Briefing to City Council Members
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |  |  |  |
Excerpts from first letter asking for a "time out" until the re-zone request could be decided and/or
Blueprint Denver zoning changes implemented:
May 1, 2006
This request for a 180 day moratorium on demolitions is requested as some neighborhoods in
northwest Denver are in the process of preparing a re-zoning request of 33 blocks (approximately
615 properties) to address some of the problems related to the demolition of older homes. The
following gives an explanation of these problems as shared by homeowners in the area.
In some neighborhoods zoned R2, single family homes are being scraped, or demolished, and
replaced by multiple units. These neighborhoods have been identified as “areas of stability”
according to the Blueprint Denver plan. As such, the city is discouraging increased density in these
areas. One of the plan’s key concepts states: “reinvestment and character preservation will
promote stable neighborhoods.” The practice of changing the character of the neighborhood by
destroying a one story home and forcing an incompatible style and size of multiplex is in direct
opposition to Blueprint Denver. These areas were legislatively up-zoned by city council in the mid
1950’s to stimulate increased density according to the city’s vision at the time. Instead these areas
have remained overwhelmingly single family. The properties currently being redeveloped are not
owner occupied properties, which the owner wants to expand in order to meet a lifestyle change and
remain in the neighborhood. These are properties bought by investors or developers with the sole
intent of maximizing the money they can make by maximizing the number and size of units that can
fit on a lot once occupied by a single-family home.
It appears investors and developers are currently taking advantage of the current zoning laws “loop
holes”, ambiguity and complexities to completely change the make-up of a neighborhood. The
negative effects beyond the increased density in the neighborhood are many, including the
destruction of the architectural history, the displacement of long term renters, a decrease in the
diversity of types of people, in terms of income level and ethnicity, who will live in the neighborhood,
and the limit of views and sunlight for neighboring homes.
The current zoning gives those who temporarily own the land being “developed” priority over
neighborhood residents who have to live with the new building(s) long after the investor has made
the money and left. There almost seems to be a push to get these multiple units in ASAP as though
the developers realize once Blueprint Denver is in effect there will be limits imposed.
The implementation of Blueprint Denver will “require revising the current zoning code…to better
address key issues such as size, bulk, number of units and adequate landscaping buffers-along
with better design standards…For residential areas, design standards related to building
proportions and orientation can improve the fit of buildings in older neighborhoods.”
We ask that a 180-day moratorium on demolitions be granted as soon as possible to give time to
notify, and get feedback from, the impacted owners of the re-zoning request areas and enable the
principles of Blueprint Denver the time to become reality.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this issue.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Excerpts from second letter with initial survey results:
May 30, 2006
Dear Councilman Rick Garcia:
We requested this meeting today to share the results of the mailing we sent to the owners of the
properties in the areas where we are requesting a re-zoning. As you know from the copy which was
given to you, there was a brief letter of how the zoning change would and would not affect the home
owner and a stamped postcard to be returned with a yes or no vote regarding the re-zoning with an
area for comments. Here are the numbers:
Total mailing 597 Yes to re-zoning 125 No to re-zoning 35 Don’t care 1
Out of the 597, 154 are absentee property owners. There were 28 letters, which were returned to
sender. All of these addresses were checked and were the addresses which were on file but when
they were returned they were marked as either not deliverable and unable to forward order on file,
attempted not know, no such number (these may have been homes already scraped), not
deliverable as addressed, or moved left no address to deliver. As I believe a 20% return rate on a
mailed survey is considered good with results that could be applied to the total number, we
received over 25%.
As you are probably aware, the North Denver Tribune printed an article on our mailing and included
a map of the area for the re-zoning….[This] did give the opportunity to inform the wider community of
the proposal.
At this point, as the community seems well informed of the intent to request a re-zoning of these two
small areas, and our survey indicates there is wide spread approval for a re-zoning from R2 to R1,
we would ask for your full support in asking the city council for this change. We also ask that the
request for a moratorium on demolitions in these areas be put into effect immediately.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Excerpts from the last letter before filing the application with final survey results:
September 13, 2006
Dear Councilman Garcia,
Below is the summary of survey results of our request to rezone. The following procedures were
done to obtain the maximum owner response:
1) A mailing, which included a return, stamped postcard to vote either Yes or No to rezoning from
R2 to R1. These post cards were labeled with the owners names and addresses.
2) House by house hand delivered information including our phone numbers and a form to sign
if the owners wanted to rezone their property to R1.
3) Multiple attempts at many houses to personally talk with the owner.
4) A second mailing to those owners we hadn’t received responses from which again included
a stamped return postcard.
