Item 5D - Downtown Urban Design Guidelines - attachment DFrom:Deborah Yin
To:Pahoa, Kalani
Subject:Downtown Design Guidelines revision comments DY
Date:Friday, December 11, 2015 11:32:48 AM
Hi Kalani.
You & Sam have done a great job with the guidelines & with the working group. Thanks for
your patience & hard work.
I’d like to reiterate what I said at the meeting, that we may have pulled too much out from
the perspective of the board reviewer, many of whom have no tools or skills to judge good
design, on the other side of the table many design professionals & developers aren’t well
equipped either as we can see. So I agree with Liz’s comments about looking again at the
original verbiage describing architectural components.
Also from the perspective of the reviewer but a slightly different angle, if the guidelines
sound too optional then it becomes difficult to tell an applicant, yes you do have to do
these things, as the historic preservation program has the ability to do.
Appropriate lists of materials, can we add “durable” or “long lived” in the narrative part?
1.3.1 Second paragraph, last sentence: is it necessary to include “mechanized awnings”,
isn’t it enough to just say “awnings”?
Figure 12 – I don’t think this project is the best example of what we want to see more of.
2.1 It appears transparency @ ground floor has been removed. While not a guarantee of a
good design it is a characteristic that is generally desirable. (This should be repeated in
historic section additions & new buildings in districts section. Maybe there should be a
reference to repeating existing patterns of transparency in the district.)
2.1.3.C.
-C. What does it mean to maintain established breaks such as alleyways? Isn’t
building across an alley already not permitted?
-Add back in 25’ wide façade modules in all sectors of downtown not just historic
district. This sort of patterning is one part of making a street that is inviting.
-I disagree that ground floors should not be encouraged to be taller than upper
floors. It’s worked very well in historic buildings & gives a building a feeling of generosity
(not exactly the right word) along the street. Consider the new building at the NE corner of
Pearl & 9th. Its ground floor is low & it conveys oppressiveness. The low ground floor
contributes to that projects appearance of being a fortress rather than what we would want
to see along Pearl especially, open & inviting.
-E. Add “urban” in front of “residential”. Boulder is particularly prolific at producing
suburban looking multifamily buildings, it appears many of our developers/designers have
a difficult time making the leap from suburban to urban, it’s important to differentiate.
Reminder, commercial buildings should have ground floors at grade.
3.1.3.D Why limit how much area letters can occupy on a sign panel? Seems
unnecessarily limiting? Some graphics that bleed to the edge of a page or panel work very
well & are more interesting because they’re less common.
3.2.2. Last sentence, can we use “timeless” instead of “classic”? i.e., not too trendy & not a
trend that is no longer in favor.
3.2.2.A. Can we restore the statements about brick being the predominant paving material
downtown. This is beneficial for the reviewer in addition to the applicant.
The Landmarks Board just recently dealt with an issue of sidewalk repairs made in a
historic district where the concrete has a curing compound that made the concrete even
more starkly bright. Strangely, the City’s own public works department was doing the work
& they were unaware that they needed to have the material/color approved by LB. So
there should be a paragraph added about paving in the historic district. New brick to
match existing brick, concrete to be treated in a way so as not to look brand new & sharply
contrasting with existing old concrete. Flagstone must match existing flagstone in color,
size including thickness.
3.3.1 Tree species should be selected for longevity. Many landscaping trees are selected
for fast growth which often correlates to short lives & weakness.
Figure 25 & 26 Can the letter keys match the letter/number system in the text preceding?
For the For the Future List
The City should seriously think about the down sides of creating below grade plazas. I
have not seen one that works, they are usually not used except by indigents. See this
article about one in San Francisco.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/place/article/Sunken-Hallidie-Plaza-was-a-deeply-
wrong-design-6626025.php
3.3.3 (& generally)The City should dictate what types of trees are appropriate along Canyon
& any other street where there is a particular effect or is a major cross town route such as
Broadway, Arapahoe,… so that there is uniformity or a pattern other than each building
having its own type of tree in front.
3.4 Doesn’t the City & RTD control locations of bus stops? And have standard designs?
3.6 The city should have a program where building owners who want to incorporate public
art can receive matching funds from the city or something so that the city has a say in what
is installed & where.
The City should have separate streetscape (public realm standards) for its own public
works within historic districts. These areas should not receive the same treatment as non
historic areas.
Better stop now or else you won’t read all my comments. We used to embed deep into a
project specification that if a contractor read this far he was eligible to collect $20. Not too
many claimed the bonus.
