Speaker 9: Cole neighborhood. Did I get that right?
Speaker 1: No, you didn't, actually.
Speaker 8: Northeast Denver.
Speaker 4: That's brainwashing.
Speaker 9: All right. We'll carry on. The property is.
Speaker 8: Just over 12,000 square feet, and the.
Speaker 9: Owner's requesting zoning that would allow for residential infill development. Row, house variety. And the specific request is you are age 2.5.
Speaker 7: And we'll talk.
Speaker 9: A little bit more about that zone district. But first, some planning context for you. This is an image from the current planning process, which is the 38th and Blake Station area height amendments process. And you can see that various building heights ranging from 16 right at the platform tapering down to the lower scale existing residential areas in the Cole neighborhood are being contemplated and the idea is to step down and taper down from the greater heights to the lower heights.
Speaker 0: And you see at the Franklin Street.
Speaker 9: Which is just next to the highlighted property in yellow, is about where that transition takes place from the going down 853 down to the lower scale, two and a half storeys. So this property has been part of this. It's important to consider this larger planning context as we now have a public review draft of the 30th oblique stationary height amendments on the project website at which is Denver gov dawgs 38 Blake And this is in fact some of the graphics that were produced to look at this height.
Speaker 4: Progression and tapering.
Speaker 9: And this shows what could become the, the recommended.
Speaker 4: Heights in the.
Speaker 9: Amended plan. We're looking from the intersection of 38th. And Franklin, looking north northwest in the property, is just off to the right. It would be just.
Speaker 7: Behind the sidewalk here. You can see that.
Speaker 9: The the three and five stories relate more to this lower scale. And then in the background, you see more the the 12 and the 16. And so this is an attempt to be respectful and in terms of height and intensity down to the lower scale. And with this context in mind, here is the existing zoning today of the site and the area to the north and.
Speaker 8: To the east and to the south is a usou.
Speaker 9: A one or a single unit with 3000 square foot minimum, which allows for the urban house as well as the accessory dwelling unit. Some of the surrounding zoning to the West there is a lower skilled mixed use that you AMCs to and you mix two X as well as PD 17, which is a property just to the south which has that artist live work studio. And then there is also you are each three acre west across the Franklin Street, the requested zone district. You are each 2.5 promote safe, active, pedestrian, skilled residential uses and development and reinforces desired residential patterns such as shallow front yard setbacks, tapered building heights on the sides, and a limitation of one story in the rear 35% of the lot. And this is intended to fit in well within established residential areas in urban neighborhood context. Existing land use. You see much of the surrounding area to the northeast and south as single family residential, but there is multi-family mixed in. But this is at an intersection where it's been established as a mixed use node for some time.
Speaker 4: And the. Commercial block buildings that you see here.
Speaker 9: On the West. Our about turn of the century. And in fact, the white building was recently renovated and had boarded up windows for years and is now a beautiful.
Speaker 4: Renovated office building.
Speaker 9: So we.
Speaker 0: Also see.
Speaker 9: Industrial, the purple color, which is intended to become transit oriented development as we now have the rail station open and 30th. And Blake is active and busy with with transit riders. Here's a look at the station located in the center image you see or excuse me, the here's the property, the subject property at the site at 3800 FRANKLIN Today, it's a vacant lot. At one time, it was parking for what used to be the Elks Lodge here in this renovated office building to the west. North. We have single family homes as well as to the.
Speaker 8: East.
Speaker 4: And to the south.
Speaker 9: This is the PD I mentioned with the it's actually a a historic church. It was converted to a residence as well as the live work operation, I believe, a photography studio today. The rezoning process has included public outreach to the Arnolds listed here, and applicant outreach to these registered neighborhood organizations has resulted in an initial letter of opposition from one resident expressing concern of the potential for too many units on this site. However, two letters of support suggesting that this is an appropriate infill opportunity.
Speaker 0: And as all of the written.
Speaker 9: And posted notice requirements have been met leading up to the Planning Board and to the hearing this evening at the Planning Board in April, there were two residents that spoke in favor of this rezoning application, including the resident just to the south across the street, and feel that this would be a positive investment for the community and an appropriate scale and use of this particular location. Let's look at the review criteria, beginning with consistency with adopted plans. Plan 2000 encourages infill development that is compatible with surrounding neighborhood character and context and providing for a range of housing types and prices.
Speaker 7: Blueprint Denver.
Speaker 9: Shows a future land use concept of single family residential. And defines residential areas as including a variety of housing types and is not intended to be 100% single family, but recognizes that that is the predominant. A residential type. So the question remains where and in what locations might other housing varieties be appropriate?
