UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS
MEETING OF THE
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 10, 2011
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS COMMITTEE
Thursday, November 10, 2011
3:15 – 4:00 p.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
PAGE
I.
II.
CONSENT AGENDA (Ms. Sheehy)
A.
Easement, to Dominion Virginia Power for the
Installation of an Underground Line
B.
Demolition, Milton Airfield Support Building
C.
Architect/Engineer Selection, Indoor Practice
Facility – Fieldhouse
ACTION ITEMS
A.
Naming of Courtyard at Rice Hall
B.
Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines, Indoor
Practice Facility – Fieldhouse (Ms. Sheehy
to introduce Mr. David J. Neuman, Mr. Neuman
to report)
1
2
3
4
6
III. DESIGN REVIEW ITEM
•
North Grounds Recreation Center Addition
11
IV.
REPORT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
(Ms. Sheehy)
•
Vice President’s Remarks
17
V.
REPORT BY THE ARCHITECT FOR THE UNIVERSITY
(Mr. Neuman)
•
Architect for the University Remarks
18
VI.
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
19
24
.. PAGE
C.
D.
E.
Professional Services Contracts
Pavilion Occupancy Status
Post-Occupancy Evaluations (University of
Virginia, College at Wise Projects, including:
Crockett Hall Renovation; Commonwealth
Residence Hall; Gilliam Center for the Arts,
and Hunter J. Smith Dining Commons)
25
26
27
BOARD OF VISITORS CONSENT AGENDA
A.
EASEMENT, TO DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF AN UNDERGROUND LINE
BACKGROUND: Dominion Virginia Power holds an existing easement on
University property along a boundary line adjacent to Zehmer Hall,
in the vicinity of Midmont Lane. The easement provides for the
installation of above-ground structures and facilities only and does
not permit the installation of underground structures and
facilities. Dominion Virginia Power intends to provide service by
means of the existing easement to the priory of St. Thomas Aquinas
Catholic Church, now under construction at the corner of Midmont
Lane and Alderman Road.
DISCUSSION: The proposed easement will facilitate the installation
of the service line underground from University property to the
priory, as requested of Dominion Virginia Power by the church.
Since the visual impact of the church improvements is minimized
because an additional power pole will not have to be installed on
church property, modifying the existing easement to allow the
installation of the line underground is beneficial to the
University.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL OF EASEMENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA TO DOMINION
VIRGINIA POWER
RESOLVED, the grant of a permanent easement on property
owned by The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
to Dominion Virginia Power, in the approximate location shown on
that certain plat entitled “Plat to Accompany Right-of-Way
Agreement”, dated August 4, 2011, identified as Plat Number
81100050, and prepared by Virginia Electric and Power Company
doing business as Dominion Virginia Power (the “Plat”), to
facilitate the installation of electrical 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 revisions to the Plat (including, without limitation,
revisions to change the location of the permanent easement), to
incur reasonable and customary expenses, and to take such other
1
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 the grant of
such permanent easement, are in all respects approved, ratified
and confirmed.
B. DEMOLITION, MILTON AIRFIELD SUPPORT BUILDING:
demolition
Approval of
BACKGROUND: The Milton Airfield Support Building is in
disrepair and continues to deteriorate. The deterioration has
progressed to the extent where the structural integrity may be
compromised and presents a safety hazard.
DISCUSSION: Given the condition of the building and with no
compelling use for the structure, it is recommended the building
be demolished.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL OF DEMOLITION OF MILTON AIRFIELD SUPPORT BUILDING (2070662)
WHEREAS, the building condition has deteriorated to the
extent where the structural integrity may be compromised; 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;
and
WHEREAS, the demolition has been previously approved by the
Art and Architectural Review Board and the Department of
Historic Resources;
RESOLVED, the demolition of the Support Building is
approved by the Board of Visitors, subject to compliance with
such general laws as may be applicable; and
2
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 facility; 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 facility, are in all respects approved, ratified, and
confirmed.
C.
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, INDOOR PRACTICE FACILITY FIELDHOUSE: Approval of architect/engineer selection
The 78,000 square foot fieldhouse will be sited east of
University Hall on an existing football practice field to take
advantage of locker rooms, offices, and other amenities already
provided in the nearby McCue Center and University Hall. The
facility will include a full 100-yard field with end zones and
five-yard overruns and will accommodate a 65-foot clear height
in the center for kicking.
We recommend the selection of VMDO Architects, of
Charlottesville, Virginia, with Knight Architects, of Atlanta,
Georgia, for the contract. These firms have extensive
experience with athletic facilities, including fieldhouse
structures.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, INDOOR PRACTICE
FACILITY - FIELDHOUSE
RESOLVED, VMDO Architects, of Charlottesville, Virginia,
with Knight Architects, of Atlanta, Georgia, are approved for
performance of architectural and engineering services for the
Indoor Practice Facility - Fieldhouse.
