| Comment |
Staff Response |
2.3 p83 M1 G. York St.
Q74 – Denver Parks has conveyed they do not want a bikeway through Congress Park. It was stated by the design
department “It just doesn’t work.” The Mobility plan shows a High Comfort Bikeway connection from Cheeseman Park
into the Congress Park Neighborhood. This location makes sense and ties into the redesigned pool plan and into the
larger planned bike network. This position from the Parks Department goes against philosophy of the recently passed
Denveright Parks Game Plan would limit amenities or equitable access to members of the community, park users and
program participants. This park is part of a vital neighborhood element and urban infrastructure and as such, is a hub
and needs to be integrated into the larger mobility network. |
This plan will inform future investments by DOTI and Parks & Rec and help prioritize those needed improvements |
2.3 p84 M1 G. York St.
Q75 – DBG is completing its last new building along 11th with a new auditorium. Study how pedestrians exiting in the
evening cross York to go the parking garage and provide required safe street crossings. Evenings might have limited
lighting for pedestrians jaywalking. The plan will create a plaza and coffee shop open before and after the standard
garden hours. Look at understand the new uses and how pedestrians / bicyclists are crossing York and if safety
improvements are needed. |
Good comment to explore in the future |
Q76 – DBG is still reporting multiple accidents from drivers trying to enter the parking garage from the west lane. Work
with DBG to find ways to improve car crashes in the section of York. Also, crash data for this area is missing from the
page 74, 2019 City Crash Data. |
Verified dataset |
Q77 – Study pedestrians / bicyclists crossing at E 9th Ave and review if new safety improvements are needed. Sidewalks
are needed between York & Josephine. New Congress Park Pool designed for increased use and possibly longer seasonal
use may increase users crossing these streets. |
Incorporated in most-recent public draft |
Q78 – Denver Parks has conveyed they do not want a bikeway through Congress Park. It was stated by the design
department “It just doesn’t work.” The Mobility plan shows a High Comfort Bikeway connection from Cheeseman Park
into the Congress Park Neighborhood. This location makes sense and ties into the redesigned pool plan and into the
larger planned bike network. This position from the Parks Department goes against philosophy of the recently passed
Denveright Parks Game Plan would limit amenities or equitable access to members of the community, park users and
program participants. This park is part of a vital neighborhood element and urban infrastructure and as such, is a hub
and needs to be integrated into the larger mobility network. |
City departments are coordinating on this project |
2.3 p85 M1 H. 6th Ave.
2. a. Q91 – Study moving locations of traffic lights from alleys to full intersections and compliment with ped and bike
safety improvements. These locations should complement proposed bike routes and infrastructure improvements.
These ideas where discussed in the Congress Park Traffic Study. |
Incorporated in most-recent public draft |
2.3 p85 M1 I. 7th Ave.
1. a. Q79 – Residents of SANA are opposed to a standard protected bike lane on the Historic Parkway and because of this
the RNO is opposing the ECAP. Please work with the RNO on acceptable wording, such as changing wording to “Study”
or something more acceptable. This brings up the complexity of this plan and the continuing need for more community
engagement to find a middle ground on these topics. |
Incorporated in most-recent public draft |
2.a. Q80 – The proposed multiuse path has not been a topic of conversation at the SANA meetings and I do not think
they are aware of it. Please engage the residents on the intent of proposing this type of amenity. |
Have had multiple contacts with this group and broader community. |
2.3 p86 M1 J. 8th Ave.
2. a. Q92 – Study moving locations of traffic lights from alleys to full intersections and compliment with ped and bike
safety improvements. These locations should complement proposed bike routes and infrastructure improvements.
These ideas where discussed in the Congress Park Traffic Study. |
Congress Park Traffic study recommendations were reviewed by City team and incorporated into the plan. |
2.3 p86 M1 K. 12th Ave.
1. b. Q81 – Study and evaluate adding a traffic light at 12th Ave & Col. Blvd. This would create safer right turns for buses
and vehicles onto Colorado. This additional light would increase the size pocket of stopped traffic and create safer right
turns onto fast moving Colorado which now has very limited sightlines due to geometry of “T” intersection. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
2.3 p86 M1 L. 13th Ave.
1. b. Q82 – Prioritize high use pedestrian crossing at retain nodes such as Madison St. |
See pedestrian crossings recommendations |
1. b. Q83 – Also implement safety improvements for vehicle traffic crossing 13th & 14th at intersections and alleys.
Current sightlines are obstructed by parked cars, vegetation, vehicles parked on driveways, utility poles, signage, etc.
Fast moving traffic on 13th & 14th also do not see traffic pulling or cutting across their path of travel. I have witnessed
many car accidents on both 13th & 14th, with a recent overturned car on 14th between Cook & Madison St. Also of note
is entering and exiting alleys for residents parking in garages. Exiting narrow alleys with parked cars of the street and
parked cars in driveways blocks almost all of visual sightlines. The City needs to look at how to improve safety for these
types of conditions. Residents between 13th & 14th also have parked cars and limited sightlines along their side of the
street when exiting the alley. Look at providing at least one street of clear sightlines for safe exiting of alley. |
See 13th and 14th Aves. Transformative Streets recommendations |
2. a. Q93 – Study moving locations of traffic lights from alleys to full intersections and compliment with ped and bike
safety improvements. These locations should complement proposed bike routes and infrastructure improvements.
These ideas where discussed in the Congress Park Traffic Study. |
See 13th and 14th Aves. Transformative Streets recommendations |
2. a. Q95 – What are projected impacts for this arterial for mobility patterns / volumes of proposed center running BRT
on Colfax with limited left turns. How will increased density, parking reductions, etc. impact adjacent residents? Are
there parking flashpoints identified in the parking study? |
Addressed by recommendations in plan. See Colfax chapter |
2.3 p86 M1 L. 14th Ave.
1. a. Q84 – Also implement safety improvements for vehicle traffic crossing 13th & 14th at intersections and alleys.
Current sightlines are obstructed by parked cars, vegetation, vehicles parked on driveways, utility poles, signage, etc.
Fast moving traffic on 13th & 14th also do not see traffic pulling or cutting across their path of travel. I have witnessed
many car accidents on both 13th & 14th, with a recent overturned car on 14th between Cook & Madison St. Also of note
is entering and exiting alleys for residents parking in garages. Exiting narrow alleys with parked cars of the street and
parked cars in driveways blocks almost all of visual sightlines. The City needs to look at how to improve safety for these
types of conditions. Residents between 13th & 14th also have parked cars and limited sightlines along their side of the
street when exiting the alley. Look at providing at least one street of clear sightlines for safe exiting of alley. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
2. a. Q94 – Study moving locations of traffic lights from alleys to full intersections and compliment with ped and bike
safety improvements. These locations should complement proposed bike routes and infrastructure improvements.
These ideas where discussed in the Congress Park Traffic Study. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
2. a. Q96 – What are projected impacts for this arterial for mobility patterns / volumes of proposed center running BRT
on Colfax with limited left turns. How will increased density, new bikeways, parking reductions, etc. impact adjacent
residents? Are there parking flashpoints identified in the parking study? |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
2.3.4 p91 Bikeway Network Map
Congress Park Pool Q85 – Denver Parks has conveyed they do not want a bikeway through Congress Park. It was
stated by the design department “It just doesn’t work.” The Mobility plan shows a High Comfort Bikeway connection
from Cheeseman Park into the Congress Park Neighborhood. This location makes sense and ties into the redesigned
pool plan and into the larger planned bike network. This position from the Parks Department goes against philosophy of
the recently passed Denveright Parks Game Plan would limit amenities or equitable access to members of the
community, park users and program participants. This park is part of a vital neighborhood element and urban
infrastructure and as such, is a hub and needs to be integrated into the larger mobility network. |
City departments are coordinating on this project |
2.3.4 p92 Bikeway Concepts
Q86 – A more detailed chart of how these types of bike improvements are defined and conditions required for the
different implementations. The lack of specificity, graphic or language on this topic has raised community alarm and
mistrust about this planning effort. Please create a tool box of information so residents have a clear understanding of
what is being proposed and deploy these tools for all future Are Plans. |
Added clarifying language to plan recommendations. |
2.3.4 p93 M2 Bike bikeways
D. Q87 – Public comments have been raised continually about the locations of these bike routes. The city has been very
vague on responding to these questions in public and needs to review how this process can be much more transparent
and cooperative with adjacent residents. If the public could understand what criteria or how gathered comments where
rated in making these decision it would be help build more trust in this process and possibly assist in community buy in. |
There are several factors that go into bike facility recommendations, including public comments. See engagement information on website for how those comments were addressed. |
H. Q88 – Public comments have been raised continually about the locations of these bike routes. The city has been very
vague on responding to these questions in public and needs to review how this process can be much more transparent
and cooperative with adjacent residents. If the public could understand what criteria or how gathered comments where
rated in making these decision it would be help build more trust in this process and possibly assist in community buy in. |
There are several factors that go into bike facility recommendations, including public comments. See engagement information on website for how those comments were addressed. |
2.3.4 p95 M3 High Comfort Bikeways
A. Q89 – Please release study data and criteria used to make recommendations. |
See plan appendices and briefing books |
| C – F. Q90 – Please explain in addendum how this process will be conducted. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
2.3.4 p101 One-Way/Local Street Improvements
Q97 – Where are you proposing this type of improvement? Do you have a general context for these types of changes
and what might trigger this type of design. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
2.3.6 p105 Transit and Mobility Hubs
Q98 – How are locations of these types of hubs being coordinated with other mobility routes, such as bicycle? Are there
safe routes to these planned hubs? |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
2.3.6 p107 M7 Transit and Mobility Hubs
A. 1. Q99 – What is the study information on the Colfax BRT and the impacts on the neighborhoods? |
Addressed by recommendations in plan. See Colfax chapter. |
A. 1. Q100 – Why is “Rail” being listed on this plan? This is a 20 year plan, if rail is needed in the future it can be added
in the next round of planning. Remove the “Rail” term it is misleading. |
Clarified plan language |
A. 3. Q101 – Please use the words “Study.” How can this plan recommend implementing these types of high cost
transportation improvements without studying how it will be implements and community outreach? |
Future plans will always study these types of improvements first. Added clarifying language to recommendations overview section stating this |
B. 1-3. Q102 - Please use the words “Study.” How can this plan recommend implementing these types of high cost
transportation improvements without studying how it will be implements and community outreach? If your intent is to
install a full BRT bus lane with removal of a lane of traffic, then the mobility plan graphics and text describing Transit
Priority Streets is misleading. |
Future plans will always study these types of improvements first. Added clarifying language to recommendations overview section stating this |
B. 3. Q103 – How will a full BRT be implemented on 12th Ave. a single two-way street? Are you proposing removing
all vehicles and parking along 12th? This text is recommending something not mentioned in any other part of this plan. |
Plan does not recommend BRT on 12th Ave. |
2.3.7 p112 Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Q104 – Please review recommendations of Congress Park Traffic Study. There are many areas identified for further
study and traffic calming is a good strategy to implement when looking at traffic light locations, bike routes and on busy
arterials such as 13th & 14th to slow traffic for entering and exiting alleys. The Congress Park Traffic Study also has a
longer lists of possible choices not listed here on the plan. |
Congress Park Traffic study recommendations were reviewed by City team and incorporated into the plan. |
Q105 – Could this plan recommend lower arterial or street speed limits and recommend designs to match the lower
speeds? This should be a topic to discuss with residents. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
2.3.4 p116 Bikeway Network Map
P116 Q106 – These neighborhoods have different parking conditions not identified in this graphic. Neighborhoods such
as Congress Park are 100% parking in the evenings along Colfax, 14th and 13th or streets adjacent to York or Josephine.
The interior of the neighborhood does have a low use of street parking. Using an average across such a large
neighborhood is not useful in understanding how streets are used and potential impacts of street modifications and
proposed increased density.
