Skip navigation

East Central Area Plan

 

Translate This Page

 

Latest News: City Council begins review of draft plan at LUTI

After three years of work and input by thousands of residents, neighborhood groups, local business owners and community leaders, the draft East Central Area Plan will soon enter its final phase of review, with hearings at the Denver Planning Board and City Council. The hearings follow review of the draft by community members, who provided more than 10,000 comments over three years of collaboration, including 3,000 comments on three versions of the draft plan, helping refine and strengthen the vision for these neighborhoods.

Community Planning and Development is grateful to everyone who participated: those who wrote letters, who read through each page of each version of the draft plan, who participated in spirited conversations, who shared a flier with a neighbor or who answered that first three-question kick-off survey way back in 2017. We couldn’t have done it without you!  

What does the plan do?

The plan addresses key neighborhood needs—supporting the local economy, housing affordability and services, safer streets, historic preservation and quality design, and the impacts of climate change—by providing policy recommendations that will guide city decision-making over the next 20 years.

 
Appendices:

If you use assitive technology and need help accessing any of the above documents, please email Scott.Robinson@denvergov.org.

  • Strengthen the local economy by providing training for jobs in local industries, improving access to employment, and supporting locally-owned, independent businesses.
  • Make housing more affordable and make more options available to a wide range of families and individuals.
  • Improve services for residents experiencing homelessness and take steps to prevent more people from losing their homes.
  • Make streets safer and more comfortable for everybody by improving walking, bicycling and public transit infrastructure.
  • Increase historic preservation by making it easier to reuse existing buildings, creating more historic districts, and ensuring new buildings fit in with surrounding neighborhoods.
  • Reduce carbon pollution and create more climate-resilient neighborhoods by providing more opportunities for people to live and work near transit, adding shade trees, and taking a green approach to stormwater management.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has created new challenges for our neighborhoods and further highlighted pre-existing inequities. More than ever, we need plans and policies that promote equity, support the health of our residents and our planet, keep community members connected to the services they need and help address the short- and long-term economic challenges the city and its residents will be facing in the wake of the pandemic. Several of the priority policy recommendations in the East Central draft plan, such as assistance to small locally owned businesses, preventing involuntary displacement of low-income residents, enhanced social services for residents experiencing homelessness, access to quality jobs and job training, a strong healthcare sector and affordable housing for hospital employees are now even more important. 

Additionally, current neighborhood plans in the East Central area do not prioritize affordable housing, or equitable and inclusive neighborhoods. Denver Public Schools cites a lack of affordable housing as a top factor driving declining enrollment in schools. The top priority of the East Central plan includes policies to create more affordable, diverse, and inclusive neighborhoods. Not moving forward with new and better policies maintains a status quo that is clearly not working for many under-represented residents and marginalized communities. 

  • 6 community-wide workshops
  • 14 focus group meetings with local subject matter experts on key issues, such as small business
  • 11 online surveys and activities
  • 27 steering committee meetings open to the public
  • 24 RNO and other community group meetings to which we were invited to present on the plan
  • 6 office-hours sessions
  • 11 field surveys with community members
  • 27 newsletters to the plan email list
  • 3 informational items presented to the Denver Planning Board and broadcast on Denver 8
  • 81 locations and pop-up events provided with flyers and other printed materials advertising how to get involved in the process

Since the summer of 2017, planners have sought to engage the community in each of the East Central Area neighborhoods in a way that offered multiple convenient and accessible avenues for participation—in person at traditional meetings, at events where community members congregate naturally, as well as online. We surveyed participants and conducted research to ensure we were reaching every corner of these neighborhoods in all their geographic and demographic diversity, and when we have noticed gaps, we took specific steps to address them. Outreach was done at senior living communities, supportive housing for residents experiencing homelessness, an independent living center, schools, resources fairs, libraries, rec centers and other common destinations in the area. Spanish language interpretation, food and childcare were provided at every community workshop.

We have also sought to be responsive to the substance of community concerns. At each point that community members asked for more time and outreach to comment on the first draft of the plan, we provided it, lengthening this process by a total of a full year and culminating in more than 3,500 individual participants and more than 10,000 comments.   

Watch City Council LUTI meeting Tuesday, September 15

Land Use, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Meeting
10:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 15

Watch live on Denver's Channel 8 or online at www.Denver8.TV.

The meeting does not involve a public hearing, but comments may be submited to dencc@denvergov.org and will be forwarded to all City Council members. 


Watch an Overview of the Project

 

Stay Connected

Join the East Central Area Plan email list to get updates on the plan and reminders about opportunities to share your voice. 


Contact Us

Scott Robinson
Senior City Planner
scott.robinson@denvergov.org

If you need help accessing the PDF files on this page using assistive technology, please contact planningservices@denvergov.org.


Steering Committee

Name Affiliation
Jimmy Balafas Colfax Business Improvement District 
Brad Cameron Cheesman Park
Megan Deffner City Park West
Buzz Geller Commercial property owner
Neil Goldblatt Commercial property owner
Bob Hampe North Capitol Hill
Frank Locantore Uptown on the Hill, Colfax Ave Business Improvement District
Don Novak Bluebird Business Improvement District
Heather O'Neil City Park West
Michelle Reichmuth City Park Neigborhood Advisory
Caroline Schomp Capitol Hill
Myles Tangalin Congress Park
Trent Thompson South City Park
Charlie Woolley Commercial property owner

Steering Committee Meeting #1
6-8 p.m., Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Colorado Health Foundation, 1780 Pennsylvania Street, Denver
Presentation (PDF)
Agenda (PDF)
Meeting summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #2
6-8 p.m., Wednesday, August 16, 2017
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Meeting summary (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #3
6-8 p.m., Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Webb Municipal Building, 201 W. Colfax Ave. 
Agenda (PDF)
Meeting summary (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #4
6-8 p.m., Thursday, October 12, 2017
Bicycle Café 1308 E 17th Ave
Agenda (PDF)
Meeting summary (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #5
6-8 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 2017
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Meeting Summary (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #6
6-8 pm Thursday December 14, 2017
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Meeting Summary (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #7
6-8 p.m., Thursday, January 11, 2018
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Meeting Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #8
6-8 p.m., Thursday, February 8, 2018
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Meeting Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #9
6-8 p.m., Thursday, March 8, 2018
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Meeting Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #10
6-8 p.m., Thursday, April 12, 2018
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Meeting Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #11
6-8 p.m., Thursday, May 10, 2018
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Meeting Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #12
6-8 p.m., Thursday, June 14, 2018
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #13
6-8 p.m., Thursday, July 12, 2018
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF) 

Steering Committee Meeting #14
6-8 p.m., Thursday, August 9, 2018
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #15
6-8 p.m., Thursday, September 13
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #16
6-8 p.m., Thursday, October 11, 2018
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #17
6-8 p.m., Thursday, November 8, 2018
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #18
5:30-6:30 pm, Thursday, December 13, 2018
Irish Snug, 1201 Colfax Ave
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #19
6:00-8:00 pm, Thursday, January 10, 2019
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #20
6-8 p.m., Thursday, March 14, 2019
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #21
6-8 p.m., Thursday, April 11, 2019
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #22
6-8 p.m., Thursday,  May 9, 2019
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #23
6-8 p.m., Thursday,  June 13, 2019
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #24
6-8 p.m., Thursday,  September 12, 2019
CHUN Tears McFarlane House, 1290 Williams St., Community Hall
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #25
6-8 p.m., Thursday,  February 13, 2020
Webb Municipal Building
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #26
6-8 pm Thursday, April 16, 2020
Microsoft Teams
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #27
6-8 pm, Thursday, May 14, 2020
Webex
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #28
6-8 pm, Thursday, June 11, 2020
Webex
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #29
6-8 pm, Thursday, July 9, 2020
Webex
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

Steering Committee Meeting #30
6-8 pm, Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Webex
Agenda (PDF)
Presentation (PDF)
Summary (PDF)

 

Project Archive

Planning Board Public Hearing
3 p.m., Wednesday, September 2

Download full document (PDF)

Jump to specific sections


The second draft of the East Area Plan was posted with the following documents. The first document summarizes the input received on the first draft and the changes that appear in the second draft, based on that input. The second is a list of substantive changes that appear in the second draft.   

Community members submitted almost 600 comments on the second draft of the plan by commenting directly on the plan document, via the general feedback form and via email. All comments were collected on the spreadsheet linked below. The spreadsheet is locked for editing but allows users to sort and filter the comments by date of submission, type of comment, plan chapter and page number. Identifying information was removed from the spreadsheet. If you need help finding your comment(s), contact us. 

To see the comments left on each page of the plan, download the annotated draft plan.


Community members left more than 2000 comments directly on the first draft of the East Central Area Plan. The comments were compiled, with staff responses to each, in an Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is locked for editing but allows users to sort and filter the comments by date of submission, type of comment, plan chapter and page number. Identifying information was removed from the spreadsheet. If you need help finding your comment(s), contact us. 

To see the comments left on each page of the plan, download the annotated draft plan, by chapter, using the PDF links below:

Please take a moment to tell us how you feel the draft recommendations help achieve the vision for East Central. What is the most important long-term vision for your neighborhood?  Staff Response
Diversity - comes from affordability. If you cannot even define or defend affordable housing how are you going to use it as a tradeoff for increased development. Take a step back and define your mission before you try to use it to defend developer ideas City has definitions for affordable housing and identifies needs in HaID
Inclusion, opportunity, diversity. Affordable housing, education - these are essential foundational elements. It seems the revisions apply heavily to the highest income sections of East Central Plan addresses these topics
Why not allow for 5-8-12 story buildings adjacent ot 13th Ave (north side) 14th Ave and/or along Colfax, where there currently exists (intermittantly) similar type buildings. This seems like a sane way to enhance density while still preserving many traditionally styled large homes mid-block. Mark Nuszer 1265 Detroit St The vision of the plan is to direct greater heights to corridors like Colfax, while integrating housing into neighborhoods in ways that maintain existing character.
Congress Park - expand 7th Ave historic district to the east, establish design review for all construction, heavy uncertainties and technical help for small ADUs and basement apartments, use ADUs to justify shorter new buildings. Uptown -plan to close Park Avenue, create 7 acres of new private property and new useable public parks, stop demolition of historic buildings, establish design review for all new construction, preserve all section 8 housing. Can this process embrace the design/streetscape of Colorado Blvd Plan includes recommendations for additional historic preservation, and improvements to Park Ave and Colorado Blvd.
I find the plan incredible exciting. Its focus on safety and equity is exactly what Denver should focus on. As a cyclist and transit user and pedestrian I especially love the vision for safer intersections, bikeways, and streets. The continued subsidized on-street parking is still a bit too generous Agrees with plan
Pedestrian friendly neighborhood - more street lights on Colfax and 17th. An inclusive community. A safe environment at all times of the day. More traffic control. Maintain a neighborhood know for its park but make park safer. Maintain historical structures with room for historical upkeep and improvement Agrees with plan
More affordable housing and reducing homelessness. Many families and young people are being pushed out of the area or cannot move to the area because of housing prices Agrees with plan
By allowing zone changes for multifamily homes in existing single family neighborhoods and the "give back" to allow some is affordable housing - this results in lower property values for the neighborhood as a whole. I do NOT agree!! The plan includes recommendations to maintain neighborhood character while allowing additional housing, consistent with the vision of the plan and the goals of Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver.
I would like to see the East Central Plan support condo development in these neighborhoods. As a current renter, my long-term vision is to be able to be able to by a unit in my neighborhood. I think that it is unfortunate that if you want a newer housing unit (and the amenities that come with it) you are forced to rent. Not everyone want to live in a 50+ year-old high-rise. I think that condos also encourage people to stay longer in their neighborhoods and invest their time and energy once they have decided to buy instead of rent Plan includes recommendations to support ownership
So… the development so far that has been allowed does not meet "raising the bar on new buildings." There is no room for barely a sidewalk, much less a strip of grass. Allowed to build right up to the street!! And as far as affordable housing - how many of these units are affordable. Look at Logan and Speer, 18th and Josephine, even 9th and Colorado Blvd. Yes, let's "raise the bar on new buildings" Plan addresses these topics
Like how the study "listened" to community input and responded to it in fresh recommendations (eg keep low density on 12th Ave). Like "live-work" concept - should facilitate opportunities. Like ADUs - once again, incentivize development of these. Traffic calming devices all important with increased number of vehicles. Crosswalk improvements to core a way toward encouraging pedestrian activty. Green building ordinace - should incentivize "green" at-grade to get max benefit for overall community (not just building occupants, but public at-large). Community park on 12th great idea (tough to create) Agrees with plan
Preserve local businesses. Preserve integrity of neighborhood form - no Wash Park, Cherry Creek. Affordable housing (density ok as described in plan) Agrees with plan
That families will stay. That families will not be the ones squeezed out. With the focus on apartments, ADUs, and multi-units it will be families who are left out of affordable options. The few single family homes left in the multi-unit zoned areas that are affordable because they are in the middle of a multi-unit block will be gone - developed into more housing for 1 or 2 people. These gems in the middle of these zones make a community diverse too! Families belong there too. Don't break up more single family homes Plan supports family-friendly housing
Looks like we're making  a lot of exciting progress toward better bicyle and pedestrian infrastructure. I'm excited to see some of these ideas come to fruition. When you start the smaller, focused conversations on parts of the plan like how we could better utilize 16th Ave, please reach out! Aaron aaron@extrapedestrian.org Agrees with plan
Not necessarily in this order: 1) Controlling speeding traffic entering the neighborhood from Colorado Blvd traveling along 16th during rush hour. 2) Preserving the character of our neighborhood from developer coming in and tearing down existing structures and putting up whit stucco/black trim box duplexes. Both above are very important in my opinion to preserving the residential character and safety of my neighborhood. The speeding traffic is so dangerous for those of us who like children crossing the streets, cars who have stopped at the stop sign at Harrison or Jackson and start into the intersection only to be almost hit by a speeding car that was not even close when they stopped Agrees with plan
This question is biased. Bike safety and connectivity. I noticed that no high comfort bikeways are proposed E-W, only N-S, why? East-west bikeways are included - see bikeway map in the Mobility section
Safety/cleanliness/enforce speed limits. Preservation of the character of the neighborhoods. Providing places for parking. Reduce the parking on main arteries to allow for better view of oncoming traffic - fewer accidents Agrees with plan
CLEAR definitions of height incentive "community benefits" - make those benefits SMART (and measurable - what is this going to look like in 10 years?) Specific - "affordable housing." Turn 17th and 18th to TWO WAY or put in safe crossing areas!! Any construction must consider/make amends for pedestrians Agrees with plan
This meeting on 11/13/19 is totally lame and useless. 45 minutes was spent initially on generalities. Most of the meeting was dispersing us adults to boards that are full of generalities. You are leaving us 20 minutes out of a two hour meeting for questions? No one is going to read the rediculously long proposal prepared by city planners in city planning leage-ease. This is an insult to our intelligence. What is historic preservation incentive The plan is still available for review and comment
I'm really thrilled about all of the developments here! For me, prioritizing biking, walking, and transit are the most important (though affordable housing is also +++). I'm thrilled to see so many north south bike lanes, especially on Washington. Really great plans you all! Agrees with plan
I agree with the draft's vision, particularly the mobility recommendations. My only concern is the timeline. I'd like to see all of the long term goals as short term goals Agrees with plan
Like the bikeway recs - my family often travels by bicycle through this area to get downtown for ball games, entertainment, etc. We want safe paths to travel and I appreciate the START you've made and encourage you to do more to secure multi-modal opportunities. The roads belong to all of us. Neighborhoods for ALL. Thank you! Agrees with plan
Preserve the residential character and architectural conext of Congress Park. Address current traffic and parking concerns Agrees with plan
I could not hear much of what the presentation was saying. Maintain 5 story maximum on Filmore Street Agrees with plan
Not increasing density before the Colfax RTD corridor project is completed. Controlling traffic on both Colorado Blvd and 17th Ave - not everybody can take public transit to work if jobs are not downtown Plan includes recommendations for limiting impacts of additional growth
Building heights in City Park neighborhood should be capped at 4 stories. No exceptions. Taller buildings should be permitted along Colfax, Colorado, and areas west of City Park (across York) to downtown. City should set aside funding to purchase distressed properties fro renovation, renewal, redevelopment. Scooters should be banned - unsafe! Height recommendations are based on established vision and community input.  Programs exist to help owners renovate their properties.  Plan includes mobility safety improvement recommendations.
The recommendations city has made support the city's vision. I'm not sure the city's vision is the vision of the community. Safety, quiet. I don't think this will be achieved if where is an increase in multiple housing structures. Denver does not need more people - before it ihas developed better infrastructure. People are not going to take public transport if RTD reduces service. Service has to improve. People who can afford cars are not going to give up cars to ride buses. You are going to increase congestion. People don't move to Denver nad not expect to ever get to mountains (without a car). As far as tree canopy - great idea as long as trees/plants are cared for during times of drought. Denver has a semi-arid climate. As a walker, I feel city needs to get homeowners to care for their sidewalks (repair and shovel) and to limb-up their trees so they don't hit walkers in face As noted, the city's vision is to accommodate growth.  The plan includes recommendations to address the other topics noted.
Preserve character/history. Don't replace houses with apartment buildings or scrapes. There are hundreds of units of affordable housing within a few blocks of our house. One at 13th and Fillmore owned by the city. One huge complex at 14th and Detroit for low income elderly. The Cherry Creek end (near 8th) does not have this wealth of affordable apartments. Someone should evaluate this. Convert the motel at Colfax and Milwaukee to a nicer building. Plan addresses these topics
The priority is to preserve and enhance green space, improve safety for peds and bicyles, add density where appropriate (esp. Colfax), improve bus/mass transit, preserve historic buildings. The priority is not parking and cars. We need to accept density in our neighborhoods - it's better than sprawl! Without density we'll find it hard to provide affordable housing and mass transit. Affordable housing should be a priority - make city living welcoming and achievable for all. Why is Cheesman Park crisscrossed by roads? This precious open space should be reserved for people, walkersd, bikers, runners etc. Would love to have a safe paved loop around Cheesman, a la Wash Park. Keep cars out of Cheesman Park! Agrees with plan
Re: verbal presentations/Q & As: some comments by speaker and some audience questions not understandable (not loud enough or not enunciated clearly). Would suggest more attention to this in future public meetings. Thanks!!! Noted
To keep the scale of buildings and the alley within zoning of first plans 2010. Street tree canopies. Permeability, shade and sun necessary for physical, mental and emotional health. Privacy. Keep the front porch character! Agrees with plan
Cap Hill has more units (homes) than any other neighborhood (~12,000 units) which is even mor than LoDo and CBD combined (~10,000 units) and it was built before cars existed. Please priorize walking and biking over private care storage on public streets (currently for free) and reduce the high speed on one ways that cut through our neighborhood adn make it feel unsafe. 6th, 8th, 13th, 14th, Downing, Washington, Corona, Clarkson. Please allow density around 11th and Odgen and 9th and Downing. These mixed use areas have a lot of potential but currently prioritize parking over anything else :(. Allow ADUs throughout Cap Hill even when the primary house isn't single family (the vast majority of houses in Cap Hill). Because our beautiful Denver Square is currently a 3-unit and zoned G-MU-5 we cannot build an ADU :(. We can build a 5 story 20 unit apartment building, but we are not allowed to build an ADU wher our asphalt parking is. This is really stupid in a neighborhood that is open to density and vibrancy. Please stop subsidizing cars (free street parking), 100% of public street dedicated to car infrastructure Agrees with plan
Fewer cars. More people. Less trying to stuff density along the razor's edge, more gentle density (up to 3 or 5 stories of apartments) throughout all of East Central. No more exclusivity disguised as "character." No more climate denial disguised as convenience. No more people able to veto better streets and more housing. The plan inlcudes recommendations to allow additional housing throughout the area while maintaining character.
I would like a year to pass without anyone being killed by an automobile. If that happens, a bunch of other good stuff is probably happening too - bike friendly streets, caring neighbors, fewer long-distance commuting, more transit use Agrees with plan
Comment - Congress Park - It stated that the 12th and Madison corner "people enjoy the small scale shops but parking lot could use facelift/landscaping." Then in the boxes below it says "replace vacant parking lots with new buildings." Sounds like 2 different things - DON'T put more buildings - the parking is necessary for the volume of businesses Change made
No more highrises - restrict to 5 stories. Affordable housing. This neighborhood is already very dense Allowing more height to accommodate growth and achieve community benefits is consistent with the plan vision and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver.
Change narrow st to one way. Less digh rise apts Plan includes recommendations to improve mobility safety.  Allowing more height to accommodate growth and achieve community benefits is consistent with the plan vision and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver.
I want my neighborhood to be a safe, vibrant, and bustling place. I want my family and other young families to feel comfortable walking and biking around. I want to be able to afford a small home and for people from all economic backgrounds to live around me. I want more people to be able to live car free. Agrees with plan
Welcoming, walkable, historic, and dynamic. Bike lanes, safe and protected lanes. More greenery, more parks. Agrees with plan
I would like N Cap Hill to be inclusive of all income levels, races, and ages. I support the idea of it being a true 20 min neighborhood - where all amenities are within a 20 minute walk. We need more density to support a more sustainable environment and fiscally responsible (density pays its share of infrastructure and subsidizes SFH areas). More bike lanes, transit, shops. Less one way and less parking Agrees with plan
Need to be able to see details - hopefully online I can see my neighborhood recommendations. Please make sure the maps/plans online can be "zoomed in" for neighborhoods. Detailed maps are available online
On the whole I like the changes to the proposed plan. My main remaining concerns relate to how 12th will be addressed. I greatly appreciate the bike lane on 12th from roughly Detroit east to Teller. The pinch in the commercial area west of Detroit needs to be addressed, as does the rest of 12th west through Josephine and York. It is always a very sketchy part of the ride over to Cheesman. A possible solution mentioned by one planner is to possilby shift transit to 11th. That seems problematic given how narrow 11th is.* 11th being calmer, seams like a good fit for bikes, though. If a crossing at Josephine and York could be put in, I'd be incredibly happy. *As well as being away from teh commercial areas on 12th and Colfax These details will be determined through subsequent processes
Transit, bikes, and walking is the only way to solve our parking problems. Historic preservation and infill = positive sum. No new parking lots!! Agrees with plan
I think keeping the 7th Ave bikeway in its current configuration maintains the safest option. Moving the bike lane next to the curbe and "protecting" the bike lane with cars actually decreases visibility and make a problem for snow plows in bike lanes that are used all year long These details will be determined through subsequent processes
Plan shows at 12th and Madison "replace vacant/parking lots with new building." The only lot there is a heavily used lot shared by several businesses. It is important to keep. I like the idea of trying to preserve the character of the homes/neighborhood in Congress Park. No one wants to be teh next Wash Park where homes are leveled for construction of mini-mansions 12 & Madison recommendation changed
Maintain character while improving density to support vibrant diversity in tenants, owners, business, restaurants, and retail. Focus on Colfax is exactly right it puts the focus on transit and supportive density. Safety of streets for car "cut throughs" needs attention. Bike awareness needs attention. Fine bikes and scooters riding on one way streets. There are bike lanes that should make this unnecessary. I love the incentives to keep you older homes to qualify for density - currently ADUs are very difficult to plan on our neighborhood lot sizes and require a big financial commitment - I don't believe they will proliferate without concessions to current zoning and planning regulations. I don't think the rules need to change! I know folks are worried that homes will be chopped up - again I think this is unfounded. Parking and the car should not drive development. Please prioritize transit to ensure URBAN growth and density can be supported. GROWTH is GOOD as is CHANGE! Agrees with plan
I understand the need to slow traffic to allow bikes across 6th and 8th at Detroit… but a traffic signal will not be a help… it will encourage cars to turn! And there are already 3 lights within the 5 block span on 6th at York, Josephine, Columbine. Adding another traffic signal at 6th/8th and Detroit would be a mess These details will be determined through subsequent processes
Density is not a 4 letter word. People will always fear change. Really like your use of the word "trade-offs" + being inclusive. Developers - are not able to please all parties all the time. The project must make economic sense to take the risk. Incentives for Developers to provide affordable housing - added height, fee (?) deferral, if reusing an existing bldg., if preserving facade, etc. ADUs - think about as multi-generational housing. Deferral of development fees to end of project construction saves development costs (interesst+carry). Still paid but at an end of project costs and (?) costs.  Plan includes recommendations to incentivize affordable housing
Keeping it the way it was 10 + 20 years ago + fighting someone else's vision of "how it should look". 20 years from now. I did not move her 20 years ago because of what the newly-elected leaders of Denver think the neighborhood should instead be like 20 years from now! This process seems to be a complete charade to arrive at the pre-determined conclusions.  Plan is based on community input and adopted city policy
Provide your feedback on the draft plan. In which neighborhood do you live and/or work? Staff Response
1 - Love the bold plans to augment transit and bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure.
2 - Colfax needs to be up-zoned to attract private investment, I agree with height recommendations in plan.
3 - Applaud balance of economic development efforts and preservation controls.
Cheesman Park Addressed by recommendations in plan
Fellow Denver Residents,

Thank you for the time and effort it took to prepare the East Area Plan and the associated presentations, websites, and feedback forms (like this). I agree with the goals of affordability, accessibility, and neighborhood preservation, even in districts not formally designated as "historic districts." And, I appreciate the planning department's efforts to solicit community feedback, acknowledge concerns with (1) height incentives and (2) new housing in residential areas (page 38 of online presentation), and update the plan accordingly. The online presentation says that the planning department is looking forward to additional feedback on the rescheduled workshop on Saturday 11/23/2019, so I will look forward to meeting you there.

