by Mark Smiley | Dec 22, 2014 | Main Articles
Will RNOs Weigh In On Election May 5?
by Mark Smiley
Denver’s municipal election is set for May 5 which includes the mayor and the entire 13 member City Council. While there is dissatisfaction with Mayor Michael Hancock in some neighborhoods throughout the city, he has not drawn any serious election opposition. Thus all the attention and funding has shifted to the Denver City Council races. Five present City Council members are term limited and Chris Nevitt has decided to run for the city auditor position.
RNOs
Denver has over 100 registered neighborhood organizations (RNOs) as well as an umbrella group called the Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation or INC. Average citizens interact with the government of the City and County of Denver through their neighborhood organizations or direct contact with their city councilmember or the member’s staff. During election season council members tend to be very solicitous of the neighborhood groups and are happy to attend their meetings. Following the election and for the next four years many council members want nothing to do with neighborhood groups and often privately disparage them.
Many Denver council members between elections also refuse to interact with average citizens except in highly orchestrated group meetings arranged by their respective staff. Citizens who attend city council meetings to oppose an action the city wants to take are often ignored or even harangued or laughed at by some city council members. The reason is simple. Incumbent Denver City Council members virtually never lose re-election no matter how incompetent or corrupt they may be. Thus what citizens and neighborhood groups think of their city representative is generally irrelevant.
Who Controls Denver And Courtesy Zoning
The people who do matter are real estate developers and unions who are the overwhelming source of campaign funds. Only they would have the resources to challenge an incumbent. The primary power that a city council member has is control of all zoning revisions and development in his or her district. City Council has informally adopted the practice of “courtesy zoning” whereby the councilmember in whose district a development is located will be deferred to. Thus when citizens attend a Denver City Council member to oppose a development they are literally wasting their time.
If a rezoning or a development is before the City Council it means the city council member has indicated that he or she approves of it and it will pass by an overwhelming margin regardless of the merits or citizen opposition. Since Denver City Council members are required by law not to decide on so-called quasi-judicial matters until after all of the public input the concept of courtesy zoning would appear to be illegal or even criminal according to some municipal experts. Nonetheless, the practice of courtesy zoning continues unabated in 21st century Denver. The practice allows a real estate developer to grease the pocket of only the city councilmember in whose district his development is located, saving a great deal of time, money and effort.
Labor Union Controlled
Two of Denver’s 13 council members are elected at large and do not have defined districts. Thus developers are uninterested in these at-large seats leaving the positions to be controlled by the labor unions, particularly SEIU. At-large elections can be very expensive since they cover the whole city. A challenge to an incumbent at-large councilmember who has remained in the good graces with the unions is generally considered an almost impossibility. Denver’s two at-large members, Robin Kneich and Debbie Ortega, are generally considered in the back pocket of the labor unions and are viewed by some as poorly informed council members. Nonetheless they are running unopposed this election.
There are however potentially highly competitive races for many of the remaining 11 seats. In addition to the six open seats there may be additional competitive races due to redistricting. According to Denver law, the city must be redistricted at least once every 10 years to ensure that each Council member is representing a similar number of residents so that the concept of “one person, one vote” is maintained. In 2011, City Council reconfigured the boundaries for Denver’s 11 City Council districts creating a great deal of controversy. These new boundaries will take effect this coming election, May 5, 2015.
While it is generally held that a viable candidate needs to be engaged by the beginning of the new year, legally speaking March 11, 2015, is the deadline to submit petitions which need at least 100 signatures for council and 300 for auditor, mayor, and at-large seats.
District 10
One of the most interesting races is in District 10, located in central Denver. Jeanne Robb is completing her third and final term in office which will leave her seat available for a viable candidate. Recently, Roger Sherman, an executive at the public affairs firm CRL Associates announced he was withdrawing from the race. His initial candidacy papers were filed in March 2013 and he was considered to be a strong candidate for developers.
Wayne New, a former president of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association, is now the only declared candidate, at press time. Two other individuals have revealed an interest in running. Anna Jones, a Congress Park resident and a community development consultant who is vice president at Progressive Urban Management Associates, says she plans to launch a campaign. Alicia Economos, vice president of outreach and development for the group Democrats for Education Reform, also indicated plans to file her paperwork, but apparently has recently changed her mind.
Wayne New’s message focuses on what he sees as the over-development of Cherry Creek and a disregard for neighborhood interests in city planning decisions. “For years, our neighborhood voices have not been respected or even welcomed in City planning and decision-making,” said New. “I have a proven record of almost 15 years of strongly advocating the need for “balance” to protect our neighborhoods from excessive traffic, inadequate parking, and over-development that adversely impacts our quality of life. I will help lead us toward a more responsive, more accountable City government.”
