|
■ More than 100 people testify during two, three-hour sessions
BY RORY SEEBER
I think that this community needs to take note and be very, very proud of what we’re tackling and what we’re accomplishing here. It really is remarkable.”
So said Denver Planning Board chairman Brad Buchanan at the conclusion of a total of six hours of public testimony over the course of two days-worth of “listening sessions” concerning the third draft of the city’s new zoning code.
The sessions were co-sponsored by the Planning Board and City Council. Most of the members of those two bodies were present at both events, which were held at the Webb municipal building, 201 W. Colfax, on the evening of Nov. 18 and the following afternoon.
At the second session Council president and District 10 representative Jeanne Robb noted that the hearings were not legally required, but were “an extraordinary step” taken to hear the comments and concerns of Denver residents and the business community.
“We hope these listening sessions will identify common themes and
concerns across the city, as well as recognize unique issues that we
need to address,” Robb said.
The topics covered included, in no particular order: the timing of
the re-zoning process; solar access; embedded neighborhood businesses,
accessory dwelling units (ADUs), property rights, hospital and campus
zoning, parking, various building forms and standards, down-zoning,
urban agriculture, setbacks, building heights, lights, preservation of
historic neighborhoods, and control of the city’s parks.
There were also comments on a wide variety of more specific issues pertaining to draft three of the new zoning map.
The combined panel heard from well over 100 people, and from
residents of practically every neighborhood in the city. Each was
allowed up to three minutes to make their comments.
The public-private process of rewriting of the city’s zoning code,
most of which became law in the mid-1950s, has taken more than five
years. In the past six months alone there have been approximately 50
public meetings.
As Buchanan described the intent of the effort, “Our goal is for
this new zoning to be clearer, more predictable and easier to use and
navigate. In addition to preserving the character and quality of our
existing neighborhoods, (we want the new code) to encourage desirable
development, create economic opportunity, and maintain Denver’s
vitality and its outstanding quality of life.”
None of which means that the new code is necessarily simpler to understand at first glance than the one it is replacing.
Intended as a means of implementing “Blueprint Denver,” the city’s
2002 comprehensive Land Use & Transportation plan, the new code’s
naming convention uses six neighborhood “contexts,” 11 varieties of
dominant uses or “forms,” and nine different minimum lot sizes and/or
heights (with the last item signified by the letters A to I).
Each property therefore has three components to its zoning
identification: context, form, and size/height. As an example, “U-SU-A”
signifies Urban, Single-Unit, 3,000 square feet (size category A).
Public comments that applied to Greater Capitol Hill that were
presented during the sessions included concerns over the new code
perpetuating the problems of the existing R-3 designation, especially
in the neighborhoods around Cheesman and Congress Parks (see “Life
Mail” on page eight).
“Character preservation should be a goal of the new zoning for this
area,” testified architect and 13-year resident Liz O’Sullivan. As did
many of those who spoke, O’Sullivan was very specific in what she
wanted changed in the new zoning and on the map for her neighborhood.
In her case it would entail changing its overall context in order to
preserve existing block-sensitive setbacks.
The comments made by Capitol Hill resident and business owner Randy
Swan summarized some of the concerns in local historic neighborhoods
about the new code.
Noting that the predominant feature of the neighborhoods in
question is single-family residences, Swan asked, “Shouldn’t this (new)
code resemble the predominant form? Shouldn’t that be the line we look
for when we’re actually changing the code in the future? The inventory
of single-family homes isn’t going to get any larger.”
“At least in this neighborhood,” Swan concluded, “would the Council
listen to the neighbors and say, ‘You know, you guys are right’? It’s
arbitrary to get (the Community Planning Department) to...come up and
say, ‘We’re thinking it should be higher density.’”
Former City Councilwoman Cathy Donohue, who served for 19 years,
expressed her concern about the new code’s proposal to turn over
control of the city’s public parks to the sole authority of the manager
of the Parks & Recreation Department.
“The City Charter gives control of all land to City Council, to be
changed in only one way, by ordinance,” she stated. “In the new zoning
code the administration has decided to put our most valuable asset,
which is not private land but is park land,” (out) of the code.
“Please do not give our parks to bureaucrats. Keep them in the hands of City Council” and the people, Donohue concluded.
All of the comments made and concerns raised at the hearing
sessions will be organized and posted on the Denver City Council
website (denvergov.org/citycouncil),
along with responses from the Community Planning Department. The
information will also be posted at the re-zoning effort’s website, new
codedenver.org, which contains draft three of the new code, the latest map, and tools to better understand the effort.
Video of the listening sessions is available online at denver
gov.org. Click on “Denver 8 Online” and follow the link to “Special Presentations,” then click on “Video.”
‘The inventory of single-family homes isn’t going to get any larger.’
‘Don’t give our parks to bureaucrats.’
|
