Tuesday night, concerned residents heard more on a controversial rezoning in West Highland.
Take a poll at the end of this blog
District 1 City Councilwoman said she expects to lead the effort to downzone three parcels in the heart of West Highland, which have been the subject of a grassroots battle against a proposed development for the past two months.
Shepherd told about 200 people gathered Tuesday night at a West Highland Neighborhood Association meeting with city officials regarding the history of the rezoning of the three parcels just north of West 32nd Avenue at Lowell Boulevard that she would seek input from District 1 residents until 5 p.m. Friday, Dec. 16 and then would proceed with whatever alternative supported by the majority.
“I would expect that would be a downzoning,” Shepherd told InsideRealEstateNews following the meeting at the Highland Event Center at Julian Street and West 29th Avenue.
On Wednesday, she said it will be up to the neighborhood what downzoning to seek, but she is thinking of U-MS-3, which would allow three-story buildings.
A grassroots group, No High Rises in West Highland, has obtained more than 1,300 signatures opposed to a plan by Denver-based RedPeak Properties to build three, five-story luxury apartment buildings on Lowell Boulevard, Moncrieff Place and Meade Street.
However, not all of the people who have signed a petition against the proposed project are from Shepherd’s district in north Denver.
“I represent District 1,” and will not use input from people outside of the district when reaching her decision, she said.
Shepherd seeks input
Those wanting to vote can send emails to district1comments@denvergov.org. Shepherd said she would appreciate it if people sent her their names and addresses, so she could be sure they are residents of District 1.
Based on letters, calls and emails she already has received, Shepherd is all but certain that the majority of the people want her to back a downzoning against the wishes of the property owner.
Other options could include convincing the city council to approve an ordinance that would place a moratorium on any development, until the issues is resolved, or creating an “overlay” zoning that could make zoning more restrictive on the three parcels, currently zoned U-MS-5, which allows five-story buildings.
Larry Ambrose, a lawyer who had previously had competed with Shepherd for the District 1 seat, said he favors an overlay district, which also would downzone much of 32nd Avenue between Julian and Meade Streets, which would allow three-story buildings under the new zoning, U-MS-3 for that stretch.
“When the properties in the U-MS-3 along 32nd are built out, the RedPeak development will actually not be so out of scale,” Ambrose said. “It is the MS-3 that is out of scale with the existing context of the neighborhood that will destroy the existing character of the business district and will have even more drastic impacts on the neighborhood than the RedPeak development.”
Overlay strategy
It also might be a sounder legal strategy to downzone the entire area, rather than focusing on those three parcels, he said.
“RedPeak is likely to have a good claim against the city for targeting just their zoned lots,” Ambrose said. “The city will have actual justification for rezoning if it addresses the whole over-zoning of the district rather than one development.”
Based on people who have contacted her to date, Shepherd said about 10 percent favor the RedPeak project, there is a core No High Rises group that vehemently opposes it, and a number of people in the middle, whose top choice may not be five-story buildings, but have specific questions on the impact, such as parking and traffic.
“It’s a complicated issue,” because it not only involves the wishes of constituents, but property right issues, Shepherd said following the meeting, in which members of the Denver Community Planning and Development agency explained how the three parcels in question had been zoned from R-4 to U-MS-5. R-4, which no longer exits under last year’s largest overhaul of Denver’s zoning code in 50 years, would have allowed buildings of a maximum of 75 feet, or six stories on the site. Typically, R-4 had no height limitations, but in this case it did because of its proximity to residential houses.
Susan Shepherd, who represents District 1, expects that she will move to downzone land in West Highland, against the wishes of the property owners.
Many in attendance were not satisfied with the answers by the planners, who said they had walked the site, but decided to go with the U-MS-5 (Urban Main Street) zoning because of the parcels proximity to the West 32nd retail and restaurant district, the walkability of the area the existing R-4 zoning, and the grid layout of streets. They acknowledged that the West Highland Neighborhood Association had protested the U-MS-5 zoning.
Not an error
Caryn Wenzara, a principal planner, told the audience several times that the U-MS-5 zoning was not an “error,” as many opponents have claimed, at least not in a specific, legal sense. Rather, the U-MS-5 zoning was a deliberate, open process to find the best solution for the parcels, given their urban context and the current R-4 zoning. She said she was aware of the preponderance of single-family homes surrounding the lots, noting that at times there are no easy answer to find the best zoning solution for rezoning parcels, in keeping with the spirit of Blueprint Denver, the zoning and transportation guide for the city.
