Citation
Virginia Village neighborhood plan

Material Information

Title:
Virginia Village neighborhood plan
Creator:
Community Planning and Development, City and County of Denver
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
City and County of Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Community planning
Neighborhood plans
City planning
Spatial Coverage:
Denver -- Virginia Village

Record Information

Source Institution:
Auraria Library
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of copyright holder or Creator or Publisher as appropriate]. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text


VIRGINIA VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
INTRODUCTION
This is the Plan for Virginia Villagebounded on the
north by Glendale and East Mississippi Avenue, on
the east by Cherry Creek, on the south by Evans
Avenue, and on the west by the Valley Highway and
South Colorado Boulevard.
In August, 1973 contact was made with neighbor-
hood improvement associations to begin meetings
aimed at development of the Virginia Village Neigh-
borhood Plan. Two groups represent residents:
Virginia Village Homeowners Association and Cook
Park Homeowners Association. Representatives of
Writers Center, a major development in the neighbor-
hood, also participated.
A citizen's advisory group was formed from these
local organizations to work with a neighborhood
planner in the development of this Neighborhood
Plan. The Group participated in meetings which
focused on land use and zoning, transportation,
public facilities and general socio-economic problems.
After initial preparation of the proposed Plan, a larger
meeting was held to present the Plan to the residents
generally. The Plan was revised to incorporate the
suggestions of the larger body before- presentation to
the Denver Planning Board for adoption.
Detailed information about socio-economic character-
istics, land use and zoning, public facilities, transpor-
tation, and other detailed background information
upon which the proposed Plan has been based may be
obtained from the Denver Planning Office.
PURPOSE
The Virginia Village Neighborhood Plan consists of
this text and the accompanying map entitled
"Virginia Village Neighborhood Plan."
Use of the Plan
The purpose of the Virginia Village Plan is to provide
an official guide to the future development of the
neighborhood for use by the Denver Planning Office;
the Denver Planning Board, the Mayor, the City
Council and other concerned governmental agencies;
residents; property owners and businessmen of the
neighborhood; and private organizations concerned
with planning and neighborhood improvement. The
Plan will also provide an officially approved reference
to be used in connection with their actions on various
City development matters as required by law.
The Plan is intended to promote an arrangement of
land use, circulation and services which will encour-
age and contribute to the economic, social and
physical health, safety, welfare, and convenience of
the neighborhood, within the larger framework of the
City. It is also intended to guide development and
change of the neighborhood to meet existing and
anticipated needs and conditions; contribute to 'a
healthy and pleasant environment; balance growth
and stability; reflect economic potentialities and
limitations, land development and other trends; and
protect investment to the extent reasonable and
feasible.
This Plan proposes approximate locations, configura-
tions, and intensities of various land uses and circula-
tion and community facilities. Development may vary
slightly from the Plan, provided that the total area of
each type land use, the land use intensities, arid the
physical relationships among the various land uses are
not altered. Development should not be allowed
which is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of
the Plan.
The Plan is not an official zone map and, as a guide,
does not imply any implicit right to a particular zone
or to the land uses permitted therein. Changes of
zone are considered under a specific procedure
established under the City and County of Denver
Municipal Code, subject to various requirements set
forth therein, including consideration of their relation
to and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan.
This Plan is subject to review and amendment in the
manner prescribed by law to reflect changes in
circumstances.
1


Objectives of the Plan
1. To coordinate the development of the Virginia
Village Neighborhood with that of other parts of
the City as set forth by the Comprehensive Plan
and with the Metropolitan Area.
2. To provide a guide to the orderly and balanced
development of the neighborhood, designating
and generally locating land uses and public
facilities in quantities and at densities which will
accommodate population and activities projected
to full plan development.
3. To encourage the preservation and enhancement
of the low density residential character of the
neighborhood.
4. To make provision for housing of such types,
sizes and densities as are required to satisfy the
varying needs and desires of all economic seg-
ments of the neighborhood, with special consider-
ation of elderly and lower income families.
5. To promote the economic health and convenience
of the neighborhood through:
A. The allocation and distribution of commercial
lands for retail and service facilities in quanti-
ties and patterns based on accepted planning
standards and principles.
B. Provision for places of employment within
the neighborhood, and for transportation
facilities serving places of employment in
adjacent communities.
6. To provide a circulation system coordinated with
land uses and densities and adequate to accommo-
date necessary movements, including the expan-
sion and improvement of public transportation
service including rapid transit, the increase of
off-street parking facilities, the elimination of
on-street parking on major arterials, and the
development of bicycle routes as well as pedes-
trian paths.
7. To improve the aesthetic environment of the
neighborhood through the development and ap-
plication of appropriate design criteria.
8. To provide a basis for the location and program-
ming of public services and utilities and to
encourage coordinated sharing of public facilities
with private development.
HISTORY
Virginia Village became a part of Denver through 16
annexations between 1951 and 1972, with more than
three-fourths of the area annexed during 1954-1955.
The first platting of the neighborhood occurred in
1951, peaked during the mid-1950's, and has been
incidental in recent years. Very little development
existed prior to 1950. During the 1950's, approxi-
mately half of the existing units were constructed.
During the 1960's, residential development occurred
at a less intense, yet still high development rate, as it
has into the 1970's. In the last decade, commercial
development has been intensive along the western
boundary (Colorado Boulevard) especially near the
I-25 interchange. Into the 1970's, light industrial
development along the southern boundary is being
replaced by office development.
DESCRIPTION
Virginia Village is southeast Denver's most populous
neighborhood (and second only to Capitol Hill
throughout the City). On 1,302 acres, the 1970
population was 14,498.
The neighborhood has witnessed rapid and substantial
change. Since annexations began in 1951, a total of
140 rezoning applications have been processed by the
Planning Office.
By 1973 well over half of the neighborhood was
devoted to single-family residential use, characterized
by low buildings along curvilinear streets. An active
and vital private market has kept Virginia Village
"sound" in comparison to other Denver neighbor-
hoods, in spite of numerous rezonings to other and
higher intensity uses.
Population
Population growth began during the 1950's and
reached 11,281 by 1960. During the next 12 years,
the population increased 28.5% to 15,500, according
to Denver Planning Office estimates. Population
density has correspondingly increased from slightly
more than 9 persons per acre to 11 per acre in 1970


