REVISED 9/28/2007
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS
MEETING OF THE
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 4, 2007
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS COMMITTEE
Thursday, October 4, 2007
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Board Room, The Rotunda
Committee Members:
Lewis F. Payne, Chair
Daniel R. Abramson
Alan A. Diamonstein
Susan Y. Dorsey
Thomas F. Farrell, II
G. Slaughter Fitz-Hugh, Jr.
Vincent J. Mastracco, Jr.
Carey J. Mignerey
Don R. Pippin
Gordon F. Rainey, Jr.
W. Heywood Fralin, Ex Officio
AGENDA
PAGE
I.
II.
CONSENT AGENDA (Ms. Sheehy)
A.
Architect/Engineer Selections
1. ITC Data Center
2. Jordan Hall HVAC Replacement
B.
Demolitions
1. West Garage and East End Substation
2. Faculty Houses at The University of
Virginia’s College at Wise
C.
Easements
1. South Lawn - Valley Road Cul de Sac
2. South Lawn – Brandon Avenue Walkway
ACTION ITEMS (Ms. Sheehy)
A.
Project Approvals: Science Initiative
1. Information Technology Engineering Building
Expansion
2. Ivy Translational Research Center Expansion
3. Physical/Life Sciences Building Construction
B.
Project Budget Review, Scott Stadium Waterproofing
C.
Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines (Ms. Sheehy
to introduce Mr. David J. Neuman; Mr. Neuman
to report)
1. Klockner Stadium Expansion
2. Baseball Stadium Expansion
3. ITC Data Center
4. Printing and Copying Services Addition
D.
Concept and Design Guidelines, “Rugby
Administrative Building” Renovation
1
1
2
3
4
4
6
8
9
15
21
26
33
E.
Schematic Designs at The University of
Virginia’s College at Wise
1. Science Building Renovation
2. New Residence Hall
3. New Dining Hall
38
41
45
III. REPORTS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET (Ms. Sheehy)
A.
Vice President’s Remarks
B.
Six-Year Plan Submittal Follow up
C.
A/E Selections for Projects less than $5M
50
IV.
51
REPORTS BY THE ARCHITECT FOR THE UNIVERSITY
(Mr. Neuman)
A.
Grounds Plan
B.
University of Virginia’s College at Wise
Chancellor’s Residence
C.
Post Occupancy Evaluation - Observatory Hill
Dining Hall (Written Report)
49
52
BOARD OF VISITORS CONSENT AGENDA
A.1. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, ITC DATA CENTER
CONSTRUCTION. Approval of architect/engineer selection.
This project constructs a new 12,500 GSF building behind
the Printing and Copying Services Building on the Old Ivy
Road, and adjacent to the Fontana Building. The Department of
Information Technology and Communications (ITC) will use the
new facility to house servers and related equipment, including
critical core systems, as well as more specialized systems.
The new Data Center will create adequate back-up for the main
servers in Carruthers Hall in case of power outage due to
storms or emergency events.
We recommend the selection of Osteen Phillips of
Charlottesville for the contract.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECT SELECTION FOR THE ITC DATA CENTER
CONSTRUCTION
RESOLVED that Osteen Phillips of Charlottesville is
approved for the performance of architectural and engineering
services for the ITC Data Center at the University of
Virginia.
A.2. ENGINEER SELECTION, JORDAN HALL HVAC REPLACEMENT.
Approval of engineer selection.
This project, part of the overall initiative to address
deferred maintenance, replaces the 35-year old HVAC system in
Jordan Hall, a biomedical research facility of the School of
Medicine.
We recommend the selection of RMF Engineering Inc. of
Charlottesville for the contract.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
1
APPROVAL OF ENGINEER SELECTION FOR THE JORDAN HALL HVAC
REPLACEMENT
RESOLVED that RMF Engineering of Charlottesville is
approved for the performance of architectural and engineering
services for the Jordan Hall HVAC Replacement at the
University of Virginia.
B.1. DEMOLITION, WEST GARAGE AND EAST END SUBSTATION:
Approval to remove buildings
The West Parking Garage (207-1144) was built in 1981; it
currently provides 334 automobile parking spaces for visitors
and patients at the University of Virginia Medical Center.
The building will be demolished to make room for the Emily
Couric Clinical Cancer Center which will be constructed on the
site. Parking lost by the demolition will be replaced by the
new garage, which will house in excess of 1,000 automobiles,
under construction on West Main Street and 11th Street. The
Department of Historic Resources and the Art and Architectural
Review Board, both agencies of the Commonwealth, have approved
the demolition of this building.
The East End Substation (207-7139) was built in 1968 to
provide electrical service to the quickly growing University.
The substation will be demolished to make room for the Emily
Couric Clinical Cancer Center. The electrical capacity will
be replaced by the Cavalier Substation currently under
construction. The Department of Historic Resources and the
Art and Architectural Review Board have approved the
demolition of this building.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
DEMOLITION OF WEST GARAGE AND EAST END SUBSTATION
WHEREAS, The West Garage (Building Number 207-1144), and
the East End Substation (Building Number 207-7139) must be
demolished to facilitate the construction of the Emily Couric
Clinical Cancer Center; and
2
WHEREAS, the Art and Architectural Review Board and the
Department of Historic Resources, agencies of the
Commonwealth, have approved the removal of these structures;
RESOLVED, the removal of structures 207-1144 and 207-7139
is approved by the Board of Visitors; and
RESOLVED FURTHER, the Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer is authorized to execute any and all
documents pertaining to the removal of these buildings.
B.2. DEMOLITION, FACULTY HOUSES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
VIRGINIA’S COLLEGE AT WISE: Approval to remove buildings
Two faculty houses (246-8373 and 246-8374) at The
University of Virginia’s College at Wise must be demolished to
make room for a 116 bed student residence hall. The houses
are single story brick structures of approximately 1,222
square feet each and were built in 1958.
The Department of Historic Resources and the Art and
Architectural Review Board have approved the demolition of
these buildings.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
DEMOLITION OF FACULTY HOUSES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA’S
COLLEGE AT WISE
WHEREAS, two faculty houses (246-8373 and 246-8374) at
The University of Virginia’s College at Wise must be
demolished to facilitate the construction of a new student
residence hall; and
WHEREAS, the Art and Architectural Review Board and the
Department of Historic Resources of the Commonwealth have
approved the removal of these structures;
RESOLVED, the removal of structures 246-8373 and 246-8374
is approved by the Board of Visitors; and
3
RESOLVED FURTHER that the Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer is authorized to execute any and all
documents pertaining to the removal of the aforementioned
buildings.
