District 1 Councilwoman Susan Shepherd will not seek to downzone parcels in Northwest Denver.

Denver City Councilwoman Susan Shepherd announced today that she will not seek to downzone three parcels in West Highland,  saying she has reached a “significant compromise” with developer RedPeak Properties.

Shepherd, who represents District 1 in Northwest Denver, in an interview, said it would have been “irresponsible” for her to seek a downzoning, especially since RedPeak agreed to lower the height of one building to four stories from five stories.

“I really felt we made these incredible gains through the stakeholders group and me working with RedPeak and the city’s public works department,” Shepherd said. “I think it would not have been prudent to antagonize RedPeak by seeking a downzoning and risk losing all of these concessions.” She said that RedPeak never threatened to renig on concessions, “but the risk of that happening was just too great.”

She said she had approached a number of fellow council members on numerous occasions about the possibility of seeking a moratorium or a downzoning.”I approached my colleagues several times and I just never got any traction. I’m just too practical to waste my time on things I know have no chance. I would rather spend my time on productive measures.”

About a month ago, she told InsideRealEstateNews that she would not let West Highland “turn into LoHi on her watch.” She said that she still stands by that and with the commitments from RedPeak and the public works department she believes that problems with traffic, safety and parking can be mitigated to a large degree.

However, she said she knows she will get a lot of flack for her decision. Shepherd said she is concerned about her safety and the safety of her staff, especially in light of an incident last month in which two women came to her home on an evening that ended in a shouting match and threats of a recall election. “We have taken safety precautions for myself and for my staff.” Asked if that meant increased police patrols around her house and the homes of her staff, she said: “Yes.”

Hancock praises Shepherd

Mayor Michael B. Hancock, in a statement this evening, applauded the collaborative work on the Red Peak development:

“Robust public engagement is critical to move Denver forward and no one has worked harder than Councilwoman Shepherd to represent all parties involved in this issue,” Hancock said. “By working collaboratively, we are able to maintain the integrity of the Denver’s development process and zoning code while respecting the residents’ concerns and the rights of the developers. In order to drive job creation, boost economic development and ensure livability of our neighborhoods, the city is dedicated to maintaining predictability in our zoning and how it’s applied throughout Denver.”

Goode: Shepherd is “spineless”

Shepherd’s decision did not go over well with Laura Goode, the founder of the grassroots group, No High Rises in West Highland.

“She has no backbone,” Goode said. “She has no spine. She has shown the community that she is spineless. She has shown she is unwilling to stand up to the establishment and the powers that be. She does not have the capacity to lead the community.”

Asked if her group would support a recall of Shepherd, Goode said she did not know, because she must discuss it with other members.

Trevor Greco, posted this missive this afternoon on the No High Rises in Highlands Facebook page: “Neighbors and friends, you may have seen Councilwoman Shepherd’s letter today. While disappointing, please know that the neighborhood still has several tools in its toolbox to ensure sustainable development in Historic Highland Square. Please remain calm and supportive of every initiative you hear of, that can make a positive difference for the neighborhood we love, in a constructive and democratic way.”

Kevin Neimond, president of the West Highland Neighborhood Association noted that the WHNA recently passed a motion urging Shepherd to seek a legislative solution that involves down-zoning the three parcels in question.

“Certainly we are disappointed to learn that she has opted against legislative action,” Neimond said.  ”We do, however, realize that finding a solution to the development issue that is amicable to the community that calls West Highland home and to the developer is a marathon, not a sprint.  We look forward to continuing our work on the Stakeholder Design Group and our efforts to reduce the height and size of the proposed buildings.”

RedPeak released this statement: “RedPeak would like to commend Councilwoman Susan Shepherd for her decision that she will not support a down zoning of the properties included in RedPeak’s planned multi-family development in West Highland.  Councilwoman Shepherd has been successful in facilitating a productive dialogue between RedPeak and the neighborhood through the Design Advisory Committee which has resulted in compromises that improve the design of the project and respond to neighborhood concerns, but also respects the vested property rights under the MS-5 zoning.  This decision helps solidify the strength and predictability of Denver’s zoning code and will help attract future capital investment in the City of Denver.”

The building proposed on Moncrieff  now will be 47 feet tall, which is only two feet taller than the maximum 45 feet allowable height under U-MS-3 zoning, which allows a maximum of three stories. Earlier, Shepherd had indicated if she could not seek an agreement with RedPeak, which also has parcels on Meade Street and Lowell Boulevard under contract, she would likely seek to rezone at least the parcels on Meade and Moncrieff to U-MS-3. That was acceptable to the leaders of the No High Rise group, which more recently urged Shepherd to seek a downzoning, even if it is highly unlikely to be passed by the City Council. It would have needed a super-majority vote of 10 of the 12 votes, with Shepherd recusing herself. City Council President Chris Nevitt and council members Charlie Brown and Jeanne Robb already have said or indicated they would not vote for a downzoning, dooming any such measure.

