 On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com. |
Carroll: High density realities
Mayor John Hickenlooper spun reality on its head at a meeting Wednesday when confronted by southeast Denver residents irate about the possibility of several blocks of high-density, multistory housing near the Southmoor light-rail station.
“You’re not going to get full value (from light rail) if you can’t have some density around each station,” Hickenlooper said, according to the Rocky. “Otherwise, you’re just going to have more and more traffic, and if you want to experience that, go spend a week in Los Angeles.”
Sorry, mayor: Higher density is what will bring Los Angeles to Denver, not delay its arrival. Los Angeles may cover a huge geographical area, but it is also a high-density urban area that squeezes far more people than Denver onto every square mile by way of smaller lots and more multifamily dwellings. And yes, the traffic is much worse there, just as it is destined to become steadily more congested here as densities rise.
Can the mayor name a single high-density city in America that is a low-congestion paradise?
If hundreds (at least) of additional residents move into the Southmoor neighborhood, many may commute by rail to work and perhaps to sporting events (as I did Sunday from that station), but for most other errands they’ll drive their cars.
The mayor is hardly alone in his reality-defying hope that higher density will forestall L.A.-type gridlock. Peggy Lehmann, the southeast Denver councilwoman, told me the reason “we put light rail there is that we want people out of their cars.” Families who might otherwise own three vehicles, she said, might choose to own one instead.
Perhaps. Except that most American adults like to own a car, not depend on someone else’s, even if they take transit to work. Moreover, the important statistic is not how many cars people own but how many trips they take in them. Believe me, if you live in Southmoor, many of your destinations will require the use of four wheels.
That said, however, area residents need to take a deep breath and calm down. The city did not try to ambush them with a high-density plan. It held focus- group meetings with landowners and representatives of neighborhood associations. Officials provided me with a postcard they say also was mailed to households within a quarter mile of the station alerting residents to a May 10 event to discuss development ideas.
An equally pertinent point: Landowners already have the right to put multifamily housing on those blocks, which now include parking lots, small shops and a King Soopers. The zoning allows it.
Finally, if southeast Denver residents are like most city voters, they favored the southeast train line and the later rail-system buildout represented by FasTracks (ignoring, I might add, this editorial page’s advice). What did they expect — that train stations would open and the city would fail to encourage “transit-oriented development” near them emphasizing more housing? Of course the city was going to act.
Peter Park, the city’s planning director, made the case to me Thursday that without city involvement, future development near the Southmoor station might make little or no provision for open space, tree-lined walkways, protection of important sight lines and links to neighborhood streets, all of which the preliminary drawings include. Ironically, the current planning process was meant in part to provide signals to developers as to what might be acceptable to officials and neighborhood residents.
Obviously, many residents aren’t on board, as Park now understands. “I’m hoping people come out on Nov. 8,” he said, referring to the next community meeting to discuss the plan.
But they should attend under no illusions. First, there is probably little they can do to stop higher residential density if the three major landowners someday decide that’s what they want. Second, contrary to what the mayor implies, the greater density will aggravate congestion, just as they fear, not keep it at bay.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Vince Below article I wrote that if you would print I would be happy. It address the same concerns in NW Denver. Some how I think Mr Peter Park is fiddling while Denver gets scrapped and rebuilt in high density.
If you want to call me w 720.865.3917 or h 303.477.8582
Thanks
Tony Cooper
March 22, 2007
Nostalgic Denver Neighborhoods Scraped, Raped and Prostituted by Developers
I have contemplated writing this letter on the scraping of older nostalgic homes in Denver and redeveloping the lots into McMansions and Multi-Plexes for sometime hoping the apocalypse that is happening in Denver’s more desirable nostalgic neighborhoods would abate. However it has only grown worse and soon the neighborhoods will be ruined by new behemoths the City and developers call McMansions, multi-family homes and progress.
