Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Denver, thanks for joining us for this bi-weekly 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.

All right. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call to order the June 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Denver Planning Board. We will start by just going around and doing and stating our name so that we can ensure we have a quorum. And I will start with you if you don't mind, Julie. Julie Meenan-Henk.

Salasia Montanero. Brett Glick.

Mary Coddington. Heidi Majeric. And I'm Caitlin Quander. And do we have Alicia online?

So, Brett, she just texted. We're not meant to hear what's being said.

All right. Hi, Alicia. Hi there. We can see you and hear you. Will you just state for your name so we can ensure we have quorum?

Alicia Kwan Hammett.

Great. So planning board reserves time at the beginning of every meeting for public comment. And this is for public comment on items that are not on our regular agenda and do not have a scheduled public hearing. So this is time to let us know something you think planning board should know. But planning board does not respond or enter into a dialogue about it because it is not on our publicly noticed agenda. I don't believe we have anyone signed up for general public comment. We do have some people signed up for the... We do have one? Okay, thank you. Sorry. No, I appreciate it. Let me get to that page.

Eric.

So Sherry Schroeder? Yes. Hi there. Chair, are you here to speak about something that is not on our agenda?

Well, I don't know. I was told to sign up if I wanted to speak about the guardian rehab that's going to be not sorted.

Perfect. That is on our agenda. So we will call you up at the time of that hearing so we can make sure we started that hearing. Yeah, thank you. Great. Okay. With that, we will go ahead and move on through our agenda. And so we have two meeting records for approval, May 6th and May 12th. Is there a motion by anyone who was here on May 6th?

I move to approve the meeting record for May 6th, 2026.

Great. We'll call for those that were here. Alicia? Aye. Sebastian? Aye. Melissa? Aye. Mary? Aye. Julie? Aye. Fred? Aye. And I vote aye as well. And we did a motion, but no second. So anyway, I second. To approve the minute. And Melissa is here as well for minute records. Okay, is there a motion for the meeting record of May 20th?

So moved.

Second. Great. I have a motion from Fred and a second from Heidi. Julie. Aye. Mary? Aye. Alicia? Aye. Sebastian? Aye. Melissa? Aye. Heidi? Aye. Fred? Aye. And I vote aye as well. Those meeting records have also been approved. All right. Before we dive into our regular agenda, are there any planning board members who have any items for disclosure or recusal on today's agenda? Great. Seeing none, we will proceed. So I will go ahead and open the public hearing. For official map amendment application 2025, rezone 000041 rezoning 4901 South Monaco Street from B4 with waivers U01, U02 to SMX5. And procedurally how we will do this is we will have a staff presentation from Brandon Shaver. Then the applicant will have an opportunity to present and then we will take comments from the public.

Hi, Brandon. Welcome. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Planning Board. I'm Brandon Shaver, Senior City Planner with Community Planning and Development, presenting an area. Presenting a rezoning application for 4901 South Monaco Street. We'll first take a look at the request. So here we have the subject property is just under three acres and was previously operated as a senior assisted living facility. The current owner has obtained a zoning permit to allow for a residential care of large use and is requesting a rezoning to simplify the permitting process moving forward. Taking a look at the location. This property is located in Council District 4, represented by Councilmember Romero-Campbell, and it is within the Southmoor Park neighborhood, just at the edge of the city. The existing zoning on the site is B4 with waivers U01, U02. This was adopted in 1981 and covered most of this area of the city. B4 is a general business district that allows for a range of uses similar to the proposed district and has a 2 to 1 FAR limit. Many surrounding properties have the same zoning and the subject site is in close proximity to both Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village. The waivers on this site waive adult related businesses, billboards, auto sales, mail order houses, establishment selling monuments and tombstones and other unique uses. And it also does have a maximum allotted GFA across the sub area with a residential maximum of 225,000 square feet having already been allocated.

Can you talk a little bit louder? Please, I can try.

Thank you. So this does have both use overlays one and two. However, I just spoke to the current waivers on the site limiting both adult uses in the billboard uses. So in this analysis, we find that there is sufficiently land remaining in the city for adult uses. And since the current waivers already prohibit billboards, we believe that removing them from this requested district would remain consistent. So the proposed rezoning, the proposed zone district rather is SMX-5. This allows for a broad mix of uses similar to the current zoning. And you can see here the purpose, intent and building forms allowed in SMX-5. Existing land use on the site is multi-unit residential. This is adjacent to other multi-unit residential to the north, park and open space to the south, office uses to the east, some vacant property to the south, and some single unit residential to the west in Cherry Hills Village. This gives you a sense of the building form and scale of the subject property, and then some photos of the adjoining properties to the north and the offices to the east. Moving to the process, CPD sent informational notice of this application in late January. You're at planning board today and hoping to get to a city council public hearing tentatively scheduled for the end of July. We have not received any comments from RNOs in this area of the city, but we have received 29 comments in opposition. To summarize the concerns of these comments, we see a lot related to parking and loading, the allowed uses, infrastructure constraints, and perceived safety concerns. Moving to our rezoning review criteria, which there are three. Starting with consistency with adopted plans, city staff finds that this request does meet a number of goals and recommendations in Comprehensive Plan 2040, and those are further detailed in the staff report. Moving to Blueprint Denver, this property is mapped as part of the suburban context, which is the most varied development we see in Denver's neighborhoods, where there is mostly commercial development focused along major centers and corridors. For future places, we see this as being in the high medium residential area where it can accommodate compatible commercial and retail uses up to five stories in height and both streets that are nearby are commercial arterials. This is in our all other areas of the city growth area where we expect 10% of new employment and 20% of new housing by 2040. There are additional strategies in Blueprint Denver that this is consistent with, including rezoning properties out of the old code and also meets our equity and climate guidance as this would diversify housing types and enable more housing near transportation and employment options. We also see this as being in the public interest as it implements city plans and would foster a walkable and mixed-use area close to transit. And we also find it consistent with neighborhood context, so district purpose and intent statements, which are detailed in the staff report. With that, CP staff recommends approval of this request based on finding all review criteria have been met. I would now like to invite up the applicant team for their presentation.

