REVISED
5-14-12
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS
MEETING OF THE
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
COMMITTEE
MAY 22, 2012
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS COMMITTEE
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
9:30 – 10:15 a.m.
Board Room, The Rotunda
Committee Members:
The Hon. Alan A. Diamonstein,
Hunter E. Craig
W. Heywood Fralin
Marvin W. Gilliam Jr.
Robert D. Hardie
Mark J. Kington
Chair
Vincent J. Mastracco Jr.
John L. Nau III
Timothy B. Robertson
Helen E. Dragas, Ex-officio
Bradley H. Gunter, Consulting Member
AGENDA
I.
II.
PAGE
CONSENT AGENDA (Ms. Sheehy)
A.
Demolition, Facility #0237 Salt Spreader Shed
1
B.
Easements
1.
To Dominion Virginia Power and Other
2
Utilities along University Avenue and
Emmet Street
2.
To Town of Wise, installation of storm
3
water piping
3.
From City Of Charlottesville
4
for construction of duct bank and
existing Emmet Street utility tunnels
4.
Release of easement rights, Millmont Street
5
C.
Architect/Engineering Selection, University
6
Hospital HVAC Upgrade Phase II
ACTION ITEMS
A.
Plaques
1.
Honoring Dr. William A. Lambeth
2.
Honoring Mr. Henry Martin
B.
Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines, Alderman
Road Residence Halls Building #6 (Ms. Sheehy
to introduce Mr. David J. Neuman; Mr. Neuman
to report)
III. REPORT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET (Ms. Sheehy)
•
Vice President’s Remarks
8
12
15
26
PAGE
IV.
REPORT BY THE ARCHITECT FOR THE UNIVERSITY
(Mr. Neuman)
•
Architect for the University Remarks
1.
Report on Natural Systems Planning
2.
Report on Improvements to the Post
Occupancy Evaluation Process
V.
MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS REPORTS
(Written Reports)
A.
Major Projects Status Report, Future Design
Actions and Planning Studies
B.
Architect/Engineer Selection Report for Projects
Less Than $5 Million
C.
Professional Services Contracts
D.
Pavilion Occupancy Status
E.
Post-Occupancy Evaluation (Sheridan G. Snyder
Translational Research Building)
27
28
33
34
35
36
BOARD OF VISITORS CONSENT AGENDA
I.A. DEMOLITION, FACILITY #0237 SALT SPREADER SHED:
of demolition
Approval
BACKGROUND: The salt spreader shed is located in the Facilities
Management complex. Constructed in 1989, the shed was
originally designed to hold salt and sand for spreading on roads
and sidewalks during inclement weather. The building is no
longer used for this purpose and is now used for miscellaneous
storage.
DISCUSSION: The shed occupies valuable real estate and is sited
such that it impacts the use of the open area surrounding the
new facility to be occupied by Facilities Management and the
School of Engineering and Applied Science. To maximize the
efficient use of the area surrounding the FM/SEAS facility and
the flow of traffic within the FM complex, the shed should be
demolished.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL OF DEMOLITION OF SALT SPREADER SHED (#207-0237)
WHEREAS, a salt spreader shed (Building #207-0237) located
in the Facilities Management complex is no longer used for its
original purpose; occupies valuable real estate and is sited
such that it impacts the efficient use of the open area
surrounding the new Facilities Management and School of
Engineering and Applied Science facility; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Management Agreement, dated
November 15, 2005, by and between the Commonwealth of Virginia
and The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, as
amended, subject to review by the Art and Architectural Review
Board and the Department of Historic Resources and compliance
with such general laws as may be applicable, the Board of
Visitors is authorized to approve the demolition of buildings;
RESOLVED, the demolition of the salt spreader shed is
approved by the Board of Visitors, pending approval by the Art
and Architectural Review Board and the Department of Historic
Resources and compliance with such general laws as may be
applicable; and
1
RESOLVED FURTHER, the Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer is authorized, on behalf of the University, to
approve and execute such documents and to take such other
actions as deemed necessary and appropriate in connection with
the demolition of the structure; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, all prior acts performed by the Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and other officers
and agents of the University, in connection with the demolition
of the structure, are in all respects approved, ratified, and
confirmed.
I.B.1. GRANT OF EASEMENTS TO DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER AND OTHER
UTILITIES ALONG UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND EMMET STREET
BACKGROUND: The University of Virginia, University of Virginia
Foundation, and the City of Charlottesville are cooperating on a
project to enhance the intersection at Emmet Street and
University Avenue. The project scope includes street
improvements, new sidewalks, drainage improvements, and
additional landscaping. The University of Virginia Foundation
is overseeing the development.
DISCUSSION: The intersection improvements will require 1) the
transfer of property by the University to the City of
Charlottesville for public street purposes, and 2) the grant of
permanent and temporary easements by the University to the City
of Charlottesville and to public utilities to facilitate the
relocation and new installation of various utilities, including
appurtenances thereto. The grant of the easements to the City
of Charlottesville and to public utilities will be considered by
the Buildings and Grounds Committee and the transfer of property
to the City of Charlottesville for public street purposes will
be considered by the Finance Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL OF EASEMENTS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA TO
DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER AND OTHER UTILITIES
WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, University of
Virginia Foundation, and the University of Virginia are
cooperating on a project to enhance the intersection of Emmet
Street and University Avenue; and
2
WHEREAS, planned intersection enhancements will require the
grant of permanent and temporary easements to the City of
Charlottesville and public utilities to facilitate the
relocation or new installation of utilities, including
appurtenances thereto;
RESOLVED, the grant of permanent and temporary easements on
property owned by The Rector and Visitors of the University of
Virginia to the City of Charlottesville and public utilities is
approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer is authorized, on behalf of the University, to
approve the locations of the permanent and temporary easements
to be granted to the City of Charlottesville and to public
utilities, to approve plans and plats, to approve and execute
deeds of easement and related documents, to incur reasonable and
customary expenses, and to take such other actions as deemed
necessary and appropriate to grant such permanent and temporary
easements; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, all prior acts performed by the Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and other officers
and agents of the University, in connection with the grant of
permanent or temporary easements, are in all respects approved,
ratified, and confirmed.