District 6
Another district of note to Chronicle readers is District 6 in Southeast Denver. The owner of the Washington Park Profile Paul Kashmann faces Elizabeth Adams to succeed term limited Councilmember Charlie Brown who has served on the council since 2001. The redrawn District 6 will now represent the following neighborhoods: Harvard Gulch/Rosedale, Washington Park, University, Bonnie Brae, Cory-Merrill, University Park, Virginia Village/Ellis, Virginia Vale, Cook Park and Indian Creek. Portions of the new District 6 stretch as far west as Broadway, east past Quebec Street, as far north as Speer Blvd., and south to Dartmouth Ave.
Best Of The Rest
Six candidates have stepped forward to take over Chris Nevitt’s vacated seat in District 7, located in South-Central Denver. Luchia Ann Brown, Jolon Clark, Aaron Greco, Ian Harwick, Mickki Langston and Jacob Hunter Viano have declared their candidacy.
Far Southwest District 2 is vacated by term limited councilmember Jeanne Faatz. Five individuals have declared their candidacy: Nathaniel Cole, Fran Coleman, Kevin Flynn, Corrie Houck and John E. Kidd Jr. Far Southeast District 4 has been represented by Peggy Lehman since 2003. Four candidates have declared: Kendra Alexis Valis Black, Jeffrey Allen Garcia, William George McMullen and Halisi Vinson.
Judy Montero from District 9 has served on the council since 2003 and is term limited. Albus Brooks, who currently represents District 8, is now running in the new District 9. He is faced by Michael Borcherding, the founder of a sport and social club called Mile High Gives.
With Chris Herndon now running for a council seat in District 8, District 11 has five challengers: Sean Bradley, Shelli Brown, Samaria J. Crews, Stacie Gilmore, and Tea Schook.
Potentially the most endangered incumbent is District 1’s Susan Shepherd running against challenger Rafael Espinoza. Shepherd was elected as a labor union candidate but once in office quickly also became the friend of real estate developers. When she supported a massive redevelopment of a portion of the West Highlands citizens protested and eventually sued the city. While the lawsuit was ultimately dismissed her and her husband’s thuggish behavior toward neighborhood activists enraged the district.
Espinoza emphasizes that he is an architect and community activist who has fought the city administration before and running on a platform putting constitutes first. Shepherd will have the strong financial backers of the labor unions and the real estate developers which have successful rebuffed citizen-backed candidates many times before.
Role For Neighborhoods?
The question is what role RNOs and INC will play in the election as a possible counterbalance to the labor unions and real estate developers. It is not expected they will have an overt role since they are not per se political entities, but individual members of the groups are organizing to fight what they see as a corrupt and dishonest zoning and development process.
Moreover, INC has developed a platform for allowing neighborhoods to have a bigger role in developments across the city. The platform would prohibit higher density developments where the same would worsen traffic and parking. A city council candidate’s support or refusal to support the platform will help inform voters of where that person stands on reasonable growth in Denver’s neighborhoods.
Will 2015 be the year of citizens and neighborhood groups or the usual formidable duo of labor unions and real estate developers? For the first time in many a year the answer to that question is not clear, which should make this spring’s Denver municipal election an interesting one.
by Mark Smiley | Nov 21, 2014 | Main Articles
by Mark Smiley
Prominent Denver trial lawyer Danny Foster has had a contempt citation issued by Arapahoe County Judge Cheryl Rowles-Stokes that landed him in jail for a day overturned by a higher court who declared that Rowles-Stokes actions “were an abuse of discretion and in excess of her jurisdiction as a judge of the Arapahoe County Court.”
The case had become something of a cause-célèbre concerning abusive and incompetent judges in the Colorado judicial system. The jailing of Foster was subject of a scathing article by The Denver Post Editorial Page Editor Vincent Carroll.
F
oster had come to the defense of Jonathan Ogungbenle (see front page story of the September 2013 issue of the Chronicle) a substitute teacher and nurses aid who was wrongfully criminally charged with indecent exposure while working at a school in Aurora, Colorado. Without waiting to see whether Mr. Ogungbenle was in fact guilty of any charges, his state nursing-aid certification was summarily revoked.
In the civil case Foster obtained through discovery from the Aurora Public School system the files of the two student accusers. When he gave notice that he intended to introduce them in the criminal case, Rowles-Stokes, a former Arapahoe County prosecutor, became outraged. She demanded that Foster surrender to her all copies of the records although it was unclear how she could suppress the documents in the civil case which she had no jurisdiction over. Foster nonetheless provided all written copies in his possession.
In a subsequent hearing Foster noted that an electronic version existed in his computer which he could not turn over except by giving her the computer’s hard drive. Rowles-Stokes became unhinged and hissed, “When a Court orders you to turn over all of your records, that means all of yours in no matter what format they are in.” Foster apologized saying he did not understand that to have been her previous order.
Rowles-Stokes then planned her revenge. To the surprise of Foster she handed back the physical copies and then recused herself from the criminal trial. Ten days later Foster obtained a full acquittal for his client with the jury deliberating for only 20 minutes. But the celebration following the not guilty verdict was cut short when sheriff deputies barged into the court room and physically took Foster across the hall to another court room where Rowles-Stokes was waiting.
