Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 319 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: All right. She has amended. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. Council Bill 319 as amended. Be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: Thank you. The combined public hearing for counter Bill 319, as amended in 321, is now open. Speakers may addressed either or both bills and counsel will vote separately on each bill at the conclusion the public hearing. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 9: Thank you. Council President Steve Nally with community planning and development. We are now shifting gears and heading north in the neighborhood up to the Potter Highlands area. This is both a text and a map amendment for the Potter Highlands conservation overlay. So the intent of this overlay, similar to the other one, is to really reflect that 19th century, late 19th century character of the Potter Highlands. This image reflects the the type of homes that you'll find in Potter Highlands, where they're one and a half stories and they have side facing Dormers. And there are other types of kind of high style homes found in Potter Highlands. And but this is the predominant character, and the overlay reflects this character. So it's a very similar process to actually the same process as the other overlay. So I won't go through all the details, but I will say that public notification for planning board was sent to all Arnaud's and all council members and signs were posted throughout the Map Amendment area and then also for City Council. Public notification was sent to all our knows and to all city councils and signs where new signs were posted throughout the neighborhood, noticing that the public hearing was going to be held tonight. So the tech summit creating the CEO for the conservation overlay for there's a lot of detail in this conservation overlay for primary building form standards . There's a five foot minimum side interior set back for lots greater than 30 feet in width as opposed to a three feet on one side or ten foot combined. Also, the proposed language reduces the bulk height calibrated to the zone lot with. So instead of a 17 foot vertical bulk plain height before you have your spring point and go at an angle. And so instead of that 17 foot vertical boat point height, it plots 30 feet or less and with heavy 15 foot pole, clean height and lots greater than 30 feet in width have a 13 foot real voids . And the intent is to reduce the overall height allowed by the base zoning rooftop decks under the current zoning without the overlay are allowed on the on the top of any roof up to that second and a half storey. So this language would limit the rooftop decks to the roof of the ground storey so you could have it on the roof of the first floor. You could walk out from your second floor onto the ground. Storey I mean, it's limited to just the roof, the ground, sorry, and also limited. And this is by the basement district within that front, 65% flat roof structures. And these are found throughout the neighborhood. The historic oftentimes they're duplexes, but sometimes they're also single family where it's a flat roof structure. They don't sculpt at the bulk plan. So this overlay would limit the overall height of a flat roof structure to 25 feet. However, that structure would not be subject to the bulk plan. It could go straight up at the site. There's another book playing exception, and that's to allow side facing dormers. There are multiple limit limitations within the language, so the side facing dormer would be allowed to pierce that ball playing that it's coming in at an angle from both sides. And then for two unit dwelling users must have a minimum zone, lot of 5500 square feet and 50 feet of width, as opposed to the underlying zone district , which allows a 40 foot 500 square feet and 35 feet. So this is a lot of the duplexes, the majority of the duplexes in the neighborhood are found on larger lots. And so it's reflecting that character that exists. And then the detached accessory dwelling unit is similar to the previous overlay, but it's allowing a zero foot side interior setback to match the garage or other detached accessory structures. So the review criteria in the different zoning code for a conservation overlay and specifically a text amendment is found in section 943 to see. Also, Tex amendments must be consistent with adopted plans for the public health and safety of the general welfare and resulting regulations that are uniform within each zone district. So the proposed Potter Highland Conservation Overlay seal for create size, scale and mass standards to be more consistent with the existing and distinct building features by requiring a reduced size , scale and mass than the standards of the underlying zone district. There are three plans that apply COP21 blueprint Denver and the Highland Neighborhood Plan. Very similar recommendations. This is the previous overlay, but really trying to be consistent or right zoning and have zoning standards that are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. So the proposed section is consistent with many of the planning goals, the proposed six amendments, consistent with many blueprint Denver strategies, including the concept land use, which is single family and single family duplex area of stability. The proposed standards would further stabilize and meet the goals of Blueprint. Denver The Highland Neighborhood Plan process is consistent with the whole neighborhood plan strategies, including heightening the sense of neighborhood pride and revitalizing the housing stock and maintaining and stabilizing the character of the neighborhood. This tax amendment furthers the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents as it provides for context sensitive and character reinforcing standards that further stabilize the established neighborhood. And this text amendment result will result in uniform regulations applicable to all new buildings within land mapped C0 four. So based on that, CB recommends