Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Being able to get the scene safe as well as getting traffic moved over a safe and efficient way as well as keeping the best of the flow that we can.

Go ahead. One nine.

It's just super rewarding knowing they were in a stressful situation sitting on I 25 with traffic blowing past them 80 miles per hour to now me assisting them, being able to block traffic to get them back in traffic, and then them being able to go on their way and no longer have to sit there and pray and hope someone's not paying attention and doesn't rear end them and you know potentially end their life that day.

Hi. I'm Moriah. I have been working in the cannabis industry in Colorado for about seven years now. Yeah. I'm a cannabis consumer, but I never drive high. The vast majority of cannabis consumers actually don't drive high, but we're trying to convince the people who do. There are so many options that are alternatives to driving high. You can take a rideshare. You can take the bus. You can call a friend to have them come over, or you could get delivered to your house. I love my car, but you know what I love more? Being alive. It's important to keep our friends, our family, our community, even our coworkers safe. Please never drive high.

Hey, Denver. Thanks for joining us for this biweekly meeting of the Denver Planning Board. This 11 member board guides the mayor and Denver City Council on decisions around zoning, land use, area plans, and more to help build a vibrant community. This meeting of the Denver Planning Board starts now.

Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to call to order the 05/06/2026, meeting of the Denver Planning Board. We will start with roll call to ensure we have quorum, and I'll just have everyone state their name for the record, and I will start with

you Rachel. Rachel Marion. Deirdre Ose. Alicia Font Hammett. Go ahead, Sebastian.

Sebastian Montenegro.

Melissa Mejia. Mary Coddington.

And I am Caitlin Quander, and

we have Forum. We start our meeting with public comment, and planning board reserves time at the beginning of every meeting for public comment. And this is for items that do not have a hearing and are not on our regular agenda.

So it's time to let

us know something you think planning board should know. Planning board does not respond or enter into a dialogue about it because it is not on our agenda. But if you are here to give comment on something that you would like for general public comment, please raise your hand, and you'll have three minutes. And I don't think we had anyone signed up for general public comment that I see online. I think we're already.

Anyone here in person? General public comment?

Yeah. Great. Come on up.

If you could come right here to this podium, then it'll pick you up for the microphone. And if you could state your name and address, and you would have three minutes.

My name is Edward Thomas Lang. I own the property at 1360 South O'Pennen Street. You guys are paying the zoning on that so that now I can't lease the building as a industrial building anymore. It's valued at about $3,600,000,000 two years ago. Now it's worth 600,000 to the property value because you guys wanna build apartments.

I don't quite wanna do that.

There's a drainage ditch across the street. There's a paint track right behind the building and then heavy zone right behind us, of course, industrial heavy duty industrial right behind us. So it took us about forty seven years to build that asset, and you guys had a meeting to that asset for me and my family. You know, beating that. I don't know why you're doing it. We're in apartments there. It's there's like I said, there's train tracks and heavy duty industrial right behind it. I don't know who wants to live there or why they would want to live there. Because you guys see there's a park across the street. Well, that's not a park.

It's a ditch or rain is heavy. It goes down there and right beside the building. Not sure what you guys all what plan is, but I know all I can't you guys now have control over whether I can lease the building and who I can lease the building to. So that basically, it's like, you're gonna donate your own you're not gonna give me anything, the billing. You're just gonna take the billing, or I'm gonna lose it because I can't pay the taxes because I can't lease it. So that's all I really have to say. It's very frustrating.

Thank you. I think we can probably have someone from staff connect with you to see if we can learn more about the particular zoning and and give you some further.

Sorry.

You can connect it to

the Southwest. I don't think I think he said it already.

Oh, it is. Within yeah.

It's within Southwest. Okay. Alright. Thank you for clarifying that, Libby. So that has not been rezoned, but it's being considered tonight and is in our on our agenda. Yeah. Is. Okay.

She says it's Next

item is we have meeting records for approval. So we have meeting records from April 15, and I have the list of board members present for those. Is there a motion and a second to approve those?

I move to approve the meeting record for 04/15/2026.

Second.

Great. Motion and second by Julie. And I will roll call for who is here. Deirdre?

Aye. Sebastian? Aye. Alicia? Aye. Melissa? Aye. Julie?

Aye. And Fred? Aye. Great. Those meeting records have been approved. Before we move into our regular agenda, are there any items on our agenda for planning board members for disclosure or recusal? Go ahead, Fred.

I just wanna make a small disclosure with regards to item number five, the Southwest legislative rezoning. There's a one of the properties included in that belongs to Denver Health, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, underclosed that I am a member of the board of directors of the Denver Health Foundation, which is an independent five zero one c three, which provides philanthropic support to Denver Health. She doesn't believe that that creates conflict, but they want to disclose.

Others?

I will be recusing and actually just leaving the meeting because I also have to leave on item number six. My firm has been involved in the project. All right. Moving into our agenda. We have been notified by by staff that for item number four, which is the rezoning 4625 North Milwaukee Street, that it could we could potentially waive the staff presentation on it because it both clearly meets the required rezoning criteria and the map amendment has minimal controversy or concerns raised by the public.

We will have a presentation by the applicant, which is Councilman Watson in in tandem with. Right? It's the name of yeah. Got it. So we will still have the applicant presentation. Is there a motion or would we like to see staff presentation as well? I move to waive the presentation for application 2026,

rezone zero zero zero zero zero zero four, finding that the map amendment clearly meets the required rezoning review criteria, and the map amendment has minimal controversy or concerns raised by the public.

Second.

Great. Motion second by Fred.

And I will recall Rachel.

Aye. Durga. Aye. Alicia. Aye. Sebastian.

Aye.

Melissa. Aye. Mary. Aye. Julie. Aye. Fred. Aye.

And I vote aye as well. Alright. We will open the public hearing for official map amendment application two zero two six, rezone seven 04. Rezoning 4625 North Milwaukee Street from ESUD to UTUB. We have waived the staff presentation, then we'll have a presentation, by the applicant group, and then we will open it up for members of the public to comment. So with that yeah. Thank you, Joe. You could help, go ahead and come on up. Yep. Your slides. And just for clarity for the board, Councilman Watson is the is the applicant on it in working in.

Sorry.

I

can start talking.

Yeah. That's it.

More seconds.

Dwight is here from the councilman's office if there's any.

Thank you.

Good. Okay.

Okay. It is slightly wonky.

So I'm Nola Miguel. I'm the executive director of the GS Coalition at Tiara Colitiva Community Land Trust.

And my name is Diani Slava.

I'm the real estate development director for Tiara Colativa.

So this is very similar to a case that we

had

or a rezoning that was a month ago that Sena also worked with us on. It's about twice the size, and it was four units. And this is two units. So we're just asking for movement from single unit to two unit. This is the the similar case of these are lots that we acquired from CDOT as part of the reparation after the I 70 expansion.

And so this is one of the lots where a single family home was. That home was was taken, and this is the remnant lot that's left. And we would like to put two replace two homes here. So it actually will be not only replacing the home that was taken, but also adding an additional home. Many of you are familiar with that, but just for new folks and for the public, I just wanna give a little bit of background around GetUp Like Diva.

GS coalition, GS stands for Global Illyria Swansea coalition. We are nonprofit organization led and based in Global Illyria Swansea. We have explicitly worked on anti displacement work for about seven years now and formed a community land trust called Theodore Colectiva that's specifically working to keep people that are at risk of displacement in the globally responsive neighborhoods. And we have, currently have 14 homes that are already sold, another 23 that are in our pipeline. We're also working on, commercial space in a multifamily project and two now two multifamily projects, one in Global, one in Elyria, and also have preserved an open space, our food forest in the Swansea.

So this let me go back one. This lot in particular, yeah, you can you can see that is right on the edge of Milwaukee, and it's about 5,000 square feet. We want to put two of them so all of our homes are permanently affordable, so they have a ninety nine year land lease. And we sell them at around usually between 200 and 230,000, which is about 57% of the area median income so that they're affordable homeownership in perpetuity. Meaning that if the the first family that buys the home, if they ever sell it, we would repurchase and sell it again to another qualified family.

So

I can talk a little bit about plan alignment and community outreach and engagement on this. So, you know, this is sort of repeat of what would have been in the staff report, but there's strong alignment with comprehensive plan 2040, blueprint, Denver, the Elyria Sonsiat neighborhood plan, and strong alignment with public interest and community benefit as well as neighborhood context and zone intent. This is a little bit about just this is a very changed graphic of our governance structure. Our our community land trust is actually the only community led and community governed CLT in the state of Colorado, and that means that everything we do is with deep accountability to the neighbors that live in the place that we work. We have a elected central board that then appoints a tripartite board that is made up of a third homeowners within, Tierra Galactiva, a third development and affordable housing experts, and a third community members at large from, those three neighborhoods.

In addition to that specific level of accountability is is a core part of our community outreach, we also have done quite a bit of site specific outreach around this, including some door knocking with neighbors in the direct vicinity. I believe Edson probably has, like, the the numbers on this at some point. But, like, at least 36 or so, 40. Thank you. 40 letters of support, including the Illyria Swansea RNO and the majority of directly adjacent homeowners.

Some weren't home when we stopped by, but we have some folks from across the street who have joined our wait list to try and qualify to purchase those homes, who are currently renters at risk of displacement. So there's a deep level of alignment with direct neighbors as well. I think that kind of wraps us up, but we're here for questions if you have questions.

Thank you. And just to confirm, we have received copies of the letter with signatures yesterday.

Right. Thank you so much. Thank you. All

right. Let's move on to members of the public. I don't think we have anyone signed up to speak. Is there anyone here who want to

raise your hand that you are here to

speak on this item and didn't get signed Okay. Great. Move on to questions from the board.

Go ahead. I have a question, I guess, for the councilman's office. Do I do want to come on up? And maybe for for staff too. And first of all, also my deep appreciation to area of collectiva.

I think that it's great to see these kinds of groups come up. My question is specifically around whether or not you've contemplated, and I bet I probably know the answer to this, a larger, you know, rezoning efforts to implement the plan. So this is one piece, one, know, property, and there is a lot of support for that, and there's there's no question. But the Aleria Swansea plan also identified the need to align the zoning with the context, which is now urban versus urban edge. So I'm assuming has a conversation happened like that?

I wouldn't say a broad conversation, but we're constantly communication with community partners on different opportunities for the neighborhood, especially with the housing and GES.

Okay. So they're kinda coming up one at a time right now.

The moment, just because of the unique opportunities with the displacement with I 70. Yeah. These are just unique opportunities that came back to that.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Any others?

Alright. We'll move

it up for any motions or statements there's a motion. Go ahead, Fred.

Yeah. I mean, this clearly to me meets the criteria, and I will be supporting it. I I've to the question that was just asked, I wanted to just throw something out there that I don't think is appropriate for us to dive into deeply today. But we are given to understand from conversations with with council that council is considering or some members of council are considering bringing forward a proposal that in TU districts, you would only be able to build duplexes. You would not be able to build single family residences.

And particularly as you we look ahead of legislative rezonings that might better align neighborhoods with the plan guidance that's in place. I do think that's something that the GS community probably wants to be aware of. There are questions certainly in my mind about what that looks like on the ground if that might foster displacement of families who want to expand their homes wouldn't be able to under those regulations, etcetera. So I just wanted to kinda bring that up because I think that there is Yeah. There there's a lot involved in in some of those conversations. So I just wanted to throw that out there.

Appreciate it. Gary?

Yeah. I also just wanted to thank you for asking that question, I appreciate the thought around it. To me in this particular context, especially having a a partner to the city like GS Coalition and Tierra Colativa, it feels like a better approach to do it one at a time just because you're not creating a yield that somebody who is less focused on protecting the existing community can take advantage of. So I think for this particular context, it it's really smart to do it sort of as the opportunities come up in its context.

I'll be in support tonight.

Is there a motion?

Sure. I move to recommend that city council approve application 2026 rezone zero zero zero zero zero four, Rezoning 4625 North Milwaukee Street from ESUD to UTUB, finding that the applicable review criteria have been met.

Second. Great. Motion and second by Alicia, and I

will roll call. Rachel? Aye. Deirdre? Aye. Alicia? Aye. Sasha?

Aye.

Melissa? Aye. Mary? Aye. Julie? Aye. Brett? Aye.

And I vote aye as well. Thanks so much for being here tonight. Good luck at city council. Alright. Moving on. We will open the public hearing for official map amendment application two zero two five, rezone zero zero zero zero zero three nine, Southwest legislative rezoning. We will have a staff presentation by Libby Glick, and then we will open it up for individual public comments to come on up, and

then we'll have some questions from finding board. Awesome. Thank you, chair. I'm Libby Glick with Community Planning and Development, and I will be presenting on the Southwest legislative pre zoning. Bear with me. This is a long one. So first, we'll go through just some background on the Southwest area plan, then the proposal. We'll talk about the process, and then finally, the review criteria. So the Southwest Area Plan was adopted by city council in March. It outlines the vision for Westwood, Athmar Park, Marley, Ruby Hill, and Overland.

And overall, the community priorities that are found in this plan are to have vibrant cultural hubs that honor the history and the diversity of the area, having safe, comfortable, welcoming public spaces, making sure there's housing that's affordable and high quality, making sure that key industrial areas remain for manufacturing, having well designed infrastructure, and then protecting and celebrating the natural resources like the South Platte River. So this is in three different zone dis or sorry, three different council districts, two, three, and seven. And council members Flynn, Torres, and Alphedras are also sponsoring this rezoning. So now I'll go through the proposal kind of by the different, buckets as a part of this package. So overall, this package is meant to implement keep land use key plan guidance, including having vibrant commercial centers and corridors, making sure the industrial areas support new and existing industrial businesses, having affordable and secure housing options, and then ensuring the zoning is consistent with the overall vision in the Southwest or for the Southwest neighborhoods.

So there's four buckets that are included in the. The first is centers and corridors. The second, we're calling the Riverside communities. The third are housing opportunities, and then the fourth are institutional properties. And I'll go into kind of more specifically what this means in the proposal for each.

So the first, focusing on centers and corridors, there's six or five areas that we're focusing on. Overall, we're gonna remove the billboard use overlay where we're rezoning and retain the adult use overlay where they currently exist. And then the focus for Federal Boulevard is to rezone from the mixed use three story district and then old code to mixed use and main street districts. We're gonna apply the active centers and corridors design overlay within one block of a future bus rapid transit stop and then make sure the allowed heights align with the plan guidance. For Mississippi Avenue, the proposal is to rezone from district, keeping the existing base district and then adding that D 08 or the active centers and corridors to sign overlay for Broadway.

Can you detail what that is? Or or do you do I do. I do that. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. We'll go into more specifically with what things are in the maps of where exactly this is taking place and what's happening when I get to the piece about the Southwest plan specifically. So this is just kind of a broad overview, but sorry. It is a lot. This is this package has, like, a lot of intricacies to it.

So overall for Broadway, that's rezoning from mixed use and industrial districts to Main Street districts. Morrison Road is rezoning the old code properties to match what exists, so mixed use district. And then the Evans Station area, that will go from industrial properties to mixed use. And then, again, aligning the allowed allowed heights with the plan guidance. So now moving to the Riverside communities.

So in this area, this is rezoning some areas that currently have industrial mixed use to Row House, on Le Pan Street. And then another portion of Le Pan, which is what the gentleman spoke on and rezoning from mixed use to Main Street For value manufacturing areas, that's rezoning, some areas from industrial mixed use to light industrial uses. And then finally, the Santa Fe Corridor would go from more heavy industrial to industrial mixed use, again, allowing those allowed heights in the plan to up to five stories. So the housing opportunities. This is rezoning Habitat for Humanity and Denver Housing Authority properties.

