Speaker 2: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Council Bill 97 approves a zoning map amendment. Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and council actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the public record. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and city of residence and that they feel comfortable doing so. Their addresses. The public hearing for Council Bill 972 is open. May we have a staff report?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. This is an application at 60 1600 leads Dale Drive to rezone from plan unit development number 584 in the former Chapter 59 Zoning Code to the new Denver Zoning Code Zone District of SCC three X is located in Council District six at the edge adjacent to Council District five in the Washington, Virginia, Vail statistical neighborhood. The property is located on the northwest corner of Leeds, Dale Drive and Exposition Avenue, directly across from George Washington High School and its approximately 40,200 square feet. It's currently vacant and the property owner is making the request to rezone his property to facilitate development. The property is currently in a planning unit development comprised of two parcels the subject parcel and the parcel immediately to the West, which has been developed as a mini storage site to rezone from a planning, a development to a new zoning code district requires the consent by all property owners and both property owners. Thus the owner of the subject site and the owner of the site to the West are on record consenting to this rezoning. And as a reminder, the approval of rezoning sets the rules that allow development in the use of a property but does not approve a specific development project property surrounding the planning to development zone. A variety of districts, as I mentioned, the planned unit development to the west, those high school across the street is zoned in a single unit district. The Eastside X Zone District properties to the southeast along Leeds Dell Drive are zoned CC three, which is a commercial corridor district and then to the south is a townhome suburban th2 point five all along the lead style corridor you'll see there are single unit zoning districts to the east and the west behind the corridor, but generally along the corridor for a half a mile in either direction. Our commercial corridor districts and business districts, there is also a mix of higher density residential immediately behind the commercial corridor, particularly on the west side to the south of the subject site. As I mentioned, the current uses vacant surrounding properties range from the high school to the many storage facility that was developed in the PD to the southeast alongside still our office and retail immediately adjacent and then to the south. Across exposition is a mix of multi-unit and single unit dwellings. This is a photo of the subject site, the vacant lot looking west from Leeds, Dale. And here are some other photos for context in terms of the building form and scale surrounding it. The mini storage property that was developed in the putty is a three storey building surrounded by surface parking. The middle photo shows to the south east, an example of the one storey commercial buildings found along Leeds Dell Drive with surface parking between the building in the street. The lower photo shows an example of the residential directly across exposition to the south. Generally 1 to 2 stories in height. The the application was originally received by CPD and notice of receipt of the complete application was sent to register neighborhood organizations in July of last year or July 3rd of 2014 after review and notification, and proceeded to a probably notice public hearing of the Planning Board in September of tune of 2014, at which the Planning Board recommended approval unanimously after hearing testimony, proceeded to the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee on October 15th. And there the committee voted by a vote of 6 to 1 to hold the to hold the application in committee with the applicant consent giving direction to the consent or to the applicant to change the application from PD to SCC three x. So it was originally planning a development in the new Denver Zoning Code and the committee directed the applicant and the applicant consented to go to a standard zoned district, the suburban commercial corridor, three zone district. So with that revised application, we provided a notice again to registered neighborhood organizations of a complete application for that to that zone district. On October 21st, 2014, they went back to Planning Board for their consideration of the New Zone District in November, where again the Planning Board recommended approval unanimously with one abstention. And then it went to Neighborhoods and Planning Committee again on November the 12th, and the committee this time moved it out unanimously. It was originally scheduled for a city council public hearing on December 15th, at which time the council voted unanimously to reschedule it to tonight. And today's the final public hearing for this application. The request is for three acts. So the this stands for the suburban neighborhood context, which is generally characterized by the city's commercial corridors and residential contexts, its winding streets, typically larger setbacks from the buildings to the street in both residential and commercial contexts. The C stands for Commercial Corridor, which is zoned district that allows a variety of mixed uses, including residential office, retail , eating and drinking establishments public and civic institutional uses. The three stands for the three storey height maximum, which is the lowest height available in a commercial corridor district in Denver. And then the X at the end stands for less intense uses than would otherwise be allowed in the SCC three. So the SCC three x as a useless that is designed to be more accommodating of transitions to residential neighborhoods by limiting or prohibiting rather certain uses that can be offensive in those areas such as pawnshops and the like. As compared to the proposed zoning, the current PUD is based on the old B one zone district, which was a district that allowed residential and then office. And that's essentially the extent of commercial. There is very limited retail uses that are listed on your screen. Anything beyond those very specific retail uses would not be allowed under the current podium. There's a maximum square footage of 19,200 square feet, a maximum height of two stories. And otherwise, it followed the former Chapter 59 zoning code. The new zoning, as compared to the old zoning, would expand the use list to allow retail uses and eating and drinking establishments, including drive thru facilities accessory to those uses. In the Denver zoning code, we regulate. We have a form based approach to the to the code. So we we regulate building form by height and setbacks and the like. So there is no maximum gross floor area. The maximum height would go to three stories and 45 feet, and all the other standards would follow the new code, the Denver zoning code, because there've been a lot of questions regarding the drive thru in particular, as you'll note in the comments in your packets, I've added here a slide identifying what the drive thru limitations are. If a drive thru was to to be to be developed on the property under the new zoning, these are limitations similar to what would be allowed in the former Chapter 59 if drive thrus were allowed. That provides some screening and separation regarding the location of the drive thru in relationship to the surrounding properties. It also requires that vehicle access to drive thrus, not unreasonably interfere with automobile or pedestrian traffic and that queuing must be able to be accommodated on site. All of these are standards in the Denver zoning code that apply to all suburban commercial corridor districts and would apply regardless of the specific development provided here. But we provide that for context, just so you're aware what the actual standard is in terms of the public outreach process for zoning, the following registered neighborhood organizations were notified at the time of application. We had four Virginia Vail Community Association, South Hilltop Neighborhood Association. Those two have commented on this application. And then there were two other neighborhood organizations who did not comment Inter Neighborhood Cooperation and Denver Neighborhood Association Incorporated after the time of application. We've as I mentioned earlier, this has been in the process for a long time. As you all know, we have our no registration period, which has just recently been. Completed in a new R.A. registered at the time. So though they didn't receive notice of the application, they did receive notice of tonight's public hearing. And that's the Virginia Vale Neighborhood Association in opposition to the request. We received comments from two neighborhood organizations, the Virginia Vail Community Association, which included a series of petitions in your packet opposing the application. And from the South Hilltop Neighborhood Association as well. There were 26 additional emails from 14 people opposing the application. Generally speaking, the comments are concerned with the possibility of negative impacts due to the addition of the drive thru that I mentioned, as well as retail and restaurant uses as compared to the current use allowances in support of the application, the applicant provided a petition that he had collected 40 signatures from surrounding residents just to address some of the comments that have been raised regarding this application. They kind of generally fall in one of eight categories. One one issue that's frequently raised as regards whether traffic will be increased on residential streets. We note CPD notes that traffic is not enforced in zoning, but the traffic code is enforced by the Denver Police Department, and Public Works will review an application at the time of development review for traffic impacts and any mitigation that might be required. There are concerns about the Access on Exposition Avenue. There's currently an already existing driveway from the mini storage site to Exposition Avenue, and this property has an easement that allows it to use that existing driveway access. Generally speaking, this is also not enforced in zoning and to the extent that access is reviewed, it is reviewed for fire and public works standards at the time of development review. Another concern has to do with students crossing. We still drive, which again is not addressed directly by zoning but is enforced by the Denver Police Department and then intersection. Congestion has also been raised and as I mentioned earlier, public works reviews, applications at the time of development, submittal for any required mitigation. And it's and it's designed that way because although the zoning will allow a variety of uses and a variety of heights, the traffic standards that are apply are specific to a development. So the scale, the size and the type of use may have different impacts on traffic. And so public works are views that at the time of that development is proposed. There are a number of other issues generally relating to external impacts that were also raised, which we review generally do not be enforced in zoning, include littering, noise and loitering. A couple of the things that are enforced in zoning that are subject of some of the comments include lighting. We do have outdoor lighting standards that would apply in the Denver zoning code if this gets approved tonight. And then the other has to do with late night hours of operation. The zoning code generally does speak to late night hours of operation. But in this case, because of the street that separates the site from a residential district, the rules that would occur would apply to an outdoor eating and drinking establishment likely would not apply. Indoor activities are not generally enforced in zoning. 