approval, a finding that all criteria have been met. Now shifting to the MAP amendment, we are still in the Highland neighborhood and still in Council District nine, located in the Potter Highland area. There are few portions of the proposed area to be risen that are outside of the historic district. However, the majority that falls within that historic district in the zone districts to be re zoned or YouTube YouTube and a YouTube with you oh three which the use overlay so the review criteria and the zoning code for a map amendment any conservation overlay that the proposed water highland conservation overlay see or for create size, scale and map standards be more consistent with the existing existing building features by requiring a reduced size, scale and asset than the standards of the underlying zone districts. The proposed text amendment is consistent with Section 943 to see the three plans that apply to the site. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with many compelling 2000 goals, including encouraging quality infill development that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Proposed map permit is consistent with many blueprint Denver strategies, including the concept land use, single family, single family duplex area of stability and the proposed map amendment is consistent with many Highland neighborhood plan strategies, including maintaining and stabilizing the character of the neighborhood. Here's the map. A blueprint majority of the Highlands area or the area to be zoned is in single family residential with the area to the southeast single family duplex. This map will result in uniform regulations applicable to all new buildings within land mapped C0 four. And this map furthers the public health, safety and general welfare of Denver residents as it provides for context sensitive and character reinforcing standards that further stabilize the established neighborhood. So CPD recommends approval based on finding that all criteria have been met. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. We have five speakers for 319 as amended or 3.1. I will call off five. You please feel free to make your way to the front pew Dick Farley, Mary Broderick, Jerry Gold Timbers and Brian Shirk Pinnick. I apologize if I mispronounced that, but you can make your way to the front pew. And, Mr. Farley, you can begin your comment.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Mr. President, members of council. My name is Richard Farley. I live at 2500 Walnut Street in Denver. I helped craft the the Potter Highlands overlay zone. It addresses the unforeseen consequence of a small third story and deck being fitted underneath the existing single family and duplex bulk planes. This results in a building type that is foreign to the neighborhood, both in form and in the encouragement of a second level and second level decks, which negatively affect privacy. The proposed overlay zone pulls the bulk plane down. While at the same time allows Dormers to penetrate the bulk plane. To maximize the usable second floor area. The Dormers also provide daylight into the second floor. In addition, they are found throughout the Potter Highlands neighborhood. Flat roof duplexes and houses are also found throughout the neighborhood. This overlay zone allows the full two storey houses and duplexes to occur without the ball playing, so long as they are limited to 25 feet in height. I believe that the Neighborhood Planning and Community Development Committee has worked hard to accommodate two storey houses and duplexes while eliminating three storey form, which is out of character with the neighborhood. I support this overlay zone and urge your approval. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mary Broderick.
Speaker 7: Hi, I'm Mary Broderick and I live at 2636 West 35th Avenue in Potter Highland. I moved into Potter Highlands in 1981 and bought my first house. I now live two houses away. I want to say I'm conflicted here because the overall work that Honey has done, CPD has done is really good for the neighborhood. The only issue that I'm having is the move from the combined side interior, which was a combined of ten feet, so that if you had seven foot, eight or seven foot on one side, you could have three foot on the other side for that combined ten and four lots like mine that are 30 a lot and a half, 38 feet wide. When you're building a potential addition, for instance, you can't line up with the existing building. They want some level of offset to show that it's it's an addition. At least Landmark has.
Speaker 4: Told me that.
Speaker 7: So what ends up happening is that you start fighting over to that side interior. So having the five foot requirement on both sides. In my particular situation, it was better to go with the combined setback. But so I really don't want this to sound like I'm opposing all the incredible work that's been done, but maybe offer a situation other than a variance. Because here's an example. My original house was 600 square feet and it was bounded by the East Valley. A developer bought it from the guy that I sold it to.
Speaker 4: And he.
Speaker 7: Was able to get a zero clearance right up against the alley.
Speaker 4: And he built this.
Speaker 7: Huge pop top, which was totally I mean, it's okay. But I guess my.
Speaker 4: Point is, is that.
Speaker 7: I think this is really good work. These design overlays, the conservation overlays are important. But if people can bypass it through a variance, then we're losing the work, all the work that you've done.
Speaker 4: And it seems to me.
Speaker 7: Sometimes that the developers know all the tricks and can afford to, you know, to file for those variances. So just some thoughts to consider. My biggest issue is, is maybe there's a way to grandfather the side.
Speaker 4: So that if you're in.
Speaker 7: The process and you already had drawings or whatever.
Speaker 4: That there.
Speaker 7: Might be some way to allow the combined.
Speaker 4: Set back to sunset.
Speaker 7: In six months or a year or something like that.