Concessions could be lost

“I believe pursuing a down-zoning against the property owner’s wishes would be counter-productive and could potentially jeopardize the significant gains we have made, as the developer would be under no further obligation to honor concessions made to date,” Shepherd said in a statement. “Due to the extremely unlikely possibility of affirmative legislative action to rezone the three parcels or enact a moratorium, I believe prudent leadership means focusing energy on the things we can change: mitigating development impacts and advocating for design elements that respect the character of our neighborhood. We have already made significant gains but there is much more work to be done. I will continue to with all sides to address issues and settle differences as we work through this difficult process together.”

In a letter to the “community,” that Shepherd also released today, she wrote: “Many who oppose the Red Peak development have asked me to carry a down-zoning application or moratorium on the three parcels. On December 6th I told the community I hoped to make a decision regarding a possible legislative effort later in the month. Upon some consideration and reflection, it became clear to me the importance of working with the community, the city and Red Peak to fully pursue options for addressing community concerns regarding the proposed development. After numerous meetings with WHNA members and concerned neighbors, Council colleagues, city attorneys, and officials from Community Planning and Development and Public Works, I have determined an effort at down-zoning or a moratorium is not a constructive path towards rectifying this challenging situation. Not only would they be futile efforts but could place at risk many of the development concessions my office and local efforts have secured from Red Peak the past few months.”

A rendering of what the RedPeak building could look like on Meade Street.

Shepherd asked RedPeak to voluntarily consider reducing the height and mass on the buildings on the Meade and Moncrieff parcels in January, following extensive neighborhood feedback. She was especially concerned about buildings on those parcels because of their proximity to historic one- and two-story homes.

“Red Peak had responded earlier to part of my request by reducing height on the Meade parcel to 55 feet from a 70 foot maximum allowable buildout under MS-5, essentially reducing building mass by approximately 50 percent,” Shepherd said.

“With today’s commitment, we can announce to the neighborhood that Red Peak has reduced the Moncrieff parcel from five stories to four (stories) with a building height cap of 47 feet, which is only two feet higher than maximum allowable buildout under an MS-3 designation. Additionally, with these reductions, we have managed to achieve a 69 percent reduction in mass on this particular parcel, which I believe is significant.”

Since December Red Peak has been meeting with a design advisory group to both improve the design and mitigate impacts of this project. Shepherd reports that neighbor outreach to her office has consistently highlighted concerns about the project in five major categories:

• Building height
• Mass
• Density
• Parking
• Traffic

She highlighted a list of compromises the stakeholder group and her office have secured to date:older group and the her office have secured to date:

 Building Height

Parcel A, (Meade Street) has been reduced to 55 feet from a 70 foot maximum allowable buildout under MS-5. Parcel B (Lowell) has been reduced to 60 feet from 70 feet. Parcel C (Moncrieff) has been reduced from five stories to four stories, and to 47 feet from 70, only 2 feet higher than the maximum allowable buildout under the current MS-3 designation.

 Building Mass

The building mass on Meade and Lowell have been reduced approximately 50 percent from a maximum allowable buildout under MS-5, as expressed in cubic feet Because of the reduction from five to four stories on Moncrieff , that particular building mass has been reduced by 69 percent  from maximum allowable buildout under MS-5.

 Density

Unit numbers have been reduced to 147 from an initial plan for 160.

Parking & Traffic

Red Peak is working hard to alleviate traffic and parking issues on their end, Shepherd said. That includes providing 47 more off- street parking spaces than required by code, and committing resources for a B-Cycle station near

West 32nd Avenue and Lowell Boulevard.

Public Works has made a firm commitment to conducting a comprehensive traffic and parking inventory which will commence in the next few months, sooner if possible, she noted. These inventories will:

•  Evaluate the current parking inventory in terms of supply and demand to establish reliable baseline numbers for current parking and traffic conditions before construction activity begins.
•  Evaluate the traffic control devices, counts, and signal timing in the area and make adjustments as needed before construction begins.
•  Re-evaluate the parking and traffic conditions again after the development is built and occupied so that new trends and issues can be identified, and shared solutions with the community can be evaluated.
•  Additionally, to enhance pedestrian safety and crosswalk visibility to drivers, at the Councilwoman’s request public works has agreed to refresh the crosswalk/stop bar markings to be brighter and more clearly defined at the five signalized intersections on 32nd Ave from Irving Street to Sheridan Boulevard and will also install countdown pedestrian traffic signals.

Nevitt, the council president, lauded Shepherd’s decsion.

“Rather than taking on an un-winnable fight and getting nothing for her constituents, Councilwoman Shepherd is showing admirable wisdom and pragmatism by focusing on negotiating for real and meaningful changes to the project that will actually benefit her community,” Nevitt said. “While not always popular in the short term, this is leadership for the long term.”

Goode, however, said that Shepherd should have launched legislative action to downzone the parcels even if it had no chance of passing.