Great. Let's hear from the applicant.

And if you could state your name and address, and you have about six minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Planning Board, Eric Carlson, legal counsel and applicant here. That's Foster-Graham, Milsim-Cowsher, 360 South Garfield Street, 80209. Pleasure to be here in front of you this afternoon. As always, a big thank you to Brandon and the rest of the CPD staff. They've done a fantastic job throughout the entirety of this process. So thanks to them. This is a request, as Brandon said, for a rezoning from former Chapter 59B4 with waivers to SMX5. Today, it's not a discussion of guardian recovery's use. This is a rezoning request. But applicable to the use is that there's an approved residential care permit in 2025 under the former Chapter 59 code. That was in July of 2025. That's a valid use permit. notwithstanding a rezoning here into the new Denver for a variety of reasons. As Brandon said, this is kind of the southernmost tip of Denver. The building has been vacant for several years. It was previously an assisted living facility. So Guardian Recovery Network is proposing to adaptively reuse this existing building. They are a nationally accredited behavioral healthcare organization. They have several facilities around the country, including one here in Denver already called Cure West at Porter Hospital. So they're a proven applicant and recovery services provider. so the existing zoning as brandon explained is is b4 um with waivers as to s um mx5 and there's for all the reasons we meet the approval criteria we'll talk about that in a minute as it relates to the existing residential care use permit The new Denver zoning code doesn't require a two-year renewal process as the former Chapter 59 code does. So there's a benefit there in terms of just city efficiency and process to take this property from the former Chapter 59 zoning code into the new code, the Denver zoning code. You know, that creates more predictability, improve standard for housing generally, apply standards equitably across all interests. Into the rezoning approval criteria, of course, the three, consistency with adopted plans, public interest, and neighborhood context. As it relates to public interest, this is an implementation of city plans. There are several goals that this means, expanding housing choice. There's also an adaptive reuse of buildings here that is important and applicable to the goals of the city, as well as just bringing this into the new and current Denver zoning code. um in terms of neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent we work with staff say what's the what's the correct zone district here of course this is a suburban context right we're on the on the reporter of actual suburbs right um and there's from a hype perspective There's five stories is really consistent with what we see in this general vicinity. So as Brandon identified, there are several goals within the adopted comprehensive plans that this application meets. We increase housing options, we adaptably reuse buildings, we expand housing, jobs, diversity concept, and we rezone one more property from former Chapter 59 into the current zoning code. Community engagement on this project has been ongoing for multiple years. It started at the beginning of our residential care permit process. And fortunately, we've had the benefit of meeting with the neighbors and talking about our uses and working really hard to discuss how that will how that will function within their community and their neighborhood. It does not appear, you know, the two adjacent property owners are both condominium buildings with several individual owners. And it doesn't appear that despite efforts to enter into a good neighbor agreement with those associations for a variety of reasons, It appears, you know, we won't have an actual agreement there, but Guardian's commitment is notwithstanding having an agreement with those condominium associations. There is a good neighbor pledge here that encompasses all of these commitments as a good neighbor that they will record on their property as a, you know, the additional property. commitment to be a good neighbor here as well. So I will keep my presentation brief. We have our team. We have representatives from the ownership group and our community outreach team. This request today satisfies the approval criteria for rezoning, and we respectfully request your recommendation of approval. Thank you. Great.

Thank you very much. All right, now we will hear from the public. I have four people assigned to speak, some online and some in person. I will start with the two in person. I have a Howard Keyes and a Bob Krulish. So Howard, if you are here, go ahead and come on up and you'll have three minutes if you don't mind stating your name and address.

My name is Howard Keyes and our address is Bill Rosa residence, which is 4875 South. Good afternoon. As I mentioned, my name is Howard Keyes. I am a resident and owner at Villa Rosa Residences. When speaking on behalf of the residents of both Villa Rosa condominium buildings, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. If the board would be so kind to indulge me for six minutes, another resident today, Bob Krulich, who signed up to speak, agreed to give me his time. Would that be okay?