Speaker 4: So granted, this is a very selfish comment here, and I do agree with most all of the work that's been done.
Speaker 2: And I miss Broderick, I apologize. You 3 minutes is up. Thank you, Jerry Gold.
Speaker 8: Hi. My name is Jerry Gold and I live at.
Speaker 0: 2935 West 36th Avenue, once.
Speaker 8: In the Potter Highlands, and it's on the corner of West.
Speaker 0: 36th and federal. My partner and I, Frank, have lived in that house for 39 years.
Speaker 8: And we were privileged to be.
Speaker 0: Part of the original Potter Islands.
Speaker 8: Association that eventually, after we had moved in, got Potter Highlands designated as historic. And so it's always been so important to us what happens to that neighborhood. And we were very involved, both politically and socially for the first couple of years. Then we adopted four children and we kind of stepped aside for quite a few years, as most parents might understand. And just recently, though, our kids are somewhat on their own and I'm retired and I've jumped back in because we've had so many concerns about what is happening in the neighborhood. Our house, during those years that we had the kids, we still did a lot of work. We built a garage. We added a porch. We added a den on the back. 12 years ago, we had a.
Speaker 0: Third story attic that we remodeled and we got dormers because we had a variance. And that went really well.
Speaker 8: And all the time we did it. We were always so conscious of the character of the house and it was so important to us to do that. And our hope has always been that everybody else would do that. What's a bit scary now is, as you know, east of us in from Potter Highlands, the the building is becoming.
Speaker 0: Tremendous modern structures.
Speaker 8: That don't fit into our neighborhood. And as some of you know, some of them have over the past two years. And that is why people have become so concerned. And I think the overlays which I support completely are going to help people who are trying to remodel but want to do it in the character of the neighborhood and their house. But it will stop people from doing stuff that they shouldn't do. At least it will help in remodeling. It will also, I think, give direction to the people that want to come in. Not that they're scraping all of our houses, but any vacant lot. The corporations or the construction people are very excited about building in our neighborhood. And often, as some of you know, their modern boxes, it just don't fit in. And so our hope is with the overlays that we can control that and give them direction, but also keep them from destroying the character of our neighborhood. I support it completely. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Timbers.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Tim verse 25, 58 West 32nd Avenue. Here to speak now about the Potter Highlands portion of the the overlays with we went through the same process here. I would say the biggest difference in the process for Potter Highlands was that midway through our journey, neighbors like Jerry and many others were becoming alarmed at what was going on with infill development within Potter Highlands and came to us and said, You've got to help, you've got to do something. Are the overlays going to help us? And we looked at the overlays we were thinking about at that time, said, Gee, these aren't doing everything they could do. And at the same time, the Landmark Preservation Commission of the city was developing new guidelines, updated guidelines, specifically district by district. And so we were able to see what they were coming up with and recognize where the current zoning code doesn't really coincide very well with the guidelines. And that's where a lot of the conflict was happening in Potter Highlands. And so what we've developed here and what you see tonight is really a great stride forward in getting the zoning to match up with Landmark so that those two entities within the city government can actually be working in the same direction instead of at odds with one another, as has sometimes occurred in the past. So I think that's really important. And I think you should also note that there are neighbors in Potter Highlands that have gone to great lengths way beyond what our committee could do, looking for what are the patterns that are typical in Potter Highlands. And the one that I would cite is the size of lots. The duplexes are go on. One of our neighbors spent I don't know how many days, but walked every face block twice looking for the duplexes and then mapping where they were in terms of the width of lots and prove to us because we asked him to that 75% of the duplexes, historic duplexes in Potter Highlands are on larger lots on a double lot. And so that's that's why you see this in here. We're able to support that with with real data. I think that's about all I need to say here. Obviously, I'm speaking in support. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Brian Sicknick.
