02. Briefing on Downtown Density Bonus Program Review Process and Implementation — original pdf

Backup

Downtown Density Bonus Program Administration Staff Process Briefing and Case Studies Agenda 1. Downtown Density Bonus Program (DDBP) requirements. 2. Overview of Staff process. 3. Integration of Design Commission’s comments and recommendations. 4. Examples of Commission’s recommendations 5. Coordination and dialogue with applicant on compliance. 6. Case Studies Program Requirements 25-2-586 (C)(1)(a)(i)-(ii) (1) Gatekeeper Requirements. Administrative process (a) To receive bonus area, the director must determine that the project substantially complies with the Urban Design Guidelines. (i) The applicant must submit to the director a schematic level site plan, building elevations, and other drawings, simulations or other documents necessary to fully describe the urban design character of the project and relationship of the project to its surroundings. (ii) The Design Commission shall evaluate and make recommendations regarding whether the project complies with the Urban Design Guidelines and the director shall consider comments and recommendations of the Design Commission. Submittal requirements Role of DC * Emphasis by Staff Process Applicant meets with Staff to discuss DDBP request* Applicant files site development permit (SP) SP is distributed to Urban Design team Great Streets review starts Design Commission recommendation on compliance with Urban Design Guidelines *Greatest success when meeting with Staff prior to filing the DDBP request Process Staff reviews submittal requirements for DDBP in accordance with 25-2-586 (C)(1)(a)(i) and will work with applicant if any elements are missing Design Commission Working Group scheduled, and feedback is given to the applicant DDBP request is scheduled for Design Commission evaluation and recommendation Design Commission issues evaluation and recommendation letter to Staff and applicant on compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines Process Staff commences review of DDBP request based on DC’s evaluation and recommendation and review of project submittal Staff works with the applicant to address specific guidelines that were found to be deficient – back and forth dialogue Once compliance is reached, Staff certifies project for compliance with the UDG based on the DC evaluation and recommendation as well as Staff review Public hearings are scheduled if project seeks additional FAR entitlements. Otherwise, Staff issues administrative memo granting entitlements under the Program Process Staff review for substantial compliance with the Urban Design guidelines commences after receiving the Commission’s comments and recommendations for each specific project. Working Group input is not the DC recommendation. Process ”the director shall consider comments and recommendations of the Design Commission” - LDC 25-2-586 (C)(1)(a)(ii) Elements in DC’s comments and recommendations that affect the Staff review: 1. Lack of specificity on design guidelines: • Lack of reference to specific guidelines makes it challenging for Staff to tie recommendations to a guideline(s). 2. Lack of Commission’s recommendation on what it would take to reach compliance. • If/when a project is found to be not compliant with the UDG, Staff appreciates recommendations from the Commission on reaching compliance. Process ”the director shall consider comments and recommendations of the Design Commission” - LDC 25-2-586 (C)(1)(a)(ii) Elements in DC’s comments and recommendations that assist the Staff review: 1. Specificity on lack of UDG compliance 2. Commission identifies specific guidelines that the project is not in compliance. 3. Specificity on design elements to be explored. Process Dialogue with the applicant commences to address the Commissions comments and recommendations. 1. Address and respond to the Commission’s specific comments. 2. Applicant provides explanation on each design guideline. 3. Applicant works with Staff to incorporate as many recommendations as possible into the site plan. Process Dialogue with the applicant continues with analysis of other design guidelines via matrix evaluation. Case Studies Implementation Incorporation of Commission’s and Staff recommendations is accomplished via the site development plan (SP) and license agreement (LA) 1. Both SPs and LAs track site development elements. 2. Updates and corrections are almost always guaranteed. 3. In the event of a major change affecting entitlements, a re- review is routed to Urban Design. (Work in progress). 4. As the DDBP grants height and FAR entitlements, changes to a design are managed as described in LDC 25-2-586 (D). Hanover Brazos St. Project • Hanover Brazos St project • • 201 E 3rd St (built address is 215 Brazos St) Recommendation from Design Commission on June 22, 2020 Site Plan approved on September 9, 2020 Construction finished in late 2023 or early 2024 • • Hanover Brazos St. Project Design Commission presentation and final approved site plan: Hanover Brazos St. Project Design Commission presentation and Google Streetview image: 617 Colorado • • • Recommendation from Design Commission on October 5, 2020 Site Plan approved on December 31, 2020 Construction finished in 2024 617 Colorado Design Commission presentation and final approved site plan: 617 Colorado Design Commission presentation and Google Streetview image: Stonelake Project • • 504 E 5th St Recommendation from Design Commission on September 1, 2022 Site Plan approved on August 4, 2023 • • Under construction Stonelake Project Design Commission presentation and final approved site plan: Stonelake Project Design Commission presentation and Google Streetview image: 61 Rainey Project • Recommendation from Design Commission on October 28, 2020 Site Plan approved on May 20, 2022 • • Under construction 61 Rainey Project Design Commission presentation (top) and final approved site plan (bottom). 61 Rainey Project Design Commission presentation and Google Streetview image: Staff relies on the Commission’s comments and recommendations to consider a DDBP request and come to a finding of substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines.