University of Colorado at Boulder Department of Facilities Management by rto17652


									                              University of Colorado at Boulder
                             Department of Facilities Management
                                 Office of Facilities Planning

                                 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

                        Minutes of the Meeting of August 20-21, 2009

                                     Boulder Campus Items

The University Design Review Board met on Thursday, August 20, 2009 at Research Laboratory
No. 2 on the Boulder Campus, and on Friday, August 21, 2009, at the Nighthorse Campbell
Native Health Building on the Anschutz Medical Campus.

DRB members present on Thursday were John Prosser and Jerry Seracuse. Joining them on
Friday were members Lois Brink and Candy Fudge Roberts, and Teresa Osborne, Office of
Budget and Finance, CU System.

CU-Boulder staff present on Thursday were: Jim Faber, Facilities Management; Tom Good-
hew, Facilities Management; Paul Leef, Campus Architect; Wayne Northcutt, Facilities Plan-
ning; Richelle Reilly, Campus Landscape Architect; Philip Simpson, Director of Facilities
Planning; Robin Suitts, Facilities Management; and William Arndt, Facilities Planning. Also
present on Friday were Katherine Dunklau, Facilities Management; and Curt Huetson, Depart-
ment of Housing.

                      [Thursday Meeting on the Boulder Campus:]

Regent Drive Overpass / Sommers-Bausch Observatory Light Mitigation Resolution

Simpson said that the Sommers-Bausch Observatory, on the hill just to the east of the new over-
pass, has learned that headlights from cars going east on Regent Drive after dark, can cause
visual pollution for users of the Observatory. The street and sidewalk lighting is not a problem,
according to Reilly. In order to mitigate this problem, a series of banners is proposed to be
mounted on flagpoles on the overpass. They will be 36” wide and made of material that will
block the light. They are made of material similar to other pole-mounted banners, and can have
the CU logo or other celebratory images. Although not needed on the westbound approach, they
will be installed there as well for symmetry and balance.

Prosser and Seracuse said this was an innovative solution and within the scope of the designs
previously approved. No formal action was required.

Ekeley Optics Laboratory Adaptive Re-Use Concept Design

Simpson said that the biggest design challenge was the need for a new set of windows on the
south facade of the existing space. At one time the designers proposed lowering the existing
floor level, but that plan has been abandoned. In order to accommodate the raised elevation for
the new windows, it has been proposed that a new dovecote chimney be constructed on the
southwest corner of this area, which is part of the 1925 wing designed by Charles Klauder. The
new chimney wall would mask the window dormer from viewers on the ground. The other
DRB Minutes of August 20-21, 2009                                                          Page 2

alternatives would raise the entire gable, or change the slope of the roof, both of which would
cause major changes to the Klauder design. The chimney plan, therefore, is being proposed as
the least disrupting alternative.

At the Friday session, the full board moved, seconded, and unanimously approved the Concep-
tual Design for this project.

Systems Biotechnology Building Design Development

Also present for the discussion were Sarge Gardiner, Robert A.M. Stern Architects; Josh
Mehlem, Shapins Belt Collins Architects; Matt Meyer, J.D. Dunn Construction; Alan Taylor,
HDR Architects; and Paul Whalen, Robert A.M. Stern Architects.

Faber noted that some curved elements have been introduced into the design. Sun screens have
been added over several windows, for functional and aesthetic reasons. There has been discus-
sion about what kind of stone to use at the foundation level, as limestone will wick moisture and
cannot be used. Thicker rooflines have been added along with some corbelling.

Whalen presented drawings of various views around the building. At the southwest corner, an
iconic element could contain signage or other details. He said that metal screens had been added
to the top of each air intake to keep snow out.

On the south facade there is new detailing over the main door. On the upper levels window
openings are deeper to create the appearance of loggias. The south facing windows will get solar
shades. The window glass is very dark, so the mullions will be light. Taller windows will have
frosted glass at the top and bottom. Prosser said that the windows need to be carefully studied
because of the special light conditions in Colorado.

Whalen showed a detail of the cornice and gutters. The copper gutters will drain into pipes in
the walls. Over the main front door there is a series of louvers and a small 6-foot canopy to
provide protection from the weather. The gallery at the top is made to appear to bedouble-

In the east-west passageway through the building, there will be brick in the airlocks and wood on
the interiors. Glass canopies will be over the outer doors. Using the northwest view, Whalen
pointed out the gable elements at the end of the lab wings and vertical strip windows behind the
stone piers.

Whalen talked about the brick exterior walls. A mock-up wall will be built. The proposed
colors are based on the main campus stone. A soldier course of same-color brick will be placed
about every four feet. Between will be varied color bricks, and some will protrude. Some longer
bricks (12 inches) may be used to give variety.

