Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results of Vice 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-4 21 has passed. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on. Thank you for joining us this evening, our second hearing this evening. Councilmember Ortega, would you please put Council Bill four, four, three on the floor for final passage? Madam President, I move that council bill.
Speaker 2: 20 1-4.
Speaker 0: Four, three be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 443 is open. And may we please have the staff report? And I see we have James here and he's already got the PowerPoint up, so go ahead, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam President. Are you able to hear me?
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Yes.
Speaker 1: Wonderful. Before you today, we have a proposed rezoning at 3300 Irving Street. The request is to go from an existing old code. Pudong 5772umx to located in Council District one, Amanda Sandoval's district in the West Highlands neighborhood. The request is to go to U. Amex to the two storey zone district that allows for mixed use development. The current site is approximately 12,400 square feet and contains a one storey commercial building subject to 577 that Pudi states that the only use that can occur in this building is a dentist's office. A very specific. Adjacent zoning as other old could put this houses some multi-unit residential as well as U.S. sub and USDA zoning zone districts. The existing land use is commercial retail surrounded by multi-unit single units and residential districts as well as Highland Park, very close to the property. Some photos of the existing building scale. The building property in question is represented by the top two photos and some snapshots of surrounding context in the lower two. This is a designed standards table that shows the different primary building forms that are allowed in new iMacs, too, as well as the existing restrictions of the existing party. Plan. It went to planning board on April 7th where there was a 7 to 1 vote to recommend approval. Rudy unanimously recommended moving the application to full council on April 20th. We have no public comment letters at this time and we've received five public letter public comment letters from neighbors in opposition of the proposed rezoning. I did want to mention one of those letters was signed by 20 neighbors in the area, and a successful protest petition has been filed against this proposed rezoning so that I believe that 20% or more of the area within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning has a valid signature on the protest petition. Therefore, a approval tonight will take ten votes of city council rather than a simple majority. Looking at our zone or every zoning code review criteria for rezonings. We'll start with consistency with adopted plans. There's no small plan. Neighborhood plan guidance for this parcel. So we're working with Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint in Denver exclusively. As outlined in the staff report. The proposed rezoning is consistent with a number of confirmed 2040 codes. When we look at Blueprint Denver, this parcel is located within the urban neighborhood context. These areas offer access to neighboring areas and commercial nodes with some small mixed use nodes within the neighborhood. Looking at our future place types. It is a residential low, which is predominantly single and two unit uses on smaller lots. Limited mixed use can occur along arterial and collector streets, as well as where commercial areas have already been established. Irving Street is a residential arterial, while the other Cross Street 34th is a local around designated. So this with the existing dentist office, the existing commercial as well as being on an arterial street, does meet that recommendation for a mixed use. And our growth strategy is all other areas of the city where we expect to see 20% of housing and 10% of new employment. Criteria to you, Max, to the standards under strict criteria. Three Furthering Public Health and safety, health, safety and welfare. Principally by the implementation of our adopted plans, as well as bringing the parcel into the Denver Zoning Code out of Chapter 59. With the redevelopment work to occur, the building form standards would compel a roof site and building design that promotes pedestrian interest in activity and mixed use. Zone districts tend to provide better health outcomes through physical, increased physical activity, allowing residents to live, work and play all in the same neighborhood. Their justifying circumstance is this property is located in a former Chapter 59 park. So going into the Denver zoning code from Chapter 59 is a justifying circumstance. When we look at consistency with neighborhood context, as mentioned, this is in the urban neighborhood context is that neighborhood context generally consists of single unit and two unit residential uses with small scale multi-unit residential uses and commercial areas that are typically embedded in the residential areas. The general purpose for mixed use zone districts is to promote safe, active and pedestrian scale diverse areas through the use of building forms that clearly define and activate the public street edge. And looking at you impacts to specifically the districts. It applies to areas or intersections served primarily by local streets, embedded within an existing or proposed neighborhood where building scale of 1 to 2 stories as is desired. As previously mentioned, this property is located on an arterial street and plan guidance for its height up to three stories. So the um x two is appropriate for its location. CPD recommends City Council approved the application based on the finding that all review criteria have been.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, James, for the presentation. And tonight, counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0443. And we'll go ahead and ask you, James, to. There you go. Got it. Thank you. We have four individuals signed up to speak this evening, and our first speaker is Davis Forsyth. So we'll go ahead and get Davis up into the meeting here. All right. We're going to go ahead and kick off our speakers this evening. Go ahead, Davis, please.
