Speaker 2: Please refrain from profane obscene speech. Direct your comments the council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. All right, Council, can you please put council for 97 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, I move that council bill 497 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Constable 497 is open and we have a staff report. Scott Robinson.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President, and Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 4232 North Jason Street from IAU oh two to see our state. The property is. Get the presentation up on.
Speaker 5: Oh. Oh.
Speaker 9: Thank you. So the properties are located in Council District one in the Sunnyside neighborhood on Jason Street between 42nd and 43rd Avenues near the 41st and Fox Station. Property is about 6200 square feet. Request is to rezone to redevelopment. Redevelop the site. Property is currently zoned a new oh two, which is an industrial zone district with the billboard use overlay. There is no billboard currently on site and the applicant is requesting to remove the billboard overlay and resound to CRC, which is an urban center. There would context residential mixed use eight stories maximum height. As mentioned, the site is currently zoned II euro. Two properties to the north, south and east are also IAU oh two properties to the west or I annexed three and that is a property at the southeast corner of this block that was resolved earlier this year from IAU oh two to correct. Same as the current applicant is requesting. Current use is residential urban surrounded by industrial uses with a few other random uses scattered in. You'll notice a block to the north is an industrial substation which will come up again in a second. So you see the property there in the center, surrounded by mostly industrial uses and industrial type buildings. This application was heard by Planning Board on April 19th. There was a unanimous vote to recommend approval and no public comment. Also went to Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee on May 16th. And there has been one public comment letter that is in their packet in support of the application. In order to rezoning a property, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with the adopted plans. There are four plans that apply to the property, the first being comprehensive plan 2000. In addition, the staff report staff has described how it finds that. The proposed application is compatible with these elements of the comprehensive plan, mostly relating to infill development and mixed use development, especially in the inner transit stations. Blueprint Denver from 2002 designates the future concept land use as urban residential lots calls for higher density residential and complementary commercial uses. This is also an area of change in the future. Street classification of Jason and other surrounding streets are and designated locals. Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan is from 1992. It designates the area industrial. But considering the age of the plan and how it pre-dates the 41st and Fox Station and fast tracks in general, we look to the 41st and Fox stationary plan for more detailed guidance from 29. The plan mistakenly identifies this block as the electrical substation, which is, in fact a block to the north, as I mentioned earlier. So we have to infer the plan guidance. But considering all the surrounding blocks are designated for urban, residential and to date stories, that's what we assume the designation for this block should have been. And the proposed S.R. eight is consistent with the urban residential to date storage definition. So if that stuff finds that the proposed method then is consistent with the adopted plans, the second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed map will result in the uniform application of the CRC zone districts. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of city. Staff finds that it will do so by implementing the adopted plans and allowing more intense development near the 41st and Fox Transit Station. The fourth criterion is a justifying circumstance. Staff finds that there are changed and changing circumstances in the area to justify the rezoning. Most notably, the 41st and Fox Transit Station, which will hopefully be opened soon. There's also a new pedestrian and bike trail that connects to the South Platte Trail in downtown and other ongoing revitalization and reinvestment in the area. So staff finds that the fourth criterion is met. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose and intent and staff finds that the proposed rezoning will allow development that is consistent with the urban center neighborhood context and the purpose and intent of the S.R. 87 District. With that, staff finds that all five criteria are met. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 2: All right, great. Thank you, Scott. Now we have to make sure that's correct. Madam Secretary, one speaker this evening, Ben Gerhart. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 0: Good evening, President Brooks. And Councilman, I'm just here to answer any questions. We initially submitted this about five months ago. My business partner and I, Charles, had a plan concept to do a four storey building with 12 parking spaces and nine units. So they were parked 1 to 1 with a 700 square foot retail right on that main level. So first level base parking and then three stories up from there. So when we submitted it, they came back requesting Sierra eight and that's when we resubmitted the application. We met with Councilman Espinosa and also the R.A. Sunni and explain exactly what our concept was. And obviously, that's really preliminary and that's where we're at.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? Councilman Espinoza then actually address both my questions. So I'm trying to. I'm trying to figure out how to count when I have a quick question. Go ahead. So so that you let me just let me ask Scott this question around the Sierra Zone District. I always bring this up, but I just want to be clear. Sierra X in the Sierra Zone District, the lot the allowable use is on an on the ground floor. You can have retail, right. However, you cannot have retail or commercial uses on any floors above that.
Speaker 9: Except for lodging uses. Lodging, yes. So it could be a hotel.
Speaker 5: Okay. Above that.
Speaker 2: You could have a hotel, but you have to all.
Speaker 9: Residential, no office or retail above the first floor.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And, and. The 2009 plan spoke to the critics as well. Or was this just the 41st and Fox global ers wants a global plan that spoke to that series.
