Item 5D - Downtown Urban Design GuidelinesM E M O R A N D U M
February 3, 2016
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Deb Kalish, Senior Assistant City Attorney
James Hewat, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation Planner
Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer, PH+S
Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer, PH+S
SUBJECT: Public hearing and adoption of revisions to Section 1, The
Historic District of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines
pursuant to the rulemaking procedures set forth in Chapter
1-4, B.R.C. 1981.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Landmarks Board enact guidelines to revise Section 1, The
Historic District as proposed in Attachment A, adopting this memo as findings
for this decision.
SUGGESTED MOTION
I move that the Landmarks Board adopt the proposed revisions to Section 1, “The
Historic District” of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines pursuant to the
rulemaking procedures set forth in Chapter 1-4, B.R.C. 1981 and adopt the staff
memorandum dated February 3, 2016 as findings of the board.
PURPOSE
Staff requests that the Landmarks Board review and approve the substance of the
proposed revisions to Section 1, “The Historic District,” of the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines. These revisions are part of the update to the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines. If the board approves these revisions as to substance, three
copies of the proposed revisions will be filed with the city clerk and the public
will be given notice that Section 1 is available for review and comment during a
15-day comment period pursuant to Chapter 1-4, Rulemaking, of the Boulder
Revised Code. See Attachment A: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and
Attachment B: Notice of Rule-Making
SUMMARY
• In 1990, the Landmarks Board adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation as the basis for guidance for reviews of
proposed alterations to locally designated historic properties.
• District-specific design guidelines have been developed for seven of
Boulder’s ten historic districts.
• In 1999, the year the Downtown Historic District was established, the
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board adopted the Downtown Urban
Design Guidelines.
• The guidelines are part of a Downtown Area Plan and are adopted by
Planning Board and City Council with advice from the Design Advisory
Board. The Landmarks Board approves guidelines for the Downtown
Historic District (Section 1, “The Historic District”).
• As part of the Design Excellence Initiative, and in response to City Council
direction in March of 2015, staff has been working on revisions to the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines to improve usability, organization and
graphics, remove redundant and outdated items, and bring the 13-year-
old document into alignment with the plans, policies and regulations
created since the last update.
• The update to the Guidelines was prepared during seven working group
sessions facilitated by staff from August through November of 2015. In
addition, staff held a joint board meeting and a public open house in
December of 2015 to present the draft edits and recommendations from
the working group.
• The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the guidelines as to form and
legality.
• Three copies of the proposed revision will be filed with the City’s Central
Records Department on February 4, 2016 and will be published in the
Boulder Daily Camera February 4, 2016 to allow for a 15-day public
comment period per Rulemaking, Chapter 1-4, of the Boulder Revised
Code 1981.
BACKGROUND:
The Guidelines have their roots in planning initiatives started in the 1980s and
were last updated in 2002. Rationale behind the update included the age of the
document, lack of reflection to the current standards, and problematic sections in
need of clarification. Over the last few years, the Design Advisory Board (DAB),
in its annual letters to City Council, has articulated the need for updating the
Guidelines. In late 2014 and early 2015, the DAB discussed specific areas and
items in the Guidelines that it believed needed to be updated and provided staff
with its suggested revisions in a form of a redlined copy of the current
Guidelines.
The need to update the Guidelines became a priority due to current concerns
about design outcomes and as part of the Design Excellence Initiative work that
began in 2014. In January 2015, Victor Dover of Dover Kohl & Partners (the firm
hired by the city to provide consulting services for the Design Excellence
Initiative) provided recommendations for short and long term actions the city
should undertake to address design concerns. Recommendations included
updating outdated guidelines, such as the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines,
and putting a hold on height modifications in all areas except those that have
established community vision or until a clear guidance is confirmed through
policy revisions.