Speaker 8: And so we.
Speaker 9: Look also at other indicators in Blueprint Denver as well as the the land use context, which I'll cover shortly. This is also in an area of stability which can be is defined as maintaining area character while accommodating some new development. So one of the important indicators when determining where a. Variety of housing types besides single family could be appropriate. We look at street classification. The Franklin Street is a residential collector, and collector streets serve to connect neighborhoods and provide a balance between mobility and property access. But overall, move more. More person trips, including vehicle trips, bicycle and walking. Then a local street, which provides more direct access to two homes and properties. And then 38th Street is a local street providing access to. Two individual home sites and occasional businesses. So can we look at the mortgage? 2.5. Can the intent of this zone district, which is to promote the pedestrian skilled residential development to fit into this urban neighborhood context with these design standards that that help it blend into its surroundings. The review criteria Tues would be met as you are. Each 2.5 would result in uniform application of district building, form, use and design regulations and would further public health, safety and welfare by implementing recommendations in Plan 2000 and Blueprint. Denver. Justifying circumstance would be a change or changing condition of the property and its surroundings. These are listed here at the bottom of the slide that this is a vacant property, former surface parking area, and it needs to be put to beneficial use. And has has been really in a state of decline for some time. There have been recent updates to the commercial building to the West as new commercial office use. In fact, the same owner developer that is submitting this application actually renovated that building. And the neighborhood is very, very pleased with the outcome of that. And then the 30th employee commuter rail station opened recently. And so we have a very.
Speaker 4: Active rail station and many folks.
Speaker 9: Starting to use transit. With just a few minutes away from Denver, Union Station. And then as I mentioned earlier, that current 30th and Blake Hyde amendments planning process is at an advanced stage. And finally, we look at the consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. Urban neighborhood context is characterized as primary residential with a range of smaller scale uses. These can range from residential to even mixed use and commercial. This is within a street grid pattern that supports walking pedestrian and vehicle mobility and a strong presence of alleys. The Zone District you are. Each 2.5 promotes the safe and active residential uses reinforces desired neighborhood character consistent with the pedestrian scale and orientation in this neighborhood context. And the CPD has found that all review criteria have been met and we recommend approval of this. Application and planning board has also recommended approval. With about 10 to 1. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. We have one speaker signed up. Sam Legare.
Speaker 4: Evening. It's Sam Ledger, and I'm the owner. Happy to answer any questions that any of you may have.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, that concludes our speakers. Now, time for questions. Do we have any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: Sam, since you're a micro. Yeah. Sorry, Sam, since you're up there once again, you didn't have any designs at plan. I suspect at this point you also don't have any. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: We have not done any planning for the site.
Speaker 8: Great. So, Tim, I've got questions for you. What was the zoning prior to the 2010 rezoning?
Speaker 9: I'm going to have to get back to you on that.
Speaker 8: Okay. Wouldn't it have been single family if we went? US? You mean you want a one? Maybe our one and certainly not more than our.
Speaker 9: I didn't document that. I'll have to get back to you. All right.
Speaker 8: And then you noted that this was a mixed use node for some time as some sort of justification. But this stone district is not a mixed use zone district, correct?
Speaker 9: No. But it contributes to the mixed nature. How so? At this node, the properties to the West are have been commercial or public use kind of off and on, depending on the decade.
Speaker 8: And did that contribute to the the mixed use nature of that area.
Speaker 9: The buildings to the west, on the west side of Franklin at this node. Mm hmm. As well as the PUD, which originally was a church and then now a live work unit. So we see a variety of uses of small scale node mixed use.
Speaker 8: And so I'm just as a surface parking lot, would that not support the mixed use known as as is and its current sort of nonconforming situation? It did at.
Speaker 9: One time, but it's no longer needed for that.
Speaker 8: Purpose. Okay. It is needed for what?
Speaker 9: The parking.
Speaker 8: No, this when we move this from a single unit zone district to a higher density zone district. What's that? What's the logic there? What are we looking for?
Speaker 9: That in the blueprint. Denver Single-Family residential definition there can be predominantly single family homes, but a variety of housing types as well as smaller scale complementary commercial uses or mixed uses. And so we look at the street classification, which is this residential collector along Franklin, Right.
Speaker 8: But we also look.
Speaker 9: At land use context.
Speaker 8: Of that opportunity. According to Blueprint. Denver in the area of change across the street, correct? I mean, we already have existing. Buildings that are commercial, the ability to develop three storey multifamily housing across the street from this area's stability. So Blueprint Denver, does it direct? Does it suggest that that new development should occur in areas of stability or areas of change? Or does is it agnostic on where new development should occur?