Speaker 6: Hi. Good evening. My name is Davis Forsyth, and I live at 3169 West 34th Avenue, just across the street from 3300 Irving Street. I've now talked to a dozen of my neighbors about the proposed rezoning BTU annex to which would create the right for the owner to install a drive thru. Agrees that a drive thru at this location would be terrible from the perspective of industry and safety, traffic impacts and neighborhood fed. Allowing a drive thru here would also be inconsistent with Denver's zoning code and adopted plan switched and pedestrian centered planning in our neighborhood zoning for a drive thru on this otherwise purely residential block is inconsistent with that vision. If Council members agree that the drive thru would be inappropriate for the council to approve this rezoning and create the right to build a drive thru here where that right never existed before. And it would seem shortsighted for the Council to rely on the current owners. It Pretensioners condition in the current construction permitting practices to compensate for an overly permissive rezoning visit. Once this property is zoned for a drive thru, the right to build a drive thru will carry forward even as property ownership, economic conditions and permitting stand. By comparison, in um x x zoning would provide the property owner with essentially the same bundle of rights, minus the option to install a drive thru. And in fact the closest commercial property at 32nd Irving is zoning you max to x. Under the circumstances, it seems both fair and consistent with past permanent practices to deny this application and direct the owner to reapply for um. x2x zoning. Some council members may agree that this property is not suitable for a drive thru, but nevertheless feel they must vote to approve rezoning the property to annex two. If that's the case for you. I would ask that you also look at the only three actions. First, that you will actively oppose any application for construction permit to build a drive thru with this location. Second, that you will support Councilwoman Sandoval in creating a zoning overlay district that will include this property 32nd Avenue and would prohibit construction of all drive thrus regardless of the individual property's underlying zoning. And third, that you will work to revise Denver's zoning code so that drive thru zoning permissions are an exception that must be requested and justified rather than the default. Thank you for your time and attention.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Davis. Our next speaker this evening is Jesse Paris.
Speaker 6: Yes. Getting them as a council cannot be hurt.
Speaker 0: Yes. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 6: Yes, my name is. Yes. Wasn't there on the. How's the Vatican? Let's do. And this was the Unity Party of Colorado. And I will be the next mayor in 2023. And this year it's guaranteed at a office. It's just some kind of neighborhood agreement that's been put into place to guarantee that this is not going to be a drive thru, as the previous speaker mentioned, or is just it's going to stay a dental office as was described during the presentation. Please answer that question. I will greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jesse. Our next speaker is Mary Frances.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 0: Hi. Mm hmm. You can go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. Hi, council members. Thanks for taking the time to hear our perspectives. I'm sure you've seen the documents submitted by myself and my neighbors strongly objecting to this requested rezoning of this property. And I think it's fair to say that I, along with many of my neighbors, do not oppose rezoning this property into a commercial property. In fact, we think there are many benefits to that. But I am opposed to the zoning code that was requested. The rezoning code requested provides unnecessary allowances at the expense of the community. The zoning code requested um x to allows for a commercial property with a drive thru. The owner could have requested zoning um x2x, which strictly allows for a commercial property, but instead opted to request the zoning that allows for a drive thru. The property is located on a blind corner as Speer Boulevard turns into Irving Street. It's an extremely unsafe corner and would be made more unsafe if a drive thru were to be permitted. The property is also in the middle, as you've heard previously, of a Denver pedestrian priority zone. So allowing you to, instead of requiring a developer to apply for you on X to x would directly contradict those plans. The property is also I mean, most importantly, the property is located in the middle of a residential area and permitting a um ex to zoning code in the middle of a residential area would permanently allow for the development that could significantly change the character of the neighborhood. And I understand that some council members think it's inconsequential to approve this rezoning because all developers apply for this code. Into that, I would ask what is the purpose of this rezoning process if the impact of each request on a community is not taken into account? And I understand that some council members are considering approving the rezoning because they don't think the developer will actually build a drive thru. And to that I would ask why allow for expanded permission if it's not currently needed? Again, you would be providing unnecessary allowances at the expense of a community, particularly because this property has always provided a service to the community. It was a church and then it offered health care. And going from that to potentially allowing a drive thru would have a huge impact. Finally, I've heard that rather than contesting this request, my community should contest a drive thru if the developer applies for a drive thru permit. Given the lack of interest in protecting my community in this process, I'm not convinced that another process would make a difference. And then, you know, hearing what our councilwoman has said and resigning, that's that this request may be approved. If it is, I directly ask our councilwoman, our councilwoman to take direct action to help us approve an overlay to prohibit a drive thru in this neighborhood, as she has suggested, and that the council members support that initiative. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mary. And our last speaker that we had signed up is Leah Stettner. And it doesn't look like Leah is joining us this evening. And so that concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill four, four, three. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. Hey, James. Is the really on the call?
Speaker 1: I guess they should be. The applicant is Chris student and the owner is Dr. Virgil Vigil.
Speaker 2: Vigil. Dr. Vigil.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Can we promote Dr. Vigil and increased student? Mm hmm. When I'm president.
Speaker 0: Sure thing. We've got the owner's rep Chris student in and then we just we have Mr. Vigil now in the meeting as well. So go ahead with your questions for them. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Athens. Thank you, Madam President. Hi, Chris. Who is the current owner? When I looked down the chain of title, it looked like it was sold in May. So can we talk about who the current owner is?