Please provide breakdown for street use by block so we can understand how the streets are currently used and can be
compared to proposed zoning and street modifications. |
See plan appendices and briefing books |
2.3.9 p119 TDM Strategies
P119 Q107 – Legend for graphic: What are the descriptions for the colors? |
Clarified legend |
P231 Q108 – Please add gray color for Josephine & York Streets to small area to the west of Congress Park Pool. This
crossing needs safety crossing improvements, sidewalks and better hard connections to the future rebuilt pool. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
P236 Q109 – The 1995 Congress Park Plan provides a Renter/Home owner/Ethnic Breakdown by Census Track. It would
be helpful to provide the current breakdown for comparison purposes. |
See briefing book for background information |
| P236 Q110 – Are there any long-term goals to reduce crime or increase policing? Do we have current crime trends? |
Current recommendation is sufficient; please consult briefing book for crime statistics |
| P236 Q111 – Is there a list or location of special residential land uses such as group homes or community services? |
See information from the Group Living Text Amendment project, including: Community Planning and Development is doing our part to support social distancing recommendations. Please help us in this effort by doing business with us online instead of in person: www.denvergov.org/cpd. |
P236 Q112 – The 1995 Plan discusses the goal of “Containing all hospital development and related uses within currently
zoned hospital districts.” How does this plan reflect those concerns? |
Policy E1 recommends hospitals and neighborhoods work together to deal with growth and other issues. The place type recommendations will limit growth of hospitals outside their current footprint |
P236 Q113 – The 1995 Plan also provides street type designations with design loads and existing traffic stats. It would
be helpful to see the current design loads of traffic of current streets and what is proposed for the future in the
Transformative Streets plan. I would be interested in seeing the existing Colfax traffic stats compared to the proposed
BRT with one lane of travel removed and limited left turns. |
Please see BRT resources for this level of detail |
P236 Q114 – Other 1995 Issues listed are “off-street parking as a major problem” “and inadequate off-street parking at
the hospitals, the Colfax and Colorado Blvd. corridor business and the Botanic Gardens.” How is this plan identifying and
addressing these topics? |
See parking recommendations |
P236 Q115 – It also mentions “13th and 14th Avenues have poor visibility for the motorist.” This was a concern over 25
years ago and is still a concern today. How can we make sure this plan addresses these safety concerns within the next
20 years? |
See traffic calming and daylighting recommendations |
P236 Q116 – Also mentioned is a gold to “Reduce speeding traffic through the neighborhood to a level consistent with
posted speed limits and compatible with the neighborhood’s land use to preserve the residential quality of life.” I have
heard this sentiment repeatedly from residents in Congress Park. This would be a great recommendation to add. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
P236 Q117– There have been discussions about the city implementing slower speeds for streets adjacent to city parks,
such as Congress Park. That could also be another safety strategy to study. |
See traffic calming recommendations |
2.7.1 p237 CPO-E5: Expand Diversity of Housing Types
A. P237 Q118 – “Integrate missing middle housing types and adu in Low and Low-Medium Residential Places.” Missing
Middle is described as “duplexes, fourplexes, and row homes.” This recommendation sounds like it is proposing
allowing all of these uses throughout Congress Park and I am not sure the residents are aware of what is being
proposed.
This is concerning especially since the majority of the neighborhood has been identified as having some historical
significance and warrants further study for some type of preservation.
If any type of these “Missing Middle” housing types would not be allowed to replace existing residential properties in
Congress Park please clearly identify why and this would need to be mentioned in this recommendation. |
Per Blueprint Denver, all neighborhoods need to incorporate missing middle housing. The details of what exact types and where will be determined through a following text amendment process. |
2.7.1 p238 Congress Park Recommendations
CPO-M2
A-C. P238 Q119 – We have had many questions about how these routes have been selected. Please provide additional
information on comments and criteria used to select these locations. |
See plan appendices and briefing books |
CPO-M3
A-C. P238 Q120 – Why is a high comfort bikeway being mentioned for Colorado Blvd? This does not show up on the
mobility plan, so I don’t understand why this is being mentioned. Maybe we can look at a subway for Colfax and
Colorado Blvd as we look into the future. |
Plan does not recommend bikeway on Colorado Blvd |
CPO-M6
D. P239 Q121 – Thank you for adding this note. I would also add a hardscape connection from Josephine into the new
pool is also needed. The current pool plan will have parking angled in along the entry road, which means cars will be
backing out into the traffic lane, which would include bicycles, pedestrians and any other mobility use included disabled
users. The angled parking is to increase the parking for the new pool which will include league swimming and I was told
could accommodate crowds of over 300 people. I really don’t think this will be a safe environment if all forms of
mobility are forced onto one street. The police are also located in existing building.
The pool plan does not include any other improvements not adjacent to the pool boundary. Creating safe movement to
and through the park will be very important and the Parks Department position of not wanting to accommodate a bike
route through their park is very disappointing. It is a great connection to the pool and a direct route to Cheeseman and
into Congress Park. |
DOTI is coordinating with Parks & Rec |
CPO-M7
A. P240 Q122 – Please remove “Rail” from Colfax and “Full BRT” from York & Josephine or add subway for Colfax
and Colorado Blvd. If you intention is implement these recommendations then the Mobility Plan graphic needs
to be updated. |
Plan language has been updated to clarify |
CPO-Q1
P242 Q123 – Please add “equitable access for increased mobility safety getting to park and throughout park for all
users.” |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
CPO-Q2
P242 Q124 – Please give description of how these concepts will be applied to 12th Ave. Will the road be vacated of
vehicles? |
See 12th Ave. recommendations |
East Cheesman Neighbors Association (ECNA) is a Registered Neighborhood Organization in
the City & County of Denver. Our association includes residents of the area immediately
adjacent to Cheesman Park, from Race Street on the west to Josephine Street on the east and
from East 10th Avenue on the south to East 13th Avenue on the north.
Please consider this letter to be feedback on one part of the East Central Area Plan. In Section
2.3.4, High-Comfort Bikeways, on page 29: Strategies: M3 E, a study is proposed for a bikeway
on Gaylord between East 12th and East 16th Avenues. We have heard that such a bikeway could
involve removal of all parking spaces on one side of Gaylord Street.
We support high-comfort bikeways. But we believe such a bikeway would fit much better on
Race than on Gaylord, for two reasons. First, Race has a traffic signal at Colfax, which neither
Vine nor Gaylord has. This would be much safer for cyclists. Every one of our members who
communicated with ECNA about this was adamant that cyclists crossing Colfax would be far
safer if they were crossing at a signal. |
Updated plan language to consider alternative routing options for Gaylord recommendation. |
Second, as a former trolley street, Race is wider than Gaylord (as is Vine Street, too), and could
accommodate a bikeway more readily than Gaylord. It might even be possible to create a highcomfort
bikeway on Race Street that preserves the existing parking spaces. Parking in our
neighborhood is already extremely tight. Removing all parking on one side of four blocks would
create more problems for existing residents, some of whom do not have garages, but still use cars
to get to and fro. As public transit improves, this likely will change, but ECNA does not believe
the city can force this to happen simply by making it more painful for residents to find parking.
For these reasons, ECNA recommends that any study of a bikeway from East 12th to East 16th
Avenues in this area take into serious consideration Race Street as an alternative to Gaylord
Street, and to make every effort to create a High-Comfort Bikeway without removing existing
parking spaces in the process. |
Updated plan language to consider alternative routing options for Gaylord recommendation. |
Issue 1: The planning and drafting processes have lacked thorough public notification,
transparency and engagement.
I realize that this Draft ECAP has be “years in the making”, the process included a handful of
residents on the steering committee, and the steering committee had nearly two dozen
meetings open to the public. But largely, the public was unaware that this process was
happening. Many have asked if that was by design.
The residents of the affected areas were not directly notified that there was a small group of
people proposing major changes to their neighborhoods. As a board member of an RNO and a
committee member of another RNO’s Safe Streets Committee, I feel that I can only fairly be
characterized as an “active member of the community,” likely better informed than average.
Yet I was completely unaware of the ECAP process until the second half of 2019, and the Draft
ECAP proposes changes just 100 feet from my property.
Notification, transparency and engagement are related issues. A near-unanimous concern
among stakeholders with whom I have discussed ECAP is that while there are “public meetings”
and DCPD “welcomes comments”, there is no process for DCPD to share comments and
feedback that the City receives with the public. The City has not demonstrated how concerns
are mitigated or addressed in ECAP, or why these concerns are not being addressed. This
alienates would-be participants who dismiss these and subsequent meetings as “a waste of
time”.
This lack of transparency leaves many people feeling that their voices will not be heard; that the
public input is all show so that the City can say, “We have conducted or attended dozens of
community meetings,” and with that statement of fact be able to falsely imply, “And we have
incorporated public feedback” without actually having done so.
It is not enough to hold public hearings, ask for public comments, and then appear do nothing
with that feedback. Yet, that appears to be exactly what happened with the current Draft ECAP.
Worse, City representatives talk of “concessions” having been made without evidence to
support that assertion. This appearance disengages many of the relatively few who are aware
of the process.
For example, in the presence of a senior city planner, SANA conducted a well-attended public
meeting of the RNO membership, listened to an official presentation of the ECAP, asked
questions of that official, and then voted unanimously or near-unanimously against several
specific proposals within ECAP that are of concern to the neighborhood for their perceived
negative impact. SANA’s positions have not been incorporated into ECAP, SANA has not been
told why, and there is no avenue in the process with which to seek compromise or mutual
understanding. Instead, ECAP continues to roll forward, as-is, leaving the public with the
impression that the meetings are merely a formality in the pre-determined outcome.
ECAP is one of the first Area Plans under NPI; it is critical that the City get the process right.
Solution: It is not too late to add additional steps to the process before it is drawn closed. After
all public comments are received, the City should make them publicly available. Denver should
directly notify all residents of the affected area that ECAP is in its final stages. There should be a
process by which DCPD shows how it compiled comments into areas of common concern
and/or support. DCPD should hold public meetings and produce documentation to state how
DCPD is addressing the public concerns, in what ways DCPD is suggesting compromise on
unreconcilable positions, and/or why DCPD is choosing to ignore the concerns. Then DCPD
should issue a new draft plan that highlights the changes to address public concerns and
feedback, and accept at least one more round of public comments before issuing a final plan.
Admittedly, this solution would add more time to the process, but NPI is still in its early stages
and it is critical that it is done right from the outset or else all Area Plans are put at risk before
they even begin. |
Public comments will be shared with responses from staff, and a revised draft of the plan will be released with changes noted. Additional time and opportunities to participate have been provided. |
Issue 2: The NPI and planning process have relied on statistically-biased methods, including
the use of survey data which is inherently dangerous and opens the process to abuse,
distortion and misrepresentation.
Survey designs are usually flawed; questions are often misunderstood or misinterpreted
without opportunity for respondents to seek clarity; answers to questions are typically nonexhaustive
of the true set of alternatives; sample selection is often biased; stated preferences
often deviate from revealed outcomes; and, questions that require value judgements are
notoriously susceptible to bias because they are inherently subjective. This list should be
sufficient cause to abandon the use of survey data as part of the process, yet it only scratches
the surface of know problems with surveys and survey data.
As an example, one individual, reportedly a developer who does not live within ECAP, has
allegedly commented on the plan 84 times using the same name. That this assertion is feasible
highlights a flawed process; that it has been accepted as common knowledge highlights that the
process and ECAP have been undermined. That there is no stated process with which to weigh
these 84 comments gives concern over the possibility of a corrupt process. It leads to the
question of whether similar comments and surveys were submitted under alternative identities
or on the behalf of others.
