Speaker 11: On April 20th, we went back to the Planning Board for the continued public hearing where they recommended approval with the condition. The condition is detailed in the staff report on May 11 through its Neighborhoods and Planning Committee on the 27th notice was sent to City Council before the City Council public hearing to all Banos and Council members and signs were posted throughout the subject map area, which is 384 acres of land. And then we're here tonight for the city council public hearing. So there are two parts to this amendment. We are revising the DIA signage rules and we're establishing the Pinion Station next design overlay. So the purpose of the first part is to clarify the manager of aviation's existing authority to regulate signs in the days on district. So in the days of the district and again, this is only maps, not again, but DIA is only mapped on land owned lands owned by DIA, Denver International Airport. And in the Denver Zoning Code, Section nine five to Denver International Airport Zone District states that the Denver manager of aviation shall determine all design and development standards applicable to new developments in the day zone districts district. However, there are conflicting provisions in Article ten that were carried forward from former Chapter 59 and Division 1010, which is the sign code of the Denver Zoning Code. It sets forth standards for signs in the DIA Zone District. So even though the manager of aviation has the authority to determine all design and development standards in the DIA district, so the proposed zone district would remove the DIA standards from Division 10.10, which is design code to be consistent with the airport. Close authority. Per the Denver Zoning Code, section 952. For a portion of the proposed Doe six, the sign centers will still apply, and I'll explain that a little more detail when I have a map in front of you. So we mentioned the 1988 airport IGA in the last case, but this is a map kind of depicting the requirements or the basically establishing the scenic buffer. So in 1988, the airport Internet Intergovernmental Agreement excuse me, between Denver and Adams County, as amended, requires a scenic buffer. And that's what's on your map in green that extends a thousand feet on either side of the center line of Pioneer Boulevard within excuse me, within the transportation corridor that shall be preserved as open space. The idea also requires Denver to ensure that no residential, commercial or industrial development occurs within the scenic buffer that includes signage. This applies to the entire portion of the corridor that borders the subject map amendment area. Therefore, the effect of the delays on district signage amendments will only be to clarify the authority to set science standards in the airport proper. And that's that's really that yellow area. So once you've once you're kind of entering the a470, you see in the distance the University of Colorado Airline passing over, you have the sign that says Denver International Airport. That's really where the CEO has authority to make decisions about signage. Also on this map, you see the digital experience location. So that's that's what this represents. So this is a new entrance. This is an illustrative example of a new entrance today. And this is what this amendment would would allow. So now shifting over to the Deus Ex, the actual design overlay itself. So this is to establish and enable innovative signage in the pinna and 61st strains that were in the development area subject to standards and further review. I'll get into to some of those details. You can find quite a bit of detail in the staff report. But we have to map the overlay route. We have to apply it. So this is the end district 11 in the day neighborhood shown in red. Is that 384 acres? Again. The MAP movement is initiated by CPD and the Department of Aviation. Multiple owners are included in this in this 384 acres, including DIA. So as you can see. My map. We have a 60 acre portion of land here that's mapped DIA. So the authority that's given to the CEO for controlling signage really applies off the map right in that yellow area. The six will still apply here. So they're subject to the same rules that the other property owners are subject to. Also from the previous case, there was a rezoning into the new code, a lot of this, and now this map is outdated. A lot of this area is still zoned. Former Chapter 59. The design overlay will not apply there until those property owners come forward with map amendments. So how does the design really work? So the Tech Summit, which is Deus Ex, is adopted by City Council. Hopefully it enables and sets the review criteria and standards for a district plan. So really it enables it sets the criteria. It talks about how do you how you amend it, how you notice create notice for amending who can amend it. And it's really enabling language and all of the detail, the pretty graphics, the signage, the sign types, all the things that we're really interested in when we talk about signage. We really found in the district plan itself. So the district plan would be approved by planning board. It would not come before this body. The district plan sets framework for sub areas, supplemental plans and and permitting and must be consistent with the districts of the planning board must find that anything in that year six is in the district plan is consistent with districts. There are also supplemental plans. So as as properties come forward. As you can see, it's 384 acres. It's not all plan. We don't know exactly what's going to happen out there yet. Staff can administer and approve supplemental plans kind of block by block, providing greater specificity on projects or sub areas and must be consistent with the district plan. So we kind of have this hierarchy. We enable with the text amendments, we get