Speaker 0: Hi. I'm Brian Sicknick. I've lived at 2605 West 35th Avenue for the past two years, but I've been in the Highland neighborhood for five years now. I'm the current honey president. Just took over from Rebecca Hunt this year. I've sat on the board for the last four years, though, um, before I even started on the board. I actually attended one of these Pcdi meetings, the timbers ran, and the overlay discussion was one of those topics at that point, and the amount of detail that they went through to map this neighborhood and to figure out exactly what, what what really needed to happen to keep the character is really overwhelming that the pride that they have in the neighborhood is is something that we all really, really have to appreciate. And that word character has come up multiple times. You walk around that neighborhood and people people love it. People who visit us say what a beautiful neighborhood this is. And it's because of that character that that really makes it that way. You know, I. I plan to stay in the neighborhood. I plan to raise a family in the neighborhood. And I just wanted to see it remain the same. Remain a gem of Denver. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And that concludes our speakers. Time for questions. Any questions from members of Council Councilman Moran?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I was thinking about the duplex piece that Tim addressed, and so I'm glad you addressed it, because I was thinking we talked a lot about how many units you can get on the various width of what during the zoning code update process, as you probably remember. And I'm thinking about the rest of the city. I don't know, Steve, if you can answer this, but I think it would be pretty common to say that the majority of 50 foot lots are two unit multi-unit. You know, with the flat roof rather than the three unit. I mean, how did we get to that? And is it something we should be looking at citywide?
Speaker 7: I'm just.
Speaker 9: You know, I think the the Potter Highlands, the characters, typically, you have this side by side duplexes. Sometimes they're they're stacked. But when you have the side by side, they're often on 50 foot lots throughout Denver. I think the duplex is a result of duplexes and triplexes as a result of our two zoning. The more land you have, the more units you could build. Our two is not just the two unit. And so it's an interesting question, having given a much thought as far as looking at this citywide and getting a sense of, you know, if duplexes are on larger lots, but there are areas of the city where we're encouraging more density and we're encouraging, you know, stacking.
Speaker 6: Yeah. So let me let me angle the question a little bit differently. I was thinking about that. I was thinking about the cost of housing in Denver right now, the cost of rentals or for sale, and that people are living in smaller and smaller spaces. And so I was thinking, should we be doing this? I guess one of the questions I have are a lot of the I mean, are our buildings being scraped over there or are these only vacant lots where we're trying to prevent this happening? I know it's landmarked, so I don't know how often a building is scraped. Tim, do you I mean, Tim, if you want to take a stab at being scraped.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Okay. How did they get scraped under Landmark? Is it easy?
Speaker 10: Potter Highlands is an interesting neighborhood in that portion of our neighborhood in that the development has happened over the last 140 years, and yet the Landmark District only recognizes houses as being historic up through 1943, I believe it is. And so anything newer than that, and there's a fair amount of housing stock that's been built since. Under the R2 zoning.
Speaker 6: It's not contributor.
Speaker 10: We have we have nine contributing what are considered non contributing structures. So there are duplexes and multiple unit terrace kinds of housing built in the fifties and sixties and those are being scraped just as fast as people can get the certificate of Noncommercial Conformance.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Councilman Monteiro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Steve, can you come up to the podium? There you are and address Ms.. Broad Rick's concerns?
Speaker 9: Sure. So it's actually an interesting question. And Ms.. Browder was not the only one to bring up the topic as we work through the conservation overlay, specifically around shifting from a three or ten foot combines interior to five and five because, you know, there are the structures that exist in the neighborhood that may have that three foot on one side. So there is an administrative adjustment process and this is new to the Denver zoning code. It did not exist in the previous code previously. You'd have to go to the board for any adjustment. The administrative adjustment allows for the zoning administrator. If there's a finding that it's compatible with the neighborhood, that there is an adjustment that can be made for the 31 to 44. Lots related to the site interior setback. So I can only encourage Ms.. Bruder to submit plans, and we can start that conversation as to how to utilize that administrative adjustment.
Speaker 7: But that's different than the variance that Mr. was.
Speaker 9: Asking for, right? So a variance you'd have to go to the Board of Adjustment and approve a hardship. And the administrative adjustment is takes place administratively through the zoning administrator. And you don't have to go to the Board of adjustment. Okay.
Speaker 7: One more question, Mr. President. This is for Mr. Gold. Come up to the podium, please. Thank you for working on the designation of the Potter Highland Historic District. I lived there for quite some time and enjoyed it very much. I wanted to I wanted to ask you, at what point did you get involved with this whole process, with the text amendments and the map amendments, especially for Potter Highlands?
Speaker 8: Well, we moved in in 76 and started working on the house right away, and we had no kids then. And then the people that were part of the original association were starting to work on getting it designated. And I believe the year was 87 that it finally happened. And so we got really pulled in with that and in helping going around the neighborhood, talking to people and I can't say at all that we were the ones that did all the work, but we got involved then. And of course, as I said, working on our own house and everybody was concerned about their own houses at that time. And so then it became very social. And the the neighborhood did a lot of things to support its designation with all kinds of parties. And, and we had.
Speaker 0: Tours and stuff like that.
