Welcome back to this weekly meeting of the Community Planning and Housing Committee with Denver City Council.

Your Community Planning and Housing Committee starts now.

Well, good afternoon everyone. Thank you for joining us to the Community Planning and Housing Committee.

I'm Diana Romero-Campbell, and I'm happy to chair for this meeting today.

Do we have any council members online?

Okay, we will have some join with us later.

I'm going to go ahead and start with introductions, and to my right.

Amanda Sawyer, District 5.

Floral Idris, Lucky District 7.

Daryl Watson, Fine District 9.

And again, I'm Diana Romero-Campbell, representing Southeast Denver, District 4.

Perfect timing.

Jamie Torres, West Ender Mission Creek.

Lovely.

Let's go ahead and get started with our first presentation from Host.

And Evie, I believe you're going to kick it off.

I am.

Thanks for the intro.

I am Evie Benja.

I am the Assistant Director of Homelessness Resolution over at Host.

And I oversee our Housing Central Command.

And I've got Midori here with me.

Great, Higa.

She, her pronouns, Director of Homelessness Resolution Programs.

Thanks for the early start today.

Awesome.

So today we're going to be going through our 2026 overview of our Housing Central Command

operations.

For reference, when we're talking about the body of work that this falls into for host,

it falls into our rehousing category.

So inclusive of rapid rehousing programs, supportive housing programs, including vouchers

and stability case management.

Our action requested today is approval of the following contracts related to Housing Central Command.

So 25-2152 for the community firms who does business's Community Economic Defence Project for their HCC navigation.

The 2026 cost for that is $1,243,974.

25-2154, Colorado Coalition for the Homelessness.

but for the homeless, HCC stabilization contract for the 2026 amount of $2,231,731,

and 25-2153 for Housing Connector, the Housing Central Command rent payer and unit acquisition,

for a 2026 amount of $2,049,386.

dollars. To give an overview of what Housing Central Command is, it's a crisis response model

based in emergency management. The goal of Housing Central Command is to maximize the resources that

we have, connect folks to housing as quickly as possible to reduce their total amount of time

they're spending homeless, whether it's in shelter or on the streets. The client flow for this,

Sorry, excuse me, is we accept our referrals through our coordinated entry system.

Once those referrals come through to our team, the navigation team starts working with them

alongside our unit acquisition team to select a unit for that client to live in.

Once they're leased up, they're ready to go and be in housing on their own.

They are supported with our stabilization case management team.

They're providing ongoing stabilization support, typically for around 12 months, and they're

using critical time intervention theory, which is an evidence-based practice to plan for

the exit from the outset so no one is blindsided when the subsidy ends at the end of whatever

their program duration is.

In this case, we're typically talking about 12 months.

So to give an overview of navigation, that will be done by CDP.

We'll go through that a little bit more, the contract-specific pieces in a little while.

But our navigators operate on a 1 to 10 staff to client ratio.

And we're typically talking about those first 30 days of support,

however long it takes for someone to move from referral into housing.

So they are working specifically with folks who have already been matched to a housing resource

and are experiencing homelessness in Denver.

They are mobile.

They're meeting folks where they're at.

So it could be at any one of our shelters.

It could be someone experiencing homelessness on the street that they're outreaching.

And they're primarily helping with those pre-housing activities.

So vital document support might be helping someone get a driver's license or get their birth certificate.

They're making sure those are uploaded to our homelessness management information system

so that their ongoing care team has access to those vital documents.

They're supporting with unit applications,

identifying any barriers that might exist to housing,

and helping folks identify areas of town that they might prefer to live in.

And then they're supporting with those move-in activities,

so it might be helping someone plan and prioritize what to pack with them,

arranging furniture to be moved in once they move into their house we really into their

apartment we're really wanting to make sure that everyone has an even playing field and starts with

everything that they need to be successful in housing and then they're making sure that their

engagement with that stabilizer is happening so that folks have that ongoing support we're wanting

to make sure that there's a really nice warm handoff for folks and it's clear when one case

manager is ending their time with the client and a new one is starting. So concurrent to the

navigation, our unit search is happening at all times. Our unit acquisition team provides 125%

of what we need so that every one of our clients has choice whether they have a higher barrier to

entry or not. We want to make sure that each of our clients has a couple of options that they can

explore for housing. So they are working with our landlords across the city to reduce barriers to

housing. They might be negotiating with folks to make sure that we can use a clarity ID, so an

informal ID through the Homelessness Management Information System, as opposed to someone having

a driver's license or something more of like a physical ID. We're using those negotiation tactics

to make sure that our folks don't experience those typical barriers to housing

if they were operating on their own and trying to figure out the tangled web

that can be applying to housing.

They're also negotiating and making sure that all of our landlords

that we're working with are providing rent that is at or below fair market rate.

and they're supporting in our daily meetings with our case managers

to make sure that we're aware of where everyone's application status is.

For a number of clients, they're also providing ongoing rental payments for our clients

and providing security deposit assistance and typically paying first month rent.

Then our third phase is our housing stabilisation.

so that is once someone is leased up.

Our stabilization case managers work at a 1 to 20 staff to client ratio,

and they are providing up to 12 months of support.

They're primarily working with folks that are already housed.

They're mobile. They're meeting folks where they're at.

They're going to people's apartments or meeting in community spaces,

wherever the client feels comfortable.

It's really client-led.

I mentioned earlier critical time intervention.

But these activities sort of do a good job of summarizing all of those things.

So it's really tailored to each individual client and their level of need.

Our hope is that every single one of our clients is meeting with their case manager at least once a month.

But in those initial stages, we're really looking for that once every one to two weeks, depending on their need.

So they're supporting with that move-in piece, making sure folks understand what is written in the legal document.

that they've signed, which is their lease.

Making sure they have the support they need with any utilities like Excel

or paying their landlord.

They're making referrals to mental health and behavioral health supports

should someone identify that that's something that they need.

We also work with the DDO workforce team, workforce development team,

and can connect folks who are looking to gain employment

and connect folks to that workforce team, which has been really successful so far.

And they're also planning from the outset, the exit planning piece,

making sure that every time they're meeting with someone,

it's what is your plan at the end of this subsidy?

Because we don't want to blindside folks.

We want to make sure that folks are aware that this is a time-limited subsidy.

That is the purpose of rapid rehousing.

Do you want to add something?

No, just a little bit faster.

Faster?

Yeah.

You got it.

Okay, so our 2025 impacts.

In 2025 HCC, we served 426 households.

Our goal was 399, so we exceeded our goal.

Woo-hoo!

On average, we housed folks within 46 days.

Our goal is that 30, we were really happy with that 46 days.

There were some unforeseen things that came up that increased our timing.

some of our resources disappeared midway through us using them.

So that's why that number's a little higher.

Our goal in 2026 is to really get down to that 30.

We worked with a mix of rapid rehousing and PSH opportunities,

so vouchers and rapid rehousing subsidies.

And this doesn't include the pilot program that we also implemented

with other rapid rehousing programs at the end of the year.

So across our HCC programs, we saw 138 folks or households exit to permanent and stable housing at the end of their program exit.

We still have a large number of people who are actively in the program right now.

So we'll continue to gather more data on this and we'd love to share that with you all as we work on our 2026 goals.

We set up regular case conferencing meetings to ensure that our staff in the HCC,

the team that I oversee, are supporting our community partners as best they can

and making sure that we have a good awareness of each plan for each of our clients

and what their exit outcomes are.

We had 101 households return to shelter to continue on their housing journey.

So just because they weren't successful at stabilizing this time around,

We really made sure to have intentional connection back to shelter and back to programs to make sure folks continue to be supported once they're out of our program.

A little bit about why we chose each of the contractors that we're going to talk through in a moment.

The community firm, I personally worked on their tenancy supportive services program.

they did really well with housing folks with these state housing vouchers with an average of 52 days

to housing we felt really confident that they could meet the goals that we have for reducing

the amount of time people spend homeless in housing search they're really committed to

client-centered care they complete everything we need for our data standards they do a really great

job of maintaining data practices. And they're really timely with their invoices so we can make

sure that we're utilizing our funds the best way we can. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless have

been working with us since the inception of HCC, or really since we started How's a Thousand way

back when, if you guys remember that, I don't know. But they have been incredible collaborators

with us to make sure that we are maintaining client-centered care and we're maximizing our

stabilization resources to support the folks in the best way that we can. They have been

regular participants in process improvement conversations and also maintain quality data

and timely invoicing, which is really important to us, making sure our folks get paid.

And then Housing Connector, they exceeded the targets that we set for them in their contracts

in 2025, by the end of quarter one, they were already exceeding their goals by 124%.

They made sure that our landlords were paid in a timely manner, which meant that our clients

weren't having to have those conversations with landlords of like, hey, where's your rent?

So they've proved to us that they're really great at being consistent with that and making

sure that our clients are never having to face those instability conversations with

their landlords. They also submit invoices timely. I know that doesn't seem like a big deal, but

over at Hosted is a really, really big deal for us to make sure that we're paying our folks on time

and we're never coming to the table with a bunch of arrears on our end. So in 2026, we're moving

towards centralized navigation rather than working with just a couple of rapid rehousing programs.

our goal is to house over 400 folks from around 10 programs. We are working to create consistency

across our system so that every single person who comes into our housing system knows what to expect

from their case management team. And even if their subsidy time length is different, they're still

getting the same services, the same quality of care. And as always, nothing is perfect. And so

we're continuing to improve. We're really working with our community partners to gather feedback,

running consistent listening sessions, and making sure that we're using our data to help tell us

where we can improve and where we can continue to grow our services for folks.

Like five more minutes. Got it. I'm going to be so quick. Okay. We want to increase our permanent

and stable housing outcomes, we're really trying to move up to 75% of our folks exiting to permanent

and stable housing at the end of their time in the program. We're using dedicated HCC staffing.

That is the intention of these contracts. In 2025, we were using folks from shelters and we had this

really sort of scattered site staffing. We have amazing staff in Denver, so they made it work.

But the intention behind this is to make sure that these are dedicated staff performing dedicated

duties. And we're also expanding our inventory for the units that we have available. So increasing

the housing programs that we work with means we need to increase the unit inventory that we have.