into the details in the district plan, we get into a lot more detail on the supplemental plans which can actually be administered by staff, and then we start issuing permits. So just a quick summary of the key provisions in the dossier itself. The standards will vary among some areas. The language in the DIO six actually requires the creation of some areas. So we're not just saying the district plan has one sign type across the 384 acres. It's going to be very different. Right. The the transit the platform itself is probably different than Tower Road, which is probably different than the residential areas. Also billboard pole signs as we know them. Right. This is that traditional billboard are prohibited unless architecturally enhanced by the district plan. So it's actually really difficult to prohibit a sign on a pole because most signs have a pole. Right. And so this is this is defined as one pole or multiple poles for general outdoor advertising. The intent is what we know as a traditional billboard and the district plan really defines what it means to be architecturally enhanced. And planning board would have to find that it's not what we think of as that traditional billboard. Also in the d06, there's the minimum pixel pitch resolution. So this is to ensure quality of the digital signs. So it's it's actually requiring a minimum pixel density. The more pixels you have, the clear the picture your monitors in front of you probably have a higher your new monitors in front of you probably have a higher pixel pitch than your previous monitors. And then the district plan shall prevent the cumulative effect of signs from being visually overwhelming and must mitigate adverse impacts. All right. So getting into the design criteria or the review criteria, this is the same for a text amendment. As for the MAP amendment, there are three plans that apply to the site. But before I get into those, this amendment will further the public health, safety and general welfare and will result in regulations that are uniform within each zone district. Getting into the plans themselves can't plan as a number of standards that encourage the use of an overlay in order to be flexible and accommodate a number of land uses across the site. Of course, it recommends mixed use study that encourages vibrant urban centers and neighborhoods, and it focuses on design centers and review efforts on new and evolving districts that are undergoing the most dramatic change. Also recommends identifying community design and development issues and targeting specific concerns with appropriate controls and incentives. So the text movement improvement are both consistent with comprehensive plan 2000 getting into to blueprint. So the overlay itself is is identified as a tool that should be used and could apply to larger areas where there are similar objectives. So it's it's really designed for a site, a larger site where you have maybe multiple based on districts, but you're trying to create a character throughout that site. As you can see, the land use concepts desire the mixed use commercial corridor or the town center, open space. Tod We have kind of this variety of land use recommendations all within an area of change, but the overlay would apply across the 384 acres to find that consistent character. So the design overlay map movement and and Texoma furthers implementation of Blueprint Denver And then getting into the fenestration station vision the 61st and pinion stationary plan another shot looking down aviation place at the platform itself looking west. There are a number of sentences and a number of recommendations within the plan that call this kind of the national model, this unique station. It is the only entirely greenfield to the opportunity within Denver, which really sets it apart from other transit communities right here in Denver. The plan calls for a showcase of the best of kodi. State of the art treatments also calls for world class design, 21st century solutions and kind of that showcase community for what the 21st century lifestyle could be. All of these point to innovation in signage, innovation in our tools, really taking advantage of this opportunity out at 60% pioneer so with that stuff recommends approval of Denver zoning code text amendment number six and stuff also recommends approval of Map Amendment Proposal 2069 ten Rezoning of property from Pioneer Boulevard to Tower Road and 56th Avenue to 64th Avenue to the DOT six Overlay Zone District. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, we have one speaker, Mr. Fred Bells. When I approached the podium.
Speaker 3: Four Bells, 1125 17th Street, representing the master developer, Elsie Foreman Weitering. I think we're going to get out of there a lot earlier than last week. I watched you guys until 1 a.m. and done. But anyway, this is really unique side and this is the opportunity to make it very special using a lot of the technology that one of our major anchors is bringing to the table. There really started our cutting edge company that is going to allow us to be transformative in the way we operate, in transformative the way we present ourselves. I believe there's enough controls in it to give you all the comfort that the planning board will be able to manage it properly. We've already been working closely with them in terms of some of the particulars. But, you know, this is obviously the enabling legislation and we very much ask for your support, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I conclude the Speaker's public hearing for Council Bill 346 and 347 are closed. Can we. Do we have any questions from council? Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 2: Here it is. Planning board will approve the plan, but if it's anything like the stadium signage plan wouldn't fall on the zoning administrator to approve or not approve actual designs of signs.