and 11.5 in 1972. The population is beginning to
stabilize. Residents with less than 5 years' tenure in
the neighborhood have decreased from 73% to 52%
by 1970. During the 1960's, median income of
families increased from $8,483 to $12,651, with
one-third reporting more than $15,000 annually (this
was substantially above the City median). Still, more
than 200 families earned less than $4,000 annually.
Housing
Housing units within the neighborhood have in-
creased rapidlyfrom 2,974 in 1960 to 5,058 in 1970
to 5,700 in 1972. The ratio between single-family and
apartment units-has remained weighted toward single-
family, with 2,699/275 in 1960; 3,233/1,825 in
1970; and 3,317/2,409 in 1972. Apartment construc-
tion has been much more rapid than single-family
construction in recent years, however. In 1960 more
than four-fifths of the housing stock was owner
occupied. This share dropped to slightly less than
three-fifths by 1970. Dwelling unit density (housing
units per gross acre) has increased from 2.4 in 1960
to 4.1 in 1970, and to 4.3 in 1972.
The average valuation of single-family dwellings in-
creased from $18,000 in 1960 to $22,500 by 1970,
and remained well above the City mean. Only 179
units were valued at $15,000 or less in 1970.
Land Use
Land use and zoning comparisions indicate that
almost three-fourths of the neighborhood is zoned for
single-family homes. Slightly less than half of the area
is actually used for this purpose. The difference is
accounted for by schools and parks which are
included in this zone classification. In 1960, the
neighborhood was 90.8% developed for single-family
residential use but had declined to 63.9% by 1972.
Multiunit developments now account for nearly 10%
of the neighborhood and are concentrated along the
western boundary, adjacent to extensive commercial
and office usage. Industrial activity utilizes extensive
areas along the southern boundary.
Community Facilities
Cook Memorial Park, the neighborhood's largest
recreational facility, occupies 33 acres and contains
large play areas, playgrounds, picnic tables, hike-bike
paths, a ball field, and a swimming pool.
Ellis Elementary $chool, built in 1957 (with an
addition in 1959) can serve 870 students and is
operating somewhat below capacity.
Ash Grove Elementary $chool, built in 1937, has had
additions in 1946, 1953, and 1960, and is now
operating at slightly below a capacity enrollment of
840.
There is also a private Montessori School which serves
150 pupils under eleven years of age.
Circulation
Circulation within the neighborhood takes place on a
traditional grid system for arterials and collectors
with most of the local streets laid out in curvilinear
patterns. Traffic volumes are atypical among Denver's
neighborhoods. The two peripheral major arterials,
$outh Colorado Boulevard and Evans Avenue, are
operating at up to double their rated capacities, and
three of the existing collector streets are operating at
150% of capacity. At the same time, the remaining
seven collectors are operating at less than 60% of
capacity.
Bus service is available for the neighborhood to
downtown via $outh Colorado Boulevard and 5outh
Holly $treet. Route number 19 connects the neigh-
borhood with Btapleton Airport.
Pedestrian and bicycle paths exist in Cook Park, with
a foot bridge connection to Place Junior High $chool.
ANALY5I8
Virginia Village is now largely developed. In recent
years, it has been changing from low-density to higher
density residential and from residential to commercial
and industrial uses near the western and southern
boundaries. Private investment for this development
has been (and continues to be) extensive and has
produced a sound and vital subarea among Denver's
neighborhoods.
There are, however, problems. These problems and
needs of the residents must be examined prior to
generating the ideas and means to implement solu-
tions that will guide Virginia Village into a continu-
ously successful future.
Socio-Economic Problems
The neighborhood (between 1960 and 1970) showed
a general aging in the population with a 55% increase
in persons between 35 and 64 years of age and a 148%
increase of persons over 65. During the same time
there was a 40% decrease in the number of infants
and only a small increase in school aged children.
The more than doubling of the elderly population
and the loss of nearly half the infant population in
recent years suggests a need for rethinking which
kinds of public facilities should be added now to
serve future demand.
Unemployment is minimal, and the area continues to
be well served by convenient commercial and indus-
trial employers. In 1970, however, there were 208
families earning less than $4,000 annually.


The fact that a high (nearly half) and increasing share
of the residents have lived in the same home for five
or more years suggests increasing stability and con-
cern for the neighborhood.
Land Use and Zoning
Land use is becoming more intensive and less pre-
-dominately residential in Virginia Village. Within the
past decade 70 rezoning applications have been filed,
accounting for 5.4% of all such applications filed
citywide. Of these, 51 were from lower density
residential to higher density residential or business,
and 22 were approved. Frequent rezoning can ad-
versely impact the stability of a neighborhood and
reduce residential vitality.
Environment
Virginia Village is a typical suburban neighborhood
with a high environmental desirability. Homes were
built under FHA requirements of one street tree per
house and, therefore, the area abounds with trees and
well-maintained lawns.
The neighborhood was based on a collector street grid
with local curvilinear streets. Very few streets remain
unpaved and sidewalks, although very narrow, are in
good repair.
A relatively high water table and some surface
drainage problems still persist due to the topography
and proximity to Cherry Creek.
Public Facilities
Ashgrove Elementary School and Ellis Elementary
School are experiencing declining enrollments, which
are expected to continue. The pattern of anticipating
future school enrollments, and hence facility needs, is
becoming apparent.
Park and recreation needs are adequately met by
Cook Memorial Park which includes almost all facili-
ties available. Recent additions include a swimming
pool and a recreation center in the preconstruction
stages scheduled for opening by summer of 1974.
The Virginia Village Neighborhood Library leases
space in a local shopping center and provides home-
reading distribution and limited reference material.
Increasing demand for expanded library services has
led to a proposal to relocate and expand the
neighborhood library to a full branch library at South
Oneida Street and Leetsdale Drive.
Virginia Village is served by Precinct 312 out of the
District 3 Police Headquarters at 1625 South Univer-
sity Boulevard, more than two miles away.
Fire protection is provided from Station 22, more
than two miles away, at South Monaco Parkway and
Hampden Avenue. This station serves an area, south
of Cherry Creek and east of South Dahlia, of more
than 10 square miles.
Circulation
Virginia Village's key position in southeast Denver
has placed it in the path of some serious traffic
circulation problems. Pedestrian and locally generated
trips are hampered by traffic demands on the
north-south streets with continuity through the
neighborhood. The only existing north-south major
arterial is Colorado Boulevard, carrying traffic greatly
in excess of its designed capacity. Two north-south
collector streets east of Colorado Boulevard, South
Holly Street and South Monaco Street Parkway are
each carrying 150% of desired capacity. The complete
lack of major arterial streets between Colorado
Boulevard and Havana Street to the east, a distance of
more than five miles, points to the continuing
problem of overloaded traffic on interior streets such
as Holly and Monaco.
The only east-west arterial is Evans Avenue which is
already at its designed capacity. On the northern
boundary, Cherry Creek (in an 8% mile distance
south of 1st Avenue) is bridged only once. Lack of an
adequate facility along this major corridor is a serious
problem.
Truck routes are not a problem for the residential
areas of Virginia Village, since only Colorado Boule-
vard and Evans Avenue along the periphery have been
designated. South Holly Street allows only trucks
under 7,000 pounds empty weight.
Bus service is adequate to downtown along Colorado
Boulevard and South Holly Street, while the Monaco
route serves the airport. The only bicycle paths
currently are in Cook Park, and these do not
adequately serve the neighborhood.


