February 28th, 2007

Denver Post: Lafayette Votes to Annex Land For New Lowe’s

Lafayette votes to annex land for new Lowe’s
By John Ingold
Denver Post Staff Writer
2/28/07

Voters in Lafayette decided Tuesday that the city should annex a piece of land on which a Lowe’s home improvement store is slated to be built.

In the city’s first special election in at least 20 years, residents voted for annexation by about a 55 percent to 45 percent margin.

When the votes were finally tabulated late Tuesday, more than 6,400 mail-in ballots had been cast, with 3,510 for annexation and 2,913 against it.

“I think it’s a victory for Lafayette by Lafayette,” said resident Dave Trumbo, who led a group supporting the annexation. “People really turned out, and I’m very pleased with the outcome.”

Representatives from the group opposing annexation could not be reached late Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, Karen Norback, an organizer of the anti-annexation group Preserve Lafayette’s Eastern Edge, said she was optimistic about the election.

“We feel confident that we’ve had a really strong message,” Norback said. “But until the numbers come through, we don’t know.”

Norback said about 100 people have worked with the group to fight the annexation and that many more had requested yard signs.

Trumbo, the leader of pro-annexation Vote Yes for Lafayette, said he counted about the same numbers for his group.

The ballot asked residents whether they wanted to annex a 32-acre parcel east of Old Town Lafayette - near Baseline Road and 119th Street - and zone it for big-box retail. Lowe’s has plans to build a store on the property.

Trumbo said a Lowe’s would bring much-desired revenue to city coffers.

“Since Colorado cities live and die on sales tax, a tax generator like a Lowe’s is an important part of the city,” he said.

Norback said building a Lowe’s on the property would eliminate the buffer between Lafayette and a large development in neighboring Broomfield.

Plus, she said, the store would bring more traffic and would destroy a valuable wetland and wildlife-habitat.

The home-improvement store still must undergo the normal city review process before ground is broken.

The Lowe’s battle was not the only fight in the northern suburbs over a big-box development.

On Tuesday night, residents opposed to having a Wal-Mart built on the site of an aging poultry plant gave Broomfield City Council members petitions containing more than 1,400 signatures.

Meanwhile, another group in the city has been collecting signatures in support of building a Wal-Mart to present at a future city council meeting.

Broomfield Assistant City Manager Kevin Standbridge said the city has not yet decided what will be built on the Barber poultry site near 120th Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard.

Staff writer John Ingold can be reached at 720-929-0898 or jingold@denverpost.com.

February 28th, 2007

An Open Letter from Rep. Wes McKinley

As you may or may not already be aware Sen. Ken Kester and myself are sponsoring
legislation in the state house, HB07-1069, that would withdraw the consent of the
state of Colorado to the Federal government’s (Department of Defense, Department of
Army, etc.) acquisition of property though the powers of eminent domain and
condemnation. As a lifelong resident of SE Colorado the Department of Defense and
Army’s attempts to force property owners and other citizens off their land are more
than unsettling. There is no doubt in my mind that if the expansion were to go
through our way of life, the history of the area, will go by the wayside.

The bill is getting set to be heard in the House State, Veterans and Military
Affairs committee in the next two weeks. In the weeks and days leading up to the
meeting it will be important for you as a citizen to lobby committee members to
understand how important this bill is to the people of SE Colorado. Write them,
email them, call their offices and encourage you family and friends who share your
concerns to do the same. It’s important for the members of the committee to see
that there are real people behind this who are passionate about their history, their
land and their way of life.

The members of the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee and their
office numbers are:

Chairman: Rep. Paul Weissman -303.866.2920 Rep. Cheri Jahn - 303.866.5522

Vice Chair: Rep. Nancy Todd - 303.866.2919 Rep. Jeanne Labuda - 303.866.2966

               Rep. Rafael Gallegos -303.866.2916     Rep. Kent Lambert -

303.866.2937

               Rep. Bill Cadman - 303.866.5525         Rep. Larry Liston -

303.866.2965

               Rep. Terrance Carroll - 303.866.2909   Rep. Kevin Lundberg -

303.866.2907

               Rep. Edward Casso - 303.866.2964

To reach them by mail at the Capitol use the following address:

200 E. Colfax

Room 271

Denver, CO 80203

To reach members by email use the following format:

FirstName.LastName.house@state.co.us

Thank you for your time and your concern in preserving the way of life for thousands
of citizens in SE Colorado. Please pass this information on to anyone else you
might think would be interested, if you have any questions or concerns please do not
hesitate to email me at representativemckinley@hotmail.com.

