Community Planning and Housing Committee with Denver City Council.

Your community planning and housing committee starts now.

Let's report online only.

Ah, 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 Perity, 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, Dora Watson, fine, district 9.

Chantel Louis, District 8.

Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

We have four action items today, so it's a pretty tight schedule.

I'm gonna go ahead and turn it over.

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 as 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 Collectiva in rezoning this site that it's a small site, it's 4,605 square feet, that it's currently zoned ESUD, and the request is to go to UTUB.

As you can see in this side, 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 zone lot 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.

Now let's look at the location and context.

As I said before, this is in Council District 9, that it's Council Member Watson's district, and it is in the Ilaria Swansea neighborhood.

Here's the existing zoning.

So you can see that it's it is ESUD, and it's mostly surrounded by other ESUD to the north.

There is like that side 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 are some images you can see there on the top right.

That's the vacant site.

Now let's take a look at the process.

And we're tentatively scheduled for July 13th for a city county, City Council Public Hearing.

So far, we've received one letter of support from the Laura Swencia neighbor RNO, 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, um, planning board voters 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, umprehensive plan 2040 encourages a mix of housing types.

Let me go here.

There we go.

In field development 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 law calls for single and two unit when it can be thorough uh thoughtfully integrated.

And Blueprint Denver tells us that when we have residential law, we should look at what is the guidance from the small area plans, and also what uh 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.

Um, so here we have um yeah, applying residential law guidance to proposed 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 uh 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 Ilaria Swancia.

Um 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 the established expectations.

The plan also recommends updating the neighborhood context to better reflect Ali 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, a broader mix of housing, 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 area's mix of one and two unit homes, and it aligns with the purpose and intent of the UTUB district.

With that, uh CBD recommends approval of the rezoning request based on based on finding that all the review criteria have been met.

Would you like to go first?

Uh, Councilman Watson or have the Tierra Collective.

Let me jump in first, and then I'll set the stage for Danny Swaba and Normigu to add uh more context uh to the whole process.

But I want to first start thanking um Edson and Joe for the um uh the work throughout this process.

They have been excellent partners, and friend, as always, um, ensuring that we uh went through planning board process and our city council process, making sure that um that CBD is leading that.

I want to um uh thank you.

Um I'm honored to to be the legislative sponsor of this um um uh rezone, and there are two reasons why I think this is so important for the I-70 expansion and the homes that were lost.

TR Collectiva has been instrumental in ensuring that we're providing housing, um, especially housing for sale for neighbors um that were displaced or family members that were displaced.

This lot um that we're looking at that they are looking at uh most likely will provide um housing for families, so up to three bedrooms within um the site.

And so um I'm honored to to be a part of this process, and I wanted to see if um um council president pro temeth Danny Slobaugh or Nola Miguel is online and if either of them are able to speak.

I believe Danny's online and uh Nola as well.

So uh Danny or uh Danny or Nola, uh if you want to accept the promotion.

Yeah, yeah, hi.

We've I think both accepted the promotion.

Um, and let me know if you all have any specific questions for us about the site.

Danny, can you share the um community informed process, the steps that you all took?

The staff report does provide that information, but it would be helpful if either you or Nola if you are able to pro to provide that background.

Yeah, so we did a few different things.

Um we did a round of bilingual door knocking on that block and talked with neighbors.

Um several of them expressed interest in learning more about Tierra Collectiva and potentially joining our wait list um and getting uh more information and getting involved, um, including the person who lives directly across the street from the site, which was exciting.

Um we also uh shared about this rezone, um, and our plans at our tier collectiva info sessions and orientations over the last several months and community meetings and member meetings to to share out the word about what we're planning to do to replace eight of the 56 homes that were taken through the I-70 expansion process through eminent domain um from the Elyria Esmancia neighborhood.

Um so we did that.

We also reached out to the local RNO, as you heard, and received a letter of support, and we also reached out to other area um sort of ROs and community organizations to inform them of the process.