Speaker 9: It suggests that you can maintain the area character while accommodating some new developers.
Speaker 8: So if we don't have a design, how do we maintain area character with this? Zone district.
Speaker 9: As I mentioned in the staff report in the presentation you are each 2.5 is intended to be consistent with existing character of an urban.
Speaker 8: Neighborhood. So once again, this comes up, this is garden court form allowed in this zone just as it is. And so the opposition letter concerned about the potential of number of units. Do we have as a city any sense about the number of units that we could occupy and put place on this site in a garden court for?
Speaker 9: They have not submitted a plan, so I have not conducted that analysis.
Speaker 8: It could be quite a few, considerably more than an S2 A-1 density. So then in I'm sorry, I just have to to ask, based on your presentation, you stated under the justice variance circumstances that this area is declined for some time. What is what do you mean by decline?
Speaker 9: I mean the specific piece of property that.
Speaker 8: So nice addition.
Speaker 9: Of the pavement is in decline and the the maintenance of the property is.
Speaker 8: Has not been kept up as a. But I mean you could develop it in the current zoned district and that would be essentially an improving. Could you go to the slide that has the number five under just different circumstances? So the next slide. If so, this is justified. You are age 2.5. If we were oddly, you know, reasoning to you are mean to the existing zone district. Which of these criteria here are these these characteristics? I mean, what are these called? Which of these things would not apply to the current zoning district?
Speaker 9: Well, let's be clear. If the applicant was. They already have a current zoning that allows for single family homes and their request is for you. RH 2.5 And that's our analysis. And so they could either choose to develop under the current zone district or if granted approval, then they could pursue. Development under RH two.
Speaker 8: It's just that these are sort of boilerplate responses. I mean, justifications for any sort of zone district in the stationary plan you showed, the massing are very well considered, you know, juxtaposition of the sue characteristic with the adjacent three storey commercial and then subsequent five and 12 or what have you. So you have a stationary plan that sort of allies itself with the I mean the overlays fairly nicely with this blueprint. Denver areas of change or stability. And we're clearly in an area of stability, the single family and we use these criteria to justify moving to a zone district in an area that is identified as an area of stability. But I can tell you, as a representative of Northwest Denver, once you once you put in the sort of density that a garden court form in an hour, 2.5, you've changed the character of that block. And so if the balance of the block is askew, there is going to be intrinsically I mean, you can put you can you change the quality of life that those residents have come to expect. Those those residents that live in a, quote, unquote, area of stability are now severely destabilized by something that could be built here. Certainly, he could build urban home forms, but the developer has made no attempt whatsoever to convey what he intends to build . That's correct. And so, you know, I, I just wish we compelled in this sort of ask where there's an area of stability. There's the current zone district meets all the criteria that this this that you're attempting to justify this change, you know, without a change in doing that, doing know, just developing redeveloping in an ESA form, you know, allowable sue forms would do everything you were asking for improving this site and and and it's just I don't see how it makes how this rest this attempt to rationalize why it's acceptable to take an area that is clearly urban house. I mean, urban house forms in a small, lot zoned lot neighborhood and block that is clearly outside of an area of change and and put a high density potentially high density for such as the garden court on that. And so I'm bringing that up because you know council a new is now facing it. I've been facing it for some time this urban house thing. So I think that I want to go back to that slide, though, and the one that says five. So. Does. How how does the u. R h. 2.5 promotes safe and active residential uses any different than the current you.
Speaker 9: Well, they would be similar in that the form encourages vehicle loading and access from the rear, the alley and porches and entrances facing streets or garden court. But walkable and not interrupted by multiple?
Speaker 8: No. How is how does it do it any more than the current?
Speaker 9: They're very comparable, I would say, and that's just 2.5. RH 2.5 is intended to be compatible with.
Speaker 8: So how does now let's get into the next one then. How does this Joan district versus the skew A which is very consistent one very consistent with the forms that you see on the balance of the block. How does this you are each 2.5 reinforce the desired neighborhood character? They both do. Councilman how?
Speaker 9: As listed here, they they promote a form that is walkable, that has entrances, that activates the street parking to the rear along alley and the scale lower to the rear, reinforcing the patterns that we see throughout neighborhoods.
Speaker 8: So is the is the massing part of the neighborhood character or not? The height of the buildings, part of the neighborhood, character or not?
Speaker 9: It is. And there can be some variety to it as we read.
