John Rebchook is a former Rocky Mountain News reporter with more than 30 years of experience in writing and communications... 
This home on Raleigh Street should be coming down shortly to make way for a duplex.
Vote on who you support at the end of this blog
A Denver board on Tuesday unanimously voted to give developers the green light to move forward on razing a single-family home and building a duplex in Northwest Denver, a proposal that had become a lightning rod for neighbors who fought it, as well as for members of the real estate community who supported it.
“We’re very excited,” said Jeff Plous, a broker with One Realty, and who has been working with Robert Plimpton the owner of the development site on Raleigh Street, just north of the popular West 32nd Avenue corridor.
“We’re very happy with the outcome,” following the Board of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals meeting that stretched for almost two hours, before the five-member board adjourned into an executive sessions to continue to discuss it behind closed doors.
Lots of drama, emotion
Plous said construction of the three-story duplex could begin within the next couple of weeks.
The decision came following a meeting that didn’t lack in theatrics – taped conversations with city employees and the testimony of newly elected City Council member Paula Sandoval, spiced up what could have been a more typical cut-and-dry hearing.
The proposal had become a cause celebre among both opponents and proponents of new development since it was first brought to public light a month ago in a blog titled Developer-Neighborhood Dispute Raises Difficult Questions by InsideRealEstateNews.com. The decision also comes the day after the City Council approved the biggest zoning change in more than a half century, which effectively would eliminate the three-story duplexes proposed by Plous and Plimpto in northwest Denver.
About a dozen neighbors came to support Anthony Cooper at the board meeting. Cooper, an engineer, is one of the most vocal opponents of multi-unit construction in northwest Denver, and was leading the charge against a proposed duplex that ironically would be built next to his home along Raleigh Street. In protest, Cooper and several neighbors have planted toilets and signs opposing the duplex in their front lawns. Cooper at today’s meeting also presented a petition that he said had dozens of neighbors signatures opposing the development. Cooper could not immediately be reached for comment regarding the board’s decision.
Anthony Cooper planted flowers in this toilet bowl in his front yard of his home on Raleigh Street.
Constitutional property rights issues key
The crux of the matter is whether the developers missed a 180-day deadline to get their zoning, as on Jan. 1 a moratorium for the area went into effect preventing developments that were not “substantially complete.”
However, assistant city attorney Jennifer Welborn repeatedly told the board the city’s position is that legally, the board should grant the zoning request being sought by Jeff Plous and Robert Plimpton. To not grant them the zoning – which the city did not initially approve because of an error it made – would deny them their property rights guaranteed under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, she said at one point during the lengthy proceeding, in which this reporter took 45 pages of notes.
That is because the city made a mistake in at first denying the zoning request, she said. The city denied the initial zoning change to allow the duplex because it erroneously thought that it did not have enough open space. But the development did have enough open space and when the city discovered its error, it gave the developers its required zoning and canceled a hearing to appeal the initial decision. Welborn said that the 180-day deadline did not apply because the city was in error and the zoning should have been granted when the developers first applied, which was before the moratorium took effect.
Plous said he suspects that played a key role in the board’s decision to vote in their favor, as he believes it would have been a “takings” of their property rights, if they had not allowed them to continue the process to redevelop the property.
“Maybe they realized that if they voted against us, they would put the city in a position where it could have faced a legal challenge from us,” Plous said. He said he did become worried that during part of the board meeting that Penny Elder, the chair, seemed inclined to favor the neighbors.
Several times Elder wondered why the developers had not done more to clarify their position, and at one point told developer Plimpton that he could see the impact of his decision to build a duplex was having on neighbors.
“The whole point is that it wasn’t whether board members liked duplexes or what neighbors think,” Plous said, adding that it seemed as if board members Ben Romero and Michael Koch on several occasions would get the board to focus on the scope of whether they had followed all of the rules and should get their rezoning, rather than on extraneous issues.
Anthony Cooper placed this sign in his front lawn.
Cooper, however, supported by several neighbors, argued that it was a moot point whether the city was in error or not. He used basketball and baseball analogies to say that if a player scores, and the buzzer already has gone off before the shot is taken or a ref makes a bad call, it doesn’t count.
Cooper and neighbors were supported by City Council member Sandoval, who recently replaced Rick Garcia as the representative of District 1, which includes the West Highland neighborhood in which the drama between developers and neighbors is taking center stage.