Um, is there anything I should add to that list?

No, I don't think so.

Um we sell our homes at around 57% of the area meeting income in order to address displacement specifically.

And we have folks on our wait list just waiting for a home.

So um we want to get in building on these.

Yep.

Do you have any further questions?

Okay, great.

Um, I'd like to welcome Councilman Cashman to the meeting.

And our next question is from uh Councilwoman Alvidres.

Thank you so much.

Um, I actually don't have a question.

This is amazing the work the Ana Collectiva has doing over there.

It's 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 seven.

So I commend their work.

Thank you, Councilman Watson, and to the city staffers that worked on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, this is an action item.

Do we have a motion?

We'll know who it is.

Okay.

Um, the second.

Thank you.

Council Councilmember Lewis.

Thumbs up.

We're good.

All right.

Thank you.

I think very much.

Are you?

This is the River Committee.

CPH, CPH.

CPH.

No, I don't think.

Thank you for um also.

Good thing you didn't make the motion.

Great.

Thank you.

Alright, we have our next one up.

That was a rezoning for 406 South Quitman Street.

Good afternoon, Council.

My name is Will Prince.

I'll resonate the application for 406 South Equipment Street.

Uh request to rezone from ESUDX to E S U B.

As always, we'll review the request, the location and context, the process, and the review criteria.

Um, so again, this is a request to rezone from Urban Edge Single unit DX to urban edge single U single unit B.

The property itself, they're 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.

Continuing on to the location and context, this is located in Council District 3 with council member Torres.

And in the Westwood neighborhood.

As for existing zoning, again, this is ESUDX, 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 units scattered throughout.

And for the building form and scale, as we can see here, the majority of the neighborhood is one story residential.

And we can see the subject property on the bottom right with the large yard as part of this property.

Continue on to the process.

This received its informational notice in March.

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 the 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 E-zone districts, which is predominantly residential and tend to act as transition between urban and suburban.

And homes are 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.

With blueprint, this identified as all other areas of the city for growth strategy.

We need to spay 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 uh neighborhood context and future place, this 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 places 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 West of the neighborhood chapter for Westwood land use uh policy one, preserve affordable housing options in the Westwood neighborhood, while along for housing options that serve a diversity of needs.

And with that, we find that um this rezoning is consistent with adopted plans.

As for the remaining criteria, this uh supports public interests as it will allow for more housing options and supports our uh citywide adopted plans, is also consistent with neighborhood context zone district purpose and intent and will implement the regulations related to ESUB.

Um with that, CPD recommends forwarding the full city count to the full city council finding all review criteria have been met.

Great.

Um any council members?

Uh councilwoman Alvidris.

I am just very fascinated by it being underground mostly, like her house.

Is that something that's currently allowed, or is that something that's grandfathered in?

Uh grandfathered in there were um these were uh known as basement homes, and in this area, in particular the southwest, there has been um presence of them.

They're not as common, but uh probably from the 1940s or 1950s when these were built.

Um, and so that's fascinating, very interesting to see.

Um, and then my other question is just I'm not what makes sense it's an adopt in alignment with the adopted plans, but what's the need to change the zoning?

Um so the applicant was looking to add additional units on site, and so uh we looked at some uh initially some duplex options uh based on that, but based on the area plan with the language in there, but also um the options with unlocking housing choices.

This was the option to allow more units on site that we did not find plan support for a two-unit zone district based on the language in the plan.

Um 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.

Okay, so then it would just be one single family unit on each lot.

Okay.

Wonderful, thank you.

Thank you so much, committee chair.

Um, 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 RO feedback.

What is the RNO that would be for this area and I'm just wondering for the community outreach for that?

Very good.

Um, Westwood has two R.

Um.

Um I'll say Westwood United and blanking on the other one.

Um, here we go.

Umcho and Westwood, Westwood community action team and Westwood UNOTOs.

So there's three.

What was the first one?

Um Westwood and Westwood.

