06.08.22 DAB PacketBoulder Design Advisory
Board Agenda Wednesday, June 8, 2022 Virtual Meeting 4 – 6 p.m.
The following items will be discussed:
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The December 8, 2021 and January 12, 2022 minutes are scheduled for review.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. PROJECT REVIEW: Design Advisory Board (DAB) review and feedback on the
building design criteria of the Site Review criteria, as requested by Planning Board,
and part of the project to update the criteria to be more reflective of city goals and to
add more predictability to the process.
5. BOARD MATTERS
6. CALENDAR CHECK
7. 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
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 container ship which the board would like to avoid. The board would rather see
subtle rotation of the material pattern which would help that up to give 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. He would like to have DAB receive a final review
suggestion from Planning Board.
• B. Ash 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 and the tree lawns. The project has brought a much-needed human scale off 28th
Street into those side streets. She cautioned to make sure 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 will make note for Planning Board to recommend this project to return to DAB.
• T. Bryan said this project would be an exciting opportunity and it was much needed in 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
_________________________________
DATE
CITY OF BOULDER
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES
January 12, 2022
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, Urban Designer
Cindy Spence, Administrative Assistant III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, T. Bryan, declared a quorum at 4:09 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The board discussed the December 8, 2021 Design Advisory Board.
• Board discussed amendments to the minutes.
• C. Spence will relisten to sections of the December 8, 2021 minutes for verification.
• No approval at this time.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one spoke.
4. BOARD MATTERS
A. MEETING MANAGEMENT AND REVIEW OF THE DECEMBER MEETING
PROCESS
Board Discussion:
• Board discussed the positive attributes of the December DAB meeting and then the board
discussed the project review protocols.
• See attached “DAB Project Review Protocols”.
5. CALENDAR CHECK
6. ADJOURNMENT
The Design Advisory Board adjourned the meeting at 6:24 p.m.
APPROVED BY
_________________________________
Board Chair
_________________________________
DATE
DAB Project Review Protocols – 1/12/22
Following staff and applicant presentations of a project:
1. Clarify questions and concerns DAB is being asked to address.
2. Start the discussion with a brief round of what we like about the project plus any
general concerns we feel compelled to express that will be addressed later.
Set positive tone
Disarm possible defensiveness
Be genuine
3. Prioritize review topics for discussion based on importance, anticipated length of
discussion, or other factors.
Site Planning
Urban Design Characteristics
Architectural Composition and Patterning
Architectural Details
4. Indicate an approximate time period for each topic.
5. Suggest when breaks will be taken.
6. Address staff questions and concerns under each topic first, as well as issues that arise
in the context of that discussion, then circle back to DAB questions and concerns
relevant to the topic (encourage DAB members to prioritize issues of most importance
to them).
7. Ask for someone to kick off the discussion and facilitate participation and full
discussion within the time period.
8. Conduct periodic time checks to ensure discussion stays within time period. Modify
the time periods if discussion is running long.
9. Encourage free flowing discussion but keep discussion on topic and moving towards
clear recommendations.
10. Periodically check in with Kalani (or Planning Board liaison) to ensure DAB is
addressing staff and PB needs. Encourage their input at any time if concerns arise.
11. Ensure everyone is ready before summarizing the discussion and recommendations
under each topic. Seek feedback and modify summary and recommendations to achieve
a common understanding that staff can record in the minutes.
12. Thank applicant for their participation.
DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD (DAB) AGENDA ITEM
1
DATE: June 8, 2022
TO: DESIGN ADVISORY BOARD (DAB)
FROM: Karl Guiler, Senior Planner/Code Amendment Specialist
SUBJECT: Design Advisory Board (DAB) review and feedback on the building design criteria of the
Site Review criteria, as requested by Planning Board, and part of the project to update
the criteria to be more reflective of city goals and to add more predictability to the
process.
OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE:
Provide feedback to Planning Board and Planning & Development Services (P&DS) staff on the proposed building design
criteria of the Site Review criteria, which have been updated to meet the following goals and objectives of a City Council
directed work program item:
Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and environmental objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
Determine additional design standards for projects requesting a height modification.
Identify other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals and create more predictability in
projects.
BACKGROUND & INFORMATION:
Site Review Criteria and Process: Under the current Land Use Code, projects over a certain size in terms of floor area
and density (number of units) or located on lots of a certain size are required to be reviewed through the Site Review
process. Proposals to build over the zoning district height limit (e.g., 35 feet in most zones, but 38 or 40 feet in others),
called height modifications, also require Site Review. Site Review projects are subject to a public review process.
Depending on the year, roughly 10 to 20 Site Review projects are reviewed each year. Some of the larger projects
automatically require Planning Board review, such as height modifications for principal structures or requests for
additional floor area or density, or reduction in open space in a limited number of zones). All Site Review applications
are subject to potential call up by Planning Board or citizen appeal. Any Planning Board decisions are subject to City
Council call up within a 30-day period. Some of these projects come before DAB if they are subject to design guidelines
or if Planning Board refers an application for DAB review.
In order for a Site Review project to be approved, the project must be found by the review authority (staff, Planning
Board or City Council) to be consistent with the Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981, which are lengthy
criteria that require compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies (on balance) and higher
quality development than by-right projects in terms of site design, open space, landscaping, building design and more
efficient site layouts and parking configurations etc.
Site Review Update Project: One of the primary challenges of the Site Review process has been the overly subjective
criteria in the code – particularly related to building design. The current criteria do not necessarily set a clear baseline
for projects to meet the criteria and therefore, it is difficult for staff, applicants, Planning Board or City Council, and the
community to understand whether a project will be approved or not. This has resulted in unpredictable outcomes. This
is because the current Site Review language can prompt decision makers to come to different conclusions about
whether a building has, for instance, “high quality, authentic building materials,” “presents an attractive, pedestrian
friendly streetscape,” is “compatible with the character of the area,” or is “human scaled.” Hence, the directives given
to P&DS staff from City Council have been to update the criteria to be more descriptive and where necessary, more
prescriptive to increase the level of predictability in projects and result in better designs.
2
Based on the concerns about unpredictability discussed above and perceptions that Site Review projects were not
routinely resulting in good design outcomes, the City Council of the time initiated the city’s Design Excellence Initiative
where the city has been in an ongoing process to develop updates to city codes and design guidelines to result in
better design outcomes. One example of this is the city’s first Form Based Code adopted in 2016, which is a less
discretionary set of regulations.
P&DS staff prepared a draft ordinance that would update the Site Review criteria, consistent with the goals and
objectives of the project above, to be less redundant, clearer (adding descriptive language on how to meet the intent
of the criteria) and more prescriptive in areas, particularly in building design, to add more predictability in the Site
Review process. The project is also meant to address the design related issues discussed above.
At the May 19th Planning Board meeting, the board provided detailed feedback on the proposed ordinance, requested
specific changes, and referred the criteria to the Design Advisory Board (DAB) for their input on the building design
criteria. The board also highlighted specific criteria that the DAB should provide input on and those are listed in the key
issues discussion as follows. For more background on the project and to gain a better understanding of the proposal,
the May 19th staff memorandum to Planning Board can be found at this link.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES/CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Based on the established goals and objectives of the Site Review update project, what is DAB’s feedback on the
proposed building design criteria (Section 9-2-14(h)(3)) in Attachment A?
2. More specifically, what is DAB’s input on the following proposed Site Review criteria and questions?:
a. Minimum window transparency per floor [(B)(i)]
b. Balcony requirements for buildings with attached dwelling units [B)(iv)]
c. Building detailing requirements (e.g., expression lines) (C)]
d. Building height modification or height bonus criteria (for buildings over the zoning district height)
relative to compatibility and context area [(B)(iii)]
e. In the roof types section for taller buildings, should gambrel and mansard roofs be prohibited?