On March 17, 2015, City Council unanimously approved third reading of the
height modification ordinance with a sunset provision that would allow the
areas of downtown north of Canyon that are zoned Downtown 4 and 5 (i.e., DT-4
and DT-5) to become automatically eligible for height modifications through the
Site Review process upon adoption of the revised Guidelines by the City
Council.
The height ordinance (Ordinance No. 8028) includes the following authority in
Section 4:
“Section 4. The council orders the city manager to add those areas north of
Canyon Boulevard and within the DT-4 and DT-5 zoning districts, to the
map designated as Appendix J, “Areas Where Height Modifications May
be Considered,” B.R.C. 1981 after the final completion and adoption by
the City Council of amendments that are presently under review for the
2002 Downtown Urban Design Guidelines.”’
In March 2015, the City Council directed staff to update the Guidelines within a
six-month time period. In the second quarter of 2015, staff initiated a process
(Attachment D) for updating the Guidelines and also recommended the
formation of a working group. In August of 2015, the Design Guidelines
Working Group was formed and tasked with serving in an advisory and
authoring capacity for updating the Guidelines. The working group includes the
following board and/or commission members:
1. Crystal Gray, PB
2. Bryan Bowen, PB
3. Kate Remley, LB
4. Deborah Yin, LB
5. Jamison Brown, DAB
6. David McInerney, DAB
7. Jerry Shapins, DMC
Upon completion of the working group sessions, staff presented the
recommendations and draft guidelines to the public at an open house on
December 8th, and to a joint board meeting on December 10, 2015. The joint
board meeting included members from Planning Board, Landmarks Board,
Design Advisory Board, and the Downtown Management Commission. Staff
facilitated review of the draft document and collected feedback during the open
house and joint board meeting.
In addition, staff has revised the Appendix J “Areas Where Height Modification
May be Considered” to be consistent with the direction of height ordinance
(Ordinance No. 8028) to include the DT-4 and DT-5 zoning districts.
DESIGN GUIDELINES WORKING GROUP PROCESS
The city staff facilitated seven sessions with the working group from August 28th
through November 16, 2016 which included a chapter by chapter review and
discussion of the existing Guidelines, as well as review and consideration of
DAB’s suggested revisions. The working group sessions totaled fourteen (14)
hours, not including the required independent review of the draft document by
working group members.
Prior to each working group session a pdf input form was prepared for the
assigned section of the document and circulated to the members. Areas of the
document requiring attention, based the DAB’s recommendations and staff
assessment, were flagged for the working group evaluation. In addition,
individual working group members reviewed the flagged areas and indicated
whether the topic warranted discussion during the working group session. If
any topic or item was identified by a working group member it was then added
to the agenda and discussed during the session. Items identified as needing
updates were thoroughly reviewed by the group for content, context,
appropriateness, and language. All changes were confirmed through a group
consensus, and then incorporated by staff into the review draft after each
meeting. The review draft was then forwarded to the group members prior to
the next meeting as a record of the meeting. If no consensus could be met with
regard to a topic or item in question it was not revised. Thus, some items within
the document are carried forward unchanged from the 2002 Guidelines due to
either a lack of consensus and/or the change amounted to a substantial alteration
to the intent and purpose of the Guidelines.
The update included streamlining the document for usability, removal of
redundant items, clarifying language, improving graphics and maps, removing
of lengthy code references that are not relevant for inclusion in the Guidelines,
and updating the technical information. Several sections were reorganized
and/or merged to create a more coherent and easy to use document. This effort
was aimed at bringing the 13-year-old document into alignment with the plans,
policies and regulations created since the last update.
The following is a summary of the working group changes to the document per
section:
Introduction
Review of the Introduction occurred during working group sessions 1 and
2. Upon review of the section, the working group recommended making
general corrections to make the acknowledgments current and
reorganizing the section for clarity. The revisions included refocusing the
document on urban design, creating a new downtown map, updating the
introductory questions to include information on how the Guidelines are
administered, summarizing the ten downtown strategies with a vision
statement and improved images, clarifying and condensing the design
review process with a diagram and information linking to the most
current application review types, replacing detailed land use and other
geographic maps with notation links to the city’s databases, and
condensing the history subsection to focus on the development history of
the area.