Before I go further I think it best to define my terms so we are all on the same page. My definitions follow:
• Developer = a person or company that buys land in order to build on it and/or sell it
• Scrape = to take something off
• Rape = to treat something in a violent, destructive or abusive way
• Prostitute = to use something in a way that is considered unworthy, usually for financial gain
• Apocalypse = total destruction or devastation of something.
• High Density = hard parking like Capital Hill area where it is almost impossible to find parking within 2 blocks of where you live.
Now that I have defined the terms I will be using I will continue. Many Denver neighborhoods like Potter Highlands (some realtors are renaming LoHi), Congress Park, Sunny Side, Hill Top, Baker, Jefferson Park and Washington Park, Bonnie Brae, Platt Park, Five Points, Park Hill, West Highlands and Sloan’s Lake areas have a flavor, an ambiance and a character that draws people to the relaxed and friendly neighborhood. But it is changing as developers destroy our nostalgic neighborhoods claiming they are increasing our property values by building single family McMansions and multi-plex homes. That claim in the long run is bunk. How much character does an irreplaceable 1890s to 1930s home have next to a new modern design McMansion or multi-family home in a residential area? When I moved to the West Highlands area, it was because of the older brick homes, the red stone sidewalks, the large trees. The new modern homes with rare exception that I have seen do not have the same character that the older homes have. The new homes are sided with cheaper looking materials either wood siding, stucco or other new age materials that cost a lot less to build with than brick. Most of the new homes are multi-family because unless you build multi-family unit the dollars don’t work in favor of the developer. I think we can all think of examples of how developers are hurting our precious nostalgic neighborhoods and communities by scraping older homes so they can build new homes with much less historical appeal and flavor. The developers prostitute the neighborhood touting and pimping the nostalgia of the neighborhoods flavor and character as they sell their new behemoth homes till all the ambiance is gone and the neighborhood is a much less desirable place to live. Then they move on to the next neighborhood with large lots and R-2 zoning to begin the destruction for profit all over again. Increasing density is one of their positive themes as they sell living closer to the City and reduce travel distances etc. In actuality most households have 2 cars per home so on-street parking on the narrow streets is going to get much more difficult; think Capital Hill area as an example. Also think about how difficult it was to travel our residential streets during the recent snow storms. Now increase the density of cars by a factor of 2 to 4 and think how impossible it would be. Also when all these people decide to have a Holiday party or summer bar-b-que where are all the guests going to park?
I would like to present the following discussion ideas for consideration in helping to preserve the flavor of our beloved neighborhoods.
• A new home/community designation needs to be implemented that is not as stringent as a “Historic District” we will name it “Historically Significant Area”.
• In a “Historically Significant Area” the value of each and every home would be considered as some homes are more valuable to the area than others i.e. wood sided alley homes in many cases are not practical to refurbish. These homes should be designated as OK to redevelop within the guidelines of an “Historically Significant Area”
• Some houses and structures should be approved for redevelopment like alley houses, houses along major business streets like 38th Ave or some sections of Federal or Sheridan Blvd. Also infill areas where houses which were constructed after 1960 and have limited historic or add limited character to the neighborhood could also be considered for redevelopment. Meeting the “Historically Significant Area” requirements.
• Homes that are to be built in “Historically Significant Area” should conform to the local architecture. A survey of age of homes within a 2-block area for age of home and type of building materials and style of architecture should be conducted to see what design standard the new home must meet. For discussion purposes if the average year built is 1925 brick bungalow construction, then the new home would need to be of the 1925 Craftsman brick bungalow architecture.
• Homes could not be scraped to increase occupancy/density of the housing units. You could not destroy a single family residence to build a multi-plex. If the existing home is a duplex then a duplex can be rebuilt as a duplex only meeting the criteria of “Historically Significant Area” guidelines. Mother-in-law apartments or dividing a home into multiple apartments or garage conversions etc would not count towards increasing housing units.
• The City zoning review board would review proposed new home designs to make sure the proposed new home meets architectural standards then a neighborhood residential committee would also review the design to assure the proposed new home meets appropriate architectural cosmetic standards before a building permit is issued.