[(4)(C)(i)]
f. What does DAB consider “human scale” design?
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed building design criteria (Section 9-2-14(h)(3), B.R.C. 1981)
B. Summary of proposed Site Review criteria changes
3
ATTACHMENT A – Proposed Building Design Site Review Criteria
(h)(3) Building Design: The following criteria apply to the exterior of all buildings to ensure high-quality, enduring
architecture and simplicity in design:
(A) Building Materials: The following requirements apply to each new building or additions to existing
buildings in the project:
(i) A minimum of 75 percent of the total façade area, not including window and door areas, of all
sides of the building shall be composed of high-quality building materials, such as brick, stone,
polished concrete masonry units, wood, high density panel systems, high pressure laminate,
cementitious or composite siding, architectural metal panels, or any combination of these
materials. Split-faced concrete masonry units, stucco, fiber cement board, vinyl siding, or
unfinished or untreated wood shall not be considered high-quality materials. EIFS is prohibited.
Alternative materials may be considered by the approving authority if it is demonstrated that
the material will be high quality, durable, and human scaled.
(ii) Excluding detached dwelling units, duplexes, townhouses, and mobile home parks, no more
than three primary building materials shall be employed upon the facades of the building.
Primary materials shall mean those materials listed in (i) above and exclude trim, fascia,
windows, and other similar secondary façade features.
(iii) Excluding detached dwelling units, duplexes, townhouses, and mobile home parks, transitions of
primary building materials, irrespective of trim, fascia, windows, and other similar secondary
façade features, shall not occur at any exterior corner or on a building façade facing a street
unless there is at least a 12-inch wall off-set. Other building material transitions shall occur at
interior, concave corners or on a non-street facing façade at least 20 feet back from a corner
(see Figure 9-1).
Figure 9-1: Building Material Transitions on Facades.
4
(iv) If a building is located within 200 feet of a railroad, freeway, expressway, or principal arterial, and
contains residential uses, an acoustic study prepared by an acoustical consultant who is INCE-USA
(The Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA) Board Certified or a firm that is a member of
the National Council of Acoustical Consultants that demonstrates that the building is designed to
reduce normal daily traffic, including train, noise, such that an interior decibel reading from the
exterior noise source shall not exceed a day-night average sound level of 45 (dbA) A-weighted
decibels. The day-night average sound level (DNL) shall be calculated according to the standards of
24 C.F.R. 51 Subpart B.
(v) To the extent practical, appurtenances that are not architectural features are located within or
concealed by the building and, if they cannot be located within or concealed by the building, their
visibility from streetscapes and other areas of the public realm shall be minimized.
(vi) At least three elements of the proposed building design, including but not limited to use of
materials, color, or style, shall draw from or improve upon the character of the surrounding area.
(B) Window and Balcony Requirements: The following requirements apply to windows on all buildings and
to balconies on certain buildings to ensure an appropriate amount of window transparency, avoid large
expanses of blank walls, contribute to visual interest on building facades, and ensure well-designed
balconies:
(i) Minimum Transparency Per Floor: Each floor shall have a minimum transparency of 20 percent on
building facades facing the public realm and a minimum of 15 percent on all other facades. In the
DT, MU-3, MU-4, BMS, BC, and BR zoning districts, any ground floor facade facing a street shall have
a minimum transparency of 70 percent if it is within 20 feet of a property line, excepting ground
floor residential uses which shall have a minimum transparency of 20 percent (see Figure 9-2).
Figure 9-2: Window Transparency Per Floor.
(ii) Blank Walls: On any floor, no exterior wall area wider than 25 feet shall be without windows (see
Figure 9-3) with the following exceptions:
a. Ground floor walls facing alleys, or
b. Loading areas not located along a public street, or
c. For buildings designed for industrial uses and not primarily office space, walls not facing a public
street where such wall is designed with a decorative element that creates visual interest.
