Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash 0285 has passed. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please place Council Bill 1133 on the floor for final passage? Excuse me, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 1133 be placed on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved. And I get a Second Amendment right on the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1133 is open. May we please have the staff report?
Speaker 2: Certainly. Thank you, Madam President. I'm Brandon Shaver, senior city planner at CPD, presenting an official estimate for 2201 Arapahoe Street. The request here is a former Chapter 59 PD 570 rezoning to DHS 12 Plus, which is downtown Arapahoe Square and 12 plus stories dependent on building for. This request is in council districts nine in the five points neighborhood. It is at the northwest corner of 22nd and Arapahoe Streets. The land area is just under 19,000 square feet and is currently an industrial warehouse building used for brewing and distilling purposes. The proposal is to rezone to DC 12 plus to match the zoning of the surrounding area. And looking at the existing zoning, it is 570. What is surrounding is entirely des 12 plus which is. Which is a district that was legislatively created in 2016 and mapped in this area. However, it is Cp's practice to only resume properties that have standard based zoning. So in this case, as this property had custom zoning, it was not rezoning 2616 legislatively. The party was approved in 1995. It is highly tailored to the current use and the existing building and also allows be it uses in the former chapter 59 zoning code. The maximum height, if redeveloped, is 200 feet and the maximum floor area ratio is matched to the existing use, which is 0.841 to 1. Of the existing land use again is industrial as they operate brewery and distillery. Adjacent land uses include industrial commercial retail, mixed use multi-unit residential and then some vacant parking lots as well. These photos give you a sense of the building form and scale with the subject property on the bottom left and the bottom right. And then in comparing the current zoning versus what is proposed, you can see that three building forms would be introduced. The height and stories could vary depending on the building form that is used. But generally speaking, the proposed district would generate a more pedestrian and active and urban development with low lower street setbacks and higher to ranges and high transparency requirements. This area is also covered by the Arapaho Square Design Standards and Guidelines, which were also approved in 2016 and they were amended last year. These design standards and guidelines are intended to promote a vibrant sense of place and encourage an active pedestrian environment, much like the downtown neighborhood should. And also the Downtown Design Advisory Board provides guidance on any new projects or major exterior building and site improvements in this area. Speaking to the process Information Notes was sent in April. This was moved forward unanimously by planning board in early October, and to date we have received a letter of support from the Ball Park Collective, R.A. and also eight letters of support from the public. Moving to the criteria. There are four plans for the first consistency with adaptive plans criterion beginning with Plan 2040. This does meet a lot of the goals and strategies that are related to providing safe and convenient access to a variety of amenities. Building a network of well connected, vibrant, mixed use centers and corridors. And promoting small, locally owned businesses and restaurants that reflect the unique character of Denver. Moving to Blueprint Denver. This is mapped as part of the downtown neighborhood context. This is the most dense and active context in our city and includes the highest intensity residential and large employment center. And it really does give prominence to the pedestrian realm. This is mapped as a high residential area. These areas have a high mix of uses and intense building heights with the high lot coverage. The street types are both downtown arterials. There are numerous bus lines that go along Broadway and along Park Avenue West that also focus on transit. And then there's also a high focus on pedestrian and bike connectivity in this part of downtown as well. This is within the high and high medium residential area growth area strategy.
Speaker 0: And blueprint Denver.
Speaker 2: Where we expect 15% of new housing and 5% of new employment by 2040. The Northeastern China plan was adopted in 2011 and describes this area as mixed use with having a sizable employment base and a variety of mid to high density housing options. The recommended building height here is a maximum height of 12 storeys with up to 20 storeys if a point tower building form is used. And then like I said before, there are enhanced building forms, standards and supplemental design standards and guidelines which are consistent with the plan direction. Lastly, we have the downtown area plan for 2017. Which part of this area as being an ideal location for a greater range and density of users? It recommends small area plans and improvements to the pedestrian realm to reinvigorate and revitalize the neighborhood. And the proposed proposed district is consistent with this guidance. The reasoning is also consistent with the next two criteria, as it will result in the uniformity of district regulations. And it will also for the public health, safety and welfare by implementing those plans that I just mentioned, facilitating increased housing density close to downtown and providing better health outcomes through increased physical activity. There are two justifying circumstances for this rezoning, one being change or changing conditions within this area. There are a number of development projects that are in the pipeline in a number of public and public improvements that have been made to this part of downtown in anticipation of future growth. Also, as I said, this property does contain a former Chapter 59. Zoning is a concern and could justify the circumstance. Lastly, the request is consistent with the downtown neighborhood context and the zone. Different purpose and intent statements which are further detailed in the staff report. With that. CPD staff recommends approval based on training. All review criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Brendan, for the staff report. Council has not received any written comments regarding Council Bill 20, Dash 1133 and we have four individuals signed up to speak tonight. Our first speaker is Brian Dunn.