I.B.2.
PIPING
EASEMENT, TO TOWN OF WISE, INSTALLATION OF STORM WATER
BACKGROUND: Water runoff from an adjacent subdivision is
negatively impacting property of The University of Virginia’s
College at Wise. A pipeline, which is a part of the Town of
Wise’s stormwater drainage system, discharges on the Townhouse
Apartments, a complex owned by the College.
DISCUSSION: The Town of Wise has agreed to extend the pipeline
across the College property so that it discharges into a creek.
The College has requested that the University grant the Town of
Wise an easement for the installation of the pipeline.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
3
APPROVAL OF EASEMENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA TO THE TOWN
OF WISE, VIRGINIA
RESOLVED, the grant of a permanent easement on property
owned by The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
to the Town of Wise, Virginia, in the approximate location shown
on that certain exhibit entitled “Proposed Easement to Town of
Wise”, dated April 3, 2012, and prepared by University of
Virginia Space & Real Estate Management, to facilitate the
installation of stormwater drainage facilities, is approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer is authorized, on behalf of the University, to
approve and execute a deed of easement and related documents, to
approve the location of the permanent easement, to incur
reasonable and customary expenses, and to take such other
actions as deemed necessary and appropriate to grant such
permanent easement; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, all prior acts performed by the Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and other officers
and agents of the University, in connection with such permanent
easement, are in all respects approved, ratified, and confirmed.
I.B.3. EASEMENT, FROM CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF DUCT BANK AND EXISTING EMMET STREET UTILITY TUNNELS
BACKGROUND: The University is constructing an electrical duct
bank along and underneath certain portions of Emmet Street. The
location of the duct bank will run from Memorial Gymnasium north
to Mary Munford Hall. The duct bank is being constructed to
support future electrical needs. Along this same section of
Emmet Street, the University has an existing utility tunnel,
which is not currently captured in an easement with the City of
Charlottesville.
DISCUSSION: The University desires to acquire permanent
easements from the City of Charlottesville to facilitate the
construction of the underground duct bank and to permit the
continued maintenance of the existing underground utility tunnel
beneath Emmet Street.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
4
APPROVAL OF ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT EASEMENTS FOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
RESOLVED, the acquisition of permanent easements along
portions of Emmet Street, and in the approximate locations shown
on that certain plat entitled “Exhibit Plat For A Variable Width
Easements Along Emmet Street”, dated March 15, 2012, and
prepared by Dewberry & Davis, LLC (the “Plat”), to facilitate
the installation of a duct bank and to permit the continued
maintenance of an existing underground utility tunnel, is
approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer is authorized, on behalf of the University, to
approve and execute a deed of easement and related documents, to
approve revisions to the Plat (including, without limitation,
revisions to change the location of the permanent easements), to
incur reasonable and customary expenses, and to take such other
actions as deemed necessary and appropriate to acquire such
permanent easements; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, all prior acts performed by the Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and other officers
and agents of the University, in connection with the acquisition
of such permanent easements, are in all respects approved,
ratified, and confirmed.
I.B.4.
EASEMENT, RELEASE OF EASEMENT RIGHTS, MILLMONT STREET
BACKGROUND: Certain operations of the University, including its
Parking and Transportation Department, are located on property
owned by the University at 1101 Millmont Street,
Charlottesville, Virginia. The University’s property was
originally part of a larger parcel subdivided by a prior owner.
At the time of the initial subdivision, the prior owner of the
larger parcel provided for the establishment of an access
easement. Today, the owners of all parcels created from the
larger parcel, including the University, continue to have a
legal right to use the access easement.
DISCUSSION: The current owner of the property adjacent to the
University’s property, on which the access easement is located,
intends to redevelop the property, and in connection with the
redevelopment, has requested that the University, and owners of
other parcels with a legal right to use the access easement,
release their rights to use the easement. Because the access
easement does not adjoin or provide access to any University
5
property, there is no practical benefit to the maintenance of
the University’s legal right to use the easement. It is
recommended that the University release its interest in the
access easement.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL OF RELEASE OF EASEMENT RIGHTS, MILLMONT STREET
WHEREAS, the University of Virginia is one of several
beneficiaries of an easement established by deed dated May 24,
1972, and recorded in Deed Book 336, at page 397, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia (the “Easement”); and
WHEREAS, the owner of the property subject to the Easement
has requested that the University and other beneficiaries of the
Easement release their respective interests therein; and
WHEREAS, the Easement does not adjoin or provide access to
any property owned presently by the University;
RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors approves the release of the
Easement; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer is authorized, on behalf of the University, to
approve and execute documents, and to take such other actions as
deemed necessary and appropriate, to effect the release of the
Easement; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, all prior acts performed by the Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and other officers
and agents of the University, in connection with the release of
the Easement, are in all respects approved, ratified, and
confirmed.
C. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HVAC
UPGRADE PHASE II: Approval of architect/engineer selection
This $26 to $28 million project is part of the Medical
Center Deferred Maintenance 10 Year Master Plan and consists of
the replacement and upgrade of the remaining Hospital HVAC
system including air handlers and supporting systems. The
existing HVAC system at 25 years of age is beyond its useful
6
life. This project will result in more efficient systems and
will meet current standards.
We recommend the selection of Leach Wallace Associates,
Inc., consulting engineers, of Elkridge, Maryland for the design
contract. The firm has extensive experience replacing and
upgrading existing health care HVAC systems while maintaining
necessary air quality to all hospital functions.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
HVAC UPGRADE PHASE II
RESOLVED, Leach Wallace Associates, Inc., consulting
engineers, of Elkridge, Maryland is approved for performance of
engineering services for the University Hospital HVAC Upgrade
Phase II.
7
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
May 22, 2012
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.A.1.
Lambeth
Plaque Honoring Dr. William A.
BACKGROUND:
William Alexander Lambeth was a true polymath: he
took both the M.D. and the Ph.D. from the University, the first
in 1892 and the Ph.D. in 1901. In between, he studied at the
Harvard School of Physical Training – from which he took a
degree in 1895. He joined the faculty of the School of Medicine
as Professor of Materia Medica and Hygiene, and was at the same
time Head of the Department of Physical Education and
Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds. He was an authority on
Jeffersonian architecture and in fact was the author of Thomas
Jefferson, Architect, the first serious study of the subject,
which was published in 1911. A practicing landscape architect,
he laid out a splendid garden in the Italian style at his house
on Emmet Street – the garden, in a ruinous state, may still be
seen. He was interested in all things Italian, traveled
frequently in Italy and was decorated twice by the Italian
Government for his efforts in promoting Italian-American
understanding. Dr. Lambeth was instrumental in establishing the
study of Italian at the University and he furnished the Italian
Room in Pavilion VI, East Lawn, when the Romance languages were
taught there before the opening of New Cabell Hall.
As Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, he presided
over the significant physical expansion of the Grounds which
took place under President Alderman.
Dr. Lambeth is best known, however, as “The Father of
Athletics” at the University. He oversaw the creation of what
became known as Lambeth Field as the University’s combined
football and baseball stadium and track. The previous “athletic
ground” was a notoriously inadequate field about where the
School of Engineering is now, whose numerous rocks caused
difficulties particularly for baseball players when long drives
were hit into the outfield. The Lambeth playing field was laid
out in 1901-02 and the present stands were built in 1911-1913.
But more important was the work Dr. Lambeth did in reforming
intercollegiate football. In fact, as a member of the NCAA
rules committee in 1910, he probably helped save the sport from
8
prohibition by establishing new rules to promote safety. He is
credited, too, for dividing the game into four quarters. In the
spring of 1910, the University’s football team experimented with
the new rules Lambeth helped create. This took place at Lambeth
Field and it was the first time the reformed modern game was
played.
Dr. Lambeth was an officer of several athletic associations
– forerunners of the NCAA – and he was a member of the American
Olympic Committee for the Stockholm games in 1908.
Born in North Carolina in 1867, Dr. Lambeth died at the
University in 1944 and was buried from the University Chapel.
DISCUSSION: The proposed plaque, the wording of which is below,
will be placed at Lambeth Field. It is a gift from Kevin Edds,
a 1995 alumnus of the College who lives in Northern Virginia.
The text reads as follows:
WILLIAM ALEXANDER LAMBETH, M.D.
1867-1944
Lambeth Field was built as the University of Virginia’s principal athletic field and is
named for William Alexander Lambeth, who took both his M.D. and Ph.D. degrees
from the University, where he served on the faculty for 40 years. He was Professor
of Materia Medica and Hygiene, Head of the Department of Physical Education,
and Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds. A landscape architect and an
accomplished student of Italian art, language and culture, he was the author of one
of the first serious studies of Jefferson as an architect. He was affectionately known
as the “Father of Athletics” at the University and was perhaps best known for his
leadership in intercollegiate football. As a member of the 1910 NCAA rules
committee, he helped save the sport from prohibition by establishing new
regulations to promote safety. He is credited with the idea of dividing the game into
four quarters to provide rest for exhausted players.
The Lambeth playing field was laid out in 1901-1902; the colonnades and stands
were built in 1911-1913. It was on this site in the spring of 1910 that the University
football team experimented with the new rules Dr. Lambeth had helped create – the
first time the reformed modern game was ever played.
2012
9
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL OF PLAQUE HONORING DR. WILLIAM A. LAMBETH
WHEREAS, William Alexander Lambeth took both the M.D. and
the Ph.D. from the University, the M.D. in 1892 and the Ph.D. in
1901; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Lambeth joined the faculty of the School of
Medicine as Professor of Materia Medica and Hygiene, and was at
the same time Head of the Department of Physical Education and
Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Lambeth was an authority on Jeffersonian
architecture and was the author of Thomas Jefferson, Architect,
the first serious study of the subject, which was published in
1911; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Lambeth was instrumental in establishing the
study of Italian at the University and he furnished the Italian
Room in Pavilion VI, East Lawn, when the Romance languages were
taught there before the opening of New Cabell Hall; and
WHEREAS, as Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, Dr.
Lambeth presided over the significant physical expansion of the
Grounds which took place under President Alderman; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Lambeth is best known as “The Father of
Athletics” at the University. He oversaw the creation of what
became known as Lambeth Field as the University’s combined
football and baseball stadium and track; and
WHEREAS, as a member of the NCAA rules committee in 1910,
Dr. Lambeth established new rules to promote safety in football.