3
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
November 10, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.A.
Naming of Courtyard at Rice Hall
BACKGROUND: University policy states that names for academic
programs, centers, institutes, departments, physical structures,
or parts thereof, on the University of Virginia Grounds or
property owned by the University of Virginia Foundation or
University affiliated foundations, if used by the University,
shall be forwarded to the Board of Visitors for final approval,
including all open air courtyards and other outdoor areas.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
NAMING THE COURTYARD AT RICE HALL
WHEREAS, Rice Hall is the six-story, Information Technology
Engineering Building for the School of Engineering, which is
located at the corner of Whitehead and Stadium Roads, and serves
as the new home for the Department of Computer Science; and
WHEREAS, the courtyard at Rice Hall is made from local
Buckingham slate and was completed through the generous gifts of
Lee S. Ainslie III (ENGR ’86), Elizabeth M. Ainslie, Michael A.
Pausic (ENGR ’86), and Kelley A. MacDougall; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ainslie is an alumnus of the School of
Engineering (B.S., Systems Engineering), where he was a
Westmoreland Davis Scholar and Thomas Pinckney Bryan Jr.
Scholar; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Ainslie is a managing partner of Maverick
Capital Ltd., which he helped found in 1993, and currently
serves as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Robin
Hood Foundation and trustee of the Board of the University of
Virginia’s Jefferson Scholars Foundation; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Pausic, a Managing Director at Maverick
Capital Ltd., is an alumnus of the School of Engineering (B.S.
Systems Engineering) and currently serves as board member of the
UVa Engineering Foundation;
4
RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors names the Courtyard at Rice
Hall the Maverick Capital Courtyard and thanks Mr. and Mrs.
Ainslie, Mr. Pausic, and Ms. MacDougall, for their leadership,
generosity, and support.
5
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
November 10, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.B. Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines,
Indoor Practice Facility - Fieldhouse
$11 – 13 Million
BACKGROUND: The University has nationally competitive teams in
football, track and field, and many outdoor sports programs.
Bad weather practice facilities can create a competitive
advantage among peer institutions. Nationally, many Division 1A
athletic programs now have some type of fieldhouse facilities.
Currently, the University of Virginia does not have an
appropriately sized facility that can provide the sheltered
space required for full-field football team practices during
inclement weather.
CONCEPT AND SITE: This 78,000 square foot facility will be
sited east of University Hall on an existing football practice
field to take advantage of locker rooms, offices, and other
amenities already provided in the nearby McCue Center and
University Hall. The facility will include a full 100-yard
football field with end zones and five-yard overruns and will
accommodate a 65-foot clear height in the center for kicking.
The clear span structure has no columns, making the interior
space very flexible. Other sports or recreation activities that
align with occupant load and activity restrictions may also use
this facility.
DISCUSSION: The Office of the Architect has prepared the
concept, site, and design guidelines. Mr. Neuman will review
the site and design guidelines with the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
6
APPROVAL OF CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR
PRACTICE FACILITY - FIELDHOUSE
RESOLVED, the concept, site, and design guidelines, dated
November 10, 2011, prepared by the Architect for the University
for construction of the Indoor Practice Facility - Fieldhouse
are approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the project will be presented for further
review at the schematic design level of development.
7
Fieldhouse
Concept, Site and Design Guidelines
A)
Siting Criteria
The University of Virginia’s general siting criteria for all new
facilities include the following components. Those highlighted
are the most pertinent in determining the siting recommendations
for the new Fieldhouse.

Conforms with the overall intent of the 2008 Grounds Plan
and precinct/area plans.

Reinforces functional relationships with other components
of the same department or program.

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.

Allows for incorporating sustainability principles in terms
of solar orientation, reuse of historic structures, storm
water management, etc.

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.

Allows the intended facility to function well to
accommodate its users in a pleasant and desirable fashion.
8
Proposed Site (indicated by red line):
The proposed project will be located in the North Grounds
precinct, in an area dedicated to athletic uses. The indoor
practice structure will be located on the existing practice
field to the north of the field hockey field. Service and
emergency access will be from the existing pathway located on
the west side of the practice fields. It is anticipated that
central services will be extended from the John Paul Jones Arena
plant facility.
9
B)
Design Guidelines:
Site Planning
- Building footprint should be compact to minimize impact to
adjacent fields (approximately 390’ by 200’).
- Building should be sited so that practices can be conducted
and viewed simultaneously from inside the fieldhouse and from
the adjacent football practice field to the north.
Stormwater
- Adhere to approved Meadow Creek Stormwater Master Plan.