Speaker 2: It even has a council. My name is Jeffrey McCall. Pierce and I met with Jesse.
Speaker 0: Wait just a second, Jesse. We had a gentlemen before you. I'm sorry. It's Brian Dunne.
Speaker 2: Hi. Are you able to hear me and Jimmy?
Speaker 0: Uh huh. Go ahead, Mr. Dunne.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. My name is Brian Dunn, and I represent great divide brewing to rise on the property at the northeast corner of 22nd Street and wrap on the street, which is currently zoned PD 570. This request is for the rezoning of the property from 572 Diaz 12 plus great view to request City Council's approval of the rezoning in order to return the property to the surrounding zoned district because the manufactured beverage is now an allowed use. Nate Diaz 12 plus Zone District. Prior to a zone map amendment changing the zoning for the neighborhood from b8a to Diaz 12 plus the manufactured malt beverage was not an allowed use under the prior zoning of Bay De, which prompted the original update. If the rezoning is approved, it would remove the PD or remove the property from a PD zoning designation and put the property into the zoning district prevailing in the neighborhood. Currently, a majority of the properties surrounding the property in question are zoned DE 12 plus. There is no current plan to develop the property or businesses to burn packaged beer, and it's our intent to stay in the neighborhood for a long time. It's our hope to rezone the properties so we have the same zoning as our neighbors with a DC 12 plus zoning designation. Great divide has worked hand in hand with the city neighbors and various other interested parties to ensure that the rezoning reflects the best use of the property that will continue to enhance and harmonize with the neighborhood. Therefore, we respectfully request that City Council approves the proposed rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Brian. Now we've got you up. Jesse. Jesse Paris.
Speaker 2: Yes. Thanks to a council president. My name is Jesse Michelle Pearson, represented for Denver Homicide, a local black star action film for self-defense. Positive action for social change as well as. Okay. Email. But live in eight and Christopher Hampton's district and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm just resigning tonight. Um, yeah. And question is where a mass of troops have been occurring. Olga and Jesus saved the last spring shelter right behind us. I'm concerned that our house neighbors that are in this area are going to continue to be criminalized and terrorized. That's for existing and public space. And I cannot support this rezoning tonight, especially zoning, that there's no guarantee that this is not going to become a 12 story building in our rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, a town of which I grew up in five points. So I cannot support this rezoning tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Next up, we have David Hagan.
Speaker 2: Milo.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Go ahead, David.
Speaker 2: I'm David Hagan. And I do not support this or basically the same things that Jesse work on. And I also wanted to say that when we. Continue to move these homeless folks and our unhoused neighbors and we continue to allow them to die. We are all responsible. We now know that the mayor's responsible. Is the city council going to do something or are they going to be responsible as well? That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, our last speaker is Tess Storti. All right. We're trying to see if we still have tests. On with us or not.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Tess.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead. You just have to unmute. Okay. It looks like. Test was maybe frozen. If I could ask my colleagues or I just need some indication, it seems like some of our folks are frozen and others are not. Are you all okay? I see some movement there. Okay. There you go. Tests. You were frozen there for a second. Your audio isn't working. Test. Okay.
Speaker 1: So I'll give it one.