My concerns with the East Area Plan are two. First, I have yet to be convinced that we cannot work within the existing zoning, which I understand to be 3-5 stories along Colfax, and single-family residential (without accessory dwelling units) in South Park Hill, where I have lived since 2006. I am concerned about degradation of my neighborhood that has been fairly stable for about 100 years. Second, I share some of the concerns expressed by Denver East Neighborhoods First, particularly with regard to affordability (and how easy it is to opt out by paying a nominal linkage fee).

In my view, we need a bigger agenda with (1) a living wage, (2) a higher linkage fee, and (3) more protective requirements for so-called "scrapes".

1. I think we need a higher minimum wage in Denver, which I call a living wage, and then build numerous units that are affordable with <30% of that living wage. I understand state law prohibits municipalities from requiring affordable housing. In the long term, I support changing that law, and letting each municipality make its own choice.

2. In the short term, I think the answer is for the planning department to recommend that city council greatly increase the linkage fee, which I understand to be a 67c/square foot opt-out fee that developers can pay to avoid affordable units. The current linkage fee is far too low, and that is making the planning department turn to potentially destructive proposals that could undermine the historic nature of neighborhoods like Park Hill.

3. Slide 54 shows of the online presentation shows an older home of 858 square feet next to a newer home of 2,357 square feet. I agree we should work to avoid this, but I disagree that the current plan to turn the old home into a duplex is the only way. Why not pass city statutes requiring preservation of permeable area and enforcement of existing height restrictions? That would preserve the neighborhood. Then we can get busy with increased density within the 3-5 stories already allowed along Colfax. In my view that would be a win-win for all concerned.
South Park Hill This comment is related to the East Area Plan and has been shared with that team.
I support the large majority of the plan. I would love to see greater diversity, equity, affordability, and density in the zoning and housing plans for the future. I also commute to work on the bike and bus exclusively and providing further safety and incentives for forms of transportation that cost the city the least and benefit our communities the most is very important to me. The more we can prioritize our public right of ways to eliminating unnecessary traffic fatalities and providing quality of service to all forms of transportation rather than creating dangerous speedways and subsidies  to the rich to store their property public spaces the more enjoyable our community becomes to live in. Cheeseman Park Addressed by recommendations in plan
I find the plan very responsive to finding solutions for affordable housing, especially the ADU options available in older homes.
There should be incentives for height/parking at some of the neighborhood commercial centers to provide housing.
Congress Park Supports plan
I'm excited to read about the draft plan. I'm mostly looking forward to improvements that calm traffic and increase the comfort and walkability for pedestrians and bikes. We need more people in the streets, and fewer cars threatening those people. Cheesman Park Addressed by recommendations in plan
Thanks for prioritizing vulnerable road users like bike riders, parents with children, etc. I want to be able to take my children to and from school without fear for my own or their safety. Highlands/Auraria Addressed by recommendations in plan
You did a really excellent, detailed job in laying this all out.  I especially liked the Transformative Projects.  One in my neighborhood (Cap Hill) - 11th and Ogden redevelopment - would be so welcomed.  I'd love to see a Transformative Project on 9th and Corona as well around the King Soopers site, with a similar look and feel where there is a reduction in parking lot space, conversion to multi-use that incorporates housing, more retail, etc with parking below.
I am not sure about the conversion to 2-way streets (but I'm also not an urban planner).  It is true that the one way streets seem to be much more dangerous and encourage higher speeds of vehicles.  There also seem to be lots of accidents, both auto and pedestrian, on these streets.  What I am not sure about is if switching to one-way would slow down traffic to such an extent that we experience much more gridlock during rush hour, as it would slow traffic flow?  Or does the committee believe that by doing so, cars would choose different routes to naturally relieve pressure?
Capitol HIll See M1: One-way to two-way recommendation .  Study to analyze impacts and decide next steps
Overall very disappointing that the community has not been more directly involved with what seems to be mandates by the city. Getting rid of a driving lane is probably the worst decision on the plan. The additional traffic because of that and the spillover into our neighborhoods will be a nightmare. I suspect the side streets will become ways for people to speed down to avoid the congestion along Colfax, making it dangerous to our children in the area. Do not remove a drive lane on Colfax the community does not want that. Also we do not want the density the city seems to be trying to force upon us. This is a community of single family homes and we want it to stay that way. Perhaps we can compromise on adding ONE ADU but 3 or 4 is out of the question. This will further congest our streets and endanger our children. Not everyone takes the bus, its hard to get groceries, pick up kids from different schools, or take them to soccer practice on a bus. Adding more people will add congestion and removing a driving lane makes it that much worse. Increasing the zoning for the commercial buildings along Colfax will probably help improve them, there are a significant number that are run down and need investment. However again with increasing the zoning people will still need to drive and park by them. Where are they going to park? How are they going to drive there? This plan does not address these items sufficiently as I read it. It would be better to leave everything alone for now and definitely NOT allow the BRT to remove a drive lane. It seems this whole thing is an answer in search of a problem. South Park Hill This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
Overall very disappointing that the community has not been more directly involved with what seems to be mandates by the city. Getting rid of a driving lane is probably the worst decision on the plan. The additional traffic because of that and the spillover into our neighborhoods will be a nightmare. I suspect the side streets will become ways for people to speed down to avoid the congestion along Colfax, making it dangerous to our children in the area. Do not remove a drive lane on Colfax the community does not want that. Also we do not want the density the city seems to be trying to force upon us. This is a community of single family homes and we want it to stay that way. Perhaps we can compromise on adding ONE ADU but 3 or 4 is out of the question. This will further congest our streets and endanger our children. Not everyone takes the bus, its hard to get groceries, pick up kids from different schools, or take them to soccer practice on a bus. Adding more people will add congestion and removing a driving lane makes it that much worse. Increasing the zoning for the commercial buildings along Colfax will probably help improve them, there are a significant number that are run down and need investment. However again with increasing the zoning people will still need to drive and park by them. Where are they going to park? How are they going to drive there? This plan does not address these items sufficiently as I read it. It would be better to leave everything alone for now and definitely NOT allow the BRT to remove a drive lane. It seems this whole thing is an answer in search of a problem. South Park Hill This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
Overall very disappointing that the community has not been more directly involved with what seems to be mandates by the city. Getting rid of a driving lane is probably the worst decision on the plan. The additional traffic because of that and the spillover into our neighborhoods will be a nightmare. I suspect the side streets will become ways for people to speed down to avoid the congestion along Colfax, making it dangerous to our children in the area. Do not remove a drive lane on Colfax the community does not want that. Also we do not want the density the city seems to be trying to force upon us. This is a community of single family homes and we want it to stay that way. Perhaps we can compromise on adding ONE ADU but 3 or 4 is out of the question. This will further congest our streets and endanger our children. Not everyone takes the bus, its hard to get groceries, pick up kids from different schools, or take them to soccer practice on a bus. Adding more people will add congestion and removing a driving lane makes it that much worse. Increasing the zoning for the commercial buildings along Colfax will probably help improve them, there are a significant number that are run down and need investment. However again with increasing the zoning people will still need to drive and park by them. Where are they going to park? How are they going to drive there? This plan does not address these items sufficiently as I read it. It would be better to leave everything alone for now and definitely NOT allow the BRT to remove a drive lane. It seems this whole thing is an answer in search of a problem. South Park Hill This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
Overall I think this plan displays a great vision for the future of the East Central Area. Thank you for the hard work that goes into this kind of undertaking. In particular, I think it is important that changes and improvements increase access for all users, augment affordable housing and grocery options, and encourage non single occupancy vehicle transportation. North Capitol Hill Supports plan
I would like to see more focus on enforcement of traffic speeds.  Can there be more study of the cost-effectiveness of enforcement?  I believe with the number of citations issued, it would pay for the position, but I am not knowledgeable enough.  Enforcement would help me to feel more safe walking with my family in the beautiful neighborhood of Congress Park. Congress Park Addressed by recommendations in plan. See M9
My wife and I have lived at 850 Detroit St for 34 years.  There is a stop sign at 9th and Detroit (which my wife worked with Councilman Ed Thomas a lot of years ago to get put in).  Our parking is almost always taken up on both sides.  And the street is too narrow for two cars going in opposite directions to pass each other.  So, because of the stop sign and the narrow space, the speed of traffic is normally pretty slow and SAFE. 
We don't have the space nor need for a bike lane.
Congress Park Recommendation is for a neighborhood bikeway on Detroit St
The speed limits on all side streets is too high .. to make all modes of transportation safe it should be changed to 15-20 mph .. maybe add speed bumps.. instead of trying to funnel all bicycle traffic into Two very narrow north and south streets  that have to be shared with two way moving  and parked cars..  Really for the big picture the emphasis should be on encouraging better RTD bus service.. That’s where our future lies   Not on moving a few people around on bicycles Congress Park Added area-wide strategy M9.A to explore the feasibility of limiting speeds and disallowing turns on reds. 
Thank you for prioritizing housing stability and approaching this work with an equity lens. I'd like to know more about how this plan supports community members currently experiencing homelessness. Congress Park Components of homelessness are addressed in the Social Services section.
I think overall it's a great step in the right direction.  I think that we should legalize the building, or renovation of exiting buildings, to allow two or three residential units over the entirety of the plan area where housing is allowed.
I do also feel strongly about the aesthetic qualities of new buildings being constructed, and glad to see that that as somewhat addressed. 
Although I would like more multi-family buildings in the area, I would suggest that we stop allowing a single building to occupy an entire block face - that's a practice that is very detrimental to the pedestrian and walking experience, and is really unnecessary.  There should be a minimum of 4 or 6 buildings on the long side of any block - with institutional exceptions.
Cheeseman Park Plan includes recommendations to allow multiple units in existing buildings, break up building facades
The part of the plan that I am most excited for is the mobility section. My only complaint is the timeline. The improvements that will have the largest impact on Denverites' safety and quality of life are all long term plans. Some of which are studies/surveys. Can this research not be completed any sooner? Congress Park Addressed by recommendations in plan
The incentives to maintain/improve traffic flow or improve pedestrian and biker safety were not integrated into the plan.  These include improving line of sight on 13th and 14th streets by prohibiting parking at the intersections and/or  restricting parking to scooters, bikes and motorcycles that enable line of sight.

I would like the plan to give greater detail to the conversion of one-way to two way streets on 6th, 8th, 13th and 14th.
Congress Park 8th Avenue See M1: One-way to two-way recommendation .  Study to analyze impacts and decide next steps
I am not in favor of funneling bicycle traffic onto 2 Streets , Detroit and Steele Street. These streets are not wide enough for two way  car traffic and designated bicycle lane plus  auto parking ..This  plan would undoubtedly create unsafe conditions for all commuters .,  To address any safe concerns for our neighborhood it would be better to lower the speed limit on side streets to 15-miles per hour.. that in itself will make all streets safer for all traffic immediately.. Congress Park This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
11th avenue should be made bicycle priority with traffic diverters to minimize conflict between bikes and buses on 12th ave. Also, 11th ave already has bike lanes. cheesman park See M1: 12th Ave. Corridor study
I don't agree with the taller buildings - this plan has large developer input.  Look at the 9th Ave old UH campus - it could have been charming - but now we look at Soviet Era style buildings.  Denison Library torn down - an Important MD in Colorado's history - and phewt - gone - the place could have kept the old buildings and developed them into condos with retail/restaurants - the current vision looks very uninviting.  Don't plan on utilizing those retailers.  But I tire of hearing how the cars and hitting the pedestrians.  Subjectively I know for a fact that 95% of auto-peds are jaywalking and positive UA tox screens.  Seems like the public needs education - like Mom said "look both ways."  And the U tox screens - we do too many drugs - go look in Your medicine cabinet and tell me we don't.  I don't like the vision - I don't agree with it.  The neighborhood already is dense - it has been chopped up with grand houses replaced with apartment buildings - no I am not on board with the young presenters at the meetings who are clueless how to present information - I could get up and read the power point cold turkey and do a better job than what they are getting paid for with MY tax dollars - (maybe yours too? ha).  So now - I'm not giving you my blessings.  Also - you keep harping on bicycling.  As a trauma nurse - statistically - your chance of survival of a trauma incident over 50% goes down - you may look 40 and be in shape but your statistics of survival still go with 50 plus years if over 50.  So biking and surviving a trauma is not happening at age 60.  Don't believe me?  Look it up.  And we do have winter. Congress Park Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040.  The plan addresses design and safety.
Eighth avenue is dangerous is its current form, and it will not be sustainable for the needs of a growing city.

There need to be many more crosswalks between Colorado and Josephine. These crosswalks need to be timed long enough for children to cross before the car signal becomes green again. They need to be at intersections, not alleys.

Congress Park needs a sidewalk built on its southern border (along 8th Ave.)

The 9th Ave bike lane is a great idea.

Other traffic slowing strategies should also be used on 8th Ave. (Road diets, etc.)

The neighborhood of Congress Park (bordered by 8th/14th, Colorado/Detroit) needs extensive traffic slowing strategies to make this area safer for school children and other pedestrians (see the many four-way stops in Cherry Creek, just to the south of us.) Dozens of the intersections within this neighborhood should have stop signs and crosswalks added.

The ideas in the plan for 13th Ave, 14th Ave and Coulfax are great!
live in congress park--work at denver health (bike/walk/6 bus to get there.) Addressed by recommendations in plan
Some of the plans are potentially good, but we have several areas of concern.
Parking needs to be conveniently available in order for people to shop at local businesses and bring home their purchases. We are too old to want to walk several blocks lugging our purchases, and bikes and scooters are not adequate for carrying cargo. It is unreasonable to expect people to have to shop for groceries every day because they can only carry one bag while waking. Nor could we take our dog to the vet without a car. Also, plumbers, electricians and other service personnel need to be able to park near the residences they are working at.
For pedestrian safety, bicycles and scooters must be kept OFF the sidewalks, or should at least be required to make enough noise to alert the pedestrian in time to take evasive action. Most bicyclists and scooter riders don't even slow down, let alone stop, for pedestrians. In fact, one bicyclist even ran over my dog and didn't even stop to help.
If Bus Rapid Transit runs down the middle of Colfax, it is likely to make it difficult and dangerous for pedestrians and others to cross Colfax wherever they need to, and most probably will not want to walk several extra blocks to find a designated crossing. This inconvenience could cut down on business patronage where some are too difficult to access.
13th and 14th avenues should stay one-way streets. Two-way traffic will make it more dangerous for pedestrians to cross, since they will have to watch out both ways and time their crossing to moments when traffic is going neither way. When BRT ruins Colfax, 13th and 14th will carry even more traffic, and there are not many other good street choices for those who need to get somewhere by car.
We live in Congress Park. Kate works downtown. This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
No comments on targeting empty lots.

At least one N/S street should be selected for pedestrian improvements, along with the E/W ones. More than one would be ideal. One should be b/t York and Colorado.
North Capitol Hill Addressed by recommendations in plan. See M5 & M6
Needs to more strongly emphasize ADUs, allowing property owners to add units to their property (conversion to duplex, triplex) as a use by right, design standards for new construction.

Do not let rich homeowners in Congress Park water down this plan, or ped/bike safety upgrades in the area. This area desperately needs investment and upzoning since it's so close to downtown, hospitals, etc, and on existing transit routes.
City park Allowing extra units by right is inconsistent with the vision
Hi! I'd love to comment on the plan, but I can't get the system to download the draft copy. I started trying the download at 10:43 am using the high speed internet connection I have at work. It's 11:04 and the system is still spinning. FYI, I sent a message to "Support", and thought the city should know. I live in Congress Park. Please see website for contact information
- The 8 story max is too high on 17th Avenue. The charm of this street is smaller buildings with restaurants. 8 stories is much too high and would change the feel of the neighborhood. The 10 story building where the Tavern was is already gigantic!
- Page 61 of the plan says "Ensure affordable housing is provided when large city-owned property, particularly the District 6 police station, is redeveloped." How are these two items related? Is the police station being moved, or why would there be affordable housing on it?
- Washington St. is not big enough for a bike lane. The only possible way to have one is to remove parking, but that is crucial for the residents in the area and cannot be removed at this stage. A better place would be a protected bike lane on Logan/Grant.
Uptown This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
A lot of work went into this. Most of the ideas are good but the chronically homeless and general vagrants are a major challenge for this area. Until greater enforcement of urban camping bans and other measure to clean up this are instituted, I worry that the money spent to improve the area will be wasted. Parking is another huge issue. We need more resident-only parking - especially near Colfax. Wymann Plan addresses homelessness and parking
Sixteenth Avenue from Colorado Boulevard to East High is destined to become a race track for auto .impatient with high traffic and few lanes on Colfax and Seventeenth Avenue. But the long range plan is to decrease auto traffic in the city. There is a very stale property around Sixteenth Avenue and Colorado Boulevard, on the west side of Colorado, that would be ideal for a neighborhood parking garage combined with rooftop solar - possibly even an aquaponics local food establishment, restaurant on ground floor. I get carried away. Point is, encourage us to store our cars nearby but use them only when needed for unusual trips, not the daily commute. That would free up Sixteenth Avenue to become something wonderful and unique such as illustrated at https://streetopia.transalt.org/ - increasing green space, enhancing neighborhood community, parking car share vehicles (only) and sprinkled with gazebos playsets for kids and tool-lending libraries for adults. A green walkway / bikeway is the perfect antidote to an otherwise imminent racetrack! South City Park Addressed by recommendations in plan. E 16th Ave is a Denver Moves: Bikes proposed neighborhood bikeway, which includes intersection safety improvements and traffic calming
Four concerns: Traffic: Any restrictions to the flow of traffic on Colfax will adversely impact the neighborhoods north and south of Colfax. Further to assume that people will give up there vehicles is ludicrous. Density: Allowing for taller building in the plan without a strict mandate on providing adequate off street parking will exacerbate an already difficult parking situation. While I applaud the decision to not include  5 story buildings along 12th in Congress Park, the plan to allow existing homes to add an additional unit without providing off street parking . Parking: Contrary to the statistics included in the draft plan, off street parking is a problem.  We live on the 13 hundred block of Clayton. On the Southeast corner of 13th and Clayton is a 20 unit apartment building, on the Southwest corner is a multi unit building with no off street parking, two doors North of the 20 unit building is a fourplex with limited off street parking. These three buildings alone can account for    up to 20 cars parked on 13th or Clayton. The North end of Clayton is even worse. While this is a single example and admittedly a somewhat subjective analysis, I'm reasonably confident that this is duplicated on other blocks. I am happy to discuss this with your staff should you wish further detail. Congress Park This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
I overall 'agree' with the plan but could be persuaded to 'strongly agree' if I saw more teeth to the items mentioning the maintenance of architectural character throughout the area. My largest fear moving forward is that unattractive scrapes will continue to move into the neighborhoods instead of homeowners and developers working to enhance their homes in period-/neighborhood-appropriate ways. Congress Park Plans are advisory documents. They advise regulatory decisions but are not regulatory themselves. Additional analysis, details, and community input will occur during regulatory processes. 
We do not need more high rises or housing on East Colfax. Due to out of control development all over Denver the city is loosing it's identity. Why not fix and revamp the current structures?  The motels are historical and could be great tourist attractions without the ugliness of the numerous hotels being built. Cherry Creek North,new Lowry buildings, and other parts of Denver are becoming claustrophobic and unsightly.  The historical Colfax corridor can look better.  We also Do Not Need  More Traffic.  Given the issues of RTD any plan involving them is concerning. Clean up the existing neighborhoods and the issues they have instead of selling out to developers. This administration is destroying Denver.   Plan includes recommendations to promote adaptive reuse of buildings
Bicycling should be encouraged in our area, but the current environment is inadequate and thus a danger to bicyclists.
1) There is lack of safe pathways traveling North / South with the need to cross very very busy streets ; eg, 6th, 8th, Colfax, 17th
2) There is no safe pathway from Williams to Broadway
7th / Fillmore Addressed by recommendations in plan. See M2 & M3.
I was stunned and angry that plan does not go to Yosemite.  I have asked for 20 years where Dvlpt of East Colfax is and got excuses. All I hear now is maybe a fast bus will sweep past us. Where is the plan for East Colfax and why does it sound like this may inky be a far distant inclination that is just beginning.  Totally unacceptable, and how this mayor has worked ... start with the Capital and we'll get to you. That's the m.o. since the last plan for East Colfax in 1994 that was NEVER implemented.  Shameful ... and classist and yes racist.  We develop when white middle to upper class people need more... like Lowry and Stapleton ... not where The cheap motels and the burned out Saturdays "Adult" club (that denigrated our neighborhood for years) and liquor and tattoo and marijuana and "Adult" shops and dollar stores abound.

As I said, unacceptable that this plan is so well developed and East Colfax , eh!  Angering and disappointing.
East Colfax East Area Plan is underway covering East Colfax neighborhood
I have some concerns about lot sizes along Colfax and the existing, underutilized square footage along the corridor. Capitol Hill and Uptown need more parks and open space. The number of HIN fatalities and injuries on the west end of the area plan is problematic and should be addressed immediately, not as part of a 20 year plan. We need to have stronger north-south bike safety. Currently the transit and bike safety networks are oriented almost entirely along the city's east-west axis. I welcome recommendations to improve Park Avenue. Its a dreadful boulevard. The sidewalks in the vicinity of Congress Park need to be built-out in preparation for the pool updates. That really shouldn't be in a 20 year plan, either, and instead should be addressed before the pool opening. Live: Congress Park. Work: Golden Triangle. Plan will include implementation priorities to accomplish before 20 years
Building height of 5 stories on the block between 16th and 17th/west of Fillmore is appropriate and important for neighbors (me).
Great effort, good thoughts, very aspirational for Colfax area.  Good luck!
City Park South Supports plan
We need more time to comment. At least end of January SCP Process has been extended
I believe this plan provides the right guidance for growth and evolution of our neighborhoods. City Park Supports plan
I’m pleased with a specific concern I had on density.  Keeping the buildings on Fillmore between 16 and 17 at 5 stories will help maintain the traffic and density in this already dense neighborhood.