5
Figure 9-3: Blank Wall Examples.
(iii) Recessed Windows: The glass of all windows, with the exception of windows provided pursuant to (i)
above within the DT, MU-3, MU-4, BMS, BC, and BR zoning districts along a ground floor façade facing a
street, shall be recessed at least two inches from the façade surface material or adjacent trim.
(iv) Balconies: Balconies on buildings containing attached dwelling units shall meet the
following requirements:
a. The balcony shall be integrated into the form of the building;
b. The balcony shall be at least four feet deep and five feet wide, and at least 50
percent of the perimeter of the balcony shall abut an exterior wall of the
building, partially enclosing the balcony (see Figure 9-4); and
c. The balcony platforms shall be at least three inches thick, and any underside
that is visible from any public street, not including alleys, or installed over
another balcony shall be finished.
Figure 9-4: Balcony Requirements.
(C) Building Detailing: The following requirements apply to all buildings to encourage visual interest and
simplicity in design on the most visible parts of the building:
(i) On commercial or mixed-use buildings, the first floor along the public realm shall be distinguished
from the floors above by a horizontal expression line within three feet of the top of a ground story.
(ii) On buildings that are not proposed with an angled or gable roof, the top of the building façade
shall be distinguished through a horizontal expression line within two feet of the top of the
building.
6
(h)(4) Building Design, Massing, and Height Requirements for Buildings Proposed Above the Zoning District
Permitted Height and/or Maximum Floor Area Ratio: Any building exceeding the by-right zoning district
height as permitted by Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E)(vii), B.R.C. 1981, and any building exceeding the by-right floor
area limits as permitted by Section 9-2-14(h)(7)(B), B.R.C. 1981, shall meet the following requirements to
ensure high quality, appropriately sized buildings that are compatible with the context and of a design that is
attractive, but simple with a discernable base, middle, and top:
(A) Additional Building Design Requirements:
(i) The first floor shall be distinguished from the floors above by a horizontal expression line within
three feet of the top of the ground story.
(ii) On buildings that are not proposed with an angled or gable roof, the top of the building façade shall
be distinguished through a horizontal expression line within two feet of the top of the building and
also between the uppermost story and the story below.
(iii) A vertical expression line shall be provided at least every 60 feet on each façade.
(B) Special Building Massing, Height, and Siting Requirements:
(i) No building shall exceed 150 feet in length along any public right-of-way. This requirement may not
be exceeded by creating a wall angle of greater than 90 degrees from each of the furthest corner.
(ii) Building facades exceeding 120 feet in length along a public street, excluding alleys, shall differentiate
the building façade into distinguishable building modules to appear as more than one building rather
than one long expanse. Such facades shall vary in type of dominant material or in color, scale, or
orientation of that material and in at least two of the following elements at least every 90 feet of the
length:
a. the proportion of recesses and projections along the building façade;
b. the location of entrance and window placements, unless storefronts are utilized;
c. roof cap types; and
d. building height.
(iii) Building height modification or height bonus requests shall be consistent with one of the following
criteria:
a. Height Modification: If the building is no taller than three stories and the request is made
pursuant to Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E)(i) through (vi), B.R.C. 1981, the applicant
7
demonstrates that the building’s height, mass, and scale is compatible with surrounding
development, or
b. Height Bonus: If the building is taller than three stories and the request is made pursuant
to Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(E)(vii), B.R.C. 1981, for a height bonus, the applicant
demonstrates that:
1. The building’s height is consistent with the building heights anticipated by the
adopted subcommunity or area plan or design guidelines applicable to the site, or
2. If no subcommunity or area plan or design guidelines are adopted for the site or
the subcommunity or area plan or design guidelines do not specify anticipated
heights for buildings, the applicant demonstrates that the proposed height is
generally compatible with the height of other buildings within 1,000 feet of the
site. Where there are no buildings that exceed the height limit within 1,000 feet,
the applicant shall demonstrate that the building is near a high frequency transit
corridor and the building’s height, mass and scale is compatible with other
buildings along said corridor and the character of the surrounding area.