Speaker 0: More try here. And if I could just remind folks if they would please speak to the criteria of the the rezoning. We much appreciate it.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry to us. We're not able to get your. Audio work in there. And so maybe will we have one more public hearing? And so hopefully we'll be able to get your audio fixed for that one. And so that you might need to log out tests and log back in so we can get you on the on the third public hearing.
Speaker 1: That's where.
Speaker 4: You stay. If she was seeing or supporting.
Speaker 0: I. Let me say. I think she was against shit signed up against. So we can record that for the public record at least that our fourth speaker test story was signed up in opposition of the rezoning. And that concludes our speakers tonight, questions from members of council. Councilwoman CdeBaca, we've got you up first.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. I have a couple of questions for Brandon. Brandon, can you explain to me the context of the 2016 legislative reason and why this property owner was not, you know, spoken to to bring into that zoning even with the PD?
Speaker 2: Yes, great question. So it's my understanding that when there are legislative rezonings, that there are somewhat preliminary discussions with property owners that have custom zoning within that area, depending on the complexity of their zoning. A lot of the times you'll see that those areas just remain custom zoning and the legislative rezoning does not affect their property, and they come at a later date to rezone to a standard district.
Speaker 4: And so there's no functional change being asked for because there's no development plan. And so I'm curious how you ascertain that this met the criteria of advancing the the public health, welfare and safety without a plan. How did you how did you or CPD ascertain that it was consistent with that criterion?
Speaker 2: Can you can you speak to which criteria are you talking about? Just the further furthering public safety and for peace?
Speaker 4: Yes. If there's no plan, how exactly does this rezoning accomplish that?
Speaker 2: So I think that the current you speaks to that and then I think that furthering public health and safety and welfare is also covered and blueprints and in all of the neighborhood plans that speak to this area being more pedestrian friendly and active uses on the ground floor. So even without any development being proposed at this time, staff felt that the current use is still furthering public health, safety and welfare.
Speaker 4: But the reasoning. There's there's not actually a plan. So we're judging the current use. We're judging the plan. As if it were the current use.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what the question is exactly, but I will say that the current use was that the current zoning was put in place for this use. We have since adopted plans that say that this is an okay use for this area and that I think is the reason why the applicant is wanting to come out of the custom zoning because we have plans in zone districts that will allow for their current use.
Speaker 4: And so tell me a little bit more about the parking requirement that changes with this zoning. Is there a new requirement for a building going from one story to 12 stories?
Speaker 2: There are parking requirements that are dependent upon the building form used, which at this time there is no redevelopment proposed. So I am not exactly sure what the required parking would be based on whatever the project is going to get redeveloped into, which is not, I think, the applicant's intent at this time.
Speaker 4: And so can I speak to the the applicant? Can you tell us a little bit about what your plans are long term for this parcel? There may not be a development planned right now. Is there a development planned within the next five years or a sale planned?
Speaker 2: Neither. Our intent is to continue to operate it as a as a brewery. We've been there for 26, 27 years, and that's where our beer is brewed. So that's our business. And we intend to be there for a while. We intend to stay in the business and there is no development plan because we need the building to do what we do.
Speaker 4: And so outside of bringing it into consistency with everything else around it, you're not seeking a functional change.
Speaker 2: No, there's no functional change. We under the PD were allowed to brew beer, but it was a sort of a we knew we needed the PD because it wasn't brewing, wasn't allowed under Bar De is now allowed under DEA 12 plus and we just felt like it's something that we should fix at some point. There's no reason why we shouldn't be essentially the same zoning as is all all the neighbors the city supported. The city likes to remove puddles. It's easier for the city to manage. So we're just. There's no hurry. There's just it's just something that we need to do. Or we're stuck in a zoning that really is a little bit clunky and it doesn't make any sense to have it.
Speaker 4: Brandon, would this ever have to come back to us? If it passed today to us on it to 12 stories and it was sold in a year, would it ever have to come back to City Council for another decision?
Speaker 2: The question. First, to clarify this, this district is a little bit tricky and that as 12 and then plus. So there are three different voting forms that are associated with this of varying heights. But if this was approved by council tonight, when the property is redeveloped, they would not be coming back for another approval. And there is the downtown design review board would be looking at the projects when they want to do something else with the property.