The comprehensiveness of this plan is very impressive.
I support the overall plan
City park Supports plan
Please stop putting all of the services for people experiencing homelessness in East Central Denver.  The rest of Denver and the State need to start doing their fair share. Most neighborhoods in Denver have almost no services for homelessness and the city/non profits outsiders (who don't live here) keep dumping all of the states/regions problems into our small community which is creating a homeless ghetto. "Housing first" in a small concentrated area has not worked in LA, SLC, or SF, why do we think it will work here? Does any care that it won't work, as long as it is not in their neighborhoods. We need more affordable housing not more homeless services. A city filled only with rich people and homeless is lame, just look at SF, we need true diversity.  Trying spreading out the people experiencing homelessness into commercial districts or Hilltop, Westminster or Wash Park. Stop picking on our community. Cheesman Re: Social Services - Recommendations prioritize improving efficiency and collaboration of existing providers and balance expanding new services with need, especially in NCH where most providers are located
Hello, I want to express my strong support of ADUs and Character Home Preservation. Modifying current zoning regulations to create an incentive for preserving existing houses, and allowing an additional unit if the existing house is preserved offers so many benefits to the quality and affordability of East Central. AS a longtime resident in the Cheesman Park neighborhood and as an employee of a Tier 1 SCFD institution, I love the historic and unique quality of my neighborhood. That said, I also feel strongly that more affordable and smart housing be made available to those that need it, such as extended family, caretakers, teachers, and others that work in or near East Central and need access to affordable housing, such as myself. ADU's are a wonderful option for the city to create smart density. And of course, there are many other benefits to the proposed plan. Thank you for the opportunity to express my support of this component of the plan. LIve in Cheesman Park and work in Golden Triangle Supports plan
The Tears-McFarlane House at 1290 Williams Street has a long, positive history being a community center and safe and welcoming space for many local organizations and civic activities. I believe that a “High Residential” classification is not appropriate for this particular parcel and that its Future Place classification be changed to a non-residential one such as “Local Corridor”. Central Cap Hill Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
I believe that the parcel for 1290 Williams Street is better reclassified as a Local Corridor vis-a-vis the Future Place designation as constructed under the east central neighborhood planning initiative. Uptown Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
We need more time to respond to the draft, ending it in December with the busy holidays is unfair. South city park Process has been extended
Too much proposed density. Even Boulder is finding they allowed too much density counting on folks not having cars. Now their streets are overrun with parked cars and streets are overwhelmed with congestion they can't figure out how to deal with. And Boulder has Hop/Skip/Jump buses that cover a vast percentage of the town.
Why are we going down the same path?
And losing bus stops on Colfax is just plain not smart. Forget losing lanes, forget BRT. You have to have a travel path with far less congestion to make BRT work.
GW This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
The Tears-McFarlane House at 1290 Williams Street hosts many community activities and non-profits. The “High Residential” classification does not fit with this property. Its Future Place classification should be a non-residential one like “Local Corridor”. Capitol Hill Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
The Tears-McFarlane House at 1290 Williams Street has a long positive, history as a Community Center and safe and welcoming space for many local organizations and civic activities. I believe that a “High Residential” classification is not appropriate for this particular parcel and that its Future Place classification change to a non-residential one such as “Local Corridor” congress park Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
“The Tears-McFarlane house at 1290 Williams Street, as a Historic Landmark is protected, there is little to no worry that it will be torn down and becoming a high rise. Because of this it seems inappropriate for it to be designated as a “High Residential”, which its land use recommends multi-unit residential up to 20 stories. A “Local Corridor” is a more fitting non-residential classification.” Capitol Hill Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
Plans to create pedestrian-friendly corridors are critically important for physical health, reduction of auto emissions, social connectivity, and neighborhood safety. Recommendations for improving sidewalks, traffic calming, tree canopies and bike lanes should be given a high priority.
In addition, the Tears-McFarlane House at 1290 Williams Street has served as a community center that offers a safe and welcoming space for many local organizations and civic activities. I believe that a “High Residential” classification is not appropriate for this particular parcel (the Tears-McFarlane House is also a Historic Landmark) and that its Future Place classification be changed to a non-residential one such as “Local Corridor”.
Capitol Hill Addressed by recommendations in plan
The Tears-McFarlane House at 1290 Williams Street has a long positive, history as a Community Center and safe and welcoming space for many local organizations and civic activities. I believe that a “High Residential” classification is not appropriate for this particular parcel and that its Future Place classification change to a non-residential one such as “Local Corridor”.
Additionally, the Tears-McFarlane house is a Historic Landmark and is protected. There is little to no worry that it will be torn down and becoming a high rise. Because of this it seems extremely inappropriate for it to be designated as a “High Residential”, which its land use recommends multi-unit residential up to 20 stories. A “Local Corridor” is a more fitting non-residential classification for historically designated properties.  I highly urge the city to cross reference other historic landmarks (Federal, State and Local) with proposed classifications to ensure that there is no conflict or tension between the vision of the city and the intent of historic landmark protection.  (I'm also concerned it makes the city look like it has a long range plan to be anti-preservation).
Cheesman Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
Overall CPD has done a great job with planning for our neighborhoods.  However, I believe that that the parcel for 1290 Williams Street is better reclassified as a Local Corridor as the Future Place designation.  The property is a historic landmark and active community center, thus ... high residential doesn't make sense.  Please classify 1290 Williams (the Tears-McFarlane House and Community Center) as a LOCAL CORRIDOR. North Capitol Hill Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
Prefer classification to Local Corridor Cherry Creek Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
The Tears-McFarlane House at 1290 Williams Street has a long positive, history as a Community Center and safe and welcoming space for many local organizations and civic activities. I believe that a “High Residential” classification is not appropriate for this particular parcel and that its Future Place classification change to a non-residential one such as “Local Corridor”. Capitol HIll Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
Regarding landscaping, I didn't find any mention of landscaping with rocks and gravel.  More and more residences and commercial buildings are replacing grass and shrubbery with rocks and gravel.  While it lowers maintenance and water use, it adds to the overall heat retention of the area.  If a tree canopy is added, that mitigates it significantly.  Unfortunately, many landowners just put down a wide swath of rock and call it done. There needs to be guidelines for this "rockscaping." City Park West Plan is consistent with goals/recommendations in Comp Plan 2040 regarding water-conserving landscaping for private development. BP has special recommendation (LU06) to address this - updating the landscaping requirements should be done at the city level. Plan contains recommendation re: trees on private development and in public areas. 
Regarding the Tears-McFarlane house at 1290 Williams Street: As a Historic Landmark, the property is protected and so there is little to no worry that it will be torn down and become a high rise. Because of this, it seems inappropriate for it to be designated as a “High Residential” property, which its land use recommends multi-unit residential up to 20 stories. A “Local Corridor” is a more fitting non-residential classification for the house to continue its mission as a community gathering place. Capitol HIll Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
I feel like our current programs for helping low-income buyers are "keeping the poor even poorer"  by buying properties at below market value and then having to sell at only minimum/capped increases, they have not benefited from our market uptick.   So then they sell there "first" place and have barely a down payment for something not in the program.  I'm not sure what the new pilot programs will contain, but I hope it's related to market value and gaining from appreciation (hopefully not suffering from a downturn) City Park Plan includes recommendations to improve opportunities for buyers, but the specifics of the programs are beyond the scope of the plan
The Tears-McFarlane house, located at 1290 Williams Street, is a Historic Landmark; it is and should be continually protected.  There is little to no worry that it will be torn down and becoming a high rise. Because of this it seems inappropriate for it to be designated as a “High Residential," which recommends its land use be labeled as multi-unit residential - up to 20 stories. A “Local Corridor” is a more fitting non-residential classification. I live in Uptown. Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
We've given you plenty of feedback but you ignore it. What's the point in pretending our opinions matter?   See responses to comments
Need to provide better protection for people who walk and bike. East Colfax Addressed by recommendations in plan
I want a connected network of protected bike lanes. My parents live in Stapleton and I often ride there. Addressed by recommendations in plan
1.  I would like to see wide tree lawn requirements for large buildings e.g. the new apartments on Colorado Blvd. on the old UC hospital site.
2. Want reduced speeds on all thoroughfares.
3. Car share services do not reduce congestion and should be eliminated from the plan.
4. I am opposed to BRT. I think many of the services planned in BRT such as payment before getting on the bus can be implemented without the disruption which will come with building a route down the middle of Colfax. I frequently ride the 15 bus and notice a number of altercations and otherwise disruptive passengers. The idea that more riders will want to ride this bus if it is faster, ignoring the current passengers, is, I believe, founded in fantasy.
Congress Park This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
Need comprehensive biking system Cheeseman Addressed by recommendations in plan
However, I don't agree with the designation of the Tears-McFarlane House at 1290 Williams Street as a "High Residential" which limits its land use to a multi-story residential up to 20 stories.  The property is a Historic Landmark and is protected.  There is littlie if any chance that it will be torn down and becoming a high rise.  A "Local Corridor" is a more fitting non-residential classification. Capitol Hill Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
I strongly believe that the parcel for 1290 Williams Street is better reclassified as a Local Corridor as the Future Place designation. Country Club Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
Great overall goals, hope that City policy and projects will actually work to implement these, especially the improvements for transit, bicycling, and reducing vehicular speeds. Congress Park (grew up here, live outside CO now but come back often) Supports plan
I strongly support the plan's move to extend bikeways and bike routes. However, without fixing the traffic lights, this will have minimal impact. For example, the intersection at 17th Avenue and Steele Street is a major pedestrian and bicycle entrance to City Park. In addition, except for rush hour, traffic is light on 17th Avenue. Nevertheless, the traffic light is very slow to change, often leading people to cross with a red light. Likewise, the lights on Grant and Sherman at 16th Avenue are very slow to change. Because traffic is light on these streets, they could easily be replaced with four-way stop signs. Congress Park Addressed by recommendations in plan
The pressure for ADUs will ruin the livability of our residential neighborhoods, with the potential to cause removal of trees, open yards, and garages, and to increase demand for already limited on-street parking.  Congress Park is already densely populated; only developers who finance the mayor and city council will benefit from ADUs- not those of us who call Congress Park home.   In my observation, the city wouldn't dare pressure ADUs onto Country Club, Polo Club or Wellshire  where there are large lots BUT powerful people.  Instead the city is attempting to cause irreparable damage to Congress Park to make it look like Uptown. The ADU plan is awful, tragically blind, and unnecessary.

Secondly, delete the bikeway on hilly Detroit Street.
Congress Park This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
I think it depends on who's vision is used. Many residents do not share the vision of the City, Developers and Businesses Congress Park The vision was developed with the steering committee based on community input
1290 Williams Street, the Tears-McFarlane House and Community Center, is an asset to the community. I would like it to be able grow to its full potential. It should be reclassified out of the “High Residential” to “Local Corridor” as the Future Place designation. Alamo Placita Language has been added to L6 to clarify that historic structures in residential places should be allowed to have a broader range of uses to encourage preservation and reuse.  The place type has not been changed.
This seems like a very top-down approach that does little to address the specific needs of the area's families and current residents, and cares little about the character of these neighborhoods. It seems to assume a lot of city commitments regarding public transit and economic development that are 100% not guaranteed. And it seems to grant city authorities and agencies sweeping mandates to enforce / implement this plan however they want. Congress Park The recommendations are based on community input and sets policy for the next 20 years
This very thing will reshape Denver as we know it. It will not be a good thing at all. Capital south The recommendations are based on community input and sets policy for the next 20 years
I appreciate the level of work that went into the developing the plan.  I am concerned that there is not mention or reference to the Colorado Water Plan.  The recognized limited resource should be front and center of any landuse planning.  I would recommend the plan incorporate the plan when considering types of vegetation, as it relates to the tree canopy goal and recognize a recommendation is to increase density in city centers. Congress Park Plan is consistent with goals/recommendations in citywide plans (BP and Comp Plan 2040) as well as smaller studies including Denver Water's Integrated Resource Plan
The plan allows for too large of buildings too far east on Colfax.  The building height should be limited to 5 stories anywhere east of York St.  Buildings should rise to downtown, we don't need a bunch of high rises near City Park (beyond what is already there). Congress Park The draft plan recommends a balance of preserving historic character and redevelopment, with most new growth directed to centers and corridors (mixed use areas) in order to provide residents with convenient access to quality transit, jobs, and services. No additional height is proposed in the plan unless significant community benefits are provided - see Policy L3. New rules to improve compatibility between taller mixed use buildings and adjacent houses are recommended in Policy L8.   The plan accomodates all projected growth. 
I am concerned that this plan will only allow density in poor neighborhoods and will continue the housing crisis in Denver.  Please allow ADUs in all neighborhoods and prioritize walking and biking over cars and high speed one way roads that divide and make our great neighborhoods feel unsafe. Cap Hill Plan recommends ADUs in all neighborhoods
I am concerned that this plan will only allow density in poor neighborhoods and will continue the housing crisis in Denver.  Please allow ADUs in all neighborhoods and prioritize walking and biking over cars and high speed one way roads that divide and make our great neighborhoods feel unsafe. Capitol Hill Plan recommends ADUs in all neighborhoods
Please allow ADUs everywhere, and ease all permitting processes for ADUs! Congress Park Plan recommends ADUs in all neighborhoods
Please improve Park Ave. It needs landscaping and bike lanes. Congress Park Addressed by recommendations in plan. See M1.
I grew up and now live in the Congress Park neighborhood. There is plenty of density under current zoning. Period. This whole plan is nothing more than a way to enrich developers who are not in this area and won't see the negative side effects. My family does not need to deal with more traffic on side streets. I live in Congress Park and I work in Cherry Creek North Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan.  
I applaud many of the goals of the plan.  My concerns center around packing more housing units into Congress Park and surrounding neighborhoods that feed Teller Elementary.  The building is maxed out and there are no more classrooms they can expand into.  The 2020 2nd grade is projected to be over 40 students which is an unacceptable teacher student ratio.  The money always will be there for real estate development, but until there is budget for the schools stop increasing the density! Congress Park DPS says capacity at Teller can be managed by restricting the number of studings choicing in
The entire plan does NOT look into the future!  For example, within the next 20 years, we will have ALL electric cars!  No word in your plan for the need to restructure/update existing underground pipes (some already old).  I believe that ANY new underground water lines, etc. have to be paid by the developers, not Denver.  All city lights must be solar.  Perhaps all new buildings use of thermal energy.

Come now!  Think forward!
Grant & 18th st. Beyond the scope of this plan
Capitol Hill desperately needs more and better parks. I love the character of the neighborhood but there is currently nowhere for people to congregate for small events, etc in the summer. that are near my apartment.  Even just some pocket parks would be phenomenal. My apartment building doesn't have a courtyard or anything to host my friends in and if I could reserve a park for us to hang out at for birthdays I would be so happy! It could really revitalize the neighborhood (but not in like a gentrification way, like in a make-it-more-lively way). I feel like there are so many people in my neighborhood but it just feels so dead all the time!

Addressing zoning issues to make things more multi-use would be awesome as well and help with the revitalization to a point.

Right now Cap Hill feels like a battleground for pedestrians and bikers. I've gotten honked at when I have the right-of-way just because I'm not in a car. There are parts of some streets where the sidewalk ends and I have to literally walk in the road to get to where I'm going. This should be happening in a city! I can't even imagine how much I would struggle to get to and from the grocery store from my apartment if I was in a wheel chair. I would have to take my car (it's only 3 blocks!). I am kind of confused as to why Cap Hill fell into low need for investment because our sidewalks are so terrible.

Also I would love to see more pedestrian signals at intersections. I always feel like I'm going to get hit even when I'm in a crosswalk.

If I had to rank the order in which to prioritize funding for improvements it would be:
1. Sidewalks
2. Parks
3. Bike Lanes

Thanks for all your work and I am excited to see this plan come to fruition. Let me know if you need any help from a fellow civil engineer / infrastructure policy advocate. I texted all my young friends in the area to fill out this form and would love to be of any assistance I can because Capitol Hill is the best neighborhood in Denver idc what anyone says.
Capitol Hill Plan includes recommendations for additional parks based on thousands of comments from Capitol Hill residents, as well as recommendations for better pedestrian and bike safety generally speaking and on specific corridors.
I am very concerned about the area by city park and East high school. Traffic during the school season is really bad. Parking is difficult due to added student parking. Students are darting everywhere and with such added traffic it is accidents waiting to happen.  Then it is even worse, much worse in the summer. Many dog walkers and visitors to the park all day long. No parking at all around the park. Visitors to the park sometimes have to park 5 blocks away to just go to the park. We do not need to increase the density in this area. Please keep all buildings near East high school and the park at current 2-3 stories. So many people and dogs and cars with very limited parking. It is already bad enough. Thanks for listening. It is much appreciated. City park This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
  Springfield Illinois Blank
  Capitol Hill (9th/Ogden) Blank
I love the progressive vision, but without better communication and alignment and accountability with the strategic partners in the city (RTD, DPS, etc) it is only lip service.  For example, DPS is considering cancelling bus service to Denver's downtown urban schools.  This is in direct contrast to the transportation and vision plan in this document.  I'd be willing to bet that DPS doesn't know or even care about the City's strategic plan and won't take any of the visions or recommendations into account.  Urban schools need bus service, otherwise we are just contributing to increased congestion and traffic downtown.  The city needs to hold other government agencies accountable for not following the vision in the plan. Cheesman Plan has been coordinated with DPS and other partners
Obviously years of work and thought have gone into the plan. Thanks for the change to weigh in. If anyone is actually reading these comments, my concerns are: 1) Today, parks attract homeless campers and drug users. What city policies will exist to ensure that new plazas and park spaces do not become homeless encampments or needle-strewn hangout spots for users? I don't see it happening that new parks will be for all people; only continually-contested, taxpayer-funded "public" sites for the destitute and desperate. I'd love a realistic, thoughtful response to this: how will housing solutions for the homeless and restrictions on parks usage protect taxpaying residents' investment? 2) I don't see much attention paid in the plan to current single-family homeowners in East Central who are committed to staying in spite of feeling overshadowed and overwhelmed by apartment and condo development: what protections are there for us, and where are the values articulated where single-family homes and owners have as much stake and legitimacy as the other forms of housing and property ownership? 3) One fervently prays that new development will not be the awful, soulless, boxy structures that have overtaken our city from Tennyson to Sloan's Lake to South Broadway--but rather that (in our still-historic area) aesthetics, care for character and the future durability and desirability of a neighborhood will mitigate and guide developers' desire to build, rent and make money. Also: tall structures on the south side of streets create ice hazards for pedestrians, and along Colfax I would want to know who will ensure safe sidewalks for the disabled, seniors and everyone else in the snowy months? 4) Parking will be a nightmare without parking structures, yet no viable transit is in place in the near future: I would love to ditch my car, but can't-- I work in NW Denver and live in CPW, and there's just no reasonable way for me to get to work without spending hours on buses. Why is there the assumption that transit will actually get people where they need to go, be clean, fast and affordable when Denver has been ineffectively addressing transit since the days of Pena? Finally, I would like to understand why CPW didn't receive postcards from the City or have various well publicized, City-attended, stakeholder-attended charrettes or other meetings as occurred around the East plan. We probably ought to get the same attention as the East/Park Hill folks in order to really get community input. Seems to be a question of equity. CPW Plan addresses these topics
Public Parking is a clear problem in the listed neighborhoods. I know a friend that broke her leg walking home in an intersection 10 blocks because she couldn't find a spot closer to her apartment. Rent is too expensive for the average person living and working in the area to afford a parking spot. Because of this lots are empty and untended, they could be bought by the city and used as municipal lots.

Denver has an ok sidewalk infrastructure, however the walking culture is not respected. People are getting hurt in cross walks because drivers don't respect pedestrian rights. Maybe a radio public service ad about respecting pedestrian/ bikers rights would be a good use of resources.
Capitol Hill Plan includes recommendations for parking and improved pedestrian safety
As a 38 year resident on the 600 block of Steele Street, I am firmly against implementing a high comfort bike lane on Steele Street before 1) defining exactly what that is and what it means for traffic flow on Steele Street, which is already higher than many streets as a through street from Cherry Creek to Colfax; and 2) the city guaranteeing no changes in parking availability on Steele Street.
No one seems to have addressed the impact of this now or in the future on those of us who live on Steele Street. This is unacceptable. Further, I have repeatedly requested the city post a sign to the south of my driveway, because people park right up to the edge of it, making it impossible to get in and out of the driveway without driving up and over the curb. The city claims they are “observing the situation” year after year. I can only imagine these sorts of situations getting worse if parking space is more restricted.
Congress Park/7th Avenue Historic District Addressed by recommendations in plan. Proposed neighborhood bikeway will create a shared street environment with low traffic volumes, bringing safety improvements and better delineated space for all.
Provide your feedback on the draft plan. In which neighborhood do you live and/or work? Staff Response
Who will ensure that the new pocket parks and plazas (which sound good in theory) are kept clean, safe, well-lighted and enjoyable by all (not only by campers without homes)? One would also like to see, in the plan, deliberate thought given to abundant public restrooms and showers for homeless people (but tourists and just everyday folks walking around also need to urinate) and for there to be a visionary long-range budget for keeping those clean, safe and maintained. Could that be a transitionaly employment option for the jobless homeless? Also: how will trash in this new plan be effectively managed, kept from overwhelming our increasingly populated part of town? In addition to giving attention to the trash that now accumulates in our alleys and gutters: how about more large and well-designed (not dumpsters) public trash receptacles (so people who are homeless have somewhere to throw their accumulated stuff)-- and how would these would also be maintained? Finally, what exactly are the appealing, green public transportation options for all of us who cannot bike and who can't spend all day changing buses (but who need to get from City Park West/East Central to, say, Lakewood or North Denver/unincorporated Adams--or most other places--to work?)  Are there more Cop Shops or other local Community Officer locations envisioned in this plan? City Park West Plan includes recommendations to address most of these topics
My husband and I have lived in the same house in the 700 block of Steele Street, Congress Park for over 40 years.  We continue to be concerned about the increasing density in our neighborhood due to the increase in multi-family dwellings which has caused more pollution, more traffic, and innumerable parking issues.  We are very much opposed to relaxation of the current zoning restrictions to allow more density as it will continue to negatively impact the quality of Congress Park.  While "our side of the street" may be immune to increased density due to our Seventh Avenue Historic District status, we are particularly opposed to zoning regulations which will allow increased residents in all of our area of single family dwellings.

The recent use of two of the larger homes on our block have resulted in multiple singles living in each house creating parking problems, increased trash, more noise, and less of a neighborly feel.  We don't like this and don't want it to become the norm.

The other item which disturbs us greatly is the amount of traffic we now have on our block.  Drivers use the convenience of Steele Street to head north (and south too) because they may easily cross 6th Avenue using the traffic control light between St. Paul and Steele.  Many drivers speed going down our previously quiet street.  In the summer, we don't sit on our front porch nearly as much due to the noise and pollution.

I can't imagine how Steele Street will be used as the proposed "high comfort bike lane."  We already have too much traffic which will be very hazardous to bike riders.  Our street is quite narrow, and with parking on both sides of our street, driving safely is often a huge challenge when navigating around parked cars in order to miss oncoming cars.  We are opposed to allowing parking on only one side of Steele Street because both cars and bicycles will be increase substantially.

The proposal for the East Central Plan for Congress Park is one we DO NOT support.  We do not want to encourage more residents and we particularly do not support more traffic in this area.  Instead of increasing traffic on Steele Street, we would advocate shutting it to through traffic, to installation of speed bumps, to allowing only residents' access to it.

We want a continued good quality of life for the beautiful neighborhood in which we have lived for more than 40 years.  We ask that it not be ruined by making it another downtown.
Congress Park, 700 block of Steele Street This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
I don't believe the area's residents are well informed of this plan.  It lacks specifics and leaves things too open ended for various interpretation. Also, it's not holistic in nature as it fails to address specific infrastructure needs that will be a result of increased density. Congress Park This is a policy document that does not address specific infrastructure needs.  Those will be addressed through a subsequent process
A lot of information and recommendations, but from what I have seen, I like it. Congress Park Supports plan
I have a number of comments but I read the Navigator and not the full 270 page draft so I will apply in General Comments as opposed to going back through that big thing as I have limited time.

As a resident on 21st Ave, I am concerned about building height.  It appears to be limited to 2.5 stories in my area, which is good since nothing is, at present, taller than that and we have very small lots.

In general we continue to see loss of parking, but also narrowing of sidewalks and loss of tree canopy. You state the loss of parking should be due to increased bike lanes, etc. but what I see is that builders are frequently given an exception to the historical setback.  Consequently they build very close to the road and we lose tree canopy and sidewalks are narrowed, not to add bike lanes but to give developers more square footage to profit from.  It also says we are at 18 percent compared to an average of 20 percent, BUT I would like to see how that has changed year to year over the last 10 years, or even five.  Our tree canopy is reduced every year.  Not only on the tree lawns, but look at City Park.  The golf course looks horrible now, after they ripped out over 250 mature trees for Hancock's project.  They always say they are replacing them, but they replace them w/ little stick trees and never water them so most die and the others will not be mature trees til after I am dead.  This is horrible I think.  I hope this plan would change this.  Denver for the people and community and less for developers' profits.

On the section citing reverse mortgages as a solution for keeping people in homes.  That is a double edge sword.  It is how many black families that previously lived in this area lost "generational wealth".  An equally good solution may be to allow and facilitate renting parts of the home so that the elders have the means to age in place.  Support those types of programs.  Reverse mortgages end in banks owning the properties.  Then they sell them at auction and developers buy them.  Normal people looking to live here never get a chance.  HUD used to have a program where properties first had to be offered on the market for purchase by owner for n period of time, before they could be offered for purchase by developer or as a  rental.  Once the developers get them, they typically do a cheap flip.  Only THEN are they offered for sale to owners at twice the price.  Then those poor families spend years redoing the hasty flip.  That's just the truth of what's been happening around here and part of why we now have so few black families where 20 years ago, we had many.

Neighborhood bike ways and roads.  I notice the street in front of my house is designated as such.  well, right now it seems more like a truck route.  enforce rules on speed and the type of vehicles than can go speeding down our streets.  I have called trucking companies and the city many times, yet we continue to see trucks that service the hospital area barreling down our street at high speed.  they should be routed to 17th or 18th avenue or 23rd avenue.  it's really ridiculous.  One semi truck, every day, comes down 21st ave, turns left at the corner, goes one block, turns right on 22nd, then right on York.  good grief.

In terms of traffic demand management, please keep in mind that as long as people go to the mountains they will keep a car.  And that is why many move here.  even if you can get to work and the grocery store, you still need a car to get to the mountains!  truth!

I do agree that we seem to have higher crime in CPW now than 20 years ago when we moved in, even though the area has seen significant gentrification.  Gentrification is a double edged sword.  We are better when the neighborhoods are more diverse and mixed.  That means not all the section 8 people huddled together in an apartment somewhere.  But section 8 needs to be better supervised.  It can exist in houses but they need to be owner occupied.  this relates back to the comment on reverse mortgages and enabling people to rent out portions of their homes -- not for AirBnB, but for residents.

We have gone to more rentals in the neighborhood.  Either the tenants or the landlords -- someone -- needs to be responsible for the yards and snow removal.  If you've ever attempted to walk around after a storm, it's very difficult.  If people will not take responsibility then it should be mandated.  and the 24-hour thing or even the more restrictive commercial time limit are not enforced.
Lastly, we should not have AirBnBs at the expense of long term rentals.  If i wanted to live next to a motel, i would have bought a house on Colfax!
We live in City Park West and my husband WALKS to his job in Uptown. The plan includes recommendations to address many of these issues
I am supportive of higher density along key transit corridors - notably close to Colfax Avenue - to allow for reduced car commuting in the area. I would focus the density from 13th to 16th. I want to see improved bikeway coverage in the area - there are not enough bike routes yet. Congress Park (live), Montbello (work) Addressed by recommendations in plan
The East Central plan covers most of my frequent commute into the city, usually on bike via 16th Ave.  I would like a priority put on having at least one safe bike route taking traffic Park Hill / Stapleton /Aurora to downtown which takes advantage of City Park.  I see three options:  1) improvements to 16th Ave; 2) 23rd Ave (or 26th) along City Park / golf course; 3) 21st Ave or 22nd Ave accessed via the west end of City Park.  Then adding a median on Colorado Blvd at City Park or 23rd Ave would make accessing this route much safer.  Finally, there are some sidewalks on CO Blvd that could use widening, particularly around bus stations (think Colorado and Colfax at Nat. Jewish). North Park Hill (live) Addressed by recommendations in plan. See M2 & M3.
This will be the third time I have given feedback.  I attended the session at Teller last night 1/28, and had a few more takeaways.