- Storm water quantity and quality impacts must be managed as
part of the project.
- Consider a cistern system that could provide water for
irrigating nearby natural turf fields.
Circulation and Parking
- Preserve existing service and emergency vehicle circulation
and access.
Architecture
- Develop massing, fenestration and architectural details to
establish a compatible relationship to the John Paul Jones
Arena, University Hall and other nearby athletic structures.
- Develop a roof form that is complementary and contextual with
John Paul Jones Arena and University Hall.
- Utilize materials and colors consistent with the University
palette and consistent with other major University athletic
facilities.
- Overall building design should integrate “sound site
planning, strong landscape qualities and memorable
architecture”.
- Consider views of the new facility from nearby facilities and
surrounding community. Efforts should be made to minimize
the actual scale of the structure.
- The project will achieve LEED certification.
Landscape
- Screen all above-grade utilities and equipment on or adjacent
to the site.
- Lighting should be appropriate to the surroundings.
- Signage and graphics must comply with University of Virginia
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.
10
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
November 10, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
III. Schematic Design Review, North Grounds
Recreation Center Addition
$15.2 - $17.2 Million
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
BACKGROUND: The University of Virginia has one of the leading
collegiate recreational sports programs in the country, serving
undergraduate students and significant numbers of graduate
students, faculty, staff and their families. The recreation
program is distributed among five facilities: Aquatic and
Fitness Center, Memorial Gymnasium, and the Slaughter, North
Grounds, and Outdoor Recreation Centers.
Each of these facilities has a distinct character and
serves specific user groups. The facilities are at convenient,
accessible locations throughout the Grounds and have been very
successful. The demand has accelerated as enrollment, program
participation and fitness, health and wellness options
increased.
Anticipating continuation of these trends, the University
conducted an in-depth Project Formulation Study in 2009,
assisted by a nationally-recognized consultant firm in the
fields of intramural, recreation and wellness facilities and
operations. University leadership, faculty, staff, and students
were surveyed; existing facilities evaluated; peer institutions
benchmarked, and construction and operating costs were modeled
on several long-term scenarios.
The resulting phased development plan continues to
distribute programs across Grounds, addresses the most pressing
unmet needs, and anticipates future planned enrollment growth.
The first phase will be to construct an addition to the North
Grounds Recreation Center.
The project was approved at the November 2010 Board of
Visitors meeting as an addition to the Major Capital Projects
Program. The Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines were approved
11
by the Buildings and Grounds Committee at the February 2011
meeting.
CONCEPT: The North Grounds Recreation Center (NGRC) provides a
popular gathering place for faculty, staff, and students in the
precinct and beyond. The 2009 Project Formulation Study
identified a new aquatic facility as the highest priority for
added services. The proposed NGRC addition will house a 25meter x 25-yard pool designed for lap swimming, a wet classroom,
a whirlpool, a sauna, locker rooms, and other pool support. New
multi-purpose spaces will be flexible, designed to accommodate
mind/body wellness, martial arts, and other activities. Two
regulation squash courts will be added. Minor renovations to
the existing building will create connections to the new
facility and upgrade existing racquetball courts, including ADA
compliance. The existing building will continue as the main
entry to the complex.
The project goals are centered on providing a lively,
inviting facility that promotes social interaction, physical
fitness, and wellness in the University community.
DISCUSSION: The design architect, Cannon Design, of Arlington,
Virginia, in conjunction with the Architect for the University
and representatives from the Intramural Recreational Sports
Department and Facilities Management, have developed a schematic
design for the addition which Mr. Neuman will review with the
committee.
12
Aerial View of Site
13
Landscape Site Plan
14
Existing North Grounds Recreation Center Main Entry
15
View of Existing Building and Site from Parking Lot
Rendering of Existing Building with Addition from Parking Lot
16
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
November 10, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
IV. 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.
17
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
November 10, 2011
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
V. Report by the Architect for the
University
DISCUSSION: Mr. Neuman will update the committee on the current
status of the Rotunda Restoration project and provide an
overview of the current planning activities within the Office of
the Architect.