That might look like families making sure we have more of those two or three bedroom units

available on our inventory. So just to give you another breakdown of each of those, because I've

thrown a lot of information at you. The community firm is doing our navigation for 2026. It's $1,243,974.

The total contract amount over the three-year period, so it's from the start of 2026 through

the end of 2028, is $3,762,388. Those numbers aren't the same every year. We have COLA adjustments

included in there and also know that as we go through the next three years, we'll see some

changes in the number of folks that we're serving each year. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless

is doing our stabilization work. The 2026 contract amount for that is $2,231,731.

The total contract amount is $6,448,595.

Again, that is a three-year contract.

Again, COLA adjustments are included in that,

and it's based on the numbers we expect to see fluctuate through the next three years.

Housing Connector is our unit acquisition and rent payer.

For 2026, it is $2,049,386,

and their total contract amount, $9,581,406.

Again, three years, again, including COLA adjustments

and including the adjustments we anticipate seeing as we, in 2027,

will have the highest number of folks in housing,

so it will be the highest number of financial assistance offered,

and then that will taper down in 2028.

This one is not going through council, just for awareness.

The Salvation Army is already operating a transformational rapid rehousing program.

All of the folks are in housing.

This is just $410,000 to pay for additional financial assistance for folks

so that we can make sure that everyone who is in housing

stays in housing through the end of their subsidy

and has that time to honor the full 12 months of support.

So as I mentioned, our navigation team,

There's going to be four case managers working at a 1 to 10 ratio.

We plan for 10 months, so we're planning to serve about 400 folks through that.

Again, just to reiterate, it's a 1 to 10 navigated client ratio, meeting folks where they're at

and making sure that folks are fully aware of all of the processes to get into housing.

We, timing wise, I should maybe get this one.

Okay.

Colorado Coalition for the Homeless.

They have 21.5 full-time employees.

So there's 16 stability case managers.

Last year they had eight.

So we're doubling that amount because we have more folks going into housing.

The cost per household is higher for this than, say, the navigation.

That is because this is 12 months of support, and they're serving 140 households per year based on that 1 to 20.

They are also mobile, meeting folks where they're at, identifying exit planning, making sure they're working on goal setting with clients,

and addressing any sort of triage needs, food access, transportation, and then those bigger picture things for ongoing stability,

like income, employment, community connection, and mental and physical health supports.

Then Housing Connector also serving 140 folks annually through rental assistance,

and they're acquiring 500 units for us, so that is to support every single person that we navigate

through Housing Central Command. The rental assistance cost per household is around $18,000.

they're working with those property partners across Denver to make sure those barriers are

reduced and make sure that we're not facing any sort of instability for our clients based on

bad relations with their landlords so that's that piece they're connecting with the navigators on

the front end for the housing piece and the stabilizers they're in ongoing conversations

We have case conferencing every week with our unit acquisition team and our stabilization team to make sure that they're fully aware of what's going on so they can handle the landlord side of things and our stabilization team handles the client side of things.

I think let's jump into questions because I'm sure there are.

There's a lot of information I just threw at you.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

I would also like to welcome Council President Sandoval online,

Council Members Lewis and Parody.

We have started a queue,

and I believe we're going to get started with Council Member Alvigris and then Torres.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for this.

It is a lot to wrap my head around, so I appreciate the information.

Just to be clear, the $2 million for housing connector,

that is mostly going to actually pay people's rent.

Correct.

Okay, that's helpful.

That part makes a lot of sense to me.

It's the other contracts that are a little confusing to me.

So what function do the other parts of Housing Central Command perform

that HMIS isn't already doing?

So HMIS is simply a database.

It is not attached to, like, it's not a program.

So all of our programs, housing programs, exist within HMAS, but we need staff to enter

all of that data in.

So they're entering the data into the HMAS system.

And HMAS does not help people find housing or navigate housing or any of those things.

It's just a database.

It's just a database.

And so all of our programs are the actual service portion.

and HMIS is the database that stores all of the information

related to the services that are provided,

whether that's shelter, outreach, housing.

Okay, that's helpful.

That's my main question right now,

but I probably will get back in the queue with more.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

Council Member Torres.

Thank you so much.

It's the responsibility of the organizations

to find participant landlords or is that host?

It's the responsibility of Housing Connector.

So yeah, a host is paying Housing Connector to do that because they already have those.

Housing Connector of all of them is the only one who's doing that onboarding?

Okay.

How do the price compare or do you set a particular standard of here's what we pay for a one bedroom,

here's what we pay for a two bedroom?

We require fair market rent for our programs in general.

While some housing programs require not fair market, something else that's escaping my

brain right this second.

But fair market rent is generally the standard for rapid rehousing programs.

And so it does keep it at a lower threshold.

So nothing ostentatious for looking to have to pay $2,500 for a one bedroom or something

like that.

But the ask is that they find those units that are at fair market rent for their size.

that could also be based on a neighborhood location. So they have to sort of cost compared

to other properties in the area. Okay. Thank you. And just for one more clarifying piece there,

the intention behind that is that we want to put folks into housing that they're going to be able

to afford in 12 months time and hopefully can continue their relationship that they've built

with that landlord and continue to lease there after our subsidy ends. Okay. In terms of any

communication with me, for example, if you're placing folks in housing in my district, is there

any role that I can play to be more helpful to those households or to these organizations that

are trying to get them stable, trying to connect them to things? They may be unfamiliar as to which

church gives out resources or food or things like that. I've never been brought in on a

conversation like that. So I don't know if that's needed or if they've got it covered.

Yeah, definitely something we can explore with Housing Connector and what kind of support they

might like to see or have in different areas of the city. One of our goals this year in

relationship to rapid rehousing in general is to create some standards. One of those would be

creating like a map of resources for each individual depending on where they're at,

so that they do know that this church on Wednesday evening offers food bank or that this place has

like a clothing bank so that they are familiar with the resources in their very local community,

not the broader community. You can feel really disconnected, just kind of getting parachuted

into a neighborhood. And so just want to extend kind of that olive branch to folks that even if

they're provided with like our welcome letter or something like that, that they can contact us if

they need something like any other resident, they can call us for the same things our other residents

do. And so just want to be able to start to make those connections. Those are the things that start

to make someplace feel more like home than you're visiting for a little while. That would be really

beneficial. Thank you. Okay. The only other question is what's the coordination internally

in host between housing development and navigation when they're hopefully building the units that

navigation would be kind of gearing folks into? Yeah. Uh, we've had multiple conversations over

the last several years about how just our divisions, uh, collaborate with each other

with housing stability and homelessness resolution and opportunity. Um, and things have changed and

continue to evolve over the last several years in relation to like leadership and, and who is there

and who's not there and positions changing. Um, so we're really working this year to figure out

a solid bridge for new developments and how we know and understand what's happening.

Generally with the new developments, specifically that are permanent supportive housing, they

have the requirement of 50% of their folks coming through that coordinated entry system.

So 50% of those folks are coming from homelessness and then a wait list of their own choosing.

Affordable developments get a little bit more tricky, right?

So when we're looking at like 60, 80% AMI units, they definitely fall within that fair market rent that we're looking for.

However, some of those LIHTC units have higher barriers to getting into the unit.

So they require more documents, sort of more vetting of household before they can get in.

And so it's sometimes easier with market rate rentals to get someone in a little bit faster.

and that's something Housing Connector has been working on with LIHTC units throughout the community

to figure out how we speed up that pace to get someone moved in more quickly.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Council Member Watson.

Thank you so much, Committee Chair.

Thank you so much, Midori.

Thank you, Evie.

It's good to see you in person.

I think I've only spoken to you online.

Massive fan of Housing Connector and have been having dialogues with them

And long even before they started their work here in Denver, mostly they were doing stuff in Seattle and loved what they were doing.

One of the things that possibly could be a gap, and I think I've received community feedback on, are the landlords that are identified.

That ongoing relationship work as we are placing folks within their buildings.

Can you describe what that ongoing kind of communication model is?

because the person, the community member, the landlord who communicated to us stated

some of the folks that were placed with them was not a good fit.

I'm curious as to how that breakout breakdown occurs.

I understand HMISPs, everyone has to input stuff throughout,

but once they're in a situation, it's not working.

Talk us through a little bit as to what that process looks like.

Yeah, so our Housing Connector team has a support email inbox, basically,

and they have their own, they call it a stability case manager.

It looks a little bit different to our stability case manager

whose client focus, they're focused on the landlord.

So landlords can reach out at any time to that support person

at Housing Connector and they're there to bridge that gap

between the landlord and the case manager and the client

to make sure that there's multiple representation

in that conversation to figure out what is the root cause here?

is it they're not picking up after their dog or something like that and it's as simple as oh I

couldn't pick up after my dog because I needed some bags and I didn't have any and so their

stabilization case manager could work with them to get them the thing that they need and then coach

them through like and let's make sure that we're being an involved community member and participating

and engaging in the way that is expected based on the lease. If someone if it was more dire than

that and it was getting more extreme and we were exploring something like the landlord wanted to

remove that person from the premises. One of the things that Housing Connector helps us negotiate

is doing a mutual lease rescission instead of an eviction. So to do less harm to the client,

less harm to the property and less harm to the property partner. We've seen great success with

that in moving folks. And on the flip side, if one of our clients is experiencing ongoing issues

like pests or rodents or cockroaches being inside their unit on an ongoing basis, they can also

submit a ticket for Housing Connector to support that relationship with the landlord. Housing

Connector can then support that landlord to say like, what additional support do you need to make

sure that you can take care of this issue that keeps coming up for this client so that they can

stay in this unit that they otherwise really like.

That's very helpful.

Would love some information.

Not sure if everyone wants it, but definitely be helpful to me if you all are evaluating

kind of the sustainability of kind of the clients going into the work through Housing

Connector and their stickiness within that program.

If you have some evaluative tool on that, it would be great.

Absolutely don't want addresses because we want to make sure we have clarity for safety,

but a heat mapping maybe of districts, where's the areas of saturation as far as where we're finding really solid places that folks want to work with Housing Connector in?

Just want to have a sense of that.

If you all have an opportunity to provide that to my office, we'd love to see where folks are being placed as a general.

Definitely don't want to go into a very specific as to which buildings or with whom.

Is that possible?

Yeah, we can work with Housing Connector on obtaining that data.