C.1. EASEMENT, RELOCATE OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL WIRES FOR THE
VALLEY ROAD CUL DE SAC (DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER): Approval to
grant an easement to Dominion Virginia Power
To facilitate the construction of the new Valley Road cul
de sac in conjunction with the South Lawn Project, the
University has asked Dominion Virginia Power to relocate
overhead utility lines. To accomplish this, Dominion Virginia
Power requires a permanent easement from the University in the
vicinity of 408 and 502 Valley Road. The easement will be
approximately 30 feet in width and 250 feet in length.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT TO RELOCATE OVERHEAD
ELECTRICAL WIRES FOR THE VALLEY ROAD CUL DE SAC (DOMINION
VIRGINIA POWER
RESOLVED, the Board approves the granting of a permanent
easement to Dominion Virginia Power to relocate overhead
lines, poles, and equipment to facilitate the construction of
the Valley Road cul de sac, in the vicinity of Valley Road, on
property owned by The Rector and Visitors of the University of
Virginia; and
RESOLVED FURTHER that appropriate officers of the
University are authorized to execute said easement.
C.2. EASEMENT, PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT BETWEEN VALLEY ROAD
AND BRANDON AVENUE (CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE): Approval to
grant an easement to the City of Charlottesville
As a condition of approving the closing of Valley Road
for the benefit of the South Lawn Project, the Charlottesville
City Council requires the University of Virginia to dedicate a
permanent pedestrian easement. This easement will capture the
as built sidewalk from the Valley Road cul de sac to Brandon
Avenue.
4
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL OF PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY TO
CONNECT VALLEY ROAD AND BRANDON AVENUE (CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE)
RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors approves the granting of
a permanent easement to the City of Charlottesville for a
permanent pedestrian walkway to connect Valley Road and
Brandon Avenue, on property owned by The Rector and Visitors
of the University of Virginia; and
RESOLVED, that appropriate officers of the University are
authorized to execute said easements.
5
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.A. Project Approvals:
Initiative
Science
BACKGROUND: Normally, the Board of Visitors approves major
capital projects every two years as part of the Six Year Major
Capital Project program. When the University identifies new
capital projects outside the Six Year Major Capital Project
cycle, approval by the Buildings and Grounds and Finance
Committees is required.
DISCUSSION: As a part of a comprehensive science initiative,
the University proposes three capital project amendments or
additions to provide sufficient new laboratory space to house
new research and instructional programs. The University
proposes to maximize two approved building projects and to
construct a new science facility, which will add over 190,000
gross square feet (gsf) of new science and research capacity:
1. Information Technology Engineering Building Expansion –
The University’s highest priority request to the state is
$40.2 million towards the construction of a $56.7
million, 73,000 gsf facility for the School of
Engineering and Applied Science. We will maximize this
building site by adding 27,000 gsf at an additional cost
of $19.6 million.
2. Ivy Translational Research Center Expansion – The
University is currently planning the $35 million
construction of an approximately 41,000 gsf facility in
Fontaine Research Park. We will maximize this building
site, at an additional cost of $58.3 million, and
construct a 110,000 gsf health sciences research
facility.
3. Physical/Life Sciences Building Construction – The
University proposes to construct a 100,000 gsf physical
and life sciences research facility near the Chemistry
Building on the central Grounds at a cost of $88.9
million.
6
The expanded scopes of the Information Technology
Engineering building and the Ivy Translational Research Center
and the new physical/life sciences research facility will be
funded from University debt, to be repaid from overhead
recoveries from research grants and contracts and other
University resources.
ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
Committee and by the Board of Visitors
APPROVAL TO EXPAND THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING
BUILDING, EXPAND THE IVY TRANSLATION RESEARCH CENTER, AND
CONSTRUCT A NEW PHYSICAL/LIFE SCIENCES FACILITY
WHEREAS, the University of Virginia desires to increase
available research and laboratory space to meet long-term
objectives to increase research in medicine, engineering, and
the sciences;
WHEREAS, the University has developed a comprehensive
science initiative to increase previously planned construction
at the Information Technology Engineering Building to
approximately 100,000 gross square feet and at the Ivy
Translational Research Center to approximately 110,000 gross
square feet and to construct a new approximately 100,000 gross
square foot physical/life sciences facility;
WHEREAS, the University intends to issue $19.6 million in
debt for the expansion of the Information Technology
Engineering Building project; $58.3 million in debt for the
expansion of the Ivy Translational Research Center; and $88.9
million in debt for the construction of the physical/life
sciences facility;
RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors approves the addition of
the projects to the University’s capital program.
7
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.B.
Project Budget Review
BACKGROUND: In accordance with the policy adopted by the
Board of Visitors in October 2004, all capital project budget
increases in excess of 10 percent require the approval of the
Finance and Buildings and Grounds Committees.
DISCUSSION: At its June 8, 2007 meeting, the Board of
Visitors approved the University’s Annual Renovation and
Infrastructure Plan (ARIP), a detailed list of renovation and
infrastructure projects expected to cost between $1 million
and $5 million, to be funded with non-general fund cash (no
debt), and to be initiated within the next fiscal year.
The Scott Stadium Waterproofing project was approved at
an estimated budget of $2,357,000 on the 2007-08 ARIP. This
estimate was based on continuing the repair and remediation
efforts that had been undertaken previously with limited
success. A waterproofing consultant was engaged and it was
determined that the primary water intrusion was occurring at
locations that had not previously been identified or treated.
Due to the complexity in treating the new intrusion areas, the
cost of the project will actually be $4.7 million, an increase
almost double the amount originally expected.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF PROJECT BUDGET MODIFICATION
RESOLVED that after further study an increase to the
Scott Stadium Waterproofing project of $2,343,000, bringing
the total project budget to $4.7 million, is approved.
8
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.C.1. Concept, Site, and Design
Guidelines, Klockner Stadium Expansion
$10.53 to $13.03 million Gifts
BACKGROUND: This project expands Klockner Stadium by adding a
new facility to be located opposite the existing grandstand
and press box, on the long axis of the field. Like the
original construction, the new facility will engage the
colonnade that encircles the field and defines the stadium.
