Welcome back to this weekly meeting of the Community Planning and Housing Committee with Denver City Council.

Your community planning and housing committee starts now.

Those days.

To the community planning and housing committee of Denver City Council.

Oh.

We have a little bit of an echo.

Usually when Heinz speaks, it goes away, but he's not here.

Today is March 3rd, which means my daughter's turning eight on Friday.

Aww.

And I think we have hopefully a couple of members online, but we'll start with introductions in the room.

We've got three action items today, so it'll be a quick day.

I'm Sarah Parity, your council member at large and committee chair, and I will start on my right.

Jamie Torres, West Denver District 3.

And do we have we have a couple of folks who may be online?

So I'll just give them a minute.

Good afternoon.

Oh, go ahead, Councilman.

Yeah, it's like here I'll be able to do that.

Okay, okay.

Well then with that, um our first item up is a rezoning at 3601 North Monaco Street.

And we have Joe Green from CPD here to present.

Thank you very much.

My name is Joe Green in Community Planning and Development.

This is another application that staff is recommending denial on and planning board unanimously recommended approval.

So we'll walk through that.

They are currently doing uh documents of deliberation, but they're approving those tomorrow, so you don't have those in front of you.

But I have a draft, so I'll try to talk through some of that while I want to.

I'm gonna unorthodoxly pause you because it sounds like we do have a couple of numbers online.

So I just want to make sure that we can see and hear them.

Um Council President and Councilmember Flynn, I think, are both on there.

If you guys can hear us, please introduce yourselves.

And I will also introduce Council Pro Tempo, just went to the bathroom.

We can hear you, thank you.

We were on from the start, but there was some weird connection.

Um can't hear you.

You're very quiet.

Can you hear me, Councilmember Flynn?

No, I think it I think it's on the producer side.

Much better.

Here we go.

Okay, it's on the producer side.

Sorry, Madam Chair.

We've been here since the start.

We both tried to start at the same time.

Uh Council President Sanova Mandisandville, Northwest Denver District 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for research.

Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver's District 2, and I've been here all week.

Just saying out on the council zoom.

All right, all right.

Um, that's a very full committee, and thank you, Joe, for giving us a minute.

Back to you.

Okay, cool.

So I'll jump in.

Um starting with the actual request that the applicant is pursuing, and then give a little bit more context about the location, walk through the process of thus far, and then walk through the critics here again.

So the property is currently vacant.

It's just over 6,000 square feet.

They're requesting to go from E S U D X to E T-U-C.

So that's an urban edge district single unit, meaning it only allows an urban house or a suburban house.

Presentation.

Um, yeah.

I'm sorry, those slides are not showing on the screen.

It's better.

There we go.

I was picking up and down, Joe.

Put them on my computer in my own.

You know what?

There's a full moon, you guys.

There we go.

All right, we're gonna try again.

Uh so they're requested to go from E S U D X to E T U C.

Uh the property is vacant, just over 6,000 square feet.

So that is an urban edge district that is single unit, meaning it only allows an urban house or a suburban house.

And the D signifies that it has a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet.

Um they're proposing to go to a two-unit district, also in the urban edge neighborhood context.

That would allow them to build a duplex or a tandem house, also with detached accessory dwelling units, and the minimum lot size drops by 500 square feet down to 5,500 square feet.

It is along a parkway, so there's a 20-foot setback all along Monaco.

Um that would apply to their current zoning or the proposed zoning.

So getting into the context of the location.

It's in Council District 8, Councilmember Lewis's district.

It's in the Northeast Park Hill neighborhood.

Um as I said, the request.

The existing zoning is single unit DX.

It's completely surrounded by E S U D X.

There is IMX3 zoning just a block to the north.

So though it's single unit um zoning, there's quite a bit of duplexes and multi-unit on this block and across the street.

There's about eight duplexes on the block.

To the west, there's a multi-unit building.

The east there's a multi-unit building.

And just to the south, there's a single unit building.

So pretty diverse actual built environment.

Here's a picture of the vacant lot and the single unit house to the south, and then some pictures of some of those multi-unit buildings.

So getting into the process, it was submitted.

The application was submitted back in September.

We went to Planning Board in February.

We're here today at the committee.

There's been yard signs posted since September 18th, and then the planning board was noticed in early February.

So the applicant does have a letter of support from the Northeast Park Hill coalition.

Staff has received no other comments, but the applicant did do kind of door-to-door outreach specifically to the nearby neighbors.

She had a form that said, you know, check yes if you support, check no if you don't support, and had them sign it just to largely make sure they've were noticed about the application.

Two neighbors said they supported it, one neighbor said they did not, and then several of the other neighbors just didn't respond.

As I said, planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval.

They noted that the Parkhill neighborhood plan does support the rezoning and that it meets Blueprint Denver's guidance about how to apply residential low guidance.

When I get into the review criteria, I'll talk a little bit more about where they disagreed with us.

So getting into that review criteria.

As you know, these are the three review criteria found in the Denver zoning code.

We'll start with the consistency with adopted plans.

There are two more recent plans that are citywide, Comp Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, and then we have an old neighborhood plan from 2000.

So at the citywide scale, there's plenty of policies and comprehensive plan 2040 that supports a mix of housing types, promoting in-fill development where we already have infrastructure, and again more housing types in every neighborhood.

So generally we'd find it to be consistent with Comp Plan 2040.

Looking at Blueprint Denver, it designates the area as urban edge.

So it talks about low scale, single and two unit residential, and that it should promote and protect residential neighborhoods.

Generally, a two-unit district fits well with this guidance.

It designates it as a residential low future place, talking about single and two-unit uses on small or medium lots and duplexes can be thoughtfully integrated where compatible.

Generally, we'd say it meets this guidance.

