TO: City Council FROM: Jeff Hirt, Senior City Planner DATE: April 19, 2018 RE: Official Zoning Map Amendment #2015I-00168

Transcription

1 Community Planning and Development Planning Services 201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept. 205 Denver, CO p: f: TO: City Council FROM: Jeff Hirt, Senior City Planner DATE: April 19, 2018 RE: Official Zoning Map Amendment #2015I Staff Report and Recommendation Based on the criteria for review in the Denver Zoning Code, Staff recommends approval for map amendment #2015I Request for Rezoning Proposal: #2015I Address: Multiple properties located at and around 25th St & Glenarm Place Neighborhood/Council District: Five Points / Council District 9 RNOs: Welton Corridor Property Owners, Curtis Park Neighbors, The Points Historical Redevelopment Corp, Five Points Business District, Uptown on the Hill, Center City Denver Residents Organization, Opportunity Corridor Coalition of United Residents, Rio Norte, Denver Arts and Culture Initiative, Old San Rafael Neighborhood Association, Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods, Inc., Enterprise Hill Homeowners Association, Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation (INC) Area of Properties: Approximately 12 acres Current Zoning: G-MU-3, UO-3; R-3, UO-3 Proposed Zoning: U-RH-2.5, UO-3 Property Owner(s): Various Summary of Rezoning Request City Council President Albus Brooks is sponsoring this map amendment request for an approximately 12-acre area in the Five Points neighborhood. The purpose of the request is to better align the current zoning on the subject properties with the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan related to maximum building heights. The boundaries of the requested map amendment were chosen because of a variety of factors, including existing zone district boundaries, the Five Points Historic District boundaries, existing building heights, and communications between community members within the subject area.

2 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 2

3 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 3

4 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 4 Existing Context The subject properties are predominantly residential 1- and 2-story buildings built between 1880 and Within the requested map amendment boundaries, at least five new 2- to 3-story buildings have been built since Several new 3- to 5-story buildings have been built to the west and south of the subject properties. The following table summarizes the existing context proximate to the subject site: Existing Zoning Existing Land Uses Existing Building Form/Scale Existing Block, Lot, Street Pattern Site G-MU-3, UO-3; R- 3, UO-3 Single-Unit Residential, Two-Unit Residential, Multi-Unit Residential, Public/Quasi-Public, Mixed Use Most structures are residential and were built in the between 1880 and All buildings built before 2000 are 1- to 2- story buildings. Buildings constructed since 2000 are 2- to 3-story residential buildings. North South East West C-MX-5, UO-1, UO-2; C-MX-8, UO-1, UO-2 R-MU-30 with waivers; G-MU-3, UO-3 U-RH-2.5, UO-3; U-SU-A1, UO-3; C- MX-5, UO-1, UO- 2; U-MX-3, UO-1, UO-2; U-MX-3 G-MU-3; C-MX-8, UO-1, UO-2 Single-Unit Residential, Two-Unit Residential, Mixed Use, Commercial/Retail, Office Mixed Use, Multi-Unit Residential Office, Multi-Unit Residential, Public/Quasi Public, Parking Mixed Use, Multi-Unit Residential Mix of 1- to 3-story residential and mixed use buildings Recently constructed buildings of mostly 3- to 5-stories Mix of 1- to 3-story residential and mixed use buildings Mixed use shopfront and apartment buildings along Welton Street corridor with 3- to 5-story height; some remaining original 2- story buildings. Intact grid of streets follows original Denver grid; east of Washington transitions to north-south grid.

5 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 5 1. Existing Zoning The existing zoning on the subject properties is G-MU-3, UO-3, with the exception of an approximately 12,000 square foot area at the intersection of 24 th St and Glenarm Pl, which is zoned R-3, UO-3. The G-MU-3 zone district is a multi unit district in the General Urban Neighborhood Context that allows a mix of residential uses. G-MU-3 allows the urban house, duplex, row house, garden court, and apartment primary building forms. The row house and apartment building forms allow the tallest building height at three stories (40 feet). R-3 is a Former Chapter 59 zone district that allows a mix of residential uses. A mix of attached and detached residential units were built on these properties in 2006 under the R-3, UO-3 zoning. The site retained Former Chapter 59 zoning because it is subject to a minor planned building group (PBG) for multi-unit residential development. UO-3 is the Historic Structure Use Overlay District that allows limited nonresidential uses in Historic Structures with residential zoning. While there are State and National Historic Register buildings in the area, there are currently no Historic Structures as defined by the Denver Zoning Code (locally designated or contributing to a local historic district) in the requested map amendment area.

6 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 6 2. Existing Land Use Map The subject properties are a mix of multi-unit residential, two-unit residential, and single-unit residential. There are four nonresidential parcels that include a one-story mixed use building, a 1.5 story church, and surface parking.

7 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 7 3. Existing Building Form and Scale The existing building form and scale of the subject site and adjacent properties are shown in the images on the following pages. Subject Properties

8 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page

9 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 9 Surrounding Properties

10 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page Summary of City Agency Referral Comments As part of the DZC review process, the rezoning proposal is referred to potentially affected city agencies and departments for comment. A summary of agency referral responses follows: Public Works Surveyor (Spirk): Approved See Comments Below: I have made changes to the some of the lots in the descriptions based off the subdivision plats. Please see below. DRAFT Legal description for proposed Five Points Legislative Zone Map Amendment Council District 9

11 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 11 A part of the Clements Addition Subdivision, and a part of the Stile s Addition Subdivision located in the Northeast One Quarter of Section 34, Township 3 South, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: That the zoning classification of the area in the City and County of Denver described as follows or included within the following boundaries shall be and hereby is changed from G-MU-3 UO-3 and R-3 UO- 3 to X-XX-X: Asset Management: Approved no comments Environmental Health: Approved See Comments Below Notes. DDPHE is not aware of environmental concerns on the property and concurs with the rezoning request. General Notes: Most of Colorado is high risk for radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas. Due to concern for potential radon gas intrusion into buildings, DEH suggests installation of a radon mitigation system in structures planned for human occupation or frequent use. It may be more cost effective to install a radon system during new construction rather than after construction is complete. If renovating or demolishing existing structures, there may be a concern of disturbing regulated materials that contain asbestos or lead-based paint. Materials containing asbestos or lead-based paint should be managed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local regulations. The Denver Air Pollution Control Ordinance (Chapter 4- Denver Revised Municipal Code) specifies that contractors shall take reasonable measures to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne and to prevent the visible discharge of fugitive particulate emissions beyond the property on which the emissions originate. The measures taken must be effective in the control of fugitive particulate emissions at all times on the site, including periods of inactivity such as evenings, weekends, and holidays. Denver s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 36 Noise Control, Denver Revised Municipal Code) identifies allowable levels of noise. Properties undergoing Re-Zoning may change the acoustic environment, but must maintain compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance is based on the status of the receptor property (for example, adjacent Residential receptors), and not the status of the noise-generating property. Violations of the Noise Ordinance commonly result from, but are not limited to, the operation or improper placement of HV/AC units, generators, and loading docks. Construction noise is exempted from the Noise Ordinance during the following hours, 7am 9pm (Mon Fri) and 8am 5pm (Sat & Sun). Variances for nighttime work are allowed, but the variance approval process requires 2 to 3 months. For variance requests or questions related to the Noise Ordinance, please contact Paul Riedesel, Denver Environmental Health ( ). Scope & Limitations: DEH performed a limited search for information known to DEH regarding environmental conditions at the subject site. This review was not intended to conform to ASTM standard practice for Phase I site assessments, nor was it designed to identify all potential environmental conditions. In addition, the review was not intended to assess environmental conditions for any potential right-of-way or easement conveyance process. The City and County of Denver provides

12 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 12 no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information provided. Public Review Process Date CPD informational notice of receipt of the rezoning proposal to all affected members of City Council and registered neighborhood organizations Property legally posted for a period of 15 days and CPD written notice of the Planning Board public hearing sent to all affected members of City Council and registered neighborhood organizations 1/11/18 2/5/18 2/21/18 Planning Board recommended approval by a vote of 9-0 2/21/18 CPD written notice of the Land Use, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting sent to all affected members of City Council and registered neighborhood organizations, at least ten working days before the meeting 3/9/18 Land Use, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the City Council review Property legally posted for a period of 21 days and CPD written notice of the City Council public hearing sent to all affected members of City Council and registered neighborhood organizations 3/13/18 4/1/18 City Council Public Hearing 4/23/18 The RNOs identified on page 1 were notified of this proposal. As of the time of this writing, the city has received 12 public comments. (see Attachment 2) Nine public comments are in support of the application, including from Curtis Park Neighbors, Inc. and two public comments in opposition. Those comments in support of the rezoning request generally cite that the U-RH-2.5 zone district promotes the conservation of the existing, unique community character relative to building scale. Some comments address the community process and the numerous zoning options explored before arriving at the U-RH-2.5 recommendation. The city has received two public comments in opposition, citing concerns about the impact the rezoning may have on property values a deficient public process for the rezoning. One comment is not explicitly in opposition but cites support for the primary rezoning area but concerns about the small area to be rezoned located southwest of 24 th Street, and questioned why this area should be included in the rezoning.

