Speaker 4: State your name and know that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker has yielded his or her time, which will result in a total of six. On the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from using profane or obscene language. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 435 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 534 be placed on the floor backwards. 435 on time. Sorry. Council Bill. 435. All right. Placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The combined public hearings were canceled before 35 and 40. 36 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both bills when call to speak. Tell us which adjacent property you are speaking to or if your comment is pertaining to both after the conclusion of the public hearing. Council will vote separately on each bill. May we have the start of work? Abe.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Members of city council. Good evening. A barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development and I'll be making a combined presentation for both of these two related map amendments which are right across Brighton Boulevard from each other and have been made by the same applicant. They are in City Council District nine. In the Elyria and Swansea, a neighborhood. And the request is for a math amendment to the I am a zone district that's in the industrial context. It's a mixed use district with an eight storey maximum height limit. The existing zoning is IMX five on the southeastern side of Brighton Boulevard with the Billboard Use Overlay you oh two and on the northwest side of Brayton Boulevard, the existing zoning is I a that's an industrial zone district. It also has the billboard use overlay district. The surrounding zoning is consistent with the zoning on the site with the exception of the site to the north, which has a campus entertainment zone district designation. That's the Forni Transportation Museum. Existing land use is industrial primarily and a little bit of parking on the map amendment site similar to surrounding sites at cept again for the sites to the north which are entertainment and cultural uses. And then the sites to the south, which is a railroad yard, has a transportation, communications and utilities land use designation. Looking at the existing character of the site, the building form in scale, primarily one storey tall, one storey warehouse and industrial buildings. The process to date these Map Amendment applications went to a combined hearing planning board on April 5th and received a recommendation of approval. They were discussed at the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee at April on April 25th, and are now here for your final consideration and a public hearing. For public outreach, there are quite a few RINO's that are active in the area. All have been notified of each of the meetings and hearings for this map amendment and we've received letters of support from four of the. Relevant Arnaud's. The site is is large. It's about 17 acres in many cases, according to Denver zoning code guidance. A general development plan would be required for such a site at the discretion of the manager of CPD, using a number of criteria of size being one of them over ten acres. And we are directed at CPD to determine whether a GTI GDP will be mandatory prior to going through a rezoning process like this. In this case, considering all relevant site specific circumstances, we have determined that a GDP is not necessary. Some of the relevant site specific circumstances include the fact that there is a metropolitan improvement district on in place on the site that was approved by council that will provide funding for infrastructure and ongoing maintenance. The applicant has also signed a development agreement with the city that specifies that they will provide 10% open space at a minimum in their development. And there are a number of specific criteria for the performance of that open space as there would be in a GDP. And so I'll walk through the the review criteria for considering this MAP amendment. First, a consistency with a number of adopted plans, starting with comprehensive plan 2000, which just provides some general citywide guidance about encouraging mixed use, transit oriented development, making use of transportation infrastructure where it exists. As is the case here, very near the 38th and bleak commuter rail station. And it also directs us to identify areas in which increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated in part to take pressure off of other areas that where that might be less compatible. Blueprint Denver designates the site with a future land use concept of industrial. One of the things that says about that land use concept, though, is that we should consider converting such sites to mixed use, particularly when they're near transit and when they're in a position to buffer adjacent neighborhoods. The site is also designated as an area of change by Blueprint. Denver The Blueprint Denver Future Street classification for Brighton Boulevard as a mixed use arterial, which is intended to emphasize a variety of travel choices and to be located in areas that are intended to become high intensity, mixed use, commercial, retail and residential areas with substantial pedestrian activity. Also note that there's a map in Blueprint Denver that designates enhanced transit corridors and Brighton Boulevard. The section of Brighton Boulevard is shown as an enhanced transit corridor, which would be a corridor that's prioritized for enhanced bus service, including things like Priority SIGNALIZATION and that it's a priority corridor for pedestrian infrastructure. And we're certainly seeing implementation of that recommendation with the Brighton Boulevard reconstruction that's underway