5) An editorial in the North Denver Tribune giving information about a rezoning and including
contact information. As you are aware, there was also a community meeting in March to assess the
community’s attitude about scrape-offs. The North Denver News also hosted a forum about the
rezoning where three of us attended to give information.
As of 8-30-06, we had responses from 291 of the 597 identified owners, a 49% response rate. Of
these, 213 replied Yes to rezoning to R1, 78 said No. This translates into 73% Yes, and 27% No, a
3 to1 ratio of support to rezone. There are no significant differences between the Sloan’s Lake and
West Highlands areas.
Of the 78 No responses, 22 are absentee owners, not living at the address. If those No responses
are removed, only 56 resident owners voted No. This boosts the Yes percentage to 79%, a 4 to 1
ratio.
If the No responses are further reduced by removing those No votes from multiplexes, 12 in total,
only 44 single-family resident owners are in favor of remaining R2. Given an initial universe of 597,
that is only 7% of single-family homes in favor of remaining R2!
Even many of the owners of multiplexes see the value of rezoning to R1. Owners of 41 existing
multiplexes are included in the total “Yes” count of 213, agreeing to rezone.
Regarding Blueprint Denver, we have the perfect opportunity to make our two small areas a test for
implementing this plan. It is time to stop the development that so negatively impacts our
neighborhoods. The developers who are planning to demolish single family homes and replace
them with large, out-of-context multiplexes need to be told to “take a hike” to an “area of change”.
Right now our neighborhoods are being shaped by those who don’t live here and never will, or
those who chose to sell and leave. We want our city leaders to protect those of us who live here and
want to stay.
Remember: The greenest house is the one already built!
| Letter to Councilman Rick Garcia following meeting with Kent Stapko on 16 April 2007: Rick, It’s been a good bit more than a year now since we first asked to meet with you to discuss our concerns about the destruction of single family homes in our neighborhood and their replacement with over-sized, cheaply built multi-plexes. After several meetings over a number of months, we understood from you that you agreed with our assertions that the West Highland and Sloan’s Lake neighborhoods were indeed identified and planned in Blueprint Denver to be maintained as Single Family Residential and that the revisions promised for the Denver zoning code should implement that status. Pending the presentation and adoption of those revisions by City Council, you agreed to support a rezoning of 3 very limited sections of those neighborhoods from R2 to R1, if first, there was evidence of a desire to do so on the part of a substantial majority of the property-owners (not necessarily resident homeowner citizens) in those areas, and if second, the rezoning proposal included an “opt out” feature for those property owners who would choose to keep their property zoned as R2. You appeared to agree with us that the results of our mailed survey and subsequent door-to-door efforts met the requirements of your first condition of support. To finalize the way forward, you set up a meeting with yourself, Manager of Planning Peter Park, and ourselves. You agreed with us going in to that meeting that if Park were unwilling to support the rezone with the “opt out” feature, you would lead the effort to establish a “time out” on the demolition of single family homes in identified Areas of Stability within your Council District One until the code revisions implementing Blueprint Denver were presented and adopted. At that meeting, Park was clear that he would not support a rezone proposal with an “opt out” feature nor would he support even a limited “time out” on the issuance of demolition permits. Instead he offered 1) to support a normal, complete rezone of the 3 small identified areas, 2) to have the planning department staff provide the necessary technical support and document and data preparation, and 3) to have the rezone accomplished without payment of the customary fees. He would do this if “the neighbors” would be willing to initiate the actual applications. You chose not to proceed with a “time out” proposal, and not to press the “opt out” feature since Park’s office would lead the effort. Based on these understandings, in November 2006, Jude and I formally filed the applications to rezone the 3 limited areas. It is now another five months and the applications with supporting data have yet to be presented by the Planning staff to the Planning Board. Meanwhile, we continue to be asked to "jump through hoops", including new hoops created just for us! We were especially astounded by the modifications to R.M.C. 59-40 which were made after our applications were submitted and then applied retroactively to those applications! Also during this time, with no “time out” in place, demolition permits continue to be issued for single family homes to be replaced with over-sized, cheaply built multi-unit structures. The process to stabilize these single family home neighborhoods is stalled out. We urge you now to restate your original position to the Planning Department: either rezone (with or without an “opt out” provision) or place a limited “time out” on single family home demolition in Council district One. We urge you not to remain still; but, to actively lead in the preservation of North Denver’s traditional single family home neighborhoods and the long time homeowners and citizens who live there! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
| Earliest letter is at the top of page; Please scroll down for most recent letter: |