“I told Nevitt…If you don’t agree with it, don’t vote for it. It happens in Congress all of the time. Shepherd should have introduced legislation to downzone the properties to show solidarity with the community. Her decision is very unfortunate.”

Before Shepherd released the letter, councilwoman Robb indicated that she would not have supported a downzoning. Because a motion is “quasi-judicial,” she said she could not address it specifically. “Hypothetically, I gave my word when we did the zoning code update to property owners and constituents alike that these were sound arguments and we would not just turn around and change them,” Robb said. “I do not believe that the zoning in northwest Denver for moderate density was a mistake. I agree with Chris Nevitt that a case could have made for two or three different alternatives for those properties with U-MS-5 being one of them.”

She added that she had met with opponents to the zoning. “They did make some cogent arguments, especially regarding Moncrieff, because of its proximity to homes. But then they also said that they thought all of 32nd Avenue had been mis-zoned and I told them that really hurts your argument. Should we just call the whole zoning code update a huge mistake and just throw it out the window and start again? That’s not going to happen.”

Robb also said that while the West Highland Neighborhood Association went on record as opposing the zoning, she said no one showed up at numerous public meetings to oppose it. “I know. I was at all of them. If it was such a serious mistake there were numerous public meetings where people could have gone on the record of opposing it, and they did not.” The WHNA had submitted its opposition and its ideas for alternative zoning designations on the parcels owned by an investment group headed by Tom Wootten with the city’s Community Planning and Development agency.

Shepherd noted that when elected to District One in the summer of 2011, “I began my tenure with little background or information about the three parcel sites encompassing the Red Peak development, along Lowell, Meade and Moncrieff. It quickly became clear as I first learned of the proposed development that there was a rich history of community dialogue the previous five years involving the two previous District One council representatives and local neighborhood interests such as the West Highlands Neighborhood Association (WHNA), as the City and County of Denver pursued the adoption of the new Zoning Code. After carefully researching and studying this history and the resulting zoning adopted in the new Zoning Code passed unanimously by City Council in 2009, I believe the Meade and Moncrieff sites are not ideally suited for the MS-5 zoning designation.”

But in an interview, Shepherd said that the concessions from RedPeak, while they will not satisfy everyone, are major.

“I’ve really hammered RedPeak. The concessions they have made, not only on the four-stories on Moncrieff, but the reduction in the mass of the overall project , are really significant.”

Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com

Related Posts:

• Dowzoning unlikely
• Shepherd details Dec. 6 RedPeak meeting
• Neighbors file suit against RedPeak, City Council
• No High Risers Let Their Freak Flags Fly
• Post editorial supports RedPeak

Laura Goode poses next to a sign for the grassroots group she co-founded.

Take a poll at the end of this blog.

It was billed as a community update meeting on the fight against a proposed development in the heart of West Highland, which it was.

But Monday night’s packed meeting in the Highland Church – ground-zero for a plan that  calls for three, five-story luxury apartment buildings in the heart of the trendy neighborhood, was every bit as much as a brainstorming and strategy session as how stop the development in the current form proposed by Denver-based RedPeak Properties. Another meeting on the topic is scheduled for tonight.

The two-hour No High Rises in Northwest Denver meeting on Monday was held in the church that would be partially razed to make way for the multi-million dollar development, scheduled to start construction next year. The neighborhood-developer dispute was described as a “David and Goliath” battle that would require a “Tim Tebow-styled” drive to win against the $400 million RedPeak against heavy odds, since it is allowed to build the 160-unit community under the current zoning.

Laure Goode, and her husband Dave Jungkind, co-founders of the grassroots group No High Rises in Northwest Denver, were preaching to the choir from the church’s basement.

“We are 100 percent, unequivocally, unabashedly opposed to this project. We are not going to be ignored, we are not going away,” Goode said.

1,300 strong

She noted that since the group was created in early October, a time when many neighbors learned for the first time of the plans, which had been approved by City Council in June 2010, more than 1,300 people have signed a petition against it.

“It’s truly amazing,” Goode said. She noted almost 300 people attended a meeting with RedPeak officials two weeks earlier, with many voicing opposition.

“My faith was renewed with my neighbors,” she said.

Another meeting, hosted by the West Highland Neighborhood Association, will be held starting at 7 tonight at at the Highland Event Center at 2945 Julian St. The moderated session will include representatives from Denver’s Community Planning and Development agency, to answer questions why the land was zoned from R-4 to U-MS-5. R-4 normally had no height restriction, but because of the proximity to residential units, in this case would have allowed a maximum height of 75 feet, which equates to six stories.  U-MS-5, by contrast, allows five-story buildings. However, at one point the parcels were recommended to have only two  stories, but that was changed after being presented at several neighborhood meetings.

Monday night, the foundation for the opposition was outlined on a large piece of paper at the front of the room. Fears about the development in its current form include:

•   More traffic, less congestion.
•   Blocked skylines and mountain views.
•   Significant shadow castings to adjacent properties.
•   Disruptions to the neighborhood’s aesthetics and historical character.
•    Affected property values.
•    Increased noise.
•    Destroying business for local merchants.