(C) Roof Cap Types: Any roof forms above the by-right zoning district height limit shall be one or
more of the following cap types:
(i) Pitched Cap Type: As shown in Figure 9-5, gable, hip, shed, or butterfly roofs or any
combination thereof. No such roof shall be sloped less than 4:12 (rise: run) or be sloped
more than 14:12 except that slopes less than 4:12 are permitted to occur on second
story or higher roofs. Gambrel and mansard roofs are prohibited.
(ii) Parapet Cap Type: As shown in Figure 9-6, parapets meeting the requirements of
Section 9-7-7, “Building Height, Appurtenances,” B.R.C. 1981, and subparagraph
(h)(3)(C)(ii) on expression lines of this section.
(iii) Flat Cap Type: As shown in Figure 9-7, flat cap types if the eave depth (horizontal
measurement) is at least 14 inches from the building façade and eave thickness (vertical
measurement) is at least 6 inches from the top of eave to bottom of eave.
Figure 9-6- Parapet Cap Type.
Figure 9-5: Pitched Cap Type. Figure 9-7: Flat Cap Type.
8
(5) Alternative Compliance for Site Review Projects: With the exception of criteria (h)(1)(A), (h)(1)(B), and
(h)(7), the minimum standards of the criteria of subsection (h) may be modified by the approving
authority if the applicant demonstrates for each criterion not met that:
(A) The height, mass, scale, orientation, architecture, and configuration of the project is compatible
with the existing character of the area or the character established in adopted design guidelines or
plans for the area;
(B) The project is designed to a human scale and promotes a safe and vibrant pedestrian experience
through the location of building frontages and the use of building elements, design details, and
landscape materials that include, without limitation, the location of entrances and windows and
the creation of transparency and activity at the pedestrian level;
(C) Open space is arranged to be accessible and functional and incorporates quality landscaping, a
mixture of sun and shade and places to gather meeting the needs of the anticipated residents,
occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property;
(D) The proposed alternative is consistent with the purpose of site review described in subsection (a)
of this section; and
(E) The project meets one of the following criteria:
(i) The proposed alternative is innovative in meeting BVCP policies on the built
environment, energy, climate and waste, transportation, or housing and such innovation
prevents the project from complying with the standard being modified, or
(ii) Strict adherence to the standard being modified is impractical because of site location,
site conditions, or the building’s use, or
(iii) The project is an amendment or minor amendment to a site review that was approved
under site review criteria in effect prior to adoption of Ordinance 8515 and meets all the
following standards:
a. The modification is for a previously approved or existing building and the floor
area of said building is not being enlarged by more than 60 percent;
b. The project site and building design are of a quality at least equal to or better
than that previously approved; and
c. Application of the standard being modified to the approved or constructed
building or site plan is impractical.
1
Background
Staff has been working on updates to the Site Review criteria as part of the Community
Benefit project since 2018. Phase Two of that project includes considering additional
community benefits in exchange for additional height and/or density in projects, updating
the city’s Site Review criteria to be more in line with city policies, and making the criteria
more streamlined and the development review process more predictable for developers,
neighbors, review bodies, and staff.
This document summarizes the proposed amendments. Draft code text and detailed
information and analysis of the amendments can be found in the memo.
Public and Stakeholder Input
There have been ongoing opportunities for public feedback on the Community Benefit
project through in-person and virtual open house meetings, focus groups with the
development community and neighborhoods, specific meetings with stakeholders,
segments on Channel 8 news, and Be Heard Boulder questionnaires. Stakeholders and
interested residents have been notified of the status of the project and updates have been
included in the Planning Newsletter. The feedback that has been received throughout the
project has helped to shape the draft code text summarized here.