24 hour diners and the like are allowed in Denver's zoning code. Of course, other regulations that affect hours of operation include licensing and other things outside of zoning. CBD review the application against the five review criteria that are in the Denver zoning code, and I'll review each of these one at a time. There's further detail about each of these in the staff report packets you were provided with last week. The first is that a rezoning application must be consistent with adopted plans, and there are two adopted plans that apply to this property. The first is the city's citywide comprehensive plan 2000. And then the second is Blueprint Denver, the city's land use and transportation plan adopted in 2002. There is no specific neighborhood plan for this area. Comprehensive Plan 2000 has a number of strategies that apply directly to this kind of a rezoning, including a desire to promote infill development at locations where infrastructure and services are already in place to reduce sprawl. The land use strategies include offering opportunities for increased density, more amenities and broadening the variety of compatible uses which the rezoning to the commercial corridor district would increase the variety of uses allowed. The mobility strategies include the promotion of mixed use development, which, as I mentioned, the new zone district would would allow a greater mix of uses. And then the economic activity goals relate to strengthening and where necessary, revitalize revitalizing Denver's commercial corridors. And this rezoning would allow for development along the commercial corridor at this vacant site. Turning to Blueprint Denver Blueprint Denver has a land use concept designation of the site of commercial corridor. That's the red color on the map. Commercial corridors are described in Blueprint Denver as being linear business districts that allow a variety of commercial uses oriented to an arterial street. It isn't an area of stability where the character is desired to be maintained while accommodating some new development and redefine. Element and blueprint Denver and Lead Sale Drive is designated as a commercial arterial street, generally lined with commercial uses. Exposition Avenue is an undesignated local street, and so a commercial corridor, the suburban commercial corridor 3xa district will implement blueprint Denver's recommendations. The commercial corridor aspect of the of the zoning is in direct alignment with the land use concept proposed in Blueprint Denver and and the stability and maintenance of character is maintained by choosing the three storey, the least intense commercial districts and specifically the three x, which has even less intense uses than our other commercial corridor districts in order to accommodate some new development. But being respectful of the character of the area. So having reviewed it for consistency with the adopted plans, we find the rezoning is consistent with both Plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver. We find also that the application, because it is to a standard zone district, has no impact on the uniformity of district regulations that apply to all properties in the suburban commercial corridor. Three ex district and to reason out of the old code and into the new code would further the public health, safety and welfare of the city. The justifying circumstance for this application is that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character of the area. As noted in the staff report, there's been a variety of development and reinvestment along the Lido Corridor, including the mini storage site just to the west. Redevelopment of McDonald's just up the street from here, and a number of recent commercial tenant alteration and finish permits that have been issued along the corridor. In addition to general population growth in the central Denver region, as was pointed out, pointed out by the applicant in the application and documented by the census, which again are are all factors that lead to the understanding that other retail and neighborhood serving commercial uses would be desirable, would be useful in the area, and that recognizing those changes is appropriate. Finally, the fifth criterion is that the application must be consistent with the neighborhood context, the zoned district purpose and the intent, as this is a suburban neighborhood context. So that the suburban context is is is identified, as I mentioned, by the streets that are curved and where there's an incomplete grid, where property or buildings are set back from streets. And generally the SCC three exit zone district in particular applies to auto oriented arterial street corridors, where a building scale of 1 to 3 stories is desired with less intense uses than three. Here we find that the CC three zone district is a is a perfect fit for this. It's our lead style is an auto oriented arterial street. There is the desire for a lower building scale here than would otherwise be allowed. And the less intense uses again provide a good transition to the residential areas to the south and west. So having reviewed it against all five review criteria in the Denver zoning code, staff recommends approval.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have seven speakers signed up this evening. I'm going to read the first seven speakers when you hear your name, if you could make your way up to the bench here at the front so we can speed up the proceedings. The following are Paul Nafed Nafed, Phil, Mike Rudd, Holly Winter Hubbard, Bruce O'Donnell, Reuben Bread instead nial Smith, John Struts and Holly Struts. If you could make your way to the front.
Speaker 10: Honorable councilman and councilwoman of the Denver City Council. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present this development proposal to you.
Speaker 2: Could you tell us your name, please?
Speaker 10: Yes, my name is Paul Navratil and I live at 13 Tamari Drive in Littleton. First, I want to thank your Planning Department Representative Kyle Dalton for his presentation of the merits of this application. The zoning request is consistent with our plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and consistent with other commercial is own property to the east as well. It recognizes that this is an infill property on a commercial corridor. However, I'd like to focus on the efforts that we have made to meet with and work with the community associations and address their concerns. In late 2013, we had two meetings with Virginia Vail Community Association, Paula Szeto, and a group of people that came to that meeting. And that resulted in a letter of support dated March the second, 2014, which you have a copy of in your packet going down the road when we've got the planning board the first time, it was roughly late August. The property was posted. We had a call from Mr. Sturtz and he asked me to meet with him. I met with him and he had some questions which we talked about. And then he said he may have some other people that would like to meet with me and discuss questions and concerns. I said, Fine, I'd love to do that. And the next day I got an email from Mr. Sturtz. It said, No one wants to meet with you, Paul, going down the road. I heard. I listened and I heard the concerns about the cut through traffic, through the neighborhood and the association. Asked if the exit on the exposition could be closed and we at that their request, we went twice to the city planning department I'm sorry, the city transportation planning department and to the fire department one time was a concept plan review where they verbally said No. Those two access points must remain open for public safety. But we went in formally in writing in in December, and Mindy Decker concluded in an email to me or actually to Mike read, that the vehicular access on dance position should remain open to the use of the general public and not be restricted. I want to make sure that you get a copy of that because we specifically asked for that access to be cut closed off. The point is that no matter what's developed here, there's going to be two access points to that property. And that's the safety record.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Your time is up.
Speaker 10: My time is up.
Speaker 2: Oh, you have six. Sorry, I just saw that. Please continue.
Speaker 8: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 10: So the neighborhood's position for several months has been no no change to the zoning. All you have is 584 in December. Councilman Brown and Bob Golic met with Jon Stewart's and policy, though, in attempt to broker an agreement. And as a result of that meeting, I agreed to make some concessions. Number one, no drive thru or drive up for fast food restaurant, no drive thru or drive up for any restaurant on site. So signage would be created to discourage traffic exiting onto exposition and encourage traffic on the leads. Deal and speed bumps on the property would be put on the property to slow traffic exiting to exposition. There was a handshake deal which in my understanding, the association reneged on two days later. January 20th, there was another meeting with Virginia Veal Association, Paula SIEGEL. And January 21st, I sent a letter to the association just reread, saying exactly what we would agreed to, and that I think you have a copy of as well. I asked you this before word to the association members, but I don't know what happened. I don't believe it was. At the conclusion of this meeting, Virginia Vale redefined their position. No change in the zoning. Leave it as a weed or maybe a city park. So after that we did some direct canvasing in February just to see what the neighbors thought. And in a couple or 3 hours on Saturday afternoon, we were able to get 40 people to sign our petition, and I'm sure you have copies of that. But I just want to just over the weekend, we received another letter of support, and I just want to give that to you. A couple of weeks ago, Councilman Brown asked me if I would be willing to mediate with the neighborhoods. I said yes. And after several discussions with Steve Charbonneau, he felt the concessions I was agreeing to were significant. There was a tentative mediation meeting set for last Friday, which on Sturtz, Steve Charbonneau canceled a meeting because he felt the neighborhood stance was, This is all you're going to get. We'd passed your existing zoning, no change. So he even as late as yesterday, Steve Charbonneau called me and asked me if I'd be willing to mediate and meet today at noon. And I said, yes, I think Jon Stewart said yes. And he reneged on that meeting this morning.
Speaker 2: You can conclude your comments. Your 6 minutes are up. Pardon me if you can conclude your comments. Your 6 minutes are up. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Well, I'd like to conclude. You know, the building is appropriate for the corridor city plans. It's going to be an attractive, modern building. It'll be with uses that are neighborhood retail uses and.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 10: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. The speaker is Mike Rudd.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Oh.
Speaker 2: And Mr. Rudd, you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 0: This will be short. Okay. I'm at. I'm the architect resi office at 88 low in East Hampton Avenue in Denver. I've been working on this property, the site with Paul and several other real estate brokers for a number of years.
Speaker 8: We've had a large extended stay motel on this site that then transformed itself into an even bigger building in the self-storage facility.
Speaker 0: Most recently, we.
Speaker 8: Had a.
Speaker 0: 19,000 square foot office.
Speaker 8: Building on the site, and during that time we'd had various.