Speaker 8: So that's when we really got involved. And then I dropped out for a while. And then some of my neighbors, in a sense got me involved again recently.
Speaker 7: So maybe, maybe between you and Tim, you can answer this for me. But as we were going through this legislative process, Potter Highland did step up in a very vocal way, as was mentioned by by Mr. Burns. Can you just explain one more time publicly? What was it that escalated this conversation to include Potter Highland.
Speaker 0: To be better?
Speaker 7: That this is really important because we thought we were going forward and. Then we took another we took another curve because we had not covered Potter Highland.
Speaker 10: There were a number of vocal, very vocal neighbors in Potter Highlands who appeared to all of us and really raised the issues. They were they were observing new construction, things were being demolished. And, you know, 40 and 50 year old houses were coming down and being replaced by duplexes or single family houses on tighter lots than was typical. And so there was this this fear that somehow the Landmark Preservation Commission wasn't really being responsive to saving Potter Highlands and that something else had to be done. And and at first they thought we were the bad guys and we worked to convince them otherwise and then enlisted their help in figuring out what are the things that would would help and would be supportive of what Landmark Commission could be doing and how to how to save Potter Islands. And that's that's really the basis for this overlay.
Speaker 7: So is it accurate to say that basically some developers were finding loopholes in in the historic district that we had not anticipated?
Speaker 10: I think that's safe to say. Yes.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Captain Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. My first question is for Steve. Knowing where to go. Steve. So I guess on all of these, what would be the date that these changes would take effect?
Speaker 9: Sure. So assuming well, the Scottish village was passed, that would be effective July 10th if Potter Islands and the following are passed, it's also July 10th. Would it would be effective.
Speaker 7: Okay. My next question I'm going to ask you and Tim first to answer this question. So North Denver is a little unique because not every neighborhood in the city of Denver has carriage lots. So I'm curious how if they were looked at any differently for development within the carriage? Lots. I know we're seeing more and more of them being developed on. And I'd like to know, particularly in the Potter Highlands area, how they were dealt with.
Speaker 9: So I'm going to defer to Tim but I'll just stay. That cares less. We're not discussed or Tim did not discuss carefulness with me that much. I don't know if Tim you have something to add as to why the overlays do not address scares. Carriage lots.
Speaker 10: So you know carriage lots are a have been a quandary forever as many of us know in Potter Highlands the the carriage lots are owned by different individuals, sometimes by the city and then sold by the city to individuals.
Speaker 7: And sometimes given away to adjacent property owners.
Speaker 10: Sometimes, yes. And so we end up with some unusual lots and different sizes and shapes of lots as a result of all of that. And the zoning code doesn't really get down into the details of the shapes and sizes of lots. So we didn't find a compelling problem to try to solve on the carriage lots. But we do know that we end up seeing almost everything that goes on in carriage lots because there's always some problem to solve. But it seems to take a special case almost with each one.
Speaker 7: So Tim, I remember before the 2010 zoning code was changed, there were some changes to the old code that dealt with setbacks and mostly the side setbacks. And I remember asking the question about if somebody's home burned down and your home sits right on the zone lot. And this is very common in north Denver with homes that sit on the alleys. Does. The changes that you've made, do they look any differently at a scrape off in a rebuild versus, you know, somebody whose home may have burned down and they've got to replace part of it whether they can build back on the zero zone lot or not?
Speaker 10: You know, that's a question I think folks at the city staff would need to answer. That's kind of above my pay grade. I would hope that if my house, which is there a lot line on the side, burns down on a single lot that I could build back to that. But I think I think there being negotiations with with staff on that.
Speaker 7: Steve, do you have any insights on this one?
Speaker 9: I'm looking at Adam Hernandez. He has a code. But I think what you're talking about is involuntary demolition versus volunteer.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 9: And we do have standards related to involuntary demolition. I just I'm not sure if it's related to these specific base zone districts.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I'm just I'm just curious, you know, if somebody can rebuild, if their home were to burn down or a portion of it were to burn down and they wanted to rebuild it back on that zero lot line if any of these changes prohibit that or or not.
Speaker 9: So the proposed language for the overlays has no impact on the existing language in the code related to involuntary or voluntary demolition.
Speaker 7: Okay. That's okay. Okay. That's helpful. But it would be good to know just the general answer to the question about whether someone could build on the zero light line.
Speaker 2: I think we're going to we're going to think we're going to get get back to counseling.
Speaker 7: I think what he's doing that the only other thing I wanted to know was whether or not there was any survey looking at. Maybe the number of carriage lots that have not yet been built upon. Where there's potential for more development activity on lease.
