Loading...
03.14.2018 Packet (FULL)Boulder Design Advisory Board Agenda Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1777 Broadway, 1777 West Conference Room 4 – 6 p.m. The following items will be discussed: 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The February 14, 2018 minutes are scheduled for review. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS 5. BOARD MATTERS A. 2017 COMMONS BUILDING TOUR SURVEY RESULTS B. CALENDAR – Upcoming Board Changes 6. 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 For more information call (303) 441-1880. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to the meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.gov, or at the Planning & Development Services Center, located at 1739 Broadway, third floor. CITY OF BOULDER DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES February 14, 2018 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: Lauren Folkerts David McInerney Jeff Dawson Bryan Bowen, Planning Board Ex-Officio Member DAB MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Baily, Chair Jamison Brown STAFF PRESENT: Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer Cindy Spence, Administrative Assistant III Marcy Cameron, Historic Preservation, Planner II Bill Jellick, Landmarks Board Member 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, J. Dawson, declared a quorum at 4:00 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The board approved the November 8, 2018 and December 13, 2018 Design Advisory Board minutes. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. PROJECT REVIEW: Proposed Revision to the Downtown Design Guidelines to Address Signage Illumination in the Historic District Staff Presentation: M. Cameron and B. Jellick provided a summary of the proposed revision to the Downtown Design Guidelines regarding signage illumination in the Historic District. Public Participation: No one spoke. Board Comments: • B. Bowen addressed Section 1.5.B.4 regarding “Signage illumination should only be illuminated after sunset and switched off after sunrise.” He questioned the intent of the guideline and discouraged lighting during the day. He suggested lighting begin one hour before sunset and turn off one hour after close of business. • D. McInerney questioned Section B.2.A regarding the difference in the definitions between “external” vs. “indirect” lighting. He said the concept not addressed in the guideline is the light source which is external the sign yet illuminates the sign but also visible to an observer and not on the sign itself. He suggested adding “shielding” to better define “indirect lighting” as the fixtures should be fully shielded or cut-off. • J. Dawson considered if externally-lit signs are encouraged, such as gooseneck lighting, rather than backlit fixtures, will it add visual clutter in the district or create a homogenous feel. He offered that storefront windows could act as signs if there possible and lighting could be discouraged if enough ambient light exists. • L. Folkerts would like to consider that an internally lit sign may be appropriate if the illumination is low enough (lumens to be determined) and encouraged flexibility in the guidelines. It would also variety in the historic district rather than having repetitive gooseneck lighting. • B. Bowen said he would like to consider adding flexibility for internally illuminated signs that are “if it’s beautiful and contributes to the location” or “enhances the historic character”. • J. Dawson stated that it would be unfortunate to see gooseneck lighting running down Pearl Street. • D. McInerney approved that the guidelines do not forbid internal illumination. • The board summarized they approved that the guidelines do not forbid internally lit signs. The board expressed concern that the historic district could become cluttered with gooseneck lighting, therefore some flexibility in the review for internally lit signs in rare cases should be allowed. 5. BOARD MATTERS K. Pahoa reviewed the calendar with the board. 6. ADJOURNMENT The Design Advisory Board adjourned the meeting at 4:42 p.m. APPROVED BY: _________________________ Board Chair _________________________ DATE Date Submitted Please let us know which group you are associated with: Do you think the buildings are scaled appropriately for the context? What are your thoughts on the design and materials?What are your thoughts on the public spaces and streetscape? Survey Summary n/a 21 Total Tour Participants. 9 Completed Surveys - 6 Board or Commission members, 1 undisclosed and 2 staff All but one response feel the buildings are scaled appropriately In general, positive responses to the overall design and quality. Most materials were generally praised, with the exception of the composite wood material. Thoughts on the public space were mixed ranging from praise of the scale of the spaces to dislike of the street furniture & transportation standards. 