Project Goals and Objectives
Identify other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals and create more
predictability in projects.
Determine additional design standards for projects requesting a height modification.
Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and environmental
objectives of the comprehensive plan.
Site Review
Criteria Update
Summary of Proposed Changes
2
9-2-14(h)(2) - Site Design
(A) Open Space
(B) Open Space in Mixed-Use Projects
(E) Landscaping
(D) Circulation
(E) Parking
(F) Building Design, Livability, and
Relationship to the Existing or
Proposed Surrounding Area
(G) Solar Siting and Construction
(H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above
the Permitted Height
(I) Land Use Intensity Modifications
(J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area
Ratio Increase for Buildings in the
BR-1 District
(K) Additional Criteria for Parking
Reductions
(L) Additional Criteria for Off-Site
Parking
9-2-14(h)(1) - Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan
9-2-14(h)(1) - Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(A) Land Use Map
(B) Subcommunity and Area Plans and Design Guidelines
(C) Energy Conservation and Building Life Cycle Impact Carbon
Reduction
(D) Community Design and Edges
(E) Historic or Cultural Resources
(F) Housing and Unit Diversity
(G) Environmental Preservation
9-2-14(h)(2) - Site Design
(A) Access, Transportation and Mobility
(B) Open Space
(C) Landscaping
(D) Public Realm and Building Locations
9-2-14(h)(3) - Building Design
(A) Building Materials
(B) Window and Balcony Requirements
(C) Building Detailing
9-2-14(h)(4) - Building Design, Massing and Height
Requirements for Buildings Proposed Above the Zoning
District Permitted Height and/or Maximum Floor Area
9-2-14(h)(5) - Alternative Compliance for Site and Building
Design Standards
9-2-14(h)(6) - Additional Criteria for Poles Above the
Permitted Height
9-2-14(h)(7) - Land Use Intensity and Height Modifications
(A) Land Use Intensity and Density Modifications with Open
Space Reduction
(B) Land Use Intensity and Density Modifications with Height
Bonus
(C) Additional Criteria for a Height Bonus and Land Use Intensity
Modifications
9-2-14(h)(8) - Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions
9-2-14(h)(9) - Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking
Existing Criteria Structure
14 pages of ordinance text
Proposed Criteria Structure
16 pages of ordinance text, with graphics
3
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Consistency with specific
policies of the BVCP
Replaces current language about consistency
“on balance” with the policies of the BVCP with
specific criteria furthering policies on:
Energy conservation and building life-cycle
impact carbon reduction
Requires that large projects meet at least one
of three options to conserve energy and reduce
carbon impact.
Enhanced design
Moves existing criterion about gateway sites
creating a sense of entry to the community,
which is currently in the building design section,
up to this section.
Historic or cultural resources
Adds new criteria regarding the protection of
significant buildings on site.
Housing diversity and bedroom unit types
Includes new criteria specifying a minimum
number of housing types and bedroom unit
types for some projects.
Environmental preservation
Updates an existing site review criterion about
preservation of natural resources and moves it
up to this policy-related section.
Intent: To ensure consistency with
the goals and policies of the BVCP
and other adopted plans of the
community.
Density and economic
feasibility
Simplifies existing BVCP criteria language
with respect to density and replaces with
clear language that refers to consistency with
the BVCP land use map. Removes criterion
regarding consideration of the economic
feasibility of implementation techniques.
Consistency with adopted
plans and design guidelines
Updates criteria ensuring consistency with
adopted area plans or design guidelines.
4
Site Design
Access, Transportation, and
Mobility
Intent: The project efficiently accommodates
all modes of travel, emphasizes pedestrian and
bicycle use over motor vehicle use, and reduces
motor vehicle miles traveled.
• Consolidates existing redundant parking and
circulation criteria into this new section.
