 acres, and currently include a church and a parking lot. The properties in the study zone district today and the applicant is proposing to rezone two suburban multi-unit, three and five storey districts which would allow residential and some civic uses in the suburban house, duplex, rowhouse and apartment building forms. The SMU three zone is proposed on the Southeast Parcel. And the SMU five zone is proposed on the Northwest Parcel. The existing suburban context. Single unit zoned district allows suburban houses with a minimum zone area of 6000 square feet. Adjacent zoning in Denver includes SMU, three, SCC, three X and SC as well as are two Air, which is a former Chapter 59 district that allows multi-unit dwellings and heights up to 110 feet. Three sides of the property about Arapahoe County, where zoning allows low density residential uses. This chart highlights the differences between the existing and proposed districts, with key differences being more building forms and taller heights allowed in the proposed zone districts. The minimum zone lot size for the suburban house is 6000 square feet in all districts, while SMU three and SMU five allow duplexes on 4500 square foot lots. Row houses and apartments in the multi-unit districts are allowed a shallower ten foot setback on the primary street, and there is no maximum building coverage for those forms. In the immediate vicinity. The area's land use is a mix of public causeway, public parking, multi-unit, single unit, commercial and open space as shown in the bottom left photo. This public property includes a church and parking lot, while properties to the north contain three and 15 storey multi-unit developments. There's also a commercial center east of the site between Parker and Mississippi. And to the southeast are single unit homes in the Hughes Mountain View neighborhood in Arapahoe County. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements and the planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval. To date, staff has received comments from ten individuals supporting the rezoning, saying it would allow increased housing options near transit in an area where infrastructure already exists. In addition, ten individuals oppose the rezoning because it could increase housing density and traffic congestion while impacting mountain views and wildlife. Property owners in the Candlewick condominiums, which are the tall 15 story towers to the north of Parker, also submitted a protest petition, but it fell far short of representing the required 20% of land area within a 200 foot buffer of the church site. There's also a good neighbor agreement between the applicant and residents of the Hughes Mountain View neighborhood, committing the applicant to provide a landscaped and fenced buffer along the southeastern boundary of the site, as well as traffic control signs. Moving on to the Denver zoning code review criteria, it must be found that the requested MAP amendment is consistent with five criteria. In regard to criteria one, there are two adopted plans that apply to the site, including Component 2040 and Blueprint Denver. As stated in the staff report, the reasoning is consistent with several goals in the comprehensive plan. A few of those goals relate to increasing housing and focusing growth near transit, providing a mix of housing types and promoting infill development. The proposed rezoning is also consistent with a suburban neighborhood context defined in Blueprint Denver as the proposed s U. Districts facilitate multi-unit development along a main corridor proximate to shops and services and connected to transit and the Highline Canal. What the Prince Edward generally directs growth to key centers, corridors and high density residential areas that align with transportation options while limiting growth in all other areas of the city which this area falls into. This area is still anticipated to attract 10% of jobs and 20% of housing by 2040. Therefore, the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with this growth area as it will facilitate additional housing opportunities. The rezoning request is also consistent with the future street types defined in Blueprint. Denver as Parker Road is a commercial arterial and Mississippi drive on the site. Southeastern boundary is a local street. A mix of medium intensity residential uses are appropriate on such streets. Now, as for the future place type, the subject property is designated as residential low, which is typically characterized by single unit uses with buildings up to two and a half storeys. However, the residential low place type also states that vacant institutional uses, such as churches, may be appropriate for additional residential intensity. As the applicant is requesting three and five stories on districts in a place where two and a half stories are typical staff reference the building height guidance in Blueprint Denver, which states that building heights taller than specified in the future place type makes sense under certain conditions. In this case, the requested cemetery district is adjacent to one and two story single unit homes, while the SMU five district is adjacent to two storey multi-unit dwellings to the north across Parker or multi-unit developments of three and 15 storeys. Therefore, the proposed zone districts and the heights they allow are consistent with the surrounding context and provide a transition from lower intensity to higher intensity areas. The site is also adjacent to a commercial arterial that serves two bus routes. Furthermore, the applicant finalized a voluntary affordable housing agreement with Host the commits to providing 15% of units at 80% AMI for 60 years. With all of these contextual items and the additional benefits received by the Affordable Housing Agreement. We do believe that the requested zone districts are appropriate for this location. Finally, the proposed rezoning helps implement the blueprint on a policy related to redeveloping churches that are no longer facilitating congregations, as it will allow for more intensive residential uses on a site that is no longer viable as an institutional use. And it can do so without displacing existing residents. The rezoning is also consistent with criteria two, three and five, as stated in the staff report in regard to criteria for changing conditions in the city and a city adopted plan are the most applicable justifying circumstances for this rezoning. As the changing conditions study, population growth in the city has created a need for additional density and a variety of housing types. In addition, after the site was zoned as a study, the city adopted Blueprint Denver, which includes a policy and strategy encouraging the redevelopment of former churches into more intense uses. In conclusion, CPD recommends approval of the rezoning request.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Libby, for the staff report this evening. We have 14 individuals signed up to speak and I'm going to call the first four who are here in chambers. First, they've signed up. First we have Phil Workman, Mike Gerber, Tom MATTHEWS and Harsh Parikh. And so we'll start out with Phil Workman, please.
