Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Highs and lows. We've had times when we've just been devastated. I mean from the first seizure to the first time you googled the diagnosis, right, and hit the floor crying. I very specifically remember one time I thought we were going to a rehab appointment. I, sat there and

had the

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.

Afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call to order the 05/20/2026 meeting of the Denver planning board. I will start with roll call to ensure we have quorum, and I'll just have you state your name for the record.

I will start to my left with Girdre. Girdre Ose. Julie Meenan Ek. Mary Coddington. Alicia Juan Hammett. Melissa Michia. Heidi Major. Rachel Marion.

Greg Blake.

And I am Caitlin Quandar, and we have a quorum. Planning board reserves time at the beginning of every meeting for public comment, and these are for items that do not have a hearing and are not on our regular agenda. So this is time for you to let us know something that you think planning board should know. But planning board will not be responding or entering into a dialogue because it is not on our publicly noticed agenda. So if you are here to give comment on something or general public comment, please raise your hand, and you will have three minutes.

We do have one person signed up, Tim McKay. Tim, if you're here for a different item, please do let us know. Otherwise, go ahead and, raise your hand, and we'll unmute you. Go ahead, Tim. I think you could talk now.

You're not not unmuted. Yeah.

Great. Thanks so much. And I appreciate having a couple of minutes to address the signage plan for Hanger 2. I'm a Lowry resident for the past twenty four years and for the past two have lived across the street from the Hanger 2 District. And I got to say the signage plan is a great plan.

It's sensitive to the neighborhood. It provides appropriate way finding. It's aesthetically pleasing and addresses the neighborhood issues. And in terms of the proposed change to the plan that allows a new signage for the veterinary office, from my read that sounds completely appropriate and we welcome the office to the neighborhood. What I would like to address is the part of the plan that involves the large signage on the West side of Hangar 2, and that's the signage for extra space storage.

My understanding is that that was preexisting to the plan that it was grandfathered in, but as such, it is seven fifty square feet of signage that violates significant portions of the plan. And my request would be that if there is additional change to the plan ongoing that the comments that I present be considered. The sign is out of scale for the rest of the signage within Hanger 2. It provides misguidance in terms of wayfinding. It serves as a magnet that draws people to extra space storage to the west side of the facility when the entrance is on the east side of the facility.

It also competes with the historic signage of Hanger 2 that is part of the district. It does provide one historic fact, however, that Extra Space Storage was established in 1977, which I think is not quite the historic point of view that we're trying to get across within the district. The sign also violates part of the plan that talks about illumination. In de facto with the security lighting in the lot, that sign is illuminated 20 fourseven. It glows.

You could sit by it and read a book. It's really quite bright. And I think that's just the nature of the type of vinyl and the reflection of the security lights. There is a part of the plan that says if the sign is replaced, that it be replaced with a smaller sign that's also on the glass facade of Hangar 2. And my suggestion would be to not allow any signage on the glass facade of Hangar 2 on the West End at all.

It is a main design feature of the Hanger. It's two fifty square feet of interrupted, uninterrupted glass. And you can see that when you flip to the east side of Hanger 1, where you have that interrupt and it's a magnificent design feature. As such your eye stops in the middle of that sign and it loses the impact of the doors themselves. It detracts from the historic signage that's there.

And I think a better placement overall would be on the siding underneath the overhang of the hangar that parallels the signage that's provided by Wings Over the Rockies on their East Side of Hanger 1. So thanks very much for your consideration, and I appreciate the time today.

Thank you, Tim. Just to clarify for you, we do have this item listed on our consent agenda, but since it's consent, we may not have heard your testimony at a part of a public hearing. We are planning on taking up a motion to postpone the public hearing and consideration of that item to the June 3 meeting. And so I think your comments today are hopefully helpful as they continue their discussions with others in the neighborhood and kind of finalizing the the the CSP to come back before planning board on June 3. And, certainly, I encourage you to participate in those conversations and and come back on June 3 and and share this again, if if you would like.

So, with that, I don't think we have anyone else signed up for public comment, and we don't have any meeting records to approve. So before we dive into into our polar agenda, I was gonna ask if there are any disclosures or recusals for today's meeting items. Seeing none. On our consent agenda, is there a motion to postpone that

I move to postpone the public hearing for comprehensive sign plan CSA twenty twenty five zero zero zero zero zero four amend 7581 East Academy Boulevard to 06/03/2026. Second.

Great. There's a motion and a second. And just to clarify, that's at the request of the applicant to give them time to discuss, and present. I think their meeting was today or something like that. Okay. I will roll call vote. They're dropped.

Aye. Julie? Aye. Mary? Aye. Alicia? Aye. Sebastian? Aye. Melissa? Aye. Heidi? Aye. Rachel? Aye. Fred?

Aye.

I vote aye as well. That has been postponed to June 3. With that, I will unless unless we'd like to waive the presentation, but I think here we only have one. So that's okay. We're gonna hear it. I will open the public hearing for official map amendment application two zero two six, rezone zero zero zero zero zero eight, rezoning 406 South Quitman Street from ESUDX to ESUB, and we have Will Prince presenting. And then we will, potentially hear from the applicant and then any public comments.

