DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That sounds like a terrible idea. Once you subdivide that out, you have to start being able to service that parcel separately with utilities, guarantee access, etc. our alleys simply aren't big enough to accommodate all of that - that's why we have streets. Suddenly you end up granting permanent easements across regular residential parcels, adding restrictions on what you can do there - effectively imposing side setbacks you wouldn't otherwise have.

So what? If we're talking about single-family home neighborhoods that the city is never going to upzone enough for true multifamily housing anyway, why is that a problem? If a bungalow owner wants to grant a side yard easement to let someone get to their granny flat our back, you're going to say no?

Even if that is a problem that we must say no to, you can bypass most of those issues by allowing alley houses to be rentals but not separate for-sale properties, leaving access as a problem for the owner of the main house to solve, on their own property. I know, I know, Denver has a particular shortage of affordable for-sale housing, but even if we refuse to help solve that problem with alley houses, why shouldn't we help solve the affordable apartment problem if we can?

Meanwhile, this might actually help densify single-family neighborhoods to the point where they could support more corner stores, better walkable main streets, and improved bus headways.

[bunt_q]

Absolutely I think same-ownership ADUs should be allowed everywhere. It's the notion that subdivision should be "made easy" that I am disputing. The alley is not a street, period. When that becomes the sole access, we have to start treating it like one. Maybe that works in some cases (side driveways can make it easier, but I'm not sure we want a bunch of curb cuts either) but it should be a full-blown subdivision review, like a plat, not a piece of paper some single-family homeowner brings it. If side utility easements can be granted, great. But spacing requirements, access, the same rules need to apply to that service as would apply if that parcel had street access.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Why limit the height to 30 stories? To protect the views of the Purina Plant? Seems pretty arbitrary.

Pretty sure that the zoning will have an elevation height limit, not a fixed floor count limit. Given the wording of the article, "up to 30 stories", this indicates a height limit up to ~300 ft for a residential building.

Though I would understand keeping the views of the Purina Plant unobstructed. People like to see the real Denver and not the puesdo-native crap in RiNo and the Highlands.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_29...-sunrun-opening-denver-office-hiring-800

Wonder if that's a mix of operations and corporate function? 800 people would make for a decent-sized office. Hell, that would fill up about 1/3 of the Block 162 proposal.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Though I would understand keeping the views of the Purina Plant unobstructed. People like to see the real Denver and not the puesdo-native crap in RiNo and the Highlands.

Amen. Give me a neighborhood where no newbie sh**head is wearing a Colorado flag beanie, and you'll have found Colorado.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

access by who? the resident? maybe i'm missing what you're saying here...if i live in a carriage house, i have two points of egress - left or right down the alley.

emergency services? (no issue there as they don't need easement of any kind)

An alley is not emergency access - you're not getting a fire truck down most of them. Like I said, if that is going to start becoming the sole access to standalone parcels, we're going to have to start treating them like streets. Clear spaces, code enforcement, moving dumpsters out. There are reasons we make streets the way we do. It's not just because big bad government is out there trying to make your life, and the lives of developers, difficult. There's a reason our cities don't burn down anymore, and we have clean water and sanitation too.

Also, access by utilities. You're not putting water, sewer and dry utilities down a Denver alley, there's not enough space. So you need easements for at least some of those to service a standalone parcel. That's not something any old homeowner can sketch up on a napkin - it needs to be engineered and surveyed.

I realize all of those trappings of modern civilization might be foreign to you in Chicago. But here in Denver, we like them.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

An alley is not emergency access - you're not getting a fire truck down most of them. Like I said, if that is going to start becoming the sole access to standalone parcels, we're going to have to start treating them like streets. Clear spaces, code enforcement, moving dumpsters out. There are reasons we make streets the way we do. It's not just because big bad government is out there trying to make your life, and the lives of developers, difficult. There's a reason our cities don't burn down anymore, and we have clean water and sanitation too.

Also, access by utilities. You're not putting water, sewer and dry utilities down a Denver alley, there's not enough space. So you need easements for at least some of those to service a standalone parcel. That's not something any old homeowner can sketch up on a napkin - it needs to be engineered and surveyed.

I realize all of those trappings of modern civilization might be foreign to you in Chicago. But here in Denver, we like them.