• Updates language to better reflect the city’s
commitment to multi-modal transportation
solutions, encouraging modes other than the
vehicle, and more clearly states expectations
regarding connectivity.
Open Space
Intent: Open space shall be designed to create an
attractive site plan and promote use.
• Removes redundant criteria about open space.
• Adds more objective and specific criteria to
indicate the required level of open space quality.
• Establishes new thresholds for when active
recreation and/or courtyard spaces are required.
• Increases specificity regarding buffering
between higher and lower intensity uses, rather
than the currently vague “providing relief to
density” language.
Landscaping
Intent: Landscaping shall exceed by-right
standards, contribute to an attractive site plan,
and conserve water.
• Adds specificity that planting quantities must
exceed minimum requirements by at least 15
percent, rather than currently vague language.
• Updates criteria to set clear expectations for
design quality, including hardscape materials,
conserving water, and incorporating bioswales.
Public Realm and Building
Locations
Intent: Building facades shall orient to the public
realm, which includes public streets, plazas,
sidewalks, paths and natural features.
• Replaces currently vague language about
“human scale,” “attractive streetscape,” and
“pedestrian interest” with this new section
requiring defined building entries along
streetscapes every 75 feet.
• Emphasizes the expectation that buildings
should be oriented to the street instead of
parking areas in many contexts.
• Incorporates requirements for screening of
operational features with design elements to
mitigate negative visual impacts.
• Updates existing vague language about blocking
views with a criterion that sets expectations for
maintaining prominent views of the mountains.
Intent: Projects should preserve
and enhance the community’s
unique sense of place through
creative design that respects historic
character, relationship to the
natural environment, multi-modal
transportation connectivity and its
physical setting.
5
Building Design
Intent: To ensure high-quality, enduring
architecture and simplicity in design.
Overall, these changes replace the highly subjective
and vague criteria on building design with more
specific requirements for building design quality.
These have primarily been drawn from tested
elements of the Form-Based Code that staff and the
design community have been found to be successful.
Building Materials
Intent: To ensure buildings are attractive, well-
designed, and are composed of long-lasting
materials to give a sense of permanency.
• Specifies a minimum percentage of high-quality
building materials, defines which materials qualify,
and sets a maximum number of primary building
materials to be used on a building.
• Requires that building material transitions may
only occur away from public-facing facades and
within interior corners.
• Requires acoustic studies for certain buildings
close to areas with exterior transportation noise.
• Clarifies expectations to conceal appurtenances.
• Incorporates new criteria requiring building design
to draw from or improve upon the character of the
surrounding area.
6
Window and Balcony Requirements
Intent: To ensure an appropriate amount of window
transparency, avoid blank walls, contribute to
visual interest on building facades and ensure well-
designed balconies on larger projects where more
balconies are common.
• Specifies minimum transparency requirements per
floor, with higher requirements on facades facing
the public realm and in certain zoning districts.
• Sets a standard for maximum length of 25 feet for
blank walls.
• Requires a two-inch recess for glass of windows
to create shadow lines and contribute to wall
detailing.
• Establishes new balcony requirements for larger
buildings to integrate balconies into the design of
the building and require finished platforms.
Building Detailing
Intent: The following requirements apply to all
building facades facing a public right-of-way or
common open space to encourage visual interest
and simplicity in design.
• Adds new requirements for expression lines on
certain buildings to add visual interest.
• Incorporates new criteria requiring building detail
elements to draw from or improve upon the
character of the surrounding area.
7
Requirements When Proposing
Additional Height or Floor Area Ratio
Additional Building Design
Requirements
• Requires horizontal and vertical expression lines
incorporated within specific distances on the
building.
Special Building Massing, Height
and Siting Requirements
• Specifies a maximum length along a public right-
of-way, and requirements for façade variation.
• Incorporates specific criteria to ensure consistency
with the anticipated or the existing context for
taller buildings in the area.