1. There was a lot of complaining about the City's efforts at speed mitigation at 8th and Steele.  Well I would LOVE to hear ANYTHING from the City in repsonse to our attempts at traffic calming between the hospital complex and York, in particular, down 21st Ave.  It is basically a truck route.  And the intersection at 21st Ave and York should be a 4-way stop.  I see so many almost collisions there every day.  Cars park all the way up the curb to the street, so you cannot see traffic. and in spite of a stop sign at Vine, people gun it from there to make the light at York.  This is the main entrance to City Park from York and there are hundred of families, strollers, kids, bikes, dogs, ... out and about.  It is only a matter of time before there is a fatality but I guess that is what it will take to get some attention on it.  I and several of my neighbors have reported multiple times to the city with no follow up by the city. Please evaluate CPW for traffic calming, particular as regards egress/ingress to the hospital complex.

2. I was very upset to learn at the lobbying occurring in regards to the East Central Plan.  In my opinion, lobbying should not exist in the context of local neighborhood planning.  The developers have had it their way and we see the consequences.  They do not care about our neighborhoods and, frankly, most do not care about affordable housing.  They just want to make a buck and if it means building high, ripping up trees, leaving sidewalks unshoveled, and so on, they do it.  They are probably the ones arguing for reverse mortgages as a way to keep homes for the elderly.  Other options used to work and should be explored again like renting out portions of an owner occupied house.  Developers coming in and buying houses auctioned by the banks and flipping to more affluent CREATED much of the displacement we've seen.  They are not solving the problems -- they are creating them!  Maybe not all developers but it sure seems like it from where i sit in the neighborhood.
We live in City Park West and my husband WALKS to work in Uptown. 21st Ave is a proposed neighborhood bikeway in Denver Moves and is currently being designed through a public process in the Central Community Network. Neighborhood bikeways provide instersection safety and traffic calming improvements.                                     Recommendation E9 was updated to update the strategies for preservation of affordable housing. Recommendation L5 was also updated to recommend integrating strategies for affordability and assistance for existing homeowners when integrating more housing units.
Stay strong in the face of 'Boomer aggression! Capitol Hill All input is considered
Would love to see more bike paths in east central and more multi unit housing throughout ALL of east central. Congress Park Addressed by recommendations in plan
East central needs more protected bike paths and more options for housing (for young middle class folks). Congress Park Addressed by recommendations in plan
I'd love streets in uptown and cap hill to be made one way in order to avoid accidents and injuries uptown Plan includes recommendations for improving safety
As a Denver resident for over 20 years -- living in the Cheeseman Park neighborhood and Capitol Hill -- I love how the plan guides development that is inevitable. It addresses alternatives to cars for those of us who care deeply about the environment. When I pay taxes for infrastructure, I'd like my interests (getting around safely without a car) to also be strongly represented. I've been supporting the less environmental way of life enjoyed by single family home and car owners for a long time and would like to see some of my dollars put toward my interests too. I see that younger folks are trending toward this same lifestyle and given Denver is their future, we should be supporting what they want too. Cheeseman and Cap Hill Addressed by recommendations in plan
it is nice to have said that small businesses are a priority to protect, but will that really happen when it is time to build that 8 story complex?   I readily agree that is it is time build quality development. Who is in charge of reviewing and signing off on new projects??
if I understand correctly, the city has no control over certain aspects, when Councilman Hines spoke about the Telluride law.
Congress Park live and City Park West work Plan includes recommendations for preserving small business and improving design
I extremely oppose only one element of the Plan.  We don't need new 8/5 story high rises next to our house(s) on our block.  In the last go round with the new Main Street zoning, I wasn't excited about the 5/3 story allowance for the NW corner of Colfax & Madison; but we understood the need for higher density along the transportation corridor.
The new 8/5 story allowance on this site is TOO much. One of the planners told me; "This housing policy is being recommended only because current state law does not allow requiring affordable housing within underlying zoning – it can only be offered as an incentive."
Nonsense!  If true, change the law - DON'T build higher high rises next to our houses.
Surely we can do better. Surely we can find better options for affordable housing without stacking people on top of one another.  If both North corners of Colfax Madison were built to the 8/5 story standard this plan calls for - it would triple the # Hh's, residents and density of our block. Then there is the huge shadow an 8/5 story would cast on the poor suffering unlucky folks that own the last house next to the Colfax end.
The Denver East Central Plan proposes allowing sites like Colfax/Madison build higher than 5 stories currently allowed, if the developer built higher/more density with more lower income restricted units. We need to solve our affordable issue within existing height restrictions.  Even the illustration in the plan, on page 34, trying to make the case that higher high rises should be allowed above existing zoning - shows an illustration of buildings - "inside" the existing height allowances.  12 stories is currently allowed at Colfax/Colo Blvd and is illustrates it at that existing allowed height - with a note, a call-out - that deceives  the reader and says "New Affordable Housing With Access to Transit and Amenities".  But the drawing is at currently allowed height.
Solve our affordable housing; but don't overbuild Colfax. Don't destroy our quality of life in South City Park.
South City Park Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan.  The plan includes recommendations to improve design and transitions.
There are so many wonderfully innovative ideas that implement the Blueprint Denver ideals without requiring the "urban blight" scrapes of downtown in the 1970s. I can't wait to see it come to fruition! Please don't let the Boomers hold the City back for the rest of us. Live = City Park West. Work = Civic Center Plaza (16th & Lincoln/Broadway) All input is considered
The underlying question is, at what cost will change take place? The language sounds positive and inclusive, but how much thought, guidance and encouragement will actually be given to sensitive, LOCALLY-driven growth? Cheesman Park - work Central Denver The plan addresses this
I do not agree that Colfax especially between Colorado Blvd and Madison Street should be developed with multi story affordable housing. I believe the plan misrepresents the building guidelines, codes, and zoning requirements. I do not believe parking and traffic issues are being addressed nor the long  term impact on the neighborhood. City Park South Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan.  The plan includes recommendations to improve design and transitions and address parking.
Definitely good to have affordable housing plans incorporated in as well as bike and pedestrian-friendly plans. I do worry that if too many car lanes are removed or squeezed, this means traffic will be a nightmare. Some of us have enough stops (with dropping off kids and getting to work and back) that just riding a bike or bus isn't enough to work for us.  And while I love the protected bikeways and pedestrian crossings with the big white pillars, I have seen those cause a mess for traffic (e.g. Champa and 24th. It causes the car traffic to not be able to spread into two lanes soon enough, and traffic backs up a lot at an intersection that isn't heavily used by pedestrians (that I've ever seen). I definitely like the goal of keeping architecture to match the neighborhood. It appears that some landlord don't mind letting their house completely fall apart to then knock it down and build a generic cookie-cutter building. The more we can keep the architecture of the neighborhood to fit what is already there, the better it will be. Also, if there can be incentives if people are building ADUs or additional units, to have the rent not be ridiculously high, would be great. I know that's hard to do, however. Live in South City Park, work at 6th and Broadway Addressed by recommendations in plan
I do not approve with this plan. My comments:

1. I do not agree of the approval of new building permits for anyone - residential or commercial - without adequate parking.

2. I do not agree that congress park should increase resident density with greatly enhanced public transit FIRST.
Congress Park This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
16th Avenue should be bikes only from Broadway to East High School, tear up the road and put in bike lanes and a park-way(an actual park with trees etc)   Addressed by recommendations in plan. See long term vision for 16th Ave in M1.
Thank you for increasing bike and pedestrian access and safety throughout our neighborhood.  I strongly urge the City to remove Steele Street as a proposed neighborhood bikeway - there is no need for any specific designation as a bikeway because 1) Garfield Street is a safer and more direct bikeway from City Park to the Cherry Creek bike path and 2) bikers already use the various low traffic north/south streets in the neighborhood (like Steele) very safely without need for additional signage. (It is very dangerous to cross 1st Avenue at Steele or the adjoining streets to get to the Cherry Creek Bike path because of the traffic configuration  at 1st Avenue, so Garfield is a much better and safer neighborhood bikeway that can connect City Park to the Cherry Creek Bike path. I assume the City agrees with this because Denver Moves has already moved forward to prioritize Garfield as a north/south neighborhood bikeway.) There is no need to have Steele Street as a neighborhood bikeway especially if Garfield is designated as the best path from City Park to the Cherry Creek Bike path.

In addition, City planners have said that the traffic calming barriers installed on 8th and Steele are not related to the plan, but I would request the City to reevaluate the safety of these barriers given the problems they are creating on 8th Avenue and on Steele Street. My concerns (and many of my neighbors) relate to how the barrier make Steele Street extremely narrow at the corner now. How will the plows remove snow at the intersection now that several feet are blocked off?  Also, I understand that the barriers are successfully used elsewhere to calm traffic but I question why the City chose this intersection.  There is a light a half block away on 8th that already calms the traffic at this intersection. (I grew up in this neighborhood and those lights work well all over the Congress Park neighborhood on 6th and 8th and 13th and 14th to calm traffic.) My husband and I walk and bike past that intersection on a daily basis (and sometimes drive) and the light on 8th Avenue works perfectly to calm the traffic so we feel very safe and comfortable crossing 8th.  However, narrowing Steele St with the barriers makes it more uncomfortable on a bike because it is unclear where you stop - you are either stuck in between the barriers or outside the barrier and even closer to cars. It is very awkward to cross 8th now. Also, when cars turn north onto Steele from 8th, it is actually less safe because there is not enough room to turn if there are other cars or bikers.  Only one car can get by at a time. In addition, if two cars are trying to cross 8th simultaneously (one north and one south), they cannot do that without coming very close to each other.  That makes the intersection more dangerous.  I've even seen cars having to stop traffic on 8th to wait to turn north onto Steele because there was not enough space for two cars. It's even worse if there is a pedestrian or a biker and two cars at the same time trying to get across or turn onto Steele.  At the recent neighborhood meeting at Teller, at least 15 residents complained about the barriers and their experiences with less safety as opposed to increased safety.  Please reevaluate the installation of these barriers.
Congress Park Addressed by recommendations in plan. Proposed neighborhood bikeway will create a shared street environment with low traffic volumes, bringing safety improvements and better delineated space for all. Thank you for your comments regarding 8th/Steele. Forward concerns to 311.
Overall, we are excited for the changes to the city and neighbors, including ours (East Central). We wish the changes were coming sooner. We'd love to see the work completed by 2030 rather than 2040, especially the sustainability transformations (reduction in pollution, traffic and waste, and increase in mobility). We are concerned about cost and wondered if taxes will be reallocated from another budget to cover the new, transformative development? Or, will the city finally hold businesses (small and large) accountable for their part in this? (I feel strongly that businesses should pay for curb appeal, sidewalk cleaning and maintenance, a percentage of road maintenance in front of the building.) Finally, has the city considered how it will engage and excite residents beyond this feedback? Will there be marketing posted in local shops, etc to promote engagement? Will there be more surveys, town halls, community nights? Can residents participate in project clean up, planting, art work? Congress Park See implementation section.  See website for engagement information
I went through the plan and  I wanted to make a couple general comments.  I live in Congress Park, south of Colfax.  I drive to work South of Denver.  It sounds like parking spaces and cars are not well liked, but they are important.  It gives me freedom and helps provide for my livelihood and generates the income that I spend while visiting businesses on Colfax and 12th avenue during the evening and the weekend.  I think I'm keeping the local restaurants in business.  :)  I hope the character of Congress Park, Colfax and the other areas are maintained. 
I live near single family homes that have been modified to multi family.  I feel like there are plenty of those, plus a lot of apartment complexes in Congress Park.  I don't like the idea of cramming more people into single family homes by converting more of those to multi family, or building more multi family buildings. 
I live along 14th Ave.  It's busy, but I tell people I don't mind because I love the neighborhood I live in.    I agree we need to make it safer for bikers and pedestrians, but I also worry about focusing too much on too many paths for bikes (I don't know how many is too many).  I think there must be a happy medium between getting around on foot, bike, and car, and I have confidence that you'll find that happy medium.
I like the idea of rapid bus transit down Colfax, or 14th, or wherever.  It's a pain to get around this town on the bus/light rail, and maybe something like that would help make it easier.  Please keep in mind, not all of us spend our entire day in the East Central Area...we work out of the area.  Getting on a bus and traveling down Colfax is important but our trips don't stop there.  The region needs to make it more efficient to get from place to place using mass transit.  It's surprising that hasn't already happened with the large expansion of lightrail over the last many years.
Thank-you!
Congress Park Addressed by recommendations in plan
Letting the neighbors who live in the area get involved and stay informed by these meetings. In the Park Avenue and Franklin St. area Neighbors have been involved
The ECD plan completely changes the character of this neighborhood- the plan on how to increase density will result in homes being scraped and multiple unit dwellings out in the place.  This neighborhood has grown and changed quite a bit in the ten years we have lived here and I do not feel the statistic presented accurately represent our neighborhood Congress park Plan includes recommendations for maintaining neighbohrood character
Agree with the addition of more bike lanes and want to continue improvement in the neighborhood for bike users Cap hill Addressed by recommendations in plan
I am happy to see the city is looking towards the future - towards living styles that are more sustainable for our city and our planet. I personally think the goals are not enough towards this effort. I would like to see higher goals and movements towards increased alternative transportations - reduce SOV use, fewer cars. It will be a challenge for Denver to grow, retain its historic architecture which represents the beauty of the city, while increasing density. These are not mutually exclusive, just difficult to manage in the day and age of greedy developers. This works well in cities with retail on the first level and unique structures above, generally 4-6 stories. I like the idea of high density along transportation corridors. I am also in favor of changing current strategies of tearing down small units into large single-family obscenities that often house 2-4 people. As an environmentalist I appreciate allowing more people per unit so thanks for including this. I don't have a major issue with the parking problem it will create - personally I view this as a positive problem that will hopefully change individuals transportation mindset.  However, It is Denver's duty to manage this growth for all the residents, old and new. This includes ones that have lived here and should be able to continue to afford to live here, to help maintain economic diversity. DO NOT LET DEVELOPERS BUY OUT THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING obligations!
As a frequent pedestrian and bike rider, I welcome the traffic calming recommendations and the increased bike transit options!!!  I love the idea of a bike lane on Detroit, Steele and Garfield. I currently feel very unsafe riding around - mainly due to the fact that cars are not looking for bikes or pedestrians. The easier it is the more people will use it themselves. Remember every bicyclist is one less driver on the road! It is really sad to see how much concrete we have to park cars, the impermeable surface waste! I am also in favor of a larger tree canopy as a proactive effort, especially after just reading that Denver has the third larges heat island effect in the US - and we feel it every summer! Every creative approach is welcome in my book - green alleys, green roofs larger tree lawns.
Congress Park Larger goals are set at the citywide level and not at the area plan level
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.
South City Park Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan.  The plan has been reviewed by DPS.
I have strong concerns about the plan, and the process by which it was created.

While I applaud the desire to plan for the long term growth of the Denver metropolitan area, I believe that the city has put into place changes that will have adverse effects on our neighborhood. I also believe that certain neighborhoods have been chosen as targets, while others will be protected because they are wealthier, such as Country Club.

I have attended several neighborhood planning meetings, and at each have been surprised that representative city planners have been unable to answer my questions about the proposed changes. The guiding principles seems to be simply to increase density, without thought to infrastructure or the wishes of the neighborhood residents themselves.

More specifically, I continue to be concerned that the introduction of ADUs will enable developers to change the neighborhood in drastic ways. As it is now, short term rental restrictions remain unenforced, so I can't imagine the requirement that the property owner reside onsite will be enforced regarding ADUs. I envision, instead, a situation where owners add rental units onto their property to maximize income, a situation that will adversely affect neighbors.

Additionally, the plan for Colfax Avenue seems to be to change the rules, and hope that the public catches up. There is insufficient funding to make Colfax the kind of corridor that the city hopes. I am a full time commuter, using RTD as my means to get to work five days a week and sometimes on weekends. I support public transit. But this "plan" seems to be premised on the hope that if you make traffic worse, people will get out out their cars.

On that note, I was shocked to learn how little care had been put into building parking capacity for the increased height limits from 12th to 15th. That seems like a terrible strategy. As much as we don't like to admit it, people rely on cars, and new residents bring cars. We should account for this.

I will add that I've been terribly discouraged by this process. I believe the city planners are well-intentioned, and care about the future of the city. But you should be aware that the neighborhood residents feel little confidence or trust in the planning department. The goal above all seems to be to increase density. I have watched my neighbors voice concerns about this, only to be ignored or told to get with the program. In other words, however much the city emphasized that this process was driven by neighborhoods themselves, what I have witnessed has been a topdown effort to impose what the city long wanted: more residential capacity. At no point did I see any real consideration given to the possibility that we could design to preserve the best aspects of our neighborhood: its peaceful environment, its historic character, and its diversity.
Congress Park The plan addresses these issues and has involved significant community input.
As residents of South City Park, my husband and I have serious concerns s about any plan that increases density in our already overcrowded neighborhood.  Parking on our street at night is a true nightmare.  Our alley is already crammed full of trash, recycling, and compost bins.  It’s truly impossible to place them all 2 feet apart as the city supposedly requires.  And, based on personal experience of having the one-story home across the alley to our west scraped and replaced with a 3-story duplex, we lost  not only privacy and a lovely view, but now have to contend with even more bins in the alley.  ... and then there’s the street parking issue...  And, these issues don’t even address the changes to Colfax that could create more congestion and parking problems in our neighborhood.  Colorado has lots of empty space.  Please use it! South City Park Plan includes recommendations to parking and design
I am concerned about drivers not obeying the red arrow signal. Wondering if the red arrow could be made bigger. Also, drivers stopping in the crosswalks. Signal light not long enough for older walkers.   Plan includes recommendations to improve traffic safety
I support greater densities on the proposed areas to support transit and affordable housing etc. I am concerned, however, that the details and enforcement mechanisms won't really be strong enough to support the desired outcomes. The fiasco with below market housing in Green Valley Ranch comes to mind. I'm also aware that some folks think that the higher densities will cause MORE gentrification, although I'm not convince. So I'd like to see some strong oversight and auditing from the beginning... Congress Park The city has improved the administration of affordable housing programs
While for the most part, much of the Draft Plan meets objectives. However, some new building height allowances do not support Draft Plan Objectives. Example being the new height allowance for building on the north-west corner of the Madison and Colfax intersection. A five story building would be out of character for the surrounding blocks on the north side of Colfax, and would block sunlight from multiple on-going roof top solar projects on a residential block. The south end of the block is identified in the Draft Report as an area for enhanced tree coverage, and while the block heading north enjoys good tree coverage the health of which would be jeopardized by the amount of shade created by a five-story building on the south end of the block. It's a great place for mixed housing and business, but three-stories should be the max height for consistency, property value and out of respect for the existing residents of that block and their efforts to utilize sunlight for gardens and solar. The current building is a modified 3-story Denver square which has supported thriving businesses in the past. It is not clear in the Draft Report why increasing the height allowance creates benefit and why is it needed. City Park Neighborhood Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan.  The plan includes recommendations to improve design and transitions.
The question is too general.  The plan has good and bad points.  In general, it ignores important differences between neighborhoods in favor of development and increased density with insufficient attention to infrastructure requirements that such density requires.  It threatens to disrupt established residential neighborhoods to pursue policy goals such as affordable housing.  There are other tool to solve this problem such as expanded rent vouchers, real estate trusts, etc. It is disingenuous to advance the concept of exchanging development height for "affordable housing."  This is currently illegal under state law and previous efforts to find a way around this legal barrier have not successfully achieved this goal.  A zoning change being considered involves changing the definition of 'household' permitting more than 2 unrelated individuals to reside in a unit, may significantly impact this problem.  The ECAP transportation recommendations make unrealistic assumptions about private automobile use and traffic.  Even if use and ownership decrease, traffic and parking pressure will not change due to increased population density.  It also assumes the existence of more functional  and distributed mass transit than currently exists.  Finally, many of the demographic assumptions used in the ECAP fail to consider development already occurring in other parts of Denver and along other transportation corridors (e.g. RTD A line).  It also does not recognize that the current 2010 zoning code can accommodate the next 20 years of growth.  In general, i am in favor of gradual, incremental change so that neighborhoods evolve.  This is not the type of change that the ECAP advocates. Congress Park The plan includes recommendations to address many of these issues
I am very frustrated with the way public input has been stifled.  I went to the community meeting.  After a video and an hour of walking around looking at information boards, finally questions were taken after most of the people who attended the meeting had left.  I sent a letter with my comments to one of the planners.  He informed me he my letter would not be part of the public record.  I had to use the electronic comment section.  This little box is not big enough for my letter, though I will be putting it through in sections.  At this late date I also realize I could go back through the document and add comments as I go along, but it is too late for that.  All of this is unfriendly to neighbors wanting to raise issues about this plan.  It is quick and efficient for the city to check the box that citizens were given the change to participate without really listening to them.
I went to a SANA meeting where a city planner came to talk to us.  We gave a lot of good feedback.  However since then I have been informed that he actually really heard very little of it.  So disappointing.  The city only wants to hear what supports what has already been proposed, not what the people who live here can contribute.
Planning to go to tomorrow's SANA meeting.  I will be shocked if anything has changed.
Congress Park All input is considered
Dear Scot Robinson and Denver City Planners:
You have put together an impressive document. I am having a hard time digesting all of it by the
meeting Wednesday night at East. However, I would particularly like to address the Contemporary
Parkway Potential Design Concept.
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.
Congress Park Addressed by recommendations in plan. Details of project design will be identified in a later public process.
Does this account for the current proposal to increase housing rules to allow 8 (I think) unrelated people and unlimited children to reside in one house ?  How will this added density affect the plan?
Making the Colfax RBT free would be a game changer in terms of people using it to hop on and off all day, versus driving short distances -- please try to make it free for all residents of the neighborhoods.  It will draw people to the Colfax businesses as they walk to board the bus.
Park Hill; work from home.  Husband works downtown. The plan is being coordinated with the group living project
We are in the middle of a climate crisis that threatens society as we know it.  We can no longer be tolerant and quiet when we hear voices of intolerance from white conservatives who seek to keep race based single family zoning.  We need to rezone this entire area to multifamily EVEN THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WEALTHY WASPS LIVE SUCH AS 7TH.  This plan does not go nearly far enough but it is a start. 
We need 10 minute buses every 1/4 so that people will use the system and the density to support theses busses.  Our streets are already overcrowded, so we can adopt the white Boomer plan of clicking our heels together three times and praying all the bad colored people go away, or we vastly increase density and transit frequency NOW while we still have a planet to care about.
Congress Park This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
I would strongly like to see ADU's permissible on lots more than 5000 sq feet.  I notice that the areas around 7th Avenue (including my address) do not allow for ADU's although areas farther away from 7th avenue do allow for ADU's on the plan.  This is unfortunate as carriage houses in the late 1800 and early 1900 were characteristic of these old houses.   Further, there is certainly the square footage as opposed to other areas that are contemplated to allow ADU's with smaller lots.Please explain the reasoning for excluding ADU's in the 7th Avenue area? My address is 675 Jackson Street, denver, CO 80206.  I am one house in from 7th. Congress Park Plan includes recommendations to allow ADUs on all lots
Strongly agree with adding density to the city neighborhoods, especially along transit corridors Congress Park Supports plan
As a preface, after having reviewed the plan, I attended the most recent meeting on January 15, 2020. Consequently, I believe I’m as up to speed as is possible.  I live on Clayton Street between 14th Avenue and Colfax and have been in my house, built in 1894, since 1996. My neighborhood will be dramatically impacted.  I feel that virtually NO attention has been devoted to what will undeniably be a reduction in parking and increased traffic.  Cleaning out a garage in order to park is not an option when one does not have a garage. for someone as myself who does not have a garage.  The plan to have an RTD bus travel down the middle of Colfax has been touted as a wonderful thing.  It sounded great until I thought about a millisecond later that this would result in the loss of a traffic lane on both sides of Colfax.  Additionally, customers of restaurants and retail stores park in those areas.  So do residents.  The developer who presented the plan at this last meeting, no solution was offered.  We also learned that, along with the loss of a huge amount of space on the road, we will no longer be able to make left turns off of Colfax onto the majority of side streets.  That concern was basically shrugged off by the presenter. One neighbor asked whether there could be parking permits provided to residents.  That’s one way that neighbors in Cherry Creek, Washington Park, etc., have some way to preserve the ability to park.  This suggestion was immediately dismissed.  Either none of the advocates of this plan gave any consideration to these impacts or worse yet, considered them and did not care.  I’m not persuaded that the construction of 8 story buildings will be an improvement to my neighborhood.  I am convinced that the lack of attention devoted to traffic and parking will instead be a degradation to the neighborhood. At the very least, keep the lanes on Colfax as they are and issue parking permits to residents. Congress Park This plan attempts to balance viewpoints and create opportunities for all needs through a multimodal transportation network.
I strongly object that the designation for a High Comfort Bikeway is still on the map for Detroit St. That designation has specific design guidelines attached to it, as is stated in writing on the City's website. DPW has said that they have redrafted the plan to say that it could include a Neighborhood Bikeway, which in some cases is still a buffered bikeway, and they still have not removed the High Comfort Bikeway as an overarching designation. I hope DPW will consider removing the language of High Comfort Bikeway altogether if that's not a possibility - otherwise, I don't know why they would insist on leaving it on the plan. I don't want the plans to end up in someone's hands in 5-10 years that doesn't understand that Detroit St was not intended to have a buffered bikeway. I prefer to not have that option on the table because there is not a need for it on this street and the funds could be used to make some of our dangerous streets safer. DPW has stated that they will not remove trees/easements and they will not make Detroit St. a one-way.