RECOMMENDATIONS
Residential
The soundness of the' neighborhood is reflected by
the relative scarcity of problems identified above.
Citizens have acted as a vital force in developing and
maintaining the neighborhood without public funds,
apart from normal expenditures to insure adequate
City facilities and service. The Plan and the recom-
mendations which follow are designed to encourage
and reinforce continuing private redevelopment com-
plementary to the vitality of Virginia Village.
The Plan recommends development to an optimum
ultimate residential capacity of approximately 19,100'
residents. Of this total 11,600 would be housed in
single-family dwellings on 825 acres designated as low
density on the Plan. The remaining 7,500 people
would reside in multiunit developments on 81 acres
of mixed low-to-medium density (13 acres), medium
density (68 acres), and high density (52 acres)
residential areas. (This recommended capacity does
not include those units which would be possible in
the Writer Activity Center in the area of South
Colorado Boulevard and Interstate 25.)
Residential density categories designated by the Plan
and their optimum capacities are as follows:
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT GROSS ACRES
High 30-87 1.9 52
Medium 15-29 1.9 68
Mixed (Medium/Low) 7.3-14 2.6 13
Low (Single-Family) 7.3 3.3 825
RESIDEN- TIAL DENSITY PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL LAND HOUSING UNIT OPTIMUM POPULA- TION OPTIMUM*
High 5 . 2095 4000
Medium 7 1596 3000
Mixed (Med./Low) 1 156 500
Low (Single-Fam.) 87 2722 11600
TOTAL 100% 6569 19100
* N OT EI These figures are based on average construction ratios
in southeast Denver in each density range times
average population of each type of unit.
Commercial
This Plan recommends that no futher encroachment
be allowed into the single-family residential areas.
Toward this goal, current zoning should be strictly
retained. Also, adequate off-street parking should be
provided for shoppers and employees. All parking
should be buffered from residential areas with land-
scaped setbacks and/or walls and fences. The com-
mercial areas designated on this Plan, when fully
developed, will be adequate in quantity and size to
serve the optimum population.
The commercial locations and intensities shown on
the Plan map are predicated upon full development of
arterial and collector streets. In no case should any
intensity increase be allowed unless it is determined
that the major arterials and collector streets in the
general area of the property involved are adequate to
serve the additional traffic generated.
Features
The Plan designates 142 acres of commercial
property and related parking uses.
The Plan designates 129 acres for arterial commer-
cial use with community access primarily by mass
transit or automobile. Neighborhood convenience
shopping areas are designated on 13 acres, with
access primarily from the neighborhood and with
encouragement given to pedestrians and bicyclists.
Industrial
It is not the purpose of this Plan to determine specific
standards for industrial development other than to
recommend that no further encroachment occurs into
residential areas and that adequate off-street parking
is provided for employees. All parking and loading
areas should be buffered with landscaped setbacks
and/or walls and fences. Industrial development
should not be allowed where street capacity is
inadequate.
Single- and multifamily housing should be available to
all persons regardless of social or ethnic backgrounds.
Low- to moderate-income housing is needed through-
out the City, and is especially lacking in the southeast.
The Plan thus encourages provision of low- and
moderate-income housing for these low-income fami-
lies and elderly within the neighborhood. Further, a
precise determination should be made of the amount
of low-cost housing which could be reasonably
developed here to reduce concentration of such units
near the City core.
Features
The Plan includes 24 acres of industrially zoned


property and related parking uses.
Recommended industrial uses include clean and
quiet research laboratories, technical services, and
limited wholesaling, housed in attractive structures
and surrounded by considerable amounts of park-
like open landscaped areas in keeping with the
condition of the neighborhood.
It is strongly recommended that ingress and egress
be strictly limited. Elimination of most curbcuts
now existing should be encouraged where possible.
Parks and Recreation
It has been suggested that public parks and open
space should be developed according to the following
standards:
101/2 acres of park land per 1,000 people.
Features
Only Cook Memorial Park is developed in Virginia
Village with all available facilities including a
recreation center in the construction stages. Its 33
acres fall 167 acres short of the desired supply for
park space. Therefore, the following means for
obtaining additional park space are recommended:
1. The five-acre site west of South Krameria
Street between Florida and Iowa Avenues
should be acquired and developed as a neigh-
borhood park.
2. The five-acre site west of South Holly Street
and Cherry Creek should be acquired and
developed as a neighborhood park.
3. The five-acre site between South Clermont and
South Cherry Streets and Iowa and Mexico
Avenues should be acquired and developed as a
neighborhood park.
4. The four-acre site along the west of South
Dahlia Street between Mississippi and Louisi-
ana Avenues should be acquired and developed
as a neighborhood park.
5. Sixty acres along Cherry Creek should be
developed as linear park in coordination with
the Cherry Creek Parkway.
6. The City-owned eight-acre parcel west of Ash-
grove School should be developed.
7. The .8-acre site east of South Cherry Street
between Asbury and JewelLAvenues should be
acquired and developed as a senior citizen
minipark.
8. The two-acre site east of South Monaco Street
Parkway between Jewell Avenue and Panorama
Lane should be acquired and developed on
both sides of South Monaco Street as a
neighborhood park.
9. Colorado and Southern Railroad right-of-way
between the Valley Highway and Monaco
should be acquired and developed as a hike-
bike path.
The Cherry Creek State Recreation area to the
southeast fulfills the remaining demand for park land.
All proposed areas for parks and open space, as
shown on the Plan, should be zoned 0-1, to prevent
expansion of higher densities and to provide a proper
.buffer between incompatible land uses.


