1
2
3
At the last TTF meeting at the end of April, the TTF reached a consensus recommendation on the draft zoning and directed staff to put it out in a draft for public review and feedback. I’m going to summarize the public comment process, and what we heard. Notice of the Public Review Draft was: •Posted on our website at denvergov.org/cherrycreek •Discussed in multiple local newspaper articles Discussed in multiple local newspaper articles •Advertised in multiple email blasts to our email list •Mailed in postcards to every property owner who will be rezoned •And further meetings were held, as I’ll describe. 4
We contacted all RNOs in the area to come to their meetings and personally explain the draft, and take questions. Four RNOs took us up on the offer, as you can see here. The meeting were summarized in your packets. Discussion topics ranged from parking to opt-ins, from uses to building design. 5
Staff hosted office hours at the Denver Public Library branch across the street to allow people the opportunity to discuss their properties and learn more in a more informal, one-on-one setting. • Three sessions • Different times of day • Mix of attendees (property owners, adjacent residents, etc) General input is reflected on the slide General input is reflected on the slide. 6
City staff also hosted an open house and public meeting. •Spanned across the afternoon and evening to accommodate different people’s schedules •Multiple formats to allow more engagement: •Open house for informal conversations on boards – some came and went •Formal presentation by staff •Group conversations about zoning topics •Then opened the floor for feedback from all at once too. •Those in attendance expressed support as indicated on the slide. They also raised many topics not in the zoning, such as parking management 7
Some of the zoning concerns raised included these. 8
9
10
• We wanted to start by reminding everyone of the universe of small lots on the south side of 3 rd Avenue: • 11 total lots sized 6,250 SF or less • 5 oriented north-south (with 50’ or less of frontage on 3 rd ) and 6 oriented east-west 11
• This map shows all of the lots sized 6,250 SF or less in the district. The 11 on the south side of 3 rd are within the area impacted by the 3 rd Ave solar bulk plane, shown here in purple. 12
• Before walking through the comments received about small lots, we wanted to remind everyone what the draft code already does to provide flexibility for small lots on the south side of 3 rd Avenue. As I’m sure you all remember, you spent a lot of time throughout the process discussing the unique circumstance of these lots and the desire to balance two important goals from the plan: (1) encourage small lot reinvestment and prevent the assembly of smaller lots (2) preserve sunlight along 3 rd Avenue • The draft code divides the small lot building forms into two groups – small lots oriented north-south and small lots oriented east-west • This image shows the base option for lots oriented north-south. They are permitted to go up to 3 stories – essentially the bulk plane does not apply 13
• For lots oriented east-west, the base scenario requires general compliance with the bulk plane, except that the building may go up to 3 stories for a max of 50 feet along 3 rd Ave. The 50’ could be configured in a variety of ways. Here it is shown split between the two sides of the building. Note that a small strip of building can still fit in the rear of the 3 rd story and be compliant with the bulk plane 14
• This image shows another potential configuration. In this case, the 50 feet exempted from the bulk plane, with a max of 3 stories, is shown on one end of the buidling. 15
• The draft code also has building form options for small lots that incentivize private owners to provide open space on their lot. • This image shows the open space option for lots oriented north-south. Essentially, they may go up to 3 stories for the first 57 feet south of 3 rd , and then up to 5 stories in height. To use this form, the owner must provide at least 15% open space on the lot (with minimum contiguous area of 15 feet by 15 feet) 16
• For lots oriented east-west, the open space form allows the entire building to go up to 3 stories in exchange for providing 20% of the lot as open space. 17
With that background, I’ll tee up the 3 questions for you to consider in response to the public feedback, not staff. Mr. Bagher, who you heard from at your last meeting, posed the first issue, seen here. 18
•This is a reminder of what Sarah showed you in the draft code – a building with 5’ setbacks on both street sides 19
•Setbacks are best understood at the sidewalk level, so we’ve zoomed in here to look at the 3 rd Avenue sidewalk along that theoretical building. This shows what might be built if a development maxed out its buildable area to the 5’ setback line. 20
•This image shows the setback environment if you agreed with the public feedback to remove the 5’ setback along the 3 rd Avenue side to provide the additional developable square footage for small corner lots on the south side of 3 rd . 21
The 2 nd issue that was raised also comes from Mr. Bagher. He suggests exempting these lots from the solar access bulk plane. Staff adds the 2 nd question – if you agree with him and remove the bulk plane, what then would be the maximum height allowed? 22
•Again I’ll start with your draft code, which Sarah showed earlier. Looking east along 3 rd Avenue, so south is to the right. This first series shows shadow impact on the winter solstice; in a minute I’ll also show summer solstice. 23
•Staff had to assume a new maximum height, so we modeled this theoretical building at 4 stories, consistent with the Cherry Creek Area Plan maximum height recommendation. If you remove the solar access bulk plane, this is the building, and the impact of its shadow at 12 noon on winter solstice. 24
•Same as before, this shows your draft code at the summer solstice 25
•And this is the proposal for no bulk plane, assuming 4 stories, at summer solstice. 26
The 3 rd and final small lot issue came from a different property owner on the south side of 3 rd Avenue. He wrote an email, which was in the meeting packet. (see above) 27
•So once again, this is your current draft at 12 noon on the winter solstice 28
•And here is the proposal. On the right, you can see the 50’ lot width that can now go to 4 stories, while the rest of the lot still has to follow the bulk plane. •On the north side, the shadow impact on the sidewalk is the same, but the portion of the shadow that crosses the sidewalk goes farther up the building face. 29
•Again, in the summer, this is your draft code 30
•And this shows the proposal at the summer solstice, 4 stories for 50’ wide. •In summary: 1. 5’ setback 2. No bulk plane 3. Keep bulk plane, but allow the 50’ exception to go up to 4 stories. 31
• We will now discuss another topic that came up through public comment. This relates to patios on the upper levels of buildings that are next to lower-density residential neighborhoods, which are called “protected districts” in the code. The concern that arose is that rooftop patios could create noise and allow for people to see into the yards of neighboring homes. 32
• The code treats upper-level patios in the same manner throughout the city wherever commercial or mixed use areas abut lower density areas. This happens throughout the city in many areas, especially along mixed use corridors like Colfax • The code requires any outdoor patio used for dining that is within 50 feet of a protected district to go through a special exception review process. This requires a public hearing in front of the BOA. If the BOA approves the use, they may require certain conditions and may only grant hours of operation after 6pm “with consideration” of neighboring uses, seating capacity, the type of drinks being id ti ” f i hb i ti it th t f d i k b i served, and the noise created by the activity • City’s noise control ordinance also applies to any property. 33
• Any rooftop patio, whether for outdoor dining from restaurant, or for private use by an office or residence, must comply with the required protected district setbacks. • This image shows the protected district setbacks that are required when there is no alley between the building zoned C-CCN and the protected district. 34
• This image shows how the building height would have to be reduced in order to place an upper-story patio within the setback area. This is because the setback area does not allow safety railings, which would be required for any patio by building code. • So, in order to fit the rooftop patio, the building has to drop one story in order to make room for the safety railing • NOTE: the residential property next to you would also be allowed to place a rooftop deck on the roof of their property • These rules apply throughout the city as a way to ensure appropriate transitions to protected districts 35
Recommend
More recommend