1 11/13/2017 11:34 Boards and commissions Yes. The design is effective in preserving pedestrian scale while allowing what, for Boulder, is a building of sizeable bulk and mass. The "twist" is instrumental to this, and somehow this was accomplished without ruining the interior floorplans. The materials are fine. Loved the catenary lights. The offset curbcut was a thoughtful touch -- it allows wheeled deliveries without being lined up with the plaza and making the plaza feel like a driveway. 2 11/13/2017 12:07 Boards and commissions Yes, I find them very compatible with Steelyards area.I like it as a crisp look for Boulder commercial/mixed-use areas.In general a step forward. 3 11/13/2017 15:52 Boards and commissions Yes Quality both, but too dark esp S building Well done 4 11/15/2017 16:28 Boards and commissions Yes The dark brick and metal panel are really successful. I'm not sure that the accent color was always successful, but I might be biased because orange just isn't my color. I think it's too early to tell if the public spaces will be successful. In general I think the buildings do a good job of creating positive outdoor space, but it's a funky part of town for a plaza. 5 11/27/2017 8:53 Boards and commissions yes brick is nice, metal and wood look cheap. like the use of evergreen trees. mismatched bike racks due to City's "rules" is disappointing. 6 11/29/2017 10:23 Boards and commissions Very much so. I think it came out quite well - it's well detailed, durable, high quality, and contextually appropriate. I think the Design and Construction Standards and some input from transportation had negative impacts on the space. One of the more conspicuous symptoms of this is the requirement to use U bike racks in certain locations, which in real space don't make any sense at all. 7 11/13/2017 11:05 Staff Yes. Liked the metal panel/stacked grey brick combo, however, didn't like the Trex-like orange/gold material at the base and around the hardscaping. Loved the PV on the east wall. Think the buildings would have benefited from more exterior solar shading. Even the rendering above shows shading on the south wall windows, which reduces interior loads, bounces daylight further into the building and improves the aesthetic in my opinion. Don't think these made it on to the final building. Or maybe they just weren't installed yet.Great scale. Really attractive. 8 11/13/2017 13:00 Staff The upper floor setback and angles reduced the feel of the height and complemented the adjacent development. I thought the metal panel and hopefully the solar panels, created an industrial feel that is reminiscent of the site's history. The brick was very well done and windows seem appropriate. I thought the "wood" material felt fake and cheap compared with more of a natural wood panel product. Needs more time for the landscape to grow in, it will feel much different in summer. The garage stair entry took up a lot of visual space compared with the image above. 9 11/13/2017 10:43 Not at street level. The volume itself is fine, maybe a bit too tall to define a pedestrian realm, but the details or street level activation seems like it could have used more development. The composite wood panel looks like plastic further than 1 foot away. At street level there is not enough variation in architectural detailing or proposed use to convince me that the renderings will be a reality. There is a lot of dead or undefined space along the streetscape, which will either make for some impromptu uses (potentially cool but totally unpredictable) or will remain un-used/dead. Design Excellence Initiative Tour 2017 Commons Buildings Tour Survey Results Survey Summary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Did you find the tour informative, enjoyable and/or helpful? Please explain your answer to the previous question Are there other areas or projects in Boulder you would like to tour? (Option 1)Option 2 Option 3 In general the tour was positively received. One person was indifferent as to the benefit of the tour. Much of the positive reviews included the information on the Net Zero aspects, the changes during development review process and the ability to engage with others or the architect, and the access to the interior of the buildings. Canyon & 28th Hotels (5 Mentions)Google (3 Mentions)S'Park (2 mentions) Yes Good info well presented. Yes I've been wanting to see the interior of the buildings.Rev Pollard Armory Yes Great net zero info Canyon & 28th hotels Yes It was good to hear and see what changed as they went through the development process, and what parts of the