Without conducting a hearing Rowles-Stokes declared Foster’s conduct “s
o extreme that no warning was necessary.” She then found him in contempt and ordered him to jail immediately for one day. To the shock of his client Foster was handcuffed by the sheriff deputies and hauled to jail.
Following his day in jail Foster appealed Rowles-Stokes’ finding of contempt. While up on appeal Rowles-Stokes continued what some viewed as her highly unprofessional conduct. Under the applicable judicial ethics rules a judge is not to hear a case where one of the lawyers or his firm is an adversary party to the judge in an outstanding case. Nonetheless Rowles-Stokes refused to disqualify herself in another case where a man was represented by Foster’s law firm. Only when it became obvious that her conduct would once again be appealed to a higher court did she reluctantly relent.
On appeal Rowles-Stokes’ attorney admitted that she had violated the applicable law by not providing a warning or a hearing but argued that the case should be remanded back to her to conduct what would be a sham hearing and the possible imposition of even more jail time. The District Court on October 22 shot down Rowles-Stokes’ arguments finding that she had not conducted “a fair and proper hearing in the sense contemplated by our system of justice” and that “Mr. Foster’s due process rights have been violated by Judge Rowles-Stokes.” The court also refused to remand the case and vacated the finding of contempt.
While Foster is now in the clear, the problem is what some are calling a rogue and unfit judge remains on bench. As pointed out by The Denver Post’s Vincent Carroll the state’s checks and balances on bad judges do not work. Rowles-Stokes was appointed to the bench in 2012 for a provisionary two year term and was subject to a retention election this past November. But as predicted by Carroll she was retained despite two-thirds of the attorneys who appeared before her telling the Commission on Judicial Performance she was unfit.
The reason for her retention as Carroll pointed out is that citizens often vote to retain judges many know nothing about and they are only ousted when a concerted campaign is carried by citizens. Observers point out some of the worst judges in the Colorado judicial system are former prosecutors appointed directly to the bench like Rowles-Stokes since prosecutors’ sense of entitlement is only exacerbated by joining the judiciary. The Commission on Judicial Performance indicates that over the last 20 years, 99.3 percent of all judges subject to a vote have been retained including two-thirds of the judges the Commission found wholly unfit to serve on the bench. For the 2014 election the Commission found only three judges to be unfit to be retained and two of those were just like Rowles-Stokes, former district attorneys appointed to county court positions. Like Rowles-Stokes, both were retained by the voters.
Carroll noted that the citizens will regret having Rowles-Stokes on the bench “given her vengeful lack of perspective in Foster’s case.”
The victorious Danny Foster in turn hopes the decision will have a broader significance. “I am very happy about the decision,” said Danny Foster. “I hope it will teach Judge Rowles-Stokes, and others like her, to understand that they need to treat all people with respect, professionalism and courtesy, whether they be lawyers, witnesses or parties to a case. A courtroom is no place for intolerance and a judge, above all else, needs to protect our constitutional rights, not violate them out of anger or spite.”
Unfortunately, according to critics, Rowles-Stokes is but the tip of an iceberg that will continue to grow unless reforms are instituted regarding how judges are retained in Colorado.
by Valley Gadfly | Nov 21, 2014 | Main Articles
Buchanan’s Planning Board Process Called ‘Corrupt, Consultant-Dominated, Unlawful Cesspool’ In Lawsuit
by Glen Richardson
In a blockbuster lawsuit filed October 14 in Denver District Court residents in Denver’s Crestmoor and Lowry neighborhoods have taken legal action to “reform a corrupt, consultant-dominated, unlawful process” regarding rezoning in the City and County of Denver. In particular the residents are outraged by the rezoning of a block of 70 acres of land previously called the Buckley Annex and now referred to as Boulevard One. It was once a part of the old Lowry Air Force Base and the site at one time of the Air Force Finance Center.
Residents in vario
us east Denver neighborhoods are challenging the Denver Planning Board’s October 1 rezoning decision because it did not follow the criteria set forth in Denver’s Zoning Code. In an attempt to hide from court review the actions of the Planning Board, the City, after being served with the lawsuit, quickly withdrew one of its two zoning proposals “for further consideration.”
In addition the Lowry Redevelopment Authority (LRA) withdrew its C-MX-5 zoning application in an attempt to avoid judicial review of its actions. LRA is a quasi-governmental joint venture set up by the cities of Denver and Aurora to oversee the redevelopment of the Lowry Air Force Base. LRA once enjoyed broad support in the community but ever since the giveaway of open space land, called Lowry Vista, to a developer for $10 in a byzantine set of transactions, it is now viewed by many as every bit as corrupt and incompetent as Brad Buchanan and the Planning Board.
The complaint points out that LRA Executive Director Monty Force had “his own personal conflict of interest, with an LRA employment agreement that rewarded him financially for high density development on the Buckley Annex site.”
In the complaint it is alleged that LRA “hand-picked a group of people it believed shares its agenda for high density development and labeled the group its “Community Advisory Committee” contending these hand-picked supporters could speak for the interests of residents in surrounding neighborhoods.” Using that committee LRA then pushed through a badly tainted General Development Plan (GDP) notwithstanding widespread opposition throughout the affected neighborhoods.
As detailed in the homeowners’ complaint, Plaintiffs challenge the procedure Buchanan, who is the paid head of the Denver Community Planning & Development Department (CPD), and the Planning Board used to consider the rezoning Text Amendment for the Buckley Annex/Boulevard One parcel. The rezoning decision resulted in the adoption of a high-density framework with five-story buildings with minimal or no setbacks.
In addition, through the lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to reform the “corrupt process” Buchanan and his Planning Board used in considering additional zoning changes to the Buckley Annex parcel and throughout Denver to prevent “future flawed zoning decisions that harm neighborhoods and residents.” Plaintiffs, however, are not challenging the four single family and row house zoning decisions, and that construction is underway.
Residents in Lowry’s surrounding stable residential neighborhoods with strong property values — Park Heights, Mayfair Park, Montclair, Crestmoor, Hilltop and Virginia Vale — do not want to see the Buckley parcel become a ghetto of new, high-density mixed-use buildings that create a traffic and parking nightmare for surrounding residents due to the lack of effective mass transit. Traffic jams already occur along Monaco Parkway, Quebec and Alameda. LRA wants to jam 800-plus residential units and an additional 150,000 square feet of retail and commercial space into the Buckley parcel. If approved, the development is projected to add an estimated 10,000 new car trips per day to the surrounding streets and neighborhoods.
Betrayal By Buchanan
In the lawsuit Plaintiffs claim Buchanan, the CPD and the Planning Board exceeded their jurisdiction and abused its responsibility, based on the evidence in the record of the October 2014 quasi-judicial hearing. Among other things, the lawsuit says that Buchanan and Planning Board members admitted on the record that they lacked time to read and consider the public comments submitted in writing before the hearing, and recognized that the process was flawed.
Even more scandalous, Buchanan allowed Board Member Jim Bershof to participate in the deliberations and influence the votes of the other members even though he has a financial interest in the Lowry Text Amendment. He also voted on the decision despite the fact he and his company OZ Architecture is advocating a zoning change f
or the Mt. Gilead Church property across Monaco Parkway from the Buckley Annex parcel. The proposed change at the church property is based in part on the limited setbacks, tall building heights, and high-density reflected in Buckley Annex/Boulevard One.
It was apparently on the advice from and the rationale of representatives in the City Attorney’s office that Bershof failed to disclose the details about his role with the Mt. Gilead Church application. According to the lawsuit Bershof’s voting on the decision, and his failure to recuse himself violated both the Denver Municipal Code and the City’s ethics rules.
We-They Showdown
Defendants in the lawsuit, in addition to Buchanan and board member Jim Bershof, are other members: Andy Baldyga, Shannon Gifford, Renee Martinez-Stone, Brittany Morris Saunders, Joel Noble, Susan Pearce, Arleen Taniwaki, Julie Underdahl, Frank Schultz and Chris Smith. The City and County of Denver is also named as a defendant. Plaintiffs are Chris O’Connor, David Mitzner, William O’Rourke and John Fischer. The plaintiffs’ attorney is area resident Greg Kerwin who is with the internationally renowned law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
O’Connor, president of the Lowry United Neighborhoods, and one of the plaintiffs, tells the Chronicle that like many others, “I am tired of our city leaders — elected purportedly to represent residents of Denver — adopt Hancock’s mantra that we must turn Denver into a world class city without asking how we will move or park people, or considering what existing taxpayers and existing neighborhoods want.” Furthermore, she adds, they haven’t considered whether our less-than-world-class fledgling transit network can realistically support this vertical vision?
Plaintiff Mitzner, a resident of Lowry since June 2000, says he believes “that the vast majority of east Denver residents do not want the City to allow a Cherry Creek type zone district in the midst of this east Denver residential area.”
John Fischer who is President of Crestmoor Park Home Owners Inc., First Filing, argues that Crestmoor should be “buffered from development, not diminished by it.” In a letter to the Denver Planning Board in April of last year he stated, “We oppose commercial development anywhere close to Crestmoor Park, a crown jewel of Denver and the centerpiece of our neighborhoods. It is crucial that we maintain the openness of the east side of the park along Monaco.” Longtime resident William O’Rourke lives in Park Heights, the first area built in Lowry. It is located on the southwest corner of Alameda & Quebec adjacent to the Buckley Annex.
INC Rolls Up Sleeves
Larry Ambrose, President of the Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation (INC) — the umbrella group for all of Denver’s neighborhood associations — says they have been concerned about the process as a result of both the Buckley Annex and St. Anthony’s (South Sloan’s Lake) developments. He says the two developments have followed almost parallel processes, with similar facts and almost identical abuses of process.
“As a result of resolutions passed by INC in February of this year, the Planning Office Director Brad Buchanan first agreed to a public process involving the neighborhoods to review how open space is calculated. In subsequent meetings he agreed to put all aspects of how GDPs affect the zoning and planning process including addressing whether the formula for calculating open space is adequate, whether the applicants for GDPs should control the planning and public meeting process and even whether GDPs should come after zoning rather than before zoning as it did prior to the 2010 changes to the Denver Zoning Code.” This process with INC, Ambrose reveals, is going on now with Denver Planning at the table.