Speaker 7: Do you want this view card or a PDA pulled up?
Speaker 8: Would it be all right if we switched the order of the.
Speaker 1: And we had him as you signed up. And so we have fill you first.
Speaker 8: That's like. Okay. That's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you. My name is Phil Workman. 130 Rampart Way. Number 225. Denver, Colorado. I'll talk a little bit. My my piece is the community outreach and certainly the process. And you even heard from the earlier Harvey Park issue. Community outreach is a very important part of any project. This was kind of interesting. And I want to thank Councilman Sawyer. This project is right at the end of Denver on Parker Road, and it's adjacent to Arapahoe County. So there were a number of challenges there. Reached out before we filed our application with the council in Sawyer's office. You said talk to Camelback, talk to Arapahoe County. But there weren't really any Ana those per se. So we did indeed do that. We reached out to those ANA or those organizations, as well as work very closely with Arapahoe County. We did come because there's a portion of our property that is Arapahoe County that will be going through a process that at a later date. And we do have a good neighborhood agreement with that group as well. So I'm here for questions, but we did conduct a very robust military process. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Great. Thank you, Phil. Our next speaker is Mike Gruber.
Speaker 2: Mike Gerber. 424 Fairfax Street, Denver, Colorado. I'm one of the owners of MCO Partners, the applicant. And just real briefly, the church actually selected MGM, all from a group of potential buyers. I think partly because we're a local developer and we've got a long track record of proactively working, as Phil said, with neighborhood residents. And so to that end, over the past probably six or nine months, we've had at least half a dozen meetings in-person and Zoom calls with our local residents in both Denver and the Hughes Mountain View neighborhood, which is Arapahoe County, adjacent to the site. And one big result from those meetings is a good neighborhood agreement, as Phil mentioned, with Hughes Mountain View, again in Arapahoe County. But they are adjacent to the development we're doing and we've committed that if this rezoning application is approved, our eventual site plan will provide neighborhood residents with easements across our property to access via car both Lease Dale Avenue and Quebec way. And we're going to create landscape and setback buffers between our project and their neighborhood and then also use fencing to restrict access from our site into their neighborhood. And then finally, we've also committed that when we eventually develop the Arapahoe County parcel, we'll be limiting both the height and the density of that development. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker here in chambers is Tom MATTHEWS.
Speaker 3: Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Tom MATTHEWS. Denver resident. I live at 85 Niagara Street. I'm speaking today in support of the rezone application of the Galilee Baptist Church property in Denver. I'm also speaking today with double motivation. I'm both the Denver resident and District five and I'm the listing broker for the property as well. I've been a commercial real estate broker, Metro Denver, for the past 35 years. As a quick aside, one of the highlights of my career as a broker in Denver was back in 1996 when my client, R.A., I worked with Mayor Webb's office, Dura, and the Denver Historic Landmark Commission to convert the former 40 Transportation Museum into the awesome Mary I flagship retail store that it is today. Approximately seven years ago, I began transitioning from retail and commercial to specializing in working with churches, schools and other nonprofits. I've been working with Valley Baptist Church for years. The church's family has decreased in size over the years. Now the building is too large. Further, the facility has become outdated. The maintenance and upkeep of the property has become burdensome for the church. Their goal in selling the property is to relocate and downsize. We agreed to place the church's property on the market last year, right before the COVID 19 outbreak. I like to use my commercial real estate background to help determine the highest and best players for the church's clients. I have a pretty good sense as to whether the best potential buyer is another church, perhaps a school, or possibly redevelopment. Early in the marketing phase, we determine the highest must use was to repurpose and redevelop the property. We try to work with a handful of churches and schools. However, the estimated cost for them to make repairs HBC improvements along with bringing life safety items up to code, determine that churches and schools are unlikely buyers for the church's property. Rather, we received offers from five different developers. We narrowed down to three and then selected NGO partners. The church was impressed with your professionalism experience in completing other successful projects in the city of Denver and a proposed end use a mix of multifamily and affordable housing. As a real estate professional, my thought is about your partner's proposed use for the property is ideal. It is an infill site with a great deal surrounding infrastructure. The property connects up to the Highline Canal and bike path. The Denver Planning Board pointed out that the higher density residential is a good use, along with high traffic arterials such as leads down Parker Road. I'm impressed with some jail's plans to incorporate under utilized portions of the site and the repurpose of the properties should fit nicely with the city's comprehensive 2040 plan. All that to say. As a Denver resident and as a real estate professional, I strongly support the applicant's request for reason over the property. Thank you again for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker in chambers is harsh for Rick.