Loading...
09.08.21 DAB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES September 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: Lauren Folkerts, Chair Brendan Ash Rory Bilocerkowycz Todd Bryan Matthew Schexnyder David Ensign, Planning Board Ex-Officio (joined late) DAB MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Kalani Pahoa, Urban Designer Cindy Spence, Administrative Assistant III Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner Janet Michels, Senior Assistant City Attorney 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, L. Folkerts, declared a quorum at 4:02 p.m. and the following business was conducted. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The board approved the May 12, 2021 Design Advisory Board minutes as amended. 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION No one spoke. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. PROJECT REVIEW: HUB Boulder (LUR2021-00024), 770 28th Street 1) Staff Introduction E. McLaughlin provided a summary of the HUB Boulder project located at 770 28th Street. 2) Applicant Presentation Adrian Sopher, with Sopher Sparn Architects, LLC, and Carol Adams, with Studio Terra, Inc., representing the applicant, presented the project to the board. Rob Bak, with Core Spaces and Ryan Goold, with Sopher Sparn Architects, were also in attendance. 3) Public Participation No one spoke. 4) Board discussion began with positive aspects of the project • R. Bilocerkowycz said the location would be a prominent/gateway site for Boulder. He appreciated the attention placed on the southwest corner not only because it would be an incredible view and form driver from an occupant standpoint, but also as an entry into the City of Boulder. He said it had a feeling as if one was arriving and being greeted by a very intentional architectural expression. In addition, he appreciated the variety of outdoor spaces provided that would provide levels of privacy and security but would also be intended for public use. He approved of the proposed number of ways to circulate through the site. • M. Schexnyder said that at first glance he focused on the landscaping as well. He added that there appeared to be a lot of interesting opportunities to connect throughout the site. He appreciated the courtyard nature and the links to the outdoor broader landscape. He said that while it would be difficult to connect four corners at four different elevations with a very big building, given the challenges and constraints of a big block, he liked some of the circulation potential that the plans are showing. • T. Bryan agreed with the previous comments. He said he was drawn to how the entry was treated, not only the juxtaposition of those two spaces but the focus on the Flatirons and the mountains and how they were accommodated. • B. Ash agreed. She said there was great potential on this site. The site has a large footprint and great engagement with the proposed landscape and the amenities. The proposal would make resident feel as if they are part of club. She said there was a good mix of public frontage with private feeling within the project. She said the grade changes and along with the neighbors will be tricky. Generally, she said it would be a cool place to live as a student. • L. Folkerts said the proposed mass and scale would be in line with the context. The southwest corner location would be the correct spot for an iconic entry because it would place emphasis on the mountains. She appreciated the reduction in impervious areas, the variety of outdoor spaces, the engagement of the building with those spaces, the variety of connections both public and private between units and between units and the public space. 5) Board discussion of key issues (from the Discussion Template):  Site Planning (Item B) – Staff is concerned that several sections of the occupied ground floor use along the west, north and east elevations are partially submerged below grade. Staff recommends the occupied ground floor is at grade with the public interface areas, like sidewalks, and that the building is adjusted to accommodate the natural contours of the site even if that requires breaking the floor plate. o L. Folkerts summarized the board’s recommendations. She said in terms of pedestrian scale, the board felt like the proposal was mostly working. She began with mass and scale. The board would like to see the mass and scale of the building step with the topography a bit more. That could mean adding a floor and/or a smaller articulation in the detail of the façade. If a floor were added, the board would like to see the same sort of two-story upper masses being united continue throughout the project so the building would end up with a two-over- one and not a three-over-one. In addition, if a story were added, the applicant should pay really careful attention to how the west entry element might change. The entry element would be crucial for maintaining the pedestrian scale and to having a nice character and presence for the sidewalk. Having units below grade or partially submerged would be acceptable in terms of the pedestrian scale. The board did not have issue with that element. However, the board did state that it was more about making sure there would be a good level of detailed articulation happening on that portion of the building that would face that sidewalk.  Urban Design Characteristics (Item C) - There is a heavily utilized student pathway on the north side of the property. Staff recommends the building connects better to north side of the property and presents more porosity into the building. Urban Design Characteristics (Item D) – Staff recommends adding an identifiable/accentuated residential entry point on the north side and accentuating the existing east elevation residential entry. In addition, staff recommends adjusting the bay rhythm and articulation. This could happen in a variety of ways including increasing the depths of the inset bays, reversing the inset vs protruding bays or differentiating the east and west sides of the building. o L. Folkerts summarized the board’s recommendations. She said the board generally approved the overall building organization and circulation into and out of the courtyards. No member raised a strong interest in having a connection to the courtyard off the north side path. In terms of wanting more porosity on the north side, the board was mostly in consensus that it remains on the south side only. Regarding the north elevation along the pedestrian and bike path to the north, the human scale design features, the board felt that was working well. The two-over-one pattern and the width of the bays received board approval. The proposed parapet, the board would like to see a change so as to have an illusion of stepping back more in between the units where the balconies would be. The board was somewhat split regarding the stair location. She said she would be in favor of moving it farther north. The board would need to look at it in terms of the façade. While the path on the east side of the building was a little bit circuitous, she personally felt the landscape idea as proposed was a benefit.  