Your Representative,

Wes McKinley

Colorado State Representative (D-Walsh)

February 27th, 2007

Join Regional Leaders for Land Use Seminar

The 16th Annual Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Land Use Conference

March 8 and 9, 2007

University of Denver Sturm College of Law

Click Here to Register
Please Click Here to View Conference Agenda

Hotel Information

2007 RMLUI Conference Brochure

Denver International Airport Information

Planning Commissioners Workshop, March 10

http://www.law.du.edu/rmlui/

February 27th, 2007

Denver delays historic designation vote

Denver City Council delays vote: Keeping one Denver family in suspense as it faces well-funded activist network in fight to protect its property rights from proposed restrictions

Council delays vote on historic district
By George Merritt
Denver Post Staff Writer
Denver Post
Article Last Updated:02/27/2007 12:28:24 AM MST

The Denver City Council delayed a vote on a proposal for a contentious historic designation but not before another round of testy exchanges that have marked the debate over the property of an influential landscape architect.

For nearly a year, heirs of the S.R. DeBoer property in south Denver and the neighbors who live around it have been involved in a dispute over the preservation of several buildings.

Neighbors are proposing a historic district over the objections of DeBoer’s family, which has sought to sell the property to a developer.

But Monday night, council members learned that there may be a compromise in the works.

DeBoer’s family agreed to have one of the buildings designated as part of a historic district.

“While our family continues to object to designation of any of our properties, we understand the historical significance of our grandfather,” DeBoer’s grandchildren wrote in a letter to the council.

The plan was endorsed by Historic Denver’s Steve Turner, “in the spirit of compromise,” he said.

“If that comes to pass, we will consider this a preservation victory,” he added.

Neighbors who proposed the historic district asked for time to consider the latest proposal.

But even delaying a decision on the deal for a week brought out passionate comments.

“If there ever was a textbook definition or example of a hostile landmark designation, this is it,” said Councilman Charlie Brown, who suggested a delay could thwart the deal.

But Councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie was in the majority when she said a week-long delay “does not seem extreme.”

“It seems to me very reasonable to hold it for one week to give the applicants … a chance to absorb this very recent information,” she said.

The council will take its first vote on the issue Monday.

Staff writer George Merritt can be reached at 303-954-1657 or gmerritt@denverpost.com.

February 27th, 2007

RMN: Lawmakers Seek To Stop Pinon Canyon Eminent Domain

Two Colorado legislators (McKinley and Kester) are trying to stop the Army’s proposed taking of millions of acres of ranch land in Southern Colorado.

Lawmakers seek to stop Pinon Canyon eminent domain
By Colleen Slevin, Associated Press
February 23, 2007

Two state lawmakers want to try to stop the Army’s proposed expansion of its Pinon
Canyon training site by changing the state’s eminent domain law. Sen. Ken Kester on
Friday said the move is also an attempt to increase pressure on Colorado’s U.S.
senators to oppose the expansion while in Washington.

Colorado law gives the federal government the right to condemn land for certain
purposes, like building post offices or court houses. Sponsor Rep. Wes McKinley,
D-Walsh, said their proposal (House Bill 1069) would bar federal authorities from
taking land for use by the military. He said the Army could still buy land but
wouldn’t be able to use the power of eminent domain to buy from unwilling sellers.

”It would just about force them to make an honest deal,” said McKinley, a rancher.

Kester acknowledged the Army may not have to follow a state law, and said he hopes
Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar ”turn up the heat” on the Army now that it’s
moving ahead with a study of the expansion.

”It will impress on them how the people of that area feel,” said Kester, who
represents the five counties included in the possible expansion area.

Last week, the Pentagon said the Army could go ahead with an in-depth study to
nearly triple the size of its existing training site on the southeastern Colorado
plains. The site, used to train soldiers from Fort Carson, was created in the early
1980s.

