|
Denver City Council Meeting
Challenging Changing Neighborhoods
"I'm very concerned about the level of drama that this has created. “
Judy Montero
City Council Member
District 9
Plenty of cheers, jeers and tears at Monday night’s marathon City Council meeting. Emotions ran high for nearly 10 hours as Council heard both sides of a divisive zoning issue.
“It was my father’s wish that my future be secured. That is why he entrusted my home to me for my welfare. I already lost my father, should I also lose my property rights.”
Betty Kadovitz
The big issue, re-zoning a large part of West Highlands and a neighborhood surrounding Sloan’s Lake taking them from R-2 to R-1. First a little zoning lingo lesson.
R-1 is a residential zoning district that allows for single family homes with a minimum of 6-thousand square feet of land for each unit.
R-2 allows for multi-units; typically duplexes but sometimes triplexes.
The battle over the ordinances has been brewing for years. That’s why hundreds of the very passionate people sitting in these benches signed up to speak for or against what many called down-zoning. Some of these people say changing from R-2 to R-1 will keep developers from ruining the character of their neighborhoods by scraping off homes and putting up big multi-family properties.
Others watching the battle believe not allowing the developers in will lower property values by making the neighborhoods stagnant and therefore undesirable.
“This is not a threat to these neighborhoods, it is to reinvigorate them, it is to renew them, to re-establish them, to re-invest in them, and to reinvent these neighborhoods.”
Peter Pappas
“This is beautiful and I wouldn’t want to change it but I’m also not an owner here, I have no say about it, but I am an owner, the American dream, who would have ever thought I would have owned a home, not everybody gets to, and now I’m defending my piece of dirt. You don’t buy a neighborhood, you buy a house, I don’t like these curtains, but that’s not mine to say.”
Barbara Welsh
“I’m a little concerned that if some areas are down-zoned it will just force builders into other areas.”
Beth Scherer
“We’re really very, very alike. Some of us are fearful our investment in our home is threatened by change in character, and some of us are fearful our investment in our home is threatened by a change in zoning. There’s a lot of fear. And I would be willing to guess that the positive developments that come into this neighborhood as a result of down-zoning will surprise each and every one of us.
Christine O’Conner
The people who asked for the zoning change are just regular neighborhood residents who wanted to have a say in what was being built. In applying for the re-zoning a couple of confusing things happened.
First, almost $40,000 worth of filing fees were waived. Many of the opponents thought this action showed a bias by the City in support of the zoning change.
A spokesperson for the City’s Community Planning and Development department says one reason the fee was shelved was because the application was in compliance with the tenants of Blueprint Denver.
As a reminder, Blue Print Denver is a voter-supported vision plan which “…encourages and promotes more efficient use of transportation …” as well as “…appropriate and mixed land uses and the revitalization of declining neighborhoods.” In doing so the plan identifies Areas of Change and Areas of Stability throughout the city.
The Community Planning and Development spokesperson also says the filing fees weren’t paid because a recent rule says that if 20 percent of people involved in a zoning application sign a petition in agreement, then the fees can be waived. And, in the case of both council bills, that did occur.
But, some council members were concerned over how many of those signatures were actually counted. If the petition signatures were missing, for example, a middle initial, they might differ from how a homeowners name appears on their property title, and were therefore thrown out. Some council members thought this offered a skewed view regarding the number of people on either side the debate. Still, the petitions were deemed legal.
“Regardless of whether or not a list of deed of trust holders was attached to the original application, regardless of whether that requirement was waived, or whatever happened a year and a half ago when that piece of paper was submitted, I believe council has full legal authority to act on the proposed re-zoning on the merits tonight.”
David Broadwell
Assistant City Attorney
Denver City Attorney’s Office
Another issue involved the City Staff presentation itself. In quoting from the Blueprint Denver document, members of Community Planning and Development abbreviate a quote without identifying what part was omitted. Some opponents saw this as an attempt to hide pertinent information regarding the zoning proposals and their compatibility with Blueprint Denver.
“Here’s the part that was left out. Those that are found to be incompatible…to reflect the zoning map amendment…the application should be recommended for denial”
Daniel Markovsky
“What Mister Markovsky read was correct and I’m still not sure what the point is or how it’s relevant.”
Deirdre Oss
Senior Planner
Community Planning & Development
Let me help you then, normally in scholarly work when you make a quotation if you leave out important material there’s a punctuation nark that indicates you’ve deleted material because it does change the meaning of the paragraph…without indicating you’ve left something out it looks like the paragraph means the opposite.
Carol Boigon
City Council
Member-at-Large
Staff said that while the report may not have contained the correct punctuation, the meaning of the words and the conclusion for approval that they came to would not have changed. Still both the signature and use of the quote left many council members uncomfortable.
“We’re looking for a clean Democratic process and to just toss out eight percent, I just don’t think that sends the right message.
Charlie Brown
City Council Member
District 6
“Are we being given fair materials from our staff or aren’t we?”
Carol Boigon
City Council
Member-at-Large
While both bills passed by a vote of 11 to 2, it was not without a lot more comments and concerns.
“The process itself I alluded to earlier - clearly different, unusual, has been challenged all along the way – suspect. Many thought I have been driving the train behind the scenes and that the planning department and the zoning administrator have all been in a conspiracy to move this thing forward in a way that was inappropriate - … well that’s not true, clearly not true.”
Rick Garcia
City Council Member
District 1
“It’s certainly true that the constitution guarantees us a right of property as it does the right to free speech and many other rights. At the same time, the right to property is not absolute.”
Doug Linkhart
City Council
Member-at-Large
.
“The interesting thing about this issue is where we as council members could see on both sides the value of your argument. ”
Michael Hancock
City Council President
District 11
You can see each of these hearings again on Denver 8 TV. To accommodate neighborhood interest in the proceedings, we will replay one hearing on Saturday and the other on Sunday. Council Bill 160 focusing on West Highlands airs at 1 p.m., Saturday. Council Bill 161 concerning Sloan’s Lake airs Sunday at 1p.m. As is the case for all Council meeting coverage, you can see the entire meeting anytime on www.DenverGov.org/Denver8TV.
|