Some opponents of the proposed RedPeak development in West Highland have filed a lawsuit to try to stop it.
Ten neighbors of the proposed trio of buildings in the heart of the trendy West Highland neighborhood have filed a lawsuit against the Denver City Council, the owners of the properties and RedPeak Properties. The $30 million to $35 million, energy-efficient development will have 147 units.
“The Highland group wants to prevent these high-rises – high-rises being five-story buildings – from being built in West Highland,” one of the group’s lawyers, Curtis R. Henry, of Littleton, told InsideRealEstateNews late Friday.
“They believe it is contrary to the character of the neighborhood.”
Most industry standards do not consider five-story buildings high-rises.
The suit, filed in Denver District Court, also said that the U-MS-5 zoning approved by the council in June 2010 will reduce property values of nearby homes.
RedPeak is proposing five-story apartment buildings on Lowell Boulevard and Meade Street, just north of West 32nd Avenue and a four-story building on West Moncrieff Place.
The lawsuit does not ask for a specific reduction in the number of stories on the respective buildings.
“It would be difficult to say what would be acceptable,” Henry said. “It is a diverse group. It would be difficult for me to summarize the group’s feelings as a whole. There are a lot of different opinions. There are differences of opinions on what the parameters should be.”
Hard to fight City Hall
He did say it is an uphill battle fighting city hall, so to speak.
“If you are asking me the possibility of success, it is probably 49 percent or less,” Henry said. “It is less likely, rather than more likely that it will succeed. But who knows? I would call it a battle.”
Neither the Denver City Attorney’s office nor RedPeak officials immediately returned calls to InsideRealEstateNews. Other defendants in the lawsuit included the limited liability companies that own the properties and are headed by Thomas Wootten, as well as Robert E. Sechler, who owns a building along Lowell Boulevard, adjacent to the Moncrieff parcel that RedPeak plans to buy.
Michael Zoellner, president of RedPeak, has 20 days to respond to the summons, which was filed on April 27.
A hearing likely would be set about three months after the response, “and the court will decide who is right,” Henry said.
Asked what happens if RedPeak starts demolition and construction before a hearing is set, Henry said: “That is putting the cart before the horse. We would cross that bridge if it comes to that.”
Construction is slated to begin this summer. RedPeak plans to preserve the main part of the church on Lowell.
Lawsuit costly
The No High Rises in West Highland, a grassroots group that opposes the development said on its website that it was important to “keep a low profile,” on the suit that is “requesting judicial review of the flawed zoning near Highland Square. After months of preparation and consulting some of the biggest names in land use law, we are confident of the merits of our case. But fighting City Hall won’t be cheap,” and is asking opponents of the apartment development to donate money. On Thursday, it held a meeting to discuss the fund-raising campaign.
This marks the biggest development in its fight against RedPeak since neighbors held a protest march at West 32nd Avenue and Lowell Boulevard about three months ago.
Such a legal fight can “cost $100,000, easily” said Daniel Markofsky, a Denver attorney. Markofsky is not involved in the suit, and does not support the No High Rise group. Indeed, he was an opponent to an earlier City Council decision to down-zone much of the Sloan’s Lake area and explored the possibility of suing the city, but decided it was too expensive to pursue.
“Good for them,” Markofsky said about the neighbors who filed the suit. “Denver hasn’t had a big land-use lawsuit for a long time. I expect I will be following this one closely.”
The suit raises a lot of the arguments that opponents have been making for months.
It said the Main Street 5 zoning is defined as applying primarily to “collector or arterial street corridors, or may be embedded within a larger commercial shopping center or mixed-use area, where a building scale of 1 to 5 stories is desired.”
The suit goes on to say the U-MS-5 zoning does not conform with the Blueprint Denver plan adopted by the City Council in 2002. Blueprint Denver, it notes, designates the West Highland neighborhood as an “area of stability,” where limited change is expected during the next 20 years.
It said the parcels in question should provide a transition from the single-family residential homes to the north to the businesses along West 32nd Avenue to the south. The suit notes that West 32nd Avenue that is near the proposed RedPeak parcels has been rezoned to U-MS-3, permitting three-story buildings.
”Therefore, properties which lie along 32nd Avenue a more heavily travelled business-oriented collector street – were zoned with a lower height limit and lower density than the Property, which is served primarily by local streets and is adjacent to a single family residential neighborhood,” according to the suit.
The suit said that the zoning to U-MS-5 was “intended to benefit, and does in fact benefit,” Wootten’s ownership groups and RedPeak.