now. The River North Neighborhood Plan from 2003 designates the concept land use as transit oriented development, a move through these relatively quickly since there are so many relevant area plans. From 2009, the 30th and Blake Station Area Plan has a concept land use of mixed use employment, which is intended to include warehouses, incubator spaces and also residential space. It's in a sub area of that plan. This site, which is called the Brighton North Mixed Use Employment District, where the priorities are to maintain an employment base, improve the esthetics of the area and accommodate a greater mix of uses in the future. The 2015 Illyria and Swansea. A neighborhood plan designates the land use concept as industrial mixed use, which looks at exploring opportunities to transition land uses from industrial to industrial mixed use to better protect the neighborhood from heavy industrial uses, and also to invest in higher density housing services and employment opportunities near rail stations. Finally, last fall, City Council adopted the 38th and Blake Station area height amendments. This plan or these amendments amended those earlier plans that had been adopted for the area in part to clear up some confusion about how the plans overlapped in that area. And in some cases, particularly with building height made recommendations that were hard to interpret. And so these height amendments clarified the vision for height. As part of that process, though, and working with the neighborhood and local stakeholders, it actually became clear that there was quite a bit of support even for higher density, taller buildings in the area , as long as that future development provided community benefits and incorporated appropriate transitions to lower scale neighborhoods. And it makes a very specific recommendations to adopt a regulatory approach that will ensure greater design quality throughout the neighborhood and help integrate affordable housing in to the neighborhood. This is a map from the adopted plan amendments clarifying the building heights and making future recommendations. So this map is a little bit unusual. The numbers on the map are the numbers that we're used to seeing. That's the clarification of what had previously been the policy for building heights in the area. And so the site here, it's the red dashed line. The recommendation there is for eight storeys. And then the way that that increased height that came out of the community vision was expressed is in the colors, which are called maximum incentive height. And so what the plan recommends is that it be possible to go to those taller heights in the future if specific rules are put into place about how you get there, specifically providing affordable housing as part of the development and then integrating higher design quality. And so Councilman Brooks is planning to sponsor zone district overlays that will implement those specific recommendations. And assuming those overlays are adopted, they'll apply to the site. Any development of the site that didn't have an approved site development plan by the time those were adopted would have to follow the the new rules. The applicants would, if those were adopted in the future, actually be able to go taller than the eight stories that they've requested by the system that would require them to provide additional affordable housing within the station area or within their development. So the remaining review criteria will first KPD staff find that the Knapp Amendment application is consistent with the adopted plans, and CBD staff also find that the proposed MAP amendment is consistent with uniformity of district regulations criteria. Because rezoning to the Max eight district will result in uniform application of zone, district, building, form, use and design regulations . CPD staff also find that the proposed MAP Amendment will further the public health, health, safety and welfare of the community by implementing adopted community objectives through appropriate building heights, form standards in allowed uses, and also by facilitating a transition to a more varied mix of high intensity uses with expanded pedestrian connections, community planning and development staff find that changing conditions is an appropriate justifying circumstance for the MAP Amendment application. The area, of course, has changed a lot and will continue to change with the 38th complete commuter rail station, the completion of the Brighton Boulevard reconstruction and the all the work that of course will happen at the National Western Center to the north and CBD staff find that the proposed zone district is consistent with neighborhood context and district purpose and intent statements. The IMX districts are intended to develop in a pedestrian oriented pattern. Buildings up to the street in the Annex eight zone district specifically is noted by the Denver Zoning Code as being appropriate for areas served by primarily and collect primarily collector or arterial streets, as is the case here. CPD therefore recommends approval of the Map Amendment applications based on a finding that all review criteria have been met, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Abe. We have two speakers. I'll call them both Kevin McClintock and Jim Bischoff. So you both can make your way. Kevin, you can begin your remarks when you're at the podium.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name's Kevin McClintock with Westfield were the applicant for both both properties. And I'm happy to answer any questions you guys may have for us.
Speaker 4: Right. Taking our other questions out to all speakers, Jim Bishop.
Speaker 6: High Council members Jim Birkhoff.
Speaker 7: 3003 Larimer with Lars architecture. And I'm also here.
Speaker 6: To answer any questions you might.
Speaker 7: Have about.