• Additions to existing homes would also need to be done so that they preserve the original homes architecture. That equates to using the same type building materials and style.
• Lots can not be combined to add square footage for the purpose of allowing McMansions or multi-plex homes.
In the end I know there are property right issues on “both sides” but the larger issue is not redeveloping property for personal profits that devalues other people’s property values and increases density, destroying the character of old established neighborhoods. We each inherit an obligation when we decide to become a part of a community to not degrade that community. We need to live in harmony with not only our neighbors but our existing environment. If we desire to live in a modern McMansion there are many areas within Denver like The New Elitch Gardens, Stapleton or Lowry where these homes can be built and would be welcomed.
In most cases developers don’t do anything because they are benevolent, they do it because they can either make or save a dollar also the City wants the increase tax dollars and building permit fees so they are not really motivated as the short term building permit fees and tax dollars look too good to a City in need of money.
The silver tongued developers are really just carpetbaggers more interested in making money and moving on than in maintaining our neighborhoods historic significance. They exploit/redevelop our older nostalgic neighborhoods for their own profit and then move on to the next neighborhood with large lots and R-2 zoning where they again begin the process of scrape, rape and prostitute for profit. .
I believe that the City and County of Denver has a duty to protect and preserve our nostalgic neighborhoods but it appears that Denver’s Community Planning and Development Agency is not moving fast enough to prevent the apocalypse. I ask that you contact your City Councilperson and ask them to support a City wide moratorium in Denver’s nostalgic neighborhoods on scraping homes until CPD adequately revises the City’s zoning to protect our neighborhoods.
Sincerely
Anthony Cooper
3270 Raleigh St
Denver CO
H:\My Documents\Miscellanious\Denver Zoning Issues.doc
Vince Below article I wrote that if you would print I would be happy. It address the same concerns in NW Denver. Some how I think Mr Peter Park is fiddling while Denver gets scrapped and rebuilt in high density.
If you want to call me w 720.865.3917 or h 303.477.8582
Thanks
Tony Cooper
March 22, 2007
Nostalgic Denver Neighborhoods Scraped, Raped and Prostituted by Developers
I have contemplated writing this letter on the scraping of older nostalgic homes in Denver and redeveloping the lots into McMansions and Multi-Plexes for sometime hoping the apocalypse that is happening in Denver’s more desirable nostalgic neighborhoods would abate. However it has only grown worse and soon the neighborhoods will be ruined by new behemoths the City and developers call McMansions, multi-family homes and progress.
Before I go further I think it best to define my terms so we are all on the same page. My definitions follow:
• Developer = a person or company that buys land in order to build on it and/or sell it
• Scrape = to take something off
• Rape = to treat something in a violent, destructive or abusive way
• Prostitute = to use something in a way that is considered unworthy, usually for financial gain
• Apocalypse = total destruction or devastation of something.
• High Density = hard parking like Capital Hill area where it is almost impossible to find parking within 2 blocks of where you live.