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. My name is Hersch. Three, three, four, five, seven. RIGSBY Court Suite 209 Denver, Colorado, 802 and six and the president of Santillana Architecture, a Denver firm that specializes in affordable market rate and senior housing. I'll be speaking on behalf of the applicant in support of the proposed rezoning. This proposed rezoning is consistent with both comp plan 2040 and Loop Denver. To meet the vision of these plans, we are increasing the number of housing units closer to transit and to shopping and cultural and natural amenities. We're creating greater mix of housing options in the neighborhood, and we're proposing an infill development where infrastructure already exists along the high capacity corridor and along a multimodal network, the amazing Highline Canal. And as recommended in Blueprint Denver, where rezoning a vacant share site to add more diverse housing options along a busy commercial corridor. We had a very robust neighborhood engagement process. We addressed most of the neighborhood's concerns regarding density. We're tapering the zoning. The five story zone is located farther away from the single family neighborhood, and we're using a three story zone to mediate that transition. And we've committed to limit the density in the Arapahoe County parcel as well. Regarding views, concerns that were mostly brought up by folks in Candlewick Towers, the 15 storey high rise to the east of us, we were able to demonstrate that our building tops will be lower than the tree canopy that surrounds them. Regarding access, we have promised neighborhood that we will be maintaining their access to both Parker and to Quebec way. And regarding traffic, we pointed out that based on public data, our development is expected to add about 1% to the current traffic supported by our road. And of course, we pointed out that there are multimillion dollar work happening on the Highline Canal is going to solve a lot of their existing traffic issues. So and we've committed to various buffering strategies regarding parking. So in summary, you know, we have a great unmet need for housing in this community, housing in general, but attainable housing in particular. And the proposed rezoning meets this need by creating a high quality, vibrant, sustainable and healthy community to broaden access to housing options in this area. And it does so by meeting the goals of adopted Denver plans. So I thank you for your time and available for questions. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and transition to our virtual platform for the rest of our speakers on this required public hearing. Our next speaker is Maggie Bolden.
Speaker 7: Good evening, members of Denver City Council. My name is Maggie Bolden and my address is 1211 South Quebec Way. I am a Denver resident and live in the area adjacent to the proposed rezoning of 1091 South Park Road. I am here in support of the developer's plan to build a multi-unit residential development at 1091 South Park Road. The site has needed attention for a very long time. In my opinion, this is an ideal location for this development adjacent to the Highline Canal and the multi-modal access available on Parker and Leeds Road. An increase in density and a broadened mix of uses can provide better health outcomes through increased physical activity and lessen the need for driving as services and amenities occur within a walkable and bikeable distance. There is a serious need in our city for housing options for individuals and families at all economic levels. This development will provide another option in the city of Denver for individuals and families to live, work and play in Denver. Additionally, this development will continue to improve the vitality of the immediate area and help to create a sense of community. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Steven Benishek.
Speaker 8: Howell City Council. My name is Steve and I live in District six and I'm here to speak for this. Here we are yet again in a city where rent continues to rise and our housing shortage continues to push people out of Denver, the city where homelessness has become the biggest flashpoint in the city that a recent study from Berkeley named the highly segregated and noted that segregation has only gotten worse in the past decade. Yet here we are again in a situation where in order to build the housing we desperately need, one must grovel not only in front of city council, but also council vocal minorities. We need housing now and this current process is actually enduring. It is in this environment that's extortion by a vocal minority flourishes and enables the filing for arson lawsuits. This is a site near transit and bike paths, and building housing here will promote two things we desperately need. This is a site surrounded by similar multifamily buildings, which will promote a vibrant neighborhood. We cannot work the same kind of exclusion and redlining that once was openly celebrated in Denver continues to guide our city. We must build a city of 2021, not 1921. This kind of interview is exactly what we need to beat both our housing shortage and cut down on air pollution created by cars. This is why I urge you to vote yesterday to make this rezoning process easier in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Saunders Bergstein.