Oh, okay.

Yep.

And showing Westwood.

Okay.

All right.

Um, we seem to always have feedback, so I just thought I was curious that there was no feedback on this particular zoning.

Um, I don't have any other questions.

Are there any other questions from council members?

Seeing none.

Uh, this is also an action item.

Do we have a motion?

I'll move.

Okay.

With Alvidus and with Lewis.

Thanks, God.

Take teaming.

Here we go.

Oops.

Sorry.

Sorry about them.

Um, take teaming for today.

And that was seconded by Lewis.

All those in favor.

And online.

Thank you very much.

See you on the floor.

Representative.

Terrific.

We are flying through.

All right.

All right.

Good luck.

You say the wrong.

We save the rest of the meeting for the next one.

Um, our next uh presentation is 4901 South Monica Street.

Everybody gets the next one of these.

Good afternoon, City Council.

Do we need to go to view?

Do we know how to make this full screen?

Shouldn't be here.

No, I thought it was the same.

It's different than council.

Sorry.

Ah.

Okay, learn something new every day.

Thanks again.

Good afternoon, City Council.

I'm Brandon Shaver, with CPD presenting an official map and application for 4901 South Monaco Street.

So getting into the crest to start.

This is a request to rezone from V4 with waivers, U01, U02 to SMX 5.

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 Southmore Park statistical neighborhood.

Existing zoning, I'll detail the next slide.

Again, B4 with waivers U01 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, B4 is a general business district, and it does have some waivers on it.

These waivers weight out adult uses and billboards, as well as some other unique and interesting uses that I guess we didn't see 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.

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 Monaco Street.

Speaking through 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.

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 not a 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.

And Blueprint Denver, this request is consistent with the mapped suburban neighborhood context, which is where we see the most buried development in our neighborhoods, and mostly fine 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 uh 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 growth area where we anticipate 10% of housing and 20% or 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 the zone understood purpose and intents for SMX5.

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 and online.

And because a lot of the concerns on this application are related to a proposed use and permitting around that.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

We'll go ahead and get started with uh Councilmember Alvidres.

Thank you.

Yes, I I do see there's quite a bit of letters of opposition.

Could you tell me more about what the you said it's about more about the proposed use?

What about the proposed use?

I think it's well 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 um 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 verb use.

Yeah.

If one of you would like to respond, just um come up to the mic, introduce yourself and transmission.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Amelia Stefan, and I'm an attorney at Foster Graham Millsine and Calisher, located at 360 South Garfield Street in Denver, uh, here to represent the applicant guardian recovery.

We also have um 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 uh community outreach representative Austin Kane here with us.

Additionally, David Foster is here online if we have any questions that he can help answer.

Um, as far as why we um or residential care use permit large is what it was called under uh former chapter 59 is going to allow us to basically adaptively reuse 4901 South Monaco Street to become uh a place where being permitted by the behavioral health administration at the state, we'll be able to have a addiction recovery and mental health behavioral mental health services at the property.

It will not have any sort of detoxification or people arriving who need um that early stage withdrawal type of service.

Um, we've had some back and forth conversations with our neighbors who live at the two very large uh condo buildings uh within that same subdivision.

They are mostly concerned about things like traffic and what uh at what point in the recovery process are our patients going to be arriving at the property.

Um because we are adaptively reusing the building and we were 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 uh to have more individual rooms and things like that, but in terms of the actual uh 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.

Um, 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 previous use is?

Yes.

Yeah, the previous use of the building was uh was also a residential care facility, but it was just a home that helped uh older folks in uh basically kind of like an assisted living type of facility.

And Guardian was looking at this because we wanted to be able to have a 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 um, 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 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.

Um, just because I mean it, 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.

Um, 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 into a and purchasing a property.

That makes sense.

So you're not actually adding a lot more stories or a lot more people, you're just changing um 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.

Um thank you.

I also see that we have David Foster that was promoted.

I don't know if he has anything to add to um answer the question.