They're kind of there's 20 scattered sites throughout the Southwest area. So 16 of them would go from existing single unit districts to two unit. The other four are going from single unit and two unit to mixed use and multiunit. And then lastly, the institutional properties. There's the Denver Health Westwood Family Health Center that currently has old code hospital zoning.

We're gonna put the proposals for a campus health care district. And then the Westwood Library also has old code zoning, and that will go from old code multiunit to a multiunit in the Denver zoning code. So I'll talk about the process now. So this application was complete in the March, and an informational notice was sent out on March 2. We're here before you today for the planning board hearing, and it'll go to city council in mid July.

So for public comments, we received several comments. The first, which I don't believe was in the packet because it came later, but the Westwood Community Action Team commented that they are supportive of the rezoning with protections to support residents and businesses that are already in the community. We received that by Yes. Okay. And then we received comments from several members of the public.

Several were questions about what does this mean for my property? And then we've received several letters of opposition. So one is from a resident near the Evans Station who has concerns about allowing up to eight stories near that light rail station. And we received comments from two prop from multiple property owners along Le Pan Street where they're proposed to go to Main Street just with concerns about what this will do to their property that it will limit some of the uses allowed. And then we received a comment from a resident of Afmar Park who's concerned about properties that are going to become more industrial that just that the plan calls for really mixed use areas and that that's not necessarily in line with going to a more intense industrial district.

So for public engagement, this was done concurrently with the Southwest planning process. So, you know, staff attended workshops, focus groups. We reached out to key property owners, specifically along LePan Street. We presented to the advisory committee. We were able to this allowed us to compare these evolving plan recommendations, with this proposed rezoning just to make sure that the plan would inform the potential rezoning. And then as a part of the official rezoning process, postcards were sent to both property owners and tenants. So in total, I think it was, like, between eight and nine thousand postcards were sent. And then signs so far have been posted at two different times. We'll post them a third time prior to city council. So now we'll go through the review criteria.

There are three review criteria that must be they they must find consistent in order to approve this rezoning. So the first is consistency with adopted plans. The second is it needs to further the public interest, and then it needs to be consistent with the neighborhood context, the zone district description, and the purpose in the intent statements. So you can find more information about the comprehensive plan in the staff report. I'm not gonna go through it here in the interest of time, but we do find that it meets several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040.

So we'll just talk about Blueprint Denver and then the Southwest area plan. So for Blueprint Denver, the maps were updated when the Southwest area plan was adopted in March. So we'll go through these maps for starting with the future context. So there's many contexts within the Southwest area. The suburban context just has some like, a residential property in it.

And so that district or the proposed district for that context is in the suburban context. There's urban edge is mapped along Mississippi and then LePan and then in a lot of the residential properties that are DHA and Habitat properties. And all the proposed districts in those areas are going are proposed to be urban edge districts. And then urban is mapped the urban context is mapped along Federal, Morrison Road, and then Broadway. So you'll notice that we are proposing urban edge districts along Federal And Morrison Road.

So for Federal, there's guidance about this area becoming more pedestrian friendly, having a mix of uses. And so even though we're mostly maintaining that urban edge zone district or those urban edge zone districts, we are mapping the design overlay eight, which we really think will meet the guidance of the urban the intent of the urban context in Blueprint Denver. And then for Morrison Road, the guidance in the Southwest area plan, which we'll get to, is really to allow more flexibility on those sites because they are kind of oddly shaped because of Morrison Road being at an angle that we think the urban edge a district in the urban edge cons context to match what exists is really gonna provide the most flexibility. And then there's also urban center mapped at along Broadway and then in at the Evans Station area, and those are we're our proposing urban center districts. And then the district's concept our context is mapped in the industrial areas.

So for future places, the centers and corridors, that bucket is mostly mapped as local and community corridor and community center, which are consistent with the mixed use of Main Street districts that are proposed for those areas. The Riverside communities, the more intense industrial areas are mapped as value manufacturing, and those areas are proposed to go to a more intense industrial district, industrial flex. That's mapped along the Santa Fe corridor where we're proposing industrial mixed use. Local corridor is mapped along the southern part of Le Pan near Ruby Hill, and that's where we're proposing a Main Street. And then low medium residential is mapped in Abmar Park along Le Pan, and that's where we're proposing row house.

For housing opportunities, these areas are mostly mapped as low residential and low medium residential, consistent with the two unit and multiunit districts proposed. And then the institutional properties, this says low, medium residential. Actually, they're both low residential, but there's also specific guidance about allowing these sites, allowing institutional sites to have flexibility. And so that's why we feel the campus and the multiunit are appropriate. So the future street types, Federal, Morrison Road, Mississippi, and LePan are all mixed use.

Broadway is considered a main street, why we're proposing a main street zone district for that area. Evans is a commercial street type. There's industrial streets in the industrial areas and then residential kind of throughout. And then, again, most of the Habitat and DHA properties are along local streets. So the growth area strategy, most of the centers and corridors are community centers and corridors.

Some of them are considered all other areas of the city as well as most of the other properties where we anticipate still growth but not as much growth. And then the industrial areas are mapped as districts where we anticipate more employment uses than housing. So because this rezoning is so large, we do need to look at the equity concepts found in Blueprint Denver. So that includes improving access opportunity, reducing vulnerability to involuntary displacement, and expanding housing diversity. So the first is access to opportunity.

It is a large area. So the scores range from two to four out of five for access to opportunity. The lowest scores are in access to transit for the Western portion, not near the Evans Light Rail Station, mortality, childhood obesity, and then access to health care. This area scores highest in access to centers and corridors and the social determinants of health. For vulnerability to involuntary displacement, Westwood and the Eastern portion of Marley are the most vulnerable.

And so by including the DHA and Habitat for Humanity properties, that will allow for more affordable housing to be built in this area, hopefully helping with any displacement that may occur or allowing more housing options. And then for expanding housing diversity, these scores range from one to four out of five. Westwood is the most diverse, and then portions of Athmar Park and Marley are the least diverse. So, again, we're rezoning to some multiunit, some row home properties. So that will allow for kind of more of that missing middle as well as two unit properties and more so than more missing middle than what exists today.

So there is also in the Southwest area plan, there's some guided there's some recommendations that help further equity. So I wanted to kind of point those out. So, you know, there's there's a plan guidance about making sure that Southwest residents have affordable and secure housing, that accommodate a range of needs, that affordable housing is available in centers and corridors alongside businesses and services, that local businesses should also be supported and to be thriving in regional cultural hubs, and that the commercial centers and corridors should be vibrant and reflects the Denver's the neighborhood's cultural character. So then finally, for Blueprint, we'll go through the specific strategies at this rezoning further. So it will rezone properties from the former chapter 59 or the old code into the Denver zoning code.

It will implement plan recommendations through city led legislative rezoning, and it will ensure an active and pedestrian friendly environment, especially by mapping the DOA in strategic areas to really facilitate a true mixed use character. And then finally, it furthers Blueprint climate goals by creating more walkable places in our centers and corridors by making sure those rezoning districts have stronger design standards than what exists today. So now we'll go through the Southwest Area Plan, and this is where I'll we'll talk about specifically what the proposal is, where it's proposed, and then what the plan guidance is for that area. So overall, the Southwest Area Plan, as we talked about earlier in this presentation, has these are kind of the overall community priorities. And this rezoning will mostly further the diverse cultural hubs, the housing stability and options, and then kind of the integrated industry.

So, again, this is kind of an overall one that the plan talks about how prioritizing larger scale legislative rezonings rather than site by site ones. And then, again, removing that billboard use overlay. So that's why, you know, we're doing this big legislative rezoning, and we're removing the billboard use overlay where it exists that's included in the rezoning that's in the resigning boundaries. So starting with centers and corridors. We'll start with Mississippi.

So this is currently zoned E M X 3 A. That's an urban edge mixed use three story district. And it's you can see the boundaries on the map here. And the proposal is to add the active centers and corridors design overlay. And the goal of this piece of the rezoning is to require Ground Floor active uses and promote a pedestrian friendly environment. So to kind of talk about what the D 08 does. So the left is what exists today in this is the Park Shopping Center along Mississippi. So you can see it's this it's pretty far set back from the street. There's a lot of big parking lot. So if redevelopment does come, again, no redevelopment is proposed with this rezoning.

But in the future, if redevelopment comes, then it would need to look more like what's on the right hand. So you couldn't do the building really far setback and have a big parking lot there. The drive through building forms would not be permitted. Additionally, there'd be commercial uses or nonresidential active uses would be required for a portion of the Ground Floor. So they also couldn't just build a 100% apartment units, for example.

So the guidance and the plan for Mississippi is to have mixed use destination that builds upon the existing culture, updating the zoning to reflect a more pedestrian friendly built environment, and to promote active ground floor uses along Mississippi. So this is why the d o eight is proposed in this specific area. So now moving to federal. This one probably has the most, like, different pieces as maybe the most confusing. So there's three main, things that we're doing along federal.

The first is rezoning all the old code properties that exist into the Denver zoning code. The second is to rezone properties that are within one block of a future BRT stop or bus rapid transit stop in to include the active centers and corridors design overlay or the D 0 eight. And the third is to rezone properties South Of Mississippi to allow for up to five stories. So you can see on the map, the red is where we're proposing that proposals to be E M X 3 D 08. And E M X 3 is largely what this corridor of the North Of Mississippi is mapped today.

The green are just old code properties that we're bringing into the new code by rezoning them to E M X 3. And then the blue is proposed to go to the five story Main Street district with the design overlay eight. And the reason that area is so much larger for the DOA than North Of Mississippi is just the bus rapid transit stops are a lot closer together South Of Mississippi. And then there's, like, one little area that will just go to EMS five without the DOH. So, again, this goal is truly to promote a mixed use corridor with active ground floor uses and to match the height with the planned guidance, especially with future bus rapid transit coming to

this

corridor. So the planned guidance, you know, we do wanna make sure that we honor the heritage of the area while promoting economic growth, safety, and vibrancy, and making sure that, you know, there's maybe a cultural district for Little Saigon, which is why, you know, in the plan, they were very deliberate about mapping just building heights up to three stories North Of Mississippi while allowing up to five South Of Mississippi, which is why we're maintaining the existing three story height where Little Saigon that area is and then going up to five on the southern portion. There's also guidance about limiting drive thrus within a quarter mile of BRT stations and that the station area should have active ground floor uses. So now moving to Broadway. So this just includes the Western portion of Broadway and then South Of Mississippi as that's the area that's within the Southwest planning area.

Broadway is the boundary. So the proposal for Broadway is to rezone existing mixed use properties, old code, and industrial. So IA Light Industrial. And those properties would all go into Main Street districts. So the heights generally match the existing entitlement and the plan guidance.

So the goal is to promote a more pedestrian friendly environment and better maintain that Main Street character of South Broadway. So you can see right at Mississippi and Broadway, that's it's currently a CMX 12 district, so we're just going to CMS 12. And then where the red is, which is most of the area, so that is proposed to go to a three story Main Street district. And a lot of that there's some on Akima, just one block over from Broadway, and that is currently industrial, but the plan guidance is local corridor, so which is why it's proposed to go to a three story mixed use district. And then there's the property right at Evans And Broadway that currently is CMX five.

We'll again go from mixed use to Main Street, but maintain the five stories. And so the guidance for Broadway is to maintain the traditional Main Street character, prioritize active ground floor commercial uses, incentivize the transition away from car oriented uses, and uses like gas stations, drive throughs, and car dealerships should be limited. And now moving to the Edmonds Station area. So this area, the proposal is to go from mostly industrial districts, IA and IMX 3, to mixed use three, five, and eight stories. And, again, that's aligning the heights with the plan guidance.

And the goal of this is to promote transit supportive densities right here at the light rail station. So you can see the red is where the eight stories is proposed. And the reason the boundaries are kind of odd is that this is the area within the plan boundaries. We've actually seen the most recent applicant driven rezonings. And so some of these areas, some of these properties already have eight story zoning or five story zoning, which is, again, is why those that's kind some weird carve outs.

So the blue then is where five stories is proposed, which is right adjacent to the station. And then three stories is proposed South of Warren. So the plan guidance for Evans Station is to support transit oriented uses, making sure that the blocks facing Evans and surrounding the station allow for a mix of uses, having heights that support transit oriented development. So this talks about how areas near the station between Evans and Colorado should be up to five stories, And then buildings as tall as eight stories are appropriate adjacent to the railroad tracks, which is why that's where you see the eight story that's where eight stories is proposed. So the last piece of the centers and corridors is Morrison Road.

And this one, we're just proposing to rezone the handful of former chapter 59 properties into E M X 3, which is what exists along the corridor today. And, again, that's aligning the heights with the plan guidance. And then the goal is to promote flexibility in the development in the any proposed development and then to match the existing corridor. So the plan guidance for Morrison Road is to make sure that it continues to serve as a neighborhood destination, especially allowing flexibility on the challenging diagonal lot. So retaining the maximum building height of three stories, maintaining the current flexibility in the build to standards, having flexibility in setbacks and allowances for parking, which the EMX 3 zone district does have pretty flexible build to.

It'll and it has flexibility in where you can put your parking, which is why we feel that's the most appropriate zone district. And then removing the use overlay too. So we are moving the u o two on those properties where they exist that are already in the resource package. So now moving to the Riverside communities. So the first is La Pan.

This is just north of Ruby Hill Park. So the plan guidance so this this proposal is to rezone from industrial mixed use three stories to a Main Street three story district, And the goal is to fill facilitate a mixed use corridor to kind of act as a transition from the lower intensity residential that's farther to the west over to the more intense industrial, which you'll find just east of these properties. So the plan guidance for this area is for it to be a local corridor. So it talks about from Louisiana to Florida. It should evolve into a local commercial node that serves the community and that existing industrial uses should be allowed to remain, and the area can evolve over time into a local community serving commercial corridor.

And our current you know, the way that our regulations in the Denver zoning code are written do allow for all existing businesses to continue to and, you know, continue on as they exist today. And so that will allow for those existing businesses and industrial uses to contain to continue. And then farther north in Athmar Park, the proposal along Le Pan Street is actually to go from there's a couple single unit properties, but it's mostly industrial mixed use three again. And that proposal is to rezone to row houses. And so the goal of this, again, is to kind of facilitate a transition between the much less intense, like, low industrial or single unit that's to the west with the, the more intense industrial to the east.

And so, again, this is kind of the boundary, going to Row House. And so the guidance and the plan for this is that industrial uses between West Virginia Avenue and West Gill Place should be allowed to remain, but this corridor should evolve into residential blocks with a mix of low residential and low medium residential. So, again, this one, the way our code is written, these industrial uses can remain and can, you know, continue into the future. But if someone does want to come redevelop these properties, then they would need to conform with the row house zone district. So then for the value manufacturing areas, these are kind of two chunks kind of on well, one's on the West Side of La Pan.

The other's on the East. We're kind of along La Pan here where the proposal is to go from I M X 3 to I A. So that's to from like a mixed use industrial to light industrial. And these are areas where we want to ensure that these areas remain for industrial warehousing and manufacturing uses. So the guidance in the plan is that it should prioritize light industrial and manufacturing uses with limited commercial and no residential is appropriate.

So that's why we're rezoning to a zone district that does not allow for any new residential uses. And then the last piece of these these Riverside corridors is the Santa Fe Corridor. And so this area is proposed to be rezoned from the commercial corridor three story district and then more intense industrial districts to industrial flex with heights up to five stories. And the goal for these areas is transition to more mixed use areas and allow for some residential development. So the plan guidance is to have these are innovation flex areas that should allow a mix of uses, including residential, to reflect changes along Santa Fe and around the Broadway and I 25 Station.