Speaker 2: Thank you. My name's Steve, and I live in the Hughes Mountain subdivision next door to this project. And I wanted to tell you guys that throughout the process of our working toward the Good Neighbor Agreement, I changed my mind to why? Well, we oppose this project right now and support it. What happened was, over several months, they paid very little attention to what's going on with us. But I suppose we're doing many, many things that were important to them at the time they were doing it. And then at one point or another, we were finally able to get to them and convince them that we were not adversaries. We wanted to be able to work as partners to make this whole thing work. The compound. If you guys know this intersection is it's one of the most beautiful parts of the city. You'll again, you'll see nothing but mountains and and see dwellings and transitions are beautiful. And with what they going to put in there, with the transitions they are going to utilize. They have assured us that those things will be in place and my neighborhood will be buffered from the high density in a way that will be compatible and we won't be bothered and will have a little paradise, which is kind of hidden from the rest of the city. And we were very worried about, you know, one day we're happy and the next day the church is closing and selling it off. And they're going to put a thousand people on top of us will never come out. Three We were able to work with Mill and determine that the density will be handled. Traffic, although as in studies beforehand like it is in the other counties, will be studied and made to not be a safety hazard. And. With all those things in place, we'll be happy. Thank you for having me on talk.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Steven Wessler.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Thank you for your time and consideration. I am Steve Wexler. My wife and I own a home and reside in the Hughes Mountain View neighborhood immediately southeast of the subject property in Arapahoe County. First want to state that I have no financial interest in the project AGL or the sale of the property damage. I'm here to support the project and support the proposed rezoning. Principal reasons for my support. Our rezoning conforms with Blueprint Denver and with past and current development along Leeds, Dale Drive and the Parker Road Corridor. I agree. I agree with and support increasing density along transit corridors. This location is one where there are good public transport routes to Cherry Creek in downtown Denver beyond the Aurora Municipal Center. Medical facilities. Light rail at Nine Mile Station in the Denver Tech Center. Such transportation routes all afford future residents of the proposed redevelopment. The ability to use public transportation, which would reduce our traffic on roads and cut auto emissions. Increased residential development will, by nature, increase development and demand for retail and services. This enhances the micro economy and will hopefully decrease vacancies in retail, restaurants, faces and office buildings in the immediate area. Using infill sites like this one reduces sprawl, which leads to increased traffic on roads and creates pollution. Rental units, if approved, will create needed housing. Known the applicant for this resulting in a familiar with other rental projects they have. They don't leave product are responsible and having to. I strongly support the rezoning and the project proposed by the. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Bryce Shuck.
Speaker 3: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 7: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 3: I am just speaking in favor of the proposed reason. I am an elder at Galilee Baptist Church. That the people who are selling this and I can say throughout the entire process, which I know Tom touched on earlier, we were very impressed with Miguel's dedication to the community. The fact they were local and the vision they had to make this property into something that would be a huge asset for the city of Denver. So again, I would like to voice my support for the rezoning.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mitch. Jian Jian Atallah. You can correct me if I got that wrong. Our next speaker is Mitch. Gianna, La. All right. Go ahead, Mitch. You might have to unmute yourself. All right. We're going to go ahead and ask you, Mitch, if you would log off and.
Speaker 4: Log back in.
Speaker 1: And hopefully your audio will work. Then for us, we'll make sure and come back to you. Our next speaker is Adam Astrof.
Speaker 2: Hello. City Council.
Speaker 4: My name's Adam Ostroff. I live in District seven. I am here to speak in support of this rezoning tonight. We're in a deep housing crisis here in Denver. The census showed that we added about 114,000 people and not anywhere near enough housing units. This housing is also on the border with Arapahoe County, another area of the state that grew heavily and also didn't build enough housing. So, you know, again, projects like this are going to be really critical to making sure there's places for people to stay that we don't have more folks pushed into homelessness as rent continues to rise at an incredible pace. Again, though, this process is really hard. You know, these developers had to engage in a pretty robust community outreach process. They have an 18 point agreement. And, you know, one thing that I kind of didn't really like is that, you know, as a as a condition of their support, they're going to have to fence off this property so that it has to be fenced away from the neighbors. And I hope that we can one day live in a community where people don't really feel that they need to fence off different kinds of housing from one another. But other than that, I'm glad that we're going to get more housing on transit near the Highline Canal, which is beautiful. Please vote yes.
Speaker 0: And I hope you have a good evening.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jesse Paris. But before we go ahead and unmute, Jesse. Just wanted to remind Mitch, Jen, Jeannot, Tyler, if we're having trouble connecting you with our audio and visual and so need you to log out and log back in and hopefully that will fix it. We're going to go ahead and go to Jesse Paris.
Speaker 8: Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home or in the council chambers. My name is just Watson Paris and I'm representing for Blackstar, the Movement for Self Defense, Positive Action for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party in the front line. Black males and I will be there next November 2023. I'm in favor of the rezoning tonight. As Adam Ashcroft already alluded to, we have a housing crisis and we need to increase our housing stock. So this is another way of doing that. I have a few questions, though. What is the potential ammo level for this rezoning? Because we have a crisis of 0 to 30%. We need more 0 to 30% housing across the city of Denver. I noticed to suggest it's Arapahoe County, but it's still in Denver and we need more 0 to 30% housing. So the I can answer that question. I would greatly appreciate it. Also, has there been a traffic study done? As you know, Parker Road is a very heavily traveled arterial trail. And I would like to know if there had been a traffic study done and also if there had been a parking study done. Adam already answered my question about the neighborhood agreement. I'm glad to see that there was community engagement with this process. Some ten years ago, I used to get food from this church, so I hate to see the church go, but if it's making way for affordable housing that people can actually afford in the mile high income city , I'm all for it. With that being said, please pass this rezoning tonight. We have a housing crisis. This will not alleviate it, of course, where it will help in the process of alleviating our housing crisis. We need to increase our housing stock and create affordable housing that people can actually afford. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker is Mina Goldstein. Looks like we don't have you in the queue and so we'll go ahead and move on. Our next speaker is Ian Frosh.