Speaker 4: And what was the reason for zoning this area? The 12 plus.
Speaker 2: So I think this this this zoning that surrounding in this area largely came from the downtown area plan. In 2007, it recognized Arapahoe Square as kind of the new downtown neighborhood. So what is it? Nine years after that plan was adopted, then this part of the city was went through a planning process, complete with new zoning and new design standards and guidelines.
Speaker 4: And since that 2016 legislative rezoning brought by Councilman Brooks, how many of the parcels have actually taken advantage of that zoning?
Speaker 2: That's a great question. I think there are at least three projects that are in the pipeline that are taking advantage of the zoning and the different building forms. But I don't think that we've seen anything come out of the ground yet.
Speaker 4: And how many parcels were included in that total reason?
Speaker 2: I am not certain, but it's a pretty big area.
Speaker 4: Hundreds.
Speaker 2: I would say so.
Speaker 4: And where is the closest or how far away is the next 12 storey building?
Speaker 2: I'm not certain I can look at a map and get back to you on that. I would guess within a couple of blocks.
Speaker 4: It's I think it's at least three or four blocks, maybe even five. Everything around there is one or two stories. And so if you could clarify and look at something, that would be helpful. That's it for my questions, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman CdeBaca. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam President. Brandon, could you clarify a couple of things for me here about page five seven? Because I'm a little confused. This was this PD was put in in what, 1995, I think the staff report said. And but it says that the maximum height is 200 feet. But there's only a rather small building on there. I don't know that. You might know that. Actually, maybe Mr. Dunn can answer this, but my question is, why was this PD entitled in 1995, 25 years ago, for a 200 foot, 200 foot height? Do we know the history on that?
Speaker 2: No. It is my understanding that the height restrictions under the peu de or whatever the be, whatever there was an existence under.
Speaker 3: The old the old being.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. So you already have a height, you already have an entitlement to build a 200 foot building, correct?
Speaker 2: That's correct. Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. So, Brandon, what I what I'd like you to explain to me and to the rest of the folks here under the D. A. S dash 12 plus. It looks to me like the general director for that zone district is eight stories, 110 feet. And then you can go up to 150 feet with a height incentive. How? Explain how that works.
Speaker 2: Yeah, great question. Like I said before, this is one of the trickier zone districts where the number doesn't quite line up with this number of stories in the height. So, yes, so that. So the base building form, which is the general building form, allows for eight stories in 110 feet. The next building form is the general with the height incentive, which allows for 150 feet. There is not a story count to that. The history behind that is that that incentive is granted when you make all of the parking not visible from the street and then you're allowed to go up to, I believe, 250 feet. But the point tower building setback, which gives you the setbacks and the solar access to the street.
Speaker 3: Okay, that sounds rather complicated. So the height, the incentive here is for parking contained within the building and concealed.
Speaker 2: Yes. That's intended to promote underground parking or parking that's not visible from the street.
Speaker 3: I see. Okay. And so the current entitlement is 200 feet in general. How many stories would that be?
Speaker 2: You know, it's a 16 foot ground floor and then maybe 12 foot four points above that, maybe a ten foot 12, 15 story building.
Speaker 3: Okay. So we already have an entitlement here for a 12 story building.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. But it's pretty. All right. I think I understand it now. Thank you. Thank you, Brandon. That's all, Madam President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. Thanks to President Brandon. So if the site were to be developed either under the existing zoning or under the proposed zoning to take advantage of maximum density, that could not be done without having some parking requirements. Correct?
Speaker 2: I will have to double check on that. But I believe that all of the downtown neighborhood context districts do not have minimum parking required.