Speaker 9: Yeah. The 41st and Fox Plan from 2009 talked about urban residential. It didn't specify a specific zone district. Okay, but the Seattle Seahawks matches up with the description of the urban residential in the plan.
Speaker 2: And in an urban residential. Um, can that not be a x or can be interpreted.
Speaker 9: As would potentially be consistent with the S.R. with the urban residential designation because that does allow residential as well would also allow eight stories of commercial use. So we feel the C, our X is more consistent with the. With the urban residential recommendation and we don't have a CRM. That was the application was for see our we do obviously a next application before us so.
Speaker 2: Yeah I know and I know we always like to talk about but we are around this 44, 41st and Fox Station seeing multiple applications and it's always I think a bit of clarity around we are approving and you know I think the plans call for Citrix, but it's also important for us to understand the difference. Okay, Kelvin Espinosa, you ready or. Okay. Helping us. And thanks, Ben, for coming here and offering yourself up to to answer questions. When you met with CPD, what was the your zoning application request for?
Speaker 0: Can you repeat that? I didn't hear you when you met with or when you filed an application with CPD. What was the zoning requested? Sierra It's 5x5.
Speaker 2: And then you said you mentioned that to you.
Speaker 0: There's some confusion about how.
Speaker 2: You got to Sierra eight.
Speaker 0: Can you explain? Yeah. So we initially submitted Sierra five as it being a 60 to 50 lot.
Speaker 5: It's hard to go up with.
Speaker 0: That that amount of density thought it was appropriate and that they wanted it to kind of go and scale down towards the neighborhood from a height perspective. And then it kicked back almost like two months later or a month and a half later. I don't have the exact timeline in front of me and they asked that that wasn't within the plan and that it needs to be resubmitted with Sierra eight. And then that's when.
Speaker 5: We reached back out to SUNY and said, our plan still consistent.
Speaker 0: In going to stay the same, but to get this rezoning, this is the process that needs to happen. Great. Thank you very much. Yeah, no problem.
Speaker 2: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. First for I'm sorry, Scott. So I'm looking at the comments from the city agencies on one of the documents, and there are a number of them that are related to, oh, say environmental health has concerns about the risk of radon and or other radioactive gases. And so it recommends that there's a radon mitigation system built into the structure. As I'm looking at some of the other recommendations. There's one about noise. Wastewater. So so my question for you is, as these recommendations are. Made by city agencies. I know we don't do the development review or the design review process, but help me understand at what point these comments from city agencies get addressed in the particular application that submitted.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So generally the process is when we receive a a rezoning application, we send it out to multiple city agencies and agencies outside the city for review. They send us back comments and we pass those along to the applicant. These are pretty standard comments from the Department of Environmental Health. We get these on a lot of applications. And so these are at this point really just for the applicant information. Once the rezoning is approved, then the applicant can come forward with a site development plan and a building permit, and they go through the development services side to get those approved. And that's when these kind of concerns are addressed to make sure that the final building complies with all the applicable regulations.
Speaker 6: Okay. Can you tell me if the real checkoff box was on the form and if that was marked? Proximity to rail?
Speaker 9: I do not know. Off the top of my head. I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: Okay. But you are aware that this is very close to some of our freight lines that also happen to run parallel to one of our commuter lines that will go out to Arvada. So I guess at this point, what I want to do is ask the applicant if you can come forward. So was this a conversation you had with anybody in the city about the proximity to Rio and how you're looking to address any of the potential design life safety issues? I think on the sunny side side, it's actually closer to the freight lines than on the Globeville side of these tracks. And so it's going to be even, I think, more important to ensure I know, at least on the other side, you got the buffer of the RTD tracks and the trains potentially. But is that something that you all have at least thought about and begun looking at as you proposed to develop this site?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. I think we're going to be getting into more mature steps of the site development plan process with our architect and the city on that. But right now, we've been in limbo until we got a rezoning.
Speaker 6: And are you. Notwithstanding the the question that was just asked earlier, are you planning to build a five story or an eight story.
Speaker 0: Before story for story? The first first level will be the plate for the parking and the retail in the lobby. And then three stories above that.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: And we have it parked a little over. One, two, one.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 6: All right. And what was the size of the lot?
Speaker 0: 6250.
Speaker 3: Okay. Oh, wow. Okay.
Speaker 6: So four stories in total including. Crikey.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Okay. So I don't understand why CPD recommended eight stories. Can you help me understand that given the the size of the lot. And I guess the other thing that I'm a little concerned about is that. There's there's close by residential on the sunny side side. Whereas on the Globeville side, that's all industrial along Foch Street, as you get a couple of blocks over, there is some residential properties. But, you know, that's the area that was really kind of talked about for more of the TOD development stuff. And so I'm just trying to understand the thinking of CPD and why they would recommend each stories.
