Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There we go. Hello.

Welcome to Community Planning and Housing. Today is Wednesday, June 9th, 2026. I'm Diana Romero Campbell, and we are ready for our meeting and introductions. Let's go online. I believe we have some council members online. We'll do introductions with them first.

Sarah Parity, you're a council member at large. Good afternoon, Amanda Sawyer, District 5.

And hello, everyone. And can you go ahead and start to my left? Awesome. Thank you. Flora Lidres, Lucky District 7.

Good afternoon. Darrell Watson, Fine District 9.

Chantelle Lewis, District 8. And Diana Romero-Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4. We have four action items today, so it's a pretty tight schedule. I'm going to go ahead and turn it over. I think we're starting with the rezoning for 4625 North Milwaukee.

Perfect, thank you very much. Good afternoon members of council. My name is Fran Peña-Fiel, and I'm a principal city planner with Community Planning and Development. And today I am here covering for Joe, because I'm not Joe, in this rezoning for 4625 North Milwaukee Street. We are looking, as always, at the request, location and context, we're gonna look at the process, and then finally we're gonna go over the review criteria. This rezoning is coming to you sponsored by Council Member Watson, and he is working in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity and Tierra Colectiva in rezoning this site, that it's a small site, it's 4,605 square feet, that it's currently zoned E-S-U-D, and the request is to go to U-T-U-B. As you can see in this site, in that image, This is part of the expansion of I-70, so there used to be a house in the site that got demolished when that expansion happened, and now that's why you see that the site is smaller. It used to be 9,000 square feet, now it's 4,600, and is currently a vacant site. As I said, the current zoning is ESUD, what's the urban edge single unit, with a minimum zonelot size of 6,000 square feet. And the proposal is to go to UTUB, which is the urban two-unit district. This district allows for two-unit uses on lots that are supposed to be a minimum of 4,500 square feet. The permitted building forms include urban house, duplex, tandem home, and the Dutch ADUs. Now let's look at the location and context. As I said before, this is in Council District 9, but it's Council Member Watson's district, and it is in the Hilarious Swansea neighborhood. Here's the existing zoning, so you can see that it is ESUD, and it's mostly surrounded by other ESUD to the north. There is like that site that it's UTUC, and then you can see that south of I-70, it's ETUB. Now looking at the land use, as I said before, there used to be a house here that was demolished with the expansion of I-70, and now it's a vacant lot. And here's some images you can see there on the top right, that's the vacant site, and then you can see a single unit house that it's across the street on Milwaukee, on the bottom right image.

Now let's take a look at the process.

The informational notice of this application went out on January 9th, 2026. Planning board held its public hearing on May 6th. We're today at in June 9th. And we're tentatively scheduled for July 13th for city council public hearing. So far, we've received one letter of support from the , the Registered Neighborhood Organization, and we also received a letter that was signed, a letter of support that was signed by 40 members of the community. On the planning board hearing, planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval. Now let's take a look at our zoning code review criteria. We have three review criteria that we're gonna look at. We have consistency with adopted plans, we have the public interest, and consistency with neighborhood context, zone district, purpose, and intent. Looking at comprehensive plan 2040, The comprehensive plan 2040 encourages a mix of housing types. Let me go here, there we go. In-field development or infrastructure already exists and increasing access to affordable housing. This rezoning enables gentle density and supports reinvestment in an established neighborhood with existing services and transit options. Now when we look at Blueprint Denver. This site is classified as urban neighborhood context. and the residential low as future place type. As you know, the residential low calls for single and two unit when it can be thoughtfully integrated and Blueprint Denver tells us that when we have residential low, we should look at what is the guidance from the small area plans and also what do we hear from the neighbors if we have a lot of support from the community. So we will talk about that in the next slides. So here we have applying residential law guidance to propose rezoning. So this is like normally when we have the situations where it's difficult to rezone to two units if we don't have a small area plan that supports that request. So here we could see, do we have a pattern of TU? And this is a tricky one. I don't really see a pattern in this slide. We do have a lot of TU to the south, but we don't really see a strong pattern. But again, thankfully, we have the small area plan guidance that it's supportive, so we don't need to worry too much about the pattern for blueprint. Now looking at Hilaria swansia. This plan identifies this part of the neighborhood for single family duplex development, specifically calling for a mix of single family and duplexes and row homes, and even small apartment buildings. This directly supports the proposed rezoning. The neighborhood plan emphasizes a moderate density residential pattern with a range of housing types, including duplex and small scale multi-unit buildings. The proposed rezoning aligns with established expectations. The plan also recommends updating the neighborhood context to better reflect alley access, detached sidewalks, and other future consistent with the urban context used by Blueprint Denver, further reinforcing that this type of rezoning makes sense here. Finally, the plan speaks directly to community concerns about displacement and the need for affordable housing options. Allowing additional gentle density in established neighborhoods is one way to help maintain affordability and provide more options for current residents. Now looking at the public interest, the rezoning supports a broader mix of housing types, also opportunities for more affordable housing, and better alignment with plan guidance intended to support residents and mitigate displacement pressures. These elements together support the public interest in this area. The request zoning district fits well with the urban neighborhood context, particularly given that the areas mix of one and two unit homes, and it aligns with the purpose and intent of the UTUB district. With that, CBD recommends approval of the resigning request based on finding that all the review criteria have been met. I'm here for questions, and I think we have, well, of course, Council Member Watson, and I think we have someone from Tierra Colectiva, in case you have any questions.