And will you remind me what our bylaws allow? I don't think we allow reserving time to provide for others.

We do have in the past done that where a person could see their time. We have never had the case where the other person wasn't here.

He's here.

Oh, he is here. I'm sure. Okay.

I'll have Adam confirm. Thanks, Mary.

Okay. I'd like to make my remark. Hold on a second. Oh, sorry.

That's our city attorney, so he's just good for me. We thought you paused for now.

Yeah, I want my time.

Yeah, so one speaker may cede their time to another speaker for a total of six minutes. Speakers must be present to cede time to another speaker.

Great. Good memory, Mary.

Perfect. Thank you. So I'd like to make my remarks and then answer any questions, but I understand there's no questions. Is that... At the end, we can ask questions. Okay. All right. So, the proposed facility is immediately adjacent to 95 owner-occupied residents. We share circulation infrastructure in single ingress and egress points. Residents are not opposing addiction recovery services. We recognize the importance of treatment and recovery. Residents have several concerns. I'll discuss four of those, the primary ones. The first one is the primary effect of the zoning. which removes oversight and accountability. Guardian obtained administrative approval for residential care use large permit in July of 2025 that states in its application that intends to operate pursuant to that approval. The application spends considerable effort discussing the value of addiction treatment services, but provides a little explanation regarding why the current zoning framework is inadequate. If Guardian already possesses the approvals necessary to operate the proposed recovery center, why is the rezoning necessary? The primary effect of the rezoning is the removal of existing biannual oversight and accountability mechanisms. Under the current approved zoning, residents benefit from biannual meetings and permanent reviews, providing the opportunity to address concerns if conditions change over time. The proposed rezoning eliminates all of those protections for the community, leaving homeowners at the mercy of guardians intent without recourse, Should the promises made by Guardian fail to materialize? Why would Denver fail to protect the residents by removing that fail safe? When asked, Guardian stated the reasons they wanted this removed is because lenders and investors are concerned about ongoing renewals and operational oversight. While financing investor concerns certainly are legitimate business concerns, the planning board's responsibility to determine whether removing those protections serve the public interest. Number two is enforceable prohibition on detox services. At the first community meeting, residents were informed that detox services would not be provided. This statement later evolved into Guardian does not intend to provide detox services. Despite repeated requests, Guardian declined to include an enforceable prohibition on detox services in the Good Neighbor Agreement. Guardian already operates a detox facility in Denver. They've told residents that the facility is operating at capacity and the lease expires in five years. Detox services are materially more intensive use involving ambulance activity, higher medical acuity, patient populations, overnight medical interventions, increased staffing, emergency medical responses and security concerns. The rezoning application says nothing about detox services. If Guardian does not intend to provide detox services, why wouldn't they simply prohibit them? The approved zoning application, the one that exists right now, states no patients will receive detox treatment at the property Patients will arrive stabilized, sober, and not in crisis. We're not asking Guardian to agree to new restrictions. We're asking Guardian to make legally binding the very representations they made to the community and to this board in obtaining administrative permit. The third item is traffic and impact studies have not been provided. All three properties share a single ingress and egress point. Despite the increase in operational activity at the facility, there's been no meaningful analysis provided regarding traffic, emergency safety, deliveries, or patient transportation, and how these matters might impact residents. The single ingress-egress point for all three buildings is subject to a 1996 reciprocal easement agreement intended to support two residential communities and assisted living facility. While the agreement permits normal vehicle and pedestrian traffic, there hasn't been any analysis provided regarding whether increased operational intensity from the proposed new use remains consistent with the original easement agreement. The proposed facility will accommodate substantially more occupants and operate under a fundamentally different and more intensive model. Yet the application largely assumes impact will be manageable and comparable to the former assisted living facility. Residents have not seen an independent traffic or impact study for for a site that shares a single ingress and egress point with 95 neighboring residents. And the last item is application fails to substantiate the housing claims. Rezoning application repeatedly relies on Denver housing policy goals, while the facility's sole purpose is treatment and recovery, not housing. Residents are omitted, treated, and discharged. The treatment period is very short. proposal creates treatment capacity, not any form of housing. Notably, Guardian's previous approved administrative application focuses almost all on treatment and recovery services, while the rezoning application focuses on housing. These reasons are substantially different, even though the proposed operation itself remains fundamentally unchanged. President's question whether the application has demonstrated the proposal meaningful advances the housing policy objectives upon which it relies. The planning board is being asked to assume consistent with those policy objectives without any real evidence that those objectives are actually being achieved. I'd like to summarize by saying that the Planning Board is here to determine whether rezoning serves the public interest, which was commented on earlier. We don't believe that it does. It doesn't because it eliminates the existing oversight mechanisms in place protecting residents. It also does not require guardian to stand by their representations made about no detox services at the facility to the community and to this board as a basis to obtain their current administrative permit. It makes assumptions about community impacts without any real evidence in the form of studies or impact analysis. And it relies on claims about housing policy goals being met when the substance of the proposal is no new housing is being created. For these reasons, the residents respectfully request any board to sign the recommendation.