18
MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS
Buildings and Grounds Committee
University of Virginia
November 10, 2011
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
OCTOBER 2011
33
30 19
31
38
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
OCTOBER 2011 (CONTINUED)
20
20
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
OCTOBER 2011 (CONTINUED)
21
MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES
OCTOBER 2011 (CONTINUED)
2221
University of Virginia
Existing Project Formulation Studies
October 2011
Project
BOV Project
Approval
BOV Concept,
Site, and
Design
Guidelines
Approval
Academic Division / Agency 207
Bayly (UVa Museum) Addition
X
Drama Building Addition
X
Gilmer / Chemistry Renewal
X
Fieldhouse
X
Ivy Translational Research Building
X
JAG School Expansion
X
Klockner Stadium Expansion, Phase II
X
Miller Center, Phase III
X
Scott Stadium Garage Expansion
Intramural and Recreational Sports Centers, Phases II & III
McCormick Road Bridge Replacement
Student Residence: "Sustainability House"
Expansion to Aquatics Facility Center / Swim Team
Facilities
Medical Center / Agency 209
Emergency Department Expansion
Patient Education Resource Center / Outpatient Imaging
X
Health System Rehab & Recreation Building
Psychiatry Clinic Building
University of Virginia / College at Wise /
Agency 246
College at Wise Proscenium Theatre
X
23
X
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $5 MILLION OR LESS
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
Project
Olson Hall Renovation
Selection Date
September 8, 2011
A/E Selected
Description
Obenchain, Linkous, Daniels &
Term Contract
Sowick
24
PROFESSIONAL AND CONSTRUCTION-RELATED NON-PROFESSIONALSERVICES CONTRACTS
Quarter Ended September 30, 2011
CONTRACTS
25
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
Virginia Architects
Virginia Engineers
Virginia Non-Professional
Total Virginia Contracts
30
55
38
40
80
131
85
78
Out-of-State Architects
Out-of-State Engineers
Out-of-State NonProfessional
Total Out-of-State
Contracts
42
14
31
13
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010 - 2011
7/1/11 to
9/30/11
% for each
category
60
178
18
256
51
176
28
255
10
54
4
211
95
147
7
249
68
15.315%
52.853%
8.408%
76.577%
93
43
79
43
26
56
29
42
4
13
8.709%
12.613%
13
7
7
2
2.102%
56
44
136
135
89
78
19
23.423%
141
122
347
384
345
333
87
100%
FEES
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010 - 2011
Virginia Architects
Virginia Engineers
Virginia Non-Professional
Total Virginia Fees
$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
$2,098,307
$1,035,016
$19,395
$3,152,718
21.656%
25.588%
2.308%
49.552%
Out-of State Architects
Out-of-State Engineers
Out-of-State NonProfessional
$23,898,844
$1,694,436
$7,876,867
$1,132,659
$14,076,542
$4,867,814
$26,452,922
$3,393,392
$4,999,799
$2,778,728
$2,470,691
$4,816,073
$385,840
$406,017
16.956%
33.052%
$382,730
$373,143
$64,117
$35,780
0.440%
Total Out-of-State Fees
$25,593,280
$9,009,526
$18,944,356
$30,229,044
$8,151,670
$7,350,881
$827,637
50.448%
Total All Firms
$32,362,470
$16,845,693
$27,206,329
$40,620,508
$18,680,971
$14,571,144
$3,980,355
100%
Total All Firms
7/1/11 to
9/30/11
% for each
category
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
PAVILION OCCUPANCY STATUS
AS OF NOVEMBER 2011
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
VIII Terrace
Apartment
John Colley
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
April
2011
April
2016
Fall
2011
July
2016
July
2012
April
2012
August
2016
July
2016
VACANT
IX
Dorrie Fontaine
X
VACANT
Montebello
James H. Aylor
Sunnyside
Michael Strine
Weedon House Carl P. Zeithaml
July
2011
April
2007
August
2011
July
2011
26
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
Tenant vacated early. Will be re-let
Fall 2011
Currently offline for
repairs/renovation
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA COLLEGE AT WISE
POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATIONS
Crockett Hall Renovation
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 at its April 4, 2004 meeting that Post Occupancy
Evaluations be completed for capital projects approximately one year after beneficial occupancy.
This project was completed in August, 2008.
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, and
functional components that work well and those that are problematic. The process supports the
University’s LEED program by assessing occupant satisfaction with thermal comfort.
III. Methodology:
Information was gathered through: 1) a building tour; 2) a web-based survey distributed to staff
and student workers; and 3) an assessment by the maintenance staff.
IV. Survey Response Rate:
The survey was conducted during the spring of 2011. It was distributed to the 36 building
occupants – 25 staff and 11 student workers. 25 people responded for an overall response rate of
69%. The staff response rate was 88%; the student rate was 27%.
V. Project Description:
This project renovated Crockett Hall for student administrative services. The building was
constructed in 1924 as part of the Wise County Poor Farm, and served as a Home for Women.
When the College acquired the property in 1954, Crockett housed all of the College’s facilities:
housing, dining, classrooms, library and offices. It later served as a dormitory. Crockett now
houses Admissions, Advising, Cashier’s Office, Financial Aid and the Registrar. The project
also envisioned Crockett Hall as the College’s “welcome center” since it would typically be the
first stop for most prospective students and their parents.
