| Lower Level | 93 |
| Ground Level | 112 |
| Level 2 | 122 |
| Level 3 | 123 |
| Level 4 | 46 |
| Total New | 496 |
But the discussion came when students asked how many new spaces would be provided for students, i.e. “E” spaces. The numbers presented were
| Existing Lot | -107 |
| Net Gain | 389 |
It is possible that another 38 spaces could be added to Level 4 bringing the total new spaces to 534.
But Jo and her group couldn’t tell the students exactly how many of these would be “E” spaces. Or what any of the costs to park would be. At this point, our chair Jerry Bancroft explained to everyone that our charge is to review the architectural design, not to look at costs or actual numbers or which kind of spaces will be in the new structure. He referred the students to the Parking Committee that meets every other Monday. Jo was going to let the students know when that meeting will be.
As discussions continued, it was apparent that the above numbers do not include removing the parking from 8th between Harrison and Cleveland. In later discussions, it was revealed that parking will also be removed from 8th between Harrison and College. This is an additional loss of an unknown number of spaces. Our CEPAC rep at these meetings is Sue Martin. We need to continue to point out the fact that the numbers as presented do not include these loss of street parking for two blocks.
Concerns posed by the committee included:
I brought up the traffic and access problems at the intersection of Harrison and 8th. Even with the current numbers of vehicles we have now, it is hard to make a left hand turn onto 8th from Harrison when exiting the Linfield lot. If we add another 300 or so cars coming into that intersection, a very real bottle neck is being created. I think 8th from Harrison north belongs to the City. Or maybe it is just the east half that is the City’s. Anyway, they have some jurisdicition over the intersection. Bob Lashaway, Jo Oudshoorn, Paul Burns and others say they have met with the City to discuss the street issues. But the comment was made even though the city was definitely studying the problems, they had no money and improvements were not on the immediate horizon.
The committee voted to approve the preliminary design with requests for continuing review for the following:
The meeting was ready to adjourn around 5:30 when someone asked about the RFP. Pam reported that the time period for receiving questions was up today and the RFP Committee has 2 weeks to respond to the questions.
September 6, 2005 - Sheron McIlhattan reports:
RFP for Long Range Campus Development advisor - It was announced that the RFP that was discussed last time was finalized. It was scheduled to go out on the state’s website this evening before 5 PM. Turnaround is short, there is only a week for bidders to send in their questions; then we have 2 weeks to respond.
UFPUB Member at Large - Ralph Johnson, professor in Architecture, was nominated to be Member at Large for UFPUB. This position was created for UFPUB to ask individuals with certain expertise to give advice to the committee as the need arises. Johnson has expertise in long range planning and currently that is the big issue before UFPUB. President Gamble will ultimately make the appointment to this one year position.
SUB Renovation - Cecilia Vaniman gave the committee a final walk through of the SUB renovation after months of review. The committee approved the final elevations on the South. The bid date is set for November 3, with construction to start January 2, 2006. This will be an 18-20 month project.
Campus Design Guidelines - UFPUB was asked to include the goal of integrating research and teaching in the Campus Design Guidelines. As the document is reviewed, it will keep this item in mind.
Announcements:
Fowler Easement - The Fowler Easement agreement has been reached between the College of Agriculture, the City of Bozeman, and Gallatin County. It will go to the Regents for their approval at their September meeting.
Chemistry Building - The pre-construction meeting for the new Chemistry Building is scheduled for September 13, with construction to begin shortly thereafter. The final bid was $23M. To reach that amount, moving costs and some research equipment costs were removed. The project should last 24 months with move in to begin the 2nd week of August 2007.
Planning board - Jerry Bancroft suggested facilities develop a planning board to show the campus how future projects will fit in the area where the trees were removed. This will help explain to some angry campus members that removing the trees was not just for the chemistry building, but also for several future projects.
Federal Ag USDA Building - President Gamble approved a location west of 11th for the Federal Ag USDA building-- just west of the existing Plant Bio Science/ PGC Complex.
Ag Animal Bioscience Building - There are ongoing discussions for the location of the new Ag Animal Bioscience Research building. Originally, it was planned that the two buildings be in close proximity. Now the question is where will the College of Ag develop an Ag “academic neighborhood” section of the campus which will include the Ag Animal Bioscience building?
Two proposals are on the board:
The adjourned meeting at 4:45.
August 23, 2005 - Sheron McIlhattan reports: we spent the entire meeting going over the important points of an RFP to hire an advisor for Long Range Campus Development. Purchasing Director, Shawna Lanphear led the discussion. In the end a committee was appointed to finalize the RFP.
JULY 13, 2005 - Sheron McIlhattan submits minutes and attachments from the 7/13/05 UFPUB meeting (Sheron was not able to attend).
