11.09.2016 DAB Packet (FULL)
Boulder Design Advisory
Board Agenda
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
1777 West Conference Room
4 – 8 p.m.
The following items will be discussed:
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of October 12, 2016 Minutes
3. GIS Update (Chris Trice)
4. Board Matters
A. Letter to City Council (Pre-Retreat Study Session Questions)
B. J. Brown and D. McInerney Debrief on Civic Area East Bookend Event
C. K. Pahoa Update on Upcoming Projects
5. Adjournment
For further information on these projects, please contact:
Kalani Pahoa at 303.441.4248 pahoak@bouldercolorado.gov or
For administrative assistance, please contact:
Cindy Spence at 303.441.4464 spencec@bouldercolorado.gov
11.09.2016 DAB Packet Page 1 of 6
CITY OF BOULDER
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
October 12, 2016
1777 Broadway, 1777 West Conference Room
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/
DAB MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jamison Brown, Chair
David McInerney
Jeff Dawson
Jim Baily
Bryan Bowen, Planning Board Ex-Officio Member
DAB MEMBERS ABSENT:
Michelle Lee
STAFF PRESENT:
Jim Robertson, Senior Urban Designer
Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer
Cindy Spence, Administrative Assistant III
Karl Guiler, Senior Planner
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, J. Brown, declared a quorum at 4:04 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The board approved the September 14, 2016 Design Advisory Board minutes.
3. 3200 BLUFF PROJECT REVIEW
K. Guiler provided a brief summary of the 3200 Bluff project. He informed the board that
this project would be the first to be reviewed using Form Based Code (FBC). The FBC
requires that the project come before DAB and they applicant would like for DAB’s input on
how they are meeting or how they may better meet the requirements of FBC. The project
requires that it meet TVAP guidelines. He informed the board that the area is MU-2, the FAR
is at 2.0, and the project is proposed to be three to four stories. The location would be the
Rail Plaza which would be a high density area. He stated that FBC has detailed requirements
and exceptions within this project were identified. If there are exception to be made, there are
criteria within the FBC. He reminded the board that the criteria of FBC are discretionary and
can be identified and subject to Call Up by Planning Board. The applicant would like to
receive more information regarding revisions, exceptions or possible revisions. Specifically,
the applicant would like to receive feedback from the board regarding the following:
The paseo regs
11.09.2016 DAB Packet Page 2 of 6
Rear setback from east side of 25 feet
150-foot building length maximum
Maximum building site impervious of 60%
Refuse utilities not located in the parking yard
Entrance configurations
Expression lines
Lintels
Applicant Presentation:
Bill Holicky, Will Faber, and Andy Bush, with Coburn Architecture, presented the item to
the board.
Board Comments:
J. Dawson would like to ask staff to review the details of the window material. He stated
that lintels do not make sense when masonry is not present.
J. Brown added that in contemporary development, there often are no structural elements
to express. Traditional structural elements are purposefully in the Code to define what
architectural details people want to see and how are they can be expressed in a
contemporary way.
J. Dawson stated that in contemporary architecture the idea is to provide interest and
detail and to give scale and visual interest without losing the contemporary nature of
building. He would like to see little detail at the windows at this point. They could use
better treatment and expression.
J. Baily highlighted what he found most problematic was the northeast façade. This
façade is in danger of becoming a large flat wall and could cast a large shadow. He
suggested relieving the solar condition and the flatness of the wall and to not worry about
the details of the lintels.
B. Bowen gave suggestions regarding window detailing he had observed in other
buildings.
J. Dawson stated that the northeast façade is small in regards to the entire surface area of
the building. Rather than the applicant adding lintels for the sake of the FBC, he
recommended they take the design concept and evolve it to the level of a masonry
building. The windows should be consistent with the overall façade. The window detail is
the lintel.
J. Brown said that the FBC would need to be evaluated outside of this meeting.
D. McInerney agreed with J. Baily regarding the flatness of the northeast elevation. In
addition, the north façade of the southern building (in the courtyard), he suggested the
applicant consider bringing the wood material into the reveal.
J. Brown questioned why the façade is changing so much, creating individual buildings.
He asked the applicant if this was in response to the FBC.
J. Dawson suggested the proposal could express the walkups more along the west and
north facades. The corner of the northwest elevation is not successful in terms of the
pedestrian nature and walkups. He was hoping more residential would come to the
ground level because it appears lots of office and retail are on the ground level and it is
unclear how much they will get utilized. He has concern that this project does not feel
11.09.2016 DAB Packet Page 3 of 6
like it has a strong urban residential base. The buildings are not welcoming with the
entries at the ground level. Finally, he is not sure the garden walls are necessary. He said
that a celebration of the entry should be done.