But Blueprint Denver is very, very specific about how to apply that residential low guidance to proposed rezoning, so it says that two unit uses are not appropriate in all areas.

So I'll read this almost verbatim just because it's important.

But when a rezoning request is made to change the zoning to allow two unit uses, the appropriateness of the request depends upon adopted small area plan guidance, neighborhood input, and the existing zoning patterns.

So a departure from the established zoning pattern may be appropriate if the intent is to set a new pattern for the area, as expressed by an adopted small area plan, or significant neighborhood input.

So that kind of leads us to three questions.

So the first is what is the existing zoning pattern?

When we look at it and we see ESUDX surrounded by ESUDX.

And that's the current zoning, and the what we'd say was the existing zoning pattern.

So this rezoning would be a departure from the existing zoning pattern, which leads us to two more questions.

So first, does the neighborhood plan state an intent to set a new pattern for the area?

The neighborhood plan, which we'll talk a little bit more in a minute, does talk about a compatible mix of housing types and densities.

There's kind of three areas where it talks about that.

But then it also talks about initiating zoning amendments and policies to protect the single family character in Park Hill.

So generally we don't think that the mix of housing type language is specific enough to set a new intent to state an intent to set a new pattern in the area.

And it does talk about protecting single family character.

So then the next question is there are enough neighborhood input to show an intent to set a new neighborhood pattern or a zoning pattern in the neighborhood.

They do have a letter of support from the Northeast Park Hill Coalition.

The applicant has gone to door to door like I described.

We've received no other comments.

So generally we don't think this is enough to show that the neighborhood would like a different type of zoning in this area.

So we don't find it meets this Blueprint Denver guidance about how to apply residential low future place types.

Getting into the Park Hill neighborhood plan in a little bit more detail there.

These are the some of the goals that I talked about.

And talks about how Park Hill displays a diverse urban fabric currently.

It talks about maintaining that the existing integrity of the residential character, assuring that continued growth results in a compatible compatible mix of housing types and densities, maintaining the mix of housing types and sizes, and then that language about protecting the single family residential character in Park Hill.

So generally speaking, again, we don't think this language is specific enough to change the pattern in the area.

And a lot of this language was implemented in the 2010 rezoning.

If you kind of scale out on the zoning map, there's lots of areas that are two-unit, lots of mixed-use areas, lots of multi-unit areas, all within a pretty close area in the Northeast Park Hill neighborhood.

So while they're not all integrated, it does maintain the residential character that's there and allow for a mix of housing types in the neighborhood.

And then it did then rezone this area from R2 to single unit DX.

This area was R2 before 2010, which would have allowed a duplexes.

I thought that this language does meet Blueprint Denver's kind of criteria for how to apply residential guidance.

It does talk about the diverse urban fabric, maintaining a mix of housing types, and where it says protect the single family residential character in Park Hill.

It also has the sentence below it talking about specifically extending R2 zoning to R3 areas, so basically downzoning from R3 and specifically mentions downzoning from R5 to R3.

So they thought that this indicated that R2 uses like duplexes kind of fit within that plan's guidance of what single family residential character meant.

So that's one of the big places they disagreed with us.

Moving into the other criterion, the next one's public interest.

This rezoning could further their public interest by facilitating additional housing options.

But Blueprint Deborah recommends we implement this type of housing in a more holistic approach that considers affordability and neighborhood compatibility.

So on balance, we think it doesn't further the public interest.

And then because the zone district itself, that two-unit zone district specifically talks about two-unit zone districts, and that doesn't match with the blueprint Denver guidance that we went over.

We don't think it meets this criteria either.

So we recommend denial based on finding that the review criteria haven't been met.

I'm available for questions.

The applicant's name is Beth.

She is here for questions.

Okay.

I want to welcome Councilmember Alvidres.

Um and just give Councilmember Lewis the option of being first in Q because it's our district.

Okay.

Um just as a courtesy.

In that case, I have Councilmember Sawyer followed by Council Mr Torres.

Great.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks for this.

Um this one is a little bit different than the last one that we got that planning board disagreed with you on.

It's just so rare that we see a planning board denial that comes through, and we've had two this month or since February 15th.

This is crazy.

Both in your district, congrats.

Accepting all certificates.

So you explain to me how the zoning map does not match the existing conditions based on the change in 2010.

Yeah.

Um that I have so many questions about why it ended up getting zoned the way it did in 2010, but that was you know a long time ago.

So we're gonna just move on from that.

Um, but I am a little bit kind of confused based on the conversations that happened around the Park Hill Golf course and the small area plan.

Is it possible to kind of, since this is so close to that, take some of those conversations and think through the community sentiment in that way?

I mean, because the community made it pretty clear that they were interested in additional housing options during that process.

Um I'm just like, did you think did you guys think about that in terms of as you were thinking through the criteria?

Um that did not come up in my kind of research, I guess.

I don't know, Liz, if you know anything more about the Park Hill plan that you'd be able to speak to.

Well, Liz Michael, also a CPD.

Um, that's a good uh topic to bring up.

I would say uh the Park Hill Um plan did not apply this far over.

Um like the the area that it applied to was really the former golf course.

Um, but it is a an interest interesting perspective.

We have talked about that, but the next MPI plan is just getting started, and it's a very it's an opportunity to revisit this discussion that is from 2000, so it's a long time ago.

Um, but that that that opportunity is coming.

We didn't really think about applying kind of guidance that wasn't for this specific part of the neighborhood um with this rezoning.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna have to think through that one a little bit more when we get to the floor, I think, because I feel like I can see both ways on that one for sure.

Um so then, in terms of the criteria and blueprint that there cannot be a spot rezoning, even though the like actual on the ground like built form doesn't match the zoning based on the change made in 2010.