Solution: Survey data and content within ECAP that relied on survey data should be removed. |
The plan has used multiple methods for people to provide input and is not relying solely on survey data, though survey data does provide valuable input for the plan |
Issue 3: The CPN Safe Streets Committee Report was used as a basis for many elements in the
ECAP, but that report is not what City planners and their consultants believe it to be.
My personal conversation with various representatives from Community Planning and
Development at the public meeting at East High School on November 13, 2019, revealed that
there were gross misconceptions about the Safe Street Committee’s intent, process and final
report. It was expressed to me that by one City representative that “it was fantastic that all this
work had been done for us that we could just run with this; usually we have to start with a
neighborhood and build consensus first.”
The desire for safer streets is likely as near universal a goal as can be found. The CPN Safe
Streets Committee was a group of resident volunteers without any relevant professional
background in urban planning and design. We gathered monthly, typically under the auspices of
David Leahy, a planning professional, and we brainstormed what neighborhood problems
existed. Various representatives from City departments spoke to the group. We all chatted
about what they had to say. David Leahy’s office conducted a few traffic counts within the
Congress Park neighborhood and presented the committee with a portfolio of standard design
elements that have been or are being implemented in various cities in an attempt to mitigate
traffic problems. Then David Leahy’s office wrote the report without assistance from the
committee, presented a draft, and then a final report.
As conveyed to me, the City has taken this report, which was “here are some ideas that might
help some problems this small group of people anecdotally think might exist” and incorrectly
interpreted it as “here are ideas that should be implemented to address these documented
issues of highest priority, which the community fully supports.” The report was not authored to
be used in this manner; it makes not such claims that the ideas it suggests testing have been
vetted. Further, the broader neighborhoods (Congress Park and Seventh Avenue) do not
support many of the Report’s proposals.
In addition to the Safe Streets report narrowly looking at anecdotal problems, potential
solutions were discussed based solely on their hypothesized impact within the boundaries of
Congress Park, intentionally ignoring the proposed solutions’ potential impacts to areas outside
of the boundaries of Congress Park.
To highlight the downfall with this approach, the draft report circulated immediately prior to
the final report contained a suggestion to reduce East 6th Ave from 3 lanes of traffic to 2 lanes
at the intersection with York St/University, a “road diet”. This was not a concept that was
proposed during committee meetings. The basis for this suggestion was that a “road diet”
would reduce the amount of traffic entering Congress Park and would reduce the pedestrian
crossing distance on 6th Ave east of York, both of which would theoretically lead to a “safer” 6th
Ave through Congress Park. However, the reality is that eastbound East 6th Ave carries so much
traffic during evening commute hours that the traffic currently backs up 3-6 blocks from the
intersection with York St, and frustrated drivers already divert north to 7th Avenue Pkwy via
Williams, High, Race, Vine and Gaylord Streets, to use 7th Avenue Pkwy as an alternative route
to the gridlocked 6th Ave.
The Committee had previously universally agreed that reductions of traffic on arterial roads at
the expense of increased traffic on residential streets was a negative outcome, particularly
when considering diverting traffic from 6th and 8th Avenues onto 7th Avenue Parkway due to the
dramatically difference pedestrian and bicycling use of these streets. Yet because of the narrow
focus of this plan on one neighborhood, the anecdotal approach to address “problems”, and
the limited authorship, this idea, with a clearly negative outcome, was proposed. Once I
highlighted this proposal as fundamentally flawed and completely counterproductive to safer
streets within the neighborhood and surrounding blocks, the current state during evening
commute hours was observed, the Safe Streets Committee Traffic Report was changed (again,
outside of committee), and a “road diet” for 14th Ave at York St was added instead. Sadly, this
new suggestion of a “road diet” for 14th Ave was made without any assessment of current
conditions of 14th Ave outside of Congress Park, and without considering the potential impact
on surrounding neighborhoods and nearby residential streets.
Solution: As a full participant of the CPN Safe Streets Committee, I strongly urge planners to
remove all aspects of the current ECAP that were rooted in ideas proposed in the Safe Streets
Report because this report has been misinterpreted by DCPD. I dedicated significant amounts
of my time over the course of more than one year as an active participant on this committee,
and I am strongly urging DCPD to disregard this report as in input into ECAP. |
Suggestions in the report were vetted by DOTI staff before being incorporated into the plan. The community has the same opportunity to comment on these recommendations as all the others. |
Issue 4: ECAP includes recommendations for areas outside of the neighborhoods covered by
the plan.
On multiple occasions, I have pointed out that versions of ECAP include recommendations to
change 7th Avenue Parkway from York St to Williams St, which is part of the Country Club
Neighborhood. The Country Club Neighborhood is indicated in all DCPD, NPI and ECAP material
as being outside of ECAP. It is wrong to include areas in ECAP that are explicitly stated as being
not included in ECAP. Residents of this area were not notified that the ECAP would include their
neighborhood; in fact, the City to this day indicates that Country Club is outside of ECAP. This
neighborhood has not been a part of the ECAP process, residents have been denied an
opportunity to participate, and as such no recommendations should be made to any area in
that neighborhood—or in any other neighborhoods that are not covered by ECAP.
Solution: Remove all recommendations for neighborhoods not included in the East Central Area
from the ECAP. |
The short-term recommendations for these streets come from existing citywide plans, and the long-term recommendations are for studies that would come in the future. It makes sense to think about these corridors holistically, as they cross neighborhood boundaries. |
Issue 5: ECAP fails to address the infrastructure needed to accommodate more housing.
By its own goals and descriptions, ECAP significantly increases housing density, with a stated
intention of increasing the number of residents per square mile. Independent of the desire for
or wisdom of this goal, there is little to no discussion of how and when the City will increase its
infrastructure to accommodate these additional people.
• Where and when will new schools be built? Existing elementary schools with boundary
zones in the ECAP area, including Teller and Bromwell are already experiencing
overcrowded classrooms (i.e., more students per class than targeted), due to new
residents moving into their boundary zones.
• Where and when will new libraries, parks, rec centers and public parking be built?
More people means more crowds, which degrades the quality of life unless more
capacity is built.
• ECAP hopes that people will increasingly transition out of single-occupancy vehicles
after ECAP intentionally increases traffic congestion and causes traffic to spill over onto
residential streets, but what is the City’s plan to accommodate increased vehicles if
people do not happen to transition out of single-occupancy vehicles?
• When and where will new firehouses be located? As existing linear distances represent
significantly longer travel times for emergency vehicles navigating more congested
streets with greater frequency of gridlock, new stations will need to be built to ensure
adequate response times.
• How will the City fund the required infrastructure needed to prevent the degradation
of the quality of life in Denver that existing residents so cherish?
• Why is the City prioritizing the hypothesized need of theoretical new residents over
the stated desires and preferences of its existing residents? And how is this reflective
of a government representative of its constituents?
As the City continues to give away billions of dollars worth of vertical property rights by gifting
increased height limits to private property owners and developers for free, it misses a major
opportunity to fund this required infrastructure, paid for by those who gained the direct
economic benefits.
Because ECAP is silent on many aspects of infrastructure that are required to support more
residents, it is no wonder the City is ignoring the required funding. Significant study, planning
and explanation of the calculations, costs, and funding sources that will be used to address
needed infrastructure need to me made to correct this glaring omission in ECAP.
Solution: Pause ECAP until this glaring omission has been addressed by the City in this plan. Do
not destroy the quality of life of the area because infrastructure and services are not increased
to meet the additional population and traffic. Commit to providing new infrastructure ahead of
new development. If and when increased zoning heights are approved, grant them as an option
that must be purchased by private property owners in order for them to exercise that increased
height. This will both help preserve existing neighborhoods by not instantly economically
condemning existing structures, but it will also provide a much-needed source of revenue to
Denver to fund missing and lagging infrastructure. |
These issues are addressed in the plan. Additional height will not be approved unless community benefits are provided. Development also has to pay for upgrades to infrastructure required by the development. |
Issue 6: ECAP promotes the fallacy that more housing leads to affordable housing.
Here, ECAP falls short on its understanding of basic economics. More housing does not mean
affordable housing. Denver will remain expensive as long as it remains a desirable place to live.
If City leaders successfully implement plans like ECAP, increase density without increasing the
City’s infrastructure, destroy neighborhood character, and increase traffic congestion, Denver
may achieve a supply-demand equilibrium at lower prices (lower housing costs) as fewer
people, relative to the City’s housing supply, choose to live here due to poor planning.
Solution: Incorporate proper economic analysis into the planning process. |
The plan includes many recommendations for different tools to create and preserve more affordable housing. |
Issue 7: ECAP’s discussion of housing affordability uses meaningless metrics to make its case
and fails to establish the parameters used in determining what the Area’s responsibility
should be to provide affordable housing.
Faulty metrics define “affordability”. For example, “Thirty-six percent of East Central’s
households pay more than 30% of their income towards housing costs.” This is a meaningless
and arbitrary metric by itself. If someone with a $500,000/year income buys a multimilliondollar
house that costs $150,000/year (30% of income) in mortgage payments, property taxes
and utilities, that is not indicative of a problem with affordability. It merely describes an
individual’s preference.
Further to that point, when I bought my existing house, I committed significantly more than
30% of my income towards housing costs. I did it eagerly because I wanted to buy a singlefamily
home in a low-density urban neighborhood where I could walk to many services. I
certainly did not, and do not, think that my decision to allocate such a significant portion of my
income on housing highlighted “significant housing need” in Denver. It sickens me to think that
my decision to prioritize buying a house in a lovely neighborhood may lead to negative impacts
(increased building heights, higher density) to that very neighborhood. Yet this metric that the
City is relying upon indicates that because I chose to commit a large percentage of my income
to move into a lovely neighborhood, the City thinks that parts of the same neighborhood should
be bulldozed and replaced with multi-story rentals (even though there is no guarantee that any
of these rentals will ultimately be “affordable”.)
“65% of East Central households, including 72% of renter households, live in areas that are
considered vulnerable to displacement” because of Denver’s current development policies, and
because Denver is going to create economic incentives for these vulnerable households’ homes
to be bulldozed to allow developers to build to 12 stories of “luxury apartments that might
contain some temporarily-designated affordable units”.
ECAP contends that the area is “short 3,100 units renting at less than $625 per month for lowincome
households in the area.” By what metric does this area of Denver “need” 3,100 units at
that rental rate, so close to the urban core? Do any major cities achieve these metrics? If so,
through what tools?
Solution: Better define what “affordability” means, how it is measured and what the goals are.
Seek community buy-in on these measures and goals. Do not confuse people’s willingness to
stretch financially in order to live in a desired area as an indicator that that area needs to be
changed. Instead, recognize these measures as proxies for what a desirable neighborhood looks
like, and use the existing state of those neighborhoods as models for future development,
rather than change the existing state as a result of misplaced causal interpretations of data.
Provide the metrics used in determining how much of the City’s affordable housing should be
represented with each neighborhood in the Area and engage the community in this
conversation. |
Details of the affordable housing analysis will be provided in an appendix. |
Issue 8: ECAP will definitively displace current low-income residents as a result of the policies
designed to address the fear that some residents may be displaced in the future.
This is another example of the fundamentally flawed logic underlying the preconceived
outcomes orchestrated in ECAP. By the City framing the concern over the future displacement
of City’s most vulnerable residents, it is actually justifying displacing them.
The very first structures that will be bulldozed under ECAP will be what is referred to in the plan
as the current “naturally affordable” units—units that are aging and dated and thus cannot
command market rents. Basic economics dictates that when the City makes these lots more
valuable through higher zoning, these buildings will be the first to be replaced with taller
structures, commanding higher rents per unit. ECAP, by design, will cannibalize the current
stock of “naturally affordable” housing.