13 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 13 Criteria for Review / Staff Evaluation DZC Section sets forth the following review criteria for consideration of a legislative map amendment (note that Sec Additional Review Criteria for non-legislative Rezonings does not apply to this legislative map amendment): DZC Section Consistency with Adopted Plans 2. Uniformity of District Regulations and Restrictions 3. Public Health, Safety and General Welfare 1. Consistency with Adopted Plans The following adopted plans apply to this property: Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver (2002) Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan (2011) Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 The proposal is consistent with several Denver Comprehensive Plan strategies, including: Residential Neighborhoods Objective 3: Preserve and enhance the individuality, diversity and livability of Denver s neighborhoods and expand the vitality of Denver s business centers (p. 59) Residential Neighborhoods Strategy 3B: Encourage quality infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood (p. 59) City of Neighborhoods Objective 1: Strengthen the positive attributes and distinctive character of each neighborhood (p. 149) City of Neighborhoods Strategy 1A: Respect the intrinsic character and assets of individual neighborhoods (p. 149) The requested zone district, U-RH-2.5, is consistent with the comprehensive plan objectives and strategies to encourage development and redevelopment that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The late 1800s and early 1900s-era 1-2-story building pattern is predominant in the requested map amendment area. U-RH-2.5 limits the massing of any building square footage above the second floor, which results in a built form more consistent with a twostory pattern. Blueprint Denver (2002) According to Blueprint Denver, all but six parcels in the requested map amendment area have a concept land use of Single Family/Duplex Residential. The remaining six parcels have a concept land use of Urban Residential. About 1/4 of the requested map amendment area is located in an Area of Change. Future Land Use

14 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 14 The area to be rezoned located northeast of 24 th Street has a concept land use of Single Family/Duplex Residential. Blueprint Denver describes Single Family/Duplex Residential as moderately dense areas with a mixture of housing types, including singlefamily houses, duplexes, townhouses and small apartment buildings. (p. 42) The existing conditions in the requested map amendment area reflect this description. The U-RH- 2.5 zone district is consistent with Single Family/Duplex future land use because it allows a mixture of housing types including the Urban House, Duplex, and Rowhouse building forms. The area to be rezoned located southwest of 24 th Street has a concept land use of Urban Residential and has six, 1-story single family buildings constructed in the late 1800s. Blueprint Denver describes Urban Residential as higher density and primarily residential but may include a noteworthy number of complementary commercial uses. A mixture of housing types is present, including historic single-family houses, townhouses, small multifamily apartments and sometimes high-rise residential structures (p. 41). The requested U-RH-2.5 zone district is consistent with the Blueprint Denver Urban Residential concept because it allows a mixture of housing types including the Urban House, Duplex, and Rowhouse building forms. Areas of Stability The area to be rezoned located northwest of Tremont Place is designated an Area of Stability. Blueprint Denver states that the goal for Areas of Stability is to identify and maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. (p. 120) Areas of Change

15 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 15 The area to be rezoned located southeast of Tremont Place is in an Area of Change. Blueprint Denver states that the goal for Areas of Change is to channel growth where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. A major goal is to increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses (p. 127) The requested map amendment balances both Blueprint Denver Area of Stability and Area of Change goals to accommodate redevelopment and economic activity that maintains existing neighborhood character. The requested maximum building height in the U-RH-2.5 zone district (2.5 stories) is consistent with the Area of Stability goal to maintain the neighborhood character, since the U-RH-2.5 zone district promotes a 1-2 story building form that is characteristic of the neighborhood. Street Classifications All streets in the requested map amendment area are Undesignated Local streets. Blueprint Denver states the design features of local streets are influenced less by traffic volumes and are tailored more to providing local access. Mobility on local streets is typically incidental and involves relatively short trips at lower speeds to and from other streets (p. 51). The requested U-RH-2.5 zone district is consistent with Blueprint Denver Area of Change and Area of Stability goals for maintenance of neighborhood character while allowing some redevelopment and economic opportunity. Specifically, the U-RH-2.5 zone district maximum height of 2.5 stories is consistent with the existing 1-2- story original neighborhood building scale. The U-RH-2.5 zone district allows for a mixture of housing types so it is consistent with the Blueprint Denver concept land use of Single Family/Duplex and Urban Residential, as applicable. For the parcels currently zoned R-3, the requested map amendment is also consistent with Blueprint Denver policies that support rezoning former Chapter 59 zone districts to Denver Zoning Code zone districts (p. 154). Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan (2011) The proposal is consistent with several Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan goals and recommendations. Concept Land Use The area to be rezoned located northeast of 24 th Street has a Single Family Rowhouse land use concept, which are moderately dense areas that are primarily residential but with some complementary, smallscale commercial uses. There is a mixture of housing types, including single-family houses, duplexes, rowhouses, and small apartment buildings (p. 16). The existing conditions in the requested map amendment area reflect this description. The area to be rezoned located southwest of 24 th Street has a concept land use of Urban Residential, which includes a mixture of housing types, including historic single-family houses, townhouses, small multi-family apartments and sometimes mid to high-rise residential structures (p. 16).

16 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 16 The requested U-RH-2.5 zone district is consistent with the Blueprint Denver Single Family/Rowhouse and Urban Residential land use concepts because it allows a mixture of housing types including the Urban House, Duplex, and Rowhouse building forms. Concept Building Heights Map Recommended Future Land Use Map Note: boundaries approximate Concept Building Heights The Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan Concept Height Map shows a 2.5 story building height for the area to be rezoned located northeast of 24 th Street. The U-RH-2.5 zone district is consistent with this designation in this area because the U-RH-2.5 zone district allows a maximum of 2.5 stories. The Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan Concept Height Map shows a 3-story building height for the area to be rezoned located southwest of 24 th Street. The option to request U-RH-3A was explored for this area to more closely align the zone district with the concept height map. However, U-RH-3A would not actually allow a 3-story building in this location. The Apartment building form is allowed in the U-RH-3A zone district up to three stories, but the form is only permitted on corner zone lots where at least one of the intersecting streets is a collector or arterial street. 24 th Street and Glenarm Place are both Undesignated Local Streets. Enterprise Hill Recommendations The rezoning is located within the Enterprise Hill/San Rafael neighborhood. The following strategies specific to this neighborhood support the rezoning request: N.27 Building Form, Height: Reinforce existing development patterns by maintaining the scale of development that is found in the area currently (p. 88) In historic areas, including San Rafael, Clements, and some portions of Enterprise Hill, the siting of new N.27 Building Form, Siting: Residential structures should be consistent with the existing, historic development patterns found within the neighborhood (p. 88) Other Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan Policies

17 Rezoning Proposal #2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St. & Glenarm Place April 19, 2018 Page 17 The proposed map amendment is also consistent with several plan other policies: Guiding Principle: Protect Neighborhood Fabric (p. 10) Maintain the unique character of each neighborhood in Northeast Downtown (p. 10) Neighborhood Connections and Character Recommendation: Make use of design elements, such as upper story setbacks, as necessary, to minimize massing where appropriate (p. 18) The proposed map amendment is consistent with the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan because the U-RH-2.5 zone district would support maintenance of the character of the neighborhood related to building heights and align with the plan s concept building heights. 2. Uniformity of District Regulations and Restrictions The proposed rezoning to U-RH-2.5 would result in the uniform application of zone district building form, use, and design regulations. 3. Public Health, Safety and General Welfare The proposed official map amendment furthers the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City through the implementation of the City s adopted plans including Comprehensive Plan 2000, Blueprint Denver, and the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. Attachments 1. Rezoning proposal 2. Public comments

18 #10 Letter from Curtis Park Neighbors Registered Neighborhood Organization to Albus Brooks October 16, 2016 To: From: cc: Councilman Albus Brooks Curtis Park Neighbors, Inc. A Denver Registered Neighborhood Organization 2418 Champa Street, Denver, CO curtis-park-neighbors-board@googlegroups.com / Analiese Hock Glenarm Triangle Overlay Meeting Request Dear Councilman Brooks, As you maybe aware Curtis Park Neighbors has been working with neighbors along Glenarm and Tremont to determine a zoning change that would be appropriate for these residential blocks while not negatively impacting the development of the Welton Corridor. After many months of meetings and discussion with neighbors and CPD we believe we have found a way forward that is supported by the vast majority of residents. In February neighbors concerned about the potential loss of the small-scale housing stock along Glenarm and Tremont began an effort to look at the zoning, which is now G-MU-3. The primary concern was that homes could be replaced with the sideways townhomes that turn their back on the neighborhood through an architectural form that has no front entrance onto the street and instead has an alley for cars and garages as the centerpiece of the architectural form. The small homes along Glenarm and Tremont are at particular risk for this type of redevelopment because the small homes have a market value that would allow the development of sideways townhomes to be profitable. In the effort to determine the best possible solution neighbors sponsored two community meetings, started a face book forum and went door to door to talk with impacted neighbors. The result was a decision to request a zoning overlay that would exclude the apartment form from these blocks in the existing G-MU-3 zone district. This effort is supported by 57 of the 68 neighbors in the impacted area. 6 were against it, of which two have now moved out of the area, and 5 have never responded. Additionally the neighbors presented the proposal to 50 neighbors at the August CPN general meeting and received unanimous support which lead the CPN board to approve a resolution in support of the effort. We would like to request that, given the amount of work and support from neighbors that has gone into this effort, your office assist in sponsoring the implementation of the overlay district through City Council. We would like to meet with you and Analiese Hock at your earliest convenience to discuss this. Thank you, John Hayden, Curtis Park Neighbors Board, President. 18