Speaker 4: And you all, Harry.
Speaker 2: We can.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Hey, introduce yourself, Chris, as well.
Speaker 4: Sure. Chris. Student To answer your question, Councilwoman Sandoval, the property that I'm trading, as in May from Dr. Hill to a partnership that I and my partner, I'm Justin are a part of.
Speaker 2: So three people own it like an LLC owns it, but it's made up of yourself. Dr. V here and another partner.
Speaker 4: Dr. Vehicle, sold the property. He's no longer involved in the ownership.
Speaker 2: Okay, so Dr. Hill is no longer an owner of the property whatsoever as of May 2021.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 2: Okay. So when I met with you back in October, do you remember that I suggested that a mixed two zoning district. Bagley Because of the forms and uses that we have in the two zone district, which is there's a petition protest because of the exact things that I mentioned in our meeting in October. So when we met and I asked you to consider that to his own district, not the two, but the two x you talked to me about what kind of developer you are. So can you explain to me what kind of developer you are and what your vision is for 3300 Irvine Street?
Speaker 4: Yes. I am not a developer. I have never built anything in my life. I am in the real estate business and I own a few small commercial properties. But as of June 14, 2021, I have never built anything. So I won't pretend to call myself a developer, nor am I an expert in the zoning code. Part of the due diligence process for purchasing this building was of course looking at allowable uses and coming to the understanding that the current zoning of the property is very restrictive. And in my hope as as a property owner in the neighborhood is that if for whatever reason down the line at the dentist no longer wants to be a tenant there, if they need more space, if they need less space, if they want to be in a different neighborhood, etc., if they decide to leave the building, I would like to rent that building to, um, to somebody. And the likelihood that that person is a dentist that they may or may not be able to. I would just like some latitude as to who could occupy the building.
Speaker 2: Okay. So if you have a plan for the building not to demo the building and redevelop the site.
Speaker 4: Correct, so that the dentist has a long term lease.
Speaker 2: Dr. Hill, is that the dentist or a different dentist?
Speaker 4: No. Dr. B Hill used to practice at this location.
Speaker 2: And then work with Chris as much you can be as specific as possible because we're on public record. It would be super helpful. So if you could be specific, like you don't have to give me the dentist name, but the name of the business that you hold the lease with. So as much specifics you can give, that would be really, really helpful because I'm just going to follow back up with another question. If I if I don't get the specifics.
Speaker 4: The sign on the building says perfect teeth. The tenants in the lease, if I recall correctly, is noted as perfect teeth. However, my understanding is that Perfect here has been purchased by a private equity group or vice versa. So I don't want to misspeak, but my understanding is that the tenant is perfect teeth. Dr. Hill, from what I understand, is no longer and often perfect teeth. I believe he used to practice at this location and then at one point in time either partnered up with somebody or saw his business and transitioned from owning the building and being the tenant to then just owning the building and having a lease with perfect teeth, which is the waste that we inherited when we bought the building.
Speaker 2: And how much money would have on that lease.
Speaker 4: I believe, four and a half years plus an option to extend, which I think is five years. So call it nine and a half years.
Speaker 2: Okay. So in the zone district that you're applying to where the U, m x to one of the forms that it allows is the drive thru service and a drive thru restaurant. It also allows townhouse, general and shopfront. I know I'm getting super specific into the zoning, which is just bear with me. Okay. And then the a different zoned district that has the same type of uses a little bit more modified does not allow the drive thru services. So can you talk to us about how you came when you met with me in October? I specifically asked for the two X zoning district because I believe that that would have been a better fit because it's embedded in a residential neighborhood and reduces or a little bit different when it comes to marijuana and different uses that are better embedded within a residential district when you have a commercial building. Talk to me about how the process how you landed the owner now currently that you AMCs to zone district.
Speaker 4: And I believe that was a decision that was made between the the partnership that I had of purchasing the building and the current landlord at the time, Dr. Hill. So I can't sit here and tell you that I am the sole decision maker. From from what? My recollection is that this owned district we opted to pursue just generally had more allowable uses. And what those specifically are, I don't recall. Of course the drive thru issue is coming up. But but if memory serves me, I think there were other other uses outside of a drive thru that were allowed as well . And I have to go back at the zoning code and what specifically. But the general train of thought was to get this resolved to something that just has a broader spectrum of uses.