Section 1: The Downtown Historic District
Review of Section 1 occurred during working group sessions 2 through 4.
Upon review of the section it was found the Guidelines contained and
lacked sufficient guidance in for alterations or additions of historic
properties. The working group recommended reorganizing the
subsections and consolidating guidelines with the same, or similar,
requirements.
Reorganization of Section 1 included:
1. Relocating and updating the recommended materials list to
the beginning of the chapter;
2. Consolidating all of the Guidelines referencing existing
historic properties into a comprehensive subsection of
architectural elements with specifics regarding preservation;
3. Creating a new subsection of guidelines for alterations and
additions to historic properties which follow the Secretary of
the Interior standards and best practices, and
4. Revising the subsection on new construction in historic
districts to reinforce the character defining features of the
overall historic district.
In addition to the restructuring, the working group and staff
recommended revising the maps, images, and diagrams to be more
accurate and reflective of the historic properties. This resulted in the
creation of new diagrams depicting historic features and two new historic
district maps. The first map is an overview map with the Downtown
Historic District boundary and the adjacent historic districts, and the
second map is an enlarged area of the Historic District which identifies the
individually landmarked and contributing historic buildings.
Section 2: The Non-Historic and Section 3: The Interface Areas
Review of Sections 2 and 3 occurred during working group sessions 4 and
5. Upon review of the sections, it was determined individual guidelines in
Sections 2: The Non-Historic Area and Section 3: The Interface Area
primarily addresses non-historic areas of Downtown and would be best
served as a single section. The staff and working group identified areas
of concern in the general lack of structure in the sections, redundant or
unspecific guidelines, and the poor illustrative quality of the images. The
working group recommended consolidating the two sections and creating
subsections addressing commercial and residential construction in the
Non-Historic and Interface areas downtown.
In addition to the restructuring, the working group proposed and
reviewed multiple imagery options to better illustrate the intent of the
newly consolidated section. Included in these changes was the update to
the map identifying the Non-Historic and Interface Area.
Section 4: Parking Facilities, Section 5: Commercial Signs, and Section 6:
Streetscape Improvements
Review of the Sections 4 through 6 occurred during working group
sessions 5 and 6. Review of the structure and individual guidelines in the
sections revealed fairly disjointed content and a general restatement of
requirements already covered within the Boulder Revised Code. In some
instances the Guidelines, Boulder Revised Code (BRC) and the Design and
Construction Standards (DCS) were at odds with one another.
The working group recommended merging Section 4: Parking Facilities
requirements into the design requirements of Sections 1 and 2, and to
merge Sections 5 and 6 into a new “Public Realm” chapter. The rationale
behind the creation of a “Public Realm” section was anything within the
public right-of-way, including signage, landscaping, and streetscape,
could be bundled into a comprehensive chapter and refined to provide
more guidance.
Revisions to the new “Public Realm” sections included revising the
language to provide urban design requirements without creating conflicts
with other regulating documents, removing all the extensive code
language, removing the extensive landscaping lists available in the code,
and editing the section to illustrate the design requirements which are
special to Downtown. In addition, the revision includes reworking the
streetscape map and an extensive editing of the section imagery.
Appendix A & B
The appendix was deleted from the document. The working group and
staff did not find enough cause to continue to keep a redundant list of the
guideline subsection titles or zoning information.
WORKING GROUP’S PROPOSED FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
The working group concluded that while the current revisions and
recommendations would improve the usability and general guidance of the
document, there is a need for a more substantial focus for developing a visionary
urban design plan and addressing and improving the development review
process.