Deborah
From:Michelle Lee
To:Pahoa, Kalani
Subject:Re: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines Joint Board Meeting Comments - Email 1 of 2
Date:Thursday, December 17, 2015 5:01:43 PM
Kalani, I wasn't sure what format you wanted comments. just a few below..
section 1.4.4 A and section 2.1.3 A "For new structures that are significantly taller
than adjacent buildings, upper floors should be set-back a minimum of 15' from
the front facade to reduce the perceived height".
this is one of the few places in our guidelines that gives a specific dimension (15')
and I'm not sure why. It's a blanket prescription that doesn't make sense. Every
building's height, mass, scale and setbacks should be considered individually in
their specific context. I highly recommend removing the 15' callout.
the word "handicapped" should be replaced with "accessible" or "universal design"
throughout
the map on page 26 at the front of Section 2 should highlight the non-historic and
interface area rather than the downtown. It's hard to tell a difference from this map and
the map at the front of Section 1.
on page 31, the right image is hard to see - too dark. Is there a better image that could
illustrate the point more clearly?
on page 39, it might be helpful to show section cut through the 3 major streets (A, B, C)
it illustrate the buffering, scale, and volume. this is a quick easy tool to cut
section: http://streetmix.net/
Michelle W. Lee
Architecture & Environmental Design
phone 303-523-2202 | ultraliteliving.com
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Pahoa, Kalani <PahoaK@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote:
Hello Everyone,
This is a friendly reminder that the comments for the draft are due tomorrow (Friday,
December 18). If you would like to comment please send your responses in by 5 p.m. As
always, please forward your comments directly to me and not cc the rest of the Boards.
Regards,
Kalani
From: Pahoa, Kalani
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 2:25 PM
To: BDAB; DMC; landmarksboard; boulderplanningboard
Cc: Assefa, Samuel; Hewat, James; Cameron, Marcy
Subject: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines Joint Board Meeting Comments - Email 1 of 2
Dear Board Members,
Thank you for coming to the joint board meeting last night and providing your feedback on
the draft document. To recap the meeting, the joint board reviewed the Introduction and
Section 1: The Historic District of the draft and provided feedback. The joint board comments
are recorded in red on the attached pdf.
As mentioned during the meeting, staff will be collecting the remaining comments and input
for the following questions:
1.Does the joint board have any feedback on the draft update to the DUDG
(Attachment A), including the changes and restructuring of the document as
recommended by the DUDG Working Group?
2.Is there anything that appears to be missing, or should be modified, to improve
the clarity and usability of the guidelines?
Considering the extensive amount of discussion and review during the working group sessions,
staff is not anticipating any significant changes to the draft. Please have your input to us by
Friday, December 18, 2015. We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Kalani
Kalani Pahoa
Urban Designer
Department of Community Planning and Sustainability
1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
303.441.4248 - Direct
pahoak@bouldercolorado.gov
Comments provided by Liz Payton at close of 10
December 2015 Joint Board Meeting
Introduction
The visions statement could do better at capturing our (Boulder) setting
This feels generic – any downtown anywhere
Views
Mountains
Creeks
Civic Area
“Historic core”
Look at it like an executive summary
Tailored to Boulder – What is special about Boulder?
Photograph from downtown to foothills
*maybe use photo from PowerPoint
Important to have a creative/excellent photo for the front page
Inspiring & exciting
Collage with thumbnails
Imagery that captures the vision
Concern that there is no reference to the civic area plan
Maybe label on map
The bike/pad paths are lost on the map
Pg 38. Layer in bike paths off street
Make the main map more experiential?
Guide people to the section they need to look at
Legend on page 5 – points to sections of the document
That map – open w/ table of contents
Key the colors to the sections
Section header up to the top of the pages – and/or tabs
Graphic components are busy – too many sizes and typefaces
“Continue to think less”
Flowchart – doesn’t capture the circular process – see the applicant several times
Set expectations
Draw an arrow vertically as well
Lead the applicant to the section they need
Color code to match the sections
Perhaps planning board section removed – where does site review fit?
Rename the chart – the review process
History section –
Livery to auto dealerships
Change the sentence about why the landmarks program got started – this feels sanitized
History past the 1970s
Describe the character in historic terms – rich texture and patterns
Critical spines point toward the Canyon
Section 1
Add section numbers that correspond with the building types
Zoom into historic map -maybe another graphic is needed
***north side of the Library on historic map
The word “generally” leaves too much wiggle room
Really need to look at material guidelines
Carpentry – specifically wood
Inappropriate – composite wood
Façade diagram
Missing bullet – keep the original size, shape, and form of original storefront
May have lost too much detail by simplifying to a bulleted list
Missing the appropriate vs. inappropriate imagery (i.e. pg 37 of original doc)
Do this/don’t do this goes a long way
Go through paragraphs of building elements and make sure the details are still captured
Most of the time this doc is viewed online - make it a paired image
1.2.4 Now only talks residential – say 1st floor flush at grade with commercial
Primary entrance needs to be at grade
“Subtly distinguishable” vs. Sec of the Interior guidelines
Visual examples – appropriate vs. inappropriate
1.2.3D – look at the scale & roof patterning of the block as it relates to additions to historic
Add an E?
Clarity on D about vertical additions vs. lateral additions
Page 20 needs to say refer to list on page…
Instead of “consider” use a term like “integrate” or “incorporate”
What are the qualities that we want?
Richness or complexity
Maybe add a photograph
When a building has an alley corner – wrap the building (25’?)
Add note to all alley references
Pg 22 – “consider” and “in general”
Height and mass of buildings
Future recommendation – corner buildings separate from the rest of the block guidelines
–Future urban design plan
Relationship between height and footprint
Figure 9 may not be a good photo – it’s not in the historic district
Pg 25 – subheading without context – maybe add images
Handicap section – are we above and beyond ADA
When added to a historic building – shouldn’t detract
Don’t use the word “sensitive” – say what we actually mean – provide actual guidance
Section 2
Need a little more information
“New construction …..” example of text from Liz