Um does this count as a spot rezoning?

Like because everything around it is the SUDX, so it seems like it is a spot rezoning.

I think as as long as it meets the rezoning criteria, then it wouldn't be considered a spot rezoning.

I don't know if it's not.

Well, you feel like it doesn't, so then it is a spot rezoning.

I think the the um the guidance, I don't know if you bring up the blueprint guidance, the like we're pointing to is that it talks about a new pattern for the area, so it's not about an individual site necessarily, but that there has been a discussion with neighborhood input or an adopted area plan that's about a new pattern that's common like an individual rezoning um is not necessarily a new pattern or our support for an individual rezoning doesn't necessarily mean the neighborhood is ready for a new pattern in the area.

So um that's kind of where we see it not quite matching up with this guy.

This is a tough one, Liz.

Yes, not these have not been easy for us.

Yeah, I bet.

Okay.

Um I really appreciate that.

I'm gonna have to think through this a little bit more.

I do think it's ready to go to the floor.

Um I just I don't know.

I'm gonna have to think through that one.

Thanks.

Okay.

Uh Councilmember Torres next in Q file, follow by Councilmember Albidas.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joe.

Um, I think the one thing for me that was different with the last one was that the neighborhood plan said specifically um low residential meant single family homes.

Um this one I think is um where I'm getting a little tripped up that it feels like the neighborhood plan is a little bit more broad than that.

Um can you help me?

I'm in the zoning code um section.

Um on the building forms allowed in uh uh TU.

It lists um tandem homes with a circle rather than a square.

Um, and the circle icon means tandem home building form allowed subject to exception stated in another section.

Um, etc.

Can you help me understand are are they allowed to build a tandem home now on this property?

They are not.

There's exceptions that it points to, or basically it has to have an existing structure, so this is a vacant one.

Oh, right.

Um that structure needs to be built before I think 1955.

So there are some exceptions, but this wouldn't be.

Okay, why?

So the goal of the rezoning is to either build a duplex on the property or tandem homes.

Yeah.

Okay, okay.

Um I don't think I have other questions.

Yeah, I'm good.

Thank you.

You can always get back.

Um, although we do have three items today.

Council Rolls followed by Councilmore Lewis.

Thank you.

Um my question is just was it the applicant that decided on the rezoned um zoning?

Because why wouldn't you all consider the RU zoning that the plan calls for?

Yeah.

So the the R2 zoning in the code, but I references from chapter 59.

So it's just the old code.

So um where it talks about the neighborhood plan, land use zoning, this R3 R2 criteria that is no longer compatible with our current zoning.

That's right.

Okay.

Yeah, what am I saying?

That's all I have.

Thank you, county here.

Yeah, thank you.

Councilmore Lewis.

So I guess I'm curious as to what would exist for you all to establish to make you believe that it would qualify as establishing a new pattern, particularly in that area where there's tons of duplexes.

And those like those specific blocks between like 35th in Monaco and 38th in Monaco is where you'll find the majority of duplexes.

And this is a vacant lot.

And so I'm not quite sure why it would not be it.

I don't understand why it'd be establishing a new pattern, but I don't understand how this doesn't fit into the current pattern because they're duplexes in that area.

Yep.

Totally hear you.

The when we read Blueprint Denver, it just specifically says the existing zoning pattern.

And like the lot size rezoning, the last one we had where he wanted a lower minimum lot size.

That specifically says look at the current development that's there.

Whereas this one references just the zoning pattern.

So we're not looking at like the existing built environment, which is clearly a lot of duplexes, which is looking at the existing zoning pattern, which is just that ESUDX.

Um and the types of things where we've recommended approval are generally where there's an area plan stating very specifically that we should change the pattern.

Like the Illarious Swansea neighborhood plan has language that talks it.

It's like single family duplex land use designation, which very clearly says they don't this should be something different.

Um Westwood neighborhood plan had that same kind of two-unit language.

So that's generally when we're recommending approval.

Okay.

For the I know you all said blueprint, but there is a neighborhood plan.

And so how does that square with the neighborhood plan?

Yeah, fair.

Um generally just there, again, there is all that language about a mix of housing types and mix of densities.

Um it just doesn't say like those other plans, how that density should be achieved.

Um and since there is so much different types of zoning already in the neighborhood in a relatively small area in 2010, there were pockets that were rezoned to two unit, just a couple blocks to the west, a couple blocks to the east, there's multi-unit, there's IMX zoning, which would allow multi-unit residential to the north.

We just feel like that plan guidance is already being met by the current zoning.

And the language about protecting the single family neighborhood character or I guess applying to the zoning.

Even if that's not what we see in real time.

Yeah.

Okay.

Council members.

I'm sorry.

Council Member Lewis, sorry, do you have a few more or are you gonna know?

Okay, cool.

Councilmember Sawyer wanted to get back in, and I also have questions that I'm trying to keep us ticking because we can.

Yeah, no, I'll go fast.

Um curious about why if this is a vacant land, they don't just lot slit.

Um it's a relatively small lot, and for those but it's big enough to lot split, isn't it?

We'd have to go to USUA, I think it's like just over 6,000 square feet, so we'd be looking for a minimum lot size of 3,000 or so.

Um so we need to go to USUA and the guidance from Blueprint would direct us to look for similar uses um and similar lot sizes in the existing blocks.

So we didn't analyze that for USUA, we would do a lot size analysis to see if there were um USUA sized lots in the surrounding blocks, like we did with Verbenia not too long ago.

Um so that we haven't done that analysis, so I don't know what that would result in.

Okay, but clearly just talking off the top of your head, it's not as straightforward as they could just do a lot slit.

It's not okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I don't see council president or councilmember Flynn trying to get in, although um, if they raise their hands online producer, please let me know.