Density is not needed to accommodate future growth. According to City Planners, if the density and height allowed under the current zoning code is developed along Colfax Avenue, we will accommodate all of the growth anticipated over the next 20 years.

Density does not equate to affordability. The construction of affordable housing CANNOT be mandated as a "community benefit" by giving incentives to developers. Since state law prohibits the imposition of income restrictions, this is an illusory goal that cannot be achieved by rezoning neighborhoods. I support statewide legislative changes to provide affordable housing operated by nonprofit and public agencies.

While I support efforts to improve bus travel on Colfax with dedicated “peak-hour bus lanes, kiosks, and traffic signaling,” I do not support the elimination of two traffic lanes to accommodate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) without further study of traffic impacts on our neighborhoods.

The City does not need to provide incentives to developers to create green space and parks. The City already has the funding to acquire, develop, and maintain park land, trails and open space as a result of the passage of Measure 2A, Denver Parks and Open Space Sales Tax, that provides $46 million annually restricted to this purpose.

The City has failed to inform many residents regarding the East Central Area Plan, its disparate impacts on working poor families, and potential for displacement. Residents living in other neighborhoods undergoing the planning process received postcard notifications, were invited to office hours with city planners at convenient times and places, and received resources regarding housing, transportation, and small business. No such services were provided to East Central residents.

The draft plan fails to address the need for infrastructure to support the proposed density and population increases in our neighborhoods. The plan does not identify or recommend resources for sidewalks, schools, safety, parking, libraries, water supplies, sewer, or the power grid.
Congress Park See mobility section.  Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan.  The plan includes recommendations to improve design and transitions.  See website for engagement information.
There are many challenges related to a plan like this.  There are assumptions made to justify the plan at so many levels.  While plans are an essential tool for City Planning activities as well as City Governance, the drawback is the lack of flexibility and fluidity when the assumptions do not come to fruition.  An example is the population growth projections.  How does the plan change in the event of significant increases or decreases in the growth projections.  A plan that better handles gradients of growth would better serve the whole community.  For example,  let's say the plan is based on 50% growth and those projection are off by a magnitude of 2x or 3x, or the reverse happens.  How does the plan adjust based on these changing dynamics.  So a base plan is reasonable, but there needs to be relatively automated process for adjusting to dynamic shifts in population.  This applies to other changes, like an acceleration in projections regarding climate change, or radical changes in economic conditions.  The Draft Plan assumes a reasonably static future, and it is likely the future will be much more dynamic than we can safely predict. City Park West The plan is based off projections from citywide plans, but is intended to be flexible enough to accommodate variations and can be amended if needed
The buildings on 17th in Uptown should be kept low to keep the historic “restaurant row” vibe. Also this area of town is not meant to be packed like downtown is with high rises. Live in uptown work in union station The area is alread zoned for taller buildings and the plan recommends maintaining that
Washington should not be turned into a bike lane. There is too much parking that would be sacrificed. Instead we could use Logan or grant as they already have multiple lanes. Uptown The DenverMoves: Bicycles recommendation for a bike facility on Washington/Clarkson is currently being vetted in a public process through South Central community network. This plan has coordinated with that team to give all feedback related to corridors in the network. Specific plans and designs will be decided through their process
I greatly oppose changing zoning to allow ADUs. I live here for the beauty, character and sense of community.  I do not want more congestion and density Congress Park Allowance for ADUs is adopted city policy
I don’t like the part of the vision that endorses greater density.  This is a foundational assumption that was put upon us, not generated from us.
I’m against the auxiliary dwelling unit provision.  It’s an invitation to density without consideration to neighbors, appropriate zoning requirements, and consequentially increased cars on our streets.
Congress Park The vision for growth was set by citywide adopted plans
The environmental goals are super important to me. I don't think we can add enough tree canopy or remove enough impervious surfaces in this neighborhood. Is it possible to add another park in Cap Hill? Cheeseman is close by, but it'd be nice to have a little pocket park somewhere even closer by. I live right next to the fenced in grassy area by Morey Middle School, which seems like it could be great to open up to the neighborhood on a nice weather day. I'll say though that I would be concerned about homeless folks posting up in the school yard permanently. I don't really understand what the plan specifies for Water Quality - is it just a study? And I would love to see something about recycling and composting becoming more of a priority - my current apartment building offers neither because of cramped alley space apparently. Could we have a walking distance recycling/composting outpost so I don't have to drive my waste to Cherry Creek?

I walk from Cap Hill to downtown every day, and although technically we have close to 100% sidewalk coverage, the quality is really varied. For instance, you can't scooter around Cap Hill because there are too many bumps and uneven pieces of sidewalk, and you'd fly right off. It also makes it difficult to push a stroller (which I did from Cap Hill to Cheesman Park with a friend the other day), or roll around in a wheelchair, I'd imagine. Love the green alleys concept. Anything you can do to make intersections safer for pedestrians, e.g. shorter crosswalks, traffic calming, longer stoplights, would be much appreciated. There are missing crosswalks across many streets, e.g. Emerson and 12th, Emerson and 13th, that could be a nice opportunity to remind drivers that people will be crossing there even if there isn't a stoplight or stop sign. Could also be an opportunity to add some rainbow crosswalks, as we are historically known as Denver's homosexual neighborhood even though we don't have any visible signs around. Would it be crazy to completely close off a north-south road, like Sherman as part of the 5280 loop, to cars?

I'm very okay with giving up street parking for more and safer bike lanes in the Cap Hill neighborhood. Would love to see a protected bike lane, hidden behind a layer of cars, on 13th. Think there's plenty of room for it, and it would help with traffic calming cause people speed down that hill.

I like that most of the high-rise building zones are in the western-most areas of East Central and along Colfax because if Cap Hill were to suddenly have high rise buildings, I'd find a new neighborhood (I'm a renter, so it'd be pretty easy to leave). I like the walk-ability of my neighborhood, and I love that there are so many ground-floor places to walk, but I also like that it doesn't feel overwhelming like Downtown.
Cap Hill Plan includes recommendations for additional park locations based on thousands of comments from Capitol Hill residents. A clarifying edit has been made to the water quality section detailing that this is not a study but that the recommendations developed in this chapter will reference previous work done + importance of good water quality and how to achieve that vision. 
I strongly disagree with your draft plan.  A wonderful neighborhood in the city does not need more density. congress park Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan. 
I live near 13th Ave.  Reducing lanes on Colfax will drive more cars through our residential area. Congress Park Plan includes recommendations to calm and discourage cut-through traffic
As a Ph.D. economist I have the following comments. 1. Little or no economic data and analysis provided in the plan. 2. Discussions of infrastructure such as fire service are woefully inadequate. 3. Discussions of infrastructure do not include public safety concerns such as speed limits, road capacity, parking availability. 4. Historical preservation is ignored, such as buildings built more than 50 years ago. 5. No reason or justification is given for the need to increase density in this area. Congress Park (live and work) The plan includes recommendations to address many of these issues
Don’t turn East Colfax into RINO.  Or worse, Tennyson starting at 44th. That’s precisely what will happen if current draft is adopted as is.

RINO is a concrete canyon, Tennyson is a cautionary tale regarding application of zoning/height restriction changes.  The cheaply done, badly proportioned buildings along Tennyson (and in various clusters around Sloan’s Lake and developing along the West Colfax corridor and out Lakewood Gulch) give the appearance of the tickiest-tackiest collection of “density” metro-wide.

The driving force behind much of the density/height changes in the current draft is BRT.  It is smart planning to link growth and transit and infrastructure improvements but BRT is effectively a pipe dream at this point.  Without BRT, there shouldn’t be any immediate need for wholescale upzoning and changing height restrictions.  And yet, BRT isn’t sufficiently funded and there’s no guarantee it ever will be.  Moreover, the planning to date assumes that by building dense and significantly restricting parking that people will give up their cars.  There is no evidence to suggest that will happen.  It will simply result in parking nightmares (think Capitol Hill).

The City’s track record of developing corridors is problematic at best: Northside, Sloans Lake, Quebec being prime examples of anything but quality planning.  The current draft plan has the thinnest veil of planning jargon but otherwise still screams developer-driven.  The result is what density currently looks like in Denver: Tennyson.  The plan “encourages” a lot of things but delivers only one things for sure: density, which alone is not a means to many positive ends.  The only thing definitely planned is density and development, not infrastructure. 

The preservation of historic structures in the blocks off Colfax remains a concern.  The plan encourages preservation but it’s overwhelmingly achieved through poptops and nothing in the plan indicates that a resulting pop would have any relevance to the neighborhood character.  Why?  There’s no design review or standards associated with the plan.  The result could easily be the horrendous poptops done throughout the city.  This isn’t any improvement.

Furthermore, while no one might take my house, what about the neighbor next door that either decides to scrape and build something enormous or pop to something enormous?  If upzoned, there’s nothing stopping the scrape of a bungalow and replacing with with two, 2.5-story, million dollar townhomes.  If this happens up and down the block, all that character is gone within a couple of years.  Prime examples of this are along the 1700 block of North Williams and between 18th-20th blocks of North G a y l o r d.

"Community Benefit" is vaguely worded in the current draft.  Furthermore, there is no process for actually getting the community's input for such a benefit as the horse trading with developers occurs.  These "benefits" could differ from area to area up and down Colfax.  A process were in place to identify spots most affected by upzoning/height restriction changes *and* a way to reach out to residents in those immediate areas to determine what they want in return for giving developers literally "more stories".

Everything is “encouraged” meaning nothing must be done and again, the track record of relying on “encouraging” certain aspects of development has repeatedly shown developers will take the path of least resistance and cost.  The results are not what the “encouragement” was designed for.

Summary:
-Without funded BRT in near term, no changes in current height restrictions.  Without BRT, upzoning and the density scale in the proposed plan is a) not supportable and b) will result in a traffic nightmare not only along Colfax but every side street within 4 blocks.
-Preservation of existing structures is not guaranteed and current plan does nothing to ensure consistency much less have any attempt at design review.  Scrapes and atrocious poptops can still happen--there's not even any attempt at preventing it.
-No process defined for getting "Community Benefit" input.  You need to be as flexible as possible with this from effected area to effected area.
-Most move past "encouragement" as some mitigating process.  Unless there are meaningful regulations for design review, this will not happen.  At a minimum, better control on design/materials should be required.
Whittier The plan is a policy document, all of its recommendations will need to be implemented by separate processes following adoption of the plan
The BRT plan using the 2 center lanes of East Colfax will increase traffic on the side streets, hurt the small businesses on Colfax who have no off-street parking, and greatly increase traffic on 13th and 14th avenues.  As an avid bicycle rider, I know this will make our neighborhood less safe for riding.  Our own plan will be to move elsewhere. Congress Park Plan includes recommendations to address impacts of BRT
There has not been enough outreach in effective ways by the City. Congress Park See engagement information on the website
I agree with much of the draft plan recommendations to achieve the vision for East Central, however, I believe the actual vision needs some work.  My sense in reading through the Comprehensive Plan and the subsequent vision articulated for the Area Plans is that the primary driver is dealing with population growth, with various projections provided as the basis for recommendations for increased density, etc.  I believe there needs to be a more dynamic vision and the subsequent plans are built to be more flexible and fluid as the city changes and grows.  The problem with most plans is they start with a guess as to the future, then nothing is ever done to refine or modify the plan when the guess doesn't play out as expected.  The planning process should have dynamic factors that can be dialed up and down on a year to year basis, as opposed to adopting a static plan that is supposed to last the next 20 years. City Park West The plan is based off projections from citywide plans, but is intended to be flexible enough to accommodate variations and can be amended if needed
1.  Zoning - I don't support allowing buildings higher than 5 stories along Colfax.  The negative impact of these tall buildings far outweighs the community benefits  that the developers would  be incentivized to provide.    Affordable housing is an important issue, but it needs to be addressed differently. 

2.  Parking - I don't think that the plan does enough to realistically address the issue of parking.  The increased density proposed under the plan is going to create more need for parking.  I support biking and mass transit and use them myself whenever possible, but many people like (and some need) their cars and it's not realistic to think that they can be coerced into giving them up because there's no place to park.  Many people don't have any option for off-street parking.  It was interesting to me to see the level of hostility in the comments to on-street parking.  The city definitely needs to make biking and taking the bus safer and more attractive (and I like a lot of the options in the plan) but taking away parking or not requiring developers to provide parking for the tenants/residents of new buildings (the building at York and 17th is a case in point) is the wrong approach.   I'm also concerned when I read about the challenges RTD is having.  Denver's transit is (in my experience) pretty good, but if service is cut or becomes unreliable it's not right to take away the option of driving. 

3.  Parks - we need more open space and the city needs to aggressively pursue getting more.  However, when I see phrases like "developing new amenities" I immediately think of the old and splintering physical challenge courses that languish along the platte river.  They got put in and forgotten.  Fix up the existing playgrounds - definitely - but don't create new ones unless they're going to be maintained.  What an exploding city like Denver needs is more quiet, green spaces for people to reconnect with nature, observe birds and other wildlife, and just have some piece and quiet.  They don't need to have the latest "creative play space" that in five or ten years will sit, decrepit and unused, where there used to be a meadow.   The same is true for programming.  The city rec centers are great, especially Carla Madison, and I very much support more programming in them, especially for kids.  Sharing the parks with school programs is great too.  What I don't like is private or "nonprofit" entities using the parks for events that generate a profit or cover the administrative costs of an event (running races are money makers).  I don't mind having a race or a walk on occasion, but they should not take over the park.   The same with volleyball or kickball leagues.

4.  Affordable housing - I like the thought that's been put into creatively approaching this issue.  However, if ADU's become short-term rentals, that's not going to help.  Expanding housing options to allow co-housing, group housing or trying to help seniors live together in non-traditional arrangements is great as long as we don't wind up with places that are nothing more than flop houses owned by absentee landlords.  It's not clear to me from the plan how the changes being considered would be implemented effectively.  As noted above, the city shouldn't allow massive apartment blocks  that will tower over the neighborhood just to get a few affordable dwelling units.  My impression is that it's the developers and the wealthy who come out on top of these arrangements.

5.  Biking and pedestrian safety - this is a strength.  The proposal for Garfield and 17th is a great approach.  Expanded bikeways and safer pedestrian crossing are great.
City Park The plan includes recommendations to address many of these issues
I support increasing the number of high-comfort bike-ways and dedicated transit lanes and decreasing on street parking supply to accommodate multi-modal improvements, including parklets and micro-mobility.

I am concerned about the speed of traffic on 8th, 13th, and 14th and would support removing lanes or making these streets two-way and/or incorporating neighborhood slow zones.

Park Avenue and Colfax definitely need improved pedestrian environment/treatments. Linking the triangle parks with a bike lane or pedestrian walking area would be a big improvement and help to connect rather than bisect the area. Sherman would be improved as a neighborhood bikeway.

Reducing crossing distances on Lincoln would make it a better experience for pedestrians/cyclists etc and better connect Capitol Hill to downtown cultural facilities etc. I would support buffered bike lanes on Washington and Clarkson, protected bike lane on Grant, and more robust bike lanes / pedestrian crossings on 16th and 17th.

Governor's park could be put to better use through programming, amenities and other facilities. Cap hill could also use a dog park.

With the new developments going in on 9th I think it'd be a great candidate for a bikeway connecting neighborhoods across Colorado Blvd.

I support exploring high comfort bike lanes on Franklin, Lafayette, and Gayl0rd Streets. 7th Avenue is underutilized as a thoroughfare for bicyclists and pedestrians because it abruptly ends as a comfortable parkway, so a more logical transition or continuation of bike/ped facilities along that street would improve the experience of people using it.

I support accessory dwelling units and increased density to create more mixed-income housing in Congress Park.

Josephine, York, 13th, and 14th are all dangerous streets to cross due to parked cars inhibiting views. I think the parking spaces close to the intersections should be eliminated. I support a neighborhood a bikeway on Detroit in Congress Park. I also support BRT on Colfax.
Congress Park Addressed by recommendations in plan
I do not think that enough input from the residents has been gathered. We need more time to review and think about this plan since it will affect the neighborhoods for decades. I have been in Denver long enough to witness the devastating impact of decisions on neighborhoods made by planning offices and voted in by city council and the mayor, e.g. turning many streets in Capitol Hill into one way streets. I don't think that someone in the city office should just decide that we need to increase the density of the east central neighborhood without looking at the consequences of such a decision. Increasing the density has a good chance of destroying the livability of these neighborhoods and destroying property values. While it may seem that Denver has attracted young people moving here, there is a good chance that we will overbuild, change the character of the neighborhood, and when these young people want to start families, they will leave the neighborhood, and we will be left with many ticky-tacky cheap apartment buildings. I live in Congress Park. See engagement information on the website
Overall the plan looks good, I have lived in Capitol Hill for more than 20 years and grew up in Congress Park, I have loved walking in the neighborhood and take advantage of the amenities, parks and busineses that are within walking distance.  Over the years I see more abandoned sites and notice a divide between a growing homeless population and those who are barely hanging on to be able to stay in the neighborhood- I value socioeconomic diversity and dignity and want to see more services that honor diversity- I enjoy frequenting small business that show their care for the community, treat their workers well and take care in what they offer.  I love the idea of making this community more accessible including better infrastructures and areas for walkers, bikes and public transportation.  The only concern I have is that expanding bike lanes does not also take away parking opportunities as they are few and far between.  The 5280 idea on Sherman sounds cool, redirecting bikes and walkers away from busy streets is a good thing. Live in Capitol Hill and work close by on Park Ave and California The plan includes recommendations to address many of these issues
The plan contains information relies on data that is not accurate. We all want safer streets, access to healthy foods, and more affordable housing. But the methods the plan proposes for achieving affordable housing through upzoning in already dense neighborhoods may push more people out of the neighborhood as has already happened in many places where so-called more affordable housing is included with considerable more density. Our schools are overcrowded and threatened with closure if deemed under-performing. I have heard that the new RTD service will closing two lanes of traffic. This will push more traffic into our neighborhoods in East Central in particular those streets closest to Colfax. I am confused by transformative street. Has the city done any studies on impacts to resident and neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the Colfax?

The character preservation program has no ideas about how it will preserve homes. For example, will the homes qualify for the State's tax credits? What constitutes preservation? Can the city define this term?

I need more time to consider the plan and without it, I have to say I am against it as written. If the city is serious about getting input from us, then please give us more time to figure out what you mean by the plan.

Go back to the drawing board. I want to hear from affordable housing experts that rezoning our neighborhoods will achieve the plan vision. I don't think incentives to developers has ever worked nor will it in the future.
South City Park The plan addresses these issues
This is a great plan. I especially like the 16th street parkway proposal. My concerns are related to being a resident in City Park West and the challenging access to City Park given the increased traffic on York street. I believe there should be a pedestrian-friendly flashing walkway (similar to the one recently installed on York St near the botanic gardens) connecting pedestrians from the main park entrance on 21st to the neighborhood in City Park West. I am also a resident on G-aylord st (between 20th and 21st) and strongly feel that a 4 way stop sign needs to be put in place at the corner of G-aylord and 21st. Car and truck traffic from York street zip down 21st at alarmingly high speeds, causing frequent accidents in the intersection. There are lots of walkers and cyclers on that street heading to City Park and it is incredibly unsafe. I have 3 children and regret that they couldn't safely cross the 1 block to enter our neighorhood's great green space without 1) a more pedestrian friendly crosswalk across York at 21st and 2) a 4-way stop sign at 21st and G-aylord.
Furthermore, I would like to see the amount of car traffic in City Park greatly reduced or eliminated.
And finally, I believe plans are underway for an improved playground in City Park but I would like to mention the need to improve that as well. Thank you for all of the excellent planning.
City Park West Addressed by recommendations in plan
1. This Plan has been pushed through without genuine neighborhood input.  It has been pushed through too fast for neighborhood organizations to make effective responses.  The neighborhood input that has been received has been consistently ignored.  The process and implementation has been despotic and undemocratic.
2. The proposed protected bike lane on 7th Ave. is extremely dangerous.  Bicyclists and pedestrians will be hidden from turning vehicles; the results will be tragic.  The next City administration that needs to economize a little will curtail snow and trash removal, rendering the bike lane unusable.
3. The proliferation of ADUs will radically change the character of the neighborhood.
4. The change of one-way streets to 2-way will push traffic into neighborhood streets, forever degrading them and destroying the essence of the neighborhoods.
Cheesman, 7th Avenue Plan has included extensive community input, proposed bike lanes will be designed to be safe, allowing ADUs is adopted citywide policy, converting streets to 2-way will be studied before implemented
I think it's really encouraging to see these plans. I was in a fairly serious bike accident in March last year and haven't felt safe enough to get back on the road. More bike lanes would literally be a life saver for a lot of us.

And the need for affordable housing touches on so many issues, from the need for diverse communities to basic fairness. Lower wage works should be able to eat, pay rent and save a little while living in the neighborhoods they serve. All students should be able to comfortably live in communities with good schools.

This is a young city. A lot of us want access to basic services like safe roads and parks.
Capitol Hill Supports recommendations
More bike lanes would be great Capitol Hill Addressed by recommendations in plan
While I applaud the goals of increasing safety and decreasing automobile use, I believe the plan is misguided in how to meet these goals.  I have focused on the parts of the draft that specifically apply to my neighborhood, Congress Park in general, Seventh Avenue Historic district in particular.  I have serious concerns about maintaining the integrity of one of Denver's most wonderful neighborhoods, and I'm sure many of my concerns apply to Denver's other wonderful old neighborhoods in all parts of the city.  As the plan now stands I am opposed to it and I believe the city should not be rushing it through.  Below I'll list my primary concerns with the plan.

1.  ADUs come with serious issues including school overcrowding (already being experienced at Teller!), worsening parking problems in the neighborhood, a possible influx of Air BnB units which can lead to problems that come with temporary residents including noise, increased traffic, loss of neighborhood cohesion.  I understand the desire to increase available living spaces, however, I think serious limits need to be placed on how many of these are allowed or the character of the neighborhood will be forever changed.

2.  The proposed protected bike lane is completely counterintuitive to what its objectives are.  While these lanes can be wonderful on major thoroughfares used primarily for commuting, on a residential street such as Seventh Avenue they actually are much more dangerous.  The Seventh Avenue bike lane is not only used by bicyclists commuting through our neighborhood, it is used by joggers (some with baby strollers), children of all ages learning to ride bikes, scooters (electric and otherwise), and families out on a weekend bike ride.  There are two major safety hazards the protected bike lane poses.  The first is the lack of visibility for automobiles crossing the bike lane.  For those cars turning from Seventh onto a side street, their view will be blocked by the parked cars.  A child on a close to the ground bicycle will not be visible to them the way they are now.  For those cars coming toward Seventh from a side street, they will need to stop in the path of the bike lane to see around the row of parked cars to see if traffic is clear for them to either turn or cross Seventh.  This will severely impact a bicycle commuters travel as well as become a hazard for everyone else in the bike lane.   I can only assume this plan was proposed by someone who has very little knowledge of how our current bike lane is used.  The second hazard is related to the fact the users of the bike lane travel in the lane at vastly different speeds.  It is imperative that there is some space for one user to pass another.  If a commuter cannot pass a 5 year old with training wheels the lane becomes unusable to all but the slowest user.  It is as if the planners have no idea that this truly is both a residential neighborhood bike lane as well as a commuting lane.
If safety is truly the goal, I recommend adding extra stop signs along Seventh Avenue and putting in better signage and striping for the current bike lane.