So now moving to the third piece of this package, which is housing opportunities. So you can see the sites the sites are pretty scattered, but these are owned, like I said previously, by Habitat for Humanity and Denver Housing Authority. And so the proposal is to rezone. The red properties are all single unit today, and the proposal is to go to two unit zone districts. And then the blue are there's some existing two unit, one a couple single unit, and those will go to mixed use and multiunit zone districts.

And the goal is to allow for more affordable units that are owned by DHA and Habitat for Humanity. So there are some strategies that will further this proposal and that, you know, it talks about the plan talks about how DHA properties should continue to offer more affordable housing options. There's also specific guidance for, you know, that DHA owns disperse sites, and that help those should allow for more density. So that supports going to multiunit for some properties as well as two unit in a largely single unit area. And then there's you know, the plan talks about how more housing should be added in Southwest Denver through both new construction and renovation.

And then how low residential places should allow for more housing growth and kind of exploring more ways to allow more housing types across the city. And so the rezoning to two unit in these residential areas will allow further this recommendation. And then lastly, the fourth piece is the institutional properties. These are just two properties. So Denver Health is the one in blue, and then the red one is the Westwood Library and Community Center.

So the Denver Health property currently has old code hospital zoning with waivers and conditions. And the proposal is to rezone that to Campus Health Care two. And then the Westwood Library, the proposal is to rezone from R5, which is an old code multiunit district, to GMU 3, so a three story multiunit district. And the goal is to bring these properties into the Denver zoning code while also allowing for flexibility for them to add on or, you know, redevelop in the future. So the guidance in the plan talks about how your nonprofit institutional organizations should be well integrated into the community, but how they should also have flexibility to expand their footprint while maintaining the neighborhood character.

So we really feel that these zone districts will allow for that. And then it talks about how specifically the Westwood Community Center should continue to provide services and explore ways to provide additional services like food access, affordable housing, parking, and open spaces. So by rezoning to a multiunit district of the library, it does allow for the city to potentially provide affordable housing on the site if it chooses to do so. So now the second criterion is it needs to further the public interest. And so staff finds that this rezoning will implement the policies in the comprehensive plan, Blueprint Denver, and the Southwest area plan.

It will promote better design standards in our centers and corridors. It will ensure the value manufacturing areas remain industrial and provide know, quality jobs in the future. It will provide more opportunities for affordable housing through the DHA and habitat sites, and it will allow institutional uses to grow while also maintaining the neighborhood character. And lastly, staff finds that the rezoning is consistent with the suburban, urban edge, urban, urban center, industrial, campus context, and it's consistent with the intent of the mixed use main street, light industrial, industrial mixed use, multiunit, row house, two unit, and campus health care zone districts. And there's one more last piece.

Councilman Al Vidres has requested to include an additional property. So this is at 2190 South Flat River Drive. It is the I'm gonna public table. Table. Table Public House. Okay. Table Public House Brewery. And so that property the proposal is to rezone from U M X 3 to E M X 3. And the purpose of this is kind of similar to on federal the treatment of federal in with food trucks, and that food trucks are not permitted in the urban context, but they are in urban edge. So there's not a huge difference between these two, but this will just help this property.

They do have an existing food truck. And so and it's also consistent with the plan guidance for a I believe this is maybe center zoning or center guidance. So that this will be reflected in the motion is to potentially add this one property in. So finding all three review criteria have been met, that concludes my presentation.

Okay. If you don't mind me giving that slide up, that would So be for our purposes, these are the criteria that guide our review of this rezoning application. We will now start taking public comments. Persons wishing to speak have been registered to speak prior to the public hearing. I will call you up.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Do I do you? That's That's

so.

Yeah. I take it. Wait. It's not today. Hi.

Think it's not too late. Sorry. Sorry for that. Would you like to say a few things as part of the applicant group?

Happy to. Thank you so much.

And I don't know if folks from the other two council offices are online. Do we know that if they wanted to make any comment as well? But I can start. I'm really proud of this legislative rezoning. One, because of the amount of, I think, impact that we were able to squeeze into this is much more than we did with West and really honored to have been able to work on that.

Thank you to Libby and to Liz for helping guide us through that process. A couple of things that I want to share. It was important to us that, one, we were trying to remove as many things from old code to our current code without disrupting the ecosystem too heavily. And that is really important to us because we're so vulnerable to displacement and redevelopment efforts. And so you'll see a lot of old code to current code, but it is consistent with exactly what's around that property.

So that's a lot of what took place, particularly on Morrison Road and on Federal. It was also really important for us to make sure that this remains long into the future, a really active business corridor, which is why applying the design overlay eight was a really just incredible opportunity for us. Not to modify much, I think the height impact, but really about creating that requirement that in the future, there's gonna be activation on the 1st Floor if and when we do see future development. We were, careful not to take away, use allowances so businesses that currently operate a particular business can continue to operate that particular business. We are huge fans of food trucks in West And Southwest Denver.

So we were resolving two major conflicts that arose, with, a couple of the properties, including the one that councilwoman Alvidrez, recently added. The housing opportunity here is, I think what I'm most excited about. I am currently undergoing another rezoning that I'm sponsoring in the Barnum And Barnum West areas for the same purpose with Denver Housing Authority. They own thousands of properties, dispersed housing properties throughout the city of Denver. Not all of them can accommodate another home on the back property, but these ones can't.

And so we wanna give them an opportunity, to create a tandem home property there. And that rear property will be affordable home ownership permanently. And over time, they would be able to convert the front property, the primary currently, into another homeownership opportunity. But they have no plans to displace whoever is currently residing there. And it's just an amazing opportunity.

The two properties that are multiunit are in my district, and they are already multiunit. So we are just matching what they already are. One is a large apartment complex, and another one is a collection of multiple buildings. So we are not really creating any different kind of impact there other than DHA's opportunity to build affordable housing. For Westwood and Asthmaar, I want to raise a little bit of what we've seen in recent conversation around the Little Saigon Business District.

So you're all aware, the business district is a district in name only. It is not a formal historic district or a bid or an association of businesses, but it is incredibly important to this part of town. And while we work to create potentially those kinds of contexts, we are having really in-depth dialogue with community about what it looks to avoid displacement, to ensure protection for business owners to kind of foresee what might be needed for folks along this corridor and to retain the cultural heritage that is there and that makes up the current Little Saigon Business District, which is from about Alameda to Mississippi right now. We are committed to working on that. Councilwoman Alvidrez represents the East side of that district.

I represent the West side of that district. And we've met even as recently as today with folks who are interested in those kinds of outcomes. I think I'll end there and just thank you all for your time. We're we're really proud to have been able to pivot off of the Southwest area plan. Thank you, Fernando and and the whole CPD team for doing this, and I'm I'm available for questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Alright.

So I would call up the members of the public that have signed up to speak in order both online and in person. Speakers are limited to three minutes. We'll run a little timer up here so you know what's got. If you do need translation services, I think that is requested kind of in advance. But if you do, let us know, and we can see what we can do kind of last minute. Speakers will get a thirty second warning and a signal when your time's expired. Please state your name and address if comfortable before making your statement. And with that, we will start. And I have a handful of people signed up for this matter, then a few that signed up sort of generally that I think are probably for this matter. So I'll call them at the end.

I have Grant Weimer first, and then I have Renee Martinez Stone and Kevin Tran on deck. So Rand, looks like he's online. Go ahead and unmute yourself. State your name, and you have three minutes.

Hello. My name is Grant Weimer. I live at 1395 West Exposition Avenue, and I'm a homeowner in Afmar Park. After reading through the proposed zoning changes for Afmar Park, I would like to strongly voice my support for this plan, especially the rezoning along LePan from light industrial to row homes. I'm 23 years old, and I know many people much older than me who still cannot afford to buy a home.

The median age for a first time homebuyer is now at its highest point at 41 years. When I bike to South Broadway and pass the row homes on South Cherokee Street between Cedar and Maple, I wonder why we stopped building this kind of housing. They are beautiful, practical, and more affordable than single family homes. As housing demand rises and supply remains artificially limited by restrictive zoning, the problem only gets worse. If we refuse to allow more housing, people will be priced out.

Longtime residents will struggle with rising property taxes and may be forced to sell often to investors with those houses never coming on the market again. That is how neighborhoods lose their character and a generation of Americans lose their wealth. If we continue down that path, we risk becoming like Cupertino where modest mid century homes sell for over $1,000,000 and only wealthy tech transplants can afford to live there. We already have townhomes in our neighborhood on Center Avenue, and they are peaceful, functional, and fit in perfectly well. This is not some radical experiment, and there are no problems with noise, utilities, or parking.

It already works here, and most people don't even notice that they're there. With suburbs like Littleton and Lakewood doubling down on single family zoning, it becomes even more important for us to step up and meet the challenge facing my generation. I love this neighborhood. We're only five miles from downtown with easy access by bus, train, and bike, including the 11 bus and the e line. We are close to incredible Asian and Mexican restaurants on Federal and great nightlife and music on Broadway.

Why should we continue to exclude people? The rezoning allows more people to live near transit, businesses, and amenities that already exist here. Our transit system needs density and ridership to succeed. We're already losing service on our bus line, and people who are disabled or elderly would lose access to the city. If we allow housing adjacent to the bus line on the pan, we can keep it around.

My house personally has increased fivefold in price over the last thirteen years. A cozy mid century house in a working class neighborhood should not cost half $1,000,000. It is selfish to deny future residents the same opportunities that many longtime homeowners once had. Ignoring the problem will not solve it either. Expanding housing is our best course of action to preserve the character of the neighborhood for ourselves and future generations. Density is not what destroys neighborhood. Exclusion is. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you. Alright. Next, we have Renee Martinez Stone, then Kevin Tran and Monica Williams are on deck. Go ahead

and unmute yourself. State your

name for the record. Renee, it looks like you're online.

Can you hear me?

Am I am I unmuted? We can. Go ahead.

Great. Good afternoon. What a great act to follow. Thank you, Grant. My name is Renee Martinez Stone. I am representing the Denver Housing Authority at 1035 Osage. I served on the community advisory committee for the Southwest NPI project, which allowed me many opportunities through the CAC and focus group meetings to hear resident ask for solutions just like Grant did. ADUs, affordable rental, new homeownership opportunities, including tandem homes. This is because the average sales price in West Denver has increased 328% since 2009. Property taxes have increased 212%.

Families need housing solutions because over 14,000 households have actually left West Denver since 2020. DHA owns thousands of units on four ninety scattered sites in beloved neighborhoods throughout Denver. Many of them in Southwest. We discussed many of these sites in the Southwest planning effort as examples of where additional affordable housing could be built. On these sites, DHA and the city could bring two to five units on single unit lots or on lots that can be combined anywhere from six to 24 units.

This is important. DHA has 18 sites in this rezoning and this rezoning aligns with the community positioning them for us to apply for funding for rebuilding housing. We sent letters at the March to the 66 tenants who reside in some of these even multifamily units at these addresses. We have contact information for them to contact us and we held a virtual meeting with several questions but have received no opposition to the rezonings. The Southwest legislative rezoning really illustrates that participating in the neighborhood planning process helps to move the needle towards meeting community need.

I hope the legislative rezonings will continue to prove the relevance of NPI planning. I wanna thank councilwoman Torres, councilwoman Alvedras, councilman Flynn, and it's important to thank Fernando, Libby, Liz, and CPD. I thank you for your service, and I hope I'm hopeful for your approval of this legislative rezoning package to move ahead to council. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, I

have Kevin Tran. I think you're in

the room. Come on up. If you don't mind standing at the podium.

That way, the microphone can pick

you up. I just have a few questions. I'm not sure the peer will be there. Right?

Straightforward. Right now, yeah, we'll just take public comment. We don't do kind of a back and forth. It'll just be you have three minutes. But certainly, if you have questions, you can ask them, and a board member can choose to ask staff later if you'd like. So we have three minutes, and go ahead. If you could state your name.

My name is Kevin Trent. I

am at 75 South Federal Road and 1045 South Federal. My question is that I believe I heard a lady was saying that if the zoning allowed three floor North Of Mississippi and five floors South Of Mississippi, if that's correct. And, also, a question I have is that will there be RTV or lane widening in South Federal or not? The question is, can we have access to the PowerPoint presentation? And it's so full for so fast that I cannot,

you know Great. Thank you. When we get to board questions, a board member can ask those questions of staff. Okay. Thank you. Next is Monica Williams, and then I have Heath Lange and Josephine. I'm gonna do this wrong times on that.

Monica. Hi, Monica. Good

afternoon. So this is also in your packets. My name is Monica Williams, and my partner and I are Southwest Denver homeowners and members. We're here to express our firm opposition to the proposed five and eight story height districts in the Evans Station area as well as the urban center mixed use three story change in our residential neighborhood. While we support modernization, the intensity of this proposal is a direct threat to stability, safety, and the character of our community. Next page. We're not speaking from a place of what ifs. We're speaking from our day to day documented reality. The Lexington Evans Apartments on the from our Broadway and Evans is a failed case study, and quite frankly, the city is failing to manage it. Our neighborhood is already struggling with significant parking and traffic issues resulting from the apartments.

Increasing the allowable density to three, five, or eight stories will exasperate the ease of existing problems leading to further decrease in the quality of life and safety for our current residents who already face difficulties with parking and navigation in our own neighborhood. The permits demonstrate that transit oriented residents do not necessarily forgo cars. Instead, many bypass the $115 a month garage fees to park illegally and or saturate limited street parking. I have contacted Dottie over 200 times in the last two and a half years regarding illegal parking at Warren, Akoma, and Bannock. This isn't just a nuisance.

It's a safety hazard that blocks daylight daylighting visibility for drivers. More often than not, Dottie failed to respond in a timely manner, if at all. We've been told by Dottie staff that there's no solution to this congestion. If the city cannot manage the density we have now, it is highly irresponsible and reckless to triple it. If you have any doubts on my claims, I encourage you to ask Dottie for the records. I personally would love to see the state of published public. Next. Furthermore, these large scale bills are offloading their operating pot fund to us. Without on-site green space, our front yards have become the de facto bathrooms for hundreds of dogs. I recorded up to 11 instances of animal waste on our property in a single day.

This isn't community living living. This is destruction of private property and a drain on the quality of life for long term residents for investing time and resources to maintain the welcoming aesthetics of the neighborhood. And, yes, we've tried to address with the individuals themselves where where we are mostly met with hostility as well as the property manager Chelsea Richardson, who essentially tells us they're not responsible for the actions or behaviors of their tenants when they're off their property. Next. Additionally, the character of Southwest Denver is defined by its historic homes, its open sky, and mountain views.

Scaling to three, five, or eight story permanently severs our connection to the Front Range, a natural amenity that belonged to the whole community, not just a few developers. The proposed hearing doesn't solve this. A three, five, or eight story ball along the tracks is still a wall. It also negatively impacts the long term value and appreciation of our homes. The public interest is not served by density that outpaces infrastructure.

If the city persists in these heights, the plan must be amended to require mandatory free parking and on-site green space for tenants and their dogs proportional to the unit count. Without those enforceable protections, we ask that you limit all new development in the Evans Station area to three story maximum as well as leave the residential areas, urban row house 2.5 stories. Let's grow our neighborhood with gentle deputy that respects the people who already live here and address the infrastructure issues that are already happening before compounding these issues for. Okay.

Was a Jurassic Park. I have Keith Lang and then Josephine Kims on deck and then Dan's label. Is Keith? Alright. I do not see Keith, so we will go ahead and move on, and we'll come back around and and ask at the end. Josephine?

Would you like to speak or just hear? Is that you?

