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- height. 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 COMMENTS 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 door. 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 Design 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 ARCHITECTURAL PRESENTATION 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. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS 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. LANDSCAPE PRESENTATION 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 west. 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. LANDSCAPE COMMENTS 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 stone. 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.
Pages to are hidden for
"University of Colorado at Boulder Department of Facilities Management"Please download to view full document