VI. Summary of Evaluation Findings:
Overall Impression of the Building - Crockett Hall has been well received by the survey
respondents with 88% having a positive impression. 92% indicated that it is easy for people to
27
find their way around the building. While 83% of the respondents felt there was sufficient space
for registration, two respondents noted the crowding that occurs at high-traffic events.
Building’s Surroundings - 80% of the respondents felt that finding the building’s front door
was easy for prospective students. While the sunken garden is the site’s main feature, 54% of
the respondents felt that it was not heavily used. 96% felt safe in the areas around the building.
Workspaces and Offices - 80% of the respondents felt that these spaces met their needs, and
were satisfied with the lighting. 88% were not satisfied with the temperatures, and 76%
indicated that the temperatures interfered with their work. 60% registered dissatisfaction with
sound privacy.
Conference rooms - 83% of the respondents felt that these spaces met their needs, and were
satisfied with the lighting. 67% were not satisfied with the temperatures, and indicated that the
temperatures interfered with their work. 8% registered dissatisfaction with sound privacy.
Interview Rooms - 72% of the respondents felt that these spaces met their needs. 56% were
satisfied with the lighting. 18% were not satisfied with the temperature. 12% registered
dissatisfaction with sound privacy.
Thermal Comfort Findings - The thermal comfort verification credit for the LEED certification
program requires corrective action if more than 20% of the occupants are dissatisfied with the
thermal comfort in the building. If Crockett Hall had participated in the certification process,
corrective action would have been necessary to achieve the thermal comfort credit.
LEED Status - N/A (This project predates the BOV requirement for LEED certification.)
VII. Actions and Recommendations:
Temperature - The survey responses to the temperature questions for the Workspaces / Offices
and Conference Rooms were very negative.
Program Space
Workspaces / Offices
Conference Rooms
Positive
8%
29%
Neutral
4%
4%
Negative
88%
67%
Of the 18 written comments, 8 dealt with temperature. The maintenance assessment noted that
“The HVAC functionality of this building has been very poor from the beginning. Improvements
have been made through the cooperation of the mechanical engineers, the HVAC contractor, and
in-house maintenance staff, but it is still not up to our preferred standards. Additional analysis
and adjustment is frequent.”
Action (Corrective): Continue adjusting control systems to improve temperatures. The
system should be redesigned when major repairs or replacements are needed.
Recommendations (For Future Buildings): Future projects should meet the design
criteria for HVAC systems, as found in the University’s Facilities Design Guidelines.
When appropriate, enhanced commissioning should be used on future buildings. This
will improve occupant satisfaction, optimize energy use and minimize operating costs.
Sound Privacy - Sound privacy in the workspaces and offices received low positive responses
(28%) and high negative responses (60%). Four of the written comments dealt with sound
problems. Two mentioned not being able to have confidential discussions because occupants in
28
the adjacent rooms could overhear the conversations. One noted ambient noise from work being
conducted in adjacent spaces and from footsteps in the upper hallway. One referred to excessive
noise from the HVAC system. The maintenance assessment also noted HVAC noise.
Action (Corrective): With the exception of the HVAC noise, corrective action is not
practical. As funding allows, the system should be redesigned to reduce HVAC noise.
Recommendations (For Future Buildings): Future projects should be planned to
accommodate the need for confidential conversations. In addition, HVAC systems
should be designed to meet the noise criteria standards recommended by ASHRAE.
29
Commonwealth Hall
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 at its April 4, 2004 meeting that Post Occupancy
Evaluations be completed for capital projects approximately one year after beneficial occupancy.
This project was completed in August, 2009.
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, and
functional components that work well and those that are problematic. The process supports the
University’s LEED program by assessing occupant satisfaction with thermal comfort.
III. Methodology:
Information was gathered through: 1) a building tour; 2) a web-based survey distributed to the
building residents; and 3) an assessment by the maintenance staff.
IV. Survey Response Rate:
The survey was conducted during the spring of 2011. It was distributed to the 105 students who
were in residence at that time. Of these, 33 people responded for a 31% response rate.
V. Project Description:
The project constructed a 31,000 GSF, three-story residence hall on the north side of Clinch
Valley Drive, which is on the western edge of the academic complex. The building is sited in
accordance with the College’s master plan and is adjacent to academic, residential, and dining
facilities. It accommodates 120 students in two-person rooms with central bathrooms. The first
floor provides community meeting space, laundry facilities, an apartment for residential staff,
and classroom. Lounges are located on each floor. The building has an entry plaza on the south
side and a terrace on the north side.
VI. Summary of Evaluation Findings:
Overall Building - Commonwealth Hall has been well received by the survey respondents with
91% having a positive impression; 6% had a negative impression. 94% indicated that it is easy
for people to find their way around the building. 91% felt safe in the building; 3% did not.
