City Council - Susan K. Shepherd, District 1

Summary: There were numerous questions regarding the history of the zoning code update and the zoning approved on the three Red Peak parcels in West Highland that we didn’t have time to address during the December 6^th meeting. The questions generally sought information about the nature of the public process that lead to the current zoning on the parcels. Participants at the meeting inquired about how input was gathered and weighted for the final vote of Council to approve the zoning code update. People wanted to know why there were multiple versions of the zoning map and how they could find more information about zoning on specific parcels. There were also questions about Blueprint Denver and about the impacts of density.

How input is weighted: While Denver’s Council members rely heavily on our professional planning staff at Community Planning and Development (CDP), and Denver’s municipal code contemplates our established public zoning process, Council is ultimately responsible for voting on land use actions that come before them. Like any other legislation the individual Council members’ decisions about why they vote a particular way is weighted by many factors. While CPD staff has criteria to meet in order to make a recommendation, the Council members have additional values they consider when they vote on land use issues. For example, while Council members weigh recommendations by the registered neighborhood organizations (RNOs), current zoning, planning documents and the current use, the elected Council members also contemplate other implications for rezoning. For example, a Council person, unlike staff, would be thinking about any precedents their vote would set (i.e. spot zoning) or the land-use platform they ran on (smart growth principles, historic preservation, etc.).

Nature of process for zoning: Between 2005 and when the new code was adopted in 2010, CPD hosted hundreds of public meetings to gather feedback from community members. Most of the public engagement piece occurred after the launch of an interactive website in February 2009. The first District One community forum happened on April 19^th, 2009. Another community meeting for District One followed on May 14^th. During the June 19^th community meeting, the first DRAFT map of proposed zoning of District One parcels was viewed at a community meeting. After gathering feedback, subsequent changes to the proposed zoning maps were made – in fact there were at least four drafts released to the public throughout the process. Determining the zoning on the map required a lot of back and forth, a lot of feedback from many stakeholders (including neighbors!). That meant that CPD could hear several different suggestions for any particular parcel and then weigh that feedback with their criteria. They would then make changes to the draft maps and take those changes back out to stakeholders for further feedback.

After several years, hundreds of public meetings, meetings with stakeholders and with Council members individually to look over their district maps, CPD presented a final code update to Planning Board and City Council in the spring of 2010. During the legislative process, there were public hearings that lasted over several days time. The entire Council voted to approve the updated zoning code and zoning map legislatively in June of 2010.

During the zoning code update process, there were hundreds of media reports, numerous announcements through the registered neighborhood organizations, numerous discussions in Council Committees and at Council (which are televised), and each property owner received at least one piece of mail informing them of the code update process.

We understand from staff that the reason the three Red Peak parcels were “grouped” together with the same zoning was because those were the parcels that had R4 zoning in that area.

Intention vs. zoning entitlement: It’s important to remember that while a particular property owner might have intended to build a certain kind of project, and thus applied to have their property rezoned to accommodate that, for any number of reasons the intended projects may not have been built. We understand that when the R4 zoning was adopted on the Red Peak parcels back in 1964, the owner was considering building a school or retirement home. HOWEVER, once a property is entitled with a certain zoning classification that property only has to follow the standards of that zoning classification, regardless of what the property owner promised to build or what exists on the property at the time.

When making a big decision about buying property many people don’t just look up the zoning of their potential property, but they also review the zoning of the surrounding properties so that they understand what could be built near them when they make such a big purchasing decision. You can readily find zoning information in Denver on our website here, or by calling CPD or your Council office.

Since 1964, the Red Peak parcels were zoned R4 under the old code. The parameters for this zoning classification can be found here. The old code operated off a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) in determining how much mass a building could have on any given lot. FAR is the gross floor area of the building divided by the area of the lot, so on the Red Peak properties most developers who wanted to maximize the R4 zoning could have built an allowable 6-7 floor building with 10 foot setbacks, for example. This would have been allowable dating back to 1964 up until 2010 when the U-MS-5 zoning was adopted by Council.