Speaker 4: Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: I city council.
Speaker 8: I'm in I live in District seven. I want to voice my support for this rezoning. Tonight, we're in the middle of a housing crisis right now. Housing costs have been skyrocketing across the city for a very long time and they have not slowed down and. We see people falling into homelessness all the time every day. We fast we desperately need more housing to stop our housing costs from skyrocketing. Skyrocketing. And we also have a climate crisis going on as well. So. This helps in two ways. Multifamily housing uses less energy than, you know, sprawl, single family sprawl out in the suburbs. And it's also.
Speaker 4: Along transit.
Speaker 8: Line and bicycling and walking paths. And it allows more options for people to get around that aren't driving polluting. And I also encourage the developer and the city to not let any neighbors bully the developer into putting a fence around this really need to make sure there's a. There's not any block access to walkways so that people can walk through bus stops like thrills, walk thrills to stores wherever they need to go. I've seen that in the past where I've lived in an apartment in Lowry that had his big fence around it, and we had to jump through like a hole in the fence just to get to a bus stop, which is ridiculous. So I really encourage the developer to stop with the fencing. And. But yes, please vote yes on this proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Ian. And we're going to go ahead and try to go back and see if we have Mitch John Atala back on the virtual platform. All right. Doesn't look like we have much there. And we went through a couple of speakers. And so, unfortunately, I don't know if he was able to stay with us. And so that concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 810. Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 2: You know. Thank you, Madam President. This is a bit of a kumbaya moment. I didn't expect to see me tell you the truth. So the one thing I don't want to blow completely by is this is a tricky traffic area with the location. I think it was be just kind of just west of the intersection with Mississippi on Parker Road. And I believe Parker Road is a state road. Am I correct in that area? And I'm trying to understand what the interplay will look like when we get down to site plan, review and really do address the, the, uh, ingress egress issues.
Speaker 7: I'm going to try to bring up a slide here so that Phil can actually probably speak to this a little bit better as to what kind of proposed access improvements there might be. But I just wanted to stress that as part of staff's analysis, we really only look at the future street type designation in blueprint ever to determine whether or not the rezoning is appropriate. Right. And so I'll just point out, again, the Parker, as we know, is a major arterial. And so that's that's what went into our analysis of kind of.
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm just.
Speaker 7: Uses.
Speaker 2: I'm not arguing with your analysis at all. I'm recognizing that we because we don't generally have site plans at this point. Yeah, we don't have traffic studies at this point. So recognizing that that will get done down the road because of the uniqueness, where then I saw Mr. Workman not have said that Parker is a state road . Just wondering how Denver planners will interface with the state and how all that gets worked out. Phil, can you address the.
Speaker 1: If you wouldn't mind, go ahead and reintroduce yourself.
Speaker 2: Hirsch, for example, in architecture. So we've already had a couple of meetings with Denver staff and you are correct, that's a six road. But that daddy controls how the access is will be designed and then we get he does blessing for that. And so the word we have so far from very obviously long ways to go see the process to unfold, but that that they would like to move that access as far northwest as possible. And so that's how we're proceeding and that will engage with see that. And at some point it will be a meeting of minds. The other element to that that I'll throw in before you speak for the the other access point being Quebec way has its own issues, especially down around at the intersection with Florida. And I think this would be an excellent time that daddy take a comprehensive look at Quebec way. Yes, to be sure. I mean, because Quebec Way starts at Quebec Street, maybe a couple of blocks south of leads down and then head south east to where when it actually meets up with Iron Leaf Avenue, it's at Yosemite, so it'd be a great time to look at potential issues there. Phil, you.