Solution: If a concern is displacement of current low-income residents, do a more granular
analysis of where exactly the low-income housing exists, including the “naturally affordable”
units, overlaid with the proposed zoning changes, and recognize that the parcels with the
proposed zoning changes will have existing structures demolished. Work with state lawmakers
to seek changes to state law that will allow a more comprehensive approach to affordable
housing before displacing current residents and degrading neighborhood quality in continuing
Denver’s current piecemeal, ad hoc, and temporary approach to affordability. |
The plan includes recommendations to preserve naturally affordable units as part of a comprehensive strategy for increasing the availability of affordable housing and reducing involuntary displacement |
Issue 9: Current Denver residents are being asked to sacrifice the quality of life created by
their existing neighborhoods to allow increased density in exchange for the hope that
affordable housing will happen at some point in the future, to benefit someone who may not
even live in Denver today, without any guarantees that there will ever be any affordable
housing.
If the affordable housing does not happen, will you condemn and demolish the new 12-story
luxury apartment buildings and reconstruct the historic structures they replaced?
Denver has made this mistake before. Look at the buildings surrounding the Governor’s
Mansion and Grant Humphreys Mansion. Scores of irreplaceable structures that were a part of
the historical fabric of our community were bulldozed to make way for what are currently
eyesores, and less than three generations from that awful mistake, we are on the verge of
doing it again.
Solution: This is a ridiculous request and should be abandoned. |
The plan includes recommendations for preserving character and historic buildings while adding compatible density |
Issue 10: ECAP and the process undertaken to date further erodes confidence that
government is ever “by the people and for the people” and sets damaging precedence.
I have raised serious concerns with the current Draft ECAP. Sadly, nothing about the ECAP
process to date gives me any confidence that the current ECAP’s errors, omissions and
inadequacies will be addressed. I fear that the ECAP process will continue to ignore resident—
constituent—input. Instead, I feel all but certain that these deficiencies will continue to be
brushed aside under the guise of “it has been a long process,” unless and until someone sues
the City to put a halt to this runaway process and its apparent foregone conclusions. The length
of the process means nothing; the comprehensiveness and inclusiveness of resident opinions
and concerns to arrive at positions that achieve shared community goals and objects matter.
By steamrolling ahead despite so much desire for potentially-impacted residents to have their
concerns heard, the Neighborhood Planning Initiative not only runs contrary to fundamental
tenants of local governance, it damages all future Area Plans under the Neighborhood Planning
Initiative, as ECAP will serve as a dire a warning to all communities yet to undergo this process
for what is about to happen to them.
Solution: Extend the ECAP process. Properly notify all Area residents. Introduce greater
transparency to the process. Work to achieve consensus and seek compromise. Recognize that
accepting change to the ECAP proposal is a much lower burden than long-time residents being
forced to accept change imposed on a neighborhood in which they have lived for decades and
feel meets their needs. Establish a better process for the next NPI Areas. |
Process has been extended and additional opportunities for public involvement have been provided |
Much of our neighborhood is classified in the Plan as Low-Medium Residential (Multi-Unit) and
Low-Medium Residential (Row House). Recommendation L5-A-1 of the Land Use and Built
Form section, "Encourage preserving buildings...and expand housing options in neighborhoods"
includes: "Allow an additional unit within single-unit and two-unit zone districts. The extra unit
would be in addition to an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)."
There are a number of reasons this section concerns us:
1. We believe that while L5-A-3 states that "home ownership ofthe [subdivided singlefamily]
units should be encouraged," it is unlikely this will happen. Rather, it is more
likely that any subdivided house will result in one or even two rental units, and when
combined with a possible ADU, it would mean that what is now a single-family home
would become three rental units. However:
a. Rental units generally have much greater turnover and lead to neighborhood
instability.
b. Smaller rental units are less conducive to family occupancy.
c. Dramatically increased density also often leads to an increase in crime, already a
problem in Capitol Hill. |
Allowing renters and homeowners in every neighborhood is consistent with the goal of creating an inclusive and equitable city |
2. We realize that part ofthe reasoning behind the Plan is to discourage the use of
automobiles. Nevertheless, the majority of the residents in our neighborhood own
vehicles, even if they do not use them daily. While there may be a gradual reduction over
time on dependence on automobiles in favor of other modes of transportation, it is simply
unrealistic to assume that people are going to stop driving entirely in the next several
years. Thus, the Plan's recommendation would:
a. Dramatically increase the number of dwelling units exacerbating congestion
b. Exacerbate an existing parking problem. Many residents in the neighborhood
have garages or on-site parking availability, but the Plan's recommendations do
not make any provision for parking. Some would argue that street parking
shouldn't be "free." We argue that our property taxes are payment, just as they
pay for other city services. It does not necessarily follow that "starving the beast"
will make people abandon their cars. |
The plan includes recommendations to address parking concerns |
3. The City presently has a Group Living committee tasked with making recommendations
that would change Denver's zoning code —w hich actually is only five years old —t o
allow greater numbers of unrelated people to live together. When combined with
proposals in the ECAP allowing subdivision of existing single-family units plus ADUs, it
would vastly increase the number of people allowed to live on a single piece of property.
It's easy to say "won't happen here," and "hasn't happened in other cities," but the
potential nevertheless exists and could radically change the character of our
neighborhood. |
The plan is coordinated with the recommendations of the group living project |
4. The Group Living proposals also include one that would allow more residential care and
group homes in more places. Capitol Hill (including the East Cheesman neighborhood)
already hosts more thon its jiiir Nhoreo c these fitcilities, In j'oct, Denver's spacing
ordinance was enacted several years ago with the express intent of spreading these
fitcilitic%a cross the city to provide more equitable treotjnent of' both neighborhoods and
the residents of the Caciliticg,W hy do we want to move backward on this commitjnent? |
This is consistent with the city's goals of creating an equitable and inclusive city. See the group living project for more details. |
It’s important that implementation steps be clear for these strategies. For example, we’d like
to work on defining criteria and parameters for homes that could become eligible for the
additional housing unit bonus (L5), as we think a criteria-based approach, related to factors
such as the age and size of the structure and the location, make the most sense. We are also
interested in clarifying the definition of demolition in the zoning and building code to ensure
that saving a home really means saving the majority of the home. |
Updated Policy L5 language |
We wholly support recommendations to improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings in
L4-A.6, but want to caution you against citing window replacement as a specific strategy, as this
is not always the best path to efficiency. In fact, studies show that rehabilitating historic wood
windows and adding storm systems is less wasteful and performs equally. We urge you to
refine this language to reflect improving window system efficiency without specifically
encouraging replacement. This is particularly important given the high number of historic
districts in the East Central Area, where wholesale window replacement is discouraged by
design guidelines. |
Updated Policy L4 language |
The careful work to provide a vision and actionable steps for the Colfax corridor is
commendable, and again is clear on the value of historic buildings in terms of urban design,
cultural heritage, and the cultivation of small and local businesses. An adaptive reuse
ordinance that removes barriers to reuse, and a partnership between the City, preservation
groups, neighborhoods, and the Business Improvement District to create incentives for
preservation actions the protect the most significant buildings are the two most important
steps. We do not believe that the historic resources require further analysis or identification,
the key buildings are well known as a result of the 2007 inventory and more recent Discover
Denver work. Now is the time for action. |
Updated Policy CL-1 language |
Further, the concept of a TDR program is intriguing, but we are concerned that it may not
produce the desired results. We encourage the planning effort to also consider additional
recommendations, such as a tax rebate program for historically designated buildings, as was
done for the Downtown Historic District. This would have the added benefit of supporting
small and local businesses. |
Updated Policy CL-1 language |
Finally, we support many of the mobility recommendations as important improvements for the
community. However, the broad and vague language recommending changes to the historic
parkways is concerning. It is possible to introduce mobility improvements, such as protected
bike lanes, while maintaining historic integrity, but we worry about dramatic alterations such as
the reduction in green space or width. The parkways are not merely important as
transportation corridors, but also in the cultural heritage and open space values of our
community. Historic Denver absolutely wants to be included in any discussion about significant
changes to the existing design guidelines and character-defining features of these fundamental
resources. |
Any proposed changes will be consistent with the historic character, won’t narrow the green space, and will involve community input (and Historic Denver). See Q1 and Q2. Q1 and Q2 recommendation has been updated to reflect this comment. |
| I would like to see ADU's permissible on lots more than 5000 square feet in the area around 7th avenue to include my property address 675 Jackson St, Denver, CO 80206. |
The plan recommends ADUs be allowed everywhere |
It looks lovely. If I didn’t live here and watch how the space is used, I would think it sounds like a wonderful improvement. However, I have lived on 7th Avenue Parkway for twenty-seven years and I think it is a large expenditure of funds that will create problems that don’t exist now and try to fix things that are not broken. I also am astonished to see no acknowledgement of this after hearing from the neighbors at the last SANA meeting.
1. Protected bike lanes – There have been two crashes on the Parkway in the last six years. More have happened at Josephine and I can understand if something special needs to happen on a busy street crossing like that. I feel badly that there have been even two crashes and I sincerely hope they were not fatal or life changing. That would affect my opinion. However overall, I feel the parkway is a very safe place for bicycles. Cars can be a pain and some do drive in the bike lane, but the bigger issue (and not a current problem) is the quantity and type of bike traffic that currently exists. For example, this weekend there was a recumbent bike in the bike lane as a family with smaller children came up from behind. Currently, there is plenty of room for everyone to pass safely and easily because the bikes can move into the traffic lane. This plays out in many scenarios.
2. Fourth of July – Yes this is only one day a year, but it has become an important tradition in our neighborhood. For twenty-six of the last twenty-seven years we have hosted a Fourth of July parade. Details shift from year to year, but in general, kids decorate bikes and scooters to start and then we have a fire truck leading a large contingent of children, parents, neighbors, dogs, etc. around parts of the parkway to reconvene for popsicles at the end. Narrowing the street would lengthen the parade considerably and change the whole nature of the experience. I would be happy to explain how and why that is a problem if you need more detail. (Things like permits and insurance.)
3. Building community – It feels as if pedestrians are being enticed to walk down a multi-use trail in the middle of the parkway. Currently, most people walk on the north or south sidewalks. This allows for interaction and visiting between neighbors. It is a way to welcome and get to know new neighbors. It creates bonds between children and adults as neighbors watch children learn to walk, manage a strider bike, learn to ride a real bike and grow. It produces relationships that lead to first jobs for kids, and provides services for older neighbors.
4. Maintenance – When the project is first installed it is new and in good shape. However, more infrastructure creates more maintenance. We already have maintenance problems. Curbs on the parkway are crumbling, bindweed is taking over the parkway in certain places, trees need proper pruning, the large number of evergreen trees that have suddenly died have to be removed over an extended period because of budget restraints. I don’t see the city budget improving to handle additional expenditures to maintain something that tries to fix something that is not broken, particularly when we have homelessness and affordable housing issues that trump all of this.
A major pet peeve. I was thrilled when curb ramps went in. That was a real and welcome improvement. It was frustrating to learn they were installed incorrectly and had to be replaced recently. I cannot relate to the issue of the street being too wide to cross. I refer to the HIN map. However, if this is truly a problem, and the city feels the need to bump out curbs, this will require a third replacement of the curb ramps. I would much rather see my tax dollars spent on the issues identified above.