3. The last specific idea mentioned in the plan that I'd like to comment on is the possibility of turning one way streets into two way streets.  The specific streets most affecting our neighborhood would be Eighth Ave., Sixth Ave., Josephine, and York.  Turning these streets into one way streets would push so much traffic onto Seventh Ave and onto side streets that not only would the character of the neighborhood change, it would become laughable that anyone thinks safety is of the utmost concern.   Pushing commuters onto Seventh Ave. is the quickest way to make any sort of bike lane more dangerous.  To improve traffic and safety I would recommend adding traffic slowing lights that would also provide more safe pedestrian crossings on these streets.  Adding pedestrian crosswalk striping at more intersections would also help.
Congress Park Plan has included extensive community input, proposed bike lanes will be designed to be safe, allowing ADUs is adopted citywide policy, converting streets to 2-way will be studied before implemented
Overall there are good parts of the plan and really not well thought out parts of the plan. There are many contradictory points and suggestions that cannot be implemented when considered with other suggestions in the plan. These contradictions should be addressed. Following are some specific comments:

Parking Spaces and Garages:
Many people have commented about preserving street parking, particularly in the Congress Park Neighborhood. The plans vehicle parking rates seem very low for much of Congress Park, and I find it truly unbelievable that the parking rate is lower at night than during the day. I do wonder the time of day the assessment was done. I have a few comments regarding preserving parking spaces.
1. Many people cannot take transit to work. I currently work at home, but transit to get to my old office was 45-60 minutes, whereas driving was 20-30 minutes. You have to make transit an option to get anywhere people live work, not just from one corridor and expect everyone to sell their cars. And, even if people do walk/roll/transit to work, many in Denver still will need and use their vehicle. Many people need vehicles for their job, child transportation, elderly transportation, pet transportation, and generally enjoying the recreational activities nearby Denver that are ONLY accessible by car. People live in Denver because there are jobs in Denver and it is close to where they like to play… 30 minutes to 4 hours west of here, the MOUNTAINS! Public transportation is not viable to get to those recreational opportunities, and until it is, and considerations are made for people with skis, snowshoes, kayaks, pets, etc., people will continue to keep and use their cars.
2. Another reason parking in Congress Park is such a hot button issue may be due to the current restrictions on garage additions in the urban area. Many houses no longer have the old garages, and of those that do, many of existing garages were built in the late 1800s and early 1900s and cannot possibly accommodate a modern day vehicle. On smaller lots, small additions could be allowed onto existing garages without having to adhere to setbacks, to allow keeping most of the garage within the same footprint while allowing for a small expansion (a few feet) to actually fit a vehicle. This may help ease the burden of street parking and make other uses of the urban streets easier for residents to agree to. This change in setbacks is also very important when considering climate change and the desire and ability of people to transition to electric vehicles. Garages to charge such vehicles are absolutely necessary, and the same issues exist with old garages.
3. Allowing for permit parking for homeowners (property tax-payers) to park on their street near higher density areas such as the enhanced Colfax corridor may be one solution, similar to how one side of the street is for residents only in Cherry Creek, Highlands, and other areas throughout Denver.

Increased Green Space and Green Roofs:
Incentives should be made to homeowners to increase green space and pervious space.
1. One idea is to allow gardens and green roofs on the many small garages with flat roofs in the Congress Park neighborhood. (Unless you allow second story ADUs on top of such garages.) 
2. Another idea is allow incentives (or property tax credits) for well maintained “dead strips” turned “heaven strips” particularly those on main streets that are only adjacent to the homeowners property.

Traffic Calming
It is unclear what traffic calming methods might be implemented as suggested by the plan. One that has been implemented already is the aesthetically displeasing bollards at the intersections of 8th and Steele and 8th and Detroit. They currently serve to make drivers, cyclists and pedestrians less safe by funneling all vehicles and bicycles in between the bollards, making those attempting to turn swing wide out into the other lane of traffic to avoid the bollard, make everyone freak out a little, and make those going straight concerned about being sideswiped by turning vehicles. I will no longer ride my bike past these bollards, as I think these intersections are now less safe for cyclists, as well as pedestrians as the bollards cause drivers to drive erratically. In addition, I’m wondering if the planners have considered the issues these bollards introduce with respect to street-sweeping and snow plowing, both of which if not done well can lead to significant issues with storm water and drainage? Also, if not property maintained with street sweeping and snow removal, the intersection becomes even more unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists, due to build-up of debris and ice.

Setbacks
There is a short mention of setbacks being decreased, but no information whatsoever provided regarding what that means. Setbacks should NOT be decreased. This language should be taken out of the plan.

Cycling
I am a cyclist and love riding my bike around, however, there seems to be an astounding amount of money being spent on infrastructure for cycling, when currently 6% of trips are by bicycle and the goal for 2040 is >7.5% compared to ten times that amount currently for single occupancy vehicles. I understand you are hoping everyone will cycle everywhere, but that is not possible. Also, I know many people that prefer not to bike in the designated high comfort bikeways, because of weird cut-ins and outs, lack of proper maintenance, and people cycling, riding scooters, pushing strollers etc. the wrong way in a one-way bike lane.
I believe road maintenance is paid for in part by gas taxes and driver’s license and vehicle registration fees, none of which are paid for by cyclists. In addition, many cyclists ignore the rules of the road, not stopping at stop signs when cars or pedestrians are present. I have witnessed 2 accidents caused by cyclists ignoring stop signs in the last year, with the cyclist not being held to their responsibility in either. There should be a cycling license required that costs a fee and requires a written test so that cyclists learn the rules of the road, and the fee can help with these significant expenditures. At a minimum, there needs to be PSAs regarding rules of the road for cyclists. Ever since the law passed that cyclists do not have to stop at stop signs, very few cyclists have realized that is NOT the case when pedestrians or other vehicles of any sort are present in or near the intersection.

Steele St. Bikeway
The plan includes a bikeway on Steele St. (moved from St. Paul by this draft plan). There should be more community involvement in what this means, similar to any such study you have done for Garfield and Detroit Streets. I do not understand the need for 3 north-south bikeways within half a mile of one another?! If Steele Street is included by default as a bikeway in this plan with zero community notification or input other than stated in the plan, then it should be specified as was stated in community meetings: That any such Bikeway on Steele Street will be only a neighborhood bikeway and will not take out any parking, green space, trees, or lanes of traffic and will not include the aesthetically displeasing bollards on this beautiful neighborhood street.

In general, all areas need to take into consideration other areas of the plan. When improving cycling access, do not make pedestrian access less friendly. When adding things such as perceived traffic-calming measures or raised crosswalks, take into consideration how those things not only affect other modes of travel, but also street sweeping, snow plowing and storm water movement and drainage.
I understand you want to increase density, but PLEASE keep in mind that Congress Park is comprised of 88% buildings built before 1945, most are single-family residences, and THAT is why people bought houses in the neighborhood, and stay here, and pay property taxes here. Don’t increase the density within Congress Park, except right alongside the transportation corridors of Colfax and Colorado! If I wanted to live in the more dense areas of Denver I would have bought a house there. PLEASE keep the zoning for all single-family homes in and TU homes in Congress Park as is!!
Congress Park Designs of bike lanes and traffic calming measures will be determined through a subsequent process, taking into account safety and maintenance
Disagree with height zoning on Colfax. The plan is developer focused and lacks protection for resources ( pedestrian scale) which is the core feel of the area. Larger buildings detract from neighborhood feel. There are already plenty of high density, residential/commercial zones in Denver. Congress park Plan includes recommendations to improve pedestrian-scale design along Colfax
Issue 1: The planning and drafting processes have lacked thorough public notification, transparency and engagement. I suggest outreach by mail rather than all-electronic means. I would love a ballot-style mailer that covers the entire plan in print.
 
Issue 2: The NPI, ECAP 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.
 
Issue 3: The CPN Safe Streets Committee Report was used as a basis for many elements in the ECAP, but Seventh Avenue Neighborhood Association has repeatedly raised opposition to that report's recommendations and the underlying study, which we believe to be insufficient.
 
Issue 4: ECAP includes recommendations for areas outside of the neighborhoods covered by the plan.
 
Issue 5: ECAP fails to address the infrastructure needed to accommodate more housing. Parking limitations and speeding are the two biggest problems that neighbors raise with SANA. Those will only get worse under ECAP's current plan. We also have serious concerns about plans for heightened bus activity (or a dedicated bus lane that would limit parking for residents on York and Josephine Streets) and the impact those would have on the historic neighborhood.
 
Issue 6: ECAP promotes the fallacy that more housing leads to 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.
 
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.
 
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. The impact on schools is of particular concern, as increased population density cannot be serviced by DPS schools without significant investment in expansion.
 
Issue 10: ECAP increases population density in the historic neighborhood, undermining its character. The Plan relies too heavily on the definition of "character" as external appearance, when the character of the neighborhood is actually a combination of the look and feel - both the appearance of the homes and yards as well as the sense of community established between and among neighbors. Adding density adds stress to the neighborhood - more parking disagreements, less respect for property and your neighbors. A house on the other side of our alley is used as a rental. The renters have absolutely no respect for the common spaces shared by neighbors along the alley. Their house is an eyesore, they leave trash everywhere, a stranger now sleeps along their fence line, hidden by their refuse, which has become a safety concern for me when I'm home alone and need to walk the dog at night. There is no way I want to encourage more rentals and more houses filled with 6 or more people.
East 7th Avenue Neighborhood, represented by SANA Plan includes recommendations to improve safety, affordability, and preserve character
I have concerns with many of the issues in the East Central Area Plan. There has not been enough time for me to comment so I will do my best in the limited time I have received to participate in the planning process. The planning process has not been inclusive. Having meetings at bars and during evenings does not work for my family and has made it difficult for both of us to participate. Many in our neighborhood don't even know about the plan.

I have concerns with the character preservation program. How does a demolition allow for preservation? This particular program needs more details in order to garner any support. Words like historic and preservation are used, but they are "loaded" words, so the city needs to define them accordingly. If historic preservation, would this qualify for any tax credits from the city or state? Is there a requirement that the property not be changed substantially? A bonus unit only seems to cater to development and investor interests and not residential homeowners. This makes our neighborhood more susceptible to vulture investors and not less. We need real tools to assist with this, such as tax credits for homeowners who repair and rehab their homes to preserve character. I would also support tax credits for commercial or retail zoned building as well to preserve the historic context and encourage sustainable building practices. I am more flexible on the commercial side for areas zoned for commercial/retail to allow for increased density through adaptive reuse e.g. rehab a commercial building and turn it into housing and mixed use but keep the building facade, etc. But for residential blocks, I am not flexible. This just upzones our neighborhoods and forces people to "cash out" their homes when they cannot afford property taxes. Upzoning also increase land values so that is not the trajectory we want or need to encourage more affordable housing.

When residents "cash out" their home they often sell to developers who scrape the lots, reduce tree canopy and increase impervious surfaces. All of these items contribute to climate change. Why not encourage adaptive reuse another way for both residents and commercial developers? Charge fees for demolitions to offset the amounts that end in landfills. The city could use these fees to address climate change and incentivize developers to reuse materials and encourage sustainability. Cities have used this funds to encourage more preservation.

Why not build out the height and density allowed under current code. This would change the landscape of our neighborhoods considerably rather than rezoning and allowing for even more density that what is allowed. In addition, your own report says that the purpose of transit oriented along Colfax Avenue is to essentially  increase property values and raise taxes:  "One of the appeals to policy makers, government officials, and real estate interests for promoting TOD are the economic benefits brought by the increase in access from transit. This increase in access creates higher property values which in turn supports higher density development. Higher density development has been found to be more fiscally beneficial to local governments." https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/56e52206-cfae-48f3-9452-8857f5395c10/downloads/Colfax_Bus_Rapid_Transit_Transit_Oriented_Deve.pdf?ver=1580881586977

This will exacerbate displacement in our community for vulnerable populations in exchange for a few affordable units that don't address homelessness or provide housing for low-income residents. 

Traffic calming measures are inadequate now. We need assistance now, not later. Many people that are moving to Denver have cars and move here with cars. Mass transit in the form of buses may not be the answer in 20 years as RTD is failing now.  Many cities are experiencing the same issues with bus transit versus rail or train.  While I support mass transit, we need better solutions than BRT, which is costly and reduces traffic on Colfax between downtown and Yosemite. This is an incredible price tag for a short line to save a few minutes. It also reduces stops along Colfax requiring better sidewalks which we don't have now. Less stops is not an option for those disabled. Are they other solutions that are less costly that could be implemented to improve RTD now and increase reliability? I don't think eliminating stops is the answer. The construction will hamper businesses along Colfax in the interim.

While I am not opposed to ADUs, there needs to be some design guidelines imposed and lot coverages, e.g. certain lot size minimums should be required.
South City Park Plan includes multiple tools to promote preservation, including existing ones such as tax credits. BRT will be designed through a separate process.
I really appreciate the focus on increasing affordable housing, adding additional units, and creating more effective and safe transportation options (walking, biking, bus) while also trying to maintain the feel of the neighborhood. I want my children to grow up in a safe and diverse (racially, socioeconomically) neighborhood. Congress Park Supports recommendations
Although I understand the rationale for wanting to improve bike lanes in the area, I am strongly opposed to a high comfort bike lane on some of the proposed streets. Parking in Capitol Hill is already a struggle. I’m worried these proposed lanes will impact that adversely as well. I know Denver is encouraging less car dependence, but people live in Colorado for the mountains. There needs to be a way for people to get there, and for now, cars are the way. I would prefer continuing to divert bicyclists to the currently existing routes where there is less traffic and improving the safety along those routes. Cheesman Park Designs of bike lanes will be determined through a following process, some of which have minimal parking impacts
Many lots facing Colfax are often too shallow to redevelop as is.  At least one or two lots that side onto the shallow Colfax facing lots should have the same designation or density as the Colfax lots.  If the city is serious about attracting reinvestment on Colfax, some existing single family lots will need to assembled into larger commercial parcels. Far East Colfax Plan includes recommendations to facilitate development of small lots on Colfax
You're continuing to plan for a city/town.  I'd like to see a truly cosmopolitan city Grant & 18th st. Plan is consistent with adopted citywide plans
Overall, the plan is for more density on top of current density.  That means the destruction of viable, livable close in mixed use neighborhoods.   Congress Park has many style of housing, shops, neighborhood schools, and parking.  The plan respects none of those, except maybe more commerce (money drives the plan?).   The breaking up of single family dwelling was done before and drove down the neighborhood to rentals rather than on site owners.   Changing garages and back yards into new ADUs is a horrible idea that again removes the pleasant livability of the neighborhood.  The diminishment of parking spaces in favor bikes is ageism at its worst.   The plan assume everyone remains youthful forever and can buy groceries or take children to school on a bike in the snowstorm.  Overall, I fear that the developers in league with naive planners are eager to destroy the Congress Park that residents and visitors marvel at.  It wasn't always a good place to live (I know personally) but it is now.  I suggest for high density you ask the Country Club  and Polo Club areas that are also close and have far larger lots to subdivide and put ADUs in their garages. Congress Park Plan includes recommendations to preserve character
    Blank
Denver is overbuilt for the infrastructure that we have and I don't see any of that being addressed.
Continuing to build without parking, expanded roads and efficient transit will just make Denver a crowded mess with angry people about to burst at any moment. We are as dense with population as we can handle.
Live in Congress Park, work in Five Points. The plan recommends infrastructure for alternative modes to give residents mobility options
The draft plan does not support the visions of the residents of the East Central area. It does not support a vision for a livable city area in which people can thrive. Congress Park Recommendations were developed with the community to achieve the vision
Thank you for highlighting walkability, biking, transit, accessibility, affordable housing.  I am for increasing density and doing that near downtown and along transit corridors is logical (even though many will resist).    I like more bike lanes and better sidewalks, especially for people with disabilities.  I am sad abut the loss of Bcycles since we used them often combined with walking or public transit.  It seems like you have thought some about electric cars and charging stations.  YAY for green spaces and trees.  Is anyone thinking about light pollution?  we live in a high rise so have noticed a lot more very, very bright lights going up at businesses. city park Plan includes recommendations to limit impacts of lighted signs on surrounding areas
I am glad to see that the plan includes increased safety and transit options for the East Central Area. I really think this needs to be prioritized: how can we increase transportation that does not rely on cars? Walkers: wider sidewalks, smoother sidewalks, ramps at corners for wheelchairs and strollers, more intersections with crosswalks and walking signs. Bikers: designated bike lanes with safety curbs to separate them from the car lane, intersections with bike signals, bike racks outside businesses. Bus: clean and modern bus stops. Ultimate goal: adding a light rail link from Colfax to Union Station. City Park West Addressed by recommendations in plan
I would like to comment on the plan that increases density along the Colfax and Colorado Blvd roads. I live on Jackson Street which is in that proposal so this impacts us directly.  I think the two block change in designation for high density should be reconsidered to just Colorado Blvd and Harrison instead of including Jackson. First, there are large apartment buildings on Harrison Street but none on Jackson. Second, if a plan were to increase density from all 4 sides of the neighborhood then we won't have the neighborhood that all the home owners loved and why we bought here. Shrinking the neighborhood into half the size of what it currently is is basically just destroying the feel and fabric of this place. Third, as we endure this pandemic, look at what is happening to high-density New York City. High density has a fine line when it comes to health and a plague will run rampant through a high density district. Leave our beautiful historic-esque neighborhoods as is - healthy, livable, and beautiful. Congress Park Plan recommends maintaining the 2.5-story maximum height along Jackson
total destruction of a vibrant city center
STREETS - AUTOMOTIVE TRAFFIC essential for this OLDER AREA
bikes not a viable transport spruce or residents - especially 6+ months of the year under snow and cold
RTD totally worthless
without CARS we will be trapped in our homes
not sure - BOSTON and RICHTOFFEN place The plan recommends infrastructure for alternative modes to give residents mobility options
I am very interested in road diets and the ability to change the traffic pattern on York from 4 to 3 lanes. The excessive speeds on York st make it dangerous to cross. We’ve seen many accidents and even fatalities because of the 4 lane system York St and 26th Plan includes recommendations to improve safety on York
The most important aspect of this more road diets on the busy streets like york street. Reduction of accidents and fatalities. As more people begin to work from home, post Covid-19 the need for additional bike lanes is important. Whittier Plan includes recommendations to improve safety on York
I am interested in a lane diet for York St.. It is a heavily trafficked road connection through Denver. The speeds do not support a 4 lane road in this area. We have had multiple accidents leading to fatalities, and it is difficult to cross most of the day. Many homeowners residing on the street corners have had multiple instances of damages to their property. Whittier Plan includes recommendations to improve safety on York
All current and future Open Streets that have been created to help people keep distance during the Covid-19 pandemic should be permanent changes even after we come out on the other side of the virus. This includes the park roads closures which should not have been used for vehicles anyway.

To think that we would allow cars to rush back into these spaces and use them as through streets again is, quite frankly, depressing.

Please continue to rethink how we use our street space.
Live: Five Points, Work: Golden Triangle City is learning from the currenlty closed streets and evaluating options for the future
Overall I am pleased with some of the improvements to roads, pedestrian walks, addition of trees.  I do not approve of taller buildings at all, congesting the area with more multifamily living and promoting increased residency.  The parking situation in the area is already atrocious so any additional multifamily buildings that do not include underground or some level of appropriate parking should not be allowed.  It will make the area less desirable and could dissuade families from moving in or even cause families to flee the city area.   I have already considered suburb options because the school pick up and drop off situation at a local DPS feels outright dangerous.  We do not need more congestion.
The current situation now more than ever provides a time to reflect and learn.  City Park is very crowded with people right, imagine if we had more residence in the area.  One of the reasons Denver is faring better than other cities in this current crisis is because we aren't as congested as other major cities.  I do not think we need to create more density is the suggested build area.  We need to be concerned with maintaining the accessibility and openness of the City so that is continues to be a desirable place to live.
City Park West Plan is consistent with adopted citywide plans which call for additional housing options in all neighborhoods
ADUs undermine neighborhoods by excessive density, encouraging rentals to replace ownership, and increasing parking woes in densely populated areas.    Liveability isn't determined by newly minted degrees but by people of all ages, including those of us who have poured our lives into enhancing neightborhoods, day by day, fix ups, and combining cut up historic houses into single family houses.  Your plan disparages livability in favor of higher tax base. Congress Park. Allowance for ADUs is adopted city policy
  Park Hill Blank
Too much emphasis on increasing density.  Zoning restrictions that limit height and density need to be strengthened not loosened.  Also, ADUs should not be allowed in areas of largely single family home because these can impinge on the quality of life of surrounding neighbors.  Further, there needs to be more design control over any new MDUs.  Denver is full of cheaply, built, unattractive rental units that scar our neighborhoods.  The city already allowed Cherry Creek to be ruined with uncontrolled building.  Don't do the same with Congress Park. Congress Park Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan.  The plan includes recommendations to improve design and transitions.
I can't agree that the Land Use draft will help, but I like the intent and vision. Denver does need to become more dense, but not every inch of Denver. It's better if there is a mix of densities. Along Colfax and along Colorado Blvd should be very dense. Once you get into the neighborhoods, they should become less dense as you move away from the main roads. If a 2-4 story mid-century apartment is torn down to build a 6-10 story modern apartment, the city doesn't lose anything of cultural value and becomes more livable for more people. If a Victorian or Bungalow home is torn down to build a modern single family home or modern duplex, we haven't gained much in living space for people, but lost something precious when it comes to architectural tradition. I believe some neighborhoods are worth preserving, such as Congress Park. No other neighborhood in the city has as many blocks of Victorian and Bungalow homes with very few new homes. Most of the inner streets in the neighborhood (a block or two from Colfax) are worthy of preservation status. There are many places to build high and dense in Denver with no cultural loss. If we lose the unique neighborhood of Congress Park for the sake of adding in a few more units, we lose something beautiful and precious that we can never get back. I understand that we want to increase density and access to housing units for more people, but that doesn't mean every inch of Denver needs to become highrise apartments. Many people want to keep this dense, walkable, architecturally significant neighborhood intact. This is something people living in highrises on Colfax or Colorado Blvd can enjoy by going on a walk and seeing all the unique homes and gardens. This provides a reason to live on Colorado Blvd rather than downtown. I've lived downtown and it's not fun to go for walks the same way it is in this neighborhood. I hope I can keep going on walks here and enjoying the unique architecture for another 50 years. Please put in protections to preserve Congress Park. Congress Park Plan includes recommendations to preserve Congress Park and concentrate growth along major corridors
I don't like the idea of increasing the height beyond what is currently zoned. Live Congress Park. Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan.  The plan includes recommendations to improve design and transitions.
Although I agree with the mixed building structures, I am wondering about Denver's substructure.  With the additional residents in the area, no mention made of medical facilities, additional police stations, fire houses.  I also wonder about the new building's architecture.  I believe Denver could demand that new structures have windows that actually open, make them comfortable for actual human beings to live.  Presently, we're bombarded with rooms with tall ceilings, yet the rooms are small.  Yes, it's city living, but we need square footage where we put our feet down!  We need green spaces, with playgrounds, including basketball courts for pick up games.  We need spaces where neighbors meet neighbors within walking distance.  We need food stores, bodegas, small businesses. north capital hill Plan includes recommendations to address most of these topics
NO UPZONING! Creating a boondoggle for developers at the expense of the quality of life of long term residents, ESPECIALLY when studies show the current 3 story 5 story zoning on Colfax is plenty for the next 20 years of growth, is completely counter to the entire quality of life. NO UPZONING! Congress Park Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan.  The plan includes recommendations to improve design and transitions.
NO UPZONING! Creating a boondoggle for developers at the expense of the quality of life for residents, is antithetical to even the current studies that show that NO INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHTS are needed! Do NOT increase building heights! Congress Park Accommodating growth is consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040 and the vision of this plan.  The plan includes recommendations to improve design and transitions.
hopefully it will help the people who does not have a place to live because there are so many people who had to move or their rent went up so much they had no choice skyland area Supports plan
I would like to see more historic homes preserved but they are being turned down and these units that look nothing like the existing homes are being built.  I also would like to see more landscaping and lighting along the streets.   The low income properties in particular, do not take care of their lawns and properties.  They make the neighborhood look rundown.  The low income homes owned by the city or others should keep these homes maintained.   They bring down the areas and make me want to move out. City Park West Plan includes recommendations for historic preservation and improved design and landscaping
One of my biggest concerns for our district is that it is starting to cater mostly to those with higher incomes and is pushing out those who work in the neighborhood with modest and low incomes- I think this plan starts to leveling the playing field so that those who are working  in the neighborhood, may also live in the neighborhood and become patrons of businesses in the neighborhood. I live in Capitol Hill and work off of Park and California Plan includes recommendations to prevent displacement and increase housing options
This is a great plan. I especially like the 16th street parkway proposal. My concerns are related to being a resident in City Park West and the challenging access to City Park given the increased traffic on York street. I believe there should be a pedestrian-friendly flashing walkway (similar to the one recently installed on York St near the botanic gardens) connecting pedestrians from the main park entrance on 21st to the neighborhood in City Park West. I am also a resident on G-a-ylord (*site won't allow me to type out the name of our street) st (between 20th and 21st) and strongly feel that a 4 way stop sign needs to be put in place at the corner of G-a-ylord and 21st. Car and truck traffic from York street zip down 21st at alarmingly high speeds, causing frequent accidents in the intersection. There are lots of walkers and cyclers on that street heading to City Park and it is incredibly unsafe. I have 3 children and regret that they couldn't safely cross the 1 block to enter our neighorhood's great green space without 1) a more pedestrian friendly crosswalk across York at 21st and 2) a 4-way stop sign at 21st and G-a-ylord.
Furthermore, I would like to see the amount of car traffic in City Park greatly reduced or eliminated.
And finally, I believe plans are underway for an improved playground in City Park but I would like to mention the need to improve that as well. Thank you for all of the excellent planning.
City Park West 21st/York is recommended as intersection improvement priority area
On the topic of tree canopy, the massive expansion of 5G network antennas throughout the city has also been accompanied with a massive reduction of Denver's tree canopy.  The current 5G antennas are a major eyesore and will greatly diminish quality of life for residents and visitors, despite all the hype and promises from 5G providers.  Denver needs a serious Climate Change policy that protects our environment and our citizens and ensures that we can enjoy "environmentally resilient, healthy and active communities". City Park West Plan includes recommendations to enhance tree canopy, 5G antennas are outside the scope of the plan
Everything is to vague at this point. Such as, CDOT and RTD unable to provide enough drivers and reliability. Congress Park Neighborhood The plan is a long-term policy document
Is Colfax a federal highway or a residential/local business street? The vehicles are not residential/local friendly. Anything greater than a passenger vehicle is difficult to navigate. It certainly doesn't blend well with bicycles, walking or rolling.  By the time you are far enough out around an SUV or truck you are into danger. Congress Park Neighborhood Plan calls for making Colfax safer and more neighborhood-focused
  Congress Park/RINO Blank
Bus rapid transit on Colfax, especially east of York, is bad because to be rapid the bus must make few stops and by-passing the many businesses between stops will bankrupt those businesses. People won't use the bus who have to walk a few blocks from a stop carry packages back to the stop. Much better to increase the busses that run. Don't overplay the issue of other people using the bus that may make the ridership unsavory. This can be dealt with by more busses, dispersing the great unwashed.