Speaker 6: This zoning application. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Great. Thank you both. That concludes our speakers and councilmembers. It's now time for questions for either or both bills. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question is asking Abe if this particular project and the one specifically on the east side that about the railroad tracks. If if the new form that has the check off box proximity to rail was even utilized when this application came in. We've had that new form for some time and I'm just curious about what. Number one, if that was checked off and if it was, what how was that addressed?
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. I believe that form was used. The applicants may be able to say specifically, regardless of the use of the specific form. As you know, Mayor Hancock convened a team to address the issue of safety issues around freight rail in 2015, and the team issued a report that made specific recommendations regarding education and the need to both refer projects that had that adjacency to the to the railroad and to make sure that the applicants were aware of the report recommendations. And so right now, our development services project coordinators, who are who are the ones reviewing the actual project proposals on these sites, are working with applicants to follow the recommendations of that report. And Kevin, do you do you remember that specific form? Okay. So not sure if this.
Speaker 8: So I'd like to ask the applicant then. Given the fact that the parcel on the east side that does in fact abut railroad tracks and the concern has been specifically more about freight traffic on our rail lines that carry various types of hazardous materials and flammable liquid that could pose harm and risk to your tenants, whether they're going to be commercial tenants or a mix of commercial and residential tenants. This issue is something that we've been talking about for some time, and I would like to know, number one, what kind of conversations you're having with CPD around ensuring that protection of human life and property are part of that. Discussion.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I. When we purchased the property, we have existing buildings that sit on our eastern property border that serve as a protection. I mean, they're about 18 foot wall, no windows, no openings. There's some old dock doors that exist.
Speaker 8: But will they remain as part?
Speaker 6: And so when we had we had a deed restriction overlay with up over the property that we had to work with, up on a consensus that would provide safety to what we've developed in the future. And B, if we were to tear down those existing walls, what would happen? So if we tear down an existing wall that sits on our property, we're required to build a at least an eight foot wall that has certain specs that we've negotiated with up. That's a safety wall. We have deed restrictions against residential and hotel. So dwelling units that have to be a certain distance from the property line on the eastern border. So almost a third of our site that fronts the eastern side. We cannot have a residential dwelling unit. We cannot do schools, parks. There's there's certain restrictions that we can't do that basically would would put the public at harm's way, what we can do, our parking structures, other commercial uses. But we would have to adhere to the restrictions that we've worked with U.P. on regarding safety. And we've shared those with with the city and planning and then working with them based on those guidelines.
Speaker 8: So I'm really pleased to hear that you all are taking those precautions because I think you're the first actual applicant that, when I've been asking this question, actually has taken some steps or have already had those steps in place because of, as you're saying, there's a covenant on the property. Right. So let me move onto my next couple of questions. Given the fact that this is a 17 acre site, I heard a 10% commitment to open space. Is there an expectation that that would be open space that is maintained by the developer on the project? Or has there been discussion about turning that parcel over to the city to maintain at some point in time in the future?
Speaker 6: No, that'll be maintained by the the developer. We've got a metro district in place, a significant part of our public investments going to be plazas and open space and a combination thereof.
Speaker 8: And will that site also serve a dual purpose of also including your own storm drainage onsite.
Speaker 6: Do you know.
Speaker 3: How?
Speaker 8: Because we've been told anything over an acre has to provide their own onsite storm drainage. And so I'd like to hear what that what those discussions are including.
Speaker 7: I'll let Kevin add anything that he'd like to add about the specific review that they're in right now with development services about drainage. But I can't speak to the contents of the development agreement with regard to open space and drainage, which says that drainage areas can count as required open space if certain conditions are are met. And that is primarily that the drainage system itself has been completely under grounded and that the on the surface it's a publicly accessible, unimproved area. Do you have anything to add, Kevin about? Your drainage plan right now?
Speaker 6: You know, I think we're we're in design right now on what the drainage plan will be. But as it relates to what can be used as public space, there's there's real definitive requirements of what constitutes public space and accessible space that we've worked with the city on. And it'd be challenging to have our our detention serve really as the open space requirement. And truthfully, that is such a big part of what we're trying to accomplish with the project is the public space. That's a big part of why we went with the Metro District that, you know, I think we will have a minimum of ten. But we you know, that's not what we're shooting for necessarily.
