Design Advisory Board gives Williams Village site review feedback on entries, massing and retail layout

City of Boulder Design Advisory Board members on March 12 reviewed a site‑review proposal to redevelop the Williams Village area at the southwest corner of Baseline Road and 30th Street, offering detailed design feedback but no formal approvals.

Chandler Van Schaack, case manager in the Planning and Development Services Department, described the proposal as “to redevelop the site shown here at 2952 Baseline Road with 5 new buildings from 4 to 5 stories each that would include a total of 412 dwelling units. A 27 of those are intended to be student housing. And then there'd be a large ground floor retail component, which would actually increase the amount of commercial square footage on the site from, I think, 54,000 and change to, about 60,000 square feet of commercial use.”

The board’s discussion focused on a handful of recurring design issues staff flagged in the packet: where building entries engage the public realm, the visual impact of long, uniform facades and parapet lines, how to configure ground‑floor retail and grocery access, and balcony treatment. Members gave the applicant a mix of specific requests and general design direction and asked the applicant to return with revisions; no formal site‑review decision was made.

Applicant team representatives from Coburn Architecture outlined the design intent. “The site is largely asphalt,” architect Catherine Vandersbeck said, describing existing conditions including a strip mall, a hotel and a McDonald’s. She said the proposal emphasizes pedestrian and bicycle connections through a “village square” and a woonerf (shared street) to link the new development with the existing Williams Village student housing. Vandersbeck noted two massing elements the team considers special: two buildings using cross‑laminated timber (CLT) that the applicant intends to highlight with warmer materials and additional transparency.

Board feedback emphasized human scale and wayfinding along the Baseline and 30th Street frontages. Several members said they wanted more visible, frequent entrances and clearer cues at the northeast corner of the site, where many people will first encounter the development from the adjacent intersection. “My general support would be where we can get nice entrances and make important little stops along this long facade,” one board member said, noting that multiple doors can help break up what would otherwise read as a long, single storefront.

Members questioned how the grocery tenant’s footprint and loading would interact with retail frontage and the concealed parking garage. The applicant showed a revised plan that reduced the grocery frontage and added multiple grocery entrances; staff and board requested that those entries be made obvious with canopies, signage or material changes so pedestrians and drivers can find access points easily. Board members also asked the team to confirm that retail bays on narrow corners can support viable tenants and to coordinate back‑of‑house needs for restaurants or grocery functions.

On massing, the board accepted many of the applicant’s carving and step‑back moves but asked for additional attention where facades are long and uniform as seen from farther vantage points (for example, drivers approaching on US‑36 and pedestrians along Baseline). Members suggested material variation, different cornice or parapet treatments and stronger corner articulation as ways to add visual relief. The board generally found Building A’s breaks effective; members asked the applicant to apply similar techniques to the longer elevations of Building B and portions of Building E.

Balconies were discussed as a design and amenity issue. The applicant said balconies would generally include privacy screening and some opacity so residents do not feel like they are in a fishbowl facing Baseline. Board members encouraged more substantial balcony enclosures when balconies project and suggested materials that make balconies read as intentional elements rather than tacked‑on rails.

The meeting also touched on policy and process items. Staff reminded the board that height modifications trigger additional inclusionary‑housing fees in Boulder for floor area above the third story; the applicant confirmed it has no development partner finalized and that whether affordable units will be provided on‑site or via cash‑in‑lieu will be determined later in the entitlement and permitting process.

Formal actions taken at the meeting were limited to routine board business: the Design Advisory Board approved the meeting minutes from Sept. 11, 2024. No site‑review approvals or land‑use decisions were made; staff and the applicant will continue to revise plans and return for further review.

The applicant said it will refine entries, clarify retail footprints and continue to explore material and parapet variations in response to the board’s comments. Board members said they appreciated the work and suggested that the team bring updated elevations and clearer wayfinding and retail‑entry plans to the next review.

Looking ahead, the applicant and staff will continue coordination with the Planning and Development Services Department; additional technical materials and updated elevations are expected in later submittals. The Design Advisory Board’s comments will be included in the site‑review record and used by staff to guide subsequent reviews.