Getting rid of BRT makes the attraction of 10 story buildings unnecessary. Ten story buildings are an atrocity in a residential neighborhood
south park hill BRT will be designed through a separate process

East Central Area Plan 1st Review Draft Comments Made on Maptionnaire on Specific Maps in the Plan

Map Comments Staff Response
Land Use and Built Form Opportunities Map additional opportunities on 12th or 13th should be identified to create new small business locations. The zoning would have to change, but the current strips on 12th and detroit and 12th and madison are so successful, that we should promote more of these in our neighborhood to increase walkability.  Addressed by recommendations in plan
Future Places Map East High currently has many delapadated gardens that could be used and cared for by the South City park neighborhood which has no community gardens.
Students who were interested could also join, sort of a garden  club for neighborhood and students
Plan recommends coordination with schools on open space use
Maximum Building Heights Oppose building height (8 floors! NO!)  it would have a direct negative impact on the health and safety of residents, many families with young children.  The building height would block sunlight, impact foilage/gardens and temperature.  The increased population density (additional floors of anticipated residential units) would increase side street traffic, noise, air quality, and overall quality, health and safety in the neighborhood.  This is a classic Denver urban family neighborhood not central Denver - 8 floors are too high and would drastically change the bones of this wonderful historic neighborhood. Growing responsibly in East Central is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, necessary to achieve the vision of the East Central Area Plan, and important for our goals of providing more affordable housing and becoming a more equitable city.  Allowing additional height along corridors if community benefits are provided will help achieve that, and the plan includes recommendations to limit the impacts of additional height on surrounding neighborhoods.
Maximum Building Heights Oppose building height as it would have a direct negative impact on the health and safety of residents and high school students/families.  The building height would block sunlight, impact foilage/gardens and temperature.  The increased population density (additional floors of anticipated residential units) would increase side street traffic, noise, air quality, and overall quality, health and safety in the neighborhood. Growing responsibly in East Central is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, necessary to achieve the vision of the East Central Area Plan, and important for our goals of providing more affordable housing and becoming a more equitable city.  Allowing additional height along corridors if community benefits are provided will help achieve that, and the plan includes recommendations to limit the impacts of additional height on surrounding neighborhoods.
Maximum Building Heights Oppose building height (8 floors! NO!)  it would have a direct negative impact on the health and safety of residents and high school students/families.  The building height would block sunlight, impact foilage/gardens and temperature.  The increased population density (additional floors of anticipated residential units) would increase side street traffic, noise, air quality, and overall quality, health and safety in the neighborhood.  This is a classic Denver urban family neighborhood not central Denver - 8 floors are too high and would drastically change the bones of this wonderful historic neighborhood. Growing responsibly in East Central is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, necessary to achieve the vision of the East Central Area Plan, and important for our goals of providing more affordable housing and becoming a more equitable city.  Allowing additional height along corridors if community benefits are provided will help achieve that, and the plan includes recommendations to limit the impacts of additional height on surrounding neighborhoods.
Maximum Building Heights Oppose building height (8 floors! NO!)  it would have a direct negative impact on the health and safety of residents and high school students/families.  The building height would block sunlight, impact foilage/gardens and temperature.  The increased population density (additional floors of anticipated residential units) would increase side street traffic, noise, air quality, and overall quality, health and safety in the neighborhood.  This is a classic Denver urban family neighborhood, not central Denver - 8 floors are too high and would drastically change the bones of this wonderful historic neighborhood. Growing responsibly in East Central is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, necessary to achieve the vision of the East Central Area Plan, and important for our goals of providing more affordable housing and becoming a more equitable city.  Allowing additional height along corridors if community benefits are provided will help achieve that, and the plan includes recommendations to limit the impacts of additional height on surrounding neighborhoods.
Maximum Building Heights Oppose building height as it would have a direct negative impact on the health and safety of residents - many families with young children.  Major pedestrian access to City Park.  Should focus to enhance this area and not change this historic Denver family neighborhood - too far away from central Denver to raise the building height. The building height would block sunlight, impact foilage/gardens and temperature.  The increased population density (additional floors of anticipated residential units) would increase side street traffic, noise, air quality, and overall quality, health and safety in the neighborhood. Growing responsibly in East Central is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, necessary to achieve the vision of the East Central Area Plan, and important for our goals of providing more affordable housing and becoming a more equitable city.  Allowing additional height along corridors if community benefits are provided will help achieve that, and the plan includes recommendations to limit the impacts of additional height on surrounding neighborhoods.
Maximum Building Heights Oppose building height as it would have a direct negative impact on the health and safety of residents - many families with young children.  Major pedestrian access to City Park.  Should focus to enhance this area and not change this historic Denver family neighborhood - too far away from central Denver to raise the building height. The building height would block sunlight, impact foilage/gardens and temperature.  The increased population density (additional floors of anticipated residential units) would increase side street traffic, noise, air quality, and overall quality, health and safety in the neighborhood. Growing responsibly in East Central is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, necessary to achieve the vision of the East Central Area Plan, and important for our goals of providing more affordable housing and becoming a more equitable city.  Allowing additional height along corridors if community benefits are provided will help achieve that, and the plan includes recommendations to limit the impacts of additional height on surrounding neighborhoods.
Maximum Building Heights   No response needed
Maximum Building Heights Oppose building height - should align with property to the north. Growing responsibly in East Central is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, necessary to achieve the vision of the East Central Area Plan, and important for our goals of providing more affordable housing and becoming a more equitable city.  Allowing additional height along corridors if community benefits are provided will help achieve that, and the plan includes recommendations to limit the impacts of additional height on surrounding neighborhoods.
Traffic Calming   Blank
Traffic Calming This neighborhood should not be used for through traffic.  We have Colorado & York/Josephine for this purpose. Traffic calming measures, including physical barriers and speed strips (bumps, rumple strips, islands, etc.) should be used on every street (e.g. 9th, 11th, Milwaukee, Garfield, etc.) at least twice each between Congress Park & Colorado/8th and 12th. Addressed by recommendations in plan
Environmental Quality and Climate Resiliency Map Ninth Ave would make an ideal greet street.  Addressed by recommendations in plan
Open Space and Connection Opportunities Map   Blank
Maximum Building Heights Good, you've kept your originally-presented potential building heights along Colfax. Now needed: spelling out the process to determine necessary criteria for 'community benefit' in return for raising heights/density. Reading through this we didn't see either provision or schedule for neighborhood residents to participate in creating those criteria.  Further details for the process of determining community benefits have been added to the plan - see Strategy L3.
Future Places Map There should be no single unit only zoning anywhere in ECAP.  ADUs, additions, and internal subdivision of existing structures should be allowed throughout ECAP. Plan includes recommendations to allow ADUs and missing middle housing in residential neighborhoods while maintaining neighborhood character
Future Places Map Should be low-medium Multi-Unit Plan includes recommendations to allow ADUs and missing middle housing in residential neighborhoods while maintaining neighborhood character
Future Places Map Should allow Medium Low Multi-Unit within two blocks of Colorado Blvd. Plan includes recommendations to allow ADUs and missing middle housing in residential neighborhoods while maintaining neighborhood character
Future Places Map Needs a couple of small local corridors to make this area more walkable.  Addressed by recommendations in plan
Mobility Opportunities Downing and Corona need to be transit priority streets for the 12 bus. There are no north-south transit priority corridor between Lincoln and York which is too large a distance. The 12 bus serves the densest residential neighborhoods in Denver and connects multiple train stations, schools and hospitals. See Denver Moves Transit improvements
Mobility Opportunities 11th ave, not 12th ave should be made bike priority given 11th ave has a bike lane and would reduce conflict with buses. See M2 & M3
Mobility Opportunities Neighborhood bikeway should be on Gilpin, not Franklin. Franklin is too busy to be comfortable on bike. See M2 & M3
Mobility Opportunities Close park ave to traffic between Franklin and downing to eliminate the dangerous 5 way intersections. See quality of life section
Bicycle Improvements Unclear why Franklin and Williams have been selected for bike facilities. Gilpin would probably be more appropriate. See M2 & M3 - Williams is a GO Bond Project
Bicycle Improvements We desperately need an east-west high comfort bikeway through cap hill that connects to cherry creek trail. I am unable to ride with my kids downtown because neither 11th or 12th ave feel safe with them, especially when crossing Broadway and Lincoln. See M1: 12th Ave

East Central Area Plan 1st Public Review Draft Comments Received Outside the Online Survey

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

Past Meeting Information

Below are listed all the community meetings, workshops, office hours and pop-up events hosted by the planning team. Unlike traditional meetings and workshops, pop-up events are intended to reach hard-to-reach communities where they live and involve only paper materials and on-the-street interviews. 

Community Workshop #1 
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Scotish Rite Masonic Center
1370 Grant Street
Meeting materials available at online workshop
Meeting notes (PDF)

Community Workshop #2 – North Capitol Hill & City Park West 
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Colorado Health Foundation
1780 Pennsylvania Street
Meeting material available at online workshop
Meeting notes (PDF)

Community Workshop #3 – Capitol Hill & Cheesman Park
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Althea Center
1400 Williams Street
Meeting material available at online workshop
Meeting notes (PDF)

Community Workshop #4 – City Park & Congress Park
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Church in the City – Beth Abraham
1580 Gaylord Street
Meeting material available at online workshop
Meeting notes (PDF)

Community Workshop #5 - Draft plan recommendations
6-8 p.m., Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Church in the City – Beth Abraham
1580 N. Gaylord St.
Presentation (PDF)

Community Workshop #6 - Draft plan
6-8 p.m., Wednesday, November 13
East High School
1600 City Park Esplanade, Denver
Presentation (PDF)

Boards:

Listed below are focus groups hosted by the plan team for the purpose of topic-specific discussions with local stakeholders with subject-matter expertise and experience. 

Focus Group: Design Quality and Character Preservation Meeting 
Presentation (PDF)

Focus Group #1: Affordable housing, social services, & financial stability 
January 8, 2019
Carla Madison Recreation Center 

Focus Group #2: Small business retention, real estate/transit oriented development, & healthy food
January 9, 2019
Carla Madison Recreation Center 
Meeting notes (PDF)

Focus Group #3: Mobility & access
January 15, 2019
Art Gym Denver, 1460 Leyden Street

Focus Group #4: Green infrastructure, recreation, open space
January 17, 2019
Carla Madison Recreation Center

Focus Group #5: Design quality & character preservation
January 29, 2019
Carla Madison Recreation Center
Meeting notes (PDF)

Focus Group #6: Small business retention, real estate/transit oriented development, & healthy food 
6-8 p.m., April 2, 2019
Carla Madison Recreation Center
Presentation (PDF)

Focus Group #7: Green Infrastructure 
6-8 p.m., April 4, 2019 
Carla Madison Recreation Center
Presentation (PDF)

Focus Group #8: Mobility 
6-8 p.m., April 17, 2019 
Carla Madison Recreation Center
Presentation (PDF)

Focus Group #9: Design Quality and Character Preservation 
6-8 p.m., April 18, 2019 
Carla Madison Recreation Center
Presentation (PDF)

Focus Group #10: Affordable housing, social services, & financial stability 
6-8 p.m., April 23, 2019 
Carla Madison Recreation Center
Presentation (PDF)

Listed below are (1) meetings hosted by East Central Area neighborhood groups and organizations, or other City of Denver departments or teams that East Central Area Plan team members attended, (2) community events at which the plan had a booth/table or was part of a larger booth or table representing the City of Denver, and (3) stakeholder conversations convened or hosted by East Central Area organizations. 

8/26/2017 - Mayor's Cabinet in the Community

9/15/2017 – Seniors In September Educational & Resource Fair at Denver Botanic Gardens

9/20/2017 - South City Park RNO meeting

9/21/2017 -  Blueprint Denver Workshop

9/26/2017 -  South City Park Neighborhood Association Summer Block Party

10/18/2017 - Congress Park Neighbors, Inc

10/24/2017 - City Park Neighborhood Advisory Committee

11/7/2017 - Capitol Hill United Neighbors

11/14/2017 - Colfax BID

11/14/2017 - Uptown on the Hill

11/21/2017 - Bluebird BID 

12/4/2017 - WTF is BRT?

3/20/2018 - Colfax Grit & Glory, Historic Denver

8/28/2018 - Denveright Open House

1/25/2019 - Atlantis Communities pop-up

2/28/2019 - Triple Tree Café pop-up

3/12/2019 - DC 21 pop-up

3/19/2019 - Hospital Focus Group

3/26/2019 - Carla Madison Rec Center pop-up

4/9/2019 - Uptown on the Hill

4/10/2019 – Development focus group

4/17/2019 – Social service providers meeting

4/17/2019 - City Park West Neighborhood Association Board Meeting

4/17/2019 - Swallow Hill RNO

4/25/2019 - Renaissance Uptown Lofts pop-up

4/25/2019 - Residences at Franklin Park

4/27/2019 - Mayor's Cabinet in the Community

5/1/2019 - Persons Experiencing Homelessness Outreach pop-up

5/1/2019 -  Capitol Hill United Neighbors

5/8/2019 - Capitol Hill United Neighbors Zoning committee

5/15/2019 - South City Park RNO

5/15/2019 - Bluebird BID

5/16/2019 - Congress Park RNO

5/22/2019 - Small Business Focus Group              

6/19/2019 - Congress Park RNO

6/25/2019 - Uptown Urban Design Forum

8/13/2019 - Congress Park RNO

8/21/2019 - Congress Park RNO

9/25/2019 - Congress Park RNO

11/5/2019 - City Park Friends and Neighbors

11/14/2019 - Capitol Hill United Neighbors

11/20/2019 - South City Park Neighborhood Association

1/28/2020 - Teller Elementary School

5/6/2020 - Urban Land Institute Transit Oriented Development Committee

6/18/2020 - Capitol Hill United Neighbors

7/24/2020 - Denver Classroom Teachers Association


Past Newsletters

2017

2018

2019

2020


Past draft recommendations 

Plan recommendations are a like an outline that serves as the basis for the draft plan, when the draft is written. The first set of draft recommendations were shared with the public in May. We received more than 500 comments on the recommendations and are updating the recommendations accordingly. Maps associated with the recommendations are currently being updated.

A - HOSPITALS

The healthcare sector is the foundation for economic growth

  • 32% of all jobs in East Central, more than 11,000 jobs total
  • Sector is expected to continue to grow – forecast to provide 11% of new jobs through 2040
  • Includes St. Joseph Hospital, Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente, and National Jewish; and is also influenced by Denver Health and Rose Medical Center, both just outside the Area

B - HOSPITALS & SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS

Together, hospitals and surrounding neighborhoods can address community development in ways that are mutually beneficial

The Plan aims to:

  • Help the hospitals stay in the area and evolve in a neighborhood-friendly way
  • Partner with hospitals and nonprofit housing developers to create affordable, workforce housing
  • Partner with hospitals and DPS to address workforce training needs
  • Create more retail and services that benefit hospital employees, visitors, and residents
  • Ensure strong connections from hospitals to transit, parks, and daily services

C - MIXED-USE CENTERS, CORRIDORS & DISTRICTS

The primary location for housing and employment growth in East Central

The Plan aims to:

  • Create new affordable housing near transit and amenities
  • Preserve and enhance community-serving, locally-owned businesses
  • Promote spaces that strengthen the Area’s small professional office niche

D - DOWNTOWN ADJACENCIES

The East Central Area overlaps with Downtown Denver’s eastern edge

The Plan aims to:

  • Ensure consistency with Downtown plans, such as the Upper Downtown Plan which overlaps with portions of the North Capitol Hill neighborhood
  • Encourage commercial spaces and jobs that complement Downtown’s offerings
  • Support the redevelopment of critical parcels that are gateways to East Central

NEIGHBORHOODS OVERALL

A large majority of East Central’s land is residential

The Plan aims to:

  • Preserve housing affordability
  • Stabilize residents at risk of displacement
  • Expand diversity of housing types by encouraging “missing middle” units such as ADUs (accessory dwelling units), townhouses, rowhouses, and live-work units
  • Improve jobs and economic stability of residents

BOLSTER THE HEALTHCARE SECTOR AS THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH

  • Partner with hospitals, DPS, and nonprofit housing developers to address workforce housing and training needs
  • Ensure strong connections from hospitals to neighborhood amenities such as parks and transit
  • Mix more medical offices and clinics in mixed-use areas throughout the East Central Area

STRENGTHEN THE SMALL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE NICHE

  • Encourage more co-working spaces and gathering spaces for entrepreneurs
  • Inventory existing buildings for underused spaces appropriate for small businesses
  • Consider creative office uses to activate ground floors in appropriate locations along Colfax

BUILD UPON EAST CENTRAL’S ADJACENCY TO DOWNTOWN DENVER AS AN ECONOMIC ASSET

  • Support redevelopment of important, underused parcels that border Downtown and the East Central Area
  • Encourage jobs and services that complement, rather than compete with, Downtown’s offerings
  • Establish connections between Downtown and major destinations in East Central, such as the Area’s hospitals

PRESERVE AND ENHANCE COMMUNITY-SERVING, LOCALLY-OWNED BUSINESSES

  • Ease regulations that make it difficult to open a business
  • Work with area partners to provide technical assistance such as marketing, lease negotiations, or English-as-a-second-language (ESL) help
  • Expand the Business Impact Opportunity program for small businesses impacted by BRT construction along Colfax

PRESERVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND STABILIZE RESIDENTS AT RISK OF DISPLACEMENT

  • Extend covenants for income-restricted properties
  • Better market the City’s existing programs, including temporary rental and utility assistance, property tax rebates, ownership programs, and eviction legal defense fund
  • Assist tenants in aging, small multi-unit buildings with purchasing and transforming their buildings into cooperative housing

CREATE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEAR TRANSIT AND AMENITIES

  • Support acquisition of land by the City and/or its partners, such as DHA and land trust entities, for future development of affordable housing, particularly in corridors, centers, and high and high-medium residential areas
  • Allow higher density along Colfax in exchange for affordable units or community-benefiting space

EXPAND DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES & AFFORDABILITY IN ALL NEIGHBORHOODS

  • Encourage development of ADUs in all residential areas, in forms that address neighborhood context
  • Encourage more “missing middle” types such as townhouses, rowhouses, and du/tri/fourplexes, that are compatible and at affordable price points
  • Ensure new development is family-friendly and expand housing options for non-traditional households, including seniors and group living

INCREASE ACCESS TO SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICES FOR VULNERABLE RESIDENTS

  • Develop more permanent, supportive housing that wraps in services such as health care, child care, and workforce training
  • Promote innovative forms of services such as hygiene centers, navigation centers, and rest and resource centers

ENCOURAGE A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES IN MU, RH, AND RO DISTRICTS.

Encourage new building forms at affordable price points, such as:

  • Duplex/Triplex/Quadplex in “Large House” form 
  • Row House 
  • Walk-Up Apartments
  • Live-work
  • Micro units

ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

Consider specific rules for neighborhoods that consider:

  • Unique considerations in different neighborhoods, such as building coverage in flood-prone areas
  • Encourage use for long-term housing rather than short-term rentals
  • Goals for affordability and wealth-building
  • Neighborhood-appropriate parking rules

TRANSFORMATIVE STREETS

Prioritize Walking, Biking, Rolling and Transit Along Key Corridors That Connect People And Places

Broadway/Lincoln Streets Between 7th and 20th

  • Improve transit speed and reliability & add amenities at stops.
  • Create a high quality pedestrian space with improved crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
  • Study the feasibility of two-way conversion.

York/Josephine Streets Between 6th and 23rd

  • Improve transit speed and reliability & add amenities at stops.
  • Increase transit frequency and hours of service.
  • Install a high comfort bikeway between 7th and 12th to connect to Denver Botanic Gardens.
  • Study the feasibility of two-way conversion.
  • Create a high quality pedestrian space with new and improved crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.

Colorado Boulevard Between 6th and 23rd

  • Create a greater separation between the sidewalk and the roadway.
  • Create a high quality pedestrian space with new and improved crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
  • Improve transit speed and reliability & add amenities at stops.

17th/18th Avenues Between Broadway and Colorado

  • Improve transit speed and reliability & add amenities at stops.
  • Create a high quality pedestrian space with new and improved crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
  • Study the feasibility of two-way conversion on 17th from Broadway to Josephine.

16th Avenue Between Broadway and City Park Esplanade

  • Install a neighborhood bikeway.
  • Study the feasibility of closing access to automobile through-traffic.

Park Avenue Between Colfax/Franklin/Park and 20th

  • Create a high quality pedestrian space with improved crossings for pedestrians and bicycles
  • Study the feasibility of reconfiguring the Colfax/Franklin/Park intersection for more usable public space.
  • In the long-term, provide high capacity transit service.

Colfax Avenue between Broadway and Colorado

  • Implement planned pedestrian crossing improvements and transit efficiency and reliability via implementation of Colfax Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

14th Avenue Between Broadway and Colorado

  • Install a protected bike lane.
  • Create a high quality pedestrian space with new and improved crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
  • Study the feasibility of two-way conversion.

13th Avenue Between Broadway and Colorado

  • Provide a greater separation between the sidewalk and the roadway.
  • Create a high quality pedestrian space with new and improved crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
  • Study the feasibility of two-way conversion.

12th Avenue Between Broadway and Colorado

  • Improve transit speed and reliability & add amenities at stops.
  • Conduct corridor study that includes 11th Ave and 12th Ave to determine community preference and best placement for transit and bicycle facilities.
  • Coordinate with Quality of Life improvements from Cheesman Park to Colorado Boulevard and improve Colorado Boulevard intersection.

6th/8th Avenues Between Broadway and Colorado

  • Provide greater separation between the sidewalk and the roadway.
  • Create a high quality pedestrian space with new and improved crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
  • Provide transit speed and reliability improvements at key locations and stop amenities.
  • Study the feasibility of two-way conversion.

7th Avenue Between Colorado and Williams

  • Install a protected bike lane.
  • Create a high quality pedestrian space with improved crossings for pedestrians and bicycles.
  • Explore installing a multiuse path on the parkway with limited access for vehicular cross traffic.

