CodeNext: Unified Development Code

Talking about pedestrian friendly neighborhoods is different than taking action. We don't need a plan or study to see how dangerous the intersection of Cherokee and Floyd is. Pedestrian traffic is growing as people and baby carriages go south toward Englewood Parkway. It is a tragic accident waiting to happen.
I am sure that there are other examples. Even an interim solution would reduce risk. Please do something City leaders!

Scraping off older homes and replacing them with modern, box-like structures is destroying the character of old Englewood. There is a house in our neighborhood which has an ancient hitching post for horses in front of it. The house itself was built in the late 1800s. And yet, it has no historic designation, so is in grave danger of being scraped, especially because it is very small. There should be a process to preserve these houses.

We cannot continue to increase the population without addressing the limiting factor: Water!
We need to do more with less. Conservation measures need to be incorporated within all phases of planning and development of the built urban environment. Achieving net zero carbon does produce more water. The 1922 Colorado River Compact has to be rewritten and agreed upon by all seven states by 2026 or the Feds will set their own rules. The Colorado River was over allocated in 1922 and climate change has reduced runoff significantly meaning we will have less. Front range population growth models are unsustainable if we are not proactive on water conservation, reuse, and reduced waste. Water Smart Sensors for leak detection, irrigation sensors to cancel irrigation during precipitation events, removal of turf grasses, promotion of native drought tolerant species, storm water gardens, rain barrels, grey water systems, water saving fixtures, regenerative agriculture, permaculture, and expansion of Evapotranspiration data to community irrigation requirements need included and adopted into code with set compliance deadlines.

The survey is not written for ordinary citizens. These are city planner terms. And the questions are very leading as to the targeted responses. Stop trying to decrease the parking in our retail areas-it will hurt businesses.

This kind of development is destroying Portland and Minneapolis right now because the residents were not shown the full impact to the neighborhoods

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

The city should buy back some of these hideous, outdated strip malls (e.g., Hobby Lobby, Dollar Tree) and redevelop the space into pedestrian friendly parks, or commercial/residential districts similar to those along Broadway or Inca streets. The whole length of Englwood Pkwy presents an opportunity for the city to rethink its plans for the future. These mostly empty parking lots aren't even used by the customers of the stores occupying these properties, which results in a complete waste of otherwise usable land by failing businesses that add zero value to the community's economic footprint.

Removed by moderator.

I hear infrequent chatter about the city considering a move of our City Hall to a new location. This should be an absolute priority! While it is a beautiful facility, no building on the confluence of two US Highways (85 and 285) and next to a Light Rail station should be used as a municipal facility. This is a prime location for a mixed use (hotel/residential) or hotel/convention facility. I think it goes without saying that either of those options would include retail and dining on the ground floor as well. We can no longer leave one of the prime locations in all of the metroplex to be used for a non-retail or hospitality income source! This would be a great place to build this concept as a 20+ story building. As there is Walmart and much parking to the east of this location, there are no residents who's views would be blocked. In addition, rooftop restaurants in tall, stand alone hotels always attract visitors for the views, and repeat visits from residents who bring them. Currently, Englewood has very few attractions that bring metroplex residents for repeated visits. As beautiful as it is, it is time to move City Hall.

Certain parts of Englewood are experiencing much needed growth, revitalization, renovation. Englewood is becoming a more and more desirable place to live every month that goes by. Property values are increasing and there are lots of new restaurants and businesses to frequent. And then you get to the stretch of Broadway between Hampden and Belleview. And all of the sudden you are on one of the most run down, skummy looking, trashy , used car lot ridden, predatory lending streets in Denver. Could the City Council please put some effort into cleaning up this stretch of Broadway? The council is excellent at making tons of other rules. But it seems that south Broadway is a free for all. If you've got a trashy business idea then Englewood has the street for you! The motels bring crime and vagrants. It is a huge eye sore and I'm certain that until Englewood does something positive on this road, the up and coming Englewood everyone would like to see will be the over and done with Englewood everyone is used to.