In summary, I feel we already have a “Safe, accessible, and comfortable walking environment.” I do not feel we need “Greater separation and safer intersection between bicycles and vehicles” on the 7th Avenue Parkway. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
| First, in terms of the 12th Ave bike path, I prefer 11th now since it has far fewer cars. That said, crossing Josephine is sketchy on 11th right now. |
See transformative street recommendation for 12th Ave |
| Second, in terms of the north-south path closer to the park, I never take Detroit even though I live on Detroit. Rather, I bike Fillmore or Milwaukee south of 11th to avoid the hill on Detroit between 11th & 8th. North of 11th, I take Elizabeth northbound and Columbine southbound for similar traffic and bike ease reasons. |
Thanks for your comment, we've heard this from several folks and included language to look at adjacent routes when planning that corridor. |
| Finally, to reiterate my original concern, my main issue with the Detroit high comfort bike path was if it came coupled with higher traffic volume on Detroit--the logic being that a high comfort lane is only necessitated when there is high traffic volume, and thus the plan or the unintended consequence would be to divert Josephine/York traffic to Detroit. If the bike path stays on Detroit, I would very much like to see it coupled with traffic discouraging elements to keep that car rerouting from happening. |
The proposed neighborhood bikeway would include traffic calming improvements at intersections |
Race street instead of Ga--ord may be a better street to transform to a
bikeway. it has a light to cross colfax, and provides easy access to Cheseman
park. It gets a lot of bike traffic today. Ga--ord (the submittal system will
not allow this street name to be used) seems out of the way, and i know it is
impossible to cross colfax there. and will probably get worse once Charlie
Wooleys gas station is complete. |
Updated plan language to consider alternative routing options for Gaylord recommendation. |
The BRT is a big deal! allow development to support it, even if it seems out
of place now. it wont in the future. |
Plan directs growth to future BRT stations |
16th Ave is a very quiet street that should really be focused on pedestrians
and bikes, scooters, etc. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
reduce or eliminate parking requirements. Some of the best stores or
buildings in these neighborhoods dont have parking. if someone wants to build
something without parking what harm is it to allow them? not being able to
find a parking space is not a harm. In all the big cities i have visited or
studied, solutions for parking are available if you seek them out and will
pay for them. Free parking has no positive benefit. |
This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network. |
change as many streets as possible to 2 ways. the environmental changes in
the 19th & 20th and Logan, clarkson, washington are amazing examples of how
dramatic the changes can be. |
This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network. |
focus on the form, not the use. the large mansions and other buildings of 100
years ago are serving us well today. but, some house a single family, others
a halfway house, others a few apartments, offices, etc dont over think the
uses, just create density and flexibility and this plan will be useful in 20
years. |
This is consistent with the plan's recommendations |
ADUs are great but please incorporate the concepts used in the Curts Park
neighborhoods. their design allowances have created some elegant ADUs that at
times are larger than the main house. In contrast, most other ADUs in town
appear to be stunted or squished to meet height parameters. treat the ADU
like a tandem house. |
Details of ADU design will be determined in a subsequent process |
Why is a setback of 12ft required off of the alley in any zone district? what
purpose does it serve? a 40 ft wide alley seems ridiculous. a 0 or 5 ft
setback is sufficient. |
Details will be determined through a subsequent process |
TDRs are a great new tool to explore for Colfax as the lots are so varied and
unique. While the idea of a community benefit is great, it is hard to define
and not very predictable for development teams. please explore a way to use
TDRs in other ways that dont include a specific community benefit. Give the
City of Denver some flexibility to allow the right type of benefit for the
site and the time. In 20 years, the community benefits listed may not be
relevant but other ones will be. |
The plan includes flexibility to redefine community benefits in the future |
Eliminate upper story stepback on Colfax. The diversity and history of
buildings means wall to wall development is unlikely. The upper story
stepback is costly and unnecessary |
This is consistent with the plan's recommendations |
Provide more direction on future growth locations, goals, tools. the plan has
too much emphasis on existing structures and retaining them. |
See growth strategy in Land Use section |
provide higher allowed heights along Colfax and around City park to offset
the low density in the historic or SF neighborhoods nearby. there is no good
reason City Park does not have 20 plus stories around it like Cheesman Park. |
Recommended heights allow adequate growth |
more density along Colfax is going to support business and thus neighborhoods
while the taller buildings will provide buffers. |
This is consistent with the plan's recommendations |
Side street setbacks along Colfax only need to extend 30-60 ft into the
neighborhood. beyond that the setback become onerous and harms Colfax
development opportunities. |
See Colfax section. Exact details will be determined through a subsequent process |
Please remember that Denver adopted a form based code, and the form should
take precedence over the uses. Uses change a lot over time but the form will
be there longer. Get the form right. |
This is consistent with the plan's recommendations |
National Jewish now has top billing over st joes at both locations since they
merged as a single hospital. Plan should address or allow for more medical
office development. Many of the existing hospital serving structures are no
longer used by hospitals and reverting back to their original use. |
See Policies E1 & CPW-L1 |
Please dont let the strong anti density or growth sentiment coming from the
neighborhoods east of York st. impact the more future positive commentary and
existing hire density in place west of York St. |
All input is considered |
Try not to add more concrete to City
Park. If crusher fine paths can be used for increased mobility, those are
preferable to impermeable concrete. |
Good comment. Will consider moving forward, in accordance with Quality of Life recommendations |
Protect the 330
acres of open space that City Park affords District 9 residents. The ECAP
says it will “mostly defer to the City Park Master Plan Update.” What
does that mean? The statement should be clarified. There is a City Park
Design Advisory Committee as a result of the Master Plan that needs to be
alerted first about any new projects proposed fir City Park. Also, parking
and traffic from the two institutions and East High are clogging the park.
That needs to be addressed. |
Not within scope of East Central Area Plan. The master plan that is reference has specific recommendations for this area and those recommendations will carry over. |
Before taking up open space
for more development, ECAP should address the underutilzed properties in
District 9. |
Plan includes recommendations for underutilized properties and for adding open space |
Understand the character
and needs of District 9 neighborhoods before imposing new height and density
standards. ECAP seems to propose sweeping changes without paying attention to
the details of how communities work and function. For instance, ECAP does not
understand the issues facing Teller Elementary and has underestimated its
student population. |
Plan is coordinated with DPS |
| 1: The proposed increases in height limits are incompatible with the area and the ‘Main Street’ feel of the section of Colfax under consideration. The impacts to the pedestrian feel of height increases are detrimental, will change the character of the neighborhoods and the impact can be seen / experienced in multiple areas across town (Golden Triangle, Uptown, Fiction Brewing building at Pontiac and Colfax). Existing height limits are adequate as is and any increase in allowable height will adversely impact the area. |
Pedestrian feel will be accomplished through design and streetscape improvements. Additional height will direct growth to appropriate locations while achieving community benefits. |
2: increased density = parking demand - any increase in allowable density must come with real world parking requirements. The City has always under estimated and therefor under required the amount of parking spaces needed to serve higher density developments. Though some folks might have only one vehicle per couple / per unit), the reality is there is the demand for 2 vehicles per housing unit. The cost for accommodating this demand must be born by a project and not shifted onto the surrounding neighborhood (Each apt unit should have min. 2 spaces required to be provided by developer). Street parking should be overflow and not considered primary parking.
If density is increased by an ADU / Multiplex, there needs to be a requirement that there is off street parking provided as a condition of development. Without requiring off street parking, the benefit of the ADU is bestowed upon the owner while the impact is spread across neighbors. The impact is the greatest when the ADU is a garage conversion, and likely wiping out all of the off street parking. It’s not hard to design and implement an ADU which increases off street parking (I did it). The argument that the City can’t force people to create off street parking is none sense - if someone wants the benefits of an additional unit , the off street parking requirement is one of the costs. |
This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network. |
| 3: BRT. This is a perfect example of a missed opportunity and a plan/project without community support. This project is going to increase traffic in the neighborhoods. 13th/14th will become even more clogged, 12th/16th will become unsafe for bikes as people move further into the neighborhood and the streets (North / South streets) will become busy with people cutting through / making 3 rights to go left (Can’t make a left due to BRT). The City missed a huge opportunity to create a vibrant corridor and a real opportunity to move trips from cars onto mass transit by implementing a street car (Think Embarcadero Muni in San Francisco). The City needs to take off the ‘rose colored glasses’ (aka overly optimistic traffic study) and come up with a plan for addressing the traffic which is going to be created by the BRT deployment. What’s the plan? |
This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network. |
I support urban density, it's
why I live in Congress Park. But why is our area being asked to become even
more dense (without accompanying infrastructure changes) when we already are
one of the most dense areas in the city? The streets are already too crowded
with cars and parking on many streets is already difficult. Why not ask
other neighborhoods to become as dense as we are? |
Blueprint Denver policy is for every neighborhood to accommodate growth. Plan includes recommendations for parking and other issues. |
I own and have my office at 555 E 8th Ave. The plan puts my building out of
compliance.
On page 33 of the East Central Area Plan, my property is shown, in error, as a 3 story area. The house was built in 1898, the city has it as having been built in 1921, another error.
A survey done in 2015 has the height of the building as 48.7 ft. The top
story is more than 1,600 sq.ft.
The walk-out basement door on the west side of the building is 1’ higher than the lowest point of the west boundary. 4 stories?
These errors should be corrected now and not incorporated into a new plan.
I have and can provide a copy of the survey which was done by a Colorado Licensed Surveyor. |
This property is potentially historic, and after consulting with Landmark staff, we have determined it is appropriate to keep the height recommendation at three stories to discourage redevelopment or new construction that is out of scale. The existing structure may be maintained even if it exceeds the plan height recommendation. |
This is absolutely deplorable behavior by City government to
plow ahead with the ECAP timeline while citizens are barred from contacting
each other in person to share information and gathering to discuss the plan.
I am disgusted by this department's behavior; however am relieved that the
planners have provided adequate legal fodder to halt the process through this
underhanded approach. |
See engagement information on the plan website |
Feedback on Mobility Recommendations: Appreciate and support adding bike
lanes. Also happy to see the intersections of York and 18/23 ID's as
problematic. A bunch of us have been contacting 311 continuously about the
danger in getting over the the park on foot and we keep getting shut down by
traffic safety folks. However, it's not realistic to expect or try and force
people to give up their cars. You can't reverse engineer into mass transit.
I drive all over the state and metro area for work. I'm also not going to
turn my entire lifestyle upside down because an entire generation of
Midwesterners and East Coast trust fund babies have decided that the 100
miles between the Springs and Ft Collins is the ONLY PLACE on the ENTIRE
planet they can live. They can accommodate to us, rather than immediately
turning Denver into the cities they were so desperate to leave.
Feedback on Quality of Life Infrastructure Recommendations:
Feedback on Economy & Housing Recommendations: Would like to really see that
developers don't get to put in the low quality, generic housing we see
everywhere in Denver now. Our nice little neighborhood (City Park) is an
island of quiet and sanity. Object to slot homes, etc.
Feedback on Land Use & Built Form Recommendations: Love seeing the trees and
wide sidewalks.
Other Comments: Thanks, I can see a lot of work went into this. But again,
we don't have to become a crowded, generic, unsafe place because lots of
people want to move here. I wanted to move to Paris after college. It wasn't
practical or affordable, so I couldn't do it. You don't always get what you
want. Stop building apartments for these folks and they'll move somewhere
else. Besides, they don't stay here anyway. They come after college, then
move home when they realize it stinks to raise kids away from your family and
that they'll never afford a house here. So we don't have to let them decide
what Denver is and is not. |
Draft plan is implementing citywide Blueprint and Comp Plan recommendations to accommodate growth and provide mobility options |
Feedback on Mobility Recommendations: Keep pushing for all ages all abilities bike infrastructure and safe routes to schools. Parking is not a problem in this area, especially Congress Park and I'm comfortable removing some on-street parking for better infrastructure. Crosswalks on 17th are needed to connect to City Park and slow traffic. Better crossings at Colfax are also needed.
Feedback on Quality of Life Infrastructure Recommendations:
Feedback on Economy & Housing Recommendations: Please allow ADUs in all parts of East Central Area. Congress Park is not too dense. We want to be able to remain in the neighborhood but are afraid of getting priced out. ADUs or smaller condos would allow us to rent affordably or purchase something cheaper. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
Feedback on Mobility Recommendations: Use of public transport is decreasing
Feedback on Quality of Life Infrastructure Recommendations: Plan degrades the
quality of life
Feedback on Economy & Housing Recommendations: Increased population density
increases viral risk.