Absolutely.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that wanted to be in the queue?

Okay, we've got to have a follow-up after.

If you want to go.

Please, Council Member.

One of my questions is just what happens when people don't qualify for the Coordinated Entry Program?

So if people don't qualify for Coordinated Entry,

then they're not currently experiencing literal homelessness per the HUD definition.

right and so when you said the what the requirements were it was around criminal background and other

things housing status didn't sound like one of them i think we're going to get way into the weeds

um so again happy to offer a briefing whether it's to this committee or individually on

coordinated entry and what that looks like in order for folks to qualify for a coordinated

entry assessment assessment the first requirement is that they're experiencing literal homelessness

right and so they do the assessment the assessment you know gathers a bunch of information that

information determines how many qualifying factors they have right and so after they those

qualifying factors are determined the assessment is completed they go into the community queue

and so then folks are prioritized based on those factors so in in all of our rapid rehousing programs

are for people experiencing homelessness.

So people that are housed are not getting a resource

that's designed for someone who's experiencing homelessness.

Those are other types of programming that's available, right?

Like through TRUA or through other stability programs.

If folks are housed and needing support

due to housing instability,

that is not the nature of the work

that we're discussing today.

Yeah, I definitely want to get into the weeds

and find out what that is

because I think what our concern as council

is that every Monday night we're getting families

that are not housed, that are trying to get housed,

and understanding where are these gaps that we're having these people that are.

There's very few resources for the number of people that are experiencing homelessness, right?

So out of how many people that are on, is this part of the list for coordinated entry?

How long is this the same list that we keep talking about with like 200 families?

That's a waiting list for shelter.

Okay, so then this is a waiting list for housing.

It's not a waiting list. It's a coordinated entry system. There are different things. I don't want to call it a waiting list. It's dynamic. And so it is a different step in the process. And again, it's something that we could address in a separate briefing.

Okay. So, but what I really want to know is how are people qualifying and getting prioritized and how many people, where is the gap of the people that need housing and the people that are getting housing?

I mean the gap is that we like we don't have enough resources to serve every single person

experiencing homelessness in the city and county of Denver like that is the crux of our issue here

the intention of HCC is to make sure that we are maximizing the utilization of every resource that

we have so that year over year we're not leaving resources on the table we are serving every single

person in our system that we possibly can it's based on that one home that coordinated entry

system prioritization. We as hosts don't control that. That is controlled by the Metro Denver

Homelessness Initiative. And so we can't control the criteria that someone has to meet to

receive housing. That's based on HUD standards through MDHI. And how does that work when we're

serving the city and county of Denver and the Metro Homelessness Initiative is serving the

metro area? Like how do we differentiate those two things? So we can help provide some additional

context in relation to the data around those different levels of data and scoping, right?

Like who's experiencing unsheltered homelessness, who's experiencing sheltered homelessness.

That's all one group of people experiencing homelessness, right? So they're all eligible

for that, for a housing resource. So we can help get you the report from MDHI. That's,

it's a state report on homelessness and it breaks it down. It breaks it down by different COCs and

and that information, and we can work to provide you additional briefing.

But there are many layers to data, right?

So when we talk about the point in time count, that's a number that we can look at.

When we talk about the number of people that are on a wait list for a shelter,

that's a number we can look at.

But they're all just a number, right?

And so you have to be able to look at all of the different numbers together

to get a good scope of understanding of the full picture.

And so it's, we're talking about...

So how are we doing that then?

How are we getting that full picture?

So that's what we use HMIS for.

The Homeless Management Information System is a database for all of our services and programs.

So for every person, specifically for families that's on the wait list for family shelter,

they are in HMIS because that's what we require of the Connection Center.

For every single person that's in a shelter, they are in HMIS because we require that of the program.

And then the performance-based contracts, one of the metrics that Jeff has shared with you all,

which is we are so far off topic, is that folks need to complete a coordinated entry assessment,

and that's one of the metrics that's required of them.

So we're trying to get people moved into that system, the coordinated entry system,

so that they can be in the community queue for a housing resource.

This isn't that far off topic. It's all related, and I think that's the struggle.

It's like we're trying to figure out what this contract is exactly doing.

My goal is to make sure we're not duplicating things that are being most effective.

And so I am asking these questions and there is no other avenue and I can't, you know, to ask them except we're here to get those clear answers.

So I appreciate that.

I appreciate your questioning, Councilmember Alvarez.

And so that's something that Councilmember Parity and I will go back and look and see how we can make sure that we get some of those briefings to start to link and show those layers because it is so complex.

and they overlap, but they're coordinated and overlap in some areas,

and in other areas they don't.

So I hear you in that complexity,

and so we will work to be able to schedule those briefings moving forward.

If there are no more questions, we have a full agenda,

and I believe this is an action item?

Yes.

Three.

We have three action items.

Excuse me.

Do we have a motion, or do we need a vote, or are we good with just a motion?

In a block.

Okay, so moved in a block by Sawyer and seconded by, he's not a voting member, but I appreciate

the second, but that's with Torres.

All right, thumbs up, good.

Okay.

So as we transition into the next presentation regarding 12150 East Andrews Drive, we will

switch out.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

You're a hero.

I love you.

In case anyone was wondering.

I thought people might be concerned because Louis very kindly gave me a hug.

Nothing terrible has happened, but I felt very upset because I do not like to not be here

during this committee with all of you.

So thank you, Madam Proch.

The life.

It's good you had a chance.

Today is just really that day.

Yeah.

Hang in there.

I think you got this.

You would really think that any functional adult could escape from bringing out chapter 45 minutes, but no.

No, anyone who would think that has never been to the parking lot over by the DCPA, for example.

There.

Yeah.

Web.

Yes.

So that's it.

No emergencies.

Just fiddling in life and parking.

So that's it.

Thank you for being here.

I will let you get started.

This is actually bill number 260001, so that's kind of awesome.

They come to us in funny order, but this apparently was the first thing filed in the new year.

So all you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Hey, everyone.

My name is Edson Ibanez with Community Planning Development.

Before you today, we have 12150 East Andrews Drive.

So the request is to go from a multi-unit up to three-story zone district to a mixed-use up to three-story zone district.

And so I'll go through the request.

we'll look at the location and context and dive into the process and review criteria for this

rezoning. So the property itself is just under 3.5 acres. It is there highlighted in red as you can

see in the center of the map. It's an assisted living facility classified as a residential care

facility in the Denver zoning code. And like I mentioned the request is to go from a to a

suburban mixed use up to three stories. So in district. So just giving a quick background.

This is a living facility has 30 beds. So it's classified as a residential care type 2 facility.

A type 2 facility allows for 11 to about 40 beds. And so what the applicant is intending to do is

that they want to add 63 additional beds. Would put them into the residential care type 3 facility.

but when the zone district SMU 3 does not allow for type 3 and type 4.

And so that is one of the main reasons why the applicant is coming to rezone.

But just to give more context is, you know, a few years ago we adopted the group living tax amendment.

And so prior to the group living tax amendment, we had different regulations based on types of guests served.

So assisted living, we allowed for it to be in more locations without requirements.

So previously they could have grown, but when group living came in, it classified based off different types.

And so while people recovering from addiction or experiencing homelessness were restricted to only certain parts of the city

or had strict limitations on proximity to avoid over-concentration, we had elderly care that didn't have that.

And so one of the things that the group living tax amendment did was that they wanted to specifically look at the Denver adopted plans policies and treating all residents equally.

And so what the amendment did, it significantly loosened the restrictions such as spacing and density limitations that are allowed on residential care uses to more places in the city.

And so by consolidating elder care uses like assisted living

into a broader residential care category,

the code limitations on all residential care facilities became affected

for those uses that had previously not been impacted by those.

So this one was impacted by that.

And so, you know, now, you know, the properties multi-unit SMU3 zoning allows

for smaller residential care facilities, which is type 1 and type 2,

which is consistent with the expected development

in its lower intensity residential districts.

And so that's why they're applying for the SMX3.

And so looking at the location and context,

it's located in Council District 8,

Council Member Lewis's district,

and it's right in the middle of Mount Bellow

statistical neighborhood.

So like I mentioned, the zoning is SME3.

To the west of the site,

we have an industrial mixed use up to three stories.

And as we go a little bit further, we do see the IA and IB, which are general and more of our heavy industrial zoning.

And then directly to the east of the site, we have single unit zoning, which is a USUF and USUD zone districts.

When we're looking at land use, the site is classified as mixed use as it houses church and assisted living.

and then directly to the north we do have a church so it's a public quasi-judicial

quasi-public site but predominantly everything around it to the east of the site is single

family residential when you go a little bit further on Peoria we start seeing some multi-unit

residential but to the west of the site on the of Peoria we see a lot of industrial which is at

purple and quasi-commercial uses.

And so the subject property is on the bottom right-hand corner,

as you can see, which is predominantly

like a one-story structure.

And then on the top right, you see the church there

that is directly to the north of the site.

To the west of the site, we do have a Montessori Academy

that is about two stories.

And then the bottom, you kind of see

some of the single-family helmets,

which range predominantly from single story to two stories here in this neighborhood.

So now jumping into the process, an informational notice was sent out in September.

It went before the planning board back in November, but due to a noticing error,

it was sent back to the planning board last week on January 7th.

Both times, it was approved unanimously.

one of the things that the, you know,

planning members highlighted was that, you know,

this specific operator is looking to do 100% affordable

and expansion to specifically residents

that are 60% or lower on the AMI.

The applicant is here and you can dive deeper

into kind of the guests that they serve specifically.

And then it's scheduled for you today

and it's tentatively scheduled to go

before City Council public hearing on February 23rd next month.

And so part of our process is we have to notify all the different R&Os.

And to date, we have received one letter of support from the Montbello 2020 R&O,

and we received three letters of support.

Two of them were from organizations such as the Colorado Council of Church and Innovodge,

and then one letter had 19 signatures from a community meeting on July 25th,

which the applicant held.

So the letters of support as well as Montbilla 2020

all highlighted that this plan,

it's consistent with the review criteria

and they align with the mission of this specific operator

to expand its services, to allow people to age in place

and it helps with vulnerability to displacement

and more importantly, it aligns with plan guidance.