Speaker 9: Yeah. So the the plan from 2009 recommends to date stories. So that was the plan adopted at that time. And then in our review process, as I mentioned, they initially submitted requests for CRM or CRM five. And in my comment letter back to them, I said the inferred planning guidance is for 2 to 8 stories. Has CRM zoning been considered allowing stories instead of five and the requested Sierra Club zoning? So I can see that there could be some misunderstanding of that, but I don't see that as us telling them they had to come back and see our site or even necessarily recommending Sierra eight. The entire business.
Speaker 6: Could have proceeded with the CRM.
Speaker 9: Absolutely. The intent was just to point out that they weren't requesting the maximum allowed under the the plan guidance.
Speaker 6: I could see where that would be. A little confusing though, for an applicant to give a letter like that that sort of is inferring we would prefer that you do this because that's what the plan says, as opposed to something that's more in alignment with the. The scale of the neighborhood. I mean, one of the things that blueprint Denver was very clear about was trying to look at the edges of neighborhoods, but try to protect the fabric of the single family character of our neighborhoods. And as we start out with something saying we're going to allow eight stories on the neighborhood side, I'm concerned that that sort of.
Speaker 3: Sets.
Speaker 6: A precedent. And I know we already had one that came forward, but I just I'm just sharing a concern. So I was a little little baffled with with that. So thank you for answering the question. I have no further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right. Any other questions? All right. Public Hearing Council Bill 497 is now closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Espinosa. To to to my colleagues comments. I mean, questions. You're not lost. I mean, you're not often in thinking what you're thinking in the 41st and Fox station area plan. Clearly has a concept plan that is a massing model with photographs about different areas into the prior rezoning. I mean. Well, the prior rezoning was in our site, right on anchor, which is in that concept.
Speaker 5: Plan is where.
Speaker 2: That highest density is closest to the rail. And then you're right, there is a transition.
Speaker 0: Area that is described on these.
Speaker 2: Edges as you approach the CEU Zone District. Um, so there's clear plan language to that effect. When I was running, one major thing that I overheard, I mean, that I heard didn't overhear. I heard over and over again from my constituents and now have heard loudly and clearly from others, was the need for greater availability of affordable housing. Many of my long time and native constituents fear displacement via gentrification. And over the 17 years that I've lived in northwest Denver, I have witnessed the displacement of friends to these very forces. Time and again, I have been asked why the city doesn't require developers to include affordability and why the city doesn't have a way to address what's happening, to stand the loss of affordability in desirable and diverse neighborhoods. It was just this morning that I was giving a presentation on a program that I've come up with that could bring inclusive housing to all residential developments where displacement is rampant. And that and that presentation focused on the opportunity of this particular station area. I am convinced that we can address the loss of affordability in northwest Denver if we, the people, have the support of the administration and the representatives and we the Representatives have the political courage, and I know many do so to do so. On this topic. I have personally met personally with the developers have been in Charles about affordable housing opportunities on another site in Denver and discussed tools to make inclusive developments more frequent. They know it can be done and have several approaches in doing so. Thank you, guys. Nonetheless, the status quo in our city is failing middle and low income households all over Denver, and the failure is most prevalent in northwest Denver. While our adopted plans speak to neighborhood character, affordability and diversity and these aspirations have been reinforced in statements by council and memorialized in Council's priorities, our policies, requirements and financing tools are still lacking. Until we have the means to meet these vital adopted plan objectives, it is premature and foolhardy to perpetuate the status quo in an area that has experienced such lopsided impact to the very community that participated in all of the adopted plan recommendations. At this moment, I remain conflicted about my vote based on the discrepancy between the developer's stated description, which would be consistent with the stationary concept plan versus the matter at hand. A map amendment that conflicts with the adopted plans, as I understand it. Thank you. All right, Council. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Yeah. I wanted to ask our city attorney in question and. I haven't asked the applicant this question, but given the fact that they had a desire to do the S.R. X five as opposed to the S.R. X eight. Could we postpone to a date certain if there was a willingness to go back to the C.R. five and I guess, two? So let me ask that question first, and then I want to ask the staff a quick question.
Speaker 2: Good afternoon. Nathan was here with assistant assistant city attorney. Councilman Ortega, let me try understand your question. Are you asking whether this body can.
Speaker 3: Continue this matter at this time? Yes.
Speaker 2: I think it's not been done very frequently among this body. However, I think that is an option that you all have available to you if you if you chose to do that.
Speaker 6: So let me ask Scott, if if this were to be recommended, how quickly could. Could a new bill be filed that just changes the numbers from C.R. X five to I guess it's a matter of our city attorney helping to deal with part of that. But this wouldn't require going back through the process all over again. Could could the just looking at the logistics of it.
Speaker 9: Our practice is that if the proposed zone district changes, that's considered a new application and would have to start over.
Speaker 6: Even though nothing else changes except the letter.