“City Council’s decision to rezone the Property to U-MS-5 was not made with the purpose of furthering a comprehensive zoning plan and was designed to relieve the Property from generally applicable, more restrictive zoning regulations,” the suit goes on to say. “The U-MS-5 zoning for the Property negatively impacts Plaintiffs’ properties and other properties in the area, by, among other matters, reducing property values.”
Spot zoning alleged
The suit contends the ordinance approved by the council to change the zoning was “arbitrary, erroneous and not a proper exercise of the police power as applied to the Property because it was not intended to further a comprehensive general zoning plan and as a result created an impermissible spot zoning.”
The suit said the ordinance should be reversed and “remand the matter to City Council for rezoning of the Property consistent with the provisions of Blueprint Denver and in conformity with surrounding properties.”
Earlier, Susan Shepherd, the city councilwoman who represents the district, decided not to seek a downzoning of the properties, saying she had no support from other council members and it would be a waste of scarce city dollars to pursue a cause that had no chance of succeeding. Also, seeking a downzoning would jeopardize concessions that RedPeak has voluntarily agreed to, such as lowering the number of floors on the Moncrieff property to four from the five floors allowed under the zoning, she said.
Opponents, however, insist that RedPeak is not truly providing any concessions, but is acting in its own financial interest by reducing the size of the Moncrieff building. Some opponents have said that Zoellner has said RedPeak can get higher rents by having better views of downtown from the Lowell building. RedPeak officials, however, said they might be able to get $25 extra a month for a handful of units on Lowell, which pales compared to getting $1,000 to $2,000 a month on units on an additional floor on Moncrieff.
Many of the neighbors who filed the lawsuit have been active in the No High Rise group. Four of them live on Meade Street, three on West Moncrieff Place and one on Lowell Boulevard.
The plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit are Peter Brey, Don Fowler, Dennis and Lynn Keane, Todd Lilienthal, Bea Lopez, Christine Manesis, Gail and Richard Montoya, and Victoria Rozales.
Have a story idea or real estate tip? Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com. InsideRealEstateNews.com is sponsored by Universal Lending, Land Title Guarantee and 8z Real Estate.



















Lemme see. A lawsuit that hopes to prove that a zoning classification is “out of character” with the existing neighborhood, even though it’s the same height as the existing church.
Or maybe they want to prove that the nearby homeowners have monetary damages due to an inappropriate zoning classification. Considering that not one square inch of NW Denver will be going down in value in the next five years, damages would be really hard to prove.
I agree with Markofsky: this will be good entertainment value.
Great. Now you’re turning this into a sideshow that was sorta funny to stealing my tax dollars to defend the law, which was properly written.
I REALLY hope the city has a way to counter-sue and collect whatever money they have to spend to fight this continued stupidity.
Either that or someone could write a city-wide ballot issue to create a tax overlay district in West Highland to raise the money the city will have to fork over to fight this. You are now taking money the city would otherwise spend on homeless programs, food banks, Denver Health, trash collection etc. In other words to use the convoluted logic that No Highrises Uses all the time you’re now so wrapped up in this moronic fight that you’re willing to let more hungry people starve and more children die for lack of city funding for programs which help them. Would somebody in West Highland please think of the children?!?!?!?!?!?!
Talk about taking money away from the homeless…the funny thing is, that there was another bidder on those parcels that was going to build 300 low income units built out to capacity. Think of how that would have sat with the opponents of this measure. Here we are banning “urban camping”, and the same folks who supported that measure are the same ones stomping their feet over the Red Peak project. Hypocrites!
Let’s see. I think I’ll file a very expensive lawsuit and then discuss fundraising to figure out how to pay for it?!? Maybe a lemonade stand? In this situation I agree with Aaron. Donations?! I will already be spending money (my tax dollars) to defend the legally instituted zoning. Why would I donate more to the fight, so that I can then spend more tax dollars in defense? Good luck with that.
Just as an aside…when the attorney representing you says “It would be difficult to say what would be acceptable,” Henry said. “It is a diverse group. It would be difficult for me to summarize the group’s feelings as a whole. There are a lot of different opinions. There are differences of opinions on what the parameters should be.”
Most finders of fact kindof want you to figure out what you want, and how you have been damaged, before you start filing lawsuits. Or maybe the members of this group could sue each other!
These folks have a better chance at winning a jackpot on a penny slot at the AmeriStar Casino.
I hope Red Peak starts demolition tomorrow and accidently knocks down that ugly church.
What an absolute waste of time and money, what they should do is pool their money to buy the 12 story building at 32nd and Julian and tear it down, it’s the only thing out of character in the neighborhood.
And a building that is barely larger than a church is their target?
someone needs more cheese with their wine
Any update as to where this stands?