buildings & grounds committee

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

BOARD OF VISITORS

MEETING OF THE

BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS COMMITTEE

JUNE 5, 2014

BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS COMMITTEE

Thursday, June 5, 2014

3:00 – 4:30 p.m.

Auditorium of the Albert & Shirley Small

Special Collections Library, Harrison Institute

Committee Members:

Timothy B. Robertson, Chair

Hunter E. Craig

Helen E. Dragas

Kevin J. Fay

Frank E. Genovese

William H. Goodwin Jr.

John A. Griffin

John L. Nau III

George Keith Martin, Ex-officio

Timothy Beatley, Faculty

Consulting Member

AGENDA

PAGE

I. REPORTS BY THE ARCHITECT FOR THE UNIVERSITY

(Mr. Robertson to introduce Mr. David J. Neuman; Mr.

Neuman to report)

A. Rotunda Renovations: Landscape Plan 1

B. University/Emmet/Ivy District Planning Study 3

II. EXECUTIVE SESSION

Discussion of a fundraising strategy and

potential gifts from individual donors for a

potential building project, as provided for by

Virginia Code § 2.2-3711 A.(8).

III. ACTION ITEMS (Ms. Sheehy) A. Naming: The Nancy Artis & Douglas Caton 5

Family Park (at the Battle Building at the U.Va.

Children’s Hospital)

B. Project Approval: McCormick Road Residence Hall 7

Renovation

C. Architect/Engineer Selections:

1. Gilmer Hall and Chemistry Building 9

Renovation

2. McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation 10

D. Concept, Site and Design Guidelines: (Mr. Neuman)

1. Gilmer Hall and Chemistry Building 11

Renovation

2. McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation 17

3. Emergency Department/Operating Room/ 23

Patient Bed Expansion

PAGE

IV. REPORT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND 31

BUDGET (Ms. Sheehy)

Engineering News Record’s Best of the Best 2013:

1. Best Healthcare Project - U.Va. Medical

Center Hospital Bed Expansion and Helipad

2. Best Manufacturing Project – Commonwealth

Center for Advanced Manufacturing (CCAM)

V. MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS REPORTS

(Written Reports)

A. Major Projects Status Report, Future Design 37

Actions and Planning Studies

B. Architect/Engineer Selections for Capital 43

Projects Less Than $5 Million

C. Professional and Construction-Related Non- 44

Professional Services Contracts

D. Pavilion Occupancy Status 46

E. Post-Occupancy Evaluations (Smiddy Hall 47

Renovation and Addition and David J. Prior

Convocation Center [College at Wise])

1


BOARD OF VISITORS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

BOARD MEETING: June 5, 2014

COMMITTEE: Buildings and Grounds

AGENDA ITEM: I.A. Rotunda Renovations: Landscape Plan

ACTION REQUIRED: None

DISCUSSION: Construction activities in and around the Rotunda

from utility work, excavation for the mechanical rooms, heavy

equipment operations, and major scaffolding will have a major

impact on the landscape of the courtyards and the north terrace.

At the conclusion of construction, it will be necessary to

repave and replant these areas, affording the opportunity to

renovate them in a manner that will make more welcoming and

functional spaces to accommodate University community

activities. The University has retained the services of Laurie

Olin, 2013 Thomas Jefferson Medalist in Architecture and

recipient of the 2013 National Medal of Arts, as a sub

consultant to John G. Waite Associates to create a new vision

for these important public spaces. The plans will incorporate

the significant historic features of the north terrace — the

flagpoles, statue, and sundial — while increasing the paved area

and framing the space with planting and benches to create a

series of outdoor ―rooms‖ that can accommodate events of various

sizes. In the east courtyard, the original fountain that was

dedicated to the memory of Colgate Darden will be replaced by a

water basin that will serve as the centerpiece of the courtyard

surrounded by curved benches set for quiet conversation and

private study. The west courtyard, in contrast, is designed to

accommodate events and gatherings with more pavement, a few

small trees, and moveable furniture. All trees will be kept

below the height of the balustrades. The honorific naming of

the east for Colgate Darden and the west for Edgar Shannon will

continue when the courtyards re-open in 2016.

2

THE ROTUNDA RENOVATIONS LANDSCAPE AREA

PROPOSED LANDSCAPE DESIGN

3





AGENDA ITEM: I.B. University/Emmet/Ivy District

Planning Study


DISCUSSION: The University/Emmet/Ivy District (U/E/I) study is

focused on the main entry corridors and entry points to the

U.Va. Central and North Grounds, as well as the broader context

of these corridors, assessing existing and future conditions.

Surrounding the main intersection of Emmet Street and Ivy Road

are five other important entry points to be considered:

Athletics/North Grounds, Arts Grounds, Bookstore/Central Grounds

Garage, John Paul Jones Arena/North Grounds, and the World

Heritage Site. The study diagram shows the relationship of this

area to the Grounds at-large.

The work products related to this planning study are:

1. Capacity/Suitability Analysis

Develop GIS analysis of the study area to establish an

opportunities/constraints diagram that illustrates

developable and non-developable zones.

2. Land Use Analysis

Review land use patterns for the district and propose

relevant changes to the Redevelopment Zones in the Grounds

Plan.

3. Circulation Analysis

Develop an overview of the primary issues related to

circulation in the district and recommend transit,

pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular improvements.

4. Landscape Design

Inventory existing landscape conditions, review previous

landscape studies developed for the district, develop

design guidelines for corridor and entry treatment, and

complete a conceptual design for the University/Emmet/Ivy

entry point.

4

OBLIQUE AERIAL VIEW OF U/E/I District

U/E/I District Planning Study: CORRIDORS AND ENTRY POINTS

5





AGENDA ITEM: III.A. Naming: The Nancy Artis & Douglas

Caton Family Park

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.

DISCUSSION: The University proposes a name for the park at the

entrance to the Battle Building.

ACTION REQUIRED: Approval by the Buildings and Grounds

Committee and by the Board of Visitors

NAMING OF THE PARK AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE BATTLE BUILDING AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL

WHEREAS, the Medical Center has obtained significant

support from alumni, faculty, friends, and grateful parents for

the new Battle Building, an outpatient facility for

comprehensive children’s health; and

WHEREAS, Nancy E. Artis graduated from the Curry School of

Education in 1968 and received her doctorate from the Curry

School in 1980. She is a certified Child Life Specialist who

became affiliated with the Children’s Hospital in 1972; and

WHEREAS, Ms. Artis, in addition to serving on the board of

the UVA Health Foundation and on the Children’s Hospital

Committee, serves as the Educational Director for the Hospital

Education Program, a state operated program that provides a

broad range of school and extracurricular services to help

normalize hospital stays; and

WHEREAS, Ms. Artis and her husband, Mr. Douglas Caton, have

been major benefactors of the Children’s Hospital;

6

RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors names the park at the

entrance to the Battle Building at the University of Virginia

Children’s Hospital the Nancy Artis & Douglas Caton Family Park.