I'm very sorry for the music. Did I make it? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Next up, I have a few more in person. I have Mary Lewis. Go ahead and come on up. And then I have Margo Manuel on deck.

Oh, sorry. We didn't sign up to talk.

Oh, okay. Just kidding. No, no problem. So Mary Lewis, you're good. Margo Manuel, you're okay? Okay. And then Al Manuel, did you want to speak or would you like to speak or just listen? No, just listen. Okay, great. Then I've got online. Stephanie Haley Andrews, if you are online, go ahead and unmute yourself and you will have three minutes.

Hold on. Can you hear me now? We can. Go ahead. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you very much. I wanted to be there in person, but I had a plumbing catastrophe at the condo today. Anyway, so good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Andrews. I'm a neighboring property owner. I reside at 4875 South Monaco Street, and I am also a healthcare and assisted living operations expert. I would like to focus on the sufficiency of the record before you at its core. This case is not about the services being offered. It's about whether the city has adequate evidence to conclude that the site can accommodate the operational intensity associated with the proposed rezoning. And I respectfully submit that it does not. The applicant characterizes this proposal as a reuse of an existing building, but the relevant question isn't whether the building exists. The relevant question is whether the proposed operation is compatible with the physical realities of this site. And the record contains significant gaps. First, there's been no traffic study. I won't beleaguer that because my friend and neighbor already discussed that. But that is just one more thing that there's no objective analysis of how the traffic impact will affect circulation, queuing access, or emergency vehicle movement at the shared access point. Therefore, the commission is really being asked to assume compatibility rather than evaluate it. Secondly, and this is a big one for me, there appears to be no fire life safety analysis in the public record addressing the operational realities of the proposed use. For a high occupancy healthcare environment, life safety considerations are foundational considerations. Without that analysis, the commission lacks critical information. Third, as someone familiar with healthcare operations, I believe the record substantially understates the intensity of the proposed use. Buildings do not generate impacts, operations generate impacts. We're talking about a building that previously served maybe a maximum of 60 elderly residents, 20 of which lived in a secure memory care environment. The peak number of staff available is 15 during the day and guardian themselves have said they want to turn this into an 180 patient building with a maximum of 30 staff members um during the day so uh the question before you is whether this site with the shared access point constrained circulation immediate adjacency the residential ownership can absorb the operational demands that will be placed on it um Accordingly, I respectfully urge the commission not to make permanent zoning recommendations based on assumptions or projections or future promises. If the applicant wants to establish compatibility, it should do so through evidence. And until that evidence exists, the record remains incomplete. For that reason, I respectfully deny the application. Thank you.

Thank you. Our sound for our timer is exciting. So we do have one other person from online who was signed up during the general comments. So Sherry Schroeder, if you are still on, go ahead and unmute and you will have three minutes.

Can you hear me now? We can, go ahead. Okay. I don't have a wonderful presentation like those two did and I really appreciate the work they've done. I happen to live at 4885 in that same little cul-de-sac and I'm speaking to you as a resident. When the nursing home staff and the people were there, We did not have any concerns about our safety, noise, our security, our parking, and the traffic was never really an issue because these people did not have cars. And what I'm worried about personally, and I'm glad that one of us at least is speaking just from personal, is that like I get up and I do a walk at 6.30 in the morning. What if somebody from the drug rehab has had a meltdown and gotten out? And I just don't feel safe with these kinds of people being my neighbors. I didn't feel that way with the nursing home. I also don't like the amount of... Of expansion they're talking about. I'm very worried about our parking. We only have 12 outside parking spaces. We have 29 units. And yes, guardian says they're going to have some kind of a shuttle, but there's going to be a lot of people that are just going to come and they're going to try to take our little bit of parking. This is not enough there. And I don't like the idea of a permanent. Rezoning when. there's no absolutely accountability, like I heard Howard say. So as a resident, I feel very strongly that this is not the kind of, with the heavy density of owners and renters in this area, I'm really concerned about our safety. And I know you don't care about our property values at this particular zoning board, but that's important too, because a lot of people don't want. a rehab as a neighbor. So I'm asking you to reconsider this permanent rezoning because we are taxpayers in Denver and we pay a lot of money and we believe that Denver is going to be fair to the residents. So with that, I think that's what I have to say. Thank you so much for giving me a chance to talk.

and i'm speaking for the rest of people in my building who aren't there even though um they aren't thank you so much thank you um okay that is everybody that signed up to speak so at this point what we do is we open it up to questions from planning board and we can ask questions of staff or those that spoke or the applicant and then i will just table set for all of us because It may be some people's first planning board meeting if you're here. So when we review these, we do not specifically look at proposed uses, although I know that that's certainly been discussed today. We really focus on those three criteria that Brandon had in his presentation. And so we'll be probably asking questions geared towards those three criteria of consistency with adopted plans, public interest, and consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. So with that, are there questions from the board? Go ahead, Fred.

I have a small question that just relates to uses for Brandon. We've heard the term detox center used a lot today, and I'm just curious, does that fall under the classification of residential care, or does that fall under a different use category?