The new facility will house game-day locker rooms for
both men’s and women’s soccer and lacrosse, a training room
for the teams, and a coach’s room at field level. A new
entrance from Massie Road will serve as a “hall of fame” that
will be open to the public and for special events. The second
level of the new facility will house a limited access club
facility, an outdoor viewing terrace and premium box seating.
The option for a third level has been added to offer suites
and premium box seating. While not in the original scope or
approved budget ($10.53 million), the concept allows for this
added feature if private funds can be raised to cover the
additional cost ($2.5 million). The existing game-day locker
room in Klockner Stadium will be converted to visiting teams’
and officials’ use.
DISCUSSION: The Office of the Architect has prepared the
concept, site and design guidelines. This project is
contingent on private fundraising and will not proceed until
adequate funds are raised. Mr. Neuman will review the
guidelines with the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
9
APPROVAL OF CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE
KLOCKNER EXPANSION
RESOLVED that the concept, site, and design guidelines,
dated October 4, 2007, and prepared by the Architect for the
University for the Klockner Expansion, are approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER that the project will be presented for
further review at the schematic design level of development.
10
Klockner Stadium Expansion
Concept, Site and Design Guidelines
PROPOSED PROJECT CONCEPT:
The University has four, highly competitive programs that use Klockner Stadium – men’s
lacrosse, women’s lacrosse, men’s soccer and women’s soccer. Klockner’s team facilities are
overcrowded and outdated. This project will enhance the University’s soccer and lacrosse
coaches’ ability to recruit and develop the best possible student athletes. The stadium expansion
will also allow the University of Virginia to sponsor coaching clinics; state cup and high school
championships; conference, regional and national intercollegiate contests and tournaments;
United States Soccer Federation events; and national team Olympic qualifiers.
Significant team accomplishments:
• The Virginia men’s lacrosse team compiled an overall record of 17-0 and won the
NCAA and ACC Championships in 2006.
• The Virginia women’s lacrosse team won the 2006 ACC Championship and
competed in the NCAA Tournament for the 11th consecutive year. The Cavaliers
have won three NCAA Championships, most recently in 2004, and three ACC
Championships.
• The Virginia men’s soccer team has won five NCAA Championships and participated
in the NCAA Tournament for the 25th consecutive year in 2005. The Cavaliers won
the ACC Championship in 2003 and 2004, and have won 14 conference
championships overall.
• The Virginia women’s soccer team participated in the NCAA Tournament for the 12th
consecutive year in 2005, advancing to the tournament’s quarterfinals.
During the 2006 season, Virginia established an NCAA single-season attendance record with a
combined total of 43,183 fans filling Klockner Stadium. Attendance records for both men’s
soccer and lacrosse were broken this season.
Klockner Stadium was considered state of the art among college soccer facilities when it opened
in 1992. The facility garnered numerous design awards. The stadium remains one of the finest
facilities in the country for players and fans alike.
The existing facility has permanent seating in the grandstand for 3,600 (with additional hillside
seating for approximately 3,500 people), a regulation-size natural grass field, team locker rooms,
a press box, scoreboard, concession stands and rest rooms.
The new facility will house both men’s and women’s soccer and lacrosse game-day locker
rooms, team training room, and a coaches’ room at field level. The entrance from Massey Road
will serve as a “hall of fame” that will be open to the public and for special events. The second
level will house a limited access club facility, an outdoor viewing terrace and premium box
seating. If sufficient funding is obtained, a third level may be added that will offer suites and
premium box seating.
11
PROPOSED SITE:
Several locations around the field were considered with functional program adjacencies,
viewing angles and spatial impacts evaluated. The addition will be located opposite the
existing facility on the long axis of the field. This site supports the program requirements
and the functional needs of the players, coaches and fans. Like the original construction, the
new facility will engage the colonnade that encircles the field and defines the stadium. This
site provides for excellent viewing and site lines, as well as a strong street presence. The
symmetrical arrangement of the two buildings preserves the balance of the composition, both
in plan and in section. Depressing the first level within the hill will maintain the scale of the
complex and conserves the public circulation space that Klockner shares with the UVA
Baseball Stadium. The following page contains the University’s standard siting criteria with
the most relevant to this project highlighted in bold text.
Klockner
Expansion
Existing
Future
12
SITING CRITERIA
University of Virginia general siting criteria for all new facilities:
•
Conforms with overall land use plan and district/area plans.
•
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.
•
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 accommodate its users in an efficient and
highly functional fashion.
13
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
Site Planning
- Site planning must consider the project’s impact on the existing stadium and immediate
area, as well as the impact on adjacent fields and activities.
- The building siting and massing must consider sight lines from Massey Road and
minimize intrusion into the pedestrian pathway system. A minimum of 30’ setback from
Massie Road is required.
- The new facility must have direct access to the Klockner playing field.
Circulation and Parking
- The plan must preserve existing service and emergency vehicle circulation and parking.
- The pathways and plazas should improve game-day pedestrian circulation, as well as
clarify ticketing and access for both the baseball stadium and and Klockner Stadium.
Architecture
- The massing of the new addition must enhance the design of the original stadium.
- The new structure will create a strong and inviting street presence from Massey Road and
create an identity for the soccer and lacrosse programs. Architectural expression should
compliment the existing Klockner facility, while linking it visually with the larger
athletic precinct.
- The hall of fame facility should engage passers-by with well-designed exhibits that
showcase the University’s athletic achievements.
- The facility should provide a variety of seating and viewing options.
- Evaluate and integrate the basic tenets of sustainable design to obtain LEED certification.
Landscape
- The existing landscape is a dominant theme of the stadium design. Care should be taken
to preserve the distinctive rolling topography and colonnade and to integrate these
elements into the new facility.
- The entry plaza should be an inviting transition into this athletic complex, engaging
existing pathway systems.
- Design must continue to include informal outdoor grass seating.
Review and Compliance
The Office of the Architect for the University is responsible for the review and approval of
project compliance with these guidelines.
14
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.C.2. Concept, Site, and Design
Guidelines, Baseball Stadium Expansion
$3,300,000 Gifts
BACKGROUND: This project builds out the UVA Baseball Stadium
to increase the available seating and to enhance team
facilities. The project extends the permanent grandstand
seating along the left- and right- field lines. The upper
deck and concourse also will be extended to provide additional
seating, more restrooms and added space for concessions.
Improvements to the Stadium include expanded team dugouts,
bullpens and a batting cage. All proposed additions are
contained within the boundaries of the existing baseball
stadium.