Speaker 8: So are you allowed to. Are you are you restricted to the same forms in a you are 2.5 on massing that you are in a us, you know. And so is it higher, considerably more massive or not?
Speaker 9: It is. Again, as Blueprint Denver suggests, there can be variety, including smaller apartments, townhomes. And yes, it's slightly higher. Row home slightly higher density and blueprint.
Speaker 8: Is now.
Speaker 9: Coverage densities not exact density.
Speaker 8: So what is pedestrian scale orientation is it S2 is in pedestrian scale and orientation the same for S2 zone district is it is for RH 2.4.
Speaker 9: I would say they are similar. And both compatible in an urban neighborhood context.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thanks for the question.
Speaker 1: Questions.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, let me ask you a couple questions real quick. Tell me about the letters of support that you got here.
Speaker 9: Yes. One letter of support or I'll start with the letter of opposition came. When did you.
Speaker 8: Get a letter of support from the neighborhood?
Speaker 9: The R.A. we didn't get a letter collectively from, and there were more volunteered by individuals in the neighborhood.
Speaker 8: Who were they?
Speaker 9: There were three residents. And boy, if I need to call them by name, I may not be prepared to their names at the moment, but three call residents. One initially presented a letter of opposition. And. Just concern about increasing density. This came following a presentation to the neighborhood where we talked about the 30th and Blake Hyde amendments as well that.
Speaker 8: It did that that person change from opposition to support. Did you say the applicant reached out.
Speaker 9: To this individual and had a conversation and I believe their position.
Speaker 8: Let me let me let me ask the applicant real quick. So can you tell me about the folks in the neighborhood who may be supporting this?
Speaker 4: Yeah, we had several letters of support, one from the neighbor to the south who saw us through the building across the street. And then we had one from the neighbor behind us. Behind this project. Mm hmm. That was supporting it. We had one letter that they were concerned about parking, and we would talk to them about that. And even the you are 2.5 requires parking on the site. Okay. So they were so.
Speaker 8: Neighbors in the call. The neighborhood. You've done work before there and you talk about the the work that you've done across street.
Speaker 4: Yeah. We renovated the old Elks Lodge at 3801 Franklin and converted it into office space. And we had. Ten or 15 of the neighbors come in and just love what we did on the corner, that the corner has just been not active. It's been a vacant parking lot in a vacant, boarded up building. And a lot of the neighbors, you know, it was it was getting trashed and spray painted and they wanted to see something happen there. And they still do. The the building turned out great across the street. All the neighbors loved it. They're supporting a project, a five unit townhome project at 3811, Franklin, which is directly across the street from this project.
Speaker 8: What's that? What is that zone? They didn't. They didn't come in for a rezoning, did they?
Speaker 4: It's zoned you are you RH three A so it's okay and that's directly across the street. So this is actually a lower zoning that we're going after. That's right across the street.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Tim. Can you can you give just to set the context? Because, you know, I don't think folks really know where this is and understand the the larger movement afoot that is supported by the neighborhood to dramatically increase the heights in the neighborhood, because this is less than a two minute walk from the 38th and Blake Station. Eli. So can you kind of talk about the heights just I mean, not long, certainly.
Speaker 9: I've gone back to the planning context slide. I hope it's still on your monitors.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 9: And this is one of the graphics that have been shared as part of the 30th and Blake Hyde Amendments process. And as I mentioned, there is now a public review draft of that Hyde Amendments plan. It primarily addresses heights.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 9: These are height increases that are proposed above what today is a maximum recommendation of eight and in some places 12 storeys, we see up to 16. And then what we've tried to work through very carefully with quite a bit of stakeholder and resident member input is how to transition fairly quickly over the course of of two or three blocks from six storeys down to the established residential scale of two and a half storeys. And that's why we spent considerable time and resources on producing these street level view graphics. There are some other views that were generated to really try to strike the right balance between the TOD opportunity and the respecting the established residential areas
Speaker 8: . Great, Tim. And could you put your clicker if it go there on? Sam said across the street was the five. The three story. The three story, yeah. Just put your clicker on that just so that folks can see that. Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Burks. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I have a question for Mr. Laker, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. Can you tell us what you plan to do with the site? So what is it that you will do with the new zoning that you couldn't do with the current zoning that's on the site?
Speaker 4: Part of the outreach that we did with the with the neighborhood organizations was a for you know, they want affordable housing in this area for sale product. And so we do plan to provide a for sale product, whether it's row home or townhome style. The current zoning just does not allow for any sort of affordable single family homes. The cost of the you know, the land up there right now is so high that you'd be looking at an eight or $900,000 single family home on this site. You could do four of those. If we change the zoning, we could.