Want the shorter or the longer answer?

You can give it a longer answer.

Yeah, OK. You want me to show the screen again? Screen.

I'll be fine.

And Brandon, as part of that, if I could, do you mind if I tag on? If you could detail, if it is the residential type, there's kind of type 1, 2, 3, 4, and what the process is, particularly for 3 and 4 around zoning permit with community information medians and kind of those processes around the use. Sure. Sorry.

Okay, thank you so much. So just to, I think, level set and provide some background on residential care, the group living tax payment project was completed in 2021, and the biggest goal of that project was to reduce the complication in these types of uses.

Can you speak up a little bit, please?

Can you be mic'd? I would love that.

We will ask him to speak up.

You guys can move closer if you can't hear also.

So also, this project really updated the terminology that we use when we talk about residential care. It consolidated a lot of those useless types, and it regulates those uses primarily based on the number of guests that they serve. And there was a really big equity-based goal in this project, too, of not making the zoning code require a more onerous process for housing that has sometimes seemed a little bit less desirable, and that includes substance abuse-type programs and that sort of thing. In that, I also wanted to make sure that we understand what is allowed by the current use permit and what the proposed zoning would get them as well. So for both of these, for all these uses, there are spacing and density requirements. You can see the difference between the current zoning and the proposed zoning. The proposed zoning is a little bit less restrictive. You can also see that recovery programs, which Fred, your question is about, are allowed in both the current zoning and the proposed zoning. Also, I detailed the maximum number of guests, what they're currently permitted for, the minimum parking requirements, and then that permit renewal piece was a big, big key component of us consolidating these use types in the Group Living Texas Unmanned Project. Does that help?

I mean, if I could just follow up, because I'm just not clear on this. And maybe I'm not clear on what detox center means and what that is. I think from reading the feedback, that implies that law enforcement is showing up with people in what used to be called the drunk tank. Is that a residential use? Is that still not like that? I don't know. I'm just kind of trying to understand what that term means because I'm not sure what detox center really is. Is that actually a hospital use that we see at Denver Health? I know they have some facilities of that sort.

what i can speak to that is i think that that would be i think that would be covered in rehabilitation facilities and so as we consider residential care facility uses they include but are not limited to shelters community correction facilities recovery residences rehabilitation facilities assisted living facilities and nursing homes or hospices are what we consider residential care okay you want to hear about the applicant yeah it looks like the applicant wants to

Come in, please be happy to Mr. Glick. So you're right detoxification. It's a it's a buzzword today, right?

And speak up in part.

In part, what's difficult about it is that there is not a definition of detoxification facility in the Denver zoning code. And an interpretation of what a detox facilitation or facility may mean to someone may be different than what someone else interprets it as, right? So coming up with language in a private good neighbor covenant and agreement is very difficult. And you don't want it to end up being something that is interpreted as not as it was intended. So here's the kind of the simplified version of this is detoxification, right? Somebody who needs medical treatment in order to stabilize from the use of a substance almost always ends up in a hospital setting, right? Which is why Cura West, right? is within the Porter Hospital and that's Guardian Recovery's detoxification facility under that kind of medical detoxification definition is associated with the hospital because there are all the other hospital medical care opportunities afforded right there. So in practice, a detox facility is always next to a hospital because you need the medical services of a hospital. So there isn't a, from a pragmatic or practical approach, there would not be a use of a detoxification facility in a medical sense at 4901 Monaco because it's not next to a hospital. But the problem is what if somebody interprets detoxification as being somebody is weaning off the use of substances and their body is going through a detox over a period of their 90 day stay there. that is altering and changing the chemical components within their body. And that's where the use of the word detoxification is just, it is, you know, and these are the hard conversations that we've had with the community to say, we want to explain this to you. And this is why we want this. This should give you comfort that there are not people, you know, dropped off in an ambulance on our doorstep because those people need services that are only available at a hospital. So that's, to the extent that that's helpful, that's part of kind of the murky lens of detoxification facility. Great, thank you.

Can I just a quick follow up and then I'll go to Alicia online. So looking at this spacing and density requirement, if you were to be rezoned to the SMX-5 and then I assume apply for the zone use permit of type three or type four, do you feel comfortable from your analysis that it will cover what you guys are kind of what you want to use the property for?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then just as a point, this is Brandon, on the community information meeting, just procedurally, this in time, right, if it precedes the city council and is rezoned, what is the next step? And what is the timing of the community information meeting as part of that zoning permit? Yeah.

That's a great question. And I think they have a zoning permit right now that allows them to establish that use. And in Denver Zoning Code, we also have provision that if they continue that use, then their community information meeting would not be needed to continue the use.

Okay. So the one that they have right now from 2025?

As long as it does not expire and it is renewed before the expiration, then they can continue the use without needing a community information meeting required.

But a new residential care permit under the Denver Zoning Code does require the community.

Thank you.