He is also credited for dividing the game into four quarters;
and
WHEREAS, Dr. Lambeth was an officer of several athletic
associations – forerunners of the NCAA – and he was a member of
the American Olympic Committee for the Stockholm games in 1908;
and
WHEREAS, Dr. Lambeth was born in North Carolina in 1867, he
died at the University in 1944 and was buried from the
University Chapel;
10
RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors honors the memory of
William Alexander Lambeth, a devoted member of the University
community, authorizes the placement of a memorial plaque at
Lambeth Field, and thanks the donor, Kevin Edds, a 1995 alumnus
of the College, for his generosity in providing funds for the
plaque.
11
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
May 22, 2012
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.A.2.
Plaque Honoring Mr. Henry Martin
BACKGROUND: Henry Martin, a well-known figure at the University
in the 19th and early 20th centuries, was born a slave at
Monticello on July 4, 1826, the day Thomas Jefferson died. The
University records of that period can be sketchy, but he appears
to have worked at the University in various capacities, both as
a slave on hire and as a freedman from about 1847. In late 1868
or early 1869, he was given the job of head janitor and bell
ringer, a position he held until he retired in 1910. His death
in 1915 was noted in the Alumni News and on a full page of Corks
and Curls, the now defunct University yearbook, which had
published several accounts of him over the years. His death was
also the subject of an editorial in the Charlottesville Daily
Progress.
The bell Henry Martin was charged with ringing was the
University bell, which hung on the south porch of the Rotunda.
The bell was destroyed in the Rotunda Fire of 1895 and the bell
in the adjacent University Chapel from then on served as the
University bell. With Henry Martin ringing it, the bell sounded
at dawn as a kind of University alarm clock, and was rung during
the day to mark the hours and the beginning and ending of class
periods. Henry Martin’s loud and persistent ringing of the
University bell – then in the Rotunda – on Sunday morning,
October 27, 1895, sounded the alarm for the Rotunda Fire.
Nowadays, of course, there is no waking bell, nor is the
bell sounded to mark class periods, but the Chapel bell (or more
properly the Carillon; the bell itself does not ring) – which is
automated – does sound the daylight hours.
DISCUSSION: Henry Martin was a greatly beloved University
figure known to generations of faculty, students, and alumni.
The proposed memorial plaque will be a thick slate tablet,
set in the short sidewalk which runs from the front door of the
Chapel to the main McCormick Road-University Avenue sidewalk,
which is one of the most heavily traveled pedestrian walks at
12
the University. It will be sited and worded in such a way that
the reader’s attention will be directed to the bell in the
steeple of the Chapel, the bell that was rung by Henry Martin.
The plaque is the gift of John H. and Trula Leventis Wright
of Charlottesville, and The I.D.E.A. Fund. John Wright is an
alumnus of the University and his wife, Trula, is from Columbia,
South Carolina and the sister of Christopher Leventis, member of
the Seven Society and one of the best known alumni of the 1960s,
now, sadly, deceased.
The text reads as follows:
Henry Martin
1826-1915
Born in slavery at Monticello on July 4, 1826, the day of Thomas Jefferson’s death,
Henry Martin worked at the University in various capacities from about 1847 until
his retirement in 1910. In late 1868 or early 1869, he was employed as head janitor
and bell ringer and continued in that position for the remainder of his time at the
University. The University bell hung on the south porch of the Rotunda, but it was
destroyed in the fire of 1895. The Chapel bell, hung in the steeple adjacent to this
marker, served as its replacement.
Henry Martin rang the bell at dawn to awaken the students, and rang it during the
day to mark the hours and the beginning and ending of class periods. He was
beloved by generations of faculty, students and alumni, and he remembered them all
when they returned for visits.
Gift of John H. and Trula Leventis Wright
and
The I.D.E.A. Fund
2012
13
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL OF PLAQUE HONORING MR. HENRY MARTIN
WHEREAS, Henry Martin was born in slavery at Monticello on
July 4, 1826, the day Thomas Jefferson died; and
WHEREAS, Henry Martin worked at the University of Virginia,
both as a slave and as a freedman, from about 1847 until he
retired in 1910; and
WHEREAS, Henry Martin was employed as head janitor and bell
ringer in late 1868 or early 1869 and continued in that position
until his retirement from the University; and
WHEREAS, Henry Martin rang the University bell, which was
hung on the south porch of the Rotunda, until it was destroyed
in the fire of 1895, and thereafter rang the bell hung in the
steeple of the Chapel, which then functioned as the University
bell; and
WHEREAS, Henry Martin rang the bell faithfully to awaken
the students in the morning, and during the day to mark the
hours and the beginning and ending of class periods; and
WHEREAS, Henry Martin was a beloved figure at the
University, remembered with great affection by generations of
students, alumni, and faculty; and
WHEREAS, Henry Martin died in Charlottesville in 1915;
RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors honors the memory of Henry
Martin, a devoted member of the University community, authorizes
the placement of a memorial plaque in the sidewalk adjacent to
the Chapel, and thanks the donors, John H. and Trula Leventis
Wright and The I.D.E.A. Fund, for their generosity in providing
funds for the plaque.