Public Schools
Site sizes for buildings with different capacities should provide space for
play equipment, play fields, all-weather area, off-street parking, service
access to the building, and appropriate landscaping.
The two public schools located within the neighborhood are adequately
serving the projected local demand. The public school system is further
augmented by the Montessori School. It is recommended that these
schools be more appropriately zoned to R-5.
Library
The Denver Public Library suggests the following criteria for location of
branch libraries:
2Vz to 3 Acres in Size
Service Population of 40,000
Near Commercial Activity
Expansion of demand on the Virginia Village Neighborhood Library is
overtaxing the existing location. Therefore, it is recommended that a site
be acquired at South Oneida Street and Leetsdale Drive for a full branch
library.
Fire Protection
The distance (more than two miles) of the fire station serving Virginia
Village, and the increasing congestion of traffic along South Monaco Street,
suggest that there is a need to more adquately serve the neighborhood, as
well as anticipated growth eastward. It is recommended that a fire station be
located at Evans Avenue and Oneida Street.
Institutions
Within the neighborhood are numerous large institutions, usually religiously
affiliated, that provide services beyond the neighborhood boundaries. It is
recommended that institutions on sites larger than 12,500 square feet be
appropriately zone R-5 to prevent encroachment into residential areas.
Circulation
Major arterials, collectors and local streets shown on the Washington-Virginia
Vale Plan should be developed in accordance with the transportation plan
element of the Denver Comprehensive Plan.
Programming of street improvements should be fully coordinated with
development and redevelopment of private properties to higher intensities as
allowed by the Plan in order to accommodate increased traffic volumes.
Design characteristics which give streets identity, such as curves and
topographical differences should be emphasized by landscaping and other
appropriate features.
Features
Design and development, taking advantage of Cherry Creek, is strongly en-
couraged for Cherry Creek Parkway to enhance this long-neglected corridor.
Design should provide for maximum use of the Creek shoreline by
residents in adjacent neighborhoods, with a maximum buffer of landscap-
ing between existing homes and the potentially high-volume arterial
parkway.
Reevaluation of the construction of the parkway should follow the
expansion of Leetsdale Drive in terms of priority and should be
conditioned by updated demand data.


It is strongly urged that a determined effort be made to deemphasize
South Monaco Street Parkway and South Holly Street in terms of traffic
carriers.
Through traffic should be discouraged from the interior of the neighbor-
hood to the major arterials that bound it.
Mississippi Avenue presently designated as a major arterial street should be
changed to collector status with addition of the following streets as
collectors: South Cherry Street between Mississippi and Louisiana
Avenues, Oneida from Mexico to Evans, Mexico from Holly to Oneida,
and Asbury Avenue between South Oneida and Quebec Streets.
In order to protect the interior homogeneous single-family areas from
traffic generated along the periphery, Minnesota Drive between South
Holly Street and Florida Avenue should be redesignated from collector to
local status with appropriate through traffic discouragement.
Collector streets should be developed as shown on the Plan map to
improve the neighborhood access to traffic corridors and shopping areas.
Truck Routes
South Holly Street should be eliminated as a truck route. South Quebec
Street would replace South Holly Street for this function.
Mass Transit
Mass transit and other alternative modes not environmentally degrading
should be emphasized as an alternative to automobile commuting to
downtown Denver. Implementation of PRT with a proposed station at
Colorado Boulevard and Mexico should be followed with a local service
minibus route feeding this station. Construction of major arterials such as
Parker-Leetsdale, Cherry Creek Parkway, and South Quebec Street should
also be studied for the possibility of designs which allow exclusive bus lanes
to eliminate conflicts between automobile traffic and buses. To further the
viability of mass transit, it is urged that parking reservoirs be located along
the arterials to offer the continuously increasing number of home-to-work
commuters an alternative to automobile commuting.
Walkways and Bike Paths
While design standards require 5-foot sidewalks along major arterials, it is
suggested they be replaced with an 8-foot detached pedestrian-bicycle path
on only one side of the street.
Pedestrians and bicyclists should be encouraged to circulate freely within the
neighborhood and construction of bikeways as shown on the Plan map
should receive immediate attention.
Existing vacant land and eyesore, Public Service Company and railroad
rights-of-way should also be developed with landscaped pedestrian-bicycle
paths as shown on the Plan map. (All bicycle path development as shown on
the Plan map is part of the citywide Bicycle-Plan). Public Service Company
of Colorado should be encouraged to coordinate with the City a long-range
plan for burying the high-tension power lines.
SUMMARY
The following list is a summary of priority recommendations reflected in the
Virginia Village Plan (not in order of priority) which could lead to solutions
for immediate problems and also provide for longer range planning changes
for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan for Denver. <


Short-Range Priority (0-5 Years)
Provide dwelling units for elderly or !ow-to moderate-income families.
Rezone parks and open space to 0-1 and schools and institutions to R-5
to reflect actual use.
Construct South Quebec Street as a major arterial.
Eliminate selected collector street designations.
Add selected collector street designations.
Change designation of Mississippi Avenue to a collector street.
Remove truck route designation from Holly Street.
Change 5-foot arterial sidewalks to 8-foot hike-bike paths.
Provide exclusive bus lanes where proper.
Develop hike-bike paths.
Acquire park land.
Acquire and develop fire station at Evans and Oneida.
Encourage cooperation between Glendale and Denver.
Long-Range Priority
Provide a total of 825 acres for low-density residential development.
Provide a total of 81 acres for medium-density residential development.
Provide a total of 52 acres for high-density residential development.
Provide a total of 82 acres for office development.
Provide 60 acres for commercial development.
Provide 24 acres for industrial development.
Provide 128 acres for parks and open space.
Develop park lands.
Deemphasize South Monaco Street Parkway and South Holly Street as
traffic carriers.
Construct Cherry Creek Parkway, maximizing park development.
r