7





AGENDA ITEM: III.B. Project Approval: McCormick Road

Residence Hall Renovation

BACKGROUND: The Board of Visitors approves major capital

projects every two years with the update of the Major Capital

Projects Program. This plan was last approved in April 2013.

When the University identifies new projects outside the biennial

update cycle, approval by the Finance and Buildings and Grounds

Committees is required. The Finance Committee will review the

financial plans and the Buildings and Grounds Committee will

review the proposed projects for inclusion in the University’s

Major Capital Projects Program.

The proposed project supports the University's commitment

to house all first-year students, supporting the First Year

Experience program, and aligns with Pillar 1 of the Cornerstone

Strategic Plan to enrich and strengthen the University's

distinctive residential culture.

DISCUSSION: The University recommends the following revision to

the multi-year capital program:

McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation

Housing Cash $18.2 - $ 18.2 million

Debt $67.6 - $ 86.5 million

$85.8 - $104.7 million

The McCormick Road residential area comprises 10 buildings,

approximately 304,000 gross square feet (GSF) that opened in

1955 and now houses 1,330 first-year residents and resident

advisors. In a five-phase renovation approach, the project

allows for the installation of air conditioning and elevators;

replacement of building systems that are past their useful life;

installation/enhancement of fire detection and suppression and

emergency power life safety systems; repairs to the buildings’

exterior envelopes, roofs, gutters, windows, and doors; and

conversion of ground floor spaces into residential programming

spaces and additional student rooms. This work will add

approximately 65 beds, extend the life of the facilities, and

more closely align them with the new first-year residence halls

8

constructed in the Alderman Road residential area. The project

will be funded using housing reserves and University debt.


Committee, by the Finance Committee, and by the Board of

Visitors

REVISION TO THE MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM – MCCORMICK ROAD

RESIDENCE HALL RENOVATION

WHEREAS, the University proposes the addition of the

McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation to the Major Capital

Projects Program;

RESOLVED, the Board of Visitors approves the addition of

the McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation, at an estimated

cost between $85.8 million and $104.7 million, to the

University’s Major Capital Projects Program.

9





AGENDA ITEM: III.C.1. Architect/Engineer Selection:

Gilmer Hall and Chemistry Building

Renovation

BACKGROUND: The Office of the Architect and the Provost Office

have recently completed an integrated academic and capital

planning effort to inform the University’s capital improvement

plan for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)

facilities. Two key projects further defined through this

effort are the renovations of Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry

Building. Gilmer Hall (approximately 232,000 GSF, completed in

1963) and the Chemistry Building (approximately 273,000 GSF,

completed in 1968) have housed the College of Arts and Sciences

Biology, Psychology, and Chemistry Departments for nearly a half

century. After nearly five decades of service, these two

buildings are due for significant infrastructure upgrades and

space renewals that will meet the needs of STEM program growth

and once again position Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry Building

as important teaching and research resources for the University

and the College of Arts and Sciences.

DISCUSSION: The University recommends the selection of Perkins +

Will of Washington, D.C., for this contract. This firm was chosen

for its comprehensive experience in the design and completion of

university science-related teaching and research facilities.


Committee

ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, GILMER HALL AND CHEMISTRY BUILDING

RENOVATION PROJECT

RESOLVED, Perkins + Will of Washington, D.C. is approved

for performance of architectural and engineering services for

the Gilmer Hall and Chemistry Building Renovation project.

10





AGENDA ITEM: III.C.2. Architect/Engineer Selection:


BACKGROUND: This residence hall complex comprises four

symmetrical, L-shaped buildings along with two smaller

rectangular buildings. The L-shaped buildings have two

rectangular ranges linked at the corners with each range named

to honor a noted University professor: Bonnycastle, Dabney,

Echols, Emmet, Hancock, Humphreys, Kent, Lefevre, Metcalf, and

Page.

The buildings have been well-maintained over the years and,

therefore, retain a high degree of integrity throughout their

interior and exterior; however, the dormitories were never

comprehensively modernized. Interior renovations, primarily on

the lower levels, have altered the original floor plans to

accommodate offices and other support functions for the

departments of Housing and Residence Life. These spaces will be

vacated once new offices are completed in Alderman Road

Residence Halls Building 6 in 2015. The renovation will address

systems improvements including replacing heating equipment and

introducing central air conditioning throughout each building;

other mechanical, electrical and plumbing upgrades; and building

code, ADA compliance, and life safety upgrades.

DISCUSSION: The University recommends the selection of Clark

Nexsen of Norfolk, Virginia, for this contract. This firm was

chosen because of its extensive student residence hall

experience.


Committee

ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTION, MCCORMICK ROAD RESIDENCE HALL

RENOVATION PROJECT

RESOLVED, Clark Nexsen of Norfolk, Virginia is approved for

performance of architectural and engineering services for the

McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation Project.

11





AGENDA ITEM: III.D.1. Concept and Design Guidelines:

Gilmer Hall and Chemistry Building Renovation

$120 Million

BACKGROUND: The Office of the Architect and the Provost Office

have recently completed an integrated academic and capital

planning effort to inform the University’s capital improvement

plan for STEM facilities. The key project defined through this

effort is the renovation of Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry

Building. After the Rotunda Renovations, this is the

University’s highest priority capital project for State funding

and has been authorized by the State for pre-planning.

CONCEPT: Gilmer Hall (approximately 232,000 GSF, completed in

1963) and the Chemistry Building (approximately 273,000 GSF,

completed in 1968) have housed the College of Arts and Sciences

Biology, Psychology, and Chemistry Departments for nearly a half

century. After nearly five decades of service, these two

buildings are due for significant infrastructure upgrades and

space renewals that will meet the needs of STEM program growth

and once again position these buildings as important teaching

and research resources for the University and the College of

Arts and Sciences.

DISCUSSION: The Office of the Architect has prepared the

concept and design guidelines. Mr. Neuman will review the

design guidelines with the committee.


Committee

CONCEPT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR GILMER HALL AND CHEMISTRY

BUILDING RENOVATION

RESOLVED, the concept and design guidelines, dated June 5,

2014, prepared by the Architect for the University for the

renovation of Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry Building, are

approved; and

12

RESOLVED FURTHER, the project will be presented for further

review at the schematic design level of development.

13

Gilmer Hall and Chemistry Building Renovation

Concept and Design Guidelines

June 5, 2014

A) Proposed Project Concept

The Office of the Architect and the Provost Office have recently completed an integrated

academic and capital planning effort to inform the University’s capital improvement plan for

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) facilities. Two key projects identified

through this effort are the renovations of Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry Building. Gilmer Hall -

approximately 232,000 gross square feet (GSF) and completed in 1963, and the Chemistry

Building – approximately 273,000 GSF and completed in 1968, have housed the Biology,

Psychology, and Chemistry Departments for nearly a half century. Today, they continue to

house the teaching laboratory functions for these three departments, as well as basic

undergraduate and graduate instruction for STEM and other disciplines. Both buildings are

―workhorse‖ research facilities for the College of Arts & Sciences. The buildings include

chemistry, psychology, and cell molecular biology research laboratories. Through the years,

changes in teaching and research methods, technological advancements, and renovations for new

hires have resulted in numerous partial renovations and reconfigurations. Additionally, the

mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in both buildings are deteriorating with energy

intensive systems stretched past their designed limits, lacking flexibility, and without capacity

for increased utilization. These two building are due for significant infrastructure upgrades, as

well as space renewals, that will meet the needs of STEM program growth and once again

position Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry Building as important teaching and research resources

for the College of Arts and Sciences and the rest of the University.