Speaker 2: And he's got to be home handicapped. Dr. Vito, did you want to chime in?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you for Amanda, for giving me some time to speak to the subject. And to be honest, as Chris said, the. As Amanda knows, I was in the North Denver community for over 25 years. I started on people's 38 and they go to support the rebuilding of the existing 3300 Erven building in 2005. At that time we had a result TV, which supposedly was going to give us an opportunity to have it any kind of business in the in the property. And lo and behold, come to find out that it was going to or it could only be a dental office. I have I sort of I sold my practice to Perfect Teeth, which was a corporation of actresses, looked in Denver and in 2010 went to work for perpetuity. We severed our relationship in 2012, perfect teeth, continued business in and sold their corporation to a larger national corporation called Mid Atlantic and that who is the owners of the practice now. Once the pandemic hit, Mid Atlantic had applied to me for rent relief. I am just a retired dancer and I needed some opportune other opportunities to be able to liquidate that property to utilize. That's part of my retirement income. So essentially, Chris, the corporation presented to me an opportunity to transition to another property. We we proceeded to look in that direction. Now, when I when I had the property originally resolved for my dental practice, it was told to me at that time that it could never really be a dry land due to the traffic flow patterns . The property is too small the way it is designed, the way the its the triangular property and it just there's not enough room there for parking spaces, for enough vehicle and a drive thru lane and the way the traffic flow patterns are. There is no way that it could ever have a drive thru on that property. So the drive thru really than never has been a consideration in my mind. And so when I sold the property I according to Chris and the corporation I sold it to. They really are just looking for a way to have a business, some type of business located within that property. I would never you know, I've spent 25 years, as, you know, man, in the North Denver neighborhood and many. So many changes occur in North Denver. Not many to my liking either as far as of structure or. Or design. But the last thing I would want to see is a commercial drive thru on the corner of 30, 33rd, 34th and. You know, the traffic flow patterns for the for the traffic going into and out of downtown just would be prohibitive for that. So anyway.
Speaker 2: I appreciate.
Speaker 4: It.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Dr. B, and I appreciate you giving us that historical background. I have a couple more questions, Madam President. So for. Christine, I have one more question for you. If you bought the property and you have a four and a half year term lease on it with an option for five years, so probably nine and a half years. Why did you want to rezone the property? What led to the rezoning of it? Because currently it is a dentist office and it can be used. The PD allows a dental office. So what was the what was that? What's the story behind the rezoning, this request?
Speaker 4: The rationale behind the reserve request is what came downfield that the world changes and tenants move around it. And like I said earlier, I don't know if the tenants are going to come to me in six months and say, Hey, our practice is booming right now. I need double the space. And I saw that spot and the next neighborhood over or Hey, we're struggling a bit, we need to downsize, etc.. So there's just there is a lease that states tenant rights and landlord rights and that's great. But at the end of the day, sometimes there is maybe a business decision that needs to be made between a tenant. No. And I have no reason to believe that's going to happen. But. But it does. And so you just need to be prepared if your tenant doesn't want to be at that building anymore to then look elsewhere in attracting a business to be there.
Speaker 2: Okay. Madam President, I have a couple of questions, but we can go to the other people in the queue. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. All right. We're going to go ahead and go to Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask both Mr. Forsyth and also the applicant, Chris student if there were meetings that were held between the community and if this issue of drive thru came up over and over in those conversations . And just trying to get at the the same issues that Councilwoman Sandra was just asking about. Because if the two X allows the commercial building to continue to exist and doesn't allow a drive thru, I guess I'm struggling a little bit also with why the new Amex two was selected instead. So I just would like some feedback from one of the neighbors as well as also from the applicant. So if Mr. Forsyth could be led in first to answer that question. All right. Happy to. Councilwoman Ortega and Mr. Foresight. I think you've heard the question. And so go ahead with your answer, please.
Speaker 6: And I apologize, Councilwoman Ortega, I might have missed a bit of the question just as it was shifting my shifting into speaking mode. But if I understood right, it's not right. It sounds like you were asking if if we or anyone that I know of had met with the property owner.
Speaker 0: It is worthy of more discussion. I guess it's the same one in the same. I mean, he may have filed before the closing happened in May, but at any rate, whoever filed the application sounds like that's Mr. Student. So I'm just trying to get it. Like, did you guys meet? How many meetings did you have and did this issue of the drive thru come up as part of those conversations?
Speaker 6: So I.
Speaker 1: Can't speak for meetings that Mr. Student.
Speaker 6: May have had with others in the neighborhood. I only learned about the rezoning application by seeing the signage out in front of the dentist's office, which I believe that was in.
Speaker 1: Late April.
Speaker 6: Or early May, somewhere in there. So I saw the signs. I went home and looked up online. Know what does this mean? And then I got a postcard, which I think is required to be sent to landowners within a certain radius around the building. And with. Student I, you know, I, I went to the planning board meeting and then have written letters and talked to other folks in the community. But as I said it. The ship was already sailing by April or May of this year, and it didn't seem like there was an opportunity to to renegotiate at that point. Um, ex first sorry to was to ex and there's certainly been a learning process for me. This is my first involvement with Sony. Sounds like maybe the same for Mr. Student.
Speaker 0: So, Mr. Student, can you just jump on and answer like how many meetings you had with the community and did this issue of drive thru come up during those meetings?