Hi. Good afternoon afternoon, planning board. Again, my name is Will Trent. I'll be presenting the application for 406 South Quitman 2026, result number eight, a request from ESUDX to ESUP. Today, we review the request, the location and context, the process, and the review criteria.

This property, again, is a request from ESUDX to ESUB. It's a 10,400 square foot property about a quarter acre. It's currently partially vacant with a half story basement house, and the goal is to split the lot for new housing options. Continuing on to the location and context, this is located in Council District 3. It's part of the area, council member Torres.

It's located in the Westwood neighborhood. As for existing zoning, this is again ESUDX, which is the majority of the surrounding area, which is also abutted by ETUC. As for the existing context for land use, it's single unit residential, which is the majority of the surrounding area with some multiunit abutting the property. I'm looking at the existing building performance scale. We see again mostly one story residential properties.

Moving on to the process. This received its informational notice on March 13. It's properly noticed at the beginning of this month. We're here today for the planning board public hearing, and this will continue to city council for its public hearing at the end of July. There have been no comments or letters provided to date as as of this hearing regarding this application.

Moving on to the review criteria. We'll review this application as we do with all applications for the three criteria starting with consistency with adoptive plans. For this, there are three comprehensive plan twenty forty, Blueprint Denver, and the Southwest Area Plan. And for the comprehensive plan 2040, this meets two key goals, strong and authentic authentic neighborhoods, environmentally resistant by furthering compliments of plan twenty forty. This freeze the proposed rezoning will enable new housing options at an infill location where infrastructure is already in place on a large lot.

Continuing the Blueprint Denver, this is identified as urban edge, predominantly residential to access transition between urban and suburban, and typically low scale single and two unit residentials on multi throughout the neighborhood. Continue with Blueprint Denver. Future place type is identified as low residential, predominantly single and two unit uses on small and medium lots. And as for future street type, both Quitman and Dakota are local. As for growth strategy, this is all other areas of the city.

We anticipate 10% of job and 20% of housing growth by 2014. And there are some additional blueprint policies that are applicable for this rezoning application, including land use and built for housing policy number six to increase development of affordable housing and mixed income housing, particularly in areas near transit service and amenities. And then also housing policy number seven to expand family friendly housing throughout the city. An additional, this is applicable for Southwest area plan, which was adopted earlier this this year. As for future neighborhood context, this remains again urban edge.

And as for future place type, this is also residential low. And there are several policies within the Southwest Air Plan that will be implemented through this rezoning, including L U 1, Southwest residential affordable and secure housing options that accommodate a wide range of needs. L u two, to ensure that there's a high supply of house high quality, well maintained housing that meets the needs of the the community. And in particular, land use l three, low residential places should allow for additional housing growth while promoting affordability, design, and preservation. Calling out another policy in particular here that is very applicable for this site.

Lots larger than 9,000 square feet should be split into two or more lots. This allows for more housing while keeping lot sizes consistent with the surrounding area. And then within the neighborhood chapter for Westwood, now land use one, preserve affordable housing options in the neighborhood while allowing for additional housing options to serve a diversity of needs. Continuing on with the review criteria, this will improve this will implement criteria number two, public interest by allowing more housing options where services exists. In consistency with neighborhood context zone district purpose and intent, this will meet the regulations and requirements for ESUB and meets those requirements very through the way.

Finding based on the information provided today as well as the staff report, CPD recommends approval, finding all review criteria have been met. Happy to answer any further questions, and the applicant is available virtually. Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, I will turn it over to the app. Are they just here for questions? Just here for questions. Okay. So go ahead and raise your hand. I think it's Andrew and Griselda, Gornell. If you would like to speak, go ahead and raise your hand and let us know if you're just here for questions too. That's fine. Go ahead. I think you can unmute.

Hi, there. Yeah, we thank you for answering any questions. I raised my hand right before you finished your direction, so I apologize for that.

Oh, all good. Thank you so much. All right. We do not have anyone signed up for public comment either online or in person. So I will open it up to questions from the board.

I just said the one well, thank you so much for highlighting the language in the Southwest Area Plan about the kind of lot splitting. I think that's really helpful. I was just curious when you look at often for for some of these rise rezonings, we'll see sort of an analysis of the lot sizes in the area. And I was just curious on the variety that we see there and kind of how the DX right? Am I flipping at our ground the other way? Yeah. How the yeah. Primarily DX was sort of selected back at the time that this area was mapped. Like, do you see that as a predominant lot, and this is kind a outlier large lot, or is are there a variety of these large lots that might

So yeah. We did do when we did early analysis, this we did do a zone lot lot analysis, and this is a bit of an outlier. Like, know, TXs right now is, like, 6,000. 6,000? Yeah.

Six. I

think it's 6,000.