Now that I have defined the terms I will be using I will continue. Many Denver neighborhoods like Potter Highlands (some realtors are renaming LoHi), Congress Park, Sunny Side, Hill Top, Baker, Jefferson Park and Washington Park, Bonnie Brae, Platt Park, Five Points, Park Hill, West Highlands and Sloan’s Lake areas have a flavor, an ambiance and a character that draws people to the relaxed and friendly neighborhood. But it is changing as developers destroy our nostalgic neighborhoods claiming they are increasing our property values by building single family McMansions and multi-plex homes. That claim in the long run is bunk. How much character does an irreplaceable 1890s to 1930s home have next to a new modern design McMansion or multi-family home in a residential area? When I moved to the West Highlands area, it was because of the older brick homes, the red stone sidewalks, the large trees. The new modern homes with rare exception that I have seen do not have the same character that the older homes have. The new homes are sided with cheaper looking materials either wood siding, stucco or other new age materials that cost a lot less to build with than brick. Most of the new homes are multi-family because unless you build multi-family unit the dollars don’t work in favor of the developer. I think we can all think of examples of how developers are hurting our precious nostalgic neighborhoods and communities by scraping older homes so they can build new homes with much less historical appeal and flavor. The developers prostitute the neighborhood touting and pimping the nostalgia of the neighborhoods flavor and character as they sell their new behemoth homes till all the ambiance is gone and the neighborhood is a much less desirable place to live. Then they move on to the next neighborhood with large lots and R-2 zoning to begin the destruction for profit all over again. Increasing density is one of their positive themes as they sell living closer to the City and reduce travel distances etc. In actuality most households have 2 cars per home so on-street parking on the narrow streets is going to get much more difficult; think Capital Hill area as an example. Also think about how difficult it was to travel our residential streets during the recent snow storms. Now increase the density of cars by a factor of 2 to 4 and think how impossible it would be. Also when all these people decide to have a Holiday party or summer bar-b-que where are all the guests going to park?
I would like to present the following discussion ideas for consideration in helping to preserve the flavor of our beloved neighborhoods.
• A new home/community designation needs to be implemented that is not as stringent as a “Historic District” we will name it “Historically Significant Area”.
• In a “Historically Significant Area” the value of each and every home would be considered as some homes are more valuable to the area than others i.e. wood sided alley homes in many cases are not practical to refurbish. These homes should be designated as OK to redevelop within the guidelines of an “Historically Significant Area”
• Some houses and structures should be approved for redevelopment like alley houses, houses along major business streets like 38th Ave or some sections of Federal or Sheridan Blvd. Also infill areas where houses which were constructed after 1960 and have limited historic or add limited character to the neighborhood could also be considered for redevelopment. Meeting the “Historically Significant Area” requirements.
• Homes that are to be built in “Historically Significant Area” should conform to the local architecture. A survey of age of homes within a 2-block area for age of home and type of building materials and style of architecture should be conducted to see what design standard the new home must meet. For discussion purposes if the average year built is 1925 brick bungalow construction, then the new home would need to be of the 1925 Craftsman brick bungalow architecture.
• Homes could not be scraped to increase occupancy/density of the housing units. You could not destroy a single family residence to build a multi-plex. If the existing home is a duplex then a duplex can be rebuilt as a duplex only meeting the criteria of “Historically Significant Area” guidelines. Mother-in-law apartments or dividing a home into multiple apartments or garage conversions etc would not count towards increasing housing units.
• The City zoning review board would review proposed new home designs to make sure the proposed new home meets architectural standards then a neighborhood residential committee would also review the design to assure the proposed new home meets appropriate architectural cosmetic standards before a building permit is issued.
• Additions to existing homes would also need to be done so that they preserve the original homes architecture. That equates to using the same type building materials and style.
• Lots can not be combined to add square footage for the purpose of allowing McMansions or multi-plex homes.
In the end I know there are property right issues on “both sides” but the larger issue is not redeveloping property for personal profits that devalues other people’s property values and increases density, destroying the character of old established neighborhoods. We each inherit an obligation when we decide to become a part of a community to not degrade that community. We need to live in harmony with not only our neighbors but our existing environment. If we desire to live in a modern McMansion there are many areas within Denver like The New Elitch Gardens, Stapleton or Lowry where these homes can be built and would be welcomed.
In most cases developers don’t do anything because they are benevolent, they do it because they can either make or save a dollar also the City wants the increase tax dollars and building permit fees so they are not really motivated as the short term building permit fees and tax dollars look too good to a City in need of money.
The silver tongued developers are really just carpetbaggers more interested in making money and moving on than in maintaining our neighborhoods historic significance. They exploit/redevelop our older nostalgic neighborhoods for their own profit and then move on to the next neighborhood with large lots and R-2 zoning where they again begin the process of scrape, rape and prostitute for profit. .