Sandoval in neighbor’s corner
It is rare for City Council members to publicly take a side during hearings such as this, but Sandoval kicked off the meeting by testifying that this represents “a very difficult situation.”
“As I see it, you should rescind the permit,” said Sandoval. Sandoval said that even though the city made the error, the developers had not done enough to correct the mistake, so they “forfeited the right” to get the zoning. She also read a letter from fellow City Council Doug Linkhart siding with the neighbors. Sandoval could not immediately be reached in the wake of the decision in favor of the developers.
Attorney Welborn, however, said she is not sure what else the developers could have done. And their architectural designer, Anchen Wang, said he had told Jim McConnell, a senior plan reviewer, that they had enough open space, and he was waiting to hear back from him. When McConnell informed the developers by e-mail that their original zoning had been denied, they filed an appeal. The appeal was well within the required 30-day time period, Welborn said.
Cooper played a tape recording from McConnell, in which he physically moved the tape machine to the front of the room so the board members could hear it, in which McConnell said that because the developers had missed their 180 day deadline, they would not be able to build the duplex. Welborn, however, said she had no idea when the recording was made.
Cooper also said that McConnell told him that the developers had never contacted him after he initially denied the rezoning. Plous and Plimpton said that is not true, and they had left several messages for McConell, which he did not return. McConnell, when contacted by InsideRealEstateNews after the meeting, since he was not at the hearing and did not know what conversations took place at the meeting, so he would not comment.
Did developers do enough?
One resident, who thanked Cooper for all of his efforts in spearheading the fight against the developers, said the developers had dropped the ball in proving they had pursued correcting the city’s error. If they truly tried to work things out with the city, they should have taken notes, taped phone conversations, and sent things by certified mail, so they would have proof.
“When he was saying that, I thought, “You know, he’s right,” Plous said. “One of the things I wanted to say, but I never had a chance to say, is that we’re new at this. We’re just cutting our teeth on this project. As much of a nightmare this has been at times, it was a learning experience. We got more than a grad-school education through this process.”
The developers had a fair amount of internal drama trying to put the deal together. Plimpton was in Kenya during three months of the process, Anchen Wang flew to Taiwan to care for his ailing grandmother, and the developers parted ways with their first general contractor.
Olive branch rejected
Developer Plimpton, near the end of the meeting, said that he never wanted to stir up such trouble with the neighbors.
“I just wanted to add value to the neighborhood,” noting that when he first bought the home in 2008, it was in such bad shape that it was a month before he could make it livable. Plimpton said that he never would have taken one of the nice homes that the protesters live in, and try to raze one of those to make way for a new project.
“I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused,” Plimpton said. He also said that he agreed with Cooper that the city procedures should have been better spelled out and more clear, and if they had been, he would have followed them.
Cooper’s response was to ask him if he had installed an illegal bathroom in the basement of the home he plans to tear down.
But chairwoman Elder over-ruled the question, as it was not germane to the issue of the rezoning.
“I know this has all been very emotional and we have all gotten off topic from time to time,” Elder said.
Loading ...Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com or 303-945-6865.
Today when I looked at the docket, I was surprised by one thing – That the appeal to the Board of Adjustment was applied for by the neighbor, Tony Cooper.
I didn’t realize that a zoning appeal could be filed by someone other than the owner of a parcel, or someone he’s given power of attorney to. Talk about a can of worms, it means that your neighbor could file an appeal to revoke your long-settled zoning rights at any time. In this case, Tony thought he had a case based on a technicality that he ultimately couldn’t prove. Well, the zoning code is one big bag of technicalities, so I believe Council should pass a law soon that would prevent this in the future.
I like how the NIMBYS called for taping of phone conversations. These are the type of people who ruin neighborhoods. Also, their family members and business contacts, if they have any, should be very afraid.
You don’t have voice mail?
How is it that when 2/3 of the neighbors band together to support a cause, they are labelled NIMBYs and “the type of people who ruin neighborhoods”? HELLO? They *ARE* the neighborhood! Let’s use some logic before speaking.
By the way, these people aren’t NIMBYs… NIMBY implies “do it somewhere else”; they don’t want development like this *anywhere*. It is out of place with the look and feel of the rest of the neighborhood. Which is why this type of development is now illegal under the new zoning laws, passed yesterday.
For all you “Develop at any cost” folks: what if I were to submit a plan to build a geodesic dome right next door to you? It’s nice, clean, plenty of light, plenty of open space… but I’m sure it would clash with every other house on the block. Do you let me go ahead, or do you fight me?