The recommended infrastructure reinvestments and program changes will result in the

following:

A comprehensive renewal of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems for all of

the 505,000 GSF in Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry Building. When complete the project

will replace antiquated and inefficient systems with a modern, energy efficient, and

adaptable infrastructure for each building

Renovation of over 300,000 GSF of instructional and research space for the Departments

of Biology, Chemistry, and Psychology. This will maximize space utilization through

efficient and flexible teaching and research laboratory design.

New high performance exterior glazing and masonry systems for Gilmer Hall. The

proposed project will provide a new watertight and energy efficient exterior envelope that

is consistent with Gilmer Hall’s original design intent.

Additional new teaching facilities. This project will replace waterproofing and roof

surfaces and renovate the space under the Chemistry terrace to create four (4) new

general assignment classrooms.

B) Project Location

Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry Building are situated along McCormick Road. Some site

improvements will be a part of this project, which is across from the McCormick Road

Residence Halls.

14

UVA Science Precinct

C) Design Guidelines

Site Planning

- Locate service access and trash/recycling areas to minimize their presence.

- Provide ADA access to the terrace level in a sensitive fashion.

Circulation and Parking

Modify existing sidewalks and parking adjacent to Gilmer Hall and the Chemistry Building to

facilitate general and ADA-related movement through the site.

Architecture

- Address issues of deterioration on both buildings’ exteriors. Specifically, a new curtain wall

system for Gilmer Hall to replace the original window screens (recently removed), and the

replacement of the Chemistry Building terrace.

- Architectural modifications must respect the original design intent and materials of each

building.

- Retain and restore the significant public spaces of each building, including the lobby, central

stair and auditorium of Gilmer Hall and the lobby and auditorium of the Chemistry Building

- Evaluate and integrate the basic tenets of sustainable design for existing buildings to obtain,

a minimum of LEED Certification. (Silver certification is a target.)

- Develop mechanical system enclosures as part of the overall design concept.

Landscape

- Enhance the appearance and access to both Gilmer and Chemistry Buildings from

McCormick Road.

- Carefully screen any service areas.

15

- All site furnishings will comply with the UVa Facility 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.

Context Images

View of Gilmer and Chemistry Buildings from McCormick Road

Chemistry Building – Built in 1968

16

Gilmer Hall – Built in 1963

Gilmer Hall – Current Image (Note: Missing Screen Wall)

17





AGENDA ITEM: III.D.2. Concept and Design Guidelines:


$85.8 Million - $104.7 Million

BACKGROUND: Completed in 1950 to accommodate a growing post-war

student population, the residential complex initially housed

about 900 male students in Colonial Revival style dormitories

designed by the New York firm of Eggers and Higgins. As the de

facto architects of the University during the administration of

Colgate Darden, Eggers and Higgins went on to design the nearby

Physics Building and the original Newcomb Hall in a consistent

style. Each building incorporates as its central feature the

signature element of that firm — a large round-headed window set

within concentric arches. The buildings are reminiscent of the

Monroe Hill dormitories of 1928-1929, representing the

University’s initial reluctance to accept Modern design. The

dormitories were sited on a portion of the University golf

links. The residential halls contributed to the gradual

transformation of McCormick Road from rural to residential uses

and institutional functions.

The complex comprises four symmetrical, L-shaped buildings

along with two smaller rectangular buildings. The L-shaped

buildings have two rectangular ranges linked at the corners with

each range named to honor a noted University professor:

Bonnycastle, Dabney, Echols, Emmet, Hancock, Humphreys, Kent,

Lefevre, Metcalf, and Page.

CONCEPT: The buildings have been well-maintained over the years

and, therefore, retain a high degree of integrity throughout

their interior and exterior; however, the dormitories were never

comprehensively modernized. Interior renovations, primarily on

the lower levels, have altered the original floor plans to

accommodate offices and other support functions for the

departments of Housing and Residence Life. These spaces will be

vacated once new offices are completed in Alderman Road Building

6 in 2015. The renovation will address systems improvements,

including replacing heating equipment and introducing central

air conditioning throughout each building; other mechanical,

18

electrical and plumbing upgrades; and current building codes,

ADA compliance, and life safety upgrades.





Committee

CONCEPT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MCCORMICK ROAD RESIDENCE HALL

RENOVATION PROJECT

RESOLVED, the concept and design guidelines, dated June 5,

2014, prepared by the Architect for the University for the

renovation of the McCormick Road Residence Halls, are approved.

19

McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation Project

Concept and Design Guidelines

June 5, 2014


Purpose:

The purpose of the McCormick Road Residence Hall Renovation Project is to significantly

improve the accommodations, operations, and comfort of the buildings in order to better align

with the facilities and programs currently offered in the new first-year residence halls in the

Alderman Road housing area.

Background:

Completed in 1950 to accommodate a growing post-war student population, the residential

complex initially housed about 900 male students in Colonial Revival style dormitories designed

by the New York firm of Eggers and Higgins. As the de facto architects of the University during

the administration of Colgate Darden, Eggers and Higgins went on to design the nearby Physics

Building and the original Newcomb Hall in a consistent style. Each building incorporates as its

central feature the signature element of that firm—a large round-headed window set within

concentric arches. The buildings are reminiscent of the Monroe Hill dormitories of 1928-1929,

representing the University’s initial reluctance to accept Modern design. The dormitories were

sited on a portion of the University golf links. The residential halls contributed to the gradual

transformation of McCormick Road from rural to residential uses and institutional functions.

The complex comprises four symmetrical, L-shaped buildings along with two smaller

rectangular buildings. The L-shaped buildings have two rectangular ranges linked at the corners

with each range named to honor a noted University professor: Bonnycastle, Dabney, Echols,

Emmet, Hancock, Humphreys, Kent, Lefevre, Metcalf, and Page.

The dormitories were not set in a monumental landscape, and thus broke with the Beaux-Arts

style landscape popular with other structures on grounds. The buildings frame large outdoor

rooms, linking a series of pavilions with tiered dormitory rooms — perhaps an allusion to

Jefferson’s Lawn. A subtle program of plantings, including such trees as sweet gum, white oak,

mulberry, and poplar, was chosen by the Tree Committee.

Proposed Renovations:

The buildings have been well maintained over the years and, therefore, retain a high degree of

integrity throughout their interior and exterior; however, the dormitories were never

comprehensively modernized. Interior renovations, primarily on the lower levels, have altered

the original floor plans to accommodate offices and other support functions for the departments

of Housing and Residence Life. These spaces will be vacated once new offices are completed in

Alderman Road Building 6 in 2015. The renovation will address systems improvements,

including replacing heating equipment and introducing central air conditioning throughout each

building; other mechanical, electrical and plumbing upgrades; and current building codes, ADA

compliance, and life safety upgrades.