Speaker 0: Schemes for.
Speaker 8: One story small buildings, a couple of detached buildings from each other. And I think that all the brokers and the real estate people have.
Speaker 0: Answered questions for and did site plans for believe that this site is not an office site, that it is better suited as a.
Speaker 8: Good infill retail site? It's not significant in size. And so I would hope that council can see an approval for this.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Rudd. Our next speaker is Holly Winter Huppert. Huppert. You got it right. Good job. Hi. My name is Holly Winter, also known as Holly Huppert.
Speaker 1: I have many names for many different lives. Don't worry, I pay taxes under both names. I live at.
Speaker 2: 726 South Crime Area. I'm a homeowner there and I bought the house.
Speaker 1: Just about two.
Speaker 2: Years ago. And before I bought the house.
Speaker 1: I checked that empty lot and I checked the zoning because I don't want to live in a commercial quarter. Lead sells a couple of blocks away, but you know, it's a couple blocks away.
Speaker 2: I thought that was okay. And I checked the zoning very carefully and I saw eight.
Speaker 1: Years ago the same developer had changed the zoning. So I thought.
Speaker 2: I'm safe because I don't want to live in a commercial district. This proposed project is less than 100 feet from where I.
Speaker 1: Parked my car in front of my house. That's close.
Speaker 2: I don't want to live in a commercial commercial zone. I hope you understand that.
Speaker 1: I don't think you would either. The children play in the street. It's it's a neighborhood. It's not a commercial place. It's really important to me that I have a house that is quiet and safe. There is a.
Speaker 2: Lot of traffic already that comes through onto our street.
Speaker 1: From the storage.
Speaker 2: Unit that was put up a few years ago. I count one car every 2 minutes during rush hour.
Speaker 1: So we keep all the children inside during that time. With more development on this property, it's going to be.
Speaker 2: Unsafe for our children. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Bruce O'Donnell.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Madam Chair, and members of the Council. My name is Bruce O'Donnell. I reside in Denver, Colorado. My office address is 800 Glenarm Place, Suite 200. I'm here tonight to speak in favor of this rezoning application and to encourage your support of it is. The staff report has pointed out it's consistent with the adopted plans, primarily comp plan 2000 and blueprint Denver. And it's also been demonstrated that it has consistency with the neighborhood context, description and also the zone district purposes blueprint. Denver came up with a term when it was put into place in that term as commercial corridors, which I think is a key ingredient of tonight's discussion, because that then in turn informed our new zoning code. When we rezoning the entire city, we came up with a commercial corridor districts. This application is for our C, C, three X, which is the suburban context commercial corridor. And as has been pointed out tonight by staff, lead steel is identified as a commercial arterial and so it's on a scale and similar and would expect land use patterns.
Speaker 11: Similar to.
Speaker 3: Colfax.
Speaker 0: And Carter Boulevard, for example, which also both happen to be state highways, just like lead sales of state highway. They have limited access. The applicant pointed out that during his pre application conferences that he explored and wanted to see if he could limit access on exposition in the fire department required two points of access in and that links into the state highway issues. So this is very much a commercial corridor. It's also important to note that the applicant, I think, took the high road and attempted on numerous occasions to engage the neighbors in a transparent and sincere process, including agreeing to mediation multiple times and was stonewalled at every turn. So I think a good process has been conducted and this was also the appropriate zoning and the appropriate land use for a location like this. So the other thing that I think is important to think about in the staff report touched on this briefly. The proposed land use here is consistent with land uses nearby, right up and down this corridor. So, for example, neighbors of this property.
Speaker 3: Include.
Speaker 0: A freestanding Starbucks with drive thru, a McDonald's with drive thru, a car wash and a car dealership. All auto intensive use appropriate for a commercial corridor. So consistent with the staff report in the unanimous approval of the planning board. I'm testifying tonight in hopes that you will approve Ordinance 972.
Speaker 3: Rezoning the subject property to SCC.
Speaker 0: Three x. It's an implementation step for Blueprint Denver and it also eliminates another remaining.
Speaker 11: Artifact from the Chapter 59.
Speaker 0: Zoning Code. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That was perfect. 3 minutes. Reuben Bread instead, please.
Speaker 0: Well, good evening. I'm Robin Gibb instead. 393 South A.V. St Denver, Colorado And I somewhat understand the position you're in, having been in similar in my own life. Great. Public trust is in your hands. Now there can be a lot of rules and regulations. Some good, some of them good, sometimes some of them good. Not good. Other times I also am president of the Homeowner Association South Hilltop Neighborhood, and I'm proud to be in that position and and took it because the people I talked to in my neighborhood felt that they couldn't talk to the city, felt that they were ignored all the time. Felt frustrated with that time. The current person. And I think we can empathize with that. Least I hope you can empathize because sympathy is not what we're asking for, is empathy. If you lived in this neighborhood immediately behind this proposal. You see that there is a public street? Oh, commercial corridor is on the other side. Lee still. The residents that are most affected immediately are behind it, behind exposition. Most of the petitioners against it live in that immediate area. And it's. Not a matter of how many signatures? 700 some homes. Most of them in the this side of the corridor don't live anywhere near the proposed project. Out of sight, out of mind. We've all heard that expression. Well, I'm here because I care. I care for South Hates Hilltop. We're affected by late. Still the school. We're affected by the density. We join with our neighbors in good faith. Hoping that you as persons. Elected to represent the best interests of the people. We'll look at those who live within a hundred feet. Less than 100 feet. A couple hundred feet. See the traffic problems that are going to going to be there. But he says they're going to be there. Increased traffic in neighborhoods. I appeal to you to consider the goodwill of the people that are most affected. In this matter and turn down the change in zoning. Eight years ago it was approved by the same developer that this is what it's going to be. Well, now we see that was an untrustworthy statement and adventure by the developer. Thank you for your kindness and I pray for your hearts to be right because right is always right. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir. Our next speaker is Niall Smith, followed by John Struts and Holly Struts.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Niall Smith, South Korea area, Denver, Colorado. I'd like to thank you for your time. First of all, Councilman Brown, I'd like to thank you for being at that police rally on Saturday. I noticed that you were one of the few from the council that was there. I would like to simply say that this rezoning. Had happened eight years ago prior to me purchasing my property on South Camarillo, and that the developer, to reiterate, made a promise to keep it at that. So simply a matter of maintaining a paid 584 versus an SCC three x would be something that would be beneficial for the neighborhood, the infill, the density, the amount of traffic being diverted down our city streets on an ongoing basis, the possibility of a drive through with lighting and traffic until at least midnight, I would think for a drive thru restaurant would be something that would be an annoyance to at least four or five streets within that area. So thank you very much for your consideration and thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. John Struts about 6 minutes.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is John Sturtz. I live at 710 South Korean Street. I'm considered the person who's riled everyone up over the change in the zoning request. I want to mention that City Council is not required to. Approve of every rezoning request that comes in front of them. We ask the applicant to keep the zoning approved. 584 Because the agreement was made with the same gentleman, the same applicant eight years ago when it was formally. Designated as an hour to zone. And we conceded to APD 584, which would be less intensive, uses commercial type things. We keep intermixing the two words in commercial and retail, but what the SCC three X would involve would be more retail and more traffic. In fact, the applicant did say that a traffic study that was conducted, he didn't indicate by whom, but a traffic study that was conducted indicated that one car per minute extra would be entering the property that would be entering the property at some point. I'm sure that car would exit the property. The trouble with this particular site is that most of the entry will more than likely be on in excuse me, from the stale drive on to the property at 6200 East Fleet. Still the exit back out on to lead stale would be near impossible. Almost everything on those along that corridor, which is State Highway 83, almost every one of the new properties that have been developed have a no left turn sign, which would essentially limit who can exit from the from the lead stale side. So we're making the assumption I realize it's an assumption, but it's a logical one. And we're asking for just a little common sense in terms of looking at the site and looking at how are people going to exit back out onto lead steel. There is a curb cut that's just going on to the cube smart part of the property. The applicant has asked that that easement be granted for his use. Also, in addition to Cube Smart and Cube Smart has signed off on that. The trouble is there are accidents. There have been for within just the last two weeks on lead steel right in front of Cube Smart, as well as a hit and run behind Cube Smart two weeks ago. This is all documented in every block Internet site. The different accidents that have taken place. There were some major injuries just last week. I don't know how many people were actually hurt, but two ambulances and four police cars were out on lead. Still at the evening rush hour time lead still is an extremely busy street. If any of you have driven down that street. The high school students during the school year have open campus at lunch hour. They migrate throughout the neighborhood. And once again, common sense. We don't have any studies that indicate that the high school students won't use the walk don't walk signs, but it's typically the case that they will take the shortest route if there is a attractive nuisance across the street, which we would consider a fast food restaurant. We're talking about fatalities, injuries, whatever. And I realize the zoning is saying we don't look at traffic. Traffic isn't our concern. The police will take care of that. And we're supposed to wait until after the fact that this is built to address the issues of injuries and troubles with traffic on that location with just the one curb cut alone. There are some problems with exiting. As I mentioned, there's a deceleration, if that's the proper word, lane, going into that curb, cut on leads still. But if someone were to take a right turn back out on to lead steel, there's no acceleration lane so there'd be quite some time involved in getting back out on to lead steel and once again common sense indicates they will exit onto exposition the drivers and by going down exposition they will cut through the neighborhood as they already do in order to shorten the route during rush hour. Oftentimes, cars are backed up all the way from Monaco to Holly Street at rush hour. The difficulty with that, once again, is safety. It's a Colorado State Highway 83. We cannot handle the noise, the loitering, the lighting, the hours of operation. We agreed to a 55, 84, and we're asking the applicant to please stick with what he agreed to and honor the commitment and our agreement with him eight years ago. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Our next speaker is Holly Sturtz.