MAYOR OF DENVER
Honorable William H. McNichols, Jr.
DENVER CITY COUNCIL
Robert Koch, President
Linden Blue
Edward F. Burke, Jr.
Elvin R. Caldwell
Eugene L. DiManna
Paul A. Hentzell
Irving S. Hook
Kenneth M. Macintosh
James J. Nolan
Larry J. Perry
William R. Roberts
J. Ivanhoe Rosenberg
L. Don Wyman
DENVER PLANNING BOARD
Philip Milstein, Chairman
Linden Blue
Harold V. Cook
Stephen P. Grogan
Martin C. Kelly
Msgr. Edward A. Leyden
James B. Kenney, Jr.
Mrs. Mary Lou Madrigal
Mrs. Marie K. Rock
DENVER PLANNING OFFICE
Alan L. Canter, Director
Robert A. Damerau, Assistant Director
A. Gordon Appell, Principal Planner
CURRENT AND AREA PLANNING DIVISION
David R. Vokac, Chief
REPORT. RESEARCH AND AUTHOR
Gerald L. Andolsek
Neighborhood Planning Section
REPORT GRAPHICS
Ken Barkema
Karl Haberman
Larry Kowalis
REPORT TYPISTS
Donna J. Panther
Colette A. Passerella
Carla L. Hernandez
APPROVED: DENVER PLANNING BOARD
DEC. 19, 1973
The preparation of this report was financed in
part through a grant from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development under contract
no. CPA-CO-0800-0117.


Full Text

PAGE 2

VIRGINIA VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN INTRODUCTION This is the Plan for Virginia Village-bounded on the north by Glendale and East Mississippi Avenue, on the east by Cherry Creek, on the south by Evans Avenue, and on the west by the Valley Highway and South Colorado Boulevard. In August, 1973 contact was made with neighbor hood improvement associations to begin meetings aimed at development of the Virginia Village Neigh borhood Plan. Two groups represent residents: Virginia Village Homeowners Association and Cook Park Homeowners Association. Representatives of Writers Center, a major development in the neighbor hood, also participated. A citizen's advisory group was formed from these local organizations to work with a neighborhood planner in the development of this Neighborhood Plan. The Group participated in meetings which focused on land use and zoning, transportation, public facilities and general socio-economic problems. After initial preparation of the proposed Plan, a larger meeting was held to present the Plan to the residents generally. The Plan was revised to incorporate the suggestions of the larger body before presentation to the Denver Planning Board for adoption. Detailed information about socio-economic character istics, land use and zoning, public facilities, transpor tation, and other detailed background information upon which the proposed Plan has been based may be obtained from the Denver Planning Office. PURPOSE The Virginia Village Neighborhood Plan consists of this text and the accompanying map entitled "Virginia Village Neighborhood Plan." Use of the Plan The purpose of the Virginia Village Plan is to provide an official guide to the future development of the neighborhood for use by the Denver Planning Office; the Denver Planning Board, the Mayor, the City Council and other concerned governmental agencies; residents; property owners and businessmen of the neighborhood; and private organizations concerned with planning and neighborhood improvement. The Plan will also provide an officially approved reference to be used in connection with their actions on various City development matters as required by law. The Plan is intended to promote an arrangement of land use, circulation and services which will encourage and contribute to the economic, social and physical health, safety, welfare, and convenience of the neighborhood, within the larger framework of the City. It is also intended to guide development and change of the neighborhood 'to meet existing and an'ljcipated needs and conditions; contribute to a healthy and pleasant environment; balance growth and stability; reflect economic potentialities and limitations, land development and other trends; and protect investment to the extent reasonable and feasible. This Plan proposes approximate locations, configura tions, and intensities of various land uses and circulation and community facilities. Development may vary slightly from the Plan, provided that the total area of each type land use, the land use intensities, and the physical relationships among the various land uses are not altered.. Development should not be allowed which is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Plan. The Plan is not an official zone map and, as a guide, does not imply any implicit right to a particular zone or to the land uses permitted therein. Changes of zone are considered under a specific procedure established under the City and County of Denver Municipal Code, subject to various requirements set forth therein, including consideration of their relation to and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan. This Plan is subject to review and amendment in the manner prescribed by law to reflect changes in circumstances.

PAGE 3

Objectives of the Plan 1. To coordinate the development of the Virginia Village Neighborhood with that of other parts of the City as set forth by the Comprehensive Plan and with the Metropolitan Area. 2. To provide a guide to the orderly and balanced development of the neighborhood, designating and generally locating land uses and public facilities in quantities and at densities which will accommodate population and activities projected to full plan development. 3. To encourage the preservation and enhancement of the low density residential character of the neighborhood. 4. To make provision for housing of such types, sizes and densities as are required to satisfy the varying needs and desires of all economic segments of the neighborhood, with special consider ation of elderly and lower income families. 5. To promote the economic health and convenience of the neighborhood through: A. The allocation and distribution of commercial lands for retail and service facilities in quanti ties and patterns based on accepted planning standards and principles. B. Provision for places of employment within the neighborhood, and for transportation facilities serving places of employment in adjacent communities. 6. To provide a circulation system coordinated with land uses and densities and adequate to accommo date necessary movements, including the expan sion and improvement of public transportation service including rapid transit, the increase of off-street parking facilities, the elimination of on-street parking on major arterials, and the development of bicycle routes as well as pedestrian paths. 7. To improve the aesthetic environment of the neighborhood through the development and ap plication of appropriate design criteria. 8. To provide a basis for the location and program ming of public services and utilities and to encourage coordinated sharing of public facilities with private development. HISTORY Virginia Village became a part of Denver through 16 annexations between 1951 and 1972, with more than three-fourths of the area annexed during 1954-1955. The first platting of the neighborhood occurred in 1951, peaked during the mid-1950's, and has been incidental in recent years. Very little development existed prior to 1950. During the 1950's, approxi mately half of the existing units were constructed. During the 1960's, residential development occurred at a less intense, yet still high development rate, as it has into the 1970's. In the last decade, commercial development has been intensive along the western boundary (Colorado Boulevard) especially near the 1-25 interchange. Into the 1970's, light industrial development along the southern boundary is being replaced by office development. DESCRIPTION Virginia Village is southeast Denver's most populous neighborhood (and second only to Capitol Hill throughout the City). On 1,302 acres, the 1970 population was 14,498. The neighborhood has witnessed rapid and substantial change. Since annexations began in 1951, a total of 140 rezoning applications have been processed by the Planning Office. By 1973 well over half of the neighborhood was devoted to single-family residential use, characterized by low buildings along curvilinear streets. An active and vital private market has kept Virginia Village "sound" in comparison to other Denver neighbor hoods, in spite of numerous rezonings to other and higher intensity uses. Population Population growth began during the 1950's and reached 11 ,281 by 1960. During the next 12 years, the population increased 28.5% to 15,500, according to Denver Planning Office estrmates. Population density has correspondingly increased from slightly more than 9 persons per acre to 11 per acre in 1970