So I will ask a couple questions.

I think um, I mean, just to state the obvious here, we're dealing with um outdated or not outdated, but old plans, right?

And so we don't have a recent um neighborhood plan to go off of.

Um we don't have more recent thinking, and so we're sort of looking for these nuggets in our like very big overarching plans.

Um, and and our if our goalpost is just consistency, meaning like not totally violating them.

This is a lawyerly uh way we could define consistency.

Um I think there's enough in here that I um will be comfortable with this both here and on the floor.

Um, and in particular, I'm persuaded like planning board was that um part of single family residential, a duplex is a single family home.

It's an attached one, right?

And so the context of what what the plan is trying to talk about, what it meant references single family residential character matters.

And here in um LZ5, where it talks about moving R3 to R2 to attain single family character, that tells me that it's in considering duplexes to be single family.

And so I think that that's enough for consistency with plans, along with all of the other considerations around having a mix of housing types and densities that are attractive and affordable to a diversity of ages incomes.

If we're only building single family, we are absolutely not building things that are attractable and affordable to a diversity of ages because housing has gotten way more expensive in the city.

So I mean way more since these plans were all written.

And so if we care about affordability, um, and if we're seeing single family um from context inclusive of duplexes, um, I absolutely think this is consistent with plans and then the other two considerations.

I think this is the right thing to do.

So that's my question.

Sorry.

I guess I didn't have one really.

Um, other than whether you have any different if you have any thoughts about that um context around talking about single family, and that a way to accomplish single family was to change at the time R3 to R2.

Am I reading that correctly as far as you can?

I don't have any more context about that, I don't think.

Okay.

Um let me just see if anyone else is in the queue for questions.

Um I don't see anyone moved.

Randy give everyone all right.

So moved by Lewis, seconded by Sawyer.

Thumbs up.

Um our online folks, I just want to make sure that we're getting their things here if possible.

I'll try to have them type.

Um, Sandoval's on the committee.

Okay, she says thumbs up.

All right, um, we'll see you on the floor.

Thank you so much.

And thanks to the applicant for being here as well.

Right.

And with that, I guess we're getting to that spot where there's not very many easily developable parcels left.

Um sorry, guys, let's take a little second and talk while we're here.

All right.

Next we have 2625 East Third Av with Will Prince.

Thank you, Will.

Uh good afternoon, Council.

Uh, my name is Will Prince.

I'll be presenting 2625 East Third Avenue, a request from CCN with conditions to CCCN4.

Uh today I'll go over the request, the location and context, the process, and the review criteria.

Again, this property is uh former Chapter 59 zoning and is just under 19,000 square feet, and it's currently office and retail.

And the request is rezoned to redevelop as a mixed use and condo uh housing at this site.

As for the location and context, this is located in Council District 5 with Council Member Sawyer, and is located in the Cherry Creek neighborhood.

As for the existing zoning, again, this is CCN with conditions, uh, former Chapter 59, and the surrounding areas uh nearby is CCN4 uh along third, as well as some other CCN zone districts, as well as CMX 5 and 8 and uh GRH3 to the north.

Uh in addition to the zoning, there is a view plan that is uh applied to this site, but uh from Cranmer Park, but with the four-story zoning, it does not impact uh the situation here.

As for the existing land use, uh, this site again is commercial retail, which is a uh majority of Third Avenue.

There's also multi-unit uh office and mixed use within this uh Cherry Creek neighborhood.

As for the building form and scale, you can see the subject property here on the lower right, uh, about a two-story uh commercial property.

And then we have uh varying sizes, but one story, it's a two two to three-story commercial further down third, as well as some of the residential uh two and a half story buildings to the north.

Moving on to the process, uh this received its informational notice in November, um, was heard at the planning board at the beginning of last month and was uh properly noticed and had received unanimous approval.

We're here today at the uh committee, and we are tentative for April 13th uh for public hearing.

Uh as for public comments today, we've received one RO letter of support from the C CNA.

Uh five comments in opposition stating concerns of height, traffic, and buffering, um, of which two comments were from the same individual.

And then also four comments and support.

Uh continuing to the review criteria.

We'll review each of these individually, starting with consistency with adopted plans.

Uh, there are three plans for this, including conference and plan 2040, and there are several visions that help um implement this plan and the proposed rezoning will enable a mix enable a mixed-use development at an infill location where infrastructure is in place and will allow for additional housing units as well as commercial opportunities to improve the vibrancy and economic quality of the commercial corridor and surrounding neighborhood.

Uh in particular, uh there are several visions, including vision two, strong authentic strong and authentic neighborhoods.

Two goals in particular.

Uh goal one, create a city of complete neighborhoods, and goal two, enhance Denver's neighborhoods through high quality urban design.

Vision three related to connected safe and accessible places, highlighting goal three to maximize the public right-of-way to create great great places.

Vision four, economically diverse and vibrant.

In particular, goal one to ensure mobility and improve access to opportunity.

And goal uh vision five, environmentally resilient, in particular goal eight clean our soils, conserve land, and grow responsibly, looking at infill construction.

So that summarizes comprehend plan 2040, moving on to Blueprint Denver.

This site has been identified as urban center for neighborhood context, which is a high intensity of residential and significant employment areas.

The mix of uses and good street activation and connectivity.

Continuing on to future place is identified as community center, which has a mix of office and commercial residential uses, uh wide draw of customers locally and surrounding areas.

Buildings are larger in scale than local centers and or into the street with public spaces.

There's a strong degree of urbanism throughout the streetscape in the public realm.

Heights in Future Place are generally up to 12 stories, but we'll um review the neighborhood plan where there is more guidance on height and future street type.

Uh, East Third is a main street collector and Clayton, a local street.