Blueprint Denver and density: It is important to understand that Area of Stability is a principle in Blueprint Denver – the city-wide guiding land use plan adopted in 2002.  Area of Stability doesn’t mean that change is not allowed, or that it isn’t encouraged. For a better understanding of Area of Stability and Area of Change, you can access Blueprint Denver here.

There were many references to density among the questions we received. Density can be defined in multiple ways. For example, you can look at the number of dwelling units in an area or the number of people living or working in an area. Deciphering the questions and comments, we believe people were generally referring to more people living within a multi-unit building than what is typical along residential streets in West Highland.

The former zoning code addressed density via a floor-to-area ratio, which would have allowed 6-7 stories on the Red Peak parcels. Denver’s updated zoning code approaches density via neighborhood context(s). The code explains that each neighborhood context is “distinguished from one another by their overall physical and functional characteristics including but not limited to: street, alley, and block patterns; building placement and height; diversity, distribution, and intensity of land uses; and diversity of mobility options.” Put simply, the zoned neighborhood context for an area is the guiding context for the kind of density that will occur there.

The neighborhood context for the West Highland Area is the Urban Neighborhood Context. You can find a full description of that context here but the general description states that the “Urban Neighborhood Context is primarily characterized by single-unit and two-unit residential uses. Small-scale multi-unit residential uses and commercial areas are typically embedded in residential areas. Single-unit residential structures are typically Urban House forms. Multi-unit building forms are typically Row House forms embedded with other residential building forms. Commercial buildings are typically Shop front and General forms that may contain a mixture of uses within the same building. Single- and two-unit residential uses are primarily located along local and residential arterial streets. Multi-unit residential uses are located along local streets, residential and mixed use arterials, and main streets. Commercial uses are primarily located along mixed-use arterial or main streets but may be located at or between intersections of local streets.”

Density impact studies can look into many factors, such as crime, environment, traffic, tax revenue, property values, infrastructure, urban character and even health. Here is a report by the Urban Land Institute that looks at the impacts density has on public schools, infrastructure, property values, traffic, parking, crime, environment, and more. I believe that District One neighborhoods deserve good design that not only considers the impacts of density, but really studies those impacts. Traffic and parking were the infrastructure impacts I heard were of most concern from West Highland constituents for the proposed Red Peak properties.

I ran on a platform to embrace infill that fulfills the vision in our Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver to encourage mixed-use development that is successful and reduces traffic congestion. I want to celebrate and emphasize the unique and lovely characteristics of our fantastic District One neighborhoods. I want our local shops mostly filled with customers who walked or biked in for a visit. I want people to be able to easily get to their entertainment and shopping needs from their homes without having to use their cars all the time. These are the issues that I will keep most in mind as I move forward in working with the community over the proposed Red Peak development.

Find the December 6 questions regarding Zoning History here. We apologize if some of the wording is off – we did our best in interpreting hand writing!

Miscellaneous

Summary: There were several questions that couldn’t easily be categorized into one major theme.  Of those questions we were able to answer, several had to do with property value and property ownership. Some sought information about the design stakeholder track I’ve set up. Other questions had to do with campaign finance disclosure, the Denver Planning Board and what constitutes “property rights” or entitlement.

The current property owner bought the properties in October of 2007. Property records are public record and you can find information about owner, sales, prices, taxes and more at Denver’s Real Property records site by entering the address of any Denver property. We realize that Red Peak mentioned some of the details of their financing (government pension fund investments) at the December 6 meeting, but we aren’t privy to that information. We’ve requested an explanation and will post that here when we get it.