Speaker 1: My name is Holly Brooks. I am at 710 South Graham Area Street. I also own property at 7765 South Court Maria Street. Our neighborhood association has pleaded with zoning to maintain the current plywood, which was hammered out over a year's worth of meetings with the current applicant. When this applicant appeared before you the first time, you sent him back to zoning for an ever even broader usage designation. Our overwhelming concern, which we voted 92 five in our neighborhood, about the serious consequences of permitting a high traffic development on this site. There is a curb cut entering the property, but traffic is dangerously congested at most times of the day, so that the only obvious exit is the one established onto exposition and into our residential neighborhood. Even now, with only the quiet, low traffic business located at this site, frustrated drivers get backed up on this highway and cut through . Earlier this very month, there was a hit and run accident at this same egress onto exposition. After hitting a young pedestrian, the driver sped off down my street. The addition of the high traffic business, which the applicant proposes, would increase this threat exponentially. It is probably your inclination to approve this plan and pass responsibility on to court or traffic. We've been warned by other unsuccessful neighborhood groups not to pin our hopes on traffic. Even if they are to rubber stamp this rezoning. They will fail to appreciate the dangers that a fast food restaurant located directly across from George Washington High School will pose to a man, the vice president of G.W., the school cop and the local officer at the scene of that hit and run had one response to the proposed plan a disaster. The applicant has claimed that we have rejected his offers to append concessions to this zoning. You know as well as we do that all promises appended to SC c3x are empty and unenforceable. Please reconsider this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That concludes our speakers question for members of council. Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to be sure. I think my first couple of questions are for Kyle. I want to be sure that I understand the changes in the sort of history on this site. I thought you had said that before eight years ago or before you d 584 the site was B1. Is that right? Because I heard someone say ah two in the testimony.
Speaker 4: That, you know, the, the current PWD is based on B1.
Speaker 1: Oh for.
Speaker 4: You two it was.
Speaker 7: It was are two different are two.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 7: Okay. And okay. And that's why there weren't drive thrus in the others because b one didn't have to. I do understand that. Right. And then a second question. If you look at the site where the storage facility is, whatever you think of storage facilities, at least there's a detached sidewalk in green grass and it's landscaped. Looks pretty nice. Did the PWD require that detached sidewalk? I know we get right away and zoning, you know the sort of never the twain shall meet. But if this site were to be redeveloped, I'd like to see similar landscaping.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I don't recall those being specific provisions of the PD. I'm sure they must have been the public works right away standards when the property was developed.
Speaker 7: So do you think we can assume similar standards would be applied?
Speaker 4: I mean, that would be the public work standard on a street like this. You know, I know those are always subject to variances, but.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 7: And then let's see. I think I had another one. I guess my questions for Mr. Neff tell. But as you're coming up. So just a couple questions I didn't understand. Were you the applicant in owner for 85, 84?
Speaker 10: No. The the applicant and owner at the time was Channel six Television PBS's.
Speaker 7: When it was risen to 584. But did you buy it from PBS?
Speaker 8: We did.
Speaker 7: Okay. And then my other question was, can you go back over what you and Bob Golic talked about with Councilman Brown and offered to the neighborhood?
Speaker 10: Yes, I'd like to do that. And in reference to that. I have some notes that I'd like to give you, but basically. I mean, basically, the the I guess the tentative agreement was that we would not use the drive thru lane for fast food restaurants, nor would we use it for any restaurants. We would develop site signage to take the traffic back on to Leeds Dale instead of onto exposition. And in fact we, we agreed that we would put speed bumps on at that exposition, which would slow down that cut through traffic.
Speaker 7: So this is a hard question because I realize you don't have any agreements at this point with the neighborhood for various reasons. But is that would that still be your intention in developing the site to put the speed bumps in and not have a drive through for a fast food restaurant and to have the exit signs?
Speaker 10: Well, you know, we've we've tried and tried and tried to negotiate with the association and we've met with. No. All you get is page five.
Speaker 7: Though, with no agreement with the association, you don't feel bound to those conditions that you just stated.
Speaker 10: No, I.
Speaker 7: Don't. Okay. Got it. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Yeah. And I know I didn't make my point before, but I am respectfully requesting approval of this application. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. For my colleagues, some of you are able to see your names on the screens and some of you aren't. So here's what I have in front of me. I have Councilman Ortega, Councilman Kennish, Councilman Brown and Councilwoman Sussman. So, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Kyle, I don't see you. Would you mind coming up to the microphone, please? I've been perusing through the documents here, and I didn't see anything from G.W. High School. Is there anything in the record from the high school?
Speaker 4: So we we sent the referral of the both the initial application and the revised application to Denver Public Schools. And then we were copied on some correspondence with them. So we sent another email to them to invite them to comment. So they received three different requests for comment and never provided comment directly to the city on this matter.
Speaker 2: So we don't have anything in the record? That's correct. Okay. I would like to ask someone, how about Mr. Newfield, if you wouldn't mind, coming forward? Sorry. That's okay. I'll try to speak up. So can you. Can you tell us what you are planning to put on the site?
Speaker 10: Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 5: This should be. Can you talk to the microphone?
Speaker 10: This is the current plan we're working with and, you know, trying to say like this is very difficult because it's inefficient compared to a rectangular site. But we're planning to develop a single storey building. Roughly half of the density that's currently allowed on the property. And it'll be a like what I would call a neighborhood retail service building that would have such things as maybe a sandwich shop, a hair salon, tanning salon, maybe a dry cleaner, sit down restaurant, those kinds of uses that would service the neighborhood and. These are the two access points, details of which position.
Speaker 3: We're going to have speed bumps here.
Speaker 5: To slow down the heavy duty trucks. The transfer traffic is already happening.
Speaker 10: Because the people that cut through there, if this is backed up, are in fact in fact, they're headed over toward Monaco. And our plan is actually going to slow that down because of the speed bumps that that cut through traffic is going to happen no matter what.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I'd like to ask a question about parking. What what are the parking requirements for what you're proposing? How many parking spaces are you required to have?
Speaker 10: Well, this plan here shows an approximately 9000 square foot building. I, I believe the parking ratio is about one four, 200 square feet. And that would be enough to allow for maybe one or two restaurants a pizza place. And then these other services, general services, because the parking ratio for general retail is a lot less than it is for a restaurant. So we have plenty of parking to service that need.
Speaker 2: So I want to ask now about the traffic study that was done. Did the traffic study take into account the fact that there's a high school across the street? And I heard somebody speak to the fact that it has an open campus and there's concern about pedestrian safety of students crossing the street to to maybe buy their lunch at the restaurants that you just talked about.
Speaker 10: Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's several questions, but I'll try to.
Speaker 2: If you can, speak into the microphone, if you're going to use that.
Speaker 10: It was clear that several questions, but I try to address them. This plan here shows George Washington High School. Can you all see this? George Washington High School in relation to the site, the city has provided a crosswalk and a light at this intersection and at the other end of the storage building where the power pools are . So there's two ways for people to get across the street there safely. The other question I think you asked about was the trucks.
Speaker 2: So those are not there today or are they proposed as part of the development.