Speaker 8: Had said just to add, as you're well aware and your district as well, Colorado Boulevard, they share that with. See that right there then it's kind of a gray area like does Denver have control or see that or they work cooperatively. One of the great advantages that we have right now, though, is that there was recognition that their folks were nervous about pedestrians, bicycle people accessing Highline Canal. There is an underpass project of folks now can go underneath. So that conflict has been alleviated. Very shortly, the project will be completed. But that was that is something that will help those conflicts for pedestrians and bicyclists and everyone trying to access the canal. That was one of the problems along. Parker But you're absolutely right. The other access is Quebec way and how that goes to that neighborhood, which is also Denver and Arapahoe County, and it may not handle it exactly right. So I think that's something we will definitely deal with. Part of Stapleton.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we've struggled over the years have been on council in working with Arapahoe County to get Québec way just paved.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Nothing tricky, you know, no flyovers, no tunnels or bridges, just fresh pavement on the ground. So this does have elements that will have to be well addressed to handle the traffic appropriately. Thank you. I appreciate the answers. That's all, Madam President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And next up, we have Councilmember Swire.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Madam President. I've got a few questions. So this is kind of confusing. This actually might be one for Kirsten to start with because this splits between Arapahoe County and Denver County. Some of the feedback that we received from in in letters from residents referenced Arapahoe County land use plans. Do those apply in Denver? Oh. Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Council. I keep forgetting that I need to hold the button now. I typically punt these sort of questions to Nate Lucero, who I see is here tonight, too. But I may go out on a limb here and say now that the plans that are in your criteria that are part of your review are Denver plans, not Arapahoe County plans. Got it. Thank you. Okay. So, Phil, you talked a little bit about the outreach that went on with the community. Did you so you did Arapahoe County outreach and then Denver County Outreach where they kind of separate events or how did that work?
Speaker 8: No, actually, we did have a community wide meeting at at the church, and it was for all all adjacent neighbors in Denver and Arapahoe County. Interestingly, a lot of the mostly impacted neighbors or the folks that were immediately adjacent were in Arapahoe County. We also did reach out to Candlewick, offered a meeting to their entire board for all the residents. That's not something that they normally do. So we did have one individual meetings and also smaller meetings with some of the residents of of Candlewick as well, as well as the Highland House, which is immediately down Mississippi to the east , which is also in the city and county of Denver. But yes, we did have a community wide meeting at the church, and mostly it was Arapahoe County residents that attended. But it was it was a community wide meeting.
Speaker 7: Okay. And so, Candlewick, you said that the meetings are something that they don't normally do. What is what does that mean? Yes.
Speaker 8: So as I indicated when I spoke earlier, I do appreciate, you know, reached out and said this is kind of odd because normally we do community outreach and it's like, oh, go to phone slake or go to the watch park neighborhood. This this was kind of an interesting one because it didn't have an identified R.A. So we reached out to this to the condominiums in the immediately adjacent neighbors. One was Candlewick. Interestingly, when we reached out to Candlewick through their board membership and their management company at the time, they said, Well, we'll provide like a flier and general information, but we're not interested and we won't participate in a community wide meeting which made it somewhat difficult. So we did provide information for them at their office for folks to look at if they wanted to. And we also did meet individually with a number of groups that subsequently attempted to put together some sort of a flier or some sort of protest regarding view corridors, which I believe you should have information regarding that as well, which we also addressed in that meeting with them. And we're happy to have that opportunity to discuss that with them again. And we reached out to them after that as well. But yes, so candidly, it was kind of difficult. It was kind of an odd place to conduct community outreach also in an era of COVID. So how do you do it universally, etc.?
Speaker 7: Got it. Okay. Thank you. So couple, don't even sit down. I've got more questions for you. So a couple of other, I guess, questions around that. Then in terms of the Candlewick and the residents sort of directly to the north and east, what were their main concerns?
Speaker 8: So the main concerns that we heard from those residents, which again, our city and county of Denver residents, we've also heard that from the Hughes Mountain View residents as well there in Arapahoe County. Their concerns were view corridors and traffic. So as Councilman Cashman indicated, and we all recognize there are challenges, certainly along Parker as far as ingress and egress and and traffic concerns. At the same time, that's also a great feature to be located along a corridor like that, to take advantage of multimodal opportunities. And the other issue that we heard was view corridors, which because Mr. Perry can speak to this, because he's the master of that, but but because of the slight of the of the site and how it slopes, there's. Really no impact to their view corridor at all.
Speaker 7: Is that. Is that the thing that. So there is a document in Granicus that I'm looking at. So just for the public at home, who's watching Granicus is our system that we use to upload things so that it's on the computer so that the community can see it at large. So if you go to Denver, go abroad and you click on the city council section and then you click on meetings and agendas minutes. You can actually look up all of the documents attached to this rezoning, and there is there are a number of them here. So thank you. Sorry, I wanted to just explain that to people because now they're all going to go like this and look it up right now. So is that the the view plane study? Is is that what I'm looking at in Granicus?
Speaker 8: Yes. Yes, it is.
Speaker 7: Okay. And it's basically showing that shows. Explain to me what it's showing. That would be great. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Hirschberg and Glenn Architecture. So it shows a site section basically cut all the way from Candlewick all the way down to the back way. And one of the unique natures of this, the site is and our site itself slopes 60 feet from Parker down to get back way. And then the parking lot of Candlewick Tower sits 20 feet above us. So by the time you add everything up, our tallest building is going to affect barely the bottom two or three floors. And then there's a whole tree canopy that exists on the west side of Candlewick Towers, and our buildings are going to be shorter than those trees, and our buildings are only about ten feet taller than the existing church. So all told, we were able to demonstrate that there's hardly any impact on the view cause for that kind of look tower.