That is me. Okay.

You know, I I don't mind saying something. I'm just

you state your name, and I'm sure I miscount you asked me, so please say it.

That's fine. My name is Josephine Keenitz. I am here I own a little property on South Federal right close to Elameda. And, mostly, I'm here to say it's a mixed use, and I'm hoping that this rezoning isn't gonna take away from what my renters are able to do right now. It's a it's a they do window tinting, security in in vehicles.

There's a little hair salon, and they just are literally scraping together to make ends meet and pay the rent and take care of their families. And so I just I really don't feel informed enough to say too much, but I just want to stand up and represent them. And I thank you for your time.

Okay.

Dan's label. And then is Dan's label here?

Chris Ogles.

And then I have a Michelle Lewis. Are either of you curious? Okay.

I'm Michelle.

Michelle, would you like to come on up? Sure.

And each one. That's another.

And while you're coming up, is there a Chris here? I'm thinking that. Okay. I think, Michelle, you're our last. Okay. So my name

is Michelle Lewis, and I own 377 South LaPan. I also own 331 South LaPan, 1229 West Nevada, and 1219 West Nevada. I have been a business owner and part of the business community before I was born. 1961 when my grandfather moved in. So when we talk about the integrity of the Athmar area,

So

I want to put on record that I oppose rezoning of my property. The only property that is within this rezoning proposal is 377 South LaPan. It used to be Duffy Crane. It used to be Aaron Johnson's Antiques. And I'm concerned that the proposed rezoning from what I have is I m x three to light industrial IA will reduce the economic functionality of properties like ours or my husband's, limiting the range of allowable tenants and uses, which I believe contradicts what we're trying to do here.

So under the current zoning, the property can support a broader mix of small businesses. It complements the area. It is one of two, and I saw our little dot over there. Our little dot is two of our properties. If we rezone it, it decreases our occupancy availabilities.

It will not support job diversity, and it doesn't keep the site economically productive. Denver's adopted plans, including the Denver comprehensive plan 2040, the blueprint Denver. It emphasizes flexibility, economic diversity, equity, and support for small business, but I don't see that with my property. I heard often that we're looking at buckets of property, and I find that offensive. I would like to see, especially since 1961, look at our properties as individuals.

Look at our properties as individual business owners. Look at our properties as individual residences, not a bucket. I am not a bucket. Reducing that flexibility with residents and small businesses and commercial and industrial properties, it contracts our goals rather than advancing them. I appreciate the need for more housing, and I don't think this is the way to go. I respectfully ask the city to consider how this rezoning will impact the viability and adaptability of existing mixed use industrial.

Thank you. Okay. That is it for all the

I don't know if

it's coming through Denver eight for her,

but I think it's like Timer.

The timer. Oh, it's your timer that goes No. It's not my timer. Oh. Alright. With that, we will open it up to questions from planning board members or staff or members

of public. Go ahead, Brett.

Thanks. Boy, I have all kinds of questions. Libby Yep. Yep. You would come up. I the first question I'd I'd like you to address because though your presentation touches on this, I don't think it's very done very thoroughly. And I'm I get the impression from the first comment we had from the gentleman prior that the rezoning process itself is not clear. This is as I understand that property has not yet been rezoned, And gentleman indicated that we had rezoned it, which is this body. So I wonder if you can just speak to that so that we're kinda clear on what that is and on the record, what that process how that process works.

Yeah. So we are currently in the rezoning process now. So this is the first of two public hearings for this rezoning. So you all, the planning board, will give a recommendation of approval or denial based on the review criteria to city council. And the adopt the official, it'll go before city council for adoption in mid July. So that will be when there's a potential adoption on the table. And like I said earlier that there's even though we're doing a rezoning, no development is proposed as a part of this rezoning. The city is not proposing to develop these properties, but this will just get the right zoning in place. So when development does come, it will need to be in it'll be in line with plan guidance.

Okay. Thank you.

Now in

again, kind of addressing that specific area that is being rezoned on the plan, which is proposed to go from an IMX three to an EMS three. Can you talk a little bit for us about how existing uses might be allowed? What would happen, for example, if a property owner leases to a new tenant? And and help us understand that a little bit.

Yeah. So all the all uses that exist today can continue to exist into the future for as long as the business owners want them to. I will also note that the differences in allowed uses between these two zone districts, there's seven. Seven things that are different. And that includes a cemetery, aquaculture, mini storage.

But actually, a lot of the more intense industrial uses aren't allowed on these particular properties because they're too close to residential. So there's uses that are allowed in IMX3, but not on these properties because they're adjacent to residential uses or residential zone districts. So the differences between the zone districts from a use perspective is actually pretty small. EMS still allows for manufacturing. It allows for warehousing.

It allows for industrial service uses, just not the heaviest versions of those, which, again, those wouldn't be allowed on a lot of these properties anyways. So all those uses, which some of them might be permitted. I don't know. So some of them could be allowed uses today, and those are definitely fine. But even if they're not allowed permitted uses under the proposed zoning district, those can continue to go into the future.

They wouldn't necessarily be able to expand those uses that are nonconforming, but they can continue as they exist today. The main piece that I will say that's different is if you know, even though it does allow for a lot of kind of lighter industrial uses in Main Street, the building forms are different. So the building form under Main Street is a much like, has higher transparency requirements, for example. So you kind of get a better design outcome along the pan even if we're seeing some more intense uses still. Can I take on to

that, if you don't mind?

Sure. Oh, so you just touched on building form. But much like the uses, there isn't a development. The city is not doing a development. It's if that property owner wants to redevelop or if they want to sell to a redeveloper, then that redeveloper would follow that new MS building form? Yes. And there's even

a lot of flexibility. So a lot of the buildings are likely to be compliant. I worked with one property owner. We had a lot of back and forth to kind of explain what would be what would be proposed. And we're looking at the code yesterday, and, you know, she can even do an addition. And she'll have to meet, like, the transparency requirements, but only in the addition. So that means, like, the 60% transparency required under Main Street would have to be for the addition. But bill two, you don't necessarily have to meet the bill two. I think even, like, with some setbacks in parking, there's a lot of flexibility that they can even expand the existing structures, and they don't have to demolish them and read them to do something different.

And and just to, again, to clarify, if, for example, some an owner of one of those properties leases it to a new tenant, does that trigger that they have to rebuild the building or meet those new standards?

Yes. So they would not have to rebuild the building. You know, the the new use would need to be allowed under the Main Street Zone District. But like I said, there's it's a very small differences. But, yes, they could do that in the existing the buildings that exist today.

Great. Thanks. Moving on. I just I just wanna clarify a little bit to make sure that I fully understand when it comes to federal, which is going to much of it's going to an MS Sound District. But I note that there's also the Parkway designation along there, which requires a pretty significant setback.

And just wonder if you can speak a little bit to how that interfaces. And are there areas along federal that are supposed to be rezoned that have lots of of narrow depth that that creates a conflict or creates problems for?

Yeah. So my understanding is that the parkway setback supersedes the two foot setback that's required under the d 0 eight. So that would still be required. And then as far as the depth, you know, I haven't measured every property, but generally, I believe on federal, these are kind of, you know, typically our Northwest our North South Streets tend to have deeper lots than, like, our East West Streets.

Thank you.

Great. I've got Julie. Yeah.

I just wanted to play on YouTube. New tenant comes in or existing tenant, and they want to upgrade their build, fresh paint, new signage. That's not gonna trigger anything.

No. Yeah. So that I don't even think our, you know, neighborhood site design plan would review, like, materials, I don't know, electrical upgrades, new roof permits. You can do all of those types of upgrades, yeah, without triggering anything like me having to come in compliance with the main street requirements. And then as long

as we have up here, I'm talking. What about the gentleman that had a few questions on Yes. Clarification about three. Yeah. Three. So

North Of Mississippi is three story. So your property, the proposal, it will maintain your existing three story zone district. I remember the There was Oh, about, like, VRT. Yes. If that will I don't Lane one? Yeah. It's in process. I don't know that we have much of, like, how much right of way it might take yet, but we can try to connect you with those that are working on that subject.

And then access to your problem.

Yes. I believe we could. It's probably better. Right? Okay. We can send it to you.

Is that everything? Yep.

Alicia. Thanks for this thorough presentation, Libby. Just to add on, did mister Zhang and mister Lang receive responses from their letters of opposition regarding their properties on LaPayne? Just just to show that, like, for example, with the you know, we're answering this right now about the permitted uses between IMX three and EMS three, but is there a place that you could go to find what the permitted uses would be under EMS three? Yeah.

So the spread I made a spreadsheet that compared them, and I their their neighbor is who I've had most contact with. And so when I spoke to the gentleman out there, I think he has seen the spreadsheet he said. And I believe he said that I had spoken to him on the phone. So I don't know that I sent because the letters that we received were, like, a hard copy Yeah. Letter. And I I believe they were to the councilwoman. But I have spoken most of the property owners along LaPan, especially in this part, this Main Street area, I did reach out to either the business or them if I could find the property owner info. And a lot of them did respond to me. So we mostly had, like, phone call conversations prior to the application being submitted, I should say. We did this a lot of this outreach before the application was made.

Just would you say that they could also look at the Denver zoning code section four four for their list of permitted uses under EMS three? Yes. Yes. Like, it's it's definitely easier to see them So I I pulled the ones today, and and then we've also, you know, with the gentleman's neighbor who I've spoken a lot to, we've gone through, like, what compliance structures mean and the different use types that I could be using that code. Is there a map associated with this rezoning proposal where property owners can look up their own address to see what they're currently zoned and what they could be proposed zoned to?

Yes. And we try to make it easier where on the Southwest, like, landing page that the QR takes you to, we put a link that says, to find if your property is included, click here. So it'll take you back to the maps, then you can search your address. Thank you. And so for the property that's at 1075 Federal, would it is it fair to say that EMX 3 and EMX is being read on to EMX 3 with the design overlay eight?

And so there's really not a change unless it redevelops. Yeah. So the DOE is real I mean, it does change some uses, but those are, like, very, very minor. So, yeah, the most change for those will be if they redevelop in the future. And under those manufacturing guideline or standards for MS three food preparation and sales would be permitted? I believe so. Don't wanna zone out noodles. That's right. Yeah. And then my last question is about Evans Station. Does the upzoning of Evans Station help the city comply with state house bill thirteen thirteen? Oh, I haven't

looked into that. But it's

just I don't know. Like, requires her TOD areas to densify if that's

I don't know my. Wanna come

out and say.

We'll bring community development. That building requires the average to be 40 building units per acre across all of the TOD areas, and we meet that.

Okay. So we meet that. We meet that today.

We meet that today, and we will

Yeah.

Meet that in the future.

Meet that in the future. Okay. Just wondering if that was part of the argument or upzoning Evan station area. It's just for compliance legislation. That answers all my questions. Thank you.

Other questions from Mark?

Trying

decide if it's a question or a comment. I no. I just got a comment. Thank you.

Question. And this is maybe for you, Libby or maybe. So we have the application before us, and I know that the council members and thank you so much, Councilman Torres, for being here. But council members Flynn and Al Bidrej as well are doing a lot of continued conversations with their community. And I'm sure, you know, if they if they hear from a community member, they can connect you to them. I know your email's up on the website too. But just curious as far as this application package, and I know we have one property being added as a potential motion. You know, is there is can it change between now and city council when it's a legislative?

Yes. So we have in the previously, we I know for Near Northwest, we removed properties at first reading.

So we had like, on the floor, they changed the they amend the ordinance. Okay. Thank you. And more more in my mind to, like, kinda Yep. Continue those conversations, especially kind of led by the council office with those with those conversations.

I have one additional question, but I don't know if anyone here can actually answer it. But do we know if there's a difference between the industrial and commercial property tax rate in Denver? So taxes are

I don't they're based so

much on leases. And so changing the I don't know how much changing the zoning. They are the same. Okay. Just Okay. There is also a comment that we heard Okay. Earlier. So just wanted to ask the question.

And one last question for you just to kind of flush out because we heard public comment about it. On the Evans Station area, I'm wondering if you can give a little bit more color on the kind of public conversation during the Southwest Area Plan and kind of what it yeah.

Yeah. I thought Fernando

Kind of it it informed kind of those recommendations of destiny. Right? And so just understanding kind of what that input for the public was around TOD. Everybody,

Fernando with Community Planning and Development, and I was the project manager for the Southwest Area Plan. So just speaking a little bit more about kind of the conversations around Evans area in terms of so we started that area also has an adopted plan, stationary plan, the Evans Station area plan, which is what we kind of heard from the community when we were talking more about heights in the area. We actually kind of a with, like, blueprint guidance, we refined it to match better the the Evans Station area plan since that's the guidance that we were hearing from the community. So there were areas sorry. I was catching my breath.

There were areas where the guidance was a in some instances from blueprint numbers higher than what we put on the plan and higher than the Evans Station area plan. But through conversations with the community, that's that's where they the community told them they were more comfortable with with the heights and uses established on that older plan since that's where they had more time. I I believe it was like an 18 process where they focus more specifically on those areas around the station. So you

in in those instances, maybe Evan Station area plan was more informative, and that's what carried through into the Southwest area plan as far as recommended heights, which maybe were a little lower than Blueprint, Pettbridge like that?

Correct. Yeah. Through the through this Southwest area planning process, we talked to the community, it felt like that Evans Station area heights were more appropriate and that with what the community felt than the blueprint area heights that in some cases were higher. So we kind of brought it down more in consistency with what the community had discussed before.

Thank you very much, sir. Alicia? Where is traffic addressed in the development process? Yeah. So understanding is it's not at resounding, but there is a site development plan. Correct. It's typically with the site development plan, you know, traffic studies and things like that. Probably actually knows the best. Transportation demand management. Yeah. Yeah. And TTM. At that time, that's when so if there is a new apartment complex that does get proposed at that time, there will be those, like engineering studies, drafts is what we required. Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, Sebastian. Thank you. Thank

you. I just have, like, the same questions Alicia asked a little bit about if if you can remind us a little bit about the requirements in terms of the TDM or parking that are required for new developments around around transit, especially, like, around TOD. Know there are some reductions, and I know there's some, like, some things that are waived. But I just wanted to, like, clarify that if that's possible. And I don't know if you have that right now in front of you, but I would just wanted to see if you can remind us.

So my understanding is for parking that there's no parking requirement because of this location and with Denver's updated parking minimum requirements. So they do not require parking. Typically, we'll see developers include parking because it is still desired within the city. And then sorry. The second piece of that was the questions about the

PDM, transportation demand management. Is this same? Or is it usually

also required as a part of Yeah.

Yes. Okay. Tony probably does. Yes. But it's also required as a part of the site development plan process.

Right. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Go ahead, Jackie.

One tiny question. For miss Lewis' property, we're talking about the 377 South

South Lopan. Yes.

In Atmar Park. Going from IMX 3 to IA. Is that a value manufacturing area? Or is that Yes.

So that's a value manufacturing. So that's a property that's going from industrial mixed use to a more intense industrial district. It would still allow for a variety of for some commercial uses, but the main difference in that one is that it will no longer allow for residential or any new residential use, I should say. Right. Which is right now, you

could do a 100% apartment. And so one of my questions, I guess, throughout these maybe the Southwest area plans probably where it would have occurred. Right? Was there an update or review of the industrial land use study that sort of pointed in the direction

of Yes. There was a review. But Fernando speaking more. Thank you. Yes.

Yeah. So through the Southwest area planning process, we looked at through, like, community input and with more technical analysis in terms of additional kind of market study and understanding of these industrial areas. Through this planning process to better integrate that, we better matched the the future place type of value manufacturing with the areas that were already within a value manufacturing preservation boundary. So I believe this specific property is one of those properties where it it was already within a value manufacturing I mean, a manufacturing preservation area boundary that we we match the the future place to have the innovation flags to manufacturing to to align with the the preservation boundary issue.