Speaker 11: So I'll get back to the kind of hierarchy slide which may help here. So. So the d6 enables the creation of a district plan. Planning Board has to approve the district plan. If a building comes forward and it's treated as a supplemental plan, it's consistent with the language of both Doe's six two supplemental plan and the district plans a supplemental plan. Then staff can administer it. It has to be found consistent with the district plan and iOS six. So there they're kind of different levels of review. So for example, if you come in with a block and that that area is well defined in the district plan and there are standards set forth in the district plan, then you can come in with a supplemental that is consistent, right? You're showing you're not inconsistent with the district. Should you come forward with a building that is inconsistent, you would have to go back to a planning board and actually amend the district plan and planning board would have to approve that.
Speaker 2: So their staff and zoning administrator approved it and found it consistent. Right. What recourse does the public have? Is that a decision that is appealable to the Board of adjustment.
Speaker 11: Might be a question for for need as far as appealing appealing the approval of a supplemental plan approved by staff. Does it go back to the planning board? I don't think it does.
Speaker 2: I couldn't quite hear the question. I don't know if is the acoustics in this room or what. Yeah, it's it it again, this thing the if if since these if if the zoning administrator and staff find that whatever's being proposed is consistent with the plans and what is the what recourse is the public have if they don't agree is are these decisions subject to appeal to the board of adjustment. So I believe the way it's written and I'll take a look at the at the text amendment again here real quick. But I believe it provides that the planning board's decision is a final agency decision. So it would be appealable under current rules of civil procedure. One of six. So I, I agree with the planning board, but the problem is, is the planning board sets the framework. After that, it comes down to the zoning administrator and staff to to say yay or nay. It meets what the planning board said. And and the reason why I'm familiar with this is this. Are you familiar with the now defunct business, the Sports Authority? Never heard of it. Just, of course, genuinely. Are you familiar with their logo? Yes. What does it look like?
Speaker 11: Uh, I could pull it up on Google if you'd like.
Speaker 2: Does it look like what's on the stadium? Yes or no?
Speaker 11: So this is just like a naming rights question?
Speaker 2: No, it's actually a signage plan. Question. Okay. I mean, does it look like what's on the stadium today?
Speaker 11: Right. So so I understand that there's I believe there's a comprehensive simply and I'm not really.
Speaker 2: There is in the comprehensive sign plan specifically says that the building shall not have any logos on it. Well, it just so happens that the Sports Authority logo is the word. Sports Authority is very specific font in a certain color. Right. The zoning administrator. But that comprehensive sane plan approved by planning board, amended by planning board adopted by planning board is then administered by the zoning administrator. And at the zoning administrator says that that's not a logo. With everyone. Everyone in their brother knows that that is what's on the sports castle as their logo. There is no recourse for the public to. To. So what. What avenues if. What. What is there? What legs does the community have? If what gets approved ultimately by the planning board, if if staff and the zoning administrator then deviate from that in some sort of allowed manner. But it is genuinely inconsistent with what was what was approved.
Speaker 11: Right. So as he mentioned, there's the 106 process. But do understand that that it must be consistent, right. As you've said, it must be consistent with that district plan. So we are putting a lot of detail into the district plan. Planning Board is also very, very tuned into this effort, and they're putting a lot of time into the district plan. In fact, we have another study session with planning boards so we can roll up our sleeves again and really get into those details. And we can certainly discuss this with them as a concern that you've raised. But but again, it staff must find it consistent if if they do not. So let's go.
Speaker 2: Back. We'd like us. I guess I'm not comfortable at this point in time. For that reason, I would like us to have a mechanism just like GDP's are never approved by council. The these comprehensive same plans could. I would like us to have a mechanism to sort of redress issues about when there is a parent. I mean, when there's a challenge of the inconsistency with the planning boards, with these district planning supplemental plans. You know, by the community.