Speaker 8: Do you have plans for any affordable housing on the site?
Speaker 6: We do. We are working with a group called Artspace that would provide something north of 100 units. There's somewhere between 100, 250 units. They have another Y with us. We've been working with them for about two years now. They are going to go through for their funding in January, but they've been actively working through that.
Speaker 8: Low tech funding. Pardon me, low income tax credits.
Speaker 6: So we've been working with them as being part of our initial phase for the project since it's been a little over a year, almost two years now.
Speaker 8: So. You're with Westfield. Can you just speak to a couple of other projects you've done in the Denver area?
Speaker 6: Yeah, we've we've been a we're basically a Denver based development company. I've been in Denver for 20 to 30 years. We've done a mix of projects, quite a few in Denver, but in other municipalities as well. We've been really heavy in office development over the years. The PRI, the largest office building we've done is at 18th, and Larimer, the Xcel building. In addition to that, we've got a mix of strategic infill sites similar to this site here. We've got a for sale condo project at the other end of the neighborhood under construction now that we purchased from D.H. and that's 100 for sale condos that are going to deliver here in the next year.
Speaker 8: So so I guess I'm asking that question because I was trying to. You know, get a feel for whether or not you plan to build on this site or zone it and turn around and sell it and have somebody else build on it.
Speaker 6: I mean, we're moving our office to the site on the east side. So this is something we plan to be involved with for a long time.
Speaker 8: All right. And I just have one last question, Mr. President, pro tem on page 20 of the PowerPoint, the map. I was trying to understand where on the map above you could maybe pull that up. To see where this particular site is in correlation to that particular map.
Speaker 7: Sure. And, you know, I apologize. This is a relatively complicated map. The. This is the map you're referring to. Yes, that's one. Yes. The site is here. Can you see that? Yeah. And so the height amendments, the adopted Hyde amendments designate that with an eight storey maximum base height and that orange color goes with a 12 storey maximum incentive height. And the planning amendments are very specific about map amendment applications and say that until specific tools are developed to allow for the incentive heights by requiring affordable housing and the higher design quality that it's only appropriate to request a rezoning to the maximum base height, which is eight storeys. And that's consistent with this request.
Speaker 8: Okay. So the I am x five. Was that done when the citywide rezoning happened or was that done at a later time?
Speaker 7: I believe it was in the 2010 rezoning.
Speaker 8: Okay. And so at that time, it was envisioned that generally five storeys in that area would be sufficient. And it looks like since then, the TOD site in particular is being identified for higher densities. Is that.
Speaker 7: That's correct. I would say that the vision over time, even over the last ten years, has been for greater and greater density. And I think partly, you know, from what I know about the previous planning conversations, it was partly that there. It was hard to imagine what could happen in this area. And now that everybody sees it beginning to happen, I think there's more excitement and it's more real and there's been a more real conversation about it. Certainly with the Hyde Amendment conversation last year about what really could happen.
Speaker 8: So along this quarter, what is the maximum height at this point, notwithstanding the discussion we just had about the potential for anybody that would be, you know, with the incentives for them to build higher.
Speaker 7: So you mean under existing zoning? What is the tallest entitlement along the corridor right now? There actually is an area that has existing entitlement that is not completely consistent with the the vision set forth on this map that has CMCs 12 zoning now. So that would be a 12 storey maximum height.
Speaker 8: Is that the old Tanaka property?
Speaker 7: No, actually, it's it's closer to the proposed map amendment site we're looking at tonight. I believe it's at approximately 36th and Brighton Boulevard there. There are several parcels that have 12 storey zoning.
Speaker 8: So the buildings are not there, but the zoning exists.
Speaker 7: Right. And I've done some research into that zoning and it looks like it's a transit translation of entitlement that goes quite a ways back. And so I wasn't able to trace it all the way back to the time when it was determined that those particular sites like the that the rezoning that allowed for that height there and it's just been carried forward and a series of rezoning since.
Speaker 8: Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you're.