In early December, No High Rises, West Highland Neighborhood Association (WHNA), business leaders, Red Peak and my office each chose two stakeholders from a pool of people who submitted a letter of interest. The design stakeholders have met twice so far and are due for another meeting the final week of January. The stakeholders were asked to attend each design meeting and to act as a liaison between their groups and the developer. Because this is a volunteer, working group of individuals and because of the sometimes less than civil tenor of the discourse about the project, they chose not to have their contact information published. If you are interested in learning the latest updates, you should contact WHNA or No High Rises for the next time the stakeholders will offer updated information to these groups. I understand that WHNA has issued and/or posted notes from the stakeholder meetings. The stakeholders have done some significant, hard work. To date the negotiations agreed upon are:

·         The developer agreed not to have any retail on the ground floor of Meade and Moncrieff, the streets that are more residential in nature.

·         The developer increased the setbacks of the frontage by 10 feet so that it better matches the set backs of the residential housing in the area (they don’t have to have any setback in the MS zoning).

·         The developer capped the height on all 3 parcels to less than the highest point on the properties today – the church, though their zoning entitles them to build up to 70 feet.

·         The developer is building two garage entrances for each building, instead of one.

·         There are significant step backs adjacent to the residential on Meade and Moncrieff – one story next to the adjacent home on Moncrieff and two story height that matches the adjacent home on Meade street.

·         The developer is building about twice as much parking into the project than what is required (.75/unit vs. 1.5/unit)

Information regarding contributions to the campaigns of elected officials is public information and can be found at the Clerk and Recorder’s website. Further, you can find campaign finance reports that list contributions and expenditures, etc… from my campaign here. Recalling a Councilperson in Denver is governed by Charter 8.3.2. and 8.3.5. A committee of five District One voters would have to file an affidavit with the Clerk and Recorder stating that they are a recall committee. That committee would then have to submit a petition sample with the Clerk and Recorder’s office. The Clerk and Recorder then has 72 hours to approve the sample. If the petition sample is approved, the committee then has 90 days to obtain signatures – in the case of District One, that would be a little more than 2500 signatures. If enough valid signatures are obtained, Council would call a Special Election to be held between 60 and 90 days after validation of petition. The exception to this is that if there is a citywide election scheduled within 120 days of validation petition, the election would occur then. The name of the incumbent would appear as a candidate on the ballot along with any other candidates certified to the ballot using the same process as any Municipal Election.

A PDF of the presentation can be found here.

Defining “property rights” is very complex and dynamic. Definitions of such rights are hashed out among economists, environmentalists, land-use experts and lawyers in any number of venues, often times in court. For purposes related to the Red Peak properties, we’re thinking of property rights and entitlement much the way Wikipedia defines it: “…an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things.” Put more simply in the context of the West Highland neighborhood and the Red Peak parcels, any owner of property can legally build what their designated zoning allows them to build.

Zoning entitlement is important because it affords predictability to owners and neighbors about what can, and cannot, be done with their property. Denver, and the West in general, has a long tradition of protecting the predictability of what owners can do with their private property. When making a big decision about buying property many people don’t just look up the zoning of their potential property, but they also review the zoning of the surrounding properties so they understand what could be built near them when they make such a big purchasing decision. You can readily find zoning information in Denver on our website here, or by calling CPD or your Council office. Since 1964, the Red Peak parcels were zoned R4 under the old code. The parameters for this zoning classification can be found here. The old code operated off a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) in determining how much mass a building could have on any given lot. FAR is the gross floor area of the building divided by the area of the lot, so on the Red Peak properties most developers who wanted to maximize the R4 zoning could have built an allowable 6-7 floor building with 10 foot setbacks, for example. This would have been allowable dating back to 1964 up until 2010 when the U-MS-5 zoning was adopted by Council.

“Privacy rights” are also difficult to define, however, it is not common that privacy is a challenge to land-use policy. Throughout Denver, and other cities around the country, multi-unit residential projects of varying heights are located adjacent to single family homes.

The Planning Board advises the Mayor and City Council on the Denver Comprehensive Plan, supplements to the Comprehensive Plan, and various components of land regulation including zoning and view planes.  The Planning Board follows the ordinance and the Planning Board By-Laws. The Mayor appoints individuals who are willing to volunteer significant time and expertise in their role as a Board member. The Mayor most often appoints people with a very strong background in land-use policy/planning, economic development or development. When there is an issue before the Planning Board, such as a rezoning of particular parcel, which a Planning Board member has ties to, they are expected to recuse themselves from voting on that issue. This does happen occasionally because often times the experts volunteering as Board members also work on various land-use issues or developments in the city.