Would you like to go first, Councilman Watson, or have the Tierra Colectiva?

Well, let me jump in first, and then I'll set the stage for Danny Slava and Nora Miguel to add more context to the whole process. But I want to first start thanking Edson and Joe for the work throughout this process. They have been excellent partners. And Fran, as always, ensuring that we went through the planning board process and now city council process, making sure that CBD is leading that. I want to Thank you. I'm honored to be the Let's Live sponsor of this rezone. And there are two reasons why I think this is so important. For the I-70 expansion and the homes that were lost, Tierra Collectiva has been instrumental in ensuring that we're providing housing, especially housing for sale for neighbors that were displaced or family members that were displaced. This lot that we're looking at, that they are looking at, most likely will provide housing for families, so up to three bedrooms within the site. And so I'm honored to be a part of this process and I wanted to see if Council President Pro Tem Danny Slabaugh or Nola Miguel is online and if either of them are able to speak.

I believe Danny's online and Nola as well. So Danny or Nola? Uh, if you want to accept the promotion.

Yeah, hi, I think both accepted the promotion and let me know if you all have any specific questions for us about the site.

Danny, can you share the community process? The steps that you all took the staff report does provide that information, but it'll be helpful if either, you know, if you are able to to provide that background.

Yeah, so we did a few different things. We did a round of bilingual door knocking on that block and talked with neighbors. Several of them expressed interest in learning more about Tierra Colectiva and potentially joining our waitlist and getting more information and getting involved, including the person who lives directly across the street from the site, which was exciting. And we also shared about this rezone and our plans at our info sessions and orientations over the last several months. And community meetings and member meetings to share out the word about what we're planning to do. Um, to replace 8 of the 56 homes that were taken through the 70 expansion process through eminent domain. Um, from the neighborhood. Um, so we did that. We also reached out to the local as you heard and received a letter of support and we also reached out to other area. Sort of and community organizations to inform them of the process. Nuala, is there anything I should add to that list?

No, I don't think so. We sell our homes at around 57% of the area median income in order to address displacement specifically, and we have folks on our wait list just waiting for a home, so we want to get building on these.

Did you have any further questions? Oh, no. Okay.

Great. Um, I'd like to welcome councilman cashman to the meeting and our next question is from councilwoman.

Thank you so much. Um, I actually don't have a question. This is amazing. The work data collectiva is doing over there is amazing. I've been able to do the bus tour and see some of the other units that they have. done in different iterations in different ways throughout time. And it's exemplary. I hope that one day we can have something similar in District 7. So I commend their work. Thank you Councilman Watson and to the city staffers that worked on this.

Thank you. Thank you. This is an action item. Do we have a motion? No, ma'am, he does. Okay. I'll be addressed in a second. Thank you. Council member Lewis.

Thumbs up.

We're good. All right. Thank you. I am. Thank you very much. Are you?

This is the River Committee. No, CPH. CPH. No, I don't see. Thank you for also.

Sorry. Great. Thank you. All right. We have our next one up. That was great. A rezoning for 406 South Quitman Street.

Good afternoon, Council. My name is Will Prince. I'll present an application for 406 South Quitman Street, a request to rezone from ESU-DX to ESU-B. As always, we'll review the request, the location and context, the process, and the review criteria. So again, this is a request to rezone from urban edge single unit DX to urban edge single unit B. The property itself there in the center of the image there is 10,400 square feet vacant with a half story basement house. And the goal of this rezoning is to split to allow for new housing options. Continue on to the location and context. This is located in council district three with council member Torres and in the Westwood neighborhood. As for existing zoning, again, this is ESU DX, which is the majority of the area abutted by ETUC. As for existing land use, the majority of the area is single unit with some multi-unit and two-unit scattered throughout. And for the building form and scale, as we can see here, the majority of the neighborhood is one-story residential. We can see the subject property on the bottom right with the large yard as part of this property. Continuing on to the process, this received its informational notice in March. Had it was noticed and heard at the public hearing for Planning Board on May 20th, Planning Board unanimously approved the recommendation for approval. And we are here today at CPH Committee here in June, and we have a scheduled public hearing for July 27th, later this summer. And so far there have been no comments. to date regarding this rezoning. Continuing on to the review criteria, with all rezonings, we'll go over each of these individually, starting off with consistency with adopted plans, which there are three applicable for this site. Starting off with Comprehensive Plan 2040, this meets two key goals related to strong and authentic neighborhoods, as well as environmentally resilient. This rezoning will enable new housing options at an infill location where infrastructure is in place on a large lot. Moving on to Blueprint Denver, this is identified as urban edge, our EU zone districts, which is predominantly residential and tend to act as transition between urban and suburban. And homes in this context are typically low scale, single and two unit residential. As for future place type, this is identified as low residential, predominantly single and two unit uses on small to medium lots with heights up to two and a half stories. And as for future street type, Quitman and Dakota are both designated as local. And lastly, with Blueprint, this is identified as all other areas of the city for growth strategy. We anticipate 10% of jobs and 20% of housing by 2040. There are two additional blueprint policies that help support this rezoning related to climate and equity in particular. Land use and built form housing policy six, increase the development of affordable housing and mixed income housing, particularly in areas near transit service and amenities, as well as housing policy seven, expand family-friendly housing throughout the city. continuing on to the small area plan the Southwest area plan was adopted earlier this year and as for future neighborhood context and future place this room is the same as blueprint so we have urban edge for future neighborhood context and future place again low residential And there are additional policies that help support this rezoning from the Southwest Area Plan related to land use. Policy one, Southwest residents should have affordable and secure housing options that accommodate a wide range of needs. Land use policy two, ensure that there's adequate supply of high quality, well-maintained housing that meets the needs of the community. And policy three, low residential placements should allow additional housing growth while promoting affordability, design and preservation. In particular for this application and this rezoning is the additional policy of E, 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 in the surrounding area. And then also within the Westwood Neighbor chapter for Westwood Land Use Policy 1, preserve affordable housing options in the Westwood Neighborhood, while allowing for housing options that serve a diversity of needs. And with that, we find that this rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. As for the remaining criteria, this supports public interest as it will allow for more housing options and supports our citywide adopted plans. It is also consistent with Neighbor Contact Zone District Purpose and Intent and will implement the regulations related to ESUB. With that, CPD recommends forwarding to the full City Council, finding all review criteria have been met. Here to answer any additional questions or comments and the applicant is available online.