Speaker 10: Of those two lights and crosswalks are there today?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 10: The other I think you asked another question about traffic and getting back on to leads.
Speaker 2: Nailed it. I was asking if the traffic study took into account the pedestrian safety and the potential volume of students that might be crossing the street to patronize any of the restaurants.
Speaker 10: I don't believe it takes into that account. That into account. But we we haven't been requested do a traffic study by the development services. And if we are requested, we will do one. But I asked a traffic engineer to give me a rough estimate, and this is what he said, that he said the proposed near 9000 square foot development will generate foreign trips per day. When added to the many storage trips, the total site will generate 650 trips per day or 230 less trips than reported in the March 2000. Please still comments. Traffic Impact Study Specialty Retail Center includes a variety of uses such as restaurants, florists, real estate offices, etc. So I feel this is appropriate for your project to do that. Answer your question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it did. And I have one last question, if I may, Madam President. I know others have questions. My last question is about it's along the lines of what Councilwoman Robb had asked you earlier in terms of the concessions that you indicated you all were willing to agree to. But I heard your answer to her question when she asked if that's something you are, in fact going to adhere to, even though there was not a clear agreement with the neighborhoods. And so my question is about the hours of operation. If there is a drive up window, I heard you say that there would be no drive thru as actually it's in the document you just passed out, no drive thru or drive ups for fast food restaurants, no drive thru or drive ups for any restaurants. And so. Is that, in fact, what you're committing to as part of this application tonight?
Speaker 10: You know, I've I've been trying in good faith to work something out with the associations. And I think you can see from what I said before that I basically been rejected. There was no effort made on their part to conclude mediation, which we even tried to do today. If if the notes from the came from that meeting with Charlie Brown, Mr. Counselor Brown and Bob Golic basically said that I would agree to these things, provided that the neighborhood would support the application and not commence any legal issues afterward. So it was a give and take type situation and I feel like I'm giving and they're taking. But when there's, you know, when there's no common agreement, where can you go?
Speaker 2: So in terms of the issue of hours, of operation, of a drive thru, is that something that was ever discussed?
Speaker 10: It's never been discussed. And I would just whatever the city code is, I don't know, but we would comply with that.
Speaker 2: Okay. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Most of my questions were asked, but let's just close the loop on this one from Councilman Ortega Childs. You know the answer to the question, what are the hours of operation for? Generally for commercial and specifically for drive thru in this zone district.
Speaker 4: There's no requirement generally for commercial on hours of operation. I believe the record there is a requirement of hours of operation for an outdoor eating and serving area. So if they had an outdoor patio relevant to a restaurant, if it's within 50 feet of the residential zone district. So if they put it on the front side of the facing leads, they would probably be too far to be even subject to those. But there are limits on those hours of operation that I believe are I believe it's it's 10:00 Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 Friday and Saturday when they would have to close for an outdoor eating and serving area if it's close enough to the residential district.
Speaker 1: And how about for a drive thru?
Speaker 4: And I don't believe their hours of operation for a drive thru.
Speaker 1: Thank you. No further questions, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Counsel. McKinney. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam President. All ask more questions, please. Would you mind repeating the list? Possible tenants that you just mentioned a moment ago and do so very slowly. I think you've started with the what you threw out a potpourri of tenants and I think three or four or five. Could you list those again, please? I'm going to write these down.
Speaker 10: Yes. The kinds of uses we envision would be a hair salon, maybe a Supercuts tanning salon, perhaps a dry cleaning operation, maybe a sandwich shop. Sit down restaurant. Maybe a pizza place. A flower shop. You know, those general kinds of retail type uses? Restaurant.
Speaker 8: Wow. That's quite a variety and help build. How large would the building be that you say 9000 square feet approximately.
Speaker 10: It's very hard to get efficiency on a property right. Like this with.
Speaker 8: Well, you're going to start building without any tenants or are you going to build to a specific tenant? What are your plans if this is approved?
Speaker 10: No. And we only envision maybe five or six businesses in the building. We don't see all those.
Speaker 8: You so you can't, you know, have enough room.
Speaker 10: Yeah. And I've, I've I'm working with a company called Waldoboro Scott who are talking to prospective users. And of course, we won't start construction until we have significant pre-leasing. No, that would be a requirement of financing.
Speaker 8: Okay. And like to get Kyle up here again because in the testimony, it seems like. That you the applicant. Was criticized for changing this from a PWD to more standard zoning. Would you explain what happened when it went to committee? It went to committee last year as a p u d, right?
Speaker 4: That's correct. A Denver zoning code.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 4: And then and then the neighbors in planning committee expressed concern with it being a customized zoning and didn't think it met. The criteria for planning and development. Invited the applicant to come to the table and consider a standard zoned district and the applicant consented. So then the committee voted to direct the applicant to revise their application.
Speaker 8: So it was really it was my friends and colleagues on the committee that changed.
Speaker 4: I should note the committee did advise the applicant in our pre-application meeting at the very beginning that we would recommend a standard zoned district. But we also were recommending approval of the PD at the time it was found that met our criteria. So.
Speaker 8: I mean, there are a lot of fingers to be pointing here, but certainly the council had a role and that's why it went back.
Speaker 4: Right. With the applicant's consent. Yeah.
Speaker 8: And maybe someone, one of my colleagues, any of them might want to address that. The head of the committee might be helpful in doing that and I relinquish my time for others. I do have other questions, though.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brown, for the intro there. Yes, but it did come to us as a paddock cow. I do have some questions for you. And when we ask and generally, we're trying to move to the new zoning and try not to reconstruct pads from the older zoning. And when we asked what the reason for requesting a pad was, it was because the applicant wanted to make a less intense development there. Was that the reason why? And so we asked, wasn't there a way to move it into the new zoning and keep it less intense? Do I have that right?
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's generally correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. So we hit two birds with one stone. We maintain less intensity in the development and we're able to move it into the new zoning now by less intense. The original pod would have allowed what? That is more intense than what they have now.
Speaker 4: Then what they have now under the current PD, I don't know that I would characterize anything less intense.
Speaker 1: And the couple had said it was less intense. The ex made it makes it less intense and less intense.
Speaker 4: Than the SCC three without the ex which zone other zoning zoning found elsewhere along this corridor.
Speaker 1: Okay. Most of the zoning is three SCC or 83.
Speaker 4: In some cases it's urban edge SCC three.
Speaker 1: So that in the ex reduces what opportunities.
Speaker 4: So it prohibits some uses that would otherwise be allowed. So it's entirely on the use list. Generally prohibits pawnshops, firearms sales, those types of things.
Speaker 1: Oh, there's that. Okay. So it's not less, but it is one story building instead of what could be three. Right. Or the proposed building is.
Speaker 4: I believe the applicant said that they're proposing a one storey building. The zoning would allow a three storey building.
Speaker 1: Okay. The other question that I have had was. One of the folks who talked to talked about their concern on trying to get on to lead stale, which if anybody lives there they know that's is a challenge although they do have turn lanes was there was the original pod. Would it have allowed an office building? And this new zoning allows some retail, right?
Speaker 4: Yes, that's.
Speaker 1: Correct. Would the office the drivers to the office building have had a different kind of access and egress issues to light still than a retail customer?
Speaker 4: Would the Pudi District site blend in, contemplate different driveways, if that's what you're asking. I mean, the physical access is in the same location as it currently.
Speaker 1: Is, right? So no matter who's driving there, they're going to have the difficulty of accessing on to it's not because it's retail that it makes it more difficult to get on and off a lead still, is it?
Speaker 4: No, I think I think the comments generally are concerned with differences of volume and generation, that sort of thing. Of course, that's dependent on the square footage, the kind of, you know, restaurant that goes we all know, you know, the what's the what's the the drive thru chain in California, you know, that has the drive thrus around the block. And then a Starbucks has peaks in the morning, but a pizza restaurant has peaks in the at dinner time. So it kind of depends on the nature of the use and and the size of the use, what the volumes would be. But in terms of the physical access and needing to get on the lead, still exposition, that doesn't change.
Speaker 1: That isn't changed by the new zoning. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to ask Mr. Neff, tell some questions. So in your conversations with Bob Golic and others and what the neighborhood had asked for, I did hear many neighbors speak about their concern about a drive up restaurant. But I see that you had started negotiating and the in this list and I know people have talked about it, but I want to make sure that we're clear about this. You had agreed to have no drive thru or drive ups for fast food restaurant routes and in fact no drive thru a drive ups for any restaurants signage on the site to discourage traffic exiting to exposition and speed bumps installed. Now, as you say, the neighborhood didn't want to negotiate further, but could if they had negotiated, would you have would you have written these down into part of the agreement so that it could have remained with the change in the zoning?