PAGE 4

and 11.5 in 1972. The population is beginning to stabilize. Residents with less than 5 years' tenure in the neighborhood have decreased from 73% to 52% by 1970. During the 1960's, median income of families increased from $8,483 to $12,651, with one-third reporting more than $15,000 annually (this was substantially above the City median). Still, more than 200 families earned less than $4,000 annually. Housing Housing units within the neighborhood have increased rapidly-from 2,974 in 1960 to 5,058 in 1970 to 5,700 in 1972. The ratio between single-family and apartment unitshas remained weighted toward singlefamily, with 2,699/275 in 1960; 3,233/1,825 in 1970; and 3,317/2,409 in 1972. Apartment construction has been much more rapid than single-family construction in recent years, however. In 1960 more than four-fifths of the housing stock was owner occupied. This share dropped to slightly less than three-fifths by 1970. Dwelling unit density (housing units per gross acre) has increased from 2.4 in 1960 to 4.1 in 1970, and to 4.3 in 1972. The average valuation of single-family dwellings increased from $18,000 in 1960 to $22,500 by 1970, and remained well above the City mean. Only 179 units were valued at $15,000 or less in 1970. Land Use Land use and zoning compans1ons indicate that almost three-fourths of the neighborhood is zoned for single-family homes. Slightly less than half of the area is actually used for this purpose. The difference is accounted for by schools and parks which are included in this zone classification. In 1960, the neighborhood was 90.8% developed for single-family residential use but had declined to 63.9% by 1972. Multiunit developments now account for nearly 10% of the neighborhood and are concentrated along the western boundary, adjacent to extensive commercial and office usage. Industrial activity utilizes extensive areas along the southern boundary. Community Facilities Cook Memorial Park, the neighborhood's largest recreational facility, occupies 33 acres and contains large play areas, playgrounds, picnic tables, hike-bike paths, a ball field, and a swimming pool. Ellis Elementary School, built in 1957 (with an addition in 1959) can serve 870 students and is operating somewhat below capacity. Ash Grove Elementary School, built in 1937, has had additions in 1946, 1953, and 1960, and is now operating at slightly below a capacity enrollment of 840. There is also a private Montessori School which serves 150 pupils under eleven years of age. Circulation Circulation within the neighborhood takes place on a traditional grid system for arterials and collectors with most of the local streets laid out in curvilinear patterns. Traffic volumes are atypical among Denver's neighborhoods. The two peripheral major arterials, South Colorado Boulevard and Evans Avenue, are operating at up to double their rated capacities, and three of the existing collector streets are operating at 150% of capacity. At the same time, the remaining seven collectors are operating at less than 60% of capacity. Bus service is available for the neighborhood to downtown via South Colorado Boulevard and South Holly Street. Route number 19 connects the neigh borhood with Stapleton Airport. Pedestrian and bicycle paths exist in Cook Park, with a foot bridge connection to Place Junior High School. ANALYSIS Virginia Village is now largely developed .. In recent years, it has been changing from low-density to higher density residential and from residential to commercial and industrial uses near the western and southern boundaries. Private investment for this development has been (and continues to be) extensive and has produced a sound and vital subarea among Denver's neighborhoods. There are, however, problems. These problems and needs of the residents must be examined prior to generating the ideas and means to implement solu tions that will guide Virginia Village into a continu ously successful future. Socio-Economic Problems The neighborhood (between 1960 and 1970) showed a general aging in the population with a 55% increase in persons between 35 and 64 years of age and a 148% increase of persons over 65. During the same time there was a 40% decrease in the number of infants and only a small increase in school aged children. The more than doubling of the elderly population and the loss of nearly half the infant population in recent years suggests a need for rethinking which kinds of public facilities should be added now to serve future demand. Unemployment is minimal, and the area continues to be well served by convenient commercial and indus trial employers. In 1970, however, there were 208 families earning less than $4,000 annually.

PAGE 5

The fact that a high (nearly half) and increasing share of the residents have lived in the same home for five or more years suggests increasing stability and con cern for the neighborhood. Land Use and Zoning Land use is becoming more intensive and less pre.dominately residential in Virginia Village. Within the past decade 70 rezoning applications have been filed, accounting for 5.4% of all such applications filed citywide. of these, 51 were from lower density residential to higher density residential or business, and 22 were approved. Frequent rezoning can ad versely impact the stability of a neighborhood and reduce residential vitality. Environment Virginia Village is a typical suburban neighborhood with a high environmental desirability. Homes were built under FHA requirements of one street tree per house and, therefore, the area abounds with trees and well-maintained lawns. The neighborhood was based on a collector street grid with local curvilinear streets. Very few streets remain unpaved and sidewalks, although very narrow, are in good repair. A relatively high water table and some surface drainage problems still persist due to the topography and proximity to Cherry Creek. Public Facilities Ashgrove Elementary School and Ellis Elementary School are experiencing declining enrollments, which are expected to continue. The pattern of anticipating future school enrollments, and hence facility needs, is becoming apparent. Park and recreation needs are adequately met by Cook Memorial Park which includes almost all facili ties available. Recent additions include a swimming pool and a recreation center in the preconstruction stages scheduled for opening by summer of 1974. The Virginia Village Neighborhood Library leases space in a local shopping center and provides home reading distribution and limited reference material. Increasing demand for expanded library services has led to a proposal to relocate and expand the neighborhood library to a full branch library at South Oneida Street and Leetsdale Drive. Virginia Village is served by Precinct 312 out of the District 3 Police Headquarters at 1625 South Univer sity Boulevard, more than two miles away. Fire protection is provided from Station 22, more than two miles away, at South Monaco Parkway and Hampden Avenue. This station serves an area, south of Cherry Creek and east of South Dahlia, of more than 1 0 square miles. Circulation Virginia Village's key position in southeast Denver has placed it in the path of some serious traffic circulation problems. Pedestrian and locally generated trips are hampered by traffic demands on the north-south streets with continuity through the neighborhood. The only existing north-south major arterial is Colorado Boulevard, carrying traffic greatly in excess of its designed capacity. Two north-south collector streets east of Colorado Boulevard, South Holly Street and South Monaco Street Parkway are each carrying 150% of desired capacity. The complete lack of major arterial streets between Colorado Boulevard and Havana Street to the east, a distance of more than five miles, points to the continuing problem of overloaded traffic on interior streets such as Holly and Monaco. The only east-west arterial is Evans Avenue which is already at its designed capacity. On the northern boundary, Cherry Creek (in an 8% mile distance south of 1st Avenue) is bridged only once. Lack of an adequate facility along this major corridor is a serious problem. Truck routes are not a problem for the residential areas of Virginia Village, since only Colorado Boule vard and Evans Avenue along the periphery have been designated. South Holly Street allows only trucks under 7,000 pounds empty weight. Bus service is adequate to downtown along Colorado Boulevard and South Holly Street, while the Monaco route serves the airport. The only bicycle paths currently are in Cook Park, and these do not adequately serve the neighborhood.