Speaker 4: So I have not had the chance to witness the foresight. I did have multiple conversations with the leaders of the West Highland Neighborhood Association, specifically Trevor Bracco at a camera. And in addition to that, I reached out to the neighbor who was directly adjacent to the property, as well as the resident next door to that that parcel . Michael Wieland and Dick Anderson.
Speaker 0: So those meetings did take the issue of a drive thru come up.
Speaker 4: Uh, not to my recollection.
Speaker 0: Okay. I want to shift gears for just a minute and ask James if you can tell us the reasons why the one opposing member of the planning board voted no on the application when it came before that.
Speaker 1: Certainly. So there was one, as I said, in a staff report of one planning board member who did not vote in support of the application. The planning board member did not find the application to be consistent with all of the criteria. I believe some he might have specifically cited public health, safety and welfare as well as some design concerns.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Next up, we have Councilmember Cashman.
Speaker 7: Thank Council President. My question is for James. I'm wondering why CPD didn't opt for a different category that didn't include the drive thru.
Speaker 1: Certainly. Thank you for the question. So at the end of the day, CPD is charged with reviewing the application that we receive and we received aumx2, uh, application. A pre-op was held with CPD and the applicant, and a number of some districts were discussed as what could or would possibly be appropriate given the submitted application. And we certainly are able to. Provide technical and professional guidance on what may be appropriate some districts to apply for. But at the end of the day, it is the applicant's decision on which own district to apply.
Speaker 7: James, are there any other significant omissions from the. Besides drive thru being prohibited.
Speaker 1: So I believe the question is what is the difference between you and Max two and um, x2x other than the drive through building forms, correct. I can, I can run through those pretty quickly if you'd like. So things that are allowed in, um, x two that are not allowed in to X include student housing such as dormitories , universities or colleges, arts, recreation and entertainment services that occur outdoors, parking, garage, bed and breakfast. Automobile emissions inspection facilities, light automobile services, communication services and outdoor retail sale and display. The code is quite long and there are some other nuances within that, so please don't take that as gospel. But as far as permitted, permitted in some fashion versus strictly not permitted. I believe that's a comprehensive list of primary uses.
Speaker 7: All right. Thank you, James. That's all council president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Up next, we have council member Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam President. James, we continue with what the line that Councilman Cashman was pursuing. And this looks to me like we have another disconnect in the in the zone district uses because unmatched to allowing a drive through seems inconsistent with the description of you a match to in your staff report. Small multi-unit residential and low intensity mixed use buildings. I don't I'm having trouble so maybe you can walk me through this how a drive through business would contribute to a as a low intensity mixed use. Not that I'm confusing this with the latest in and out burger place that would definitely but that's kind of what comes to mind. So tell me, how does a drive through how do you evaluate a drive through as being low intensity? Great question and I'm sorry to interrupt, but that's embedded in the definition of you a match to. So that's that's what confuses me because it doesn't sound low intensity to me. So walk me through that. Apologize for interrupting.
Speaker 1: Not a problem. So, you know, the the urban context is a wide ranging context. You can find it in almost every corner of the city. And it is appropriate the the drive through building form specifically designed in the 2010 code to. An enhanced drive thru we've seen and I think we've seen a approximately 30 constructed in the last ten years so. You know, it does have an additional build to requirements and circulation requirements and things of that nature to be as pedestrian friendly as possible, to be as integrated into these neighborhoods as possible. Then, you know, something that might have been built prior to Denver zoning code building forums. As far as your question on is it a pro, you know, how is it appropriate? I'm sorry. I lost my train of thought for a second. So when you're talking about the intensity of uses, you know, you still can't do every there it's very specific what can and cannot happen in a drive through building form. It's you know, it's limited to the drive thru restaurant building for them can only be used for eating and drinking establishments. Primary use with an accessory drive through and drive thru services can only be used for automobile fuel services light primary use with accessory drive through use. So there are limitations even within the building form that limit the types of things that can, the types of uses that can occur with a drive through a building.
Speaker 4: Right now, there is no there is no small area planters, no neighborhood plan that covers this parcel that my understanding.
Speaker 1: Correct, that is accurate.
Speaker 4: Okay. So I'm looking at the analysis of consistency with Plan 2040. And I made note that the comments in the staff report all relate to the residential portion of Camp 40, 2040 where we're promoting mixed use and residential in areas and accents, etc.. Okay. But then when I look at the existing pad, the underlying residential entitlement is our two under former chapter 59 and R2 already allows multi-family. So the the justification or the reasoning for consistency with comparing 2040 hinges on an entitlement that they already possess in the in the in the PDF through the R2 underlying residential entitlement. So but there's nothing in common plan 2040, at least in your analysis that I saw that speaks to getting rid of just dental only and letting that building be a different type of a commercial business. Can you talk to that a little bit?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I would push back slightly on while the pad does say and it does allow R2 uses, including single unit and duplex development that must occur within the parameters of the RD, including the nine parking spaces must be provided and 17.5 feet in height. I believe that will be a fairly challenging residential product to deliver on. Given the constraints of the existing PD. Back to your comments on Plan 2040. I believe the staff report also spoke to, you know, promoting infill development of any kind, not necessarily just of residential uses. No promoting, no goal, environmentally resilient strategy and promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. This is already an area that has some commercial uses. So it would not be. It's slightly different than if it was greenfield or vacant or old going from residential now to, uh, to commercial in the future. This is a site that it already has some development capacity and that the, the increase would be less than if it was moving from strictly residential to mixed use in the current day. Did that make any sense?