Goode did note, however, later in the meeting, that some merchants could likely benefit from the 300 or so new renters in the neighborhood, although she many would suffer because consumers wouldn’t be able to find parking. Parking for nearby retailers also will be lost, she said.

A drawing displayed that was based on what the original architect’s preliminary drawing, and modified by the group, was seen as an especially potent weapon to convince others to oppose the plan, according to a number of people on the audience.

However, that plan, by Humphries Poli, has been scrapped by RedPeak. The current architect, Brad Buchanan of RNL Design, is starting from scratch. Earlier, Buchanan said he thinks he can mitigate many of the fears of the neighborhood, but that is a hard sell. Goode said that design elements amount to “what color and what brand of lipstick you are putting on a pig.”

Although it is not a design being contemplated being used by RedPeak, Goode was urged to display the image as much as possible on its website and in the media. Goode said that the

Although this drawing, modified by a grassroots group opposing the development, does not represent RedPeak's current plan, many opponents feel it illustrates their fears and could help them convince others to join the fight against it.

Denver Post, Westword and TV stations have shown interest in covering the battle. One woman offered to print 1,000 posters with the drawing.

While vehemently opposed to this development, Goode emphasized that she and most of the neighbors are not opposed to seeing the parcels developed to a lesser extent.

“We are not anti-development,” Goode said. “I think that responsible development is good and healthy for the economy. But this is an irresponsible development.”

An official from RedPeak declined to comment today, saying the company would likely release a statement on Wednesday, following tonight’s meeting. And while no one spoke in favor of the proposal on Monday night, some observers have worried that changing the zoning against the will of the property owner after a lengthy, public process, is a violation of property rights and could send the wrong message to developers citywide, stifling economic development if developers could not count on retaining their zoning rights.

Zoning called an “error”

At the heart of the opposition, is that many believe the zoning is an error, as MS, or Main Street zoning, is not appropriate on local streets such as Meade, Lowell Boulevard and Moncrieff Place. Rather, it should be reserved for busier streets, such as West 38th Avenue, Colfax Avenue and Federal Boulevard, they argue. Because it is correcting an error, it would not set a precedent for similar battles, they contend.

A number of people also noted that Blueprint Denver, the overall development guide for Denver, considers that part of West Highland an area of stability, not change.

These issues all are expected to be addressed again tonight.

On the other hand, one person in the audience suggested that No High in West Highland form a coalition with other neighborhood groups across Denver to give it citywide clout. He other parts of the city may very well experience other unwanted zoning changes that could catch neighbors unaware.

One “next step” addressed was to determine the feasibility of calling a moratorium or “time-out” on the project. The WHNA, the No High Rises in West Highland, RedPeak, nearby merchants, and District 1 City Councilwoman Susan Shepherd, also are putting together a 10-person panel to discuss a number of issues around the proposed project, such as parking, traffic, shadows and sewage.

Goode, and several audience members, also said that they want a clear, near-term deadline for Shepherd to say when she will take steps to down-zone the parcels and fight to convince other council members to go along with her.

Shepherd would need to recuse herself from any downzoning that she initiated and it would require a super-majority, or 10 votes, to change the zoning against the owner’s will. RedPeak has the land under contract from a group headed by Tom Wootten.

A drawing depicts how a 5-story building might compare with a typical home.

A number of people in the audience said that if Shepherd does not fight for a downzoning, she will not be re-elected. Some even talked of launching  a recall election.

But Goode divorced herself and her group from a recall. Goode, in an email sent to InsideRealEstateNews at 3:25 a.m. today,  said she and the leadership group of No High Rises in Northwest Group “are not supporting any recall efforts at this time. Wee were actually contacted and asked if we would put our names on the list of people issuing a recall…We told them in writing that no person on the leadership group would lend their name to this application list.”

She said while others are free to “choose their own paths,” she noted that the group is still actively working with Shepherd on the issue.

“We are a grassroots organization here and as I’ve told others, we can’t control (nor do we try) what others will say or do,” Goode continued. “Folks have taken up all different sides to this issue – it’s just the nature of the beast I suppose. There were a few folks who  approached me at the community meeting a few weeks ago and broached the topic of recall with me; I told them what I’m telling you now.  We aren’t supporting this at this time.”

Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com

Related Posts:

• Hick’s house sale fails
• Shepherd won’t seek downzoning
• Old zoning allowed tall buildings
• Overlay district proceeds
• RedPeak plot thickens

Mike Zoellner, President and CEO of RedPeak Properties, has deep roots in Northwest Denver.

Mike Zoellner recently learned that his grandmother once lived in an apartment above what is now Mondo Vino, the popular wine and spirits shop at the corner of Lowell Boulevard and West 32nd Avenue in West Highland.