Shepherd’s position “is a step in the right direction,” said Laura Goode, one of the founders of the no high-rises group. However, she said she expects Shepherd to lobby hard with other council members to approve the downzoning.
Shepherd said she checked with the city attorney’s office and she will be able to lobby other city members, if she seeks to downzone the parcels.
Downzoning not a slam dunk
However, it is sure to be difficult to get the council to go along with a downzoning.
Tom Wootten, head of a group that purchased the parcels more than four years ago, said they will file a legal challenge, if it proceeds with a downzoning.
That means a super-majority of the council would need to approve it – 10 of the 12 members (since Shepherd would need to recuse herself.)
Wootten, whose group is selling the land to RedPeak, said he was disappointed to learn of Shepherd’s willingness to downzone the land.
“We have yet to talk to Susan Shepherd, but we would expect that she would reach out to us, the property owners, in the discussion, as well as the neighbors,” Wootten said.
Wootten said that a downzoning would have dire consequences for the future of development and the economy of the entire city.
“Any attempt to downzone our property has to be viewed in a greater context than our site,” Wootten said. “This is a fundamental attack on private property rights in the City and County of Denver. It raises the question of what does this do to everyone who has zoned property that provides certain rights and responsibilities.
Downzoning called “catastrophic”
“It really is something that has the potentially to undue the entire zoning code, which, is far bigger than our properties in West Highland,” Wootten continued. “I think what could happen is that investment and development within the City and County of Denver could come to a complete standstill. No one will feel comfortable in investing in a city where it turns out that zoning doesn’t mean what the zoning says. The precedent this sets could be catastrophic.”
The RedPeak development alone is estimated to be about a $35 million project.
Wootten said he is surprised and dismayed by the outrage that some neighbors have expressed over the U-MS-5 zoning.
“We feel the zoning in place is appropriate,” Wootten said. “It was put in place in a very open, very transparent and very public and deliberate process.”
He said that there is a lot of “misinformation being deployed.” For one, the five-story buildings are not high-rises, as they do not meet the technical definition of a high-rise. He also said that the no high rise groups willingness to use drawings of proposed buildings that will look nothing like RedPeak is planning is inappropriate.
Beyond that, he bristles at the notion that he and his group somehow used their “clout” to push through the U-MS-5 zoning.
“First, that presumes we have political clout, which we do not,” Wootten said. “In any case, that is not the way we do things.That would be inappropriate. Nothing was done behind closed doors. There were no closed doors. It was all done in open, public meetings. Some of the people who are now against it, had no problems with the zoning at the time.”
He said he finds it “offensive” that some neighbors have accused him of cutting deals behind the scenes. “That not only impugns my integrity, but impugns the integrity of everyone involved in the city that was involved in the process.”
Planners, not landowner, proposed zoning
Beyond that, he said although he thinks the U-MS-5 zoning is the correct designation for his land, he said it wasn’t even his idea.
“I don’t believe we ever made any specific recommendations,” Wootten said. “We thought it was a good zoning change because it allowed ground-floor retail uses and was in line with the R-4 zoning, which I believe had been in place for something like 50 years. The ability to build density on those sites had been in place for a very long time. My recollection is that the CPD (Community Planning and Development) staff weighed all of the various information they gathered, including information they obtained from stakeholders, such as us and the neighbors, and reached their own independent decision.”
Since his group has owned his land, a number of proposals have been floated for the parcels, including a subsidized, affordable rental project by Mercy Housing, as earlier reported by InsideRealEstateNews.
“At one point, the city even floated the idea of building structured parking on one of those sites,” Wootten said. “While that might have addressed some of the parking needs of the area, I think the proposal that RedPeak is working on really is the best one and the right one for the neighborhood.”
RedPeak, in a statement released today, had this to say:
“The property has been zoned R-4 since 1961 (50-years) and recently lost height and density when the city rezoned the site to C-MS-5 during the Zoning Code Update in 2010. We are continuing to work with the neighborhood and look forward to convening the first design advisory committee tonight with representatives from the neighborhood organization, merchants association, Councilwoman Shepherd’s Office, and the No Highrises group.”
Loading ...Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com
I’d rather see the City work with the property owner and developer to come up with a more appropriate building mass for the site and neighborhood, but I do not want to see a down zoning without the property owner’s permission. That is blatant destruction of value of real property. The City might as well use eminent domain to take the property and give it to the neighbors if they want to prevent development. Down zoning without the owners’ consent is setting a dangerous precedent that I don’t want to see.