So Yeah. And so majority of that is around that average, if you will. So this being 10,400 is over that. And so we looked at options of what was most appropriate. So we can allow more housing options, but also by the most appropriate. It's a fair amount of outliers.

Alright, Mary. But just to get on that piggyback on that. Because the Southwest plan has the guidance for the lot split, it gets us out of yellow box territory.

Sure. Okay.

Well said. Yep.

Yellow box.

And may I follow-up with that? Is that is that 9,000, like like, if you go over, you are allowed. But if you are a little bit under, you're not allowed. Is is what was the decision to have, like, that 9,000? Maybe that's part of the Southwest, but maybe,

like Yeah. So I was part of the Southwest Air team. So as part of that, in certain areas, particularly urban edge parts of Marley and throughout the area that we just had there were some inconsistencies of larger lots. And we're looking at ways to allow more density, but gentle density throughout the area. That was one that was defined. And I'm not sure why 9,000 was the number, but it's, you know, based on our existing zone districts and the frequencies of those areas, it was looked let to have that way so we could allow flexibility and some ways to skip the yellow box.

I can add. So I think that the 9,000 came, it's double of the 4,500 of the e. So we get a lot of these requests to have the new district. So it's pretty often that you have double lots so that you could get two e ones. Thanks.

Any other questions? If not, we can move to motions or comments.

I will make a comment. Thank you all for your presentation. Thank you to the Gorel Gorel. I hope I'm saying that right, family, for your app your application. I actually really enjoyed reading your application because it was really a testament to how understandable the plan was, right, and our plans are and how applicable the plan is to your particular property.

It speaks to how well designed our plan was and the investment that the city put into neighborhood planning so that someone can take advantage of a policy that so clearly represents a need for housing in the neighborhood and represents the choice that this family is making for this property. So thank you very much. I appreciate the application. I will support this.

Thank you so much. I

move to recommend the city council approve 2026 rezone zero zero zero zero zero eight rezoning 406 South Quitman Street from ESUDX to ESUB finding that the applicable review criteria have been met.

Second. Motion from Alicia, second from Sebastian, and I will

roll call. Your draft. Aye. Julie. Aye. Mary. Aye. Alicia. Aye. Sebastian. Aye. Alyssa. Aye. Heidi. Aye. Rachel. Aye. Red.

Aye. And I vote aye as well. That's been recommended on the city council. Thanks for the presentation, and thanks for being here online. With that, that's it for our agenda. I don't have any chair items or do

you have anything? No. K. Oh, go ahead.

I actually just had a question.

I'm trying to learn. So instead of bringing this up during the the other projects, just I'm I'm curious, like, with how this particular rezoning related to the yellow box issue, is that something that when we're going through MPI that you guys like, as planning staff, are you looking at how to include language in the plans to get us out of yellow box territory?

I would say, in some cases, again, we look at the specific neighborhoods with the con here. Yes. I would say you take that into the neighborhood context and what patterns we see, but I think that's more of a a lot of housing choice as we look at the larger citywide elements there too as well, but we do take into consideration with MPI. And we have seen from past plans and leaving Near Southeast has some language leaders that maybe not same exact, but something similar to allow bot splits to be more easier to do than some previous cases.

Do know if we've done anything in any of the NPIs where it's, like, explicit guidance to pay attention to the exist like, the physical patterns as opposed to the zoning patterns?

Not that I'm aware of.

Okay. Thanks. I I'm just trying to think about how to put that to bed.

Well, I would say with with these outlier lots, if you will, like this case, and I've had some previous applications myself. That's something we're trying to address through NPI unlocking housing choices potentially to make this less of a or make it an easier process. Process at the end.

Yeah. You.

But it does seem that when we have a new NPI plan, most of the time, we're not talking about the yellow box. So it does seem like they're addressing it in some way, I would say, kind of whether purposeful or not. I think you end up with language that can allow staff to no more comfortable you're recommending or not recommending. Because that's always kind of the hurdle. It's like, we don't have a recent NPI plan.

That could be a good topic for work session Yeah. Potentially. And discussion with the NBI team? Yeah.

Like, especially with Scott to maybe just follow-up. Yeah. Yeah. Happy. Alright. Just

follow-up to say thank you for being mindful and thinking about ways where we can make the process more efficient. The National Association of Home Builders every couple of years does an update on the cost that we collectively put on housing in terms of all of our regulation, and it takes everything account time and those sorts of things. And when they did this five years ago, it was at $93,000 a house, and and AHP thinks we're gonna come out somewhere around 113,000 a house in this coming now that's a nationwide figure. So it's gonna tweak per municipality, but I just wanted to share that because it gives context of how important that work is to go, how do we be, how do we help and be additive to housing by subtracting things? Right?

We've overlegislated to death and and to pull those back as a way to get towards affordability that I don't think we even really think about. So thank you. Yeah. With that, if there's not

any other comments, we are adjourned. Thanks so much. It's twenty five minutes.

Not everyone that lives here is selling drugs. Not everybody's kids are gang members. There's a lot of good people who actually