Zoellner is President and CEO of Denver-based RedPeak Properties, which is planning three, five-story buildings just north of that intersection on three former church properties.

“My Mom told me granny, as we called her, used to live above the Mondo Vino building, after we got involved in this project,” Zoellner said. “I didn’t know that before.”

Zoellner, however, did know that he and his wife’s family have deep roots in northwest Denver.

Generations in the ‘hood

“My mother went to North High School and my dad grew up in North Denver,” Zoellner said this week. “My dad went to St. Catherine’s grade school and my wife’s dad went to St. Dominic’s. My wife’s family lived in a house near 46th and Lowell, just down the street from our project, for 35 years. I went to Regis High School at 50th and Lowell. Charlie, my father-in-law, graduated from Regis College (now Regis University.) And my wife, Nancy, is on the board of Arrupe Jesuit High School,” at 4343 Utica St.

Zoellner is a regular at numerous establishments along West 32nd Avenue.

He likes the Coral Room, and earlier this year took his entire board to lunch at bang! for lunch as part of a tour of the area. (“We walked through that little alley and sat in the patio in the back. It was fantastic.”) In the past, he’s shared many a meal with fellow developer Chuck Perry, at Highland’s Garden Cafe, which is owned by Chuck’s wife, Patricia. Zoellner has watched numerous sporting events  at Three Dogs Tavern with his kids.

Indeed, it is his familiarity with the area that motivated him to want to develop three prime real estate parcels in the heart of West Highland.

Some experts privately say that even those who oppose the project, should be grateful that is is RedPeak that has the land under contract and not an out-of-state developer that only cares about maximizing profits.

“I think we’re lucky to have a Denver-based company like RedPeak with deep roots in the area that apparently builds really high-quality project and that he has hired Brad Buchanan as an architect, who seems to have a lot of sensitivity to historical structures,” said District 1 City Councilwoman Susan Shepherd, who represents the area.

“I’m really hoping that they can come up with a plan that will be sensitive to the area and ultimately will help the neighborhood become even more vibrant and successful,” Shepherd said.  “We shall see.”

Many neighbors no fan of RedPeak’s proposal

Zoellner is aware that there is a grassroots movement that despises his development. Although the buildings are allowed under the current zoning, vocal opponents fear that it will change the character of the area, and bring an intolerable level of traffic congestion to what is already the busiest intersection in the trendy neighborhood.

Many would like to see those parcels on Lowell Boulevard, Moncrieff and Meade Street developed, but at a lower-density than the 160-units that RedPeak plans. The development also would include as many as 225 parking spaces and 10,000 square feet of retail. Some neighbors, however, believe even constructing more parking spaces than required under code isn’t good enough, as friends and other visitors will be competing for already scarce parking spaces on nearby streets.

Zoellner, however, said that a lower-density development is not financially feasible. RedPeak anticipates to be able to rent units for about $2 per square foot, which is $1,400 a month for a typical, 700-square-foot unit. On a per-square-foot basis, that is about double the rent of all apartments in Denver. However, $1,400 a month is in line with the average monthly rent for a downtown or near downtown rental building with five or more stories, shows the most recent apartment survey by University of Denver business professor Gordon Von Stroh.

Opposition born out of  concern

Although it may seem counter-intuitive for a developer,  Zoellner said he thinks the neighborhood opposition is a good thing, and reinforces his desire to develop the sites.

A neighbor of the church to be redeveloped has planted a sign opposing it.

The passion of the opposition, he said, shows that the local residents care deeply about their neighborhood. That kind of attitude is one of the draws of West Highland, which will encourage renters who either can’t afford to buy a home in the area or would prefer not to buy a home, he said.

“The neighbors there are a very close-knit group,” Zoellner said. “They talk a lot; they are a very social group. They have a big street fair on 32nd each year and there are a lot of block parties on individual streets. They support local businesses, I think, in a big way.

“All of these things make me think this is a neighborhood where I want to be in for the long-term. From an investment perspective, we very seldom sell our buildings at RedPeak. We’re not someone who comes in, leases up a building and sells it for a big profit. We’re very long-term investors. This is a neighborhood where we want to be for the a very long-term. We think we will be a very good neighbor.”

That likely will be a tough sell for many expected to attend a “listening session” next week.  Zoellner, however,  he will not be able to attend the neighborhood meeting that starts at 6 p.m. next Wednesday, Nov. 16, at 2945 Julian St. The session, sponsored by Shepherd and City Councilwoman Robin Kniech, is the first public meeting between RedPeak and neighbors.

Zoellner would like to attend, but he is already committed to go to one of the few events that he could imagine that is even more important.

“I can’t go because I will be attending my mother’s 80th birthday party,” Zoellner said.

Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com

Related Posts:

• 3 stories in West Highland?
• Neighbors file suit against RedPeak, City Council
• Shepherd won’t seek downzoning
• Post editorial supports RedPeak
• Dowzoning unlikely

The prospective buyer of Gov. John Hickenlooper's house has decided to pass on purchasing it.