I thought sewer lines, telecom, gas, and electrical were already placed down the alleys in Denver (where there are alleys of course)? Only water was placed down the streets.

Which doesn't eliminate the access issue that you bring up, it just shifts which parcel would affected and where the easement would apply.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

The alley has sewer typically, street has gas/potable water typically. Once built, why are there easement issues? Maybe a solution is to say that the current owner may split, but must be the one to develop/ own , and then they can sell.

Because building a second water line on a parcel you own is not the same as building one across a parcel you don't. They need to be able to be dug up and replaced. Which means the lot in back is going to need a 10' swath through the property in front. Maybe not an issue - but it becomes an issue when you tell that person they can't plant landscaping or build a fence/wall across their backyard. (Or you can tear it down, at their cost.) Those aren't issues when the house owns the ADU. It's not insurmountable, but it has to be surveyed and recorded. We can't create parcels that do not have clear utility accesses in perpetuity.

Dry utilities will need a separate easement, and they'll have spacing requirements. Not an issue when they can all access the regular utility easement across the front of the lot line. But before you subdivide a parcel in back, I'm going to want to know that it can get gas, electric, and cable. You're probably looking at another 8' needed there. Not an issue under same ownership, but split it, and it has to be dedicated, permanent, surveyed and recorded. That's good public policy. We don't want ADU owners suing their front-lot neighbors a few years down the road because they can't get Comcast.

Just to get water and dry utilities, you probably want 12'-15' minimum (and that's with a change in utility standards - they'd all want more). That doesn't work on a 25' parcel. On a 50' parcel, it's probably workable. Yes, unified owners can put all this in place, agree. But there's a review needed, since every lot is different. I am not sure what you mean when you say "it should be easy." Is what I am describing easy enough?

Originally Posted by bcp

Fire goes through whatever property they need to or addressing an emergency - easement doesn't matter.

What happens when the house in front builds a brick wall across the back of their property, and the fire truck can't get down the alley because existing power poles aren't wide enough? That's an EASY scenario to imagine.

Cities should be messy, agreed. But I am not going to allow that today if I'm the city and it comes across my desk. Does Xcel pay to underground utilities/widen poles/widen the alley? No, they have an easement, not their problem. Does the City buy a smaller truck, or a longer hose, to service your mid-block alley property? Maybe.

Originally Posted by bcp

Didn't Boulder do this years ago?

I'm not sure what "this" refers to. State law would allow a home rule city to set up whatever subdivision requirements they want. But I am not sure what changes from the existing regime you'd propose.

"Make it easier" sounds very Republican to me. That's right up there with calls to "reduce fraud, waste and abuse." We all want that. And I have no idea what you're actually proposing we do.

[TakeFive]

Dunno about separate parcels? I'll defer to bunt on this one.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Though I would understand keeping the views of the Purina Plant unobstructed. People like to see the real Denver and not the puesdo-native crap in RiNo and the Highlands.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Wonder if that's a mix of operations and corporate function? 800 people would make for a decent-sized office. Hell, that would fill up about 1/3 of the Block 162 proposal.

It almost sounds like a headquarters but without the title. It's always tough to leave the Bay Area when it's your home base.

They're starting out with ~65 employees so who knows or how fast? THE DBJ article explains well the history and why they are such a good fit here.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

i'd say it's a universal value that if the gov't is in the way, they should do all they can to get out of the way to make this work....HELL YES they should make development easier! especially if they really care about walkability and affordability.

We're not talking about outrageous suburban design standards here - I'm talking basic access to water, sanitation and emergency services. Government absolutely should not sacrifice those things just to "get out of the way," walkability be damned. That is simply not as high of a priority.

Originally Posted by bcp

boulder...about 10 years ago they had a balloon in alley-accessed homes. Not sure how or what they did. I guarantee it did not include easements the size you describe above

My guess is these are just rental ADUs, not subdividing out parcels. Also, it's Boulder... I don't think they have anything smaller than a 50' lot, so it's probably a non-issue.

If they have utilities and separate parcels, I bet they absolutely did include those easements. It's not really negotiable. You need to be able to get at your water and sewer lines.

Originally Posted by bcp

agreed it's a good bit messy to get it done...owners could essentially "condo-ize" the lot when it comes to access and alley-to-street utility connections but that's a burden to the point it would simply kill granular development.