B. Bowen agreed. The bottom does not appear fully developed. He suggested changing
materials, trellises and shade structures.
J. Dawson said that you need to be able to see an entry vs. a patio.
B. Bowen stated, regarding the restaurant area, what happens on the first floor in that area
is very important.
J. Brown stated that he was struggling with the composition. In regards to the overhang,
he wondered if the north side was the best location. He asked the applicant to reconsider
this.
J. Baily said, in regards to the parking garage, he does not like the pedestrian experience
with the ramp going underground as you walk by. In addition, the proposed two ramps
for a small garage would use a lot of space. He suggested one ramp to allow more space.
J. Dawson suggested carrying the residential base down to the edge on the south edge.
J. Brown said, in regards to the Junction Place elevations, that he approves of the bridge
and truces. He suggested adding natural elements.
D. McInerney asked for a description of the wood composite material proposed for the
west façade and inquired about its durability on a sunny exposure. Suggested as a
potential alternative the terra cotta fins presented as a design precedent in the plans.
B. Bowen suggested that the material behind the posts should be well considered as this
will be an important element. The material should be simple with texture and
appropriately scaled.
J. Brown suggested that the north façade of the north building perhaps resemble a four-
story version of the Junction Place façade with the restaurant on the ground floor.
J. Dawson added that on the north façade, the proposal is not expressing the metal panel
roof. It may help express the PV panels.
J. Brown approved of the saw tooth of the panels.
J. Dawson stated that part of the issue regarding the entry driveway on the north façade
is the gray wall. He suggested pulling it back may help. If you can’t get rid of it, make it
as part of the pedestrian experience.
D. McInerney offered the idea of a vertical expression on the ramp walls to create
shadowing effects.
J. Dawson suggested that operable windows could add another texture.
4. BOARD MATTERS
K. Pahoa updated the board regarding the following items:
FBC and How It Is Working – The board discussed having a joint session with Planning
Board regarding FBC. Discussion topics could center around the FBC’s process, is it
working, procedure for review, what qualifies for an exemption, how does one
demonstrate a hardship and it needs to be rooted in the real-world design process. There
were questions surrounding the process regarding the FBC review process. The board
questioned if the Site Review process would not occur or would it simply be called up by
Planning Board. The board agreed that the structural process needs to be reviewed and
11.09.2016 DAB Packet Page 4 of 6
determined quickly.
Letter to Council – The board will discuss at the next scheduled DAB meeting for
November 9, 2016.
Comp Plan Scenarios – Staff may present at the next scheduled DAB meeting for
November 9, 2016.
5. ADJOURNMENT
The Design Advisory Board adjourned the meeting at 6:14 p.m.
APPROVED BY:
_________________________
Board Chair
_________________________
DATE
11.09.2016 DAB Packet Page 5 of 6
1777 Broadway, Boulder CO 80302 | bouldercolorado.gov | O: 303‐441‐3002
City of Boulder
City Council
Mayor Suzanne Jones Mayor Pro Tem Mary Young
Council Members: Matt Appelbaum, Aaron Brockett, Jan Burton,
Liza Morzel, Andrew Shoemaker, Sam Weaver, Bob Yates
October 21, 2016
Dear Boulder Board & Commission Members:
At the end of each year, the Boulder City Council asks members of the city's boards and
commissions to provide input on the next year's goals and objectives in order to help Council and
the city staff prepare the annual work plan at the January city council retreat. In the past, some
board and commission members have found the questions too narrowly focused. Because you
are leaders in our community, and you are certainly aware of a spectrum of issues, this year we
decided to broaden the questions, seeking input in any area where you have views.
Please see this year's questions below. You need not limit your responses to the area of expertise
of your board/commission. Your entire board/commission may provide a single set of responses
or, if you prefer, each member can provide his or her own responses (if the latter, please submit
all of the member responses in a single packet). So that Council may have the benefit of your
views before its pre-retreat Study Session on January 10, please deliver your responses to your
board secretary no later than the close of business on Friday, December 16.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Lisa Morzel
Bob Yates
Council Retreat Committee
1.How do you think the City can improve its public engagement process? How would you
recommend that Council engage with the community?
2. What do you think the City’s top three priorities should be in 2017?
3.What do you think will be the City’s three biggest challenges over the next five years, and
how should we address them?
11.09.2016 DAB Packet Page 6 of 6