Great. Any council members? Councilwoman Alvedrez.

I am just very fascinated by it being underground, mostly, the current house. Is that something that's currently allowed, or is that something that's grandfathered in?

Grandfathered in. These were known as basement homes, and in this area, in particular the southwest, there has been...

presence of them they're not as common but probably from the 1940s or 1950s when these were built and so very interesting to see and then my other question is just I know what makes sense it's an adopt an alignment with adopted plans but what's the need to change the zoning

So the applicant was looking to add additional units on site. And so we looked at some initially some duplex options based on that, but based on the area plan with the language in there, but also the options with unlocking housing choices. This was the option to allow more units on site. We did not find plan support for a two-unit zone district based on the language in the plan. So in order to have additional units on this larger lot, it's a bit of an outlier for the area. So the goal is to split it to allow more than one unit.

Because then it would just be one single family unit on each lot.

Yep.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Thank you so much, committee chair. Thank you. I had the same question. Such an interesting little building. I think I've driven by it. Yeah. In the presentation, you said there have been no comments, no RNO feedback. What is the RNO that would be for this area? And I'm just wondering for the community outreach for that.

Westwood has two RNOs.

Yes. I'll say Westwood United and... I'm blanking on the other one. Oh, here we go. Honcho on Westwood, Westwood Community Action Team, and Westwood UNODOS. So there's three.

What was the first one?

Honcho on Westwood and Westwood. Oh, OK. Yeah.

Honcho on Westwood.

All right. We seem to always have feedback, so I just thought I was curious that there was no feedback on this particular zoning. I don't have any other questions. Are there any other questions from council members? Seeing none online, this is also an action item. Do we have a motion? I'll move. Okay, with Alvarez and with Lewis. Bank squad, kind of. Take teaming. Here we go. Oops, sorry. Sorry about that. Take teaming for today. And that was seconded by Louis. All those in favor, thumbs up. And online, thank you very much. See you on the floor.

Record time there.

Terrific. We are flying through.

You're making our job too easy today. All right.

We saved the rest of the meeting for the next one. Our next presentation is 4901 South Monica Street. Everybody gets one of these.

Good afternoon, city council. Let me see. Do we need to go to view? Do we know how to make this full screen?

It should be here.

No, I thought he was the same. It's different than council, sorry.