Okay. So and I'm so, miss Lewis, I'm assuming, can reach out to you if there are further conversations to look at her current land users Yes. Absolutely. And tenants. Right? Absolutely.

Okay. Yeah.

Here.

In the week. K. I

just I am so curious why the one property law in federal does not have the DOA.

Yeah. So it is not within a block of a BRP station. And so it was, the one property that, like, when we did our original, you know, how far should the DOA go, it wasn't included. And then, you know, later, we we got some guidance. Like, you know, let's actually there was support from the council members to go up to five stories in accordance with plan guidance. And so that was why that one it's actually two properties, I think, technically. But, like, that little one area is it doesn't have the DOA.

I have a thought. Yeah. It'll be interesting when that you know, if that redevelops, if there's Yeah. Interesting. And then I think we've talked about this in previous updates along the way. But just to remind me, for the food drugs, are we

looking at allowing those in urban? Yes. I believe it's on CPD's radar and council as well is aware of this. And I I it is on our, like, future text amendments list. So, yes, we know that it is an issue in that. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you.

Hey. Any other questions? If not, we'll close the public hearing and open up to public comment by our board or motion.

Thanks. I appreciate all of the work that goes into this, Libby, and and thank you. This is a huge, huge undertaking. I do wanna comment, though, that I think as we see every time we do this, there's often misunderstandings of both the process and and the impacts. And so it's it's clearly something that the city needs to continue to to work on.

And and I sympathize because I know from experience that no matter when it comes to things like this, no matter how much outreach you do, there is inevitably somebody who shows up at the last minute who did not get the postcard or didn't know about the process even if it's been going on for the last two years. We we we know that. I mean, that that that's happened to on every project and pretty much every large scale rezoning that we've ever heard. I do wonder if given how large this legislative rezoning is and and what seems to be happening is they're getting larger, and that's that's great because I think they're really important, I do start to wonder if it might be wise to split them into multiple packages, into multiple individual rezonings that could all come forward at once. And and part of that is because, you know, I look at these things all the time and have for a number of years, and I still found the package for this to be so large that it was often really unwieldy and really hard to find the information I was looking for.

And so I can only imagine somebody who's never been involved with the rezoning, how challenging it is to go through it and and try to find that. So, you know, there were some logical breakpoints on this. It seems to me that it may have been more user friendly or friendly to the public to have split it into several rezonings. And that doesn't mean they couldn't all come through at once, and they couldn't maybe share the larger part of the staff presentation. I think we could we could probably, as a body, work to figure out how that could happen and facilitate that.

But I just I wanna raise that as something to consider for the future. And I and I do think federal in particular is one that may be ahead of the next. I just retain some concerns given the autocentric nature of that corridor. BRT is a ways out. It's going to retain that orocentric nature for a while.

I have to admit I do worry a little bit about what happens to those properties with the 20 foot setback because I think right now people are parking in that 20 foot setback, and maybe that's nonconforming or compliant or something or maybe it was okay when it did. But, obviously, that's gonna really shift. And and I don't you know, moving to the parking to the back, I'm not quite sure what's really gonna happen with that. But it might be nice to do a little bit of analysis on that just so that everybody kinda understands what's gonna happen with that. Anyway, thank you.

Other comments?

Okay.

So first of all, I wanna say, Monica, thank you very much for for commenting and for everyone for the time. I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate what you prepared in response to that. And just as part of my comments, first of all, I I thank for the the presentation. And I understand the buckets that have been referenced, and I understand the sensitivities to that. I also appreciated that for the organizational piece of that.

And to Brett's point, there's a lot to organize. So thank you very much for your efforts. With regard to, you know, the the election and the Evan Station area plan and some of those specific issues, those are really issues that they're they're definitely real. They're definitely valid concerns. And rezoning is this the one process, you know, where people have the opportunity to come up for public hearing and to provide comment.

Once it gets into the site development stage and development review, people really don't get to engage about some of the things that are going to come up during that process. And that's where you see more of that micro review around traffic and transportation. Some of the things that and and I'll put this out there as a future maybe someday. Know, when community planning development is working on a site plan and they're referring out to these other agencies who look at transportation like DOTI, you know, Department of Safety, a lot of other agencies receive referrals on these and don't always comment. And so they're not always aligning with or understanding just what development's coming their way.

It's just whatever pops out of the ground, they're now gonna have to respond to it. So there's not really a very good way to organize and receive comments and also prime those other agencies to be prepared for additional density and to, you know, get additional staff out there for enforcement. So those are unfortunately enforcement actions that are just not part of the rezoning process. But I do think, you know, we appreciate that infrastructure. When we talk about infrastructure, it's not just about transportation and open space.

It's also about the human infrastructure, you know, around staff and enforcement and all these other agencies that have to do with building a city and maintaining a city. So we appreciate those comments. Thank you for that.

I think I think I'm done. Yeah.

I support the effort. Thanks.

Sebastian, go ahead.

Thank you as well. I want to follow-up as well, like, telling saying about the impacts that a development might have, in in the community. And I think that's that's something that that's very important. You know, we we the city has moved away from from requiring certain parking, having certain parking requirements. And I think I think that's that's where it was suited for today, especially for affordability concerns, for, you know, not dictating how much parking is needed for a developer because the developer should know based on how many units they're expected to to you know, how much parking there is.

But by doing so as well, they have implemented some strategies that are called TDM strategies, fast portability management strategies. And those are very useful to increase, you know, ridership, to increase in transit, to increase our options for people to move around. I think those have been great. But one one thing that we can think of, especially for this project for for this area, for example, is that if we are are a requirement these TDM strategies, some of them include, for example, having transit passes, which are great or having even unbundled unbundled parking. Unbundled parking, what it means is that you are not requiring the the owners of sorry, the residents to pay for parking, which is a great strategy because it can make people like that maybe don't have a car, don't pay for parking.

Right? The the unforeseen consequences of that is that it could actually, you know, create some impacts within certain areas. So my my point over here is that there's there could be a time in which we can start thinking about how to manage a parking within certain residential areas, especially around transit transit rental development, especially around transit areas in which you might expect some higher density. I mean, you have you might have those strategies, but those could actually impact the risk the limited resources that are within a city, which could be parking. So we we have to start thinking a bit a little bit about that parking, maybe maybe ways to manage that that on street parking within cities, especially within those transit areas.

So I just want to bring that up. I know it's just more a comment, but I think that's important for the city, like, to start thinking about those management, like, parking management strategies, especially for shared facilities, both all the facilities. Thank you.

Our comments, I know I've got one. Excuse

me. Yeah. Thank you, others, for covering all of my questions. Appreciate the work done on this, like, really mostly echoing a lot of what people have said of having this this high turnaround and really responding to all of the work that goes into these things quickly. I know, like, yes, this is a big package, and it feels unbuild the end.

Also, this is, like, such a huge improvement and such a step of the direction that we've been asking for, which is very nice to see. Honestly, it's also nice to see this happen as, like, ahead of BRT. I think that'll like, how that connects is hard, but it's nice to have this out, like, out and done before that fully goes into effect. And I don't know. I understand the the concerns about uses.

I'm glad we got into some of that. That's always a hard part of this process. And I think that is like, to Fred's point, there's always something that's gonna fall through. But really making sure that especially when we're doing targeted rezonings like this, making sure that the people impacted really understand because a lot of the time, it is not as dire as it might appear at first, or there's pathways to resolution. But you have to be able to talk through those because it's scary when this much change comes to a neighborhood.

And this is definitely a neighborhood that has seen a lot of change. I will say it is really nice to see the responsiveness to requests for thoughtful density and gentle density. I know that's, like, a controversial topic sometimes about what density is allowed where and how much we hold back, but this particular responsiveness to the request for for what that should look like is really nice concentrating it on federal, doing as a huge swath of gentle density all at once. It's really nice to see. And, you know, we're gonna talk about parking endlessly even though we don't necessarily get to have a say in what that looks like.

And that's hard. And I, you know, I don't know. I get that. And, also, having these opportunities for density in places that make sense, having affordability in these areas that are so vulnerable to displacement and change and have been and creating places for people to stay or come back to, I think, is I'm very hopeful about, and it's it's nice to see. So very much in support of this one.

I just wanted to take a moment and thank everybody who came out to speak this afternoon. Appreciate you taking the time. I know that these meetings aren't always scheduled at the easiest times for folks. But also take a minute to talk about why the planning nerds at the city, mostly referencing myself, not you guys, get so excited about these legislative rezonings. And the idea behind it is that we're making it easier and not putting the burden on individuals to go through a months long rezoning process that adds additional cost as our city continues to change and grow.

It is an imperfect process when we do these big rezonings because it is very hard to make sure that we're in contact with every single property owner. And I'm just so appreciative at the evolution that I've seen in the city, even just over the four years that I've been serving on the board, of the level of outreach and how that's changed over time and look forward to it continuing to improve as we go forward and and learn more. But I just I wanted to acknowledge that the the purpose and intention around these is to reduce the burden on the public with their property rights moving forward in in the city. So I will be voting in support, and would be wonderful job on that major presentation and all of the work behind it.

Thanks, Mary. I had very similar comments.

I was looking at your screen.

So I appreciate you hitting on those. Thank you so much to the great work on the staff report, which is hefty but have great comparisons and breakdowns and charts, and then the presentation itself. And to be able to make the presentation available to the public, I think, is helpful because there's a lot of great meat in there. And then thank you so much to the council members, to Torres, Flynn, and Abedrez. You know, we as a planning board have really encouraged legislative rezonings to follow south the plan areas.

Right? We do this planning process as a neighborhood, and they set their vision for what they wanna see. And then the council members are stepping forward to bring this legislative rezonings forward that further that community vision and plan faster and more equitably than individual rezonings can. And so thank you because I know it is a big lift for the council members to have these individual conversations and make sure that the outreach is happening. So it's much appreciated.

I will say that I I believe it meets the three criteria. We walked through those in the presentation, consistency with adoptive plans and the public interest components, particularly the ones that let me flag on her slide. And I will be voting in favor. Is there a motion? I move to recommend the city council approve application 2025 rezone 0000039 Southwest legislative rezoning. Finding that the applicable review criteria have been met with the following condition. The applicant's request the property of 2190 Southwest Drive is added

to the resounding proposal and proposed to be resounded from the MX 3 to the MX 3.

Second. Great. Motion and a second by Michelle.

I will. Rachel. I. Deaudra. I. Alicia. I. Sebastian.

I.

Melissa. I. Mary. I. Julie. And

I vote aye as well. That has been recommended on city council for their follow on hearing. With that, we'll move on to the agenda. I'm gonna pass to Fred to lead the rest of the meeting.

Thank you. Yeah. I was just gonna say we've been at this for almost two hours. We have two more items ahead of us. I was gonna suggest that we take ten minutes and reconvene the nap at the hour. Mhmm. Very good.

Thank you. Agree.

That's she's saying. You

In this episode of How To Denver, we'll show you how to find and enroll in a class at a Denver recreation center. Denver's 30 recreation centers offer a variety of classes and activities for all ages and skill levels, including swim lessons, personal training, and adaptive cooking classes. To locate a rec center near you, visit denvergov.org/recreation. To start, click on activities. Make sure you're in the current season.

Then browse the online activity guide for a list of available classes and activities by either location or program area. Next, head to the online service center and log in to your account. If you don't have an account yet, creating one is quick and easy. Be sure to check the age restrictions and location. When you're ready, click enroll and select the participant. Have your payment information handy as classes fill up quickly. Thanks for watching. And if there are any city services you want to learn how to take advantage of, leave a comment down below.

Denver's Hawk Crosswalk signals are helping us cross streets more safely. Just press the button to activate the flashing yellow warning lights so drivers are alerted to slow down and stop, giving pedestrians a safe way to cross. Visit denvergov.org/visionzero.

On this episode of How To Denver, how to adopt or surrender an animal from the Denver Animal Shelter. Adopting an animal could be one of the best and happiest decisions you make. To see a full list of animals available for adoption, visit denvergov.org/animalshelter. Adoptions happen frequently, so if there's an animal you're interested in, visit the shelter in person to see if that animal is right for you. When you arrive for a visit, you will need to provide documentation with a current address.

The shelter also recommends a consultation to make sure the animal you're interested in will be a good fit. Adoption fees include the cost to spay or neuter, as well as necessary vaccinations and a one year pet license. Both dogs and and cats need to be licensed in the city. Fees vary, and you can check the shelter website for more information. This page also displays lost pets if you're looking for your fur baby that has gone missing.

If you need to surrender an animal, whether it's your pet and your circumstances have changed, or if you found an animal and you're not sure what to do with it, you can bring it to the shelter anytime. There's also an after hours kennel available that will keep the animal safe until staff arrives in the morning. Thanks for watching, and make sure you subscribe for more how to videos like this. And if there are any city services you want to learn how to take advantage of, leave a comment down below. In this episode of How To Denver, how to prepare for an emergency when you're away from home.

An emergency can happen anytime, so it's crucial to always be prepared even when you're away from your home. In this video, we'll go over some basic emergency supplies to keep in your car or at your office, as as well as some best practices for when you're making plans. Denver's Office of Emergency Management has lots of additional information as well as great training opportunities. Just visit denvergov.org/oem to learn more. First, some basic supplies to keep handy include extra water, snacks, a flashlight, phone charger, and a whistle.

It's important to regularly check and update these supplies to make sure they're up to date. And when you're planning an adventure like hiking or camping, it's important to be prepared not just for the time you expect to be out, but extra time as well in case something happens and you're unable to get back to safety right away. Always bring a form of navigation like a map, compass, or GPS device, plenty of sun protection like sunscreen or a hat and sunglasses. Bring extra layers or warm clothing, specifically moisture wicking if possible. Illumination like a flashlight or headlamp, a first aid kit, fire starting equipment like water resistant matches, lighter, or a ferro rod.

Extra food and water for more than just your expected time out and emergency shelter like a tarp or emergency bivvy sack. Finally, always tell someone where you are going and how long you plan to be there. Know the area you plan to be in and always check the forecast for the time you'll be out. Be prepared and expect the unexpected. Thanks for watching.

If there are any city services you want to learn how to take advantage of, leave a comment down below. On this How To Denver, how to sign up for a My Denver card. A My Denver card is for Denver residents ages five to 18 and unlocks a wide range of benefits and features. More on that in a moment, but first, get your hands on a My Denver card is very easy. You can register online at denvergov.org slash my Denver card.

Click online service center and fill out the necessary form. Cards will not be mailed, so you will need to go into a rec center to pick up the card. Cards can be picked up at twenty eight of Denver's 30 rec centers. Just see someone at the front desk to provide some brief information, then after a quick photo, you'll be all set with your new card. Once you have your card, that's when things get exciting.

The card replaces a library card and can be used to access Idea Labs, get homework assistance, or just check out books at any Denver Public Library branch. Your MyDenver card also gets you access to any Denver rec center in addition to a wide range of programs. Find out more at denvergov.org/recreation. And lastly, show your MyDenverCard at the zoo, botanic gardens, or any museum for possible discounts or even free admission. Restrictions and limitations vary for each site. Thanks for watching, and make sure you subscribe for more how to videos like this. And if there are any city services you want to learn how to take advantage of, leave a comment down below.

Your time is valuable. That's why we're making it even easier to do business with the city. Just check out our new online services hub. One click, and you'll find a world of services at your fingertips. Question about street sweeping? Check. Trash collection schedules? Check. Report an issue in your neighborhood? You bet that's a check. You can even find out where the snow plows are in your area. So don't spend time searching. Just check out our one stop shop at the online services hub at Denver Gov Dot Org.