14
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
May 22, 2012
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.B. Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines,
Alderman Road Residence Halls, Building #6
$62.5 - $73.1 Million
Phase IV, Buildings 5 and 6 – Debt and
Operating Revenues
BACKGROUND: On April 1, 2005, the Board of Visitors endorsed a
phased plan to replace the existing Alderman Road residences
with new housing for first-year students over the next decade or
more. Phase I, Kellogg House, was approved by the Board of
Visitors in June 2005, and occupied in fall 2008. Phase II,
Building 1, Balz-Dobie, was approved as a capital project by the
Board of Visitors in February 2007 and Building 2, Watson-Webb,
along with Phase III (Buildings 3 and 4), were approved in
October 2008 with the 2012-2020 Update of the Major Capital
Projects Program, all Phase II structures were occupied in fall
2011. Phase IV, Building 5 was approved in November 2009.
Buildings 3, 4 and 5 are currently under construction and will
be occupied in summer 2013.
Growth projections indicate the need for more beds, as well
as community gathering and program spaces. Building 6 may also
accommodate offices for Housing and Residence Life staff.
CONCEPT AND SITE: Building 6 will have a student bed floor plan
with a program similar to other residence halls recently
completed and currently under construction. Student rooms will
be double-occupancy in resident advisor communities of between
20 and 26 students who share community bathrooms, study rooms
and other amenities. The total of new beds planned for the
building is approximately 200. This building may also contain
new office space that will consolidate Housing and Residential
Life staff currently scattered throughout the McCormick Road
housing area.
The proposed site is located within the existing first-year
student residential complex, near Cauthen House and Woody House,
along Alderman Road. Dunnington House and Fitzhugh House will
be demolished to make way for Building 6. The site provides
15
convenient access to the Observatory Hill Dining Hall, the
Slaughter Recreation Center, the Aquatic and Fitness Center and
the western edge of the academic core.
DISCUSSION: The Office of the Architect has prepared the
concept, site and design guidelines. Mr. Neuman will review the
proposed site and design guidelines with the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ALDERMAN
ROAD RESIDENCE HALLS BUILDING #6
RESOLVED, the concept, site, and design guidelines, dated
May 22, 2012, prepared by the Architect for the University for
construction of the Alderman Road Replacement Housing Project,
Phase IV – Building #6 are approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the project will be presented for further
review at the schematic design level of development.
16
17
Site Area Plan – Fall 2013
(Buildings 3, 4 and 5 under construction)
18
Alderman Road Student Housing – Phase IV – Building 6
Concept, Site and Design Guidelines
A) Proposed Project Concept
Several of the University’s current student housing sites have aging, antiquated facilities and less
than optimum density given the need to accommodate an increasing number of students on
Grounds. The Office of the Architect for the University has led several workshops engaging
various stakeholders to study the Alderman Road area to determine the highest and best use for
future student housing and support facilities on this valuable land.
The Alderman Road/Observatory Hill housing area buildings have been surveyed to assess their
current physical condition and to project the useful life of their structures. The structures of
many of the buildings will require major repairs and additional renovations to bring them within
current life safety code and to raise them to the current standard of college student housing at
UVa and other peer institutions. Even with repairs, the existing buildings cannot be renovated to
accommodate additional beds for increasing enrollment.
New facilities are needed in response to the growth of the student body and the goal of
accommodating all first-year students in adequate on-Grounds housing. The University also
remains committed to the goal of creating a memorable first-year experience for students. It is
thus essential that the established first-year Alderman Road facilities system continues to serve
as a vibrant community and a central hub for student activity.
Replacing the aging facilities is expected to be more than a decade-long project that demolishes
most of the existing buildings, and constructs new dormitories in sequence so as not to lose
necessary capacity. Student rooms and program spaces will be modeled on Phases I – III, which
have successfully combined student rooms with indoor and outdoor community spaces for
curricular and extra-curricular activities. Building 6 may also offer modern, efficient office
space to accommodate Housing and Residence Life staff.
19
Project Schedule:
Phase I Completed 2008
Kellogg House
Phase II Completed 2011
Building 1 – Balz-Dobie
Building 2 – Watson-Webb
Ern Student Commons
LEED RATING
N/A
SILVER
SILVER
SILVER
Phase III Fall 2013 Occupancy
Building 3
Building 4
TBD
TBD
Phase IV
Building 5 Fall 2013 Occupancy
Building 6 Fall 2016 Occupancy
TBD
TBD
To create a well-coordinated, long-range, strategic plan that addresses anticipated space needs,
the quality and character of the buildings and landscape, the 2007 Alderman Road Student
Housing Master Plan is being updated to reflect current conditions. Work sessions include
representatives from the Office of the Architect, Housing and Residence Life, Dining Services,
the Office of the Dean of Students, Business Operations, the Office of the Provost, and Facilities
Planning and Construction, as well as student representatives.
The new student housing offers modern amenities in a configuration that fosters intimate, secure,
close-knit communities, creates a strong sense of place, and accommodates growing numbers of
students. Master planning the site supports UVa’s sustainability goals, responsible stewardship
of the land and prudent integration of key planning objectives that respect the environment and
the regional context; promote connectivity and enhance multi-disciplinary discourse. All new
projects in Phases II-IV are to be LEED certified. Phase II buildings achieved LEED silver
rating.
The new student residence buildings will have similar programs. In addition to student rooms,
study rooms and lounges, entry level floors will be oriented to illuminate and animate gathering
places housing a variety of program spaces for teaching, meeting, and recreation. Outdoor
recreation areas, both structured and unstructured, will also be provided.
B) Siting Criteria
The University of Virginia general siting criteria for all new facilities include the following
components. All of these are satisfied in determining the siting recommendation for the new
residence halls.
•
•
Conforms to overall land use plan and district/area plans.
Supports the University commitment to sustainable development and responsible
stewardship of its natural, cultural, and human resources.