As always, we would like to thank everyone for their support so far.
I would like to respond to the comment above.
1. The new zoning code does not actually make this type of development illegal now. Any property that is currently a legal duplex may be scraped and a new duplex of any type may be built on the land. This is how there are still some new starts over in Sloans Lake. The new code says absolutely nothing about building new duplexes where old ones once were. The new code will however limit new builds to just 2 stories – but only after a 6 month grace period as I understand it.
2. Just because a developer is not building a duplex does not mean they will be building something that fits into the neighborhood. Single family homes can be just as “ugly” as duplexes.
3. To me, if you wanted to build a geodesic dome, and it was able to fit all the city rules and regulations, I would be just fine with it. It wouldnt be MY choice of home, but I would not be the one living in it. For me to tell you that you could not build the home you want on YOUR land would be going against your property rights.
Thanks,
Jeff Plous
Jeff,
You would be just fine with it until you wanted to sell your house and your Realtor says, “They would have bought your house, but didn’t want to live next door to that ugly Bucky Ball! I think you are going to have to lower your price to the point where the Bucky Ball doesn’t matter.” Ouch! So much for property rights, huh, Jeff?
Jeff, do you always walk that way? Or, did you just get kicked?
If you hate the duplex so much, make the man an offer and buy the man’s land. I believe in property rights.
It’s so funny to me that those who typically cry and complain about developers “ruining the look of their neighborhood” are often the same ones who have done nothing in the way of keeping up their own homes and neighborhood. Usually their motivation comes strictly from the emotion of envy.
At some point we have to honor property rights! As for your geodesic dome, bring it on!
It looks like Jeff has another development opportunity staring him in the face. “BUCKY-BALL-HEIGHTS” Cool!! A subdivision that would look like a super security radar tracking station. With all the Bucky Ball fanciers it would surely be a great seller. Does anybody out there understand how real estate works?
Wow, Somebody call a moderator on “Arch” please… pathetic trolls aren’t exactly furthering the discussion.
Stephen, The lack of logic that Jeff uses to defend what he intends to do was the subject of my comment. You missed it; which is not surprising to this troll. You apparently missed this too; Jeff won. What further discussion is there, unless, it is to rub it into those that lost by a technical knockout. No clear winners. It is interesting to note that the plan would not have passed muster under the new code.
It all comes down to property rights. The city has walked all over all of our property rights because of a promise Rick Garcia made. What gave him the right to make this promise in the first place? I live in this neighborhood and I don’t really like the new and modern buildings going up, but it is not my decision to make for other peoples property, period. The city made the absolute right decision in granting the developer the right to continue on with their project. The whole rezoning of peoples properties is absolutely wrong in the first place, just wrong .
Wow Arch, hiding behind the anonymity of the internet has made you quite the tough-guy. I’ll make sure to hire you next time I need an anonymous troll to do my bidding!
Time to learn how to whistle, Bob. That is the way of the internet in case you don’t understand. Not a tough guy and won’t work for someone that cannot advance a position through the strength of their argument. By the way, Bob, “troll” has already been used. Try something else in your vocabulary.
Congratulations guys- this is a small victory for property owners across Denver, and a HUGE victory for those of us that would like to be able to make our own decisions and excercise our rights without having to please nitpickers like Mr. Cooper.
It’s a real shame you have had to put up with all of this nonsense because of one overanxious busybody.
If Mr. Cooper spent half as much time cleaning the trash out of his yard as he did railing against change in the neighborhood (which, incidentally, will raise his property value immensely), he’d have already made as much of a difference as you guys are about to.
Good luck and good work!
It always amazes me what kinds of issues get (people) like Cooper all fired up… What a (coward)!
Following is the text of a recent meeting on Cooper’s front porch (paraphrased, sort of):
Cooper: “Here’s an idea boys: ‘Let’s put toilets in our front yards and whine, whine, whine to each other AND City Council AND anyone else that will listen! … But let’s not, not, not let anyone make money on our block! Including us!”
Silly little man-child…
Best of all, we have a small contingent of City Council that will LISTEN! Unbelievable. (Even Hickenlooper must privately laugh at a couple of the pinheads on City Council!)
Finally, is Sandoval a complete bonehead or what? She is going to be as pathetic and stupid as Montero! (Hard to believe, I know!)
Boy howdy, I am on a roll…..