Speaker 7: Got it. Okay. Thank you for explaining that. I really appreciate it. And then when you're talking about the building heights, you're you're is that SMU three on one in SMU, five on the other. So but you're not planning to build five storeys, right?
Speaker 2: Correct. As was mentioned in the previous application, we intend to build four stories on the SMU five. We don't have a choice of a four zone. And then we intend to taper down to three stories as we get closer to the single family neighborhood to the southeast.
Speaker 7: Okay. Got it. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then this other concern that you mentioned was the traffic, which Councilman Cashman already mentioned. So you plan to do a traffic study even though this is not going through a large development you review. So it's not required, is that correct?
Speaker 2: Correct. Site planning. Through the site planning process, we will perform a traffic impact analysis and the criteria for which would probably be established by both Denver and see.
Speaker 7: So got it. Okay. Thank you. So and then there was a protest petition that was filed that is that did not meet the criteria. Libby mentioned that earlier. It's in also in granicus and uploaded for the public to see. And so I'm just wondering how it didn't meet the legal requirements, I guess, Libby, maybe you want to take that one. Yes. Thanks. So the protest petition, we ask our jazz folks to identify the site. It's the subject side of rezoning, and then they identify a 200 foot buffer around that. And any property that hits that buffer is considered eligible to sign the protest petition. But we don't tally up the number of. Signatures. Instead, we assign every signature a square footage. And so, like the single family homes to the southeast had one of those signed, they would have been eligible for, say, 8000 square feet based on their lot size. But for the Candlewood Condominiums, because there's over 200 owners and that 200 foot buffer only crossed a sliver of their site. Each one of those individuals was assigned only 157 square feet. So even though we're we basically looked at the protest petition, didn't even bother to validate the signatures because we figured if all 82 of these are eligible, they're still only going to be at 2% of the land area required. Okay, I see. Thank you for clarifying that and doing the math for me because I never would have pulled that off. Okay. So I noticed as I was reading that protest petition that it says the candlewick actually rules don't allow people to go door to door to solicit. So how did the residents know about the petition and get information about the rezoning? Because the management company refused an offer of an informational meeting and they are not allowed to go door to door. So, like, how did these residents get to sign the petition? Does anybody know? I don't have any insight on that to.
Speaker 8: To speak to that. I believe it was just kind of word of mouth. And interestingly, it was the same. It was a group of folks that we had already talked to, and they had expressed their concerns about the view corridor and traffic, which I think was kind of the impetus of this attempted protest petition. I did follow up with them again after I found out that they attempted to submit this protest petition and got them the information regarding not only the good neighbor agreement with the Arabo County neighbors, but also information regarding the View Corridor. But it's my understanding it was kind of a word of mouth person on, you know, soliciting a petition. But again, that's. Just what I believe happened, but I don't believe they had a formal meeting with the board or anything like that.
Speaker 7: So it was just sort of word of mouth. Do you know whether the information that was provided to the community was correct?
Speaker 8: From my conversations, it appears that although we did have meetings with this group and folks and subsequent also to a planning board because there were a number of folks or not a number, there were two or three folks from that group that spoke at Planning Board. Regarding the same issue, and it appeared to be the same folks with the same issue, which was interestingly, the few quarters got it as Mr. Perry. Yep.
Speaker 7: Okay, great. So I was sort of looking through some of the the the other letters and comments that came through. And there was someone who brought to my office's attention that there was a social media post that says, please sign this petition if you want to keep the two one story zoning. So, Libby, let me just ask you really quickly, is there such a thing as one story zoning in Denver? No. And I think the person was thinking that the single unit zone. And so I think that single unit versus a single story was maybe a little confusing to them. But even a single unit sounds typically about like up to two and a half stories. Okay. So yeah, like it's like 30 feet or 35 feet or so. They need it for a single unit zone district. Yeah. Which is essentially 30 to 35 depending on like the lot with. Yeah. Okay. Got it. So I'm just it's a little concerning because when people are getting a petition and asked to sign something and they're being given false information, that's a that's concerning. Are there any. Requirements in our protest petition process that that would require or any guardrails I guess I'm asking about that would make sure that when people are getting a protest petition, the information they are receiving on that petition is correct. Our gas folks in this instance had to coordinate as well with Arapahoe County in order to pull all of the property ownership information for all of the land that was within the buffer. So we assume that's accurate to the extent that we assume our GIS is accurate, right? That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is if we have a community of people who have been told, sign this petition. Because if you do, it's going to tell people we want to keep everything. One story. Mm hmm. And that's incorrect. Mm hmm. Do we have any does CPD have any guardrails in place or any policies and procedures around protest petitions that would stop something like that from happening? That's a great question. This was my first protest petition. You want to maybe take that on so I'm not misinforming folks more.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Members of the Council. Assistant City Attorney.