In addition to updating the current guidelines, the working group has proposed
future recommendations to the City Council focused on the following deficits
identified in the current guidelines:
1. Urban Design
• Develop a downtown urban design plan;
• Provide more guidance for new construction in the historic district;
• Engage multiple stakeholders in developing a vision for downtown, as
it is the heart of the city;
• Consider a Form-Based Code for the downtown area; and,
• Define the desirable downtown building forms and character.
2. Land Use
• Update the land use code and the DCS (Design and Construction
Standards) to reflect the Guidelines and any newly identified urban
design outcomes;
• Define the streetscape requirements;
• With the assistance of a consultant, complete a comprehensive update
of the sign code and include signage in historic districts;
• Update the fencing and wall code;
• Revise the land use code use tables to consider compatibility between
the use and the street activation; and,
• Revise the zoning districts to resolve issues of split block zoning and
cross street compatibility.
3. Design Review Process
• Improve and foster cross-board communication and collaboration;
• Include BDAB earlier in the development review process; and,
• Use 3D modeling in the design review process and encourage 3D
massing models at the concept review.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND JOINT BOARD MEETING INPUT
Staff conducted public outreach with an informational, open house session.
Members of the public were presented the proposed changes to the Guidelines.
In addition, staff supported online feedback forum and provided an
informational session with Downtown Boulder Inc (DBI). General feedback from
members of the public who attended the open house was positive. Currently, no
feedback has been received from the online input forum.
DBI expressed concerns regarding the update of the Guidelines and lack of
addressing the issue of parking requirements, lack of available parking in
downtown, and the impact, and/or possible hardship to the development
industry generated by additional requirements of updated Guidelines. Staff
clarified with DBI the scope of the 2016 update does not involve substantive
changes to the document. In addition, staff reiterated that in respect to parking
the Guidelines do not regulate actual parking inventory, but rather focus on the
design attributes of parking associated structures and surface lots.
Input from the Joint Board Meeting scheduled December 12 included the review
of Downtown Urban Design Guidelines Draft (Attachment D) and was limited
to the “Introduction”, “Section 1: The Historic District”, and a limited review of
“Section 2: The Non-Historic & Interface Areas”. Board members present
discussed the following list of summarized items:
Table 1 - Summary of December 10, 2015 Joint Board Input
Comments Reviewed
By Staff
Included
in Final
Draft
Revision
1. Improve the vision statement
2. Add a photo collage representative of
downtown
3. Revise the maps to include more
information, e.g. Civic Area, Bike Paths,
Boulder Creek
4. Add “Views” and “Sun and Shade”
5. Revise the maps and color coding of the
document layout to be more functional
and associated with the chapters
6. Revise the Review Process Chart, add
“inappropriate” illustrative images,
consolidate paired imagery
7. Provide additional information in the
History subsection
8. Review the details for windows,
bulkheads, entrance and of the condensed
bullets for the anatomy
9. Add note to distinguish commercial at
grade entrances
10. Add clarity in 1.3.2 regarding additions to
historic buildings and referencing the
scale and roof patterning of the overall
block
11. Review the use of “soft” terms, e.g.
consider, in general, etc
12. Add requirement to wrap alley corner
with frontage material
13. Add note to 1.4.4 to consider the
relationship between height and footprint
14. Make universal edit from “handicap” to
“universal access”
15. Edit language in respect to Sec. of Interior
Standards and “differentiated yet
compatible”
NEXT STEPS:
February 16 City Council 1st Reading
February 7-19 Public Comment Period; Notice of Rulemaking
published in the newspaper on Feb. 7. If no
comments are received, the guidelines will become
effective immediately after the public comment
period. If comments are received, staff will forward
them to the Board for consideration at its March 3rd
meeting.
March 3 If, after reviewing public comments, the Board makes
substantive changes to the proposed revisions to the
Guidelines, staff will publish those changes and a
second public comment period will begin.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines Draft
B: Notice of Rulemaking for Amendments to the Downtown Urban Design
Guidelines per Chapter 1-4 of the Boulder Revised Municipal Code, 1981
C: Working Group Process Timeline
D: Board Member Input