City Park West Neighborhood Association

Zoning Presentations

Recent presentations to CPWNA on zoning tips and techniques

CPWNA Meeting Highlights
June 2001
Speaker: Hilleary Waters, Co-Editor/Publisher of Neighborhood Life and Life on Capitol Hill, and City Park West resident.

The 1600 block of Humboldt St. in the last three years was engaged in a battle with a developer. As a result, the City created an overlay district in the area located from the alley between Humboldt & Lafayette to Williams St. and from 17th to Colfax. Hilleary Waters provided a brief history of what was done to achieve this.

Background: About three years ago, the parking lot behind Pasquini’s which had been empty for the previous 20-25 years was bought by Triton Development (NOT to be confused with Triton Properties). Interested neighbors began asking about what Triton’s proposed condos were going to look like. Eventually it was learned that the plan was for fifteen condos within a 40 foot tall building, which would have been fifteen feet higher than the tallest building in the area. The garages were to be on the first floor in the front requiring residents to drive across the sidewalk to park.

Concerned neighbors spread the word and subsequently organized. The proposed plans didn’t match predominant setbacks, height, or style of the neighborhood. A couple of neighbors were able to get the developer to agree to make a few changes, but these changes were ultimately considered by the neighbors to be inconsequential, (e.g., the addition of shutters). Because the area was zoned R4, proposed plans were within the parameters of the existing zoning regulations. Part way through the process, Triton sold the lot to the Buchanan Yonushewski Group, and it is they who redesigned the building and constructed what is there today.

Timeline: Neighbors found out about the proposed plan in April, 1998. By November, Triton became convinced that there was sufficient resistance within the neighborhood, from the City Council and from the zoning department, to merit re-negotiation.

Tactics:
1.) Neighbors gathered tons of info. They went to the zoning department for info re: the lot size, the design review requirements, and to find out where the neighbors did and didn’t have power.

2.) City Councilman Hiawatha Davis became involved and was able to establish a moratorium on building anything over 35’ in height within a seven block area in that part of the neighborhood –and furthermore, was able to get it passed by City Council in two weeks.

3.) Media savvy neighbors sent out press releases – articles were written up in Denver Post, Washington Park Profile, Westword, and the Rocky Mtn. News. Media was notified –and was present-- when there was a scheduled Block Protest.

4.) Neighbors had the kids on the block build a Lego model showing the relative size of the proposed building in comparison to the existing structures when they appeared before City Council to protest the planned development.

5.) The Humboldt Street Neighborhood Organization was formed. Neighbors had gone to Capitol Hill United Neighbors (CHUN) and Uptown Urban Design Forum (UUDF) at first, but because the proposed development was not out of compliance with R4 zoning, they were not able to offer much help.

6.) Petitions were generated and circulated

7.) Neighbors worked with an organization called Metropolitan Organizations for People – a church-based group which helps to organize various grassroots efforts

Lessons Learned:
1.) If possible, get a City Council person as an advocate. Hilleary cited Susan Barnes-Geldt as an example of a councilperson who is very sensitive to overwhelming development (i.e., development to the point that it overwhelms and obliterates the character of a neighborhood or a block).

2.) Just because a developer has the right, doesn’t mean it IS right.

3.) Do what you can to develop public opinion in favor of your cause.

4.) Know what you want and articulate it clearly. When the neighbors were to the point where formally protested to the developer, they wrote a very succinct letter stating what was wanted, e.g., to match set backs, reduce mass and density, bury the parking, create access to the building on the alley, create porches and front entrances. Given these parameters, the developer then came up with the building which is there currently.

5.) Do not dictate details such as requiring wooden balconies, green shutters, etc.

6.) Don’t necessarily depend on bigger groups to help your cause. If you don’t get the support you need from larger, previously established groups, find the most interested group of people you can and organize.

7.) MOST IMPORTANT: Organize in such a way that everybody can take responsibility. Make sure participants understand that they must be involved for the long haul. Hundreds and hundreds of hours are required – many meetings to attend, letters to write, much reading and research to be completed.

8.) Pick your battles carefully.

Outcome: The overlay district which now exists is zoned R4/OD-9, and restricts anything over 35 feet in height. There are also additional restrictions re: set back and mass. With R4 zoning, unless a proposed project is over 10,000 square feet (approx. three city lots) design review is not required. An overlay district forces a design review. However, an overlay district doesn’t prevent existing buildings from being scraped.

Unanticipated Positive Effects: 1.) Several other prospective developers were indirectly discouraged from coming into the area and 2.) the overlay district made some existing buildings more valuable.

Recommendations for Future Efforts:
1.) Contact developers and let them know you’re interested in having them present at meetings (e.g., City Park West Neighborhood Association mtgs; Uptown Urban Design Forum mtgs.)

2.) Don’t be co-opted by pretty pictures. Ask to see plans, comparison of sizes with existing structures.

3.) Obtain a consensus. Be sure there is support in your neighborhood for an overlay district and the details to be included within it.