Building’s Surroundings - 66% of the respondents felt that the buildings entry terrace and lawn
areas were useful. 73% felt safe in the areas around the building. Four lighting comments were
received. Two comments were positive. Two indicated that more lighting was needed.
30
Residence Rooms - 82% of the respondents felt that their rooms met their needs; 6% expressed
dissatisfaction. 76% were satisfied with the air quality and 70% were satisfied with the lighting.
There were 6 lighting comments all noting that the location of the light fixtures made it difficult
to set up bunk beds. 64% were satisfied with the temperatures; 21% were not with 27%
indicating that the temperatures had a negative impact on room use. There were 7 temperature
comments; only 2 were positive. 39% of the respondents registered dissatisfaction with their
sound privacy. There were 6 sound privacy comments; all were negative
Lounges and Study Room - 67% of the respondents were satisfied with the functionality of
these spaces; 15% expressed dissatisfaction. The positive response rates for temperature, air
quality, lighting, and sound privacy were in the low to mid sixties. Except for sound privacy,
which had a 21% negative response rate, these building features had negative response rates of
15% or less. The impact of temperatures on room use had the lowest positive response rate of
42%, but its 18% negative response rate was better than that for sound privacy. Five comments
expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of common spaces due to the fact that two lounges had
been turned into student residence rooms. Based on the number of comments made in this
section of the survey, and in the overall building section, common spaces are important to
students.
Thermal Comfort Findings - The thermal comfort verification credit for the LEED certification
program, which requires corrective action if more than 20% of the building occupants are
dissatisfied with the thermal comfort in the building, does not apply to residential buildings. If it
did, corrective action would be needed to achieve the thermal comfort credit since 21% of the
respondents expressed dissatisfaction with their room temperatures.
LEED Status: Certification is pending.
VII. Actions and Recommendations:
Temperature - Temperature was one of the two elements that received the lowest positive
responses and the highest negative responses. While the positive responses for both types of
rooms were comparable, the residence rooms had higher negative responses. The following
actions are recommended.
Action (Corrective): Action has been taken. Building temperatures were being affected
by problems with the chiller plant in the Hunter J. Smith Dining Commons. These
problems have been corrected and it appears that the number of temperature complaints
has been reduced.
Recommendations (For Future Residence Halls): Projects should meet the design
criteria for HVAC systems, as found in the University’s Facilities Design Guidelines.
When appropriate, enhanced commissioning should be used on future buildings. This
will improve occupant satisfaction, optimize energy use and minimize operating costs.
Sound Privacy - Sound privacy was the other building element that received low positive
responses and high negative responses. Sound privacy in the residence rooms received the
highest negative response of any element in the survey. The following actions are
recommended.
31
Action (Corrective): The College should explore the feasibility of improving the sound
attenuation measures in the walls and ceilings of these spaces. If affordable, these
measures should be implemented.
Recommendations (For Future Residence Halls): Projects should require sound
attenuation measures in the walls and ceilings of the student rooms, lounges and study
spaces. In addition, the use of sound sweeps on the doors of these rooms should be
explored.
Lighting in Student Rooms - While students appear to be satisfied with the light levels in the
student rooms, they appear to be frustrated with the location of light fixtures since they interfere
with the use of bunk beds. The following actions are recommended.
Action (Corrective): The College should explore the feasibility of relocating light
fixtures. If affordable, these measures should be implemented.
Recommendations (For Future Residence Halls): Particular attention should be paid to
the location of light fixtures so that they do not impact the placement of furniture in
general and bunk beds in particular.
Roof Snow Guards - The maintenance assessment noted that the snow guards had been applied
with adhesive in mid-pan and that they did not survive the first Southwest Virginia winter and
were replaced with snow guards applied via hardware on roof seams.
Action (Corrective): Action has already been taken. The adhesive applied snow guards
have been replaced with guards mechanically applied to the roof seams.
Recommendations (For Future Buildings): Snow guards on future buildings should be
mechanically adhered.
32
Gilliam Center for the Arts
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 at its April 4, 2004 meeting that Post Occupancy
Evaluations be completed for capital projects approximately one year after beneficial occupancy.
This project was completed in January, 2010.
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, and
functional components that work well and those that are problematic. The process supports the
University’s LEED program by assessing occupant satisfaction with thermal comfort.
III. Methodology:
Information was gathered through: 1) a building tour; 2) a web-based survey distributed to the
building occupants; and 3) an assessment by the maintenance staff.
IV. Survey Response Rate:
The survey was conducted during the spring of 2011. It was distributed to 66 occupants – 12
faculty and 54 majors. 21 people responded for an overall response rate of 32%. The faculty
response rate was 58%; the student rate was 26%.