The developer who had Gov. John Hickenlooper’s rental home under contract in northwest Denver, today told InsideRealEstateNews that he has decided not to buy it.

Mike Mathieson, principal of Form + Function Development, said after looking at the home again on Sunday at 4564 W. Moncrieff Place, in West Highland, he decided today that he had too much on his plate at this point to tackle the home’s needed renovation to re-sell it for a profit.

“I decided to pass on it today,” said Mathieson, who earlier had developed a duplex down the street from the governor’s rental, in which each each unit sold for $575,000. He also has a number of other high-end spec homes on the market in northwest Denver and Platt Park.

Concentrating on the new

“It was just going to require too much work and I decided I should concentrate on my new construction projects at this time,” Mathieson said.

Mathieson said he was planning to buy the home for $325,000, which what the listing broker, Juanita Chacon of RE/MAX Alliance had planned to ask for the home at 4564 W. Moncrieff Place. Mathieson estimated the renovation cost of the home would be in the neighborhood of $75,000 or $80,000.

“I think I could have then sold it for the mid-$500,000s,” Mathieson said, who has fixed and flipped home before, although recently he has been concentrating on new, infill developments from about $500,000 to under $700,00s. Mathieson has more than $13 million in new homes in some stage of construction in northwest Denver and Platt Park. They includes homes at 3538 and 3602 Raleigh St.;  3524 and 3526 Stuart St.; the Zuni 6 development in LoHi, 1915 and 1925 S. Clarkson St.;  and 1626 and 1628 S. Grant St., in Platt Park.

“All of our homes are built green,” Mathieson said. “I call them organic modern.”

If he wasn’t so busy with new projects, he would have found the house that Hickenlooper has owned for almost 30 years – he bought it in 1983 for $69,500 – as a wonderful renovation project.

“It’s a cool home,” even if it needs work, Mathieson said. “It probably would have taken some reconfiguration of the interior. And I really love the ground. It’s the highest point in northwest Denver and it has a third floor, so it would have great views.” According to Google Earth, the site’s  elevation is 5,479 feet – more than a mile high.

Realtor Chacon said she probably will have the home officially on the market within 10 days. She said she thought Mathieson was going to close on it when he put it under contract.

“He was pretty aggressive and I had no reason to think he wouldn’t end up buying it,” Chacon said. “But he did have a due diligence period and decided it wasn’t right for him at this point.”

She said she isn’t disappointed the deal wasn’t consummated, although she said she thinks Mathieson’s take on what it could fetch after it was gutted and renovated is right on the money.

“The way it happened was kind of unexpected,” because it wasn’t officially on the market yet, she said. “We were kind of unprepared, the governor was out of town, and the tenant was still living in it. He only moved out last Saturday. This way we can take our time and really be prepared. This way, we can really showcase the brick walls and the original moulding Were going to move the governor’s personal stuff out of the basement. It’s really a nice house on a nice block. There’s a really a lot of charm to it. Once it is remodeled. And interest rates are likely to remain extremely low, so that shouldn’t be a a worry. People are getting $600,000 on up for new attached homes on the market, so I think once this is gutted and renovated, it will be very appealing for someone who appreciates old homes and wants a big lot with a two-car garage.”

Setting the record straight

However, Mathieson would like to set the record straight on one point.

“I know Juanita told you that I knew it was the governor’s home when I first looked at it,” Mathieson said. “But I didn’t. I knew he had a home on Moncrieff, but I thought it was the home next to it on the corner – the one with the pretty garden.”

Hickenlooper’s home made headlines last year because of high weeds in the front yard. The tenant, who recently moved out, was supposed to have maintained the lawn, but was unable to do so because of health problems.

However, Realtor Chacon was accurate when she said the prospective buyer was a big fan of Hickenlooper’s.

“Absolutely,” Mathieson said. “I supported him when he was mayor and now as governor. I thought he was a great mayor and is a great governor. I’m a big fan.”

Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com.

To see what else is available and what has recently sold in West Highland, please visit this COhomefinder.com link.

Related Posts:

• Grassroots group preps for tonight’s meeting
• Hick’s rental home has buyer
• LIVE Urban plans version of Amazing Race
• Home sales sizzle in March
• Case-Shiller: Denver in positive territory

Take a poll at the end of this blog

Demolition began Thursday on a dilapidated home in northwest Denver, more than a month after a city board gave developers the right to tear it down and replace it with a three-story duplex, over the objections of some neighbors and City Councilwoman Paula Sandoval.

The fate of the home, along Raleigh St., just south of the popular West 32nd Avenue corridor, has become a lightning rod that has drawn both strong opposition and support. The charge against the development was led by adjacent home owner, Anthony Cooper, one of the most vocal critics against the three-story housing units springing up in the neighborhood. Cooper planted protest signs, gathered signatures from like-minded people,  and even set a toilet bowl in his front yard to protest the development, which he believes is not in the character of the tree-lined neighborhood that includes older, more modest home.