Oh, okay. Learned something new every day. Thanks again. Good afternoon, City Council. I'm Brandon Shaver, Lab of CPD, presenting an official map of an application for 4901 South Monaco Street. So getting into the crest to start, this is a request to rezone from B4 with waivers U01, U02 to SMX5. This property is located on the edge of the city near East Bellevue Avenue and South Monaco Street. It is just under three acres. and is an existing three-story building previously used as an assisted living facility and has surface parking surrounding it. Also of note, the current owner has obtained a zoning permit for a residential care type 4 use. And they are requesting this rezoning to alleviate some of the permitting issues that we see with Chapter 59. Moving into the context, this is in District 4 represented by Councilmember Romero-Campbell and is within the Southmoor Park statistical neighborhood. Existing zoning, I'll detail in the next slide. Again, B4 with Waiver 01, U02. A lot of this area of the city has that same zoning, which was adopted in 1981. You also see some SMX 12 to the east, and this property is almost surrounded on two sides by Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village. So the existing zoning before is a general business district and it does have some waivers on it. These waivers wait out adult uses and billboards as well as some other unique and interesting uses that I guess we didn't seem were appropriate in 1981. This does also have a maximum build out by sub area and there is a residential maximum of 225,000 square feet which has already been allocated. Property also has use overlays one and two mapped. However, in our analysis, we found that there is sufficient land remaining in the city for adult uses should this use overlay be removed. And also due to the fact that the current waivers already prohibit billboards, we thought that removing them seemed consistent. So the proposed zoning is suburban mixed use up to five stories. Here you can see the purpose, intent, and the building forms allowed in that zone district. Moving to land use, currently classified as multi-unit residential. Multi-unit residential also exists to the north with some office uses to the east and some vacant and park and open space to the south along Bellevue Avenue. This gives you a sense of the existing building. Again, three stories previously used as assisted living facility. And then some shots of those residential properties to the north and the office uses to the east across South Bonaco Street. Speaking to the process, we sent informational notice of this in late January. It went to planning board in early June and have a tentative date scheduled for public hearing in later July. To date, we have not received any comments from RNOs as there is not an RNO that is specific to this area of the city. And we have received 29 comments of opposition. Here you can see kind of the general sentiment of those comments. A lot of concerns with parking, loading, some allowed uses in the residential care use category, infrastructure constraints, and some perceived safety concerns. planning board. This was unanimously recommended for approval of the application as rezoning is specific to a breadth of uses that are allowed in that district and that specific use itself. And then moving to the review criteria, of which there are three, first being consistency with adopted plans. Staff finds this to be consistent with a number of strategies in Comp Plan 2040, which are organized by Vision Element and are further detailed in the staff report, but do speak to maintaining an equitable, affordable, and inclusive city, creating a strong and authentic neighborhood, and remaining environmentally resilient. In Blueprint Denver, this request is consistent with the mapped suburban neighborhood context, which is where we see the most varied development in our neighborhoods and mostly find commercial development focused along key corridors and centers. It is also consistent with the future place, which is a high medium residential area where we see it can accommodate compatible commercial and retail uses up to five stories in height and is served by commercial arterials with both East Bellevue Avenue and South Monaco Street in close proximity. This falls into our all other areas of the city growth area where we anticipate 10% of housing and 20, sorry, 10% of new employment and 20% of new housing by 2040. Also fits into additional strategies within Blueprint Denver, rezoning properties out of the old code, and also fits into equity and climate goals that are listed in that plan. We also find this to be in the public interest as it would implement city plans and foster a more walkable mixed use area near transit. And lastly, we find this request to be consistent with the suburban neighborhood context and is understood purpose and intents for SMX 5. For those reasons, CPD recommends that this body move this application forward to the full council for consideration. I'm happy to answer questions. I'm joined by the applicant team, both in person, online, and because a lot of the concerns on this application are related to a proposed use and permitting around that, I also am joined by our zoning administrator for any questions related to that.

Thank you very much for the presentation. We'll go ahead and get started with Councilmember Alvarez.

Thank you. Yes, I do see there's quite a bit of letters of opposition. Could you tell me more about what you said it's about more about the proposed use? What about the proposed use?

more about maybe concerns of that that type of use could bring in because you know that in the group living project we did do a great job consolidating those types of uses and want to ensure that permitting those types of uses are less onerous. in the new code than they are in the old code. And so I think that that's where most of the concerns are coming from. And I think that the applicant might be able to speak more to their project, because I don't think that they are intending any expansion of the use. And therefore, it also would not trigger any kind of infrastructure or traffic analysis at this time.

Great. Yeah, I would love to hear from the applicant about the proposed use.

Yeah. If one of you would like to respond, just come up to the mic, introduce yourself, Can you ask a question?

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Amelia Steffen, and I'm an attorney at Foster, Graham, Milstein, and Kalischer, located at 360 South Garfield Street in Denver, here to represent the applicant Guardian Recovery. We also have Brian Tierney here with us, who's an executive director at Guardian and can answer lots of questions about the operational standards of the facility. And we also have our community outreach representative, Austin Kane, here with us. Additionally, David Foster is here. ONLINE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT HE CAN HELP ANSWER. AS FAR AS WHY WE OR OUR RESIDENTIAL CARE USE PERMIT LARGE IS WHAT IT WAS CALLED UNDER FORMER CHAPTER 59, IS GOING TO ALLOW US TO BASICALLY ADAPTIVELY REUSE 4901 SOUTH MONACO STREET TO BECOME A PLACE WHERE being permitted by the Behavioral Health Administration at the state, we'll be able to have a addiction recovery and behavioral mental health services at the property. It will not have any sort of detoxification or people arriving who need that early stage withdrawal type of service. we've had some back-and-forth conversations with our neighbors who live at the two very large condo buildings within that same subdivision. They are mostly concerned about things like traffic and at what point in the recovery process are our patients going to be arriving at the property. Because we are adaptively reusing the building and we just obtained a use permit. We didn't have to provide a brand new site plan or anything like that. We just provided the existing site plan for the building because we're basically just going to be getting building permits to retrofit the building to have more individual rooms and things like that. But in terms of the actual structure itself, the outside is going to remain the same. And because of that, we did not trigger those requirements of the city to need to do a new site plan, traffic study, and all of those things. So I hope that's helpful.