Speaker 11: Okay. So, so again, I can discuss this with planning board. I'll be sure to as a, as an issue and we can talk through it in more detail with them.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilman Flynn. When the coming.
Speaker 3: Shooting. Thank you. Just a quick question. Is the Steve, as I don't see any mention of the other landowner involved here, Mr. Smith, who owns a substantial section of the land down to 56th Avenue. Has he been involved in this at all? Does he concur?
Speaker 11: So he has had representatives involved and has been involved in the conversation. I know that perhaps Fred can speak to the conversations that they've had. I do know that we may have future map amendments coming forward in order to enjoy the new districts that we're proposing to map tonight. But as far as the conversation, I'd like for you to address that.
Speaker 3: All right. Thanks. Thank you, Steve. Councilman, we have had discussions with their representative and the law firm in town when we all know and they are. The law firm has told us that they're fine with the overlay because really the overlay, they cannot avail themselves of anything in the overlay until they re zone number one. You don't see the district plan, but none of the properties that is their property are going to be in phase one of the district plan. So they'll have to come in back to the planning board and add on their property to it. So specifically they said, fine for the overlay, don't include us in a district plan if and when we want to take advantage of this will rezoning. Okay. So I take it from your from what you just said that they were notified of this process and they are obviously not not here. They definitely were notified and and involved in the discussion. Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Let me ask our assistant city attorney to chime in.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to add some clarification to Councilman Espinosa's questions concerning what happens if if the public is unsatisfied with the zoning administrator's decision and the that the actual text amendment does provide a mechanism to appeal that. And that appeal goes to the planning board. And then again, that that is that is appealable under one of six. So to initiate the appeal is a 30 day window from the decision from the zoning administrator. And how does the community get notified of that? Are we talking about appeal from the zoning administrator's decision? Correct. I don't see that clarified here. Let me let me take a look at that and I'll get back to you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 11: So there are multiple appeal sections here because there's an appeal process for the district plan in addition. But you're asking me about the supplemental plan. So it's it's actually on page 9.43 of your draft. It label appeals the letters appeal any decision to the zoning administrator under section 945 ten W may be appealed to the Planning Board . Thereafter, the Planning Board's decision may be appealed to the District Court.
Speaker 2: So is that. But is that so? Is there a notification component to the is the zoning administrator's decision? How would a member of the community know that there's already administrator and.
Speaker 11: So that there has to be notice to others prior to approvals? The zoning administrator shall send notice of the supplemental plan to an organizations each city council member in the at large. So notices are required by the section and shall be sent at least 14 days prior to the zoning administrator's decision to approve, approved with conditions or deny such plan.
Speaker 2: So we know that it's going to be a decision is going to be made. We don't know what the decision is until it either happens or somebody inquires.
Speaker 11: That is correct. Okay.
Speaker 2: As written and then 30 day window, there's a same statute of limitations or whatever we call that to appeal. The appeal process. I guess it is because it's in the DCC, so if it's there, whatever. But a planning board, though, I mean, planning board really can be at any time, correct? Are you asking about the timing of the appeal to the planning board? Yeah. So the actual text amendment doesn't address the time within which to appeal, and we can address that in the district plan, however. So like and Councilman Espinosa, you're familiar with the the Board of Adjustments provisions and their bylaws provide when appeals need to be made of their of their decisions. And so the same is as we did with the bylaws for the Board of Adjustment. We could also put timing into the district plan, which addresses when a person would need to appeal a supplemental plan. Well, actually, leave it like this, because right now it is. It's any time, right? Right. It's pretty wide open right now. But there needs to be some reasonable limitation on that. All right. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Thank you, President Pro Tem. Steve, can.
Speaker 5: I ask you a couple of questions.
Speaker 7: With the first planning board meeting? Could you talk a little bit about some of the concerns that the members of the planning board had? And, you know, through the planning session, how both the the manager of aviation, Brad Buchanan with CPD myself was present in that planning session, worked through pretty much line by line talking about this this, you know, the sign overlay.