If the north wing is not built for cost reasons, there will be a large stucco wall without windows.
Standard CU mission tile roofs are proposed. The limestone will come from Kansas, and will
meet LEED requirements for sustainability.
DRB Minutes of August 20-21, 2009                                                             Page 3


Seracuse asked that they try to shell the north wing; if it isn’t built with the rest of the building,
it may be hard to match materials later. He said the brick color and pattern is important because
it may become the east campus standard. He said he would like to see more natural color varia-
tion rather than several different brick colors. He was not convinced of the need to push out
some of the bricks.

Prosser said they need to decide on material for planters and the lower walls, including steps
down to the north. More attention needs to be given to the screen walls on the roof. In looking
at the section through the east-west passageway, Prosser asked if the stair could be moved to the
east side. Whalen said the stairs had been put to the west because of the mountain views.
Prosser said that the views to the east are good too, and the west light in the afternoon can be
very harsh.

Prosser said that the building lacks feminine elements. The feature at the southwest corner, for
example, could include a large curve. Klauder used “surprise” mannerist elements, but cau-
tiously. Perhaps the windows over the balcony doors could have arches, or the trellises in the
courtyards could be rounded.

There was a brief discussion of the types of tile for the roof. Mission tile is more curvilinear, but
Spanish tile is cheaper. Prosser said that it is important to have continuity between the main and
east campus, but that materials need not be identical. Seracuse noted that at some point exterior
lighting – both freestanding and on the building – will need to be thoroughly discussed.

At the Friday meeting, the full board moved, seconded, and unanimously approved Design
Development for this project, with conditions as indicated in the discussion.

Euclid and Broadway Underpass Discussion / Schematic Design

Also present for the discussion were: Jason Fell, City of Boulder; Margaret Loperfido, Shapins
Belt Collins Architects; and Jeff Simmons, TSH Consulting Engineers

The presentation included refinements to the main area of the project (between the UMC and
University-Hill Elementary School, including re-routed Euclid Avenue and 16th Street. Future
presentations will provide detail for a broader area, reaching from 18th Street on the east to 15th
Street on the west.

Seracuse talked about the alternate proposals for the bridge elevations. He said he liked the solid
stone on the pilasters, but otherwise liked the solution in Scheme B. He talked about the stair
from the westbound drop-off area to the plaza in front of the UMC. It would take pedestrians
down and under the bike/pedestrian path parallel to Broadway. He suggested that the stairs be
parallel to Broadway as well, making a more graceful descent and entry through the tunnel.

Seracuse asked about the stairs to the underpass from the south, near 16th and Euclid. Simmons
noted that there is a stop for the HOP bus on 16th, so at least a portion of that sidewalk needs to
be maintained. From that point, pedestrians need to be routed through the tunnel rather than
across the street. The sidewalk along Broadway, however, needs to be retained. Seracuse
DRB Minutes of August 20-21, 2009                                                           Page 4

suggested that the stairs on the south side be moved a little to the east. There was a discussion
about ADA standards, particularly as they refer to percentage of grade.

Prosser said that the plaza in front of the UMC should respect the symmetry of the UMC south
wing. It should also be widened to the east to provide a more graceful axis to the main UMC

Simpson noted that there are still studies being done about the pedestrian flow from the
northbound stop. The staff at the UMC would like people to flow through the building, but the
flow around the building to the west needs to be addressed as well. Simpson also noted that
work will be done on the Henderson Building to add fire stairs. The doors of Henderson are on
an axis which flows through Hellems and all the way to Macky Auditorium. The northbound
stop and its access stairs should celebrate that axis.

Prosser said he was concerned about the tight left turn south on 16th from west bound Broadway.
There was a discussion about the parking west of the UMC and south of Henderson. Ideally it
would be eliminated completely, but some parking is necessary in that area. The design team
was asked to look closely at possible refinement of the parking and sidewalks here.

At the Friday meeting, the full board moved, seconded, and unanimously approved Schematic
Design for this project, using the suggested changes in the bridge elevations and the condition
that the stairs from the westbound bus stop be further studied.

Campus Gateways Phase II Update / Schematic Design

Reilly updated the DRB on plans for the campus gateway design at 28th and Colorado. She said
that studies have shown that the large cottonwood trees are unstable in this area, so areas close to
them should not be easily accessible to people. She showed the latest plans for the curving stone
walls, which take into account suggestions from earlier DRB comments. Seracuse asked about
sidewalk widths, and why there seemed to be a change in the width of the walk before it joined
the walk to the 28th Street underpass. Reilly said that the hash line there showed where the walk
would connect with a new overpass, which is part of the City of Boulder project to improve the
bike/pedestrian path from Colorado to Baseline.