Alicia. Thank you. So I have two questions. One for the applicant. Are you regulated by the state? Do you have state licenses that you have to comply by? Okay. Thank you. And then, and this might be for Brandon or for the city attorney, but are substance use disorders generally considered a physical or mental impairment under the American with Disabilities Act?

I do not know the answer to that.

That depends. It would take research to look into that. The applicant's answer is yes.

Okay.

Thank you. Great. Okay. Other questions around the board?

Again, the community information meeting. The community information meeting. if you won't rezone, if you have to do it. Is it a city that's present at that meeting or how is it a... Posted meeting.

I can I can double check questions. Oh, yes. So the question was, how are those two information meetings ran? I think typically they are planned and hosted by the applicant. City does ensure that that posting occurs and the city doesn't attend that meeting, but it is essentially a meeting where the applicant to explain their project to the community through the community.

I have a bunch of zoning questions. So one of the things that I was curious about, just in terms of the difference, with the current zoning, I mentioned that the building height is not going to go by bulk standards unless there's a property line. But into a residential use, there's a single family residential home, but it's outside of the city boundary. I was just curious how we are looking at that. I mean, I'm trying to, like, categorize in my mind what exactly is changing.

And I would say that being a different jurisdiction on the other side, I would say that we would still measure it the same way that we do anywhere if there's an adjoining property line and this current zoning only allows for two-to-one F8, and that's how we would conflate.

Okay. And then the other question I had is... The current waivers talk about the gross floor area based on a total gross floor area and the sub area. And so I'm very curious by taking a parcel out of that zoning, did that gross floor area limitation apply to, is it the same square footage, but it applies to the parcels that are still in that Zone zoning like, are we still governing things by sub area?

That's my understanding. Yes, is that if we take this personal out then that that whatever we're taking out would be reallocated across that sub area.

How is that documented? How would you know that?

Okay, I do not have the answer to that and I don't know if we have many examples of this, but we can check to see what's happened in the past. Yeah. Okay. That might be one property that was rezoned to 12 and 2016. so I think using that as an example, we can see if it was reallocated in any way to the remaining sub area.

Okay. Yeah, I feel like that would be really helpful to know as this progresses along. I was just very curious about the implications for everything else in that area. And then I'm also curious, what was the purpose of the overlays since the waivers prohibited both uses?

That's a great question, and this is something that we see a lot in this part of the city, further south, especially in the Denver Tech Center area. And per their bylaws, they do not allow adult uses or billboards. And then in 2010, with the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code, we blanketly put U01 and U02 on a certain number of base districts. So B4 was the district that would have allowed for adult uses and billboards elsewhere in the city. And so in 2010, we blanket covered those even if we knew that they weren't going to be allowed with the existing waivers.

I have so many questions about that I'm going to save those for another time. And then just the last question I had, there was something in public comment that was specifically addressing a drainage issue for the property for townhomes adjacent to the site and that under the original permit, there was the impression that the city had, it was kind of like a cloaking dagger where they thought it was going to be single family homes, but it ended up being townhomes and there's been drainage issues. So I'm just curious if there's been any discussion or, you know, I didn't see any comments from the review agencies.

So I also have not heard of this. And I think that the other reviewing agencies probably have a better sense and that they would probably trigger a conversation if a redevelopment is proposed.

Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Go ahead, Heidi. I have a question. Brandon, when we review a rezoning in context of the review criteria, we're not reviewing TIAs, correct? That's not typically a part of our application that we receive. That's typically something we see when a site development plan comes in, correct?

You're absolutely correct.

Okay, so this is a traffic impact analysis. So this is a bit of a unique situation where it's an existing building that would have had a TIA with its site plan, and now the way that building is being used is changing and will change traffic patterns. So is there a point in the process that we address that as the city?

To my understanding, it's only if an expansion of the use is proposed. And a new site plan. And a new site plan comes into play is when we would do that work. Yes.

Thank you. Can I ask a quick follow-up? This is a question for the applicant, I think. As part of the adaptive reuse, do you believe, I mean, I assume you're doing some pretty significant interior work of increasing the number that you're trying to serve. Will that necessitate a site development plan?

It will not.

A building permit?

Yes. Yes, building permits. Building permits, yes, but the exterior and the site circulation. Again, this is a residential facility with an average stay of 90 days. So from a traffic perspective, think someone dropped off for 90 days, picked up after 90 days. So that's why it's compatible with the way the building was configured for a senior living facility.

Yeah, just as you continue to work with the community, is that something you would ever consider just looking at as you go toward a building permit? Is reviewing what the base assumptions were in the previous TIA and comparing that to what you would project? I think that's a reasonable... request thank you of the community and thank you for nodding and being willing to work with them and and take a look at that since it's outside of our purview and outside of our review criteria on this rezoning other questions from the ward okay see no oh oh i did have one um

unnoticed because this is on kind of the border of two different cities. I was just curious if you could provide just a summary of what notice we provide both kind of those in the city of Denver and not.

