Loading...
12.08.21 DAB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES December 8, 2021 Virtual Meeting 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: Brendan Ash Rory Bilocerkowycz Todd Bryan (Chair) Matthew Schexnyder David Ensign, Planning Board Ex-Officio Member DAB MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Kalani Pahoa, Cindy Spence, Elaine McLaughlin, 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, T. Bryan, declared a quorum at 4:05 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The board approved the November 22, 2021 Design Advisory Board minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. PROJECT REVIEW: Diagonal Plaza (LUR2021-00037), 3320 28th Street 1) Staff Introduction E. McLaughlin provided a summary of the Diagonal Plaza project located at 3320 28th Street. 2) Applicant Presentation Bill Holicky, Audrie Wiemers, and Grant Yamaki, with Coburn Architecture, representing the applicant, presented the item to the board. 3) Public Participation No one spoke. 4) Board discussion of key issues (from the Discussion Template):  Urban Design Characteristics (Item A) - Review the architectural legibility of the multifamily communal entry points. Building 2 elevation for the south entry door, vestibule and floor plans do not align. It is difficult to discern if this is the primary entry point for upper floor apartments. Applicant will clarify this condition during the review. As designed, it reads as a private unit entry. o T. Bryan summarized the board’s recommendations. The board discussed the idea of making a clear distinction between the commercial/public and residential, by developing a vernacular for the different programs to make it clear which entry doors are for commercial versus residential, which includes, multi-family/ apartment access, home occupation, and residential with street level access. They suggested solutions included a change in materiality, awnings and signage, door materiality (storefront vs traditional door) and potential setback of threshold of private doors off the sidewalk. The residential entry needs a strong identity. The board approved of moving the awning and signage.  Urban Design Characteristics (Item B) - Review the architectural legibility of the multifamily communal entry points. Building 4 south entry to the upper floor units is difficult to discern. The door height in comparison to the adjacent ground floor unit entry doors and the lack of the vertical circulation definition or transparency make this entry look like a service entry instead of primary common residential entry. o T. Bryan summarized the board’s recommendations. The board would like to see a way- finding convention for the entire project. In addition, the board agreed that a development /neighbor “entry moment” should be created at Building #4, at the southeast corner. One suggestion was to relocate the stair tower or give the tower or corner element more transparency.  Urban Design Characteristics (Item C) - Review the below grade residential units along the south elevation of Building 1. These units “appear” to be partially below grade running adjacent to the southern sidewalk edge and without access from the street. Staff does not recommend creating an unbuffered, pit condition along the sidewalk with partially sunken units. It is not ideal for a pedestrian friendly experience. The applicant will confirm or clarify this condition during the review. o T. Bryan summarized the board’s recommendations. The board said that the staff question was addressed.  Architectural Composition and Pattering (Item A) - Review the architectural patterning of the building elevations and material palette of Building 6 & 7 for cohesiveness in the application of contrasting materials wrapping the 1st floor bellyband to the awning to vertical core. o T. Bryan summarized the board’s recommendations. The board recommended better definition and refinement of the spaces. The board suggested a clarification on design language of the public and private programmed spaces. They asked to confine the announcement or enhancements of the public spaces. Finally, the board suggested taking a closer look at the transitions between the first and second floors and what that detail transition may want to be.  Architectural Composition and Pattering (Item B) - Review Building 6 northwest corner for options to address the uncharacteristic break in the overall window family pattern at this corner and the function/forward facing aspects of these spaces. o T. Bryan summarized the board’s recommendations. The board suggested a clarification on design language of the public and private programmed spaces. The board suggested the white siding with storefront expression for entry as shown on Building 6 & 7 should be carried across to the northwest corner of Building 5, the building to the west. The corner should be celebrated and lightened up. As presented, the corner felt foreign and the fenestration was not consistent with the ground-floor level and amenities space. The white siding with storefront design change would help identify the building entry, the bike storage and leasing space. There should be a distinction or announcement of the location of these more public programmed spaces versus the private residential unit entries.  Architectural Details (Item A) - Review select material detailing, material junctions and in- plane transitions. The images selected below are global examples from across the site. o T. Bryan summarized the board’s recommendations. The board proposed the treatments and details in expansive reliefs of material be subtle, modern and varied between buildings. The brick treatments of the buildings should have subtle embellishments to create an additional layer of rhythm. Large expanses of horizontal/vertical metal siding start to have the building appear like a shipping container which the board would like to avoid. The board would rather see subtle rotation of the material pattern which would help add detail and variation. 5) Additional review and discussion topics • Western Façade – The board encouraged continued study of the portal frame and how it would intersect the stone. It appears to partially bisect and look as if it may be two different materials. The board approved of the large portal frame but the materiality and stone masses should be reviewed. The retail entries appear confusing and do not line up. Since it appears to be a large expanse of glazing, the board would not necessarily recommend removing the suggested awnings. Perhaps the awnings could retreat into the recess of the building itself and clearly delineate an entry. Finally, the board suggested that when looking at the two-story white treatments surrounding the windows, they would like to see them articulate the irregular modern detailing expressed and captured. • Southern Façade – The board recommended an investigation of adding more glazing on level one at the corner. The board cautioned against the richness of the white metal siding. They also recommended adding some recessing similar to what is found on the west façade to bring about a subtle change to the white siding. The west-facing white siding recessed treatment should be explored on the south façade. • Eastern/Northern Façade – The board would like to have the three residential units tied together more through material and color. A better connection needs to be created with design elements to connect the south façade and the north façade. Finally, changes in programming from public to private can be announced by changing the color of the sloping roof line to give the look of a clean transition. The board agreed the entire façade design and window pattering could be simplified. 6) Board discussion of the best aspects of the project • M. Schexnyder said the proposed landscaping of the public space and the connections were well done. The work so far is commendable and should create some great outdoor spaces. • R. Bilocerkowycz said the project looks well done so far. The materiality will be a hard stop for him. Regardless of massing, entry points, etc., if the materials feel cheap and thin, it will ruin all the effort that went into this project. He said that he would like to have DAB be able to review the final materiality and key transitions, especially since the materials themselves have not yet been specified at this point. • B. Ash added that since this project would go through TEC DOC, it would be another opportunity for this project to catch specifically what the martials and colors proposed would be. She said she was excited about this project. The residential component will add a much-needed density and diversity. She said she approved of the proposed treatment of the main street, the streetscapes, sidewalks, and the tree lawns. The project has brought a much-needed human scale off 28th Street into those side streets. She cautioned that the points of entry would be studied carefully. In her opinion, murals are not a good treatment and solution in all cases for facades. Articulation and architecture should be used at entry points and nodes. • D. Ensign said he would make a note for Planning Board to possibly recommend this project to return to DAB. • T. Bryan said this project would be an exciting opportunity and it was much needed in North Boulder. 5. BOARD MATTERS A. LETTER TO COUNCIL FINAL DRAFT COMPLETION Board Discussion: • R. Bilocerkowycz reviewed the proposed draft letter board which he and M. Schexnyder proposed with the board. • The board discussed the upcoming 2022 Letter to City Council. • The board finalized the Letter to City Council. 6. CALENDAR CHECK • R. Bilocerkowycz volunteered to attend the December 16, 2021 Planning Board meeting to assist with the discussion regarding the Grace Commons Church at 1820 15th Street and 1603 Walnut Street. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Design Advisory Board adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m. APPROVED BY ______ _____ Board Chair ______06/08/2022__________________ DATE