Speaker 4: And I see where you're going with it and I understand that I'll have to turn off to think about that. And as I listen to the rest of the discussion, just one last question, and that is that there it looks like to me, and I didn't get to drive up there to look at this before the hearing . But I did note on Street View that there is a building across the street, down on the corner of 33rd on the on the west side of the street. That looks like a commercial building. And but it's zoned a single unit. It's not zoned for any commercial. Is that can you verify that? And do we know what's in that what's in that property right now? Right on the it's on the northwest corner of 33rd and Irving and maybe Councilman Sandoval might know what's in that structure. But it's own single unit, not commercial.
Speaker 1: I don't know off the top of my head, but I. I can find out that other questions are being asked.
Speaker 4: Oh, that'll be great. Thank you, then. Because the reason I ask is down the street a little bit on 32nd Avenue and Irving, right at that complicated intersection, there is a, um, x to X zoning district. So it would seem to me that two X would, it might have been the more appropriate a rezoning request for this parcel also. Thank you, Madam President. But those are the questions I have.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn and James. We'll let you look at that zoning and find that while Councilmember Black. Go ahead with your questions, please.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you to the applicant and for the community members who are here tonight. And for the owners, I think, Mr. Student, what I think I heard you say is that you have no intention at this time of redeveloping the property. Can you confirm with me that that is your plan?
Speaker 4: Yes. There are no plans to redevelop from.
Speaker 2: Okay. And then my other question I guess would be for Nate Lucero, who is the city attorney who is all knowing in zoning. So, Nate, my question for you, if you are here, is that if this were to pass and the owner is saying they're not they don't have plans to redevelop it, would it be possible for Councilwoman Sandoval to put some kind of restriction on the property so that in the future a drive thru could not be developed there?
Speaker 0: All right, Councilmember Black, we've got Nate up into the queue, and it took us a second longer than I thought it was going to. And so, Nate, did you hear Councilmember Black's question or would you like to be pose it?
Speaker 5: Yeah. Good evening. Members of council meeting, sir.
Speaker 1: Assistant City Attorney. I did hear your praises about me and I wish I was all knowing, but at any rate, I unfortunately did not hear the full question because I got cut off and then rejoined. So if I could have you repeat the.
Speaker 5: Question, Councilman Black.
Speaker 2: No problem. So my question is, if this were to pass tonight and the owner has said that they don't have any plans to redevelop the property at this time, would it be possible for Councilwoman Sandoval to put some kind of restriction on the property so that in the future they would not be able to build a drive thru?
Speaker 1: If Council passed this bill tonight. Councilwoman Sandoval would not be able to independently put some sort of restriction on the property unless she had some sort of ownership or interest in the property. And I've not heard that this evening.
Speaker 6: I guess, you know. Potentially what the.
Speaker 1: Council need to do is bring a council initiated rezoning to undo. The legislation is passed tonight.
Speaker 2: So I know there's a big property in my district that the neighbors and the owners, along with the councilperson at that time, put a covenant on the title of the property. And it does have permanent restrictions on the property that can only be changed in the future with the consent of the owners and the neighborhood. So could they do something like that? I know it would be outside of the city, but could they do something like that?
Speaker 4: Property owners could always put.
Speaker 1: Private covenants and restrictions on their property. So if that's the question, then the answer is yes. But I don't think that necessarily would be an action that the council woman would make even in her individual capacity. Mm.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Council member. Well. Nate. Glad that you at least got to hear Councilman Black singing your praises before we cut you off and brought you into the rest of the meeting. So we've got Councilmember Hines. You're up, and then I believe we're going to have Councilmember Sandoval back in the queue. So go ahead, Councilman.
Speaker 6: I thank you, council president. I guess since Mr. Lucero is already in the panelists area, I would ask the city council attorney. But so Mr. La Sierra, if you can answer this, great. If you can. And then maybe we'll get the city council attorneys. The question is, can can is, is this vote an up or down vote? Or can we as a council propose an amendment to add an X to the zoning process?
Speaker 1: Thank you for the question, Councilman Hines. The answer to that question is this is an up or down vote tonight. The application was not brought forward with any condition or waiver. And so one this evening could not be placed.
Speaker 4: On on the.
