Laserfiche WebLink
building code which don't have anything to do with character. Maybe there could be a foot note <br />saying zero setback by special review. Something with a different criteria than the Board of <br />Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment criteria most of the time, has nothing to with if it is in <br />keeping with the character of Old Town. For street side yard I would change the whole thing. <br />There is not a maintenance problem, there is not a building code problem because you measure <br />to the center line of the right of way. I would agree with footnote 6. To avoid a total prohibition, <br />you would require garages that face the street to be setback 20 feet from the front facade of the <br />house. I think it is reasonable to exclude the basement area from the F.A.R. because what we are <br />trying to do is limit the bulk and massing of buildings. One solution to the unfinished attic idea <br />might be to just exempt attics from the F.A.R. calculation. The F.A.R. does not address the issue <br />of solar access. Then you are left with the bulk plane or, what Boulder has, which is a solar <br />access ordinance. That is a nightmare to administer and to calculate because it is very <br />complicated. I like the bulk plane because it is a simple way to do it. I think that it could be <br />administered easier than you might think. I like the idea of coming up from the property line and <br />back. That way if you're farther away from your neighbor the higher you can go. I think that <br />solar access is a real issue. Just about every street in Old Town is north/south and side streets are <br />east/west, that means the shadow that you cast is going to be on your neighbor in almost all cases. <br />I have worked with the Denver code and would be happy to answer questions. <br />Q. <br />A. <br />Q. <br />A. <br />Have you worked with both bulk plane and F.A.R. ordinances? <br />Yes. <br />In terms of flexibility, which one gives the most flexibility to the home owner, in <br />your experience? <br />The flexibility I would say equal in terms of the homeowner. From a design point of <br />view I think the bulk plane is more flexible. <br />VI. Commission Discussion/Direction: <br />Commissioner McAvinew - You would not think of putting up solar panels up in Old Town, but <br />there is more to it than that. <br />Peter Stewart - Boulder's ordinance addresses specifically getting sun on the roof for solar panels. <br />In Denver, the reason they came up with this is because the pop tops were blocking out sun to the <br />neighbors. <br />Chairperson Boulet - I think we have the opportunity to prevent that from happening in Old Town. <br />Commissioner VanNostrand - In terms of accessory structures, I would guess there would be an <br />entire category separate from garages. I am wondering if we should be as stringent as long as <br />they did not meet some sort of critical mass, in terms of there size. It would seem a shame to me <br />that if someone had a relatively small accessory to have that count against their F.A.R. Part of <br />the character issues to me is that you have some sort of accessory structures and people have some <br />7 <br />