And then additionally with Blueprint Denver, the growth strategy, this is identified as community center and corridor, which we anticipate 20% of jobs and 25% of housing by 2040.

And there are several additional blueprint policies that help implement this plan through this rezoning, including to promote plan growth in our centers and corridors with policy one, and then uh in particular policy three, ensure the Denver zoning code continues to respond to the needs of the city while remaining modern and flexible, with strategy A highlighted here to rezone properties from former Chapter 59 from our housing policies to capture 80% of new housing growth in regional centers and community centers and corridors.

And then lastly, a related to design quality and preservation, create exceptional design outcomes and see and key centers and corridors.

Moving on to the Cherry Creek area plan.

This was adopted in 2012.

Um is identified as areas of change, and then also the Creek shopping district sub-area, and within that sub-area, um there are two goals that uh are related to this rezoning to goal two, make reinvestment in economically viable in the entire district, and also goal four four transition from higher buildings along second to lower buildings along third.

In addition, there is also a future land uh land use map, which identifies this as town center, which is a mix of uses from residential, commercial, office, and hospitality.

And with this plan, we also have a maximum building height up to four stories, which is consistent with the request for sort for a C C C N four.

Um so with that, we find this rezoning meets the consistency with adaptive plans.

Uh the remainder of the criteria, public interest.

This will improve uh public interest for all Denver rights through improving uh commercial opportunities and additional housing.

And lastly, consistency with neighborhood context, zone district and purpose intent, it will meet all the regulations related to C C C N 4.

Um, and with that, uh based on the information provided today in the staff report, CPA CPD recommends forwarding the application to the full city council, finding all criteria have been met.

Happy to answer any additional comments or questions, and the applicant is present here today.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, I have Council Member Sawyers for district, first and queue.

Thank you.

Um so the current zoning has a waiver on it.

Can you talk a little bit about that?

So it's not a waiver, it's a condition.

And it's like based on the current zoning, it's not associated with the land particularly.

Um, the um the main thing here is that the to the north property line that it there be a buffer.

Um, and so that is associated just primarily with the current zoning as a condition, not a waiver.

So, question for you guys then.

Um, based on the existing condition on the land under the new zoning, you won't have that condition anymore or a waiver of any kind.

So, have you had conversations with the community or the neighborhood association?

Like, how do you how's that?

How'd you sort that out?

Yeah, thank you.

Uh Caitlin Quander, Land Youth Council for the Applicant.

Um, and uh with me, I have um Daniel Nichols with Nichols partnership with the applicant in case you have further questions, and online is Peter Wall to talk about community outreach, which might kind of dovetail with a little bit of that.

Um so as was described, current zoning has that CCN with conditions, and that was done in 2007 to allow the existing dance studio that's there to potentially expand into a performance venue.

That never was built or occurred, but when the area was rezoned in 2010 to the CCN4, because of the condition, it was not rezoned with all the other properties along third.

So it remained with that condition.

Um so the goal here is really to just bring it into compliance with the other CCN4 properties along that route.

You are right, the existing condition has a kind of this 29-foot um area that was intended to buffer from that dance studio or performance venue.

Um so in light of that, uh, we had kind of very robust conversations and did a lot of outreach with um particularly the neighborhood association and the direct neighbors nearby and have entered into a development agreement and community benefits agreement that's been signed.

I think it's included in the packet.

Um, and it includes a variety of mitigation, including in that um there is a setback in the CCN4.

Um and within that setback kind of enhanced landscaping, larger landscaping to provide kind of that additional buffer that some of the neighbors to the north would like to see.

Um some of the other uh conditions that were included in the development agreement includes some limitations around certain commercial uses.

The plan is to develop this for condominiums, but if it um kind of more around the commercial uses on the first floor, um, so that they're not intensive commercial uses, and then similarly, no um active patio uses to the north to again kind of mitigate any impacts to the neighbors to the north, so no kind of up upper story balconies.

And then there's a handful of different um coordination things related to construction and then continued communication as the plans for this project evolve and kind of continued presentations to the neighborhood association and other neighbors so they know what um what is being planned as it develops.

Awesome.

Yeah, thank you.

And then wait, don't go anywhere.

Um the um design review guidelines for Cherry Creek are very specific in this area because it's inside, it's actually one of the last properties that hasn't been rezoned into that's in the bid that hasn't been rezoned to the CCCN zoning because of this weird condition on the back.

Um so I'm just curious, like talk me through because there's row houses behind it, um, which is technically a protected district.

So talk me through the between the protected district zoning pieces and the um Cherry Creek design standards, which all involves the this thing, right?

The wedding cake thing that goes like it can get smaller towards the top.

Um, can you get four stories out of this even if it's zoned for?

How is that gonna yeah?

Thank you.

Um great point, because it is a protected district to the north, you will see a pretty significant step back and step down as you kind of wedding cake up as you describe, right?

So that you don't have a four-story building looking over a neighbor's backyard, right?

You really do have that step back, and off the top of my head, I can't maybe you know what it is.

I also cannot remember.

I'm not gonna judge you for that, Caitlin.

Um but uh along third, it would be possible to kind of go up to that height.

Um but you're right, we want to kind of create that step back distance when you go look and you look north.

So there'll be the requirement that that be.

Absolutely, it would be the CCN4, and then um the project itself will go through the design review board process as well, which is kind of a future step.

Awesome, great, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, I don't have anyone else in queue.

I did want to say, Councilmember Sawyer, that if you had any questions about the outreach piece for Peter Wall, he's promoted, so just um letting you know that as well.

Uh Harry's got a cold, so we're gonna leave him alone.

So nice.

All right, but no, I think Caitlin covered that outreach piece really well.

And yes, there's a letter from the neighborhood organization, there's a community benefits agreement, like they've dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's on this one.

So I don't have any questions.