Speaker 3: Probably in part where my colleague, Councilman Ortega, was going. There was some realization in looking during this presentation about one of my sort of concern, ongoing concerns about missed opportunity by granting an additional entitlement in supporting an additional entitlement through our zoning code. That said, I a I have I'm not trying to stymie what's going on here or anything like that, but I just want to have a real candid conversation with the developer about what they're proposing and in their thinking, because back in 2014, when the land was acquired, this map wasn't it was probably being discussed, but the height overlays and all that stuff weren't were probably probably factored into your acquisition decision making. I mean, there's a lot of other things that were going on Breton Boulevard redevelopment. So question for you, Kevin. Mr.. Mr.. McClintock. The. The. The current project that was discussed, what are the what's the total number of unit count? The total number of units that you think you're you're you're you're discussing right now.
Speaker 6: What exists out there today is 350,000 feet of vintage fifties warehouse.
Speaker 3: I know it's out there today. And what are you proposing with this?
Speaker 6: Part of our business plan is maintaining as much of the existing improvements as we can while mixing with with new construction as well. Part of what makes this part of Brighton Boulevard, specifically north of 38th, is different than what's happening south of 38th on Brighton Boulevard. This is truly an industrial corridor. Pepsi's across the street from US Fortrust Data Center is to our north. So turning our back to the industrial routes that we have on the site would would from our perspective be a mistake. We want to have a true mix of uses there. We want to ultimately end up with a package of amenities that not only are good for the project but serve the the neighborhoods as well. This is the largest assemblage, one of the largest assemblages outside the the urban core. And the opportunity to truly create a neighborhood exists at this site. And it's it's a responsibility we don't take lightly. And we've spent since our our acquisition and May of 14, with consultants like ours and others, an extensive amount of research in the neighborhood, what needs to exist. This is a project speaking to timing that isn't going to happen overnight. It's going to be a phased project. I think ultimately you'll start to see that those densities are warranted. They're not obviously all there today for the entirety of the site, but it is a it's an opportunity where you can take existing structures and this development cycle repurpose those. We think that after we get the infrastructure in, which is significant and that's why we had to have a metro district is a there's an opportunity to enhance the infrastructure that surrounded the site that would allow ultimately for the types of densities that the market will will support, I think, down the road. But again, this is this is going to be a this is a long term, long term project for us. When we purchased it in May of 14, the catalyst that we thought would drive development was National Western. And it will be a wonderful bookend for us on our project. But really with the 38th and Blake stop and with what the city is doing to Brighton Boulevard and their commitment to infrastructure, that's really what's sparking from our from our perspective, a lot of the development that's happening now on our end of Brighton Boulevard. So we've had to empty out a bunch of our existing tenants. We've got a couple that we hope to reintroduce to the project, but initially I think you're going to see a lot of the existing buildings repurposed and some new construction as as the market warrants.
Speaker 3: Okay. Let's take a different approach. You said that Artspace is looking at you know, you're partnering on a hundred units. Is that the entirety of the units that you've got, essentially, that you're even investigating and proposing? No, I.
Speaker 6: Think you know, I think ultimately, I mean, you can our metro district plan shows an ultimate what we think an ultimate build out could be. I think with art space, there are 100 to 150 units. I think from another residential perspective, we could support another 2 to 300. It'd be tough to get done in this cycle, but I think Art Spaces is a wonderful user for obviously their mission and what they can fulfill for the for the neighborhood. But it's also something that can get done in today's environment and today's capital constraints. So that'll be the initial residential piece. I think out of the 350,000 feet, we can keep about 100,000 feet that can be repurposed into retail or office. I think we'll have to wait till the market allows for some of the new construction we have planned. But, you know, I think ultimately we could have a million square feet of office on this site with the eight story zoning would allow for that. It would allow for about another 200,000 feet of retail ultimately, too.
Speaker 3: Perfect. Because you just answered essentially where our next question was. I still want to have couple more questions for you. But Abe, can you bring up that slide 20? Just so it's in the background. So the development rights the difference between AM three and what are we going to again.
Speaker 6: A five day.