PAGE 6

RECOMMENDATIONS Residential The soundness of the neighborhood is reflected by the relative scarcity of problems identified above. Citizens have acted as a vital force in developing and maintaining the neighborhood without public funds, apart from normal expenditures to insure adequate City facilities and service. The Plan and the recom mendations which follow are designed to encourage and reinforce continuing private redevelopment com plementary to the vitality of Virginia Village. The Plan recommends development to an optimum ultimate residential capacity of approximately 19,1 00' residents. Of this total 11,600 would be housed in single-family dweilings on 825 acres designated as low density on the Plan. The remaining 7,500 people would reside in multiunit developments on 81 acres of mixed low-to-medium density (13 acres), medium density (68 acres), and high density (52 acres) residential areas. (This recommended capacity does not include those units which would be possible in the Writer Activity Center in the area of South Colorado Boulevard and Interstate 25.) Residential density categories designated by the Plan and their optimum capacities are as follows: -DWELLING PERSONS RESIDENTIAL PER GROSS DENSITY UNITS DWELLING ACRES PER ACRE UNIT High 3Q-87 1.9 52 Medium 15-29 1.9 68 Mixed 7.3-14 2.6 13 (Medium/Low) Low 7.3 3.3 825 (Single-Family) RESIDENPERCENT OF HOUSING POPULA-TIAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT TION DENS1TY LAND OPTIMUM OPTIMUM* High 5 2095 4000 Medium 7 1596 3000 Mixed 1 156 500 (Med./Low) Low 87 2722 11600 (Single-Fam.) TOTAL 100% 6569 19100 *NOTE: These figures are based on average construction ratios in southeast Denver in each density range times average population of each type of unit. Commercial This Plan recommends that no futher encroachment be allowed into the single-family residential areas. Toward this goal, current zoning should be strictly retained. Also, adequate off-street parking should be provided for shoppers and employees. All parking should be buffered from residential areas with land scaped setbacks and/or walls and fences. The com mercial areas designated or. this Plan, when fully developed, will be adequate in quantity and size to serve the optimum population. The commercial locations and intensities shown on the Plan map are predicated upon full development of arterial and collector streets. In no case should any intensity increase be allowed unless it is determined that the major arterials and collector streets in the general area of the property involved are adequate to serve the additional traffic generated. Features The Plan designates 142 acres of commercial property and related parking uses. The Plan designates 129 acres for arterial commerc.ial use with community access primarily by mass transit or automobile. Neighborhood convenience shopping areas are designated on 13 acres, with access primarily from the neighborhood and with encouragement given to pedestrians and bicyclists. Industrial It is not the purpose of this Plan to determine specific standards for industrial development other than to recommend that no further encroachment occurs into residential areas and that adequate off-street parking is provided for employees. All parking and loading areas should be buffered with landscaped setbacks and/or walls and fences. Industrial development should not be allowed where street capacity is inadequate. Singleand multifamily housing should be available to all persons regardless of social or ethnic backgrounds. Low-to moderate-income housing is needed throughout the City, and is especially lacking in the southeast. The Plan thus encourages provision of lowand moderate-income housing for these low-income fami lies and elderly within the neighborhood. Further, a precise determination should be made of the amount of low-cost housing which could be reasonably developed here to reduce concentration of such units near the City core. Features The Plan includes 24 acres of industrially zoned

PAGE 7

property and related parking uses. Recommended industrial uses include clean and quiet research laboratories, technical services, and limited wholesaling, housed iri attractive structures and surrounded by amounts of park like open landscaped areas in keeping with the condition of the neighborhood. It is strongly recommended that ingress and egress be strictly limited. Elimination of most curbcuts now existing should be encouraged where possible. Parks and Recreation It has been suggested that public parks and open space should be developed according to the following standards: 10% acres of park land per 1,000 people. Features Only Cook Memorial Park is developed in Virginia Village with all available facilities including a recreation center in the construction stages. Its 33 acres fall 167 acres short of the desired supply for park space. Therefore, the following means for obtaining additional park space are recommended: 1. The five-acre site west of South Krameria Street between Florida and Iowa Avenues should be acquired and developed as a neigh borhood park. 2. The five-acre site west of South Holly Street and Cherry Creek should be acquired and developed as a neighborhood park. 3. The five-acre site between South Clermont and South Cherry Streets and Iowa and Mexico Avenues should be acquired and developed as a neighborhood park. 4. The four-acre site along the west of South Dahlia Street between Mississippi and Louisi ana Avenues should be acquired and developed as a neighborhood park. 5. Sixty acres along Cherry Creek should be developed as linear park in coordination with the Cherry Creek Parkway. 6. The Gity-owned eight-acre parcel west of Ashgrove School should be developed. @, 7. The .8-acre site east of South Cherry Street between Asbury and Jeweii.Avenues should be acquired and developed as a senior citizen minipark. 8. The two-acre site east of South Monaco Street Parkway between Jewell Avenue and Panorama Lane should be acquired and developed on both sides of South Monaco Street as a neighborhood park. 9. Colorado and Southern Railroad right-of-way between the Valley Highway and Monaco should be acquired and developed as a hike bike path. The Cherry Creek State Recreation area to the southeast fulfills the remaining demand for park land. All proposed areas for parks and open space, as shown on the Plan, should be zoned 0-1, to prevent expansion of higher densities and to provide a proper .buffer between incompatible land uses.