DISCUSSION: The Office of the Architect has prepared the
concept, site and design guidelines. Mr. Neuman will review
the guidelines with the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE UVA
BASEBALL STADIUM EXPANSION
RESOLVED that the concept, site, and design guidelines,
dated October 4, 2007, and prepared by the Architect for the
University for the Baseball Stadium Expansion, are approved;
and
RESOLVED FURTHER that the project will be presented for
further review at the schematic design level of development.
15
UVA Baseball Stadium Expansion
Concept, Site and Design Guidelines
PROPOSED PROJECT CONCEPT:
The UVA Baseball Stadium features a 1,500-seat canopied grandstand, and seats up to 2,000.
Recent projects have added a new press box, private skyboxes, new dugouts for both the
home and visiting teams, and an onsite clubhouse and locker room. Lights, a digital
scoreboard, concession stands and restrooms have also recently been added.
The Cavaliers finished the 2007 season with an overall record of 45-16, including a 19-9
record in the Atlantic Coast Conference. Virginia had a school-record five All-ACC
selections in 2007, including three players named to the first team, and also had a schoolrecord six players selected in the recent Major League Baseball draft. UVA baseball coach,
Brian O'Connor was the 2004 ACC Baseball Coach of the Year and earned 2006 College
Baseball Foundation Coach of the Year honors.
The success of the team has led to record-breaking attendance, which has not been easily
accommodated in the present facility. Temporary rental seating was used to meet demand
during the 2007 season, but this is not a reasonable long-term solution as it is costly and does
not provide the required support facilities for the additional fans. Hosting conference and
post-season games has also added pressure to provide visiting team amenities commonly
found in stadium facilities at other schools within the conference.
A full build-out of the stadium proposes expanding the permanent grandstand seating along
the left and right field lines. The upper deck and concourse can also be extended to provide
additional seating, toilet facilities and space for concessions. Improvements to the facility
include team dugouts, bullpens and a batting cage. Site access and circulation will require
modification to accommodate the increased volume of people and new pedestrian patterns.
16
PROPOSED SITE:
Several schemes were considered with functional program adjacencies and spatial impacts
evaluated for each. All proposed additions are contained within the boundaries of the
existing baseball stadium. Exterior appearance, sight lines, access and circulation were all
considered. The following page contains the University’s standard citing criteria with the
most relevant to the project
Baseball Stadium Expansion
17
SITING CRITERIA:
University of Virginia general siting criteria for all new facilities:
•
Conforms with overall land use plan and district/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.
18
UVA Baseball Stadium Grandstand
Davenport Field – View from Grandstand
19
DESIGN GUIDELINES:
Site Planning
- Site planning must consider the project’s impact on the existing stadium, as well as the
impact on adjacent fields and activities.
- The building siting and massing must consider sight lines from Copeley Road and
minimize encroachment into the pedestrian pathway system.
Circulation and Parking
- Preserve existing service and emergency vehicle circulation and parking.
- Pathways and plazas should improve game day pedestrian circulation, clarify ticketing
and access for both the UVA Baseball Stadium and Klockner Stadium.
Architecture
- Care must be taken that any new addition enhances the original stadium, without
detracting from it.
- Architectural materials should continue the use of the existing material palette.
Landscape
- The existing landscape is a dominant theme of the stadium design.
- Design must include informal outdoor grass spectator seating.
Review and Compliance
The Office of the Architect for the University is responsible for the review and approval of
project compliance with these guidelines.
20
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.C.3. Concept, Site, and Design
Guidelines- ITC Data Center
$12,900,000 – University Debt
$
161,000 - Auxiliary Reserves
BACKGROUND: This project constructs a new 12,500 gsf building
behind the Printing and Copying Services Building on Old Ivy
Road, and adjacent to the Fontana Building. Information
Technology and Communications (ITC) will use the new facility
to house servers and related equipment, including critical
core systems as well as more specialized systems. The new
facility will require sufficient power, cooling and security
to house this sensitive equipment. The new Data Center will
create adequate back-up for the main servers in Carruthers
Hall in case of power outage due to storms or emergency
events.
The project is funded by University debt and reserves.
The selection of Osteen Phillips of Charlottesville as the
project design architect will also be considered for approval
at this meeting.
DISCUSSION: The Office of the Architect has prepared the
concept, site and design guidelines. Mr. Neuman will review
the guidelines with the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee.
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE ITC
DATA CENTER
RESOLVED that the concept, site, and design guidelines,
dated October 4, 2007, and prepared by the Architect for the
University for the ITC Data Center, on Old Ivy Road, are
approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER that the project will be presented for
further review at the schematic design level of development.
21
ITC Data Center Building
Concept, Site and Design Guidelines
PROPOSED PROJECT CONCEPT:
The Department of Information Technology and Communications (ITC) requires additional
space with sufficient power and cooling to house servers and related equipment that it and
other departments need to provide computing services to the University community. These
computing services include critical core systems as well as more specialized systems. Users
expect and need core computing services to be available without any disruptions due to
power outages. There are currently inadequate facilities to meet this need.
A new 12,500 GSF building to house servers and related equipment is proposed for
University property off Old Ivy Road. An electrical duct bank will bring required power
down Old Ivy Road from a University supply; data lines are already available at the site. The
new building will include appropriate security and mechanical systems to house sensitive
server equipment. This facility will result in adequate back-up for the main servers in
Carruthers Hall in case of power outage due to storms or emergency events. The site is also
convenient from Grounds for service access.
The ITC server building will be located behind Printing and Copying Services, which is
planning an addition. As these structures will be in close proximity to each other, it is
prudent for the projects to be coordinated as far as access, circulation, design character,
stormwater and utility infrastructure. The server building will require an enclosed service
yard to house emergency generators, transformers, condenser units and fuel storage tanks.
Minimal parking is necessary as there will be no fulltime staff, but an area for loading and
unloading equipment is necessary.
PROPOSED SITE
The recommended site is off Old Ivy Road, approximately one and a half (1-1/2) miles from
the Rotunda, behind the Printing & Copying Services (PCS) building and adjacent to the
Fontana Building, where other ITC functions are currently housed. The site is relatively flat
and is open, not requiring tree removals. It is visible from Ivy Road, so consideration will be
given for its appearance from that view. The CSX railroad line runs between this site and Ivy
Road. The proposed ITC building will contribute to a stormwater facility that will be
constructed as part of the PCS addition project. Page 24 contains the University’s standard
citing criteria with the most relevant to the project
22
ITC Data Center – Location Map
ITC Data Center – Existing Site
23
SITING CRITERIA
The University of Virginia general siting criteria for all new facilities:
•
Conforms with overall land use plan and district/area plans.