20
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reinforces functional relationships with other components of the same department
or program, and is compatible with other neighboring uses.
Satisfies access requirements- pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, and service.
Maximizes infill opportunities to utilize land resources and existing infrastructure.
Minimizes site development costs, including extension of utilities, access, loss of
parking, mass grading, etc.
Minimizes opportunity cost; i.e., value of this use and size versus other alternatives.
Provides a size that is adequate, but not excessive, for initial program, future
expansion, and ancillary uses.
Avoids unnecessary environmental impacts, including significant tree removal or
filling of existing stream valleys.
Allows site visibility and aesthetic character as appropriate for the intended use and
for the neighborhood.
Minimizes time for implementation of project.
C) Proposed Site
The general site is located within the existing first-year student residential complex, near
Cauthen House and Woody House. The site provides convenient access to the Observatory Hill
Dining Hall, the Slaughter Recreation Center, the Aquatic and Fitness Center, and the western
edge of the academic core. Dunnington and Fitzhugh Houses will be demolished, and all debris
recycled to clear this site.
Existing Dunnington and Fitzhugh Houses
21
Phase I - Kellogg House (2008)
Phase II - Balz-Dobie and Ern Commons (2011)
22
Phase IV – Building 5 (2013)
Phase IV – Building 5 Construction (2012)
23
D) Design Guidelines
Site Planning
- Building setbacks will be a minimum of 17’ from existing fire lane, and a minimum of
40’ from Woody House.
- Orient structure to “front” Alderman Road and “step-up” existing grade
- Orient building footprint, entries, and drop-offs to create common areas and gathering
places.
- Develop a master site plan to include future Buildings 7 and 8 that is consistent with the
updated 2007 Alderman Road Student Housing Master Plan.
- Improve existing common paths of travel, gathering places and outdoor recreation areas.
- Utilize existing service access and trash/recycling areas where possible.
- Utilize grade changes to allow ease of ADA entry options and accessible routes between
buildings and amenities.
- Use retaining walls as necessary to manage erosion and create terraces for student
recreation and planted areas.
- Consult the University Landscape Architect for tree preservation and planting
conservation plan.
Circulation and Parking
- Configure sidewalks to relate to the functional needs of the new buildings and to connect
appropriately to the surrounding, existing, and planned pedestrian bike systems.
- Plan for pedestrian connection to planned buildings at all elevations.
- Provide adequate service access that does not conflict w/ pedestrian network.
- Provide adequate bicycle parking (1 bike parking space per four beds).
- Utilize existing/planned parking areas for disabled and service parking spaces.
Architecture
- Each building will achieve LEED Certification; Silver or Gold Certification is strongly
encouraged.
- A maximum of five (5) floors must accommodate the program, negotiate the existing
grade while preserving human scale and relate to the existing and planned new residence
halls.
- Develop massing, fenestration, and architectural details to establish a strong visual
relationship to Woody House, Cauthen House, Phase III Buildings and Phase IV –
Building 5.
- Develop a roof form that is complementary and contextual with major nearby structures
as well as UVa traditions.
- Create identifiable, welcoming, and sheltered main entries.
- Utilize materials and colors consistent with existing UVa palette in this area and
consistent with the wooded setting.
- Public rooms should be disposed to address views to the surrounding landscape and the
nearby academic campus.
- Overall building design should integrate “sound planning, strong landscape, and
memorable architecture”; i.e. the building character that is of the University of Virginia.
24
Landscape
- Preserve as many existing mature trees as possible, while meeting site constraints of
fire/emergency access, wheelchair accessibility, etc.
- Develop contextual landscape appearance using a plant palette consistent with the
recommendations of the Observatory Hill Landscape Framework Plan.
- Plantings will be low-maintenance and drought-tolerant.
- Create a special garden area associated with the main entries.
- Create areas for outdoor group/social activities and recreation.
- Provide appropriate and safe levels of pedestrian lighting in accordance with Observatory
Hill Lighting Master Plan.
- Screen all trash, recycling areas, and above-grade utilities with walls or evergreen
plantings.
- All site furnishings will comply with UVa Facilities Design Guidelines; signage will
comply with University sign standards.
Review and Compliance
The Office of the Architect for the University is responsible for the review and approval of
project compliance with these guidelines.
25
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
May 22, 2012
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
III. Report by the Vice President for
Management and Budget
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
DISCUSSION: The Vice President for Management and Budget will
report on recent developments of interest to the committee since
the last meeting.
26
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
May 22, 2012
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
IV.
Report by the Architect for the
University
DISCUSSION: Mr. Neuman will present reports on the Natural
Systems planning in progress; and on improvements to the current
Post Occupancy Evaluation process.
