RE: the MOU Process and Jim's email

[Deffner, Jim]

 I welcome the idea of the 200 foot club.  I'm glad to see an effort is being made to reach those folks and solicit their input into the MOU. It will make for a better document and strengthens us collectively from a negotiating standpoint. I think we share a lot of common concerns even if our position on the market differs.

---

From: Mitch Simon [mailto:mitchs...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 4:10 PM
To: TomRut...@aol.com; mapa...@yahoo.com; jcl...@streamlanddesign.com
Cc: da...@lichtensteinlaw.com; john.s...@cu.edu; bla...@earthlink.net; amth...@gmail.com; barbar...@msn.com; bekka...@yahoo.com; b...@q.com; c_for...@yahoo.com; cl...@wisers.org; Gh...@cellularsmoke.net; jhmo...@gmail.com; jim...@gmail.com; Deffner, Jim; fols...@yahoo.com; karena...@msn.com; kat....@hotmail.com; hik...@comcast.net; mfne...@comcast.net; mcham...@comcast.net; megan...@anthem.com; michel...@ucdenver.edu; pblac...@gmail.com; rblac...@gmail.com; dancin...@netzero.com; shelliec...@gmail.com; mamaw...@hotmail.com; trent.t...@gmail.com; l...@nestrud.com
Subject: Re: the MOU Process and Jim's email

Just so its clear, I'm in the 200ft club and interested only in refining the MOU, not protesting the project.  I support the project along with many in the 200ft area.

Thanks

Mitch Simon

1558 Monroe

---

From: "TomRut...@aol.com" <TomRut...@aol.com>
To: mapa...@yahoo.com; jcl...@streamlanddesign.com
Cc: TomRut...@aol.com; da...@lichtensteinlaw.com; john.s...@cu.edu; bla...@earthlink.net; amth...@gmail.com; barbar...@msn.com; bekka...@yahoo.com; b...@q.com; c_for...@yahoo.com; cl...@wisers.org; Gh...@cellularsmoke.net; jhmo...@gmail.com; jim...@gmail.com; jim.d...@twtelecom.com; fols...@yahoo.com; John.S...@cu.edu; karena...@msn.com; kat....@hotmail.com; hik...@comcast.net; mfne...@comcast.net; mcham...@comcast.net; megan...@anthem.com; michel...@ucdenver.edu; mitchs...@yahoo.com; pblac...@gmail.com; rblac...@gmail.com; dancin...@netzero.com; shelliec...@gmail.com; mamaw...@hotmail.com; trent.t...@gmail.com; l...@nestrud.com
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: the MOU Process and Jim's email

Jess and Margie,

 

"The 200' Club"...great descriptive name Jesse. That along with your map and Margie's list of 200 footers is a good start at making a distinction between those neighbors  working  on the Legal Protest and those working primarily on refining and moving the Memorandum of Understanding forward.  

 

RE: email lists.  Do we have an updated list that along with the email addresses  also includes the names and home address of the email owner?  That would be a big help to those of us who don't know everyone..  Thanks!!

 

 

Tom Rutter

 

ps.   Jess...I note that you're a landscape archititect so hope you'll have input into that as well as working to organize the legal protest framework. Jess...there's been some email MOU discussion** about asking for specific plant materials (evergreens) to be used  that would provide the greatest year round screening benefits. All plants are not equal.  I'd also like to understand exactly how the 'variance process' works, for example, with respect to asking for taller barrier walls than allowed by Code. Al Colussey referred to this in his P.B. talk?  Would he be the person to submit the variance request to the City? Do you know anything about the process?

Tom

**

In a message dated 12/8/2011 6:15:50 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, Gh...@cellularsmoke.net writes:

 ".......higher walls, evergreen foliage, and other such amenities to make our neighborhood feel like a neighborhood ..."

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 12/9/2011 1:23:47 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, mapa...@yahoo.com writes:

Hi Jesse,

Thanks for the impetus.

Here's a start on info for the list, in case folks don't self identify (sorry for lack of details; I'm on my work computer).

 

Marjorie Parkis 1557 Garfield

Kathy Welsh, 1563 Garfield

Jim and Lisa Defner, east side Garfield

Jim and Michelle Ray, east side Garfield

the Blacks, 1660 Garfield

Mitch Simon, east side Monroe

Gordon and Bekka, east side Monroe

Megan Smith, west side Monroe

Shellie and Matt Chambers, west sideMonroe

Barbara and Chuck Ford, west side Monroe

Rosen Group x 2-3 properties

 