Hey, Denver. Here's what's happening around the mile High this week. Spectra is bringing back their incredible intergalactic art showcase. Get ready for a super special pop up art show and enjoy free drinks, super special themed gift sets, and a special event on May 4 to celebrate Star Wars Day. If you love all things Star Wars and sci fi pop culture, you will love this art show.

Catch singer songwriter David Archuleta in conversation with local audiobook narrator Sam Archuleta to celebrate David's new memoir, devout, losing my faith to find myself. Your ticket includes a copy of the book, a meet and greet, and a q and a after the signing. Colorado Asian Pacific United is a nonprofit committed to unearthing, preserving, and celebrating local Asian and Pacific Islander histories. Their storytelling is working towards starting an AAPI culture and history museum. At DAZZLE, you can hear three musicians sponsored by the nonprofit singing and playing traditional instruments and songs.

Mayor Johnston's youth works initiative helps young people find a job with no experience necessary. There are still virtual and in person job fairs to help you land a position. And if you work a hundred hours or more between March and August 14, you get a $250 bonus. The Colorado Wind Ensemble is closing the season with transformation in metamorphosis, a program of evolution and reinvention. From barbers commando March, his first work scored exclusively for band to Hinamist majestic symphonic metamorphosis, you'll enjoy this musical journey that takes you through time.

Celebrate Mother's Day weekend with a fun and heartwarming baby goat yoga session. This family friendly event is perfect for moms, families, and animal lovers alike. Enjoy an all levels yoga class while playful baby goats hop, cuddle, and interact with you. Denver Bazaar returns to the streets of Sloan's Lake, and they're closing down three blocks to bring 80 plus local makers, street food, and the neighborhood's favorite outdoor bar. Start your morning with a yoga six flow and stay for the mimosas. Stay up to date with what's happening in Denver by following our socials. And you can always ask our chatbot, Sunny, online or by text.

Recording in progress.

0000015. Rezoning 17671 through 17675 East 64th Avenue from CMU 30 waivers, AIO u o one, and CMU 20 with waivers AIO and gateway AIO to PUD g 40. Public hearing is now open. I believe we start with a staff presentation from Tony Lechuga. I'll ask people to not hold against the applicant. The tone is abandoning us here.

And put to you.

Alright. Nat. Thank

you. Yes. Congrats. So

as Fred said, my name is Tony Luchuga who presents the private property owner proposed change to the zoning classification at this very lengthy address that we'll get into in a second. So, ultimately, what you can see on the screen here is the property outlined in red. It's located in the DIA neighborhood, which we'll get into in a second. It's about a 114 acres of land. So a very large portion of land in the neighborhood.

It's largely vacant with the exception of some minor agricultural uses that are sort of in that southwestern corner of the property right now. And what they're looking to do is take this property from three former chapter 59 properties, the specifics of which we'll get into in a second, and actually go into a PUD, which is a planned unit development, which in Denver is our terminology for writing custom zoning for a particular property. And that as well. So with broader location, you can see right here the red star in

the north or in the

the top right corner of the map in District 11, which is represented by council member Gilmore. Zooming in a little bit, you can see right here outlined in red at the bottom left corner of the map is the property in relation to the larger DIA statistical neighborhood. You can see the majority of the neighborhood is in fact the Denver International Airport with this small little sliver this little finger down here in the bottom left corner. Otherwise, sort of airport supportive industries. So here's where you can see the actual property and the zoning along in the area.

So the former chapter 59 zone districts, the two CMU 30 and CMU 20, these are broad commercial districts that allow for a diversity of uses. They do have some waivers and conditions on the property that largely reflect what is now the airport influence overlay. So it removes some of residential uses that would otherwise be allowed in order to reduce the allowable uses to those which would be not in conflict with airport operations. To

the

north of the property, you can see some other areas that have zoned into SMX 8 and SMX X 8 A, which is similar to the south where we see those. But for the most part of this area, we see former chapter 59 zoning. You can tell its proximity proximity to Pena Boulevard, which is in the blue DIA zoning to the West, and the a line RTD a line runs through there as well. So I do wanna note that for this area, there are some urban design standards and guidelines. The Denver Gateway design guidelines, they create a vision for land use, urban design, what the public realm might look like, and infrastructure improvements through a number of guiding principles and intent statements.

When we look at our existing context in terms of land use, you can see it is listed as agriculture because this is one very large parcel. It are those small existing agricultural uses Southwest as I noted. But for the most part, it's vacant. We'll see that when I show you an aerial photo of the site. You can see much of the area is still sort of like greenfield agriculture that's primed for development at some point.

But we do see that along Telluride, which is that major road to the east, there are a diversity of uses, largely commercial retail, but there are some existing public, quasi public, industrial, and office uses as well. This is an aerial of the site. So on the western side there, you can see a single dirt road that leads to the two agriculture property agricultural properties that exist today. But for the most part, the site is vacant. We really struggled to find some modern street views of the property.

Google Street View just doesn't come through here all that often. But to the south across 64th, there is some recently built multiunit residential. And then you can see, as I pointed out before, to the east, there is that diversity of sort of low scale commercial properties, some of those hotels that range between, you know, four to six stories maybe. It's important to note that because of this property's size, it was required to go through the city's large development review process. When it first came in, it was deemed applicable because the Far Northeast Area Plan, which we'll get into later in this in the presentation, does recommend the use of LDR.

The property's overall size justified this because there needed to be development, open space, and infrastructure decisions made in a process that couldn't just be resolved through the site development plan. So the purpose of large development review is to establish some initial intent statements about what the development is and the regulatory steps that need to take place in order for this development to happen successfully. Part of that is the creation of a large development framework. The point of all of this is to sort of identify and coordinate various studies, infrastructure improvements, development requirements, and all the other regulations that will apply to the future development. In your package of materials, you should have received the large development framework.

If you look through the large development framework, you'll notice a number of things about this particular property. Quite notably, in approaching this years ago, we it was noted that United Airlines is Denver's largest private employer. They currently train over 18,000 pilots at flight training center here in Denver. That means all of those pilots come on an annual basis. They stay in hotels.

They eat in restaurants, and they do trainings on-site. Quite notably, that site runs three hundred and sixty five days a year, nearly twenty four hours a day. The purpose of purchasing this property was to locate a new flight training center in the DIA neighborhood. That's very important for us when we sat down with them in early in 2023 to begin talking about what development would need to look like on this property. Knowing that there are many many pilots, many support staff, there is an abundance of time and energy that would be put into this development.

We wanted to make sure we got it right. So with that, I just kinda wanna lay out a little timeline by saying LDR was initiated all the way back in 2023. The team held their community informational meeting in March 2024. That was used to inform the community of their development plans, receive feedback, and then adapt their plans based on that feedback. From that, they submitted their large development framework in October 2024.

They began working on their infrastructure master plan, which lays out where roads would go, how stormwater and wastewater would be laid out, where open space would be located. They began that process in late twenty twenty four and have been finalizing it as of the 2026. So this has been a long and winding road over the past three years in order to try to build out what will be phase one of the project, the new flight training facility, identify all the infrastructure improvements necessary for long term development, establish requirements for park and open space requirements, and determine overall how internal site circulation would work at a facility that has very unique security requirements. So let's dive into the actual proposed zoning. So all of that was background for understanding where we're going and how we landed here.

So the applicant is proposing a planned unit development or PUD. The 40 attached to it just means it's the fortieth one that we've read. So the purpose of this PUD is to facilitate diversification of land uses within the site, encourage innovation and development of a corporate campus anchored by this new flight training center, allow for differentiation from traditional business agglomerations, and establish standards that are compatible to the site and to the neighborhood context. And it's really that bottom one that that led us to identifying a PUD as the most appropriate use for this particular site. So within the PUD, I wanna note that there was a creation of two subareas.

So the larger portion of the campus is Subarea A, and then there's the smaller portion of the campus that we're calling Subarea B. And while small, I will note that every part of this is actually really massive because keep in mind it's a 114 acres of land. So Subarea B, while looking small, is actually a large chunk of land. So to simplify the PUD, ultimately, what we did is base the entire PUD off of campus EI, which stands for campus, educational, or institution. And the one customization that we built into the building form standards, Campus EI, is to lower the maximum height to a 110 feet.

The reasoning for this is that Campus EI typically allows buildings of up to a 175 feet. When we get into the plan consistency portion of the review criteria, you'll see that the plan guidance for this area in both Denver and the small area plan calls for maximum heights of eight stories. And, typically, our eight story districts have a maximum height of a 110 feet. So the applicant felt it was appropriate to lower the heights from the allowed campus BI a 175 feet down to a 110 feet. That met their development requirements moving forward and was in line with our plan guidance.

But otherwise, subarea a building forms will comply with those of the Campus EI District. For Subarea B, given its proximity to 64th Avenue and Yampa Streets where we see, as I mentioned before, to the South, some multiunit residential, and to the East, some commercial development, there was a desire to match some more of the plan guidance that may be pointed towards mixed use development. So the customizations of building forms for subarea b generally follow the standards of an SMX 8 district. If you were to look at the Denver zoning code SMX eight building forms, you'll see that the table within the PUD strongly mirrors that of those SMX eight districts. What that requires is some stricter build two requirements.

The campus EI has no build two requirements. This establishes an option a and an option b for build two requirements that differentiate based on the size of the buildings built. It builds in some screening requirements. So along those edges, we would have some better screening. Those could include decorative garden walls and things like that that would just enhance the pedestrian experience while you're walking along the edge of this campus.

And it also builds in some transparency requirements dependent upon development. It also establishes that 110 foot height across the entirety of the site, which is consistent with the height recommendations of the plan. Those were the two for building forms. I wanna note a couple of other customizations across the site. So the uses.

If you look in the PUD at the use table, some of these uses are a blend of those allowed in campus and suburban mixed use districts. So oftentimes, our campuses are actually embedded within residential neighborhoods, often low scale residential neighborhoods. Think about the University of Denver, Regis University, some of our other smaller campuses. So sometimes the uses on those campuses are restricted in order to not interfere with low scale residential. What we did in the PUD is we actually allowed for a few uses that typically wouldn't be allowed in campuses because north of 64th Avenue, residential uses are not allowed in the DIA neighborhood.

It's a 114 acre campus, and so it will largely be self contained without adjacent neighbors. And so we felt that there were some uses that are not allowed in campus but strangely allowed in our suburban mixed use context that we added in to give them maximum flexibility within this large campus moving forward. The PUD reaffirms that residential is not permitted within the site, which is consistent with the airport influence overlay, which does not allow residential uses north of 64th Avenue. The purpose of that is to make sure that development doesn't interfere with airport operations and in its and is in fact supportive of airport operations. So this reaffirms that, of course, the site will be in support of airport operations.

We also noted that surface parking is not to be permitted as a primary use. We don't wanna see the site just built out as large surface parking. Surface parking can, of course, be potentially an accessory used to particular types of uses within the campus, but largely campuses try to lean on garage based parking. And then the last important customization that you might note in the PUD is that for security purposes, we raised the fence height requirements. So typically, Denver only allows eight foot fences, but we did allow this fence to go up to 12 feet.

But we did build in some requirements for particular types of materials and transparency around those fences. And this is common. We've actually done this in a few other PUDs where we have unique security reasons for allowing these taller fences. Well, that's generally PUD g 40. Let's talk a little bit about process.

So how did we get here today? So I highlighted all the backstory of the LDR process, the creation of the LPF, and the IMP. But in terms of rezoning, informational notice about the submission of the application went out in March. We're at our planning board hearing today, and we anticipate this going to city council by the June. So it's actually a pretty quick public process after years of engagements and ongoing conversations through the large development review process.

Today, we've received no letters from the applicable RNOs in the area. We have received one letter of support from a neighboring property owner whose key themes include the plan consistency and the added value of having a long term landowner of this 114 acres within the area. Alright. Now we'll turn to the review criteria. So we're gonna start with the three typical review criteria of a rezoning. There are five additional PUD criteria that we'll get to in a second. We're gonna start with the three. So we're mandated to consider these review criteria when determining the appropriateness of this request. So the first is consistency with adopted plans. And lucky for us, we actually have three in this area.

The first two are our citywide plans, comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. And the third is the Far Northeast area plan, which was adopted in 2019 as the city's first adopted small area plan with an with through the NPI process. So we don't typically talk about comprehensive plan here at planning board, but if you look at the staff report, you'll note myriad goals that we believe this proposed development and zone district would achieve. We'll now turn to Blueprint Denver, which focuses on the city's land use. This is a citywide plan and so oftentimes isn't as nuanced as our small area plans.

But I will note before we dive in that it has been our practice that when we adopt a small area plan, we update Blueprint Denver to reflect that changed desire. So what does Blueprint Denver have to say about the site? So in terms of our future neighborhood context, it calls this area suburban. Now suburban areas are known for having a range of uses. They are supposed to be walkable, bikeable, but the plan notes they are mostly reliant on cars.

It also notices that campuses should be embedded in most neighborhood contexts. We find campuses all over the city embedded within a diversity of neighborhood contexts. So, again, the PUD is based on a campus EI district with some suburban ideas built into that. The combination of the PUD and the I infrastructure master plan will result in a walk able, bike able area. It will still be reliant on cars, most notably because it's adjacent to major roadways.

But we do believe that the PUD is consistent with the descriptions of this neighborhood context. Blueprint Denver also identifies future places. And in this case, it calls this a community center. Now community centers are notably called out for their mix of uses, whether it's office, commercial, or residential, and then having heights of up to five stories. We believe that the PUD as written will support a diverse mix of office and commercial uses.

Obviously, it doesn't allow residential as is consistent with our guidance to not interfere with airport operations north of 64th. And then I wanted to call out the two roads. So both 64th and Yampa, 64th is known as an arterial collect an arterial street. These are known for having high vehicle through throughput and low property access. We actually believe that locating a corporate campus at this corner where 64th does not go through at Pena Boulevard is actually an appropriate location for this type of enclosed campus where we will have high vehicle throughput and low property access.

And then Yampa, North South Street to east there, is known as a collector, and those are also known for having really high vehicle throughput but generally are conveying most vehicles to arterial streets. So, again, locating a corporate campus such as this and the flight training center where we anticipate seeing a lot of people coming and going from work at all hours of the day is appropriate for both this place type and these street typologies. Blueprint Denver also identifies growth areas throughout the city. This one is known as community centers and corridors, which is one of the more intense growth areas where we should be targeting more growth than not. So we do anticipate 25% of new housing and 20%

of new

employment within this place type. Now as I've said many times, residential will not be allowed here, but we do believe the PUD with its support of a diverse number of uses on-site and the anticipated employment brought here by United Airlines would help us achieve that goal of 20% new employment within this type of growth area. Because of its size, because it went through the large development review process, we did an equity analysis on-site. And quite notably, we did the equity analysis back in 2023, 2024 when they were doing the community information meeting. But throughout the years, we have updated the equity analysis to continue looking at those scores related to this site.

Equity analyses in Denver analyzed three things, access to opportunity, vulnerability to displacement, and expanding housing diversity. Now, obviously, this property will not be expanding housing diversity throughout the city. It will be expanding job diversity. Quite notably, the current flight training center houses, employs the pilots who come to train there, the trainers who train them, but also the diversity of supplemental staff, anybody from the folks who are working the cafeteria to cleaning the center at night to the support staff who help with scheduling. So a diversity of jobs will be located here.

