Minutes of the Monthly Meeting of the Council for the Built Environment November 13, 2018

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Minutes of the Monthly Meeting of the Council for the Built Environment November 13, 2018"

Raymond Osborne
5 years ago
Views:

1 Minutes of the Monthly Meeting of the Council for the Built Environment November 13, 2018 I. Attendance A. Voting Members 1. Present: Steve Schulze, Jorge Vanegas, Joyce Alexander, Jorge Alvarado, Stefanie Harris, Barbara Schumacher, Sarah Swiney 2. Absent: Carrie Byington, Daniel Pugh, Chris Nygren B. Non-voting Members 1. Present: N.K. Anand, Geoffrey Booth, Katie Morris 2. Absent: Mark Barteau, Betsy Pierson, Jill Jurena Lee, Varun Kamal Niagam C. Ex-officio Members 1. Present: Carol Fierke, Jerry Strawser, Lilia Gonzales, Tom Reber, Marty Scholtz, Kevin Hurley, Deborah Wright, David Morrison 2. Absent: Ralph Davila, Richard Gentry D. Guests A. Shelly Janac, Matt Fry, Barry Nelson, Paul Wellman, Valerie Hadley (*office/organization representation for the Vice Presidents, Agencies, CPI, USC, GSC and SGA have voting and non-voting members; in meetings where the voting member is absent, the nonvoting member assumes voting status.) II. Welcome A. Co-Chair Jerry Strawser called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. B. The September 2018 minutes were declared approved. III. Presentations A. New West Campus Dining Facility The Facilities and Dining Administration is requesting permission to plan, design, and build a new dining facility within the West Campus quad. The West Campus is a highly underserved "food desert" with no equitable dining opportunities in comparison to East Campus. The proposed food hall facility will be a one or two story building with approximately 30,000 gross square feet (gsf). Of this space, approximately 23,000 gsf will be assigned to dining with the intent to seat people. If the budget allows, approximately 7,000 gsf would be allocated to office space for Facilities & Dining Administration and Office of the University Architect staff. The total project budget is $15 million. The proposed location for the facility is on west campus south of the Biochemistry/Biophysics Building and north of the Rosenthal Meat Science & Technology Center. This location is in alignment with the 2017 Campus Master Plan which calls for creation of a Pavilion Forum in this area to transform an unstructured, underutilized quadrangle into the center of activity for the West Campus character zone. A forum is defined as a place to promote the exchange of ideas or display academic and research work by providing a place for students to gather, eat, study, promote, learn and celebrate. They should also be central spaces within character zones that have both indoor and outdoor functions. CBE Minutes Page 1

2 The CMP provides strategies to eliminate the food deserts on campus and recommends locations be planned utilizing a ½ mile radius to ensure the entire campus population is being served (CMP pages ). It notes that West Campus is one of two areas on campus that is under-served. It also recommends a blending of dining services such as food courts and smaller services such as coffee shops. This proposed dining facility is in alignment with the CMP, which recommends a new food service facility (food court / café) at this west campus location. Within the campus guidelines of the CMP, one of the recommendations supported within the plan is the intermixing of compatible programs and use to support interdisciplinary learning and discovery (CMP page 240). Moving forward, new buildings should house multiple compatible space types such as instructional space, student support, dining, or other variations of intermixing programs and uses. The CMP emphasizes that new development should demonstrate synergies and intermixing of use profiles with the larger campus context to better support the campus community. New facilities should support the academic enterprise and the campus community with a variety of space types/uses to promote interaction. Recommendations The Design Review sub-council (DRsc) reviewed the request from the Division of Finance and Operations, Facilities and Dining Administration for approval of a new West Campus Dining Facility. This project was reviewed for general concept and site location. DRsc members voted to recommend approval of the proposed West Campus Dining Facility for project approval and site location as presented, with the following caveats: The Campus Master Plan intent is to add a dining facility in this location to serve as a central hub for social interaction and activity, and notes that a critical element for inclusion is dining opportunities that support wellness and interaction. Therefore, this facility should not only provide dining space but also generate maximum value for the campus community. This is in direct alignment with a forum s definition to provide a central location to interact, and promote interdisciplinary learning and discovery. Request further investigation into designing the facility to achieve this principle. One example is keeping the main interior seating areas open after dining hours, similar to the Memorial Student Center. Expectation is that this will be further addressed and discussed during DRsc s Schematic Design review. As design progresses, the exact siting of the facility should be evaluated and determined in a holistic manner. In other words, the site should consider the surrounding buildings and their entrances as well as pedestrian patterns and flow throughout the exterior spaces. It is important to note that landscape design for this particular building and surrounding area will almost be as important as the facility itself due to its axis on a main pedestrian thoroughfare. The project team should be mindful of this as design progresses. If budget does not allow for implementation of a comprehensive landscape scheme appropriate for the area, then it is recommended that the design should allow for phased implementation over time. Exterior gathering space should incorporate seating that allows for shaded areas, either through tree canopies or shade structures. CBE Minutes Page 2

