MEETING MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY FACILITIES PLANNING BOARD

August 15, 2023

Members Present: Grant Petersen – Co-Chair, Dean Adams - Co-Chair, Sreekala Bajwa, Chris Fastnow, Evan Greenwood, Brett Gunnick, Alison Harmon, Kris Johnson, Kirk Lubick, Mike McNeil, Duane Morris, EJ Hook, Tom Rogers

Proxy's: Durward Sobek (for Robert Mokwa), John How (for Terry Leist)

Members Absent: ASMSU President, Mike Everts, Mike Stanley, Steven Swinford

Staff & Guests: Grey Williams, Richard Rudnicki, Evan Burnett, Jennifer Dunn, Caitlin Kent, Roz Kinney

ITEM No. 1 - APPROVAL OF NOTES

The meeting minutes from July 18th, 2023, were unanimously approved.

ITEM No. 2 - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT

None

ITEM No. 3 - CONSENT AGENDA

None

ITEM No. 4 - RECOMMENDATION - Ecology Specimen Storage Building

Presenter: Grey Williams, Campus Planner

The MSU Ecology Department manages a collection of over 3,000 vertebrate samples used for course instruction and research. The samples must be stored using alcohol-based solutions to ensure proper preservation. To improve campus safety, relocation of the materials is required. The College of Letters and Science, Provost’s Office, and Safety and Risk Management have collaborated to make this important improvement possible.

A purpose-built chemical storage structure with temperature control, similar to the two currently in use on the site behind the Chemistry & Biochemistry Building, will be used for the specimens. A small number of instructional samples will remain in Lewis Hall in appropriate cabinetry. The space is currently a gravel area. The project will include a new sidewalk connection for access.

Dean Adams questioned if the Ecology department will continue rotating their display specimens. Richard Rudnicki clarified that the specimens to be moved will not be the taxidermy samples the department has, but the fish samples.

Mike McNeil inquired about whether the facility will be used as a teaching space or if it will be utilized as just storage. Richard Rudnicki clarified the utilization will just be storage. Mike McNeil commented that accessibility will be good, and that he hopes this will assist with upcoming moves scheduled to happen in Lewis Hall and is thankful that this project has moved forward.

Kris Johnson asked how the project was being funded. Grant Petersen answered that funding is mixed from the three participating departments and additional support from admin and finance.

Caitlin Kent questioned if the building will be alarmed. Evan Burnett said yes, and that the structure will tie into the university’s alarm system, and it will have its own fire suppression system.

Evan Greenwood inquired about how the building will be accessed. Roz Kinney stated that CatCard access has been discussed but nothing has been finalized, but she reassured the building will be secure.

Duane Morris asked if the proposed building was to look the same as the other two on the site. Roz Kinney clarified it will be similar in style but larger than the other two on the site.

Evan Burnett provided more clarity on the style of the structure, such as color and design.

Tom Rogers asked about the ventilation system of the unit due to the planned storage of alcohol on the premises, and how it compares to the similar structures on the site already. Evan Burnett clarified that the structure is specifically designed to store these materials and that heating and ventilation systems of the structure in turn are as well.

Tom Rogers questioned how the ventilation systems will look and be screened from the rest of campus. Evan Burnett stated the systems will be on the West side of the structure and may wrap to the south of the structure as well.

Tom Rogers inquired if the structures exhaust systems will interface with the Chem and Biochem building. Evan Burnett clarified that the structure does have the appropriate setbacks.

Duane Morris asked if these storage container type structures or other similar storage buildings have any sort of fencing requirement, so the appearance is better. Grant Petersen stated that there is no standard currently.

Grant Petersen stated that fencing is something to be investigated more closely and handled on a case-by-case basis, due to cost and safety issues such as line of site and other nuisance concerns.

 

The Vote: Dean Adams motions to approve, Grant Petersen seconds. Unanimous vote to approve the extension of the Ecology Specimen Storage Building.

ITEM No. 5 - RECOMMENDATION - Faculty Court Modular Units Relocation

Presenter: Grey Williams, Campus Planner

Several structures south of the existing MSU Facilities Yard in Faculty Court are slated for removal to create space for adjusted and consolidated Facilities Management operations to improve campus service and provide improved land use for future University projects. After thorough assessment of space alternatives Faculty Court 7 and Faculty Court 9 modulars will be relocated to the south of the Kellogg Center with access off of 4th Ave. with an extended gravel drive.