So now looking at the review criteria,

Denver zoning code specifically highlights

that three criteria that every rezoning has to follow,

which is consistency with adopted plans,

public interest, and consistency with neighbor context,

zone district purpose, and intent statements.

And so the first one is Conference Plan 2040.

So the staff report highlights multiple strategies

that this rezoning is consistent with,

but I just want to highlight a few under equity goals,

under equitable, affordable, and inclusive goal two,

strategy eight, create a greater mix of housing options

in every neighborhood for all individuals and families, partner with organizations to

develop permanent and transitional housing affordable to low-income populations, and

ensure neighborhoods offer a mix of housing types and services for a diverse population.

Under climate goals, environmentally resilient Go A strategy promote infill development where

infrastructures and services are already in place.

And when we jump into Blueprint Denver, it's classified as suburban neighborhood context

where homes in this context are largely single unit

but can also include higher intensity residential.

Within the place type, it's classified as low medium

where we see like a mix of low, mid-scale,

multi-unit residential options

and small-scale multi-unit buildings are interspressed

between single and two-unit residential

and building heights are generally up to three stores in height.

Peoria Street is classified as a commercial arterial

and then it's classified as all other areas in the city within the growth area strategy

where we anticipate to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new employment growth by 2040.

Additionally, this rezoning helps meet some of the equity goals around the land use and build form housing goal 2

which is diversify housing options by exploring opportunities to integrate this middle

as well as increase the development of affordable housing and mixed income housing,

particularly to areas to transit, services, and amenities.

More importantly, under the climate goals is reduced climate impacts,

such as multi-unit and mixed-use buildings are more energy efficient

and low-intensity residential development types.

This specific rezoning also had an equity analysis.

So Denver has three specific major equity concepts when we do an equity analysis.

These help integrate these concepts into planning implementation that will help create a more equitable Denver.

So the three are, how is this improving access to opportunity?

How are we looking at reducing vulnerability to displacement as well as expanding housing and job diversity?

So jumping into the first one, access to opportunity.

It scored an average when we're looking at the access to opportunity.

It scored a less access to fresh food and healthcare, as well as it has more access to centers and corridors

and corridors and then access to a park

as there's a park in close proximity to the site.

In terms of vulnerability to involuntary displacement,

it showed that the medium income house,

medium household income and education attainment

are vulnerable for this community.

And in terms of expanding housing diversity,

it's less diverse in housing costs

and fewer income restricted units.

And so something that the applicant highlighted

in their equity response is that, you know,

one of the things that they're looking to do

is expand services and keeping low AMI levels

for their residents and kind of expand services

to a specific part of Denver that desperately needs

for more assisted living.

And so, you know, the applicant can share

about the analysis that they did specifically

in terms of needing more resources

for social living in this part of town.

And additionally, when we're looking at expanding job diversity, it has a lot of retail jobs.

Specifically here, we do have the Costco in close proximity as well.

But then, you know, it has a high manufacturing job.

As you can see, we have industrial directly to the west at this site.

So a lot of industrial jobs, they have manufacturing jobs.

When we jump into the far northeast area plan, so this small area plan was adopted in 2019.

It classifies the subject site as suburban, low, medium, with heights up to three stories.

But we do have specific policies and directions from this plan that we talked about.

Promote citywide affordable housing programs in the far northeast,

which states prior to sites near employment centers, transition, and multimodal networks.

This site's unique in the sense that it's right on Peoria and adjacent to a lot of industrial jobs.

Additionally, the applicant noted in their application that, you know,

the expansion to 63 more beds includes more employment opportunities for people in the neighborhood as well.

Additionally, the plan calls for increased health services, affordable housing,

and reducing vulnerability to displacement,

which is something that the applicant has mentioned in their application

is something that they're trying to do by allowing more beds for people to age in place.

It's in the public interest as it's consistent

with multiple policies that are highlighted

in Blueprint Denver Comp Plan and the Small Area Plan.

And it's consistent with the neighborhood context

on district purpose and it's specified in the staff report.

Therefore, CPD recommends approval basing that all the findings

of the route to have them.

I'm available for any questions that you might have

and the applicant is here for any questions you might have

as well.

Thank you.

Is the applicant physically in the room or online?

just so we know.

Yeah, perfect.

Great, cool.

Okay, I have council member Torres first in the queue.

Thank you.

For the property, the main differences

between MS and MX as it relates to the SU neighbors,

are there any distinctions?

And will they be building on that side

where the parking lot's at?

What's the SU district?

I'll start that specific response

and I'll let the applicant.

So all the single family residents are protected districts.

So there is protected district standards

that they have to follow.

The applicant's intention is to build

on the vacant portion of the site.

So let's see if I have a map

that maybe I can show a little bit better that shows.

If the applicant wants to come up.

I have a question.

So it's hard to see if you can see my cursor, but this portion of the site is vacant,

and that's the intention to build a one-story structure that would include multiple bedrooms,

but I can have them speak on the construction that they're planning to do.

And just introduce yourself and take it from there. Thanks.

My name is Peter Hines. I'm with Open Arms Assisted Living here in Denver.

Great.

The red box there, the north side is Andrews Drive, and then the west side is Peoria.

So we're proposing an addition to the existing building that goes west along Andrews Drive and then south along Peoria.

So we'll be building further away from the houses.

So keeping the existing building and parking lot intact.

Okay. Is this, it looks like it's a great opportunity to get a good sidewalk network done too.

You guys started, you know, you started that already. So it's kind of already there.

You know, it's kind of cool.

All right. Thank you for that. I'm just curious on the, on Google, it identifies a school on site as well.

Is it more than just residential living?

No. Well, so the building used to be an elementary school.

Oh, okay.

We repurposed it into affordable assisted living.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Thanks very much.

I have a question.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I do not have anyone else in queue, so just pausing a minute,

and then I'll take a motion and a second if that's all.

Is that moved?

Okay.

I second her.

Great.

Moved by Lewis, seconded by Sawyer.

Anybody want to voice a vote?

I take a no.

Thumbs up.

Great.

We will see you all on the floor.

Thank you.

And thanks, Hudson.

So, yeah, then we're transitioning over to our next item.

I don't have the bill numbers in front of me, but this is the Trampway Center.

It is 25-1069.

Yeah, for a rezoning of several addresses on North Franklin, North Gilpin, and East 35,

making up the Trampway Center, also presented by Edson.

Hey, everyone.

This is Edson Ivanius again.

Great to be here.

Before you today, we have 1620.

It's because sometimes people are logging in.

1620, 1625, 675 East 35th Avenue, and then 3532, 3580 North Franklin Street, and 3558 North Kiplin Street.

So this site is normally known as the Tramway Nonprofit Center.

So the request is to go from a former Chapter 59 zone district into the Denver zoning code PUD, known as PUDG38.

And so this presentation will look at several different things.

So we'll look at the location and context, existing and proposed zoning, the process and review criteria for this application.

So it's located in Council District 9, Council Member Watson's district, and it's kind of in the heart of the Cole neighborhood here highlighted in red.

So the site itself is just under 2.5 acres, and it's currently occupied by the Tramway Nonprofit Center.

And so the whole goal of the rezoning will help bring the building itself into compliance.

It will help bring conservation to the Tramway Center,

and it will help the continued office uses in the Tramway Nonprofit Center building.

And additionally, it will help construct a four-story, 63-unit affordable housing development

on the vacant portion of the site that we're classifying as sub-area B.

Additionally, this site has been accepted into AHART, which AHART stands for our Affordable

Housing Review Team.

And in November of 2025, so just last year, they were awarded low income housing tax credits.

Additionally, you will see as part of this rezoning application signed an affordable

housing plan with host.

So the Tramway Nonprofit Center, also known as the Motor Coach Division Building, Denver

tramway company is a building that's listed on the state register of historic places. It's not

currently locally designated and the current zoning does not require conservation. So they

can tear down the building based off the existing zoning. So part of the rezoning would allow them

to conserve the actual non-profit center. So looking at the existing context land use, it's

classified as public, quasi-public. Industrial, it's kind of off because it's vacant. And then

parking, which, but it's adjacent to predominantly single unit and two unit residential. We do have

some multi-unit residential sprinkled throughout and then some public, quasi-public with the

White Academy directly to the north of the site. So the top right corner, you kind of see the

the Tramway Nonprofit Center entrance,

which is on Franklin Street looking east.

And then here the bottom photo actually is showing you

35th Avenue looking north,

and you can kind of see the vacant portion of the site here,

which is where they're planning to build

the four-story building here.

It's currently vacant, you can see there.

And then here is PUD 534, which is specifically for parking for the Tramway Center.

And then directly across the street on Giplin Street here on the corner of 35th and Giplin,

we have kind of row houses and single family houses, as you can see.

And then we have the Wyatt Academy directly to the north of the site.

At its highest peak, it's about 84 feet in height.

So it ranges from 25 to about 80, 84 feet in height.

And then we have single family houses across the street here in Franklin House.

And so we see these single families ranging from one story to about two stories.

And so looking at the existing proposed zoning, like I mentioned, RMU 20 with waivers is what we see predominantly of the site with PUD 534.

And you do see it's predominantly surrounded by USUA, which is a single unit zone district.

But we do have some sprinkle throughout the neighborhood.

We have these UMX2X, which is a mixed use to up to two stories.

On Bruce Roundup, we see the MS3, which is Main Street, up to three stories.

But it's predominantly low residential throughout the neighborhood.

Now, RMU-20 with waivers applies entirely to the blocks bounded by 35th Avenue, 36th Avenue,

Giplin, and Franklin Street, as you can see here.

It's a residential mixed-use zone district in former Chapter 59.

And heights, when we dive into the waivers, the heights limits the site to 45 feet, so four stories.

And then there's more setbacks, like brings the setbacks and open space down to zero.

And then additionally, the RMB 20, the office uses limit to 10,000 square feet.

The site currently has, like, double that, so it's not in compliance.

So rezoning the site would bring the site into compliance.

The PUD 534 applies to the property on the southeast corner of Gippland Street and 35th.

So you see here in the cursor, it's a surface parking lot for the nonprofit center.

So just kind of, there has been some confusion with some residents of what actually the current zoning allows with the proposed zoning allows.

And so in terms of uses, the new zoning would remove the cap of office uses on the tramway

and allow the uses that are there to come into compliance.