As far as the adaptive reuse portion, can you talk to me more about how you looked at deciding the new use and the feasibility with that, with the old use? Which can you tell me about what the...

Yeah, the previous use of the building was also a residential care facility, but it was just a home that helped older folks in basically kind of like an assisted living type of facility. And Guardian was looking at this because we wanted to be able to have building that may not need to be completely built from the ground up and this was a great starting place for them to be able to have and Brian might know the amount of bedrooms in the building but to be able to retrofit that with the type of medical oversight that we are going to need to have because we're gonna have 24-7 staff and we want to make sure that all of our clients have sufficient place to live because it is a long-term more of a long-term living situation for them. Most clients are staying for a minimum of about 90 days. So that is why they were interested in this building at the outset, just because, I mean, it's very cost-effective.

It sounds like the uses are pretty similar. Yes. So what is the need for the rezoning?

We are rezoning from former Chapter 59 into the current code because under former Chapter 59, Residential care use facilities require a two-year administrative renewal. And that administrative renewal also involves a community information notice and meeting. As we know, residential care uses can often be rather controversial in Denver and throughout the state, really. And so because Guardian is about to make a very big investment in retrofitting this building and beginning operations here, they wanted to make sure that they're not at risk of ever losing their use permit, not that it's really a high bar for that two-year renewal process. However, it is still a risk when you're going to be investing a lot of money in purchasing a property.

So you're not actually adding a lot more stories or a lot more people. You're just changing the inside, really.

Yeah, we'll be just pulling building permits for interior work, but nothing will happen to the exterior of the building.

Okay, great. That makes sense.

Thank you so much. Thank you, committee chair. That's all I have. Thank you. I also see that we have David Foster that was promoted. I don't know if he has anything to add to answer the question.

I don't. I think Amelia has done an excellent job so far. I would just add that we do have the right today to have this use at this site. And in kind of in cooperation and in respect for your new code that doesn't require this biannual review, the level of investment here is significant. Further, I don't want to understate the significance that nobody in Denver has an automatic right to have their use for however long they want if they're in violation of existing zoning requirements. Of course, I understand your zoning administrator is in the room today as well. The city always has a process by which they can seek a review of an existing use. So I don't want it to be believed that we're seeking to rezone so that we are never under anybody's auspices.

I think that's important. Thank you for adding that context. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilman Watson.

Yeah, just two quick questions. And actually, it's the number of residents, number of folks that can stay there. What's the estimated from what's being built? And I don't know if that's for the gentleman that's building it, to share how many folks are going to be at this site at any time.

The maximum capacity of patients that can plausibly be in the building at one time is 170 patients, but I can have Brian elaborate on it won't be 170 patients the first day. We're going to kind of step up as operations.

And about how many folks are at the capacity for the current building and the current use?

I do not know that off the top of my head, but maybe some team members may know.

Austin Cain, Wall Cain Consulting, 1580 Lincoln Street, Denver, 80203. Right now, you've got Cure West, which is the more acute care as people are still in the throes of Their episode, there are 44 beds there. They're usually right around 10 available at any time. We're usually filled in the mid-30s. If you assume that it's 20% to 25% vacant at any time, and that does hold true for the facility at 4,901, you're probably looking at 140. The occupancy is something that we take very seriously, and it's something that we've talked with Councilwoman Romero-Campbell about at length early on. And what we want to do is try and phase in occupancy over time. The Guardian team has skills in operating facilities like this, but we want to make sure we're ultra-careful in ramping up so that we're not overwhelmed as we get closer and closer to capacity. And that will be part of a good neighbor pledge that we are going to make to the two neighboring HOAs, that we will ramp up gradually over time with a set schedule. And then the market will dictate some of that, too.

Thank you so much. My final question from community planning and development, just on the use code, and if there are some restrictions or some issues, the oversight review impacts that community members can be aware of as far as the change in use, when that can be revoked, or if it's ever revoked, when does that happen? If you can shine a light a little bit on that. I know Mr. Foster spoke to it at a high level.

