Loading...
01.08.2014 BDAB Minutes BDAB COMMENTS Name: MEETING DATE: January 8, 2014 ADDRESS: 1301 Walnut St. DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: Jeff Dawson Relevant Guidelines: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, Non-Historic Area  unique opportunities for design options and creation of variety in building forms. A focus on pedestrian activity and attention to massing, scale and alignment of building features are important design considerations. 2.1 onsider Incorporating Traditio A. Kick plate as a base to the store front or restaurant front. Align the height with others when possible. B. height of others in the block when others are appropriately placed. C. Transom. Align with others when others are appropriately placed. D. Sign band. E. Parapet cap or cornices. F. Window patterns and shapes, window sills. G. Angled entrance on corner    2.2 Features and Established Patterns with Neighboring The Board suggests the Applicant continue to study the proportions of the windows at the southwest corner of the building, and consider less glass southeast corner is more successful with this ratio and perhaps would align better with the existing architectural th features along 13 street, like the James Building. Hotel Boulderado was referenced for comparison. The hotel has a similar context and challenge, where the massing between neighboring buildings changes abruptly, but the wall-to-window ratio and similar window proportions between buildings, has made the transition smoother.  Also, a practical reason was mentioned for reducing the size of the proposed windows at the southwest corner, which is to limit the amount of glare that could become problematic for tenants working in those spaces.     2.4.A Maintain visual interest in building forms. Create architectural variety by stepping back upper floors and varying building massing, especially on larger sites.  The Board supports the approach to creating interest with the varied building form and prominent height  at the southwest corner.     2.4.B are significantly taller than adjacent buildings, upper floors should be setback a minimum of 15-feet      2.4.C. Generally for commercial and residential buildings in the RB-1X (DT-1), RB-2X (DT-2), RB-1E (DT- 4), and RB-2E (DT-3) the floor to floor heights should be up to 14 feet for the ground level and up to     2.5 Maintain a Human Building Scale, Rather than Monolithic or Monumental Scale   Refer to Section 2.2          2.6 Create Pedestrian Interest at the Street Level A grander stair to the plaza was suggested, rather than just a functional stair, in order to create more pedestrian interest along the first level. 2.6.A Develop the first level of buildings to provide visual interest to pedestrians. For a non-residential building, the first floor street walls should contain architectural elements that create visual interest and a pedestrian street environment such as display windows facing the sidewalk, outdoor dining areas, display cases, public art integrated with the building design, and architectural elements and details that create visual interest. 2.6.C. Maintain The Design Distinction Between Upper And Lower Floors Develop the first floor facade as primarily transparent, making it inviting to the public. Consider using windows and other architectural features to create a pattern that will reinforce the traditional facade rhythm found on commercial buildings in the downtown area. Upper floors generally are differentiated through the use of more solid areas than voids and with smaller, vertically oriented windows in a regular pattern. 2.9 Maintain the Rhythm Established by The Repetition of The Traditional 25 Foot Facade Widths 2.10 It was suggested that the arrangement of stone and horizontal louvers (at the entry on the west elevation) could be applied in a similar way on the south elevation (above plaza entry) as a possible strategy for adding more durability and weight to this portion of the building. BDAB COMMENTS MEETING DATE: January 8, 2014 ADDRESS: 2550 Canyon Blvd. DESCRIPTION: Residence Inn Hotel: Application is for a Site Review Amendment: For construction of a new urban hotel located on approximately 1.65 acres at the southwest corner of Canyon Boulevard and 26th street in the Village Shopping Center. The hotel interior area is proposed to be 116,314 square feet, with 171 rooms, in a 4-5 story, above-grade building with below grade parking under the north wing along Canyon Boulevard. along with surface parking along the interior west property line. Amendment to previous approvals: P-77-5, P-81-3 and P-91-30. APPLICANT: Bill Martinic Relevant Guidelines: The following guidelines are relevant to the discussion of this application. Note that the guidelines in their entirety can be found on-line at the following link: Boulder Valley Regional Center Guidelines or at the following web address: www.bouldercolorado.gov A to Z Boulder Design Advisory BoardBVRC Design Guidelines Comfortable, lively and interesting for pedestrians Buildings line street; minimum of parking lots adjacent to street Facades rich in windows and pedestrian-scale architectural detailsOutdoor restaurant/cafe seating and plazas 3.1.D. Maximize street-frontage of buildings To maximize the street-frontage of buildings and minimize the street-frontage of parking lots, orient the building so that its long side fronts the street. If a parking lot is located along the street, orient it so its short side fronts the street. th The Board discussed the pros and cons of pulling the building closer to the corner (26 and Canyon) considering the existing cottonwoods, functional requirements/constraints of the building program, visibility to retail beyond, and the overall benefits of a more urban proximity to the street. 