When we actually did the equity analysis, what we noted as some of the most needed things were improved access to open space and diverse jobs. Both of those are known to impact access to health care and lowering child obesity through getting people active. Quite notably, if you look at the large development framework, more than 10% of the site will be set aside as open space connecting to regional trails throughout the network or throughout the area. So we believe that the proposed development helps achieve some of these goals. But I also wanna note that we were really conscious throughout the process of the impact on surrounding neighborhoods, which have their own unique equity values.

Because residential isn't allowed north of 64th, there may be some low end values when you do statistical analysis at this level. But we do believe that on balance, this proposed development and zone district produce more good in terms of our equity goals. Blueprint Denver also has a number of narrative goals, not just maps. So we wanted to note a couple of these that we believe this proposed rezoning would achieve. So quite notably, this one comes up often when we're bringing properties out of the former chapter 59 into the Denver zoning code.

We are encouraged to do that, and this brings a large portion of Far Northeast out of chapter 49 out of chapter 59 and into the new Denver zone code. In terms of some of Blueprint Denver's economic goals, again, we're called on to promote Denver International Airport as the primary economic engine for the state of Colorado. And as a sub strategy to that policy, we're encouraged to further commercial near the airport to protect its ability to grow and thrive for generations to come. And, again, locating United Airlines this close to Denver International Airport and in proximity to downtown and the a line, we believe helps encourage further economic development. We believe this addresses some of the climate goals in Blueprint Denver as well by locating denser development near transit.

This site is notably, depending on where you are in the 114 acres, it's about a mile from the 61st Impena Train Station. Its proximity to DIA and the idea of it being a campus can get less auto dependent. If United Airlines could use shuttles to bring pilots from DIA to the site, have them staying, eating, training on-site. We're reducing auto dependency of shuttling those 18,000 plus pilots back and forth across the city. Alright.

Let's turn our attention to the small area plan here. So as I noted before, it's our custom to update Blueprint Denver when we adopted a small area plan. So the neighborhood context of suburban and the future place of a local court and the growth strategy all match those in Blueprint Denver. The one difference is if you remember back to that place type slide, I said that Blueprint Denver recommended heights of up to five stories for that place type. And, again, that exists because that plan is a citywide plan, and so we don't wanna change the height recommendation for that place type throughout the entire city.

So we rely on our neighborhood plans to give us more refined height guidance. And in this case, the area plan actually calls for height guidance up to eight stories at this location. So, again, we built that into the PUD to say if the neighborhood plan supported eight stories, let's cap that height at a 110 feet rather than reflecting the 175 feet of our existing campus regulations. And then there's some really important narrative language in the Far Northeast Plan that we believe is supportive of this type of development and the PUD. So two concepts here.

The plan notes that the vast greenfield sites North Of 64th, which include this, provide unique opportunity to retain employment centers that require large footprints for operational needs. This is a perfect example of that type of operational need that has a very large footprint. If you've driven by or walked past the existing flight training center at MLK in Quebec, you'll see just how large those buildings are. The operational needs for building safe, functional flight training centers are massive, and this presents a unique opportunity for locating that type of use as well as other corporate uses on the site. And then the second bullet point notes that on those same greenfield sites, coupled with the restriction on housing development, we have a unique opportunity to create employment centers.

And maintaining jobs in Denver and the Far Northeast provides competitive advantage because of its proximity to both DIA, but also the A Line and the rest of Denver and the region. So, again, this poses a unique opportunity to locate thousands of jobs in an area where the plan very specifically calls for locating those jobs in this type of space. So we believe the PUD is very consistent when we consider these goals. There's a couple of additional narrative goals that I called out here. This one is similar to the blueprint Denver in that it calls for us to rezone properties out of former chapter 59.

It also calls for us to support rezoning efforts that will result in the development of significant job opportunities and the expansion of employment sectors. And knowing how many people United Airlines already employs within the city of Denver and that flight training center, we know that allowing for their expansion on this property would result in significant job opportunities. That's similar to land use goal number 19, which says we should support employment growth very specifically in this part of the city. And then in terms of the quality of life goal, we are called on in this area to grow parks and recreation access and diversify services programs. If you look at the map of the area, you'll note that there is a strong presence of parks and connective trails, but those trails often run into dead ends.

And this would help link together multiple parks and trails within the area, allowing for greater access throughout. Moving on to the second criteria of the typical review criteria, public interest. We believe that this would, achieve public interest through implementation of our three adopted plans for the area. It would also encourage the use of greenfield sites for airport supportive commercial, which is very specifically called out in all of the plans, and building out connectivity at Far Northeast, both through the open space network and the infrastructure that we provided in the terms of roads and sidewalks throughout this area. And then in terms of the third review criteria, consistency with neighborhood context, zone district purpose, and intent statements, this is actually called out again in the PUD review criteria, and so we'll get into more specificity of how it meets these in the next five.

So we'll turn our attention now to the five PUD review criteria. There's a lot of text up on the screen there just for posterity. We're actually gonna go through each of them individually now. So the first one says that a PUD should be consistent with the intent and purpose of such districts as stated in article nine of the Denver zoning code. And we believe that it does because the site has very special characteristics related to the scale of the development and the demands that require more customized approach to achieve successful developments.

We looked at a straight SMX eight district early on and discovered that it actually wouldn't work for some of the security and development needs required across the totality of the site. We looked at a straight campus EI district and discovered that there were some deficiencies there as well. So the blend of the two really did create the perfect opportunity to respond to the scale and characteristics of the requested development here, and we believe will achieve a more successful development than a standard district. Quite notably, it will result in a diversification of land use, open space connectivity, and advanced numerous city goals that a standard district alone would not achieve. The second criteria or b asks, will it comply with all applicable standards and criteria for QD?

Answer is yes. That's quite explicit in the PUD that it will comply with all standards and criteria of Criteria c asks, would the development proposed on the subject property be not be feasible on any other sub districts, and would it require an unreasonable number of variances and or conditions? Said before, we explored multiple standard districts and discovered that there were factors that didn't work in any of those districts. And then we felt like it was most planned consistent and resulted in the best possible development if we blended them and wrote in this PUD with a sort of light touch of deviations. And the final two criteria, d, does the PUD establish permitted uses that are compatible with existing land uses adjacent to the subject property?

We believe it does. It allows for uses that are compatible with dense airport supportive commercial uses, not dissimilar to those that we find in the s and x eight districts around it or the Myriad Chapter 59 districts. And then e, would the PUD establish permitted building forms that are compatible with adjacent existing forms? Again, yes. While our campuses are called for being embedded in all of our neighborhoods, the applicant worked very hard as to align some of those building form standards to what we find in adjacent districts like the SMX districts both to the North and the South by lowering the heights and building in some of those very distinct building form standards in sub area b.

So we believe that it meets both these criteria as well. So finding that it meets all eight criteria, CPD recommends that the planning board recommend approval, and the applicant team would now like to give their own.

Thank you.

Invite the applicants up to Please.

Good afternoon, board members. My name is Desirem Cordero, and I live here in Denver. And I represent the United the United State and local government affairs team. Over the past several years, we've had the opportunity to spend a great deal of time not just working through this process with the city, but also engaging directly with the community surrounding our site. That ongoing dialogue has been important to us, and it has helped shape how we approach our work through Denver and, of course, this entire project.

Since United acquired this fort this 114 acres in our December in twenty in twenty twenty three, our focus has been on planning thoughtfully for long long term growth in a way that reflects both our operational needs and the community that we are part of. Before I hand it over to Sean, I want to acknowledge the team at CPD, Tony and everyone, along with many city agencies who have been engaged throughout this process. This has been a collaborative effort from the very beginning, and we are grateful for the partnership and guidance along the way. With that, I'll turn it

over to

Sean to discuss the detail of the proposal. By the way, I live at 5522 Wabash Street.

Okay.

Thank you, Ms. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Board. I'm going to take a quick moment to introduce some members of our team that are here today. I'm Sean Maley with CRL Associates, and I've been working on the rezoning and community engagement process with my wonderful partner on this project, Bethany Gravel, who's here in the audience.

We're also joined by Mark Adams from United's, corporate real estate leadership team who works on planning and development matters. And Chris Vogelsang from OV Consulting is here, who in addition to ZGF and a few others worked on the infrastructure master plan and other transportation and mobility matters. So Tony actually did a great job kind of talking about some of United's presence and something Ms. Speaks about phenomenally as well. But United has a very large presence in Denver, largest private employer.

And with the sites is looking to expand not only the flight training operations, but allow for other future uses as well. This site shows the new location at 64th And Yampa in proximity to the existing Quebec campus and the airport. I'm gonna move fast here just because I know we have limited time. So we talked a bunch about flight training. 18,000 pilots come through this facility annually.

And if you did not know before, you do now, that Denver is United's only home to its flight training operations. And we are very fortunate to have those pilots not only come here annually and eat at our restaurants, stay at our hotels, visit our community, but all the other support staff and operations that go into it. I thought it was three hundred and sixty four days. Tony said three sixty five. It's three sixty two, but it is twenty four seven and just a very, very big operation.

And importantly, the current Quebec campus with the opening of Building H back in early twenty twenty four is at full capacity without room for growth or redundancy. And so that's what kind of leads us to the DIA neighborhood. I'm gonna move beyond this slide. You you know the site location well. It's proximity to the a line, Pennanty Station North, and of course, the airport.

This is kind of a site layout diagram that, shows where that flight training center phase one project would live in the Southeast portion of the site with the West portion of the site accommodating future growth and employment opportunities. As per the LDR process over 13 acres of the property will be new publicly accessible open space kind of situated on the western portion of the site along Telluride and of course connecting Dockwood Gulch to the North and Pena Station to the South. I don't know why the formatting there is a little messed up. My apologies about that. But moving quickly kind of some important mobility and connection elements of this project, expanding 64th as an arterial, as as Tony noted, connecting Telluride to the North and to the South where that connection does not exist today, connecting these trails along Dogwood Gulch and along Telluride and that new, open space, large network of sidewalks and trail connections on all sides of the property.

And, you it's very close to Pennant Station about a 15 walk or a three to five minute bike ride. And of course, we did do a TDM plan with our mobility study. And so as Ms. Mentioned, this has been a long and Tony mentioned a long and kind of deliberate process starting with our LDR discussions back in 2023, late twenty twenty three. One of the great things about the LDR is how it puts that community engagement upfront.

And so we were able to start as kind of funny others of blizzard today. 03/14/2024, there was a a big blizzard, spring blizzard as well during the day of our CIM. And so, but we made a lot of connections there. We mailed a ton of people, and really have had a a consistent presence in the Northeast community. Some of the RNOs up there are a little more, intermittent or, not as active as other parts of the city that that some of us have, worked in or are familiar with, but a very great community that we have had the pleasure of engaging with.

And so I'll skip some of the detail on the IMP or the rezoning process because I think Tony's staff report did a phenomenal job about that. But as you can see in the community engagement section, we've had years of presence in this community attending town halls, open houses, presentations at Montbello twenty twenty, sponsoring community events. And really what I find kind of fun about this, I'm I'm a bit of a land use geek, but we've talked about land use and, the plan and the PUD for the site. A lot of the discussion is focused on jobs and, what those jobs could mean for folks in in the Far Northeast. And then kind of lastly, as I kick it back to Ms.

Here for a few last words, we've really had this opportunity to talk about, the impact, the positive community impact that United has on the community. And so that's where we'll end our remarks today. So, Mez, kick it back over to you. I thought I was gonna get the Yeah.

Maybe not. I'll I'll do this as fast as I can, but I want you to hear it, please. Over the past several years and especially since acquiring the land, we spent a lot of time in the community listening, learning, and continuing conversations with residents, community organizations, and local leaders, not just to talk about our project, but to better understand what matters most to the people who live nearby. And one thing we heard clearly and took seriously is that we need to do a better job showing up and telling our story in a way that reflects the work we're already doing in the Denver community. That's something we've been very intentional about.

At United, we often describe our approach as global meets local. We're a global company, but our impact is built at the local level shaped by the needs of each community we serve. And what's needed here in Denver is unique. We understand that. We listen and we align with our our efforts with what matters locally. You can see that in the partnerships with before done, I'm done. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Apologies.

Thank you very much. We're here for any questions.

Thank you. Wanna open it up to the board for questions? Tony,

I've got some questions

for you.

Let's do a public. Let's do it.

I I don't see I didn't see anybody signed up. I don't see anybody in the room for that, I don't believe.

Yeah.

Am I correct? Sorry. Thank you. Oh, that's correct. Right. Great. Yes. Onward.

So my understanding is the current flight center is on MMX 5. So that kinda leads me to wonder if they're gonna make a lot of changes that would require this PUD. So I just think it's unique because we don't typically see PUD's on greenfield sites. I think, you know, when we look at the code for the criteria, it says, like, special physical characteristics and, you know, proposed scale timing of development project demands, more customized zoning approach. And so, obviously, the site is significantly larger than their current site, but it made me question why the departure from an MX zone district to a PUD and what that threshold of changes for for CPD to accommodate that.

You know, I think I can maybe understand, you know, having the hybrid with campus, but I feel like MX and campus are very similar with the difference of their kind of bulk standard requirements. So I just wanted to understand what that threshold of change was between their current facility that is operating under MX five and why we wouldn't have a clear and predictable zone district for this site.

Yeah. It's a good question. So the the m districts, if you look at a map of the entire city, those those are sort of like master planned context districts. They largely are mapped only in the Central Park neighborhood where at the time that it was being developed, we did sort of have a master plan for what that might look like. Sure.

So we don't really map the m districts across the city anymore. Try to rely on our standard districts where they can match the development, make it work. So in this context, we really didn't consider matching that sort of m and m x five because there is no master plans. There is there's no master plan for this part of the the neighborhood. The closest we can kinda get to that is going through the large development review process where the framework outlines what we anticipate for development.

The IMP sort of, like, puts a little bit more of that into Amber in terms, like, what will our circulation look like, what will our open space look like. And then we landed on a PUD because we did explore multiple districts to see, can we produce this sort of successful development at this scale and over the next, you know, potential decades of life? And the answer that we kind of consistently came to is, like, no. There was something about any specific district that that always kind of didn't work for different portions of the site. We even explored options of saying, like, if we do campus here, but we do SMX here and breaking it up that way.

Ultimately, given a site of this size with the need for flexible development, you know, ultimately, they know they wanna build know they want want and need to build a new expansive flight training center. But beyond that, for the 113 acres, there's kind of a big question of what those develop what those buildings could look like, what those uses could look like. And so building in the flexibility of the campus districts to the majority of that with some deviations just sort of builds in that flexibility that that we we would would see.

Can I jump jump on to that question then? I mean, I think I kind of have the question of why not just CMPEI because it has and I think when I checked the zoning, I know you said one seventy five. I think it's one fifty. It doesn't really matter, like, for height, but but they they could build to, you know, if they wanted to, a 110 or or whatever the height allowance would be in airport. But could you give us an example of one of the things that was a sticking point?

If you were just looking at a straight zone district, what did you look at? You were probably exploring it as you're looking at the IMP and other physical elements of the site. Were there setbacks, or were there were there planned street strategies and transportation network strategies where the building could not reflect the zoning appropriately? I mean

Yeah. So when we look at sort of the straight campus EI district, we questioned that that scale if that meets the community center guidance of our land use plan because it allows for a diversity of uses. It allows for diversity of building placements. Our campus districts, we've talked about them as sort of like a big sandbox where you're given a lot of flexibility and freedom to locate buildings where you want. So I think on first blush, the conversation we had with the applicant was like, the plain guidance seems to point towards s f x eight, and that is actually what they proposed as their first exploration.

But as their team started diving into some of the regulations around building placements, around setbacks, transparency, there were some things that were they discovered might not give them the sort of flexibility that they need long term in order to make decisions five years from now, ten years from now about building location, about, yeah, how internal movement works for our campus to give them greater flexibility to do those sorts of things.

