Category Archives: Element 47 (Spanos)

Spanos Protest Signs

If you’d like to place a sign on your property to show you support AGAINST the AGSpanos Rezoning, contact:

Kym Foster
303-480-0521

JPUN’s Review Comments RE: Spanos

The linked document below is JPUN’s response to the City’s Review Comments provided to the Developer. That letter is available on this website on a previous post.

Comments on PUD Application

The Importance of Persistance and Follow-up

If you have been watching the local news in the last week, you are probably aware of a fast one developers pulled on the residents of the Platt Park neighborhood. This is the Denver neighborhood adjacent to the former Gates Rubber Company on South Broadway. The developer, their zoning consultant, lobbyist, and attorneys all pressured a rezoning to transform this “blighted” area. Though many topics were discussed, the clever personnel hired by the development group were careful in how they documented and spun the negotiations with stakeholders. Sound familiar? In the end, the rezoning that was approved has a height limit twice as high what was “discussed.” Despite that the neighborhood had been led to beleive the developer had commited to the reduced height.

Fortunately, when faced with similar situations, Jefferson Park has been successful in reading between the lines and insisting that language actually reflect the intent of negotiations and agreements. Keep up the good work JPUN members! When possible, getting the right zoning and agreements prior to development is the best option for the neighborhood and all stakeholders.

To read the new article regarding this issue, follow the link below.

Platt Park Zoning Fight

City Comments Posted

These are the comments from the city. The developer is expected to address the issues in their response. Stay tuned. Downladable PDF at the link below.

City Review Comments

Planning Department Comments to AGSpanos

As discussed at the Oct. 3 General Membership meeting, the Comments from the Planning Department have been obtained. Scanned comments to be posted when available. After reviewing the City’s comments, clearly the effort of Jefferson Park stakeholders to inform the Applicant on how to sensibly incorporate dense new development within the context of the neighborhood present and future are reasonable enough to be sought by the City for inclusion into the new PUD zone district. Although much of what the neighborhood seeks is clearly spelled out in the neighborhood plan, nonetheless Jefferson Park stakeholders should be thankful of the steps the Community Planning and Development Department is taking to safeguard the physical relationship the proposed project will have to the neighborhood. The points posted on this web site, as well as presented at the last General Membership meeting have been requested by the City to be addressed by the PUD.

Those of you following along know this is a big step. All along the neighborhood has maintained that the RMU-30 zone district would permit the 3-building, massive 357-unit development, as proposed, enabling the blocking of views, allowing numerous curb cuts and wouldn’t necessitate quality integration with the neighborhood. Naturally, that proposal could not be supported by the neighborhood, yet appeared to have the support of the Planning Department policymakers. Repeated attempts by members of JPUN to work with the developer to address neighborhood concerns only revealed the inability of the developer to meaningfully compromise. JPUN made moderate strides in May, when the City finally agreed to a PUD rezoning, but the PUD was to be written around the proposal that Jefferson Park still objected to, and putting major limitations on what otherwise could readily be incorporated into a PUD.

When negotiations of the major physical issues were stonewalled by the developer in the run up to the August 8th meeting, it was evident, that however valid, the developer was not willfully going to conceed to items that should have been understood from the outset. When JPUN presented thier primary grievences on August 10th in front of all interested parties, it was confirmed that nearly all could be and should be addressed in this PUD.

It has been a long long road to get here, and this processes is far from over. But the comments on the PUD application are requiring the Developer to finally address the physical concerns of the neighborhood.

If you’d like to join the JPUN Watch Dog Group, in charge of monitoring this process and taking necessary actions, email jpun@jpun.org.

Neighborhood Update

  1. The liquor license for the “Adams Dinner Theater” was granted (especially good news for the urology clinic!).
  2. JPUN is awaiting a list of milestone dates regarding the PUD application for the Baby Doe’s site. This list will outline approximate dates for the different portions of the process from now until the first reading at Council. There will be at least one public hearing (at Planning Board) in addition to other potential opportunities bolster JPUN’s opinion.
  3. The AGSpanos Company has not contact any JPUN stakeholder (outside of the parcel owner’s) since the application date. Since no plan recommendations nor neighborhood recommendations are incorporated into the submitted application, the Developer must be content to try to get the rezoning without neighborhood support. If this continues to be the case, an organizational meeting will be held following the next General Membership Meeting to get the word out about the neighborhood concerns. More to follow, stay tuned.

JPUN IDENTIFIED ISSUES FOR SPANOS REDEVELOPMENT

Below are the 8 specific areas of concern identified by JPUN which are appropriate for and should be included within the Spanos Rezoning PUD prior to final approval. This list of issues permits large scale redevelopment on the proposed site while maintaining the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The bullet points under issue are provided as JPUN’s suggestion as to how each concern should be addressed in the rezoning application.