Speaker 5: Application.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you, Mr. Lucero. Thank you, Consul President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. So I have a question for you, James. Thanks for going over to the comparison between the two. Annex two. Annex two X talking a lot of exits here. So can you talk to us about form? Because there's the there's the form and then there's the use table. So can you somehow explain what like a general building form is or shopfront form is or drive to form? Can you just say that kind of clearly? I know it's super kind of it in the zoning code and nothing in the zoning code is easy, but d do you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: I do. And I will certainly do my best to explain the differences in building forms. It can be very tricky, especially for neighbors that don't have to deal with the zoning code every day. Very quickly, Councilmember Flynn, if you were referring to the northwest corner of 33rd and Irving, which I believe you were, that is currently a multi unit dwelling, I agree with you that it looks like it was constructed as a commercial building at the turn of the last century, but it is currently a multi-unit residential use. And appropriate for.
Speaker 4: With your permission. May I add to that?
Speaker 0: I can. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 4: Okay. I heard from a northwest Denver resident who texted me and said that that has an existing business structure exemption under the zoning code. So it's a it was built as a residence but is now but was capable of having a business in it, sort of like an embedded, I guess like an embedded business. So it's zoned single unit, but it has the exemption or exception to it. Thank you. And thank you for that, James.
Speaker 1: Oh. Building forums. So the Denver zoning code. Primarily allows development through the use of building forms that are allowed in our specific zoned districts. You will hear us throwing around phrases, phrases such as townhouse, general shopfront. Those are all different building forms within specific zone districts that tell you the general shape, the general blocks in which development may be placed. There are lots of different building forms. There's apartment, there is a point tower downtown. The ones that I just mentioned, townhouse general shopfront are the ones that are allowed in the mix to extend the district. Those are also the ones allowed in the mix to it. And adding to that, there is a drive thru restaurant and drive thru services. So those are the five building. Forms that you may put your development in. The building form has nothing to do with the building use, which is can be very confusing. But think of your building form as as the general box in which you are putting your, your development. And they all have slightly different standards. For example, in a UAM x two zone district, I may choose to build a townhouse or a shop for a building form. Just some quick examples of the differences between those in the townhouse form. I would need to have a setback from the street because it's generally, you know, I'm going to be doing a residential project. And so this townhouse form, you know, kind of picture what a townhouse looks like, right? You get a little, little front yard and, you know, so that that works better for my development program if I'm going to do a townhouse the townhouse product, if I was doing a shopfront building form, say, I'd rather I'm planning to do a mixed use project, maybe with some retail on the bottom and residential on the top of that. So the shopfront has a different front yard setback. You know, you can build a lot, right, with the shopfront you have build to requirements. So when we talk about the building forms, we're talking about the nuances in the differences of the general form in general box in which I can place my development on my zone lot in my zone. District Councilman Sandoval, did I get anywhere close to where you were hoping?
Speaker 2: You did. Thank you. I have one more question. Council president. It's for Chris. Student. So, Chris. I don't live far from there and from the property in question. And I take Irving often because it Irving turned into Speer. I haven't seen anyone in that building. I know that dentists had other COVID restrictions, but there's a dentist office on 35th and Irving on the west side of the street that I've seen open and operating. Is your is your is there really someone in your back? Is it open your the dentist office? Do you know have you been over there lately?
Speaker 4: I have seen cars in the parking lot. And actually now I said, well, yes, enhancing cars in parking lot during business hours. And I've been inside the building and in the last I would say. 45 or 60 days. So definitely this year and and I have seen the actual dentists there. So yes.
Speaker 2: With patients.
Speaker 4: I. I believe I did see a patient. Yes.
