| Sloan's Lake Notes |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| 1 Feb 2007: Latest on "Flintstone Castle" (2243/47 Lowell Blvd) waiver request: The owner/builder of the property was at the waiver request hearing (Nick Mystrom, he is partner in the Coral Room at 32nd & Lowell & Stapleton) and lives at:4730 West Moncrieff Pl in the very large street to alley duplex. He had a similar violation in 1999 at 2611 Race St. A hearing officer was not to happy with that and then he does the same thing, turns in a plan and builds something else. The hearing officers told him to bring the structure into compliance...that does not mean he has to put the hillside back if he can figure out how to come into compliance other wise. One suggestion given to him by one hearing officer was remove the stairwell make the upstairs door/landings decks/put railing across the front of it and use the basement doors as the main entrance/Nick did not like that idea. I don't think he can put the stairwells in without coming into the front set back, but we will see. The retaining walls are to be no more than four feet tall and four feet apart, Nick said they are all four feet tall and maybe some of the stone varies in thickness so it is a little wavy. The plans submitted has the hill side in place/but the City seems to think if he can come into compliance with the violations it is OK (?). The landing at the bottom of the stairs is the set back violation. & The landing takes up the open space requirements, I believe. Charles Meredith/Senior planning person (who lives at about 3251 Lowell Blvd) told him if he were to keep the basement entrances it would have to be written in that the property owner could never use any part of the basement for a home office or put a kitchen in. Nick has three months to come into compliance. All the letters/e-mails that were sent in helped, 13 of them! They got Rick Garcia's attention enough that he sent a letter of denial. We need to keep on this and hold the City and Developer accountable. Will keep you updated as it moves along. |
| Jude Aiello comments: The board refused to grant the variances and told Nick he had to come into compliance within 3 months. However, after the meeting a hearing officer told me this didn't mean the hill would have to be restored. She reasoned that the city fears being sued by the owner if this was ordered as the owner could plead that the city was somehow at fault for letting this happen! I was just blown away! This means any builder can alter plans with one of three consequences: 1) no one will notice and the builder gets off scott-free. 2) If caught, the builder can blame the city saying the city didn't give enough guidance, or the city inspector was lax in not finding the error soon enough when it would have been less expensive to fix. 3) The builder can be told to come into compliance and the city will help the builder find a way to do that cheaply. Ah yes, our tax dollars at work! |
Remember: The greenest house is the one already built!
| "Regulatory tools, such as development and design standards, help to ensure that new development is not incompatible and out of scale with surrounding buildings." Blueprint Denver Plan Guide, p. 24. |
| May 2007: Lake Daniel at Newton and 21st fills in as a future pestilence breeding site. This, of course, is not only unneighborly, it's illegal. The sign "Think Green,etc, etc") is cute, though... |
| May 2007: A cute single family starter home with mature landscaping in a good single family neighborhood, designated by the City as an "Area of Stability" gives way tooooooooo ............... ..........This! |
| "Think Green" and find the missing tree in the new "family friendly" development..... |
| September 2007 These homeowners at 22nd and Perry have over the years created a calm and pretty home environment for their families..... |
| But no rest for the weary.... Last year, the city approved a demolition across the street and permitted a duplex. Neither side has ever sold and now both are for rent.... |
| Then this year, next door to the duplex, the city again approved a developer-requested demolition. The proposed "modern" 3 unit structure looks as though it will take all the light and view from the unoccupied duplex.... Another year of eyesore, dust, and noise for neighbors...with NO COMPENSATION for the degraded use and value of their homes. |
| Now, across the street to the east from our once comfy homeowners/taxpayers, the city has approved yet another demolition. This 1905 beauty with the spacious side yard will soon be replaced with yet another multiplex that will fill the space lot line to lot line. From single family homeownership to multi-unit mixed-owned-and-rented..... Some "Area of Stability" this is! |