FW: Saturday ad hoc committee meeting and status

[Deffner, Jim]

My apologies to anyone already receiving this email. Please try to attend Saturday's meeting at the Montview manor at 9:30am

---

From: Deffner, Jim
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 4:52 AM
To: Trent Thompson; Marjorie Parkis
Cc: hik...@comcast.net; Gordon; Dave; 'Mary; 'Brian; 'Jay; 'Alicia; 'Michelle; 'P; 'Jesse; 'Bonita; 'Cliff; 'Somebody; TomRutter2006; 'Becca; 'Chuck; 'Wendy; shelliechambers8; 'John; 'Karen; 'Tom; 'Jim; 'Matt; 'R; 'Barbara; 'JJ; 'Kathy
Subject: RE: Saturday ad hoc committee meeting and status

Trent, Margie, John and Dave

 

As I understand things the plan is for the immediate neighbors via the adhoc Monroe/Garfield committee to make a recommendation to SCPNA as to whether or not to support the rezoning as currently proposed. We are trying via the questions and comments posed to Rosen Properties last week to gain a clearer understanding of what mitigation efforts Sunflower and Rosen will agree to in a MOU. Rosen's responses may influence our decision or may not but the idea is that we would have a better information from which to make our decision.

 

All that said the immediate neighbors also have the legal right to file a letter of protest opposing the zoning change. Anyone living within 200 feet of the development property line is eligible to sign the protest. If the protest meets the city requirements a supermajority of city council is required to pass the measure (10 of the 13 members constitutes the super majority).

 

Bottom line is this, chances are that Albus Brooks our City council person, will not support the zoning change if SCPNA does not. Most City Council members will defer to Councilman Brooks as a courtesy and support his position. Likewise if Mr. Brooks and SCPNA support the re-zoning the immediate neighbors who oppose the development are facing a very difficult fight even though the current zoning laws should preclude a development of this type in a residential area.

 

My hope is that SCPNA will support whatever the immediate neighbors agree to since we are on the front lines on this issue and will bear 90-95% of the impact of a supermarket as a neighbor..

 

Margie Parkis, John Sleeman and Dave Lichtenstein are heading the process and representing the ADHOC committee and SCPNA  to Rosen Properties and Sunflower. Obviously they have a tough job if we can't reach a consensus amongst ourselves.

 

My position on this is that the market development as currently proposed is too intrusive and significant design and operational issues remain to addressed before we as a neighborhood organization agree to convert residential zoning to commercial use. To what extent Sunflower and Rosen are willing to address those design and operational issues should be clarified via their written responses to our concerns and questions.

 

At some point the ADHOC committee will need to take a position. I'd suggest we poll the property owners within 200 feet of the development (the legal protest zone) and use that as a basis for an ADHOC committee recommendation. That seems the fairest and most inclusive way to get a recommendation to the SCPNA as a whole. I'm open to other ideas as to who should be given voting rights in the ADHOC but I don't think SCPNA members outside the legal protest zone have standing to represent the concerns of the immediate neighbors. On the other hand maybe 100 feet makes more sense as clearly the immediate neighbors will bear the biggest burden.

 

 

Maybe a good agenda item for Saturday's 12-3 meeting would be to agree to a process for the ADHOC committee to follow in formulating their recommendation to SCPNA as a whole?

 

 

---

From: Trent Thompson [mailto:trent.t...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:21 PM
To: Marjorie Parkis
Cc: hik...@comcast.net; Gordon; Dave; 'Mary; 'Brian; 'Jay; 'Alicia; 'Michelle; 'P; 'Jesse; 'Bonita; 'Cliff; 'Somebody; TomRutter2006; 'Becca; 'Chuck; Deffner, Jim; 'Wendy; shelliechambers8; 'John; 'Karen; 'Tom; 'Jim; 'Matt; 'R; 'Barbara; 'JJ; 'Kathy
Subject: Re: Saturday ad hoc committee meeting and status

I am ok with all the questions and amending the first question to be more neutral/non-committal as to what side the neighborhood association prefers the loading dock since we haven't unofficially or officially decided anything...which brings me to David's point in his original email: We (the SCPNA) do not yet have an official position on the proposal.  I think we should vote on a position before the Planning Board hearing on the 7th.  I propose SCPNA sends out an electronic ballot and/or officially meets no later than the 6th so that we can vote on the plan.  By then, we should have heard back from Sean on all the questions, yes?

As for the rezoning issue -- similiar to the truck loading/unloading on Colfax issue -- I thought this was already discussed and addressed at the last SCPNA meeting.  I thought the rezoning was an absolute requirement for Sunflower and that they would not build without it.  Is that an incorrect assumption/understanding of what we discussed at the last SCPNA meeting?

Trent Thompson

1641 Garfield

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Marjorie Parkis <mapa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

The traffic pattern has been considered, yes. As Al and Sean described it, the best (I think they even said "only") workable traffic flow puts the loading dock on the Monroe side, with trucks making right-hand>Right hand> right hand turns. There was a sort of complicated explaination, and it wouldn't hurt to ask again, but this was addressed at the walk-around meeting.

 

Also...I wanted to ask why the "trucks load/unload from Colfax" option came back up...?

 What I heard repeatedly was that there cannot be curb-cuts on Colfax - city ordinance, non-negotiable. Was this a new idea of trucks loading/unloading without curb cuts?

 

just curious.

-Margie

From: "hik...@comcast.net" <hik...@comcast.net>
To: Gordon <Gh...@cellularsmoke.net>; Dave <da...@lichtensteinlaw.com>
Cc: 'Mary <mfne...@comcast.net>; 'Brian <b...@q.com>; 'Trent <trent.t...@gmail.com>; 'Jay <jhmo...@gmail.com>; 'Alicia <amth...@gmail.com>; 'Michelle <michel...@ucdenver.edu>; 'P <pblac...@gmail.com>; 'Jesse <jcl...@streamlanddesign.com>; 'Bonita <bla...@earthlink.net>; 'Cliff <cl...@wisers.org>; 'Somebody <muff...@q.com>; TomRutter2006 <TomRut...@aol.com>; 'Becca <bekka...@yahoo.com>; 'Chuck <c_for...@yahoo.com>; jim <jim.d...@twtelecom.com>; 'Wendy <l...@nestrud.com>; shelliechambers8 <shelliec...@gmail.com>; 'John <John.S...@cu.edu>; 'Karen <karena...@msn.com>; 'Tom <mamaw...@hotmail.com>; 'Jim <jim...@gmail.com>; 'Marjorie <mapa...@yahoo.com>; 'Matt <mcham...@comcast.net>; 'R <rblac...@gmail.com>; 'Barbara <barbar...@msn.com>; 'JJ <fols...@yahoo.com>; 'Kathy <kat....@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:24 PM

Subject: Re: Saturday ad hoc committee meeting and status

Has the impact of the traffic pattern been considered if the dock is moved to Garfield? It seems that there would be fewer trucks than cars entering and leaving the market. We can request a limit on delivery hours but the cars will come and go all day. It seems this has the potential to put more cars on Monroe. Since there are more homes in the vicinity of the Monroe entrance I would think we'd want less traffic on Monroe.

--
Trent Thompson

  

-------------

    

The content contained in this electronic message is not intended to constitute formation of a contract binding tw telecom. tw telecom will be contractually bound only upon execution, by an authorized officer, of a contract including agreed terms and conditions or by express application of its tariffs. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail or by telephone.