Thank you.

Um just so making sure I'm locating that community benefit agreement.

Is it in the neighborhood letter?

No, it's separate, and it might be that I sent it to the den CC at Denvergov.org to be included in the hearing.

Okay, hold on, I will uh I will get it to you.

But it's signed and okay, everything.

So and I must have sent it to DENCCs.

Okay, okay.

Sorry, I'll look for it.

Thank you.

I'm good.

Okay.

Um, I'm just pausing because we have folks online.

Um not seeing anything from them.

Um, could I get a motion in a second?

No, I moved seconds.

Sawyer's second of vital, as I heard first.

Um thumbs up from everybody.

All right.

Um great.

See you on the floor.

Thanks, Will.

Thanks, guys.

All right.

And then third, we have a legislative rezoning.

We needed it.

That's so rare.

Check your team.

All right, people, get your wiggles out.

It's big regals.

All right.

Um next we have the legislative rezoning in the far southwest.

I think that's probably why our friend from District 2 has been hanging out with us for this meeting.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Um, thank you, Libby Glick with CPD, and I'll be doing the presentation for the Far Southwest legislative rezoning.

So we'll do the overview, the background, what the proposals for, the process, and then I'll go through the proposal by neighborhood, and then finally we'll go with the review criteria.

So uh the Far Southwest area plan was adopted by City Council in December of 2025, and it outlines the vision for the neighborhoods of Harvey Park, Harvey Park South, College View, South Platt, Bear Valley, Fort Logan, and Marston.

This is in Council District 2, and Councilmember Flynn is also the applicant for this rezoning.

So now we'll go through the proposal for this rezoning package.

Um, so it focuses on implementing key land use recommendations, including um complete community centers, so the corridors like Federal Evans, Sheridan and Wadsworth, making sure they have better design and connectivity to the neighborhoods, making sure the industrial districts still allow for those manufacturing uses and don't allow for any residential, and then making sure parks are easily accessible.

So again, this rezoning is separated into these kind of three buckets that are a part of the package.

So centers and corridors, the industrial districts, and then there's one park property.

So first I'll go over the proposal for the centers and corridors.

So for um Evans, Federal, and then the Sheridan Sheridan Shopping Center, which is up here at Sheridan and Jewel, and then the Bear Valley Shopping Center.

The proposal is to rezone those from old code mixed use districts, and then our SCC, our community core or commercial corridor districts, to the A series districts.

So suburban mixed use 3A and then suburban mixed use one property is 12A, and I'll get more into what the A means.

And then the proposal for Wadsworth down here, here, and then a couple properties up here is to go from mostly old code and then SCC3 to SMX3, so a three-story mixed use district.

So for the A series, kind of, and this is what most of the corridors and shopping areas will be going to this.

So currently you could do like what's on the left, like a drive-through setback with the drive aisle in between the street and the building.

You can even have parking in between the street and the building.

And under the A district, the drive-through building form is no longer allowed.

Um, as well as you can't have a parking lot in between the primary street and the building.

So the outcome is kind of more of what you see on the right.

You'd have to do the general or shop front forms.

Um and so now moving to the industrial piece.

Um, so these are just three areas between Jewel and Evans near the river, where they're currently zoned industrial mixed use, which allows for residential uses, and the guidance is value manufacturing, which is um where no residential is compatible.

And so this would be rezoning these properties to a light industrial district that would not allow for any new residential uses, just to make sure these these areas are preserved for manufacturing and warehousing uses.

And then the last piece is just this little park that's at Union, it's the Union and Dudley Park, and it currently has single unit zoning, and so rezoning it to our OSA, which is our public park and open space zone district.

So now I'll go through the process.

Um so this was complete at the end of the year, so just end of December, and went to planning board in early February, and we're here before you today, and it should go to City Council in mid-April.

Um at Planning Board on February 4th, the board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning.

We did have several property owners speak in opposition to the rezoning.

I think you know when you have businesses and the city's rezoning, there's a lot of concerns over how that might impact their business.

So there were some that were worried they wouldn't be able to continue.

Um so we did speak to them afterwards to kind of explain the compliant uses and how everything can remain the same, they can continue operating as they exist today.

Um and then there were also two property owners who are in the College View neighborhood, and they own residential property and were worried about it being upzoned.

These were not their properties were not included in this rezoning, we're not upzoning any residential properties as a part of this rezoning.

So for public comments, we've received uh two emails from uh workers at local gas stations in the area who had concerns over the flavor band.

Um, and so I did let them know that like the flavor band is separate from rezoning, it won't impact that, those are two separate actions.

Um then we received an email from someone who is in the industrial area.

He's not within the rezoning, but he has IMX3 zoning, and he was concerned that there's not a strong enough market for industrial uses that those properties wouldn't get redeveloped and then not have all of the improvements that typically come with redevelopment, like sidewalks wouldn't be be put in ever and things like that.

Um, and then we also there's one concern from a property owner in the Bear Valley shopping area, which is that this rezoning to one of the A series really limits them on what they can do.

They can't do the drive-thru building form, and um Council Member Flynn has talked to this uh property owner as well.

They actually have a private agreement where they have to set their property significantly back on the street, so that's more of the issue with redeveloping the property than a potential rezoning.

So for public engagement, um, this was done concurrently with the far southwest planning process.

So staff attended workshops focused group.

We reached out to key property owners, presented to the advisory committee.

Um we were able to compare like the plan recommendations with existing zoning and kind of update the scope of the rezoning and just making sure that the plan informed this rezoning package.

And then we also sent postcards so far, two rounds, and then signs, um, and you know, the postcards are the new rules where it includes tenants, so I think over like 10,000 postcards were mailed out.

Okay, so now I'll go through the context and the proposal by neighborhood.