Architectural Composition and Pattering (Item E) – With the option of applying for a height modification, staff recommends the building massing be adjusted to move the building form away from the maximum height to a form that accentuates some of the pitched roof forms hinted at in the concept. o L. Folkerts summarized the board’s recommendations. She said the board was strongly in favor of the applicant moving ahead with the height increase to accentuate the entry element of the project. It would be important to maintain the iconic status. The board would like to see the horizontal datum carried from the west side of the entry over to the east side and would encourage the applicant to continue looking at potentially lowering it, in addition to looking at the articulation of the of the openings within the metal screen so there would be more consistency from east to west. The board would encourage the applicant to change the sandstone at the entry element and potentially use another material that is already being used throughout the project. In general, the board was really excited about having that bold element on the corner of this project.  Architectural Composition and Pattering (Item F) – Staff is concerned with the tacked-on quality of the balconies and the lack of clarity around the cantilevering or structural support systems. Staff recommends to not use the balconies as the primary architectural device to modulate the facades but instead incorporate them into the building mass with less projection. o L. Folkerts summarized the board’s recommendations. She said, in general, the board would like to see the top portion brought down a little bit so that the balconies would not be above the parapet. The board had broad consensus regarding having a horizontal datum on the underside of the balconies, both aesthetically and to help with the shading. The board encouraged a little bit more play with the articulation of the middle balconies and how the screen ties in, because as proposed, the screen would not span all the way to the lower floor.  Architectural Composition and Pattering (Item G) – Staff recommends stronger environmental design details for energy efficiency and passive design elements, particularly for the south and west sides of the building windows, like window shading devices or inset windows. Staff encourages the board to provide additional recommendations regarding the other passive design recommendations. o L. Folkerts summarized the board’s recommendations. She said the board appreciated the changes that had been made for the balconies and encouraged the applicant, as they look at the entry element, to make sure that the shading would be expanded in that area. The board would find that to be sufficient for the passive design strategies for shading on the building. The board added that this could be a huge opportunity for unobstructed solar panels on the building and should be considered.  Architectural Details (Item H) – While staff appreciates the durability and quality of the material, there are seven different building finish materials shown in the project plans including: two colors of brick; stone veneer; two different panel types; composite wood and metal panel. Staff suggests simplifying the materials palette. o L. Folkerts summarized the board’s recommendations. She said the project should have only has one brick color proposed and the applicant has agreed to reduce the sandstone to some other material that would be existing on the project, therefore only six materials would be proposed. The board would like the applicant to keep a close eye on the metal composite panel and the matching between that and the metal screen. If a good match cannot be found, then perhaps the composite metal should switch to a different material. The board advised that the composite wood material would be durable and fantastic and go with a grey, metal panel of the type that would not have a lot of oil canning issues.  Site Planning (Item B) – Staff recommends the design team demonstrate the solar shadows of the interior courtyard spaces at summer and winter solstices and analyze the impacted utility if any. If the comfort of the plaza could be improved (e.g., increased sunlight) through modulating the building massing staff recommends the applicant do so. o L. Folkerts summarized the board’s recommendations. She said the courtyard design and having some shading will not have a huge impact on the units themselves, especially with the interior hallway access to all units. In general, the board approved of both courtyards designs and have sun during for both summer and winter. 5. BOARD MATTERS A. Packet/Discussion Template Structure, DAB Agenda Meetings and Request Opportunities Board Discussion: • K. Pahoa informed the board that DAB Agenda Meetings will be scheduled the day before a DAB meeting, attended by staff, the Chair and Vice Chair, in light that there may be in increase in the board’s reviews. Part of the agenda meetings will be to look at the packet and discussion template, look at a more efficient board review and how staff can assist. Out of that, we would like to identify the top priorities for review first. At times, while putting the packet together, they may not coincide with doing the Site Review’s format. She asked the board if they approved with staff reformatting the memo prioritizing items not necessarily in the site design, urban design, building design, and details. Staff may be able to couple things together easier. • L. Folkerts added that the board could then discuss the most important, impactful areas of the design while the board was fresh and if the meeting were to run long, the things that would end up getting cut, or talked about quickly, would not be to the detriment of the project. • K. Pahoa asked the board if the next memo/packet to DAB was formatted in the priority issues. In addition, she informed the board that more reviews would be coming to DAB. Currently the board has a schedule of 4:00-6:00 p.m. If it looks as if reviews may start to go longer, the board should be prepared to look at adjusting that time. • B. Ash said she appreciated how L. Folkerts reorganized the key issues and like how the meeting was structured. She like how the packet was organized but having the freedom to reorganize in the meeting. • L. Folkerts said she was not sure there would be a formula that would work every time. She said that the organization would be something that would be addressed at the agenda meeting the day before the actual DAB meeting. • D. Ensign agreed and said that is what they do for Planning Board. During the agenda meeting, they have been moving things around based on the particular item in front of them. He added that as Chair of the Planning Board, he alerts the board of any changes from what appears in the packet to any changes that may have been made during the agenda meeting. • K. Pahoa summarized that the memo structure would remain the same and to see if it would still work for the next review. The DAB agenda meeting will discuss any issues with the organization. The timing of the meeting may be adjusted for the next meeting. We may start with three hours rather than two hours for review. She suggested 3:00-6:00 p.m. In addition, if DAB were to have two reviews in a month, should the board have one long meeting or would the board prefer to have two meetings that month. She asked the members to email any recommendations. Finally, she said that the board can revisit or make a recommendation to Planning Board to revisit any of the issues discussed, especially if DAB did not have time to get to the review item that night. 6. CALENDAR CHECK 7. ADJOURNMENT The Design Advisory Board adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m. APPROVED BY Board Chair ______11/22/2021___________________________ DATE