Speaker 11: Yeah, that's a great question. So we we went to I can pull up the schedule again to reference our dates, went to planning board initially. That's not the side. Initially on the second for the public public hearing, we had gone we had visited with planning board prior to that, an information item. But the planning board wanted to learn more. They wanted more detail. They wanted to see and understand what the vision was to really get a sense of why why we were doing this and really, you know, learn more about the project. So at the study session, we spent more time going through the more detail of the plan itself and what it recommended. We pulled up the language and really, like you said, went line by line and talked about the detail that we couldn't really get to in the in the public hearing setting. Representatives from Dan were there during National Airport and started talking about why and what they would like to achieve with their entrance sign. And it was just a good conversation and more detail, more kind of meat on the bone. So plenty more had a better understanding of what we were proposing to do.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
Speaker 1: Q Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I want to ask Stu, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. I want to know if there are any FAA guidelines related to lighting that is within a close proximity to airports. I mean, I can imagine that Panasonic's going to have these huge signs that people will be able to see from from afar distance as they approach the, you know, the new Penn Station and any of the development that will be there. So I'm assuming we have to make sure that it's not going to be destructive to pilots as they're flying in to be, you know, sort of misinterpreted with some of the other signage that's on airport property, especially in inclement weather, where you can't really see that well in in some weather conditions. And the same for that, the traveling public that's traveling on the roadway. So is that something you're able to address?
Speaker 0: Good evening, Stu William, senior vice president of special projects for Denver International Airport. Thank you, Councilwoman, for that question. So let me start first with where anything that would happen, like in Penn Station next, for instance, obviously has a different code requirement than what we would have for the FAA. And frankly, the distance from the runways at Penn Station probably wouldn't be a concern now. The lighting on our.
Speaker 10: Property.
Speaker 0: Definitely has to be basically approved by the FAA to the point of even the solar canopies. We're going to put over the the 800 space parking structure that you folks approved the lease for a couple of weeks ago, had to be approved by the FAA. And then as we get on to more airport proper, any of that signage again would have to come in under compliance.
Speaker 10: With FAA.
Speaker 2: Rules.
Speaker 0: So ultimately, I think the answer to your question is the FAA controls.
Speaker 6: Okay. So then let's talk about the the roadway. And I just want to check in with with Howard or. To find out if there are maybe some C dot guidelines or any of that kind of stuff where, you know, the signage may be distractive to drivers as they're driving down, whether it's visible from pinhoe or visible from tower, because the signage is pretty much for the whole the whole area.
Speaker 0: And I'm excuse me and I'll definitely leave for for his $0.02 and on this, too. But frankly, as the plan goes from the D6 overlay to the district plan, the criteria for that would be set at that point in time that would basically take care of something that would be distracting. If you're thinking about the Panasonic building or another building along Pioneer Proper, more or less that those the criteria in the district plan should take care of that and solve that problem just as it would along any highway for.
Speaker 6: Thanks to.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. But specifically, when we did our session with the planning board, that was one of their questions. And they say, what in this deal six allows us to say, when you get here with the district plan, you can't cause problems for the roadways. And so we specifically put in language that we had to mitigate any impacts. And there they we put that in so that they can point to that when we come back and go, how are you mitigating the impacts? And so there's a lot of guidelines that we have from our experts in terms of how to do that and what's the best way to do it and what that requires and what the feds require. That will be part of that criteria for that mitigation.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman, are there any other questions by members of council? Right. The public hearing for 346 and 347 are closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman government.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Pro-Tem. You know, this is something new. And going to the planning board, I think for myself as a newly elected council person, I really appreciated. Just like I appreciate, you know, my colleagues questions about an appeal process that we're going into this kind of new area in a very thoughtful way and asking all of the great questions. And, you know, honestly, with my first experience before planning board was something that is new. You know, we have the theater district downtown when you start talking about iconic and branded signage. So you can really brand and market an area. It was honestly a little bit frustrating for me to I wasn't sponsoring this. And so I had to just basically sit back and listen to a lot of the conversation around how honestly conservative the planning board was looking at this. And it was frustrating with knowing, you know, we're in the 21st century and when you start looking at branding and marketing an area and having iconic, innovative signage, it was frustrating when, you know, they were were kind of pulling back a little bit. And so, you know, I have full. And the utmost faith that that district plan is going to be the most iron clad document because this is new. And just because it's new, it's not it's not a good excuse for us not to do this because it's new. It's important for us to take our time and ask all of these great questions. But that district plan is really going to be the guiding document for this specific area. And, you know, when you drive into Delia, the signage that introduces you to the airport is a box basically that says Denver International Airport. And so when you look at having something that you can change the pixels, you can change the brightness, you can change the colors and all the time. Being very cognizant of the traveling public, of the people who are going to be living at 61st and Panya with the with the multifamily residential that this council approved the rezoning of the area to extend those boundaries. Having great