19 April 18, 2018 To: Denver City Council Members RE: Zone Map Amendment (Rezoning) - Legislative Rezoning Proposal, Case #2015I Dear Denver City Council Members: I am writing to ask you to approve the Denver Planning Board s unanimous recommendation to rezone in our neighborhood from G-MU-3 to U-RH-2.5. I have lived at 2437 Glenarm Place since 1997 with my partner who bought the property in I would like to briefly review how the zoning we have now, G- MU-3, came to be. When the current zoning for this area was proposed in 2010, several of the neighbors signed a petition asking for our zoning to match that of the Curtis Park neighborhood. At that time, our neighborhood was not represented by an RNO and we failed to get U-RH-2.5 zoning. Just a year later, in May 2011, the Northeast Denver Neighborhood Plan was adopted. The building height and land use concept maps now support U-RH-2.5 zoning. The momentum to change our zoning started to build a few years ago and a group of neighbors got together and started outreach to the proposed rezoning area. You will hear from my neighbor Robbie Hobein regarding the details or our exhaustive outreach and my neighbor Maggie Miller regarding the outcome of that outreach. We have seen the neighborhood and surrounding area go through many changes over the years, especially the past 4-5 years. One of the things we love the most about living here is that when you walk out the front door on a Saturday morning you feel like you are on a cozy, tree-lined street while being only blocks from downtown. The block we live on, the 2400 of Glenarm, is on the National Registry of Historic Places. We feel that changing the zoning to reflect what is called for in the Northeast Denver Neighborhood Plan will help preserve the character and feel of our neighborhood. Some may say that changing the zoning would negatively impact the monetary value of our properties but I would argue that replacing historic homes with multiunit apartment buildings would significantly impact the things we value about this neighborhood. Thank you for considering approval of Denver Planning Board s unanimous recommendation for rezoning in our neighborhood. Deb Jacobson and Julieann Tibbetts 2437 Glenarm Place

20 From: Luis Bielich To: Hirt, Jeffrey J. - CPD PS Citywide Planning Cc: Brooks, Albus - CC City Council Elected Subject: Case: 2015I Date: Thursday, April 12, :34:03 AM Hi Jeffrey, I wanted to let you know that I'm opposed to changes mentioned in case 2015I I believe this is stripping the rights of the current property owners. I'm just finding out about this zone change and this would greatly affect a major improvement I'm working on in this area. If this could be delayed for a couple months, that would be greatly appreciated! Had I known earlier, I would have certainly reacted differently. I appreciate your service to the city, but I disagree with this one. Please take this into consideration. Regards, Luis Bielich

21 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Patrick Listermann Hirt, Jeffrey J. - CPD PS Citywide Planning albus.brooks@denver.org RE: Rezoning of Glenarm Place Wednesday, April 18, :38:55 AM image001.png image002.png NE Neighborhhod Plan.pdf Jeff Thank you for your response. I appreciate your comments. I have since had a phone conversation with Councilman Brooks and have discussed some of these issues. I have reviewed the Northeast Neighborhood Plan that you have sent and would still seek some additional information, specifically: 1. I believe the Neighborhood Plan shows the SE corner of Glenarm and 24 th slated for 3-story urban residential, and NOT 2.5 story row house. What is the reasoning for this change from the Northeast Downtown Neighborhood Plan? As I have said previously, almost 75-80% of this block is already 3 story. 2. I initially was under the impression that the Neighborhood Committee tried rezoning months ago and was denied. Is this correct? And why did the rezoning not occur at that point? I fully understand and agree with the justifications for the downzoning of the 11.7 acre site as put forth in the Northeast Neighborhood Plan and from talking with Councilman Brooks. I still am rather confused on the exact designation of this.3 acre corner of the SE corner of 24 th and Glenarm. I d appreciate any insight you could share. I also have discussed my displeasure with Councilman Brooks on the notification process. I have also copied him on this . Thanks, Patrick F. Patrick Listermann Chief Operating Officer J. Herzog & Sons, Inc. Chief Operating Officer Nebraska Dining, LLC 1720 S Bellaire Street Suite 1209 Denver, CO Direct: Cell: Fax: plistermann@jherzog.com From: Hirt, Jeffrey J. - CPD PS Citywide Planning [mailto:jeffrey.hirt@denvergov.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, :43 PM To: Patrick Listermann <plistermann@jherzog.com> Subject: RE: Rezoning of Glenarm Place Patrick, thank you for your comments. I have forwarded them on to the sponsor of this legislative rezoning, which is councilman Brooks. The notice procedures require signs and notice to any registered neighborhood organizations within 200 in advance of any public hearing, but there is not individual mailings done. This is per Denver

22 Zoning Code Sec I know it is common practice for individual mailers in some other communities but that is not the current city policy. The purpose of the rezoning is to implement the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, which identifies the area for 2.5 story zoning (see page 19). City Council adopted this plan in Jeff Hirt From: Patrick Listermann <plistermann@jherzog.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, :03 AM To: Hirt, Jeffrey J. - CPD PS Citywide Planning <Jeffrey.Hirt@denvergov.org> Subject: Rezoning of Glenarm Place Dear Jeffrey I left you an yesterday regarding the downzoning of the Glenarm block. In the essence of time, I decided to send some of my concerns and questions about the rezoning process for the Glenarm neighborhood. I am a property owner on Glenarm Place between Park Avenue and 24 th St. and WILL be impacted by this ruling. My major concerns are as follows: 1. What is the proper notice procedure? I NEVER received any notice of this rezoning process. Are they not sent through the mail like all my real estate tax assessment notices and real estate tax bills? I have held multiple properties for many years and have never NOT received these notices and bills. 2. What is the exact reasoning for the downzoning for the southeast corner of 24 th St. and Glenarm Place? Due to the multitude of 3 story and 3+ story structures between Park Ave and 24 th St., I fail to comprehend the justification. There is no two story visual pattern along this block that needs to be continued, nor is the downgraded zoning any more compatible with the existing fabric structures on this particular block. Please see attachment. Frankly, I do not understand how the approximate.3 acre parcel to the southeast corner of Glenarm Place and 24 th St. is justified by the arguments as presented by Albus Brooks letter dated December 22 nd, 2017 to the Community Planning & Development Department. Even at first glance, the proposed zoning map is, at best, awkwardly disjointed and segregated at this intersection. I have been in the commercial real estate industry for over twenty years. I have been involved with rezoning projects, have dealt with neighborhood groups and know the complexities involved. At the end of the day, I know that a downzoning inevitable and ultimately can result in the decrease of one s potential property value. I would like to better understand how the City views this loss in value for all participants and how the neighborhood has been informed, especially since I have NOT been informed. I would also like to understand how a decrease in density fits into the City s adopted plan. I believe the City has made great strides in increasing density along light rail corridors and am frankly unsure of this reversal of direction. Please call me at your earliest convenience at Thanks, Patrick

23 F. Patrick Listermann Chief Operating Officer J. Herzog & Sons, Inc. Chief Operating Officer Nebraska Dining, LLC 1720 S Bellaire Street Suite 1209 Denver, CO Direct: Cell: Fax: plistermann@jherzog.com

24 From: To: Subject: Date: Rezoning - CPD Hirt, Jeffrey J. - CPD PS Citywide Planning FW: Case #2015I-00168: Please support rezoning from G-MU-3 to U-RH-2.5 Wednesday, April 18, :13:26 PM From: Maggie Miller <maggiemiller1@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, :44 AM To: Rezoning - CPD <Rezoning@denvergov.org> Cc: Brooks, Albus - CC City Council Elected <Albus.Brooks@denvergov.org>; Robbie Hobein <robbie@mshobein.com>; Deb Jacobson <debsportsmd@gmail.com>; John Hayden <HaydenPryor@msn.com> Subject: Case #2015I-00168: Please support rezoning from G-MU-3 to U-RH-2.5 To: Members of Denver City Council, c/o rezoning@denvergov.org From: Maggie Miller, Five Points / Curtis Park Resident Date: April 18, 2018 Re: Zone Map Amendment (Rezoning) - Legislative Rezoning Proposal, Case #2015I Thank you for your service to our city, and thank you in advance for your attention to Case #2015I and to this message. I am writing to ask you to approve the Denver Planning Board s unanimous recommendation to rezone our little triangle from G-MU-3 to U-RH-2.5. You will receive additional correspondence from my neighbors about: The details of our extensive outreach to all neighbors within the boundaries of the zoning request, Alignment of the request with Blueprint Denver and Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan, and Various personal reasons for supporting this rezoning request. In this message to you, I will focus my comments on the extent of the neighbors support for this proposal. We did a very thorough outreach, and we got a LOT of support. * * * Can you picture our little triangle? It is bounded by Park Avenue West / 24th Street, Welton, Washington, and Court. It s at southern end of the Five Points neighborhood. It is tucked between Curtis Park to the northwest, San Rafael to the east, and Clements and Enterprise Hill to the southwest. This neighborhood currently has a mix of housing: single family homes, duplexes, rowhomes, condos, and an apartment building. *** My neighbor Robbie will be sending you a letter describing our very broad outreach efforts. As I said,

25 I will tell you here about the results of that outreach. Here s the math. At the time of our initial outreach, there were 107 properties in our little triangle. Of those 107, only 57 were owner-occupied. That s why we had to do outreach in so many ways to reach the as many owners as possible. We managed to contact owners of 69 properties. It s a minor miracle that we reached that many people, and it s because of the huge amount of outreach we did. Please refer to Ms. Hobein s letter for a list of outreach efforts. Of those 69 properties, 56 had owners who signed our petition. That s 81%. That s a lot of support. Not only did we make contact with those owners of 69 properties, but we learned why they did or did not want the rezoning. We had thoughtful conversations with them. Here are some of the reasons they gave us: DO want rezoning: I am sick of all of the growth and encroachment of newer bigger buildings. We missed the rezoning boat in 2010 because we re on the other side of Welton from Curtis Park, and we couldn t get organized to be part of that effort at the time. Now s the time. I don t want any apartment buildings or God forbid slot homes on my street. My neighborhood is not for sale! I want those developers to stop knocking on my door all the time. There s a nice mix of housing stock here now. I don t want it replaced by all high-end condos; that will make the neighborhood even less affordable than it is now. DON T want rezoning: I m afraid that it will drive my property value down. I m afraid that it will make the neighborhood less affordable. I may want to build on my property in the future and I don t want to be restricted by the new zoning. If you have any questions or concerns about our outreach efforts and the level of support that the rezoning effort received, please ask me. I have copious notes about each property: who owned it when we did our initial outreach, what our outreach was to the owner, what their interests or concerns were related to zoning, and whether they signed the petition, or expressed a desire to maintain the current zoning, or remained ambivalent. * * * In closing, I again want to reiterate that there is substantial support for this rezoning from the

26 residents of our little triangle, and that extensive outreach was conducted to best understand the variety of opinions about the effort. Because of that and the reasons described in other correspondence that you will receive, I hope that you will approve the Denver Planning Board s unanimous recommendation to rezone our little triangle from G-MU-3 to U-RH-2.5. Again, thank you for your attention to Case #2015I and to this memo, and for your service to our city.