3 Further design details should be presented to the DRsc at 100% Schematic Design and 100% Design Development in accordance with DRsc procedures. An exterior materials mockup should be constructed for on-site review by the DRsc Chair. The Maintenance sub-council (Msc) recommends approval of the West Campus Dining Facility The Technical Review sub-council (TRsc) supports the proposed request for consideration of the West Campus Dining Facility and recommends approval, provided the following issues/concerns are addressed and funded. Capital Financial Planning: Finance approval of project pending confirmation of funding source prior to project initiation. Facility Services: The design team needs to ensure that the project does not increase the rate of storm runoff into local creeks. The project team should coordinate with Grounds Management for landscaping and irrigation concerns. The project team should ensure that the facility is designed to minimize, as much as practical, the effort needed for future maintenance. It is preferred that items requiring maintenance be easy to service, be easily accessible from ground or floor level, have generous clearances and be easy to isolate from energy sources with minimal impact to the rest of the facility. Elevated items requiring maintenance that are difficult to service by ladder or lift should have permanent maintenance access platforms with permanent stairs or ladders, built-in fall prevention, and davits for hoisting parts and tools. EH&S: Fire lanes for new and existing buildings must be accounted for and maintained in the design. Contact EHS Fire and Life Safety for consultation. Utilities and Energy Services: TAMU UES Planning and Design/Technical Services is available upon design team request to help identify points of connection to existing utility services and ask that special consideration also be given to site access - allowing for solid waste, recycling and UES service vehicles - to efficiently preform their normal duties. The project must work closely with the TAMU UES Technical Services to insure that all applicable TAMU Design Standards are followed - and receive acceptance from UES during design and prior to any installation. This project must be design to assure that runoff is dealt with properly- any changes to drainage, or storm flow need to be approved by TAMU UES Technical Services prior to design completion and construction. Any excavation or modification to the area will need to follow the policy for digging on campus - CBE Minutes Page 3

4 If any utility systems will need to be modified or added to as part of the project the project design team will need to follow the applicable TAMU Design Standards - and receive acceptance from UES prior to any installation. Project drawing reviews should be filter through UES's project review team for prompt disbursement and turnaround. The project review team includes individuals from multiple crafts such as BAS, Metering, Electrical, Plumbing, along with the other areas the UES team. On top of contacting Tech Services please make sure to include this team as well. Their contact is uesplanreview@tamu.edu. The CBE voted to recommend, with noted caveats, the President s approval of the request from the Division of Finance and Operations, Facilities and Dining Administration for a new West Campus Dining Facility. B. Deferred Maintenance Overview After the last meeting, the Deferred Maintenance Plan for FY20 was circulated to CBE for review. Since there are many new members, Chair Strawser presented an overview of what Deferred Maintenance is along with examples. This may become a yearly presentation depending on interest. C. Sponsorship Signage for Athletics Chi St Joseph Health and Texas Farm Bureau Because of the possibility of not achieving quorum for next month s meeting (due to holidays, finals, et. al.), Dr. Strawser presented a Sponsorship Signage proposal that is in process. Given the fact that CBE may not meet in December, it was important to show it to the council in order to discuss and to have an opportunity to ask questions of Kevin Hurley, Athletic Director for Facilities. At November s meeting, CBE recommended approval of a signage naming opportunity at Kyle Field. A&M has a multimedia rights contract with Learfield which gives them the right to sell sponsorship opportunities (advertising). If we disallow them from selling these opportunities it s a diminishing event in the contract and we lose money. One of the things this multimedia rights contract was built around was activation towers, i.e., the corners of the stadium. There are two separate opportunities that are currently in the works Chi St Joseph Health and Texas Farm Bureau. Mock ups were presented to the CBE. Questions/Comments What is the duration of the contract? o There is a defined term in each agreement. How will the signage be facing? Toward Wellborn Road or interior to campus? o The southeast tower (closest to the Former Students Association Building) is slated for the Texas Farm Bureau sponsorship. o The tower closest to the E.K. Gill statue is slated for Chi St Joseph CBE Minutes Page 4