oversight through this district plan is that framework. And believe me, the questions that are being asked tonight, the planning board is paying attention to and they are going to take that into consideration. And so I am supporting this tonight because one of the comments at that very first planning board meeting was why this area? Who cares? You come in from DIA, you either ride the train and you're going through this area or you're leaving town. Why should we care that there's iconic signage and and really were placemaking at this Tod station. And that was my cue. And my point to ask Steve was CPD, may I please say something as an over 20 year resident of, you know, district 11 in Montebello and and Green Valley Ranch, and my response back was, why not ? Why is the front door to Denver far northeast? Why aren't we good enough to have something that is iconic that, you know, introduces you to the theater district downtown? This is the perfect place to not only introduce travelers and tourists to Denver. This is something for the residents and the community members that I represent. This is an opportunity for them to have something that is is cutting edge as far as technology and placemaking at the 61st and Panya Tod Station but also with Denver International Airport that we can truly say, you know what, this is in District 11 and we've got the greatest signage and it's interactive and it's cutting edge. And how we're able to engage our community in learning more about that technology and how it is so important to communicate with residents, communicate with travelers, but to create that very, very special place that I know near and dear to my heart is is home. But that we're going to be able to show the rest of the city, people from, you know, other countries why this is such an amazing place in Denver and District 11. And so I will be supporting both of these tonight, and I ask humbly for my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Are there any other comments? Councilman Espinoza.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I, I appreciate the comments of our planning board and sort of their their conservative approach, because I find that, you know, they're far more reliable in their decision making when it meets the criteria. It meets the criteria and it doesn't. It doesn't. And that's their job. That's their charter to sort of recommend approval and not approval to council on matters of zoning. The same applies for how they would review these things if if in fact it ever went back to them. So I would support this bill if the language of appeal actually did put ultimately the ability to question the decision of staff and the decisions of the zoning administrator back into the Arena of planning board, where they would look at it relative to their own criteria that they established to sort of merit, whether it's good or not . Good. And. And was. Clear on that language, because the problem right now is that, yes, the Sports Authority signage looks like a logo. And it clearly states in that comprehensive sign plan that those signs are supposed to be put on the elevator. Cause. And I can tell you, as an architect and somebody who worked on that stadium, that the sign on the north side of the building extends far beyond the elevator course. And so there's a distinct difference between what Invesco put up there and what was permitted by the zoning administrator in a very political atmosphere. And so we need to if we could go back and say, look, because we got the signage off the Upper Bowl, why? Because that was a decision that the planning the planning board ultimately got a question. I mean, the question came back to the planning board. Is this consistent with the comprehensive science plan? It wasn't, but the zoning administrator felt that it was. And so when it clearly know and so somehow we need to get we need to be able to de-politicize once these once these these these plans have gone through that they have that process that that that, you know, when when somebody says these things meet if if the public goes, no, that's not what was agreed to. To be able to go back and say and have somebody sort of more concretely, more make that determination rather than have it put back into this arena. Because we I'm sorry, but we don't question things the way they do. And it is our purview. It is our job. But we don't. And I'm sorry, but, you know. Well, we have the language of appeal in there. It is still not clear and it's still to me. And so it's in two important because we have a Japanese company and I don't want Tokyo out on the plains. And I'm not saying it will, but who knows? I mean, I've just asked for the best in development potential on that site, on the prior zoning. And and I will I fully expect us to. I don't I'm not not understanding this to that. This gives me that level of assurance. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Q Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I I'm happy to support this tonight. And I wanted to thank Councilwoman Ortega for reminding me of my historical trivia lesson for tonight, which is when she mentioned the bright lights being a potential confusing factor out of the airport. I do recall an early conversation about the placement of the demon horse out there at the airport, that it was oriented in a way that the glowing red eyes would not be mistaken for a navigational aid by any pilot on final approach to runway 25, and he might actually crash into it. So I recognize that and I hope that there we do think about such things when we when we have lighted signs out there. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilman Flynn, I think you want to crash into that statue. Mm hmm. Councilman.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to echo Councilman Espinosa's concerns about the public process and. And think that it is so important that I just want to encourage and make sure that that district plan, like Councilwoman Gilmore's mentioned it, will be addressing that that process and will make sure that it isn't tied in and there will be an adequate public process in appeal for any concerns. So I just want to support that issue and encourage and make sure that district plan is as well constructed to include that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman, are there any other comments? I want to make a comment. I do appreciate this moving forward. You know, when we look at signs and we look at overlay districts, we look at the signs as the permitted use. You know, it's one thing when it's in a neighborhood with homes that are already existing, it's completely different than an airport. And yes, there absolutely has to be strong public policy, strong public input in a public process for anything like this. And I think that's you know, the clear thing here is this is the public and this is the public realm for it. However, there are things that, you know, brush up along the First Amendment when.