Speaker 9: Probably get eight units.
Speaker 4: Give or take. You know, we haven't done the planning, but that's our estimate. And it would all have garage parking. And with that, we could get them to be a little more affordable and 50 or better, in my opinion.
Speaker 6: So when you say affordable, what kind of price range are you talking about?
Speaker 4: You know, depending on the size, you're probably looking at 300,000 on up, depending on the size. And again, we haven't done site plans. And and, you know, for now you're.
Speaker 6: Looking more at townhomes as opposed to.
Speaker 4: We're open to either one at this point. Like I said, we haven't spent the money on architects and designs until we know that we can.
Speaker 9: We have that opportunity.
Speaker 6: And in your mind, is that the max number that you could get on the site is eight.
Speaker 4: I think right around there. Yes.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman, I'll take a couple minutes. Hop over. You get to Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just wondering what.
Speaker 1: He makes of.
Speaker 4: Now here. Thank you. You've obviously had been thinking a little bit about your property, numbers of units and so on. Any thoughts as to style of architecture at all? One in your daydreams or chats with your people what what you're thinking? Yeah. I mean, we've you know, the area, in my opinion, is is lacking again, an affordable for sale product. There's a lot of apartment buildings going up. There's there's really no single family home development in the area. We're. You know, as far as specifically as far as what we're going to be building, I just, you know, probably a two, two and a half story town homeless, some rooftop patios, you know, something that's going to be inviting and want people to live there. You know, right now the current uses a vacant parking lot and it the neighbors hate it. You know, it doesn't do anything for the city. And as far as style of architecture, reminiscent of what's around or you really have no clue at this point. Yeah. I mean, we're our our our goal is to blended into the neighborhood. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the answer.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Calvin Cashman. Councilman, that's M.G. Baca.
Speaker 8: So it sounded like Councilman Brooks knows about three neighbors that support the project. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 8: So what did you share with those three neighbors about the size, the number of units and the number of parking spaces?
Speaker 4: We haven't shared anything with them.
Speaker 8: Who they just.
Speaker 4: Support. They support reactivating that corner.
Speaker 8: So but they don't know anything at all about how you intend to reactivate the corner.
Speaker 4: They know that we plan to change the zoning to a you are age 2.5 which allows for townhomes or row homes.
Speaker 8: Do you know what? Do they know what that means as far as density is concerned and height and massing?
Speaker 4: Yes, they do. Or they probably wouldn't support it.
Speaker 8: But you don't you don't know how big this is. You don't know how many number of units to sell or know how many car parking spaces there are. You know, roughly that they're going to start at 300,000 and go up. But you don't know any specifics. But you're the three neighbors do. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: That's not what I said now.
Speaker 8: So what do they know about the grades 2.5 and what it allows?
Speaker 1: Councilman, I'm not sure if the applicant can tell what the neighbors know. I think he answered your question. I think your point is made, though. It's getting.
Speaker 8: No, he stated that they know what this allows. But you do they know that you're.
Speaker 1: Asking him what the neighbors know, which I'm not really sure he can actually express. So. Do you have a question for him? And I would also ask if we could not if we would not be disrespectful, in my opinion, if we disagree with what the answer is and just ask a professional question and get a professional answer
Speaker 8: . Well, I again, you know that I represent District one and that my district I toured you specifically was 83% Latino, Hispanic when I moved there and 50% Spanish speaking. And if you go there today, you don't see that population. And they got fed a line of crap about what the potential of development was going to be and how inclusive that would be. This is not an inclusive property. When we re zoned this level, it wasn't inclusive as four units. It's not going to be inclusive. It's eight plus or minus and it's going to be plus. And this is this is what happened in Jefferson Park. This is own district. These forms, these townhomes, row houses were manipulated using the guard garden court form to isolate a woman by the name of Gail Wheeler. Again, I toured you. I drove you by her house. And so I'm sensitive to this form and what is allowed. And these developers that come in here and tell us, I don't know what the proforma on this project is. You don't go into development business without knowing some sense about what the capacity is before, during and after your proposed rezoning. I don't buy it. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. So then no more questions. We are moving to the comment period. Councilman Brooks Sierra.