20

B) Site:

The existing site fronts along the north side of McCormick Road, sloping down toward the Dell

and the Perry-Fishburne Tennis Courts. East-west buildings retain the slope, creating a series of

flat terraces used for informal recreation and congregation. Along the western edge of the site lie

Hancock Drive, an access service road, and the University Cemetery. The eastern edge borders

Bonnycastle Drive, another access service road. The landscape is well-established with mature

plantings and turf areas that are actively used. A series of paved pathways traverse the site,

creating pedestrian routes between the buildings. Existing service parking within the quads at

Echols and Page can be re-located.

C) Design Guidelines

Site Planning

- Locate expanded and enclosed trash/recycling areas along Hancock and Bonnycastle Drives.

- Preserve existing vehicle access for move-in and move-out.

- Improve ADA access to existing buildings

Circulation and Parking

- Accommodate ADA and guest parking outside of landscape quads.

- Design barrier-free access, which will include newly accessible entrances.

Architecture

- The BOV-approved 2007 UVa Historic Preservation Framework Plan designates the

McCormick Road Dormitories as ―contributing‖ to the University’s history and present

character with ―intact‖ integrity, which requires that alterations be designed to minimize their

effect on the character defining features of the building, and to be respectful of their massing,

site design, and historic fabric.‖

- Consider all alterations to the building in the context of the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for Rehabilitation.

- Introduce new central heating and air conditioning throughout the buildings with minimal

effect on the interior or exterior.

- Install required elevators with minimal exterior or interior impacts.

- Renovate bedrooms, hallways, bathrooms and gathering spaces to provide new finishes,

enhanced amenities, and technology.

- Evaluate and integrate the basic tenets of sustainable design for existing buildings to target

LEED Silver certification.

Landscape

- Preserve established landscape of mature plantings and spatial quality of the quads.

- Any new landscape should match the established character and plant palette of the existing

landscape.

- Carefully screen service areas.

- Landscape design must meet stormwater quality and quantity standards of the existing BMP.

- All site furnishings will comply with the UVa Facilities Design Guidelines; graphics will

comply with University sign standards.

21




Existing Site Condition

Current View

22

Men’s Dormitories, under construction. Circa. 1950. Special Collections at the University of Virginia.

23





AGENDA ITEM: III.D.3. Concept, Site, and Design

Guidelines: Emergency Department/Operating

Room/Patient Bed Expansion

$200-$400 Million

BACKGROUND: The Medical Center is pursuing a major expansion of

the Emergency Department on the site of the former helipad.

Currently the Emergency Department’s (ED) volume is constrained

by limited treatment spaces (43), only 16 of which are private.

Additionally, during times of peak volume, the ED must press

into service 17 treatment spaces located in hallways. This

situation creates safety, privacy and patient satisfaction

issues, and presents challenges to running an efficient patient

care model.

CONCEPT AND SITE: The ED expansion footprint allows the

opportunity to build additional floors on this base structure.

Programmatic elements under consideration are expansion of

operating rooms and/or other interventional services on the

second floor and expansion of inpatient beds on up to six

additional floors. The inpatient bed expansion is being viewed

as a means to bring the Hospital to a totally private bed model.

This will require the creation of between 100 and 150 additional

private beds and realization of operational efficiencies that

can be accomplished with an all private bed model. The

operating room interventional floor opportunity has been

targeted as a way to both expand interventional clinical

capacity and to address long acknowledged shortfalls in support

spaces. These include pre and post patient recovery spaces and

bed and equipment storage. These support functions have been

cited as both a roadblock to increasing efficiency in existing

operating room utilization and a deficiency in planning for

additional interventional capacity.

The proposed site is located directly east of the existing

Emergency Department entrance and extends to the corner of Lee

Street and Crispell Drive. Enabling projects to clear the site

are either already complete or underway. These include

relocation of the helipad to the roof of the Hospital

24

(complete); construction of the Education Resource Center to

provide space for ambulatory MRI (about to begin construction);

and the creation of an interim inpatient MRI suite in the

Hospital (in planning).





Committee

CONCEPT, SITE, AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT/

OPERATING ROOM/PATIENT BED EXPANSION

RESOLVED, the concept, site, and design guidelines, dated

June 5, 2014, prepared by the Architect for the University for

the Emergency Department/Operating Room/Patient Bed Expansion

project, are approved; and

RESOLVED FURTHER, the project will be presented for further

review at the schematic design level of development.

CONCEPTUAL OPTIONS FOR ED/OR/PATIENT BED EXPANSION

25

Emergency Department, Operating Rooms, and Patient Bed Expansion

Concept, Site, and Design Guidelines

June 5, 2014


The Medical Center is pursuing a major expansion of the Emergency Department on the site of

the former helipad. Currently the Emergency Department’s volume is constrained by limited

treatment spaces (43), only 16 of which are private. Additionally, during times of peak volume,

the ED must press into service 17 treatment spaces located in hallways. This situation creates

safety, privacy, and patient satisfaction issues and presents challenges to running an efficient

patient care model. Enabling projects to clear the site are either already complete or underway.

These include relocation of the helipad to the roof of the Hospital (complete); construction of the

Education Resource Center to provide space for ambulatory MRI (about to begin construction);

and the creation of an interim inpatient MRI suite in the Hospital (in planning).

The ED expansion footprint allows the opportunity to build additional floors on this base

structure. Programmatic elements under consideration are expansion of operating rooms and/or

other interventional services on the second floor and expansion of inpatient beds on up to six

additional floors. The inpatient bed expansion is being viewed as a means to bring the Hospital

to a totally private bed model. This will require the creation of between 100 and 150 additional

private beds and realization of operational efficiencies that can be accomplished with an all

private bed model. The interventional floor opportunity has been targeted as a way to both

expand interventional clinical capacity and to address long acknowledged shortfalls in support

spaces. These include pre and post patient recovery spaces and bed and equipment storage.

These support functions have been cited as both a roadblock to increasing efficiency in existing

operating room utilization and a deficiency in planning for additional interventional capacity.

B) 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 Emergency Department, Operating Rooms, and Patient Bed Expansion.

a. Conforms with the overall land use plan and district/area plans.

b. Reinforces functional relationships with the other components of the same

department or program, and is compatible with other neighboring uses.

c. Satisfies access requirements – pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, service. Additional

project specific requirements also include emergency vehicle access and parking

d. Maximizes infill opportunities to utilize land resources and existing infrastructure.

e. Minimizes site development costs, including extension of utilities, access, loss or

parking, mass grading, etc.

f. Minimizes opportunity cost: i.e., value of this use and size versus alternatives.

g. Provides a size that is adequate, but not excessive, for initial program, future expansion,

and ancillary uses.

26

h. Allows for incorporating sustainability principles such as LEED certification,

transit and multi-modal access, providing resources for education, and a center for

the Health System community.

i. Avoids unnecessary environmental impacts, including significant tree removal or filling

of existing stream valleys.

j. Allows site visibility and aesthetic character as appropriate for the intended use and

for the UVa Medical Center.

k. Minimizes time for implementation of project.