I don't, I think Amelia's done an excellent job so far.

I would just um add that we do have um the right today to have this use at this site.

And um, in um in, you know, kind of in um cooperation and in respect for your new code uh that doesn't require this biannual review.

Um, the level of investment here is significant further.

Um I don't want to uh 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 the existing zoning um uh requirements.

Uh of course, I understand your zoning administrator is in the room today as well.

Um, the city always has a process by which they can um uh seek uh a review of an existing use.

So um I don't want it to be believed that um 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.

Um Councilman Watson.

Yeah, just two quick questions, and actually um it's for the number of residents, number of folks I can stay there.

What's the estimated from what you're what's being built?

And I don't know if that's for the gentleman that's building it, um, to share how many folks are gonna be at the 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.

I we're going to kind of step up as operations.

About how many folks are at the uh the capacity for the current building and the current use.

I do not know that off the top of my head, but do you know Austin?

Maybe some team members.

Hi everyone, Austin Kane, Walking Consulting 1580 Lincoln Street, Denver 80203.

Um, right now, so you've got Cure West, which is kind of the more acute uh care as people are still in in the throes of their episode.

Um there are 44 beds there.

They're usually right around 10 available at any time.

We're usually filled in the mid-30s.

So if you assume that it's 20 to 25 percent vacant at any time, and that does hold true um for the facility at 4901, you're probably looking at 140.

The occupancy is something that we take very seriously, and it's something that we've talked with uh councilwoman Romero Campbell about at length early on, and what we've 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 gonna 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 for um the from community planning and development just on the use code, um, and if there are some restrictions or some issues, uh the oversight review impacts that um 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?

Um, if you can shine a light a little bit on that, I know Mr.

Foster spoke to it at a high level.

Yeah, councilman, um and if you don't mind introducing the zoning administrator, so um 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 gonna 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 um any uh any any intended uh impacts to the neighborhood?

So um, but uh if if that does arise, and we are consulting with the state, we will follow the state's lead on this.

Um 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 we can work hand in hand with other agencies to determine whether the zoning permit needs to be revoked or not.

Um and that's kind of how that would play out in the code.

Um as far as permitting the use, um they have an existing use permit.

Uh it's valid for for a year.

They have a year to establish that use.

I don't believe that use is the use has been established yet.

So they have a little bit of work to do um in the next month, regardless of whether the zoning moves forward or not.

Uh if the use permit expires, then they'll have to reapply under the under whatever zoning uh rules are in existence of when they want to start that.

So I suspect, and I've not had any conversations with the applicant team, 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, then the community and this 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 this, well, we have very limited discretionary use uses in the code.

What I mean by discretionary is that it's some 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 uh use permit under the new code, we would have the community information meeting, community information meeting would be required before they actually apply, formally apply.

Um 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.

Um we request that any feedback be documented and 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 what were the issues uh and potential um concerns of the neighborhood?

How are they are they tied to the actual use themselves or are they just general?

I don't want this type 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, that can be mitigated.

And if they can be mitigated, we can issue the permit.

Um 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.

So much more thorough than I expected.

I appreciate that.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair, Madam President of Pro 10.

Uh thank you.

Um, let's go online with uh council member parody.

Hi there, can you all hear me okay?

Yes.

Great, thanks.

I always worry about that.

Um, so I remember this application from um or actually hearing about this before the application went in, I should say.

Um, and I mostly it was of interest to me as a member of the opioid abatement commission because I I frankly know that we need this facility.

Um, so I'd just like to know a little bit more about uh 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?

Um, and then I think early on, if I remember, you can tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought there were conversations with um 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.

Um everybody, my name is Brian Tierney.

I'm the executive director uh for Guardian Recovery Cure West and the executive director of our national mental health virtual uh outpatient services.

Uh, grateful for the opportunity to be here and speak with you all today.

Um, to answer the questions, um uh payer mix, we expect it to be similar to the current payer mix we have at Cure West.