Speaker 0: You.
Speaker 1: Look at content of signs. But also I think that what was discussed here at length and what I took from this is just the word iconic. Right. And nothing against the current signs that are out there or the people that have placed them out. But when it comes to iconic entrances. We don't got it. I had just flown in from LAX yesterday and was admiring their signage. When you go to other airports, you do see that. You do see the icon ism there. The airport itself, I would say, is iconic. There's nothing like it. As a matter of fact, it's a logo and it's now the logo for Dan. So, you know, the fact that we were actually looking at this and moving this forward allows us to create that iconic figure. And, you know, this may tug on somebody's nerves here. But I got to say. When Mile High Stadium was Bear Stadium and it became Mile High Stadium and it still Mile High Stadium to me. But through its different iterations, we have to remind ourselves, those of us that live around in the area, we live by a stadium , we may have lights, we may have fireworks, we may have shouting and screaming. We live next to a stadium. So we there are some things that as we evolved in this city and as we develop, we do have to be mindful of. But we also have to remember that this is the airport area and this corridor wouldn't be here. We wouldn't talk about these development opportunities or the zoning changes if it wasn't for the airport and the local economy. Everything along this quarter will be based upon the success of the airport, a little bit of a stretch for signs , but we do have to have that public process and I look forward to seeing something iconic as we enter that and that corridor. Madam Secretary, can we have a roll call on 346?
Speaker 5: Black eye, Brooks. CLARK. Hi. Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Epstein.
Speaker 5: Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. I Cashman can reach new Ortega high assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Can you please announce the Madam Secretary, can you please announce the results?
Speaker 5: Nine eyes. One abstention.
Speaker 1: Nine eyes. One abstention. This bill passes. Now it's time for 347. Councilman Espinoza, will you please put 347 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 2: No. Already motion.
Speaker 0: I mean. I mean.
Speaker 5: You know, yo, we need to it.
Speaker 1: I messed up on that. And I looked at the script when we went off script. Madam Secretary, mean we please have the roll call in 3047.
Speaker 6: We're voting them separately.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Mm hmm. Yeah.
Speaker 5: I Brooks.
Speaker 0: Clark, i. Espinoza, I. Flynn, I.
Speaker 7: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 5: Cashman can each new. Ortega, i. Sussman. Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 1: Disclose the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 5: Ten days.
Speaker 1: Ten Eyes. 347 has passed. On Monday, June 27th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 395, designated 1899 York Street, the Ghost Rose House as a structure for preservation, saying that there's no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.
Speaker 0: Subject.
Approves a map amendment to apply the proposed Peña Station Next Design Overlay District (DO-6) concurrent with the adoption of the accompanying text amendment in the area from Peña Boulevard to Tower Road, from 56th Avenue to 64th Avenue in Council District 11. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves a map amendment to apply the proposed Peña Station Next Design Overlay District (DO-6) concurrent with the adoption of the accompanying text amendment in the area from Peña Boulevard to Tower Road, from 56th Avenue to 64th Avenue in Council District 11. 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 5-11-16.