At the Friday meeting, the full board moved, seconded, and unanimously approved Schematic
Design for this project.

                  [Friday Meeting on the Anschutz Medical Campus:]

Williams Village IIA: Building Schematic Design Review / Landscape Concept/Schematic

Also present for the discussion were: Bruce Hendee, BHA Design Incorporated; Brad Massey,
Aller Lingle Massey Architects; Jason Messaros, BHA Design Incorporated; Dan Mitchell,
Mackey Mitchell Architects; Matt Newman, Aller Lingle Massey Architects; and Gwynn Zivic,
Mackey Mitchell Architects.
DRB Minutes of August 20-21, 2009                                                         Page 5


Mitchell said that the team had been working on the integration of landscape and architecture.
He showed diagrams indicating circulation and social use of the space. All the landscape areas
have curvilinear patterns, in contrast with the rigid right angles of the building.

He said they have been trying to resolve the roofline design. The corner towers have a stronger
expression. The trellises in the courtyards have been eliminated. There is a new emphasis on the
west courtyard as the main entry, still keeping a more formal entry statement to the south. There
are more and bigger windows on the main floor, which contains the public spaces.

The arch over the breezeway has been opened up, as suggested at the last meeting. The windows
above the arch have been aligned with it. The coffee shop/retail space is in the same spot, but
with more connection to the outside. It is outside of the secured entry area. They have tried to
energize the public spaces while having fewer points of entry into the building.


Seracuse said he was happy with the direction of the design. He said the south entry was overly
monumental – an anomaly. Perhaps the entry could be emphasized more simply with a curve on
the top and a metal roof. The canopy could extend out over the sidewalk.

He added that the roof is greatly improved but there is still something amiss. Perhaps the towers
could have pyramid roofs. He also said there needs to be a clear delineation between the lower
(public) floors and the upper (residential) floors. The end of the classroom wing shows a full
round curve in the plan, but a shallow curve in the perspective drawings. He suggested a half-
octagon or other geometric form might work, and simplify the roof. The roof should be some
sort of tile, rather than copper as shown. The window surrounds should have less change in
color than the rest of the wall.

Seracuse noted that the window rhythm is different than at the Bear Creek Apartments, where the
size and placement of the windows reflect the use behind them (living room, bedroom, bath).
Here the windows can replicate the massing of the original Williams Village towers.

Prosser shared Seracuse’s concerns. He asked the team to make the building look less tall with-
out sacrificing the emphasis on verticality. He said the north drop off needs to be larger, as it
will serve many uses. He was concerned about service access to the coffee shop, which now
appears to share space with the entrance to the faculty advisor apartment.

Prosser noted that in the path of travel, there are sometimes double doors, sometimes single.
This needs to be consistent, while providing security needs. One of the faculty apartments has a
big terrace, the other does not. Can they be more alike? He suggested that another controlled
entry (possibly near the elevators) be provided for occasional seasonal access, like fall move-in.

Roberts said there were opportunities for indoor / outdoor interaction. She said the entry vesti-
bule needs to be refined. There should be an effective view corridor through the arch, especially
from north to south. They need to work on the south arcade to make it “spectacular.” She asked
if the windows in the classrooms would be operable.
DRB Minutes of August 20-21, 2009                                                           Page 6

Brink asked about exit doors from the classrooms. Huetson noted that with more doors, there
would be more difficult security issues. Goodhew said the staff needs to know what is open and
what is not. Nevertheless, said Brink, the outdoor spaces could be better used. Roberts asked if
the building would use limestone or concrete. Mitchell said that was still being studied. Roberts
also asked about the use of renewable energy, such as photovoltaic cells and solar heating for
domestic water.


Hendee said they are starting work on a larger planning area. The building has shifted 20 feet
east. The sports fields have also been shifted to provide more “people places” near the buildings.
They have softened the orthogonal lines of the sidewalks. There will be a landscaped pedestrian
path to Baseline and a more graceful walkway between the building and the tennis courts to the

Pavement patterns will give a sense of identity. The eastern spaces will have more of a “canyon”
identity. Drought tolerant plants that don’t need mowing will be used as much as possible.
There is a small outdoor area outside the Hall Director’s apartment.

Drainage will be provided by bioswales and subsurface drainage to a water quality pond on the
east. The north area will be shaded all year, so will have smaller varieties of fir and spruce. The
west courtyard will be aligned with the mountain views with sub-alpine plantings. There is a
private patio for the faculty apartment. The challenge is to use 100% native plant material.