27 April 17 th, 2018 RE: Case #2015I Dear Denver City Council Members, The moment we have been working so hard for has finally arrived! This journey to rezone Our Little Triangle has been a tremendously rewarding experience, and we are thrilled to present this request to you. We have made new friends, worn out the soles of our shoes, gotten to know many people, and become active members in our Curtis Park and Five Points neighborhood. It has required a tremendous amount of time and effort, too. (Please see the attached Timeline of those efforts (pages 2 and 3), as well as the Appendix starting on page 4 for additional documentation.) *** Rest of the Appendix will be sent within the hour At the start of this whole process, our initial outlook that was that no matter what, at least we d enjoy the process of meeting our neighbors and learning about how city planning works, and we definitely have, and we did! After our first few days of walking and talking, we couldn t help but became invested in the outcome since so many people supported the idea of keeping our neighborhood walkable and talkable. House by house, one by one, we looked up each address in the mapped area on the Real Property website, and built a detailed spreadsheet. We documented each person we talked to, and what they thought of the rezoning idea. We noted if they talked with us if they answered our knocks on their doors, or responded to our letter(s), or joined our Facebook group, or replied to social media posts, or attended meetings, or answered messages or picked up phone calls. While we hand delivered fliers to each house, (and left them in the door if they didn t answer), that was not enough for us. We also collaborated with Curtis Park Neighbors (CPN), our Registered Neighborhood Organization (RNO), by submitting newsletter articles and speaking at meetings, as well as worked with the HOA president in the apartment/condo building on Tremont. (Again, please check out that timeline!) Since about 50% of homes in our area are NOT owner occupied, reaching every homeowner was tough, but we went to great lengths to meet them or hear their point of view on this. It has, for sure, been a long and sustained effort to get the support of our neighbors and Mr. Brooks for this rezoning, which we have. Now, we respectfully ask for yours. Thank you for all you do for our fabulous city! Sincerely, Robbie Hobein & David Millis th Street, Denver, CO,

28 Documenting our efforts to engage our neighbors about rezoning Our Little Triangle 1. We knocked on doors on Tuesday Nov. 10 th and Sunday Nov. 15 th 2015 to meet neighbors and guage interest on rezoning or doing overlay to keep our neighborhood walkable and talkable. (These dates are documented on our personal calendars) 2. On November 16 th, we mailed official letters of interest and intent to rezone from GMU-3 to Urban Residential to all homeowners in the area included. (Appendix #1 & #2 maps attached) We then walked and talked on Fri. Nov. 20, 2015, Sat. Nov. 21, 2015 and Mon Dec. 7, First week of December created the rezoning petition, and walked on Thurs. Dec. 10 and Sat. Dec. 12, 2015 to talk with neighbors and ask them to sign it if they were supportive. 4. Maggie was working with Annaliese Hock in Denver Community Planning & Development office (DCP) 5. throughout November, 2015 to talk about overlay or rezoning options and work on the preapplication. In-person meeting on November 10 th, Mid-December, 2015: a. Created a Facebook (FB) Group called Park to Washington, Glenarm to Court? and posted information and encouraged contacting us as well as posting helpful information. (#3) The group grew to 50 members. We also posted messages in the Curtis Park Neighborhood FB group (closed to members of the CPN neighborhood only), Five Points FB page and on Next Door. b. Submitted an article about rezoning for the Curtis Park Neighborhood Times newsletter (1500 copies distributed to neighborhood) c. Created the fanoffivepoints@gmail.com address so people could us. 7. Sat. Jan 9, 2016 Held a meeting at B.M. & N.M. s house. (19 people attended) (#4 and #5 Agenda and handouts) Shared our informational walkable and talkable flier (#1) and planned outreach efforts. 8. We walked door to door and held meetings on these 12 days to engage in conversations and collect petition signatures. Sat. Jan 23, 2016 Jan 27, Held an evening meeting at Coffee at the Point with 7 people in S.I. s building at th Street Sun. Jan 31, 2016 Feb. 10, Meeting at Blair Caldwell Public Library (changed from Coffee at the Point) where Maggie presented the listening & learning talk: 14 people signed in. (S.H. attended). (#6 Agenda and #7 PDF attached separately - Powerpoint Presentation Slide thumbnails) Sun. Feb 28, 2016 Sat. March 5, 2016 Sun. March 6, 2016 Sat. March 12, 2016 Sun. March 13, 2016 Tue. March 15, 2016 Thurs. March 24, 2016 Sat. May 21,

29 9. Jan 12 th, We met with Annaliese Hock (DCP) in person again and conversed by to discuss rezoning options, policies and procedures. 10. March 9 th, Mailed a letter to all homeowners in area, along with the petition and a selfaddressed, stamped return envelope. (#8) 11. May, 2016 wrote an update for the Curtis Park Times Newsletter and included how to contact us. 12. April Reached out personally to homeowners on Facebook, LinkedIn, Google search if they had not responded. Sent s, messages and made phone calls if we had a phone number to contact. 13. Jun 2, Presented at our neighborhood Curtis Park Neighbors RNO meeting. (#9 powerpoint attached separately as thumbnail pdf) 14. CPN RNO Board sent a letter of support to Albus Brooks. (#10 letter it was mailed on October 16 th After this point, the process slowed until the spring of 2017.) 15. May 24 th, 2017 This meeting with Albus was cancelled, and it took several months to get back on his schedule. 16. July 26, 2017 Jeff Hirt takes over for Annaliese Hock DCP 17. August 2016 Denver City Council met to discuss moratorium on Garden Court form, which passed. Robbie spoke at the meeting in favor of the moratorium, and Maggie sent . (#11) 18. Thurs. Sept. 14, 2017 Meeting with Albus, who gave us his support! 19. September 16, Maggie sent an update to our all those homeowners we had addresses, and also posted it in our Facebook group AND in the CPN group AND Five Points page AND on Next Door. (#12) 20. September 24-25, We hand-delivered the update letters to homeowners who lived in the neighborhood to people who weren t on social media or . (#13 - Flier ) 21. Oct. 5, Maggie met with a neighbor who recently moved to the neighborhood and who had seen the Facebook post and wanted to know more about the zoning (house next to hole/scrape). She connected her to CPD (Community Planning and Development) so she could get her questions answered. Neighbor expressed that she got the information she needed. 22. Oct. 19, Maggie, Albus and John met with a neighbor who was concerned about relationship between zoning and affordable housing and home values. 23. Feb. 13, Maggie met with a neighbor who rents a house next to Robbie who saw the sign, and who was concerned about affordability in the neighborhood. The neighbor expressed support for the rezoning. 24. Feb. 21, Planning and Zoning Committee voted in unanimous support of the re-zoning. 25. Future date: April 23, 2018 Re-zoning application will be voted on by Denver City Council. 3

30 APPENDIX #1: Letter of interest and intent to rezone to homeowners in current GMU-3 zoning area November 2015 Dear Neighbor, We are writing to inform property owners and neighbors regarding the desire of a group of residents to change the current zoning in the block formed by Park Avenue West, Glenarm, 24th Street, and Tremont (excluding the property on the corner of Park and Tremont.) You have been identified as owning property in the area that this zoning change would affect. If you no longer own property in this area, please disregard this letter. The current zoning in this area is G-MU-3 (General Urban Multi- Unit 3 Stories). G-MU-3 is a multi unit district allowing urban house, duplex, row house, garden court, apartment building forms. The tallest building form has a maximum height of 40 feet and is no more than three stories. We would like to consider changing the zoning in these blocks in order to preserve the feel of our neighborhood. The zoning change to U-RH-3A (Urban Row House 3 Stories) would make our area consistent with the neighborhood plan for our area (which is called the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan). U-RH-3A is a multi unit district that allows up to a two and a half story rowhouse building form with a maximum overall structure width along the street. Apartments are allowed up to three stories, on certain corner lots. It also allows the urban house, detached accessory dwelling unit, duplex, and tandem house building forms. (The other important distinction is that in this area, with the exception of the corner of Park and Glenarm, each unit must have a street-facing pedestrian entrance.) A map of the area that we are proposing to re-zone is enclosed. We would like to hear comments in support or opposition about these potential zoning changes. In the coming weeks, we will be asking our neighbors to be included in the application. Please feel free to send comments to fanoffivepoints@gmail.com or join the Facebook page Park to Washington, Glenarm to Court? Sincerely, Deb Jacobson, Julieann Tibbetts, Maggie Miller, Doug Gerter, Robbie Hobein, David Millis 4

31 #2: Maps of relevant areas that we included in the letter of interest in rezoning sent to homeowners 5