Feedback on Land Use & Built Form Recommendations: Developers run the city
Other Comments: Very disappointed in the plan especially in light of the new
dangers to increased density.
In which neighborhood do you live and/or work? Congress Park |
See FAQs on the plan website |
Feedback on Mobility Recommendations: The city must prioritize functional, desirable public transit. More light rail, though expensive, is a better long term investment than haphazard 3-transfer bus routes. The city must prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety. We should seriously consider closing some streets to car traffic altogether, to create pedestrian thoroughfares that aren't plagued by narrow unmaintained sidewalks and bike lanes that have to battle with heavily trafficked side streets where drivers divert to avoid lights and other traffic. Encourage people to take advantage of our usually beautiful weather by designing the city to guide people from door to business to shopping to door without getting in their cars. We have a chance to change the way cities work but we have to be bold.
Feedback on Quality of Life Infrastructure Recommendations: More pedestrian and cyclist friendly areas, please. Less given away to cars, parking, etc.
Feedback on Economy & Housing Recommendations: We need to embrace density thoughtfully to make housing affordable. More green buildings with rent control and less developer-driven "luxury" living is essential.
Feedback on Land Use & Built Form Recommendations:
Other Comments: The key to the future is making Denver like a new kind of city rather than turning it into a car-centric city like Los Angeles or Phoenix or others. Let's really invest in tomorrow, not just pass the buck and hope that magic works us out of trouble. More trains. More desirable public transit, more density and "new urbanism" design theory. People should be walking and biking during most of our 300 sunny days. |
Plan includes recommendations to improve transit, bike and pedestrian safety |
Other Comments:
I find the increase of building height in the zoning along Colfax to be
incredibly short sighted. Bigger buildings lead to an increase in many things
the area can not support.
Most importantly, an increase in residential properties will lead to school
overcrowding. The DPS numbers are wrong. Teller, Morey, and East do not have
the space to absorb more students.
There will be more parking needs and heavier traffic leading to unsafe roads
for the pedestrians. Especially our younger students trying to safely walk to
school.
I also doubt that an 80 foot tall building can in any way be designed to
match the character of the current 20 foot tall buildings. Or contain
businesses respectful of the residential neighbors. The City is once again
being shortsighted.
I request the City take another look at the plan for east central Denver.
Please remember that Colfax is the "wickedest" street of it's past and would
like to happily stay that way. |
The area must accommodate growth, and the plan includes recommendations to address impacts on safety, parking, and urban design. |
Move feasibility studies to the short term. A number of recommendations include feasibility
studies in the long term. Many of these recommendations are related to safety improvements,
like converting streets from one-way to two-way. If found to be feasible, these projects would
require a significant amount of planning, which is why we recommend that the studies happen
sooner rather than later. |
Where applicable, studies are in short term. Many corridors surrounding Colfax require studies, but also close coordination with BRT implementation. |
Increase the number of priority transit stop locations. DSP supports increasing amenities at
the listed transit stops and recommends that additional stops, particularly those with the most
potential for ridership based on location and plans for expanded service be included. |
Added clarifying language to M8 describing City program to consider and prioritize transit stop improvements citywide. |
Explicitly state that on-street parking is the least valuable use of curb space. Motor
vehicle parking should be listed as the lowest priority use of curb space. When residential street
parking exists, it should be priced appropriately through parking permits and fees. |
This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network. |
Increase the 2040 goal for people in the East Central Area walking, biking, and taking
transit and further reduce the 2040 single occupancy vehicle trip goal. With 37.5% of trips
starting and staying within the East Central Area, there is enormous potential for mode shift and
the goals should aggressively reflect that. The DSP recommends increasing this 2040 goal from
30% to 40%. |
The Strategic Transportation Plan (STP) will set ambitious goals at local level. Added note stating this to graphic. |
Include more north/south bicycle facilities to increase connectivity within the East
Central Area. The DSP recommends adding high comfort facilities on Logan Street, York
Street, Josephine Street, and Colorado Boulevard. |
Transit and ped priority on those streets. See bike recommendations for additional N/S proposed connections. |
Prioritize physically separated bicycle facilities. In order to reach the 2040 mode shift goals,
we need to prioritize a network of protected, connected facilities that encourage the “interested
but concerned” population, which includes people who would ride if they felt safer on the street,
including families with children and older adults, to take more trips on a bicycle. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan. See bike recommendations. Many recommendations in Denver Moves are proposed to be upgraded to higher comfort facilities in this plan. |
Include considerations for dockless micromobility. As the city recently released a request
for proposals for dockless micromobilty, the DSP recommends that the East Central Area Plan
include parking and associated infrastructure for these devices. |
Addressed by recommendations in plan. |
My question from 1/29/20 wasn't answered on the plan:
"I am very concerned about the upzoning up to 8 stories of the current property between Adams and Cook Street (Paradise Cleaners and their adjacent parking lot). This is currently zoned MS-5 and would be perfect for the additional housing needed for future growth. EIGHT stories would be monolithic, out of place, out of character and horrific for the houses immediately adjacent to the South; a perfect example of a building out of proportion on Colfax is the Storage Castle at Vine and Colfax. " |
Plan includes recommendations to improve design to limit impacts on surrounding neighbors |
| The new changes to 16th & 11th opening them to pedestrian and bicycle use should be made permanent. |
The city is evaluating these changes to determine how to proceed in the future |
Feedback on Mobility Recommendations:
Section 1.3.1 - I’m concerned about direction of possibly cutting off Park Ave in this Plan as again it can become an administrative amendment down the road. Most people I have talked to are of in agreement with this Plan. There are many intersections that are troubling - near Safeway, York from Colfax to 23rd, 21st and 22nd have become access for hospitals. I would like to see this more open to study of all areas.
According to RTD, before COVID-19, they had enough ridership along the Colfax that they were not pushing for upzoning to boost their numbers for BRT. They also aren't paying for BRT either - we, Denver taxpayers will. Keep in mind that the BRT will only run from downtown to Yosemite and will save only a few minutes off one's daily commute as compared to current service. The rest of the route would be the same if you are headed west or further east. We would need to spend $200 million to save a few minutes. I think we could deploy some time saving things right now along the entire route that are inexpensive in comparison (ticket kiosks, dedicated bus lanes during peak times, and improved signaling and crosswalks) that would help save a lot more time for daily commuters as well as save a lot of money that we don't currently have anyway and didn't have before the latest crisis. To Scott's point, their own study on BRT says that they want to increase land values along Colfax to increase tax collections to justify the construction costs. So upzoning is about increasing taxes and land values NOT affordability.
I drove Franklin Street as it appears that might be a protected bike lane street. Almost this entire street from 23rd to Colfax has at least one larger multifamily property on each block. This would cause a parking disaster!
Please pick another street for this. Additionally from 18th to 20th is the Hospital with drop off spots, handicap parking etc. Design of large buildings should take into account mobility for people with disabilities. The large multifamily property at 18th and York is located at a major intersection for people to gain access to the park. Since this development has been built, this area can be a skating rink in the winter because the four stories built directly on the street allows no sunlight on the road or the sidewalks. Page
78 I agree 100% to avoid reducing on-street parking. Making York Street a Transformitive Street would need game plan when there are events at City park
- Free Zoo Day, Zoo lights, Jazz, etc. Traffic flow is horrible on. I'm only a supporter of BRT if it is free or very low cost otherwise, I do not believe it will be utilized enough to compensate costs. Page 111 limiting vehicular traffic can certainly calm traffic but the cars go somewhere else - to another street. Closing Park Avenue will then transfer traffic to Franklin which is a proposed protected bike lane? Streets in CPW need calming as they are routes to and from hospitals (20th and 22nd and High Street)
Parking needed its own comment section for me as I believe this is so important in keeping people in the neighborhood as they age. Also, a person with a disability can often park at the street parking to be near a service or home. As neighbors age, they need to be able to park near their home. This is a another major reason people have sold and left our neighborhood because they can't park in front of home and no garage. One of the biggest complaints we hear on zoning appeals is parking. The plan should specifically address meeting the parking needs for people with mobility issues. Parking requirements should NOT BE WAIVED! If a developer is required to provide parking, then they should not turn around and charge for that parking. That is going on in several complexes in CPW and rather than pay, residents use up the street parking. Then, the developer tries to get a parking reduction because "no one is using the parking lot".
in 2007, many worked with Carla Madison and Denver Design Forum to develop an overlay for the hospital district. This Plan eliminates the overlay. Page 195 talks about explaining the Design overlay of Lafayette Street and making sure any hospital transition is compatible with historic homes. One common thing I am noticing and not liking is the plan does not speak to neighborhood input.
I assume input would be involved but there should be a section explaining how neighborhood input will be gathered and taken into consideration. Each neighborhood should have input on decisions that impact their livability.
Page 196 speaks to creating Historic Overlays to protect the architecture and historic significance of an area. The problem with this is that it takes time, by in from most neighbors and costs. Again, this section does not speak to desires of the neighborhood. Page 199 making Franklin from Colfax to 23rd a protected bike lane and eliminating the on street parking WOULD BE HORRIBLE! I drove this street and there is a multifamily property on each block OR the medical office have street parking, pull outs for loading and deliveries. How was Franklin chosen? Owners need to be replacing their sidewalks that are uneven, dangerous and not accessible. Page 204, I do not like the idea of closing Park Avenue. Page 203 Recommendations: Improve walking and biking accessibility to City Park, tame traffic issues on side streets to and from hospitals. Continue cooperation with Neighborhood and Hospitals to share services |
The plan recommends traffic calming and safety improvements throughout the area. The transit improvements you describe are those that would be implemented with BRT, which is not being proposed to increase property values. The type and design of bikeways would be determined through a subsequent process and many will have minimal parking impacts. The plan increases mobility options for everyone, including elderly and disabled folks. The plan includes several recommendations to address parking. There is no hospital overlay in the zoning code. The proposed design guidelines would be created with community input. |
Feedback on Quality of Life Infrastructure Recommendations:
Page 40 I like the increase in side setbacks to reduce the looming effects of building right next to another unit. I like cross gables and dormers versus the flat roofed wedding cake homes that do not fit with architecture of neighborhood. Page 41 the high quality design recommendations are all very good
2.2.2 Jobs and Education Page 50 recommends convening a group of hospital representatives and City. There is a group in place called Denver Design Forum that includes all the hospitals and surrounding RNO's. This group was instrumental in working with Carla Madison on the Design Overlay for hospital district that is being eliminated with this plan. This group should be expanded to meet the recommendation on page 50.. BUT, I DO NOT AGREE WITH ELIMINATING THE DESIGN OVERLAY THAT WAS WORKED ON BY THE COMMUNITY, THE HOSPITALS AND THE CITY. Page 50 the plan suggests hospitals developing affordable housing. There is a very slim chance of this as both PSL and Saint Joseph are under hospital umbrella's of which they are not in the housing business. I'm not sure why this gets so much attention in the Plan. Page 55 should include a financial incentive for small businesses when they have had severe loss of income due to temporary accessibility interruptions (Denver Bicycle Café with construction of multifamily caused parking issues, Denver Skin Clinic lost so much business due to construction of 18th and York if forced them to sell and move to Cherry Creek - same with pharmacy at 18th one block west of York) |
There is not a design overlay for the hospitals, and design recommendations from the existing plan are being carried forward. The idea for the hospitals contributing to affordable housing came from conversations with the hospitals. The plan includes the expansion of the Business Impact Opportunity fund to supplement small business revenue during construction projects. |
Feedback on Economy & Housing Recommendations:
Where in the plan is homelessness addressed (the needs of people living on the streets who cannot afford to live elsewhere)? Also (somewhat related, but
different): as Denver still lacks safe, approved, sanitary, regulated campsites for those living outdoors by necessity: what (if anything) will prevent all the envisioned public spaces from becoming campsites? Or, alternatively, hangout spots for drug dealers and bike thieves to collect, rather than lovely outdoor spaces that families, the elderly and others across the economic spectrum can enjoy in peace and safety? How will the transportation options work for people who cannot bike and want to get easily to work across town (and home) without driving?