V. Project Description:
This project renovated and significantly enlarged the existing Drama Building to house the
Visual and Performing Arts Department, which offers a Bachelor of Arts degree in Liberal Arts
and Sciences with majors and minors in Art, Music, and Theatre. The project scope included
10,062 square feet of renovation and 28,950 square feet of new construction. The building
houses a 200 seat blackbox theater for drama and music performances, and its support spaces,
such as storage and dressing rooms, a scene shop, a costume shop, and computer and drafting
labs. The building also includes: a rehearsal space for drama, band, and chorus activities;
classrooms; faculty offices; art studios; and an art gallery.
VI. Summary of Evaluation Findings:
Overall Building - 75% of the respondents had a positive impression of the building. 25% had a
negative impression. 65% indicated that it is easy for people to find their way around the
building. 80% of respondents felt that the courtyard was not used
Building’s Surroundings - 90% felt safe in the areas around the building. 10% had no opinion.
33
Offices - 57% felt that these spaces met their needs, 21% were neutral, and 21% were
dissatisfied. 50% were dissatisfied with the level of sound privacy. 59% were dissatisfied with
the room temperatures. 77% indicated that the temperatures negatively impacted their work.
Theater Spaces - 58% were satisfied with the functionality of these spaces; 21% were not. The
theater and house lighting had the highest positive responses. 42% of the respondents were
dissatisfied with the temperature with 58% indicating that the temperatures negatively impacted
their work. 61% were dissatisfied with the acoustics. This may be due to the fact that the
blackbox serves both drama and choral programs, which can require quite different acoustical
needs.
Music Spaces - 59% were satisfied with the functionality of these spaces; 29% were not.
Lighting had the highest positive responses. 56% were dissatisfied with the temperature with
65% indicating that the temperatures negatively impacted their work. Acoustics received higher
positive responses and lower negative responses than the theatre spaces.
Art Spaces - 46% were satisfied with the functionality of these spaces; 8% were not. 31% had a
positive impression of the lighting, only 8% had a negative impression. Temperature and sound
privacy had the lowest positive response rates and highest negative response rates, but 62% of
the respondents gave these items a neutral ranking.
Thermal Comfort Findings - The thermal comfort verification credit for the LEED certification
program requires corrective action if more than 20% of the building occupants are dissatisfied
with the thermal comfort in the building. With the number of respondents dissatisfied with the
temperatures, corrective action would have been required to achieve the thermal comfort credit if
this building had participated in the LEED certification process.
LEED Status - N/A (This project predates the BOV requirement for LEED certification.)
VII. Actions and Recommendations:
Temperature - Of the surveyed building features, temperature consistently received low
rankings in all of the program spaces. In addition, respondents indicated that the temperatures
had a negative impact on their work.
Action (Corrective): Corrective action is being taken. Building temperatures have been
affected by problems with the central chiller plant in the Hunter J. Smith Dining
Commons. These problems have been corrected, and temperature complaints have been
reduced. The College recently met with the contractor to discuss additional measures that
could be taken to further improve the HVAC system. In the future, consideration should
be given to implementing enhancements when major repairs or replacements are needed.
Recommendations (For Future Buildings): Future projects should meet the design
criteria for HVAC systems, as found in the University’s Facilities Design Guidelines.
When appropriate, enhanced commissioning should be used on future buildings. This
will improve occupant satisfaction, optimize energy use and minimize operating costs.
Blackbox Acoustics - Of the features evaluated by this survey, acoustics received a low positive
response rate and the highest negative response rate. Nine comments made on the blackbox, five
34
dealt with acoustics. Two of the three blackbox comments made in the survey section on the
overall building dealt with poor acoustics.
Action (Corrective): Acoustic measures in the blackbox should be enhanced to support
both theater and choral performances as funding is available. As a first step, it is
suggested that an acoustician be hired to evaluate the room’s acoustics and to make
recommendations for improvements.
Recommendations (For Future Buildings): Acousticians should be included on the
design teams for all buildings with performance spaces. Special attention focused on
those spaces that serve multiple functions such as choral and theater performances.
Courtyard - Although the courtyard was envisioned as space for outdoor performances, events,
and gatherings, the responses and comments indicate that it is not used. This appears to be due
in part to aesthetics and to environmental conditions.
Action (Corrective): To help fulfill the programmatic vision for the courtyard,
enhancements, such as planters, tables, chairs, graphics, and shade features (umbrellas,
awnings, etc.), should be added as funding is available.
Recommendations (For Future Buildings): The design of courtyards should take
environmental factors, such as sun exposure, heat gain, and breezes into account.