Speaker 3: That is CMCs eight or I don't want to close. Well, I guess I have it up here now. So let me get IMX eight is only three additional stories and some additional feet in height. Significant feet in height actually. But. So. The. So there's not a big change. I mean, you probably could have easily developed IMX five comfortably certainly do. All you're talking about with repurposing the existing industrial buildings and adding some some additional residential probably not to the same density. You know, so we put in these height incentives, essentially hoping that somebody would take them, take advantage of them. But what you're talking about in the long term build out is comfortably captured in eight stories. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: The reason IMAX stops at eight. If we were to go to 12 stories, we could go to see IMAX. If you go from IMAX to see them, actually, you lose a lot of flexibility on industrial uses, which is a, you know, the soul of the neighborhood. So know we want to we want to cherish those uses and maintain the ability to have those uses. Artspace is planning an eight storey building. I mean, eight storeys is what they need to fulfill their program. So we think we've addressed a preserving the existing uses, but also B with eight stories. We're able to accommodate groups like Art Space. In a sense.
Speaker 3: The sort of genuine candor part that I'm looking for is because I do I appreciate and I recognize that IMAX is our most versatile, right. Zoning code. I mean, zone district, you know, it captures industrial, it captures residential, it captures commercial, it captures everything. And so it's pretty creative. And I appreciate everything that you're speaking to because that's you know, if you know me on council, that's sort of music to my ears as far as adaptive reuse and sort of letting a building or project sort of play itself out over time and not just wholesale scrape and replace with something that is alien. That said, one of the things that was, was that I was sort of coming to terms with once this slide went up, is the fact that the other portion of the parcel is I IAEA, which has fairly limited redevelopment opportunity the way I am X does. And you know, Abe, can you tell me what is the number of floors allowed in AIA in the height, maximum height.
Speaker 7: Yes, Councilman, there actually is no maximum height limit in the industrial purely industrial zone districts. There's a maximum floor area ratio of 2.0.
Speaker 3: But no residential component.
Speaker 7: And no residential uses.
Speaker 3: So one of the things that I missed when we did these height amendments was the large tracts of of of areas here that don't have eight storey entitlement that when we did those Max Heights, we now put we codified and it's consistent with plans. I get that the sort of latitude to to go up and not and go up to eight storeys, which is a sweet spot on the development scale. And and it's going to be very difficult for us to see people take advantage of that height incentive to go to 12 because that last four storeys is an expensive four storeys to add. Whereas if we had gone to IMX three or even IMX five and I am and given them eight story IMAX eight incentive, I think you'd see a lot more people sort of voluntarily complying between the linkage fee and whatnot. And so that's actually a question I have for you, Mr. Quinn McClinton. Do you actually again, I'm not trying to put you back in there. I want a real candid response from somebody who does this for a living. Right. If the city was trying to encourage private developers to come to. Take advantage of the incentive. Was the eight storey base zoning sufficient incentive? I mean, is 12 story going from 8 to 12 a sufficient incentive that that or would it was there actually a lower sweet spot that would have made more sense for to get private developers on board?
Speaker 6: From a cost perspective, if you're looking at a residential building, for example, apartments you see or five stories, once you go over five, you can't use that construction. And so there's an incremental cost to get to eight. There isn't a necessarily an incremental cost to go from 8 to 12.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 6: Obviously, where land values are in that neighborhood, you're going to see folks going to 12 stories there. I think from my my perspective, I think the city and the neighborhoods is doing the right thing, incentivizing with affordable housing and street activation and the other elements that a developer would be required to do to go to 12. I mean, we're not required to even have the affordable housing component within our plan at all. It's it's something that's right to do there. Wonderful fit for our project. And that's why we're committed to work with them on it. We're not doing it to go from five our existing 5 to 8 where costs are in today's environment, we need the incremental density when the market warrants it to support our project. Costs are really what's driving where both land, but then construction costs are driving where folks need to go on their densities to make their projects, you know, viable.
Speaker 3: So actually so sort of what I was talking about is in there, right, which is if there was an AM X three zone district, which, you know, you could still do a 75 foot building with mezzanine and five stories for all intents and purposes. But if you were somehow limited to three stories and you could go to five, that's an easy sort of leap for a developer to go with from 3 to 5 in. But now what we're talking about with like tech tax credits and things like that to go from 5 to 8 and do it affordably. I mean, to make your numbers work, it's you're now asking for a third party to go get tax money. I mean, tax credits to to not even take advantage of the maximum height number of stories we're allowing, but the maximum to date, which is the eight. You know, I mean.