I believe that the City and County of Denver has a duty to protect and preserve our nostalgic neighborhoods but it appears that Denver’s Community Planning and Development Agency is not moving fast enough to prevent the apocalypse. I ask that you contact your City Councilperson and ask them to support a City wide moratorium in Denver’s nostalgic neighborhoods on scraping homes until CPD adequately revises the City’s zoning to protect our neighborhoods.
Sincerely
Anthony Cooper
3270 Raleigh St
Denver CO
H:\My Documents\Miscellanious\Denver Zoning Issues.doc
Vince, what about property rights? If something is zoned multi-family, would you deny them to tear down a single family houst to build condos?
Anthony, are you kidding?
Posted by rick on October 12, 2007 09:07 PMSHAME ON YOU, Vincent Caroll. Your article on High density realities was a farce.
The city absolutely DID try to ambush the Southmoor Park residents with a high-density plan. I expected more from you. Open your eyes and get your facts straight.
• Officials provided me with a postcard they say was .. mailed to households within a quarter mile of the station alerting residents to a May 10 event to discuss development idea. If you had bothered to look at the map on City’s TOD website for Southmoor Station, you would have seen that the number of households in Southmoor Park East that are within the ¼ mile radius is TWENTY. Boy, they sure tried to alert us, didn’t they—that’s less than 3% of the 680 single family homes that make up Southmoor Park East. This affects a lot more people than just those within three blocks of the station.
• Landowners already have the right to put multifamily housing on those blocks, which now include parking lots, small shops and a King Soopers. The zoning allows it. Current landowners do NOT have the right to put multifamily housing on those blocks without having the zoning changed. If you had bothered to look at the zoning, also available on the City’s website, you would have known that all of the land in question is zoned as Business Zone Districts, B-1, B-3 & B-A-3. Each of these zones specifically references “LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, OR USES THAT ARE ORIENTED TOWARD THE MOTORIST AND RESIDENTS OF NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS.”
• What did we expect? We are literate. We can read. The FasTracks plan stated that “Park-n-Rides are the backbone of the RTD Transit system” and 4A called for enhancing the existing ones. Since FasTracks did pass, we expected the Park and Ride at Southmoor Station to be expanded and its usage to increase, both of which happened. (Now the city is proposing ripping it out to make room for their vision—great use of our tax dollars. I believe this flies in the face of what we voted for on 4A). We expected there would be TOD opportunities at the station. Per the literature, “FasTracks promotes smart growth and higher density development along transit corridors where it is consistent and appropriate and supported by local cities and counties and their citizens.” We expected that the area would be developed in a manner that would enhance the neighborhood, not destroy it. Who in their wildest dreams would imagine plans being drawn up to build 1280 units of multi-family units targeting low income people(“the people that use light rail”, per their literature”) in the Southmoor neighborhood? It’s irresponsible.
The City Planning Director should now know that the plan is NOT acceptable to neighborhood residents. Hopefully they will do their jobs properly going forward--by listening to the neighborhood residents and actually changing their plans to reflect what is being said—by bringing the current landowners into the process and listening to them, not alienating them by using “form zoning” to get what the City sees as their vision. I don’t think either the residents or the landowners share their vision.
Erin Brockovich
Denver
Voters in Southmoor and areas impacted by these high density proposals should know that the bond initiative is directly related to this issue. Item 1D - Streets and Public Works specifically lists the Southmoor TOD project as a line item per www.betterdenver.com. Send a message about TOD and vote NO for the bond initiatives.
Posted by Tom Roode on October 14, 2007 12:45 AMYou can't fight inevitability.
Posted by jay on October 14, 2007 01:14 PMI am a Southmoor Park East homeowner who is 100% behind redevelopment plans at the Southmoor station.
Diversity and density are what make neighborhoods interesting. Would I rather walk to dinner than drive to Cherry Creek? You betcha. Would I rather see an attractive development along Monaco to replace the butt-ugly parking lots and pseudo-Olde-Worlde Cambridge Square? Right again! Are my neighbors NIMBYs? Absolutely.