So we'll kind of break it down a little bit.

First, we'll start in College View South Platte.

Um, so this is includes the industrial areas, Evans, and then a portion of federal.

So industrial areas currently have IMX3 zoning, uh Evans is mostly SCC3, and then federal has some old code and SMX3.

And the proposal is for the industrial areas to go to IA and then SMX3A for Evans and Federal.

So now Harvey Park, the proposal, this is includes the West Side of Federal, and then the Sheridan Shopping Center, currently old code and SCC3X, and this the all these areas will go to SMX3A.

So now Harvey Park South.

Um this includes federal and then part of the Bear Valley Shopping Center at Hamden and Sheridan.

So that there's the one SMX 12 property, and then it's mostly old code and SCC3 and 3X.

And these will go to SMX 12A, SMX, and SMX3A.

I'll note we are not rezoning any of the Loreto Heights that was included in that.

That was rezoned after that plan was adopted.

So now for Bear Valley, this is just uh properties along Wadsworth that are SCC3X, and then a portion of the Bear Valley Shopping Center that's old code and also SCC3X.

So the Wadsworth properties are going to SMX3 and the Bear Valley shopping area is SMX3A.

Alright, now finally, Marston.

Um, so this includes just all those old code along Wadsworth, and then the park property, that single unit.

And so you can see the Wadsworth properties are going to SMX3 and then OSA for the one park property.

Alright, so now we'll finally go through the review criteria.

Here's the three review criteria that must be met.

Um, in the interest of time, I won't go through the comprehensive plan and how it meets that, but you can read more about that in the staff report.

Um we'll go through Blueprint Denver first, and the maps have been updated to reflect the guidance in the far southwest area plan.

So the future context is mostly suburban for this part of the city, um, and all the distance of the districts proposed are in the suburban context.

The industrial portion has the districts context in which the industrial districts are within.

But it does have urban, the urban context for uh federal boulevard, where we are proposing a suburban, a district within the suburban context, and that's just because we don't have a district that's mixed use or main street within the urban context that doesn't allow for the drive-through building forms.

So you'll see that that's where the guidance is pointing us.

So that's why we did the suburban context there.

Is we feel like that's what can best implement plan guidance.

Um, and then for the future places for the centers and corridors, they're mostly community corridors and centers and regional centers, so the mixed use would be consistent with that.

The industrial are value manufacturing, and then the park property is parks and open space.

The street types are um you know commercial, mixed-use residential streets, and then the growth areas for the our regional centers and community centers and corridors for all the centers and corridors, districts for the industrial area, and then the park is all the areas of the city.

So now moving to the equity analysis because this is a large rezoning.

So for access to opportunity, the scores range from two to four out of five.

It scores lowest in access to transit because um there really aren't any light rail stations in this area.

Uh the highest scores are in access to centers and corridors and access to health care.

So rezoning to these corridors will just ensure that these areas remain um centers and corridors within the far southwest.

Vulnerability to involuntary displacement.

The most vulnerable areas are college views, um, the college view neighborhood, and then I put the east side of Harvey Park, but I think that's actually Harvey Park South.

And then for housing diversity, college view is the most diverse.

But again, uh the rezoning doesn't um rec uh doesn't there's no development proposed with this rezoning, so it's unlikely to have a major impact on some of these indicators.

It also furthers several strategies in blueprint.

It will rezone properties from the old code into the new code, it will implement plan recommendations through a city-led rezoning and ensure an active and pedestrian-friendly uh corridor.

It will further the um Dever's climate goals by fostering more walkable places and centers and corridors by implementing districts that have stronger design standards, such as those that will limit drive-through building forms and location of parking.

So now we'll move to the Southwest Area Plan.

I won't go through the map since they're the same.

We'll just talk about the specific strategies.

So it you know talks about having a mix of uses along our corridors, like federal, Sheridan, Wadsworth, and Evans.

It also specifically says about um avoiding auto-oriented buildings on federal Sheridan and Evans.

And then for federal specifically, um, as you all know, this is where BRT is proposed, so these should reflect transit supportive uses with having parking located behind buildings, which is why the A series is proposed for federal and that auto-oriented building form, such as drive-through should be limited.

And then for Evans, similarly, it talks about parking should be provided behind buildings at Front Evans.

Again, this is where the A series is proposed, which will not allow parking along the street.

And then for the Bear Valley Shopping Center, um, you know, this it talks about um having again a mix of uses, um, making it attractive for a lot of people, and again, ensuring a pedestrian-friendly environment with surface parking located behind buildings, so also where the A series is proposed.

But then for Wadsworth, um, the reason this is going to SMX3 is it still wants the mix of uses to be a vibrant commercial area, but it also says it should be ensuring um it's easily accessible by car.

Um, and so there's not that specific guidance about preventing drive-throughs and having the parking behind the building, so that's why the SMX3 is proposed for Wadsworth.

So now moving to the industrial properties.

It says these value manufacturing areas should really focus on light industrial and manufacturing uses with limited commercial and no residential, which is why we're proposing a district that would not allow for any new residential.

And then the one park property, um, it talks about how the park should be easily accessible for everyone to reach, and this is just right zoning an existing park.

So this rezoning would meet the public interest, and that it implements uh the plan guidance as well as the um the corridors would be rezoned to districts that do provide more modern zoning standards that promote more pedestrian-friendly environment.

Um, the industrial properties would be rezoned to ones that would really ensure that manufacturing uses are remaining in place, and there's no threat of them becoming an all-residential development.

And then lastly, it's consistent with the suburban, industrial, and open space context, and then the intent of the mixed-use light industrial and public park zone districts.

So finding all three review criteria have the Met staff recommends the committee of forward this one on to the full city council.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Um that was a lot in a short time.