•
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.
•
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.
24
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Site Planning
- The building site plan will be integrated with the site plan for the Printing and Copying
Services (“PCS”) addition, as the two are in close proximity.
- The necessary equipment yard will be enclosed by masonry wall or opaque fence.
Circulation and Parking
- Minimal parking (2 service spaces) is necessary as there will be no fulltime staff.
- Service to the building for loading and unloading of computer equipment is required.
Architecture
- The design of the new building will be in keeping with the PCS and its addition, utilizing
similar materials, massing, and articulation.
- Mechanical systems will be designed appropriately for the climatic conditions required
by server rooms and will be screened from general view.
- The building will be designed for the appropriate levels of security and server/equipment
storage.
- Evaluate and integrate the basic tenets of sustainable design for new building to obtain
LEED certification.
Landscape
- Plantings around the building will be designed to complement / soften the building’s
exterior, and relate to the planting at the Printing and Copying Services addition.
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:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.C.4. Concept, Site, and Design
Guidelines, Printing & Copying Services
Addition
$ 1,000,000 Debt
$ 1,600,000 Auxiliary Reserves
$ 2,600,000
BACKGROUND: This project adds 15,000 gross square feet of
much needed additional production and storage space for the
Printing and Copying Services facility at 2474 Old Ivy Road.
It also replaces an existing scissor-lift with a loading dock.
The existing building is a former bowling alley, with
offices at the front and a large production space at the back.
The addition will expand this production space.
The budget is $2.6 million with $1 million funded by debt
and $1.6 million funded by auxiliary reserves.
The selection
of Osteen Phillips of Charlottesville as the project design
architect will also be considered for approval at this October
meeting.
DISCUSSION: The Office of the Architect has prepared the
concept, site and design guidelines. Mr. Neuman will review
the guidelines with the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee.
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
26
APPROVAL OF CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE
PRINTING AND COPYING SERVICES ADDITION
RESOLVED that the concept, site, and design guidelines,
dated October 4, 2007, and prepared by the Architect for the
University for the Printing and Copying Services Addition are
approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER that the project will be presented for
further review at the schematic design level of development.
27
Printing and Copying Services Addition
Concept, Site and Design Guidelines
Proposed Project Concept
The Printing and Copying Services addition will provide much needed additional production
and storage space for its existing facility at 2474 Old Ivy Road, adjacent to Fontana and Ivy
Stacks. The existing building, a former bowling alley, is a simple, brick-clad, flat-roof
masonry warehouse structure with offices at the front and a large production space at the
back. The addition will expand this production space and provide for an efficient and
reliable loading dock to replace an existing scissor-lift.
The architectural design for this addition will be compatible with the 1950’s era existing
building by incorporating simple brick veneer walls, a flat roof and some ornamentation at
entrances. Rooftop mechanical equipment will not be allowed. Expanses of brick walls may
be relieved by another appropriate material. While the addition will occur on the “back” of
the building, its appearance from Ivy Road is important, as well as adjacent University
facilities. The interior will be open with suitable vertical clearances to allow for flexibility of
production operations, adequate storage, and efficient flow of work production.
The site plan for this addition must provide certain practical needs, such as truck access for
frequent deliveries, service/visitor/employee parking, replacement and expansion of an
existing stormwater basin and replacement of an existing sewage lift station. However,
because this overall area anticipates expansion of other University facilities, its site design
must take into account that there will be more visitors and employees accessing this site and
the area will cease to be an industrial area and more a part of the University. The stormwater
facility will be designed to be a landscape amenity to the area. Pervious surfaces will be
minimized and the building will be planted with low-maintenance, but attractive plants.
28
Siting Criteria
The University of Virginia general siting criteria for all new facilities include the following
components. Those highlighted are the most pertinent in determining the siting
recommendation for the PCS addition.
•
Conforms with overall land use plan and district/area plans.
•
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.
•
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.
29
Proposed Site
The recommended site is south side of the existing Printing and Copying Services (“PCS”)
building, which is on Old Ivy Road, approximately one and a half (1-1/2) miles west of the
Rotunda. This allows for efficient expansion of the existing production area, which is
located at this end of the building. The proposed loading dock should take advantage of the
fall of the site to the southwest. An existing stormwater basin that serves PCS as well as the
Fontana Building and Ivy Stacks will need to be expanded. Although at the back of the
existing building, this site is quite visible to Ivy Road and the Rte. 29 Bypass interchange.
Printing and Copying Services Addition – Location Map
30
Printing and Copying Services – Existing Facility
Printing and Copying Services Addition – Existing Site
31
Design Guidelines
Site Planning
- Addition shall be located at the rear, or south side, of the existing building, in order to
expand existing production operations.
- An existing stormwater basin will be relocated and expanded and will serve as a site
amenity.
- Impervious surfaces will be minimized.
Circulation and Parking
- Adequate service, visitor and employee parking (50 – 60 spaces) will be provided in an
efficient and organized manner.
- Truck access to new loading dock will be accommodated without extensive pavement
and in a rational and safe manner.
Architecture
- The addition will harmonize with the existing structure in terms of massing and
incorporate such elements as brick, modest ornamentation at entrances and a flat roof.
- Mechanical equipment will not be housed on the flat roof.
- Evaluate and integrate the basic tenets of sustainable design for building addition to
obtain LEED certification.
Landscape
- Plantings around the building will be low-maintenance and will respond to the building
elevations.
- Plantings at the stormwater facility will be native plants that benefit wildlife.
Review and Compliance
The Office of the Architect for the University is responsible for the review and approval of
project compliance with these guidelines.
32
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.D. Concept and Design Guidelines,
“Rugby Administrative Building” Renovation
$ 8,858,000 State General Fund Request
$ 8,858,000 Gifts
$17,716,000
BACKGROUND: This project will renovate the old Faculty
Apartments Building on Rugby Road and convert it to the “Rugby
Administrative Building.”
Built in 1924, the building is located on Rugby Road just
north of the Beta Bridge, toward the center of a triangular
lot bounded by Rugby Road on the east, Lambeth Lane on the
north and University Way to the west and south. It is in close
proximity to the central Grounds and it is also accessible to
the north Grounds. It will provide much-needed administrative
office space.