Posted by robert zimmerman on October 15, 2007 10:09 AMZimmerman--You need to keep up . . . . .
--Cambridge Square is no longer part of the redevelopment plan. It was pulled at the Oct. 3rd public meeting. (you'd probably be a little less gung-ho if it were your home)
--I think most residents would be pleased if they brought Creek Creek type amenities to the Southmoor area (nice restaurants, book stores, etc). Unfortunately that is not what is included in their latest plan. It's not the redevelopment that has residents upset, it's how they want to redevelope it.
Posted by erin on October 15, 2007 03:14 PM> It's not the redevelopment that has residents upset, it's how they want to redevelope it.
That's not the whispering I hear around the neighborhood, and I get around. Anti-development sentiment in Southmoor goes way back to the proposed 20(??) story buildings on the HoJo's site that were killed way back when.
Face reality. It's going to be redeveloped. Digging your heels in doesn't fix it. Rumor and innuendo about "low-income housing" doesn't fix it. The new complex on Hampden (the District) has one-bedrooms for $1200ish per month. That doesn't sound low income to me.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, by the way. Property values are zooming up in Southmoor compared to most of Denver. I've noticed that, and I'm sure you have as well.
Posted by robert zimmerman on October 15, 2007 04:22 PMNo one I know is whispering--they are yelling for the city to stop moving forward on their plan as if it is a done deal.
It is quite a stretch to say that because residents in any particular area do not want a 20-story building next to their house, they are anti-development. The reason people moved to Southmoor 35 years ago is because of the large lots and the lack of density. They continue to move here for the same reasons and because of the added bonus of an excellent elementary school that reopened in 1999. The majority of the residents do not want high density in Southmoor—if you get around, you would know this. There are plenty of areas in Denver that are high density, and people who like this are free to move there.
Yes, the area in question will be redeveloped, but it does not mean it must be done by cramming as many captive riders for RTD as possible on this land. The fact is, the land is zoned for business. Let it develop naturally. The owners will develop it in the best interest of the neighborhood, or they will not be profitable. Even Peter Park, the City’s Planning Director, noted, that if the plan is not the right thing, it won’t happen. The property owners can’t develop it as they see fit if the city changes their proactive zoning to fit their profit goals for RTD. This is really what this it’s all about—even the mayor noted this at the Town Hall meeting and in his interview with Channel 4.
It’s not rumor or innuendo about low-income housing. If you read the Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Plan (Chapter 6-City-wide policy and action recommendations) you will see that the City’s proactive zoning strategies are to insure that the housing in these TOD developments are targeted to low and very-low income households, in high density configurations.
The District is not part of the plan—they are luxury apartments, and it was not part of the city’s plan, which is why they specifically note that The District is considered transit adjacent, not transit-oriented.
I agree that property values are going up in this area. This is because of the reasons listed above, NOT because we might become a dense urban center. Let the City continue to go forward as they have, and you will see the values go down quite quickly.
Get a grip. It isn't 1970. Property values are going up *because* of the light rail and Whole Foods and the redevelopment that's going on along Hampden, not in spite of it. Why do you think all the for sale brochures say "walk to light rail"?
I'd much rather have relatively dense residential than yet another stupid car-oriented strip center. There is no such thing as "develop naturally" unless you live someplace like Houston with no zoning.
As for free to move there, I moved here because I knew this was coming and because I work locally. So I don't need the snide comment about move if I don't like it.
I just read Chapter 6 of the TOD strategic development plan. 10th & Osage - check. 23rd & Welton - check. 38th & Inca - all over it. No mention of Southmoor. Guess what? That land is far too valuable to develop as anything but fairly high-end, either residential or retail.
Erin,
Your information about Southmoor Station is right on target. I can tell you are well informed and have taken the time to research and read the volumes of information regarding TODs (Transit Oriented Development). When voters approved light rail in the southeast corridor, there was no plan for high density development around the Southmoor light rail stop. At a recent meeting, Denver City planner Catherine Cox was asked where the Denver Planning Office was during the planning of TREX and the Southmoor light rail stop, she admitted “we (Denver Planning Office) missed a planning opportunity with TREX.”