Speaker 9: That's our that's our standard practice of it. To the city attorney to see if there's a different interpretation.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Scott. The application would have to be amended and reviewed again by CPD, which may trigger the process anew. So to continue to date certain would. Well. May or not come to pass.
Speaker 6: All right. So in light of that, I guess let me just express further frustration. I'm not going to ask the applicant to consider. A postponement, given the fact that I think it would take you all the way back to the beginning. I'm I'm frustrated that you weren't allowed to just proceed. And I think, given the information probably led you to believe that you should do the C.R. X eight instead of the Sierra five. I appreciate the fact that you're going to build a four story building. I think that's more in alignment with the neighborhood than an eight story building. But the reality is it leaves eight stories only on the on the property closer to the residential neighborhood. So I'll decide how I'm gonna vote when it comes time for us to vote. But I'm just a little concerned that we would have to send this all the way back to the start. I know in the past that was not the process. I know our zoning process has changed from when I served on the council before. We wouldn't make an applicant start all over again from the very beginning. That seems a little ridiculous, but given where we're at, I just want to express that frustration. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah. Question for the city attorney. My understanding, and I obviously could be wrong, that you actually could amend an application in a request so long as it was less restrictive and mean more restrictive. Sorry than the day they posted. Zone District. Is that correct or not? Correct. That characterization is is. Is correct. You would be, um, I guess the request would be to approve something that is less than what is currently being asked of this council. That being said, it's still. Makes it a new application. That's a different request than what has been reviewed by CPD, by the planning board and may result in a different recommendation to this body. I believe if we had if we were still in question, CPD did in fact review an AR five application and therefore then made the recommendation to the applicant to to suggest to them didn't and didn't tell them they had to go to our eight just made it available to the applicant. So CPD, to this point, to my understanding.
Speaker 5: Has already reviewed in our X.
Speaker 2: Five application as well.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, if I can chime in as well, this and I concur with the answers that Mr. Lazaro has given so far. But let me just clarify, Councilman Espinosa's, prior question. When you're doing a language amendment of general applicability, we've advised that even if the light at the public hearing stage, it's possible to amend it, make it less restrictive, not have to repost it and go ahead and adopt it. That's the rule of thumb you're recalling. However, it becomes a completely different map amendment when it's to a different category so that that principle doesn't apply to an application for a map amendment. And so the answers given earlier were that it would have to be reanalyzed through the process to a different zone, this or category. I do concur with Councilman Espinosa. Your last comment is that in the interplay that happens at the application stage, no one can compel the applicant to change their application. They own the application. They can apply for whatever category they choose. And of course, I wasn't a party to that conversation, but once it reaches this point, we've conventionally advised they have a right to a vote up or down on the application as proposed, or to withdraw it and can go back go back to the drawing board . But but I just want to clarify different advice you all have been given on some of these points and the difference between map amendments versus language amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 2: There's one more clarification. I would go ahead seek to ask since we've since I've only been in this situation once on prior prior on this council. Is this is the applicant's application. You know, council itself has the ability to introduce this application. I mean, a map amendment at committee and and then do the standard posting period and whatnot and essentially get to the same position without having gone through a planning board or CPD. Is there a mechanism? Where, you know, if there if, if, if and I don't know I don't know that it matters in this situation. But, you know, if plan if council sees a map amendment that is consistent with plan and a map amendment that is in front of us, not consistent with plan, is there a way to rectify that situation through the legislative process?
Speaker 0: I mean, a legislative.
Speaker 2: Introduction of the MAP amendment.
Speaker 0: At LUTI rather than.
Speaker 5: Go.
Speaker 2: All the way back to CPD in planning board. The zoning code allows city council or any city council member to file a rezoning application, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be a legislative rezoning. But it could go through that legislative process that's filed by a council member, which would potentially shortcut the process as opposed to going all the way back to square one. Okay. So with that said, uh, I, I the five versus eight is where my conflict resides relative to the adopted plans that I have reviewed and that we are to consider. And so if my colleagues, you know, don't see fit, that, you know, don't find a consistent. But however, do you see the find five consistent? I am willing to introduce a legislative mini. A an application through through the legislative process, despite the fact that it wouldn't be a legislative application. Thank you. Okay. So in other comments, when I'm secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black eye. Clark.
Speaker 4: I Espinosa.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, I.
Speaker 4: Herndon Cashman. I can. George Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 5: Mm.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 4: SUSSMAN My. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I police close voting, announce the results. You get to resent.
Speaker 4: We have ten eyes, two nays, ten.
Speaker 2: Two nays. Counsel Bill 497 has passed. All right, we have. Councilwoman Kenney, will you please put on Council Bill for 98?
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4232 Jason Street in Sunnyside.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4232 Jason Street from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-8 (industrial to urban center, residential, mixed-use with an 8-story height limit) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-16-17.