It will allow for conservation.

So the new zoning would require conservation of key features of the tramway building

so that the building has to remain.

And then the height, the new zoning would reduce the allowable height of one to two stories

for the existing tramway building, which is highlighted in blue,

which we're classifying as subarea A.

And it would maintain the allowed height for four stories and 45 feet to the vacant portion of the block, which is what they're looking to construct the units on.

So now diving into which, you know, the PUDG 38 breaks it down into three separate sub-areas.

So sub area A, which is what currently houses the tramway center, will follow the base zoning district of UMX2X,

which is an urban mixed use up to two stores with limited commercial uses.

So it'll allow for all the uses to stay there, but it will remove the cap of 10,000 square feet of office space there.

Additionally, it has customized height and transparency standards to match what is existing there.

So it doesn't meet the transparency requirements because of the number of windows.

So just match what's existing there. And then it requires conservation of the existing buildings.

So such as the barrel roofs on the first photo, some of the parapet with stone caps, the masonry

facade and the windows, as well as the barn doors. It would cause for conservation of these elements.

When we're looking at sub area B, which is a vacant portion, it follows the base zone district

of the URX3, which is an urban residential mixed use up to three stories. And then what we're

customizing in that is that multi-unit is the only primary use. And the other custom, it would

be four stories up to 45 feet, which is consistent with the URX3 if you're just following EHA.

So EHA calls for 10% of the units. You can go up to four stories and 45 feet. So it'd be

consistent there. And then sub area C follows the USUA, the urban single unit A zone district,

which would, the customization of that, it would allow for surface parking to remain,

or if it ever were to change uses, then it would have to follow the USUA zone uses,

which is that single unit zone district's uses. And so, like I mentioned, concurrent with the

affordable housing plan, the applicant has voluntarily signed with host this affordable

housing plan and under the negotiating alternatives if the project is not realized the affordable

housing plan requires a minimum of 100 percent of the total dwelling units at 80 percent ami

with a 99 year covenant but in november they were awarded low income housing tax credits

which commit which those commitments are deeper affordability and larger bedroom counts

and the goal is to build 63 units and so the applicant can go and you'll see can go into the

details of that and we have hosts here to go into the details of that if you have questions on that.

And now jumping into the process and review criteria.

So an informational notice was sent back in June of last year and it went before the planning board

in July 16th and it was scheduled for committee on the 29th of July but it was postponed due to

mediation. So some members of the community asked for mediation and so you'll see entered mediation

during that time for a few months and now it's scheduled before you today and it's tentatively

scheduled to go before City Council on November 23rd. Just to give some context, 42 public comments

have been received today in support and over the weekend we received two more so a total 44 comments

have good support. So those letters range from businesses and organizations to individuals. So

some of the organizations and businesses were Historic Denver, Neighborhood Denver Collaborative,

Catholic Charity Housing, Open Door Youth Gang Alternatives, Denver Street Partnerships, and

Denver Metro Community Impact, just to name a few. But all the letters kind of highlighted something

similar. It's the commitment to the non-profit that this helps further some of the goals and

policies that we see in our adopted plans for increased

density for exchange for in exchange for affordable housing,

the dire need for affordable housing in the community.

And its overall consistency with adopted plans.

And, but we did also receive 45 public comments

in opposition.

And so most of those concerns were along parking,

density, traffic, the impact to the neighborhood,

the allowable heights.

A lot of those opposition letters highlighted

that there weren't much concerns with sub area A and C,

but it was more on sub area B and the height in sub area B.

And some of those said that they were not consistent

with planned guidance and it was not appropriate

for this neighborhood and indirect impact

of the surrounding neighborhood.

And one of those comment letters had 200 names on there.

And so additionally, we received an RNO letter from the Coal Neighborhood Association taking a neutral position.

One of the things that they highlighted in their letter was that they are encouraged by U.S. Hill's commitment to preserve the historic tramway building.

but they also acknowledged that the building heights for sub area E has generated a diversity

of opinions within among co-neighbors and so a lot of you know they highlighted kind of a lot

of the stuff that I just mentioned is their concerns with you know 2.5 stories and 45 feet

and you know some residents were in support and some residents were in opposition

And so that's why they were not taking official position for or against the rezoning.

And that they kind of wrestled with, you know, the two different signing thoughts on this specifically.

Additionally with that, we did receive two letters from individuals notifying that there were an error in the letters of the 200 names collected in that one specific letter of opposition.

And that they're actually in support and that they don't agree with their names being included in that.

in that specifically.

And so this went before the plan board,

like I mentioned, in July 16th of 2025.

And in total, we had 13 individuals that spoke.

Six in support and kind of highlighted the same things

that we saw in the letters of support.

We agreed that it was consistent with policies

mentioned in the doctor plans,

as well as, you know, the commitments of ULC

and the nonprofit to stay here and allow the uses to remain

and allowing for more affordable housing in the community.

But we did have seven individuals that spoke in opposition.

One of those individuals was the, she collected the 200 names.

But additionally, a lot of them kind of highlighted the same things

that they felt like it was not, the concerns with the height,

that it's not consistent with the neighborhood character,

as well as planned guidance.

And so they had a lot of concerns on that, similarly what we saw on the letters of opposition.

And so the board did vote on this unanimously to recommend approval.

During that deliberation and discussion, the board did mention,

how does CPD analyze and review names and signatures submitted?

And so typically, you know, one of the things that CPD does is that CPD accepts and includes all public comment submitted as part of the official record.

Names and signatures are general comment letters and are not verified.

As staff's role is to present all comments to the decision-making bodies for their consideration interpretation.

And so typically, like, when we do verify signatures is at the time of a protest petition.

But normally we receive any letter of comment that comes in and we just present it as it is.

Similarly, like some of those letters of opposition, I had individuals submit that multiple times.

So we do have letters that are kind of identical when you look at those because they just submitted at different times.

We just kind of present every letter that's been submitted and kind of state that to y'all.

So additionally, ULC did intermediation with some community members of the Cole neighborhood.

And, you know, one of the main disagreements centered on the proposed four-story building of Hyatt and Sub Area B.

ULC did offer several community commitments, including shared parking on-site for resident amenities,

prioritaries like the prioritization of displaced Cole residents for housing,

as well as fostering community uses for the Tramway Nonprofit Center.

And while these measures were seen as positive,

it didn't resolve their concerns, so they didn't reach any agreement.

And now I'm going to jump into the review criteria.

And so because this is a PUD, we're really focusing on multiple review criteria,

which is consistency with adopted plans, public interest,

consistency with neighbor context zone, district purpose, and intent statements,

and then additional review criteria specific for the PUD.

So when we're looking at adopted plans, we're really focusing on three plans,

which is Conferencing Plan 2040, Blueprint Denver, and the Euleria-Swansea neighborhood plan.

Yes, this is not in Euleria, but it is highlighted in the Euleria-Swansea plan,

so we do have to talk about it.

So for the purpose of this presentation, we don't dive into the Conferencing Plan 2040,

but it is consistent with multiple strategies as highlighted in the staff report.

When we're looking at Blueprint Denver, it's classified as urban, neighborhood context,

which we see a small multi-unit residential and low-intensity mixed-use buildings

that are typically embedded in single-unit, two-unit residential areas.

And the site is classified as low-residential,

which is predominantly single-unit uses on smaller lots,

and limited mixed-use can occur along arterial and collector streets,

as well as commercial uses where commercial uses have already been established.

And then building heights are generally up to 2.5 stories in height.

And so North Franklin Street is a residential collector.

And East 35th and East 36th Avenue, as well as North Clippin Street, is a local street.

But we do have, you know, a residential collector street in close proximity of, like,

William Street's just a block away as well.

And Bruce Randolph Avenue.

Additionally, when we have conflicts of height, Blueprint says that we should consider what the

small area plan says, the surrounding context, transitions, adjacency to transit, achieving plan

goals with community benefit, and urban design goals. So the small area plan is silent when it

comes to height specifically for this area. So we look at, you know, the surrounding context and what

it's currently allowed. So the current zoning does allow for four stories up to 45 feet.

And then in the surrounding context, we do have single unit zoning that allows for 2.5 stories,

but we do have the Wyatt Academy directly to the north of the site that it goes up to 84 feet in

height. So we're looking at that transition of what kind of transition we last. And the 45 feet

is only applied to sub area B. Sub area A is limited to that one to two stories in height,

basically capping what we is actually there. And then adjacent to transit, so it is close to transit

stations, bus stations here. And achieving plan goals for community benefit. So the site has

a commitment signed with host for an affordable housing plan. Additionally, they were awarded

LITEX. And then urban design goals. So going from former chapter 59 to the Denver zoning code,

It would follow based on districts that are in the Denver zoning code that would help achieve urban design goals there as well.

When we're looking at equity strategies here, this map amendment follows a few under land use and built form goal.

General goal two, which is allow increased density in exchange for desired outcomes such as affordable housing.

Additionally, diversify housing options by exploring opportunities to integrate missing middle into low and low-medium residential areas, and increase the development of affordable housing and mixed-income housing.

As well as adaptive reuse strategies, such as promote incentives to preserve and reuse the historic buildings of the unique historic features of Denver neighborhood.

identify important mixed-use historic structures and encourage their continued use or adaptive reuse,

as well as incentivize the preservation of structures and features that contribute to the established character of an area,

even if they're not designated as landmark or historic districts.

Additionally, you know, it would help reduce climate impacts because multi-unit buildings are more energy efficient and low-density residential,

and it also allows for the adaptive use of the existing building.

Blueprint does have some direction when it comes to custom zoning,

such as limit the use of site-specific custom zoning tools such as PUDs

to unique and extraordinary circumstances.

So we did analyze multiple zone districts

if there was a zone district that this specific site would allow.

But we found that it would be very difficult for a base zone district.

As you can see, that we're trying to conserve the building

to unique features that the site has.

as well as the allow of uses and allowing for affordable housing and surface parking for the sites to continue as well.

And so when we jump into the Alaria-Swanzee neighborhood plan, the site is classified as single-family duplex.