Okay.

And then also just the height of a 110 feet, is that matching the SMX eight height? But it looked like in Blueprint Denver that the height recommendation was five stories.

Yeah. Blueprint Denver does have a height recommendation for a community center of five stories. But because that's mapped at a citywide scale, we typically rely on our small area plans to provide more refined guidance on heights. And the Far Northeast area plan actually calls for eight stories, which is why we see the SMX eight mapped to the north and the south of this property. And so the applicant team felt like lowering that height from what campus would allow and matching the height consistent with the plan guidance just really continued to support the the consistency.

The question I had was so one of the arguments was the kind of security protocols they need for a site like this, which seems to maybe conflict with the maps showing where the open space is. So if they're gonna be publicly accessible open space, where is that? How are we avoiding that conflict between publicly accessible open space and the argument for enhanced security as being a premise for a PUD?

Yeah. Very reasonable question. So if you take a look at the large development framework that was included with your materials. So within the 113 acres, there is a gated sort of corporate campus proposed that has its own open space that they can build in the way any other campus does. Obviously, by being gated, you're correct.

That is not publicly accessible open space. However, because of its size, it is required to meet section 10.8 of the Tempur zoning code where a minimum of 10% of the total site does have to be publicly accessible open space. So as outlined in the large development framework, there's a large swath of the northern section of the property property and the western section of the property that will be publicly accessible open space. And those were identified by the Department of Parks and Recreation as the most viable and useful opportunities for this site to provide that. And they actually end up being slightly more than 10%, which is the minimum requirement, and they connect to that network of trails. So, yeah, through the middle of the site, it will, for security purposes, be closed to campus. But yeah.

Do we have other examples in the city of PUDs on greens Greenfield sites? Typically, we I mean, just in practice, we typically see them when there's an existing constraint. Right? And so this is a really unique, I think, application. Others would be

Yeah. I mean, we have a couple of PODs that they count as greenfield sites or if they count as just infields infill sites. But, like, the old Johnson And Wales campus was a PUD that was written to accommodate new infill and adaptive reuse of buildings. Same with Moretto Campus PUD. That one also has abundant open space surrounding it, and the PUD was written to sort of accommodate growth over time surrounding those buildings. Denver doesn't have a whole lot of greenfield sites except for this part of the city, and so we might not have that many examples of it.

I think it's just a heightened level of scrutiny for PUD. We don't see very often without kind of, like, a really strong existing constraint. So, I mean, generally, I think I think that answers my questions. Thank you.

Anyone else? Questions? Yes. Mary. I'm

debating whether or not this is a comment or a question. So forgive me if it turns into one or the other. I don't have as much concern about using the PUD on on Greenfield. I think that the use case is so unique in terms of the zone, the uses in our city that that makes sense to me. And because we use Gesundheit, PUD so infrequently, I actually get a little excited when I see a PUD come through.

And today, it's really a great day for that. What's strange to me is to have so much of the site be future uses that are unnamed. I feel like normally when we're looking at a PUD, there's quite a fleshed out plan of what what the development will be. So I guess to turn this into a question is, what was the specific motivation to rezone the entire the entirety of this site when we're using this sort of uncommon for us zoning tool, and we don't really know what's gonna be on the other half of the site.

Yeah. I think as we've mentioned many times, this is years of dialogue between applicant, city, the community. And every time that we sat down and looked at a standard district for the majority of the site, you're right. Like, subarea a, it's largely campus EI, very few deviations. The ones that are really important were not achievable through a standard district.

The security concerns, the blend of uses that they propose to have on-site. This is a really unique landowner employer that has the potential to do a broad diversity of things. And while we know that the flight training center is their proposed phase one development because of immediate need for it, other future uses on the site that were discussed could be things that range from a hotel to a small market to corporate offices to things that are a little more intense. Like, could they build a facility for the repair and maintenance of airplane parts? That sort of blend of uses does not exist in either Campus EI or SMX eight.

And so it really is, like, I point to that list of uses. That was really us trying to build in the sort of flexibility that would be extremely supportive of the diversity of airport supportive surface uses that United could have on the site. Because it it may not just be people in offices. It could be people who are mechanics, are working on parts. They also wanted to add in the continued use of agriculture, which is not always allowed on these particular districts because they want the existing landowners to continue to be able to use it as agricultural land for the time being.

So, yeah, while it looks like the building form standard deviations are light touches, that was very intentional to say, maybe there's not a lot we need to touch here. But what we are doing is building it, the diversity of uses that allow for extreme flexibility dependent on how United needs to use this to employ the most people to have the most airports supported services moving forward.

Thank you for that. Just to dive into that a little more, and and part of this is just for my my own education. Like, I know a development for a site like this, like, the length of time and series of processes are myriad. I did notice in the large development framework that they noted, like, Excel is providing power sources to the site from off-site of the the site that we're talking about. And, you know, I just I I did notice in the LDF that a data center was a potential use on the site.

And so knowing and I think maybe one of the better locations. But just knowing that that's been a flashpoint and conversation in our city, it feels I just wanna be delicate around it to have it as a potential use within this PUD where the power is going to come from off-site to have this use that takes a lot of power. And I don't want it to be sort of an under the radar.

Yeah. So it's acknowledged in the IMP that that could be a potential use. Where we're seeing this different from where the the moratorium the city council just passed on data centers is that this is not proposed to be a large scale publicly accessible data center. So if you looked at an open source map of data centers throughout the city of Denver, you actually find that there are a lot of private employers that have small scale data centers embedded within their buildings. Regis University is a prime example that people don't know about.

They have and operate a data center on-site that is only supportive for inter campus uses. And so it is not a primary use on their site. It's considered a use that is common and customary to a campus. And so in looking at this as a potential use on-site, we also determined that it would largely be supportive of the data production necessary to operate a flight training center, and so, therefore, it is not a primary use. It is just part of that type of of office use. So it is something we've thought about a lot. Yeah. Thank you.

Good. I

just have a question wrapping my head around the community center idea, and yet it's a a single use tenant with the security.

Mhmm.

Did that give you any pause in the way you thought about that?

It's a great question, Julie. This is why it's taken

us three years to get to this point.

Yeah. You're you're absolutely right. When we first looked at this and said community center, does this match that? You know, some of the things that we wanted to build into the PUD were an effort to kind of match what that looks like. You know, Community center is described as having a diversity of uses.

Not sure that it's described as all of those uses being 100% publicly accessible. And so the proposed diversity of uses within the site is reflective of the diversity of office, commercial, retail. And while those might be largely accessible only to people who are working at the flight training center or guests that day, it is producing that diversity of uses that we want to see out of a center like this. It's one of the reasons that we built in that subarea b that brought in some of those SMX eight building form standards to say, can we, at at the very least, build in some stronger edges along that corner where we might see more pedestrian traffic from people walking at resident from residential locations to the South to some of the commercial businesses along Yampa. So we explored a lot of options for, you know, how we can best try to match that.

And some of it was, you know, building in the active open spaces around the edges to make sure that it is community accessible around the site and and building in that subarea.

Is the smaller ones sub area b?

B. Yeah. Are

those open and not part of the secure campus, or will that be

No. The the anticipated development is to be contained, and that's the location where they plan to build the new flight training center buildings. Those have some pretty unique design standards in order to make them operational.

This is totally in the weeds, but as a landscape architect, the 12 foot is a really high fence. I skipped why you need it, but is it intended to be is it setback from pedestrian ways at all? Or

So it's a good question. Or So it kind of depends on the proposed development, I think it's anticipated that it will be set back. So part of the SMXA standards, if you were to look at the building form table within the PUD, it actually requires that there be some, you know, potentially garden walls or fences built at particular depths, especially in option b of sub area option b of those SMXA standards require some more intense garden wall design standards. And so there's a possibility that we see enhanced landscaping along that edge and then a 12 foot fence. And then I'll note that in the PUD, to how we've done it with similar we've we've done this twice in two other PUD's recently.

We've allowed those taller fences, but what we've written in is that there are actually unique regulations. So in this one, it does say that they shall be allowed a 12 foot fence. However, that needs to be composed of masonry, natural stone, and or steel in order to require it to be of a higher quality. And then, also, we wrote in a a percentage opaqueness so that we're not just building a 12 foot brick wall that nobody can see through. There are some regulations about, like, how that fence will have to look in order to not be unappealing because we recognize that 12 foot fence is a big fence.

Any further questions from the board? K. Seeing none, I will close the hearing and open up for deliberation from the board.

Okay. I'm very excited to see this come

to fruition as far as. So I know it's taken a long time. I appreciate the elements of the PUD that, you know, included a bill to some of the things that they might not normally have in the campus zone to. I appreciate the specific aspect of community center. I wrestled with this and that this is a very, you know, jobs diverse, jobs heavy proposal, and I think that's good for the community.

I think it's probably something the community has generally responded to. I also wanna mark this day in history where I heard someone say the great thing about LDR. Just had to throw that out there.

Never never did that.

But what I do appreciate about LDR and for a site like this and for all these large sites is the sequence of events and the thoughtfulness that had to go into this. So it wasn't just the fact that this is a 113 acre site. You're a big big use, you know, and and big contributor to the community, but that you actually got to see the thought that went into it at that very high level, trickling down into what, you know, must be some iterations of planning and infrastructure planning to understand what the zoning looks like. So while we only make a judgment determination on our interest in whether this meets the criteria on rezoning, I appreciate all the work that's gone into it to get to this point. So thank you for that.

I will be supporting this today.

Thank you. Anyone else? I will just jump in and say I'm very supportive. I believe it meets the time guidance. I think we we have to recognize the unique circumstances of an area like the areas surrounding the airport and the unique needs for people to to develop that.

It's it's there's pretty specific demands on it. And I think we have to acknowledge that. I actually appreciate the use of a PUD in this case to provide that future flexibility. I I think, you know, we have this, obviously, the traditional PEDs that we're one by one seeing come before us from chapter 59 that said, you know, this can be a funeral home, and that's it. And and those are obviously not efficient.

And and that's, I think, often the basis for the bias against customized zoning is because we we had so much terrible customized zoning in Denver for so long. I I do appreciate the use of a PD to create this kind of flexibility. Having, you know, dealt myself with properties that had characteristics that made the conventional zone districts really problematic. So I do appreciate that. And I kind of feel like we shouldn't be afraid of customized zoning if it's thoughtfully done and helping us to meet our plan guidance and our objectives.

So I certainly will be supporting it. And I also just wanna say thank you to Tony for another excellent presentation and and q and a, and we will miss you and glad you'll be doing other good things within the city. But just a note of appreciation for the many great presentations we've had from you and just your your work here is terrific. Thank you.

I would just say before we decide, I think we all need a, you know, an experience and a flight set. I don't know.

Add that to as a condition of our ability. I

know you guys don't have time.

Just watching the city attorney over there kind of switching a little

bit of that. That's gonna yell at her.

Yeah. Well, then I move to recommend that city council approve application 2026 rezone 15 rezoning seventeen sixty seven one through 17675 East 64th Avenue from CMU 30 waivers, AIO UO one, CMU 20 waivers, AIO, and gateway AIO to PUD G 40, which will be much easier to say, finding that the applicable review criteria have been met. Second.

Moved and seconded. We'll do a roll call vote unless there's any any discussion of the motion.

Aye.

Alicia?

Aye.

Sebastian? Aye. Melissa? Mary?

Aye. Julie? Aye.

And I vote aye as well. That motion is carried. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay.

We have one more item on the agenda today. Moving on, we will open the public hearing for official map amendment application 2026 rezone 0000032. Rezoning Loretta Heights, 3001 South Federal Boulevard and 3058 South May Stanton Way approximately. From PUD G 24 and PUD G 25 to PUD G 41 and PUD G 42. Public hearing is now open. I'll turn it over to.

I was gonna start with good afternoon, but good evening.

Good.

Hi, My name is Anthony Banias with CPD. Before you today, we're looking at rezoning for two PODs. So we're going from PUD 24 and PUD 25 into PUD 41 And 42. So PUD stands for planned unit development. This is very similar to the Loretto the York Street Yards PUD that we did not too long ago where we're changing just a small boundary in the PUD.

And so I'm gonna go into the details of that. But, you know, the Laredo's PUD is the original '24 and '25 were rezoned back in twenty twenty one January. And more specifically, you know, Tony kind of highlighted a little bit, but, you know, that plan came from this historic Loretto district that houses universities and schools and it sold back in 2018. And so part of that, PUD was to allow for growth. And it broke it down into two areas, which is known as the Loretto, historic core and then the residential area.

And so let me dive into the details of this specific request and kind of how it aligns with plan guidance. So looking at location in context, this is located in Council District 2, Council Member Flynn's District. It's located on the Eastern side of the Harvey Park South statistical neighborhood. So the subject property of these two, PUD's are just approximately about 58 acres, and the Denver Arts and Venue is an applicant. And so what this rezoning is gonna help facilitate is that it's gonna move one parcel from PUD 25 into PUD 2424, which will create two new PUD's.

And so that parcel is address 3058 South May Staten Way, sorry, and which is approximately over 4,000 14,000 square feet. So part of that removing from one PUD into the next creates new PUD's, but we're introducing a new sub area c and what we're classifying as PUDG 41. So PUDG 42 41 will follow basically PUDG 24. And so in essence, there is no changes to the PDs other than the boundaries. And then we're introducing this new subvariance c.

And so just for reference, the parcel that is changing the boundaries within these PUDs is highlighted in the red cloud. And like I mentioned, we're changing the boundaries. We're introducing this parcel in in introducing sub area c, but more in essence, the main reason this is all happening is that Denver Arts and venues constructing a two story parking garage on the site. And so under the current zoning of DOD 25, this area falls under what is classified as sub area b. And within sub area b, it follows the SRH 2.5 zone district.

Now the SRH 2.5 zone district parking garages are not permitted. And so one of the things that we analyzed was do we change PUD 25 to allow parking or do we incorporate this specific parcel into PUD 24? And given the uniqueness of how this specific site and parking garage is going to be used as an accessory use to the library and theater, as you can see here directly to the east of the site. And you can kind of see my cursor here, which is at what's in coal. You know, CPD found that it would probably be most appropriate to incorporate this into PUD 24 resulting into a new PUD, PUD 41.

And so just giving some more context, the current zoning, like I highlighted, is PUD 24 And 25. But it's surrounded predominantly by single unit residential, which you see. But when you look along federal, we do see some MX, which is that mixed use. Some of it varies between three and twelve stories. And directly south of this site, we have some old code R2A, which is like low residential as well as campus EI2.

And so when we're looking at the land use, predominantly, see a lot of vacant, which is highlighted in white. And then we see some public quasi public uses and office uses. But predominantly around the whole neighborhood, we see single family residential and it changes along federal. So the top right building is a historic admin building, as you can see, which is located right in the center of this Laurel historic core area. And then on the bottom right corner, we see the theater and the library.

Here are some single family to the north of the site. Single family ranges from one story to two story residential developments. And then, you know, we have commercial and multifamily that's seen around Federal. And here's a three story multifamily apartment complex. So looking at the proposed some of the key differences so you can kinda see what I'm talking about.

So the parcel on the left originally was part of Sub Area B and now will be part of a new Sub Area C within PUDG 24. Just kind of give me some context of what we're looking at and how this changed the boundaries within it. And so when we look at the actual PUDGs that are attached to the staff report, the changes you'll see are highlighted in red. So when we're looking at PUD g 42, the real changes were just on the legal description and and one map, just kind of but everything else within that PUD stays identical to PUD 25. But now we're naming it PUD 42 given the change in the legal description.