Plans to rebrand and redevelop the All In Motel on East Colfax are moving forward, but the project will no longer feature a new building that was meant to be an amenity to the community.
On Monday, City Council voted 8-5 to amend the 3015 East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Area, which encompasses the motel, to remove an additional building that was supposed to include 27 more hotel rooms and affordable commercial space for community members.
The All In has been a site of ups and downs, going back to the late 1950s when it was called The Fountain Inn. The historically registered building was host to the Gold Room restaurant in the late '60s, and in 2006 it was home to the '70s-themed RockBar.
It was purchased in 2016 by Brian Toerber and since then Toerber has had his own ups and downs with the property. Toerber initially intended to use the site for micro-apartments, but then-City Councilmember Albus Brooks convinced Toerber to keep the All In as a hotel.
Toerber previously said that finding lenders to fund the project was difficult because of the idea and the location. As Toerber struggled, the All In continued to fall into disrepair.
In 2020, Toerber reached out to the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, an agency tasked with identifying "blighted" areas in need of revitalization, seeking tax increment financing, or TIF dollars, to help fund the redevelopment project.
The All In met several criteria deeming the structure blighted, including unsafe conditions and the existence of substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of buildings.
DURA agreed to make the site an urban redevelopment area and in June 2022, City Council agreed to the plan, but several residents and Council members questioned using TIF dollars to fund a hotel when the city was in need of housing, especially considering the All In accepted "housing vouchers" for low-income residents or those experiencing homelessness.
While Councilmember Paul Kashmann and former members Robin Kniech and Candi CdeBaca disagreed with the proposal, the other council members and many nearby neighbors said the redevelopment was in line with DURA's main purpose: revitalization.
Residents said the change would make the area safer. By having a pool and retail space for local businesses, residents said it adds value to the neighborhood. Others said having a hotel on East Colfax would give people visiting National Jewish Health and musical talent playing at nearby venues a closer place to stay.
The project was set to receive $3.5 million from TIF funding. Toerber would revamp the All In creating 54 rooms at 265 square feet. Plus, he would construct the new building with 27 additional rooms at about 335 square feet each. There would also be a restaurant, a pool that could be used by nearby residents via day passes and, potentially, a coffee shop. The project would cost about $31.2 million.
But that didn't work out.
The firm expected to help finance the project backed out, leaving Toerber in a similar position to when he first purchased the property. After a prolonged search, Toerber found a lender, but it did not consider the additional building and retail options as financially viable.
The change to the project required a change to the urban redevelopment area. This particular amendment to the scope of the project may be the first in DURA's history, said DURA Executive Director Tracy Huggins.
The new plan presented to Council on Monday only included the redevelopment of the existing hotel structure.
Renovation will be done to the 54 rooms and there will be a ground floor restaurant. The amendment doesn't change the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area and DURA is set to give $3.3 million to the project.
During Monday's hearing, Councilmembers Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez, Shontel Lewis and Sarah Parady again questioned using TIF dollars to fund a hotel when the city is in need of affordable housing.
"I don't believe that utilizing $3.3 million in city tax increment financing for a private hotel for visitors to our city aligns with our city's urgent needs today," Parady said. "To me it is inexcusable for us to use that funding towards anything other than housing."
Councilmember Amanda Sandoval said she agreed to the plan in 2022 because of the proposed "affordable retail" and spaces for residents but without the pool and the extra building, those things wouldn't be happening anymore.
"When I think of urban renewal authority, I think of community benefits as well," Sandoval said. "We're using our urban renewal authority for a hotel and a retail restaurant...I'm 100% supportive of adaptive reuse...but using an urban renewal authority for that outside of not having affordable commercial space designated for use by local businesses, artists and nonprofits? That's what we approved."
Huggins said even if the initial project only included the hotel, DURA would have still agreed to make the site an urban area redevelopment because the area is blighted.
"Blight doesn't have a tendency to stay within the four corners of the properties. It impacts the other areas as well, so the most significant benefit that this redevelopment will provide is that of blight elimination and historic preservation," Huggins said. "The most fundamental thing that we are trying to do is address the, and this is the term out of statute, the blighting conditions...We would have looked to participate, if we can eliminate blight. That is our core mandate."
Sandoval also asked Toeber what he intended to do with the space where the other building was set to go. He said a portion would remain a parking lot and the other portion he would like to "activate" as a community outdoor space. Toerber said the area will be landscaped and added that folks could hang out in the green space.
Sandoval pushed back noting that the location of the hotel directly on East Colfax isn't that inviting of a street to sit and relax. Toerber said the goal isn't to keep the space as a parking lot and in the future he would consider putting a new building there, if the finances were available and if the community was interested.
"Our intent is to stabilize this corner and do something that we are able to do today and then work with the community on imaging what else is suitable in that area," Toerber responded.
During the public hearing, about nine people addressed Council with only one person speaking against the project. Nearby neighbors spoke in favor, especially considering the property is still experiencing deterioration.
"I was disappointed when the original plans fell through. However, I think the smaller footprint would in some ways serve the neighborhood better" said one of the speakers. "This particular property is, as other people have said, really a blight on the neighborhood. It's in disrepair. It's boarded up. It's fenced... I do support the redevelopment generally and I think this project will return this building to its original character."
Other speakers echoed concerns about safety surrounding the property and the need for local accommodations on East Colfax.
Huggins added that Toerber, in the future, could add that additional building to the future. If he requires TIF dollars for the funding, the plans would have to come back to City Council for approval. If Toerber uses private dollars, he could move forward with the build without approval.
At the end, Gonzales-Gutierrez, Lewis, Parady, Sandoval and Councilmember Flor Alvidrez voted against the proposal.
Huggins said getting the amendment approved by Council was the final step for the development project. Now they're ready to move forward and construction is expected to begin by the end of the year.
"This is a really important project for this section of the corridor in order to help advance a more broad revitalization," Huggins said.
