The problem is that we have developers and speculators on the committee-and their agenda is to change/destroy and overdevelop the neighborhood so they can make as much money as possible.  They don't live here-they have in fact purchased owner-occupied homes and turned them into rentals (not an improvement!).  They won't be stuck with the end result.  I absolutely agree that this process should be approached with CAUTION.  Improvement is great.  But what is one person's idea of improvement is not necessarily that of others. 

There are PLENTY of places people can go in this city if they want to live in high density areas.  There is NO reason to assume that every neighborhood with a light rail station has to end up putting in high density housing or replace people's homes with businesses.

What is wrong with a quiet friendly neighborhood?

Catherine,

Thanks for your input.  This is exactly what the city's planning dept. is looking for. 

In the other thread I explained why R2 was apparently a bad choice for  the SW corner of Acoma & Evans.

We have to assume that we want a neighborhood that is better than it is now.

Improvement means change.  Change is definitely coming, light rail station or not.

The City is facilitating the station area plan which is the vision of what we want for the future.  Many people have said that the pedestrian connection from the rail station to Broadway is important.

"Mixed use" zoning is how you achieve a walkable streetscape on Evans.  Evans from Delaware to Broadway IS the station area.  Mixed use doesn't necessarily mean high density.  

The draft plans were distributed at the last focus group meeting, that's where I estimated the  100 feet.  They currently show "mixed use 4-7 stories".   Barbara can get you a copy  of the draft plans if you need them. 

Improvement doesn't necessarily mean increased density.  It could mean a reduction in density if that's the improvement we are seeking.

We moved here for many reasons; I like the accessibility.  Michelle used to be able to bike to work, and I wanted to live near a light rail station.  I also like being able to walk to a park.  I think that pushing through a new zoning plan that has my house sitting right on the line between "4-7 stories Mixed Use" and "4-7 stories residential" would not be in any way to my benefit.  I'm not going to stand in front of bulldozers while the neighborhood around me converts to 4-7 story buildings.  I would cash in as much as possible and leave.  The problem is that we're the sort of people that this neighborhood wants to have move in, not out.

The RTD Station plan's scope appears to be more widened than the parameters of a focus group.  I think we need to refocus our TOD efforts on making changes to the station which are cheap, quick, and effective.  Issues like getting ped signals and buttons added to the bridge, improving the bridge safety with barriers, increasing the frequency of city sponsored sidewalk cleaning, the pedestrian bridge south of the station, and station accessibility via vehicle (parking, signage) should be our main focuses. 

This rezoning issue should be tabled for future discussion, not slipped into a plan which has little to do with it.  I think it is disingenuous of our city officials to try to rezone as a part of this plan, as it encourages us to accept the zoning changes in order to receive an unrelated benefit to our transit station, ie the bridge.  Since we don't need to rezone to improve the station in the manners that we are most interested in, why is it a part of the process?

I disagree that the corridor between Broadway & Cherokee "IS the station area."  I think that foot traffic along Warren should be encouraged for movement to Broadway.  It is much safer and pedestrians in that area have less smog to deal with.  For those who are crossing Broadway, the walk along the Evans sidewalk would be more improved by regular cleaning than having 3-7 story buildings on either side.