C) Proposed Site

Lee Street is the main entry area to the University Hospital, Primary Care Center, and the

existing Emergency Department. The Lee Street Connective Elements project and the new

streetscape create a consistent architectural and landscape context for the Health System

patient areas. The proposed project site for the Emergency Department, Operating Rooms,

and Patient Bed Expansion is located directly east of the existing Emergency Department

entrance and extends to the corner of Lee Street and Crispell Drive. The existing MRI

Pavilion is located within the proposed expansion footprint and its functions will need to be

relocated as an initial enabling project. Last year the on-grounds helipad was replaced with

a new roof-top helipad on the Hospital’s east tower.

Aerial Photo of Site

27

Health System Area Plan, 2010

Current Photo of Site

Proposed project site

28

UVA Health System: Aerial View

D) Design Guidelines

Site Planning

Enhance the patient and visitor experience in terms of wayfinding and aesthetics of place.

Unify the character and scale of the arrival points to the UVa Medical Center from the east

(Roosevelt Brown and Lee Street entrance).

Circulation

Emergency vehicle and pedestrian access to and from the new emergency department is of

critical importance to the success of this project. Ambulance and helicopter patient

transports need to have safe and efficient access to the emergency department at all times,

including during construction.

Extend covered pedestrian access from the Lee Street Parking Garage to the new emergency

department.

Architecture

If fully implemented, the Emergency Department, Operating Rooms, and Patient Bed

Expansion project program consists of a four story lower expansion of the Hospital from the

basement level to the 2M mechanical floor. This lower section (plinth) would accommodate

the emergency department expansion, an expansion to the operating rooms / interventional

platform, and associated support facilities. In addition, a six story patient bed wing could be

constructed over a portion of this plinth, with direct connections to the existing Hospital east

bed tower if required.

Construction of a new bed wing will necessitate maximizing natural light and views to all

patient rooms, both new and existing.

All colors, materials, and detailing of the new building will be sympathetic and proportional

to the Hospital Bed Expansion and the main Hospital lobby. It is anticipated that the exterior

facades, particularly the plinth, will be designed with similar proportions, materials palette,

Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center

11th Street

Parking Garage

Education Resource Center Site

Lee Street

Main Hospital New Lobby

Lee Street Parking Garage

SITE

29

and colors to the mentioned projects in order to accommodate these objectives (see Context

Images).

Landscape

Landscape and hardscape shall be consistent with the approved design of the Lee Street

landscape master plan.




Context Images

1. Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center

2. Hospital Bed Expansion and New Lobby

30

3. East Chiller Plant

4. Education Resource Center Rendering (To be completed in 2016)

31





AGENDA ITEM: IV. Report by the Vice President for

Management and Budget


BACKGROUND: In December 2013, the Engineering News Record (ENR)

named the U.Va. Medical Center Hospital Bed Expansion and

Helipad the Best Healthcare Project for 2013, and the

Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing (CCAM) the Best

Manufacturing Project for 2013. The ENR Best of the Best 2013

awards are national, best-in-sector awards. Both projects

previously were awarded the Mid-Atlantic Region Best of 2013 and

advanced to the national competition where they were evaluated

and ranked by industry professionals. Following are the

articles describing each project that appeared in the magazine.

32

Engineering News-Record Best of the Best 2013

December 16, 2013/February 17, 2014 Issues

Best Healthcare Project

U.Va. Medical Center Hospital Bed Expansion and Helipad

Using existing structural capacity, the University of Virginia added 127,000 sq ft of new space to its

teaching hospital, the University of Virginia Medical Center.

A feasibility study determined that in-filling the front facade offered the best strategy for the expansion.

The final design concept laminated a 34-ft-deep addition to house a series of stacked, 12-bed nursing

units from floors two through eight.

The project also included a new mechanical penthouse to support the addition. The expansion

accommodates 72 patient beds in critical-care units.

To reduce disruption to the existing nursing units, a 2-ft, 8-in. gap was left between the new construction

and the old exterior wall. When the addition was fully enclosed, crews built out the gap, removed the old

facade and renovated the adjacent space, creating new public and staff areas to support the new unit.

Structurally, the addition capitalized on the existing caisson foundation's capacity as well as the existing

gravity and lateral structural capacity of the existing drift-resistant steel frame. Crews also upgraded the

existing columns and beams to comply with new seismic requirements.

New structural reinforcements were required to penetrate the existing building, as the project also

includes a 45-ft helipad above the existing roof. Further, two high-speed elevators were installed for easy

access to the medical center.

Besides building on a tight urban site, crews worked only at night and on weekends, phasing construction

to minimize disruptions of hospital operations, ensure the safety of the crew and hospital staff, and

overcome a tight project schedule.

The curtain-wall facade offers an abundance of natural light to the patient rooms with minimal solar gain.

Sustainable design elements, such as the variable air-volume system, reduce energy consumption and

contributed to the project achieving LEED-NC certification.

The team accepted responsibility for every craft worker in the field and daily promoted project safety.

Training and safety programs for the team included instruction in CPR, first aid and use of an automated

external defibrillator. The American Red Cross conducted the training, and certifications were renewed

on a biannual basis.

At night, the team shifted its resources to steel erection, minimizing the risk to visitors traveling through

the building and around the campus. More than 592,000 work-hours were worked during the 48-month

project without a recordable incident.

This complex project was completed on time and within budget while maintaining full hospital

operations.

Project Team

Owner: University of Virginia Facilities, Planning and Construction Dept.

33

Design Firm: SmithGroupJJR, Washington, D.C.

General Contractor: Gilbane Building Co., Providence, R.I.

Engineers: AKF Engineers, Arlington.; Spiegel Zamecnik & Shah, New Haven, Conn.

Consultants: AHSC Architects, Tarrytown, N.Y.; Erbschloe Consulting Services, Marshall; Heller &

Metzger, Washington, D.C.; Koffel Associates, Columbia, Md.; Lewis & Zimmerman Associates,

Rockville, Md.; Miller, Beam & Paganelli, Reston; Paul Waddelove and Associates, Reston

U.Va. Medical Center Hospital

Pegasus Emergency Medical Transport Landing on Helipad

34

Engineering News-Record Best of the Best 2013

December 16, 2013/February 17, 2014 Issues

Best Manufacturing Project

Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing (CCAM)

An applied-research facility located in Prince George County, Va., the Commonwealth Center for

Advanced Manufacturing (CCAM) is a 63,000-sq-ft facility housing engineering and computational

laboratories with integrated data-acquisition systems.

The CCAM is the only collaboration of its kind in North America, bringing together the University of

Virginia, Virginia Tech and Virginia State University with member firms Canon Virginia, Chromalloy,

Newport News Shipbuilding, Rolls-Royce, Sandvik Coromant, Siemens and Sulzer Metco.

The building features a high-bay area, which provides space for manufacturing processes, as well as

materials-preparation and computer laboratories, conference rooms and spaces for amenities.