The new code seems like it’s on track as far as making separate requirements for Downtown/old Cinderella City compared to other districts of the city, and I’m glad that it made a specific point to call out Walmart as a blight. Aside from the blocks immediately around the station, this area is falling far short of its potential. Englewood Parkway doesn’t feel like a street so much as a parking row, and indeed, a lot of people get confused because of it. I understand that we’re ultimately a car-dependent community, but this whole area’s parking lots are excessive to the point that the stores they’re for don’t have street fronts and can be hard to find.


The westernmost block of Englewood Parkway should be what we’re aiming for when revitalizing this area: definable street fronts with parking in the back. I’ve seen some code books (like Austin’s) encourage density to replace blighted big-box strip malls by having minimum requirements that are tiered by how much affordable housing the developer incorporates into the plans (i.e. the allowable height of the building increases or the parking per square foot of retail decreases as they incorporate more affordable units into the development).


Also, the Englewood Trolley, against all logic that I can tell, zigzags between Hampden and Girard multiple times on immediately adjacent blocks. I know it’s not exactly in the realm of the code book, but all those unnecessary left turns make the route confusing and make the route unnecessarily long, two of the big no-nos when you’re trying to make transit usable. People who won’t walk a block to the trolley were never going to be transit users to begin with, so adding 5-10 minutes to the passengers’ ride times is a huge inconvenience that runs counter to goals for making Downtown/Cinderella City more connected for pedestrians and RTD users.

Every survey that I've seen from the city regarding development code has been too general (homogenous) and I haven't filled them out because of that. I don't know how anyone could. Reason being, that the questions seem to be all encompassing - ie: relating to all conditions across the city, which doesn't make sense to me. We have industrial, mixed-use industrial, urban downtown, typical residential, historical neighborhoods etc., that all should be treated differently in terms of code requirements. There are areas of change (Ironworks) and areas that probably should have minor changes if at all (Arapaho Acres). The codes should be evaluated in terms of neighborhood character and adding value to the residents. How this is evaluated for mixed industrial neighborhoods east of Santa Fe, vs Neighborhoods West of Santa Fe vs The downtown area should be completely different. Setbacks in the downtown areas vs. a residential neighborhood should not be the same for example, and evaluated based on density and character of a neighborhood vs how the neighborhoods have been outlined on a map (which seems random in some cases). I think a more fine grained approach to code definitions is warranted.

My name is Dan Jacobson and have owned the the non-conforming duplex at 656 & 660 E. Yale since 1998. It is a 1048 sq. ft single story structure, built in 1935, sitting on a 9148 sq. ft lot with 1 bdrm. and 1 bathroom/side. As you're aware, current code does not allow me to expand the footprint of the bldg. nor can I raise the roof line. Amongst other issues, the 524' units can make for limiting "family planning" for my mostly longer term tenants - currently both more than 5 years, paying 1330.00 to 1375.00/mo. And even if they're not looking for family "expansion" to be more in line with other families in the immediate area, the cramped quarters (7' ceilings and an 80' bed rm, barely able to handle a queen size bed), are not conducive to setting down longer term roots there. Allowing me (or another owner or developer) to scrape and construct another duplex (or even tri-plex, as the large lot would accommodate it - both within reasonable size limits), would make the new building truly functional without significantly increasing the density of the neighborhood. As this is truly a middle class area, I wouldn't be asking for some luxurious monstrosity utilizing every sq. foot of the lot. Further I wouldn't want to add to an already awful lack of affordable housing in the metro area - plus the location probably doesn't warrant sky high rents. This property has 17' to 18' east - west setbacks - so obviously pretty adequate. And because of the way any new building would be situated on the lot, would not have visual impacts on the adjacent homes.
I maintain the current structure and am very proactive in terms of maintenance. But this duplex was built in a by gone era, which though may have been "state of the art" at the time, that time has long since past.
I could go on, but basically it is for these reasons that I am asking for a revision of the non-conforming codes on this property.
Thank you for your time,
Dan Jacobson