3.1.E. Lay out site to support pedestrian circulation Pedestrian circulation should be an integral part of initial site layout, not added after building locations and vehicular circulation are determined. Organize the site so that buildings frame and reinforce pedestrian circulation, and so that pedestrians walk along building fronts rather than along or cross parking lots and drives. Also arrange buildings to create view corridors between pedestrian destinations within and adjacent to the site, including building entrances, transit stops, useable open space, and nearby BVRC amenities, such as parks and greenways (see the BVRC Amenities Reference Map, Appendix D). Overall the Board is supportive of the building height and attention given to enhance the pedestrian experience along the building fronts through the use of articulation in the massing, materials, and landscaping in kind to what currently exists at The Village. It was noted that ground floor guests might enjoy some protection from the activity on the sidewalk; and that the landscaping elements shown should help provide that. th Along 26 Street, the Board agreed that the building entry design provides good way-finding, although there was some concern that the translucent, illuminated glass columns could become dirty and weathered and be hard to maintain in this climate. There was more discussion about how to improve the rear elevation, beyond the landscaping and ventilation screens shown along the parking garage, and the board suggested adding an entrance - for ease of circulation through the project and to provide a focal point to terminate th the axis along 26 street, for pedestrians walking to and from nearby restaurants and retail along Arapahoe.  3.1.I. Preserve existing vegetation Arrange site elements to preserve mature existing vegetation. Also see Guideline 3.7.F.  The Board supports the applicants strategy to preserve existing vegetation where possible, and otherwise, to incorporate new landscaping similar or equal to the very good landscaping typical throughout The Village development. The Cottonwoods are specifically proposed to be preserved, although everyone acknowledged that this species can be problematic and will  eventually need to be replaced.  3.7.B. Street corners and site entries should have special landscaping The corners of street intersections, particularly BVRC gateways (see Gateways Map, Appendix E), and site entries (entries from both street and sidewalk) should be distinguished by special landscape treatments: flower displays, specimen trees and shrubs, accent rocks, landscaped berms, low walls, signage, decorative lighting, sculpture, architectural elements, and/or special paving. Features for vehicular en- 3.3-5).  The Board discussed the treatment of the street corner, including the importance of visibility to the building entrance, the presence of the large Cottonwood Trees, the desirability of a shady outdoor space and whether these benefit or hinder the urban design, and designing corners that promote usable outdoor space and provide a feeling of enclosure, such as pocket parks and use  of low walls or rod-iron fences.  4.2.A. Internal through-streets should be pedestrian friendly Internal (privately-owned) through- pedestrian- friendly. This may be challenging if the drive passes along interior parking lots. Provide a 6 foot-wide walk on both sides of the drive. Ensure pedestrian interest along the walk by providing storefronts or windows, street trees, landscaping, and/or special lighting. Screen or buffer parking lots if possible. On-street parallel parking is strongly recommended. Also see Guideline 3.2.A. Refer to 3.1 E above    Additional Comments and Related Guidelines: 2.10 Consider the Scale, Texture, and Pattern of Building Materials The Board recommends the Applicant provide additional building color options for review, specifically warmer tones, as potential options in addition to the neutral grey tones proposed. Although the proposed palette helps differentiate the project from other projects nearby, it was suggested a warmer palette might be more representative of this locale and help weave this project into the urban fabric of Boulder specifically. Making some reference to CU, Pearl Street, th and the 29 Street materials and color palette supports an urban strategy, whereas standing apart as a unique design object is typically a more suburban practice, for this type of building. That being said, too much color might be overwhelming when combined with all the articulation happening in the facades which some BDAB members found excessively complex, resulting in the building looking more massive than it really is. Further refinement to simplify the material and color palette would be beneficial. A more logical approach to the use of materials would also benefit this project. There appears to be a rat conventions occurring elsewhere in town, or in history. For example, placing heavier, more durable, bearing materials such as masonry, below lighter materials such as stucco and wood, would follow structural and architectural logic that will create a much greater sense of permanence in this building. That is appropriate for the urban qualities sought in this location. Another suggestion was to simplify the number of materials used in any one building component, and the total number of materials on any one façade. Again, this reduces the appearance of arbitrary material choices, which increases the overall architectural quality of the project. The Board suggested that urban apartment buildings are a more accurate analogy to use when organizing the elevation design.