“Speaking as an individual and not for INC as the organization has not yet taken a formal position, unfortunately, two of the largest developments that will have long-term ramifications and negatively affect thousands of current residents are being put into place as a result of GDPs that slipped through as a result of the current flawed GDP ordinance. The most devastating effect of these flaws is to allow the Buckley Annex and Sloan’s Lake GDPs to serve as ‘backdoor’ zoning where these developer manipulated plans which are not adopted plans approved by City Council, have taken on the appearance of legitimacy.”
Mayor, LRA Ignore Concerns
In these instances Ambrose says, “the GDP processes have had the effect of dismissing the neighborhoods’ legitimate concerns, confusing residents into just what the process is and what process is due while receiving rubber-stamp approval from the City. I can say that INC has taken stances before in support of challenges to City actions through the judicial branch where legitimate concerns have been ignored by the Mayor, his agencies and City Council.”
Lowry’s O’Connor also notes that the LRA continues to say there have been 60 meetings and a comprehensive public process. But to say 60 meetings indicates consensus is misleading. “There was no consensus. The overwhelming public sentiment was that the new development needed to comply with original Lowry Design Guidelines and preserve the overall look and feel of Lowry.” She also points out that consultants have spun the story that this is a compromise, and that most participants in the process are happy. O’Connor says, however, that two surveys by Crestmoor and Lowry during 2013 indicate that is not the case.
She also remembers that residents from numerous Denver neighborhoods — not just Lowry — opposed developer IRG’s process in creating a General Development Plan as well as the 2010 rezoning of the 80 acre Lowry landfill parcel called Lowry Vista. “We pointed out the City’s failure to follow City Plans during that process. However, although we believed the City’s approvals were without basis, the actions went unchallenged in court,” recalls Lowry land use watchdog O’Connor. Nevertheless, Denver residents are finally challenging the actions by the Planning Board.
O’Connor asks: Are our leaders oblivious to the sentiment that most residents dread the thought that our neighborhoods are poised to go the way of Cherry Creek? The Urban Center Zoning in Cherry Creek’s newly approved zone district is to be applied to both the Quebec and Monaco “edges” of Buckley Annex. “No doubt this will lead to further up-zonings in other sections of Lowry,” she warns. The piecemeal nature of these Lowry rezonings is deliberate and serves to wear out the public that has already seen four parcels on Buckley Annex rezoned, and faces at least three more.
by Mark Smiley | Oct 24, 2014 | Main Articles
by Glen Richardson
For families living in the Virginia Vale and Hilltop neighborhoods it’s a nightmarish flashback to a development scheme that dates back more than 50 years. It involves a three-acre plot of land along Leetsdale Drive directly across the street from George Washington High School where developer Paul Naftel of Emerald Properties LLC is now proposing a Jimmy John’s be built where years earlier he proposed a McDonald’s.
Saga of the disputed property goes back to the 1950s when development of the southeast Denver neighborhood was just beginning. Back then neighbors say many Denver high schools had small parks across the street — a legacy of Mayor Robert Speer’s City Beautiful campaign — and it was speculated then that the property was intended as a park.
In the 1950s Denver Public Schools founded KRMA as an educational TV station. By 1987 the station and the school district ended their affiliation and as part of that transaction the three acres along Leetsdale was given to the station. Almost immediately the station wound up in a dispute with the local neighborhoods when it won approval for rezoning, and the developer proposed a McDonald’s on the site.
Deal Stopped Earlier
Ironically back then angry residents in Virginia Vale, led by President Deb Ward, blocked the development. Paradoxically, a realtor named Paul Aceto, who now purports he is President of the Virginia Vale Community Assn., signed off with the Planning Board on the latest plan. Aceto posted a small sign at McMeen Elementary School six days prior to scheduling a meeting and used a five-year-old email database to send announcements. He hasn’t, however, provided minutes or attendance information. Aceto says the previous Virginia Vale board and the current vice president extended the presidency of the neighborhood group to him in 2008. Nevertheless, several alarmed Virginia Vale residents testified against the plan at a hearing before the Planning Board in the Webb Municipal Bldg. on Sept. 3.
“I am disgusted by the lack of notice to anyone in our neighborhood regarding this re-zoning. I only became aware of it when I happened to see the small notice posted two weeks ago. No one on our own or adjacent streets were previously notified,” Holly Brooks told City Planners. “Seven years ago many of us and our neighbors spent nearly a year in meeting rooms crowded to standing room only to reach a compromise with the same developer on use, lighting, landscaping and barriers protective of our neighborhood,” she recalled. “The developer’s latest proposal is everything we fought against last time, fast-food,” she angrily retorted.