Speaker 9: So again, the carriage lots were not discussed much as part of the overlays. And so as part of this particular assignment, no, we did not do any sort of survey tied to the carriage lots.
Speaker 7: So the regular code would apply to any development that happens within those? That's correct.
Speaker 9: The based on district still applies.
Speaker 7: Okay. And I see Adam came over with the zoning code book, so I don't know if he has an answer to that question.
Speaker 2: Well, they're looking that up. Did you have another question? That was right, Councilman. Never did you want to ask a question? And we'll make sure we come back to get Councilman Ortega's question answered.
Speaker 0: Sure. Thank you, Mr. President. I think my question would be pretty oh, no, it won't be brief, because Natalie is playing around with Hernandez. So it was for Mr. and Ali.
Speaker 2: We'll go ahead and ask and.
Speaker 0: I don't want to hold you up there or it may just take a second. I just wanted to close the loop on the broader question. Looks like you've been caught doing something. The the Mary Broderick question. So did you get where she was coming from and where the I mean, it's impressive that everyone here is in support of this and it makes perfect sense. But clearly the shoe pinches on her even though she's supportive of the overall enterprise. Did you understand how the shoe pinches and that her that pinch can be relieved with some administrative adjustment?
Speaker 9: That's correct. And and it's in 12, four or five of the Denver zoning code. And it's okay to administrative adjustments. For her particular issue, she was not the only one to bring it up.
Speaker 0: Okay. Got it. Great. Okay. Thank you. I feel reassured.
Speaker 2: And Steve, did you have an answer for or are we still searching?
Speaker 9: So we're still searching, but I think it's related to non-conforming structures through involuntary burns down then and it's non-conforming then. And if you're in certain commercial zone districts, I believe you can build it back as it was. But again, I'd like to look at the code to give you a specific answer.
Speaker 7: So the changes that were made before 2010, the citywide zoning code, allowed somebody to rebuild on the zero lot line. But I don't know if the 2010 code made the made changes to that. And that's what I'm trying to clarify. Yeah.
Speaker 9: And I'm sorry if I could just have some time with the code. I can give you the answer. I will say that the proposed overlays did not change any language associated with involuntary or.
Speaker 7: We don't need to hold this up. It would be helpful to get the answer to the question even after we vote on this, because actually that answer isn't going to change anything with this particular overlay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Right. Any other questions on 319 as amended or re 21 scene none. Public area is now closed. Time for comments. Councilman Monteiro.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I want to thank all of the neighbors that have come out to testify to Bill 319 and 321 as it relates to the Potter Highland Historic District. For many of us that live in northwest Denver, we've always wanted to protect and embrace Potter Highland. Even during times when it was distressed, people were working very hard and could see the the diamond in the rough. And so when this came up and people were very vocal and feeling like, if we're going to go forward with all of these changes in Highland, I was so happy that Potter Highland Historic District raised a fuss so that we could bring this forward. It is it is a historic district and it's very, very beautiful. It's got lots of queen ends and there's still some flagstone sidewalks left. And wanting to protect it is what I want to do as well. And the biggest thing is that it seems like there's a baby boom going on in Highland. And we want to be able to keep families in Highland and especially in Potter Highland historic district. And that's being able to enrich the neighborhood and allow for people to grow families. And your good example, Mr. Goal, live for kids that you raised and now they're off and maybe they'll come back to the neighborhood. But it's well worth protecting and it's well worth being able to bring this forward as a legislative sponsor so that we can begin to direct things so that they are in character with what people want in the neighborhood. So I'm very supportive and I encourage my colleagues to support me as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. In the comments 319 as amended or on 321, which we will vote on after 319 as amended, seen none. Madam Secretary, roll call 319 as amended.
Speaker 3: Montero I. Nevett I. Ortega, I. Rob I. Brooks, I. Brown Carnage. Layman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. Hi.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Please, first of all. And the results.
Speaker 3: Tonight.
Speaker 2: Tonight's 319, as amended, has passed. Councilman Nevitt, will you please put Council Bill 321 on the floor?
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 321 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has moved.
Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code creating the Potter Highland Conservation Overlay, CO-4, comprised of building forms standards that are consistent with the established character of the area in Council District 9 (2015I-00069). (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code creating the Potter Highland Conservation Overlay, CO-4, comprised of building forms standards that are consistent with the established character of the area in Council District 9 (2015I-00069). IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM.  REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-13-15.  