Campus Planning and Facility Advisory Committee (CPFAC) Meeting Minutes February 10, 2017

In Attendance: Members: Allen Bolton - Financial Affairs & Administration - Co-Chair Linda Lucas – Provost - Co-Chair Sam Cartner - Research and Economic Development Curtis Carver - Information Technology Chris Clifford - Business & Auxiliary Services Rebecca Gordon - Development, Alumni and External Relations Mark Ingram – Athletics John Jones – Student Affairs Reid Jones – UAB Health System Arpan Limdi – UAB Health System Facilities & Capital Projects Robert McMains – Facilities Randy Pewitt – Occupational Health & Safety Anthony Purcell – UAB Police Chad Steele – School of Medicine Ad Hoc Members: Greg Parsons – Facilities Planning, Design & Construction James Fowler – Facilities Planning, Design & Construction Mike Gebeke – Facilities Management Staff Support: Lance Higgins – Facilities Planning, Design & Construction Juan de Onis – UAB Health System Facilities & Capital Projects Other: Patricia Martinez – Student Services Geoffrey Boyd – Facilities Planning, Design & Construction Absent: Members: Iwan Alexander – Deans’ Representative Susanne Fogger – School of Nursing & Faculty Senate Representative Tika Benveniste – School of Medicine Staff Support: Melissa Justice – Financial Affairs & Administration

I. Walk-through of Board of Trustees four stage approval process a. Greg Parsons walked the committee through the four stages of approval required by the

Board of Trustees for capital projects in excess of $750,000. b. An outline of the process, detailing all four stages, was distributed to the committee.

c. Allen Bolton asked when the dollar threshold ($750,000) triggering Board oversight was last updated.

i. Greg Parsons did not have that date available at the meeting. He will locate the date and advise the committee in the coming days.

d. Allen Bolton discussed development / philanthropy and their occasional need to show images of a project, prior to Stage III (architectural design) approval, to support fundraising efforts.

i. Showing images publicly prior to Stage III has raised concerns in the past and has the potential to result in delays and other complications.

ii. Allen Bolton suggested that he would attempt to discuss with UA System during his next meeting with the Chancellor.

II. Update on Maximization and Utilization of Space Team (MUST) a. Robert McMains updated the committee on the mission of the MUST.

i. MUST is to provide information to support recommendations and decisions related to capital planning. The team will proactively review the space inventory, space utilization and campus design to identify future space needs. Additionally, the team will make recommendations to the CPFAC to inform the members’ decisions for development of the campus and as it prepares for the Annual Capital Development Plan.

ii. Robert McMains noted that UAB expects enrollment to grow to approximately 24,000 students by fall semester of 2021. This will create numerous space challenges that the team is evaluating.

iii. Clay Hester (Director – Cost and Space Analysis) has been added to the team to help them evaluate the anticipated future space needs.

iv. Dr. Chad Steele discussed a new space planning software (Tableau) that the School of Medicine has been utilizing. He noted that the software had proven very effective and useful.

1. Clay Hester’s Department has recently acquired Tableau and they are currently familiarizing themselves with its capabilities.

v. Dr. Linda Lucas noted that having a common space planning process across the entire institution (in lieu of each college, school, department conducting their own isolated space planning efforts), would be a very positive step forward.

vi. It was noted that the School of Medicine, Hospital and Occupational Health and Safety are currently developing space planning master plans and would be the pilot programs for a broader campus wide initiative.

vii. Robert McMains suggested implementing three additional subcommittees to the MUST: Space Policy (Campus Wide), Academic Research Space, Research Space.

1. The CPFAC agreed unanimously to the implementation of these three subcommittees.

III. Creation of Design Review Committee (DRC) as a CPFAC subcommittee

a. Robert McMains suggested the creation of a Design Review Committee to review projects impacting the appearance of the campus (new buildings, exterior renovations of existing building, green spaces, etc.).

b. This review would ensure that future improvements to the campus are designed to be compatible with the surrounding campus and provide a campus with a unified appearance.

c. Geoffrey Boyd (Facilities Planning, Design and Construction) walked the CPFAC through a presentation of the proposed DRC.

i. This presentation outlined the mission, operation and membership of the proposed DRC.

ii. As proposed, the DRC would be a subcommittee to the CPFAC. iii. This presentation is included with these meeting minutes as Attachment A.

d. Robert McMains requested a motion to approve the formation of this subcommittee. i. Dr. Samuel Cartner made the motion

ii. Mark Ingram seconded the motion e. Allen Bolton requested a discussion, prior to voting, on how these design review

functions were being completed in today’s environment. i. Robert McMains noted that the designs are currently being reviewed; however,

the review is done in a more isolated format. 1. The DRC would allow these reviews to be conducted institution wide

and coordinated to bring the campus together. ii. Dr. Linda Lucas Lucas noted that she felt this committee could help ‘Brand’ the

campus with a unified ‘look and feel’ and felt that the establishment of the DRC would be a benefit to UAB.

iii. Mark Ingram noted that many other Universities have design standards but they are largely disregarded during projects design.

1. It was noted that UAB also has design standards and that part of the DRC’s mission would be to ensure that project designs comply with the standards.

iv. Dr. John Jones noted that there was no student representation on the proposed DRC.

1. Geoffrey Boyd stated that students would only be on the committee for a short time resulting in a lack of continuity on the DRC. He suggested that a representative from Student Affairs could be added to the committee to inform the students as well as express their concerns/desires to the DRC and CPFAC.

2. Patricia Martinez – Assistant Vice President for Student Services was added to the committee to address Dr. John Jones concerns.

f. Allen Bolton called for a vote. The CPFAC members voted unanimously to approve the formation of the DRC subcommittee as outlined in Attachment A.

IV. Presentation of Current Plan, Pinch Points and Project Recommendations

a. James Fowler (Facilities Planning, Design and Construction) presented a summary of projects and pinch points that had been identified during each Department/School/College’s presentation earlier this year.

b. The presentation contained 21 efforts across campus that have been identified for action. These 21 action items are listed in Attachment B to these meeting minutes.

c. James Fowler walked the CPFAC through the first four of these action items: i. Future Residence Hall / Honors College

ii. Former Department of Human Resources Building iii. Remote Parking Lot #3 iv. Former Food Fair Site

d. These four items were discussed and acted on as indicated in Attachment B to these

meeting minutes. e. The time allotted for the CPFAC meeting expired before any additional items could be

discussed or voted on. f. The remaining items will be discussed and voted on at a future CPFAC meeting.

End of Minutes

PROPOSAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE02.10.20171

Attachment A

Reviewed seven other institutions for scope of review & structure of committee1. University of Wisconsin – Madison campus2. University of Illinois Urbana - Champaign campus 3. University of Florida4. Texas A&M University5. University of Colorado – Boulder campus6. NC State University7. Purdue University

FINDINGS:• Committee / Board structured varied• Committee member size and background varied• Frequency and level of review varied

DRC REVIEW – PRECEDENT RESEARCH

2

The DRC reviews and provides recommendations for all site development and exterior architectural components for projects at UAB in accordance with approved UAB Campus Master Plan and supporting documents. The DRC reviews UAB Medicine projects in conjunction with projects administered by UAB Medicine.

The DRC shall review said projects in a timely manner and evaluate based on the following (Adapted from the University of Colorado scope of review):• CAMPUS: Ensure projects adhere to the campus character and consistency identified

in the Campus Master Plan• BUILDING: Review siting, massing, urban design, expansion, materials selection, and

architectural design and character of buildings for consistency with the surrounding context and Campus Master Plan

• LANDSCAPE: Review the design, materials, site furnishings, signage, plant selection, and lighting and location in accordance with the Campus Design Guidelines

• CIRCULATION: Pedestrian and Vehicular circulation routes, patterns, ADA accessibility, parking lot locations

• SUSTAINABILITY: Evaluate the project’s performance, and sustainable and integrated design methods and materials as they relate to the above

DRC REVIEW – SCOPE OF DRC REVIEW

3

DRC REVIEW – GUIDING DOCUMENTS

Additional Documents under Development (2017-18)• Parking Master Plan• School of Medicine Master Plan• Sustainability Strategic Plan• Signage Guidelines

4

DRC shall review all projects that impact the public realm regardless of size and scope.

MAJOR EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS AND NEW BUILDINGS:• DRC reviews the projects at the following phases of the project:

• Conceptual design• Schematic design

• Additional meetings may be requested at the discretion of the DRC-C

SMALL PROJECTS: • Minor exterior building renovations, landscape projects and exterior art installations that

impact the public realm of the campus (regardless of project budget). • Projects can be reviewed in one (1) DRC meeting.• Projects will be reviewed at the conceptual design• Projects may be subject to re-review as determined by the DRC.• The DRC coordinator may determine that a minor project does not warrant DRC review.

Projects omitted from DRC review will be identified in the monthly project submittal to the DRC.

