RedPeak: City council's Susan Shepherd won't fight controversial West Highland development

Thumbnail image for no high rises.jpg
Denver City Councilwoman Susan Shepherd will not take any action to stop a proposed development just north of 32nd Avenue and Lowell Boulevard that has neighbors fighting mad.

Although she had hinted that she might try to change the zoning on the property, she released a letter late last week stating that she will not attempt to stop or delay RedPeak Properties, which plans to build a trio of five-story apartment buildings.

Many neighbors and groups, including the West Highland Neighborhood Association (WHNA) and No High Rises in West Highland, have urged Shepherd to try to rezone the parcels, which could limit the height of the buildings to better match the one- and two-story homes in the neighborhood, or place a moratorium on construction.

Thumbnail image for Susan shepherd headshot.jpg
Susan Shepherd.
"After numerous meetings with WHNA members and concerned neighbors, Council colleagues, city attorneys, and officials from Community Planning and Development and Public Works, I have determined an effort at down-zoning or a moratorium is not a constructive path towards rectifying this challenging situation," wrote Shepherd in her letter. "Not only would they be futile efforts but could place at risk many of the development concessions my office and local efforts have secured from RedPeak the past few months."

Shepherd is referring to concessions she believes RedPeak has made after months of meetings with a design advisory group comprised of representatives from RedPeak, Shepherd's office, No High Rises, WHNA and local business owners. She notes that RedPeak has lowered the height of the proposed buildings, which could have been as high as seventy feet, by ten to twenty feet. Shepherd also wrote that RedPeak has reduced the density of the project from 160 units between the three buildings to 147 units in order to alleviate some parking and traffic issues.

She did note, however, that she believes the current zoning, which allows buildings up to five stories and mixed commercial and residential buildings, is inappropriate for the land.

Bill Menezes, a member of the No High Rises group (as well as a former journalist and onetime head of Colorado Media Matters), is less impressed by RedPeak and believes it's wrong of Shepherd to laud its building plans as concessions. "My main objection is that it's factually inaccurate," he says. "For an elected official to basically echo the developer's talking points, which are themselves inaccurate, is a problem. It's okay to support this project for whatever reason, but to state things which are factually untrue in support of the project is extremely troublesome."

Menezes believes RedPeak has not met many of the requests the design advisory group has asked for and says what Shepherd calls concessions are simply RedPeak's building plans. Rather than viewing RedPeak's decision to limit the Moncrieff building to four stories as a concession, he sees it as a tactic allowing the developer to charge premium rates for the top-floor apartments in the Lowell building across the street. Residents of those units will be able to see the downtown skyline without a fifth floor on the Moncrieff building to block the view.

In addition, Menezes thinks RedPeak never planned to build the structures seventy feet high because it would cost too much -- so it should not be credited with compromising. Meeting minutes from a December 7 design advisory committee meeting show that RedPeak representatives stated: "It is not advantageous for RedPeak to push the development up vertically because buildings are more expensive the higher they get."

Those meeting minutes also show that RedPeak had planned between 140 and 160 units total at that time.

Click to continue reading about the latest RedPeak developments.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
8 comments
Guest
Guest

"Her job is not to tell the neighborhood what should be done in the face of overwhelming neighborhood consensus about what is believed as necessary"

Maybe Mr Menezes needs to look up the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy. This situation is the very reason we have and need a representative government. Although Susan Shepherd seemed to stumble a few times in this process (she is new to this) she came to a well reasoned and rational decision in the face of a tyrannical and irrational mob.  

Scandal
Scandal

Looks like she got her payday.

Mike
Mike

Bill, if RedPeak can charge 5th floor premiums on the west side of Lowell, couldn't they also charge 5th floor premiums on the east side of Lowell? Soooo, they have shifted that premium from one side of the street to another, and sacrificed one entire level of apartments. Sounds like a compromise to me. 

Also, as a resident of W Highlands, I disagree with Menezes comment that it is Councilwoman Shephards responsibility to take this motion to the City. Why, because one group of residents requests it of her? Well, she's my representative, and I requested her not to take the motion to the city. We both can't be winners here. 

Lastly, I want to echo Dave Barnes comment that Menezes knew the development risk when he bought is house. If he failed to do adequate due diligence on his real estate purchase, then shame on him. People shouldn't be expected to jump through hoops to protect Bill Menezes city view. 

Ben
Ben

Music to my ears.  Get her out of here.  I bet Red Peak will give her a sweet deal on one of their units downtown if she needs to live in a neighborhood that won't scorn her every time she walks down the street

Mike
Mike

This disgusts me. She has done nothing but make a decision that is not in-line with a small group of constituents. She has done nothing unethical. She has not broken any laws. On what grounds should she reasonably be recalled? 

Blo
Blo

Um, because she sucks at doing her job effectively.  

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...