The $13.4-million project, led by W.M. Jordan Co., Newport News, Va., required a heightened degree of

collaboration due to the numerous project stakeholders and multiple funding sources. One of those

sources—a federal grant obtained by the project owner—compressed the amount of time available to bid

the project and complete construction documents.

Although the owner provided a pad-ready site, extensive groundwater caused an unexpected setback to

the schedule at the outset of the project. Wet soil conditions required 90% of the building's footings to be

undercut and backfilled with lean fill.

The groundwater situation delayed completion of the foundations and, subsequently, the start of

structural-steel erection. However, by accelerating steel fabrication and erection, re-sequencing exterior-

skin work and then expediting the finish tasks, the project team was able to complete its work on time.

A significant portion of the work was directly subcontracted by the owner. W.M. Jordan provided

extensive coordination for these owner-supplied, contractor-installed systems, integrating them into the

overall production schedule and coordinating with the affected trades. The scenario created logistical

coordination challenges and safety concerns.

With buy-in from the University of Virginia Foundation, all of the owner's direct subcontractors were

required to participate in W.M. Jordan's weekly safety meetings. Furthermore, W.M. Jordan provided

specialized safety training for the high-risk aspects of the project.

The CCAM project resulted in no lost-time accidents or injuries.

Project Team

Owner: CCAM; University of Virginia Foundation, Charlottesville, Va.

Architect: Perkins + Will, Washington, D.C.

General Contractor: W.M. Jordan Co., Newport News, Va.

Structural Engineer: Robert Silman Structural Engineers, Washington, D.C.

35

Civil and MEP Engineers: Dewberry, Fairfax; Integral Group, Richmond

MEP Contractors: Chewning & Wilmer, Richmond; EMC Mechanical Services, Richmond

MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS

Buildings and Grounds Committee

University of Virginia

June 5, 2014

MAJOR PROJECTS STATUS REPORT, FUTURE DESIGN ACTIONS AND PLANNING STUDIES

APRIL 2014

37


APRIL 2014

38


APRIL 2014

39


APRIL 2014

40


APRIL 2014

41


APRIL 2014

42

43


ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SELECTIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS LESS THAN $5 MILLION

PERIOD ENDED May 14, 2014

There are no architect/engineer selections for capital projects $5M or less for the

period ending May 14, 2014.

Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services Contracts

Quarter Ended March 31, 2014

44

211

249 256 255

319 324

197

136 135

89 78

61

82

54

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010 - 2011 2011 -2012 2012 - 2013 07/01/13 -03/31/14

(FYTD)

# o

f C

on

tra

cts

FY Period

# Professional Contracts by FY

Total Virginia Contracts

Total Out-of-State Contracts

Professional and Construction-Related Non-Professional Services Contracts

Quarter Ended March 31, 2014

45

$8.3

$10.4 $10.5

$7.2

$10.1

$6.7

$5.2

$18.9

$30.2

$8.2 $7.4

$2.4

$10.2

$7.1

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

$30.0

$35.0

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010 - 2011 2011 -2012 2012 - 2013 07/01/13 -03/31/14

(FYTD)

Mil

lio

n $

's

FY Period

Professional Contract Fees by FY

Total Virginia Contracts (M)

Total Out-of-State Contracts (M)

46


PAVILION OCCUPANCY STATUS

AS OF APRIL 2014

Pavilion Occupants Assigned Available Comments

I Robert Pianta Winter

2010

November

2018

Occupied Pavilion III from Spring

2008 until Winter 2010

II Meredith Woo September

2009

September

2014

III Harry Harding Spring

2010

January 1,

2015

IV Larry J. Sabato October

2002

Spring

2018

Extended an additional five years in

November 2010, from Spring 2013 to

May 11, 2018

V & Annex Patricia Lampkin Spring

2008

August 1,

2018

Occupied Pavilion III from Summer

2005 until Spring 2008

VI Robert D. Sweeney Fall

2012

Fall

2017

VII Colonnade Club

VIII Upper

Apartment John Colley

April

2011

April

2016

VIII Terrace

Apartment Gerald Warburg

March

2012

March

2017

IX Dorrie Fontaine July

2011

July

2016

X Nancy E. Dunlap, M.D. May

2013

November

2014

Montebello James H. Aylor April

2012

August

2015

Sunnyside Artificial Pancreas Project April

2013 March

2015

Weedon House Carl P. Zeithaml July

2011

July

2016

47


POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA’S COLLEGE AT WISE


Smiddy Hall Renovation and Addition Project

Executive Summary

March 25, 2014

I. Background

As a part of its oversight of the University’s Capital Program, the Executive Review Committee for Capital

Development stipulated in April 2004 that Post-Occupancy Evaluations be completed for capital projects

approximately one year after occupancy.

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. It identifies

architectural, engineering, interior, and other functional components that work well and those that are problematic.

The process supports the University’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program by

addressing the LEED credit requiring a survey of occupant satisfaction with thermal comfort.

III. Methodology

Information was gathered through 1) a web-based survey distributed to faculty and staff, and 2) a maintenance

assessment. The survey team consisted of the Senior Program Manager from the Office of the Architect for the

University, the College’s Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, and the College’s Director of Capital

Operations and Planning. Reviews were provided by the Architect for the University, the University’s Chief

Facilities Officer, and the University Building Official.

IV. Project Description

Smiddy Hall is a two story structure originally constructed in 1974 as a general classroom and faculty office

building. The building is located at the College’s main entrance. The recent project had three components: 1)

renovation of the main core; 2) demolition and reconstruction of the west wing, and 3) the addition of an east wing

for the Information and Technology Department. The original GSF was 21,500. The current GSF is 30,000.

The building was reprogrammed and reconfigured to provide spaces that align with the College’s projected needs.

Program spaces include large and small classrooms; faculty offices; office suites for the Provost and Academic

Dean; and a data center. The project addressed infrastructure, code, life safety, ADA, and energy efficiency issues.

Construction began in November 2008 and was completed in July 2011. The project’s LEED Certification was

delayed due to ongoing HVAC commissioning. Those items have been resolved and certification is pending.

V. Survey Response Rate

The survey was distributed to 25 faculty and 21 staff. There were 21 respondents for a 46% response rate.

Respondents included 13 faculty and 8 staff.

VI. Overall Project Assessment

95% of the respondents have an overall positive impression of the building. Response rates to the individual

questions vary significantly. Positive response rates range from a low of 24% to a high of 95%. Negative response

rates range from a low of 0% to a high of 71%.

The majority of the positive responses are below 80%. Only 27% are in the 80% to 100% range. On the other hand,

85% of the negative responses are less than 20%.

Given that 73% of the positive responses are less than 80% one would expect to see a high percentage of questions

with negative response rates in excess of 20%. For this survey only 15% of the questions have negative response

48

rates exceeding 20%. This is due to the fact that 46% of the questions have neutral response rates that are above

20%.

The survey focused on 5 program areas: 1) classrooms; 2) the psychology lab; 3) seminar and conference rooms; 4)

the IT conference room; and 5) offices/workstations.