The building was closed as a residential facility in 2003
after approximately 70 years of use, and has been largely
vacant since then. Only its lower level is in current use as
temporary office space.
The renovation project will return all floors of the
building to active use, but as administrative office space,
and at the same time strive to preserve the distinctive
character and historic fabric of the building. The project
also will provide the first opportunity for the University to
seek LEED certification for the renovation of a historic
building.
The current funding plan includes state general funds for
half of the project and gifts funding the remaining half.
DISCUSSION: The Office of the Architect has prepared the
concept and design guidelines. Mr. Neuman will review the
guidelines with the Committee.
33
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE
“RUGBY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING” RENOVATION
RESOLVED that the concept, site, and design guidelines,
dated October 4, 2007, and prepared by the Architect for the
University for the “Rugby Administrative Building” renovation
are approved; and
RESOLVED FURTHER that the project will be presented for
further review at the schematic design level of development.
34
“Rugby
Administrative Building”
Concept and Design Guidelines
PROPOSED PROJECT CONCEPT
The “Rugby Administrative Building” project will achieve several important goals for the
University. The renovation will return to active use an important building which has been largely
vacant for many years. It will provide much-needed office space for senior administrative faculty
and staff in close proximity to the Central Grounds and to other administrative offices. Finally, it
will provide the first opportunity to apply the University’s sustainability program to an historic
building.
The “Rugby Administrative Building” was constructed in 1924 and is significant as one of Fiske
Kimball’s last works at the University of Virginia. With its red brick, white trim and Ionic order,
the building is a notable example of the Jeffersonian Classicism that vanquished all other styles at
the University during the early 20th century. Constructed to provide housing for faculty
members, it was one of the few such buildings to be completed after Jefferson’s pavilions, and
the only one to be composed of multiple units. The building served its original purpose for over
70 years. Minor renovations had no effect on the exterior and little effect on the interior; it
remains today substantially as it was completed. The changing nature of the real estate market
and demand for University-owned apartments lead to the building’s closing in August 2003.
Today, only the lower level remains occupied as temporary office space.
The building is just north of Beta Bridge, toward the center of a triangular lot bounded by Rugby
Road on the east, Lambeth Lane on the north, and University Way to the west and south. Its
prominent location near the crest of a hill offers views of the mountains to the west, and a deep
setback from Rugby Road provides a gracious approach to the main entrance. The west side of
the building overlooks the Lambeth Colonnade, which was historically closely associated with
this site. The Central Grounds and the Arena are within a 10 minute walking distance; the North
Grounds are also easily accessible.
The upper three floors originally contained from four to eight apartments each. Depending on
the program, these suites could stand alone as offices for small groups or be combined for larger
departments. Large central halls on the second and third floors would allow for reception and
staff areas if an entire floor were occupied by a single user. Careful programming and design
will ensure that the historic integrity of the interior is maintained while new uses and an elevator
are introduced.
The lower level had service spaces and a communal dining room for the original tenants. These
rooms were converted to their current office use in the early 1950s. The eastern side of this level
is functionally a cellar, and will be given over to mechanical uses. The western side, although
subdivided now by later partitions, has several very large rooms which could serve as large group
offices, meeting rooms or even classrooms. The existing windows at this level are relatively
small and high on the interior walls, so they would be enlarged to make the lower level spaces
more appealing. Depending on the ultimate use of the lower level, the windows could be
converted to doors which gave access to a terrace which might be created at the western side of
the building.
35
Design Guidelines
Site Planning
- Locate service access and trash/recycling area at the northern side of the building in close
proximity to existing parking lot.
- Investigate creating a terrace on western side of lower level to take advantage of view of
Lambeth Colonnade and mountains.
Circulation and Parking
- Renovate existing circular entrance drive to provide gracious entry to building.
- Accommodate handicap and guest parking in four spaces along the entrance drive.
- Accommodate remaining parking needs in existing lot, along University Way and in Arts
Grounds garage.
- Repair or replace existing sidewalks and steps within the property to facilitate movement
through the site.
Architecture
- Introduce new office uses to building while preserving the distinctive character and
principle historic fabric of the building interior.
- Design barrier-free access, which will include approach to front door and the addition of
an elevator, to have a minimal effect on the appearance of the building.
- Design alterations to the western building façade in a manner which is harmonious with
the age and style of the building.
- Consider all alterations to the building in the context of the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation.
- Evaluate and integrate the basic tenets of sustainable design for existing buildings to
obtain LEED certification.
Landscape
- Comply with UVa Landscape Master Plan in overall design intent.
- Preserve existing major trees on the site.
- Retain residential character of “green” edge along Rugby Road.
- Incorporate existing significant site features, including the stone wall on the eastern edge
of the property.
- Retain and enhance where possible views into Lambeth Colonnade and Field.
- Carefully screen service yard.
- All site furnishings will comply with the UVa Facilities Design Guidelines; graphics will
comply with University sign standards.
- Landscape design must meet storm water quality and quantity standards of the existing
BMP.
Review and Compliance
The Office of the Architect for the University is responsible for the review and approval of
project compliance with these guidelines.
36
“Rugby Administrative Building”
37
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.E.1. Schematic Design, The University
of Virginia’s College at Wise Science
Building Renovation
$11,171,882 – General Funds
BACKGROUND: This project improves the design and function of
the Science Building at The University of Virginia’s College
at Wise. The building was constructed in 1965 and has never
been renovated. Originally designed to meet the needs of a
two-year science curriculum with an enrollment of 800
students, the building now serves a four-year program with an
enrollment of approximately 1,950 students.
In 1997, the Committee approved the selection of VMDO
Architects of Charlottesville for a feasibility study for the
renovation of the Science Building and for full and complete
architectural/engineering services. The feasibility study
indicated that it made the most sense to build an addition to
the Science Building, and then to renovate the existing
building for functions with more modest infrastructure needs.
The project scope and budget were subsequently expanded to
include the addition, and the Committee approved the design
guidelines and schematic design for the expanded scope. Prior
to preliminary design approval, estimates indicated that the
funding was not sufficient for both the renovation and the
addition, so it was decided to proceed with only the addition.
This addition was subsequently completed in 2003.
The current renovations will address contemporary
teaching practices and the addition of a software engineering
program at the College, as well as building deficiencies and
infrastructure needs. Since the renovation incorporates a new
lobby to the existing building that affects its current
appearance, it is being brought to the Committee for review.
