John Rebchook is a former Rocky Mountain News reporter with more than 30 years of experience in writing and communications... 
This church site on Lowell Boulevard, just north of West 32nd Avenue, is the center of a controversial development project.
RedPeak Properties has hired architect Brad Buchanan to design the controversial apartment community planned in the heart of West Highland.
Buchanan, who replaces the architectural firm of Humphries Poli, said that he realizes that a number of people who live near the site are vehemently opposed to RedPeak’s plans for 160 units spread between three five-story buildings north of West 32nd Avenue along Lowell Boulevard, Moncrieff Place and Meade Street.
“This is not the first time that we have been involved in a project where there have been neighborhood concerns regarding density, traffic and parking,” said Buchanan, who also is the chairman of the Denver Planning Board and was one of the chief architects of Denver’s new zoning that was adopted unanimously last year by the City Council. Buchanan has been involved with the design of everything from
Mike Zoellner, President and CEO of RedPeak, said that he hired Buchanan for several reasons:
- He’s worked with him before and he’s been very pleased with the quality of the work by Buchanan and his partners, John Yonushewski.
- Buchanan knows the new zoning and building codes as well as anyone, as he played a key role over several years providing input into the new zoning code.
- He is very sensitive to historic buildings, both those he has renovated and how nearby older buildings are impacted by new buildings he designed.
- He has a history of successfully working with neighborhood groups.
Brad Buchanan
Buchanan will be attending a neighborhood meeting next Wednesday from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at 2945 Julian St. that is being sponsored by City Councilwomen Susan Shepherd and Robin Kniech. Shepherd represents the district that includes the church, while Kniech is an at-large council member who lives in nearby Berkeley.
Listening to neighborhood concerns key
“This is being billed as a listening session and I plan to listen, listen, listen,” Buchanan said. “If all 800 people who signed a petition against it show up, I plan to listen to what each of them has to say. I will be taking a lot of notes. I’m looking at this as an opportunity to have a new start.”
Kniech said that is the purpose of the meeting.
“My job is to make sure the developer has a good dialogue in the community,” she said. “Whatever project the developer brings forward, we want to make sure it is the most fitting for the neighborhood. That is what I am focused on.”
Steve Kite, chairman of zoning for the West Highland Neighborhood Association, could not immediately be reached for comment.
Height could remain an issue
However, Zoellner said it probably isn’t financially feasible to lower the height of the buildings, a key demand of many opponents.
“These are not high-rises,” Zoellner said. “These are stick-built properties. They will have at least two stories of parking. We will be providing more parking than is required under the zoning,” an estimated 215 to 225 parking spaces. The parking is expensive and requires a certain number of units and height to make economic sense, he said.
“We need four stories of residential above the retail,” Zoellner said, or the development won’t pencil out. “There are a lot of fixed costs. There is the land acquisition cost, the demolition, removal of some asbestos and environmental clean-up. And then there are design costs. Really, there are four buildings. We have the three new buildings and the design of the existing main church building, is really like designing a whole new buildings. The design element is very expensive.”
In order for the buildings to have fewer stories and units, RedPeak would have to enlarge the size of the apartments. “The nominal rent then gets very large,” Zoellner said. “Right now, our average size is going to be about 700 square feet. If you take around $2 per square foot, the average rent is going to be around $1,400 a month. If you made the average size 1,400 square feet, at $2 per square foot, the average rent is $2,800 a month. That is not going to work very well.”
Buchanan said that even if the buildings have five stories they can be designed in a way to mitigate their impact on the neighborhood.
“There are a lot of design options regarding height and density that can either mitigate or accentuate issues surrounding height and density,” Buchanan said. He said he plans to try to find an architectural solution that would minimize the impact on the neighborhood.
Zoellner said RedPeak anticipates buying the land in the second quarter of next year, right before they start construction. Construction is expected to take 18 months. Buchanan said that one thing he will focus on during the construction is to work with the neighborhood on how to minimize the inconvenience and noise.
Zoellner said RedPeak will not be seeking any variances from the U-MS-5 zoning on the property. The land previously had been zoned as R4, which Buchanan, Zoellner and Kniech, separately, noted allowed substantially more density than U-MS-5.
“You could have ended up with a 12-story box that would have been horrendous,” under the previous zoning, Buchanan said. “These three parcels together have 12 corners,” Buchanan said. “That’s a lot to work with.”
However, he noted they are in such an early stage, as he was only recently hired, and because they are still involved in the crucial stage of starting to gather neighborhood input, that they don’t yet have drawing or plans.