Now, single-family duplex is described in the Alaria-Swanzee neighborhood plan as, you know,

something that would have, you know, single family homes, duplexes, rural houses, and even small

apartment complexes. But it doesn't give any height guidance. Additionally, you know, this is

not in the Elay-Rosante neighborhood, but we do have to talk about it. But there is multiple

strategies and recommendations that this rezoning is consistent with. So it is under, you know,

a balance of land use strategies recommendation B3, increased housing choice. So it does talk about

encourage investments and new housings to expand the total number of residents and to provide a

diversity of housing types to bring more people of all ages and incomes levels into the neighborhood,

as well as improve access to housing, job services, and education B2.5 is just encourage

continual coordination between non-profit services organizations that focus on the neighborhood.

Now, although it might not be when we're looking at Blueprint Denver, classifies as a Los Residential 2.5 stories in height,

we feel on balance, it does meet a lot of policies and recommendations within ComPlan, Blueprint Denver,

and the small area plan for increased density in exchange for,

increased density for an exchange of affordable housing specifically for this site.

When we're looking at public interest, it's consistent with the public interest in this criteria

as specified in the staff report.

It's consistent with the adopted strategies and goals as we see within the adopted plans.

And it's consistent with neighborhood context, zone district purpose,

and intent statements as specified in the staff report.

Now looking at the additional review criteria for rezoning to the PUD, there's five more criteria that this application has to follow, and I'm going to dive into those now.

So the first one, how is the PUD consistent with the intent and purpose of such districts stated in Article 9, Division 9.6, Planning and Development of the Zoning Code?

So this PUD will help facilitate the conservation of the existing building, which is a value historic building, while accommodating for new affordable housing development on the vacant portion of the site.

And it would be a better, more efficient use of the land and energy.

Additionally, the PUD complies with all applicable standards of the criteria of the PUD.

and then the development proposed on the subject property is not feasible under any other zone district

and would require an unreasonable number of variances or waivers and conditions.

And so the PUD is necessary because there's no standard zone district that would apply for this specific site.

And then subarea is intentioned to conserve the existing building uses

as well as it will support infill development of affordable housing in subarea B

and it would allow for the continual use of surface parking within sub-area C.

And then the PUD establishes permitted uses that are compatible with existing line uses adjacent to the subject property.

So the PUD would allow uses that are allowed in UMX2X, which is that limited commercial in sub-area A,

and then USUA and surface parking for sub-area you see in multi-dwellnet as the only primary use in sub-area B.

So the proposed zoning would allow for residential and limited commercial uses on the subject site

that are compatible with the permitted uses in the surrounding properties that you see in the USUA and the UMX2X.

And then the PUD establishes permitted building forms that are compatible and adjacent to the existing building forms.

So much of the subject site is currently in the RME 20 zone district with waivers, which permits residential mixed use with heights up to 45 feet.

So the further, the surrounding area includes low-scale residential building forms and limited commercial mixed use zone districts in the immediate area, which provide an appropriate transition from the subject site.

So therefore, CPD recommends approval based at all the fundings of the route I have met.

I'm available for questions.

House is here.

and we have several staff members here for any questions,

and the applicant team, and you'll see,

is here for any questions.

Thank you.

That's a, that's a dense one.

So, I'm glad we have lots of time.

First in the queue, I have Councilman Watson,

whose council district this is in.

Thank you so much, committee chair.

Thank you, Edson, and community planning and development,

and community chair, community, committee chair, parity.

It's clear. This is one of the most complex rezones that I have sat through and been briefed on within my neighborhood, within District 9.

I want to thank the neighbors that participated in the mediation.

Once again, as we described throughout our process, these fully engaged neighbors for almost six months in a mediated process.

did that without pay, did that in exception of spending time with their families.

And I just want to uplift their process and their focus and their engagement.

Edson, I'm going to have a question or two for you, but I wanted for a moment for the applicant to answer one or two quick questions.

I'll ask maybe three questions and get out of QC if there are any other questions, and I'm going to jump back in.

If you don't mind introducing yourself and then I just have two quick questions for y'all.

Sure. Andrea Burns with Urban Land Conservancy and we've got a few other folks here if we need them.

Andrea, my question is, what is, first, what's the current use by right for Urban Land Conservancy

within the lot that you are requesting this result?

What's your current height and everything that you can do as far as development for the entire site?

No subunits, just what's your ability to develop right now?

Sure.

As Edson said, the entire lot, it's a single zone lot.

The entire block that you saw as the single city block has four-story zoning, so 45 feet in height allowed today.

I believe it's RMU 20 old code zoning.

So that's the height that's allowed, and obviously there's a smattering of uses associated with that.

And as Edson alluded to, there are challenges related to the uses that we have today.

But in terms of development potential, the entire block is allowed to go four stories.

And can you explain why are you requesting a rezone for four stories?

Obviously, you're downzoning parts of the current lot,

and you're leveraging, based on the zoning you're recommending,

to go to four stories on one part of the lot,

then you're down zoning to two stories on another part.

Why are you going through this rezoning process

if your zoning currently permits you the ability to build four stories?

There's three primary reasons why we are seeking this rezoning.

And I'll just start by saying that we've been trying to tackle this site for many years,

starting in 2018.

But we primarily need and want to retain the uses in the trainway building and retain all the wonderful nonprofits that work there and continue that use indefinitely.

So making sure that the nonprofit center is viable and able to be reinvested into forever.

Secondly, we want to provide affordable housing.

We want to provide permanently affordable housing.

And that is something that, you know, we have a vacant pad there and we would like to do that there under the existing four-story zoning that we do have.

And then thirdly, we know that while it is not a great candidate for landmarking, it is a cornerstone in the coal community, the tramway building.

It's almost 100 years old and it has deep roots in Denver.

And so having this custom PUD to be able to do all three of these things while getting out of the old code from talking to the city over the last couple of years felt like the right decision.

And it would allow us to retain that four-story zoning on less than half of the property.

In addition, if I could, you know, understanding that ULC, our mission is both affordable nonprofit spaces and affordable housing.

And so we know that to do affordable housing here, we would need to pursue LIHTC.

We were very pleased that our development partner received LIHTC in November.

But we know that in applying for LIHTC funding, you can't underdevelop a site, that that would be a no-go for receiving affordable housing tax credits.

So we wanted to retain that four stories that we already had.

You halfway spoke to the uses.

Can you be explicit, direct, as to the impact of using the current zone to develop four stories, not even talking about a POD or anything, but simply the uses in the building?

What would the rezone provide as far as uses and support as to what you alluded to for the folks who are there?

Yeah, Tramway, the Tramway Nonprofit Center has been a nonprofit center for more than 20 years since before ULC acquired it and continued its use.

But it has become clear through this process that the zoning for Tramway has not aligned with the use of Tramway possibly ever in terms of since it's been a nonprofit center.

And so, for example, there is a 10,000 square foot limitation on office uses at Tramway.

Tramway is a 60,000 square foot building that is mostly offices.

And it has been that way for over 20 years.

We don't think that the answer is to vacate tramway.

We think the answer is to rezone into the current code, whichever one I think has encouraged us to do anyway.

And so, you know, another example, we have two workforce development providing nonprofits in the tramway building.

And workforce development is not an allowed use.

in our current zoning.

And so these are the kinds of hurdles

that we need to get past.

We want to be able, as a good property owner,

as a good nonprofit, to reinvest in the tramway building,

to change uses when we need to,

to get permits when we need to,

and to expand vacant spaces in that building.

And we can't get zoning permits today.

We are not in a good spot.

Thank you so much, committee chair.

Next, thank you. I have council for time.

Thank you, Madam.

I'm familiar with the tramway center. I've spent a lot of my career.

You didn't.

I'm sure you would have said it, but is there any remediation that needs to happen on the lot?

B, is it that is being considered?

Is there remediation that needs to happen?

I'm just thinking of what the tramway center use has been in its history, or is that something

that is missing?

Liz Weigel, who's here, too.

I think we'd probably defer to the applicant whether there's any work that would need to

be done.

We don't believe so at this time.

If so, it's limited.

We've done, I think, over the years, some exploration of that, but it's not a concern right now.

And you would probably know this next question as well.

In the presentation, it talks about the E-part funding.

Is there a, like, has the clock started rolling?

Is there a time limit as to when those dollars are available or when they would expire?

The Chavez Fund.

Do you want to answer that?

Our CFO can answer that one.

Brad Dodson is ULC's CFO. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Brad Dodson. I'm the CFO with Urban Land

Conservancy. To answer that question, yes, there is a timeline. From the time that tax credits are

awarded or reserved, there's 18 months essentially to get out of the ground. And so two months of

that has passed. There's about 16 months left. That includes finalizing the site plan, putting

together the entire capital stack, having building permits, having a construction contract

with a GC.

So there's a lot of work that has to happen in a pretty short amount of time.

If it does not happen within that timeframe, then the tax credits are subject to recapture.

Thank you for that.

And then I just had one more question.

I was reading through a lot of the letters and comments that were made.

of it around parking. Is there a plan for parking on that side or did you discuss that

or what does that look like and how do you propose to address what that concern is for

residents? Absolutely. Parking, you know, we've been doing community engagement for

a year now and parking has been, I think, the number one or number two item that the

community has expressed to us. And we certainly understand and we agree. I know that the

City of Denver has removed parking requirements, but we ULC believe that we want this property to

be well parked. And so we have both that satellite lot on the corner that you saw on the diagram.

So apart from the main block, you've got the 36th and Gilpin lot that would be dedicated to

parking for the nonprofit center and its employees. And then we also plan to park the

the affordable housing between the buildings.

So a full couple rows of parking that would certainly exceed any city expectations.

But we know that people have cars and we want them to be able to have them there.

I know we've got a number of people in the queue.

Those are my questions for now.

So I'll just hop back in.

We are okay on time because we have a lot of time for this, but I appreciate that.

I think I have Councilmember Lewis next.

Yep, Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you so much.

I just have a few questions.

One is around conservation.

Can you define how you were using that term?

Because I wasn't, I'm not sure.

So, you know, one of the main confusions sometimes is preservation versus conservation.

And so this specific site was analyzed by our Denver Landmark team.

and it doesn't meet the criteria to be Denver landmarked,

even though it's on the state registered

on state historic places.

And so another way that we've done this in the past is to,

if it doesn't meet the criteria,

maybe we can do it through conservation through the PUD.

And so we are conserving a lot of historical architectural elements

of the building and making it very difficult for them

to demolish the actual building.