Speaker 10: Yes, I would.
Speaker 1: Okay. It's moot now because the arrangements didn't occur. Right. I just wanted to know if you had been willing, because I saw that Mr. Golic had suggested that you actually write these down so that neighbors can feel a little more secure about the arrangements that would have been made.
Speaker 10: Well, and it was my understanding that an agreement would be put together that everybody could sign and then become legally enforceable documents.
Speaker 1: But when you approached the neighborhoods, was it the the neighborhoods? They did not want to sign it?
Speaker 10: Well, at the meeting with Councilwoman Brown, Bob Golic, John Sturtz and policy, though, my understanding was that these things were discussed and the handshake agreement was made and two days later, the association withdrew from that agreement and. I see. That's where.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to make sure I understood.
Speaker 10: Incidentally, and I didn't answer this one quite correctly, but I would agree to limiting the use of the drive through to midnight, because I know I recognize that that's very important to the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: I see. Okay. Thank you very much for the questions. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Kelly.
Speaker 0: I was at that meeting.
Speaker 2: The public testimony is completed, so if you can have a seat. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next council member is Councilwoman Robb.
Speaker 7: Madam President, I do have a question, but I'd like to yield to Councilman Brown, because I think we're going on this point.
Speaker 8: Yes. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. May I? Madam President, thank you. All right. Let's have the other side, if you will. Paul, do you want to come up arming and you guys want to come up and talk about what happened? Mr. Smith. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you for allowing.
Speaker 8: You bet. And we were both in the meeting. Both of you were in the meeting. I was there. And the late Bob Golic was there. Who was another neighborhood representative, I believe was their.
Speaker 3: Policy, though? Yes, Mr. Hall.
Speaker 8: Was there. It's not here. Okay, he's not here. Okay. Various. Oh, hey, Paul. How are you? You're absolutely right. There was no handshake after our meeting. But I do believe on that Thursday when we met for nearly 2 hours in my office. I was trying to act like a facilitator and bring the parties together, and I requested that Mr. GARLICK contact his client and get his client to agree to no drive thrus. Because I understand that in the public hearing at the planning board that was the number one issue that really drove the opposition. I thought we had made an agreement. We hadn't made progress. And then I get another email through the next day saying that it was rushed and we never got to the curb cut issue that you want. I'd like to hear your response to that, please.
Speaker 3: Just part of the difficulty with that, as you know, was that the the meeting that was supposed to follow the agreement was, I believe, three days afterward. I think we met on the 12th and then the next meeting was the 15th of December. And part of that stipulation, beyond what Mr. Gorelick recommended and nothing legally was written up that would be binding, we needed to talk about whether it would be tied to the deed. And so if the property ownership changed, it wouldn't affect us in any different way. We discussed that, and Mr. Golic essentially wrote up just a memo that we did make some we made some progress. And he would like to consider that. But he did some some other aspects of the memo included the fact that I was supposed to go around the entire neighborhood and get all of those 42 signature signatures on the list to agree to withdraw any opposition to the the agreement that was tentative. I said that I couldn't do that in three days, and that was my major opposition and the reason for the postponement at that time. Once again, there were no legal documents written up. And as Nigel said, there wasn't a handshake. I think you were met. I think you remember that we had to cut the meeting short because you got an emergency call and and you acted properly in terms of it being a quasi judicial, you didn't have any input into it . So it was essentially you gave us the opportunity to talk in your office, which was great.
Speaker 8: Now, do you want to like would you like to add anything? I would just.
Speaker 0: Like to say that none of the agreements that were possibly made were legally binding. So this gave Mr. Naftali the opportunity to renege on any agreements that were verbal due to the fact that we would have to go and have another fight afterwards if he decided.
Speaker 8: To change his process. I'm moving on to the next attempt, if you will, to mediate this dispute. And that's when I contacted Community Mediation Concepts and my colleagues have a copy of the letter. What happened, why? I have you, Steve Charbonneau, for my 14 years on city council. And guess what? He's always succeeded in bringing hostile parties together. I can think of one incident where there was a a table between the two parties. One was on one side of the table and the other was on the other. And it was the table represented, in my judgment, the DMZ. It was that hostile. What happened? Why could you not would not give up anything in this negotiations? And that's according to what Steve Charbonneau said.
Speaker 3: One of the difficulties with all of the mediation that was conducted was via email. There was no personal face to face meeting and once again, nothing was written up. And essentially the memo that Mr. Golic wrote had totally gotten out of the argument altogether. And all that was being offered to us were speed bumps and perhaps a larger culvert for the water drainage from the property would maybe discourage traffic. But that once again was tentative and there wasn't anything legally written up. But once again, all the all the other agreements that Bob Golic wanted to talk about further were completely dropped as far as drive through and when it came to mediation. One thing that hasn't been mentioned at all is that this easement belongs to Cube Smart. So if you look at the memo closely, it says that the speed bumps would be put in with the approval of Cube Smart. According to the past president of the VCA, Deb Ward. Speed bumps were proposed when we had this same argument eight years ago about traffic and about high intensity, and we were told the speed bumps wouldn't do anything or they wouldn't be allowed because the fire department didn't want them. But once again, the the essence of this is that we were being offered speed bumps if Cube Smart approved. The second thing was signage to discourage through traffic. I don't know how many people really have noticed that. That the signage doesn't necessarily make any difference in terms of the the shortest distance between two points in the avoidance of of traffic jams.
Speaker 8: Thank you, John. Thank you. Thank you. Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brown, are there other questions from members of council? Councilwoman Kathryn Roberts.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I just want to go back. I mean, ordinarily in Councilwoman Sussman tried to address this. Tonight we're deciding between the current zoning, in a sense, putting 584 in a new proposed zoning. It gets a little muddled because in between there was a PUD proposed. That sounds like it might have been preferable to the neighborhood. That was not the total impression I got in committee. So, Kyle, I want to ask you something else about that. In the party that came to committee. It was my recollection that a drive thru was also a use. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: That's correct.
Speaker 7: And there was other retail in that as well. What was missing and what was missing from it? It seems to me that it cut down on height the little bit, which from the three stories to one, that was sort of the distinction I heard when I thought, you know, there's not that much in it for the neighborhood that we shouldn't go to the street zoning. Would that be an accurate recollection?
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's I could I can provide more detail. Kelly, can.
Speaker 6: Can I get the.
Speaker 11: PowerPoint back up?
Speaker 4: So I have a slide here that compares what that pre application was as compared to the SCC three x. It is correct that when the party was at planning board it had the same opposition at Planning Board and there was written testimony, a written correspondence also opposing it. The differences as compared to the three X were in a number of uses and the height. So yes that it it was going to.
Speaker 7: Prohibit maybe.
Speaker 4: Some uses and the lower the height.
Speaker 7: Probably even the liquor store because it's so close to George Washington. And that's debatable, right?
Speaker 4: Well, you know, liquor stores.
Speaker 8: You know, it could it could.
Speaker 4: There's that the rule now that can be waved.
Speaker 7: Back. Okay. All right. That that helps me just in terms of why we went to the UCC, it wasn't to make life more difficult for the neighborhood or Councilman Brown, it was to try to get the code clean. It sensor wasn't that much gain or difference between the two.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Kyle, I want to ask a clarifying question, and if you could put up the map that shows the site. What I'm trying to clarify is if the current curb cuts to the property. Our what is expected to be utilized as ingress and egress for the site.
Speaker 4: So so there's actually nothing in the zoning that speaks directly to that, but that the applicant site plan that he's proposing here is wouldn't add any new driveway. So it's just the two existing driveways that are on both on the cube smart property.
Speaker 2: Okay. And any idea how traffic would respond to that?
Speaker 4: And you had conversations. So that's probably better for Paul.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Thanks for asking the question. It's a good one. The the traffic light and exposition of the lead still. And we took this measurement at rush hour three weeks ago, roughly. But that traffic light is green for a minute and 45 seconds and is read for like 18 seconds. And that means that the city has designed things properly because they want that traffic on resale to flow southeast. So the reality is, if if someone.
Speaker 6: Came in here personally.
Speaker 10: And decided to go this way, we're going to have to cross the speed bumps, which will be a detriment to go left here over to this light. And if they happen to hit the minute and 45 seconds of red light to make the right turn on leads, they'll they'll probably only do that once or twice because it's a it's very awkward and it's more time consuming than just flowing with the traffic on lead still.