PAGE 8

Public Schools Site sizes for buildings with different capacities should provide space for play equipment, play fields, all-weather area, off-street parking, service access to the building, and appropriate landscaping. The two public schools located within the neighborhood are .adequately serving the projected local demand. The public school system is further augmented by the Montessori School. It is recommended that these schools be more appropriately zoned to R-5. Library The Denver Public Library suggests the following criteria for location of branch libraries: to 3 Acres in Size Service Population of 40,000 Near Commercial Activity Expansion of demand on the Virginia Village Neighborhood Library is overtaxing the existing location. Therefore, it is recommended that a site be acquired at South Oneida Street and Leetsdale Drive for a full branch library. Fire Protection The distance (more than two miles) of the fire station serving Virginia Village, and the increasing congestion of traffic along South Monaco Street, suggest that there is a need to more adquately the neighborhood, as well as anticipated growth eastward. It is recommended that a fire station be located at Evans Avenue and Oneida Street. Institutions Within the neighborhood are numerous large institutions, usually religiously affiliated, that provide services beyond the neighborhood boundaries. It is recommended that institutions on sites larger than 12,500 square feet be appropriately zone R-5 to prevent encroachment into residential areas. Circulation Major arterials, collectors and local streets shown on the Washington-Virginia Vale Plan should be developed in accordance with the transportation pl
PAGE 9

It is strongly urged that a determined effort be made to deemphasize South Monaco Street Parkway and South Holly Street in terms of traffic carriers. Through traffic should be discouraged from the interior of the neighbor hood to the major arterials that bound it. Mississippi Avenue presently designated as a major arterial street should be changed to collector status with addi.tion of the following streets as collectors: South Cherry Street between Mississippi and Louisiana Avenues, Oneida from Mexico to Evans, Mexico from Holly to Oneida, and Asbury Avenue between South Oneida and Quebec Streets. In order to protect the interior homogeneous single-family areas from traffic generated along the periphery, Minnesota Drive between South Holly Street and Florida Avenue should be redesignated from coll.ector to local status with appropriate through traffic discouragement. Collector streets should be developed as shown on the Plan map to improve the neighborhood access to traffic corridors and shopping areas. Truck Routes South Holly Street should be eliminated as a truck route. South Quebec Street would replace South Holly Street for this function. Mass Transit Mass transit and other alternative modes not environmentally degrading should be emphasized as an alternative to automobile commuting to downtown Denver. Implementation of PRT with a proposed station at Colorado Boulevard and Mexico should be followed with a local service minibus route feeding this station. Construction of major arterials such as Parker-Leetsdale, Cherry Creek Parkway, and South Quebec Street should also be studied for the possibility of de-signs which allow exclusive bus lanes to eliminate conflicts between automobile traffic and buses. To further the viability of mass transit, it is urged that parking reservoirs be located along the arterials to offer the continuously increasing number of home-to-work commuters an alternative to automobile commuting. Walkways and Bike Paths While design standards require 5-foot sidewalks along major arterials, it is suggested they be replaced with an 8-foot detached pedestrian-bicycle path on only one side of the street. Pedestrians and bicyclists should be encouraged to circulate freely within the neighborhood and construction of bikeways as shown on the Plan map should receive immediate attention. Existing vacant land and eyesore, Public Service Company and railroad rights-of-way should also be developed with landscaped pedestrian-bicycle paths as shown on the Plan map. (All bicycle path development as shown on the Plan map is part of the citywide Bicycle-Plan). Public Service Company of Colorado should be encouraged to coordinate with the City a long-range plan for burying the high-tension power lines. SUMMARY The following list is a summary of priority recommendations reflected in the Virginia Village Plan (not in order of priority) which could lead to solutions for immediate problems and also provide for longer range planning changes for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan for Denver.

PAGE 10

Short-Range Priority (G-5 Years) Provide dwelling units for elderly or !ow-to moderate-income families. Rezone parks and open space to 0-1 and schools and institutions to R-5 to reflect actual use. Construct South Quebec Street as a major arterial. Eliminate selected collector street designations. Add selected collector street designations. Change designation of Mississippi Avenue to a collector street. Remove truck route designation from Holly Street. Change 5-foot arterial sidewalks to 8-foot hike-bike paths. Provide exclusive bus fanes where proper. Develop hike-bike paths. Acquire park land. Acquire and develop fire station at Evans and Oneida. Encourage cooperation between Glendale and Denver. Long-Range Priority Provide a total of 825 acres for low-density residential development. Provide a total of 81 acres for medium-density residential development. Provide a total of 52 acres for high-density residential development. Provide a total of 82 acres for office development. Provide 60 acres for commercial development. Provide 24 acres for industrial development. Provide 128 acres for parks and open space. Develop park lands. Deemphasize South Monaco Street Parkway and South Holly Street as traffic carriers. Construct Cherry Creek Parkway, maximizing park development. MAYOR OF DENVER Honorable William H. McNichols, Jr. DENVER CITY COUNCIL Robert Koch, President Linden Blue Edward F. Burke, Jr. Elvin R. Caldwell Eugene L. DiManna Paul A. Hentzell Irving S. Hook Kenneth M. Macintosh James J. Nolan Larry J. Perry William R. Roberts J. Ivanhoe Rosenberg L. Don Wyman DENVER PLANNING BOARD Philip Milstein, Chairman Linden Blue Harold V. Cook Stephen P. Grogan Martin C. Kelly Msgr. Edward A. Leyden James B. Kenney, Jr. Mrs. Mary Lou Madrigal Mrs. Marie K. Rock DENVER PLANNING OFFICE Aian L. Canter, Director Robert A. Damerau, Assistant Director A. Gordon Appell, Principal Planner CURRENT AND AREA PLANNING DIVISION David R. Vokac, Chief REPORT. RESEARCH AND AUTHOR Gerald L. Andolsek Neighborhood Planning Section REPORT GRAPHICS Ken Barkema Karl Haberman Larry Kowalis REPORT TYPISTS Donna J. Panther Colette A. Passerella Carla L. Hernandez APPROVED: DENVER PLANNING BOARD DEC. 19, 1973 The preparation of this report was financed in part through a grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under contract no. CPA-C0-0800-0117.