Aceto told the Chronicle at press time that “in lieu of the potentially serious consequences now apparent, the Virginia Vale Community Association is taking a different position on the development and sending a letter to Kyle Dalton at the Planning Board revealing the group is altering its support.” At the Oct. 15 City Council Meeting, however, Senior Planner Kyle Dalton told Council members and attendees that the VVCA by no means rescinded their approval. Rather, that he received a letter that said some of the people in our neighborhood had surfaced opposing the plan.
Ward Speaks Up
Former President Ward, who still lives in Virginia Vale but is no longer affiliated with the Community Association, tells the Chronicle that when Naftel originally tried to develop the triangular Leetsdale property, “we refused to allow a mixed use zone, only allowing a very specific PUD, which is why he is having to jump through hoops once again.” She recalls that Naftel’s spokesperson made it sound as if the community association was accepting rezoning at that time. “We most definitely were not,” she declares.
The spunky Ward also says, “I would think that it would benefit all neighborhoods with these little odd bits of open land to not allow mixed usages, but stick with PUDs so that neighborhoods can maintain some control of what they will accept. Once a mixed use is allowed — especially the broader zones — I believe neighborhoods lose control for good,” she warns.
The latest redevelopment plan also caught the attention of Reuben Drebenstedt, President of the South Hilltop Neighborhood Assn. Because of interest and concerns by Hilltop neighbors regarding the proposed zoning and development plans for the property he scheduled a meeting on Oct. 13 to discuss the proposal with the owner-developer and his architect.
Traffic Concerns
Drebenstedt expressed neighborhood concerns about high traffic on and off of Exposition and into adjacent neighborhoods. “School kids crossing Leetsdale through traffic, not using crosswalks; it will be a danger to them and autos,” he said. Drebenstedt also suggested too many businesses are being located on the small plot. A total of four spaces — the largest being 2,400 sq. ft. — are proposed on the property. Several attendees at the Hilltop meeting also articulated concerns that there would be a sharp increase of parked cars on Exposition plus increased loitering. At the South Hilltop meeting developer Naftel indicated a willingness to consider the options being suggested at the meeting. Nevertheless his architect Michael Rudd, who also attended the meeting, expressed doubt the City would give approval.
Given that the current Mayor and city staff generally support developments rather than parks, it’s not surprising that the Planning Board staff recommended approval (only changing the PUD from 584 to PUD-G 10). Senior City Planner Kyle A. Dalton wrote, “The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area.”
Changes identified in the surrounding area by the developer’s application include the redevelopment of Lowry, suggesting it created an increased demand for neighborhood commercial service uses, such as retail and restaurant. “Since the time of the previous PUD adoption, a mini-storage facility has been built, development trends have changed, and a new zoning code has been adopted,” the application states. Virginia Vale resident John Sturtz notes that despite Planner Dalton’s support of the developer’s argument that business in Lowry is reflective of the Leetsdale project, “it is blocks away and doesn’t reflect either this community, the environment around George Washington High School or our traffic issues.”
The Denver City Council is tentatively scheduled to vote on the proposed development November 17.
by Mark Smiley | Oct 24, 2014 | Main Articles
Merchants Suffer From Construction, Traffic And Parking Woes;
Will There Be Healing During The Holidays?
by Phil Kummer
Delirious development plus the University-Josephine storm sewer system and street project through Cherry Creek are aimed at creating a rebirth of this upscale area. Yet after suffering through nearly a year of parking and traffic turmoil plus shopping setbacks there are a few signs of healing as the holiday season draws near.
Furthermore, the half-built building boom has businesses seeing mounting monetary scars while some have abandoned the area altogether. “Often it has been easier to spot cranes soaring overhead than shoppers on the streets and in stores,” said Beth Saper of Little Feet, the family-owned footwear fashions store for kids located in The Plaza at Cherry Creek on the west side of University Blvd. Many local businesses have been impacted and the rippling effect goes beyond the area bounded by 1st and 3rd Avenues and University to Steele Streets or the Cherry Creek Shopping Center.
Hayley Morris, store manager of Ten Thousand Villages — a national non-profit that promotes artisans from around the world — says that construction has impacted sales. “Foot traffic, which is critical to the store, is down 25 percent compared to before construction,” she reveals. Due to the resulting loss of business the store, located on 3rd Ave. next to the 250 Columbine construction project, has increased store hours is are now open on Sunday. They also organized a fundraiser — Art for Artisans — to recoup some of the lost revenue from previous months. Hayley is hopeful nonetheless that during November and December customers will return for the holiday shopping.
Busting Business
The Cherry Creek Whole Foods store sandwiched between the University-Josephine projects began feeling the effects last February. Due to a dramatic revenue drop, 50 employees were transferred to other stores or in some cases chose to leave the company. Sharon Wilkinson, the store’s Greater Denver Area Marketing Team Leader, gives the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District high marks for setting up meetings with the city and in particular with Mayor Michael Hancock at the beginning of the infrastructure project. Those meetings resulted in certain noise restrictions being lifted to allow for a quicker construction pace. Even so, the length of the project and the decline in sales has been tough on Whole Foods.