27
MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS
Buildings and Grounds Committee
University of Virginia
May 22, 2012
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
APRIL 2012
33
28
30 38
31
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
APRIL 2012
29
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
APRIL 2012
30
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
APRIL 2012
21
31
University of Virginia
Existing Project Formulation Studies
April 2012
Project
Inactive
Academic Division / Agency 207
Scott Stadium Garage Expansion
Intramural and Recreational Sports Centers, Phases II
& III
McCormick Road Bridge Replacement
Student Residence: "Sustainability House"
Expansion to Aquatics Facility / Swim Team Facilities
UVA Museum Addition
Alderman Road Student Residence Halls, Building 6
Medical Center / Agency 209
Emergency Department Expansion
Health System Rehab & Recreation Building
Psychiatry Clinic Building
Hospital Renovations to Floors 7 and 8, Women's and
Children's Center
University of Virginia / College at Wise / Agency
246
32
Comments
X
X
X
Review of Options
Fundraising
Initial Programming
X
Review of Options
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $5 MILLION OR LESS
PERIOD ENDED March 31, 2012
Project
Selection Date
A/E Selected
None
33
Description
PROFESSIONAL AND CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NON-PROFESSIONALSERVICES CONTRACTS
Quarter Ended March 31, 2012
CONTRACTS
Virginia Architects
Virginia Engineers
Virginia Non-Professional
Total Virginia Contracts
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
30
55
38
40
80
131
85
78
211
42
14
31
13
93
43
56
44
141
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010 - 2011
7/1/11 to
3/31/12
% FY to date
95
147
7
249
60
178
18
256
51
176
28
255
36
150
60
246
12.371%
51.546%
20.619%
84.536%
136
79
43
13
135
26
56
7
89
29
42
7
78
14
22
9
45
4.811%
7.560%
3.093%
15.464%
122
347
384
345
333
291
100%
$3,830,387
$2,938,803
$6,298,801
$1,537,366
$5,380,810
$2,881,163
$6,769,190
$7,836,167
$8,261,973
$7,229,197
$3,006,222
$156,045
$10,391,464
$5,620,392
$4,487,183
$421,726
$10,529,301
$3,155,463
$3,728,436
$336,364
$7,220,263
$4,030,386
$2,840,684
$1,018,210
$7,889,280
41.808%
29.467%
10.562%
81.837%
Out-of State Architects
Out-of-State Engineers
Out-of-State Non-Professional
Total Out-of-State Fees
$23,898,844
$1,694,436
$7,876,867
$1,132,659
$14,076,542
$4,867,814
$25,593,280
$9,009,526
$18,944,356
$26,452,922
$3,393,392
$382,730
$30,229,044
$4,999,799
$2,778,728
$373,143
$8,151,670
$2,470,691
$4,816,073
$64,117
$7,350,881
$865,473
$494,294
$391,242
$1,751,009
8.978%
5.127%
4.058%
18.163%
Total All Firms
$32,362,470
$16,845,693
$27,206,329
$40,620,508
$18,680,971
$14,571,144
$9,640,289
100%
Out-of-State Architects
Out-of-State Engineers
Out-of-State Non-Professional
Total Out-of-State Contracts
Total All Firms
34
FEES
Virginia Architects
Virginia Engineers
Virginia Non-Professional
Total Virginia Fees
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
PAVILION OCCUPANCY STATUS
AS OF MARCH 2012
Pavilion
Occupants
I
Robert Pianta
II
Meredith Woo
III
Harry Harding
IV
Larry J. Sabato
V & Annex
Patricia Lampkin
VI
Robert D. Sweeney
VII
Colonnade Club
VIII Upper
Apartment
Assigned Available
Winter
Spring
2010
2013
September September
2009
2014
Spring
Spring
2010
2015
October
2002
Spring
2018
Spring
2008
Fall
2007
Summer
2015
Fall
2012
John Colley
April
2011
April
2016
VIII Terrace
Apartment
Gerald Warburg
March
2012
March
2017
IX
Dorrie Fontaine
July
2011
X
VACANT
-
Montebello
James H. Aylor
Sunnyside
Michael Strine
Weedon House
Carl P. Zeithaml
July
2016
July
2012
April
2012
August
2016
July
2016
April
2007
August
2011
July
2011
35
Comments
Occupied Pavilion III from Spring
2008 until Winter 2010
Extended an additional five years in
November 2010, from Spring 2013 to
May 11, 2018
Occupied Pavilion III from Summer
2005 until Spring 2008
Currently offline for
repairs/renovation
Post Occupancy Evaluation
Sheridan G. Snyder Translational Research Building
Executive Summary
I. Background:
As a part of its oversight of the University’s Capital Program, the Executive Review Committee
for the Capital Development Process stipulated in April 2004 that Post Occupancy Evaluations
(POE) be completed for capital projects approximately one year after beneficial occupancy. This
project was completed in March, 2008. The reason this POE was not completed until now is that
it took a few years for the building to be fully occupied.
II. Purpose:
The Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) process is a “lessons learned” exercise to improve the
design, construction, operation, and user satisfaction of future buildings by providing an
assessment of completed projects. The process identifies architectural, engineering, interior
accommodations, and other functional components that work well and those that are problematic.
The process also supports the University’s LEED program by assessing the LEED mandated
survey of occupant satisfaction with thermal comfort.
III. Methodology:
Information was gathered through 1) a web-based survey distributed to faculty, staff, and
students, 2) an assessment by the maintenance staff, and 3) post-survey discussions with senior
researchers, and 4) input by a steering committee consisting of the Architect for the University,
Chief Facilities Officer, Director of Space and Real Estate Management, University Building
Official and Senior Academic Facility Planner.
IV. Survey Response Rate:
The survey was distributed during the spring of 2011 to the 118 occupants of the Snyder
Building. Forty-six responded for an overall response rate of 39%. The respondents included 26
faculty, 6 research assistants, 5 staff members, and 9 students.
V. Project Description:
The Sheridan G. Snyder Translational Research Building is an 85,400 gross square foot, 4-story
building located at 480 Ray C. Hunt Drive in the Fontaine Research Park. The facility houses
several School of Medicine units including Radiology, Center for Comparative Medicine,
General Clinical Research Center, Molecular Physiology, and Medical School Administration.
The facility contains wet and dry lab research space, a vivarium, offices, and conference rooms.