The positive responses rates for the functioning of these spaces range from 91% (offices / workstations) to 62%

(psychology lab). Except for classrooms, negative response rates range from 0% to 8%. The classroom negative

rate is 27%. The classrooms may have received a higher negative rate because of their proportions. Several

comments note the difficulty of teaching in spaces that are either long and narrow or excessively wide.

Except for the offices and workstations, sound privacy does not appear to be an issue. The audio/visual system and

furniture receive relatively high positive responses and low negative responses.

VII. LEED Certification

The survey includes a question about the importance of a LEED certification. 70% of the respondents indicate that

it is important, 15% are neutral, and 15% indicate that it is not important.

VIII. Building Temperatures and Thermal Comfort

The thermal comfort verification credit for the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED certification program stipulates

that a corrective action plan is to be developed if more than 20% of the occupants are dissatisfied with the building’s

thermal comfort. 53% of the respondents indicate that they are dissatisfied with the temperatures, and 71% indicate

that the temperatures negatively impact their work. 19% are dissatisfied with the air quality.

Based on the negative response rate, the College must develop a corrective action plan.

IX. Summary Response Tabulation

A summary table of the survey responses is on the following page. The questions for each of the principal survey

areas are listed in order from the highest to lowest positive response rates. Because of rounding, the percentages for

some questions may not total 100%.

49

Neutral

Total +3 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 Total

General Building Questions

Overall Assessment 95% 43% 43% 10% 0% 5% 0% 0% 5%

Adequacy of Lobby Seating 81% 24% 14% 43% 14% 5% 0% 0% 5%

Comfort of Lobby Seating 76% 14% 14% 48% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Safety

Sense of Safety in Areas Around the Building 74% 26% 37% 11% 21% 0% 5% 0% 5%

LEED Certification

Importance of LEED Certification 70% 30% 25% 15% 15% 10% 0% 5% 15%

Thermal Comfort

Satisfaction with Air Quality 76% 10% 57% 10% 5% 14% 5% 0% 19%

Satisfaction with the Building Temperatures 43% 14% 24% 5% 5% 24% 19% 10% 53%

Impact of the Temperatures on Work 24% 10% 10% 5% 5% 33% 29% 10% 71%

Classrooms

Satisfaction with the Acoustics 81% 13% 63% 6% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Adequacy of the Audio/Visual Systems 81% 13% 63% 6% 13% 6% 0% 0% 6%

Satisfaction with the Furniture 71% 12% 35% 24% 18% 6% 0% 6% 12%

Function 67% 7% 40% 20% 7% 20% 7% 0% 27%

Satisfaction with Sound Privacy 63% 6% 50% 6% 25% 13% 0% 0% 13%

Psychology Lab

Function 62% 15% 46% 0% 31% 0% 8% 0% 8%


Seminar and Conference Rooms

Function 81% 13% 50% 19% 13% 0% 6% 0% 6%




IT Conference Room


Function 67% 33% 25% 8% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%



Offices/Workstations

Function 91% 24% 52% 14% 5% 5% 0% 0% 5%

Satisfaction with the Layout 81% 19% 38% 24% 5% 14% 0% 0% 14%


Note: Because of rounding percentages may not total 100.

Response Tabulation

All Respondents

November 29, 2013

Positive Responses Negative Responses

50

X. Maintenance Assessment

The number one problem we have encountered has been the boilers. There have been ignition problems since the

day of turnover requiring near daily manual restarts. Repeated visits, analysis, and fixes were attempted. A recent

alteration made in November, 2013 seems to have alleviated the issue to a great degree. While there have been three

alarms since then, there have been no actual boiler failures requiring a manual restart. The boilers are now operating

properly.

Several aspects of the HVAC design are commendable, including the inclusion of backup pumps and two boilers.

There is an instance of one thermostat serving two offices which has brought about some conflict over room

temperatures.

Outside, the metal tactile warning strips at the top of the main entrance stairs have proven to be a maintenance issue,

with several being dislodged and causing problems during ice events, with the strips preventing efficient clearing

and melting of the ice.

XI. Actions and Recommendations

A. Temperature: 53% of respondents indicate that they are dissatisfied with the temperatures, and 71%

indicate that the temperatures negatively impact their work. 19% are dissatisfied with the air quality.

Action (Corrective): To deal with the occupant dissatisfaction with thermal comfort, the College has

developed the following corrective action plan:

Background: The underlying cause of many of the temperature complaints is undoubtedly rooted with the

problems with the building’s boilers. Since the turnover of the project, the boilers have had trouble with

ignition failures, causing daily alarms and necessitating manual restarts.

Corrective Actions Taken to Date: The design engineers as well as the contractors and suppliers have been

constantly and diligently analyzing and adjusting the equipment and its systems in an effort to fix the

problem. It appears that a recent adjustment in early November 2013 has alleviated the problem, with only

three alarms having been reported since then, with none of them being actual failures of the boilers to

ignite.

Future Actions: The survey responses noted instances of hot and cold spots in the building. The project’s

commissioning agent was on site in January 2014 to complete his analysis; these issues were discussed at

that time with the appropriate entities. Going forward, we can run reports to analyze fluctuations that may

indicate balance or programming issues. It is anticipated that with fully functioning boilers, a test and

balance adjustment, and final commissioning, the building’s occupants will be much more satisfied with

room temperatures.

Recommendation (For Future Buildings): Not Applicable.

B. Classroom Configuration: Three faculty comment that long and narrow or extremely wide classrooms

have a negative impact on teaching.

Action (Corrective): Corrective action is not feasible.

Recommendation (For Future Buildings): Room proportions should be carefully considered when

designing classrooms with the understanding that long and narrow or extremely wide rooms can have a

negative impact on teaching.

51

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA’S COLLEGE AT WISE


David J. Prior Convocation Center

Executive Summary

March 25, 2014

I. Background

As a part of its oversight of the University’s Capital Program, the Executive Review Committee for Capital

Development stipulated in April 2004 that Post Occupancy Evaluations be completed for capital projects

approximately one year after occupancy.

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. It identifies

architectural, engineering, interior, and other functional components that work well and those that are problematic.

The process supports the University’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program by

addressing the LEED credit requiring a survey of occupant satisfaction with thermal comfort.

III. Methodology

Information was gathered through 1) a web-based survey distributed to coaches, facility staff, and student athletes,

and 2) a maintenance assessment. The process team consisted of the Senior Program Manager from the Office of

the Architect for the University, the College’s Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, and the College’s

Director of Capital Operations and Planning. Reviews were provided by the Architect for the University, the

University’s Chief Facilities Officer, and the University Building Official.

IV. Project Description

The David J. Prior Convocation Center is a 78,000 gross square-foot facility that seats 3,000 for sporting events and

3,600 for concerts or conventions. The Center enables the College to host athletic tournaments and regional events.

The building’s program includes 1) a main event space, 2) concessions, retail, and ticket sales spaces, 3) a

Chancellor’s Lounge, 4) a catering space, 5) locker rooms, 6) a training room, and 7) offices. Construction began in

June 2009 and was completed in August 2011. The project received a LEED Silver Certification.