So the mob rules?
What you guys probably don’t know is that the property owner was aware that these properties were scheduled to be zoned for 2 stories when he bought them and the seller priced the lots according to the anticipated 2 story zoning that was in the works. After Tom Wooten got a smoking deal on the lots, he lobbied the city to change the zoning.
Just wanted to make sure that the professional development mongers here know the true story before you start screaming about “taking” and destruction of value.
Just to set the record straight, I checked with Denver’s Community Planning and Development department and I was assured that there was no way any landowner could have known how their land was going to be rezoned in October 2007, when Tom Wootten’s group bought the three parcels. “You would have to be clairvoyant,” to know how the zoning on any individual parcel would be changed in 2007, because the new zoning code had not yet been written, I was told. It is true, as I earlier reported, that CPD initially had recommended that the parcels be zoned for a maximum of two-story buildings and that was later changed to U-MS-5, allowing five-story buildings.
Jeff, you are incorrect. The current landowners bought the parcels in October 2007. While it is true the parcels were initially recommended to allow only 2-story buildings, that was not until 2009. In 2007, no landowner could have known how their land would be rezoned under the new code, which was still a work in progress.
Following is a letter I sent to District 1 Susan Councilwoman.
Thank you for continuing to listen to your constituents on the issue of downzoning the parcel at 32nd and Lowell.
I am writing in OPPOSITION to any downzoning. I’ve written you already to let you know that I support the project moving ahead and think that the downzoning sets a bad precedent. As I noted previously, I have no ties to this project other than being a local resident in favor of smart urban development.
To reiterate my position:
1. Downzoning without the property owner’s support sets a new, and wholly different, precedent for the city of Denver. At a time when our city’s development goals focus strongly on promoting smart infill development, we as a city run the risk of doing the exact opposite if a developer, in addition to all the other concerns associated with a new project, has to be concerned with a possible ad hoc re-zoning process that occurs due to neighborhood pressure. This is particularly frustrating to me given the recent public process that resulted in the current zoning – where was this opposition then? I fear a downzoning here could lead to much larger property rights issues which, on net, could be quite bad for future development in our city.
2. Tax revenue: There are significant cost savings to the city associated with bringing in new property tax revenue from this project while using existing infrastructure rather than having to provide new, expensive infrastructure. Further, the per square foot property tax revenue from a project of this type significantly outstrips most other development types and I argue this shouldn’t be overlooked given the fiscal challenges our city is facing.
3. Parking: Many opponents seem to base their opposition to the project on the perception that parking will become worse. Rather than let what is at best a secondary concern related to perceived personal convenience derail a sound project, I recommend taking a wider view beyond this project to consider a larger parking management program. For instance, the city could consider what the city of San Francisco is implementing to place a market value on this scarce resource by utilizing demand management features.
4. Support for local business: Adding hundreds of new residents steps from the corner of 32nd and Lowell will be a net positive to the wonderful array of businesses located there as well as have knock-on effects for other areas such as the Tennyson street corridor. This will result in additional sales tax revenue for the city while supporting the economic diversity that we as local residents cherish.
6. Sustainability: This project is a great step toward the goals outlined in the city’s GreenPrint Denver. By developing energy efficient, infill development, this developer helps bring hundreds of residents into the city where they are likely to drive less, better utilize existing infrastructure and use less energy per capita relative to many other development patterns.
7. Given the projected rents associated with this project, the project’s tenants will likely earn salaries significantly above the median income for the metro area. Thus, these tenants may have significantly more disposable income to support local businesses as noted above and, if employed in the city, will also generate additional income tax. Further, given the demographic projections, it’s unlikely they would have school-age children thereby reducing the burden on our local schools; these tenants would also help expand and diversify the residential make-up of our neighborhood.
Finally, I want to add that I find the approach that some opponents are taking to this project disheartening. I’m saddened that this has driven some residents who oppose this project to act in ways that are at odds with the friendly and neighborly character that is such a strong part of our North Denver neighborhood. I appreciate that you have tried to remain above the fray and consider this issue objectively.
Thank you for considering my position on this matter and for your continued service to the city.
People are jumping to conclusions regarding this project. The actual design hasn’t even been formally presented yet (the opposition group made-up their own rendering, and are passing it around as if it’s “fact” — they even admitted to it in a previous article). This project can be another great thing for the neighborhood.