Speaker 8: Hi, everybody. Well, I do know this neighborhood because I live up the street and I do know that we've seen work from this developer, an adaptive reuse mentality. I do know that there were several other developers that were going to develop this site and give them something that the neighborhood did not want. I do know that this individual came and presented Sam in front of the whole neighborhood, which the whole neighborhood is a lively, inquisitive bunch. And I do know that there were there is no one from the whole neighborhood who's very active in this room right now. And I do know that three neighbors next to this property was supported. So I will be supporting this not based on those reasons, but based on the criteria in which we do this in the in the city and county of Denver. And I also know that we've had we've had meetings meetings of groups of 300 people of. Neighbors, architects, developers about dramatically increasing the density in this neighborhood because without density, there is no affordability, without increasing the supply, without requiring affordability. You know, there is no attainable housing. And so this is a different context than the rest of the city. This is a context of the city where folks will come in and say, if there are design standards, if there are affordability measures, we will support density. That's what I know. So I'll be supporting this project.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: So the criteria is basically met by any zoning district. There's a very low, low threshold. So I go back to the small area plans, stationary plan, anything else? Blueprint, Denver. And it clearly, clearly calls this out area stability. If we were talking about any property inside of the Massena study or where we've already re zoned to a higher density, you're not seeing me question this, but this is injecting a portion of what we have planned out and discussed for the stationary plan and putting it across the street. And if you go back to that slide, which I will call up because it's up there, you can all look at it. You see the green. That is the area where this three story is supposed to go. And you see that it blankets this gray area, which is a bunch of single family, one and two storey, two and a half storey structures with some non-conforming in the middle interjected throughout. And when you put this level of density on that corner, there are now six houses that are sandwiched between the potential development of that with rooftop decks and, and, and, and forms that go far into the lot, far deeper into the lot than anybody ever expected. And that is forever destabilizing for that block, which is an area of stability and is seeing existing single family homes and has been for a long time the longtime affordability there. And we're replacing this figure. But the good news is we're not losing any structures in the process. So this is great for that aspect. But we don't have a proposal. And so we we're just going on blind faith and there are good developers and you may be one of them, but the fact that you can't come to me and say, this is what we intend to do, I just. I don't. I expect more from our development community. They have the capacity. The tools, SketchUp tools, are free. The spreadsheet is Excel. I mean, this is not rocket science. I mean, this is easy money in these areas. And to invest the minimum amount to do that little bit of due diligence to help us and the layperson in the neighbor understand the impact of what you're doing before we just randomly justify going against this stationary plan and the stated proposed massing and the blueprint Denver areas of stability in areas change the circumstances. I mean, the criteria is not met. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 5: I just have a brief comment. This particular person who has applied for this rezoning, along with everyone else who has done it, have followed the rules to apply for a.
Speaker 2: Rezoning which don't require.
Speaker 5: Plans. So I really feel that it is unfair to hold them to that standard when it is not part of the rules that they have to comply with to file for the rezoning.
Speaker 2: So I appreciate the fact that you did come here and you did meet with people and that you did do what you were told to do. And I will be supporting it. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman, back. Councilman, mosey back up.
Speaker 8: I just want to say when there's direct plan support, again, you won't see me. QUESTION But there are two plans that clearly indicate something other as the future of this property. And yeah, you're not required in a rezoning application to put forward any idea or any notion about how you want to develop. But we as counsel only have to hear your rezoning request. We do not have to grant it. And that has been reiterated time and time and time again. So even if Planning Board comes back with a unanimous recommendation that this meets the criteria, we again are not obligated. That is a recommendation to to this council. And that power to make this change rests solely on us. And if we don't honor and respect the small area plans that we have and ask and compel developers to justify why the change is worthwhile, we will never get a developer coming in and justifying why that change is worthwhile . Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa Council Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not where Councilman Espinosa is, but I'm not more than a shade away from it. It is frustrating it. I believe that when a developer purchases, purchases a piece of land and gets to this point in the process, they know very close to what they're doing. And so when to repeatedly have people come and say, I don't know. I don't know. You got a little bit closer, sir, and I appreciate that when the numbers that you think you're going to do, I. I think you probably have more that you would share with your buddies across the coffee table. You are not required by ordinance to do that. I think it helps this body make decisions. I think it helps establish relationships with community, etc.. I do believe that while I agree with my colleague Councilman Espinosa's evaluation that the bar, the justifying circumstances probably fit a variety of zones, including the existing one. I think yours probably does as well. What's more persuasive to me is that you've done work in your community and there's no one here in opposition to you. So those things combined. I'll support this, but I very much share Councilman Espinosa's frustration at having people give us less than their full truth. So with that, thank you. Appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman and Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: I was going to make similar comments to Councilman Cashman just made. You know, as a city, when we did Blueprint Denver, it was designed to look at the edges of neighborhoods and where development made sense, to be able to encourage that. But where we have single family character that is designated as areas of stability, then. Our our expectations and the goals of Blueprint Denver was to protect those single family neighborhoods. And that's the expectation of neighborhoods as well. This is a corner lot that, as you said, people in the neighborhood want to see activated. I'm not sure that eight units is the solution. I know the numbers have to work. The map has to work. And I see we have a couple of people from the whole neighborhood here. And had the neighborhood really been in adamant opposition? I know they would be speaking up and speaking in opposition. So that's the only thing that gives me some comfort that it's something the neighborhood supports. But I am concerned that as you begin to encroach into the single family, family fabric of the neighborhood with one project, then it won't be long before we see more coming in and wanting to buy up single family homes. We've seen that happen throughout my neighborhood. It's happened in many neighborhoods across the city where, you know, the zoning affords something higher density than what currently exists there. And so you have this, you know, sort of effect where where that starts happening. I think the fact that you have a reputation with the neighbors of doing quality work and you have a working relationship with them, that gives me some comfort in the fact that we don't have anybody here from Cole, which I know is a very active neighborhood, not speaking in opposition. So it's it's one of those where, you know, it's it's it's kind of that fine line because it is in an area of stability, although it's a parking lot, not a single family home. If it were a single family home, I probably would not be supporting it. But the fact that it's a lot, you know, gives me a little bit more comfort as well. So I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. One, I get the the line of questioning and the the concern with not creating plans, I think. In the last year or so, I think we've seen a few rezoning applications that have come up and been kind of coy and broad with what can be done and not specific and won't ask questions just . Well, we don't know yet. We've seen them. We actually postponed one of them until, uh, until more communication was taking place. This is in District five, so. I think there's an inherent issue with and a growing issue because of Denver's growing population. And you have the the pressure of affordability and the lack of affordable units. And then the flipside of that is you don't want to you know, you don't make anything affordable by. By making it rare, right? You make it affordable by making plenty. And that's what creates affordable affordability. That's just basic economics. However, you know, what we're being asked to do on this dais isn't to pick that fight or battle that fight right now. That is a rule change that, you know, it's a legislative change, potentially charter, potentially municipal code, potentially zoning text amendment, who knows? But that that that's where the problem lies. It's not here that uncertainty is what the rules are. Just the rules of the day are. And I don't believe in punishing somebody by denying a rezoning based off of a world that I expect that they have no idea. I'm expecting it. Those aren't rules that are applicable today. The rules in which you have filed this application for rezoning are still standing, and this is what we have to consider. However, that other issue looms. I do believe that that's an issue that we need to revisit. And it's much more than just a blueprint committee because, you know, granted, it's not representative of the entire city, but. In this particular rezoning, it's met all the criteria. They have community support and neighborhood support. You know, Denver changing. It is these edges that are going to change because as we are hurting for more product and more affordability and folks are looking for more units, that's where they will happen. You can't just I mean, it's not like we can manufacture land like we can money or diamonds. Yes, ladies, I said diamonds are manufactured. They are not rare. But that didn't make any sense. But today, I mean, I think, yes, I will support this moving forward, because those are the rules in which you were asked to apply towards. There we go. Knowing that in the parking lot sits this issue. I think we need to straighten out. As Denver grows. So I do support this rezoning. I do believe it's met that criteria and should move forward under those rules.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa Baca.