Issue 1: Mixed Use Community
Goal: Provide neighborhood with commercial/retail uses in conjunction with high-density residential development.

  1. The development shall include a minimum of 16,000 square feet of non-residential/commercial to partially replace the commercial uses previously located on the site.
  2. The required non-residential area shall be purpose-built, constructed for non-residential use and may not include residential kitchens (i.e., such commercial uses shall not include live-work uses).

Issue 2: Bulk/Scale of the Project
Goal: Follow bulk limitations to incorporate high-density low-rise development into the neighborhood in a reasonable manner that is sensitive to the surrounding single family residences.

The regular Jefferson Park Neighborhood block is approximately 360’ by 360’ and divided by at least one, and very often multiple alleys, both parallel and at right angles. Buildings greater than 200’ in length are both foreign and inappropriate for the existing and envisioned neighborhood fabric. A consistent and inexcusable feature of the proposal development is to wall off the southern portion of 19th and early 20th century River Drive homes, and existing alley residences, with a 400’+ long structure, 6-stories high.

  1. No building shall have an overall dimension greater than two hundred twenty-five feet (225’), or half of the long length of a typical Denver city block.
  2. For the purposes of defining bulk, view corridor and alleys shall be treated as if they were occupied by single-unit dwellings.
  3. For the purpose of defining bulk, homes on the east-west alley south of River Drive shall be treated as if the underling zone district is R1/R2.

Issue 3: Preservation of View Corridors
Goal: Preservation of neighborhood’s unique physical relationship to the city center and Denver architectural landmarks by maintaining established views to the Platte River Valley.

  1. No building shall be constructed within an area through the proposed PUD zone district that is aligned with the existing River Drive and equal in width to existing River Drive right-of-way width plus a ten foot (10’) setback along the north and south edges of this right of way.
  2. No building shall be constructed within an area through the proposed PUD zone district that is aligned with the existing Front View Crescent and equal in width to existing Front View Crescent right-of-way width plus a ten foot (10’) setback along the north and south edges of this right of way.

Issue 4: Public Access/Pedestrian and Bike Connections
Goal: Establish, in perpetuity, public access for pedestrians and bicycles both through the development and to view overlooks.

  1. The development shall establish permanent public easements in the right-of-way width portion of both required view corridors.
  2. The development shall provide and maintain one (1) universally accessible route from Front View Crescent to 23rd Avenue.
  3. The development shall provide and maintain one (1) universally accessible route from Clay Street to pedestrian walkway along the east edge of the site, this may be incorporated or separate from the required walkway to 23rd Avenue.

Issue 5: Landscaping
Goal: Establish a pedestrian oriented environment along all public right-of-ways.

  1. Landscaping shall not diminish the through view of the two required view corridors.
  2. Site walls shall not exceed thirty inches in height within three feet of any right-of-way.
  3. Site walls exceeding 48” in height are prohibited within ten feet of any right-of-way.

Issue 6: Preservation of View Plane
Goal: Preserve views from Jefferson Park’s namesake public park, and respect the height sought by the neighborhood plan’s recommended view plane.

  1. Any building west of Bryant Street shall not exceed fifty-five feet in height above the average elevations where the four corners of the proposed building intersect the existing grade. Where height restrictions overlap, the more restrictive shall govern.
  2. Any building facing Clay Street is considered “park facing”, and shall not exceed thirty-five feet in height above the average elevations where the four corners of the proposed building intersect the existing grade. Where height restrictions overlap, the more restrictive shall govern.
  3. Any building north of Front View Crescent shall not exceed sixty-five feet in height above the average elevations where the four corners of the proposed building intersect the existing grade. Where height restrictions overlap, the more restrictive shall govern.

Issue 7: Exterior Design & Materials
Goal: Encourage design and detailing that is compatible with existing historical context and creates a neighborhood and pedestrian oriented ground level environment.

  1. All building facades facing a street, alley or pedestrian right-of-way shall provide not less 50% brick masonry.
  2. All building facades facing a street, alley or pedestrian right-of-way shall provide not less 20% window to solid wall area.
  3. Each residential building in the development shall be differentiated from the others through variation of the masonry detailing.
  4. Exterior trim, cornices and moldings should be of a characteristic similar in details and design to the historic neighborhood.

Issue 8: Parking & Traffic
Goal: Mitigate vehicular impact on River Drive and the pedestrian environment.

  1. Development shall include measures to discourage or prevent the access of non emergency vehicles via River Drive.
  2. Parking access shall be limited to one curb cut for every two hundred twenty five lineal feet of curb.
  3. Developer shall produce a detailed traffic study during the PUD application and review process.

For a PDF version of this document, click on the following link:

JPUN PUD Issues – AGSpanos