Actually, it doesn't even allow for voluntary demolition.

So they can't demo the building.

So that's part of something that we're doing in the PUD to make it very difficult to preserve the building and highlight key architectural features, such as, like I mentioned, the parapet and stone cap and the masonry brick and the windows, the barn doors.

And so we worked specifically for a while with our landmark team to come up with the correct things to conserve through this PUD.

So it's not necessarily getting us preservation, but it's getting us conservation.

I hope that helps.

Thank you.

That was beautiful.

Thank you so much.

You mentioned during the presentation that this rezoning does not meet some of the goals, but on balance it meets other policies.

What does that mean?

It just means that, you know, when we're looking at Blueprint Denver, it classifies as low residential, which is predominantly single and two unit uses.

But it does allow for limited commercial where commercial uses have been established or if it's along commercial, it's along like a specific type of street with heights up to 2.5 stories in height.

And then the small area plan doesn't even give height guidance.

And so there is, you know, the request for sub area B is asking for four stories up to 45 feet.

So there is some conflict there in terms of height.

And so Blueprint does say that when there's conflict with height, then we should explore several other things like what's the transition?

What's it adjacent to?

Does it achieve other goals such as affordable housing?

And so the way for us in the past how we've done this with affordable housing is, does it have an affordable housing plan signed, which it does here, and it has LIHTC already awarded.

And so we believe that even though it's not consistent with the height on balance, it is consistent when we're looking at all the other goals that we see in the smaller plan, comp plan, and Blueprint to get to that height.

because we're seeing increased density,

which is one of the goals that we see within Blueprint,

allow increased density in exchange for affordable housing.

And so we believe here that they're providing

deep affordable here that they can get,

we can get to 45 feet.

And then we're also analyzing what is currently allowed,

which it is allowed for forest stories

up to 45 feet already.

So we take all that into consideration

when we analyze these re-sealings.

Okay.

I think that's what I was a bit confused about because it sounds like it's already zoned for it to go up to four stories.

But what's the change that you all are proposing then if it's already zoned for four stories?

I'm confused.

No, it's a great question.

I think the big thing is that it allows for four stories, four to five feet, but it doesn't allow for conservation.

Understood.

And it's in former Chapter 59.

So it's very difficult.

So, yeah, so it's taking it out of there, putting it into the Denver zoning code.

But then we have to look at the criteria, and one of the criteria is adopt plans.

And then there's this height, you know, there's inconsistencies on height,

and we are getting there through several different policies to get there.

And so that's kind of how, you know, I get what the community is saying,

where they're concerned about height, but it already lasts for 45 feet.

So when they came to us several years ago,

our recommendation is to bring the uses into compliance.

We always encourage to get out of Format chapter 59

and it just makes it much more easier to administer

and to entitle when they're going through this process

of like STP for example and start going down that route.

Council member Lewis, one other piece that Edson didn't share

that the applicants just shared was also the focus has been

for my first discussion with them in 2024 was uses.

We want to make sure that the nonprofits that have been there

for 20, 30 years remain.

Right now they're out of compliance for the uses.

So only 10,000.

There's nonprofits there?

For the types of work that the nonprofits do,

only 10,000 square feet of the existing building can be used

for the nonprofit uses, the workforce stuff

that they're known for, they're not in compliance

with the current zoning to even do that.

And there is what, 60,000 square feet of uses.

So some of those nonprofits could not exist ongoing

under the current chapter 59 zoning in that building.

Understood, thank you, I appreciate that Larry.

Oh, last question.

You mentioned that something about coal residents

that may be displaced, not displaced from the development,

but you mean like folks previously displaced

due to the displacement and gentrification in that area?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

I have Council Member Torres next

followed by Council President Online.

Thank you so much.

I'm hoping that we're not repeating

and it's just you saying the same thing

different ways. Why is it not possible just to rezone the tramway building parcel?

It's not possible because then we would create two different zoning codes and two different

zone districts and two different zoning codes. Then we have former chapter 59 and then we have

the damper zoning code which made it very difficult to entitle. And so our recommendation

always is if it's owned by the same property owner and it's in former chapter 59 to rezone

the whole site. And in this instance, all three parcels are owned by ULC, so our recommendation,

staff's recommendation is always to rezone the whole site as it's easier to administer,

easier to entitle moving forward. It just makes everything come into compliance.

Okay. For the applicant, and I think our conversation about the project is

additive. It is peripheral to our obligation when we rezone to the criteria. But I do want to

understand, especially because it looked like from the mediation report, the biggest point of

contention was around three stories versus four stories. Why is three stories not possible

for the development that you're trying to put on?

We have, well, a couple things.

One, you know, we feel that given that the entire site is entitled for four stories today

and that we want to down zone and give up property rights on the west side of the property

in order to retain the tramway center as is with incremental improvements over the years,

that not also downzoning the east side of the site felt like a reasonable approach.

In addition to that, as I said, to have four-story zoning and to apply for tax credits to CHFA

and then underuse the site, I think would have been a non-starter for tax credits being awarded.

And so we knew that we needed to be competitive for tax credits and take full advantage of the entire site.

Do you know yet what that means in terms of your build, number of units or community space, things like that?

Sure.

Our development partner has proposed 63 units, and that went into their application to CHAPA.

We have also discussed with them committing to community spaces inside of the building.

I don't have specifics on what that might look like today, but it's not exclusively residential.

There are spaces for the residents inside the building being designed.

Got it.

The mediation report gave the impression that with more time, things could have been worked out.

I'd love to understand kind of how things ended when they ended in October, because it did sound like the residents who are at the table, who are opposing four stories, felt like it was too big a demand on their time as volunteers.

Like, just want to understand.

And if those residents are here, I'd love to understand kind of how that fell through.

I wouldn't describe it as having fallen through.

Everyone joined mediation in good faith.

We had three neighbors who opposed the development who joined mediation, and we had one neighbor

who supports the development or the rezoning, I should say, who joined mediation.

Plus ULC, we also had two representatives from the RNO who were present the whole time

and mostly as a resource or as a sounding board or listening so that they could report

back to their RNO board.

But I don't think that we ran out of time.

We spent July through October.

We had four sessions of over two hours each.

There was homework.

I think it really came down to we could not, we were not willing to compromise on the three,

four story issue and neither were they.

Our approach was to try to ask questions to better understand what about that height or

what about that density concerned them.

And so then we, as you saw in the report, we tried to offer as best we could some ways

to address some of their conceived concerns about the kinds of impacts that a development

of that size might have.

Okay.

And then my last question, the small parcel across the alley, what was proposed for that?

Edson knows the exact classification, but our plan is to use it for tramway employee parking because we have 60,000 square feet of uses in that building.

And we want to continue to limit impacts on the neighbors as much as we can.

But CPD encouraged us to choose a zone district that would, at some point in the future, allow for something else, which would be housing.

We have no plans for that.

That's not of interest to us right now.

we really do care about parking tramway and being the best neighbor we can be.

Thank you, Andrea.

Thank you.

Great.

And then council president who's online is next in the queue.

Thank you all.

A couple questions for the property owners.

When did ULC acquire this property?

You also acquired it in 2007 from Mr. Chuck Phillips, who was an entrepreneur and philanthropist in the area, and he had started the Phillips Center, which was the precursor to the Tramway Center.

Okay.

And then, Edson, under the current zoning, it's floor area ratio, correct?

And has an analysis been done?

Can you really create four stories across the whole entire width of the parcel using floor-to-area ratio?

We haven't done an analysis of four stories for the entire site.

I know previously, a few years ago, ULC did come to us basically showing us it is possible to build four stories on the vacant parcel.

And that's something we were analyzing previously.

several years ago, but then we started that discussion

about rezoning as it would help with the noncompliance

of the office uses on the tramway that would help bring

everything into compliance. So there was an analysis that ULC did

for four stories that was circulated a few years

ago for four stories on the site on the existing zoning of RMU-20.

I have the same question, Councilwoman, and

apparently it's not floor area ratio based and I don't know that's where my knowledge of this ends

but we did ask that question and I don't think that RME 20 at this property for whatever reason

is based on floor area ratio but um slowly back away from it if it's not what is it because our

old zoning code used to be floor area ratio so how how how is it not

We can follow some some density requirements that are some different ways so we can certainly

give that to you. I think RMU 20 also generally has more height so the waivers brought down the

height to the 45 feet. But like Edson said I think that there have been concepts on where

they were able to get to that but we can get like follow up with the exact standards.

I would love to see the exact standards because I have a parcel in Northwest Denver that's the same zoning with the same waiver and similar size.

And there's no way we could do four stories across the whole entire thing.

So I'm wondering if somebody outside has done the analysis and that's why there might be a sticking point with the neighborhood.

because in Northwest Denver, you can do, it's an urban context similar to this.

You can do, it can be a real tall, skinny building, but it can't be four stories.

And the reason why I'm asking this is sometimes architects, neighborhood architects will look at the zoning code

and do an analysis and share it and just share it amongst neighbors and not necessarily be transparent

and say, hey, we did this analysis on the old zoning code.

And it's really hard that the specific zoning that's here right now is really hard to do because it's so antiquated that you just don't see anything built under it.

Because I'm trying to figure out why the neighborhood is stuck on this four stories, because you could actually go if you wanted to and not build it all the way across the whole entire zone district or entire parcel.

you could actually go higher than four stories if you weren't to cover the whole entire mass.

And so that's why I was wondering if anyone has done an analysis on this site,

because you could actually go taller.

I've told my community we could actually go taller than what is currently there.

And right now it's a three-story building on the corner of 26th and Alcott area.

And they didn't know that.

And so I'm just wondering, in the mediation, was there anyone who had land use expertise to be able to do like a charrette on what kind of buildings could be built under the current zone district compared to what is being proposed?

We did ask Donald with Starboard to join the mediation just as a resource, just to listen and to be able to field technical questions.

And that was really helpful. I'll also add that our development partner requested and in July received from CPD an analysis affirming that their current concept for four stories can be built on the vacant pad here.

you know, obviously pending all permitting and plan review.

But the short, simple answer from CPD in a letter to the development partner was four

stories is possible and this concept is possible on this vacant pad.

Do we have that, Edson, in our documents?

Not in the documents, but I can add it moving forward and I can forward it to your office.