EJ Hook clarified that MSU Arbor Day celebrations have included planting trees on 3rd Avenue that the neighbors in the area in turn water themselves. He also states that the neighbors understand the move of the units and that the screening of the buildings is a priority.

Durward Sobek asked what the units are used for. Richard Rudnicki answered that one of the units houses two Ecology department researchers, and the other will be the maker space for engineering capstone projects.

Mike McNeil noted that accessibility is lacking on the structures and wondered if there was opportunity for improvement. Richard Rudnicki stated that the units will be moved as is, and that both are accessible through different means such as ramps and bay/garage doors.

Brett Gunnick clarifies as well that the garage area is not intended to be used as an accessibility ramp as evident by the slope. He also clarifies that there is an accessibility ramp connecting both structures between the two buildings.

Tom Rogers questioned how much traffic will be generated due to the move. Richard Rudnicki stated that the research team housed in one of the units is out in the field all summer then on campus during the school year, with a total number of 6-7 people using the space. He added that the maker space unit houses 3-4 student projects that come from campus. Brett Gunnick clarified they walk to the building and park elsewhere on campus. Richard Rudnicki also added that it has been stated to other users in the area that this is not new parking, but access for those in the units being moved.

Tom Rogers states that things such as dust and road conditions are effects that should be monitored. He also states that ADA accessibility connections to sidewalks should be a requirement as directed by numerous plans, and that there is opportunity for that as well. Tom Rogers discusses the tree coverage on the site, and while he applauds the efforts to mitigate visual impacts using trees, the trees on the site do not do much in terms of mitigation though.

He suggests that landscaping and other techniques such as xeriscaping are options to mitigate visual impacts and provide an opportunity to show collaboration with the city on many different fronts.

John How clarifies that sidewalk connections will be made, and landscaping will be coordinated with EJ Hook. He continues by discussing road standards and clarifies that traffic will be minimal, 4 to 5 vehicles a day, but this will be investigated as well. He also states that this will be the last location of these units.

Tom Rogers asks about stormwater management due to the addition of the concrete pad. EJ Hook clarifies that stormwater will be managed in the standard way as other projects on campus.

Durward Sobek asks about utilities. Grant Petersen answers that the project team is still working on this in collaboration with Northwestern Energy and currently the plan is to utilize utility connections coming from the Kellogg center, including bathroom services which will be connected to the current water and sewer connections at the Kellogg center.

 

The Vote: Brett Gunnick motions to approve, Evan Greenwood seconds. Unanimous vote to approve the Faculty Court Modular Units Relocation.

ITEM No. 6 - RECOMMENDATION - Gianforte Hall Site & Design

Presenter: Grey Williams, Campus Planner

The Gianforte Hall schematic design process is complete, and the siting of the structure has been determined, along with the exterior design of the building. The 52,000 square foot, 3-story building will be just south of Norm Asbjornson Hall on 7th Avenue near the university parking garage. The façade of the building will be made up of multiple different materials of varying colors. This includes brick, terracotta baguettes, terracotta cladding, composite wood, concrete, zinc, and glass. The colors of the materials include natural wood tones, various greys and blacks, and earthen terracotta colors. Design of the building and the site were chosen in collaboration among multiple parties at the university and the consulting firm.

Key Site Principles

  • Presence on 7th
  • Responsible water-minded landscaping
  • Outdoor gathering space with southern exposure
  • Shade and impact to adjacent facilities

Key Design Principles

  • Balance independence from Norm Asbjornson Hall with cohesive design language
  • Biophilic design expressed through materiality, texture, tone, views, etc.
  • Balance simplicity and playfulness in use of pattern
  • Welcoming, warm, inviting, natural light

Building Information

  • Approximately 52,000 SF
  • Academic Facility
    • NACOE - Gianforte School of Computing
    • COAA – Film & Photography, Music Technology
  • Two 150 Person Classrooms
  • 12 Labs
  • Studio C – technology enhanced production space

 

Sreekala Bajwa asked if there was a sky bridge connecting the building to the parking garage. Grant Petersen answered that there will not be a sky bridge connection. The option was discussed and looked at but ADA concerns, fire access, and general access were cited as reasons to not include a sky bridge.