You can do that with some utilities, not others. Xcel will make you have an easement but allow the concept. Water will just say hell no, single meter, and everybody has to work it out for themselves - lots of neighbor fights that way. Say what you will about government, but it's nice to have somebody in the middle when neighbors are suing each other over the water bill.

But yes, you can form an association to manage that. That's the correct, urban approach. It just leads to a lot more fighting than having everything parceled out and managed with defined, horizontal property rights. Granular development isn't inherently better in all things. It's vastly more complicated for some things that really do matter.

Originally Posted by bcp

maybe it just goes back to one lot - two detached DUs, sale is a package deal. Or, what Cirrus said

curious to hear other ideas?

I think what I'm saying is the same as what Cirrus was, I'm just offering more detail.

I'm not sure what else to offer in terms of ideas, because I'm not sure I see that there is a problem. As far as I know, everything we're discussing is workable, it just requires some adjustment to the zoning, which I would absolutely support. (Neighborhoods would not, however - you'd have to give a new zone district to your divided out parcel.)

The right solution is to allow unlimited ADUs without subdivision. It doesn't create ownership opportunities, but it does create more diverse housing options and affordable rentals. That might be good enough, given the neighborhood opposition that would surely follow the other approach.

I didn't mention this earlier - but all of these issues work in reverse too. The main house would need drainage and sewer easements across the much-smaller back lot, to get to the alley. And houses would mostly lose their real access, so you end up with garages and curb cuts in front.

I guess I just don't see value in dividing lots this direction. I'd prefer we divide them lengthwise (zero side setbacks - basically, we create rowhouses out of our single family neighborhoods), and/or provide common access the depth of the lot, with units turned inward. We're already doing a lot of that. I think that's a smarter way to create granular density out of established neighborhoods. And where we have true alley houses, those are rentals.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Seems like lower hanging fruit is a gentle upzoning to allow 2 and 3 flats instead of only a detached urban single family residence. That really would not change the character or aesthetic of the neighborhood much. Certainly not like having side driveways everywhere which is absolutely terrible.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I guess I just don't see value in dividing lots this direction. I'd prefer we divide them lengthwise (zero side setbacks - basically, we create rowhouses out of our single family neighborhoods)

It's theoretically an easier sell, because it doesn't change how the neighborhood looks from the street. Neighborhood busybodies would complain just as much about either, but the silent majority probably wouldn't object to the former nearly as much as the latter.

[Cirrus]

Colorado as seen from the International Space Station:

Astronaut Kjell Lindgren on Twitter

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

^ parking requirements look to high from there too...

You can also clearly see the loss of alleys all across Denver!

[comoneymaker]

800 jobs...how many floors will that take up?


http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2...ny-opening-denver-office-hiring-800.html

[CastleScott]

^ I wonder if they might be a tenant of that office tower of Block 162, I recall that 29k floor plates were offered..

[comoneymaker]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ I wonder if they might be a tenant of that office tower of Block 162, I recall that 29k floor plates were offered..

I would say no. It has not even began construction yet. I imagine they are looking for space now with room to grow. I would guess maybe 1144 Fifteenth Street but the Century Link that was just renovated would probably be the best best.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

I would say no. It has not even began construction yet. I imagine they are looking for space now with room to grow. I would guess maybe 1144 Fifteenth Street but the Century Link that was just renovated would probably be the best best.

The article says they are moving into 1515 Arapahoe.

A rough estimate would be they would take about 160,000 sf of space, assuming 200 sf/person. 1515 Arapahoe is the Park Central building which consists of two towers and a lower middle section. Assuming they are in one of the towers that have floorplates around 17,000 sf, then I'm guessing they'll take up about 9 floors in the tower.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

The article says they are moving into 1515 Arapahoe.

A rough estimate would be they would take about 160,000 sf of space, assuming 200 sf/person. 1515 Arapahoe is the Park Central building which consists of two towers and a lower middle section. Assuming they are in one of the towers that have floorplates around 17,000 sf, then I'm guessing they'll take up about 9 floors in the tower.

The article also points out they'll initially staff up to about 65 people. They could easily get by with one floor which might accommodate a 50% increase in personnel. Maybe they leased a couple of floors? I couldn't find anything about it.

[CastleScott]

Anyone know if Tabor 2 has been cancelled again?