32 #3 Screenshot of the Facebook page we created called Park to Washington, Glenarm to Court? 6

33 #4 Flier created to advertise the public meeting on February 10 th, us about rezoning: Please be sure to say or ask: a) I have the following questions b) I have the following concerns c) Yes, I support the changes. d) No, I don t support the changes. e) I am undecided. Join our Facebook page to get updates, or stop by to get more information: Park to Washington, Glenarm to Court The next public meeting about this rezoning proposal is Wednesday, February 10 th, 6:00-7:30pm Coffee at the Point: 710 E 26th Ave, Denver, CO

34 #4 Continued Agenda & Handouts for Meeting at B.M. s house: Mtg Saturday , 10:30-11:30am - Rezoning (Mendenhall) Goals for the Meeting: Respectful conversation Learning the facts that we know (e.g., what the zoning codes actually say) Generating questions about what we don t know, and identifying ways that that we can get answers (e.g., would rezoning affect property values) Giving people a chance to express their opinions based on what they know and their values, and hear each other Having people leave with more information and possibly more of a sense of what their opinion is We (Maggie/Robbie-David/Deb) leave with a better understanding of where people stand and what the issues are Supplies at-a-glance: Blue tape Name-tags Sharpies for name tags Poster paper for parking lot (Robbie) markers for parking lot (maggie) Poster of agenda Poster of goals Posters for prompts: o Pros of Current (G-MU-3) o Pros of Changing (U-RH-3A and U-RH-2.5) o Unknowns Handouts: o handout1:agreements o Handout2: comparison o Handout3: pro s, con s, unknowns Other: o Maggie s PPT from Citizen s Planning Academy o Maps x 2 o Zoning Code Sections 5 and 6 o First few pages of Zoning Customer Guide 8

35 #4 Continued I. Opening (10-15 minutes) 1. Welcome (Ben) 2. Introductions (people should have NAMETAGS) a) Ben introduce Maggie b) Maggie introduce self and role c) Maggie ask people to introduce themselves: name, where they live, what they hope to get out of the meeting 3. This Morning We Will - Brief Overview of AGENDA and GOALS. 4. Agreements a) Maggie pass out possible agreements (HANDOUT1:AGREEMENTS) b) Are we okay with this? c) Any to add? II. Giving of Information We Know (10-15 minutes) (use a PARKING LOT ; their blank paper & a poster maybe) 1. Very Brief Description of How Zoning Comes About At All a) Show-and-tell: PPTS FROM CITIZENS PLANNING ACADEMY 2. Very Brief Description of How The Idea of Rezoning Came About a) (description) b) Show-and-tell: REZONING CUSTOMER GUIDE 3. Description of Current Zoning and New Proposed Zoning a) HANDOUT2: COMPARISON b) show-and-tell: 1. MAPS of affected areas 2. ZONING CODE SECTIONS 5 AND 6 III. The Conversation 1. HANDOUT3: PRO S, PRO S, UNKNOWNS 2. Visual: POSTERS 3. Facilitated conversation: pros, pros, unknowns, non-issues (Robbie may want to bring walkable and talkable ) IV. Closing 1. (Describe goals) 2. Thank you; we hope goals have been met 3. Next steps (describe) Follow-up: Post on FB: Rezoning customer guide 9

36 #5 Comparisons Re-zoning Comparisons 1 Pros Of Keeping Current Zoning; And Pros Of Changing The Zoning Park to 24 th 2 Code Name G-MU-3 ( Multi-Unit 3 ) Current U-RH-3A ( Row House 3A ) Proposed General description 3 Forms allowed Height at the street Height in the back 35% G-MU-3 is a multi unit district allowing urban house, duplex, row house, garden court, and apartment building forms. The tallest building form has a maximum height of three stories. Urban House, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Duplex, Garden Court, Rowhouse, Apartment 3 stories; 30-feet max (unless the lot is big, then up to 35 feet) for most forms. Row house and apartment: 3 stories; 40-feet max. Same as the front ADU s 2 stories, 24 feet max 1.5 stories, 24 feet max. U-RH-3A is a multi unit district that allows up to a two and a half story rowhouse building form with a maximum overall structure width along the street. Apartments are allowed up to three stories, on certain corner lots. It also allows the urban house, detached accessory dwelling unit, duplex, and tandem house building forms. Urban House, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Duplex, Tandem House, Garden Court, Rowhouse, Apartments only on certain corners stories, 30-feet max (unless the lot is big, then up to 35 feet) for most forms. Row house: 2.5 stories, 35-feet max. Apartments: 3 stories, 38-feet max. Most forms: 1 story. 17-feet or 19-feet or 24-feet depending on the form. Apartments: same as the front. 24 th to Washington Code Name G-MU-3 ( Multi-Unit 3 ) Current U-RH-2.5 ( Row House 2.5 ) Proposed General description 1 Forms allowed Height at the street G-MU-3 is a multi unit district allowing urban house, duplex, row house, garden court, and apartment building forms. The tallest building form has a maximum height of three stories. Urban House, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Duplex, Garden Court, Rowhouse, Apartment 3 stories; 30-feet max (unless the lot is big, then up to 35 feet) for most forms. 40-feet max for row house and apartment. Same as the front Height in the back 35% ADU s 2 stories, 24 feet max 1.5 stories, 24 feet max. U-RH-2.5 is a multi unit district that allows up to a two and a half story rowhouse building form. It also allows the urban house, detached accessory dwelling unit, duplex, and tandem house building forms. Urban House, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Duplex, Tandem House, Garden Court, Rowhouse. 2.5 stories, 30-feet max (unless the lot is big, then up to 35 feet) for most forms. 35-feet max for row house. 1 story. 17-feet or 19-feet or 24-feet depending on the form. 1 These are very simple comparisons. Please read the Denver Zoning Code for a full comparison. 2 See maps for specific areas 3 This is called Specific Intent in city planning language. 4 Specifically in the area we want to re-zone, apartments would be allowed at the corner of Glenarm and Park Avenue West. 10

37 #5 continued Pros Of Keeping Current Zoning People can modify their homes up to 3 stories, instead of just 2.5 stories. 5 People can sell to developers who can build apartment buildings up to 3 stories and 40 tall, and rowhomes as well, instead of just rowhomes. 1 Unknowns: Pros Of Changing The Zoning When we walk down these streets, buildings will be just 30 or 35 feet tall (instead of 40 feet tall) which is more pedestrian-scaled. When we walk down these streets, we will see people s front doors facing the streets, instead of seeing just walls facing the streets, which is more pedestrian-friendly. The change would bring the area closer to the Northeast Denver Neighborhood Plan We don t yet know if we can get the Curtis Park Overlay, which will allow people to build the ADU s like they do now. We don t really know how either option would affect home values and land values. There are a lot of other factors. We don t really know how either option would affect the diversity of the residents of this area. We don t really know how either option would affect density. 1 It s actually a bit more complicated than that; refer to the Denver Zoning Code for all of the details. Possible Agreements for the Meeting: 1. Commit to honest, straight-forward discussion 2. Commit to discussion without interruption or side conversations 3. Stay curious about others viewpoints 4. No name-calling / labeling 5. Really listen; don t prepare your own comments while listening to others 6. Respect others times; keep comments concise Notes: 11

38 #6 Agenda for February 10 th Meeting at the Library #7 * SEE ALSO POWERPOINT SLIDES ATTACHED SEPARATELY AS PDF A Listening-and-Learning Conversation about Zoning February 10, 2016, 6:15-7:45pm, Blair-Caldwell African American Research Library Goals for the Meeting: Respectful conversation Learning the facts that we know (e.g., what the zoning codes actually say) Generating questions about what we don t know, and identifying ways that that we can get answers Giving people a chance to express their opinions based on what they know and their values Giving people a chance to hear each other Having people leave with more information and possibly more of a sense of what their opinion is Giving the neighbors who came up with this idea a better understanding of where people stand and what the issues are Agenda V. Opening: Welcome, Introductions, & Tonight s Agenda, Goals and Agreements VI. Giving of Information We Know 1. How Zoning Comes About ( Citywide Plan>>Neighborhood Plan>>Zoning ) 2. How We Got This Idea 3. How The Rezoning Process Works 4. The Zoning Code, the Area for Possibly-proposed Rezoning, and What The Current And Possibly-Proposed Codes Are VII. Exploring Opinions & Unknowns (The Conversation) VIII. Closing Agreements: 7. Commit to honest, straight-forward discussion 8. Commit to discussion without interruption or side conversations 9. Stay curious about others viewpoints 10. No name-calling / labeling 11. Really listen; don t prepare your own comments while listening to others 12. Respect others times; keep comments concise 13. Other? 12

39 #8 - March 9 th Letter Sent to Homeowners with Information and Petition Our original letter included our personal signatures. (4 pages) Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead March 9, 2016 My name is Robbie Hobein, and I m one of a group of neighbors working to rezone our little area of Five Points. We want to keep it walk-able and talk-able, with a residential look and feel, while encouraging sensible development. We want to keep our ability to literally look out for one another. We want people to feel safer and happier, and less isolated. Inaction on this issue could lead to some very unfortunate outcomes, as we ve seen in other neighborhoods. We need to act now to keep our neighborhood great. Please sign and return the attached petition in the self-addressed stamped envelope, and feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions! We sincerely appreciate your taking time to ask questions and give feedback. FanOfFivePoints@gmail.com Facebook Page: Park to Washington, Glenarm to Court Robbie s Cell: Thank you so much for caring enough to read this letter, and thank you for your support! Sincerely, Robbie Hobein, David Millis, Maggie Miller, Doug Gertner, Deb Jacobson, Julieann Tibbetts 13