The ongoing construction has not only had an impact on businesses within Cherry Creek North and at the Shopping Center, but extends to small businesses along 6th Ave. Arv Singh, owner of the 7-Eleven convenience store at 6th Ave. and Columbine, has noticed a drop of perhaps 22 percent in revenue. Singh is making every effort to retain his nine employees. “We’re giving supplementary employee training plus doubling our marketing effort to realize the most business from each customer visit.” He nonetheless thinks about how the City might have been of more help to the small business owner, possibly with bridge loans or a tax forgiveness program.
Mathnasium, a math tutoring business also located on 6th Ave., has seen revenues shrink more than 20 percent in the past few months. Owner Bernard Doughit echoes Arv Singh, speculating that the city could have reached out to small businesses that don’t have the resources of large corporations.
Happy Holidays?
Since the 1950s the intersection of First Ave. and University Blvd. has been the foremost roadway into this premier shopping district. The biggest roadway closure ever attempted by the City shut down the intersection for 60 hours from Sept. 20 at 7 p.m. until reopening on Sept. 23 at 7 a.m. The closure brought business in the district to a screeching halt and created colossal traffic jams. Little Feet’s Beth Saper said the mayor and City held a meeting with storeowners prior to the shutdown promising a marketing plan. However, she quickly adds, “There was never any follow-through whatsoever.”
The closure, approved by Mayor Hancock, was an attempt to accelerate the paving of the intersection and move up the overall project reconstruct by 24 days. Furthermore the Public Works’ University-Josephine storm sewer project jumped ahead of schedule by three weeks, “We’ve definitely seen increased traffic to our store since the partial reopening of the roadway in October,” Saper reports. The goal of the shutdown was to allow an early start to Cherry Creek’s holiday shopping season. In late October area businesses were still holding their breath, hoping the project will be completed by the projected completion date of Nov. 1.
Even if the First Ave. and University project is fully completed in time to save Christmas, neither businesses nor shoppers can look in their rearview mirrors. Fact is the hefty rebuild of Cherry Creek North has only just begun. By the time the block-long 250 Columbine project is finished next year, across the street the seven-story, 150 room luxury hotel at 245 Columbine will just be getting underway.
Makeover Madness
The intersection of First Ave. and Steele St. is going through an equally implausible makeover. On the same corner as the 1st and Steele Apartments, there are two other major projects currently under construction: 12-story apartment building, the Steele Creek Apartments, and an 8-story office building, 100 Saint Paul. That’s 149,000 square feet of new office space and 435 residential units being added to just one intersection. Ground has just recently been broken for the Steele Creek Apartments.
Finally, mid-next year when the work is completed in front of the Cherry Creek Shopping Center, the gateway to Cherry Creek North — Clayton Lane — may again endure redevelopment. As reported by the Chronicle last month, the owner of 7.7 acres of the development site is considering redevelopment options and hired the original architect — David Tryba — to consider development options. The project is generally between East 1st and 2nd Avenues, Detroit and Josephine St.
What is impressive about Cherry Creek small businesses that have so far survived is their determination to reach out to customers in creative ways and to not give up even when the cards seem stacked against them. So when stuck in traffic or you can’t find a parking space and are ready to scream, remember that retailers in the area are feeling the pain even more. These merchants have nowhere to turn and are doing everything they can with hopes of eventually enjoying the improvements that are causing their distress.
What the future holds for Cherry Creek retailers is a matter of debate. Some store owners are hoping that the significant number of upscale apartment buildings and other new developments will result in a large client base to shop and eat in Cherry Creek. Others fear that the lack of any traffic planning or improvements coupled with a minimum number of parking spaces required by the city for the new developments will destroy the area as a retail destination for those who do not live or work in Cherry Creek.
For many of the smaller retailers they are just hoping a successful Christmas season will allow them to survive after a year of constant challenges caused them by the city and by what they view as a chaotic and haphazard planning and development process for the area.
by Mark Smiley | Sep 29, 2014 | Main Articles
Frontier Renewal Will Finish Environmental Cleanup And Prepare The Site For Development
by Mark Smiley
Denver-based Frontier Renewal closed on September 12, 2014, on the purchase of over 41 acres at the site of the former Gates Rubber Plant in Denver. The plant has been closed since 1991 with buildings on site ranging in date from 1918 through the 1950s. Frontier Renewal will finish the remediation and cleanup work, as well as prepare the site for vertical development.
The Gates site includes three land parcels: the Broadway Parcel is 15.2 acres between the I-25 and Broadway light rail station and Mississippi along the west side of Broadway. The Santa Fe Parcel is 24 acres between I-25 and Mississippi Ave. along the east side of Santa Fe. The Vanderbilt Park Parcel is 2.5 acres between Tennessee and Vanderbilt Park along the west side of Santa Fe.
On October 1, 1911, Charles Gates Sr. purchased the Colorado Tire and Leather Company located in Denver, Colorado, beside the South Platte River. He paid $3,500 for a property that would one day become one of the world’s largest manufacturers of power transmission belts and a leader in hydraulic and fluid power products for industrial and automotive products. In 1919, the International Rubber Company changed its name to the Gates Rubber Company, and operated at the site from 1937 through 1991.