There is about 40% Medicaid, uh, about 50% commercial insurance and then private pay or scholarship.

It is the remainder of that 10% there.

Um, and we do expect to see a similar payer mix in the facility at Monaco.

Um, then uh in regards to uh partnerships with the roads to recovery program.

We have had those talks.

They've been largely kind of put on pause uh as we're getting through the zoning process, but we are open to continuing that relationship.

Um, 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, uh, to create partnerships for for those individuals as well.

Okay, thank you.

That's I just was curious, and I appreciate those answers.

Um, and I'm really glad to see this coming our way.

Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Um, let's go with Council Member Lewis next.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to understand um from the staff report that you have in the existing zoning that there were waivers, and then the um and and now that's not going to be the case, and I just want I was just curious like what does that mean in terms of what this looks like in uh practically?

Great question.

So current the current zoning has both waivers and um use overlays, and so those waivers prohibit adult uses billboards, a couple other really unique uses, and then um there's also the allocation of maximum 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 uh other parts of that sub-area should other development come into come into play.

Oh, thank you.

That's really helpful, and then um I have one more question.

Oh, that there was mention about, and this might be for the applicant, there was mention about the um concerns regarding traffic.

And I know that sometimes when these come to us that they trigger a large um 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, and 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 uh in much so much more traffic that it would cause a hazard or a headache for the folks in that area?

I think we I would agree to that, yes, and I would say that they um as currently zoned, they are providing more parking than it would be required.

And then in zoning into the Denver zoning code, we no longer have minimum parking requirements.

Okay, that's right.

We voted on that.

All right, that's it.

Those are only questions.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I do have a few questions as well.

Um, I think online and see what I've got.

I think for the online, um so in terms of rezoning specifically, and we've talked about this for 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 um from my constituents around why is this zoning coming um up now?

I can definitely start on that and then I'll let Emilia fill in.

Um 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 uh 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.

Okay, so thank you for that.

Um I think at that large community meeting, or larger, you know, the community meeting that we had um that was mentioned, it was moving forward in the old chapter 59.

I think at that meeting, um, 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 accustom become accustomed to it and to kind of work through whatever the relationship is.

Um, what measures have been taken uh to address community concerns for that accountability.

And can you talk a little bit more?

Um I know that there was work that was happening for G and A.

Yeah, um, so we're gonna kind of address that in two on two levels.

I'm gonna talk a little bit about the community engagement piece and how Guardian is interacting with the two HOAs uh to our north to try and assuage some of the concerns that they may have about the use.

Um, on that front, we began uh 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 that those conversations progress, 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.

Um 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 any 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 24-735, and we want to make sure that we are super responsive to neighbor concerns.

Um 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 guardians' operations are not in any way to infringe on that.

Um we've talked about the signage outside.

Maybe some people would be skittish about having a sign that use the word recovery right next to them.

And so we've agreed not to do that.

Um vis-a vises, um, we don't want it to become an ambulatory care center any more than our neighbors do.

So we've uh in the pledge said it's not going to become a methadone clinic or anything like that at a future date.

Um, and then um uh councilwoman, the as I was alluding to earlier, kind of that ramp up um uh on the occupancy, that's gonna 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 the tenants in and 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 uh alluded to that there's other uh governing bodies that uh 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 uh 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.

We also uh, by our own choice, uh, are participated 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 uh we have those at all of our facilities.

So we will be regulated by those two bodies uh for ongoing, and they both have processes for uh grievances to be submitted.

Uh neighbors can submit grievous, 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 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 or 170 bed capacity.

Okay.

What I've uh heard also from uh neighbors and constituents is that, and I appreciate you talking about the build out, um, is what is the capacity of Guardian and past experience operating a site at this size.

Um I think some of the other facilities are day facilities and not full-time residential facilities.

Yeah, um, thank you for that.

And we guardian does now currently have two other facilities in other markets that are uh 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.

Uh so it was 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 uh Portland, Maine that is operating uh at a similar size.