Yeah, Councilman, and if you don't mind, So it's important to understand that these facilities are also regulated highly by the state and other agencies within the within the city so zoning is a tool but it's probably not going to be the lead tool that we use if there are issues arising at the facility we'll probably need to coordinate with other agencies in the state should we should we get complaints about any intended impacts to the neighborhood. But if that does arise and we are consulting with the state, we will follow the state's lead on this. They are the experts in regulating how these businesses should be run, what the requirements are from the health and safety life standpoint. And so we can work hand in hand with other agencies to determine whether the zoning permit needs to be revoked or not. And that's kind of how that would play out in the code. As far as permitting the use, they have an existing use permit. It's valid for a year. They have a year to establish that use. I don't believe that use has been established yet. So they have a little bit of work to do in the next month, regardless of whether the zoning moves forward or not. If the use permit expires, then they'll have to reapply under whatever zoning rules are in existence of when they want to start that. So I suspect, and I've not had any conversations with the applicant But I suspect there's a chance that the existing permit might become expired, given what I'm hearing about the need for obtaining building permits and everything like that. So if that were to expire, and the property were to be rezoned, then the community information meeting would be required. The purpose of the community information meeting is to share information. I think there was a lot of questions around, is it an opportunity to quelch the use? And the Denver Zoning Code doesn't operate in that manner. We don't have, well, we have very limited discretionary uses in the code. What I mean by discretionary is that It would be an approval process that doesn't involve, doesn't meet the code requirements or not. And the most discretionary uses that we have are called zoning permits with special exception review. Those are reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. And the Board of Adjustment kind of acts as like a traditional planning board when reviewing the criteria and reviewing all the information presented about that. This is not that situation. So if they were to apply for a new use permit under the new code, we would have the community information meeting. The community information meeting would be required before they actually apply, formally apply. And the purpose of that is to share information. It sounds like they have a good communication already established with the neighborhoods, but this is an additional opportunity. We request that any feedback be documented and it's in the best interest of the applicant to take that feedback in consideration with how they want to apply for the use. Most concerns can be mitigated through design, through operational aspects, and that's what we would look at from a zoning perspective when we're reviewing an application is like, what were the issues and potential concerns of the neighborhood? Are they tied to the actual use themselves or are they just general, I don't want this type of feedback? If they're tied to the use and tied to the operations and tied to the regulations, then we ask the question, can this be reasonably mitigated or not? And the answer is more often than not, yes, they can be mitigated. And if they can be mitigated, we can issue the permit. We can issue conditions on the permit as well if that's warranted to make sure that any mitigations are codified on the face of the permit themselves.

Much more thorough than I expected. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam President Pro Tem.

Thank you. Let's go online with Councilmember Parity.

Hi there. Can you all hear me okay?

Yes.

Great, thanks. I always worry about that. So I remember this application from, or actually hearing about this before the application went in, I should say. And I mostly, it was of interest to me as a member of the opioid abatement commission, because I frankly know that we need this facility. So I'd just like to know a little bit more about who is your, what's your payer mix or what do you expect it to be? Is it gonna be mostly folks that are private pay? And then I think early on, if I remember, you can tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought there were conversations with, the mayor's team and in particular the folks doing roads to recovery about potentially some kind of like dedicated beds for people that are um part of that city program or other programs i don't know if those went anywhere i'm just curious about that because i um we need the beds period for everybody right even if it's private pay or people who are fully insured but i'm just curious about whether people end up being able to be served at care west facilities who may be on like medicaid medicare anything like that

Hello, everybody. My name is Brian Tierney. I'm the Executive Director for Guardian Recovery Cure West and the Executive Director of our National Mental Health Virtual Outpatient Services. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here and speak with you all today. To answer the questions, Payor mix, we expect it to be similar to the current payer mix we have at Cure West. There is about 40% Medicaid, about 50% commercial insurance, and then private pay or scholarship is the remainder of that 10% there. And we do expect to see a similar payer mix in the facility at Monaco. Then in regards to partnerships with the Rose to Recovery Program, we have had those talks. They've been largely kind of put on pause as we're getting through this zoning process, but we are open to continue in that relationship. Where the last conversation left off was, let's get through the zoning process and we'll circle back, and we can definitely make that happen. We've also been in talks with Denver Health with some of their programs as well to create partnerships for those individuals as well.

OK, thank you. I just was curious, and I appreciate those answers. And I'm really glad to see this coming our way. Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Let's go with Councilmember Lewis next. Thank you. I just wanted to understand from the staff report that you have in the existing zoning that there were waivers and now that's not going to be the case. I was just curious, what does that mean in terms of what this looks like practically?

Great question. So the current zoning has both waivers and use overlays. And so those waivers prohibit adult uses, billboards, a couple other really unique uses. And then there's also the allocation of maximum those square feet. That's within the zoning within that sub area. So effectively zoning to the Denver zoning code would remove all of those waivers. There would be no need for the use overlays. And then that gross flow area could be reallocated to other parts of that sub area should other development come into play.

Thank you. That's really helpful. And then I have one more question. Oh, there was mention about, and this might be for the applicant, there was mention about the concerns regarding traffic and I know that sometimes when these come to us that they trigger a large development review and this one did not. Is it because of that it's 2.99 acres or is that?

Also a great question and sometimes we look at that a little bit more holistically and we don't always abide by the you know hard and fast if it's five acres or more than when it triggers an LDR review. We look more at what the existing infrastructure is and what the contemplated development is and with this application they're not intending to expand the building in any manner so it did not trigger an LDR review.

So then from you all's perspective, what exists in terms of infrastructure like parking or streets and things of that nature because you're not expanding the actual coverage of the building that you don't anticipate that what is going to be inside the building potentially would actually lead to so much more traffic that it would cause a hazard or a headache for the folks in that area?

I think I would agree to that, yes. And I would say that they, as currently zoned, they are providing more parking than it would be required. And then zoning into the Denver Zoning Code, we no longer have minimum parking requirements.

That's right. We voted on that. All right. That's it. Those are our only questions.

Thank you. Thank you. I do have a few questions as well. Let me go online and see what I've got. Good for everybody online. So, in terms of rezoning specifically, and we've talked about this for a while, the differences in accountability from the former Chapter 59, because what is being proposed can happen under the current zoning and the move to the new zoning code. Can you just speak a little bit to that? Which I think is part of the concern that I'm hearing from my constituents around why is the zoning coming up now?