40 #8 continued Park to 24 th would change from G-MU3 to U-RH3A U-RH-3A ( Row House 3A ) Proposed General description 6 : U-RH-3A is a multi unit district that allows up to a two and a half story rowhouse building form with a maximum overall structure width along the street. Apartments are allowed up to three stories, on certain corner lots. It also allows the urban house, detached accessory dwelling unit, duplex, and tandem house building forms. Forms allowed: Urban House, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Duplex, Tandem House, Garden Court, Rowhouse, Apartments only on certain corners 7 Height at the street: 2.5 stories, 30-feet max (unless the lot is big, then up to 35 feet) for most forms. Row house: 2.5 stories, 35-feet max. Apartments: 3 stories, 38-feet max. Height in the back 35%: Most forms, 1 story. 17-feet or 19-feet or 24-feet depending on the form. Apartments: same as the front. ADUs: 1.5 stories, 24 feet max. 24 th to Washington would change from G-MU3 to U-RH2.5 U-RH-2.5 ( Row House 2.5 ) Proposed General description1: U-RH-2.5 is a multi unit district that allows up to a two and a half story rowhouse building form. It also allows the urban house, detached accessory dwelling unit, duplex, and tandem house building forms. Forms allowed: Urban House, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Duplex, Tandem House, Garden Court, Rowhouse. Height at the street: 2.5 stories, 30-feet max (unless the lot is big, then up to 35 feet) for most forms. 35-feet max for row house. Height in the back 35%: 1 story. 17-feet or 19-feet or 24-feet depending on the form. ADUs: 1.5 stories, 24 feet max. Park to 24 th U-RH3A 24 th to Washington U-RH2.5 6 Specifically in the area we want to re-zone, apartments would be allowed at the corner of Glenarm and Park Avenue West. Please read the Denver Zoning Code for the most detailed comparison: 14

41 #8 continued Why change the neighborhood zoning? We d like our zoning to more closely match the spirit and specifications of our 2011 Northwest Denver Neighborhood Plan, which includes less drastic roof-height variances and more walkable and talkable residential design. We d like the new zoning to feel more neighborhood-y, while allowing for reasonable development. Being more able to enter and exit residences from the sidewalk facing the street enables us to more ability to walk directly to and from each other s homes to socialize and communicate more easily with each other, reducing isolation and garage-to-garage lifestyles. This also facilitates more time to spend on front porches and front lawns. Thus We can more easily see and talk to each other during normal day-to-day activities, like picking up the newspaper, walking the dog, going and coming from work and running errands. Thus Getting to know each other better builds community and closer personal relationships. More eyes on the street will improve security for our entire neighborhood. Being able to reach out to each other more directly, neighbor-to-neighbor, enables us to problem-solve together first before involving city authorities. Compassionate urban policy can facilitate culturally vibrant communities. Robbie s personal stories on the benefits of a Walkable & Talkable neighborhood: "My cat Dinah is missing. Have you seen her? Please call me if you do. "Did you hear the gunshots last night? What was that about? Are y all OK?" Have you seen my recycle bin?" Is this your mail? Do you know where this person lives, so I can re-deliver it? Hey, remember that street sweeping is tomorrow!" "The Curtis Park Neighborhood Meeting is this Thursday. Are you going? Want to walk over, together? We saw the ambulance at Bertha s house last night. Is she OK? How can we help? Our Curtis Park Times Newsletters can t be hand-delivered to the people in those buildings Do you know anyone who can help us deliver them, there? Being able to hand deliver the neighborhood newsletter also gives CPN representatives the chance to talk with people. Right now, it can t be delivered to several of the new residences built in our neighborhood due to their side-ways design 15

42 #8 continued Further information & sources: Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods The analysis from this article indicates that persons living in walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods have higher levels of social capital compared with those living in car-oriented suburbs. Respondents living in walkable neighborhoods were more likely to know their neighbors, participate politically, trust others, and be socially engaged. Read More: Examining Walkability and Social Capital as Indicators of Quality of Life Walkability has been linked to quality of life in many ways. Health related benefits of physical exercise, the accessibility and access benefits of being able to walk to obtain some of your daily needs, or the mental health and social benefits of reduced isolation are a few of the many positive impacts on quality of life that can result from a pedestrian-friendly designed neighborhood. Comparisons show that levels of social capital are higher in more walkable neighborhoods. Read more: Re-Presenting the City: Arts, Culture, and Diversity in Philadelphia Cultural policy and urban policy cannot afford to ignore the connections between diversity and cultural engagement. Arts and cultural institutions and engagement give identity to diverse urban neighborhoods. At the same time, diverse neighborhoods furnish a large part of the audience that supports regional and community cultural institutions. Finally, diverse neighborhoods with high levels of cultural engagement are often the engine of economic revitalization for urban communities." Read more: 16

43 #9 Powerpoint Presentation to Curtis Park Neighbors RNO: Attached separately as PDF, Slides as Thumbnails 17

44 #11 Maggie s letter for the Garden Court Moratorium From: Maggie Miller <maggiemiller1@comcast.net> Subject: moratorium on "garden court" building form Date: August 7, 2016 at 1:28:16 PM MDT To: dencc@denvergov.org Cc: wayne.new@denvergov.org, rafael.espinoza@denvergov.org, albus.brooks@denvergov.org Hello, I am very supportive of CB , the moratorium on the garden court form. I appreciate the exclusions, saying that these are okay: Have a street-facing courtyard width equal to or greater than the height of the associated buildings Have dwelling units arranged side-by-side and not above one another Have a minimum 50% permeable courtyard surface Garden courts as pictured below are awful; they make neighborhoods less pedestrian-friendly and overall less neighborhood-y. (With the exclusions, garden courts are wonderfully pedestrian-friendly and neighborhood-y.) I ve been working with my neighbors to protect our neighborhood from this awful building form. Right now, the only way to do that has been to ask for rezoning from G-MU-3 to U-RH-2.5 to eliminate the apartment form. (When someone builds half of the building pictured below, it ends up being classified as an apartment form.) Those of us in support of the rezoning of our area not against density but we just hate when front doors don t face the street! The problem with the rezoning is that it ends up being more restrictive than some people want (e.g., it puts limits on ADU s). And even if we do get the rezoning, the form pictured below would still be allowed. So, please register this Denver resident in favor of the moratorium. (I would come to the 8/22 meeting, but I have to teach that night.) Thank you, -Maggie Miller Five Points 19

45 (#12) , social media post, letter hand-delivered to neighbors on To: Neighbors who own property between Glenarm and Court, and between Washington and Park, AKA Our Little Triangle From: Maggie Miller, Deb Jacobson, and Robbie Hobein (we are also neighbors who own property in our little triangle ) Date: September 2017 Hi Neighbors! You may remember us as the three people who started the conversation about rezoning our little triangle from G-MU-3 to U-RH-2.5 and/or U-RH-3a. You may have. ü Met us in person when we knocked on just about every single door in this area, going back almost 2 years now ü Came to one (or more) of the four meetings we had in the neighborhood ü Joined the Park to Washington, Glenarm to Court? Facebook page ü Joined the ing list- fanoffivepoints@gmail.com ü Received the letters we sent out (we sent out two letters) Do you remember us? If you moved to the neighborhood in the last year or so, we may not have met, in which case, we can t wait to meet you! As you may recall from our conversations, s, letters, and meetings, quite a lot of people expressed support for this rezoning idea. Basically, we made contact with 70 property owners, and of those, 80% were supportive of the rezoning idea. (Eight were against it, and six never got back to us.) We have an update for you! Since we talked, we ve been able to take the next steps. These took a while. (The hardest part was scheduling meetings.) We met with Albus Brooks, our city councilman. We met with Analiese Hock and Jeff Hirt, who work for the city planning department, Denver's Community Planning and Development (CPD). And now, finally, we are ready for the next steps. These involve: ü Councilman Brooks filling out official paperwork ü City Planner Jeff Hirt filling out more paperwork ü The Planning Board having a public hearing about it (which is open to the all of us; so let s talk!) ü A few more meetings involving city staff and council and the mayor ü A city council meeting (which is open to all of us; so let s talk!) So, that s the news! 20

46 WE HOPE YOU WILL: ü Get in touch with us! o Join or post on our Facebook page: Park to Washington, Glenarm to Court? o Send us an fanoffivepoints@gmail.com ü Let us know how you ve been since we ve last seen you, if you ve been thinking about this rezoning, and if you have any questions or comments. ü And if you re a relatively new property owner in the neighborhood, please get in touch with us! We d love to meet you, tell you what this is all about, and hear what you have to say. Thank you! -Maggie, Deb, and Robbie 21

47 #13 Update Flier delivered Hi, Neighbors! UPDATE from our previous conversations about rezoning our little triangle from G-MU-3 to U-RH-2.5 and/or U-RH-3a A REMINDER OF OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS ü Maybe we met when we knocked on your door ü Or maybe you came to one of many meetings we had together ü Or maybe you joined the Park to Washington, Glenarm to Court? Facebook page, or the list- fanoffivepoints@gmail.com ü Or maybe you read our letters THE UPSHOT OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS: Of the 70 property owners that we talked to, 80% were supportive of the rezoning idea. NOW, THE UPDATE! We met with Albus Brooks, our city councilman and with the staff from the city planning department. AND THE NEXT STEPS: Councilman Brooks and the city planners filling out paperwork, and then there will be more meetings, some of which will include public hearings. SO, WE HOPE YOU WILL: ü Get in touch with us! o Join or post on our Facebook page: Park to Washington, Glenarm to Court? o Send us an fanoffivepoints@gmail.com ü Let us know how you ve been since we ve last seen you, if you ve been thinking about this rezoning, and if you have any questions or comments. ü And if you re a relatively new property owner in the neighborhood, please get in touch with us! We d love to meet you, tell you what this is all about, and hear what you have to say. 22