Speaker 2: So can you clarify if the business CU Smart is that within the triangle of this property if they have approved the speed bumps. Because I heard somebody say that this was something that had to be approved by smart.
Speaker 10: The the speed. Let me go back one step. This is the property that we own here. It's roughly an acre. This piece here is owned by Kim Smart.
Speaker 1: So the two access points are.
Speaker 10: Actually on the cube smart property. We have a reciprocal easement agreement to use that for ingress, egress and and access to to our property. The this the speed bumps will be on Q smart property. And they say they suggested to us that we put speed bumps in because we had gone to them and asked them if they would agree to closing off that exit. And they said no, but we would agree to put speed bumps in on our property, provided they're properly designed. So we have a yes for that.
Speaker 2: Do they have to also approve signage on the site that discourages traffic exiting onto exposition?
Speaker 10: No, not on our property. They don't have to prove that. But on their property we can put signs here. We would have to give their blessing. Yes.
Speaker 2: So that such signage does not exist today, is that correct?
Speaker 10: No, it's it's not.
Speaker 2: It's something. What kind of business is cute? Smart? I'm not sure. Okay.
Speaker 10: Sure.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 10: But I'd just like to make one comment on that agreement. With that came as a result of the meeting with Councilman Brown and Bob Golic and the association. Is that my understanding is that there was some general issues discussed and a letter agreement could be executed fairly quickly, which would then go to an attorney. He'd make it a legal document, which we would record against the property as restrictions. So and that's the same with Steve Charbonneau in mediation. He said we if we'd come to an agreement with the association, something could be done very quickly and then convert it to a legal document that would be a binding document as required action against the property.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Any other members of the council? Just one final question. So if that was something that was agreed to tonight, would those in attendance who have spoken against it agree to that? Because I heard one of the concerns that there was no binding way that this was going to be enforced if it's recorded against the property . I see that as being enforceable. It's just a shake of heads. Could that be helpful from what we understand? Okay. If you're going to speak, I need you to come to the phone to identify yourself again, please. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Nigel Smith, 739 South Korea Street. What we've been told is that any any type of agreements, whether it goes through an attorney or not, cannot be tied to the deed and that it's unenforceable. So, yes, we could agree on it at this point. But six months down the road, if a if a drive thru is installed, then we would wind up in a in a court battle and it would not have been held enforceable.
Speaker 2: Well, that's different than him saying he was willing and agreeing to recorded against the property. Which which would be fine.
Speaker 0: From what we understand, is you cannot record that against the property. It's similar to a good neighbor agreement and it's unenforceable.
Speaker 2: So we're all looking to our city attorney. So, David, can you just clarify that point?
Speaker 8: We have several city attorneys in the room tonight, including ones who have been following this throughout. But as long as I've got the mike, let me just remind you all that the applicant has a right to have his application voted up or down tonight in our system. The opponents have a right to urge you to vote it down. This is not the appropriate opportunity to be negotiating the terms and conditions of the approval from the floor on a monday night. And we consistently give that advice. Now, we've we've been called upon to answer questions like this before in terms of the panoply of ways that applicants may enter into third party agreements with neighbors or with neighborhood groups. And it's difficult for us to sit here on a monday night and opine on the specific enforceability of any particular instrument. When I listen to the testimony here tonight, one of the things I hear is that is that there may have been some offer, some proposal to have a covenant on the property running with the land that might have imposed certain use or design restrictions on the property. But to whom does that run? And what's the quid pro quo in terms of who would then be bound to offer something back on the other side, such as not challenging this rezoning decision here tonight? That's the difficulty, is structuring a quid pro quo that everybody can be absolutely assured is enforceable at the end of the day . And it's very difficult for the city attorney's office, any of us, to opine about the ultimate enforceability against whom, in terms of any instrument that they might have come up with on the side. It's not a city document. It's not the something the city is a party to, and therefore it's not really inside the lines in terms of the role the council is playing tonight, in terms of either approving this rezoning application application or denying it. Now I'm going to turn to my colleagues who have been working on this, who may be more familiar with what the various proposed quid pro quo is, and see if Knight Lucero wants to comment in addition to anything I said.
Speaker 6: Good afternoon, Madam President. Members of the council names here with the city attorney's office. And I agree with what Mr. Broadwell said. The council can I can approve this application or deny the application. I suppose there would be another option where.
Speaker 11: Council would be authorized to.
Speaker 4: Approve this with conditions, but that comes.
Speaker 6: With a host of procedural complications that would delay this process further. So I would just extend that to to council that that would be the third alternative.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brooks, would you be okay with my letting Councilman Brown go before you?
Speaker 9: Yeah. Matter of fact, you can take me off a list. Okay. David summed up my thought.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Brown.
Speaker 8: Did you say taking you out of the building, or can I have you back at the podium, please? And your first name is that. I'm sorry.
Speaker 7: Nate.
Speaker 8: Nate, Nate, let me ask you. The city has on contract community mediation concepts. And Steve Charbonneau heads up that nonprofit organization that does provide conflict resolution mediation and facilitation services for the city. They've done it for years. So what happens when they work out an agreement? Between neighbors and developers. What happens? When Steve Charbonneau heads up is he heads before in my district and it's worked out fine and I've never heard this.
Speaker 6: Well, Councilman Brown, I think that would be an agreement between the parties, whether that's the developer and some neighborhood.
Speaker 11: Organization it possibly is recorded against against the property's deed restriction.
Speaker 6: Or something along those lines. But again, the city is is typically, in my understanding, wouldn't be a party.
Speaker 4: To that agreement.
Speaker 6: And Mr. Broadwell, of course, can correct me if I'm incorrect.
Speaker 8: Is that a no comment? Consider that now I in this case, I'm agreeing with Mr. Lucero. That's true. We're not a party to those contracts. I'll just relate. There are situations where I don't know what goes on inside that black box in terms of how it's enforceable and whether or not they have any problem with parties outside the box may be blowing up the deal. I agree with you, Councilman Brown. Very often when these things have gotten squared away through mediation, we haven't seen secondary problems later on. Occasionally we do. But but in general, we don't. How it sticks. You know, how they hold it together. I'm not entirely sure. I do know of cases in other cities in Colorado where you may have an agreement with a neighborhood association. But then later on, one individual property owner goes rogue and decides to challenge or oppose the rezoning proposal anyway. Right. So. So it's only as good as the parties who are signatory to the deal and whether or not it's entirely squared away in terms of any potential violations on the one side or the other is not something as as the neighbor indicated, we're either a party to nor do we track very closely. Thank you, David. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So if I. If I understand correctly, if it's a part, it's a it's usually an arrangement between the developer and the neighborhood. And the city is not a party to it. Does that mean that whether we vote for the zoning or against, they could still afterwards enter into such a agreement that would have the same kind of legal binding that it would have had they decided on it beforehand. That being separate from city processes, it's still a possible action. If they wish to.
Speaker 8: Private parties are always at liberty to negotiate restrictive covenants on property among themselves. Whether they have a zoning pending is just approved, never approved. That's always the property interest and covenants and servitude in between adjacent private property owners is something they're always free to negotiate among themselves.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 2: Any other questions from members of council? The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council Feltham and Brown.
Speaker 8: Five more months. I tell you, I don't enjoy this again. What I try to do is resolve problems. Not a very glamorous job, but I certainly tried in this effort. I thought after we had the meeting in my office that we had a deal. Yeah, there were some technical things. You got to get the lawyers. All right? But I really thought we had a deal. And I might add that Bob Golic thought we had a deal as well. So I turned to him after that didn't work out. And if I can, I'm going to quote two presidents tonight, which I've never done. And the first quote would be from Lincoln, Our last, best hope. And in my judgment, I thought our last, best hope on this agreement, on this particular case was community mediation concepts, because they had worked and I've worked with Steve and he has brought neighbors together. In this case, it didn't work out. I referred to my colleagues to the letter that he wrote us. February the 20th, this year, I believe that was what, Friday, where he says that he talks about the number of hours over the past two days talking with both parties regarding the proposed zone change. In the end, my efforts in mediation were not successful. Paragraph The neighbors represented by the two parties here tonight felt very strongly that any change he's talking about, the neighbors in the zoning would cause an intolerable increase in traffic as well as drive through issues in the neighborhood. They were all also concerned about noise and light pollution. They didn't believe any condition can or would be enforced. Third paragraph, Mr. Nuttall agreed to speed bumps, a dip and additional signage at the property's exit onto exposition. He agreed that no quote, food related, close quote drive thru would be allowed. But in the end, these concessions were not seen to provide adequate solutions by the neighbors. Very specifically, the neighbors express a complete opposition to anything other than the zoning remaining as it is for 45, 84. The other president. John Kennedy said, never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate. And I think that was the problem, frankly, with the neighbors. They feared to negotiate. And I'm sorry. I think the developer would agree to no drive thrus because that was the problem that was presented. A planning board. I thought that was. A very sincere effort to resolve this issue. And it wasn't enough. So I'm going to support this rezoning tonight, and I hope my colleagues understand what I've been going through. It's been long, it's been difficult, but I still think this is fair in the long run. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Brown. There are other comments from my colleagues. Councilman Rob.