Increased density does not create affordable housing - quite to the contrary
- prices are often driven up by luxury. This was case in many cities.
section 2.1.3 Places - Page 29 the reference to large institutional redevelopment. I believe there should be a required neighborhood input into this process. For 25 years there has been a review process for development in the hospital district. Years ago the hospitals were encroaching the neighborhood and the Denver Design Forum was established to review new developments. Additionally, many neighbors worked with Carla Madison to develop an overlay district for the hospital district. This overlay was a agreed upon by hospitals and neighborhood about the vision for the neighborhood. This plan tosses out the hospital district overlay. We in CPW have always been able to maintain a working relationship with the hospitals BUT there should be required input from the neighborhood. Page 32 I do not like the idea of exchanging height increase for developers who are going to develop affordable units. I work in affordable housing arena and the problem is the affordable units are "deed restricted" (meaning the affordability requirement transfers with the title. The City has not been able to track these units over the years and we have lost affordable units. Also, the deed restriction goes away in 20-30 years (it is not forever). My suggestion REQUIRE all developers of over 15 units create and maintain "affordable"
units in their developments. The deed restrictions on these units NEVER go away. Maybe the deeper the affordability, then offer some type of incentive - tax reduction, fee reduction on permits or infrastructure?.
Affordable Housing 2.2.4 Stabilizing residents is not possible when development is so prevalent in the neighborhood. Affordable apartments are bought, remodeled and rents increased. Modest homes are sold to investors and remodeled and sold at premium pricing. There are several blocks in CPW that had large homes with several apartments. These are rapidly disappearing from Colfax to 18th and being replaced by large apartment complexes. There would need to be a relocation program for renters that have been displaced but who would pay for this and monitor? Deed restrictions that go away in 20-30 years are not a permanent solution to affordable housing because in 20-30 years, the units are taken off the affordable market. There needs too be some type of incentive for owners to sign up for another 20-30 years. The City should work legislatively so that there can be deed restrictions that are indefinite (the unit will always be affordable). There is a home ownership program for people with disabilities whereby people at very low incomes received deep subsidies for down payment and many used their Section 8 rental subsidy for their mortgage payment. This program went into place in 1995 and today there are several of these tenants that own their home outright (yes! they have paid off their mortgages!). This program should continue and be funded at much higher levels. I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPER INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS - RATHER, I THINK A CERTAIN % SHOULD BE MANDATORY. Then, the lower the income being served, the more likely there can be some incentive - lower building/impact fees, lower property tax rate, DO NOT ALLOW HIGHER BUILDINGS IN EXCHANGE FOR AFFORDABILITY - in 20 years, the affordability goes away!
We need to expand the programs that have provided real, verifiable results.
And the affordability will only be a few units because it it up to the developer. Most of the units will be luxury. So we will be have high rises and luxury units for longer than 20 years, and only 5-15 units per average build will be affordable. Is this the impact we are giving all these incentives for? There is a better way.
Affordable Housing continued; most seniors have left CPW neighborhood due to the costs associated with rising property values - taxes and insurance. Even though homes might be paid for, it is hard to pay taxes and insurance on a fixed income so they sell. What about a reduction in property taxes (above and beyond the State senior discount on the first $250,000)? Just allowing ADUs is not going to create affordable housing - I like the idea of $25,000 forgivable loan if rented to someone under 80% area median income. I also think this type of forgivable loan program should be available to people who have ability to rent a unit (or room) in their property. Perhaps a home owner could receive energy efficiency rehab $ (forgivable if unit kept affordable)? |
Homelessness recommendations are in Policies E12, E13, and E14 on page 66 along with the other affordable housing recommendations. While increasing density will not along increase affordability, we cannot increase affordability without increasing supply. There is no hospital overlay in the zoning code, and the community would be involved in future design guideline development. The city currently requires 60 year covenants for any affordable project receiving city subsidy. Under state law, the city cannot require affordable units be provided, they must be incentivized. The plan includes recommendations to help property owners finance and build ADUs. |
Feedback on Land Use & Built Form Recommendations:
Upzoning is predicated on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). BRT is a pipe dream at
this point and that was before the Plague hit. Without it (and one could have
a reasonable debate that even with it), the only thing the plan does is plop
a ton of Density!™ along a corridor with no effective infrastructure to
support it.
comments on 2.1.1 Introduction: States "older residents have been able to
stay in the neighborhoods they love through the addition of smaller duplexes
and backyard cottages." I think this was a dream but is not reality. On out
street we have lost 3 of the original old-time owners due to the cost of
property taxes and escalation of property values the neighborhood. Addition
of units have been people moving into the area that want an additional income
or an Air B&B. Additional density has not created affordability for most.
Again, many of the small businesses have been closed due to cost of
properties and holding costs - they can't afford to stay and much more
profitable to sell to investors for housing (the old M&Ds BQ, Pierre's Supper
Club, Aces Super Market, Downing Super, Lincoln Market, Denver Skin Clinic,
Denver Bicycle Cafe, and the list goes on.). Additionally, the comment about
the multi family woven into Colfax, Broadway, Colorado has eased vehicle
traffic and development pressure on surrounding neighborhoods is not even
close to the reality. Again, the list of closures was DUE TO OUT OF CONTROL
DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALLOWED TO RUN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TRAFFIC PATTERNS, ROAD
AND SIDEWALK CLOSURES FOR 18 MONTHS - this is taking away our small
businesses. I totally agree with the 100% avoiding the demo of historically
significant building.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH BROADWAY TO SHERMAN COLFAX TO 20TH as "Enhanced Mixed Use
Design Quality Area" and this being designated "Downtown" with the tallest
building and most dense form buildings take up majority of block". This area
is currently height limited under the City Park View Plane. If this is
changed we could loose the City Park View Plane Ordinance that protects the
view of the front range from Museum of Natural History. The developer/owner
of Sherman Street rezone have been quiet for several months and I'm guessing
it is because they want this plan to be approved so it could possibly be a
text amendment to change the zoning. I don't understand why the planners
would disregard the City Park View Plane?
maximum building heights on Page 33 - From York to Gilpin the height for
buildings is proposed to be 8 stories. This will eliminate much of the
eclectic character of Colfax because if developers know they can build 8
stories, they will purchase the property and do so. I would rather see the
City encourage preserving some of the character of East Colfax. From Marion
to downtown on Colfax, the height proposal is 10-12 stories.. Again, I don't
even think this is possible with the Capital and City Park View Planes - if
that is the case why is it even being proposed? And again, Sherman Street is
proposed Downtown Zoning which can be in excess of 20 stories which violates
the City Park View Plane. The idea of increasing density does not increase
affordability. This has been proven in downtown Denver when density won and
affordable units were demolished. The massive development that has occurred
in the past 10 years around downtown has eliminated affordable units in
low-medium density multifamily properties and they were replaced by large
expensive luxury apartments - many of which the developers "bought" their way
out of providing affordable units. Large height buildings at Colfax and
Colorado Blvd and along Colorado Blvd does not mix with the beautiful Park
Hill, South City Park, City Park and North Park Hill.
Another of my concerns is the vague language and constant use of the word
"encouraging". This is particularly true regarding existing, historic
structures. There is *no* design review, nothing to mandate modifications
that are in context with the neighborhood. Instead, the plan simply restates
in different terms what is allowed to happen all over the city, namely that
pops and additions can look as godawful as they want as long as they conform
to the technical portions of the zoning and building regulations. The result
is what you see in this photo. More stringent standards, any standards, need
to be written into the plan, not "encouraged". Furthermore, scrapes aren't in
any way limited should whatever "flexibility in code" and "administrative
relief" doesn't meet the owner's requirements. |
The plan includes recommendations to help residents and businesses stay in the area. The plan would require significant community benefits for increases in density and modifications to the view plane along Sherman St. The plan includes recommendations to preserve Colfax character. Height recommendations along Colfax account for view plan restrictions, and additional height would only be approved in exchange for community benefits including affordable housing. The plan uses words like "encourage" because it is a policy document and not regulatory - regulations will be developed following the plan based on its recommendations. |
Other Comments:
the City should not be asking for comments due at this time! I'm more than
shocked and very angry that the City is moving forward with the East Central
Area Plan comment period of April 12 (Easter Sunday during the Coronavirus
crisis). Please provide the involvement of BRT, the financial contribution
of BRT $ as many of us our concerned that BRT is driving this planning
process. If that is the case, please state that.
This form does not correspond to the layout of plan so no sure comments are
in proper categories. this would not submit because I had the name of the
street one block west of York that was labeled "derogatory"
Page 5 - engagement equity analysis and targeted outreach. I will continue to
comment about the lack of outreach and plan education to general public.
Years ago neighbors in the uptown (1986) and hospital district (2007)
developed an overlay district that provided a design review process and
agreement of zoning for the hospitals, neighborhood, and developers in the
surrounding residential areas. The Denver Design Forum was formed and any
projects that fell within this overlay district were to be presented to the
Denver Design Forum for comment. On Page 7 it states the East Central Area
Plan will supersede the Uptown Healthcare District Plan. I do not agree with
this nor do I agree with proposed zoning changes within the Healthcare
District. I actually get upset that this neighborhood work that was done in
2007 get an override with the sweep of a pen!
Page 8 states “many of the zoning recommendations this plan are intended to
be implemented legislatively, either through citywide processes or
area-specific text amendments instead of through applicant driven zoning
changes”. “Requests for one-off applicant rezonings should be evaluated
to determine if they are better suited for a legislative rezoning”. My
comment - explain what a legislative rezoning is in the Plan.
2.4 Infrastructure. Page 123 states there is a 19% tree canopy in Denver -
that has been drastically reduced in the past two years. Many lovely old
maples have reached their life expectancy and must be removed because they
are hollow. We have lost five trees in one year on our block. Can it be a
City requirement if a tree is taken down that one must be replaced?
Additionally, development on 18th and York removed numerous 80-100 year old
trees to build complex. the developer planted a few trees around the complex
and some are now dead. With regards to Parks and Recreation. I think we
should continue the rec centers being free to Denver youth. I also would like
to see more outdoor areas that youth can utilize for unorganized sports -
basketball, football, etc. It is important in all the Parks and Rec to
remember to keep handicap parking nearby for seniors and their grandchildren
or people with mobility issues or children with mobility issues. Explore ways
that bus stops and parks can create environmental impact (bee colonies, water
resistance, etc). Page 133 develop plan to replace tree canopy to aging
trees. |
The Uptown Hospitals Plan is 13 years old and needs updating, which this plan does while carrying forward recommendations that are still relevant. Extensive public input has gone into creating the recommendations. The plan includes recommendations for more trees and green infrastructure. |
Feedback on Mobility Recommendations: Please make the diverters along 11th and 16th permanent. Shared streets!
Feedback on Quality of Life Infrastructure Recommendations: Please make the diverters along 11th and 16th permanent. Shared streets!
Feedback on Economy & Housing Recommendations: Please make the diverters along 11th and 16th permanent. Shared streets!
Feedback on Land Use & Built Form Recommendations: Please make the diverters along 11th and 16th permanent. Shared streets!
Other Comments: Please make the diverters along 11th and 16th permanent.