Speaker 8: I would say that the best guardrail that.
Speaker 4: Would be in place is for.
Speaker 8: An individual that is questioning.
Speaker 10: Petition. They could always call CPD. They could speak.
Speaker 8: With the planner that's assigned to that case.
Speaker 10: And get the accurate information for that particular.
Speaker 7: Rezoning. Okay. Thank you for that. I would just I think we've identified a gap here in this situation and maybe it's a conversation we need to have. So thank you. Thanks, Madam President. No more questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And not seeing any other folks accounts. Going to give it a second. Councilmember Hines, go ahead, please.
Speaker 8: Thank you, council president. And some of our conversations about zoning.
Speaker 2: In District ten. There are some wild.
Speaker 8: Statements that are not at all based in fact. So I just wanted to reiterate that this I don't see how necessarily the city has any direct authority over what to private what one private party communicates to another private party. That said, when it when people are asked to take.
Speaker 2: Action on the city's.
Speaker 8: Rezoning consideration, and it is based on something other.
Speaker 2: Than fact that.
Speaker 8: That's something that we've had here in District ten as well. And it is very concerning. Thank you. Council president.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. At the public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill eight and Councilmember Sawyer.
Speaker 7: Thanks, Madam President. So I just want to make sure that I get on the record as well. This rezoning is unique for me because the developer of this project, actually, all of the developers of this project are my neighbors and my constituents and are, you know, one particular developer. Our kids are good friends and carpool together every day to school. So with that relationship in mind, I went to the Ethics Board. I wanted to make sure I didn't have to recuse myself from voting on this and originally thought maybe I would have to. The Ethics Board returned a decision that my participation in the hearing doesn't constitute a violation of the ethics code. And so I can vote on this issue as long as I remain impartial. The letter from that Board of Ethics is in Granicus as well. So for the public, if you would like to see the advisory opinion from the Board of Ethics, it is uploaded into Granicus, so you can read it for yourself. I think that this is a situation we've seen it a couple of times before where blue print Denver says Look to the NPI and there is no NPI because we haven't gotten to the NPI process for this neighborhood yet, which is a shame because that means that the community hasn't had the opportunity to have a conversation around what future development should look like along the lead stale corridor. And that's too bad. So we only really have this sort of like broad general blueprint Denver criteria to go by and 240 units is a big it's a big development. But then again, across the street, we've got Candlewick, which is 215 story tower. So it's clearly not that big. Under the principles of Blueprint, this developer could have asked for significantly more density than they did. Instead, we heard testimony that they're not going to build the full five storey entitlement they're requesting on one piece, that they're only asking for a three storey entitlement on the other. To me, this is an example of thoughtful development and a good job of working with the community to come up with something that works as a good, healthy transition between single family homes and 15 storey towers. So I really appreciate you guys were reaching out and also, you know, working to do 15% affordable housing and 80% I and to sign a good neighbor agreement. If it's possible for you to work with Candlewick across the street on a good neighbor agreement of their own. I would really appreciate it if you guys would continue to do that. And I think most importantly, you know, we really need to focus on kind of the traffic issues. So when when you get to the site planning stage, I would really, really stress that that's incredibly important. And that might be another opportunity for you to go back out to the community and reengage them. I think, you know, I think it's really concerning that we have neighbors lying to neighbors in order to get them to sign protest petitions. That's not okay. And I think we've kind of identified a gap here, like I said. So if that's a conversation CPD wants to have about your policies and procedures, I would really like to have that conversation. And and so I think, you know, with that, it meets all of the criteria. I'm going to support it this evening and I hope my colleagues will as well. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And I'll go ahead and chime in here as well. I do believe that this meets all of the rezoning criteria. And congratulations to the community members and to you, Councilwoman Sawyer, because when we hear that there might be a protest petition and then when we have 14 speakers and all are in favor, I think there's been a lot of work done behind the scenes. And so I want to congratulate the sponsors and Councilwoman Sawyer and the CPD staff along with community members. And so I will be supporting this this evening. Council Bill 21, Dash 810 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 810, please.
Speaker 6: CdeBaca, I. Ortega, I. Sawyer.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 6: Torres, I. Black. All right. Clark. I will.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 6: Herndon. I kind.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 6: Cashman.
Speaker 7: Can I?
Speaker 6: Sandoval, i. Madam President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results.
Speaker 6: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 21 Dash. 810 has passed. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, September 27th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 849 Changing the zoning classification of 5350 leads Dale Drive in Washington, Virginia, Vail and required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash eight one Changing the zoning classification for four
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1091 South Parker Road and 7400 East Mississippi Avenue in Windsor.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from S-SU-D to S-MU-3 (single-unit to multi-unit), located at 7400 East Mississippi Avenue and approves a map amendment to rezone property from-SU-D to S-MU-5, located at 1091 South Parker Road in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-27-21.