Rancher Lon Robertson said southeastern Colorado residents who oppose the expansion,
including students, plan to travel to the state Capitol to lobby in support of it in
the next few weeks. Because U.S. Senate tradition allows one senator to potentially
block legislation, he hopes Salazar and Allard will decide to stop any future bill
on Pinon Canyon.

”All it would take would be for one of our senators to take that hard stand and say
it’s not good for our state,” said Robertson, president of the Pinon Canyon
Maneuver Site Expansion Opposition Coalition.

Salazar, a Democrat, and Allard, a Republican, have both said they oppose the use of
eminent domain to expand Pinon Canyon.

Salazar spokesman Cody Wertz said Friday that it’s too early to decide whether to
block legislation that hasn’t happened yet. He said Salazar needs to see more
detailed plans from the Army with exact locations and acreage before deciding what
should happen next.

”They’re both vital to Colorado - the ranchers and the farmers in the area and Fort
Carson. Senator Salazar wants to take a look at the plan and the public and the
local community leaders need to see that plan,” Wertz said.

Allard spokesman Steve Wymer said the Army has said it will only work with willing
sellers and that owners who want to sell should be allowed to do so. If that
changes, he said Allard would investigate that.

”The Army has not asked for and not been given money for this purchase in the first
place. I’m not sure the process is as immediate as might be feared,” Wymer said.

Copyright 2007, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

February 1st, 2007

Denver Post: Hilltop Preservation Battle Coming to a Head

By George Merritt
Denver Post Staff Writer

In the latest clash over preservation versus property rights, wary City Council members are slated to decide the fate of a six-year effort to create one of Denver’s largest historic districts.

The issue could come before the council as soon as Monday.

Residents’ resistance forced a reduction in the size of the proposed Hilltop neighborhood historic district from more than 2,100 homes in 2001 to about 500 - and it may shrink more.

The plan has rankled some neighbors who worry that historic designation will hurt property values.

But others see popping the tops of homes to increase size or scraping off old homes to build new ones as threats to the unique neighborhood that has defined the urban area.

Adding Hilltop to the list of Denver’s more than 40 historic districts would seek to preserve the area’s character by bringing the homes under “design guidelines.”

Generally, such a designation requires that additions and alterations must keep the homes’ original character.

Seeking a balance

City officials have been struggling recently to strike a balance as historical proposals in neighborhoods have pitted neighbor against neighbor. Hilltop has drawn particular attention.

The city’s planning board unanimously opposed the plan.

At a Landmark Preservation Commission meeting in November, opposition speakers outnumbered supporters more than 2-to-1. The commission, which considers only historical criteria, moved the plan along.

City Councilman Charlie Brown questioned last week how a plan that faces so much opposition made it before the council.

Hilltop, according to those applying for the historical designation, grew out of a time when housing went through a kind of design renaissance.

The homes in the area east of Colorado Boulevard between East Sixth Avenue and East First Avenue are “distinguished examples of 22 different architectural styles representing the flowering of virtually all housing types developed in the United States after 1920,” Landmark Preservation Commissioner Sheila Doll told council members.

Mark Stevens, one of the applicants for the district, said Hilltop was the first neighborhood to develop with the commute in mind.

Stevens and co-applicants Alice Bakemeier and Betty Naster spent more than six years researching the neighborhood.

Property-value concern

Many residents have resisted the application since it was first proposed as a 2,175-home district in 2001.

“It’s really appalling,” Hilltop resident Marilyn Shaw said. “It will have a major detrimental effect on property values.”

Lending to that concern, the Denver Board of Realtors opposes the district.

Historic Denver board member and Hilltop resident Tom Coxhead said concerns about property values are unfounded.

He said a study by the Colorado Historical Foundation showed property values in historic districts increased “as fast, and in some cases faster, than nearby undesignated neighborhoods.”

Shaw and other opponents said what bothers them even more is that two of the three people applying for the historic district no longer live in the neighborhood.

In fact, Stevens’ former home has since become another scrape-off statistic after selling for more than $600,000.

When the plan goes before the council, Stevens said Councilwoman Marcia Johnson will try to reduce the number of homes in the district boundary to slightly more than 400.

That iteration would remove homes on Colorado Boulevard - which were a problem for the planning board - as well as homes on Dexter Street, where many opponents live.

Johnson said she is torn between preserving nice homes and protecting property values.