Speaker 0: Okay. Unlike some areas of our city. And I think that's consistent with the five, seven and the former bay zones, which a number of these were converted over to other zoning categories. Okay. Thank you. I was just trying to get that point clarified. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1133 is closed. Councilwoman CdeBaca. And so this is in your your district. Did you want to comment on it?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Madam President. This is a tricky one. And I think Councilman Flynn was pointing out the current PD essentially giving them the same height if they wanted to. But there would they would have to, by default, come back to council for any other development here, because the PD is so specific. So I imagine a 12 or 16 storey brewery.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 4: Nobody is that specific. And this is a critical parcel of land, as commentors mentioned, right across the street from affordable housing, right down the street from Jesus saves in one of our areas of town that is experiencing the most heavy pressure of gentrification and displacement. I think it would be irresponsible for us to approve a plan a rezoning tonight without a plan knowing that the specificity of the PD is really the only thing that would allow this to come back in front of us. I think that, you know, this is a case where it's important for council colleagues to exercise what we call among ourselves as council courtesy. I often hear council members speak about this, giving each other council courtesy in their vote, where they defer to the council member whose district that the zoning is in. And I would hope that in this situation, council members recognize that we know the pressures of our district better than anyone else on this body. And right now, in a crisis, a housing crisis, a global pandemic, there is a situation where this brewery could potentially go out of business, could potentially want to sell, and they would be able to do that and sell it to someone who would build 16 stories of luxury developments. Right. In a place where we might want to have some ability to determine what will truly advance the public safety welfare of our community. And so I'm asking that council members exercise council courtesy on this vote. There is no functional change that we are prohibiting the applicant from achieving and it would give us an opportunity to make sure that when we change this party in a critical area of town, we have a plan in front of us to be responding to not just potential and something that doesn't exist, something that exists in the ether, as most of our plans do and as most of our plans have facilitated more and more gentrification. I would hope that we take this moment not to allow that to happen in this area, and I ask my colleagues to vote no on this. A no vote will not hurt the applicant. It will not hurt the business of the applicant. It can only give us another opportunity to assess the the criteria related to public welfare of this neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman CdeBaca, I wanted to pause for a second and see. I believe we have Kirsten Crawford, our city attorney, on the line, and then also Adam Hernandez, if you want to address the council, Curtis, see?
Speaker 4: President Gillmor I guess my question hit me.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 4: I'm.
Speaker 0: Or you or Adam Hernandez. This is a unique request that we haven't entertained in a rezoning in my, I guess, recent memory, talking about any sort of courtesies on that because of the quasi judicial nature of zoning. So if you might want to just for the public record, reiterate the criteria that that we can only look at this through the criteria that is presented to us through community planning in development.
Speaker 4: And let me ask Gilmore. I'm not asking people to not judge this rezoning based on the five criteria that we are legally required to judge it against. I am asking this body to understand that there is no one else body who knows that the metrics or the measure of number and three, three and four better than the council member representing the district criterion three is to further public health, safety and welfare. Criterion four is justifying circumstances. What I have explained to my council colleague as the representative of this district is that we are squandering an opportunity to ensure that anything in this area does meet those two criteria because there is no associated plan and the impact of not approving this is a zero. We won't hurt the current applicant's business or any plans that they have in place. It only guarantees us an opportunity down the road to advance the public health, safety and welfare in any new project that comes this direction. So I'm asking my colleagues to use the five criteria and to listen to the expertize of the person who represents this district.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Kirsten.
Speaker 4: Yes. Hi. Thank you and good evening, everyone. It is a good question. I, I would just like to weigh in, but then also give Adam Hernandez an opportunity to give some perspective on this as well. But each council member must cast their vote in accordance with the criteria. So each of you sitting as a crazy judicial officer must review the criteria and make your own determination. And so, from a legal perspective, you can't defer your vote, so to speak, to another member of the body. And maybe Adam wants to provide some perspective as well.