design were succeeding in the architects eyes.Google 28th and Canyon Hotels Washington Park Yes there was no indifferent option.Google Yes It's a great opportunity to engage with staff and fellow board member to create understanding for future projects.S'Park Hotels at Canyon and 28th Anthem Branding building on Broadway Yes Bill was a great guide!Google Hotels at 29th&Canyon Yes great to see finished work and compare what was approved.Canyon/28th Hotels Palo Park Affordable Housing Daily Camera Building Yes The architect explained the way they reached the building form and many of the technical details of the building's systems, which was helpful to better understand the building overall. Design Excellence Initiative Tour 2017 Commons Buildings Tour Survey Results Survey Summary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Option 4 Option 5 What can we do to improve Design Excellence Initiative tours, e.g. additional information, longer tour time, etc.? (please explain) Do you have any additional feedback on the building or site design? (1 Mention) Palo Park Affordable Housing Washington Park Anthem Branding Bldg. 1 yr - Post Occupancy Wencell Building Daily Camera Pollard Armory Reve New BCH Med Pavilion (Foothills) Add information from minutes, approvals and other identified concerns, include developers, conduct neighborhood scale tours and provide basic energy performance information Low response, but generally positive around design and sustainability. Debrief over food! I think this was very appropriate. Send out relevant portions of PB DAB and any other board and council minutes in advance of tour. How spot on or not were comments & concerns ? Spark as it gets further along Anything recently completed that was not by right development Perhaps staff could remind us what the controversial parts of the project were before we start the tour. I think projects like this will help make Boulder more walkable, sustainable, and vibrant. I think this is a great example of the kind of development the city should be trying to encourage. include developer Wencell Building - check in after a year of occupancy New Boulder Community Health Medical Pavilion Do tours of existing neighborhoods outside of the context of development review projects,, so we can hear from the residents what they like, what they hate, what they need that's currently missing, where there are dangerous transit spots (bring transportation staff along too). I think this could be the opening for further work on neighborhood scale urban design excellence, walkable 'hoods, and the building of consensus in the community about planning and design issues. I think the building is highly responsive to the site, views, urban form, and pedestrian spatial quality. The pamphlet/handout was really helpful. I'd love if it had basic energy info: Energy Use Index (EUI), wall R-values, Roof R-values, window details, wall-to-window ratio, mechanical system, & PV capacity. I'd love to turn these into mini-case studies that could be added to the energy code website! As we move to outcome based energy codes, the more examples we have of high performing buildings the better!! Walking Tour of Downtown - examples of Design Guidelines Wonderland Creek Townhomes & Habitat For Humanity Homes Time was appropriate, one hour should be sufficient for most projects. Update the Website I would have liked more discussion on the design concept beyond the net-zero features. Design Excellence Initiative Tour 2017 Commons Buildings Tour Survey Results Repor t f or Des ig n Excellence T our 2017 - T he Com m ons Building C o mp le t io n Ra t e :1 0 0 % Co mple te 9 T o t a ls : 9 Re spo nse C o unts 1 . P le ase le t us kno w whi c h g ro up yo u are asso c iate d with: 25% Staff25% Staff 75% Boards and commissions75% Boards and commissions Value Pe rce nt Re s po ns e s S taff 25.0 %2 Bo ards and c o mmis s io ns 75.0 %6 T o t a ls : 8 2 . D o yo u think the bui l di ng s are sc ale d appro priate ly f o r the c o nte xt? 3 . What are yo ur tho ug hts o n the de sig n and mate rial s? 4 . What are yo ur tho ug hts o n the public spac e s and stre e tsc ape ? 5 . D id yo u f ind the to ur inf o rmat i ve , e njo yabl e and/o r he l pf ul? 100% Yes100% Yes Value Pe rce nt Re s po ns e s Ye s 10 0 .0 %9 T o t a ls : 9 6 . P le ase e xpl ai n yo ur answe r to the pre vio us que stio n O ptio n 1 O ptio n 2 7 . Are the re o the r are as o r pro je c ts i n B o ulde r yo u w o ul d like to t o ur? O ptio n 3 O ptio n 4 O ptio n 5 8 . What c an we do to i mpro ve D e sig n E xc e lle nc e I ni tiative to urs, e .g . additi o nal i nf o rmatio n, l o ng e r t o ur time , e tc ? (ple ase e xplain) 9 . D o yo u have any additi o nal f e e dbac k o n the bui lding o r si te de sig n?