Elements, such as shade control, landscaping, site furnishings, should be incorporated
into the project scopes.
35
Hunter J. Smith Dining Commons
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 at its April 4, 2004 meeting that Post Occupancy
Evaluations be completed for capital projects approximately one year after beneficial occupancy.
This project was completed in January, 2010.
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, and
functional components that work well and those that are problematic. The process supports the
University’s LEED program by assessing occupant satisfaction with thermal comfort.
III. Methodology:
Information was gathered through: 1) a building tour; 2) a web-based survey distributed to
students on the meal plan, faculty, and staff; and 3) an assessment by the maintenance staff.
IV. Survey Response Rate:
The survey was conducted during the spring of 2011. It was distributed to 806 students and to
304 faculty and staff. 82 students responded for a response rate of 10%. 63 faculty and staff
responded for a response rate of 21%.
V. Project Description:
The Hunter J. Smith Dining Commons is a 20,000 GSF, two-story structure. It provides seating
for 300 in the main dining room, which is on the second floor, to take advantage of views of the
quad to the East and the lake to the West. The facility includes Papa Joe’s Café on the first floor
for light retail fare, after hours gathering, and entertainment. The building has a small
meeting/dining room for conferences and meetings. There are two terraces for dining and
seating: one faces the residential quad and the other faces the lake.
VI. Summary of Evaluation Findings:
Overall Building - 87% of the students and faculty/staff had a positive impression of the
building. 9% of students and 10% of the faculty/staff had negative impressions.
Building’s Surroundings - 57% of the students and 64% of faculty/staff indicated that the
terraces were useful. 23% of the students and 9% of faculty/staff felt they were not. 85% of the
students felt safe in the areas around the building; 10% did not. 79% of faculty/staff felt safe;
2% did not.
36
Main Dining Room - Students and faculty/staff gave the main dining room high positive
assessments and low negative assessments. Servery layout and acoustics, however, received
relatively low positive responses and the highest negative responses. For the servery, the
positive response rate for students was 65%; for faculty/staff it was 68%. The negative response
rate for both groups was 28%. Students had four comments on the servery layout, all negative;
faculty/staff provided three negative comments. For acoustics, the student positive response rate
was 61%; for faculty/staff it was 56%. The negative response rate for students was 29%; for
faculty/staff it was 33%.
Papa Joe’s Café - As with the main dining room, students and faculty/staff gave Papa Joe’s high
positive assessments and low negative assessments. Seating capacity and acoustics received
lower positive responses and higher negative responses. For seating, the positive response rate
was 36% for students and 43% for faculty/staff; negative response rates were 57% for students
and 18% for faculty/staff. For acoustics, the positive response rate was 45% for students and
49% for faculty/staff Negative response rates were 37% for students, and 25% for faculty/staff.
Thermal Comfort Findings - The thermal comfort verification credit for the LEED certification
program requires corrective action if more than 20% of the occupants are dissatisfied with
thermal comfort. The negative response rates for occupant groups were significantly lower than
20%. For students the rate for the main dining room was 8%; for Papa Joe’s Café it was 5%.
For faculty/ staff, the rate was 7%; for Papa Joe’s Café it was 0%.
LEED Status: Certification is pending.
VII. Actions and Recommendations:
Servery Layout - Respondents gave the servery layout a negative response rate of 28%. The
servery also received seven negative comments.
Action (Corrective): While the servery layout is fixed, it is recommended that different
station arrangements and serving line configurations be tried to relieve congestion. It is
also recommended that reconfiguration of the layout be considered when it is time for a
building renovation or upgrade.
Recommendations (For Future Buildings): Require dining consultants to focus more
attention on the servery layout and function from a user perspective.
Acoustics - Respondents gave acoustics high negative ratings for dining spaces. One student
commented on the café acoustics. Faculty/staff provided comments on both spaces.
Action (Corrective): As funding allows, acoustic measures should be incorporated into
these spaces to help absorb the sound that reflects off hard floor and wall surfaces.
Recommendations (For Future Buildings): Acousticians should be included on the
design teams for all buildings with large dining spaces.
Roof Snow Guards - The maintenance assessment noted that the snow guards had been applied
with adhesive in mid-pan and that they did not survive the first Southwest Virginia winter and
were replaced with snow guards applied via hardware on roof seams.
Action (Corrective): Corrective action has already been taken.
37
Recommendations (For Future Buildings): Snow guards on future buildings should be
mechanically adhered.
Other Issues - The survey results and comments indicate that this building has been well
received. While servery and acoustical enhancements will help make the building even more
successful, consideration should also be given to adding seats in the café for performances since
students gave seating sufficiency a negative response rating of 57%. Finally, programming
special or specific activities for the terraces may be a way of increasing their use.
38