38 th & Blake Height Amendments: Public Meeting #5 Building Design Comments July 13 th, 2016

Transcription

1

2

3

4

5 38 th & Blake Height Amendments: Public Meeting #5 Building Design Comments July 13 th, 2016 Table 1 1. Require people-oriented ground floors 2. Preserve sunlight, views, and architectural variety 3. Treat the river as a special place / edge 4. Mitigate impacts of parking - Agree with activated ground floors: Some clarity Some concern for architectural variety as a term may How do we define this as a primary street (I.E. where Concern about allowing no parking is it premature? needed on how this works for full block development be different term variety not necessarily good does river boundary end and property setbacks begin. (campus like ENV.) Consensus that taller ceilings at 1 st floor are beneficial. With taller ceilings, should be something to define human scale (color, plane change) Critical to clearly define volumetric massing reduction, how this applies to full block Streets are defined width river is variable edge In general, consensus that river edge should be treated as special place How can we better use the Rockies parking to ease the public need? And Drop off areas Table 2 Height restriction not as important as articulation Setbacks important (Larimer Square good example) Activate sidewalk space Variety = Good Not too restrictive Reinforce low-rise existing RiNo massing Encourage recreation Front buildings on River (Confluence Park good example) Colorado Outdoor Culture Beach Front Tiki Bar Create Parking Structure w/ multiple uses, such as in Florida which is also used for events Be open to creative planning for parking Create bike lanes and walkability Table 3 Like to create a sense of entry but requiring raised stoops can make multifamily projects impossible or difficult to meet ADA requirements. General agreement on the rest Require or promote active 1st floor on primary streets only Mass reductions, not bulk plane (wedding cake) Strong agreement with all Be creative & artistic in screening the parking General agreement Table 4 Table 5 1 st floor ceiling height: how does 16 vs 14 compress the slab to slab on the upper floors? i.e. in C-MX-5 (70 height limit) a minimum 16 may compress the uppder floors to be undesirable. Should be a min. which still will allow a variety of uses. St. Level active use: Is the list of uses not allowed applicable to 100% or 50% of ground floor primary Street frontabe? 1.a.i says Active Use for 50% - 50% is better, as the Uses not allowed list has some issues. Fully agreed! Gathering places for people to eliminate façade uniformity WE concur reduction Minimize mass of larger buildings Setbacks from river Gathering place, cannot, therefore have tall storied buildings Increase setback from curb to building Pedestrianize riverfront Minimize height at riverfront not 12 stories Keep it clean cleanup the river, keep height lower at river edge Large gathering places for people Parking: There should be no minimum or maximum of above grade parking so long as the parking is set back and screened / designed per the other overlay guidelines. Above ground parking costs 5-% of underground parking and above ground parking gives the building and neighborhood the ability to convert, in the future. Those above grade parking levels can convert to office / residential once parking needs decrease. Parking needs will decrease over time as the neighborhood becomes more walkable and as technology such as UBER/LYFT and self-driving cars become more prevalent. If there is a max limit set a user who may require additional parking may choose to locate in another part of the city due to the added cost of putting apportion of the parking below grade at 2x the cost. A max limit on above grade parking will stifle development of projects, and in attracting users / companies to the neighborhood. Mitigate as much parking as possible