Construction began in April 2006, and was completed by March 2008. This project is not LEED
certified, as its design predates the BOV mandate for LEED certification, which occurred in
early 2007.
VI. Summary of Survey Responses:
Overall Building Assessment: 88% of the respondents had a positive assessment. 9% had a
negative assessment. 78% felt safe in the areas around the building; only 2% did not. 68% felt
that the level of building security was appropriate; while 15% did not.
36
Lab Features: Positive response rates ranged from a low of 26% to a high of 90% with the
majority of the rates exceeding 50%. Neutral response rates ranged from a low of 5% to a high
of 45%. Negative response rates ranged from a low of 5% to a high of 38% with all but 3 rates
at 15% or below.
Layout, safety and lighting had the highest positive response rates ranging from 81% to 90%.
During one of the post-survey discussions, it was noted that the open lab arrangement has
worked well, and is great for collegiality between faculty, post-docs and students.
Room temperature had a 62% positive response rate and a 26% negative rate. 26% of the
respondents indicated that temperatures enhanced their work; 29% indicated that they
interfered.
Utilities (water, air, gas vacuum, power, etc.) received a 48% positive rate, and the highest
negative response rate of 38%.
Remaining features received positive response rates ranging from 53% to 68% and negative
rates ranging from 8% to 15%.
Vivarium Features: When compared to the questions for labs and offices, the vivarium
questions elicited high neutral responses, low positive responses, and low negative responses. It
appears that for the majority of the respondents, the vivarium was not a space that rated
particularly high or particularly low. For example, based on the fact that 12 of the 18 vivarium
questions received no negative responses, one would have expected high positive responses.
Instead there were only 3 questions had positive responses exceeding 50%. The difference can
be found in the neutral responses where 13 questions had responses exceeding 50%. The
Acoustic and Vibration control question, for example, received a 40% positive response rate, a
60% neutral response rate, and a 0% negative response rate.
Offices /Workstations: Positive response rates ranged from 30% for temperature impact to
88% for function. Negative rates ranged from 5% for function and lighting to 31% for sound
privacy. Neutral rates ranged from 7% for function to 56% for temperature impact.
Maintenance Assessment: Problems were identified with the condenser water piping, the
process water loop, cooling towers, controls, condensate return lines, storm water runoff, sewer
vent terminations, water leaks, and condensation. A number have been corrected. While the list
is extensive, the Health Systems Zone Maintenance Supervisor provided the following comment:
“In summation: Even with the list above, this was one of the best designed and constructed
buildings I have been involved with at UVa. The above list is minor compared to the size and
complexity of equipment engineered in this building.”
VII. Actions and Recommendations:
Odors: Periodic odor problems were noted in the survey comments, during the post-survey
discussions, and in the maintenance assessment. The assessment indicated that the likely cause
of this problem is the location of the sewer vent stacks under the elevated air handlers. It appears
37
that fumes from the vents occasionally find their way to the intakes on the air handlers, and are
then distributed through the building. The vents are to code, but, due to the orientation of the air
handlers, fumes can be drawn to the intakes.
Corrective Action: Health Systems Facilities Management Department plans to relocate
the vent stacks in the near future.
Recommendations for Future Buildings: Coordinate the location of sewer vent stacks
and air intakes to avoid the possibility of the stack fumes being sucked into air intakes.
Lab Lighting: Even though lighting fared well in the survey, two comments were made about
poor light levels, and lighting problems were raised during the post-survey discussions. During
the Value Management session it was proposed that savings could be obtained if the ceiling light
fixtures were spaced further apart and oriented so that they ran perpendicular to the lab benches.
These changes were accepted, and appear to be the cause of uneven light levels and shadows on
the bench surfaces.
Corrective Action: Given that the cost of realigning the fixtures is prohibitive,
corrective action will have to consist of providing supplement task lighting.
Recommendations for Future Buildings: Lighting in laboratories must be designed to
provide even light levels and minimize shadows on bench surfaces. Ceiling light fixtures
should have appropriate baffles and diffusers, and should be properly spaced. Finally, the
fixtures should be oriented so that they run parallel to the lab benches.
Distilled Water or Reverse Osmosis Water Systems: As a cost saving measure, the building
was designed without a central distilled water system or reverse osmosis water system. This has
limited the use of the glass wash machines, and has required researchers to develop work-around
solutions.
Corrective Action: Install a distilled or reverse osmosis water system when funding is
available.
Recommendations for Future Buildings: Either a central distilled water system or
reverse osmosis system should be installed in all cell / molecular biology type lab
buildings. Not having them creates operational inefficiencies and costs, as well as
ongoing maintenance problems with purifiers and glass wash equipment.
Office Configurations: Several negative comments were made concerning the number of
offices and the location of office spaces in the labs.
Corrective Action: Renovating the building to address these office complaints is not
practical, and is cost prohibitive.
Recommendations for Future Buildings: Future lab buildings should follow the model
used for the Physical Life Sciences Building where offices are clustered outside labs,
38
enclosed write up areas are located outside bench areas, and there are flexible write-up /
computational areas.
Natural Light: The need for adequate shade control was raised during the post-survey
discussions, and was also noted in the survey comments. The installed Mechoshades were not
sufficient, and blackout shades have been added in certain locations. Similar shading problems
were noted during the Wilsdorf Hall POE.
Corrective Action: Add shades where needed and as funding allows.
Recommendations for Future Buildings: During the preliminary design phase, provide
shade control measures based on sun studies that take sun angle into account and on
building orientation recognizing that sun control treatment will have to vary depending
on façade orientation. This was done for the Physical Life Sciences Building.
39