Speaker 8: Yeah. So I just think it's and thank you, colleagues, for humoring me on this. But it's it's good to me. It's a good sort of learning point of inflection or something for this council, because if this were a contested rezoning, we just created some potential issues. You know, making a distinction of parking lot versus if this were a home. That's not that's not how we balance. That's not how we're supposed to review these things. But that's also what I'm speaking to, which is this is an area of stability. These are single family homes on that side of the street. And so if we took them square that this developer is asking for and we and we just moved it for lots to the north. It's the same exact ask, but now it's for single family homes. Affordable, single, probably affordable, single family homes that are going to be lost for whatever development potential, plus or minus, is being requested. And again and so and just to say that we're somehow punishing a developer when we make this sort of decision. No. No right now that has usou. It has a real world value based on the underlying zoning that is there. And maybe that property owner did ask for an exorbitant amount of money and it's under contract for that amount pending this rezoning. But that's that's at risk. You know, that's part of the development game. But he's not going to pay and he's not going to pay you 2.5 prices because it's only got U.S. zoning. And that's a different development potential and different value. And this is all part of that calculus. And so there is you know, if he bought it as part of a package with an adjacent, this is all this sort of thing that we don't need to go into or consider or anything at all. We have to look at it relative to the plans and the criteria, and we can see it two different ways. I get that. But I've got two plans. I got Blueprint Denver calling this an area of stability and I've got a stationary plan that shows no change in the zone district. And I've got a guy asking me to give him additional development rates, significant numbers of units, less parking means more need for parking than the sue and going that's going to impact that sue zone district permanently. That is now destabilizing an area of stability. Now, again, it's not a requirement on his ask, but there's no penalty for him bringing forward an idea as part of his package. And if he had that and we're sitting here weighing what it is that he's trying to do relative to the context, we would have a better understanding. And then it would be even better if he went 141 step further and got in a covenant with those neighbors and said, This is what I'm agreeing to build. And I'll hold it. This designed to this design for the next ten years so that you know, that's not because we can't dictate what he does and doesn't do even after we resign. But those are the sort of things that when you're going into an area of stability and you're going outside of the boundary defined in a stationary plan, we should ask. I do. No one's compelled to do it. But good developers and I believe you probably would do this, but no one asked. I'm asking. It's too late now. But, you know, I don't see how this meets the criteria for zoned district change in this area of stability. And outside of that stationary envelope that was defined. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 2: I'm going to try to jump in here.
Speaker 5: With.
Speaker 3: I've had a very.
Speaker 2: Similar conversation today with a constituent that, in fact, it's like deja vu all over again of why why can't we know how many pieces of property are going to be developed before we make decisions about whether the zoning happens or not? And I think we're in a stage of transition between the old 59 coat 59 and this new form based zoning. And we kind of want what we some of what we had before with very specific details about how many how many pieces of living units are going to be and and the meaning of form based zoning, which is really designed as to get good design, good architecture, architectural design, to have buildings communicate with each other, to make people places, to not be so prescriptive about the the specific things that.
Speaker 5: We used to have.
Speaker 2: Like far floor area ratio and dwellings per acre and setbacks and parking ratios because those are very difficult to regulate because they are there. And they also prohibit the development of what has become very popular in new urbanism. So I think it's good to raise these questions. You know, why don't why can't why don't we make a plan? But it may not be exactly in keeping with what form based zoning needs. And perhaps we can have that conversation further about how we might bring our old concepts of what we do with zoning versus the new urbanism concepts which what we do. The form based zoning has a lot to do with the design of buildings, the design of neighborhoods, and is meant to implement community plans in ways that have been found to be much more effective than old kinds of zoning codes have. But it bears it bears a conversation because we've heard these concerns before. Just wanted to say that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Sussman, in the comments to 77. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: Just I want to go on record that it's it's very disconcerting to me that we don't know the underlying zone district. And I'm sorry for not asking sooner because I mean, some of those families probably have been there for a predating the 2010 legislative reason. And so to me, that matters as well on what people bought into what they should be expecting versus now what we're about to the change we're about to impose on them, whether they know it or not. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. And the comments to 77 on Madam Secretary Rocco Brooks.
Speaker 3: Espinosa. No. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Hi. Cashman. Kennish. Lopez. Hi, Ortega. Susman. I black eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 1: Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Got more? Madam Secretary, please call the very nice results tonight.
Speaker 3: One nay.
Speaker 1: One nay. Tue seven has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. The next one is council bills. 320 and 321. Councilman Brooks, excuse me. Will you please put Council Bill 320 on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I put Council Bill 320 to be placed on the floor for final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Now, Councilman Brooks, I understand you have an amendment to offer this evening so that the speakers may address the amendment during the comment period. Could you please describe your amendment now?
Speaker 8: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank Abe for catching this. I think most of us would have missed this. But, you know, I want to say to the audience and folks who are here that when we were contemplating short term rentals in our six month, 16 month discussion around Raffles Square, we didn't even talk about it. And so we passed our short term rentals bill and we didn't get a chance to actually put that into this bill. And so that's what I will be reading into Into the Record tonight. So at this time, the filing of Council Bill 320 City Council had not yet approved Council Bill 261 dealing with the Denver zoning code allowances for short term rentals as accessory to primary residential uses where residential uses are currently allowed assets. The new legislation allowing short term rentals was not included into the Text Amendment language for the new proposal proposed. Square Zone districts recently adopted Council Bill 261 applies to the new Arapaho Square Zone districts.
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3800 Franklin St. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 3800 Franklin St. from U-SU-A1 (urban, single unit, 3000 sq. ft. lot) to U-RH-2.5 (urban, row house, 2.5 stories) in Council District 9. 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 5-25-16.