48 2/6/16% Welcome!% A"Listening*and*Learning" Conversa1on"about"Zoning" Wednesday%February%10% Blair5Caldwell%African%American%Research%Library% Maggie,%Analiese% Everyone% Your%Name% Where%You%Live% %% IntroducCons% Tonight s%agenda% Opening% Giving%InformaCon%We%Know% Citywide%Plan>>Neighborhood%Plan>>Zoning% How%We%Got%This%Idea% How%the%Rezoning%Process%Works% Current%Zoning%&%Possibly5Proposed%Rezoning% Exploring%Opinions%and%Unknowns%(The% ConversaCon)% Closing% Goals%for%Tonight% Respec\ul%conversaCon% Learning%the%facts%that%we%know%% GeneraCng%quesCons%about%what%we%don t%know% People%get%a%chance%to%express%their%opinions% People%hear%each%other% Leave%with%more%informaCon%% Understanding%of%where%people%stand%and%what% the%issues%are% Agreements?% Honest,%straight5forward%discussion?% Discussion%without%interrupCon%or%side% conversacons?% Stay%curious?% No% name5calling %/% labeling?% Really%listen?% Respect%others %Cme?% Other?% 1%

49 2/6/16% Agreements % Honest,%straight5forward%discussion % Discussion%without%interrupCon%or%side% conversacons % Stay%curious % No% name5calling %/% labeling % Really%listen % Respect%others %Cme Other?% InformaCon%We%Know% Citywide%Plan>>Neighborhood%Plan>>Zoning% Citywide%Plan>>Neighborhood%Plan>>Zoning% How%We%Got%This%Idea% How%The%Rezoning%Processing%Works% Current%Zoning%&%Possibly5Proposed%Rezoning% Informa(on)We)Know.)Citywide)Plan>>Neighborhood)Plan>>Zoning) InformaCon%We%Know% Citywide%Plan>>Neighborhood%Plan>>Zoning% 2000:%Denver%Comprehensive%Plan% 2002:%Blueprint%Denver% Citywide%Plan% Neighborhood% Plan% Zoning% Informa(on)We)Know.)Citywide)Plan>>Neighborhood)Plan>>Zoning) 2011:%Neighborhood%Plan% Informa(on)We)Know.)Citywide)Plan>>Neighborhood)Plan>>Zoning) 2011:%Neighborhood%Plan% hdps:// content/dam/denvergov/ Portals/646/documents/ planning/plans/ plans_pre_2013/ NE_Downtown_Plan_FINAL _Adopted_ pdf% hdps:// content/dam/denvergov/ Portals/646/documents/ planning/plans/ plans_pre_2013/ NE_Downtown_Plan_FINAL _Adopted_ pdf% 2%

50 2/6/16% Informa(on)We)Know.)Citywide)Plan>>Neighborhood)Plan>>Zoning) 2010:%The%Current%Zoning%Code% Informa(on)We)Know.)Citywide)Plan>>Neighborhood)Plan>>Zoning) InformaCon%We%Know% Citywide%Plan>>Neighborhood%Plan>>Zoning% hdp:// Any$addi(ons$from$Analiese$at$CPD?$ InformaCon%We%Know% How%We%Got%This%Idea% Informa(on)We)Know.)How)We)Got)This)Idea) Informa(on)We)Know.)How)We)Got)This)Idea) Informa(on)We)Know.)How)We)Got)This)Idea) 3%

51 2/6/16% Informa(on)We)Know.)How)We)Got)This)Idea) Informa(on)We)Know.)How)We)Got)This)Idea) Informa(on)We)Know.)How)We)Got)This)Idea) InformaCon%We%Know% How%the%Rezoning%Process%Works% Landmarking?% ConservaCon% Overlay?% Rezoning?% Informa(on)We)Know.)How)The)Rezoning)Process)Works) Informa(on)We)Know.)How)The)Rezoning)Process)Works) Any$addi(ons$from$Analiese$at$CPD?$ 4%

52 2/6/16% InformaCon%We%Know:% The%Zoning%Code,%% the%area%for%possibly5proposed%rezoning,%and% What%the%Current%and%Possibly5Proposed%Codes%Are% Informa(on)We)Know.)The)Zoning)Code,)the)Area)for)Possibly.proposed)Rezoning,)and)) What)the)Current)and)Possibly.Proposed)Codes)Are)) The%Zoning%Code% Informa(on)We)Know.)The)Zoning)Code,)the)Area)for)Possibly.proposed)Rezoning,)and)) What)the)Current)and)Possibly.Proposed)Codes)Are)) Informa(on)We)Know.)The)Zoning)Code,)the)Area)for)Possibly.proposed)Rezoning,)and)) What)the)Current)and)Possibly.Proposed)Codes)Are)) Very%Very%Basic%Comparison*% Current"(G*MU*3)" Possibly*Proposed:" Park"to"24 th "" (U*RH*3A)" Possibly*Proposed:" 24 th "to" Washington" (U*RH*2.5)" Building"Height" 3%stories;%305%to%405 feet%max%% 2.5%stories,%305%to% 385%feet%max%% 2.5%stories,%305%to% 355%feet%max%% Front"Doors"Facing" Street?" Apartment%form% allowable% Apartment%form% allowable%only%on% certain%corners% Apartment%form% not%allowed% Current"(G*MU*3)" Possibly*Proposed:" Park"to"24 th "" (U*RH*3A)" Possibly*Proposed:" 24 th "to" Washington" (U*RH*2.5)" Building"Height" 3%stories;%305%to%405 feet%max%% 2.5%stories,%305%to% 385%feet%max%% 2.5%stories,%305%to% 355%feet%max%% Front"Doors"Facing" Street?" Apartment%form% allowable% Apartment%form% allowable%only%on% certain%corners% Apartment%form% not%allowed% Informa(on)We)Know.)The)Zoning)Code,)the)Area)for)Possibly.proposed)Rezoning,)and)) What)the)Current)and)Possibly.Proposed)Codes)Are)) *Detailed%Comparison:% Denver%Zoning%Code % View%Code%By%ArCcle % ArCcle%6 %(current)% G5MU53 % ArCcle%5 %(possibly5proposed)% U5RH52.5 % U5RH53A % Any$addi(ons$from$Analiese$at$CPD?$ Exploring"Opinions"and"Unknowns" (The"Conversa1on)" Honest,%straight5forward% " Pros%of%Current%% (G5MU53)% Pros%of%Changing%% (U5RH53A%% and%u5rh52.5)% Unknowns% %% % discussion% Discussion%without%interrupCon% or%side%conversacons% Stay%curious% No% name5calling %/% labeling % Really%listen% Respect%others %Cme Other?% Any$addi(ons$from$Analiese$at$CPD?$ 5%

53 2/6/16% Closing% THANK%YOU!% THANK%YOU,%ANALIESE!% Next%Steps% 6%

54 6/1/16$ Agenda$(15$Minutes)$ Rezoning*$The$Li0le$Triangle$ June$2,$2016$ Cur:s$Park$Neighbors$ *Perhaps$Asking$for$A$Waiver$for$It$ OPENING$ Introduc:ons$ Why$We$Care$ What$Area$Are$We$Talking$About?$ What$Do$We$Want?$ WHAT$WE VE$BEEN$UP$TO$ Talking$To$Neighbors$ What$The$Neighbors$Are$Saying $ By$The$Numbers$ NOW$WHAT$ (Maggie) (Maggie) Introduc:ons$ What$Area$are$We$Talking$About?$! (Maggie, Deb, Robbie) (Deb) Why$We$Care$(1)$ Why$We$Care$(2)$ This$Sec:on$of$Five$Points:$ Feels$Like$a$Neighborhood$ Is$ $for$now$ $S:ll$Diverse$ $ (Deb, then Maggie) (Maggie) 1$

55 6/1/16$ Why$We$Care$(3)$ What$Do$We$Want$ G`MU`3$>>>$U`RH`2.5$ OR# Waiver$to$Prohibit$Fraux`Homes$(Apt.`Bldg.$Form)$ (Maggie) (Maggie) Talking$to$Neighbors$ Le0er$(Hard$Copy)$ Facebook$Page$ Door$Knocking$(8x$+$+$+)$ Messages$to$Groups:$CPN,$Five$Points$ Mee:ngs$(Neighbor`Groups$x$2,$&$Library)$ Second$Mailings$ More$ s,$knocking,$phone$convera:ons$ What$Do$the$Neighbors$Say?$ Yes!$I m$:red$of$developers$knocking$on$my$door$ and$trying$to$buy$my$house!$it s$not$for$sale!$ No!'I m$afraid$of$what$it$will$do$to$property$ values!$ Yes!'I$don t$like$how$unfriendly$the$new$buildings$ are!$ No!'I$want$an$ADU!$ Yes!'I m$not$an:`growth,$i$just$want$my$ neighborhood$to$stay$friendly$&$diverse!$ (Maggie; Robbie?) (Maggie) What$Do$the$Neighbors$Say?$ By#the#Numbers#(1)# What$Do$the$Neighbors$Say?$ By#the#Numbers#(2)# Owners'Who:' #'/'%' Live$In$Their$Homes$ 57$/$53%$ Do$Not$Live$in$These$Homes$ 50$/$47%$ Owners:' #'/'%' We$Met$Them$ 68$/$64%$ We$Never$Met$Them$ 39$/$36%$ (Deb) (Deb) 2$