The design follows the approved architectural guidelines for
the campus, and is in concert with the 2003 Science Building
Addition. The project has been funded with $11.2 million
state general funds; a request is pending for an additional
$2.3 million in state general funds due to cost escalation.
38
The selection of VMDO Architects of Charlottesville as
the project design architect was approved on July 26, 2006.
DISCUSSION: The design architects, in conjunction with the
Architect for the University, representatives from the College
at Wise and Facilities Management have developed a schematic
design, which Mr. Neuman will review with the Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR COLLEGE AT WISE SCIENCE
BUILDING
RESOLVED that the schematic design, dated October 4,
2007, and prepared by the Architect for the University in
conjunction with VMDO Architects of Charlottesville for the
renovations to the College at Wise Science Building, is
approved for further development and construction.
39
Science
Building
2006 College at Wise Campus Plan
Existing South Elevation
Existing South Entrance
40
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.E.2. Schematic Design, The University
of Virginia’s College at Wise New
Residence Hall
$9,000,000 – Debt
BACKGROUND: This project constructs a new three-story, 30,900
gsf residence hall at the College at Wise. There will be a
30-person classroom on the first floor to help address the
current classroom shortage and to integrate teaching with
residential facilities.
There will be 120 student beds. The students will be
housed in double rooms with common restrooms for each 24
person community. The first floor of the building will
provide additional community meeting space, laundry
facilities, and an apartment for residential staff, as well as
the classroom with its own entry. The new building is sited
in compliance with the 2006 College at Wise Campus Plan.
This will be the third new dormitory in the College’s
program to increase on-campus housing. With the completion of
this dormitory, the total on-campus bed count will be 799.
Funding will be provided by debt, to be repaid from room
rates. The design complies with The University of Virginia’s
College at Wise architectural guidelines.
The concept site and design guidelines were approved on
May 16, 2006. The selection of Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas
of Norfolk as project design architect was approved on
September 29, 2006.
DISCUSSION: The design architects, in conjunction with the
Architect for the University, and representatives from
Facilities Management and the College at Wise have developed a
schematic design, which Mr. Neuman will review with the
Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
41
APPROVAL OF SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR COLLEGE AT WISE NEW RESIDENCE
HALL
RESOLVED that the schematic design, dated October 4,
2007, and prepared by the Architect for the University in
conjunction with Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas of Norfolk for
the College at Wise New Residence Hall, is approved for
further development and construction.
42
Residence
Hall
2006 College at Wise Campus Plan
New
Residence
Hall
College at Wise – New Residence Hall Site Plan
43
College at Wise – New Residence Hall
44
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
II.E.3. Schematic Design, The University
of Virginia’s College at Wise New Dining
Hall
$9,600,000 – Debt
BACKGROUND: This project constructs a new two-story, 19,900
gross square foot dining hall to replace the dining facilities
in Cantrell Hall at The University of Virginia’s College at
Wise. The first floor will have a kitchen and associated
storage and operations areas, a student lounge and a coffee
house with light retail fare and take-out food. The second
floor will have seating for 300, which will accommodate up to
1,100 students. The dining hall will also serve many of the
conference and convocation needs of the campus. Outdoor
seating will be provided on an adjacent terrace, with views
toward the campus lake. The new building is sited in
compliance with the 2006 College at Wise Campus Plan.
The current dining facility was built in 1982 to feed 350
residential students. With the completion of the proposed new
residence hall in 2009, the College will have 799 residential
students. In addition the overall enrollment by Fall 2010
will be approaching 2,000 students. As a result, the dining
facility at Wise needs to be expanded and updated to meet
enrollment as well as student dining preferences. The project
will be funded by debt to be repaid from meal revenues and
mandatory student fees. The College is also pursuing a
private gift for this facility. If the gift is obtained, the
amount of the required debt will be reduced. The design
complies with The University of Virginia’s College at Wise
architectural design guidelines.
The concept site and design guidelines were approved on
May 16, 2006. The selection of Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas
of Norfolk as the project design architect was approved on
September 29, 2006.
45
DISCUSSION: The design architects, in conjunction with the
Architect for the University, and representatives from
Facilities Management and the College at Wise have developed a
schematic design, which Mr. Neuman will review with the
Committee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Committee
Approval by the Buildings and Grounds
APPROVAL OF SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR COLLEGE AT WISE NEW DINING
HALL
RESOLVED that the schematic design, dated October 4,
2007, and prepared by the Architect for the University in
conjunction with Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas of Norfolk for
the College at Wise New Dining Hall, is approved for further
development and construction.
46
New
Dining Hall
2006 College at Wise Campus Plan
New Dining
Hall
College at Wise – New Dining Hall Site
47
College at Wise – New Dining Hall
48
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
III. Reports by the Vice President for
Management and Budget
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
DISCUSSION: The Vice President for Management and Budget will
present an update on the Six Year Plan State Submittal.
49
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $5 MILLION OR LESS
AND NOT ON TERM CONTRACTS
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2007
Project
Selection Date
A/E Selected
None
50
Description
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
BOARD MEETING:
October 4, 2007
COMMITTEE:
Buildings and Grounds
AGENDA ITEM:
IV. Reports by the Architect for the
University
ACTION REQUIRED:
None
DISCUSSION: The Architect for the University will provide
updates on (1) the Grounds Plan (2) University’s College at
Wise Chancellor’s Residence and (3) the post occupancy
evaluation of the Observatory Hill Dining Hall.
51
Observatory Hill Dining Hall
Post Occupancy Evaluation
Executive Summary
September 19, 2007
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 report, which is the first evaluation to be completed, was
completed two years after the Observatory Hill Dining Hall opened.
II. Purpose
The Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) process is a “lessons learned” exercise to improve the
design, construction, operation, user satisfaction and overall management process of future
buildings by providing an assessment of completed projects. The process identifies the
architectural, engineering, aesthetic and functional components that work well and those that
are problematic. POE processes and reports will assist in future University building efforts;
perhaps most importantly in regards to sustainability efforts including US Green Building
Council (“USGBC”) LEED certification.
III. Methodology
Data was gathered through student surveys, focus group sessions with building occupants
and Facilities Management staff, interviews with senior administrators, a security assessment
conducted by the University Police Department, email inquires, and operational reports
provided by Facilities Management.