City Park neighbors won over
Buchanan noted that several years ago, he dealt with a “similar scenario” when he was designing the Pinnacle at City Park South for Opus Northwest, a high-rise and townhome project on City Park.
Initially, neighbors were virtually 100 percent against the development.
“We walked into a beehive of opposition,” Buchanan said. “Everyone was against us.”
But after numerous neighborhood meetings and working closely with then City Councilwoman Elbra Wedgeworth, they reached a consensus.
“We went from virtually 100 percent against us to 100 percent for us,” Buchanan said.
He said he realizes that it may not be possible to do that in West Highland.
“I know it’s going to be tough,” Buchanan said. “We may not be able to come up with a solution that will please everyone. But my goal and aspiration is to try to please everyone, although, again, realistically that may not be possible. What I truly would like to achieve is a win-win-win for the neighbors, the developer and the neighborhood.”
More interested in buying in West Highland than renting? Check out this COhomefinder.com link to see what is for sale in the neighborhood.
Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com
I am extremely pleased about these developments. Certainly this process is more productive than sticking a bunch of signs on lawns (of homes owned mainly by renters who have no idea what’s going on). I live a block away from this project and am excited about this addition. For the life of me I don’t understand why our neighborhood is suddenly anti-infill.
You’re mistaken. The neighborhood is not “suddenly anti-infill.” That is misinformation being spread most likely by the developer. The No Highrises in West Highland group organized to raise neighborhood concerns about this project has SPECIFICALLY and repeatedly stated its support for infill redevelopment of the parcels in question.
The opposition is to: 1) Red Peak’s lack of transparency about its intentions; 2) The zoning change enacted less than two years ago to enable it, which contradicts the stated objectives of Blueprint Denver; 3) A project of the mass initially described by Red Peak. Red Peak did not want to meet with the community until January about this; now it has agreed to meet next week because of the work of the neighbors raising awareness of its plans.
And by the way, everyone who has put up a No Highrises sign on my block (which also is a block away from this project) and the adjacent block (across the street from the project) is a homeowner. Are you?
I would also like to comment on the overall irresponsibily of inaccurately portraying these buildings as “high rises,” carrying around a mock-up “high rise,” etc.:
-When it becomes apparent that these aren’t actually “high rises,” you will be seen as having cried wolf and lose leverage to improve the project.
-By planting lawn signs all over the place you are hurting everyone’s property values, as well as the neighborhood generally – no one wants to move to a neighborhood involved in a development battle. The “high rises” group should be aware these signs are disallowed by the Denver municipal code.
-The RedPeak project may be the worst kept secret in all Denver. Everyone knew about the zoning process for these parcels. The parcels ended up being down-zoned. Everyone knows the property is owned by a developer entity. Five years ago, you could wander into any local business and they’d tell you that these parcels were slated to become apartments. In sum, the “evil developer” conspiracy theory is a comfortable, but inapplicable, framework for discussion.
“Also,” you’re lying.
1. Residents are allowed to place such signs on private property such as their front lawns, not on the public rights of way. Read the city ordinances.
2. The registered neighborhood organization, West Highland Neighborhood Association, formally made repeated, specific objections during the zoning process (which took place only in the past two years) for the parcels in question; the city ignored those objections and the common sense that says putting five-story buildings in a neighborhood dominated by one- and two-story homes and businesses goes specifically against the stated objectives of Blueprint Denver.
3. If you’re going to criticize neighbors who are exercising their constitutional rights to oppose this project in its present form, use your real name instead of being such an effing coward.
I left one out, “Also.” Merriam-Webster defines “high rise” as: “[B]eing multistory and equipped with elevators ”
So unless you know something about Red Peak’s secret plan to make its five story buildings walk-ups, escribing them as “high rises” is both technically and conceptually accurate.
The International Building Code and the Building Construction and Safety Code, define a high-rise building as being 75 feet or greater in height measured from the lowest level of fire department vehicle access to the floor of the highest occupiable story. Denver follows the International Building Code. In real life, typically a “high-rise” is 9 stories or taller. Of course, there is a certain alliterative quality to No High-Rises in West Highland.
So Chook, with five stories plus 20 feet on the roof for utilities (Red Peak’s own description) you’re looking at 70+ feet of visible mass, for each of these three buildings. Definitely “high-rise” territory.
My copy of the constitution lacks the provision you refer to regarding the right to have political lawn signs 365 days a year – although I do see it has a provision protecting private property from government takings, which is (apparently) what you propose regarding these parcels. You will note the Denver muni code lacks this provision as well.
Unless the signs are commercial, upon which they’ll have to replaced, moved, or taken down in a few weeks.
Interestingly enough, I’m neither a liar nor a coward, just confused by your overwhelming anger. Why would I use my name when you want to swear at me? I don’t want to be sworn at.