Traffic studies are not a requirement for developers to do their projects. However, I recently requested that Public Works require a traffic study for this development. I’m still learning, but I don’t feel comfortable yet that the City does enough proactively to address our infrastructure impacts associated with significant change in Areas of Stability. We do a lot of great work reactively, but I think maybe we can do better at being proactive when we notice an area like West Highlands is experiencing change. The City does a great job of proactive work in Areas of Change with tools like General Development Plans. But I’m working hard to learn more about tools that can help us address the fact that development impacts don’t stop at the curb of properties being built out in Areas of Stability.

I have been lobbying RTD very hard in asking that they increase their service in West Highland. Unfortunately, shortly after I took office RTD decided they were going to reduce their bus service to the area. I’m continuing talks with our RTD representative and will visit with my Council colleagues about how to lobby RTD to reconsider and increase, rather than decrease service. I ran on a platform to embrace infill that fulfills the vision in our Comprehensive Plan and Blueprint Denver to encourage mixed-use development that is successful and reduces traffic congestion. I want to celebrate and emphasize the unique and lovely characteristics of our fantastic District One neighborhoods. I want our local shops mostly filled with customers who walked or biked in for a visit. I want people to be able to easily get to their entertainment and shopping needs from their homes without having to use their cars all the time. These are the issues that I will keep most in mind as I move forward in working with the community over the proposed Red Peak development.

Find the December 6 questions regarding miscellaneous issues here. We apologize if some of the wording is off – we did our best in interpreting hand writing!

Summary: There were numerous questions regarding impacts and design for the proposed RedPeak development in West Highland that we didn’t have time to address during the December 6^th meeting. The questions generally sought information about the nature of zoning to address density. Further, and this is reflective of the correspondence we’ve gotten in the office, many people had questions about parking and traffic impacts. Others had questions about solar access and about how much utilities, like HVAC systems, can extend above the height limits for development.

The former zoning code addressed density via a floor-to-area ratio, which would have allowed 6-7 stories on the Red Peak parcels. Denver’s updated zoning code approaches density via neighborhood context(s). The code explains that each neighborhood context is “distinguished from one another by their overall physical and functional characteristics including but not limited to: street, alley, and block patterns; building placement and height; diversity, distribution, and intensity of land uses; and diversity of mobility options.” Put simply, the zoned neighborhood context for an area is the guiding context for the kind of density that will occur there. The neighborhood context for the West Highland Area is the Urban Neighborhood Context. You can find a full description of that context here but the general description states that the “Urban Neighborhood Context is primarily characterized by single-unit and two-unit residential uses. Small-scale multi-unit residential uses and commercial areas are typically embedded in residential areas. Single-unit residential structures are typically Urban House forms. Multi-unit building forms are typically Row House forms embedded with other residential building forms. Commercial buildings are typically Shop front and General forms that may contain a mixture of uses within the same building. Single- and two-unit residential uses are primarily located along local and residential arterial streets. Multi-unit residential uses are located along local streets, residential and mixed use arterials, and main streets. Commercial uses are primarily located along mixed-use arterial or main streets but may be located at or between intersections of local streets.” Density impact studies can look into many factors, such as crime, environment, traffic, tax revenue, property values, infrastructure, urban character and even health. Here is a report by the Urban Land Institute that looks at the impacts density has on public schools, infrastructure, property values, traffic, parking, crime, environment, and more. I believe that District One neighborhoods deserve good design that not only considers the impacts of density, but really studies those impacts. Traffic and parking were the infrastructure impacts I heard were of most concern from West Highland constituents for the proposed Red Peak properties.