Speaker 7: Did you say me? Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Yeah. Charlie, I have a lot of sympathy for what's been going on and a lot of admiration for the leadership that you have showed or tried to show. But this is really one of the most frustrating reasoning. Zero. In all honesty, I come into many rezonings in council, not quite having made up my mind. That is still the case in this rezoning. Tonight, as I make these comments, I can understand the neighbors frustration. This has been a long disputed site going back to when Polly Flowback represented the other side of the street in DPS, couldn't sell the property. And then eight years ago, thanks for jogging my memory. It was resound in it and I can see where the neighbors say, hey, what's different in the way we put that in? Trying to decide if we're going to rezone is do we have changing conditions? That's quite a broad term. There's a lot that changes. There's a lot that stays the same. And I'm I'm really trying to think about that. If the B one uses were okay eight years ago and Blueprint Denver had already been approved. I'm trying to figure that one out. I also I'm not crazy about what is now happening and I understand it, but I'm just I struggle with it. That, of course, the community planning and development and zoning.
Speaker 1: Can't.
Speaker 7: Predict traffic, can't design the roads in the city, can't install traffic control devices. But I do think and I've had to make these tough decisions and often have had neighborhood opposition for it. But I do think that when we consider a rezoning, we can consider what we know into it, what the traffic study say about traffic under the clear qualification that we have to decide if this benefits public health, safety and welfare. So I understand that, you know, and I'm just I'm stuck. We could have had a win win. I think we could have had as a situation under negotiation where there was a nice buffer between the site as shown in landscaping. We wouldn't have had a vacant lot and we could have had no drive through. Now we really I mean, we wouldn't have had the vacant lot. Now we really have to decide between one undeveloped site in something else. So I don't know if anybody else is going to weigh in, but I find this a really hard decision.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Rob Council. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. I like you, Councilwoman Robb. I find it a very difficult decision to and I. I can I can understand both points of view. The it is a commercial corridor and one wants to maximize what you can do out of a land like this. But I think, too, there was just some confusion about how an agreement might work between neighborhoods and the developer and perhaps some feeling of of Russian rashness and how and how we could maybe work this out. So I am still debating the decision myself, but like our atlas of the decision, I feel like there is and there is still an opportunity for that win win that might not have happened. Before tonight. I still feel like there is that possibility. I hear I hear willingness on the part of the neighbors. I hear willingness on the part of the developer. At least there was at one time a willingness to talk about these things and see what works out best.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Sussman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I also share the same frustration. Which is why I was asking some of the questions that I was asking. You know, on one hand, from the neighborhood perspective, I'm sure that if council votes this up tonight, you're going to feel like you've lost your leverage to be able to work this out with the proposed developer on the project. And from the from your perspective, I'm sure you're feeling like, well, you know, you want to be able to proceed with the project. And I would just hope that this is not the end of the communication that would happen if council decides to move this project forward . I think the issue of pedestrian safety for students is going to be a real issue. The traffic concerns that the neighborhood has, if the volume of traffic is increased, you've got more trips in and out of the site compared to what's there today. I can understand the concerns that the families have about that. But at the same time, I'm struggling here with the fact that you guys were this close, this close to having this nailed down to address the concerns. And my hope is that this is not the end of that. Being able to still work it out, you know, with rezonings of council votes it down. The applicant has to wait a whole year before being able to bring it back and only the council person of the district can file an application to bring something back before that year timeframe. I don't know where we're all on this issue. You know, this is something we can't and we don't talk about. But my hope is that this you know, I still don't know how I'm going to vote yet. I'm struggling with, you know, just the the tug and pull here between creating an opportunity and in allowing something that could serve the community there. But at the same time, trying to address those issues of concern that would impact the neighborhoods. And I just want to say to both of you, I hope you guys can keep that dialog open and try to find a way to to resolve this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Kinney.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Madam President, I was not planning to speak, but since several of my colleagues shared that they were still hemming and hawing, I thought I would weigh in to share that I will be supporting this rezoning tonight because I do believe it meets the criteria. I think that many times we have neighborhoods or communities who come before this council and share that they feel that they don't have any control. And what they mean is they can't stop a project. They can't stop change from happening. But in fact, time and time again, I hear them having influence over things based on setbacks, setbacks, design, concessions. Neighborhoods in this city have an enormous amount of influence over development through these processes. And you you know, I think that this community had that chance. And sometimes you let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And I can't account for that. I am here to evaluate whether this is a commercial corridor lead, still is a commercial corridor. And, you know, if you drive along it, you can see many areas where that commercial corridor on the front side then has residential on the back side. But that exists throughout this corridor. If I make that if I make the decision that this block can't be commercial because there's residential behind it, I can't be consistent. Then for the remainder of this corridor of the remainder of Colorado Boulevard or the other major commercial corridors in this city where one block behind them exists residential. And so, you know, I don't have the qualms that I've heard from some of my colleagues because I I am left with the criteria. And this rezoning meets those criteria. I'm sad for folks that they didn't feel like they got the perfect deal. But, you know, having spent many of my years before serving on council, negotiating with developers and I understand the city attorney's position that that he cannot advise you or even us on the on the on the enforceability of a hypothetical agreement, covenants that run with the land. I don't know of many situations where they're violated. And I think you got bad legal advice if you were told that they were not something you could rely upon, because we have many neighborhoods who rely upon them in other types of situations, whether it's affordable housing covenants, it's a very common tool. And, you know, I'm not the city attorney, so I can opine on things he can't. But so so with that, I just felt like it was important for me to weigh in and state that, you know, our job is to evaluate this and the criteria. This is a commercial corridor. It is a reasonable use. And we should approve this tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Kennish, any other comments by members of council? CNN Madam Secretary, Roll Call on Council Bill 972.
Speaker 7: Brown I can eat lemon. LOPEZ All.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 7: Nevitt Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. No, Shepherd Sussman. Hi, Brooks.
Speaker 9: Hi.
Speaker 7: Madam President, by Rob. It was so hard for me to say no that I didn't like it.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: Ten eyes one. Nay.
Speaker 2: We have ten eyes one nay. Counsel Bill 972 has passed. Councilman Brooks, will you put Council Bill 57 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, Madam President. I put the Council Bill 57 on the floor to be placed on the floor for final consideration.
Speaker 2: It's been moved and seconded. Before we proceed, we will need to make a technical amendment to Council Bill 57. Councilman Sussman, will you make the motion to amend?
Speaker 1: Yes, I will. Thank you. Madam President, I move that council bill 57 be amended in the following particulars. On page one, line 24. Strike the reference number two 2015. Dash 0073. After the word city clerk filing number and replace the reference number with 2015 0073a.
Speaker 2: Okay. It has been moved and we need a second second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council Women Settlement.
Speaker 1: Yes, I lost my notes on this. But that the purpose of this is to add a Spanish translation of Councilmember Montero's letter to the Elyria and Swansea communities as part of the Elyria and Swansea neighborhood plans. It is that it is an introduction to the bill that has her words in a Spanish translation in English and Spanish
Speaker 2: . Thank you. Other comments? Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment.
Speaker 7: SUSMAN Hi. BROOKS Hi. Brown. Brown. I can eat Lemon Lopez.
Speaker 8: All right.
Speaker 7: Nevitt. I. Ortega. I. Rob I. Shepherd, I. Madam President.
Speaker 2: All right, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 7: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: We have 11 eyes council bill 57 has been amended. The winner. A courtesy public hearing for counsel. Bill 57 is open. Maybe we have a staff report.
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 6200 Leetsdale Drive. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a map amendment to rezone 6200 Leetsdale Drive from PUD 584 to S-CC-3x (Suburban, Commcercial Corridor, 3 stories) in Council District 6. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-12-14.