DRC REVIEW - PROJECTS

5

SMALL PROJECTS• Beautification –

Soccer Gateway• Shade Structure at Hill

Center• Sculpture Installations• Hammock Park• Alys Stephens Sign

FUTURE• Sand Volleyball

(Athletics)• Tennis Courts• 9th Ave at 16th St

crossing

DRC REVIEW – EXAMPLE PROJECTSNOT REVIEWABLE*(Informational)• Camp Hall Façade• McCallum

Renovations (interior / systems)

• Beautification -GSB / Civitan(existing)

• Bike Rack Installation

• Utilities / Infrastructure

MAJOR PROJECTS• Collat• ALAGASCO Park. Lot• Police Station• CAS• Intramural Fields• McCallum

Renovations (exterior)

FUTURE• Data Center• Genomics• Campus Master Plan

Update

* Projects that are deemed “not reviewable” or at a scale determined by the DRC Coordinator as to not need DRC review will be provided to the DRC as a summary memo for informational purposes only

6

SCHEMATIC

PREDESIGN

CONCEPT

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

CONSTRUCTION

DRC Review

DRC Review

Major Projects

DRC Review

Small Projects

DRC REVIEW - PROCESS

III

I

II

IV

BOTDESIGN PROCESS

7

DRC REVIEW - PROCESS

DRC

Project Submittal by Project PM to DRC Coordinator

DRC Meeting

Package submittal to DRC

5 days

2 days

7 days

User / Design Consultants CPFACProject PM

Meets monthlyThird Thursday

Submittal 7 days prior to meeting

Summary Findings

8

DRC REVIEW – PROCESS

CAMPUS PLANNING AND FACILITIES ADVISORY BOARD (CPFAC)• Project recommendations report shall be submitted to the CPFAC for

information only. • For projects that remain in conflict with the recommendations of the DRC, the

DRC shall request CPFAC to review for final approval.

COMMITTEE MEETING FORMAT:• DRC meetings are open meetings but do not include presentations, or question and

answer sessions with the project user, project staff or design consultants.

• Project user is encouraged to attend.

• DRC–Coordinator shall present the project to the DRC, summarizing the project, schedule and budget. The coordinator shall identify specific items for consideration.

• DRC committee members shall then review the project in accordance within the Scope of the DRC Review.

• DRC-Coordinator shall summarize the committee comments into written format for distribution.

9

DRC REVIEW – EXAMPLE PROJECT RESUBMITTALAppropriateness:• Refer to Campus Master

Plan• Refer to the Public Realm

Guidelines

User:• Drop-off / move-in / move-

out• Pedestrian Space

Question:• Need for significant

infrastructure impact

Recommendations:• Drop-off designed as

pedestrian space• Exit drive at 16th (re-

evaluate)• Paving materials / patterns –

match campus standards• Site furnishings

10

DRC REVIEW – EXAMPLE PROJECT RESUBMITTALAppropriateness:• Refer to Campus Master Plan• Refer to the Public Realm

Guidelines

Significant Change at DD• Drop – off• Courtyard circulation

User:• Donor program element

Likely Outcome: Support.

Recommendations:• Drop-off designed as pedestrian

space• Re-establish circulation pattern

from SD submittal

11

DRC REVIEW – EXAMPLE PROJECT

Appropriateness:• Refer to Campus Master Plan• Refer to the Public Realm Guidelines

Need / User Request• Justification

Likely Outcome: Support.

Recommendations:• Due to location on Campus and

significance of the space, proposal would need:

• Appropriate Budget• Construction• Maintenance

• Enhanced Design / Structural• Circulation Impact

• Additional DRC meeting required

12

DRC REVIEW – PUBLIC REALM COMMITTEE

CORE TEAM:Jvann Martin – Director, UAB Health System*James Fowler – Director, PD&CGeoff Boyd – Project manager, PD&CLEADERSHIP:*Greg Parsons - Assistant VP for (PD&C)Robert Sharpe – Director of Hospital ConstructionMike Gebeke – Assistant VP for Facilities MaintenanceTECHNICAL REPRESENTATION:*Patricia Baker – Faculty Representative, UAB Library SystemThomas Anderson – Civil Engineer, PD&CWilliam Bryars – HealthcareRandy Pewitt – Emergency ManagementJulie Price - SustainabilityTim Sullivan - Maintenance / Grounds*Erin Tapp - Marketing*Brian Templeton – Landscape Architect, PD&CKenny Tyler – Architect, PD&CMatt Wislet – Energy

(*) indicates committee members identified to serve on DRC

SCOPE:To develop a set of campus guidelines to regulate the public realm elements of the campus. The guidelines were developed to complement the intent of the Master Plan for campus while building upon the legacy of previous guidelines and standards. The committee provided direction and input in the develop of the guidelines along with review and comment of staff developed document.

13

DRC REVIEW – COMMITTEE (PROPOSED)

VOTING MEMBERS: 1. Chair: AVP (Greg Parsons)2. Faculty Representation (Patricia Baker, Lister Hill Library)3. Administration / Brand (Erin Tapp)4. Development Office (TBD)5. PD&C Director Campus Planner (James Fowler)6. PD&C Landscape Architect (Brian Templeton)7. Healthcare Representation (Juan de Onis)8. Student Services (Patricia Martinez)

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS:1. Chief Facilities Officer (Bob McMains)

14