Speaker 6: For art space, specifically, they make their program work with 100 units. So the way they're building lays out it's it fits in eight stories. That's what they're doing around the country. Yeah. So I couldn't speak to others. I think if you if you had three stories zoning in place, people couldn't do residential. I mean, you just can't make residential work in three stories. And you don't want you don't want if you want a mixed use project in a great, you know, viable commuter rail stop, you're going to need residential.
Speaker 3: Trust me, I wish that were the case because I've said it before, that West End project over there, North, you know, on Route Rock, Mount Square across from the corner of Oak Park is two stories on top of on top of a tuck under parking, you know, in a sea of X 20 zone district. And it drives me crazy, but. So. Okay. I appreciate that. I just. I didn't realize. The difficulty that I had with Slide 20 during this presentation was, is, is that going to aid is not much of incentive for that vast of an area. Eventually, yes, you're I think you're right that the city's making enough investment. If the if we come along with additional investment into your projects and others to compel affordable housing and make it worthwhile to go above those, we'll start to see those come up. But, you know, getting voluntary. The developers to voluntarily do affordability. You know wasn't that that's this incentive doesn't get us there it's still additional public money in public investment that's going to compel people to sort of take advantage of those incentives today anyway. Hopefully the market changes and continues to improve the way it does. So thank you very much for your candor. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman. That's another. See no other questions. Public hearing on accountability for 35 and for 36 is now closed. Comments on either or both. Bills from council. I feel as if we kind of bled a little into that. Councilman Cashman. Europe, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank the.
Speaker 6: Developer for.
Speaker 4: Taking a fairly aggressive stance.
Speaker 6: At contributing to the needs for affordable.
Speaker 4: Housing in Denver. I'm really.
Speaker 6: Excited about our space and will look.
Speaker 4: Forward to seeing this.
Speaker 6: Build out.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. So this used to be part of my district, and when I left city council in 2003, that just shows you how fast. When Blueprint Denver was adopted, this was envisioned to be the new growth area for the city. And to see how quickly that development has taken place is just it's it's amazing. It's moved way faster than the central the build out of the Central Platte Valley was built out. So I just also want to give my extend my appreciation to the developer, number one, for doing the rezoning and actually planning to build on the site. We've had a number of developers who come in. They do the request for the rezoning and they turn around and flip the land. And then when we start talking about trying to get affordable housing, we just screwed ourselves by not really figuring out how to make sure that we're we're truly doing that and utilizing the incentive for the significant increase in in densities that we've been doing in various locations. So to to hear your commitment to, number one, addressing proximity to rail. I appreciate that. And your commitment to addressing affordability is so important to this city and to the people who actually made the Reno corridor, what it was that begin to attract the investment. Besides the city investment, obviously, which was really important for for everybody, I mean, it's kind of what we did in the valley where the city took the viaducts down, you know, put the access at the floor of the valley, built the parks, and then the developers came and started started building. So I think this is going to be a good project and just appreciate all your efforts. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, in the comments, 435 or 436. CNN just reminded our council members who are going to vote on both bills separately. Currently, we have 435 on the floor. Once that is voted on, I'll ask Councilman Cashman to put forth 36 and we will vote on that separately. All right. First vote is on 435. So you know the comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: Black, I. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Cashman.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: Lopez New Ortega. Susman Mr. President.
Speaker 4: I am secretary. Please close the voting results.
Speaker 2: Uh. Let's see.
Speaker 4: He was missing mine. Uh.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 4: There we go.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes.
Speaker 4: Ten eyes for 35 has passed. Councilman Cashman said We please put council bill for 36 on the floor for final consideration and do pass. Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 436 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4201, 4203, 4211 & 4221 Brighton Blvd. in Elyria Swansea.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 4201, 4203, 4211 and 4221 Brighton Boulevard from I-A, UO-2 to I-MX-8, UO-2 (industrial to industrial, mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-25-17.