HIGH COMFORT BIKEWAYS

Adopt And Upgrade Planned Denver Moves: Bikes Bikeways & Install High Comfort Bikeways Not Previously Recommended - Also See Transformative Streets. Key Locations Include:

9th Avenue Between Broadway and Colorado: Install a high comfort bikeway on 9th Between Broadway and Colorado

Grant Street Between 11th and Speer: Extend planned bikeway on Grant from 11th to Speer for access to the Cherry Creek Trail

Washington Street/Clarkson Street Between 7th and 13th/14th: Upgrade planned conventional bike lanes on Washington and Clarkson between 7th and 13th/14th to a protected bike lane and install new crossings

Lafayette Street and Gaylord Street Between 12th and 16th: Install a high comfort bikeway on Lafayette and Gaylord between 12th and 16th

Franklin Street Between 13th and 23rd: Install a neighborhood bikeway on Franklin between 13th and 23rd

Detroit Street Between 6th and 17th: Install a high comfort bikeway on Detroit between 6th and 17th

Steele Street Between 6th and 12th: Reroute St. Paul bike lane and extend Steele bike lane between 6th and 12th

NEW AND WIDENED SIDEWALKS
Create A Complete Sidewalk Network, Enabling Pedestrians To Safely Access Their Destinations

Install Missing Sidewalks: Install new sidewalks within the City Park and Congress Park neighborhoods

Widen Narrow Sidewalks: Widen sidewalks within the Capitol Hill, City Park West, Cheesman Park, City Park, North Capitol Hill, and Congress Park neighborhoods

MOBILITY HUBS
Seamlessly Integrate Various Transportation Modes And Provide Customer Amenities at High Ridership Transit Stops - Also See Transfomative Streets

  • Colfax Avenue at Park, Broadway, Corona, Downing, Colorado, and Josephine
  • Lincoln Street at 7th, 9th, and 17th
  • Broadway at 9th, 11th, 13th, Cleveland, and 17th
  • 17th Avenue at Esplanade Parkway
  • 12th Avenue at Downing and Washington

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE INTERSECTION SAFETY
Study Intersection Safety Improvements - Also See Transformative Streets

  • Lincoln Street at 11th, 12th, 16th, 17th, and 18th
  • Broadway at 10th, 11th, 12th, 16th, and 17th
  • Colfax Avenue at Pennsylvania, Lincoln, and Downing
  • 17th Avenue at Franklin
  • York Street at 23rd
  • Colorado Boulevard at 8th, 13th, and Colfax
  • Pennsylvania Street at 16th and 17th
  • Colfax at Park & Franklin

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING
Slow Traffic Via A Zone-Based Approach Along Neighborhood Streets

Parks

  • City Park
  • Park Avenue Parks
  • Congress Park
  • Cheesman Park
  • Governors’ Park

Primary and Secondary Schools

  • East High School
  • Downtown Denver Expeditionary School/Emily Griffith High School
  • Denver Center for 21st Century Learning at Wyman Middle School/High School
  • Dora Moore ECE-8 School
  • Morey Middle School/Denver School of Innovation and Sustainable Design
  • Teller Elementary School
  • Denver Justice High School
  • Contemporary Learning Academy
  • REACH Charter School

Hospitals and Recreation Centers

  • Saint Joseph Hospital
  • Presbyterian St. Lukes Medical Center/Spalding
  • Rehabilitation Hospital at PSLMC/Kindred Hospital-Denver
  • Carla Madison Recreation Center
  • National Jewish Health

Quality of Life

  • Connect existing open space, parks, and recereational assets through an enhanced historic parkway network.
  • Develop new, contemporary parkways.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) 
Provide options for more effective use of the transportation system

  • Formally allow use of alleys for business loading and unloading
  • Allow/encourage BIDs to join a regional TMA to access their resources and/or serve as a TDM district to administer, promote, and implement programs
  • One-time bus pass or other transit incentive to ticket holders to local entertainment and cultural destinations
  • New development strategies including max parking ratios, shared car service and allocated parking, private bike share program, secure bike parking, car/bike share memberships for tenants, transit passes for tenants, Uber/Lyft drop-off parking or pull-out, deliveries scheduled during non-rush hours, better building access for people walking, rolling, or biking to/from buildings
  • Free and reduced RTD fare promotions for residents and employees

PARKING, CURBSIDE MANAGEMENT AND FREIGHT ACCESS
Implement strategies for efficient and equitable use of curbside space

  • Identify flex zone/curb use priorities by function and surrounding land use (i.e. Land use: residential, commercial, mixed use and industrial; Function: mobility, access for people, access for commerce, activation, greening, storage)
  • Pilot converting on-street parking spaces in key locations into high productivity uses such as public parklets, cafe seating, bicycle and micromobility parking, shared parking, mobility hub/transit stop infrastructure
  • Pilot converting alleys into public open space with green stormwater infrastructure
  • Pilot converting on-street parking into freight loading zones at varying times of the day
  • Conduct a comprehensive freight access review
  • Explore a dynamic parking pilot program (performance-based pricing)
  • On-street parking meters
    • Explore additional opportunities to add parking meters
    • Explore opportunities for adjusting/extending meter times due to adjacent land uses
    • Upgrade technology for ease of use
    • Explore increasing rates
  • Encourage shared parking arrangements
  • Develop additional Area Management Plans (AMP) for neighborhood parking challenges

CENTERS, CORRIDORS AND DISTRICTS

These serve as community destinations and job centers, providing a mix of uses. The majority of jobs and housing growth is targeted for centers, corridors

Regional Centers/Community Centers
Regional and Community Centers provide a balance of residential, employment and dining/shopping uses. Buildings provide a high degree of ground floor activation and front onto either streets or shared public space. Buildings are the largest scale of all places. Close to downtown, buildings may be as tall as downtown buildings with transition areas that include 12 and 16 stories. At Colfax and Colorado, buildings range from 5-12 stories.

  • Downtown
  • Colorado and Colfax

Community Corridors
Community Corridors also provide a balance of residential, employment and dining/shopping uses. Buildings have a distinctly linear orientation fronting the primary street. Building heights vary along the street to provide interest, generally ranging from 3-5 stories with some areas reaching up to 8 stories with community benefits such as affordable housing, community-serving uses or shared open space. The most activity and shared public space occurs directly adjacent to transit stops.

  • Colfax Avenue
  • Colorado Blvd.
  • 17th/18th Ave.
  • Broadway/Lincoln

Districts
Campus and Civic Districts include civic and education and medical campuses. They are typically dominated by a single, larger institutional use and provide important jobs and services to the surrounding community. Supporting retail and residential uses may occur within them. Buildings vary greatly in size and scale, depending on the use. The heights shown in the plan suggest appropriate heights given the surrounding context. 

  • State Capitol
  • Uptown Medical Center
  • East High School
  • Morey Middle School

Local Centers/Local Corridors
Local Centers and Corridors provide options for dining, entertainment and shopping. They may also include some residential and office uses or small, shared open space. These places are generally 3-5 stories. They are quieter places, nestled within residential neighborhoods. The scale is intimate with a focus on the pedestrian. The public realm is typically defined by buildings with active frontages.

  • Neighborhood nodes
  • 17th/18th Ave.

RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Areas where the predominant use is residential. Although they are primarily residential, these areas are supported by a variety of embedded uses needed for a complete neighborhood including schools, libraries, recreation and nodes of commercial/retail uses.

High Residential provides the highest intensity of residential uses. These are generally mid to high-rise apartment buildings of up to 16 stories. They may or may not include retail uses, but design treatment and activation of the ground floor along major corridors is important.

High-Medium Residential is predominantly multi-unit residential structures of 5 to 8 stories with a variety of lower-scale residential types. They may be mixed with lower-scale residential buildings as well. Retail uses may be present on street corners close to centers and corridors.

Low-Medium Residential (Multi-Unit) includes 2-3 story apartment buildings. These often include small courtyard buildings or “walk-up” apartments (accessed via stairs instead of elevators) and are usually surface parked. They may be mixed in with single and two unit houses as well. They provide a transition from single and two unit areas to centers and corridors of higher intensity. They are often located near transit.

Low-Medium Residential (Row House) includes single unit attached townhomes and rowhomes. They are 2-3 stories and designed to seamlessly fit in with single and two-unit homes. They usually include a private or shared garage for parking cars. They provide a transition from centers and corridors to single and two unit places.

Low Residential - Two Unit Residential includes two individual homes - either attached in a duplex form or detached in a tandem house form - on a single lot. They often look and feel like a single unit home. Some forms have two entrances that face the street and some have one prominent entrance and one more discreet entrance from a side street or alley. They are site-parked via an enclosed garage or carport.

Low Residential - Single Unit Residential includes more traditional houses that are setback from the street with front and rear yards and occasionally side yards. They usually include a prominent front entrance with a porch or stoop. They often have pitched roofs although some low-sloping roofs exist as well. They are site parked via a garage (usually detached and accessed by an alley) or carport.

Low Residential - Accessory Dwelling Units are smaller units that share a lot with another primary unit. They may be attached and located within the primary structure or detached in a secondary structure located in the rear yard. These units provide sensitive ways to integrate affordable living into more expensive neighborhoods. They allow empty nesters to age in place by moving into a smaller unit and renting their home, or they accommodate singles or couples that want to live in the neighborhood but cannot afford a larger home.


ENCOURAGE AND DIRECT GROWTH IN AREAS THAT SUPPORT TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AND EXPERIENCE

  • Provide additional height (above what current zoning allows) in specific areas adjacent to transit in exchange for:
    • Affordable housing 
    • Publicly accessible open space 
    • Saving an existing building 
    • Subsidizing or investing in local businesses

REQUIRE BETTER DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT IN CORRIDORS AND CENTERS

  • Provide design guidance and flexibility for some code requirements in order to get better design solutions in all centers and corridors in the following:
    • Transitions 
    • High quality designs and materials 
    • Creative design solutions
  • Provide design guidance and flexibility for “Nodes of Primary Activation” in key locations adjacent to transit stations and neighborhood commercial nodes that address the following:
    • Require ground floor retail 
    • Prohibit upper floor parking facing primary streets 
    • More small, shared open spaces
    • Enhanced streetscape amenities 
    • Keeping local businesses

ENCOURAGE RENOVATIONS OR ADDITIONS OVER DEMOLITION THROUGH TOOLS SUCH AS:

  • Requiring deconstruction and recycling of materials on homes that are a certain age.
  • This program would include criteria for eligible structures.
  • Providing flexibility in code requirements and administrative relief such as:
    • Allow roof elements such as dormers to penetrate bulk plane 
    • Offer flexibility in building coverage and separation requirements
    • Allow taller additions behind single story homes
    • Offer expedited permit processing or other administrative or financial relief

WORK WITH NEIGHBORHOODS TO MODIFY ZONING STANDARDS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION TO MORE CLOSELY SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.

  • Recommendations include modifying:
    • Building coverage 
    • Side setbacks 
    • Length of two-story side walls 
    • Bulk plane + way height is measured

ENCOURAGE MAINTAINING VALUED HOUSING STOCK THAT CONTRIBUTES TO NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER BY ALLOWING ADDITIONAL UNITS IN LOCATIONS NEAR TRANSIT THROUGH TOOLS SUCH AS:

  • Creating a “Character Home + Density Bonus” Program for locations around transit that adjusts regulations to encourage retaining existing houses, or the majority of their structure, by:
    • Permitting up to 2 units in SU districts 
    • Permitting up to 3 units in TU districts 
    • Permitting up to 4 units in RH districts 
    • Allow one ADU per lot
  • This program would include criteria for eligible structures.

MOBILIZE NEXT STEPS FOR ESTABLISHING HISTORIC OR CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICTS IN AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND AREAS OF INTEREST.

>> Download map showing areas of preservation and conservation (PDF)

  • Work with neighborhoods in Areas of Significance to determine appropriate tools. 
  • Encourage Discover Denver to prioritize these areas for the next survey phase. 
  • Interested neighborhood organizations could also elect to complete their own study with technical assistance from staff.

REMOVE REGULATORY BARRIERS AND OPEN UP FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO MAKE IT EASIER TO REUSE EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE CHARACTER OF COLFAX.

  • Establish an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance that eliminates barriers to reusing structures
  • Offer financial assistance for renovating existing buildings.
  • Establish historic or cultural district

MODIFY REGULATORY BARRIERS TO REDEVELOPMENT WHILE ALSO INCENTIVIZING COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND CHARACTER PRESERVATION TOOLS TO RESPECT THE UNIQUE HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF COLFAX.

  • Leverage increased development potential (e.g., increased height or intensity allowed through rezoning) to acheive community benefits, including: 
    • Affordable housing 
    • Publicly accessible open space 
    • Saving an existing building 
    • Community-serving businesses
  • Reduce off-street parking requirements and offer flexibility in public improvement requirements to reduce barriers to development

OTHER COLFAX-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS:

  • Make redevelopment process easier with technical assistance and handbook with common questions and considerations. 
  • Modify standards to encourage flashing neon, artistic signs, blade signs, and more.

CONNECT EXISTING OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL ASSETS THROUGH A HISTORIC PARKWAY PEDESTRIAN NETWORK

  • Incorporate formal pedestrian improvements along the existing Historic Parkways to create a dedicated pedestrian network throughout the area.
  • Strengthen the pedestrian environment at the intersection of Park Avenue and Colfax Avenue.
  • Study further the opportunities to improve the pedestrian environment and park-like conditions along Park Avenue.
  • Update the Design Guidelines for Denver’s Historic Parkways and Boulevards as needed, pending study of pedestrian mobility options.

DEVELOP NEW CONTEMPORARY PARKWAYS THAT CONNECT THE COMMUNITY TO OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL ASSETS, AS WELL AS SERVE MULTIPLE COMMUNITY FUNCTIONS

  • Expand the parkway system to complement the Historic Parkways with the addition of new distinct Contemporary Parkways geared toward increased mobility options and park-like conditions
  • Contemporary Parkways should reassign portions of the public right-of-way to the function of bike, pedestrian or transit mobility, diverse green infrastructure including tree canopy, native vegetation, and stormwater management while also including high-efficiency lighting

ENHANCE EXISTING COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES

  • Strengthen partnerships with private property owners or develop future intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with schools, institutions and hospitals to create shared open spaces
  • Increase leisure opportunities within our passive linear park space
  • Encourage higher neighborhood utilization of existing park space by increasing local, active programming, amenities and maintenance

CREATE NEW COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES

  • Create additional community park, recreation and cultural spaces. Prioritize future locations that align with the City’s Game Plan for a Healthy City and urban flooding areas such as the northeast corner of Congress Park
  • Incentivize and/or require mid and large-scale development, especially near BRT stations and within height incentive areas, to include publicly accessible outdoor spaces. Establish standards and guidelines that ensure public accessibility, design, and features that respond to the local community context

A. STRENGTHEN THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY AND INCREASE CANOPY COVERAGE WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

  • Coordinate with the City and County of Denver (CCD) Forestry Department to support the City’s replacement of existing trees within the public right-of-way to ensure a healthy and sustainable tree canopy and unique community asset
  • Increase coverage of the tree canopy through a City-sponsored community replacement program utilizing Denverappropriate trees
  • Prioritize preservation of tree canopy in right-of-way design and other CCD Public Works projects
  • Develop educational programming and partnerships within the community to increase understanding around maintenance and care of the tree canopy
  • Support the development of an Urban Forest Plan to meet city-wide canopy goals for preservation, maintenance, implementation and funding

B. PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING TREES IN ALL PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

  • Strengthen development standards to protect existing trees and increase requirements to mitigate tree loss in redevelopment or new development.

C. INCREASE PERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE THROUGH THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

  • Explore opportunities to convert existing impervious surface within public right-of-way to pervious acreage through the addition of street trees, tree lawn or bulbouts, trails, parkland or native vegetation
  • Seek opportunities to coordinate with the design of future Contemporary Parkways
  • Seek opportunities to integrate with the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) design along Colfax Ave. and redesign of public right-of way streetscape and remnant parcels to improve infiltration and reduce runoff
  • Develop design standards or guidelines for a contemporary tree lawn
  • Remove and replace impervious areas between the sidewalk and street with 4”-6” depressed lawn or streetscape that improves infiltration and reduces runoff
  • Coordinate implementation through supporting Public Works roadway, stormwater and sanitary projects within the right-of-way
  • Increase the requirements for pervious acreage, water conservation in landscaping and inclusion of natural vegetation for redevelopment and new development
  • Work with private property owners, Colfax corridor Business Improvement Districts and other neighborhood organizations to transition underutilized paved lots to pervious surfaces

D. ENCOURAGE SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INCLUDING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, FLOOD PROTECTION, WATER QUALITY, AND WATER USE

>> Download map showing water-related recommendations (PDF)

  • Implement a system of green streets and green alleys to increase the water quality treatment of stormwater. Prioritize streets based on the City’s Green Infrastructure Implementation Strategy methodology (see map below) and their connection to high mobility corridors such as Colfax Avenue and key neighborhood destinations like parks, churches, schools, institutions and center.
  • Encourage the use of Denver appropriate vegetation that is drought-tolerant and uses a minimal amount of water within the right-of-way
  • Restore the health of our waterways by increasing the treatment of stormwater upstream and improving street cleaning in contributing streets

Ideas to Improve Social Capital, Mental/Physical Health, & Neighborhood Security

ENHANCE THE PHYSICAL FABRIC OF THE EAST CENTRAL AREA TO ENCOURAGE SOCIAL INTERACTION AND TO DETER CRIME.

Parks & Public Places:

  • Provide safer and more interesting public spaces along Colfax and Broadway, and integrated within neighborhoods (particularly in North Capitol Hill, Capitol Hill, and City Park West - where green space is lacking).
  • To capitalize on the mental health benefits of nature, provide safer, better-defined routes to existing parks.
  • Invest in community-driven, creative initiatives to revitalize underutilized parcels (murals, pocket parks, and other public art).

Pedestrian Experience:

  • Reinvent portions of the Colfax streetscape to invite more social activity (e.g. trees, seating, art, sidewalk dining.
  • Provide more pedestrian-oriented street-lighting to ensure safety in evening hours.

IMPROVE RELATIONS BETWEEN BUSINESSES, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS, AND VULNERABLE OR MARGINALIZED POPULATIONS.

  • Consider utilizing social service providers (such as homelessness outreach navigators) as part of Colfax improvement district ambassador teams.
  • Enhance communication channels and opportunities for engagement between the Denver Police Department’s Community Resource Officers (CROs) and businesses, improvement districts, and community groups, as well as social service providers.
  • Provide more resources for vulnerable populations (including individuals experiencing homelessness and chronic public disorder offenders).

quality of life - food map

Click image to download map showing healthy food recommendations (PDF)

Ideas to Improve Access to Healthy Food

RECRUIT SMALL/MEDIUM SIZED GROCERY OUTLETS IN UNDERSERVED AREAS

  • Leverage existing programs like the Colorado Fresh Food Financing Fund, City funds, and other incentives to attract food retailers.
  • Consider alternative models such as co-location with another business or food-related enterprise.

DEVELOP MORE COMMUNITY GARDENS

  • Double or triple the number of food gardens in EC neighborhoods, particularly in low food access areas in the Cap Hill, North Cap Hill, City Park West, and Cheesman neighborhoods.

IMPROVE PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS TO FOOD STORES

  • Prioritize sidewalk & crosswalk upgrades within the vicinity of grocery stores (e.g. 1/4 mile radius)

RECRUIT SMALL/MEDIUM SIZED GROCERY OUTLETS IN UNDERSERVED AREAS

  • Leverage existing programs like the Colorado Fresh Food Financing Fund, City funds, and other incentives to attract food retailers.
  • Consider alternative models such as co-location with another business or food-related enterprise.

SUPPORT SMALL GROCERS & CORNER STORES

  • To encourage more healthy food inventory at corner stores, provide financial incentive and technical assistance.
  • Help launch and/or fund community-supported distribution projects to remove “minimum order” inventory barriers.

EXPAND ACCESS TO HEALTHY PREPARED MEALS

  • Provide incentives for restaurants/retailers to offer healthy meals.
  • Develop/fund community-supported restaurants

SUPPORT INITIATIVES THAT ADDRESS FOOD INSECURITY

  • Pursue partnerships with hospitals to deploy healthy food, resources, education, and growing space.
  • Enhance capacity & efficiency of food banks & food rescue networks.
  • Encourage business and institutions to decrease food waste while increasing donation and re-purposing of food.

INCORPORATE FOOD ACCESS INTO HOUSING

  • Support on-site programming such as bulk food delivery, emergency food assistance, nutrition/cooking education, and community gardens.

 

Past Survey Results

The following spreadsheets show the results of online surveys that replicated exercises completed and neighborhood workshops that took place in February 2019. All files are Excel files. 


East Central Area Kickoff Survey: From the summer of 2017 to the spring of 2018, the East Central Area Plan attended neighborhood meetings throughout the plan and used an online survey to gather input from more than 1,100 people to learn more about their hopes and concerns about the East Central Area neighborhoods. The results, summarized below, were used to identify key topics to be addressed in the neighborhood plan. 

Question: "What do you like most about the East Central Area?"

Top six most frequent responses

  • Walkability: 287 mentions
  • Parks and green spaces: 279 mentions
  • Local shops and restaurants: 248 mentions
  • Housing, architecture, history: 199 mentions
  • Proximity/location: 176 mentions
  • Cultural & recreational amenities: 143 mentions

Respondents: 781

Residents love the East Central Area’s walkability, parks and green space, and mix of bustling shops and restaurants. They also appreciate its historic architecture, local character, and cultural institutions.

Graphic showing survey results on what respondents like most about East Central area

Question: “"What are your biggest concerns about the East Central Area, now and in the future?"

Top six most frequent responses:

  • Traffic, speeding and parking: 335
  • Development and loss of character: 249
  • Crime and personal safety: 209
  • Homelessness and panhandling: 152
  • Declining affordability: 103
  • Pedestrian safety and sidewalks: 82

Respondents: 771

Residents in the East Central area are most concerned about traffic and congestion, particularly with regards to how it affects safety for pedestrians and parking availability as well as crime and general cleanliness along East Colfax and nearby areas. Other frequently cited concerns include members of the community who are experiencing homelessness and need better access to services and facilities, and the potential impacts of development on affordability and character.

Graphic showing survey results on respondents' biggest concerns about the East Central Area

Question: "What is your big idea for improving the East Central area?"

  • Improve public transit: 107 mentions
  • Reinvigorate/beautify Colfax: 97
  • Improve pedestrian safety and walkability: 80
  • Improve bikeability and connect bike paths: 78
  • Reduce crime/increase police presence: 49
  • Innovative parking solutions: 44

Respondents: 556

The most common “big ideas” submitted by residents were improvements to public transit, ways to reinvigorate and beautify Colfax, and improvements to walkability and pedestrian safety. Twenty respondents suggested the idea of adding a trolley/streetcar with service along Colfax.

Graphic showing survey results for big ideas for the East Central Area

Question: "Please tell us what neighborhood amenities are important to you. These can be amenities that exist today or ones you would like to see in the future."

  • Dining: 72 percent
  • Grocery shopping: 69 percent
  • Recreational activities: 37 percent
  • Cultural amenities/events: 36 percent
  • Other retail/entertainment: 24 percent
  • Medical services: 17 percent
  • Outdoor seating and plazas: 16 percent
  • Educational opportunities: 4 percent
  • Child care: 1 percent

Respondents: 768

Access to food dominated the list of top amenities for residents in the East Central Area. Ranked highest were Grocery Shopping and Dining, followed by Recreational Activities and Cultural Amenities & Events. Respondents expressed much less interest in prioritizing economic development amenities like childcare and education opportunities.

Graphic showing survey results for top amenities in the East Central Area

Question: "Please tell us how friendly the East Central Area is for pedestrians, including the quality of sidewalks and ease of access to amenities?"

  • Very easy: 38 percent
  • Fairly easy: 53 percent
  • Not easy: 9 percent

Respondents: 792

The majority of residents agreed that walking in the East Central Area is “very” or “fairly” easy; however, respondents also made it clear walkability in the area is important to them, and can still be improved via safer pedestrian crossings, an improved sidewalk network and reduced crime along Colfax.

Graphic showing survey results on walking in the East Central Area

Question: "Please tell us how friendly the East Central Area is for cyclists, including the quality of bicycle facilities and ease of access to amenities?”

  • Very easy: 15 percent
  • Fairly easy: 56 percent
  • Not easy: 29 percent

Respondents: 742

Nearly one third of residents expressed that biking in the East Central Area is “not easy”. Comments elsewhere in the survey suggested bikability could be improved via a more robust bike lane network and better connectivity between routes.

Graphic showing survey results on biking in the East Central Area

Question: "Please tell us how often you use public transit in the East Central Area?"

  • Frequently: 17 percent
  • Occasionally: 29 percent
  • Rarely: 28 percent
  • Never: 25 percent

Respondents: 786

Respondents were split evenly along the spectrum in their current use of public transit; however, comments provided suggest that improvements to transit should be prioritized. Many respondents requested more frequent and reliable transit, particularly along Colfax.

Graphic showing survey results on transit use in East Central Area

Question: "Please tell us about housing options in the East Central Area. The East Central Area has good housing options for…"

  • Young professionals: 89 percent agreed
  • Families: 61 percent agreed
  • Seniors: 37 percent agreed
  • Low-income residents: 16 percent agreed
  • Disabled residents: 13 percent agreed

Respondents: 732

Residents agreed the East Central Area has good housing options for young professionals as well as families. They also expressed the area does not currently provide good housing options for seniors, low-income residents and disabled residents. 

Graphic showing survey results on housing options in the East Central Area

Question: "Please tell us your opinion on the businesses in the East Central Area."

  • Local businesses meet most of my daily needs: 60 percent
  • Local businesses meet some of my daily needs: 36 percent
  • Local businesses don't meet my daily needs: 4 percent

Respondents: 783

Summary: The community agrees that businesses in the East Central Area meet “most” or “some’ of their daily needs, and that the area’s local, independent businesses are part of what makes it a great place to live.

Graphic showing survey results on businesses in the East Central Area

Question: "Please tell us how safe you feel in the East Central Area?"

  • Always safe: 17 percent
  • Usually safe: 77 percent
  • Rarely safe: 6 percent

Respondents: 790

Summary: While most of the community reported feeling safe “usually” in the East area (77%), some also expressed concern with local crime and panhandling.

Graphic showing survey results on safety concerns in the East Central Area

 

About the East Central Planning Area

The East Central Planning Area includes the statistical neighborhoods adjacent to Colfax Avenue between Broadway and Colorado Boulevard, including Capitol Hill, North Capitol Hill, Cheesman Park, Congress Park, City Park and City Park West. The area contains a rich mix of amenities, jobs, and housing options, and remains one of the most dynamic places in the city. The area’s outdated plans coupled with additional changes on the horizon—including plans to improve City Park, add Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Colfax Avenue, and new amenities such as Civic Center Transit Station and the Carla Madison Recreation Center—make East Central a top priority for engaging the community in a new plan.

Currently, the East Central planning area is zoned according to the following breakdown:

32% Urban context
27% General urban context
19% Open space
11% Urban center context
11% Other (Former Chapter 59, Downtown context, Campus context)

Pie chart showing zoning context breakdown for east central planning area

To help inform the NPI Strategic Plan, the city developed data-based indicators of planning need at the neighborhood scale. Click here to read more about the indicators.

Table showing planning need indicator scores

Text translation of above infographic (PDF)

Statistics
  • Area: 3.89 square miles
  • Population: 46,488 people
  • Housing units: 32,684 units
Regional destinations
  • Denver Zoo
  • Denver Museum of Nature & Science
  • Botanic Gardens
  • Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center
  • St. Joseph Hospital
  • National Jewish Health
  • State Capitol
  • History Colorado Center
Natural features
  • Cheesman Park
  • City Park
  • Congress Park
Key corridors
  • Park Avenue
  • Colfax Avenue
  • 17th Avenue
  • 7th Avenue Parkway
  • Broadway Boulevard
  • Downing Street
  • Colorado Boulevard

 

Neighborhoods