It is true that some utility features on a roof-top can extend beyond the height limits for zoning. The largest of such objects are likely to be stairwells or elevator shafts – which can be about ten feet in height. Keep in mind, however, that RedPeak’s designs thus far shows far lower height on the two residential parcels than what they are allowed to build. For example, the parcel on the Meade Street side is entitled to be built out to 70 feet but will only be 55 feet. They are working to get the Moncrieff building under 45 feet – which is the maximum allowed for U-MS-3 (the zoning many neighbors said they would prefer on the site). The Lowell Street parcel will be built out to just below the highest point of the church that is being preserved – nearly 70 feet.

Solar access and shading issues are addressed through the zoning code with bulk plane requirements for some building forms. These standards were set after lengthy discussion and modeling during the zoning code update process. RedPeak is designing their buildings with something commonly called “step backs” which mean that at certain levels as the building goes up in stories, those stories step further back from the previous story. So, for example, on the Meade and Moncrieff parcels the stories adjacent to single family homes will closely match the height of those homes and the height will build moving further away from those homes.

RedPeak has to follow all safety requirements for building that take into account protecting the surrounding buildings and infrastructure. 

Parking and traffic are concerns I’ve heard about over and over during this process. I very much share the neighbors’ concerns. What I’ve learned so far is that the City deals with parking and traffic through planning efforts and adding infrastructure to implement those plans when the funding comes available from sources like our Capital Improvement Projects budget or the nearly finished Better Bond funds. Further, we have tools such as General Development Plans that look to require developers to chip in for new infrastructure needs in Areas of Change. Yet, the most common approach the City takes is to rely on the market to tell us when we have new needs for traffic and parking remedies.  We do this in part because we can’t waste precious dollars putting in improvements we only imagine that we’ll need, but haven’t demonstrated that yet. I don’t find our approach to be a fully satisfying way to address immediate impacts. I believe development doesn’t stop at the curb and I will be looking into other tools the City might adopt to address this.

In the mean time, we have the RedPeak project in front of us and the best tool I have right now is to work hard with the developer to help us address these impacts. To date, RedPeak is designing their projects to have about twice the parking required and they have agreed to include two garage entrances on each building instead of one. I have very recently been out on-site with City staff to better understand the potential loss of on-street parking and what problems might arise with increases in traffic in the area. I will be asking the developer to contribute to solutions. Given that through this process I have been able to negotiate significant points with them (they have already decreased their project more than 50% of their entitled cubic feet), I am hopeful that they will work with me to help alleviate some of the parking and traffic pressures.

Find the December 6 questions regarding impacts and design here. We apologize if some of the wording is off – we did our best in interpreting hand writing!

Summary: What is the process for landmark designation?  Would that designation require any plans to be in character of the historic neighborhood?

According to Community Planning and Development’s preservation staff, historic preservation is achieved by local designation of both structures and districts. In order for a potential structure or district to be eligible for designation, it must meet two of the three criteria for historical significance described in the Landmark ordinance (Chapter 30): History, Architecture, and Geography.  (View the Landmark Ordinance for specific criteria).  All applications for designation are reviewed by Landmark staff, the Landmark Preservation Commission, the Denver Planning Board, and City Council. 

The general process for designation is as follows:

1.       Pre-application review

2.       Submit application and fees

3.       Initial review at the Landmark Preservation Commission

4.       Landmark Preservation public hearing

5.       City Council public hearing

While the Landmark Preservation Commission can make a recommendation for designation of an individual property or district, only City Council can approve the designation through a public hearing process. The entire process for designation is designed to maximize public input and involve the participation of registered neighborhood organizations.

Application materials

§  Application for Landmark Structure Designation (PDF file)

§  Application for Historic District Designation (PDF file)

§  Example of a nomination for a structure (PDF file)

Fees

§  Fee for designation of a structure is $250.00

§  Fee for designation of a district is:

·         $500.00 (district of 1 - 100 structures)

·         $750.00 (district of 101 - 200 structures)

·         $1,000.00 (district of 201 - 300 structures)

·         $1,500.00 (district of more than 300 structures)