That's a great question. And we did take a look at that and expecting a question like that because this is at the very edge of the city. So I do have a slide prepared for that that really speaks to there was a 2023 charter change agreed on by Denver voters to update our noticing requirements for any zoning related matters to only include properties and organizations within city limits. And then as we updated our rezoning process in 2025, we also updated our noticing requirements to align with the city charter. to only include owners in city and county of Denver limits. But then we also expanded that to renters and tenants and city and county boundaries as well. And so in these instances, we always express and encourage the applicant to engage with the neighboring communities and provide them with courtesy notices. And I've done the same for these applicants today.

Great, thank you. I've got one more for the applicant. So the slide that you had up related to the Good Neighbor Pledge, thank you for kind of thinking through some of those and it sounds like the conversations are continuing. I'm just curious how you will, how you plan to, if this proceeds on an ongoing basis, keep those commitments alive and share them with the neighborhood and facilitate communication if issues come up, that sort of thing.

Yeah, so as a part of that pledge, there's a community liaison who's going to be an employee here at this facility that is available and to serve as the liaison for concerns and issues and things like that. The pledge itself will be recorded on the property, so it'll be an encumbrance that'll be, and I think, you know, we're trying to just continue to work towards this. Can we get a committee who agrees to be kind of the enforcement mechanism of this, the people who are on the other side of it saying, yes, you're adhering to this pledge so that it becomes more than just a purely self-governance document?

Got it. Thank you very much. Okay. Any other final questions? Sorry, I had a With that, I will go ahead and open it for discussion or a motion. Go ahead, Fred.

Thanks. I have a number of comments I just want to make with regards to this. I want to start by saying that I do believe this meets the criteria and I will be supporting it. I believe this case highlights, among other things, one of the reasons why zoning properties out of Chapter 59 is so important. The administration of Chapter 59 is challenging. It is obsolete. It is not always compatible with the current ways of doing things. We're running an old model at the same time as the current model. And that often creates conflicts. think we see that as we we talk through these this this idea and these questions about well how much is allowed here under the square footage that was developed under this specific thing um so i think that that presents a really strong reason for doing it i think we have seen and discussed time and time again how administering the zoning code when properties sit under chapter 59 presents serious challenges for city staff and I think that's one very good reason to proceed with this. I want to reinforce that, as the Chair highlighted, we are reviewing the zoning. We are not reviewing the details of a particular development. That is not the remit of this Board. Those are not the criteria under which we make our recommendations. Concerns around life safety, around transportation are reviewed by subject matter experts within the city, building permit process as part of the site development plan process, but that is certainly not the remit of this body. Similarly, when it comes to operating care facilities such as this, which are regulated by the state, that is also not our remit. We do not evaluate their licensure. We do not evaluate whether they can provide the services and what kind of services they provide. That is not part of our remit. So I have no idea whether what detox facility means, but that's not really something that we determine here. And whether they can have ambulances showing up seems to me is a question that will be decided by the regulators who work with these sorts of facilities. I want to just comment briefly because we have talked about licensing uncertainty as an issue. related to chapter 59 and some of the obsolete requirements of chapter 59 and i do think that that is a a very real issue that a lot of property owners face operators face who own their own properties whether that uncertainty can be very challenging for them certainly it can be challenging for lenders but also just purely from a regulatory standpoint i think it can be difficult um we heard someone comment that this isn't residential And I just want to touch on that. The idea that because they are living there for only three months that they are not residents and that they are somehow not entitled to the same rights that other residents of our city have, I find very disturbing. So I'll leave that out there. I also do want to comment. We saw in a number of the comment letters mentions that because this is an upscale area or an affluent area that somehow those sorts of people have no place there. And that implies that they belong elsewhere, that they are not of equal standing to those who live in upscale and affluent areas. And I find that very disturbing. I find it actually, I hate to say it, but kind of offensive that people with disabilities Substance abuse disorders are somehow shouldn't be next to people of means. And that implies that maybe they belong with court people and that we should segregate our city further. And I find that very disturbing. So I just want to put that out there because it does bother me a great deal. Thank you.

Other comments?

Go ahead, Heidi.

I just wanted to thank the community for coming out and for your well thought out comments. You were thoughtful in them and this is our process for public dialogue. I understand it's frustrating for you. Our review criteria are narrow and what we're set out how we're set out to review this. We are legally obligated to that. So I do find that it meets the review criteria. And I'm going to ask you as a community, continue to engage with the applicant. They did make a commitment to work with you on taking a look at updating the traffic impact analysis. And I wish that we could do more for you here today, but we are legally obligated to our review criteria. review criteria, and I take that seriously in my role as a volunteer on this board, and so I will be voting in favor.

Thank you. I see Alicia.

Yes, thank you. I will be supporting this rezoning. I think it's consistent with the adopted plans. I think it's important that we get properties out of former Chapter 59 to the current Denver Zoning Code. I do believe it's in the public interest and is consistent with the neighborhood context and description. I think we've seen a couple of these types of rezonings to accommodate a residential care use. And I just wanted to restate that You know, if substance use disorders are protected under the American with Disabilities Act, we would never require someone in a wheelchair to have a special permit to live in our city. And so for me, being able to see facilities that are able to be in zone districts with residential care permits just seems like an extra layer of regulation. And I don't know if that's necessary for an equitable city. And so that's just kind of a general comment on that regulation as a whole. But I think everyone deserves a space in our city. It's a, you know, especially ADA is a group that any one of us could be a member of at any time um and so to only have certain facilities or certain places in our city where we can live becomes even more important that those sites exist and are able to care for a variety of folks and that also includes assisted living facilities the current facility that's there so um again i'll be in support of this rezoning thanks

Go ahead, Mary.