Speaker 2: Hello. Councilmembers Adam Hernandez, Assistant City Attorney. No, I agree with with Kirsten here. The rezoning is a quasi judicial decision of council. There are five criteria to look at, according to the Denver zoning code. If council believes that the criteria have been met, they should vote to approve. And if they feel the criteria has not been met, they should vote to deny. But that is the choice that each councilmember has to come up with. And as the staff report is recommending approval, you know, it'd be incumbent for council members if they do want to vote against to to give some some reasoning on the record on why they don't agree with that review criteria.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Kirsten and Adam, for weighing in on that. We've got a few more folks in the queue. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. So I was the council member of this district when this zoning was created, when this very business opened. It's one of our older breweries that's been in the city of Denver. And over a course of time, this whole area known as the Arapahoe Triangle, was was planned for more growth and development, in large part because there were so many parking lots, vacant parking lots. People wanted to see the opportunity to have more housing brought into downtown, have more commercial brought into downtown. You know, prior to that, the only area that we had that we had seen any growth in was in initially lower downtown in the central Platt Valley as the city worked to rezone and and see that area developed, which took, you know, almost 30 years because some of those buildings are are still under construction. I can remember when I ran in 2011, you could stand on the Millennium Bridge and it was all pretty vacant. And that's all filled in right now. But I just want to say that given the fact that this particular. Property has zoning entitlement already. Yeah. You potentially could argue that they would have to come back to do something different than than a brewery. But we have been since for based zoning was created. We have been rezoning property after property after property across the city without development plans, unlike what we used to get prior to that. And if we want to see details that give us. Clear information on what people are going to develop on their properties. Then we should go back and change the zoning, as I've argued over and over, because we do make decisions in a vacuum. But. We've been doing it under the farm based zoning, which is what we have in place today. And until we change it, that's what we're going to continue to receive. So I would argue and we actually had this conversation excuse me, back when Councilman Espinosa was beginning to have to kind of lead that effort in assisting us to look at some changes to the zoning code. We've had multiple conversations as new members have come on wanting to see that done as well. But until we do that, we still have the sort of pre-scripted guidance by which we're supposed to make these decisions. And I would argue with my colleagues who feel like we should be making more informed decisions based on details that we need to change the code. And until then, we're we're kind of stuck with the environment that we're in. And so for all those reasons, I will be supporting this tonight because, number one, this is the area that has been proposed for growth. There has been so much development around this immediate area. The whole, you know, ballpark neighborhood has has grown tremendously, which this is located within. And so I don't know why we would single this one out. And if we wanted to advance the public health, safety and welfare of this particular property, then we should buy it. But land in this area of town is very expensive. And unless the city owns the property to give much clearer guidance on what we want. This is a public public market. And so I have a hard time with saying we should vote it down just simply because there is other there are other factors in the area. And, you know, a lot of people thought that we would not see development in the area because the shelters were there. And just the opposite has has occurred. You know, even with the shelters in the area, there has continued to be a lot of development. Yeah, we all want to see more affordability. It's why I have committed my my life to be on this nonprofit board. That's work to create affordable housing around our city. But I think we have to control the land, too, to really mandate what we want to see happen. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I had raised my hand before the attorneys jumped in. So I just want to say thank you to the attorneys for jumping in. I agree with everything that council member Ortega just said and just wanted to be clear that I think that this is this clearly meets the legal criteria for rezoning, and that is what we are charged with looking at here. Does this meet the criteria or not? It does. And I will be voting to support this. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. The chair of the Land Use Committee. We see rezonings come through all the time. And we've had these conversations, that committee. And I'm just going to quickly reiterate what everyone else has said. It's our charges, the criteria. And for another council member to insinuate that we should base our decision out of anything outside of that, I think is grossly irresponsible and is not something we should even consider. I talk fairly about and as Councilman Ortega says, if we have concerns about changing it, then let's go through that route. But it shouldn't be discussed on a monday night about changing it. We have our criteria in front of them. I believe that this has been fully met, so I will be supportive of it. And thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Likewise. Thank you, Brandon, for the for the staff report. And it does meet all of the criteria that it should be evaluated on. And I will be supporting it tonight as well. Madam Secretary, roll call, please.
Speaker 1: Peter Barca? No. Clark.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: Herndon.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 1: All right. Cashman. That's a night.
Speaker 0: And I.
Speaker 1: Can eat. Right. Ortega Sandoval. Yes. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black I. Sandoval. No. Madam President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 1: Two nays a Lebanese.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes council bill 20 dash 1133 has passed. Council Member Ortega, would you please put Council Bill 1134 on the floor for final passage? Madam President, I move the Council Bill 1134 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2201 Arapahoe Street in Five Points.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 570 to D-AS-12+ (planned development to matching downtown zoning), located at 2201 Arapahoe Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-27-20.