I think we'd like to see the analysis of how the old zone code works and then this piece that we just mentioned for everybody.

Thank you, Madam Terks.

I think that's relevant to the conversation because, I mean, you could probably do four stories, but the setbacks, I mean, that's the hard thing about these old zone districts is the setbacks aren't standard.

It's your own.

Yeah, so I want to see how we figure out how you get four stories, especially with the waivers and what does that look like.

So the other one question I had was, how did you all get to the PUD?

Because there's certain criteria for our land use to be applicable with all of our land use regulations.

And then there's like four criteria to be able to use a PUD.

how did you get to the PUD?

Does that have a question for me?

Okay.

For Edson, okay.

We explored multiple zone districts because we never want to go down the route of a PUD

because it's a very custom tailored approach.

So we explored multiple zone districts.

Obviously, these are applicant-driven requests, but we did explore what made the most sense.

but some zone districts required waivers because of the conservation component or allowing for surface parking

because USUA does not allow for, like sub-area C does not allow for surface parking.

So we were looking at unique situations for each zone district that we applied,

and we ended at a PUD because it would require additional waivers and conditions to get to a specific base zone district.

And so we explored multiple, and we just kind of landed with the PUD because of trying to conserve the building,

allow for removing no longer revel and square footage requirement for office uses,

and then affordable housing and trying to get to four stories and allowing for surface parking.

Okay. So in the PUD, and this could come at a later date, can you point to me what page talks

about the conservation? I can't find it reading the current PUD. I can see some of how it gets

to the conservation, but if you could help point out exactly where in the PUD, it calls that out

because it's not clear to me unless you know exactly where it's at. It's on page 7 of 13.

It's section 4.5, conservation of the existing building in sub area A.

Oh, it's only for sub area A. Got it. Okay. And then council member Watson,

and for you, did your staff or anyone from your office

participate in the mediation?

Thank you, Council President.

My staff didn't participate in the actual meetings

for the mediation.

They audited the mediation with the mediator,

receiving input from them.

And then they also spoke with folks from the R&O

and the community to receive direct feedback,

but they audited the mediation

and also had direct dialogue with the mediator

throughout the process.

And remind me who the mediator was?

It wasn't Charbonneau, it was one of his staff members

because Charbonneau was not available.

The name is within.

Skip. Skip.

Skip.

Skip.

Skip.

Skip.

the staff report council president and i can make sure um that's elevated to everyone else

yeah it's the i'll just say that this is super complicated there's 24 documents in here

and i keep pulling up the what it took me even forever to find the report and then the pud

so i can see it but it it's super complicated um okay that's it thank you madam chair for

Thank you. Great questions. I think that Councilmember Lewis wanted to get back in queue.

I'll just give you a moment. And then Councilmember Watson, are you okay with that?

I'm good.

Go ahead, Councilmember Lewis.

I learned that someone from the mediation is online, and I was just curious if they could maybe talk about that process,

because it sounds like we didn't come to resolution.

Could you promote Ms. Hanna? I think you did already.

I think there's a Katie Hannah online who was a participant in the mutation, so I think your questions are for her.

The R&L should be on it, too, if you had questions.

Both are on?

And the R&L was present.

One of them, the R&L. I asked them to be present to answer the question.

I'm happy to hear both.

Okay. I will check and see if there's anyone other than Ms. Hannah, but she may be the only one.

Okay. So for now, if you want to ask her some questions, I will check.

Are they going to promote her or just start?

She should.

I think I'm on.

Can you hear me?

There you go.

All right.

Welcome to the meeting.

If you could introduce yourself really quickly, just name and sort of roll in on this is fine.

And then Council Member Lowe has had some questions for you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So my name is Katie Hanna.

I am a neighbor that lives at the corner of 36th and Williams as a property owner.

And so I am about a half block from the parking lot, which is, I believe, sub area C and a block over from where this, you know, the tramway lot is.

So I initially had gone to the first meeting that had been held and spoke at that in feeling that we sort of needed more resolution.

I had requested the mediation through ETSIN.

So it was myself and two other neighbors that participated in that.

And so, yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, I think I just wanted to know generally, it sounds like that you all didn't come to a resolution with the mediation.

And so I'm just curious as to why that might have been and how the process was for you.

And I guess you can't speak on behalf of the neighbors, but maybe for yourself.

Sure. So I think.

and it's kind of already been discussed, certainly the big concerns with the neighbors that I have

spoken to and in helping to get some signatures and things for that initial letter, the biggest

concerns were sort of the height, the scale, or the density of the number of apartments, which go

from studio up to three bedrooms, so the density of the population increase, as well as the parking

impacts and things like that in the neighborhood were kind of the main concerns.

And while we did discuss it, there really was sort of an impasse on that.

And so I think we knew that that was not going to be resolved, which is in some ways how

it ended.

We did, you know, in good faith, all of us came to the table to try to discuss some of

the concerns and looking at the building plan that had already been done, things like there

was no community spaces and things.

So that was brought to the table of, you know, if you have an increase of 63 units, some

up to three bedroom and this many people living there, where would they congregate if there's

not parking spaces for every allotted unit, which I do understand is not required, but

where are these people going to park?

So we did further conversations in an attempt to kind of mitigate some of the tertiary concerns, and that was very positive.

It ended in a way, and I'll speak for myself, where things started kind of coming up as we were doing mediation summaries that I know that I did not,

and I don't feel that the other neighbors felt had sort of been established as fact or things.

So in the end, the summary that we were kind of trying to do fell apart just in that I think we were all at a point where we knew the main concerns of height, you know, scale, density and kind of parking were not able to be resolved and would not really be able to be resolved.

And so it kind of ended on that note in that we knew that those things would not be resolved.

What was the resolution that you and the neighbors were looking for?

So I think the density, which height obviously adds to that, and I didn't expect to speak, so I don't have the plans or my notes in front of me, but the number of bedrooms, so the number of people potentially that could live there and the density of that.

one, if you remove the fourth story, I mean, it just by nature decreases kind of the population

and density of people that would be living there. The height is also a concern. So while there are

collector streets like Franklin and so forth, the majority of this building is on Gilpin.

And the building plans showed, you know, that it was sort of directly on the sidewalk,

no real setback in order to make space for the parking, which is in between the two buildings.

So for us, it was sidewalks straight up to four stories.

And in the majority of this neighborhood, you're looking at historic, you know, homes that are from my home is 1890s that are one, one and a half story.

And so it just sort of dwarfs the community.

I mean, it's a residential. I think it's what low residential is the designation.

And so in looking at affordable housing in other parts of the city nearby us, so there's, you know, multiples that have been done in the Curtis Park area, ones that have been done even in coal and surrounding areas, those, none of them go past three stories.

And so we just felt it was more appropriate and fitting with the neighborhood, with the size of the homes that are directly across Gilton, with that being a local street for the majority of the length of that building and not really having setbacks, that four stories just was not compatible with the feel of the neighborhood.

You know, just in terms of the sheer number of apartments and people that might live there, you know, we're a neighborhood that for years has been fighting for a grocery store closer to us.

And we're in a food desert, as it's called. We don't really have walkability to a lot of restaurants and other things.

So just increasing, you know, the sheer quantity of occupants in that small area of that block just seems, you know, unreasonable, basically.

So I think for us, it was just wanting a building that was more that was, you know, three stories or lower, which would decrease also capacity of number of residents, decrease the number of cars and things.

You know, it is complex in that there is, you know, the school, which is historic right there.

So there's one side of the street that in order for kids to be picked up safely, you can't have street parking on because it's designated for the school.

So that takes off a whole block of parking.

You have tramway, which has people come in during the day when they're working and not there at night.

So there was a lot of complex issues, and I applaud ULC and everyone else who came to the table for trying to discuss things that really are more complicated.

But it's just the size and the scale of it with really no setbacks, not enough parking.

I'm so sorry.

We've got about two minutes left in our committee.

I got what I need.

I got what I need.

Thank you so much for being here.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm lost in the queue, I think, unless you.

I'm good.

So with our remaining time, I just wanted to,

I feel like I'm doing the same thing that Council Member Torres,

everyone that came before me, Council Member Lewis kind of did,

but I just want to try to restate and make sure that I'm understanding this.

I think part of the complexity here is that when you're trying to leave Chapter 59 zoning,

which is this entire, you know, parcel right now, right?

On the one hand, ULC does not need to leave Chapter 59,

although with a sort of caveat about what Council President Sandoval just raised,

but taking that as a given in order to do what they've got LIHTC funding to do,

to build up to four stories to do 63 units of all affordable housing.

Although it may create some complexities, but fundamentally at least the height is there, right?

However, in order to keep tramway functioning the way that we all know and love it

as a nonprofit center, which is incredibly valuable,

we do not have affordable nonprofit space in the city.

that portion we've learned through this journey does need to come out of chapter 59 and it's not

ideal or I think the moving half of something that is one chapter 59 I don't even know what

we call them district thing bubble you know moving half of that out and leaving half of it in

I've never seen us do that like splitting the old code I don't even really know if we

I suppose we can, but maybe, I mean, we don't amend the old code anymore. So reducing, like

shrinking that chapter 59 bubble, that's the piece of this that strikes me as like, we sort of can't

do it. And so I think we're in a strange position of balancing between what people are really

objecting to is an existing entitlement that these folks could just continue to operate with.

But sort of luckily for the neighborhood, in a way, they have another interest, which is keeping

a portion of this at lower density with the nonprofit uses that we all love.

And the only way to accomplish that piece sort of opens them up to this attack on the

height.

And we want to get out of Chapter 59.

I know it's not a perfect match, but that's how I see the situation.

So I will certainly be supporting this.

I want to make sure that there's no other motions for any kind of delay or anything

like that.

Any need for a voice vote?

Okay.

So I'll take a motion in a second.

moved by Lewis, seconded by Sawyer.

Thumbs up from everybody to go to the floor,

and I'll check the council president,

because I think we need her maybe for quorum.

Forgetting Watson's not a committee member.

It's easy to remember because it's an all-woman committee,

so that's a good clue for this one.

I'm just checking council president okay.

I think she's okay.

All right, motion passes.

Thank you all for the hard work.

We'll see you on the floor.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks for meeting you, Chair.

Thank you.