I can definitely start on that and then I'll let Amelia fill in. So what they think the key difference is here is that by rezoning into the Denver zoning code it would then remove that community information requirement and the biannual permit renewal and we find that these types of uses can sometimes come across as being less desirable and we do not feel like it's appropriate to have more of a regulatory process on those types of uses knowing that we need them across our city.

So thank you for that. I think at that large community meeting or a larger, you know, the community meeting that we had that was mentioned, it was moving forward in the old chapter 59. I think at that meeting, the applicants realized that in the new zoning code, they would not have to go back to community. So during that meeting, people heard that they would have two years to accustomed to it and to kind of work through whatever the relationship is. What measures have been taken to address community concerns for that accountability? And can you talk a little bit more? I know that there was work that was happening for GNA.

Yeah, so we're going to kind of address that on two levels. I'm going to talk a little bit about the community engagement piece and how Guardian is interacting with the two HOAs to our north to try and assuage some of the concerns that they may have about the use. On that front, we began talking about a good neighbor agreement. And as conversations progressed, and we have had a myriad of conversations with our neighbors' leadership, but also just the residents themselves. And as those conversations progressed, we were informed that the HOAs themselves, the way that they were structured, they would not be able to sign a GNA kind of blanketing all of the residents. It would have to be unanimous. And it just seemed impractical. So, what we did was, we switched to what we're calling a good neighbor pledge. And the Good Neighbor Agreement started with five tenants. Those tenants tried to address the initial concerns that some of the neighbors to the north had. So is there going to be patient supervision? Yes, 24 hours a day. We are even going to have a dedicated community liaison who is available during business hours to interact with HOAs and the community at large if there's ever any issues. But there's also assurances that Guardian is making in the Good Neighbor Pledge that says any time of day, 24 hours a day, that a neighbor has an issue and needs to speak with somebody at Guardian, there's somebody there. That building is staffed 24-7, 365, and we want to make sure that we are super responsive to neighbor concerns. Another neighbor concern, parking. We've made it very clear that the neighbors have full rights to enforce their parking bylaws as they are written and their rules and regulations. And Guardian's operations are not in any way to infringe on that. We've talked about the signage outside. Maybe some people would be skittish about having a sign that used the word recovery right next to them. And so, we've agreed not to do that. Vis-a-vis uses, we don't want it to become an ambulatory care center any more than our neighbors do. So, we've in the pledge said it's not going to become a methadone clinic or anything like that at a future date. And then, Councilwoman, as I was alluding to earlier, kind of that ramp up on the occupancy, that's going to be part of the pledge. And then also an assurance that this facility is strictly a private facility and in no way affiliated with any other jurisdictional body from around the state or the region. So, those are just some of the tenets in how that's evolved over, you know, months of conversations. But that's just one level of accountability. I want to have Brian Tierney speak to some of the state oversight.

So as was alluded to, that there's other governing bodies that we are regulated under, I wanted to speak to some of those to kind of assuage some of the concerns around the oversight with the two-year review period being removed in this new zoning. So we are annually reviewed by the BHA for our continued licensure, which we would be applying for a 3.1 ASAM level of care at this facility. And that would be annually regulated by the state. by our own choice, participate in the Joint Commission accreditation. So that is something that we choose to involve with that is a higher level of accountability than the state minimum requirements. And we have those at all of our facilities. So we will be regulated by those two bodies for ongoing. And they both have processes for grievances to be submitted. Neighbors can submit grievances you know directly to those those entities and they'll do their own investigations into those things so there is still a high degree of oversight even without this two-year uh zoning review so i just wanted to make that clear thank you can i ask another question um the previous use for the site i think it was a maximum bed capacity of 70

Correct. And so some of the internal renovations that are happening are taking some of the rooms, creating two beds, and that's where we get the 171, our 170 bed capacity. Okay. What I've heard also from neighbors and constituents is that, and I appreciate you talking about the build-out, is what is the capacity of Guardian and past experience operating a site at this size? I think some of the other facilities are day facilities and not full-time residential facilities.

Yeah, thank you for that. And Guardian does now currently have two other facilities in other markets that are a comparative size. I was just at a sister facility in Dallas, Texas, where we have one that is pushing 95 and going to continue expanding there. So it's down there to observe some of the operations there and work with that leadership team at that site. We also have a 3-1 level of care in Portland, Maine that is operating at a similar size. Moving towards that size, yeah. So it's about 90 beds right now, but will be 120, 130 in the near future.

So this will definitely be the largest facility that Guardian will have operating?

Well, with the phase system, these other facilities will actually be a pretty similar size by the time we get to the full capacity. And as Austin was speaking to, filling 100% capacity at 170 is pretty unlikely. We typically have about 80% capacity in any of our programs at any given time.

Okay. And then the outside facility. So are those other facilities the same footprint? I know online they have shown that they have more outside facility. One of the other questions that had come up from community was the outside space for the folks who are inside. There's a small patio. but there really isn't any other space for people to be. How will you be addressing that?