Roof Cap Types
• Outlines design requirements for pitched, parapet,
and flat roof cap types.
Intent: Ensure high quality,
appropriately sized buildings that are
compatible with the context and of a
design that is attractive, but simple
with a discernable base, middle and
top.
8
Alternative Compliance
With more prescriptive performance standards integrated into the criteria for more predictability, there is
also a need for some flexibility as the regulations may not be appropriate or practical in all scenarios. This
new option allows some modification from the Site Review requirements, where a project meets certain
criteria. Alternative compliance is only available for site and building design standards. A summary of the
criteria that need to be met to obtain alternative compliance is below.
Meets one of the following specific criteria:
• Innovative approach to meeting BVCP
policies
• Impracticality of the standard due to certain
conditions
• Specific standards for amendments or
minor amendments for previously approved
projects
Compatibility with existing character or
character in established design guidelines or
plans for the area.
Human scale, pedestrian-oriented building
design and placement.
Functional, accessible, and high-quality
landscaping.
Consistency with the purpose of Site Review.
9
Land Use Intensity and Height Modifications
Open space requirements
• In the DT, BMS, BR-2, and MU-3 districts, up to 50%
reduction of open space requirements is allowed,
provided certain criteria outlined for that district
are met.
Criteria for height bonuses and land
use intensity modifications
• Adds arts, cultural, human services, housing or
other community benefit from the BVCP as eligible
alternative community benefits.
Density and floor area requirements
with height bonus
• Modifies this existing standard, removing
references to the Appendix J map and instead
allowing in districts other than RR, RE, RL, RMX-1,
MH, and A (as shown in the map to the right).
• Makes projects in MU-2 district now eligible for 0.5
FAR increase, in addition to other districts where
this is currently allowed.
• Projects in BR-1 district eligible for FAR increase up
to 3.0. Removes section allowing for bonuses up to
4.0 with additional criteria.
Modifications to the minimum open space on lots,
dwelling units per acre requirement, maximum height,
and minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards may
be requested if the requirements of this section are met.
Requirements are outlined for specific zoning districts.
A
A
MHRE
RL-2
RL-1
RMX-2
A
MH
RL-2
RE
RE
RE
RL-2
RE
BT-1
RL-2
RL-2
RL-1
RE
RL-1
MH
A
RL-1
RE
A
RL-2
RL-2
RR-1
RL-2
RL-1
RL-2
RE
RL-2
RE
A
RL-1
RL-2
RL-1
RL-1
RL-1
RL-1
RL-1
RMX-1
RL-2
RL-1
RR-2
RMX-1
BT-1
RMX-1
RE
Arapahoe Ave
Broadway
P e a rlPkwyPearl St28th StTable Mesa D rCanyonBlvd
Baseline RdFoothillsPkwy Mineral Rd
Arapahoe Rd
Us
H
w
y
3
6 63rd StS
B
r
o
a
dw
a
y
V alm o n t R dIris Ave DiagonalHwy75th St61st StSouth Boulder RdN Foothills Hwy76th StA n d r us R dFoothillsHwySFoot
h
i
ll
sP
k
wyUCB
CAD/
City Limits
Community Benefit Exempt Zoning Districts
Commercial & Business
BT-1 Business - Transitional 1 (TB-D)
BT-2 Business - Transitional 2 (TB-E)
Residential
MH Mobile Home (MH-E)
RE Residential - Estate (ER-E)
RL-1 Residential - Low 1 (LR-E)
RL-2 Residential - Low 2 (LR-D)
RMX-1 Residential - Mixed 1 (MXR-E)
RMX-2 Residential - Mixed 2 (MXR-D)
RR-1 Residential - Rural 1 (RR-E)
RR-2 Residential - Rural 2 (RR1-E)
Agricultural and Public
A Agricultural (A-E)
Areas Where Community
Benefit Will Not Apply