In Summary: If you have enough momentum, good organization, an articulate argument and a City Councilperson that’s on your side, you really can have some effect on the design of future development within our neighborhood.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPWNA Meeting Highlights
May 2001
Speaker: Kiersten Faulkner, Associate City Planner, Community Planning and Development Agency

Kiersten presented a general introduction to zoning in addition to information re: zoning issues as relevant to City Park West. She also distributed the following handouts: "Land Use Regulatory System", "Other Development and Land Use Regulations"; and "Comparison of Zone Districts in Uptown/City Park West" and left a copy of the "City Park View Plane" and a zoning map of City Park West for future reference. (Copies available from CPWNA Secretary, Mary Jo Cartoni upon request via email or calling (303) 316-8761.)

There are 77 neighborhoods in Denver and Kiersten is the planner for the central Denver area. Almost every Monday evening, the City Council addresses zoning changes of which there are two types: 1.) changes to the map and 2.) changes to the language. Often these changes are done on a case by case basis and rarely are they done by a neighborhood as a whole. Kiersten said the latter is where having a neighborhood plan comes in.

In Kiersten's opinion parts of the City are "overzoned" right now due to ambitiousness of planners back in the 1950s. Currently, the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Plan is being developed to direct growth. They are looking at various regions of the city in terms of whether they are areas of stability or areas of change. City Park West is considered to be an area of stability, whereas the nearby Colfax corridor is considered to be in an area of change. Following a citywide analysis the next step will be to make recommendations.

Kiersten defined for the group a number of zoning terms as follows:

Density: the number of people within an area.

Intensity: the degree of impact on a given neighborhood, (e.g., residential = low intensity; industrial = high intensity). The lower the number (R1 vs R4) the lower the intensity.

Floor-Area Ratio (FAR): a measurement of density. Buildable space to land ratio. Applies only to occupiable space; e.g., parking areas are not calculated in FAR.

Set Back: the distance from house to property lines. Corner properties are considered to have two fronts.

Bulk Plane: step backs to buildings to avoid structures looming over other structures

Up/Down Zoning: working toward a greater or lesser density and/or intensity

Overzoning: occurs when what's allowed is significantly more intense than what is desired or currently present

Conforming: when a building conforms to current zoning regulations in terms of use and/or structure

Non-Conforming: a building that no longer conforms to zoning regulations because it was constructed prior to the initiation of the most recent regulations. Nonconforming buildings are permissible when they preceded the regulations, but within certain thresholds and limitations, nonconforming buildings cannot be expanded or rebuilt.

Protected Districts: lower density areas, where adjacent higher-intensity zones have bulk and height restrictions to reduce the visual impact

Restricted Districts: specific restrictions within higher intensity zones when within 175 feet (about 3 lots) of a protected district

Historic Districts: controls what can be built and also what can be removed.

Planned Unit Development (PUD): site-specific zoning with very specific requirements.

Overlay District: the direct result of a Neighborhood Plan or other community process . A two-step process: 1.) must be written and then 2.) applied to the map. Overlay can affect structure, but not use.

Kiersten emphasized several times the importance of first identifying specific neighborhood concerns and then developing clear neighborhood goals so that the appropriate zoning 'tool' may be utilized most efficiently and provide the best results. She suggested that we take a close look at the Uptown District's neighborhood plan which includes City Park West and was created in the 1980s, to determine if some or all of it may still be applicable to our current objectives.

Kiersten cautioned that we not inadvertently make most of the structures "nonconforming" as the result of any zoning changes that may be sought, adding that we should compare our desires for future development with what that will mean for structures already present, by looking carefully at what is here in terms of bulk plane, set back, and height. Based on the comments of tonight's meeting attendees, Kiersten thought that what we probably need is a map amendment vs. a language amendment and that there is more interest in future issues re: structure vs. use.

Options discussed included:
1.) Creating an Overlay District - will need to involve property owners, residents (not all property owners necessarily), and city support staff. Kiersten suggested that we have one or two representatives come to the planning office to hash out a scope of work and direction for CPW.

2.) Developing a Neighborhood Plan - a long-range, big picture kind of goal. Whittier completed theirs in one year with a lot of neighborhood involvement and support, but Whittier had much less complex zoning issues, e.g., Whittier is almost exclusively zoned R2. CPW, in contrast, has a variety of zoning districts, predominantly R4, which allows a very high density. (To give an example of what R4 can mean in terms of height, compare the towers around Cheeseman Park which are zoned R3.) Because CPW is potentially 'overzoned' Kiersten thought perhaps we might receive more expedient attention from the City.

3.) Wait to see the outcomes of the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Plan which will set the work schedule for the City. The citywide zoning analysis is to be complete by the end of this year.

4.) Checkerboarding as was done in South City Park. Dependent upon adjacency to lower zoning districts. Because City Park is zoned R1, this may be an option for us, however according to someone at tonight's meeting, it was their understanding that this process took South City Park several years to complete. Most of South City Park was zoned R3, but built more like R2. Those property owners/residents who didn't want to change, stayed with R3. The height and bulk plane requirements changed for each zone district.

Kiersten said that going from R4 to a lower intensity district or overlay is not impossible and that timing is an important factor. She said to tailor the zoning tool to the issue. She believes the Uptown District's Neighborhood Plan* as it is written currently would support changes to the neighborhood's zoning.

*The Uptown Neighborhood Plan, adopted by the City in 1986 includes North Capitol Hill and City Park West. Copies are available for loan. Please contact Mary Jo Cartoni, CPWNA secretary at (303) 316-8761.