Speaker 2: Okay. That's it. Thinking when president.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And seen here, we have no other hands raised for questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 443. Council Member Sandoval.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to just start by a comment that I believe City Council and CPD should do an audit of the zoning code to look where drive thru forms can be allowed. I zoned a lot of properties. I read Zoned Tennyson all the way from 38 to 46 along 38th and Wolf to Sheraton 44th in the eighth and Lowell to the 48th to 51st. And when I read to have the active use overlay, active street use in corridors, I specifically took out the shopfront form from that overlay. So the shop front form is no longer allowed in those areas. And I'm working on applying that use overlay or the design overlay on other areas within District one because of this same exact conversation that we're having right now. So as I was looking over the zoning map where you can go on Denver gov and find your zoning everywhere in northwest Denver, most places in northwest Denver where you have commercial residential surrounding a commercial property, it is the either MSA two X or annex to annex. And the reason that is, is because the intent of the two X Zone District was to be a commercial use embedded within a residential property. That's why when I first met with the applicant before this application was where I could no longer meet with the applicant and had to sit in a quasi judicial fashion. That's why I specifically I talked to Dr. Hill. I'm the owner. And I twice I said I would really highly recommend that you use the two X Zone District because of some of the concerns that were brought up tonight and also because of our concerns. How were we supposed to build out and redevelop Denver into a walkable, safe, pedestrian, friendly environment? If we keep allowing rezonings to come through that, allow these drive thru forums. We need to do a better audit on these drive thru forms and especially for these old neighborhoods like our original Denver neighborhoods, they had street card nodes and they did actually have commercial embedded within the residential area, but they were very specific uses and they weren't they were not oriented towards cars. They were not it was a streetcar node, so it was like a trolley car. So with that, I will be denying this request tonight, and I hope that in the future we can work together to find a zone district that works best for this neighborhood for the health, safety and welfare of my constituents. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And remember Sandoval. Up next, we have Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. One of the things I think is important to mention is that the applicant indicated that the work he does is real estate. And I know from having taken classes myself that one of the things that you have to know and learn is the zoning code in the community that you're going to be doing business and and specifically when you're going to be rezoning the property yourself, you should be even more thoroughly familiar with the property or the parcel that you're requesting to read. So I think this is a clear example where there was some. I don't know. Guidance that was provided on what would be the the best use on this site. I'm I'm also a little surprised that CPD. Who has helped people try to figure out what's the right fit. Could have steered them in the right into the right zoning or. Request waivers and we have seen those come before us, even though CPD says they don't like to see rezoning applications with waivers. We've had many of them since I've been back on the council. We do them all the time, even before when I was a district council member. So it seems as though on one hand we're doing a little bit of a disservice when we're not helping guide people in the right direction with uses that are more compatible with the adjacent communities. And and then on the other hand, you know, the points that I just raised about just needing to know a little bit better about what it is you're trying to do and where that fits in. So for for those reasons as well, I, I will not be supporting this tonight. I think, you know, obviously there needed to be a little bit more homework. It wasn't clear, you know, that this was something that came up during the conversation. And maybe part of it was people in the community not having dealt with the zoning code because there have not been a lot of rezonings in this immediate area. And then having to quickly try to get up to speed and not knowing all the right questions to ask in that process and then learning over time. This is one of those uses that was clearly not going to be compatible. The other thing that I think is important is that when you have the folks from the Transportation Department look at. You know, say, for example, there was a request to do a drive up window at this property. The ingress and egress, I believe, would have prohibited that type of use on this parcel any way because it is a very small lot after video. Used to be my dentist, so I went there on many occasions to this to this location. And it's very tight. There's not a lot of parking there. And so. You know, I'm not sure how real that you would would even apply unless the building was torn down and somehow it was reconfigured . But I think in general, this is just not the right fit. So I'm going to be voting no to it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Up next, we have Councilmember Flynn.
Speaker 4: Hey, Madam President, I concur with Councilwoman Sandoval on her analysis. I also believe that two X would actually have been consistent with 2040 and even blueprint. I do not believe that this meets the criteria of being consistent with the adopted plans. Considering that there was there's a2x zone a couple of blocks to the south and within the same sort of environment. And so I will I will also be voting no on us. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Hines.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Council president, I want to thank you for for your work. I recognize that you move forward with the application as the applicant chooses. And and so I recognize that we all have limitations. And I want to thank you for your hard work. Given the limitations you have. I also want to thank Councilmember Sandoval. You have so much knowledge about land use that that is just a fountain of wisdom for for the for the people in District one. And so I want to thank you for that. And I want to thank you for for for having your knowledge sometimes rub off on some of our other folks like me. So I just want to thank you for your wisdom. And and I agree with that, that wisdom. The last thing I'd say is I do want to thank former Councilmember Rafael Espinoza for attending and and watching this rezoning. Thank you, council president.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and seen other hands raised. I'll go ahead and weigh in. I understand the difficult job the CPD has to do, and they did it to the best of their ability based on what the applicant asked for. But at the end of the day, I have too many outstanding questions as to the real intent of this rezoning. And I think what really caught my attention was that we have an individual that has bought the property from the previous owner, but yet is a property owner now and doesn't know for sure if the business is still up and running or not. And that gives me grave concern for the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding residents and property owners. And so because of those reasons, I don't believe it meets all the criteria and I will as well be voting against it tonight. And a quick reminder for council members that since community planning and development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met, ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of council are required to pass this bill. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council. Bill four, four, three.
Speaker 2: Sandoval No.
Speaker 3: Torres. No.
Speaker 2: Black now.
Speaker 3: CdeBaca now. Park?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 7: Herndon now.
Speaker 6: Hines now.
Speaker 3: Cashman.
Speaker 7: No.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 3: Ortega? No, Madam President.
Speaker 0: No. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results.
Speaker 3: 12 nays.
Speaker 0: 12 nays. Counsel Bill 20 1-0443 has failed. We thank all the community members who joined us tonight. And James, appreciate you being here as well from community planning and development. And moving along our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, July 12, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0448 changing the zoning classification for
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3300 North Irving Street in West Highland.
Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 577 to U-MX-2 (planned development to mixed-use), located at 3300 Irving Street in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-20-21. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by the owners of 20 percent or more either of the area of the lots included in the proposed change or of the total land area within 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 22.3%, respectively).