Nothing is inevitable. Remember the 200’ tower planned for the Denver Water property. Initially, neighbors were told that it was the only location in the city of Denver for the tower. Neighbors and neighborhoods worked together. Councilwoman Peggy Lehmann got it moved. Maybe Peggy can once again assemble her skills to find a solution to the Southmoor Station that reflect the desires of her constituents.
Ben Frank
Key Contact:
Councilwoman Peggy Lehmann
303-504-5781
Peggy.lehmann@denvergov.org
Someone please tell me why many people seem to think there is some sort of coercion going on here.
Fact: the property in question is zoned b-3/b-3a.
Corollary: This zoning would allow a strip center to face single-family housing on Monaco.
Fact: the property owners have made no move to rezone it.
To the best of my knowledge: there is no intent on the part of the city to do any condemnation/eminent domain sort of thing.
I believe Peggy Lehmann when she says in an e-mail:
"what would happen if the property owner decides they would like
to rezone for a new development? With a plan in place, at least we
would have a guiding document to help make the decision."
What is wrong with that? Do you prefer unbridled development with no community input? Do you like acres of concrete parking lots?
Posted by robert zimmerman on October 16, 2007 01:02 PMI stand corrected. The zoning allows for multi-family housing in B-3 and B-1 areas.
Does this not mean that the proposed development is permitted under existing zoning? And if so, what is there to argue about?
My head hurts :-)
Posted by robert zimmerman on October 16, 2007 03:38 PMPeggy Lehmann did NOT get the Hillcrest Tower moved...she supported it until the neighborhood found out and took action. Do not be mistaken and think Peggy Lehmann will help the Southmoor neighbors for the TOD project. The neighborhood will have to address this on their own.
Posted by A Hillcrest Tower Opponent on October 16, 2007 03:50 PMPeggy Lehmann did NOT get the Hillcrest Tower moved...she supported it until the neighborhood found out and took action. Do not be mistaken and think Peggy Lehmann will help the Southmoor neighbors for the TOD project. The neighborhood will have to address this on their own.
Posted by A Hillcrest Tower Opponent on October 16, 2007 03:50 PMPeggy Lehmann did NOT get the Hillcrest Tower moved...she supported it until the neighborhood found out and took action. Do not be mistaken and think Peggy Lehmann will help the Southmoor neighbors for the TOD project. The neighborhood will have to address this on their own.
Posted by A Hillcrest Tower Opponent on October 16, 2007 03:50 PMPeggy Lehmann did NOT get the Hillcrest Tower moved...she supported it until the neighborhood found out and took action. Do not be mistaken and think Peggy Lehmann will help the Southmoor neighbors for the TOD project. The neighborhood will have to address this on their own.
Posted by A Hillcrest Tower Opponent on October 16, 2007 03:51 PMSomething is going to redevelop there someday. I agree that is inevitable. However, I'm not convinced we have a better chance at input with a zone change to R-MU-30. With this zoning and the momentum of transit, the CPD has already tried to cram densities in places like this.
The building they proposed at DU is a good example to study. They tried to squeeze a 12 story building into a property that RTD/Denver owned with zero setbacks and requested waivers for reduced parking. When questioned on this by neighbors, the developer said they just couldnt fit the same number of parking spots as the number of units and besides people will ride transit instead of owning cars. That doesnt pass a straight face test because you can't own half a car. You likely still need a car to go some places. Therefore the parking will overflow into the neighborhood, or worse yet, people wont want to live there and then the market drives the property to deterioate.
I'm not sure yet, but we may have a better shot with current zoning requiring setbacks, local streets, and more parking. We also have the view plane ordinance working for us. We'll see what they say on the 8th.
Posted by Tom on October 16, 2007 09:22 PM