1. Again, you’re lying. These are not “political” yard signs by any legal definition or common sense stretch of the imagination. They involve zero candidates, ballot issues, elections or political organizations. Neither are they commercial. Further, please provide substantiation for your falsehood that No Highrises is proposing any government takings. Red Peak doesn’t even own the property yet and still does not even have a city-approved plan; there’s nothing to take. The idiot property wholesaler who thought he could successfully get an erroneous zoning passed and then sell the property to a developer before the neighborhood got organized in opposition still owns the property. If the location is as valuable as Red Peak claims, even a wholesaler as dumb as this one will have zero problem finding another buyer.
2. Yeah, if you’re posting criticism anonymously here you are in fact a coward.
This is a great development! There are no good rentals in the neighborhood. We tried to rent for six months, and we ended up buying a place we didn’t love because we needed to find a place to live. I think apartments will really help people buy the house they love in the Highlands. Also, having young professionals just adds to the diversity of our neighborhood. I can’t wait. From what I’ve seen of other Red Peaks developments, the building is going to be very nice. I wonder if they’ll let neighbors buy a pass to their fitness center? That would be great! Besides, more young professionals with jobs to pay their rent mean more disposable income for the local businesses. Lastly, the parking lots are truly trashy, and definitely do not enhance our neighborhood. I hope parking gets more difficult because it will encourage people to walk, ride their bikes or take the bus. Residents like me (I live on Moncrieff) can work with the city to get resident parking, which is something we already need.
Cath, you are absolutely right; the parcels in question need to be redeveloped and a sane, respectful project would benefit the neighborhood overall. Red Peak has not proposed a sane, respectful project. It has proposed a project of such substantial mass that it will cut off sunlight, skyline views and other tangible benefits that adjacent neighbors have enjoyed for decades. Your observation about the need for resident parking on Moncrieff also is valid; but guess what happens once you get it, and we get it on Meade and Newton Streets (where I live)? It pushes the overflow further into the neighborhood and then the folks north of 33rd and west of Newton will have a problem.
By the way, a number of Highland Square businesses are preparing to publicly state their opposition to the project as currently conceived. They realize the impact on parking and traffic from cramming the project of this mass into less than a square block, right next to the most congested intersection in West Highland, will hurt their business more than the new, incremental spending will benefit it.
It’s a shame communication with neighbors has been so poor. Presented with a “done deal” message from the developer and Councilwoman Shepherd it is no surprise that the reaction has been so vocal and so negative. No one wants that kind of surprise.
EXACTLY!! I “second” your comment. I agree that is the reason this is getting so emotional and heated. the whole neighborhood would have been in the dark about this if a certain neighbor hadn’t blown the top about it. We would have all found out when the wrecking ball appeared next year. AND that’s wrong!! Why is our councilwoman “hosting” meeting’s on behalf of the Developer and NOT willing to take a meeting with the members of her district; as has been requested of her numerous times??
I’m all for infilling the vacant lots with 5 story low-rises, but are they really going to destroy the church itself? That would be a shame, and if the neighborhood really wanted to stick it to the developer they would try to designate the church as a historical landmark.
John, the last “concept” the developer publicly described would not demolish the church, although beyond their word there’s no guarantee it could not happen. We believe the developer first would have to get certification that the church building is not architecturally notable, which would require the developer to jump through more hoops they want to avoid. Initially the claim was made that the church was not architecturally notable, however about two minutes of actual research found out this claim was false.
As John Rebchook notes above, these buildings are not “low-rises” based on the International Building Code that Denver follows; at five stories plus 20 feet on the roof for utilities, they’re pushing 80 feet; well above the 75-foot threshold John R. says the Code defines as a high rise.
You’re right, those three parcels are crying out for sane, respectful infill development. However, five-story towers that plop 350+ new bodies and 200+ more cars in that area are both inappropriate and counterproductive for that location, where two of the facing streets — Meade and Moncrieff — already are so clogged that residents have trouble parking and cars can’t pass without one of them pulling over.
You should come to the community meeting on Wednesday. See if you can get the architect to explain how he plans to deal with all this new traffic that will have only three ways in or out: Onto Meade, a narrow residential street; onto Lowell/Moncrieff, a narrow residential street and congested intersection; or through the alley between Lowell/Meade.
I don’t know where you get your numbers, obviously not from any building plans that I’ve seen. Are you really considering 20ft for utilities? That is completely ridiculous, that would be equivalent to two floors of hardware for a five story building. Sorry, but I have to call BS on your claim that a five story building is a high-rise and not a low-rise.