V. Survey Response Rate

The survey was distributed to 58 building occupants. There were 11 respondents for a 19% response rate.

Respondents included 3 coaches, 6 facility staff, and 2 student athletes.

VI. Summary Assessment

100% of the respondents have an overall positive impression of the building. Positive response rates to the survey

questions range from a low of 50% to a high of 100%. Negative response rates range from a low of 0% to a high of

25% with 19 questions (73%) receiving no negative responses. 19 questions receive neutral responses ranging from

a low of 20% to a high of 50%.

The survey addressed seven of the building’s main program areas: 1) a main event space, 2) concessions, retail, and

ticket sales spaces, 3) a chancellor’s lounge, 4) catering space, 5) locker rooms, 6) training room, and 7) offices.

Of all of the program areas, the main event space receives the highest positive response rates for functionality.

These are for basketball / volleyball games (90%), large assemblies (90%), and concerts / performances (80%).

Response rates for lighting are 80% positive and 20% neutral. The rates for the audio system are 70% positive, 10%

neutral, and 20% negative.

The concessions, retail, and ticket sales spaces receive positive, neutral and negative responses. Response rates for

functionality are 60% positive and 40% neutral. Response rates for the effectiveness of their layouts are 50%

positive, 30% neutral, and 20% negative.

52

The Chancellor’s Lounge receives positive and neutral responses. Response rates for functionality are 70% positive

and 30% neutral. Rates for furniture are 50% positive and 50% neutral.

The catering space receives positive and neutral responses. Response rates for functionality and layout are 67%

positive and a 33% neutral. One staff member states, “This was a great design.”

The locker rooms receive positive and neutral responses. The rates for functionality are 78% positive and 22%

neutral rate. The response rates for layout and lighting are 89% positive and 11% neutral. Respondents note: “We

always get compliments on them for being above and beyond what other locker rooms look and feel like.”

“Centerpieces of the building.”

The training room receives positive, neutral, and negative responses. The rates for functionality are 67% positive,

22% neutral, and 11% negative. The rates for its layout are 56% positive, 33% neutral, and 11% negative. The rates

for lighting are 78% positive and 22% neutral.

The offices receive the lowest positive response rates and some of the higher negative response rates. The rates for

functionality are 50% positive, 38% neutral, and 13% negative. The rates for layout are 50% positive, 25% neutral,

and 25% negative. The rates for sound privacy are 63% positive and 37% neutral.

Based on negative response rates, respondents are primarily dissatisfied with the layout of the offices, the audio

systems in the main event space, and the layout of the concessions, retail, and ticket sales spaces.

VII. LEED Certification

The survey includes a question about the importance of a LEED certification. 80% of the respondents indicate that

it is important; 20% are neutral.

VIII. LEED Thermal Comfort Verification

The thermal comfort verification credit for the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED certification program stipulates

that a corrective action plan be developed if more than 20% of the occupants are dissatisfied with the building’s

thermal comfort. None of the Convocation Center respondents indicate that they are dissatisfied with the building

temperatures. 70% are satisfied with the room temperatures; 30% are neutral. 80% indicate that the temperatures

have a positive impact on their use of the facility; 20% are neutral. 80% are satisfied with the air quality; 20% are

neutral. Based on the response rates, a corrective action plan is not warranted.

IX. Summary Response Tabulation

A summary table of the survey responses is on the following page. The questions for each of the main program

areas are listed in order from the highest to lowest positive response rates. Because of rounding, the percentages for

some questions may not total 100%.

53

Neutral

Total +3 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 Total

General Building Questions

Overall Assessment 100% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Adequacy of Parking 80% 30% 20% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Safety

Sense of Safety in Areas Around the Building 80% 20% 60% 0% 10% 10% 0% 0% 10%

LEED Certification

Importance of LEED Certification 80% 10% 20% 50% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Thermal Comfort

Satisfaction with Air Quality 80% 30% 40% 10% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Impact of Temperature on Use of Building 80% 20% 30% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Satisfaction with Building Temperature 70% 20% 30% 20% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Event Space

Performance of Space for Basketball / Volleyball 90% 60% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Performance of Space for Large Assemblies 90% 30% 40% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Performance of Space for Concerts / Performances 80% 30% 30% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Satisfaction with Lighting 80% 10% 40% 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Satisfaction with Audio Systems 70% 10% 50% 10% 10% 20% 0% 0% 20%

Concessions/Retail/Ticket Sales

Function 60% 20% 20% 20% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Satisfaction with Layout 50% 20% 20% 10% 30% 0% 20% 0% 20%

Chancellor's Lounge

Function 70% 30% 30% 10% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Satisfaction with Furnishings 50% 30% 20% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Catering Space

Function 67% 44% 11% 11% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Locker Rooms



Function 78% 44% 11% 22% 22% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Training Room


Function 67% 11% 33% 22% 22% 11% 0% 0% 11%


Offices


Function 50% 13% 25% 13% 38% 0% 0% 13% 13%


Note: Because of Rounding, Totals May not Equal 100

Response Tabulation

All Respondents

November 30, 2013

Positive Responses Negative Responses

54

X. Maintenance Assessment

Considering the tremendous amount of publicity this facility has garnered both on campus and from outside the

campus community, the overall design and functionality of this building has proven to be a great success in most

every area.

Backup boilers and pumps in the HVAC design are greatly appreciated while the generator backup system has

functioned well and is a welcome addition to campus emergency planning.

The lifespan of some light bulbs have proven to be an issue, particularly over the practice court area, which is a

challenging area to access. Catwalks in the high ceilings would have been a welcome addition to the design,

although it is acknowledged that this was a budgetary decision not to include them.

The wood athletic flooring has had some small, isolated issues with separation and elevation. It is believed that

building humidity issues have contributed to this, causing the wood to shrink and crack.

There have also been some isolated instances of water infiltration through the window glazing in the Chancellor’s

Lounge although the location (corner of the building, subject to strong winds and precipitation) and large size of the

glass likely contributes to this.

In the site design, the fact that sod was used in many areas was a tremendous success and one that should be

included in future designs whenever possible. The lack of high quality top soil availability in the area has

contributed to some minor problems. Excessive plant beds (considering the landscaping staff size) and the

placement of beds on steep slopes, which have caused continuous mulch erosion, are also a maintenance concerns.

XI. Actions and Recommendations

A. Main Event Space Audio System: The audio system receives a 20% negative response rate, the second

highest negative rate.

Action (Corrective): Upgrade the sound system when funding is available.


B. Main Event Space Lighting: One of the coaches expresses a desire to be able to control the lighting in

this space. “I wish there was a way for the coaches to control the lights on the main court and on the

practice court……”

Action (Corrective): Explore the feasibility of enhanced lighting controls.


C. Locker Room Lights: While the locker rooms receive only positive and neutral responses, one coach

notes that they should be able to control all of the lights when they watch films. “Lighting is tough,

because when we go to watch film I can never turn off all the lights...only some, would like the ability to

shut the lights off.”

Action (Corrective): Explore the feasibility of enhanced lighting controls.


buildings & grounds committee

Documents