56 6/1/16$ What$Do$the$Neighbors$Say?$ By#the#Numbers#(3)# Owners'Who'Are:' #'/'%' Suppor:ve$ 57$/$84%$ An:$ 6$/$9%$ Never$Got$Back$To$Us$ 5$/$7%$ Total$ 68$/$100%$ Now$What$ Request$a$Le0er$from$CPN$Board$ Request$a$Mee:ng$With$Councilman$Brooks$ Keep$in$Touch$With$the$Neighbors$.$ (Deb) (Deb & Maggie) Comments?$Ques:ons?$ (Deb & Maggie & Robbie) 3$

57 From: smh To: Hirt, Jeffrey J. - CPD PS Citywide Planning Subject: 2015I Multiple properties located at and around 25th St & Glenarm Pl: 2015I Date: Tuesday, February 20, :54:21 PM I am against this down zoning. A select few neighbors currently enjoy the square footage and height benefits of G-MU-3 zoning. The rest of us should not be denied these benefits, which are granted under the current zoning The petitioners do not represent the majority of the affected neighbors. The downzoning would substantially reduce the value and enjoyment of my house and lot. Downzoning would prevent me from building a 3 story home, which the current zoning allows. The petitioners for the downzoning claim their intent is to prevent the construction of multi lot Garden Court structures. A laudable goal, but this is not the solution. There are plenty of 2.5 zoned neighborhoods to live in. Our zoning should not be reduced to satisfy the personal interests of a few. If a person doesn t want to live in a G-MU-3 zone then don t buy a house in one. The individual spearheading this effort chose to purchase the kind of home downzoning would disallow. 2 blocks away is a U-RH-2.5 zoned neighborhood. This neighbor chose a 3 story 35 tall townhouse with roof deck because she personally wants to enjoy the benefits of G-MU-3 zoning while denying the rest of the neighbors this enjoyment. This process has not been transparent or inclusive. Please deny this rezoning request. Samuel Hargraves 2439 Tremont Place

58 February 9, 2018 Mr. Hirt and CPD Planning Board: I am writing in support of rezoning application 2015I I have lived at 2437 Glenarm Place since 1997 with my partner who bought the property in We have seen the neighborhood and surrounding area go through a lot of changes over the years, especially the past 4-5 years. One of the things we love the most about living here is that when you walk out the front door on a Saturday morning you feel like you are in a cozy, tree-lined neighborhood while being only blocks from downtown. The block we live on is on the National Registry of Historic Places. We feel that changing the zoning to reflect what is called for in the Northeast Denver Neighborhood Plan will help preserve the character and feel of our neighborhood. Some may say that changing the zoning would negatively impact the monetary value of our properties but I would argue that replacing historic homes with multiunit apartment buildings would significantly impact the things we value about this neighborhood. Thank you for considering this rezoning request. Deb Jacobson and Julieann Tibbetts 2437 Glenarm Place

59 Mr. Jeffrey Hirt Senior City Planner City and County of Denver February, 2018 Dear Mr. Hirt, This letter is to address my concern about the 25th st & Glenarm Place: 2015I-00168, legislative zoning change from G-MU-3, UO-3 to U-RH-2.5, UO-3. My name is Ben Mendenhall, and I am the property owner of 2438 Tremont Place. My understanding is your are considering changing the current zoning to better fit our neighborhood. This would be an excellent decision on your part for many reasons. Please read below for some context as to why this letter has been sent to your attention. My wife and I are both Denver natives in our thirties from West Wash Park and Hilltop. We have seen the City of Denver change for the better and worse over the years. Gentrification, affordable housing, density, insufficient wages, and a crumbling infrastructure are some of the major problems the city currently faces. However, another issue the city faces is the destruction/removal of historic properties like ours. When we purchased 2438 Tremont Place three years ago, the property was blighted and needed a major rehabilitation to restore the house to its former glory. We did not let this daunting task deter us from purchasing this historic home. Had we not purchased this property, the other interested buyer had intentions to tear it down to build slot homes or pack as many units as possible on the lot due to its double lot size. Since we purchased the house, we have invested significant time and money (doing most of the work ourselves) in our house. We plan to live here for the decades to come. Now that the project is coming to an end, the neighborhood and our Tremont Place neighbors have commended as well as thanked us for our tenacity in saving an unsavable house This brings me to the main point of this letter. If the zoning in our little triangle as us neighbors call it is not changed, my fear is the other historic properties from the 1880 s/1890 s will be destroyed when they are sold to build slot homes. My wife and I are not anti development or anti progress by any means, but rather preservationists of our neighborhoods history. Five Points and Curtis Park are the oldest neighborhoods in Denver as I am sure you are aware. This community has experienced a lot of change in the last two decades and we all have a responsibility to preserve history. Last year, there was a slot home with four non street facing units erected near the corner of 24th and Court Place which is the next block over alongside other historic homes. To say the least, the slot home fits in amongst our homes as much as a Broncos fan in Oakland. I support the new owners and have become acquaintances with them because at the end of the day, they deserve as much respect as anyone in our community. However, how long will this continue to happen? In addition, please refer to The Ellington on the 2400 block of Tremont which is a

60 significant multi unit condo/apartment building. None of the units face the street and the building is set amongst a block of circa 1880 Victorian homes with roof line that is significantly higher than any structure on the block. You sir have the power and position to prevent further destruction of history and to require more stringent zoning requirements for density based housing. Furthermore, the requested zoning change to U-R-H 2.5 would require a 45 max height opposed to the 60 max height under the current zoning. This would deter and prevent more contrasting multi unit structures from being built within our little triangle. In conclusion, having a more neighborhood/community based zoning for our community here in Five Points would pave the road for the next generation of preservationists like my wife and I as well as others to continue the tradition of history and community within the oldest neighborhood in Denver. The next generation of people in our little triangle deserve a chance for a more friendly, fitting, and historic community that has survived longer than you and I. Please consider ours and the other requests to change the zoning in our community. Thank you for your time to read this letter and consider making a change to preserve history and community in our little triangle of Denver. Sincerely, Ben Mendenhall 2438 Tremont Place

61 To: Members of the Denver Planning Board, c/o Jeff Hirt, Senior City Planner, CPD From: Maggie Miller, Five Points / Curtis Park Resident Date: February 9, 2018 Re: Zone Map Amendment (Rezoning) - Legislative Rezoning Proposal, Application # My name is Maggie Miller and I live at th Street in Denver; one block off of Park Avenue West and about one block off of Welton. I am one of the neighbors who initiated the group effort to ask Councilman Brooks to submit an application for rezoning multiple properties generally located at 25th Street AKA our little triangle from G-MU-3 to U-RH-2.5. You will be receiving input from Mr. Hirt, Councilman Brooks, and many neighbors detailing: The robust nature of our outreach and community engagement, The widespread support among homeowners whom we contacted, Qualitative stories of individuals who would be positively affected by the zoning change (negatively affected without it), Our responses to concerns raised about the rezoning (concerns about ADUs, which are legitimate, and concerns about home values, which we think were used by one individual as a scare tactic), The positive community impact of stabilizing existing varied housing stock on the socioeconomic diversity of this vulnerable neighborhood, And of course, the consistency of this request to with adopted plans. Several of those who will be writing letters and s will also be presenting on February 21. You will hear all of these things. I want to spare you hearing the same thing over and over again, so I will focus my comments in a slightly different way. In the rest of this memo, I invite you to read my story and share my journey of learning about the city planning process and teaching it to others. I hope that the story will inspire you to support this rezoning application. Maggie s City-Planning Journey: A Story in Four Chapters Introduction: Maggie Moves from Stapleton to Five Points By profession, I am a consultant who does program evaluation for nonprofits in the Denver area. But I have always been fascinated by the interplay between the built environment and its effects on the humans in it. So much so that my Master s thesis (in College Student Personnel Administration) was on the impact of university plazas and lounges on student community. So the promise of Stapleton, with its short setbacks, wide sidewalks, front porches, and alleyloaded garages was great, and my family was an early adopter. The problem was, there was NOT a diversity of housing stock, and the demographics of that area were not as promised. Eventually, we moved to Five Points / Curtis Park: for its proximity to downtown, its neighborly feeling, and its diversity. Yes, we were well aware that we were participants in the 1

62 gentrification ecosystem. And we reasoned, If it has to be someone who looks like us, let it be us, and we ll do our best to be good neighbors and active community members, and work to honor and support not just the history but the current well-being all citizens of this area. Chapter One: The Side of a House Falls Into the Ground We hadn t even moved in when this happened. Some of you may remember it. It made the news. A duplex was slated for the empty lot next door to this historic Italianate home. Every available square foot of space would be used. A mighty big back hoe showed up one morning, and the picture above shows what happened by the afternoon. Yes, this was a rare fluke. But I got my first lesson: neighborhoods change. And sometimes bad things happen if you are not careful! 2

63 Chapter Two: How Many Units Are You Putting There? When this went up, I realized that there is tremendous incentive to buy beautiful old small homes for as little as possible, scrape them, and build and sell four or more units for as much as possible on that lot. It was clear that that neighborhood change wasn t just a matter of changing architecture and houses falling into the ground, it was a matter of demographic changes: out with those-with-less-money, in with those-with-more money. Continued>>> 3

64 Chapter Three: What s a Slot Home? Then I started noticing slot homes. Remember, this was back in The streets of Denver were turning into canyons of three-story blank walls. In the fall of 2016, I was accepted to serve on the Slot Home Task Force, and have been working diligently with CPD staff and the Task Force to bring you the Text Amendment which you ll be discussing a few short weeks. Chapter Four: Learning a Lot About City Planning 4