And I have Councilmember Flynn first in the queue.

And we he's online, so just wait for him to get pulled up.

Hello.

Um, yeah, that is a lot.

Uh but it doesn't uh I mean it only includes uh the commercial areas that were covered in the far southwest area plan and the uh little park space, which is actually just a sidewalk uh that's part of park property that goes from Union Avenue up to uh uh up to the balsam Stanford Park.

Somehow it was left out of the parks rezoning we did about a year or so ago.

Um but I really want to thank Libby and the whole staff at the rezoning uh unit of uh CPD for um walking us through all this kind of on the tail end of the far southwest plan approval process.

And uh I think it very accurately reflects uh the desires of the community in the plan.

I uh um happy to see the uh the treatment of Wadsworth, that still is basically an auto-oriented uh commercial area as opposed to where we think uh Federal Boulevard will be with less rapid transit uh in the very near future, and then even Sheridan the Bear Valley shopping center area and uh West Evans between Federal and the River.

Um I was uh I was at the newspaper here in the 90s when that Wadsworth area was given its original uh zoning.

It's a it's a uh sea of auto dealerships right now.

That was some commercial at the north and south end, in fact, where the Walmart is, the Quincy and Wadsworth in the Denver.

That was a horse property when I moved here uh 45 years ago.

I've seen all this development and the original rezoning had to be here on council retirement is changing is is uh kind of a uh a time machine for me.

But I'm fully supportive of this, I'm a sponsor of this.

And uh I think it's fully consistent with the plan that we just adopted.

And I asked my colleagues to please pass it on to the floor so that we can put it in into play.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember Flynn.

Thanks for thanks for being here on this.

Um I have Councilmember Romero Campbell followed by Councilmember Torres.

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

I I you answered my question in the presentation on slide 53.

I just had questions about the industrial use and the light industrial use and what does that mean?

Um but I think as you have covered it, it seems as though it would just maintain no residential and still maintaining the businesses that are currently there.

So to support them.

Yeah.

Yes.

Um so I will say those three areas are existing industrial uses.

So there's no residential that we're making non-conforming.

One of them is actually the city owned property where we keep our recycling bins, um, is the the farthest uh west one.

Um so yes, those are existing.

I think one is an old, I don't know if it's still a bit like a printer, like a large printer, and then I think one might actually be vacant or for sale.

Um but yeah, so those are existing, and they light industrial allows like a variety of manufacturing and warehousing, um some like kind of auto repair, those types of uses.

But yeah, no residential is allowed.

Um and does that also um I just think about light industrial, especially like things with mechanics or with um uh what was the other business that was there, mechanics, the garage.

Like a pre auto repair be allowed.

Yeah, no.

Um, but to have an auto um repair.

I'm just I am wondering, and I and I'm in support of this, but it's a wondering around those industrial uses so close to the river.

I feel like in other committees and in South Platte, we've talked a lot about um the river and things that are located right up next to the river, and so this will continue to I know it's industrial, we need industrial, and um it feels like a little bit of a balance of continuing to perpetuate having industrial areas that are right up against the river.

Yeah, and I thought that was definitely talked about in the planning process.

Um, but based on the feedback that we received was that's the plan guidance is for value manufacturing for this area, so it is to remain industrial right against the river for this part of the river in the city.

Um I think that was the feedback that was received was it's important to retain those industrial uses, and so that's why the guidance in the plan is for that, rather than changing it to be like a local corridor or something like that.

No, I appreciate that.

I think um it's just uh and again I'm supportive.

It's just we we've had so much conversation what is there and and you know how it changes um and what that looks like into future for um you know it is what it is now, but looking towards future and what we need maintaining that.

That's all it was more of a comment, but thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Um I have Councilwoman Torres.

Thank you.

Um so I uh I don't have any questions about what's in the rezoning.

My question is more about what's not in it, which is the really large areas of old uh of chapter 59 residential.

Um it's in the recommendations of the plan.

And I I went back to the far northeast plan too, and it's also in the recommendations there.

When do we actually get to that?

If not in the legislative rezoning.

So it was, you know, we when we come up with these like potential packages or things that could be included, that was something we definitely looked at.

Um, but it was really more of just staff capacity.

Okay.

That um we did have to kind of pare down the package.

And so uh one way to do that was to take out a lot of those residential old code properties because they are, you know, like they're all they're functioning fine.

There's no no one's gonna redevelop necessarily, especially the homes in this, these are the uh these are probably larger homes because they're newer than a lot of the city, and so um yeah, that was why that was not included.

And hopefully one day one code will be a thing that gets done where we're all the cities rezoned.

Um but we thought as of what's more kind of pressing, we're getting these corridors, and so we're rezoning all the old code properties on the corridors out.

Okay, all right.

Thanks for that.

Great, thank you.

Um, I don't see anyone else in Q.

I'll pause a little bit in case anyone has any last thoughts.

But um, I just wanted to say that when Councilmember Flynn uh gave Council Member Gonzalez who chairs and I a tour as the new hot large members of his district, he took us through several of these shopping centers, and it was like intro to zoning.

Like these are former chapter 59.

You're gonna want to know a lot about this.

Um so I'm glad to see them um coming into the new code and and also seeing that um CPD you are continuing to spend a lot of time getting these chapter 59 properties um rezoned, even not under the umbrella of one code, but a lot is happening with that, and um we see it here every week.

So um, this is a good step in that direction.

Um all right, with that kind of getting motion in a second.

I'll move.

Move by Alvidra, second and by Romar Capital.

Um thumbs up from everybody, cool.

Um Council President's thumb is academic here, so um, we're good to go.

Libby, thank you for that.

Um council.

And we're done early with three action items, nothing on consent.

Wow, and so miracle.

Efficient questions, efficient presentations.