IV. Project Description
The Observatory Hill Dining Hall (O-Hill) is a three (3) story, 66,420 gross square foot
building located in the West Grounds of the University at the southwest corner of the
Alderman Road / McCormick Road intersection. The building opened in the fall of 2005. It
serves primarily first year students, and was designed to accommodate approximately 1,100
diners at any given time.
The building consists of four components:
1) A main dining facility serving breakfast, lunch and dinner
2) A convenience store / retail dining facility (The Crossroads) offering packaged
foods and serving pizza and sandwiches
3) Administrative offices for Business Operations and UVA Dining
4) The Observatory Hill Forum, a student meeting and performance space
V. Summary of Evaluation Findings
The Observatory Hill Dining Hall (O-Hill) has been well received by students and staff. Use
of the main dining hall has exceeded expectations. By volume, the facility serves the highest
number of students at the University. The Crossroads is also heavily used. Of the 98
52
students completing surveys, 79% indicated that the building serves as a social gathering
space. The staff also noted that the building, in general, and the lobby and outdoor seating
areas, in particular, are popular gathering spaces. The Forum is heavily used by student
groups. The office suites are functioning well, and are appreciated by the office staff.
While the evaluation participants identified items that are less than ideal, there were no major
design, mechanical, or operational issues that impaired the facility’s success. Some of the
identified items were foreseen during the design phase, and are the result of factors, such as
desired affect, budget limitations, and incorporation of the latest technology. Others are the
result of changes in staff and operations.
It is important to note that some items are due to the constrained building site. Since the
existing dining hall had to be kept in operation while the new building was under
construction, the only site for the new building was a narrow strip of land between the
existing dining hall and McCormick Road. As a result, the Observatory Hill Dining Hall is a
long and narrow, multi-story structure.
The items of significance identified during the evaluation are:
1. 3rd Floor Seating and Terrace Areas: Use of the 3rd floor seating area and its
adjacent terrace has been less than hoped for. This is due to the fact that these areas are
located a floor above the serving area. As a result, students must carry their meals up a
flight of steps. The 3rd floor seating area was not a feature of choice. It was due to a
constrained building site. When it was incorporated into the design, this area was viewed
as one that might appeal to students seeking a quieter dining atmosphere. This has
happened to a degree and should continue. As a result of this experience, Business
Operations has reservations about building future dining facilities with seating and
serving areas on separate floors.
2. Student Temperature Complaints: Students noted that the building can be cold.
While the student surveys did not provide details, it is assumed that these comments refer
to the lobby and dining areas adjacent to the main entrance during the winter months.
Interior / exterior air pressure differences have created situations where the entrance
doors do not always close completely.
3. Tray / Dish Return Location: The location of tray / dish return at the east end of the
building was noted as being inconvenient for students dining at the west end. The
location of the return is a result of the rectangular building configuration and of the
design requirement that this function be kept away from the main entrance and serving
areas. The original Observatory Hill Dining Hall had its tray return area located at the
entrance to the dining room. As a result, the first feature students experienced was the
clutter and odors of the dish room. During the design phase, it was acknowledged that
the proposed location of the tray / dish return would be inconvenient for some students,
but it was determined that the location was far better than having this function at the
center of the building adjacent to the entrance and serving areas.
53
4. Cleaning of the windows and overhangs in the main dining room: The
maintenance staff noted that the dining room’s two-story windows require extra effort to
keep clean. When the decision was made to go with these large expansive windows, it
was acknowledged that they would require additional maintenance, but it was felt that the
open, airy environment they created justified the added effort. Equipment was purchased
to facilitate the cleaning of these windows.
5. Finishes: The wall finishes specified by the architects for the food preparation and
storage areas were not able to withstand the wear and tear associated with these areas.
The walls in these areas have been retrofitted with protective wall coverings and corner
guards.
6. Dining Room Chairs: The fabric covered chairs selected by the architects have not
been as stain resistant as hoped and require steam cleaning.
7. Exhaust hoods: The specified exhaust hoods were state-of-the-art units that use
ultraviolet light to dissipate fat and grease. When the building first opened, some time
was spent learning how to operate them and adjusting them so that they functioned
properly. At this point, there is only one hood that can not operate at maximum capacity.
While these units were expensive and while their filters are hard to access, they have
minimized the cleaning requirements of the exhaust ducts.
8 HVAC: During the opening of the building, the HVAC systems proved to be one of
the more problematic items. It took a while to get these systems properly adjusted and
balanced. The Forum space also required balancing of the HVAC systems to prevent
fogging of the dance mirrors and buckling of the sprung wooden floor.
9. Serving areas: The serving areas in the main dining hall tend to be congested during
peak hours. This is due in part to students moving from line to line. It is also a function
of the serving areas being smaller than desired. The size of these areas had to be reduced
during the design phase to stay within the budget.
10. Entrance/Exit Stairway: This stairway, which connects the lobby and the main
dining floor, is confusing because the traffic flow is the opposite of accepted standards.
Instead of going up or down on the right side one goes up and down on the left. This was
a design element resulting from the constrained building site. It is handled by signs and
with staff providing directions at the beginning of the school year.
11. Storage for the Office Staff: While the building provides more office storage than
the original dining hall, the office staff would have preferred more storage.
VI. Process Notes:
As a part of the evaluation process we chose to gather data through surveys, focus groups,
interviews, tours and facility reports. This mix was found to be particularly useful since each
method tended to capture different types of information.
54
The POE process will be helped by the University’s new requirement that all new buildings
and major renovations be LEED certified since certification requires modeling projections of
energy use. While the two years of energy data indicated that energy use for the dining hall
was down in the second year, and while the building’s energy use is in line with expectations,
a lack of benchmark data prevented a definitive comparison of actual-to-projected energy
use. The LEED modeling projections will provide such benchmarks for future POE’s.
Consideration should be given to coordinating the POE process with the LEED follow-up
documentation requirements.
While the evaluation process identified building specific issues, it also uncovered issues
resulting from misunderstandings, staff changes, and a lack of communication. For example:
1) during one of the focus group sessions it was noted that certain replacement light bulbs
cost $60 each. Upon investigation it was found that while these light bulbs are expensive, the
$60 figure was for a dozen bulbs; 2) even though the kitchen layout was designed by the
dining staff, staff changes had occurred by the time the building opened, and the new staff
identified issues with the layout proposed by the original staff; and 3) while design comments
were solicited from operational staff during the design phase, the staff was not told if their
comments had been accepted or rejected.
55