Laserfiche WebLink
P/C Questions to Speaker <br />Q. You had mentioned some alternative means to controlling bulk without necessarily restricting <br />use inside of the four walls, could you go into a little more detail? <br />A. My method is bulk plane. There are a lot of districts in Denver which use this. You take <br />the side property line and go up at some angle, say 45 degrees, and your structure must be <br />within those boundaries. <br />Q. Something like a height restriction? <br />A. Yes, it would establish a height. It would be something like a triangular shape vertical zone, <br />as opposed to a square box, which is like what we have now. <br />Q. On a typical two story building, what would be the height to the eve's, of that building? <br />A. That would depend on the relationship of the first floor to the ground level. Say the first <br />floor is three feet up, and the floors are nine feet each, you would have a height to the eve <br />of 21 feet. <br />Q. It would seem to me that the flexibility of bulk would be such that people will not stretch <br />the bounds for that additional space? <br />A. What you would likely see is something like a 4:12 pitch, or a very low pitched roof. That <br />is not a typical characteristic of Old Town, where the pitches are usually 6:12 and up. <br />Q. To Staff - With the 27 foot height maximum, is that enough for two full stories and a sloped <br />roof? <br />A. Peter Kernkamp - Depending on how wide the structure was, and the length of the span, it <br />may reduce the pitch that you can get and still meet that height limit. The other potential <br />alternative is to use more of the dormer type situation if your using a steeper roof pitch, <br />similar to what McStain had proposed in their townhouse development. That is they had two <br />and half stories, brought the eve line down lower, then used more of a dormer type <br />situation. That resulted in breaking up the roof line. The bulk plane is a concept that we <br />looked at in relation to the AOT zone which we reviewed about a year and a half ago. That <br />is a concept that we might want to look at. The other concept would be to do something in <br />relationship to limiting the eve height, then allowing flexibility on the roof pitch. We could <br />also look at whether the 27 foot maximum is a realistic number to allow for steeper roofs. <br />The issue of solar access has been brought up in some of the Board of Adjustment hearings. <br />Commissioner Lipton - I would like to pursue a way to accomplish what the goals are, which I <br />think are two fold. To allow two full stories of building space and a variety of roof scape and <br />pitches, without opening ourselves to abuses. Peter's comments regarding setbacks are also <br />something that seem to be of interest, particularly on the side lot and garages. <br />Peter Kernkamp - I think in terms of side yard setbacks it may be possible to adjust those <br />numbers. It may be possible to go _withan overall side yard setback of three feet for all lots. If <br />it is less than three feet there are other issues that come into play. One is a building code issue, <br />in relation to how the wall would need to be constructed. The other issue, which is typical with <br />a zero lot line situation, is access for maintenance and painting, those types things. That <br />sometimes can be addressed through an easement situation. <br />3 <br />