Shared streets! |
Addressed by recommendations in plan |
Feedback on Mobility Recommendations: Make 13th and 14th streets a little more walkable friendly. Their are some narrow sidewalks and it’s close to the busy street Feedback on Quality of Life Infrastructure Recommendations: It would be really nice if homeowners were required to upkeep their yards a bit. Some houses let their weeds grow into trees and it affects their neighbors Feedback on Economy & Housing Recommendations: Keep things safe and walkable and hopefully the newer builds have enough parking to help the street parking not be so crowded.
Feedback on Land Use & Built Form Recommendations: Want a few more breweries! |
Plan includes recommendations to make 13th and 14th more pedestrian friendly |
Feedback on Mobility Recommendations: The proposed mobility and transportation options are not feasible. Many people have vehicles and most don't want to ride buses. They prefer trains. The changes proposed on Colfax will make our traffic worse and isn't worth the trade-off to save only a few minutes. It doesn't benefit our household and won't assist us with our commute at all. Why don't tax Uber and Lyft for the congestion they cause on our roads, and use those funds to make more improvements to bus routes or other infrastructure needs. I think making changes to 17th and 18th Avenues with improves crossings is a good idea, but that is about the only thing in there that made some sense.
Feedback on Quality of Life Infrastructure Recommendations: We just found out about plan on Facebook - I am seldom on Facebook but happen to check yesterday! Why did the City do nothing to tell us about it?
Feedback on Economy & Housing Recommendations: Our neighborhood is the missing middle. Why is the city trying to change the diversity of housing stock by increasing density. Most of our blocks are already very dense with limited parking. The parking survey is absolutely not accurate in the PLan. I don't know when it was done, but certainly not in the last few years. This is not sustainable in my opinion and only increases land values for developers.
No research on upzoning demonstrates that is achieves the goals outlined in the East Central Area Plan. Also, nothing in the plan except platitudes for how to support local businesses.
Feedback on Land Use & Built Form Recommendations: The upzoning is not needed to accommodate growth according to city planners' statements I found online.
If we build up to the current code, there would be increased density in our neighborhood. Added density on top of that is simply not needed. WE need more tools to preserve the unique architecture and history of our neighborhood.
There is nothing specific about how to do that? Will the city be offering tax credits to help people maintain the historic character of their homes. Who will pay for the historic overlay?
Other Comments: Go back to the drawing board and develop a plan that isn't so top down and takes in account the reality of our neighborhoods. Have meetings so we can learn about it -- NOT on Facebook. Why are we only finding out about this now? We are involved in the PTA and didn't hear about it at all.q |
Plan recommends providing transportation and housing options throughout, based on input from the community. |
I. Coronavirus covid-19
I was scared by a polio epidemic in the 1950s in Ohio. The vaccine development by Dr. Jonas Salk may well have saved me. Covid-19 frightens me far more. My professional opinion is that our problems are far more serious and longer-term than anything addressed in the ECAP. For example, at the end of the third week of March 150,000 unemployment claims had been filed in Colorado. We have yet to know how many “closed” businesses will become “out-of-business” or the extent of eventual out-migration. At that time claims nationally increased 6.6 million.
Further, the Federal Bank of St. Louis and Stifel’s chief economist both estimate unemployment going above 30% nationally. The same is likely in Colorado. State and local tax revenues will take a beating. That, along with statutory limits on bond issues, recurring obligation, and day to day cash needs will crimp state and local budgets. Denver will be in straited shape financially. Major program cuts and employee layoffs are inevitable. With all these financial exigencies CPD’s ECAP is unfundable. Further, the public review draft says nothing about construction costs, operating expenses, or revenues earned. |
The plan has a 20-year horizon and is intended to be flexible through any stage in the economic cycle |
II. Plan Review Comments – General
In general CPD has not sought/utilized the expertise of other city departments. This is creating needless expenditures and life threatening possibilities.
1) RTD. The 15L bus has long run down and back Colfax from Aurora and downtown Denver. This express bus service would be duplicated by the proposed bus rapid transit system proposed.
2) Police Dept. Higher population sizes and concentrations lead to increased numbers of minor and major crimes. Budget increases “are” needed.
3) Fire Dept. Attempts to be involved in any way have been rebuffed even in face of twelve story buildings being proposed.
4) Health services. Larger, more concentrated populations require more preventive and curative care. Included are not only medical but also services such as street sweepers, refuse collection, and pest control.
5) Denver Board of Education. Input about student populations’ increases and needs for additional funding were not sought. This may be a horrific mistake since the school district is an independent taxing authority.
6) Traffic calming. Initial rough measurements indicated traffic circles and turn controls are below code specified minimum turning radius. The circles are too narrow for large semi or “hook and ladder” fire trucks. Clearing turn control pylons can only be done by an initial part of the turn into oncoming traffic.
7) Interspersing traffic calming with stop signs will increase average speeds because staying on schedule requires higher speeds to make up for slowing and stopping en route.
8) The bus rapid transit development along Colfax specifies transit station for on and off loading astride the dual lane BRT in center of street. Station Locations. These station will interfere with traffic flows. There is no provision for pedestrian overpasses or crossings for disabled persons (casts, crutches, wheelchairs). |
The drafting of the plan has included extensive input from many city departments and external agencies. |
III. Plan Review Comments – Economic Statistics
Nowhere in the paln is there either an economic, statistical, or financial analytical study result found. One particular egregious remark is found on page 257, “offer grants to small businesses to make up portions of a documents revenue gap experienced during construction months.” For this read “to making your losing your business and future we will condescend to offer… monies to… months.” (If a grant can be found. Otherwise eminent domain!!!) |
Details of economic analyses will be provided in appendices. |
IV. Plan Review – Legal
1) The plan depends on eminent domain to gain lands for plan purposes. Under present and probable (.95%) conditions will Denver be able to foot such a large legal bill? It is improbable.
2) Many of the photos in the plan have no attribution. In general a photograph is copyrighted at the moment it is taken. When taken a general release must usually be in hand, especially when an individual is readily identifiable (see page 157, lady in cut-offs).
3) Dr. Riggs’ paper, attached, and C.V. do two things. First, shows that one-way streets are more likely to promote crime than two lane streets; thus beware of building them. Second, refutes, both by professional attainments and outside referees, Curt Upton’s statement in public to me that “statistics has no place in planning.” |
The plan does not call for eminent domain. Most photos were taken by a contractor for this plan and are owned by the city. Photos not owned by the city are attributed. |
V. Plan Review Comments – Language
1) The plan language is excessively obtuse, and the “see” references so numerous, it is obviously only meant to confuse its readers i.e. “transformative” definition not found in Webster’s Seventh New College Dictionary.
2) The case studies are summaries that are neither related to nor illustrative of the point one of the authors attempts to make. |
Language has been improved to reduce the use of jargon and obscure terms. |
VI. Plan Review Comments – Fiscal Control
In the early 1980s contractors/developers in Fort Collins, Colorado go their monies out of several major developments and left work undone. The city had no recovery recourse. No performance bonds had been posted. Several months ago, in reply to my question, Curt Upton replied that due to good relations with developers performance bonds are not necessary. I most sincerely disagree. My “research” into fiscal management shows broad support among clients’ project oversight specialists not just for posting performance bonds, but receiving three bids from bonding companies of the clients’ choices. Interest rates reflect reliability and honestness. High rates suggest on or both are low. |
Public improvements will be required to meet the city's standard bonding requirements. Bonds are not required for private development. |
Feedback on Mobility Recommendations: It seems this plan is doing nothing to
help with the parking situation. Increasing the living density in Capitol
Hill will bring in more cars to an already very limited parking area.
Sacrificing the quality of life of residents is not fair to the residents
already living in Capitol Hill. Having a pipe dream that people are going to
stop owning cars does not make it real. Not everyone can bike or walk to work
because people do work in other parts of the Denver metro area. Not everyone
wants to be forced to use public transit. People seem to forget Denver has
six months of winter out of the year and people are not able to ride their
bikes on a daily basis during these times. It is a fallacy to assume most
people work downtown. I know several residents who don't work downtown have
to travel to adjoining cities for work. Besides people move to Denver because
it is easy to get out of the city if you have a car. Denver is not NYC. |
The plan includes recommendations on parking (see Mobility section) and is intended to provide mobility options so people can walk, bike, or take transit instead of having to drive. |
Feedback on Quality of Life Infrastructure Recommendations: Yes, it would be
nice to see more small business inter seeded among housing. This pandemic has
shown us that less driving is good for the city therefore businesses should
be incentivized to provide more work from home opportunities. Traffic in
Capitol Hill is also impacted by the eastern neighborhoods which use 8th and
13th to get to work. Public transit is not going to become popular if it is
used by homeless people to ride for free all day. This has become a problem
with the 16th street free shuttle. The scooters eventually became a safety
problem because users started to leave them all over the sidewalks which
interferes with pedestrian and wheelchair access. Those programs should
require people to return the scooters to gathering stations which should be
provided and maintained by the owner of the program. |
The plan includes recommendations to provide mobility options and ensure they are all safe. |
Feedback on Economy & Housing Recommendations: Increasing high density
housing in Capitol Hill by modifying old buildings will not preserve the
character of it. Capitol Hill is being invaded by luxury half a million
dollar apartments built by developers for profit. If the purpose is to
preserve the character of Capitol Hill it would be best to build more
sustainability housing instead of modifying old, historical buildings. Why
should developers be allowed to profit at the expense of the residents of
Capitol Hill? |
The plan recommends creating more affordable housing. Reusing existing buildings is often more sustainable than tearing them down and replacing with new buildings. |
Feedback on Land Use & Built Form Recommendations: I like the idea of keeping
the characters of the buildings but again, parking is not being addressed.
Other Comments: Something needs to be done about the high taxation of
businesses along the Lincoln and Broadway corridor. There seems to be closed
business locales due to this. Also a safe injection site will decrease the
quality of life of residents. People keep touting this as best practice and
its not. I have been to Vancouver and I was told to vacate the area before
sundown due to the criminal risk. I also saw addicts defecating in broad
daylight around these places. Denver approved a budget for more inpatient
rehabilitation settings, why are these not being built? and what happened to
that money? Please stop Californicating Denver. Why do people think that
policies that have proven to have failed are going to all of a sudden work in
Denver? |
The plan includes parking management recommendations and support for small businesses. The plan does not propose a safe injection site. |
| 1) The lack of a recommendation for a traffic flow study and of specific language regarding the drawings and traffic flow implications for the future of Park Avenue between 17th Avenue and its intersection with Colfax Avenue; |
We are clarifying that the plan calls for additional analysis, including traffic studies, before significant improvements are installed. The Humboldt Street area is recommended as a priority for traffic calming (see attached map), so along with the potential changes on Park Ave, we will be looking at the area to slow cars and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. The plan is a high-level policy document and does not include specific designs for improvements. Those designs will be created through a subsequent process involving the community and based on the traffic analysis to address the concerns you highlighted. |
| 2) The language regarding context and transition from the 8-story and 5-story zoning along the south side of 16th Avenue between Franklin and Gilpin streets in relation to the 2 story surrounding and adjacent historic Victorians, (while improved and made more specific, thank you) doesn’t yet mention for consideration the successful models in place nearby for that kind of dramatic transition (the Design Overlay 3, and the well-designed proposal submitted for the southeast corner of Colfax and Franklin). |
As you note, the plan includes recommendations to improve the transitions from Colfax to the neighborhoods (see Strategy L8.C on page 41). We are happy to include references to successful transitions as examples in a sidebar in the plan. We are familiar with the DO-3, but have not seen the latest iterations of the Colfax and Franklin proposal. If you could send us any information you have on it, including what particular elements of the transition you like, it would be greatly appreciated. |
Feedback on Mobility Recommendations: Please maintain car diversions on 11th
ave and 16th ave to create permanent bike and pedestrian priority corridors.
Please extend 11th ave at least to the cherry creek trail. This is the only
way to safely reach downtown from cap hill by bike. |
The city is evaluating these changes to determine how to proceed in the future |