The University Facilities Planning Board met on Wednesday, April 6, 2005
and discussed the following items:
February 23, 2005 - Rose Waldon reports:
The Planning Board met Feb. 23rd beginning at 9:00 am to discuss the following:
ITEM NO 1. – OPPORTUNITIES TO ENRICH STUDENTS’ EXPERIENCE BY IMPROVING THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OF A CAMPUS
Banziger and Barrett discussed highlights of the Webcast held on February 17, 2005. The program was presented by Michael Flusche, Associate Vice Chancellor of Syracuse University and sponsored by the Society of College and University Planners. Five concepts were presented as a basis to discover opportunities to improve the physical environment of a campus:
ITEM NO 2. – CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA FOR THE BLACK BOX THEATRE
Barrett reported that the Black Box Theatre will be ready to go out for bid in March 2005. The area west of McCall Hall has been identified for staging. OFS Landscape and Grounds has looked at the area and there are some bushes in that area that will be removed. This item is brought before UFPB for information purposes only.
ITEM NO. 3 – H and PE STAGING
Banziger provided information regarding the H and PE renovation and possible staging areas. Two possible locations are the parking/service area south of the H and PE pool and the area north and east of the Fieldhouse. The staging area would be situated to allow for parking during events being held at the Fieldhouse. Care will also be taken to insure that no mature trees are damaged by staging.
ITEM NO. 4. – STRAND UNION CONSTRUCTION STAGING
The field east of the H and PE Center is one area under consideration for construction staging for the SUB renovation. Alternative areas will be considered and will be presented if/when they are determined.
ITEM NO. 5. – PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE (NON-AGENDA ITEM)
Wankel reported that during a presentation to the Student Senate regarding the proposed parking structure, concerns about safety and security, who will receive parking passes, and funding for the structure were raised. Banziger reported that proposed plans are to build a 3-4 story structure with open sides and architectural features to fit in with the campus. A design consultant will be selected and high priority will be given to safety, security and lighting in the design of the structure. Funding for the structure will be obtained mainly from parking user fees. Putzke advised that these, as well as many additional issues, will be addressed at the Public Forum being held today. Students are encouraged to actively participate in this early stage of the planning process.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 am.
January 26, 2005 - Rose Waldon reports:
The Planning Board met, beginning at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the following:
December 15, 2004- Items discussed are as follows:
December 1, 2004:
September 30, 2004 CAMPUS BUILDING SIGNS. Vaniman reminded the group of the campus standard exterior building sign, and of the trial exception in format that was made to identify the Huffman Building as an emergency command post. A proposal has been submitted to list the contents of a building under the building name on the sign. Discussion ensued as to the methodology of determining which building contents are listed on an exterior building sign, as there is only room for hanging placards per sign that could possibly contain six names. Bancroft noted the Copeland Gallery within Haynes Hall as an example of an interior building space needing exterior recognition. Many ideas, including putting different names on either side of a sign, designing a companion sign, constructing Mall kiosks, and interior building directories were discussed. It was decided that OFS Planning will further investigate the idea of having electronic building directories, and that OFS Planning will poll a few building supervisors to get a feel for the caliber of the building naming issue. The poll will ask these supervisors what they would want shown if we installed new building entry directories, and whether they could limit the choices to six.
ITEM NO. 2 – EXTERIOR SIGNAGE FOR BUILDING OCCUPANTS. Several departments have requested additional exterior signage at entrances to their departments. Vaniman presented photos of the ITC canopy as an example of one such sign that has been approved by UFPB. Currently, the Counseling Center is requesting permission to repaint their existing sign on Swingle. This sign is not consistent in design or quality with the campus standards and it is recommended that it be replaced. Criteria for sign installation and sign appearance were then discussed. It was determined that an entity having a separate entry could have a separate sign that would exist in addition to the monument-style building name sign. Vaniman stated she would bring back specific recommendations for the Counseling Center.
It was suggested that since a Student Health monument-type sign exists at Swingle, the plywood one over the door be removed.
It was also recommended that the School of Architecture remove their paper sign from the building entry. Bancroft will address this issue with the building users.
PLANNING FOR MASTER PLANNING. Bancroft and Barrett reported on the first meeting of the master planning subcommittee. They presented a preliminary “Path of Critical Thinking”, based on exploration of each goal listed in the university’s five-year plan. This plan would not speak to the administrative or operating plans for the university; it would only address the physical implications that are raised from this exploration. It was noted that university-wide consensus would be needed on suggestions/solutions that are raised in response to this exploration. Key decisions will need to be made at different stages in the master planning process, stakeholders will need to be represented in this process, and consultants will be required to advise at different stages of this undertaking. Lashaway expects the project to take two years from startup to finished document, and that two additional people are needed in OFS Planning to take over other duties (like construction projects), so that Vaniman and Barrett can concentrate on this master plan effort. Discussion began on related issues such as the shelf life of any proposed master plan, who the working groups and stakeholders should represent, and the degree specificity desired in the final document.
CHEMISTRY RESEARCH BUILDING. The architects presented the Schematic Design of the building for review, comment and a recommendation to the President. The presentation included plans and elevations, as well as more developed site concept. This project is on a fast track for design and construction.
REYNOLDS RECITAL HALL ENTRANCE. A new design for the entrance/marquee into the Recital Hall was presented for discussion and a recommendation. This project will set a standard for other such projects in the future.
AG BIO-PGC BICYCLE PARKING PAD. Vaniman presented drawings for a new bicycle pad to be located east of the Plant Growth Center and south of Ag BioScience Building.