Galoshes on a duck

“This will fit in the neighborhood about as well as galoshes on a duck,” Cooper, known as “Coop,”  said on Thursday, repeating a pet phrase for the project.

Anthony Cooper painted this toilet bowl in his front yard, where a home has been demolished to pave the way for a three-story duplex that he despises.

Proponents, however, viewed Cooper and his supporters as NIMBYism at its worst. NIMBY, or Not In My Back Yard, ultimately is short-sighted, as new, high-end developments tend to raise surrounding property values, while eyesore homes tend to drag down values of nearby homes, supporters of new developments contend. For example, in this case, the home would have fallen into foreclosure, if the home could not be razed, developers said, which only would have hurt nearby property values. In addition, the new development will generate more property taxes, which will primarily benefits the cash-stropped Denver Public School system.

The home was in such bad shape that the structure came down quickly, said Jeff Plous, a broker with One Realty and a former minority partner in the project.  ‘It came down in about 20 minutes,” added Plous who remains a spokesman for the project.

‘”It started this morning,” Plous said on Thursday. ” We’re pretty excited about this,” said Plous, adding that he grabbed a couple of bricks from the former home on the site as a way remembering all he and members of the development team went through to get it going.

Development drama

They faced a lot of hurdles to get to this point.  They squeezed under a moratorium-wire in place for that sliver of the neighborhood, that prohibited new three-story housing, even before the City Council recently approved a zoning overhaul that will basically eliminated most three-story residential units in much of Denver.

The city initially denied their required zoning request for the duplex, but changed its position when it realized it had made a mistake in turning it down.  But neighbors, led by Cooper, didn’t give up, and tried to shut them down on a technicality. On June 22, the Board of Adjustments for Zoning Appeals unanimously voted to deny opponents request to reject the zoning change, despite councilwoman Sandoval speaking on behalf of the opposing neighbors.  Sandoval has not returned calls to InsideRealEstateNews, since the hearing.  (For a previous story on this subject, please read Board rules in favor of developer.)

In retrospect, Cooper, said he believes he and the neighbors had no chance of prevailing at the appeal hearing.

“I think we had about as much chance of winning that appeal as a snowball had of not melting in hell,” Cooper said. “We found out later that almost everyone on that board is in someway tied to the real estate industry.”

One of the last three-story homes

The duplex will be the last three-story residential units to be built in the moratorium area that includes that section of Raleigh Street. The moratorium is no longer applicable, because of the City Council’s recent over-haul of the zoning code, which prohibits three-story housing units in most Denver neighborhoods.  The units will have about 3,500 square feet of space each, including the basements, Plous said, and the intent is to price them at about $650,000 each. Excluding the basements, the square footage in the two units would be slightly more than 5,500 square feet.

In one way, all of the delays caused by the neighbors, may work to their advantage. “The units will be ready next spring, which is when you want to open them,” Plous said. “And because they will be among the last three-story units built, hopefully that will make them more desirable. Not that there would have been any other three-story units built nearby. Most of the homes on Raleigh Street are too expensive to justify a redevelopment.”

Cooper is not alone in his distaste for the project.

Plous said a woman across the street from the duplex called him “evil.” When he told her that the duplex would ultimately increase the value of her home, she responded that will only increase her property taxes, Plous said. Another woman who favors new development, who lives in northwest Denver, said that her observation is that most of the vocal opponents to development do not have children. The woman, who talked on the condition that her name not be used, said that while a new development near her older home robbed her of a view, the laughter of the children who moved next door has more than made up for it. She added that historically young couples tended to move from the area to the suburbs when their children were school age, both to buy bigger homes and for better homes. Bigger homes, she noted, not only will keep owners from fleeing the city, but has the potential of improving neighborhood schools with additional property taxes that primarily go to DPS.

John Skrabec, principal of the nearby Live Urban Real Estate, without addressing the specific controversy with the Raleigh Street property, said new homes are beneficial in many ways. “They definitely add value to our neighborhoods, our schools, and our existing homes,” Skrabec said. “They are keeping families with small children in the neighborhood. And the increased density these homes bring also strengthen our community. It ultimately means more amenities and more tax revenue. It’s a natural and normal evolution of a modern American city. Neighborhoods evolve and change over time. And we’re fortunate to live in a place that has such tremendous energy. Poorly-maintained homes and vacant lots threaten home values. History, home sales statistics and data prove all this to be true.”

Duplex the right thing

Plous is convinced they did the right thing and the duplex is the best and highest use to replace the home, which suffered from huge structural problems and design defects, which he said made it impossible to sell to an owner-occupant for a profitable. Earlier, Cooper said that he would rather see the home fall into foreclosure than be built, but many others believe that abandoned and foreclosed properties hurt the very fabric of neighborhoods, driving down property values and increasing the chances of crime.