I just want to take a minute to acknowledge the frustration in our process, and a lot of the things that people care about just are really misaligned with the rezoning, and so the timing's not there for people to find the right forum for the things that they're concerned about. So I appreciate how maddening that is. At the same time, I do think in this particular case, a lot of the things that came out from both the written comments and verbal comments are already allowed under the current zoning. Any concerns about the traffic patterns or things like that, With the current zoning, allowing up to 171 units within this building, all of those things exist. And even if this weren't coming before us tonight, those changes could be made and still have the same outcomes on on traffic. So it does feel very, very differentiated from our rezoning process. And then. You know, we are looking at the public interest of the whole public. So that is people who are already in a stable living situation and people who might be moving through different points in their life. So we're thinking about that in aggregate. The last thing that I'll say, and this is a bigger conversation, but in terms of the sort of good neighbor commitments that are being proposed on this, I'm a big proponent of the conversations between neighbors and figuring things out together without necessarily needing to have the bureaucracy of the city involved in everything. That being said, good neighbor agreements are really great at talking about how to mitigate operational pieces. I struggle every time I see dimensional standards or commitments to not going to the full entitled zoning recorded as a covenant on the property. It is a way to circumvent our planning process as a city and limit us in terms of what we can do in the future as the city evolves and changes. So I fully support talking about how we're going to manage operations and times of use and those kinds of things. But when we start regulating dimensional standards, it feels like a very inappropriate place for that.

Any others for comments?

Um, just quickly, um, I agree that I do think that this needs if we're talking about the rezoning criteria specifically, I think that that's pretty clear. Um, I really appreciate my fellow board members comments on some of the other pieces. I think that it is. Difficult, we often, this is not the first time we've had a rezoning where a lot of the public comment and the surrounding conflict is outside of our purview as a planning board and is outside of the question of zoning. And that has been frustrating to different degrees, both for the public and for us and sort of what is it that we weigh. But I do think This one both is very clear within the zoning and it's a very clear thing of parking and traffic are outside of our purview and as use changes, that will be addressed that is in the application that was noted that it would be a part of any redevelopment plan. And use is really where it gets messy. And in this case, not only is there external oversight, but this is some of the like that better outreach that we have seen from an applicant and a lot of effort put in, in terms of trying to bridge that gap. We don't even always get to see a good neighbor agreement or have that conversation here, regardless of whether we get to factor it in. We don't even always get to hear that part of the conversation. I think we all know here, having done this several times as a body, that is reflective of the area and the means that they have to push back and show up today. There's a lot of residential facilities that are more and less intensive than what is potentially going to go in here that certainly don't have a designated person to liaise with the community. Just really appreciate the effort to actually find solutions by the applicant here. Really appreciate the comments about how concerning it is to hear comments about whether this belongs somewhere. It is a residential use. It is a needed residential use. They should be throughout the city. That is the best way to do this. People of any... You know, whatever somebody's residential... status situation whatever like we deserve to live in different parts of the city and we deserve to live wherever you know those places are and people in every part of the city deserve access to those kinds of services um so i think it's really clear um i appreciate that i'm not the only one who's concerned about the way it's being received i hope that that improves and i will be gladly supporting

Any other comments, or I'll take a motion.

I move to recommend that City Council approve application 2025, Rezone 41, rezoning 4901 South Monaco Street from B4 with waivers U01, U02 to S and X5, signing that the applicable review criteria have been met.

Second. I have a motion and a second, and I will roll call. Julie?

Aye.

Sebastian? Aye. Melissa? Aye. Alicia? Aye. Fred?

Aye.

Mary? Aye. Heidi? Aye. And I vote aye as well. That's been recommended on to City Council. Thank you all for being here. With that, that concludes our regular agenda. We do have two points of order, if you will, and certainly there's others to raise. The first is we do not have a meeting two weeks from now. We didn't have any agenda items, so that will be canceled. So you can do many other things on June 17th. And then the second item, I just want to recognize that this is Sebastian's last meeting. And so thank you so very much for your service. And I don't know if you wanted to say anything, but we really appreciate it.

Well, thank you so much. It's been a great time to be here. I appreciate it. Good to know all of you. It's been super interesting and super perspective. It's very valuable to be here just to learn more about that and actually be providing input to the city as well that I'm part of and be supporting the projects that we can see happening. So thank you so much for that and happy to see you in the future, whatever our paths cross.

Machen, thank you so much for your service to the city.

All right. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.

kinetic sculpture a ghost trolley and a lowrider cactus plus pop-up art and this wonderful world famous music venue arts and culture on this edition of connected colorado hi everyone i'm