Sreekala Bajwa also inquired about the color scheme of the building, and how it will tie into Norm Asbjornson Hall. Jennifer Dunn clarifies that colors were chosen to be warmer in tone and indicate more of a woody feel to the structure and look, rather than a red brick look. She went on to ensure the goal was that the building had its own identity but still maintained continuity with Norm Asbjornson Hall.

Sreekala Bajwa questioned the energy efficiency of Gianforte Hall such as solar or other forms of green/efficient energy usage and production. Evan Burnett stated that multiple options are being explored related to building performance, and that solar voltaic array such as Norm, but the design is different. The mechanical design will incorporate heat recovery. A mass timber structure is being pursued which enables carbon capture due to the structure being made from wood.

Brett Gunnick discussed the water-to-water heat pump system like Norm Asbjornson Hall and other newer structures on campus. He stated that a mass timber structure offers the most sustainable path to an efficient and green building and noted it will be one of the first mass timber buildings in the state.

Sreekala Bajwa asked if a certain LEED rating was something the design team was aiming for. Evan Burnett states that a LEED Silver rating was the minimum they expect and a reach goal of LEED Gold. Brett Gunnick stated that he believes LEED Gold is obtainable. Grant Petersen clarified as well that as LEED standards change the university will continue to change as well to reach the loftier expectations related to LEED ratings.

Kris Johnson questioned how many people will be housed and the general operation of the building. Evan Burnett answered that the Gianforte School of Computing and some interdisciplinary programs that have synergy with the school of computing such as music technology and film & photography will occupy the building. Brett Gunnick continued discussion by mentioning the exploration done by the design team to experiment with different types of office spaces, collaboration spaces, and labs.

Kris Johnson asked what the thought process and reasoning was behind the choice to only have two larger classrooms in the building. John How clarifies that these choices were made in conjunction with the registrar to reflect University needs and departmental needs located in the building. He continued by adding that the campus has abundant smaller and medium classrooms, but still has a need for larger lecture halls.

Chris Fastnow asked about how the exterior wood materials chosen will fare in the Montana climate, and how it may wear over time. Evan Burnett stated that material choices are being refined with a 50 year plus lifespan in mind, and innovation in materials is happening every day. He also made note of the CO-OP building east of downtown in Bozeman as an example of a structure using a modified wood product on it’s exterior and would be a good example to look at.

Dean Adams wanted to make note that a committee member who could not attend commented on the roof overhangs seem out of character compared to the facades. Evan Burnett clarified that the roof and the way it has been designed is to be light and aspirational by design and is intended to appear active.

Durward Sobek commented that the lack of a walkway to the parking garage will be a talking point in the future from visitors, students, and others. Brett Gunnick commented that while there may not be a dedicated sky bridge, there are walkways connecting the site to the garage in various capacities. Grant Petersen clarified as well while there might not be a covered walkway, there is hardscape and walkways connecting the garage to the building. Brett Gunnick also commented that the parking garage is too steep to make an ADA walkway between the garage and building possible, despite the design teams attempts.

Durward Sobek asked about the rationale of not using red brick to tie into the rest of campus, and generally what the south campus plan may be, and a broader campus theme. Evan Burnett clarified that the President has wanted to move away from the red brick aesthetic and reflect complexity in architecture styles across campus. Grant Petersen commented that he believes the building challenges the design team to innovate and provide warmth through means other than red brick. John How commented that MSU does not have a standard such as the University of Colorado-Boulder, and that the President wants to move away from the red brick generally.

Tom Rogers commented that he commends the design team on the look of the building and siting of the building, He also wanted to make note that energy consumption could be improved. He also notes that campus master plans should be considered for updates considering the speed of development on campus and the age of plans on campus. John How stated that the south area master plan is the guiding document for this area of campus and PDC is working to update things such as design guidelines, and that the President wants to focus on smaller area plans rather than larger areas. Grant Petersen also noted that the building is sited in the most efficient way as of now.

Tom Rogers commented that pedestrian connectivity between the building and parking garage is clearly lacking, and work could be done to improve the west of the site to be better for pedestrians and promote comfortability.

John How and Brett Gunnick stated that they are both optimistic that solar energy could be used, and that the building is designed mechanically to take advantage of that, if budget allows.

 

The Vote: John How motions to approve, Tom Rodgers seconds. Unanimous vote to approve the Gianforte Hall Site & Design.

Horizon Items

Grant Street Project

Jones Hall

Facilities Yard Project