Plous is perplexed why Cooper and others would prefer a potential foreclosure than a new duplex. “Foreclosures are the worst thing for any street, any neighborhood,” Plous said. “They You really don’t want to be living near a dilapidated, abandoned home. Foreclosures drag down the values of all nearby homes. There is no guarantee that an investor is going to buy the home and fix it up. To prefer a foreclosure to a nice, new unit is just ridiculous. There is no other way to put it.”

Indeed, Plous said that thriving neighborhoods always add different styles to the housing stock to meet the demands of the market, which he said is healthy.

Skrabec, of Live Urban Real Estate, philosophically agrees with Plous.

Without addressing the specific dispute involving the development on Raleigh Street, Skrabec said: “I’m not opposed to the ongoing redevelopment of northwest Denver, and think most of what’s happening in the neighborhood is a positive change. Yes, some of the new homes being built, whether they are single-family or a multi-family, are different from the existing homes in the area. But I generally wouldn’t call them “out-of-character.” They are unique, and I think that’s fine. With a few exceptions, most of our neighborhoods are already very eclectic. I believe the new modern mix of residences adds a refreshing vitality to the area. (I would imagine that the same conversation took place in the 50s and 60s, when mid-century ranches were built on remaining lots scattered all through northwest Denver. I don’t see today’s changes any different.)

Mix of homes healthy

At the same time, Skrabec says he treasures historical significant homes.

” One of my two degrees from CU-Boulder is in Environmental Design with an emphasis on historic preservation,” Skrabec said. “It’s why I live in northwest Denver, and what led me to selling real estate as a career. I love old homes, and cherish the 20s bungalow in which I live. I’ve personally bought and renovated four homes in northwest Denver, bringing them back to life, and at the same time, enhancing the neighborhood. My heart breaks when I see a beautiful bungalow get razed for a new triplex. But for the most part, I don’t see this happening – most of the new construction occurs on available infill parcels or on lots with homes beyond repair or not worth saving.”

Neighbors may change their tune

“I think that people eventually will see what we are doing is good for the neighborhood and good for the home owners  around it,” Plous said. “We did make some minor changes. It is a little less flashy and has more brick, so it will blend in with the neighborhood better. It’s going to be a very nice project, it really is.”

Plous said that Cooper recently indicated to him that he hopes the projects end up in bankruptcy.

That’s not how Cooper recalls the conversation.

“I don’t think I said I hope they end up in bankruptcy,” Cooper said. “I think what I said is that he needs to be able to sell the house to make money. And with me and the neighborhood not supportive of the three-story, duplex, it might be difficult to sell it.” Later, Cooper said: “Quote me as saying I wish them all the best. I do wish they had consulted with neighbors a lot earlier, which would have avoided a lot of hostility.”

Asked if the protests, such as the toilet bowls in his yard and other yards, may scare off buyers of the duplex, he answered: “Possibly. Caveat emperor. Let the buyer beware.”

Encouraging protests

About a month ago, in an e-mail he sent to neighbors, Cooper had this to say: “I would like to encourage you all to help keep the fight up. We may have a huge ill-fitting duplex on our block but if we keep our signs and yard art up it will be difficult for them to sell the units and maximize their profits on our neighborhoods (sic) back. They will need to make a bank payment every month the units are not sold and the longer the units are unsold the less they make. This could be a loss loss situation with no winner!”

With the homes demolition, the project “is beyond the point of return,” Cooper said. Asked it it would be better for him to be living next an occupied duplex, instead of an empty husk of a building, he said he does not relish the thought of someone living in the unit. “I’m not looking forward to someone sitting on their balcony, or looking out their window, and being able to see me in my backyard,” Cooper said. “The reason we have privacy fences around our backyards is because we want privacy. I don’t believe this is going to help my property values. Who is going to want to buy my house, or the house to the north of it, when you could be sunbathing in your backyard, and potentially someone could be staring at you from above? That kind of flies in the face of human decency.”

Anthony Cooper snapped this photo of the home on Raleigh Street, which he says illustrates an unkempt lawn. Jeff Plous later cut the grass, after Cooper pointed out it was over-grown.

Chicken Coop?

Meanwhile, Cooper is toying with the idea of getting a permit to raise chickens in his yard.

But he insists that has nothing to do with the duplex.

“Yeah, I’m exploring that option,” Cooper said. “I always try to eat healthy, and if I had my own chickens, I could get organic eggs. I could make sure that the chickens are fed the proper diet and I would not get hormone-tainted eggs.”

He said some of his other neighbors also are thinking of raising chickens.

“I don’t think having chickens would have any impact on whether someone buys a unit,” Cooper said. “Who knows? Maybe my new neighbors (in the duplex) would ask me for some of my organic eggs and it would be the start making a friendship.”

Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com or 303-945-6865.

Related Posts:

• Developer-neighborhood dispute raises difficult questions
• Cooper compares city board to cats in a litter box
• Board rules in favor of developers
• Tennyson 7 tour on tap
• Shepherd won’t seek downzoning