Moving moving towards that size, yeah.

So it's it's about 90 beds right now, but we'll be 120, 130 in the near future.

Okay, 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 is pretty unlikely.

We typically have about 80% capacity in any of our programs at any given time.

Um then the outside facilities, so are those other facilities the same uh footprint.

Um I know online they've they have shown um 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, um, but there really isn't any other space for people to be.

How do you how you'll be addressing that?

Our sister facility in Dallas, Texas has a very similar footprint, uh, not a large outdoor area, some courtyard space, and they operate very well in and 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.

Uh, and so far, there's been no major complaints from those entities, and we we work really hard in any market that we're in to be a good neighbor and and make sure that our patients are are being where they're supposed to be.

Um, does it 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 uh 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.

Uh, and there is no intent to move detox services over to the Monaco facility.

We really like our relationship with Porter Hospital.

Um, 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.

Um that is perfectly situated for a detox service, and it's it operates really well.

So I I don't foresee detox services being uh applied to the Monaco facility.

That would be a huge uplift.

It would be huge.

Um I think uh 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.

Um, and I think a lot of trust was broken with community um myself included, as far as what that use would be, how this would move forward, um, and in the conversations um as well with Guardian, the number of um 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.

Um, and I know that that is something that has been, and I keep coming back to this.

Like, show me some best practice here.

Um, because I really do think that we need um recovery services and that we have recovery locations throughout the city.

Um I have supported other recovery locations in in District 4.

Um, and so wanting to make sure that we are providing the best that we can all across the city.

Um 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 it promise pledge, pledge, promise, commitment.

Um how 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.

Um and so the the process moving forward, I don't see how the change in zoning really does change the ability to have the site open.

Can you speak to that?

Thank you, councilwoman.

I think that the, you know, to to your question and to why are we doing this now?

Um, you know, facilities like these are capital-intensive.

Guardian has to buy the building, and then because the way that that the current building was laid out with like really large apartments for like even couples to live in together, and the fact that we're turning in 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, um, that once we get open, we're gonna 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.

You know, Brian mentioned scholarships.

We absolutely, Guardian absolutely wants to work on scholarships and what scholarship means in Guardian parlance is basically free beds for for folks who might not have access to these services.

And so, um, you know, to to that that's really the main impetus um to your to your question about the rocky start.

Uh 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 gonna let kind of Brian speak to that.

Yeah, uh, thanks for the opportunity to to speak on this.

Um I was approached by a member of uh opioid abatement council, I believe at Arapahoe County, and uh uh about the opportunity to receive some funding for this potential proposed site.

Uh there were some exploratory conversations had around what they were looking for.

Um, there was a tour that was hosted um that was facilitated by members of that abatement council uh 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 and um you know we quickly uh 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 uh for law enforcement from those counties.

That was uh 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 uh 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 in writing as soon as we became aware that that was a major issue.

Uh, and let them know and on no uncertain terms that we would not be accepting money for those types of services at this facility.

Um, I appreciate you um talking through that because I think that that was a really that was a really big moment as far as like how would the site be used and the number of um 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.

Um I don't have any other questions.

I appreciate you answering that.

Um, and I appreciate the applicants being here.

Um I think for me, I still struggle um with the feedback that I'm receiving from community about this particular um rezoning, and so I am listening to um community and taking that feedback.

Um, but at the same time, this committee is to look at is this ready for the floor?

Um, and has it met the requirements?

And for that reason, um I will be you know voting in support to move this forward today.

Um, 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 um this is an action item, and I need to have a motion to move it forward.

Oh, Vidres, and Lewis Tag team on the third one for today.

Um, all those in favor, aye, aye, and online.

I think we're good to go.

And thank you.

I think we'll see you on the floor.

Thank you very much.

Not at all.

My apologies.

Uh, real quick, we have one item on consent.

We are all good.

This meeting is adjourned.

I have a sense.

I was focused on this one.