Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Boulet - On the other hand if you went to 150% instead of doubling the lot <br />coverage you would have a total of about 4,200 of which 400 something would be the garage, <br />leaving the potential for a 3,800 square foot house. That is significantly smaller than what you <br />could do currently. <br />Commissioner Puryear - With my home I am at 35 % lot coverage because I am in an RM <br />zoning. I believe the finished square footage is about 2400. The 30% leaves a lot of leeway. <br />I built the mass of the bulk to the rear of the lot. I could have gone up two stories at the front <br />of my lot and it would have been huge. I am not sure if I was in the setback. What I am <br />saying is that even at those numbers the parameters are very wide. I don't know what the <br />answer is but I agree that bulk plane may not be it. To me I think that the lot coverage with <br />an F.A.R. overlay is preferable. I don't know what numbers we need to use. I think we need <br />to start getting very specific with the F.A.R. numbers. <br />Q. <br />A. <br />Q. <br />A. <br />If we were to go with the F.A.R. how would you be able to work in solar access <br />issues? <br />Peter Kernkamp - To go back to some of the objectives that were brought up in the <br />last meeting. Two of those were: To maintain the existing character of Old <br />Town; Limit the intensity and scale of future redevelopment so that it is <br />compatible with the existing character that is in the Old Town area. I don't see <br />what we are trying to as exactly preserving the existing character. I think a lot of <br />the existing character is small homes, a lot of them being one story. I do foresee, <br />under this proposal, a potential for some significant change it what potential future <br />development may be compared to, say, the miners homes that were constructed 80 <br />to 90 years ago. I think the key thing is limiting the intensity and scale of future <br />development. The F.A.R. and bulk plane address that particular part of it. I think <br />the other parts of what we are proposing, with regard to setbacks and some of the <br />other relaxation of requirements, more predominantly address the issue of the <br />existing character. One in particular is the proposed limitation on garages and the <br />exemption for porches. Both the bulk plane and the F.A.R., either separate or in <br />combination, address limiting the intensity. The third objective: To maximize <br />design flexibility and streamline the approval process - The F.A.R., I perceive, is <br />going to allow more flexibility. Although in Jeff's discussions with Denver <br />officials the bulk plane is not necessarily detrimental to that. The fourth objective: <br />To encourage pedestrian uses within the Old Town area - This is probably not <br />related to these two approaches. The major are where I believe the bulk plane is <br />clearly superior is with solar access. In terms of just strictly limiting intensity I <br />think both of them can and the F.A.R. probably allows a little more flexibility. <br />What if we were to use the F.A.R. as a basis, but then had a solar access overlay, <br />if you will. Would that be easier to administer? <br />It could be more specifically targeted to existing features on adjacent property. <br />9 <br />