6 38 th & Blake Height Amendments: Public Meeting #5 Building Design Comments July 13 th, 2016 Table 6 Street activation is crucial, especially commercial on ground level. Residential on 1 st floor is less of a priority Promote the artist character of the neighborhood How will this apply to existing buildings (Theme: Flexibility) Don t limit mass need masses to utilize TOD and make investment worth it. Use building articulation and allow square footage to be recovered elsewhere (e.g. with courtyards) Ban the BOX!! ( Theme: Flexibility!) Keep 1 st block off of Arkins at 5 stories Vary height of structure to encourage design diversity Mass reduction of buildings in this area! Keep riverfront in a human scale Treat rive as the best real estate. Don t allow parking within a defined distance. Don t specify exact = set river = allow flexibility that does not block river Encourage activity (e.g. running, biking) along the river Allow retail activity along the river Low minimum and high maximum requirements to accommodate flexibility today and in the future to allow market to decide. Allow screening, don t limit above ground Don t disadvantage local builders with exorbitant impact fees Allow retail activity along the river Table 7 Full consensus in favor of all these provisions Full consensus in favor of all these provisions Full consensus in favor of all these provisions Screen visible parking fully in favor of these provisions Limit above ground parking some in favor of the maximums, while others are in favor of raising the maximum to 4/1000 for office and 8/1000 for restaurants. Agreement: The maximums encourage residential development but discourage office development. As such they do not create incentives for a live / work environment. Table 8 Table 9 Do active 1 st floor uses jive with requiring residential setbacks? Concern that taller 1 st floors makes street feel less cozy. How to preserve look / feel of existing buildings / neighborhood and incorporate new design requirements? Bikeability? Higher 1 st floor help mitigate the feeling of larger buildings at the ground floor / street level Include residential community space in active street uses Include work / live as active use Not include residential storage on ground floor Investigate 16 ground floor height related to 5-6% parking ramp to get to parking level above ground floor active uses. Investigate whether 50% active uses is too much for 100% of frontage Include spaces for children in allowed ground floor active use. Aggressive mass reduction is good, especially when viewed from the street level Very low frontages at street level, Eg. 1-2 stories w/significant step-backs Resident concern about impact of height on area neighborhood / homes (see shadows, views, etc) As it relates to architectural variety, how to preserve RiNo funkiness with modern development / architecture Accessibility to the river from the surrounding neighborhood is a must. Concerns about preserving the river as a public space; not allowing for development up to the river s edge. Integrating RiNo Park into the river as a public amenity, not as commercial use / feel (see Union Station) Recreation is critical as a public amenity, as is preservation of the river as natural (see wild) amenity Eliminate parking minimums fully in favor, with the need to create parking districts in adjacent neighborhoods for on-street parking Resident concern: living in the BID / GID parking is a problem and the area is not currently pedestrian friendly or pedestrian oriented. What happens when we have an influx of visitors who may choose to drive? Concentrated structured parking at Transit Centers (Eg. NWC and 38 Blake) is a good thing. Especially when combined with loop buses (see 16 th street mall) or other access to commercial properties. Resident concern about impacts of reduced parking in overlay district on the area residential neighborhoods. Like flexibility of mass reduction Good Investigate 1 / DU parking space may be too low, say 1.5 / ¼ mile say 2 / ½ mile Link parking garage screening to design guidelines Visibility is more an issue than the amount of parking

7 38 th & Blake Height Amendments: Public Meeting #5 Building Design Comments July 13 th, 2016 Table 10 There need to be allowances for brownstones / townhomes that have appropriate entrances on primary streets. Townhomes / brownstones that turn their back / side to the street should not be allowed. (Reference street level active uses 1.a.iii.) Don t preclude attractive residential that has entries at street such as walk ups / brown stones. Need to ensure that all building interface the street such as residential Have to fill all the storefronts may not be realistic. Empty storefronts are not pedestrian friendly. Make sure that the promenade happens. Keep building from being built directly on the river. Have building setback and entrances to river. Make sure that the promenade happens. Keep building from being built directly on the river. Have building setback and entrances to river. The parking maximums will run counter to the intent of activity and bringing people to RiNo. Parking minimums should be abolished but developers are incentivized to build the smallest ratio possible. Developers will build the appropriate amount of parking for their project. It will be influenced by market conditions and economics of the project. Parking maximums limit flexibility that is crucial to marketing to prospective tenants. The consequence could be empty buildings. No minimums and no max. Not enough infrastructure for transit and peds to capture majority of users and there will always be a large number that need cars for work. Ditto on comments above of mandatory parking minimums or maximum requirements.