-Margie

From: Jesse Clark <jcl...@streamlanddesign.com>
To: TomRut...@aol.com; da...@lichtensteinlaw.com; john.s...@cu.edu; bla...@earthlink.net; 'Bonita Lahey' <bla...@earthlink.net>
Cc: amth...@gmail.com; barbar...@msn.com; bekka...@yahoo.com; b...@q.com; c_for...@yahoo.com; cl...@wisers.org; Gh...@cellularsmoke.net; jhmo...@gmail.com; jim...@gmail.com; jim.d...@twtelecom.com; fols...@yahoo.com; John.S...@cu.edu; karena...@msn.com; kat....@hotmail.com; hik...@comcast.net; mapa...@yahoo.com; mfne...@comcast.net; mcham...@comcast.net; megan...@anthem.com; michel...@ucdenver.edu; mitchs...@yahoo.com; pblac...@gmail.com; rblac...@gmail.com; dancin...@netzero.com; shelliec...@gmail.com; mamaw...@hotmail.com; trent.t...@gmail.com; l...@nestrud.com
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2011 11:38 AM
Subject: RE: the MOU Process and Jim's email

I would like to see a meeting of the 200' club next week to get a real sense of everyone's opinions.  If anyone has not already spear-headed this effort, can we get a response from anyone who is-or thinks they are-part of the 200' club in order to have a organized presence?

This map shows approximately who would be included (in red). This is of course, not the planning boards official list, but it’s a start.

Can this get out to the greater group, as I think this email list is exclusive to the "ad-hoc" group correct?

 

Jess

 

 

jesse   clark,  RLA LEED
principal, landscape architect

stream design, LLC

landscape architecture • design

1535 grant st. denver, co 80203

(o)720.663.7352

(c)303.748.6843

www.streamlanddesign.com 

 

From: TomRut...@aol.com [mailto:TomRut...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:55 AM
To: da...@lichtensteinlaw.com; john.s...@cu.edu; bla...@earthlink.net
Cc: amth...@gmail.com; barbar...@msn.com; bekka...@yahoo.com; b...@q.com; c_for...@yahoo.com; cl...@wisers.org; Gh...@cellularsmoke.net; jhmo...@gmail.com; jcl...@streamlanddesign.com; jim...@gmail.com; jim.d...@twtelecom.com; fols...@yahoo.com; John.S...@cu.edu; karena...@msn.com; kat....@hotmail.com; hik...@comcast.net; mapa...@yahoo.com; mfne...@comcast.net; mcham...@comcast.net; megan...@anthem.com; michel...@ucdenver.edu; mitchs...@yahoo.com; pblac...@gmail.com; rblac...@gmail.com; dancin...@netzero.com; shelliec...@gmail.com; mamaw...@hotmail.com; TomRut...@aol.com; trent.t...@gmail.com; l...@nestrud.com
Subject: Re: the MOU Process and Jim's email

 

Dave, John Bonita  and all,

 

Good summary of the Planning Board's public hearing . The unanimous recommendation of support means that the train has  left the station...and is going to arrive at City Council for a final vote perhaps as early as late January or early February. .

 

Though some feel this is moving too fast, it comes as no surprise to those of us who attended the very first SCPNA meeting with Sean and Al in August.  We were told then that they were operating under a very tight timeline and needed to begin construction early in 2012 in order to meet Sunflowers occupancy deadline.

In voting to approve the rezoning, the Board also recognized that the loss of residences was no small matter to SCP. I think that's why they voiced such strong support for the neighbors' and Sean'  efforts to complete agreements on an MOU to soften potential negative impacts of lighting, noise, traffic, deliveries, visuals, etc. 

 

As I see it, we now need to shift gears and create a much more focused process to accomplish the detailed and technical work that's essential to drafting a superb and enforceable MOU. Email comments will continue to be valuable , but they need to be filtered and distilled and converted into very specific language. Technical help will be needed to do that. In my experience, this is best accomplished by a small, representative group of folks selected with care ......

 

A final note: I have concerns about the proposals Jim Defner made in an email sent yesterday afternoon, which repeats many of  the objections that  he has been voicing in emails for many weeks, and  represents fundamental dissatisfaction and basic opposition to the   Sunflower Plan as approved by the Board. (the email is below)

 

At last Saturdays committee meeting we discussed the fact that some 'edge' neighbors remain opposed to the rezone and thus, the Sunflower Market as proposed. We seemed to agree that the MOU process is no longer the right place to incorporate objections that would essentially kill the Market. Neighbors who still want to defeat the rezone have the Legal Protest process available to them, whereby perimeter property owners can petition Council to require a super majority of votes in order to approve the Rezoning. That is the proper venue for the those who want to stop the rezone at this point and it seemed that some were already well into work on it.

 

 It's my opinion that if some insist that their objections,  which would kill the Market,  be made a part of the MOU process at this late date, the chances of a strong MOU emerging will be seriously harmed.

 

Anyone has the right to fight this to the end, including meeting with Sean and Al if they so chose. But I think it's critical that the separation between those legally protesting and those working towards a positive MOU outcome, as  discussed at the Planning Board, need to be kept distinct and separate....and I urge the committee leadership to make this distinction clear now.

Tom Rutter

 

  

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

    

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.