While at first a small enterprise producing “durable treads” made of leather intended to extend the life of the average automobile tire, the company quickly grew and in 1914 produced its first rubber tread. The growth that followed necessitated a new facility and the site at 999 S. Broadway was selected because of its relative proximity to downtown and because it was adjacent to the streetcar line and the railroad tracks, essential for the national distribution of Gates’ products. At the time south Broadway was still a dirt road and considered “suburban.” In the following five years the company added a warehouse, machine shop and more factory space. Growth continued through nearly the rest of the century, with increasing focus on international expansion. In 1995 the era of family-ownership ended when Gates became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tompkins PLC, a London-based firm. While manufacturing no longer takes place in Denver, Gates continues to operate with its corporate headquarters in Lower Downtown.
In 2001, Cherokee Denver purchased the south Broadway property and created plans for mixed-use development. Cherokee investigated whether some preservation could be accomplished, but due to the unusual circumstances of the contamination, preservation was never guaranteed or promised. Ultimately the Denver City Council-approved General Development Plan did not include preservation elements, and in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis the Cherokee deal died and Gates reacquired the site.
Three years later, in 2012, Gates secured Certificates of Non-Historic Status, which are precursors to demolition permits. After months of controversy, a Denver City Council subcommittee voted, in September 2012, to halt efforts to consider the crumbing manufacturing plant one of the city’s historic landmarks. This action was despite a University of Colorado Boulder student asking the city to consider the buildings historic, a designation that would have prevented demolition.
In 2012, Eugene Elliott, presented the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission with a non-owner application and $250 filing fee to grant landmark status to the three oldest remaining structures: the manufacturing plant, known as Unit 10, plus the power plant and warehouse to the north of it. “The former Gates Rubber Company is a huge piece of Colorado and, more relevantly, Denver history,” Elliott said. “By not accepting the landmark-designation application, the owner will proceed to demolish the last remaining physical reminder of what Gates Rubber Company did and was for this city and its citizens.”
The application was denied. Council members cited the need to remove pollution buried under the old plant, and the desire of neighborhood groups living near the building to see it removed, as reasons for their votes. A few months later, the Denver City Council made changes to the city’s landmark ordinance and on December 4, 2012, the Department of Community Planning and Development raised the landmark application fee from $250 to $875. Some say this is to discourage people like Elliott from submitting applications to attempt to stymie the progress of developers.
Also in 2012, Historic Denver, a non-profit historic preservation organization located at 14th and Ogden, coordinated neighborhood meetings to encourage community input. As part of this discussion both Historic Denver and Gates brought forward ideas for consideration.
While many at the meeting were comfortable with the demolition plans, they also expressed great interest in the preservation of the Water Tower. The tower now sits on the ground on the west side of the property, but it was once the most iconic feature of the facility, defining the city’s skyline for South Denver.
As part of the conversations Gates had agreed to retain the Water Tower and keep it in a safe place on the property until plans can be made regarding its reuse, in total or in pieces, somewhere on the site or on adjacent public land, such as the RTD Light Rail Station. Historic Denver believes that the incorporation of this piece would contribute significantly to maintaining an authentic sense of place at the site.
Annie Levinsky, executive director of Historic Denver, said last year that she’d always hoped that the buildings could be saved. “We recognize that the contamination issues are a serious complication,” Levinsky said. “But we’ve always remained hopeful that they could be salvaged.” There is no word yet as to whether Frontier Renewal will retain the Water Tower for the planned development.
Denver Councilman Chris Nevitt, who represents the area, said in September 2013
that he held out hope that a developer might be able to use some of the buildings, but he added that his constituents are eager to see the old factory removed. As proven in 2012 with Elliott’s crusade, not everyone agreed with Nevitt. In September 2013, Gates secured demolition permits for the existing site. The original factory sat deserted on the corner of Broadway and Mississippi until November 2013, when demolition of the final factory buildings began.
Frontier Renewal will now prepare the site for future development. Frontier Renewal will maintain the existing ground water remediation system and will continue cleaning up the remaining contaminates. Frontier Renewal will also work with the City and County of Denver and take part in a community process to discuss the future of the site as Gates did in 2012. Once this work is complete, individual land parcels will be sold for vertical development. Renderings have not yet been submitted but it is widely speculated that the land will be used for apartments or condominiums.
“We are pleased to be selling this important property to a company with the skill and commitment to responsibly manage the environmental risks and ensure that the property is put to beneficial reuse in a manner that will make Gates, the City and other stakeholders proud,” said Tom Reeve, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Gates Corporation.
“We are thrilled to be acquiring the former Gates site,” said Eric Williams, Chief Executive Officer, Frontier Renewal. “This project is a perfect fit for Frontier Renewal’s strengths: environmental clean-up, real estate development and public-private partnerships. And as Denver natives, we know the importance of this site in Denver’s history. We are looking forward to working with the city and community to create a bright new future for the site.“