Our sister facility in Dallas, Texas has a very similar footprint, not a large outdoor area, some courtyard space, and they operate very well in being able to be contained there and not disturbing their neighbors. That facility is situated between a preschool and a high school, so they're very conscious about being good neighbors to both of those entities, especially with children. And so far, there's been no major complaints from those entities, and we work really hard in any market that we're in to be a good neighbor and make sure that our patients are being where they're supposed to be.

I don't know if this ties into, I know from the planning board there was a conversation around defining what detox looks like. Would this site be used for a detox facility in the future?

No, not to my understanding. There's no strategic plan that is in any works for this to become a detox facility. We do currently have a detox facility or withdrawal management. It's an ASAM 37 at Porter Hospital. That's what I currently manage. And they're is no intent to move detox services over to the Monaco facility. We really like our relationship with Porter Hospital. We are we still have many years left on our lease, and I know that our ownership is currently in negotiations to extend that lease as long as they can. I've heard five to ten years on top of the whatever years we have left on that contract. That is perfectly situated for a detox service, and it operates really well, so I don't foresee detox services being applied to the Monaco facility. That would be a huge uplift.

It would be huge. I think one of the things that is challenging, and you had alluded to this before, is it was a rocky start. And it was a little over a year ago that from another county was planning on using this particular facility for a law enforcement detox drop-off location. And I think a lot of trust was broken with community, myself included, as far as what that use would be, how this would move forward. And in the conversations as well with Guardian, the number of clients that would be served. So originally, I think, you know, increasing the number of the beds up to 120, then up to 140, and now we're up to 171 has also been increasing. And I know that that is something that has been, and I keep coming back to this, like, show me some best practice here. because I really do think that we need recovery services and that we have recovery locations throughout the city. I have supported other recovery locations in District 4 and so wanting to make sure that we are providing the best that we can all across the city. So those things are, I'm still struggling with because I know that you can fully operate under the current zoning code and to make this shift right now while we're still figuring out what that good neighbor commitment, what a promise, pledge. pledge, promise, commitment, what that looks like and how do we uphold that I think has been still a struggle as to how that gets implemented and how we maintain that moving forward. And so the process moving forward, I don't see how the change in zoning really does change the ability to have the site open.

Good point. Thank you, Councilwoman. I think that to your question and to why are we doing this now, Facilities like these are capital-intensive. Guardian has to buy the building. And then, because the way that the current building was laid out with really large apartments for even couples to live in together, and the fact that we're turning those into dual-occupancy rooms, there's a fair amount of interior work, even though we're not changing the size, shape, height, footprint of the building. The reason that the primary driver for doing this now is because it opens up so many more financing opportunities for us to have lenders have that confidence that once we get open, especially with Guardian's track record across the country, that once we get open, we're going to be able to operate the facility and their loan is going to be safe. That financing benefit is absolutely something that trickles down to the end users. Brian mentioned scholarships. Guardian absolutely wants to work on scholarships. And what scholarship means in Guardian parlance is basically free beds for folks who might not have access to these services. And so, that's really the main impetus. To your question about the rocky start, I just want to say, that was a miscommunication. I'd love for Brian to, kind of, opine on that. But that was not something that was directed by us. And I'm going to let, kind of, Brian speak to that.

Yeah, thanks for the opportunity to speak on this. I was approached by a member of an opioid abatement council, I believe at Arapahoe County, about the opportunity to receive some funding for this potential proposed site. There were some exploratory conversations had around what they were looking for. There was a tour that was hosted that was facilitated by members of that abatement council that I think got a little out of hand, and a lot of people got invited to that and was being communicated that this thing was happening. turned around and put that in writing that in no uncertain terms that we would not be accepting any money from the abatement council out of Arapahoe County to do a detox drop-off service for law enforcement from those counties. That was some exploratory conversations that I think that they were very excited about and wanted to move forward in the approval process without even checking to see if we were fully on board to even accept those funds. So we were just having some exploratory conversations there, and I think they were pretty excited about the opportunity. But we did put that in writing as soon as we became aware that that was a major issue and let them know in no uncertain terms that we would not be accepting money for those types of services at this facility.

I appreciate you talking through that because I think that that was a really big moment as far as like how would the site be used and the number of folks that would be coming and where they would be coming from and that we would be taking, you know, folks from Douglas County and from, you know, from every other place around the area. I don't have any other questions. I appreciate you answering that and I appreciate the applicants being here. I think for me, I still struggle with the feedback that I'm receiving from community about this particular rezoning and so I am listening to community and taking that feedback. But at the same time, this committee is to look at, is this ready for the floor? And has it met the requirements? And for that reason, I will be voting in support to move this forward today. And that does not commit me to a yes vote when it's on the floor, but I do think that this is ready to move forward to the floor. So this is an action item and I need to have a motion to move it forward. No. Alvarez and Lewis tag team on the third one for today. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. And we'll go online. I think we're good to go. And thank you. I think we'll see you on the floor.

Thank you very much.

My apologies. Real quick, we have one item on consent. You're all good. This meeting is adjourned. Sorry about that.

Got to tie up loose ends.

Got to tie up loose ends. I was focused on this one.