Brink said the landscape plan needs to be pulled back a bit. They have lost some of the campus
axial spaces. The east-west walk on the south should be straight. The areas at the north drop-off
should be more formal.

It would be nice to provide space for simple vegetable gardens for the two apartments. The out-
door classroom off the east wing should be at the end of the axis of the hallway and adjacent to
the building, rather than across the sidewalk.

Prosser said that the curve of the walks in the east courtyard should be softened. He noted that
this area is in shade, but the large wall to the south would offer considerable reflected light into
this space.

Brink said the west courtyard needs to be a little more formal. Perhaps the outdoor area off the
coffee shop could have seasonal awnings. She asked if the storm water inlets could be reduced.
Would there be any way to make use of grey water?

Prosser said that as presented, the west courtyard is all “ways” and no “places.” He said that
benches should be places so that feet are not in the pathway. There are too many different pav-
ing patterns.

Hendee said that the bike access would be primarily from 30th Street, with solar panels above
protective covers. The DRB expressed concern that students would want their bikes closer to
their rooms.
DRB Minutes of August 20-21, 2009                                                          Page 7

Seracuse said that in general, “the wiggles are too wiggly,” and that the north courtyard seems
somewhat hostile.

Hendee briefly presented some signage concepts. Prosser said that the university has hired con-
sultants to study campus identity issues for all the campuses, and possibly to come up with new
graphic standards. Work should proceed slowly on signage until these studies are done. He
noted, however, that the Boulder campus already has some standards. A major campus entry
project has been completed at Broadway and Baseline and another is in design for 28th and
Colorado. These both use sandstone walls, but at Williams Village the walls could be brick with
limestone, used for cap and signage component. Seracuse said that whatever happens with
graphic standards, the map with an inventory of signs and spots for new signs is good.

It was moved by Brink, seconded by Seracuse to approve the Schematic Design for the architec-
ture and Schematic Design for the landscaping. The motion was approved unanimously.

Basketball / Volleyball practice Facility Schematic Design

Also present for the discussion were Andy Barnard, Sink Combs Dethlefs Architects; Chris
Geddes, Studio Insite; Tucker Johnson, Sink Combs Dethlefs Architects; Steve King, Sink
Combs Dethlefs Architects; Tom McGann, Intercollegiate Athletics; and Tom McGrath, Inter-
collegiate Athletics.

Goodhew explained that this project consists basically of two gymnasium boxes at right angles to
each other. They are connected to the existing Coors Events Center at the south, and are built
into the hillside to the east. The challenge has been how to address the west and north façades.
For this presentation, these elevations have been simplified.

Barnard said the goal has been to keep things simple. Much of the building will be plain con-
crete to match Coors. The north façade is stone with blind windows to give visual relief. They
have added some stone to the north end of the east box.

The new entry from the west has been scaled down. There are clerestory windows to give light
to the west gym and the adjacent gallery. Shiner panels bridge the gap from concrete to laid

Seracuse talked about the alternatives for the north elevations. He suggested a combination of
elements. The board agrees that there should be five window openings (some blind, some real)
and all should be at the same level above the water table.

Barnard said they are still studying possible fenestration into the east gym for possible LEED
points. Prosser asked about windows on the east side. Barnard said that because the building
will be next to a hillside, the windows here should be high and small.

Prosser asked about the flow of pedestrians exiting the main arena and going down the exterior
steps – is the rectangle of the upper “porch” big enough? Barnard said the size of the porch was
dictated by the amount of room necessary for the stairs to rise from the Regent Drive level.
Prosser suggested that the blank concrete wall at the top be used as a place to honor donors to the
program. He also said that the light standards going down the hill to illuminate the steps should
be on the stair side walls, rather than placed in the landscape.
DRB Minutes of August 20-21, 2009                                                           Page 8

Roberts was concerned that by not building an entirely new entrance pavilion at this time, the
rest of building needs to be very well designed, because it may be several years before the full
entrance is built. She asked for more studies on the landing terrace on the stairs. It should relate
more to the architecture of the building. She acknowledged that the transitions from the old to
the new building would be a difficult challenge.

Seracuse asked that more study be given to the rise and tread of the steps. The formula needs to
provide for heavy use and respond to the cadence of normal walking.

Prosser said that the major concept is good, but that the landscaping, stair design, and upper
plaza design need to come together

It was moved by Seracuse, seconded by Brink to approve the Schematic Design for the building,
and to approve the Schematic Design for the site plan with the condition that more work be done
on the stairs and upper plaza plans.

To top