5 While we have other partnerships with Chi St Joseph, there is likely to be some pushback from the medical school faculty because of Baylor Scott and White. The internal banners seem large. o They will all be on the same scale as the Ford Hall of Champions sponsorship that was approved at the last meeting. Does the logo have to be with the name? o Yes, the corporate sponsor is requesting it. If the logo is not there, what does that do? o Will not know without asking corporate sponsor. CBE approved Ford s logo but their name is integrated in the logo. However, with a logo and wording on the banner, it expands the banner to a bigger presence. That may be the question we should be asking. First impression upon looking at the Chi St Joseph mockup -- it looks like one is about to walk into a hospital because the A&M logo is so small. How much are the sponsorships? o Kevin didn t know but would get that information. o Ford s was $500,000/year for 10 years. What are other options for what the logo could look like? Could it go down the side with Kyle Field up top? Is this our only option? o These are the sponsors first choice. For discussion purposes, the logo and Chi St Joseph are one continuous piece, and cannot be altered. However, we could go back and ask the sponsor if it s possible to remove the logo. Is there a way to put the ATM logo elsewhere so that you don t just see the advertising? o Yes, and Kevin will add it to future renderings for further discussion. o Now we re adding our branding to our own building to balance the advertising branding on the building. With the naming on top of the entry ways, is the redundancy necessary? It seems too much the name is everywhere. o In this use of the activation towers, it s the number of impressions on game day as well as every other day. In the Chi St Joseph mockup, the big log on top is the one seen far away. The ones on each of the entry ways is meant to be seen on game day and up close when using the plaza for various events. But wouldn t the up top logo also be seen from up-close? It s the little banners that make it seem too much. o Again, we can put together more renderings for contrast, but the reason for this mockup is for the far view and the close view. This seems to be a departure from the Ford proposal. Ford had one view. It was one logo on the building. However, on the inside, there are ribbon boards that say Ford Hall of Champions. Therefore, they re getting their outside presence (similar to the Chi St Joseph s logo on the top) with the Ford logo on the outside. Their number of impressions on game day CBE Minutes Page 5

6 on the ribbon boards is accomplishing the same functions as the small banners in the entry ways. But the banners on the entry ways are on the outside and the ribbon boards are on the inside. So why not but the banners on the inside and forget the entry portal. o We could probably put a compelling case together by presenting mockups of other collegiate stadiums that are on the same caliber as Texas A&M. The Chi St Joseph sign up top would be a lit sign but the entry way signs would not. On a positive note, having logos on the towers would help visitors find others. The general consensus seems to be that there isn t a problem with the logo and wording. It s that there are too many. The master plan states that ATM logos are not allowed on the buildings because you already know where you are and the ATM would be everywhere. Kevin Hurley will submit the formal request as soon as possible. IV. Meeting 2:30 p.m. CBE Minutes Page 6

Minutes of the Monthly Meeting of the Council for the Built Environment October 13, 2015

Minutes of the Monthly Meeting of the Council for the Built Environment October 13, 2015 I. Attendance A. Voting Members 1. Present: N. K. Anand, Glen Laine, Eleanor Green, Penny Riggs, Andy Armstrong,